From d6c4028c982dd03181f8622f5d47be91e1443a8d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lcerrato Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 16:16:55 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] (grc_conversation) tlg0086 translation work #1399 --- .../tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.tracking.json | 14 + .../tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml | 538 + data/tlg0086/tlg035/__cts__.xml | 6 + .../tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml | 10245 ++-------------- .../tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml | 932 ++ .../tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml | 34 +- .../tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2b.xml | 927 ++ 7 files changed, 3352 insertions(+), 9344 deletions(-) create mode 100644 data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.tracking.json create mode 100644 data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml create mode 100644 data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml create mode 100644 data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2b.xml diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.tracking.json b/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.tracking.json new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f6c38d390 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.tracking.json @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +{ + "epidoc_compliant": false, + "fully_unicode": true, + "git_repo": "canonical-greekLit", + "has_cts_metadata": false, + "has_cts_refsDecl": false, + "id": "1999.01.0056", + "last_editor": "", + "note": "", + "src": "texts/Classics/Aristotle/opensource/aristot.poet_eng.xml", + "status": "migrated", + "target": "canonical-greekLit/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml", + "valid_xml": false +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e4977a92f --- /dev/null +++ b/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml @@ -0,0 +1,538 @@ + + + + + + + Poetics + Aristotle + William Hamilton Fyfe + Perseus Project, Tufts University + Gregory Crane + + Prepared under the supervision of + Lisa Cerrato + William Merrill + Elli Mylonas + David Smith + + The Annenberg CPB/Project + + + + Trustees of Tufts University + Medford, MA + Perseus Digital Library Project + Perseus 2.0 + tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng2.xml + + Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License + + + + + + + Aristotle + Aristotle, The Poetics. "Longinus," On the sublime. Demetrius, On Style + William Hamilton Fyfe + + William Heinemann Ltd. + London + Harvard University Press + Cambridge, MA + 1939 + + + + + Loeb Classical Library + + HathiTrust + + + + + + + + + +

This pointer pattern extracts chapter and subchapter.

+ + +

This pointer pattern extracts chapter.

+ + + + + + + English + Greek + + + + + EpiDoc and CTS conversion and general header review. + fixed three typos based on user report + cleaned up bad place tags in a few texts and cleaned up the document format + more reorganizing of texts module by collection + began reorganizing texts module by collection. created separate work directory in texts module to keep hopper files separate from in progress files + fixed typo + fixed cvs log keyword + edited entity tags CEH + fixed bibl errors - zr + added cvs log keyword + Corrected two typos in 1449a. + Put Bekker line 1 milestone tags at the beginning of each section so that the incoming list creator would work. Changed RREFDECL. + Tagged in conformance with Prose.e dtd. + Text was scanned at St. Olaf Spring, 1992. + + + + + +
+
+

+LetThe text here printed is based on Vahlen’s third edition(Leipzig, 1885), and the chief deviations from it are noted at the foot of each page. The prime source of all existing texts of the Poetics is the eleventh century Paris manuscript, No. 1741, designated as Ac. To the manuscripts of the Renaissance few, except Dr. Margoliouth, now assign any independent value, but they contain useful suggestions for the correction of obvious errors and defects in Ac. These are here designated “copies.”V. stands for Vahlen’s third edition, and By. for the late Professor Ingram Bywater, who has earned the gratitude and admiration of all students of the Poetics by his services both to the text and to its interpretation. Then there is the Arabic transcript. Translated in the eleventh century from a Syriac translation made in the eighth century, it appears to make little sense, but sometimes gives dim visions of the readings of a manuscript three centuries older but not necessarily better than Ac, readings which confirm some of the improvements introduced into Renaissance texts. us here deal with Poetry, its essence and its several species, with the characteristic function of each species and the way in which plots must be constructed if the poem is to be a success; and also with the number and character of the constituent parts of a poem, and similarly with all other matters proper to this same inquiry; and let us, as nature directs, begin first with first principles.

+

Epic poetry, then, and the poetry of tragic drama, and, moreover, comedy and dithyrambic poetry, and most flute-playing and harp-playing, these, speaking generally, may all be said to be representations of life.The explanation of μίμησις, as Aristotle uses the word, demands a treatise; all that a footnote can say is this:—Life presents to the artist the phenomena of sense, which the artist re-presents in his own medium, giving coherence, designing a pattern. That this is true not only of drama and fiction but also of instrumental music (most flute-playing and harp-playing) was more obvious to a Greek than to us, since Greek instrumental music was more definitely imitative. The technical display of the virtuoso Plato describes as a beastly noise. Since μίμησις in this sense and μιμητής and the verb μιμεῖσθαι have a wider scope than any one English word, it is necessary to use more than one word in translation, e.g. μιμητής is what we call an artist; and for μίμησις where representation would be clumsy we may use the word art; the adjective must be imitative, since representative has other meanings.

+

But they differ one from another in three ways: either in using means generically differenti.e., means that can be divided into separate categories. or in representing different objects or in representing objects not in the same way but in a different manner.

+

For just as by the use both of color and form people represent many objects, making likenesses of them—some having a knowledge of art and some working empirically—and just as others use the human voice; so is it also in the arts which we have mentioned, they all make their representations in rhythm and language and tune, using these means either separately or in combination.

+

For tune and rhythm alone are employed in flute-playing and harp-playing and in any other arts which have a similar function, as, for example, pipe-playing.

+

Rhythm alone without tune is employed by dancers in their representations, for by means of rhythmical gestures they represent both character and experiences and actions.πάθη καὶ πράξεις cover the whole field of life, what men do (πράξεις) and what men experience (πάθη). Since πάθη means also emotions and that sense may be present here, but as a technical term in this treatise πάθος is a calamity or tragic incident, something that happens to the hero.

+

But the art which employs words either in bare prose or in metres, either in one kind of metre or combining several, happens up to the present day to have no name.

+

For we can find no common term to apply to the mimes of Sophron and XenarchusSophron and Xenarchus, said to he father and son, lived in Syracuse, the elder a contemporary of Euripides. They wrote mimes, i.e., simple and usually farcical sketches of familiar incidents, similar to the mimes of Herondas and the fifteenth Idyll of Theocritus, but in prose. There was a tradition that their mimes suggested to Plato the use of dialogue. and to the Socratic dialogues:

+

nor again supposing a poet were to make his representation in iambics or elegiacs or any other such metre—except that people attach the word poet(maker)to the name of the metre and speak of elegiac poets and of others as epic poets.

+

Thus they do not call them poets in virtue of their representation but apply the name indiscriminately in virtue of the metre.

+

For if people publish medical or scientific treatises in metre the custom is to call them poets. But Homer and EmpedoclesEmpedocles (floruit 445 B.C.) expressed his philosophical and religious teaching in hexameter verse, to which Aristotle elsewhere attributes genuine value as poetry, but it is here excluded from the ranks of poetry because the object is definitely. have nothing in common except the metre, so that it would be proper to call the one a poet and the other not a poet but a scientist.

+

Similarly if a man makes his representation by combining all the metres, as Chaeremon did when he wrote his rhapsody The Centaur, a medley of all the metres, he too should be given the name of poet.Chaeremon was a tragedian and rhapsodist. The Centaur was apparently an experiment which might be classed as either drama or epic. Cf. Aristot. Poet. 24.11. On this point the distinctions thus made may suffice.

+

There are certain arts which employ all the means which I have mentioned, such as rhythm and tune and metre—dithyrambic and nomic poetry,The traditional definition is that the Dithyramb was sung to a flute accompaniment by a chorus in honor of Dionysus; and that the Nome was a solo sung to a harp accompaniment in honor of Apollo, but it is not clear that Aristotle regarded the Dithyramb as restricted to the worship of Dionysus. Timotheus’s dithyramb mentioned in Aristot. Poet. 15.8 cannot have been Dionysiac. But there is good evidence to show that the dithyramb was primarily associated with Dionysus. for example, and tragedy too and comedy. The difference here is that some use all these at once, others use now one now another.

+

These differences then in the various arts I call the means of representation.

+ +
+
+

Since living personsLiterally men doing or experiencing something. are the objects of representation, these must necessarily be either good men or inferior—thus only are characters normally distinguished, since ethical differences depend upon vice and virtue—that is to say either better than ourselves or worse or much what we are. It is the same with painters.

+

Polygnotus depicted men as better than they are and Pauson worse, while Dionysius made likenesses.Polygnotus’s portraits were in the grand style and yet expressive of character(cf. Aristot. Poet. 6.15): Aristophanes aIludes to a Pauson as a perfectly wicked caricaturist: Dionysius of Colophon earned the name of the man-painter because he always painted men and presumably made good likenesses.

+

Clearly each of the above mentioned arts will admit of these distinctions, and they will differ in representing objects which differ from each other in the way here described.

+

In painting too, and flute-playing and harp-playing, these diversities may certainly be found, and it is the same in prose and in unaccompanied verse.

+

For instance Homer’s people are better, Cleophon’s are like, while in Hegemon of Thasos, the first writer of parodies, and in Nicochares, the author of the Poltrooniad, they are worse.Cleophon wrote epics (i.e., hexameter poems), describing scenes of daily life in commonplace diction (cf. Aristot. Poet. 22.2): Hegemon wrote mock epics in the style of the surviving Battle of Frog and Mice: of Nicochares nothing is known, but his forte was evidently satire.

+

It is the same in dithyrambic and nomic poetry, for instance . . . a writer might draw characters like the Cyclops as drawn by Timotheus and Philoxenus.Both famous dithyramhic poets. There is evidence that Philoxenus treated Polyphemus in the vein of satire: Timotheus may have drawn a more dignified picture.

+

It is just in this respect that tragedy differs from comedy. The latter sets out to represent people as worse than they are to-day, the former as better.

+ +
+

A third difference in these arts is the manner in which one may represent each of these objects.

+

For in representing the same objects by the same means it is possible to proceed either partly by narrative and partly by assuming a character other than your own—this is Homer’s method—or by remaining yourself without any such change, or else to represent the characters as carrying out the whole action themselves.

+

These, as we said above, are the three differences which form the several species of the art of representation, the means, the objects, and the manner.

+

It follows that in one respect Sophocles would be the same kind of artist as Homer, for both represent good men, and in another respect he would resemble Aristophanes, for they both represent men in action and doing things. And that according to some is the reason why they are called dramas, because they present people as doingDrama being derived from δρᾶν to do. things.

+

And for this reason the Dorians claim as their own both tragedy and comedy—comedy is claimed both by the Megarians here in Greece, who say that it originated in the days of their democracy, and by the Megarians in Sicily,The inhabitants of Megara Hyblaea. for it was from there the poet EpicharmusEpicharmus of Cos wrote in Sicily burlesques and mimes depicting scenes of daily life. He and Phormis were originators of comedy in that they sketched types instead of lampooning individuals (cf. Aristot. Poet. 5.5): of Chionides and Magnes we only know that they were early comedians, i.e., in the first half of the fifth century B.C. came, who was much earlier than Chionides and Magnes; and tragedy some of the Peloponnesians claim. Their evidence is the two names.

+

Their name, they say, for suburb villages is κῶμαι—the Athenians call them Demes—and comedians are so called not from κωμάζειν, to revel, but because they were turned out of the towns and went strolling round the villages( κῶμαι). Their word for action, they add, is δρᾶν, whereas the Athenian word is πράττειν. So much then for the differences, their number, and their nature.

+ +
+

Speaking generally, poetry seems to owe its origin to two particular causes, both natural.

+

From childhood men have an instinct for representation, and in this respect, differs from the other animals that he is far more imitative and learns his first lessons by representing things. And then there is the enjoyment people always get from representations.

+

What happens in actual experience proves this, for we enjoy looking at accurate likenesses of things which are themselves painful to see, obscene beasts, for instance, and corpses.

+

The reason is this: Learning things gives great pleasure not only to philosophers but also in the same way to all other men, though they share this pleasure only to a small degree.

+

The reason why we enjoy seeing likenesses is that, as we look, we learn and infer what each is, for instance, that is so and so.

+

If we have never happened to see the original, our pleasure is not due to the representation as such but to the technique or the color or some other such cause.

+

We have, then, a natural instinct for representation and for tune and rhythmIt is not clear wheter the two general causes are (1) the instinct for imitation, (2) the natural enjoyment of mimicry by others; or whether these two are combined into one and the second cause is the instinct for tune and rhythm. Obviously this last is an essential cause of poetry.—for the metres are obviously sections of rhythmse.g., the rhythm of the blacksmith’s hammer or of a trotting horse is dactylic, but the hexameter is a section or slice of that rhythm; it is cut up into sixes.—and starting with these instincts men very gradually developed them until they produced poetry out of their improvisations.

+

Poetry then split into two kinds according to the poet’s nature. For the more serious poets represented fine doings and the doings of fine men, while those of a less exalted nature represented the actions of inferior men, at first writing satire just as the others at first wrote hymns and eulogies.

+

Before Homer we cannot indeed name any such poem, though there were probably many satirical poets,

+

but starting from Homer, there is, for instance, his MargitesA famous burlesque which Aristotle attributes to Homer. Other similar poems must mean other early burlesques not necessarily attributed to Homer. and other similar poems. For these the iambic metre was fittingly introduced and that is why it is still called iambic, because it was the metre in which they lampooned each other.Since the iambic came to be the metre of invective, the verb ἰαμβίζειν acquired the meaning to lampoon. There is probably implied a derivation from ἰάπτειν, to assail.

+

Of the ancients some wrote heroic verse and some iambic.

+

And just as Homer was a supreme poet in the serious style, since he alone made his representations not only good but also dramatic, so, too, he was the first to mark out the main lines of comedy, since he made his drama not out of personal satire but out of the laughable as such. His Margites indeed provides an analogy: as are the Iliad and Odyssey to our tragedies, so is the Margites to our comedies.

+

When tragedy and comedy came to light, poets were drawn by their natural bent towards one or the other. Some became writers of comedies instead of lampoons, the others produced tragedies instead of epics; the reason being that the former is in each case a higher kind of art and has greater value.

+

To consider whether tragedy is fully developed by now in all its various species or not, and to criticize it both in itself and in relation to the stage, that is another question.

+

At any rate it originated in improvisation—both tragedy itself and comedy. The one came from the preludeBefore the chorus began (or in pauses between their songs) the leader of the performance would improvise some appropriate tale or state the theme which they were to elaborate. Thus he was called ὁ ἐξάρχων or the starter, and became in time the first actor. to the dithyramb and the other from the prelude to the phallic songs which still survive as institutions in many cities.

+

Tragedy then gradually evolved as men developed each element that came to light and after going through many changes, it stopped when it had found its own natural form.

+

Thus it was Aeschylus who first raised the number of the actors from one to two. He also curtailed the chorus and gave the dialogue the leading part. Three actors and scene-painting Sophocles introduced.

+

Then as to magnitude.Being a development of the Satyr play,A Satyr play was an interlude performed by a troupe of actors dressed as the goat-like followers of Dionysus. Hence τραγῳδία, goat-song. Aristotle seems so clear about this that he does not trouble to give a full explanation. But we can see from this passage that the Satyr plays were short, jocose and in the trochaic metre which suited their dances, and that in Aristotle’s view tragedy was evolved from these. No example of a primitive Satyr play survives, but we can make inferences from the later, more sophisticated Cyclops of Euripides and the fragments of Sophocles’ <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἰχνευταί</foreign>, The Trackers. We cannot be certain that Aristotle’s theory is historically correct; the balance of evidence is against it. it was quite late before tragedy rose from short plots and comic diction to its full dignity, and that the iambic metre was used instead of the trochaic tetrameter.

+

At first they used the tetrameter because its poetry suited the Satyrs and was better for dancing, but when dialogue was introduced, Nature herself discovered the proper metre. The iambic is indeed the most conversational of the metres,

+

and the proof is that in talking to each other we most often use iambic lines but very rarely hexameters and only when we rise above the ordinary pitch of conversation.

+

Then there is the number of acts. The further embellishmentsMasks, costumes, etc. and the story of their introduction one by one we may take as told,

+

for it would probably be a long task to go through them in detail.

+ +
+

Comedy, as we have said, is a representation of inferior people, not indeed in the full sense of the word bad, but the laughable is a species of the base or ugly.Ugly was to a Greek an equivalent of bad. The persons in Comedy are inferior (see chapter 2.), but have only one of the many qualities which make up Ugliness or Badness, viz. the quality of being ludicrous and therefore in some degree contemptible.

+

It consists in some blunder or ugliness that does not cause pain or disaster, an obvious example being the comic mask which is ugly and distorted but not painful.

+

The various stages of tragedy and the originators of each are well known, but comedy remains obscure because it was not at first treated seriously. Indeed it is only quite late in its historyProbably about 465 B.C. that the archon granted a chorus for a comic poet; before that they were volunteers.In the fifth century dramatists submitted their plays to the archon in charge of the festival at which they wished them to be performed. He selected the number required by the particular festival, and to the poets thus selected granted a chorus, i.e., provided a choregus who paid the expenses of the chorus. The earlier volunteers had themselves paid for and produced their plays.

+

Comedy had already taken certain forms before there is any mention of those who are called its poets. Who introduced masks or prologues, the number of actors, and so on, is not known.

+

Plot making [Epicharmus and Phormis]Epicharmus and Phormis, being both early Sicilian comedians, are appropriate here. Either part of a sentence is lost or an explanatory note has got into the text. originally came from Sicily,

+

and of the Athenian poets CratesFragments of his comedies survive, dating about the middle of the fifth century B.C. was the first to give up the lampooning form and to generalize his dialogue and plots.

+

Epic poetry agreed with tragedy only in so far as it was a metrical representation of heroic action, but inasmuch as it has a single metre and is narrative in that respect they are different.

+

And then as regards length, tragedy tends to fall within a single revolution of the sun or slightly to exceed that, whereas epic is unlimited in point of time;

+

and that is another difference, although originally the practice was the same in tragedy as in epic poetry.

+

The constituent parts are some of them the same and some peculiar to tragedy.

+

Consequently any one who knows about tragedy, good and bad, knows about epics too, since tragedy has all the elements of epic poetry, though the elements of tragedy are not all present in the epic.

+ +
+

With the representation of life in hexameter versei.e., epic poetry. and with comedy we will deal later. We must now treat of tragedy after first gathering up the definition of its nature which results from what we have said already.

+

Tragedy is, then, a representation of an actionMargoliouth’s phrase a chapter of life, illuminates the meaning, since πρᾶξις includes what the hero does and what happens to him. (Cf. Aristot. Poet. 2.1 and note.) that is heroic and complete and of a certain magnitude—by means of language enriched with all kinds of ornament, each used separately in the different parts of the play: it represents men in action and does not use narrative, and through pity and fear it effects relief to these and similar emotions.The sense of the pity of it and fear lest such disasters might befall ourselves are not the only emotions which tragedy releases, but Aristotle specifies them as the most characteristic. For κάθαρσις, see Introduction.

+

By language enriched I mean that which has rhythm and tune, i.e., song,

+

and by the kinds separately I mean that some effects are produced by verse alone and some again by song.

+

Since the representation is performed by living persons, it follows at once that one essential part of a tragedy is the spectacular effect, and, besides that, song-making and diction. For these are the means of the representation.

+

By diction I mean here the metrical arrangement of the words; and song making I use in the full, obvious sense of the word.

+

And since tragedy represents action and is acted by living persons, who must of necessity have certain qualities of character and thought—for it is these which determine the quality of an action; indeed thought and character are the natural causes of any action and it is in virtue of these that all men succeed or fail—

+

it follows then that it is the plot which represents the action. By plot I mean here the arrangement of the incidents: character is that which determines the quality of the agents, and thought appears wherever in the dialogue they put forward an argument or deliver an opinion.

+

Necessarily then every tragedy has six constituent parts, and on these its quality depends. These are plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and song.

+

Two of these are the means of representation: one is the manner: three are the objects represented.The means are diction and music: the manner is spectacle: the objects represented are actions or experiences and the moral or intellectual qualities of the dramatis personae.

+

This list is exhaustive, and practically all the poets employ these elements, for every drama includes alike spectacle and character and plot and diction and song and thought.

+

The most important of these is the arrangement of the incidents,i.e., plot, as defined above. for tragedy is not a representation of men but of a piece of action, of life, of happiness and unhappiness, which come under the head of action, and the end aimed at is the representation not of qualities of character but of some action; and while character makes men what they are,it’s their actions and experiences that make them happy or the opposite.

+

They do not therefore act to represent character, but character-study is included for the sake of the action. It follows that the incidents and the plot are the end at which tragedy aims, and in everything the end aimed at is of prime importance.

+

Moreover, you could not have a tragedy without action, but you can have one with out character-study.

+

Indeed the tragedies of most modern poets are without this, and, speaking generally, there are many such writers, whose case is like that of Zeuxis compared with Polygnotus.Zeuxis’s portraits were ideal (cf. Aristot. Poet. 25.28). The latter was good at depicting character, but there is nothing of this in Zeuxis’s painting.

+

A further argument is that if a man writes a series of speeches full of character and excellent in point of diction and thought, he will not achieve the proper function of tragedy nearly so well as a tragedy which, while inferior in these qualities, has a plot or arrangement of incidents.

+

And furthermore, two of the most important elements in the emotional effect of tragedy, reversals and discoveries,See chapter 11. are parts of the plot.

+

And here is further proof: those who try to write tragedy are much sooner successful in language and character-study than in arranging the incidents. It is the same with almost all the earliest poets.

+

The plot then is the first principle and as it were the soul of tragedy: character comes second.

+

It is much the same also in painting; if a man smeared a canvas with the loveliest colors at random, it would not give as much pleasure as an outline in black and white.Selection and design are necessary for any work of representation.

+

And it is mainly because a play is a representation of action that it also for that reason represents people.

+

Third comes thought. This means the ability to say what is possible and appropriate. It comes in the dialogue and is the function of the statesman’s or the rhetorician’s art.Cf. chapter 6.

+

The old writers made their characters talk like statesmen,Or in the style of ordinary people, without obvious rhetorical artifice. the moderns like rhetoricians.

+

Character is that which reveals choiceπροαίρεσις is a technical term in Aristotle’s ethics, corresponding to our use of the term Will, the deliberate adoption of any course of conduct or line of action. It is a man’s will or choice in the sense that determines the goodness or badness of his character. If character is to be revealed in drama, a man must be shown in the exercise of his will, choosing between one line of conduct and another, and he must be placed in circumstances in wbich the choice is not obvious, i.e., circumstances in which everybody’s choice would not be the same. The choice of death rather than disbonourable wealth reveals character; the choice of a nectarine rather than a turnip does not., shows what sort of thing a man chooses or avoids in circumstances where the choice is not obvious, so those speeches convey no character in which there is nothing whatever which the speaker chooses or avoids.

+

Thought you find in speeches which contain an argument that something is or is not, or a general expression of opinion.

+

The fourth of the literary elements is the language. By this I mean, as we said above, the expression of meaning in words,This seems to be a mistaken reference to 6 above where diction is defined as the metrical arrangement of the words. In poetry they come to the same thing. and this is essentially the same in verse and in prose.

+

Of the other elements which enrichSee Aristot. Poet. 6.2. tragedy the most important is song-making.

+

Spectacle, while highly effective, is yet quite foreign to the art and has nothing to do with poetry. Indeed the effect of tragedy does not depend on its performance by actors, and, moreover,for achieving the spectacular effects the art of the costumier is more authoritative than that of the poet.

+ +
+

After these definitions we must next discuss the proper arrangement of the incidents since this is the first and most important thing in tragedy.

+

We have laid it down that tragedy is a representation of an action that is whole and complete and of a certain magnitude, since a thing may be a whole and yet have no magnitude.

+

A whole is what has a beginning and middle and end.

+

A beginning is that which is not a necessary consequent of anything else but after which something else exists or happens as a natural result.

+

An end on the contrary is that which is inevitably or, as a rule, the natural result of something else but from which nothing else follows;

+

a middle follows something else and something follows from it.

+

Well constructed plots must not therefore begin and end at random, but must embody the formulae we have stated.

+

Moreover, in everything that is beautiful, whether it be a living creature or any organism composed of parts, these parts must not only be orderly arranged but must also have a certain magnitude of their own;

+

for beauty consists in magnitude and ordered arrangement. From which it follows that neither would a very small creature be beautiful—for our view of it is almost instantaneous and therefore confusedWith a very small object the duration of our vision is, as it were, so rapid that the parts are invisible; we, therefore, cannot appreciate their proportion and arrangement, in which beauty consists.—nor a very large one, since being unable to view it all at once, we lose the effect of a single whole; for instance, suppose a creature a thousand miles long.

+

As then creatures and other organic structures must have a certain magnitude and yet be easily taken in by the eye, so too with plots: they must have length but must be easily taken in by the memory.

+

The limit of length considered in relation to competitions and productionαἴσθησις is the play’s perception by an audience—how much an audience will stand. before an audience does not concern this treatise. Had it been the rule to produce a hundred tragedies, the performance would have been regulated by the water clock, as it is said they did once in other days.

+

But as for the natural limit of the action, the longer the better as far as magnitude goes, provided it can all be grasped at once. To give a simple definition: the magnitude which admits of a change from bad fortune to good or from good fortune to bad, in a sequence of events which follow one another either inevitably or according to probability, that is the proper limit.

+ +
+

A plot does not have unity, as some people think, simply because it deals with a single hero. Many and indeed innumerable things happen to an individual, some of which do not go to make up any unity, and similarly an individual is concerned in many actions which do not combine into a single piece of action.

+

It seems therefore that all those poets are wrong who have written a Heracleid or Theseid or other such poems.Aristotle condemns them all, assuming—or perhaps assured by experience—that their sole claim to unity lay in the fact that all the stories in the poem had a common hero. They think that because Heracles was a single individual the plot must for that reason have unity.

+

But Homer, supreme also in all other respects, was apparently well aware of this truth either by instinct or from knowledge of his art. For in writing an Odyssey he did not put in all that ever happened to Odysseus, his being wounded on Parnassus, for instance, or his feigned madness when the host was gathered(these being events neither of which necessarily or probably led to the other), but he constructed his Odyssey round a single action in our sense of the phrase. And the Iliad the same.

+

As then in the other arts of representation a single representation means a representation of a single object, so too the plot being a representation of a piece of action must represent a single piece of action and the whole of it; and the component incidents must be so arranged that if one of them be transposed or removed, the unity of the whole is dislocated and destroyed. For if the presence or absence of a thing makes no visible difference, then it is not an integral part of the whole.

+ +
+

What we have said already makes it further clear that a poet’s object is not to tell what actually happened but what could and would happen either probably or inevitably.

+

The difference between a historian and a poet is not that one writes in prose and the other in verse— indeed the writings of Herodotus could be put into verse and yet would still be a kind of history, whether written in metre or not. The real difference is this, that one tells what happened and the other what might happen.

+

For this reason poetry is something more scientific and serious than history, because poetry tends to give general truths while history gives particular facts.

+

By a general truth I mean the sort of thing that a certain type of man will do or say either probably or necessarily. That is what poetry aims at in giving names to the characters.The names indicate types. This is obvious, as he says, in Comedy and is also true of Greek Tragedy, which, although it deals with traditional heroes regarded as real people, yet keeps to a few stories in which each character has become a type. In Chapter 17. the dramatist is recommended to sketch first his outline plot, making it clear and coherent, before he puts in the names. A particular fact is what Alcibiades did or what was done to him.

+

In the case of comedy this has now become obvious, for comedians construct their plots out of probable incidents and then put in any names that occur to them. They do not, like the iambic satirists, write about individuals.Aristophanes of course did write about individuals. But Aristotle is thinking of the New Comedy, where the names of the characters were invented by the author and there was no reference to real people.

+

In tragedy, on the other hand, they keep to real names. The reason is that what is possible carries conviction. If a thing has not happened, we do not yet believe in its possibility, but what has happened is obviously possible. Had it been impossible, it would not have happened.

+

It is true that in some tragedies one or two of the names are familiar and the rest invented; indeed in some they are all invented, as for instance in Agathon’s Antheus,The name, apparently, of an imaginary hero. The word might be Ἄνθος, but The Flower is an unlikely title for a Greek tragedy. where both the incidents and the names are invented and yet it is none the less a favourite.

+

One need not therefore endeavor invariably to keep to the traditional stories with which our tragedies deal. Indeed it would be absurd to do that, seeing that the familiar themes are familiar only to a few and yet please all.The reason why Greek tragedy dealt only with a few familiar themes is to be found of course in its religious origin. It was the function of tragedy to interpret and embroider myths. Aristotle never gives this reason, but offers instead the unconvincing explanation that tragedians adhered to certain real stories to gain verisimilitude—and yet he has to admit that, since to many of the auditors these stories were unfamiliar and none the less attractive, dramatists might just as well invent new themes.

+

It is clear, then, from what we have said that the poet must be a maker not of verses but of stories, since he is a poet in virtue of his representation, and what he represents is action.

+

Even supposing he represents what has actually happened, he is none the less a poet, for there is nothing to prevent some actual occurrences being the sort of thing that would probably or inevitably happen, and it is in virtue of that that he is their maker.

+

Of simpleThis term is defined in the next chapter. It seems odd to use it before its meaning is explained. Perhaps we should read ἄλλων(Tyrwhitt) and translate of all plots. plots and actions the worst are those which are episodic. By this I mean a plot in which the episodes do not follow each other probably or inevitably.

+

Bad poets write such plays because they cannot help it, and good poets write them to please the actors. Writing as they do for competition, they often strain a plot beyond its capacity and are thus obliged to sacrifice continuity.Or logic. He means the chain of cause and effect, wherein each incident is the result of what has gone before. See the end of the next chapter.

+

But this is bad work, since tragedy represents not only a complete action but also incidents that cause fear and pity, and this happens most of all when the incidents are unexpected and yet one is a consequence of the other.The logic suffers from ellipse. Plays which fail to exhibit the sequence of cause and effect are condemned (1) because they lack the unity which befits tragedy, (2) because they miss that supreme effect of fear or pity produced by incidents which, though unexpected, are seen to be no mere accident but the inevitable result of what has gone before.

+

For in that way the incidents will cause more amazement than if they happened mechanically and accidentally, since the most amazing accidental occurrences are those which seem to have been providential, for instance when the statue of Mitys at Argos killed the man who caused Mitys’s death by falling on him at a festival. Such events do not seem to be mere accidents.

+

So such plots as these must necessarily be the best.

+ +
+

Some plots are simple and some complex, as indeed the actions represented by the plots are obviously such.

+

By a simple action I mean one that is single and continuous in the sense of our definition above,In chapters 7 and 8. wherein the change of fortune occurs without reversal or discovery;

+

by a complex action I mean one wherein the change coincides with a discovery or reversal or both.

+

These should result from the actual structure of the plot in such a way that what has already happened makes the result inevitable or probable;for there is indeed a vast difference between what happens propter hoc and post hoc.

+ +
+

A reversal is a change of the situation into the opposite, as described above,At the end of chapter 7. Vahlen and many other exponents of the Politics confine the meaning of “reversal” to the situation in which the hero’s action has consequences directly opposite to his intention and expectation. There is much to be said for this interpretation, which stresses the irony at the heart of all tragedy. But it is too narrow for Aristotle’s theory. All tragedy involves a change of fortune ( μετάβασις). In a “simple” plot this is gradual; in a “complex” plot it is catastrophic, a sudden revolution of fortune’s wheel. In some of the greatest tragedies, but not in all, this is the result of action designed to produce the opposite effect. this change being, moreover, as we are saying, probable or inevitable—

+

like the man in the Oedipus who came to cheer Oedipus and rid him of his anxiety about his mother by revealing his parentage and changed the whole situation.The messenger for Corinth announces the death of Polybus and Oedipus’s succession to the throne. Oedipus, feeling now safe from the prophecy that he would murder his father, still fears to return to Corinth, lest he should fulfil the other prophecy and marry his mother. The messenger seeks to reassure him by announcing that Polybus and Merope are not his parents. But the effect of this was to change the whole situation for Oedipus by revealing the truth that he a murdered his father, Laius, and married his mother, Jocasta. This reversal is the more effective because it is immediately coincident with the discovery of the truth. In the Lynceus, too, there is the man led off to execution and

+

Danaus following to kill him, and the result of what had already happened was that the latter was killed and the former escaped.Lynceus married Hypermnestra who disobeyed Danaus in not murdering him. Danaus trying by process of law to compass the death of their son Abas was killed himself. The dog it was that died.

+

A discovery, as the term itself implies, is a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing either friendship or hatred in those who are destined for good fortune or ill.

+

A discovery is most effective when it coincides with reversals, such as that involved by the discovery in the Oedipus.

+

There are also other forms of discovery, for what we have described may in a sense occur in relation to inanimate and trivial objects, or one may discover whether some one has done something or not.

+

But the discovery which is most essentially part of the plot and part of the action is of the kind described above, for such a discovery and reversal of fortune will involve either pity or fear, and it is actions such as these which, according to our hypothesis, tragedy represents; and, moreover, misfortune and good fortune are likely to turn upon such incidents.

+

Now since the discovery is somebody’s discovery, in some scenes one character only is discovered to another, the identity of the other being obvious; but sometimes each must discover the other. Thus Iphigeneia was discovered to Orestes through the sending of the letter, but a separate discovery was needed to make him known to Iphigeneia.Euripides’ Iphigeneia in Tauris—Orestes and Pylades arriving among the Tauri are by the custom of the country to be sacrificed to Artemis by her priestess, Iphigeneia. It is agreed that Pylades shall be spared to carry a letter from Iphigeneia to Orestes, whom she supposes to be in Argos. In order that Pylades may deliver the message, even if he should lose the letter, she reads it aloud. Orestes thus discovers who she is. He then reveals himself to her by declaring who he is and proving his identity by his memories of their home.

+

We see then that two elements of the plot, reversal and discovery, turn upon these incidents. A third element is a calamity. Of these three elements we have already described reversal and discovery.

+

A calamity is a destructive or painful occurrence, such as a death on the stage, acute suffering and wounding and so on.

+ +
+

We have alreadyIn chapter 6. spoken of the constituent parts to be used as ingredients of tragedy. The separable members into which it is quantitatively divided are these: Prologue, Episode, Exode, Choral Song,

+

the last being divided into Parode and Stasimon.

+

These are common to all tragedies; songs sung by actors on the stage and commoi are peculiar to certain plays.

+

A prologue is the whole of that part of a tragedy which precedes the entrance of the chorus.

+

An episode is the whole of that part of a tragedy which falls between whole choral songs.

+

An exode is the whole of that part of a tragedy which is not followed by a song of the chorus.

+

A parode is the whole of the first utterance of the chorus.

+

A stasimon is a choral song without anapaests or trochaics.This does not apply to surviving Greek tragedies, but may be true of those of Aristotle’s time. The word Stasimon is applied to all choruses in a tragedy other than those sung during entry or exit. It is usually explained as meaning a stationary song, because it was sung after the chorus had taken up its station in the orchestra.

+

A commos is a song of lament shared by the chorus and the actors on the stage.

+

The constituent parts to be used as ingredients of tragedy have been described above; these are the separable members into which it is quantitatively divided.The whole of chapter 12. bears marks of belonging to the Poetics but seems out of place, since it interrupts the discussion of plot.

+ +
+

Following upon what has been said above we should next state what ought to be aimed at and what avoided in the construction of a plot, and the means by which the object of tragedy may be achieved.

+

Since then the structure of the best tragedy should be not simple but complexSee chapter 10. and one that represents incidents arousing fear and pity—for that is peculiar to this form of art—it is obvious to begin with that one should not show worthy men passing from good fortune to bad. That does not arouse fear or pity but shocks our feelings.

+

Nor again wicked people passing from bad fortune to good. That is the most untragic of all, having none of the requisite qualities, since it does not satisfy our feelingsi.e., our preference for poetic justice. or arouse pity or fear.

+

Nor again the passing of a thoroughly bad man from good fortune to bad fortune. Such a structure might satisfy our feelings but it arouses neither pity nor fear, the one being for the man who does not deserve his misfortune and the other for the man who is like ourselves—pity for the undeserved misfortune, fear for the man like ourselves—so that the result will arouse neither pity nor fear.

+

There remains then the mean between these. This is the sort of man who is not pre-eminently virtous and just, and yet it is through no badness or villainy of his own that he falls into the fortune, but rather through some flaw in him,Whether Aristotle regards the “flaw” as intellectual or moral has been hotly discussed. It may cover both senses. The hero must not deserve his misfortune, but he must cause it by making a fatal mistake, an error of judgement, which may well involve some imperfection of character but not such as to make us regard him as “morally responsible” for the disasters although they are nevertheless the consequences of the flaw in him, and his wrong decision at a crisis is the inevitable outcome of his character(cf. Aristot. Poet. 6.24.). he being one of those who are in high station and good fortune, like Oedipus and Thyestes and the famous men of such families as those.

+

The successful plot must then have a singleἁπλοῦς elsewhere in the Poetics means simple as opposed to πεπλεγμένος, complex; here it is opposed to διπλοῦς, which describes a double denouement, involving happiness for some and disaster for others. and not, as some say, a double issue; and the change must be not to good fortune from bad but, on the contrary, from good to bad fortune, and it must not be due to villainy but to some great flaw in such a man as we have described, or of one who is better rather than worse.

+

This can be seen also in actual practice. For at first poets accepted any plots, but to-day the best tragedies are written about a few families—Alcmaeon for instance and Oedipus and Orestes and Meleager and Thyestes and Telephus and all the others whom it befell to suffer or inflict terrible disasters.

+

Judged then by the theory of the art, the bestThis is modified by 19 in the following chapter, where he finds an even better formula for the tragic effect. tragedy is of this construction.

+

Those critics are therefore wrong who charge Euripides with doing this in his tragedies, and say that many of his end in misfortune.

+

That is, as we have shown, correct. And there is very good evidence of this, for on the stage and in competitions such plays appear the most tragic of all, if they are successful, and even if Euripides is in other respects a bad manager,Against Euripides Aristotle makes the following criticisms: (1)his choruses are often irrelevant; (2)the character of the heroine in his Iphigeneia in Tauris is inconsistent; (3)in the Medea the deliberate killing of the children is ineffective and the play is inartistically ended by the machina; (4)the character of Menelaus in the Orestes is needlessly depraved; (5)Melanippe is too philosophical for a woman. yet he is certainly the most tragic of the poets.

+

Next in order comes the structure which some put first, that which has a double issue, like the Odyssey, and ends in opposite ways for the good characters and the bad.

+

It is the sentimentality of the audience which makes this seem the best form; for the poets follow the wish of the spectators.

+

But this is not the true tragic pleasure but rather characteristic of comedy, where those who are bitter enemies in the story, Orestes and Aegisthus, for instance, go off at the end, having made friends, and nobody kills anybody.

+ +
+
+

Fear and pity sometimes result from the spectacle and are sometimes aroused by the actual arrangement of the incidents, which is preferable and the mark of a better poet.

+

The plot should be so constructed that even without seeing the play anyone hearing of the incidents happening thrills with fear and pity as a result of what occurs. So would anyone feel who heard the story of Oedipus.

+

To produce this effect by means of an appeal to the eye is inartistic and needs adventitious aid,

+

while those who by such means produce an effect which is not fearful but merely monstrous have nothing in common with tragedy.that here were plays which relied for their effect on the scenery and make up is clear from chapter 17:—The Phorcides and Prometheus and Scenes laid in Hades. It was even possible to produce the Eumenides so badly as to bring it into this category. But Aristotle’s criticism here includes the more important point that the poignancy of a Greek tragedy is due to what happens and not to our seeing it happen. That Medea murders her children is tragic: to display the murder coram populo would add either nothing or something merely monstrous. And although Sophocles shows Oedipus with his eyes out, it is the fact and not the sight which is properly tragic. For one should not seek from tragedy all kinds of pleasure but that which is peculiar to tragedy,

+

and since the poet must by representation produce the pleasure which comes from feeling pity and fear, obviously this quality must be embodied in the incidents.

+

We must now decide what incidents seem dreadful or rather pitiable. Such must necessarily be the actions of friends to each other or of enemies or of people that are neither.

+

Now if an enemy does it to an enemy, there is nothing pitiable either in the deed or the intention,

+

except so far as the actual calamity goes.

+

Nor would there be if they were neither friends nor enemies. But when these calamities happen among friends,when for instance brother kills brother, or son father, or mother son, or son mother—either kills or intends to kill, or does something of the kind, that is what we must look for.

+

Now it is not right to break up the traditional stories, I mean, for instance, Clytaemnestra being killed by Orestes and Eriphyle by Alcmaeon,

+

but the poet must show invention and make a skilful use of the tradition.

+

But we must state more clearly what is meant by skilful.

+

The action may happen in the way in which the old dramatists made their characters act—consciously and knowing the facts, as EuripidesThis does not necessarily imply that Aristotle reckons Euripides “a modern,” since the Greek can equally mean “Euripides as well as other old dramatists.” also made his Medea kill her children.

+

Or they may do the deed but without realizing the horror of it and then discover the relationship afterwards, like Oedipus in Sophocles. That indeed lies outside the play,i.e., Oedipus kills his father Laius before the play opens. but an example of this in the tragedy itself is the Alcmaeon of AstydamasA prolific tragedian of the fourth century. or Telegonus in the Wounded Odysseus.

+

A third alternative is to intend to do some irremediable action in ignorance and to discover the truth before doing it.

+

Besides these there is no other way, for they must either do the deed or not, either knowing or unknowing.

+

The worst of these is to intend the action with full knowledge and not to perform it. That outrages the feelings and is not tragic, for there is no calamity. So nobody does that, except occasionally, as, for instance, Haemon and CreonHaemon, discovered by his father Creon embracing the dead body of Antigone, drew his sword on him but missed his aim and Creon fled. in the Antigone.

+

Next comes the doing of the deed.

+

It is better to act in ignorance and discover afterwards. Our feelings are not outraged and the discovery is startling.

+

Best of all is the last; in the Cresphontes,By Euripides. Polyphontes killed Cresphontes, king of Messenia, and gained possession of his kingdom and his wife, Merope. She had concealed her son, Aepytus, in Arcadia, and when he returned, seeking vengeance, she nearly killed him in ignorance but discovered who he was. He then killed Polyphontes and reigned in his stead. for instance, Merope intends to kill her son and does not kill him but discovers; and in the IphigeneiaIn Tauris. See Aristot. Poet. 11.8, note. the case of the sister and brother; and in the HelleAuthor and play unknown. the son discovers just as he is on the point of giving up his mother.

+

So this is the reason, as was said above,See Aristot. Poet. 13.7. why tragedies are about a few families. For in their experiments it was from no technical knowledge but purely by chance that they found out how to produce such an effect in their stories. So they are obliged to have recourse to those families in which such calamities befell.See Aristot. Poet. 9.8, note.

+

Now concerning the structure of the incidents and the proper character of the plots enough has been said.

+ +
+

Concerning character there are four points to aim at. The first and most important is that the character should be good.

+

The play will show character if, as we said above,See Aristot. Poet. 6.24. either the dialogue or the actions reveal some choice; and the character will be good, if the choice is good.

+

But this is relative to each class of people. Even a woman is good and so is a slave, although it may be said that a woman is an inferior thing and a slave beneath consideration.

+

The second point is that the characters should be appropriate. A character may be manly, but it is not appropriate for a woman to be manly or clever.

+

Thirdly, it should be like.The meaning probably is like the traditional person, e.g. Achilles must not be soft nor Odysseus stupid. Cf. Horace Ars Poet. 120 famam sequere. This is different from making the character good and from making it appropriate in the sense of the word as used above.

+

Fourthly, it should be consistent. Even if the original be inconsistent and offers such a character to the poet for representation, still he must be consistently inconsistent.

+

An example of unnecessary badness of character is Menelaos in the OrestesAristotle has a personal distaste for this character on the ground that Euripides made him a creature meaner than the plot demands.;

+

of character that is unfitting and inappropriate the lament of Odysseus in the ScyllaA dithyramb by Timotheus. Cf. Aristot. Poet. 26.3. and Melanippe’s speechA fragment survives (Eur. Fr. 484 (Nauck)). Euripides seems to have given her a knowledge of science and philosophy inappropriate to a woman.;

+

of inconsistent character Iphigeneia in Aulis, for the suppliant Iphigeneia is not at all like her later character.

+

In character-drawing just as much as in the arrangement of the incidents one should always seek what is inevitable or probable, so as to make it inevitable or probable that such and such a person should say or do such and such; and inevitable or probable that one thing should follow another.

+

Clearly therefore the denouementOr unravelling. of each play should also be the result of the plot itself and not produced mechanically as in the Medea and the incident of the embarkation in the Iliad. Hom. Il. 2.155-181, where it is only the arbitrary (i.e., uncaused) intervention of Athene which stays the flight of the Greeks. In the Medea the heroine, having killed her rival and her children, is spirited away in the chariot ot the Sun, a result not caused by what has gone before.

+

The god in the carThe μηχανή or car was a sort of crane with a pulley attached, which was fixed at the top of the back-scene in the left corner of the stage. By it a god or hero could be lowered or raised or exhibited motionless in mid-air. Weak dramatists thus introduced a car to cut the knot by declaring the denouement instead of unravelling the plot by the logic of cause and effect. It was presumably on such a car that Medea was borne away. should only be used to explain what lies outside the play, either what happened earlier and is therefore beyond human knowledge, or what happens later and needs to be foretold in a proclamation. For we ascribe to the gods the power of seeing everything.

+

There must, however, be nothing inexplicable in the incidents, or, if there is, it must lie outside the tragedy. There is an example in Sophocles’ Oedipus.i.e., Oedipus had killed Laius in a wayside quarrel, not knowing who he was. When his subjects at Thebes crave his help to remove the curse which is blighting their crops, he pledges himself to discover the murderer of Laius. It may seem odd that he should not know enough about the details of the murder to connect it in his mind with his own murderous quarrel. But that was long ago, and neither an audience nor a novel-reader is critical about incidents which occur long before the point at which the story begins. See chapter Aristot. Poet. 24.20.

+

Since tragedy is a representation of men better than ourselves we must copy the good portrait-painters who, while rendering the distinctive form and making a likeness, yet paint people better than they are. It is the same with the poet. When representing people who are hot-tempered or lazy, or have other such traits of character, he should make them such, yet men of worth [an example of hardness]Apparently a note on Achilles which has been copied by mistake into the text.; take the way in which Agathon and Homer portray Achilles.

+

Keep, then, a careful eye on these rules and also on the appeal to the eyei.e., stage-craft rather than staging. which is necessarily bound up with the poet’s business; for that offers many opportunities of going wrong. But this subject has been adequately discussed in the published treatises.As distinct from the body of esoteric doctrine circulated by oral teaching among Aristotle’s pupils.

+ +
+

What a Discovery is has been already stated.In chapter 11.As for kinds of Discovery, first comes the least artistic kind, which is largely used owing to incompetence—discovery by tokens.

+

These may be congenital, like the spear the Earth-born bear or stars, like those which CarcinusA prolific tragedian of the early fourth century. The family are agreeably ridiculed in Aristophanes’ Wasps. uses in his ThyestesThese were birth-marks. The spear-head distinguished the descendants of the Spartoi at Thebes; the star or bright spot on the descendants of Pelops commemorated his ivory shoulder, and in Carcinus’s play it seems to have survived cooking.;

+

or they may be acquired and these may be on the body, for instance, wounds, or external things like necklaces, and in the TyroA play by Sophocles. Tyro’s twins by Poseidon, who appeared to her in the guise of the river Enipeus, were exposed in a little boat or ark, like Moses in the bulrushes, and this led to their identification. the discovery by means of the boat.

+

There is a better and a worse way of using these tokens; for instance Odysseus, by means of his wound, was discovered in one way by the nurse and in another way by the swine-herds.Hom. Od. 19.386ff., 205ff. The first came about automatically, the second was a deliberate demonstration to prove the point. Aristotle here distinguishes between a discovery inevitably produced by the logic of events (e.g. it was inevitable or at least probable that Odysseus, arriving as a strange traveller, should be washed by Eurycleia, and that she should thus see the old scar on his thigh and discover his identity) and a discovery produced by a deliberate declaration (e.g. Odysseus’s declaration of his identity to Eumaeus). The latter kind is manufactured by the poet, not logically caused by what has gone before.

+

Discovery scenes constructed to prove the point are inartistic and so are all such scenes, but those are better which arise out of a reversal scene, as, for instance, in The Washing.Hom. Od. 19.392. See preceding note.

+

In the second place come those which are manufactured by the poet and are therefore inartistic. For instance, in the IphigeneiaEuripides’ Iphigeneia in Tauris. See Aristot. Poet. 11.8, note. Orestes revealed himself. She was revealed to him through the letter,

+

but Orestes says himself what the poet wants and not what the plot requires. So this comes near to the fault already mentioned, for he might just as well have actually brought some tokens.To prove his identity Orestes mentions Pelops’ lance and other things from home, which is much the same as producing visible tokens. And there is the voice of the shuttleWhen Philomela’s tongue was cut out, she wove in embroidery the story of her rape by Tereus. Thus the facts were discovered to her sister, Procne, by deliberate demonstration. In Sophocles’ Tereus.

+

The third kind is due to memory, to showing distress on seeing something. An example of this is the scene in the Cyprians by Dicaeogenes; on seeing the picture he burst into tearsTeucer, returning to Salamis in disguise and seeing a portrait of his dead father Telamon, burst into tears and was thus discovered. So, too, in The Two Gentlemen of <placeName key="perseus,Verona">Verona</placeName> Julia is discovered because she swoons on hearing Valentine offer Sylvia to his rival.: and again in the Tale of Alcinous, Hom. Od. 8.521ff. hearing the minstrel he remembered and burst into tears; and thus they were recognized.

+

The fourth kind results from an inference; for instance, in the Choephoroe Someone like me has come; but nobody is like me except Orestes; therefore he has come. And there is Polyidus’sA Sophist who either wrote an Iphigeneia with this denouement or more probably suggested in a work of criticism (cf. Aristot. Poet. 17.6) that Orestes on being led to his fate should speculate aloud upon the odd coincidence that both he and his sister should be sacrificed, thus revealing his identity to Iphigeneia. Like most critics, Polyidos would have been a poor dramatist. There is an example of this form of discovery in the French opera Coeur de Lion, where the old knight says goddam and is thus discovered to be an Englishman. idea about Iphigeneia, for it is likely enough that Orestes should make an inference that, whereas his sister was sacrificed, here is the same thing happening to him. And in Theodectes’ Tydeus that having come to find a son, he is perishing himself. And the scene in the Phineidae, where on seeing the spot the women inferred their fate, that they were meant to die there for it was there that they had been exposed.In these cases the inference was presumably uttered aloud and hence the identity of the speakers discovered. Nothing else is known of these plays.

+

There is also a kind of fictitious discovery which depends on a false inference on the part of the audience, for instance in Odysseus the False Messenger, he said he would recognize the bow, which as a matter of fact he had not seen, but to assume that he really would reveal himself by this means is a false inference.The text is obscure, and our ignorance of the play or rhapsody adds to the darkness, but the reference may be to the ruse, common in detective stories, of misleading the audience by false clues in order to make the final revelation more effective.

+

Best of all is the discovery which is brought about directly by the incidents, the surprise being produced by means of what is likely—take the scene in Sophocles’ Oedipus or in the Iphigeneia—for it is likely enough that she should want to send a letter. These are the only discovery scenes which dispense with artificial tokens, like necklaces.The classical example of these tokens in English drama is the strawberry mark on the left arm in Box and Cox. But Aristotle seems here to use tokens in a wider sense than at the beginning of the chapter and to include not only birthmarks, necklaces, etc., but any statement or action which may be used as a sign in the scene of Discovery.

+

In the second place come those that are the result of inference.

+ +
+

In constructing plots and completing the effect by the help of dialogue the poet should, as far as possible, keep the scene before his eyes. Only thus by getting the picture as clear as if he were present at the actual event, will he find what is fitting and detect contradictions.

+

The censure upon Carcinos is evidence of this. Amphiaraos was was made to rise from a temple. The poet did not visualize the scene and therefore this escaped his notice, but on the stage it was a failure since the audience objected.The example is obscure. Clearly Carcinus introduced an absurdity which escaped notice until the play was staged. Margoliouth suggests that if Amphiaraus were a god he should come down, and if a mere hero, he sould not have a temple. In The Master of Ballantrae Mrs. Henry cleans a sword by thrusting it up to the hilt in the ground—which is iron-bound by frost. The would be noticed on the stage: a reader may miss the incongruity.

+

The poet should also, as far as possible, complete the effect by using the gestures. For, if their natural powers are equal, those who are actually in the emotions are the most convincing; he who is agitated blusters and the angry man rages with the maximum of conviction.Sir Joshua Reynolds used thus to simulate emotion before a mirror. In his Preface to the Lyrical Ballads Wordsworth says that the Poet will wish to bring his feelings near to those of the persons whose feelings he describes . . . and even confound and identify his own feelings with theirs. See also Burke, On the Sublime and Beautiful,4. 4.

+

And that is why poetry needs either a sympathetic nature or a madman,Genius to madness near allied is the meaning of μανικός as used here. Plato held that the only excuse for a poet was that he couldn’t help it. the former being impressionable and the latter inspired.

+

The stories, whether they are traditional or whether you make them up yourself, should first be sketched in outline and then expanded by putting in episodes.

+

I mean that one might look at the general outline, say of the Iphigeneia, like this: A certain maiden has been sacrificed, and has disappeared beyond the ken of those who sacrificed her and has been established in another country, where it is a custom to sacrifice strangers to the goddess; and this priesthood she holds. Some time afterwards it happens that the brother of the priestess arrives there—the fact that the god told him to go there, and why, and the object of his journey, lie outside the outline-plot. He arrives, is seized, and is on the point of being sacrificed, when he reveals his identity either by Euripides’ method or according to Polyidos, by making the very natural remark that after all it is not only his sister who was born to be sacrificed but himself too; and thus he is saved.

+

Not until this has been done should you put in names and insert the episodes;

+

and you must mind that the episodes are appropriate, as, for instance, in the case of Orestes the madness that led to his capture and his escape by means of the purification.In the Iphigeneia in Tauris Orestes is captured because he is suffering from a fit of mania; and at the end Iphigeneia pretends that the image of Artemis has been infected by the blood-guiltiness of the Greek strangers, and that, before they can be sacrificed, she must cleanse both image and strangers secretly in the sea. Thus they all escape together by boat.

+

Now in drama the episodes are short, but it is by them that the epic gains its length.

+

The story of the Odyssey is quite short. A man is for many years away from home and his footsteps are dogged by Poseidon and he is all alone. Moreover,affairs at home are in such a state that his estate is being wasted by suitors and a plot laid against his son, but after being storm-tossed he arrives himself, reveals who he is, and attacks them, with the result that he is saved and destroys his enemies.

+

That is the essence, the rest is episodes.

+ +
+

In every tragedy there is a complication and a denouement.The Greek says simply tying and loosing. Complication and denouement seem clumsy equivalents, yet they are the words we use in dramatic criticism. The incidents outside the plot and some of those in it usually form the complication, the rest is the denouement.

+

I mean this, that the complication is the part from the beginning up to the point which immediately precedes the occurrence of a change from bad to good fortune or from good fortune to bad; the denouement is from the beginning of the change down to the end.

+

For instance, in the Lynceus of Theodectes the complication is the preceding events, and the seizure of the boy, and then their own seizure; and the denouement is from the capital charge to the end.The boy must be Abas, and they are presumably Danaus and perhaps his other daughters. Aristotle seems to regard the arrest of Danaus not as part of the λύσις, but as the end of the δέσις.

+

Tragedies should properly be classed as the same or different mainly in virtue of the plot, that is to say those that have the same entanglement and denouement. Many who entangle well are bad at the denouement. Both should always be mastered.

+

There are four varieties of tragedy—the same as the number given for the elementsApparently the reference here is to the four elements into which in the course of chapters 10-15. Plot has been analysed, Reversal, Discovery, Calamity, and Character. But the symmetry is spoilt by the fact that his first species, the complex play, corresponds to the first two of these four elements, viz. to Reversal and Discovery. Thus his fourth species is left in the air and he hurriedly introduces Spectacle as the fourth corresponding element. Other explanations seem even sillier than this.—

+

first the complex kind, which all turns on reversal and discovery;

+

the calamity play like the stories of Ajax and Ixion;

+

the character play like the Phthian WomenBy Sophocles. and the PeleusBoth Sophocles and Euripides wrote a Peleus..

+

The fourth element is spectacle, like the PhorcidesThe text is obscure, and our ignorance of the play or rhapsody adds to the darkness, but the reference may be to the ruse, common in detective stories, of misleading the audience by false clues in order to make the final revelation more effective. and Prometheus, and all scenes laid in Hades.

+

One should ideally try to include all these elements or, failing that, the most important and as many as possible, especially since it is the modern fashion to carp at poets, and, because there have been good poets in each style, to demand that a single author should surpass the peculiar merits of each.

+

One must remember, as we have often said, not to make a tragedy an epic structure:

+

by epic I mean made up of many stories—suppose, for instance, one were to dramatize the IIiad as a whole.

+

The length of the IIiad allows to the parts their proper size, but in plays the result is full of disappointment.

+

And the proof is that all who have dramatized the Sack of Troy as a whole, and not, like Euripides, piecemeal, or the Niobe story as a whole and not like Aeschylus, either fail or fare badly in competition. Indeed even Agathon failed in this point alone.

+

In reversals, however, and in simple storiesi.e., those that have no Discovery or Reversal. See chapter 10. too,they admirably achieve their end, which is a tragic effect that also satisfies your feelings.

+

This is achieved when the wise man, who is, however, unscrupulous, is deceived—like Sisyphus—and the man who is brave but wicked is worsted.

+

And this, as Agathon says, is a likely result, since it is likely that many quite unlikely things should happen.

+

The chorus too must be regarded as one of the actors. It must be part of the whole and share in the action, not as in Euripides but as in Sophocles.

+

In the others the choral odes have no more to do with the plot than with any other tragedy. And so they sing interludes, a practice begun by Agathon. And yet to sing interludes is quite as bad as transferring a whole speech or scene from one play to another.

+ +
+

The other factors have been already discussed. It remains to speak of Diction and Thought.

+

All that concerns Thought may be left to the treatise on Rhetoric, for the subject is more proper to that inquiry.Thought—no English word exactly corresponds with διάνοια—is all that which is expressed or effected by the words (cf. Aristot. Poet. 6.22, 23, and 25). Thus the student is rightly referred to the Art of Rhetoric, where he learns what to say in every case. Aristotle adds that the rules there given for the use of ideas will guide him also in the use of incidents, since the same effect may be produced either by talk or by situation.

+

Under the head of Thought come all the effects to be produced by the language.

+

Some of these are proof and refutation, the arousing of feelings like pity, fear, anger, and so on, and then again exaggeration and depreciation.It is an important part of the orator’s skill to depreciate what is important and to exaggerate trivial points.

+

It is clear that in the case of the incidents, too, one should work on the same principles, when effects of pity or terror or exaggeration or probability have to be produced.

+

There is just this difference, that some effects must be clear without explanation,Those produced by situation. whereas others are produced in the speeches by the speaker and are due to the speeches. For what would be the use of a speaker, if the required effect were likely to be felt without the aid of the speeches?

+

Under the head of Diction one subject of inquiry is the various modes of speech, the knowledge of which is proper to elocution or to the man who knows the master artRhetoric is a master art in relation to elocution, since it decides the effects to be produced, and elocution decides how to produce them. So the doctor’s art is master to that of the dispenser, and the art of riding to that of the maker of bridles.—I mean for instance, what is a command, a prayer, a statement, a threat, question, answer, and so on.

+

The knowledge or ignorance of such matters brings upon the poet no censure worth serious consideration. For who could suppose that there is any fault in the passage which Protagoras censures, because Homer, intending to utter a prayer, gives a command when he says, Sing, goddess, the wrath? To order something to be done or not is, he points out, a command.

+

So we may leave this topic as one that belongs not to poetry but to another art.

+ +
+

Diction as a wholeA translator is bound to render this chapter, since the balance of evidence is in favour of its inclusion. But the readaer is advised to skip it, since it is written from the point of view of grammar and philology, and does not, like the succeeding chapter, deal with the literary use of words. It is also very obscure. Students should refer to Bywater’s edition. is made up of these parts: letter, syllable, conjunction, joint,A joint, as defined below, appears to be a word which indicates the beginning or end of a clause. noun, verb, case, phrase.

+

A letter is an indivisible sound, not every such sound but one of which an intelligible sound can be formed. Animals utter indivisible sounds but none that I should call a letter.

+

Such sounds may be subdivided into vowel, semi-vowel, and mute. A vowel is that which without any addition has an audible sound; a semivowel needs the addition of another letter to give it audible sound, for instance S and R; a mute is that which with addition has no sound of its own but becomes audible when combined with some of the letters which have a sound. Examples of mutes are G and D.

+

Letters differ according to the shape of the mouth and the place at which they are sounded; in being with or without aspiration; in being long and short; and lastly in having an acute, grave, or intermediate accent. But the detailed study of these matters properly concerns students of metre.

+

A syllable is a sound without meaning, composed of a mute and a letter that has a sound. GR, for example, without A is a syllable just as much as GRA with an A. But these distinctions also belong to the theory of metre. words. It is also very obscure. Students should refer to Bywater’s edition.

+

A conjunction is a sound without meaning, which neither hinders nor causes the formation of a single significant sound or phrase out of several sounds, and which, if the phrase stands by itself, cannot properly stand at the beginning of it, e.g. μέν, δή, τοί, δέ; or else it is a sound without meaning capable of forming one significant sound or phrase out of several sounds having each a meaning of their own, e.g. ἀμφί, περί.

+

A joint is a sound without meaning which marks the beginning or end of a phrase or a division in it, and naturally stands at either end or in the middle.This paragraph remains a cause of despair. Bywater’s notes suggest a restoration.

+

A noun is a composite sound with a meaning, not indicative of time, no part of which has a meaning by itself; for in compounds we do not use each part as having a meaning of its own, for instance, in Theodorus, there is no meaning of δῶρον (gift).

+

A verb is a composite sound with a meaning, indicative of time, no part of which has a meaning by itself—just as in nouns. Man or white does not signify time, but walks and has walked connote present and past time respectively.

+

A case(or inflection)of a noun or verb is that which signifies either of or to a thing and the like;or gives the sense of one or many e.g. men and man; or else it may depend on the delivery, for example question and command. Walked? and Walk! are verbal cases of this kind.

+

A phraseThere is no exact English equivalent of this meaning of λόγος, which has been used already in 7 above without explanation. Statement and proposition also cover part of its meaning. is a composite sound with a meaning, some parts of which mean something by themselves.

+

It is not true to say that every phrase is made up of nouns and verbs, e.g. the definition of manProbably one of the two definitions given in the Topics, a two-footed land animal and an animal amenable to reason.; but although it is possible to have a phrase without verbs, yet some part of it will always have a meaning of its own, for example, Cleon in Cleon walks.

+

A phrase may be a unit in two ways; either it signifies one thing or it is a combination of several phrases. The unity of the Iliad, for instance, is due to such combination, but the definition of man is one phrase because it signifies one thing.

+ +
+

Nouns are of two kinds. There is the simple noun, by which I mean one made up of parts that have no meaning, like γῆ, and there is the compound noun.

+

These may be made up either of a part which has no meaning and a part which has a meaning—though it does not have its meaning in the compound—or of two parts both having a meaning.

+

A compound noun may be triple and quadruple and multiple, e.g. many of the bombastic names like Hermocaicoxanthus.A compound of the names of three rivers, Hermus, Caicus, and Xanthus. . . .

+

Every noun is either ordinaryi.e., one which has dined normal currency as contrasted with the rare word, which is confined to a dialect or borrowed from a foreign language. or rare or metaphorical or ornamental or invented or lengthened or curtailed or altered.

+

An ordinary word is one used by everybody, a rare word one used by some;

+

so that a word may obviously be both ordinary and rare, but not in relation to the same people. σίγυνον,Meaning, spear. for instance, is to the Cypriots an ordinary word but to us a rare one.

+

Metaphor is the application of a strange term either transferred from the genus and applied to the species or from the species and applied to the genus, or from one species to another or else by analogy.

+

An example of a term transferred from genus to species is Here stands my ship. Riding at anchor is a species of standing.

+

An example of transference from species to genus is Indeed ten thousand noble things Odysseus did, for ten thousand, which is a species of many, is here used instead of the word many.

+

An example of transference from one species to another is Drawing off his life with the bronze and Severing with the tireless bronze, where drawing off is used for severing and severing for drawing off, both being species of removing.Probably the bronze is in the first case a knife and in the second a cupping-bowl. This would make the metaphor intelligible.

+

Metaphor by analogy means this: when B is to A as D is to C, then instead of B the poet will say D and B instead of D.

+

And sometimes they add that to which the term supplanted by the metaphor is relative.This may claim to be one of Aristotle’s least lucid sentences. It means this: If Old Age: Life :: Evening: Day, then we may call old age the Evening of Life. In that case old age is the term supplanted by the metaphor, and it is relative to Life; therefore Life (i.e., that to which the term supplanted by the metaphor is relative) is added to the metaphorical (or transferred) term Evening.For instance, a cup is to Dionysus what a shield is to Ares;

+

so he will call the cup Dionysus’s shield and the shield Ares’ cup. Or old age is to life as evening is to day; so he will call the evening day’s old-age or use Empedocles’ phraseUnknown to us.; and old age he will call the evening of life or life’s setting sun.

+

Sometimes there is no word for some of the terms of the analogy but the metaphor can be used all the same. For instance, to scatter seed is to sow, but there is no word for the action of the sun in scattering its fire. Yet this has to the sunshine the same relation as sowing has to the seed, and so you have the phrase sowing the god-created fire.

+

Besides this another way of employing metaphor is to call a thing by the strange name and then to deny it some attribute of that name. For instance, suppose you call the shield not Ares’ cup but a “wineless cup.” . . .Or you might call Love Venus’s bloodless War. At this point a few lines on Ornament have evidently been lost, since this is its place in the catalogue of nouns above. By ornament he seems to mean an embellishing epithet or synonym. In the Rhetoric he quotes Our lady the fig-tree as a misplaced ornament. One might add the seventeenth-century use of Thames for water. . . .

+

An invented word is one not used at all by any people and coined by the poet. There seem to be such words, eg. sprouters for horns and pray-er for priest.

+

A word is lengthened or curtailed, the former when use is made of a longer vowel than usual or a syllable inserted, and the latter when part of the word is curtailed.

+

An example of a lengthened word is πόληος for πολέως and Πηληιάδεω for Πηλείδου; and of a curtailed word κρῖ and δῶ, and e.g. μία γίνεται ἀμφοτέρων ὄψ.κρῖ for κριθή, barley; δῶ for δῶμα house; ὄψ for ὄψις face, eye, or appearance.

+

A word is altered when the poet coins part of the word and leaves the rest unchanged, e.g. δεξιτερὸν κατὰ μαζόν instead of δεξιόν.

+

Of the nouns themselves, some are masculine, some feminine, and some neuter.This paragraph the reader should either skip or study with Bywater’s notes. Without them these generalizations on gender seem merely wrong.

+

Masculine are all that end in N and P and Σ and in the two compounds of Σ, Ψ and Ξ.

+

Feminine are all that end in those of the vowels that are always long, for instance Η and Ω, and in Α among vowels that can be lengthened.

+

The result is that the number of masculine and feminine terminations is the same, for Ψ and Ξ are the same as Σ.

+

No noun ends in a mute or in a short vowel.

+

Only three end in Ι, μέλι, κόμμι, and πέπερι. Five end in Υ. The neuters end in these letters and in Ν and Σ.

+ +
+

The merit of diction is to be clear and not commonplace. The clearest diction is that made up of ordinary words, but it is commonplace.

+

An example is the poetry of Cleophon and of Sthenelus.A tragedian whom Aristophanes ridicules for the insipidity of his diction.

+

That which employs unfamiliar words is dignified and outside the common usage. By unfamiliar I mean a rare word, a metaphor, a lengthening,See preceding chapter 19. and anything beyond the ordinary use.

+

But if a poet writes entirely in such words, the result will be either a riddle or jargon; if made up of metaphors, a riddle and if of rare words, jargon.

+

The essence of a riddle consists in describing a fact by an impossible combination of words. By merely combining the ordinary names of things this cannot be done, but it is made possible by combining metaphors. For instance, I saw a man weld bronze upon a man with fire, and so on.The answer is a cupping-bowl. This was a bronze vessel which was applied to the body at the place at which a small incision had been made. Heated lint was placed in the bowl of it and the reduction of air-pressure thus caused a strong flow of blood. For this form of riddle cf. Out of the strong came forth sweetness.

+

A medley of rare words is jargon.

+

We need then a sort of mixture of the two. For the one kind will save the diction from being prosaic and commonplace, the rare word, for example, and the metaphor and the ornament, whereas the ordinary words give clarity.

+
+

A considerable aid to clarity and distinction are the lengthening and abbreviation and alteration of words. Being otherwise than in the ordinary form and thus unusual, these will produce the effect of distinction, and clarity will be preserved by retaining part of the usual form.

+

Those critics are therefore wrong who censure this manner of idiom and poke fun at the poet, as did the elder EucleidesA critic of this name wrote on the drama, but his date is uncertain. who said it was easy to write poetry, granted the right to lengthen syllables at will. He had made a burlesque in this very style: Ἐπιχάρην εἶδον Μαραθῶνάδε βαδίζοντα and οὐκ ἄν γ’ ἐράμενος τὸν ἐκείνου ἐλλέβορον.In Homer we find short vowels lengthened by position, but, whereas Homer uses the licence sparingly, Eucleides raised a laugh by overdoing it and writing in parody such hexameters as those here quoted. A modern parallel may illustrate this. The poet Stephen Phillips employed to excess the licence whihc allows a clash between the natural accent and the metrical ictus, and Mr. Owen Seaman, for the express purpose of raising a laugh, parodied the trick by carrying it to further excess and wrote in blank verse, She a milliner was and her brothers Dynamiters.

+

Now to make an obtrusive use of this licence is ridiculous;

+

but moderation is a requisite common to all kinds of writing. The same effect could be got by using metaphors and rare words and the rest unsuitably for the express purpose of raising a laugh.

+

What a difference is made by the proper use of such licence may be seen in epic poetry, if you substitute in the verse the ordinary forms.

+

Take a rare word or metaphor or any of the others and substitute the ordinary word; the truth of our contention will then be obvious.For instance, Aeschylus and Euripides wrote the same iambic line with the change of one word only, a rare word in place of one made ordinary by custom, yet the one line seems beautiful and the other trivial. Aeschylus in the Philoctetes wrote, The ulcer eats the flesh of this my foot, and Euripides instead of eats put feasts upon. Or take I that am small, of no account nor goodly; suppose one were to read the line substituting the ordinary words, I that am little and weak and ugly. Or compare He set a stool unseemly and a table small. with He set a shabby stool and a little table, or the sea-shore is roaring with the sea-shore is shrieking.Similarly we might use ordinary words instead of those which Keats chose so carefully and speak of wonderful windows abutting on to a dangerous sea-shore in a dreary, mysterious country.

+

AriphradesUnknown. again made fun of the tragedians because they employ phrases which no one would use in conversation, like δωμάτων ἄπο instead of ἀπὸ δωμάτων and their σέθεν and ἐγὼ δέ νιν and Ἀχιλλέως πέρι for περὶ Ἀχιλλέως, and so on.

+

All that sort of thing, not being in the ordinary form, gives distinction to the diction, which was what he failed to understand.

+

It is a great thing to make a proper use of each of the elements mentioned, and of double words and rare words too, but by far the greatest thing is the use of metaphor.

+

That alone cannot be learnt; it is the token of genius. For the right use of metaphor means an eye for resemblances.i.e., the power of detecting identity in difference which distinguishes also both the philosopher and the scientist.

+

Of the various kinds of words the double forms are most suited for dithyrambs, rare words for heroic verse and metaphors for iambics.

+

And indeed in heroic verse they are all useful; but since iambic verse is largely an imitation of speech, only those nouns are suitable which might be used in talking. These are the ordinary word, metaphor, and ornament.

+

Now concerning tragedy and the art of representing life in action, what we have said already must suffice.

+ +
+

We come now to the art of representation which is narrative and in metre.i.e., epic. Clearly the story must be constructed as in tragedy, dramatically, round a single piece of action, whole and complete in itself,with a beginning, middle and end, so that like a single living organism it may produce its own peculiar form of pleasure.

+

It must not be such as we normally find in history, where what is required is an exposition not of a single piece of action but of a single period of time, showing all that within the period befell one or more persons, events that have a merely casual relation to each other.

+

For just as the battle of Salamis occurred at the same time as the Carthaginian battle in Sicily, but they do not converge to the same resultGelo’s defeat of the Carthaginians in Sicily in 480 B.C. took place, according to Herodotus, on the same day as the battle of Salamis.; so, too, in any sequence of time one event may follow another and yet they may not issue in any one result.

+

Yet most of the poets do this.

+

So in this respect, too, compared with all other poets Homer may seem, as we have already said, divinely inspired, in that even with the Trojan war, which has a beginning and an end, he did not endeavor to dramatize it as a whole, since it would have been either too long to be taken in all at once or, if he had moderated the length, he would have complicated it by the variety of incident. As it is, he takes one part of the story only and uses many incidents from other parts, such as the Catalogue of Ships and other incidents with which he diversifies his poetry.

+

The others, on the contrary, all write about a single hero or about a single period or about a single action with a great many parts, the authors, for example, of the Cypria and the Little Iliad.As we have seen already in chapter 8, a poem or a play must be one story and not several stories about one hero. Thus, since the Iliad and Odyssey have this essential unity (i.e., one thread runs through the narrative of each), few plays can be made out of them but many out of the Cypria or the Little Iliad, which are merely collections of lays on similar themes.

+

The result is that out of an Iliad or an Odyssey only one tragedy can be made, or two at most, whereas several have been made out of the Cypria, and out of the Little Iliad more than eight, e.g. The Award of Arms, Philoctetes, Neoptolemus, Eurypylus, The Begging, The Laconian Women, The Sack of <placeName key="perseus,Troy">Troy</placeName>, and Sailing of the Fleet, and Sinon, too, and The Trojan Women.

+ +
+

The next point is that there must be the same varieties of epic as of tragedySee Aristot. Poet. 18.4.: an epic must be simple or complex,See chapter 10. or else turn on character or on calamity.

+

The constituent parts, too, are the same with the exception of song and spectacle. Epic needs reversals and discoveries and calamities, and the thought and diction too must be good.

+

All these were used by Homer for the first time, and used well. Of his poems he made the one, the Iliad, a simple story turning on calamity, and the Odyssey a complex story—it is full of discoveries—turning on character. Besides this they surpass all other poems in diction and thought.

+

Epic differs from tragedy in the length of the composition and in metre.

+

The limit of length already givenSee Aristot. Poet. 7.12. will suffice—it must be possible to embrace the beginning and the end in one view,which would be the case if the compositions were shorter than the ancient epics but reached to the length of the tragedies presented at a single entertainment.“Entertainment” must mean a festival. At the City Dionysia three poets competed, each with three tragedies. By the end of the fifth century only one Satyr play was performed at each festival. But the tragedies were longer than those we possess. It is therefore likely that the nine tragedies together with one Satyr play amounted to about 15,000 lines. The Iliad contains between 16,000 and 17,000 lines.

+

Epic has a special advantage which enables the length to be increased, because in tragedy it is not possible to represent several parts of the story as going on simultaneously, but only to show what is on the stage, that part of the story which the actors are performing; whereas, in the epic, because it is narrative, several parts can be portrayed as being enacted at the same time.

+

If these incidents are relevant, they increase the bulk of the poem, and this increase gives the epic a great advantage in richness as well as the variety due to the diverse incidents; for it is monotony which, soon satiating the audience, makes tragedies fail.

+

Experience has shown that the heroic hexameter is the right metre. Were anyone to write a narrative poem in any other metre or in several metres, the effect would be wrong.

+

The hexameter is the most sedate and stately of all metres and therefore admits of rare words and metaphors more than others, and narrative poetry is itself elaborate above all others.

+

The iambic and the trochaic tetrameter are lively, the latter suits dancing and the former suits real life.

+

Still more unsuitable is it to use several metres as Chaeremon did.

+

So no one has composed a long poem in any metre other than the heroic hexameter. As we said above, Nature shows that this is the right metre to choose.

+

Homer deserves praise for many things and especially for this, that alone of all poets he does not fail to understand what he ought to do himself. The poet should speak as seldom as possible in his own character, since he is not representing the story in that sense.This takes us back to the beginning of chapter 3, where the various manners of representation are distinguished. Homer represents life partly by narration, partly by assuming a character other than his own. Both these manners come under the head of Imitation. When Aristotle says the poet speaks himself and plays a part himself he refers not to narrative, of which there is a great deal in Homer, but to the preludes (cf. φροιμιασάμενος below) in which the poet, invoking the Muse, speaks in his own person. Ridgeway points out that in the whole of the Iliad and Odyssey Homer thus speaks himself only 24 lines.

+

Now the other poets play a part themselves throughout the poem and only occasionally represent a few things dramatically, but Homer after a brief prelude at once brings in a man or a woman or some other character, never without character, but all having character of their own.

+

Now the marvellous should certainly be portrayed in tragedy, but epic affords greater scope for the inexplicable(which is the chief element in what is marvellous), because we do not actually see the persons of the story.

+

The incident of Hector’s pursuitIliad, xxii. 205. sq. “And to the host divine Achilles nodded with his head a sign and let them not launch their bitter darts at Hector, lest another should win glory by shooting him and Achilles himself come second.” would look ridiculous on the stage, the people standing still and not pursuing and Achilles waving them back, but in epic that is not noticed.

+

But that the marvellous causes pleasure is shown by the fact that people always tell a piece of news with additions by way of being agreeable.

+

Above all, Homer has taught the others the proper way of telling lies,that is, by using a fallacy. When B is true if A is true, or B happens if A happens, people think that if B is true A must be true or happen. But that is false. Consequently if A be untrue but there be something else, B, which is necessarily true or happens if A is true, the proper thing to do is to posit B, for, knowing B to be true, our mind falsely infers that A is true also. This is an example from the Washing.Odyssey 19. Odysseus tells Penelope that he is a Cretan from Gnossus, who once entertained O. on his voyage to Troy. As evidence, he describes O.’s dress and his companions (Hom. Od. 19.164-260). P. commits the fallacy of inferring the truth of the antecedent from the truth of the consequent: “If his story were true, he would know these details; But he does know them; Therefore his story is true.” The artist in fiction uses the same fallacy, e.g.: “If chessmen could come to life the white knight would be a duffer; But he is a most awful duffer (look at him!); Therefore chessmen can come to life.” He makes his deductions so convincing that we falsely infer the truth of his hypothesis.

+

What is convincing though impossible should always be preferred to what is possible and unconvincing.

+

Stories should not be made up of inexplicable details; so far as possible there should be nothing inexplicable, or, if there is, it should lie outside the story—as, for instance, Oedipus not knowing how Laius died—and not in the play; for example, in the Electra the news of the Pythian games,In Sophocles’Electrathe plot hinges on a false story of Orestes’ death by an accident at the Pythian games. Presumably the anachronism shocked Aristotle. or in the Mysians the man who came from Tegea to Mysia without speaking.Telephus. To say that the plot would otherwise have been ruined is ridiculous.

+

One should not in the first instance construct such a plot, and if a poet does write thus, and there seems to be a more reasonable way of treating the incident, then it is positively absurd.

+

Even in the Odyssey the inexplicable elements in the story of his landingHom. Od. 13.116ff. It seemed to the critics inexplicable that Odysseus should not awake when his ship ran aground at the harbour of Phorcys in Ithaca and the Phaeacian sailors carried him ashore. would obviously have been intolerable, had they been written by an inferior poet. As it is, Homer conceals the absurdity by the charm of all his other merits.

+

The diction should be elaborated only in the idle parts which do not reveal character or thought.The Messengers’ speeches, a regular feature of Greek tragedy, may serve to illustrate what is here called the idle part of a play, i.e., passages which, but for brilliant writing, might be dull, since no character is there elucidated and no important sentiments expressed. Too brilliant diction frustrates its own object by diverting attention from the portrayal of character and thought.

+ +
+

With regard to problems,A problem in this sense is a difficult passage or expression which explanation and may easily be censured by an unsympathetic critic. Aristotle here classifies the various grounds of censure and the various lines of defence. Most of his illustrations are drawn from the critical objections lodged against the Iliad by Zoilus and other hammerers of Homer. As the reader will see, many of them are abysmally foolish. and the various solutions of them, how many kinds there are, and the nature of each kind, all will be clear if we look at them like this.

+

Since the poet represents life, as a painter does or any other maker of likenesses, he must always represent one of three things—either things as they were or are; or things as they are said and seem to be; or things as they should be.

+

These are expressed in diction with or without rare words and metaphors, there being many modifications of diction, all of which we allow the poet to use.

+

Moreover, the standard of what is correct is not the same in the art of poetry as it is in the art of social conduct or any other art.

+

In the actual art of poetry there are two kinds of errors, essential and accidental.

+

If a man meant to represent something and failed through incapacity, that is an essential error. But if his error is due to his original conception being wrong and his portraying, for example, a horse advancing both its right legs, that is then a technical error in some special branch of knowledge,in medicine, say, or whatever it may be; or else some sort of impossibility has been portrayed, but that is not an essential error.

+

These considerations must, then, be kept in view in meeting the charges contained in these objections.

+

Let us first take the charges against the art of poetry itself. If an impossibility has been portrayed, an error has been made.

+

But it is justifiable if the poet thus achieves the object of poetry—what that is has been already stated—and makes that part or some other part of the poem more striking. The pursuit of Hector is an example of this.See Aristot. Poet. 24.16 and note.

+

If, however, the object could have been achieved better or just as well without sacrifice of technical accuracy, then it is not justifiable, for, if possible, there should be no error at all in any part of the poem.

+

Again one must ask of which kind is the error, is it an error in poetic art or a chance error in some other field? It is less of an error not to know that a female stag has no horns than to make a picture that is unrecognizable.

+

Next, supposing the charge is That is not true, one can meet it by saying But perhaps it ought to be, just as Sophocles said that he portrayed people as they ought to be and Euripides portrayed them as they are.

+

If neither of these will do, then say, Such is the tale; for instance, tales about gods.

+

Very likely there is no advantage in telling them, and they are not true either, but may well be what Xenophanes declaredi.e., immoral and therefore untrue. He opened the assault on Homeric theology at the end of the sixth or the beginning of the fifth century B.C.—all the same such is the tale.

+

In another case, perhaps, there is no advantage but such was the fact, e.g. the case of the arms, Their spears erect on butt-spikes stood,Hom. Il. 10.152. Problem: Surely a bad stance: they might so easily fall and cause alarm. Solution: Homer does not defend it. He merely states a fact. It is thus that we excuse unpleasant fiction. for that was then the custom, as it still is in Illyria.

+

As to the question whether anything that has been said or done is morally good or bad, this must be answered not merely by seeing whether what has actually been done or said is noble or base, but by taking into consideration also the man who did or said it, and seeing to whom he did or said it, and when and for whom and for what reason; for example, to secure a greater good or to avoid a greater evil.

+

Some objections may be met by reference to the diction, for example, by pleading rare word, e.g. οὐρῆας μὲν πρῶτον, for perhaps he means not mules but sentinels.Hom. Il. 1.50: The mules and swift-footed hounds he first beset with his arrows. Apollo is sending plague upon the Greek army. Problem: Why should he first attack the mules? Solution: The word may here mean sentiels. And Dolon, One that was verily evil of form, it may be not his deformed body but his ugly face, for the Cretans use fair-formed for fair-featured.Hom. Il. 10.316: One that was verily evil inform but swift in his running. Problem: If Dolon were deformed, how could he run fast? Solution: Form may here mean feature. And again Livelier mix it may mean not undiluted as for drunkards but quicker.Hom. Il. 9.202: Set me, Menoetius’ son, a larger bowl for the mingling, Livelier mix it withal and make ready for each one a beaker. Problem: Livelier suggests intemperance. Solution: Perhaps the word means quicker. Similar scruples emended the lines in Young Lochinvar to read: And now am I come with this pretty maid To dance but one measure, drink one lemonade.

+

Other expressions are metaphorical, for example: Then all the other immortals and men lay all night in slumber, while yet he says: Yea, when indeed he gazed at the Trojan plain Agamemnon Marvelled at voices of flutes . . . All is used instead of many metaphorically, all being a species of many.Hom. Il. 2.2 (quoted by mistake for Hom. Il. 10.1) and Hom. Il. 10.13, 14: Then all the other immortals and all the horse-crested heroes Night-long slumbered, but Zeus the sweet sleep held not. . . (Hom. Il. 2.1, 2) Yea, when indeed he gazed at the Trojan plain, Agamemnon Marvelled at voices of flutes and of pipes and the din of the soldiers. (Hom. Il. 10.13, 14) Problem: If all were asleep, who was playing the flute? Solution: This may be a metaphor; as explained in chapter 21, all is one kind or species of many, and thus by transference all is used for many, the species for the genus. And again, Alone unsharingHom. Il. 18.489: She alone of all others shares not in the baths of the Ocean. The reference is to the Great Bear. Problem: Why does Homer say she alone when the other Northern Constellations also do not set? Solution: As in the last instance, the may be metaphorical, i.e., the genus, sole, may be here used by transference for one of its species, best known. is metaphorical; the best known is called the only one.

+

By intonation also; for example, the solutions of Hippias of Thasos, his δίδομεν δέ οἱHom. Il. 2.15. Our text is different. Aristotle, who quotes the line agains elsewhere, read thus: No longer the gods in the halls of Olympus Strive in their plans, for Hera has bent them all to her purpose Thus by her prayers; and we grant him to win the boast of great glory. Zeus is instructing the Dream, whom he is sending to lure Agamemnon to disaster. Problem: The last statement is a lie. Solution: Change the accent and the statement δίδομεν δέ οἱ becomes a command (the infinitive διδόμεναι written in a shortened form and used as an imperative). The lie will then be told by the Dream and not by Zeus, who may thus save his reputation for veracity. and τὸ μὲν οὗ καταπύθεται ὄμβρῳHom. Il. 23.327: A fathom high from the earth there rises a stump all withered, A stump of an oak or a pine, that rots not at all in the rain. Problem: The last statement is incredible. Solution: Alter the breathing and τὸ μὲν οὐ becomes τὸ μὲν οὗ and means part of it rots in the rain.;

+

and by punctuation; for example, the lines of Empedocles: Soon mortal grow they that aforetime learnt Immortal ways, and pure erstwhile commingled.The Problem is erstwhile goes with pure or with commingled. The former interpretation seems to give the best solution. Empedocles is speaking of the elements or atoms.

+

Or again by ambiguity, e.g. παρῴχηκεν δὲ πλέω νύξ, where πλείω is ambiguous.Hom. Il. 10.252: Come now, the night is far spent and at hand is the dawning, Far across are the stars and more than two parts of the night-time Are gone, but a third is still left us. Problem: If more than two parts are gone, a third cannot be left. Solution: πλέω here means full, i.e., the full night of two-thirds = full two-thirds of the night is gone, and so Homer’s arithmetic is saved.

+

Others according to the habitual use of the phrase, e.g. wine and water is called wine so you get the phrase greaves of new-wrought tin;Problem: Greaves are made not of tin but of an alloy of tin and copper. Solution: Compounds are called by the name of the more important partner. Just as a mixture of wine and water is called wine, so here an alloy of tin and copper is called tin. So, too, is whisky and water called whisky. or workers in iron are called braziers, and so Ganymede is said to pour wine for Zeus, though they do not drink wine. This last might however be metaphorical.Nectar:gods :: wine: men. Therefore, according to the rules of metaphor in chapter 21, nectar may be called wine or the wine of the gods.

+

Whenever a word seems to involve a contradiction, one should consider how many different meanings it might bear in the passage, e.g. in There the bronzen shaft was stayed,Hom. Il. 20.272: Nay but the weighty shaft of the warlike hero Aeneas Brake not the shield; for the gold, the gift of a god, did withstand it. Through two folds it drave, yet three were beneath, for Hephaestus, Crook-footed god, five folds had hammered; two were of bronze-work, Two underneath were of tin and one was of gold; there the bronzen Shaft of the hero was stayed in the gold. Problem: Since the gold was presumably outside for the sake of ornament, how could the spear he stayed in the gold and yet penetrate two folds? Bywater suggests as a solution that the plate of gold sufficed to stop the course of the spear, though the spear-point actually pierced it and indented the underlying plates of brass. we should ask in how many ways being stayed might be taken,

+

interpreting the passage in this sense or in that, and keeping as far as possible from the attitude which GlauconThis may well be the Glaucon mentioned in Plato’s Ion as an authority on Homer. describes

+

when he says that people make some unwarrantable presupposition and having themselves given an adverse verdict proceed to argue from it, and if what they think the poet has said does not agree with their own preconceived ideas, they censure him, as if that was what he had said.

+

This is what has happened in the case of Icarius.Penelope’s father. They assume that he was a Spartan and therefore find it odd that when Telemachus went to Sparta he did not meet him. But the truth may be, as the Cephallenians say, that Odysseus married a wife from their country and that the name was not Icarius but Icadius. So the objection is probably due to a mistake.

+

In general any impossibility may be defended by reference to the poetic effect or to the ideal or to current opinion.

+

For poetic effect a convincing impossibility is preferable to that which is unconvincing though possible.

+

It may be impossible that there should be such people as ZeuxisSee Aristot. Poet. 6.15. used to paint, but it would be better if there were; for the type should improve on the actual.

+

Popular tradition may be used to defend what seems irrational, and you can also say that sometimes it is not irrational, for it is likely that unlikely things should happen.

+

Contradictions in terms must be examined in the same way as an opponent’s refutations in argument, to see whether the poet refers to the same thing in the same relation and in the same sense, and has contradicted either what he expressly says himself or what an intelligent person would take to be his meaning.

+

It is right, however, to censure both improbability and depravity where there is no necessity and no use is made of the improbability.An example is Euripides’ intro duction of AegeusEur. Medea 663. In Aristotle’s opinion there is no good reason for Aegeus’s appearance and no good use is made of it. or(of depravity)the character of Menelans in the Orestes.

+

The censures they bring are of five kinds; that things are either impossible or irrational or harmful or inconsistent or contrary to artistic correctness. The solutions must be studied under the heads specified above, twelve in number.i.e., any expression that is criticized should be considered with reference to (1) things as they were; (2) things as thy are; (3) things as they are said to be; (4) things as they seem to be; (5) things as they ought to be. Further, we should consider whether (6) a rare word or (7) a metaphor is used; what is the right (8) accent and (9) punctuation; also where there may be (10) ambiguity and what is (11) the habitual use of the phrase; also we may refer to (12) the proper standard of correctness in poetry as distinct from other arts.

+ +
+

The question may be raised whether the epic or the tragic form of representation is the better.

+

If the better is the less vulgar and the less vulgar is always that which appeals to the better audience, then obviously the art which makes its appeal to everybody is eminently vulgar.Aristotle first states the popular condemnation of tragedy on the ground that it can be and often is spoilt by the stupid vulgarity of actors. So might spectators of certain productions of Shakespeare in their haste condemn the poet. The refutation of this view begins at 6.

+

And indeed actors think the audience do not understand unless they put in something of their own, and so they strike all sorts of attitudes, as you see bad flute-players whirling about if they have to do the Discus, or mauling the leader of the chorus when they are playing the Scylla.Cf. Aristot. Poet. 15.8

+

So tragedy is something like what the older school of actors thought of their successors, for Mynniscus used to call Callippides the monkey, because he overacted, and the same was said of Pindarus.Mynniscus acted for Aeschylus: Callippides belonged to the next generation, end of fifth century. Pindarus is unknown.

+

The whole tragic art, then, is to epic poetry what these later actors were compared to their predecessors, since according to this view epic appeals to a cultivated audience which has no need of actor’s poses, while tragedy appeals to a lower class. If then it is vulgar, it must obviously be inferior.

+

First of all, this is not a criticism of poetry but of acting: even in reciting a minstrel can overdo his gestures, as Sosistratus did, or in a singing competition, like Mnasitheus of Opus.Both unknown.

+

Besides it is not all attitudinizing that ought to be barred any more than all dancing, but only the attitudes of inferior people. That was the objection to Callippides; and modern actors are similarly criticized for representing women who are not ladies.

+

Moreover, tragedy fulfils its function even without acting, just as much as epic, and its quality can be gauged by reading aloud. So, if it is in other respects superior, this disadvantage is not necessarily inherent.

+

Secondly, tragedy has all the elements of the epic—it can even use the hexameter—

+

and in addition a considerable element of its own in the spectacle and the music, which make the pleasure all the more vivid;

+

and this vividness can be felt whether it is read or acted.

+

Another point is that it attains its end with greater economy of length. What is concentrated is always more effective than what is spread over a long period; suppose, for example, Sophocles’Oedipuswere to be turned into as many lines as there are in the Iliad .

+

Again, the art of the epic has less unity, as is shown by the fact that any one epic makes several tragedies. The result is that, if the epic poet takes a single plot, either it is set forth so briefly as to seem curtailed, or if it conforms to the limit of lengthLiterally the length of the (proper) limit. it seems thin and diluted.

+

In saying that epic has less unity I mean an epic made up of several separate actions.

+

The Iliad has many such parts and so has the Odyssey, and each by itself has a certain magnitude. And yet the composition of these poems is as perfect as can be and each of them is—as far as an epic may be—a representation of a single action.

+

If then tragedy is superior in these respects and also in fulfilling its artistic function—for tragedies and epics should produce not any form of pleasure but the pleasure we have describedi.e., the pleasure felt when by the representation of life in art “relief is given” to pity, fear, and other such emotions, or, to use a term now prevalent, when such emotions are “released.”Cf. Aristot. Poet. 14.3.—then obviously, since it attains its object better than the epic, the better of the two is tragedy.

+

This must suffice for our treatment of tragedy and epic, their characteristics, their species, their constituent parts, and their number and attributes; for the causes of success and failure; and for critical problems and their solutions. . . .

+ + + diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/__cts__.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/__cts__.xml index 64b6952b4..81e575f9e 100644 --- a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/__cts__.xml +++ b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/__cts__.xml @@ -7,4 +7,10 @@ Πολιτικά Aristotle. Aristotelis Politica. Ross, William David, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957 (printing). + + + Politics + Aristotle. Politics. Rackham, Harris, translator. London: William Heinemann Ltd.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1944 (printing). + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml index e3fa3e58b..1922e8cbd 100644 --- a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml +++ b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml @@ -1,9341 +1,932 @@ - - - - - Politics (English). Machine readable text - Aristotle - Perseus Project, Tufts University - Gregory Crane - - Prepared under the supervision of - Lisa Cerrato - William Merrill - Elli Mylonas - David Smith - + + + + + +Politics + Aristotle + Harris Rackham + Perseus Project, Tufts University + Gregory Crane + + Prepared under the supervision of + Lisa Cerrato + William Merrill + Elli Mylonas + David Smith + The Annenberg CPB/Project - About 690Kb - - Trustees of Tufts University - Medford, MA - Perseus Project - - - Text was scanned at St. Olaf Spring, 1992. - - - - - Aristotle - Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21, translated by H. Rackham. - - Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William - Heinemann Ltd. - 1944 - - - - - - - - -

This pointer pattern extracts bekker page

- - - - - - - - - - English - Greek - - - - - Spring 1993 - - JN - (n/a) - - Tagged in conformance with Prose.e dtd. - - - 7/27, 1993 - - em - (n/a) - - Put Bekker line 1 milestone tags at the beginning of each section so that the - incoming list creator would work. Changed RREFDECL. - - - 5/27/09 - - RS - (n/a) - - -$Log: aristot.pol_eng.xml,v $ -Revision 1.4 2011-12-16 21:32:16 lcerrato -fixed Aristotle bibls -Revision 1.3 2010-11-09 19:10:54 lcerrato -fixed repeated words (typo) 1254a + + Trustees of Tufts University + Medford, MA + Perseus Digital Library Project + Perseus 2.0 + tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml + + Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License + + + + + + + Aristotle + Politics + Harris Rackham + + William Heinemann Ltd. + London + Harvard University Press + Cambridge, MA + 1944 + + + + + Loeb Classical Library + + HathiTrust + + + + + + + + + +

This pointer pattern extracts book and Bekker page.

+ + +

This pointer pattern extracts book.

+ + + -Revision 1.2 2010/06/16 19:18:48 rsingh04 -cleaned up bad place tags in a few texts and cleaned up the document format + + +Greek +English + + -Revision 1.1 2009/10/09 19:49:17 rsingh04 -more reorganizing of texts module by collection + +EpiDoc and CTS conversion and general header review. +fixed Aristotle bibls +fixed repeated words (typo) 1254a +cleaned up bad place tags in a few texts and cleaned up the document format +more reorganizing of texts module by collection +began reorganizing texts module by collection. created separate work directory in texts module to keep hopper files separate from in progress files +fixed typo +fixed cvs log keyword +edited entity tags up to line 4264 CEH +fixed Pindar bibl error - zr +fixed bad bibls +fixed bibl errors - zr +added cvs log keyword +Corrected two typos in 1449a. +added cvs log keyword +Put Bekker line 1 milestone tags at the beginning of each section so that the incoming list creator would work. Changed RREFDECL. +Tagged in conformance with Prose.g dtd. +Text was scanned at St. Olaf Spring, 1992. + + + + + +
+
+
+

+ + Every state is as we see a sort of partnership,The Greek word had not acquired a specially political connotation as the English word community has. and every partnership is formed with a view to some good (since all the actions of all mankind are done with a view to what they think to be good). It is therefore evident that, while all partnerships aim at some good the partnership that is the most supreme of all and includes all the others does so most of all, and aims at the most supreme of all goods; and this is the partnership entitled the state, the political association. Those then who think that the natures of the statesman, the royal ruler, the head of an estate οἰκονόμος denoting a higher grade than δεσπότης is unusual. For their ordinary use see 2.1 fin. and the master of a family are the same, are mistaken (they imagine that the difference between these various forms of authority is one of greater and smaller numbers, not a difference in the kind—that is, that the ruler over a few people is a master, over more the head of an estate, over more still a statesman or royal ruler, as if there were no difference between a large household and a small city; and also as to the statesman and the royal ruler, they think that one who governs as sole head is royal, and one who, while the government follows the principles of the science of royalty, takes turns to govern and be governed is a statesman; but these views are not true). And a proof that these people are mistaken will appear if we examine the question in accordance with our regular method of investigation. In every other matter it is necessary to analyze the composite whole down to its uncompounded elements (for these are the smallest parts of the whole); so too with the state, by examining the elements of which it is composed we shall better discern in relation to these different kinds of rulers what is the difference between them, and whether it is possible to obtain any scientific precision in regard to the various statements made above.

+

In this subject as in others the best method of investigation is to study things in the process of development from the beginning. The first coupling together of persons then to which necessity gives rise is that between those who are unable to exist without one another: for instance the union of female and male for the continuance of the species (and this not of deliberate purpose, but with man as with the other animals and with plants there is a natural instinct to desire to leave behind one another being of the same sort as oneself); and the union of natural ruler and natural subject for the sake of security (for he that can foresee with his mind is naturally ruler and naturally master, and he that can do these thingsA probable emendation gives that can carry out labor. with his body is subject and naturally a slave; so that master and slave have the same interest).

+ +
+

Thus the female and the slave are by nature distinct (for nature makes nothing as the cutlers make the Delphic knife,Uncertain: possibly a dagger and a carving-knife in one. in a niggardly way, but one thing for one purpose; for so each tool will be turned out in the finest perfection, if it serves not many uses but one). Yet among barbarians the female and the slave have the same rank; and the cause of this is that barbarians have no class of natural rulers, but with them the conjugal partnership is a partnership of female slave and male slave. Hence the saying of the poets Eur. IA 1400.— ’Tis meet that Greeks should rule barbarians,— implying that barbarian and slave are the same in nature. From these two partnerships then is first composed the household, and Hesiod Hes. WD 405. was right when he wrote First and foremost a house and a wife and an ox for the ploughing— for the ox serves instead of a servant for the poor. The partnership therefore that comes about in the course of nature for everyday purposes is the house, the persons whom CharondasA law-giver of Catana in Sicily, 6th century B.C. or earlier. speaks of as meal-tub-fellows and the Cretan EpimenidesA poet and prophet invited to Athens 596 B.C. to purify it of plague. as manger-fellows.The variant reading ὁμοκάπνους, smoke-sharers, seems to mean hearth-fellows.

+

On the other hand the primary partnership made up of several households for the satisfaction of not mere daily needs is the village. The village according to the most natural account seems to be a colony fromPerhaps the Greek should be altered to give consists of colonies from. a household, formed of those whom some people speak of as fellow-sucklings, sons and sons’ sons.The words sons and sons’ sons are probably an interpolated note. It is owing to this that our cities were at first under royal sway and that foreign races are so still,because they were made up of parts that were under royal rule; for every household is under the royal rule of its eldest member, so that the colonies from the household were so too, because of the kinship of their members. And this is what Homer Hom. Od. 9.114 f. on the Cyclopes. means: And each one giveth law To sons and eke to spouses— for his Cyclopes live in scattered families; and that is the way in which people used to live in early times. Also this explains why all races speak of the gods as ruled by a king, because they themselves too are some of them actually now so ruled and in other cases used to be of old; and as men imagine the gods in human form, so also they suppose their manner of life to be like their own.

+

The partnership finally composed of several villages is the city-state; it has at last attained the limit of virtually complete self-sufficiency, and thus, while it comes into existence for the sake of life, it exists for the good life. Hence every city-state exists by nature, inasmuch as the first partnerships so exist; for the city-state is the end of the other partnerships, and nature is an end, since that which each thing is when its growth is completed we speak of as being the nature of each thing, for instance of a man, a horse, a household. Again, the object for which a thing exists, its end, is its chief good;

+ +
+

and self-sufficiency is an end, and a chief good. From these things therefore it is clear that the city-state is a natural growth, and that man is by nature a political animal, and a man that is by nature and not merely by fortune citiless is either low in the scale of humanity or above it (like the clanless, lawless, hearthless man reviled by Homer, Hom. Il. 9.63; the passage goes on: ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνος | ὃς πολέμου ἔραται. for one by nature unsocial is also a lover of war) inasmuch as he is solitary, like an isolated piece at draughts. And why man is a political animal in a greater measure than any bee or any gregarious animal is clear. For nature, as we declare, does nothing without purpose; and man alone of the animals possesses speech. The mere voice, it is true, can indicate pain and pleasure, and therefore is possessed by the other animals as well (for their nature has been developed so far as to have sensations of what is painful and pleasant and to indicate those sensations to one another), but speech is designed to indicate the advantageous and the harmful, and therefore also the right and the wrong; for it is the special property of man in distinction from the other animals that he alone has perception of good and bad and right and wrong and the other moral qualities, and it is partnership in these things that makes a household and a city-state.

+

Thus also the city-state is prior in nature to the household and to each of us individually.For the whole must necessarily be prior to the part; since when the whole body is destroyed, foot or hand will not exist except in an equivocal sense, like the sense in which one speaks of a hand sculptured in stone as a hand; because a hand in those circumstances will be a hand spoiled, and all things are defined by their function and capacity, so that when they are no longer such as to perform their function they must not be said to be the same things, but to bear their names in an equivocal sense. It is clear therefore that the state is also prior by nature to the individual; for if each individual when separate is not self-sufficient, he must be related to the whole state as other parts are to their whole, while a man who is incapable of entering into partnership, or who is so self-sufficing that he has no need to do so, is no part of a state, so that he must be either a lower animal or a god.

+

Therefore the impulse to form a partnership of this kind is present in all men by nature; but the man who first united people in such a partnership was the greatest of benefactors. For as man is the best of the animals when perfected, so he is the worst of all when sundered from law and justice. For unrighteousness is most pernicious when possessed of weapons, and man is born possessing weapons for the use of wisdom and virtue, which it is possible to employ entirely for the opposite ends. Hence when devoid of virtue man is the most unholy and savage of animals, and the worst in regard to sexual indulgence and gluttony. Justice on the other hand is an element of the state; for judicial procedure, which means the decision of what is just, is the regulation of the political partnership.

+ +
+

+ And now that it is clear what are the component parts of the state, we have first of all to discuss household management; for every state is composed of households. Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of marriageThe Greek word properly denotes the marriage ceremony, not the married state. (there is no exact term denoting the relation uniting wife and husband), and thirdly the progenitive relationship (this too has not been designated by a special name). Let us then accept these three relationships that we have mentioned. There is also a department which some people consider the same as household management and others the most important part of it, and the true position of which we shall have to consider: I mean what is called the art of getting wealth.No English word covers all the associations of the Greek, which means dealing in χρήματα, things,—goods, property, money—and so business.

+

Let us begin by discussing the relation of master and slave, in order to observe the facts that have a bearing on practical utility, and also in the hope that we may be able to obtain something better than the notions at present entertained, with a view to a theoretic knowledge of the subject. For some thinkers hold the function of the master to be a definite science, and moreover think that household management, mastership, statesmanship and monarchy are the same thing,as we said at the beginning of the treatise; others however maintain that for one man to be another man’s master is contrary to nature, because it is only convention that makes the one a slave and the other a freeman and there is no difference between them by nature, and that therefore it is unjust, for it is based on force.

+

Since therefore property is a part of a household and the art of acquiring property a part of household management (for without the necessaries even life, as well as the good life,As well as the good life is probably an interpolation. is impossible), and since, just as for the particular arts it would be necessary for the proper tools to be forthcoming if their work is to be accomplished, so also the manager of a household must have his tools, and of tools some are lifeless and others living (for example, for a helmsman the rudder is a lifeless tool and the look-out man a live tool—for an assistant in the arts belongs to the class of tools), so also an article of property is a tool for the purpose of life, and property generally is a collection of tools, and a slave is a live article of property. And every assistant is as it were a tool that serves for several tools; for if every tool could perform its own work when ordered, or by seeing what to do in advance, like the statues of Daedalus in the story,This legendary sculptor first represented the eyes as open and the limbs as in motion, so his statues had to be chained to prevent them from running away (Plat. Meno 97d). or the tripods of Hephaestus which the poet says enter self-moved the company divine, Hom. Il. 18.369 —if thus shuttles wove and quills played harps of themselves, master-craftsmen would have no need of assistants and masters no need of slaves.

+ +
+

Now the tools mentioned are instruments of production, whereas an article of property is an instrument of actioni.e. with it we do not make something but do something (e.g. wear a dress, lie in a bed).; for from a shuttle we get something else beside the mere use of the shuttle, but from a garment or a bed we get only their use. And also inasmuch as there is a difference in kind between production and action, and both need tools, it follows that those tools also must possess the same difference. But life is doing things, not making things; hence the slave is an assistant in the class of instruments of action.

+

And the term article of property is used in the same way as the term part: a thing that is a part is not only a part of another thing but absolutely belongs to another thing, and so also does an article of property. Hence whereas the master is merely the slave’s master and does not belong to the slave, the slave is not merely the slave of the master but wholly belongs to the master.

+

These considerations therefore make clear the nature of the slave and his essential quality: one who is a human being belonging by nature not to himself but to another is by nature a slave, and a person is a human being belonging to another if being a man he is an article of property, and an article of property is an instrument for action separable from its owner. But we must next consider whether or not anyone exists who is by nature of this character, and whether it is advantageous and just for anyone to be a slave, or whether on the contrary all slavery is against nature. And it is not difficult either to discern the answer by theory or to learn it empirically. Authority and subordination are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient; in some cases things are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or to be ruled. And there are many varieties both of rulers and of subjects (and the higher the type of the subjects, the loftier is the nature of the authority exercised over them, for example to control a human being is a higher thing than to tame a wild beast; for the higher the type of the parties to the performance of a function, the higher is the function, and when one party rules and another is ruled, there is a function performed between them)— because in every composite thing, where a plurality of parts, whether continuous or discrete, is combined to make a single common whole, there is always found a ruling and a subject factor, and this characteristic of living things is present in them as an outcome of the whole of nature, since even in things that do not partake of life there is a ruling principle, as in the case of a musical scale.Each mode (Dorian, the modern minor scale, Phrygian and Lydian, two forms of major) was ruled by its key-note. However, this matter perhaps belongs to an investigation lying somewhat outside our subject. But in the first place an animal consists of soul and body, of which the former is by nature the ruling and the latter the subject factor. And to discover what is natural we must study it preferably in things that are in a natural state, and not in specimens that are degenerate. Hence in studying man we must consider a man that is in the best possible condition in regard to both body and soul, and in him the principle stated will clearly appear,—

+ +
+

since in those that are bad or in a bad condition it might be thought that the body often rules the soul because of its vicious and unnatural condition. But to resume—it is in a living creature, as we say, that it is first possible to discern the rule both of master and of statesman the soul rules the body with the sway of a master, the intelligence rules the appetites with that of a statesman or a king and in these examples it is manifest that it is natural and expedient for the body to be governed by the soul and for the emotional part to be governed by the intellect, the part possessing reason, whereas for the two parties to be on an equal footing or in the contrary positions is harmful in all cases. Again, the same holds good between man and the other animals: tame animals are superior in their nature to wild animals, yet for all the former it is advantageous to be ruled by man, since this gives them security. Again, as between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject. And the same must also necessarily apply in the case of mankind as a whole; therefore all men that differ as widely as the soul does from the body and the human being from the lower animal （and this is the condition of those whose function is the use of the body and from whom this is the best that is forthcoming） these are by nature slaves, for whom to be governed by this kind of authority is advantageous, inasmuch as it is advantageous to the subject things already mentioned. For he is by nature a slave who is capable of belonging to another （and that is why he does so belong）, and who participates in reason so far as to apprehend it but not to possess it; for the animals other than man are subservient not to reason, by apprehending it, but to feelings. And also the usefulness of slaves diverges little from that of animals; bodily service for the necessities of life is forthcoming from both, from slaves and from domestic animals alike. The intention of nature therefore is to make the bodies also of freemen and of slaves different—the latter strong for necessary service, the former erect and unserviceable for such occupations, but serviceable for a life of citizenship （and that again divides into the employments of war and those of peace）; but as a matter of fact often the very opposite comes about—some persons have the bodies of free men and others the souls; since this is certainly clear, that if persons were born as distinguished only in body as are the statues of the gods, everyone would say that those who were inferior deserved to be these men’s slaves. And if this is true in the case of the body, there is far juster reason for this rule being laid down in the case of the soul; but beauty of soul is not so easy to see as beauty of body.

+ +
+

It is manifest therefore that there are cases of people of whom some are freemen and the others slaves by nature, and for these slavery is an institution both expedient and just.

+

But at the same time it is not difficult to see that those who assert the opposite are also right in a manner. The fact is that the terms slavery and slave are ambiguous; for there is also such a thing as a slave or a man that is in slavery by law, for the law is a sort of agreement under which the things conquered in war are said to belong to their conquerors. Now this conventional right is arraigned by many jurists just as a statesman is impeached for proposing an unconstitutional measure; they say that it is monstrous if the person powerful enough to use force, and superior in power, is to have the victim of his force as his slave and subject; and even among the learned some hold this view, though others hold the other. But the reason of this dispute and what makes the theories overlap is the fact that in a certain manner virtue when it obtains resources has in fact very great power to use force, and the stronger party always possesses superiority in something that is good,The difficulty turns on the ambiguity of ἀρετή, (a) moral goodness, virtue, (b) goodness of any kind, e.g. strength. so that it is thought that force cannot be devoid of goodness, but that the dispute is merely about the justice of the matter (for it is due to the one party holding that the justification of authority is good-will, while the other identifies justice with the mere rule of the stronger); because obviously if these theories be separated apart,the other theories have no force or plausibility at all, implying that the superior in goodness has no claim to rule and be master. But some persons, simply clinging, as they think, to principle of justice (for the law is a principle of justice), assert that the enslavement of prisoners of war is just; yet at the same time they deny the assertion, for there is the possibility that wars may be unjust in their origin and one would by no means admit that a man that does not deserve slavery can be really a slave—otherwise we shall have the result that persons reputed of the highest nobility are slaves and the descendants of slaves if they happen to be taken prisoners of war and sold. Therefore they do not mean to assert that Greeks themselves if taken prisoners are slaves, but that barbarians are. Yet when they say this, they are merely seeking for the principles of natural slavery of which we spoke at the outset; for they are compelled to say that there exist certain persons who are essentially slaves everywhere and certain others who are so nowhere. And the same applies also about nobility: our nobles consider themselves noble not only in their own country but everywhere, but they think that barbarian noblemen are only noble in their own country—which implies that there are two kinds of nobility and of freedom, one absolute and the other relative, as Helen says in TheodectesA tragic poet, a friend of Aristotle.: But who would dare to call me menial, The scion of a twofold stock divine? Yet in so speaking they make nothing but virtue and vice the distinction between slave and free, the noble and the base-born;

+ +
+

for they assume that just as from a man springs a man and from brutes a brute, so also from good parents comes a good son but as a matter of fact nature frequently while intending to do this is unable to bring it about.

+

It is clear therefore that there is some reason for this dispute, and that in some instances it is not the case that one set are slaves and the other freemen by nature; and also that in some instances such a distinction does exist, when slavery for the one and mastership for the other are advantageous and just, and it is proper for the one party to be governed and for the other to govern by the form of government for which they are by nature fitted, and therefore by the exercise of mastership, while to govern badly is to govern disadvantageously for both parties (for the same thing is advantageous for a part and for the whole body or the whole soul, and the slave is a part of the master—he is, as it were, a part of the body, alive but yet separated from it; hence there is a certain community of interest and friendship between slave and master in cases when they have been qualified by nature for those positions, although when they do not hold them in that way but by law and by constraint of force the opposite is the case).

+

And even from these considerations it is clear that the authority of a master over slaves is not the same as the authority of a magistrate in a republic, nor are all forms of government the same, as some assert. Republican government controls men who are by nature free, the master’s authority men who are by nature slaves; and the government of a household is monarchy (since every house is governed by a single ruler),whereas statesmanship is the government of men free and equal. The term master therefore denotes the possession not of a certain branch of knowledge but of a certain character, and similarly also the terms slave and freeman. Yet there might be a science of mastership and a slave’s science—the latter being the sort of knowledge that used to be imparted by the professor at Syracuse (for there used to be a man there who for a fee gave lessons to servants in their ordinary duties); and indeed there might be more advanced scientific study of such matters, for instance a science of cookery and the other such kinds of domestic service—for different servants have different functions, some more honorable and some more menial, and as the proverb says, Slave before slave and master before master.Probably from a comedy of Aristotle’s contemporary Philemon. The slave’s sciences then are all the various branches of domestic work; the master’s science is the science of employing slaves—for the master’s function consists not in acquiring slaves but in employing them. This science however is one of no particular importance or dignity: the master must know how to direct the tasks which the slave must know how to execute. Therefore all people rich enough to be able to avoid personal trouble have a steward who takes this office, while they themselves engage in politics or philosophy. The science of acquiring slaves is different both from their ownership and their direction—that is, the just acquiring of slaves, which is akin to the art of war or that of the chase. Let this then stand as our definition of slave and master.

+ +
+

But let us follow our normal method and investigate generally the nature of all kinds of property and the art of getting wealth, inasmuch as we saw the slave to be one division of property. In the first place therefore one might raise the question whether the art of getting wealth is the same as that of household management, or a part of it, or subsidiary to it; and if subsidiary, whether it is so in the sense in which the art of making shuttles is subsidiary to the art of weaving or in that in which the art of casting bronze is subsidiary to the making of statues (for the two are not subsidiary in the same way, but shuttle-making supplies tools whereas bronze-founding supplies material—and by material I mean the substance out of which certain work is produced, for example fleeces are material for a weaver and bronze for a statuary).

+

Now it is clear that wealth-getting is not the same art as household management, for the function of the former is to provide and that of the latter to use—for what will be the art that will use the contents of the house if not the art of household management? but whether wealth-getting is a part of the art of household management, or a different sort of science, is open to debate. For if it is the function of the getter of wealth to study the source from which money and property are to be procured, . . .Some words seem to have fallen out in the Greek. But property and riches comprise many divisions; hence first of all is husbandry a division of the household art, or is it a different kind of science? and so in general of the superintendence and acquisition of articles of food.

+

But furthermore, there are many sorts of food,owing to which both animals and men have many modes of life; for it is impossible to live without food, so that the differences of food have made the lives of animals different. Among wild animals some are nomadic and others solitary, according to whichever habit is advantageous for their supply of food, because some of them are carnivorous, others graminivorous, and others eat all kinds of food; so that nature has differentiated their modes of life to suit their facilities and their predilection for those articles of food. And as different kinds of animals by nature relish different sorts of food, and not each kind the same, even within the classes of carnivorous and graminivorous animals their modes of life differ from one another. And similarly in the human race also, for there are wide differences of life among mankind. The idlest men are nomads (for to procure food from domesticated animals involves no toil or industry, but as it is necessary for the herds to move from place to place because of the pastures, the people themselves are forced to follow along with them, as though they were farming a live farm). Other men live from hunting, and different people from different kinds of hunting, for instance some from brigandage,Perhaps slave-raiding, cf. 3.9, the appropriation of the live tools that are a part of nature’s supplies; but Thuc. 1.5 speaks of brigandage and piracy as common in earlier times, and as still deemed respectable professions in Northern Greece. others from fishing—these are those that dwell on the banks of lakes, marshes and rivers or of a sea suitable for fishing,—and others live on wild birds and animals. But the largest class of men live from the land and the fruits of cultivation. This then virtually completes the list of the various modes of life, those at least that have their industry sprung from themselves and do not procure their food by barter and trade—

+ +
+

the lives of the herdsman, the brigand, the fisherman, the hunter, the husband-man. Others also live pleasantly by combining some of these pursuits, supplementing the more deficient life where it happens to fall short in regard to being self-sufficing: for instance, some combine a pastoral life and brigandage, others husbandry and hunting, and similarly with the others—they pass their time in such a combination of pursuits as their need compels. Property of this sort then seems to be bestowed by nature herself upon all, as immediately upon their first coming into existence, so also when they have reached maturity. For even at the original coming into existence of the young some kinds of animals bring forth with them at birth enough sustenance to suffice until the offspring can provide for itself, for example all the species that bear their young in the form of larvae or in eggs. The viviparous species have sustenance for their offspring inside themselves for a certain period, the substance called milk. So that clearly we must suppose that nature also provides for them in a similar way when grown up, and that plants exist for the sake of animals and the other animals for the good of man, the domestic species both for his service and for his food, and if not all at all events most of the wild ones for the sake of his food and of his supplies of other kinds, in order thatthey may furnish him both with clothing and with other appliances. If therefore nature makes nothing without purpose or in vain, it follows that nature has made all the animals for the sake of men. Hence even the art of war will by nature be in a manner an art of acquisition (for the art of hunting is a part of it) that is properly employed both against wild animals and against such of mankind as though designed by nature for subjection refuse to submit to it, inasmuch as this warfare is by nature just.

+

One kind of acquisition therefore in the order of nature is a part of the household art,Rassow would transpose the clause (with a slight alteration) to give of the household art, that is, the acquisition of those goods capable of accumulation that are necessary for life and useful for the community of city and household, a supply of which must be forthcoming or else the art must procure it to be forthcoming. in accordance with which either there must be forthcoming or else that art must procure to be forthcoming a supply of those goods, capable of accumulation, which are necessary for life and useful for the community of city or household. And it is of these goods that riches in the true sense at all events seem to consist. For the amount of such property sufficient in itself for a good life is not unlimited, as Solon Solon 13.71. says that it is in the verse But of riches no bound has been fixed or revealed to men; for a limit has been fixed, as with the other arts, since no tool belonging to any art is without a limit whether in number or in size, and riches are a collection of tools for the householder and the statesman. Therefore that there is a certain art of acquisition belonging in the order of nature to householders and to statesmen, and for what reason this is so, is clear.

+

But there is another kind of acquisition that is specially called wealth-getting, and that is so called with justice and to this kind it is due that there is thought to be no limit to riches and property.

+ +
+

Owing to its affinity to the art of acquisition of which we spoke, it is supposed by many people to be one and the same as that; and as a matter of fact, while it is not the same as the acquisition spoken of, it is not far removed from it. One of them is natural, the other is not natural, but carried on rather by means of a certain acquired skill or art. We may take our starting-point for its study from the following consideration: with every article of property there is a double way of using it; both uses are related to the article itself, but not related to it in the same manner—one is peculiar to the thing and the other is not peculiar to it. Take for example a shoe—there is its wear as a shoe and there is its use as an article of exchange; for both are ways of using a shoe, inasmuch as even he that barters a shoe for money or food with the customer that wants a shoe uses it as a shoe, though not for the use peculiar to a shoe, since shoes have not come into existence for the purpose of barter. And the same also holds good about the other articles of property; for all of them have an art of exchange related to them, which began in the first instance from the natural order of things, because men had more than enough of some things and less than enough of others. This consideration also shows that the art of trade is not by nature a part of the art of wealth-gettingPerhaps Aristotle wrote of the art of exchange: Bernays suggests μεταβλητικῆς for χρηματιστικῆς.; for the practice of barter was necessary only so far as to satisfy men’s own needs. In the primaryassociation therefore (I mean the household) there is no function for trade, but it only arises after the association has become more numerous. For the members of the primitive household used to share commodities that were all their own, whereas on the contrary a group divided into several households participated also in a number of commodities belonging to their neighbors, according to their needs for which they were forced to make their interchanges by way of barter, as also many barbarian tribes do still; for such tribes do not go beyond exchanging actual commodities for actual commodities, for example giving and taking wine for corn, and so with the various other things of the sort. + Exchange on these lines therefore is not contrary to nature, nor is it any branch of the art of wealth-getting, for it existed for the replenishment of natural self-sufficiency; yet out of it the art of business in due course arose. For when they had come to supply themselves more from abroad by importing things in which they were deficient and exporting those of which they had a surplus, the employment of money necessarily came to be devised. For the natural necessaries are not in every case readily portable; hence for the purpose of barter men made a mutual compact to give and accept some substance of such a sort as being itself a useful commodity was easy to handle in use for general life, iron for instance, silver and other metals, at the first stage defined merely by size and weight, but finally also by impressing on it a stamp in order that this might relieve them of having to measure it; for the stamp was put on as a token of the amount.

+ +
+

So when currency had been now invented as an outcome of the necessary interchange of goods, there came into existence the other form of wealth-getting, trade, which at first no doubt went on in a simple form, but later became more highly organized as experience discovered the sources and methods of exchange that would cause most profit. Hence arises the idea that the art of wealth-getting deals specially with money, and that its function is to be able to discern from what source a large supply can be procured, as this art is supposed to be creative of riches and wealth; indeed riches are often assumed to consist of a quantity of money, because money is the thing with which the art of business and of trade deals. But at other times, on the contrary, it is thought that money is nonsense, and nothing by nature but entirely a convention, because when those who use it have changed the currency it is worth nothing, and because it is of no use for any of the necessary needs of life and a man well supplied with money may oftene.g. on a desert island. be destitute of the bare necessities of subsistence, yet it is anomalous that wealth should be of such a kind that a man may be well supplied with it and yet die of hunger, like the famous Midas in the legend, when owing to the insatiable covetousness of his prayer all the viands served up to him turned into gold. Hence people seek for a different definition of riches and the art of getting wealth, and rightly; for natural wealth-getting and natural riches are different:natural wealth-getting belongs to household management, whereas the other kind belongs to trade, producing goods not in every way but only by the method of exchanging goods. It is this art of wealth-getting that is thought to be concerned with money, for money is the first principle and limit of commerce. And these riches, that are derived from this art of wealth-getting, are truly unlimitedi.e. a trader cannot get too much of his goods, any more than a doctor can make his patient too healthy.; for just as the art of medicine is without limit in respect of health, and each of the arts is without limit in respect of its end (for they desire to produce that in the highest degree possible), whereas they are not without limit as regards the means to their end (for with all of them the end is a limit to the means), so also this wealth-getting has no limit in respect of its end, and its end is riches and the acquisition of goods in the commercial sense. But the household branch of wealth-getting has a limit, since the acquisition of commercial riches is not the function of household management. Hence from this point of view it appears necessary that there should be a limit to all riches, yet in actual fact we observe that the opposite takes place; for all men engaged in wealth-getting try to increase their money to an unlimited amount. The reason of this is the close affinity of the two branches of the art of business. Their common ground is that the thing that each makes use of is the same; they use the same property, although not in the same way—the one has another end in view, the aim of the other is the increase of the property. Consequently some people suppose that it is the function of household management to increase property, and they are continually under the idea that it is their duty to be either safeguarding their substance in money or increasing it to an unlimited amount. The cause of this state of mind is that their interests are set upon life but not upon the good life;

-Revision 1.1 2009/10/08 19:12:40 rsingh04 -began reorganizing texts module by collection. created separate work directory in texts module to keep hopper files separate from in progress files +
+

as therefore the desire for life is unlimited, they also desire without limit the means productive of life. And even those who fix their aim on the good life seek the good life as measured by bodily enjoyments, so that inasmuch as this also seems to be found in the possession of property, all their energies are occupied in the business of getting wealth; and owing to this the second kind of the art of wealth-getting has arisen. For as their enjoyment is in excess, they try to discover the art that is productive of enjoyable excess; and if they cannot procure it by the art of wealth-getting, they try to do so by some other means, employing each of the faculties in an unnatural way. For it is not the function of courage to produce wealth, but to inspire daring; nor is it the function of the military art nor of the medical art, but it belongs to the former to bring victory and to the latter to cause health. Yet these people make all these faculties means for the business of providing wealth, in the belief that wealth is the end and that everything must be directed to the end.

+

We have therefore discussed both the unnecessary branch of wealth-getting, defining it and also explaining the cause why we require it, and the necessary branch, showing that this branch which has to do with food is different from the unnecessary branch and is by nature a part of household management, not being like that branch unlimited but having a limit.

+

And we can also see the answer to the question raised at the beginning,See 3.1. whetherthe art of wealth-getting belongs to the householder and the statesman, or whether on the contrary supplies ought to be provided already (for just as statesmanship does not create human beings but having received them from nature makes use of them, so also it is necessary for nature to bestow food by bestowing land or sea or something else), and the task of the householder is, starting with these supplies given, to dispose of them in the proper way. For it does not belong to the art of weaving to make fleeces, but to use them, and also to know what sort of fleece is good and suitable or bad and unsuitable. Otherwise the question might be raised, why the getting of wealth is a part of the household art whereas the art of medicine is not a part of it, although the members of the household ought to be healthy, just as they must be alive or fulfil any of the other essential conditions. But inasmuch as although in a way it does belong to the householder and the ruler to see even to health, yet in a way it does not belong to them but to the physician, so also with regard to wealth, although in a way it is the affair of the house-holder, in a way it is not, but is a matter for the subsidiary art. But best of all, as has been said before, this provision ought to be made in advance by nature. For it is the work of nature to supply nourishment for her offspring, since every creature has for nourishment the residue of the substance from which it springs.i.e. animals are made of earth and water and live on the products of earth and water. Hence the business of drawing provision from the fruits of the soil and from animals is natural to all.

+

But, as we said, this art is twofold, one branch being of the nature of trade while the other belongs to the household art; and the latter branch is necessary and in good esteem,

+ +
+

but the branch connected with exchange is justly discredited (for it is not in accordance with nature, but involves men’s taking things from one another). As this is so, usury is most reasonably hated, because its gain comes from money itself and not from that for the sake of which money was invented. For money was brought into existence for the purpose of exchange, but interest increases the amount of the money itself (and this is the actual origin of the Greek word: offspring resembles parent, and interest is money born of money); consequently this form of the business of getting wealth is of all forms the most contrary to nature.

+

And since we have adequately defined the scientific side of the subject, we ought to discuss it from the point of view of practice; although, whereas the theory of such matters is a liberal study, the practical pursuit of them is narrowing. The practically useful branches of the art of wealth-getting are first, an expert knowledge of stock, what breeds are most profitable and in what localities and under what conditions, for instance what particular stock in horses or cattle or sheep, and similarly of the other animals also (for the farmer must be an expert as to which of these animals are most profitable compared with one another, and also as to what breeds are most profitable on what sorts of land, since different breeds flourish in different places); secondly, the subject of agriculture, and this again is divided into corn-growing and fruit-farming; also bee-keeping, and the breeding of the other creatures finned and featheredwhich can be used to furnish supplies. These then are the branches and primary parts of wealth-getting in the most proper sense. Of the kind that deals with exchange, the largest branch is commerce (which has three departments, ship-owning, transport and marketing: these departments differ from each other in the fact that some are safer and others carry larger profits); the second branch is money-lending, and the third labor for hire, one department of which is that of the mechanic βάναυσος(said to be from βαῦνος furnace, αὔω to dry), artisan (ranged with farmers, traders, and laborers, as forming the common people 1321a 6); it acquires the senses of cramped in body (1341a 7) and vulgar in taste (1337b 8). arts and the other that of unskilled laborers who are useful only for bodily service. And there is a third form of wealth-getting that lies between the latter and the one placed first, since it possesses mediate an element both of natural wealth-getting and of the sort that employs exchange; it deals with all the commodities that are obtained from the earth and from those fruitless but useful things that come from the earth—examples are the felling of timbera very probable variant gives the quarrying of stone. and all sorts of mining; and of mining itself there are many classes, since there are many sorts of metals obtained out of the earth. TheIn the mss. this sentence follows the next one. most scientific of these industries are those which involve the smallest element of chance, the most mechanic those in which the operatives undergo the greatest amount of bodily degradation, the most servile those in which the most uses are made of the body, and the most ignoble those in which there is the least requirement of virtue as an accessory. But while we have even now given a general description of these various branches, yet a detailed and particular account of them, though useful for the practice of the industries, would be illiberal as a subject of prolonged study. There are books on these subjects by certain authors,

+ +
+

for example CharetidesOtherwise unknown. of Paros and ApollodorusAlso mentioned by Varro and Pliny. of Lemnos have written about both agriculture and fruit-farming, and similarly others also on other topics, so these subjects may be studied from these authors by anybody concerned to do so; but in addition a collection ought also to be madeThe author of the Second Book of the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica seems to have taken the hint. of the scattered accounts of methods that have brought success in business to certain individuals. All these methods are serviceable for those who value wealth-getting, for example the plan of ThalesThe founder of Greek philosophy and mathematics, and one of the Seven Sages, 6th-5th cent. B.C. of Miletus, which is a device for the business of getting wealth, but which, though it is attributed to him because of his wisdom, is really of universal application. Thales, so the story goes, because of his poverty was taunted with the uselessness of philosophy; but from his knowledge of astronomy he had observed while it was still winter that there was going to be a large crop of olives, so he raised a small sum of money and paid round deposits for the whole of the olive-presses in Miletus and Chios, which he hired at a low rent as nobody was running him up; and when the season arrived, there was a sudden demand for a number of presses at the same time, and by letting them out on what terms he liked he realized a large sum of money, so proving that it is easy for philosophers to be rich if they choose, but this is not what they care about. Thales then is reported to have thus displayed his wisdom, but asa matter of fact this device of taking an opportunity to secure a monopoly is a universal principle of business; hence even some states have recourse to this plan as a method of raising revenue when short of funds: they introduce a monopoly of marketable goods. There was a man in Sicily who used a sum of money deposited with him to buy up all the iron from the iron mines, and afterwards when the dealers came from the trading-centers he was the only seller, though he did not greatly raise the price, but all the same he made a profit of a hundred talentsThe talent was about 240 pounds. on his capital of fifty. When DionysiusDionysius the elder, tyrant of Syracuse 405-367 B.C. came to know of it he ordered the man to take his money with him but clear out of Syracuse on the spot,cf. Thucydides οἱ δ’ οὐκέτι ἔμειναν ἀλλὰ . . . since he was inventing means of profit detrimental to the tyrant’s own affairs. Yet really this device is the same as the discovery of Thales, for both men alike contrived to secure themselves a monopoly. An acquaintance with these devices is also serviceable for statesmen, for many states need financial aid and modes of revenue like those described, just as a household may, but in greater degree; hence some statesmen even devote their political activity exclusively to finance.

+

And since, as we saw,2 init. the science of household management has three divisions, one the relation of master to slave, of which we have spoken before,3 fin., 4. one the paternal relation, and the third the conjugalThe construction of the sentence is interrupted, and never completed.—for it is a part of the household science to rule over wife and children (over both as over freemen, yet not with the same mode of government,

+ +
+

but over the wife to exercise republican government and over the children monarchical); for the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female (except in some cases where their union has been formed contrary to nature) and the older and fully developed person than the younger and immature. It is true that in most cases of republican government the ruler and the ruled interchange in turn (for they tend to be on in equal level in their nature and to have no difference at all), although nevertheless during the period when one is ruler and the other ruled they seek to have a distinction by means of insignia and titles and honors, just as Amasis made his speech about the foot-bath Hdt. 1.172. Amasis king of Egypt was despised by his subjects for his low birth, so he had a statue made out of a gold foot-bath and set it up for them to worship, afterwards explaining to them its lowly origin.; but the male stands in this relationship to the female continuously. The rule of the father over the children on the other hand is that of a king; for the male parent is the ruler in virtue both of affection and of seniority, which is characteristic of royal government (and therefore Homer Hom. Il. 1.544. finely designated Zeus by the words father of men and gods, as the king of them all). For though in nature the king must be superior, in race he should be the same as his subjects, and this is the position of the elder in relation to the younger and of the father in relation to the child.

+

It is clear then that household management takes more interest in the human members of the household than in its inanimate property, andin the excellence of these than in that of its property, which we style riches, and more in that of its free members than in that of slaves.

+

First of all then as to slaves the difficulty might be raised, does a slave possess any other excellence, besides his merits as a tool and a servant, more valuable than these, for instance temperance, have the courage, justice and any of the other moral virtues, or has he no excellence beside his bodily service? For either way there is difficulty; if slaves do possess moral virtue, wherein will they differ from freemen? or if they do not, this is strange, as they are human beings and participate in reason. And nearly the same is the question also raised about the woman and the child: have they too virtues, and ought a woman to be temperate, brave and just, and can a child be intemperate or temperate, or not? This point therefore requires general consideration in relation to natural ruler and subject: is virtue the same for ruler and ruled, or different? If it is proper for both to partake in nobility of character, how could it be proper for the one to rule and the other to be ruled unconditionally? we cannot say that the difference is to be one of degree, for ruling and being ruled differ in kind, and difference of degree is not a difference in kind at all. Whereas if on the contrary it is proper for the one to have moral nobility but not for the other, this is surprising. For if the ruler is not temperate and just, how will he rule well? And if the ruled, how will he obey well?

-Revision 1.17 2009/07/31 17:29:56 student -fixed Aristot. Nic. Eth. reference - zr +
+

If intemperate and cowardly he will not perform any of the duties of his position. It is evident therefore that both must possess virtue, but that there are differences in their virtue (as also there are differences between those who are by nature ruled).This clause seems to have been interpolated; one ms. has a marginal correction, by nature rulers and ruled. And of this we straightway find an indication in connection with the soul; for the soul by nature contains a part that rules and a part that is ruled, to which we assign different virtues, that is, the virtue of the rational and that of the irrational. It is clear then that the case is the same also with the other instances of ruler and ruled. Hence there are by nature various classes of rulers and ruled. For the free rules the slave, the male the female, and the man the child in a different way. And all possess the various parts of the soul, but possess them in different ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part at all, and the female has it, but without full authority, while the child has it, but in an undeveloped form. HenceIn the mss. this sentence follows the next one, We must suppose—function, and begins Hence the ruler must possess moral virtue. the ruler must possess intellectual virtue in completeness (for any work, taken absolutely, belongs to the master-craftsman, and rational principle is a master-craftsman); while each of the other parties must have that share of this virtue which is appropriate to them. We must suppose therefore that the same necessarily holds good of the moral virtues: all must partake of them, but not in the same way, but in such measure as is proper to each in relation to his own function. Hence it is manifest that all the persons mentioned have a moral virtue of their own, and that the temperance of a woman and that of a man are not the same, nor their courage and justice, as Socrates thought,Plat. Meno 74bff. but the one is the courage of command, and the other that of subordination, and the case is similar with the other virtues. And this is also clear when we examine the matter more in detail, for it is misleading to give a general definition of virtue, as some do, who say that virtue is being in good condition as regards the soul or acting uprightly or the like; those who enumerate the virtues of different persons separately, as Gorgias does,i.e. in Plato, Meno (see 7 above), where this sophist figures as a character in the dialogue; see also 3.1.9, note. are much more correct than those who define virtue in that way. Hence we must hold that all of these persons have their appropriate virtues, as the poet said of woman: Silence gives grace to woman Soph. Aj. 293 — though that is not the case likewise with a man. Also the child is not completely developed, so that manifestly his virtue also is not personal to himself, but relative to the fully developed being, that is, the person in authority over him. And similarly the slave’s virtue also is in relation to the master.

+

And we laid it down that the slave is serviceable for the mere necessaries of life, so that clearly he needs only a small amount of virtue, in fact just enough to prevent him from failing in his tasks owing to intemperance and cowardice. (But the question might be raised, supposing that what has just been said is true, will artisans also need to have virtue? for they frequently fall short in their tasks owing to intemperance. Or is their case entirely different? For the slave is a partner in his master’s life, but the artisan is more remote, and only so much of virtue falls to his share as of slaveryi.e. his excellences as an artisan are the qualities of a subordinate (his virtues as a human being, apart from his trade, are not considered).—

+ +
+

for the mechanic artisan is under a sort of limited slavery, and whereas the slave is one of the natural classes, no shoemaker or other craftsman belongs to his trade by nature.) It is manifest therefore that the master ought to be the cause to the slave of the virtue proper to a slave, but not as possessing that art of mastership which teaches a slave his tasks. Hence those persons are mistaken who deprive the slave of reasoning and tell us to use command only; for admonition is more properly employed with slaves than with children.

+

But on these subjects let us conclude our decisions in this manner; while the question of the virtue severally belonging to man and woman and children and father, and of the right and wrong mode of conducting their mutual intercourse and the proper way of pursuing the good mode and avoiding the bad one, are matters that it will be necessary to follow up in the part of our treatise dealing with the various forms of constitution.As a matter of fact in Books 7, 8 dealing with the best constitution this subject is not reached. For since every household is part of a state, and these relationships are part of the household, and the excellence of the part must have regard to that of the whole, it is necessary that the education both of the children and of the women should be carried on with a regard to the form of the constitution, if it makes any difference as regards the goodness of the state for the children and the women to be good. And it must necessarily make a difference; for the women are a half of the free population, and the children grow up to be the partners in the government of the state. So that as these questions have been decided, and those that remain must be discussed elsewhere, let us relinquish the present subjects as completed, and make a fresh start in our discourse, and first let us consider those thinkers who have advanced views about the Ideal State.

+ +
+
+

+ And since we take for our special consideration the study of the form of political community that is the best of all the forms for a people able to pursue the most ideal mode of life, we must also examine the other constitutions actually employed by certain of the states said to be well governed, as well as any others propounded by certain thinkers and reputed to be of merit, in order that we may discern what there is in them that is right and expedient, and also in order that it may not be thought that to seek for something different from them springs entirely from a desire to display ingenuity, but that we may be thought to enter upon this inquiry because these forms of constitution that already exist are not satisfactory.

+

We must first adopt as a starting-point that which is the natural point of departure for this inquiry. There are three possible systems of property: either all the citizens must own everything in common, or they must own nothing in common, or some things must be common property and others not. To have nothing in common is clearly impossible for the state is essentially a form of community, and to begin with there is bound to be a common locality: a single city occupies a single site, and the single city belongs to its citizens in common.

+ +
+

But is it better for a city that is to be well ordered to have community in everything which can possibly be made common property, or is it better to have some things in common and others not? For example, it is possible for the citizens to have children, wives and possessions in common with each other, as in Plato’s Republic, in which Socrates says that there must be community of children, women and possessions. Well then, which is preferable, the system that now obtains, or one conforming with the regulation described in the Republic On the following criticisms see Grote, Plato, 3, pp. 211-233.?

+

Now for all the citizens to have their wives in common involves a variety of difficulties; in particular,(1) 1.3-7; (2) 1.8-2.11; (3) 2.11-13; also (4) other objections 2.15-16. (1) the object which Socrates advances as the reason why this enactment should be made clearly does not follow from his arguments; also (2) as a means to the end which he asserts should be the fundamental object of the city, the scheme as actually set forth in the dialogue is not practicable; yet (3) how it is to be further worked out has been nowhere definitely stated. I refer to the ideal of the fullest possible unity of the entire state, which Socrates takes as his fundamental principle.

+

Yet it is clear that if the process of unification advances beyond a certain point, the city will not be a city at all for a state essentially consists of a multitude of persons, and if its unification is carried beyond a certain point, city will be reduced to family and family to individual,for we should pronounce the family to be a more complete unity than the city, and the single person than the family; so that even if any lawgiver were able to unify the state, he must not do so, for he will destroy it in the process. And not only does a city consist of a multitude of human beings, it consists of human beings differing in kind. A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state. For a city is not the same thing as a league; a league is of value by its quantity, even though it is art the same in kind (since the essential object of the league is military strength), just as a weight would be worth more if it weighed more, whereasIn the mss. of the Greek whereas—kind comes below after Arcadian. components which are to make up a unity must differ in kind (and it is by this characteristic that a city will also surpass a tribe of which the population is not scattered among villages but organized like the Arcadians). Hence reciprocal equalityAs the best state consists of different classes, its unity is secured by each citizen giving services to society and receiving in return benefits proportionate to his service. Probably τὸ ἴσον is an interpolation (though Newman explains it as the reciprocal rendering of an equal amount of dissimilar things): omitting τὸ ἴσον, we render reciprocity and not reciprocal equality; cf. Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1132b 33, In the interchange of services Justice in the form of Reciprocity is the bond that maintains the association: reciprocity, that is, on the basis of proportion, not on the basis of equality. is the preservative of states, as has been said before in the Ethics. For even among the free and equal this principle must necessarily obtain, since all cannot govern at once: they must hold office for a year at a time or by some other arrangement or period; and in this manner it does actually come about that all govern, just as all shoemakers would be also carpenters if the shoemakers and the carpenters kept on changing trades instead of the same persons being shoemakers and carpenters always. But since such permanence of function is better for the political community also, it is clear that it is better for the same persons to govern always, if possible; and among peoples where it is impossible because all the citizens are equal in their nature,

+ +
+

yet at the same time it is only just, whether governing is a good thing or a bad, that all should partake in it, and for equals thus to submit to authority in turn imitates their being originally dissimilarThe best form of constitution is where there is a superior class that governs continuously—an aristocracy; so where there are no class-distinctions, the next best thing is for all the citizens to take turns in governing and being governed, those in office for the time being forming a sort of aristocracy. Richards’s alteration of the text gives to take turns to govern is an imitation of original inequality and class-distinction.; for some govern and others are governed by turn, as though becoming other persons; and also similarly when they hold office the holders of different offices are different persons. It is clear then from these considerations that it is not an outcome of nature for the state to be a unity in the manner in which certain persons say that it is, and that what has been said to be the greatest good in states really destroys states; yet surely a thing’s particular good acts as its preservative.—Another line of consideration also shows that to seek to unify the state excessively is not beneficial. In point of self-sufficiency the individual is surpassed by the family and the family by the state, and in principle a state is fully realized only when it comes to pass that the community of numbers is self-sufficing; if therefore the more self-sufficing a community is, the more desirable is its condition, then a less degree of unity is more desirable than a greater.

+

Again, even granting that it is best for the community to be as complete a unity as possible, complete unity does not seem to be proved by the formula if all the citizens say Mine and Not mine at the same time, which SocratesThe reference is to Plat. Rep. 462c. Unity is secured when everyone thinks that everything belongs equally to him and to everybody else, i.e. everything is common property. thinks to be a sign of thecity’s being completely one. All is an ambiguous term. If it means each severally, very likely this would more fully realize the state of things which Socrates wishes to produce (for in that case every citizen will call the same boy his son and also the same woman his wife, and will speak in the same way of property and indeed of each of the accessories of life) but ex hypothesi the citizens, having community of women and children, will not call them theirs in this sense, but will mean theirs collectively and not severally, and similarly they will call property theirs meaning the property of them all, not of each of them severally. We see then that the phrase all say is equivocal (in fact the words all, both, odd, even, owing to their ambiguity, occasion argumentative quibbling even in philosophical discussions); hence really for all to say the same thing is in one sense admirable, although impracticable, but in another sense is not at all a sign of concord. And furthermore, the proposal has another disadvantage. Property that is common to the greatest number of owners receives the least attention; men care most for their private possessions, and for what they own in common less, or only so far as it falls to their own individual share for in addition to the other reasons, they think less of it on the ground that someone else is thinking about it, just as in household service a large number of domestics sometimes give worse attendance than a smaller number. And it results in each citizen’s having a thousand sons, and these do not belong to them as individuals but any child is equally the son of anyone,

+ +
+

so that all alike will regard them with indifference.

+

Again, each speaks of one of his fellow-citizens who is prospering or getting on badly as my son only in the sense of the fractional part which he forms of the whole number—that is, he says my son or so-and-so’s son, specifying as the father any individual of the thousand citizens or whatever the number be of which the state consists, and even this dubiously, for it is uncertain who has chanced to have had a son born to him and when born safely reared. Yet which is the better way to use the word mine—this way, each of two thousand or ten thousand people applying it to the same thing, or rather the way in which they say mine in the actual states now? for the same person is called my son by one man and my brother by another, and another calls him nephew, or by some other relationship, whether of blood or by affinity and marriage, the speaker’s own in the first place, or that of his relations; and in addition someone else calls him fellow-clansman or fellow-tribesman. For it is better for a boy to be one’s own private nephew than one’s son in the way described. + Moreover it would also be impossible to avoid men’s supposing certain persons to be their real brothers and sons and fathers and mothers; for they would be bound to form their belief about each other by the resemblances which occur between children and parents. This indeed is said by some of those who write of travels round the worldBooks of geography, founded on travellers’ reports—a famous one by Hecataeus, scoffed at by Hdt. 4.36. actually to occur;they say that some of the people of Upper Libya have their wives in common, yet the children born are divided among them according to their personal resemblances. And there are some females both of the human race and of the other animals, for instance horses and cattle, who have a strong natural tendency to produce off-spring resembling the male parents, as was the case with the mare at Pharsalus named Honest Lady.Or possibly Docile ( Jackson), cf. Xen. Hunt. 7.4.

+

Moreover it is not easy for those who institute this communism to guard against such objectionable occurrences as outrage, involuntary and in some cases voluntary homicide, fights, abusive language; all of which are violations of piety when committed against fathers, mothers and near relatives as if they were not relatives; but these are bound to occur more frequently when people do not know their relations than when they do, and also, when they do occur, if the offenders know their relationship it is possible for them to have the customary expiations performed, but for those who do not no expiation is possible. Also it is curious that a theorist who makes the sons common property only debars lovers from intercourse and does not prohibit love, nor the other familiarities, which between father and son or brother and brother are most unseemly, since even the fact of love between them is unseemly. And it is also strange that he deprives them of intercourse for no other reason except because the pleasure is too violent; and that he thinks it makes no difference that the parties are in the one case father or son and in the other case brothers of one another. And it seems that this community of wives and sons is more serviceable for the Farmer class than for the Guardians;

+ +
+

for there will be less friendship among them if their children and women are in common, and unfriendliness in the subject classes is a good thing with a view to their being submissive to authority and not making revolution. But speaking generally such a law is bound to bring about the opposite state of things to that which rightly enacted laws ought properly to cause, and because of which Socrates thinks it necessary to make these regulations about the children and women. For we think that friendship is the greatest of blessings for the state, since it is the best safeguard against revolution, and the unity of the state, which Socrates praises most highly, both appears to be and is said by him to be the effect of friendship, just as we know that AristophanesThe comic poet, figuring as a character in Plato’s Symposium, see especially Plat. Sym. 192c ff.. in the discourses on love describes how the lovers owing to their extreme affection desire to grow together and both become one instead of being two. In such a union it would be inevitable that both would be spoiled, or at least one, and in the state friendship would inevitably become watery in consequence of such association, and the expressions my father and my son would quite go out. For just as putting a little sugar into a quantity of water makes the mixture imperceptible, so it also must come about that the mutual relationship based on these names must become imperceptible,since in the republic described by Plato there will be the least possible necessity for people to care for one another as father for sons or as son for father or as brother for brother. For there are two things that most cause men to care for and to love each other, the sense of ownership and the sense of preciousness; and neither motive can be present with the citizens of a state so constituted. Again, as to the transference of some of the children at birth from the Farmers and Artisans to the GuardiansThe three classes in Plato’s Republic. and of others from the Guardians to the Farmers and Artisans, there is much confusion as to how it is to be done; and the parents who give the children and the officials who transfer them are bound to know which they give to whom. And again, the things spoken of above are bound to occur even more with these transferred children, such as outrage, love-making and murder; for the children of the Guardians transferred to the other citizens will no longer speak of the Guardians as brothers and children and fathers and mothers, nor yet will those living among the Guardians so speak of the other classes, so as to be careful not to commit any such offence because of their relationship.

+

Such therefore may be our decision as to community of children and women.

+

In connection with this we have to consider the due regulation of property in a community that is to have the best political institutions: should property be owned in common or privately? This question might indeed be considered separately from the system laid down by law with regard to the children and the women:

+ +

I mean, even if there be separate families as is now the case with all nations, is it better for both the ownership and the employment of property to be in common. . . ,Something has clearly been lost here, signifying or should there be some limited form of communism? for example, should the farms be separate property but the farm-produce be brought into the common stock for consumption (as is the practice with some non-Greek races); or on the contrary should the land be common and farmed in common, but the produce be divided for private use (and this form of communism also is said to prevail among some of the barbarians); or should both farms and produce be common property? Now if the tillers of the soil be of a different classi.e. a class of serfs, like the Helots at Sparta. there might be another and easier system, but if the citizens do the work for themselves, the regulations for the common ownership of property would give more causes for discontent; for if both in the enjoyment of the produce and in the work of production they prove not equal but unequal, complaints are bound to arise between those who enjoy or take much but work little and those who take less but work more. And in general to live together and share all our human affairs is difficult, and especially to share such things as these. And this is shown in the partnerships of fellow-travellers, for almost the greatest number of them quarrel because they come into collision with one another as a result of ordinary matters and trifles; and also we come into collision most with those of our servantswhom we employ most often for ordinary attendance. Community of property therefore involves these and other similar difficulties; and the present system, if further improved by good morals and by the regulation of correct legislation, would be greatly superior. For it will possess the merit of both systems, by which I mean the advantage of property being common and the advantage of its being private. For property ought to be common in a sense but private speaking absolutely. For the superintendence of properties being divided among the owners will not cause these mutual complaints, and will improve the more because each will apply himself to it as to private business of his own; while on the other hand virtue will be exercised to make friends’ goods common goods, as the proverbThe saying was ascribed to Pythgagoras. goes, for the purpose of use. Such a system exists even now in outline in some states, showing that it is not impracticable, and especially in the ones that are well-administered parts of it are realized already and parts might be realized; for individuals while owning their property privately put their own possessions at the service of their friends and make use of their friends’ possessions as common property; for instance in Sparta people use one another’s slaves as virtually their own, as well as horses and hounds, and also use the produce in the fields throughout the country if they need provisions on a journey. It is clear therefore that it is better for possessions to be privately owned, but to make them common property in use; and to train the citizens to this is the special task of the legislator. And moreover to feel that a thing is one’s private property makes an inexpressibly great difference for pleasure;

+ +
+

for the universal feeling of love for oneself is surely not purposeless, but a natural instinct. Selfishness on the other hand is justly blamed; but this is not to love oneself but to love oneself more than one ought, just as covetousness means loving money to excess—since some love of self, money and so on is practically universal. Moreover, to bestow favors and assistance on friends or visitors or comrades is a great pleasure, and a condition of this is the private ownership of property.These advantages therefore do not come to those who carry the unification of the state too far; and in addition to this they manifestly do away with the practice of two virtues, temperance in relation to women (for it is a noble deed to refrain from one through temperance when she belongs to another) and liberality in relation to possessions (for one will not be able to display liberality nor perform a single liberal action, since the active exercise of liberality takes place in the use of possessions).

+

Such legislation therefore has an attractive appearance, and might be thought to be humane; for he who is told about it welcomes it with gladness, thinking that it will result in a marvellous friendliness of everybody towards everybody, especially when somebody denounces the evils at present existing in states as due to the fact thatwealth is not owned in common— I mean lawsuits between citizens about breach of contract, and trials for perjury, and the flattery of the rich.But the real cause of all these evils is not the absence of communism, but wickedness, since we see far more quarrels occurring among those who own or use property in common than among those who have their estates separate; but we notice that those who quarrel as a result of their partnerships are few when compared with the total number of private owners. And again it is just to state not only all the evils that men will lose by adopting communism, but also all the good things; and life in such circumstances is seen to be utterly impossible.

+

The cause of Socrates’ error must be deemed to be that his fundamental assumption was incorrect. It is certain that in a way both the household and the state should be a unit, but they should not be so in every way. For in one way the state as its unification proceeds will cease to be a state, and in another way, though it continues a state, yet by coming near to ceasing to be one it will be a worse state, just as if one turned a harmony into unison or a rhythm into a single foot. The proper thing is for the state, while being a multitude, to be made a partnership and a unity by means of education, as has been said before and it is strange that the very philosopher who intends to introduce a system of education and thinks that this will make the city morally good should fancy that he can regulate society by such measures as have been mentioned instead of by manners and culture and laws, just as the legislator introduced community of property in Sparta and Crete by the institution of public messes.

+ +
+

And this very point also must not be ignored, that attention must be paid to length of time and to the long period of years, in which it would not have escaped notice if these measures were good ones; for nearly all of them have been discovered already, although some of them have not been collected together and others though brought to knowledge are not put into practice. And their value would become most manifest if one could see such a constitution in actual process of formation; for one will only be able to construct Plato’s state by introducing its partitions and dividing up the community into common messes and also into brotherhoods and tribes. So that in the upshot no other regulation will have been enacted except the exemption of the Guardians from the work of agriculture, which is a measure that even now the Spartans attempt to introduce.

+

Moreover, the working of the constitution as a whole in regard to the members of the state has also not been described by Socrates, nor is it easy to say what it will be. Yet the general mass of the citizens of the other classes make almost the bulk of the state, and about these no definite regulations are laid down, as to whether the Farmers also are to have their property in common or to hold it in private ownership, and also whether community of wives and children is to apply to them or not. For if the Farmers are to have the same complete communism, what will be the difference between them and the Guardian class? or what advantage will they gain by submitting to their government? or what consideration will induce them to submit tothe government, unless the Guardians adopt some clever device like that of the Cretans? These have conceded to their slaves all the same rights as they have themselves except that they are forbidden gymnastic exercises and the possession of arms. But if the family life and property of the Farmers are to be such as they are in other states, what sort of communism will there be? For there will inevitably be two states in one, and these antagonistic to one another. For Socrates makes the Guardians a sort of garrison, while the Farmers, Artisans and other classes are the citizens.Or (omitting τοὺς before τεχνίτας) For Socrates makes one set of men guardians, a sort of garrison, and another set farmers and artisans and citizens of the other sorts. But quarrels and lawsuits and all the other evils which according to Socrates exist in actual states will all be found among his citizens too. Yet he says that owing to their education they will not need many regulations such as city and market by-laws and the other regulations of that sort, although he assigns his education only to the Guardians. Again, he makes the Farmers the masters of the estates, for which they pay rent; but they are likely to be far more unmanageable and rebellious than the classes of helots, serfs and slaves in certain states today. However, whether this communism is to be compulsory for the Farmers in the same way as for the Guardians or whether it is not, has as a matter of fact not been definitely stated anywhere, nor is there any information about the connected questions, what are to be the political functions and the education of the lower classes, and the laws affecting them. But it is not easy to discover the answers to these questions, yet the character of the lower classes is of no small importance for the preservation of the community of the Guardians.

+ +
+

But again, if Socrates intends to make the Farmers have their wives in common but their property private, who is to manage the household in the way in which the women’s husbands will carry on the work of the farms? And if the property and the wives of the Farmers are to be common A passage has been lost here.

+

It is also strange that Socrates employs the comparison of the lower animals to show that the women are to have the same occupations as the men, considering that animals have no households to manage. Also Socrates’ method of appointing the magistrates is not a safe one. For he makes the same persons hold office always; but this occasions rebellion even among people of no special distinction, much more so then among high-spirited and warlike men. But it is clear that he is compelled to make the same persons govern always, for the god-given admixture of gold in the soul is not bestowed on some at one time and others at another time, but is always in the same men, and Socrates says that at the moment of birth some men receive an admixture of gold and others of silver and those who are to be the Artisans and Farmers an admixture of copper and iron. And again, although he deprives the Guardians of happiness, he says that it is the duty of the law-giver to make the whole city happy. But it is not possible for the whole to be happy unless most or all of its parts, or some of them, possess happiness. For happiness is not a thing of the same sort as being an even number: that may belong to a whole but not to either of its parts, but happiness cannot belong to the whole and not to its parts. But yet, if the Guardians are not happy, what other class is? For clearly the Artisans and the general mass of the vulgar classes are not.

+

The Republic discussed by Socrates therefore possesses these difficulties and also others not smaller than these.

+

And almost the same holds good of the Laws also, which was written later, so that it will be advantageous to make some small examination of the constitution described in that book as well. For in the Republic Socrates has laid down details about very few matters—regulations about community of wives and children and about property, and the structure of the constitution (for the mass of the population is divided into two parts, one forming the Farmer class and the other the class that defends the state in war, and there is a third class drawn from these latter that forms the council and governs the state), but about the Farmers and the Artisans, whether they are excluded from government or have some part in it, and whether these classes also are to possess arms and to serve in war with the others or not, on these points Socrates has made no decision, but though he thinks that the women ought to serve in war with the Guardians and share the same education, the rest of the discourse he has filled up with external topics, and about the sort of education which it is proper for the Guardians to have.The last clause, and about—to have, has almost certainly been misplaced by a copyist, and should come near the beginning of the sentence, after about property.

-Revision 1.16 2009/07/24 16:49:45 rsingh04 -fixed cvs log keyword +
+

But though the Laws consists for the most part of a treatise on law, the author has said a little about the form of the constitution, and in a desire to make this more suitable for adoption by actual states he brings it round by degrees back to the other form, that of the Republic. For except community in wives and property, he assigns all his other regulations in the same form to both states, for he prescribes for both the same scheme of education, and a life detached from menial tasks, and similarly as regards common meals, except that in the state described in the Laws he says there are to be common meals for women also, and he makes the Republic consist of a class possessing arms that numbers a thousand, but the state of the Laws has five thousand.

+

Now it is true that all the discourses of Socrates possess brilliance, cleverness, originality and keenness of inquiry, but it is no doubt difficult to be right about everything: for instance with regard to the size of population just mentioned it must not be over-looked that a territory as large as that of Babylon will be needed for so many inhabitants, or some other country of unlimited extent, to support five thousand men in idleness and another swarm of women and servants around them many times as numerous. It is proper no doubt to assume ideal conditions, but not to go beyond all bounds of possibility. And it is said that in laying down the laws the legislator must have his attention fixed on two things,the territory and the population. But also it would be well to add that he must take into account the neighboring regions also, if the city is to live a life of politicsi.e. a life of intercourse with other states, cf. 1327b 5. Some mss. add not one of isolation; this looks like an explanatory note interpolated. (for it is necessary for it to use for war not only such arms as are serviceable within its own territory but also such as are serviceable against places outside it); and if one does not accept such a description whether for the life of the individual or for the common life of the state, yet it is none the less necessary for the citizens to be formidable to their enemies not only when they have entered the country but also when they have left it.Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give when they are away from it. Also the amount of property requires consideration: would it not perhaps be better to define it differently, by a clearer formula? The writer says that it ought to be sufficiently large for the citizens to live a temperate life—as if one were to say to live a good life; but really that phrase is too general, since it is possible to live temperately yet miserably. But a better definition would be to live temperately and liberally (for if the two are separated a liberal mode of life is liable to slip into luxury and a temperate one into a life of hardship), since surely these are the only desirable qualities relating to the use of wealth—for instance you cannot use wealth gently or bravely, but you can use it temperately and liberally, so that it follows that these are qualities that have to do with wealth. And it is also strange that although equalizing properties the writer does not regulate the number of the citizens, but leaves the birth-rate uncontrolled, on the assumption that it will be sufficiently levelled up to the same total owing to childless marriages, however many children are begotten,

+ +
+

because this seems to take place in the states at present. But this ought to be regulated much more in the supposed case than it is now, for now nobody is destitute, because estates are divided among any number, but then, as division of estates will not be allowed, the extra children will necessarily have nothing, whether they are fewer in number or more. And one might think that restriction ought to be put on the birth-rate rather than on property, so as not to allow more than a certain number of children to be produced, and that in fixing their number consideration should be paid to the chances of its happening that some of the children born may die, and to the absence of children in the other marriages; but for the matter to be left alone, as it is in most states, is bound to lead to poverty among the citizens, and poverty produces sedition and crime. The Corinthian PhidonOtherwise unknown. in fact, one of the most ancient lawgivers, thought that the house-holds and the citizen population ought to remain at the same numbers, even though at the outset the estates of all were unequal in size; but in Plato’s Laws the opposite is the case.i.e. the estates are equal, and the number of households fixed, but not the number of citizens. However, we must say later what we think would be a better system in these matters; but another question omitted in the Laws is how the rulers will be different from the classes ruled; the writer prescribesthat the rulers are to stand in the same relation to the ruled as the warp of cloth stands to the woof by being made of different wool. Plat. Laws 734e ff. In weaving cloth the warp (the threads set up first) must be of strong wool, the woof (the threads woven across the warp) must be softer. And inasmuch as he allows a man’s total property to be increased up to five times its original value, for what reason should not an increase in his landed estate be allowed up to a certain point? Also it must be considered whether the proposed separation of homesteads is not inexpedient for household economy—for the writer allotted two homesteads separate from one another to each citizen; but it is difficult to manage two households.The object was to provide a separate establishment for a married son, Plat. Laws 776a. And the whole constitution is intended, it is true, to be neither a democracy nor an oligarchy, but of the form intermediate between them which is termed a republic, for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms. If therefore he introduces this constitution as the one most commonly existing of all forms of constitution in the actual states, he has perhaps made a good proposal, but if he introduces it as the next best to the first form of constitution, it is not a good proposal; for very likely one might approve the Spartan constitution more highly, or perhaps some other form nearer to an aristocracy. In fact some people assert that the best constitution must be a combination of all the forms of constitution, and therefore praise the constitution of Sparta (for some people say that it consists of oligarchy, monarchy and democracy, meaning that the kingship is monarchy and the rule of the ephors oligarchy, but that an element of democracy is introduced by the rule of the ephors because the ephors come from the common people; while others pronounce the ephorate a tyranny but find an element of democracy in the public mess-tables and in the other regulations of daily life).

+
+

In Plato’s Laws on the other hand it is stated that the best constitution must consist of a combination of democracy and tyranny,Plato wrote monarchy, Plat. Laws 693d (cf. here 3.13). which one might refuse to count as constitutional governments at all, or else rank as the worst of all constitutions. A better theory therefore is put forward by those who intermingle a larger number of forms, for the constitution composed of a combination of a larger number of forms is better. In the next place, the constitution in the Laws proves as a matter of fact not to contain any element of monarchy at all, but its factors are taken from oligarchy and democracy, and for the most part it tends to incline towards oligarchy. This appears from the regulations for the appointment of the magistrates; for their selection by lot from a list previously elected by vote is a feature common to both oligarchy and democracy, but the compulsion put upon the richer citizens to attend the assembly and vote for magistrates or perform any other political function, while the others are allowed to do as they like, is oligarchical, as is the endeavor to secure that a majority of the magistrates shall be drawn from the wealthy and that the highest offices shall be filled from the highest of the classes assessed by wealth. But the writer also makes the election of the council oligarchical for everybody is compelled to elect, but from the first property-class, and then again an equal number from the second class, and then from the members of the third class, except that it was not to be compulsory for all to vote for those to be elected from the members of the third or the fourth class, and to elect from the fourth class was only compulsory for the members of the first and second classes; and afterwards from those thus selected he says that they are to appointan equal number from each class. Thus those who elect the members from the highest property classes will be more numerous and better,i.e. a better ellective body because representative of all classes. because some of the lower orders will abstain from votingi.e. from voting for the preliminary list from the third and fourth classes. as it is not compulsory. Accordingly that it is not proper to establish a constitution of this character from a blend of democracy and monarchy appears clearly from these considerations, and from what will be said later when our inquiry comes to deal with this class of constitution; also the provision for the election of the rulers from among candidates chosen at a preliminary election is dangerous, for if even a moderate number of people choose to combine into a party, the elections will always go according to their wish.

+

Such are the points as to the constitution in the Laws.

+

There are also certain other constitutional schemes, some drawn up by amateurs and others by philosophers and statesmen, but all of them are nearer to those which have been actually established and by which states are governed at present than are both of those which have been considered; for nobody else has introduced the innovation of community of children and women, nor that of public meals for the women, but they start rather with the necessary reforms. For some persons think that the right regulation of property is the most important; for the question of property, they say, is universally the cause of party strife. Therefore the Chalcedonian PhaleasOtherwise unknown. was the first who introduced this expedient;

+ +
+

for he says that the citizens’ estates ought to be equal and he thought that this would not be difficult to secure at the outset for cities in process of foundation, while in those already settled, although it would be a more irksome task, nevertheless a levelling would most easily be effected by the rich giving dowries but not receiving them and the poor receiving but not giving them. Plato when writing the Laws thought that up to a certain point inequality ought to be allowed, but that no citizen should be permitted to acquire more land than would make his estate five times the size of the smallest, as has also been said before.

+

But those who bring in legislation of this sort must also not overlook this point, which is overlooked at present, that when regulating the amount of property legislators ought also to regulate the size of the family; for if the number of children becomes too large for the property, the law is quite sure to be broken, and apart from the breach of the law it is a bad thing that many citizens who were rich should become poor, for it is difficult for such men not to be advocates of a new order. That a level standard of property affects the community of the citizens in an important manner some men even in old times clearly have recognized; for example there is the legislation of Solon, and other states have a law prohibiting the acquisition of land to any amount that the individual may desire; and similarly there is legislation to prevent the sale of estates, as at Locri there is a lawthat a man shall not sell unless he can prove that manifest misfortune has befallen him and also there is legislation to preserve the old allotments, and the repeal of this restriction at Leucas made the Leucadian constitution excessively democratic, for it came about that the offices were no longer filled from the established property-qualifications. But it is possible that equality of estates may be maintained, but their size may be either too large and promote luxury, or too small, causing a penurious standard of living; it is clear therefore that it is not enough for the lawgiver to make the estates equal, but he must aim at securing a medium size. And again, even if one prescribed a moderate property for all, it would be of no avail, since it is more needful to level men’s desires than their properties, and this can only be done by an adequate system of education enforced by law. But perhaps Phaleas would say that he himself actually prescribes this, as he considers it fundamentally necessary for states to have equality in these two things, property and education. But the nature of the education needs to be defined: it is no use merely for it to be one and the same for all, for it is possible for all to have one and the same education but for this to be of such a nature as to make them desirous of getting more than their share of money or honor or both; moreoverProbably the Greek should be altered to give because instead of moreover. civil strife is caused not only by inequality of property but also by inequality of honors, though the two motives operate in opposite ways—the masses are discontented if possessions are unequally distributed,

+ +
+

the upper classes if honors are equally distributed, bringing it about that Noble and base in equal honor stand. Hom. Il. 9.319 Nor do men do wrong for the sake of the bare necessities only, the sort of wrongdoing for which Phaleas thinks that equality of substance is a cure—preventing highway robbery by removing the motive of cold or hunger; men also do wrong to gain pleasure and to satisfy desire. For if they have a desire above the bare necessities of existence, they will transgress to cure this desire; and moreover not because of desire only, but in order that they may enjoy the pleasures that are not associated with pains. What remedy then is there for these three classes of offenders? For the first class, a modest competence and work; for the second, temperance; and as for the third sort, any people who desire pleasures that depend on themselves would require no cure for their desires save that which is derived from philosophy, for the other pleasures require the aid of fellow-creatures. Since clearly the greatest transgressions spring from a desire for superfluities, not for bare necessaries (for example, men do not become tyrants in order to avoid shivering with cold, and accordingly high honors are awarded to one who kills a tyrant, but not to one who kills a thief); so that the method of the constitution of Phaleas is efficacious only against the minor social disorders. Again, Phaleas desires to frame institutions for the most part which will lead to a right state of affairs in the internal relations of the citizens, but the legislator should also have regard to relations with the neighboring peoples and with all foreign nations.It is essential therefore for the constitution to be framed with a view to military strength, about which Phaleas has said nothing. And the same is true also about property; for the citizens should not only possess enough to meet their requirements in civic life, but also to encounter the perils that face them from outside; hence they should possess neither so large an amount of wealth that it will be coveted by their neighbors and by stronger states while its possessors will be unable to repel their assailants, nor yet so small an amount as not to be capable of sustaining a war even against equal and similar states. Phaleas, it is true, has laid down no rule at all, but the question must not be overlooked, what amount of wealth is advantageous. Perhaps therefore the best limit to prescribe is that it must not profit a stronger people to make war upon the state because of its excessive wealth, but only just as it might do even if the citizens had not got so much property. For example, when Autophradates was about to lay siege to Atarneus,A stronghold on the coast of Asia Minor acquired by Eubulus, a Bithynian banker, when the Persian empire was breaking up, middle 4th century B.C.; Autophradates was a Persian general. Eubulus bade him consider how long it would take him to capture the place, and then calculate what his expenditure would be for that period, for he himself was willing for the payment of a smaller sum than that to evacuate Atarneus at once; these words caused Autophradates to ponder and led him to abandon the siege. Now equality of property among the citizens is certainly one of the factors that contribute to the avoidance of party faction; it is not however a particularly important one. For the upper classes may resent it on the ground that their merits are not equal, owing to which we actually see them often attacking the government and rebelling;

+ +
+

and also the baseness of human beings is a thing insatiable, and though at the first a dole of only two obolsTwopence-halfpenny for a seat in the theater at Athens paid for citizens by the State after the time of Pericles. is enough, yet when this has now become an established custom, they always want more, until they get to an unlimited amount; for appetite is in its nature unlimited, and the majority of mankind live for the satisfaction of appetite. The starting-point in such matters therefore, rather than levelling estates, is to train those that are respectable by nature so that they may not wish for excessive wealth, and to contrive that the base may not be able to do so, and this is secured if they are inferior in number and not unjustly treated. And also we cannot approve what Phaleas has said about equality of property, for he makes the citizens equal in respect of landed estate only, but wealth also consists in slaves and cattle and money, and there is an abundance of property in the shape of what is called furniture; we must therefore either seek to secure equality or some moderate regulation as regards all these things, or we must permit all forms of wealth. And it is clear from Phaleas’s legislation that he makes the citizen-population a small one, inasmuch as all the artisans are to be publicly owned slaves and are not to furnish any complement of the citizen-body. But if it is proper to have public slaves, the laborers employed upon the public works ought to be of that status (as is the case at Epidamnus and as Diophantus once tried to institute at Athens).

+

These remarks may serve fairly well to indicate such meritsand defects as may be contained in the constitution of Phaleas.

+

HippodamusA famous architect and town-planner (see 1330b 24) circa 475 B.C. son of Euryphon, a Milesian (who invented the division of cities into blocks and cut up Piraeus, and who also became somewhat eccentric in his general mode of life owing to a desire for distinction, so that some people thought that he lived too fussily, with a quantity of hairAt Sparta men wore their hair long, but at Athens this was the mark of a dandy. and expensive ornaments, and also a quantity of cheap yet warm clothes not only in winter but also in the summer periods, and who wished to be a man of learning in natural science generally), was the first man not engaged in politics who attempted to speak on the subject of the best form of constitution. His system was for a city with a population of ten thousand, divided into three classes; for he made one class of artisans, one of farmers, and the third the class that fought for the state in war and was the armed class. He divided the land into three parts, one sacred, one public and one private: sacred land to supply the customary offerings to the gods, common land to provide the warrior class with food, and private land to be owned by the farmers. He thought that there are only three divisions of the law, since the matters about which lawsuits take place are three in number—outrage, damage, homicide. He also proposed to establish one supreme court of justice, to which were to be carried up all the cases at law thought to have been decided wrongly, and this court he made to consist of certain selected elders.

+ +
+

He held that the verdicts in the courts ought not to be given by ballot, but that each juryman should bring a tablet on which if he found a simple verdict of guilty he should write the penalty, and if simply not guilty leave a blank, but if he found the prisoner guilty on some counts but not on others he should state this; for the present state of the law he thought unsatisfactory, since it forces jurors to commit perjury by giving either the one verdict or the other. He proposed a law that those who discovered something of advantage to the state should receive honor, and that the children of those who died in war should have their maintenance from the state, in the belief that this had never yet been provided by law among other people—but as a matter of fact this law exists at present both at Athens and in others of the cities. The governing officials were all to be chosen by the assembly of the people, and this he made to consist of the three classes of the city; and the officials elected were to superintend the business of the community and the affairs of foreign residents and of orphans. These then are the greatest number and the most noteworthy of the provisions in the system of Hippodamus. But doubt might be raised first of all about the division of the general mass of the citizens. The artisans, the farmers and the military class all participate in the government, though the farmers have not got arms and the artisans neither arms nor land,which makes them almost the slaves of those who possess the arms. Therefore for them to share in all the offices is impossible (for it is inevitable that both military commanders and civic guards and in general the most important offices should be appointed from those that have the arms); but if they do not share in the government of the state, how is it possible for them to be friendly towards the constitution? But it may be said that the ruling class as possessing the arms is bound to be stronger than both classes. But this is not easy if they are not numerous and if this be the case, why should the other classes participate in the government and control the appointment of the rulers?As military posts must be filled by the military class, the civilians will feel excluded and be disaffected; and the military class may not be strong enough to control them. Better, then, not to give full citizenship to civilians. Again, what use are the farmers to the state? artisans there must necessarily be (for every state requires artisans), and they can make a living as in the other states from the practice of their craft; but as for the farmers, although it would have been reasonable for them to be a portion of the state if they provided the class possessing the arms with its food, as it is they have private land of their own and farm it for themselves. And again, if the common land from which those who fight for the state are to have their food is to be farmed by themselves, the military class would not be different from the agricultural, but the legislator intends it to be; while if the cultivators of the common land are to be a different set of people from both those who cultivate the private farms and the soldiers, this will be yet a forth section of the state, holding no part in it but quite estranged from the government. But yet if one is to make those who cultivate the private and the common land the same people, the amount of the produce from the farms which each man will cultivate will be scanty for two households,

+ +
+

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 minaeThe mina, 100 drachmas, may be put at 4 pounds (gold). 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 jurorwho 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,

-Revision 1.15 2009/07/15 19:55:10 student -edited entity tags up to line 4264 CEH +
+

as for example at Cyme there is a law relating to trials for murder, that if the prosecutor on the charge of murder produces a certain number of his own relatives as witnesses, the defendant is guilty of the murder. And in general all men really seek what is good, not what was customary with their forefathers; and it is probable that primitive mankind, whether sprung from the earthSo Hes. WD 108, Pind. N. 6.1. or the survivors of some destructive cataclysm,So Plat. Laws 676 ff., Plat. Tim. 22 ff. Aristotle believed that man had existed for ever, and that the world had experienced only local cataclysms. were just like ordinary foolish people, as indeed is actually said of the earth-born race, so that it is odd that we should abide by their notions. Moreover even written codes of law may with advantage not be left unaltered. For just as in the other arts as well, so with the structure of the state it is impossible that it should have been framed aright in all its details; for it must of necessity be couched in general terms, but our actions deal with particular things. These considerations therefore make it clear that it is proper for some laws sometimes to be altered. But if we consider the matter in another way, it would seem to be a thing that needs much caution. For when it is the case that the improvement would be small, but it is a bad thing to accustom men to repeal the laws lightly, it is clear that some mistakes both of the legislator and of the magistrate should be passed over; for the people will not be as much benefited by making an alteration as they will be harmed by becoming accustomed to distrust their rulers. Also, the example from the case of the arts is a mistake, as to change the practice of an art is a different thing from altering a law; for the law has no power to compel obedience beside the force of custom, and custom only grows up in long lapse of time, so that lightly to change from the existing laws to other new laws is to weaken the power of the law. Again, even if alteration of the laws is proper, are all the laws to be open to alteration, and in every form of constitution, or not? and is any chance person to be competent to introduce alterations or only certain people? for there is a great difference between these alternatives. Therefore let us abandon this inquiry for the present, since it belongs to other occasions.

+

On the subject of the constitution of Sparta and that of Crete, and virtually in regard to the other forms of constitution also, the questions that arise for consideration are two, one whether their legal structure has any feature that is admirable or the reverse in comparison with the best system, another whether it contains any provision that is really opposed to the fundamental principle and character of the constitution that the founders had in view.

+

Now it is a thing admitted that a state that is to be well governed must be provided with leisure from menial occupations; but how this is to be provided it is not easy to ascertain. The serf class in Thessaly repeatedly rose against its masters, and so did the Helots at Sparta, where they are like an enemy constantly sitting in wait for the disasters of the Spartiates. Nothing of the kind has hitherto occurred in Crete, the reason perhaps being that the neighboring cities,

+ +
+

even when at war with one another, in no instance ally themselves with the rebels, because as they themselves also possess a serf class this would not be for their interest; whereas the Laconians were entirely surrounded by hostile neighbors, Argives, Messenians and Arcadians. For with the Thessalians too the serf risings originally began because they were still at war with their neighbors, the Achaeans, Perraebi and Magnesians. Also, apart from other drawbacks, the mere necessity of policing a serf class is an irksome burden—the problem of how intercourse with them is to be carried on: if allowed freedom they grow insolent and claim equal rights with their masters, and if made to live a hard life they plot against them and hate them. It is clear therefore that those whose helot-system works out in this way do not discover the best mode of treating the problem. Again, the freedom in regard to women is detrimental both in regard to the purpose of the constitution and in regard to the happiness of the state. For just as man and wife are part of a household, it is clear that the state also is divided nearly in half into its male and female population, so that in all constitutions in which the position of the women is badly regulated one half of the state must be deemed to have been neglected in framing the law. And this has taken place in the state under consideration,for the lawgiver wishing the whole city to be of strong character displays his intention clearly in relation to the men, but in the case of the women has entirely neglected the matter; for they live dissolutelyThe textual emendation giving live without restraint is probably correct. in respect of every sort of dissoluteness, and luxuriously. So that the inevitable result is that in a state thus constituted wealth is held in honor, especially if it is the case that the people are under the sway of their women, as most of the military and warlike races are, except the Celts and such other races as have openly held in honor passionate friendship between males. For it appears that the original teller of the legend had good reason for uniting Ares with Aphrodite, for all men of martial spirit appear to be attracted to the companionship either of male associates or of women. Hence this characteristic existed among the Spartans, and in the time of their empire many things were controlled by the women; yet what difference does it make whether the women rule or the rulers are ruled by the women? The result is the same. And although bravery is of service for none of the regular duties of life, but if at all, in war, even in this respect the Spartans’ women were most harmful; and they showed this at the time of the Theban invasion,Under Epaminondas, 369 B.C. for they rendered no useful service, as the women do in other states, while they caused more confusion than the enemy. It is true therefore that at the outset the freedom allowed to women at Sparta seems to have come about with good reason,

+ +
+

for the Spartans used to be away in exile abroad for long periods on account of their military expeditions, both when fighting the war against the Argives and again during the war against the Arcadians and Messenians; but when they had turned to peaceful pursuits, although they handed over themselves to the lawgiver already prepared for obedience by military life (for this has many elements of virtue), as for the women it is said that Lycurgus did attempt to bring them under the laws, but since they resisted he gave it up. So the Spartan women are, it is true, responsible for what took place, and therefore manifestly for this mistake among the rest; although for our own part we are not considering the question who deserves excuse or does not, but what is the right or wrong mode of action. But, as was also said before, errors as regards the status of women seem not only to cause a certain unseemliness in the actual conduct of the state but to contribute in some degree to undue love of money. For next to the things just spoken of one might censure the Spartan institutions with respect to the unequal distribution of wealth. It has come about that some of the Spartans own too much property and some extremely little; owing to which the land has fallen into few hands, and this has also been badly regulated by the laws;for the lawgiver made it dishonorable to sell a family’s existing estate, and did so rightly, but he granted liberty to alienate land at will by gift or bequest; yet the result that has happened was bound to follow in the one case as well as in the other. And also nearly two-fifths of the whole area of the country is owned by women, because of the number of women who inherit estates and the practice of giving large dowries; yet it would have been better if dowries had been prohibited by law or limited to a small or moderate amount . . .A clause seems to have been lost: Also it would have been better to regulate by law the marriage of heiresses. But as it is he is allowed to give an heiress in marriage to whomever he likes; and if he dies without having made directions as to this by will, whoever he leaves as his executor bestows her upon whom he chooses. As a result of thisi.e. the consequent fall in the number of men rich enough to keep a horse or even to provide themselves with heavy arms. although the country is capable of supporting fifteen hundred cavalry and thirty thousand heavy-armed troopers, they numbered not even a thousand. And the defective nature of their system of land-tenure has been proved by the actual facts of history: the state did not succeed in enduring a single blow,The battle of Leuctra, 371 B.C. but perished owing to the smallness of its population. They have a tradition that in the earlier reigns they used to admit foreigners to their citizenship, with the result that dearth of population did not occur in those days, although they were at war for a long period; and it is stated that at one time the Spartiates numbered as many as ten thousand. However, whether this is true or not, it is better for a state’s male population to be kept up by measures to equalize property. The law in relation to parentage is also somewhat adverse to the correction of this evil.

+ +
+

For the lawgiver desiring to make the Spartiates as numerous as possible holds out inducements to the citizens to have as many children as possible: for they have a law releasing the man who has been father of three sons from military service, and exempting the father of four from all taxes. Yet it is clear that if a number of sons are born and the land is correspondingly divided there will inevitably come to be many poor men.

+

Moreover the regulations for the EphorateThe five Ephors, elected for a year by the people, were the real rulers of Sparta. The two kings were hereditary; the senate of twenty-eight nobles advised them, and the Ephors presided at the Assembly of citizens over thirty years old, who voted on the measures of the Kings and Ephors but could not discuss them. The small fleet was commanded by a single admiral appointed for a year by the Ephors and not allowed to hold office twice. are also bad. For this office has absolute control over their most important affairs, but the Ephors are appointed from the entire people, so that quite poor men often happen to get into the office, who owing to their poverty used to bePerhaps the Greek should be altered to give are. easily bought. This was often manifested in earlier times, and also lately in the affairUnknown at Andros; for certain Ephors were corrupted with money and so far as lay in their power ruined the whole state. And because the office was too powerful, and equal to a tyranny, the kings also were compelled to cultivate popular favor, so that in this way too the constitution was jointly injured, for out of an aristocracy came to be evolved a democracy. Thus this office does, it is true, hold together the constitution—for the common people keep quiet because they have a share in the highest office of state, so that whether this is due to the lawgiver orhas come about by chance, the Ephorate is advantageous for the conduct of affairs; for if a constitution is to be preserved, all the sections of the state must wish it to exist and to continue on the same lines; so the kings are in this frame of mind owing to their own honorable rank, the nobility owing to the office of the Elders, which is a prize of virtue, and the common people because of the Ephorate, which is appointed from the whole population— but yet the Ephorate, though rightly open to all the citizens, ought not to be elected as it is now, for the method is too childish.There is no clear evidence what the method was. And further the Ephors have jurisdiction in lawsuits of high importance, although they are any chance people, so that it would be better if they did not decide cases on their own judgement but by written rules and according to the laws. Also the mode of life of the Ephors is not in conformity with the aim of the state, for it is itself too luxurious, whereas in the case of the other citizens the prescribed life goes too far in the direction of harshness, so that they are unable to endure it, and secretly desert the law and enjoy the pleasures of the body. Also their regulations for the office of the Elders are not good; it is true that if these were persons of a high class who had been adequately trained in manly valor, one might perhaps say that the institution was advantageous to the state, although their life-tenure of the judgeship in important trials is indeed a questionable feature (for there is old age of mind as well as of body);

+ +
+

but as their education has been on such lines that even the lawgiver himself cannot trust in them as men of virtue, it is a dangerous institution. And it is known that those who have been admitted to this office take bribes and betray many of the public interests by favoritism; so that it would be better if they were not exempt from having to render an account of their office, but at present they are. And it might be held that the magistracy of the Ephors serves to hold all the offices to account; but this gives altogether too much to the Ephorate, and it is not the way in which, as we maintain, officials ought to be called to account. Again, the procedure in the election of the Elders as a mode of selection is not only childish, but it is wrong that one who is to be the holder of this honorable office should canvass for it, for the man worthy of the office ought to hold it whether he wants to or not. But as it is the lawgiver clearly does the same here as in the rest of the constitution: he makes the citizens ambitious and has used this for the election of the Elders, for nobody would ask for office if he were not ambitious; yet surely ambition and love of money are the motives that bring about almost the greatest part of the voluntary wrongdoing that takes place among mankind. As to monarchy, the question whether it is not or is an advantageous institution for states to possessmay be left to another discussion; but at all events it would be advantageous that kings should not be appointed as they are now, but chosen in each case with regard to their own life and conduct. But it is clear that even the lawgiver himself does not suppose that he can make the kings men of high character: at all events he distrusts them as not being persons of sufficient worth owing to which the Spartans used to send kings who were enemies as colleagues on embassies, and thought that the safety of the state depended on division between the kings. Also the regulations for the the public mess-tables called Phiditia have been badly laid down by their originator. The revenue for these ought to come rather from public funds, as in Crete; but among the Spartans everybody has to contribute, although some of them are very poor and unable to find money for this charge, so that the result is the opposite of what the lawgiver purposed. For he intends the organization of the common tables to be democratic, but when regulated by the law in this manner it works out as by no means democratic; for it is not easy for the very poor to participate, yet their ancestral regulation of the citizenship is that it is not to belong to one who is unable to pay this tax. The law about the Admirals has been criticized by some other writers also, and rightly criticized; for it acts as a cause of sedition, since in addition to the kings who are military commanders the office of Admiral stands almost as another kingship. Another criticism that may be made against the fundamental principle of the lawgiver is one that Plato has made in the Laws.

+ +
+

The entire system of the laws is directed towards one part of virtue only, military valor, because this is serviceable for conquest. Owing to this they remained secure while at war, but began to decline when they had won an empire, because they did not know how to live a life of leisure, and had been trained in no other form of training more important than the art of war. And another error no less serious than that one is this: they think that the coveted prizes of life are won by valor more than by cowardice, and in this they are right, yet they imagine wrongly that these prizes are worth more than the valor that wins them. The public finance of Sparta is also badly regulated: when compelled to carry on wars on a large scale she has nothing in the state treasury, and the Spartiates pay war taxes badly because, as most of the land is owned by them, they do not scrutinize each other’s contributions. And the lawgiver has achieved the opposite result to what is advantageous—he has made the state poor and the individual citizen covetous.

+

So much for a discussion of the constitution of Sparta: for these are the main points in it for criticism.

+

The Cretan constitution approximates to that of Sparta, but though in a few points it is not worse framed, for the larger part it has a less perfect finish. For the Spartan constitution appears and indeed is actually statede.g. by Hdt 1.65. to have been copied in most of its provisions from the Cretan; and as a rule old things have been less fully elaborated than newer ones. For it is said that when Lycurgus relinquished his post as guardian of King CharilausPosthumous son of Lycurgus’s elder brother King Polydectes; cf.1316a 34. and went abroad, he subsequently passed most of his time in Crete because of the relationship between the Cretans and the Spartans; for the Lyctians Lyctus was an inland city in the east of Crete, not far from Cnossus. were colonists from Sparta, and the settlers that went out to the colony found the system of laws already existing among the previous inhabitants of the place; owing to which the neighboring villagers even now use these laws in the same manner, in the belief that MinosLegendary ruler of Crete, son of Zeus and Europa, and after death a judge in the lower world. first instituted this code of laws. And also the island appears to have been designed by nature and to be well situated to be under Greek rule, as it lies across the whole of the sea, round which almost all the Greeks are settled; for Crete is only a short distance from the Peloponnese in one direction, and from the part of Asia around Triopium and from Rhodes in the other. Owing to this Minos won the empire of the sea,See Thuc. 1.4, 8. The tradition of the wealth of Minos is supported by the recent excavations at Cnossus. and made some of the islands subject to him and settled colonies in others, but finally when making an attack on Sicily he ended his life there near Camicus.

+

The Cretan organization is on the same lines as that of Sparta. In Sparta the land is tilled by the Helots and in Crete by the serfs;

+ +
+

and also both have public mess-tables, and in old days the Spartans called them not phiditia but men’s messes, as the Cretans do, which is a proof that they came from Crete. And so also did the system of government; for the Ephors have the same power as the magistrates called Cosmi in Crete, except that the Ephors are five in number and the Cosmi ten; and the Elders at Sparta are equal in number to the Elders whom the Cretans call the Council; and monarchy existed in former times, but then the Cretans abolished it, and the Cosmi hold the leadership in war; and all are members of the Assembly, though it has no powers except the function of confirming by vote the resolutions already formed by the Elders and the Cosmi.

+

Now the Cretan arrangements for the public mess-tables are better than the Spartan; for at Sparta each citizen pays a fixed poll-tax, failing which he is prevented by law from taking part in the government, as has been said before; but in Crete the system is more communal, for out of all the crops and cattle produced from the public lands, and the tributes paid by the serfs, one part is assigned for the worship of the gods and the maintenance of the public services,and the other for the public mess-tables, so that all the citizens are maintained from the common funds, women and children as well as men; and the lawgiver has devised many wise measures to secure the benefit of moderation at table, and the segregation of the women in order that they may not bear many children, for which purpose he instituted association with the male sex, as to which there will be another occasionThis promise is not fulfilled to consider whether it was a bad thing or a good one. That the regulations for the common mess-tables therefore are better in Crete than at Sparta is manifest; but the regulations for the Cosmi are even worse than those regarding the Ephors. For the evil attaching to the office of the Ephors belongs to the Cosmi also, as the post is filled by any chance persons, while the benefit conferred on the government by this office at Sparta is lacking in Crete. At Sparta, as the election is made from all the citizens, the common people sharing in the highest office desire the maintenance of the constitution, but in Crete they do not elect the Cosmi from all the citizens but from certain clans, and the Elders from those who have held the office of Cosmos, about which regulations the same comments might be made as about what takes place at Sparta: their freedom from being called to account and their tenure for life gives them greater rank than their merit deserves, and their administration of their office at their own discretion and not under the guidance of a written code is dangerous. And the fact that the common people quietly tolerate their exclusion is no proof that the arrangement is a sound one; for the Cosmi unlike the Ephors make no sort of profit, as they live in an island remote from any people to corrupt them.

+ +
+

Also the remedy which they employ for this defecti.e. the defect of the undue restriction of the office. is a curious one, and less characteristic of a republic than of a dynastySee 1292b 10 n.: often the Cosmi are expelled by a conspiracy formed among some of their actual colleagues or the private citizens. Also the Cosmi are allowed to resign during their term of office. Now it would be preferable for all these expedients to be put in force by law rather than at the discretion of individuals, for that is a dangerous principle. And the worst expedient of all is that of the suspension of the office of Cosmi, which is often brought about by members of the powerful class who wish to escape being punished; this proves that the constitution has a republican element, although it is not actually a republic but rather a dynasty.See 1292b 10 n. And the nobles frequently form parties among the common people and among their friends and so bring about a suspension of government,The MSS. give bring about a monarchy. and form factions and engage in war with one another. Yet such a state of things is virtually the same as if for a period of time the state underwent an entire revolution, and the bonds of civil society were loosened.

+

And it is a precarious position for a state to be in, when those who wish to attack it also have the power to do so. But, as has been said, it is saved by its locality; for distance has had the same effect as alien-acts.Aliens required special permission to reside at Sparta, and the ephors had powers to expel them for undesirable conduct. A result of this is that with the Cretans the serf population stands firm, whereas the Helots often revolt; for the Cretanstake no part in foreign empire, and also the island has only lately been invaded by warfare from abroad, rendering manifest the weakness of the legal system there.

+

Let this suffice for our discussion of this form of constitution.

+

Carthage also appears to have a good constitution, with many outstanding features as compared with those of other nations, but most nearly resembling the Spartan in some points. For these three constitutions are in a way near to one another and are widely different from the others—the Cretan, the Spartan and, thirdly, that of Carthage. Many regulations at Carthage are good; and a proof of a well-regulated constitution is that the populace willingly remain faithful to the constitutional system, and that neither civil strife has arisen in any degree worth mentioning, nor yet a tyrant.

Points in which the Carthaginian constitution resembles the Spartan are the common mess-tables of its Comradeships corresponding to the Phiditia, and the magistracy of the Hundred and Four corresponding to the Ephors (except one point of superiority—the Ephors are drawn from any class, but the Carthaginians elect this magistracy by merit); the kings and the council of Elders correspond to the kings and Elders at Sparta, and it is another superior feature that the Carthaginian kings are not confined to the same family and that one of no particular distinction, and also that if any family distinguishes itself . . .Clauses seem to have been lost concluding the account of the appointment of the Kings and turning to the Elders and their selection on grounds of wealth. the Elders are to be chosen from these rather than by age; for as they are put in control of important matters, if they are men of no value they do great harm,

+ +
+

and they have already injured the Spartan State.

+

Most of the points therefore in the Carthaginian system that would be criticized on the ground of their divergences happen to be common to all the constitutions of which we have spoken; but the features open to criticism as judged by the principle of an aristocracy or republic are some of them departures in the direction of democracy and others in the direction of oligarchy. The reference of some matters and not of others to the popular assembly rests with the kings in consultation with the Elders in case they agreei.e. agree to refer or not to refer unanimously, but failing that, these matters also lie with the peoplei.e. even when the Kings only or the Elders only desire reference, it takes place; and when the kings introduce business in the assembly, they do not merely let the people sit and listen to the decisions that have been taken by their rulers, but the people have the sovereign decision, and anybody who wishes may speak against the proposals introduced, a right that does not exist under the other constitutions. The appointment by co-optation of the Boards of Five which control many important matters, and the election by these boards of the supreme magistracy of the Hundred, and also their longer tenure of authority than that of any other officers (for they are in power after they have gone out of office and before they have actually entered upon it) are oligarchical features; their receiving no pay and not being chosen by lot and other similar regulations must be set down as aristocratic, and so must the fact that the members of the Boards are the judges in all lawsuits,instead of different suits being tried by different courts as at Sparta. But the Carthaginian system diverges from aristocracy in the direction of oligarchy most signally in respect of a certain idea that is shared by the mass of mankind; they think that the rulers should be chosen not only for their merit but also for their wealth, as it is not possible for a poor man to govern well or to have leisure for his duties. If therefore election by wealth is oligarchical and election by merit aristocratic, this will be a third system exhibited in the organization of the constitution of Carthage, for there elections are made with an eye to these two qualifications, and especially elections to the most important offices, those of the kings and of the generals. But it must be held that this divergence from aristocracy is an error on the part of a lawgiver; for one of the most important points to keep in view from the outset is that the best citizens may be able to have leisure and may not have to engage in any unseemly occupation, not only when in office but also when living in private life. And if it is necessary to look to the question of means for the sake of leisure, it is a bad thing that the greatest offices of state, the kingship and the generalship, should be for sale. For this law makes wealth more honored than worth, and renders the whole state avaricious; and whatever the holders of supreme power deem honorable, the opinion of the other citizens also is certain to follow them, and a state in which virtue is not held in the highest honor cannot be securely governed by an aristocracy.

+ +
+

And it is probable that those who purchase office will learn by degrees to make a profit out of it, when they hold office for money spent; for it would be odd if a man of small means but respectable should want to make a profit but an inferior person when he has spent money to get elected should not want to. Hence the persons who should be in office are those most capable of holding office. And even if the lawgiver neglected to secure comfortable means for respectable people, it would at all events be better that he should provide for their leisure while in office.

+

And it might also be thought a bad thing for the same person to hold several offices, which is considered a distinction at Carthage. One man one job is the best rule for efficiency, and the lawgiver ought to see that this may be secured, and not appoint the same man to play the flute and make shoes. Hence except in a small city it is more statesmanlike for a larger number to share in the offices and more democratic, for it is fairer to all, as we said, and also functions are performed better and more quickly when separate than by the same people. This is clear in military and naval matters; for in both of these departments command and subordination penetrate throughout almost the whole body.i.e. everyone in command (except the commander-in-chief) has someone of higher rank over him.

+

But the constitution being oligarchical they best escape the dangers by being wealthy, as they constantly send out a portion of the common people toappointments in the cities; by this means they heal the social sore and make the constitution stable. However, this is the achievement of fortune, whereas freedom from civil strife ought to be secured by the lawgiver; but as it is, suppose some misfortune occurs and the multitude of the subject class revolts, there is no remedy provided by the laws to restore tranquillity.

+

This then is the character of the Spartan, Cretan and Carthaginian constitutions, which are justly famous.

+

Of those that have put forward views about politics, some have taken no part in any political activities whatever but have passed their whole life as private citizens; and something has been said about almost all the writers of this class about whom there is anything noteworthy. Some on the other hand have been lawgivers, either for their native cities or even for certain foreign peoples, after having themselves been actively engaged in government; and of these some have been framers of laws only, and others of a constitution also, for instance Solon and Lycurgus, who instituted both laws and constitutions. The Spartan constitution has been discussed. As for Solon, he is considered by some people to have been a good lawgiver, as having put an end to oligarchy when it was too unqualified and having liberated the people from slavery and restored the ancestral democracy with a skilful blending of the constitution: the Council on the Areopagus being an oligarchic element, the elective magistracies aristocratic and the law-courts democratic.

+ +
+

And although really in regard to certain of these features, the Council and the election of magistrates, Solon seems merely to have abstained from destroying institutions that existed already, he does appear to have founded the democracy by constituting the jury-courts from all the citizens. For this he is actually blamed by some persons, as having dissolved the power of the other parts of the community by making the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful. For as the law-court grew strong, men courted favor with the people as with a tyrant, and so brought the constitution to the present democracy; and Ephialtes and Pericles docked the power of the Council on the Areopagus, while Pericles instituted payment for serving in the law-courts, and in this manner finally the successive leaders of the people led them on by growing stages to the present democracy. But this does not seem to have come about in accordance with the intention of Solon, but rather as a result of accident (for the common people having been the cause of the naval victories at the time of the Persian invasion became proud and adopted bad men as popular leaders when the respectable classes opposed their policy); inasmuch as Solon for his part appears to bestow only the minimum of power upon the people, the function of electing the magistrates and of calling them to account (for if even this were not under the control of the populace it would be a mere slave and a foreign enemy), whereas he appointed all the offices from the notable and the wealthy, the Five-hundred-bushel classand the Teamsters and a third property-class called the Knighthood; while the fourth class, the Thetes, were admitted to no office.For Solon’s classification of the citizens by the annual income of their estates see Aristot. Ath. Pol. 7.

+

Laws were givenPerhaps 664 B.C. by Zaleucus to the Epizephyrian Zephyrium, a promontory in S. Italy. Locrians and by CharondasSee 1252b 14. of Catana to his fellow-citizens and to the other Chalcidic citiesColonies from Chalcis in Euboea. on the coasts of Italy and Sicily. Some persons try to connect Zaleucus and Charondas together: they say that Onomacritus first arose as an able lawgiver, and that he was trained in Crete, being a Locrian and travelling there to practise the art of soothsaying, and Thales became his companion, and Lycurgus and Zaleucus were pupils of Thales, and Charondas of Zaleucus; but these stories give too little attention to the dates. Philolaus of Corinth also arose as lawgiver at Thebes. Philolaus belonged by birth to the Bacchiad family; he became the lover of Diocles the winnerIn 728 B.C. at Olympia, but when Diocles quitted the city because of his loathing for the passion of his mother Alcyone, he went away to Thebes, and there they both ended their life. Even now people still show their tombs, in full view of each other and one of them fully open to view in the direction of the Corinthian country but the other one not; for the story goes that they arranged to be buried in this manner, Diocles owing to his hatred for his misfortune securing that the land of Corinth might not be visible from his tomb, and Philolaus that it might be from his.

+ +
+

It was due then to a reason of this nature that they went to live at Thebes; but Philolaus became the Thebans’ lawgiver in regard to various matters, among others the size of families,—the laws called by the Thebans laws of adoption; about this Philolaus enacted special legislation, in order that the number of the estates in land might be preserved. There is nothing special in the code of Charondas except the trials for false witness (for he was the first to introduce the procedure of denunciation), but in the accuracy of his laws he is a more finished workman even than the legislators of today. (Peculiar to PhaleasDealt with already in 4. is the measure for equalizing properties; to Plato,Above, 1-3 community of wives and children and of property, and the common meals for the women, and also the law about drunkenness, enacting that sober persons are to be masters of the drinking-bouts, and the regulation for military training to make men ambidextrous during drill, on the ground that it is a mistake to have one of the two hands useful but the other useless.) There are laws of Draco,Author of the first written code at Athens, 621 B.C. (though in Aristot. Ath. Pol. 4, his legislation is hardly mentioned; he appears there as the framer of the constitution). but he legislated for an existing constitution, and there is nothing peculiar in his laws that is worthy of mention, except their severity in imposing heavy punishment. PittacusOf Mitylene in Lesbos, one of the Seven Sages, dictator 589-579 B.C. also was a framer of laws, but not of a constitution; a special law of his is that if men commit any offence when drunk,they are to pay a larger fine than those who offend when sober; because since more men are insolent when drunk than when sober he had regard not to the view that drunken offenders are to be shown more mercy, but to expediency. AndrodamasOtherwise unknown. of Rhegium also became lawgiver to the Chalcidians in the direction of Thrace, Chalcidice, the peninsula in the N. Aegean, was colonized from Chalcis in Euboea. and to him belong the laws dealing with cases of murder and with heiresses; however one cannot mention any provision that is peculiar to him.

+

Let such be our examination of the constitutional schemes actually in force and of those that have been proposed by certain persons.

+ +
+
+

For the student of government, and of nature and characteristics of the various forms of constitution, almost the first question to consider is in regard to the state: what exactly is the essential nature of a state? As it is, this is a matter of dispute: a public act is spoken of by some people as the action of the state, others speak of it as the action not of the state but of the oligarchy or the tyrant in powerSo we speak of an action planned and carried by the party in power as an Act of Parliament, and technically as an act of the sovereign.; and we see that the activity of the statesman and lawgiver is entirely concerned with a state as its object, and a constitution is a form of organization of the inhabitants of a state. But a state is a composite thing, in the same sense as any other of the things that are wholes but consist of many parts; it is therefore clear that we must first inquire into the nature of a citizen; for a state is a collection of citizens,

+ +
+

so that we have to consider who is entitled to the name of citizen, and what the essential nature of a citizen is. For there is often a difference of opinion as to this: people do not all agree that the same person is a citizen; often somebody who would be a citizen in a democracy is not a citizen under an oligarchy. We need not here consider those who acquire the title of citizen in some exceptional manner, for example those who are citizens by adoption; and citizenship is not constituted by domicile in a certain place (for resident aliens and slaves share the domicile of citizens), nor are those citizens who participate in a common system of justice, conferring the right to defend an action and to bring one in the law-courts (for this right belongs also to the parties under a commercial treaty, as they too can sue and be sued at law,—or rather, in many places even the right of legal action is not shared completely by resident aliens, but they are obliged to produce a patron, so that they only share in a common legal procedure to an incomplete degree), but these are only citizens in the manner in which children who are as yet too young to have been enrolled in the list and old men who have been dischargedThis seems to imply that aged citizens were excused attendance at the assembly and law-courts, as well as military service must be pronounced to be citizens in a sense, yet not quite absolutely, but with the added qualification of under age in the case of the former and superannuated or some other similar term (it makes no difference, the meaning being clear) in that of the latter. For we seek to define a citizen in the absolute sense, and one possessing nodisqualification of this nature that requires a correcting term, since similar difficulties may also be raised, and solved, about citizens who have been disfranchised or exiled. A citizen pure and simple is defined by nothing else so much as by the right to participate in judicial functions and in office. But some offices of government are definitely limited in regard to time, so that some of them are not allowed to be held twice by the same person at all, or only after certain fixed intervals of time; other officials are without limit of tenure, for example the juryman and the member of the assembly. It might perhaps be said that such persons are not officials at all, and that the exercise of these functions does not constitute the holding of office;Or, amending the text, and yet that it is absurd to deny the title of citizen to those— and yet it is absurd to deny the title of official to those who have the greatest power in the state. But it need not make any difference, as it is only the question of a name, since there is no common name for a juryman and a member of the assembly that is properly applied to both. For the sake of distinction therefore let us call the combination of the two functions office without limitation. Accordingly we lay it down that those are citizens who participate in office in this manner.

+

Such more or less is the definition of citizen that would best fit with all of those to whom the name is applied. But it must not be forgotten that things in the case of which the things to which they are related differ in kind, one of them being primary, another one secondary and so on, either do not contain a common nature at all, as being what they are, or barely do so.The meaning of this abstract principle is most easily seen from its application here: if states are generically different from one another, membership of a state, citizenship, can hardly be a single thing, and come under a single definition. Now we see that constitutions differ from one another in kind, and that some are subsequent and others prior;

+ +
+

for erroneous and divergent forms are necessarily subsequent to correct forms (in what sense we employ the terms divergent of constitutions will appear later). Hence the citizen corresponding to each form of constitution will also necessarily be different. Therefore the definition of a citizen that we have given applies especially to citizenship in a democracy; under other forms of government it may hold good, but will not necessarily do so. For in some states there is no body of common citizens, and they do not have the custom of a popular assembly but councils of specially convened members, and the office of trying law-suits goes by sections—for example at Sparta suits for breach of contract are tried by different ephors in different cases, while cases of homicide are tried by the ephors and doubtless other suits by some other magistrate. The same method is notThe negative is a conjectural insertion, cf. 1273a 20. followed at Carthage, where certain magistrates judge all the law-suits. But still, our definition of a citizen admits of correction. For under the other forms of constitution a member of the assembly and of a jury-court is not an official without restriction, but an official defined according to his office; either all of them or some among them are assigned deliberative and judicial duties either in all matters or in certain matters. What constitutes a citizen is therefore clear from these considerations: we now declare that one who has the right to participate in deliberative or judicial office is a citizen of the statein which he has that right, and a state is a collection of such persons sufficiently numerous, speaking broadly, to secure independence of life.

+

But in practice citizenship is limited to the child of citizens on both sides, not on one side only, that is, the child of a citizen father or of a citizen mother; and other people carry this requirement further back, for example to the second or the third preceding generation or further. But given this as a practical and hasty definition, some people raise the difficulty, How will that ancestor three or four generations back have been a citizen? GorgiasSicilian orator and nihilistic philosopher, visited Athens 427 B.C. of Leontini therefore, partly perhaps in genuine perplexity but partly in jest, said that just as the vessels made by mortar-makers were mortars, so the citizens made by the magistrates were Larisaeans, since some of the magistrates were actually larisa-makers. Larisa, a city in Thessaly, was famous for the manufacture of a kind of kettle called larisa. But it is really a simple matter; for if they possessed citizenship in the manner stated in our definition of a citizen, they were citizens—since it is clearly impossible to apply the qualification of descent from a citizen father or mother to the original colonizers or founders of a city.

+

But perhaps a question rather arises about those who were admitted to citizenship when a revolution had taken place, for instance such a creation of citizens as that carried outIn 509 B.C. at Athens by Cleisthenes after the expulsion of the tyrants, when he enrolled in his tribes many resident aliens who had been foreigners or slaves. The dispute as to these is not about the fact of their citizenship, but whether they received it wrongly or rightly. Yet even as to this one might raise the further question,

+ +
+

whether, if a man is not rightly a citizen, he is a citizen at all, as wrongly means the same as not truly. But we sometimes see officials governing wrongly, as to whom we shall not deny that they do govern, but shall say that they do not do it rightly, and a citizen is defined by a certain function of government (a citizen, as we said, is one who shares in such and such an office); therefore it is clear that even persons wrongly admitted to citizenship are to be pronounced to be citizens, although the question whether they are so rightly or not rightly is connected with the question that was propounded before.The question, What is a state? 1274b 34. For some persons raise the question, When is an occurrence the act of the state and when is it not? for example, when the government has been altered from oligarchy or tyranny to democracy. In such circumstances some people claim that the new government should not discharge public debts, on the ground that the money was borrowed by the tyrant and not by the state, and should repudiate many other similar claims also, because some forms of government rest upon force and are not aimed at the welfare of the community. If therefore some democracies also are governed in that manner, the acts of the authorities in their case can only be said to be the acts of the state in the same sense as the public acts emanating from an oligarchy or a tyranny are said to be. Akin to this controversy seems to be the subject, What exactly is the principle on which we ought to pronounce a city to be the same city as it was before, or not the same but a different city? The most obvious mode of inquiring into this difficultydeals with place and people: the place and the people may have been divided, and some may have settled in one place, and some in another. In this form the question must be considered as easier of solution; for, as city has several meanings, the inquiry so put is in a way not difficult.i.e. πόλις means both (1) city (and also citadel) and (2) state, a collection of citizens; and if the citizens divide and settle in two different cities with different governments, they are clearly not the same state as before. But it may similarly be asked, Suppose a set of men inhabit the same place, in what circumstances are we to consider their city to be a single city? Its unity clearly does not depend on the walls, for it would be possible to throw a single wall round the Peloponnesus; and a case in point perhaps is Babylon, and any other city that has the circuit of a nation rather than of a city; for it is said that when Babylon was captured a considerable part of the city was not aware of it three days later. But the consideration of this difficulty will be serviceable for another occasion, as the student of politics must not ignore the question, What is the most advantageous size for a city, and should its population be of one race or of several? But are we to pronounce a city, where the same population inhabit the same place, to be the same city so long as the population are of the same race, in spite of the fact that all the time some are dying and others being born, just as it is our custom to say that a river or a spring is the same river or spring although one stream of water is always being added to it and another being withdrawn from it, or are we to say that though the people are the same people for the similar reason of continuity, yet the city is a different city?

+ +
+

For inasmuch as a state is a kind of partnership, and is in fact a partnership of citizens in a government, when the form of the government has been altered and is different it would appear to follow that the state is no longer the same state, just as we say that a chorus which on one occasion acts a comedy and on another a tragedy is a different chorus although it is often composed of the same persons, and similarly with any other common whole or composite structure we say it is different if the form of its structure is different—for instance a musical tune consisting of the same notes we call a different tune if at one time it is played in the Dorian mode and at another in the Phrygian. Therefore if this is the case, it is clear that we must speak of a state as being the same state chiefly with regard to its constitution; and it is possible for it to be called by the same or by a different designation both when its inhabitants are the same and when they are entirely different persons. But whether a state is or is not bound in justice to discharge its engagements when it has changed to a different constitution, is another subject.

+

The next thing to consider after what has now been said is the question whether we are to hold that the goodness of a good man is the same as that of a good citizen, or not the same. However, if this point really is to receive investigation, we must first ascertain in some general outline what constitutes the excellence of a citizen.Now a citizen we pronounced to be one sort of partner in a community, as is a sailor. And although sailors differ from each other in function—one is an oarsman, another helmsman, another look-out man, and another has some other similar special designation—and so clearly the most exact definition of their excellence will be special to each, yet there will also be a common definition of excellence that will apply alike to all of them; for security in navigation is the business of them all, since each of the sailors aims at that. Similarly therefore with the citizens, although they are dissimilar from one another, their business is the security of their community, and this community is the constitution, so that the goodness of a citizen must necessarily be relative to the constitution of the state. If therefore there are various forms of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be one single goodness which is the perfect goodness of the good citizen; but when we speak of a good man we mean that he possesses one single goodness, perfect goodness. Hence it is manifestly possible to be a good citizen without possessing the goodness that constitutes a good man. Moreover it is also feasible to pursue the same topic by raising the question in another manner in relation to the best form of constitution. If it is impossiblePerhaps the Greek should be altered to give possible. If we emend the text with Bernays to εἰ γὰρ δύνατον ἐξ ἁπάντων σπουδαίων ὄντων εἶναι πόλιν, the sense is: assuming the possibility of a perfect state, with all its factors the best of their kind, this means that all the population will be good citizens, not that they will all be perfect specimens of the human race, because the state needs citizens of the working classes, etc., and these cannot in the nature of things be perfect human beings for a state to consist entirely of good men, and if it is necessary for each person to perform well the work of his position, and to do this springs from goodness, then because it is impossible for all the citizens to be alike,

+ +
+

the goodness of a good citizen would not be one and the same as the goodness of a good man; for all ought to possess the goodness of the good citizen (that is a necessary condition of the state’s being the best possible), but it is impossible that all should possess the goodness of a good man, if it is not necessary that all the citizens in a good state should be good men. Again, since the state consists of unlike persons—just as an animal (to take this instance first) consists of soul and body, and a soul of reason and appetite, and a household of husband and wife and [ownership involves]These words in the Greek are probably an interpolation. a master and slave, in the same manner a state consists of all of these persons and also of others of different classes in addition to these,—it necessarily follows that the goodness of all the citizens is not one and the same, just as among dancers the skill of a head dancer is not the same as that of a subordinate leader. It is clear then from these considerations that the goodness of a good citizen and that of a good man are not the same in general; but will the goodness of a good citizen of a particular sort be the same as that of a good man? Now we say that a good ruler is virtuous and wise, and that a citizen taking part in politics must be wise. Also some people say that even the education of a ruler must be different, as indeed we see that the sons of kings are educated in horsemanship and military exercises, and Euripides saysFragment 16, from Aeolus. No subtleties for me, but what the state Requireth— implying that there is a special education for a ruler. And if the goodness of a good ruler is the same as the goodness of a good man, yet the person ruled is also a citizen, so that the goodness of a citizen in general will not be the same as that of a man, although that of a particular citizen will; for goodness as a ruler is not the same as goodness as a citizen, and no doubt this is the reason why JasonTyrant of Pherae in Thessaly, assassinated 370 B.C. said that when he was not tyrant he went hungry, meaning that he did not know the art of being a private person. Another point is that we praise the ability to rule and to be ruled, and it is doubtless held that the goodness of a citizen consists in ability both to rule and to be ruled well. If then we lay it down that the goodness of the good man is displayed in ruling, whereas that of the citizen is shown in both capacities, the two capacities cannot be equally laudable. Since therefore both views are sometimes accepted, and it is thought that the ruler and the subject do not have to learn the same arts but that the citizen must know both arts and share in both capacities, Some words seem to have been lost, conveying we must consider how this dual fitness can be acquired, or possibly considerably more. But the text at the beginning of the sentence is also corrupt. And it may be discerned from the following illustration: one form of authority is that of a master; by this we mean the exercise of authority in regard to the necessary work of the house, which it is not necessary for the master to know how to execute, but rather how to utilize; the other capacity, I mean the ability actually to serve in these menial tasks, is indeed a slave’s quality. But we distinguish several kinds of slave, as their employments are several. One department belongs to the handicraftsmen, who as their name implies are the persons that live by their hands,

+ +
+

a class that includes the mechanic artisan. Hence in some states manual laborers were not admitted to office in old times, before the development of extreme democracy. The tasks of those who are under this form of authority therefore it is not proper for the good man or the man fit for citizenship or the good citizen to learn, except for his own private use occasionally (for then it ceases to be a case of the one party being master and the other slave). But there exists a form of authority by which a man rules over persons of the same race as himself, and free men (for that is how we describe political authority), and this the ruler should learn by being ruled, just as a man should command cavalry after having served as a trooper, command a regiment after having served in a regiment and been in command of a company and of a platoon. Hence there is much truth in the saying that it is impossible to become a good ruler without having been a subject. And although the goodness of a ruler and that of a subject are different, the good citizen must have the knowledge and the ability both to be ruled and to rule, and the merit of the good citizen consists in having a knowledge of the government of free men on both sides. And therefore both these virtues are characteristic of a good man, even if temperance and justice in a ruler are of a different kind from temperance and justice in a subject; for clearly a good man’s virtue, for example his justice, will not be one and the same when he is under government and when he is free, but it will be of different kinds,one fitting him to rule and one to be ruled, just as temperance and courage are different in a man and in a woman (for a man would be thought a coward if he were only as brave as a brave woman, and a woman a chatterer if she were only as modest as a good man; since even the household functions of a man and of a woman are different—his business is to get and hers to keep). And practical wisdom alone of the virtues is a virtue peculiar to a ruler; for the other virtues seem to be necessary alike for both subjects and rulers to possess, but wisdom assuredly is not a subject’s virtue, but only right opinion: the subject corresponds to the man who makes flutes and the ruler to the flute-player who uses them.

+

The question whether the goodness of a good man is the same as that of a good citizen or different, and how they are the same and how different, is clear from these considerations.

+

But one of the difficulties as to what constitutes a citizen is still left. Is it truly the case that a citizen is a person who has the right to share office in the government, or are the working classes also to be counted citizens? If these persons also are to be counted who have no share in offices, it is not possible for every citizen to possess the citizen’s virtue; for the true citizen is the man capable of governing.Or perhaps for the working-man is a citizen. οὗτος γὰρ πολίτης. The translation takes πολίτης as subject and οὗτος as predicate (meaning ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρετήν, possessing capacity to govern). But possibly the predicate is πολίτης and the subject οὗτος, which then stands for ὁ βάναυσος; if so, the whole sentence means that if the non-official classes are citizens, not all the citizens will possess civic virtue (which is capacity to govern), for the working-man will be a citizen (and he is not capable of governing). If on the other hand no one of the working people is a citizen, in what class are the various workers to be ranked? for they are neither resident aliens nor foreigners. Or shall we say that so far as that argument goes no inconsistency results?

+ +
+

for slaves also are not in one of the classes mentioned, nor are freedmen. For it is true that not all the persons indispensable for the existence of a state are to be deemed citizens, since even the sons of citizens are not citizens in the same sense as the adults: the latter are citizens in the full sense, the former only by presumptionOr, with Casaubon’s probable correction of the Greek, only with a qualification.—they are citizens, but incomplete ones. In ancient times in fact the artisan class in some states consisted of slaves or aliens, owing to which the great mass of artisans are so even now; and the best-ordered state will not make an artisan a citizen. While if even the artisan is a citizen, then what we said to be the citizen’s virtue must not be said to belong to every citizen, nor merely be defined as the virtue of a free man, but will only belong to those who are released from menial occupations. Among menial occupations those who render such services to an individual are slaves, and those who do so for the community are artisans and hired laborers. The state of the case about them will be manifest from what follows when we consider it a little further[, for what has been said when made known itself makes it clear].The ill-expressed clause for what—clear seems almost certainly to be an interpolation. As there are several forms of constitution, it follows that there are several kinds of citizen, and especially of the citizen in a subject position; hence under one form of constitution citizenship will necessarily extend to the artisan and the hired laborer, while under other forms this is impossible, for instance in any constitution that is of the form entitled aristocratic and in whichthe honors are bestowed according to goodness and to merit, since a person living a life of manual toil or as a hired laborer cannot practise the pursuits in which goodness is exercised. In oligarchies on the other hand, though it is impossible for a hired laborer to be a citizen (since admission to office of various grades is based on high property-assessments), it is possible for an artisan; for even the general mass of the craftsmen are rich. At Thebes there was a law that no one who had not kept out of trade for the last ten years might be admitted to office. But under many constitutions the law draws recruits even from foreigners; for in some democracies the son of a citizen-mother is a citizen, and the same rule holds good as to base-born sons in many places. Nevertheless, inasmuch as such persons are adopted as citizens owing to a lack of citizens of legitimate birth (for legislation of this kind is resorted to because of under-population), when a state becomes well off for numbers it gradually divests itself first of the sons of a slave father or mother, then of those whose mothers only were citizens, and finally only allows citizenship to the children of citizens on both sides. These facts then show that there are various kinds of citizen, and that a citizen in the fullest sense means the man who shares in the honors of the state, as is implied in the verse of Homer Hom. Il. 9.648, Hom. Il. 16.59 : Like to some alien settler without honor,— since a native not admitted to a share in the public honors is like an alien domiciled in the land. But in some places this exclusion is disguised, for the purpose of deceiving those who are a part of the population.The MSS. give But where such exclusion is disguised, it (this concealment) is for the purpose of deceiving etc.

+ +
+

The answer therefore to the question, Is the goodness that makes a good man to be deemed the same as that which makes a worthy citizen, or different? is now clear from what has been said in one form of state the good man and the good citizen are the same, but in another they are different, and also in the former case it is not every citizen but only the statesman, the man who controls or is competent to control, singly or with colleagues, the administration of the commonwealth, that is essentially also a good man.

+

And since these points have been determined, the next question to be considered is whether we are to lay it down that there is only one form of constitution or several, and if several, what they are and how many and what are the differences between them. Now a constitution is the ordering of a state in respect of its various magistracies, and especially the magistracy that is supreme over all matters. For the government is everywhere supreme over the state and the constitution is the government. I mean that in democratic states for example the people are supreme, but in oligarchies on the contrary the few are; and we say that they have a different constitution. And we shall use the same language about the other forms of government also.

+

We have therefore to determine first the fundamental points, what is the object for which a state exists and how many different kinds of system there are for governing mankind and for controlling the common life.

+

Now it has been said in our first discourses,1253a 1 ff. in which we determined the principles concerning household management and the control of slaves, that man is by nature a political animal;and so even when men have no need of assistance from each other they none the less desire to live together. At the same time they are also brought together by common interest, so far as each achieves a share of the good life. The good life then is the chief aim of society, both collectively for all its members and individually; but they also come together and maintain the political partnership for the sake of life merely, for doubtless there is some element of value contained even in the mere state of being alive, provided that there is not too great an excess on the side of the hardships of life, and it is clear that the mass of mankind cling to life at the cost of enduring much suffering, which shows that life contains some measure of well-being and of sweetness in its essential nature.

+

And again, the several recognized varieties of government can easily be defined; in fact we frequently discuss them in our external discourses.Mentioned at 1323a 22 (and also six times in other books); they are there appealed to for the tripartite classification of foods which in Aristot. Nic. Eth.1098b 12 is ascribed to current opinion of long standing and generally accepted by students of philosophy. The term may there predenote doctrines not peculiar to the Peripatetic school. The authority of a master over a slave, although in truth when both master and slave are designed by nature for their positions their interests are the same, nevertheless governs in the greater degree with a view to the interest of the master, but incidentally with a view to that of the slave, for if the slave deteriorates the position of the master cannot be saved from injury. Authority over children and wife [and over the whole household, which we call the art of household managementAristotle can hardly have written this clause, as it includes mastership over slaves.] is exercised either in the interest of those ruled or for some common interest of both parties,—essentially, in the interest of the ruled, as we see that the other arts also,

+ +
+

like medicine and athletic training, are pursued in the interest of the persons upon whom they are practised, although incidentally they may also be in the interest of the practitioners themselves; for nothing prevents the trainer from being on occasions himself also one of the persons in training, just as the pilot is always a member of the crew; so although the trainer or pilot studies the good of those under his authority, when he himself also becomes one among them he incidentally shares the benefit, for the pilot is a sailor in the ship and the trainer can become one of the persons in training under his own direction. Hence in regard to the political offices also, when the state is constituted on the principle of equality and of similarity between the citizens, these claim to hold office by turn—in earlier times, under the natural system, claiming to do public services in turn, and for somebody in return to look after their own welfare just as previously they looked after his interest when in office themselves; but nowadays owing to the benefits to be got from public sources and from holding office people wish to be in office continuously, just as if it were the case that those in office although sickly people always enjoyed good health—in which case office would no doubt be much run after by invalids.

+

It is clear then that those constitutions that aim at the common advantage are in effect rightly framed in accordance with absolute justice, while those that aim at the rulers’ own advantage only are faulty, and are all of them deviations from the right constitutions; for they have an element of despotism, whereas a city is a partnership of free men.

+

These matters having been determined the next step is to consider how many forms of constitution there are and what they are; and first to study the right forms of constitution, since the deviations will also become manifest when these are defined.

+

But inasmuch as constitution means the same as government, and the government is the supreme power in the state, and this must be either a single ruler or a few or the mass of the citizens, in cases when the one or the few or the many govern with an eye to the common interest, these constitutions must necessarily be right ones, while those administered with an eye to the private interest of either the one or the few or the multitude are deviations. For either we must not say that those who are part of the state are citizens, or those who are part of the state must share in the advantage of membership. Our customary designation for a monarchy that aims at the common advantage is kingship; for a government of more than one yet only a few aristocracy （either because the best men rule or because they rule with a view to what is best for the state and for its members）; while when the multitude govern the state with a view to the common advantage, it is called by the name common to all the forms of constitution, constitutional government. (And this comes about reasonably, since although it is possible for one man or a few to excel in virtue, when the number is larger it becomes difficult for them to possess perfect excellence in respect of every form of virtue,

+ +
+

but they can best excel in military valor, for this is found with numbers; and therefore with this form of constitution the class that fights for the state in war is the most powerful, and it is those who possess arms who are admitted to the government.) Deviations from the constitutions mentioned are tyranny corresponding to kingship, oligarchy to aristocracy, and democracy to constitutional government; for tyranny is monarchy ruling in the interest of the monarch, oligarchy government in the interest of the rich, democracy government in the interest of the poor, and none of these forms governs with regard to the profit of the community.

+

But it is necessary to say at a little greater length what each of these constitutions is; for the question involves certain difficulties, and it is the special mark of one who studies any subject philosophically, and not solely with regard to its practical aspect, that he does not overlook or omit any point, but brings to light the truth about each. Now tyranny, as has been said, is monarchy exerting despotic power over the political community; oligarchy is when the control of the government is in the hands of those that own the properties; democracy is when on the contrary it is in the hands of those that do not possess much property, but are poor.A first difficulty is with regard to the definition. If the majority of the citizens were wealthy and were in control of the state, yet when the multitude is in power it is a democracy, and similarly, to take the other case, if it were to occur somewhere that the poor were fewer than the rich but were stronger than they and accordingly were in control of the government, yet where a small number is in control it is said to be an oligarchy, then it would seem that our definition of the forms of constitution was not a good one.i.e. it would be absurd to term government by the people democracy if the people happened to be very rich, or government by a few oligarchy if the few were poor and the many whom they governed rich. And once again, if one assumed the combination of small numbers with wealth and of multitude with poverty, and named the constitutions thus—one in which the rich being few in number hold the offices, oligarchy: one in which the poor being many in number hold the offices, democracy,—this involves another difficulty. What names are we to give to the constitutions just described—the one in which there are more rich and the one in which the poor are the fewer, and these control their respective governments—if there exists no other form of constitution beside those mentioned? The argument therefore seems to make it clear that for few or many to have power is an accidental feature of oligarchies in the one case and democracies in the other, due to the fact that the rich are few and the poor are many everywhere (so that it is not really the case that the points mentioned constitute a specific difference), but that the real thing in which democracy and oligarchy differ from each other is poverty and wealth;

+ +
+

and it necessarily follows that wherever the rulers owe their power to wealth, whether they be a minority or a majority, this is an oligarchy, and when the poor rule, it is a democracy, although it does accidentally happen, as we said, that where the rulers hold power by wealth they are few and where they hold power by poverty they are many, because few men are rich but all men possess freedom, and wealth and freedom are the grounds on which the two classes lay claim to the government.

+

And first we must ascertain what are stated to be the determining qualities of oligarchy and democracy, and what is the principle of justice under the one form of government and under the other. For all men lay hold on justice of some sort, but they only advance to a certain point, and do not express the principle of absolute justice in its entirety. For instance, it is thought that justice is equality, and so it is, though not for everybody but only for those who are equals; and it is thought that inequality is just, for so indeed it is, though not for everybody, but for those who are unequal; but these partisans strip away the qualification of the persons concerned, and judge badly. And the cause of this is that they are themselves concerned in the decision, and perhaps most men are bad judges when their own interests are in question. Hence inasmuch as just means just for certain persons, and it is divided in the same way in relation to the things to be distributed and the persons that receive them, as has been said before in the Ethics,Cf. Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1131a 14-24. the two parties agree as to what constitutes equality in the thing, but dispute as to what constitutes equality in the person,chiefly for the reason just now stated, because men are bad judges where they themselves are concerned, but also, inasmuch as both parties put forward a plea that is just up to a certain point, they think that what they say is absolutely just. For the one side think that if they are unequal in some respects, for instance in wealth, they are entirely unequal, and the other side think that if they are equal in some respects, for instance in freedom, they are entirely equal. But the most important thing they do not mention. If men formed the community and came together for the sake of wealth, their share in the state is proportionate to their share in the property, so that the argument of the champions of oligarchy would appear to be valid—namely that in a partnership with a capital of 100 minaeSee 1268b 14 n. it would not be just for the man who contributed one mina to have a share whether of the principal or of the profits accruing equal to the share of the man who supplied the whole of the remainder; but if on the other hand the state was formed not for the sake of life only but rather for the good life (for otherwise a collection of slaves or of lower animals would be a state, but as it is, it is not a state, because slavesSee 1260a 12, and Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1177a 8, but no one allows a slave any measure of happiness, any more than a life of his own. and animals have no share in well-being or in purposive life), and if its object is not military alliance for defence against injury by anybody, and it does not exist for the sake of trade and of business relationsThe sentence here breaks off; The inference that should have formed its conclusion is given in 5.15.—for if so, Etruscans and Carthaginians and all the people that have commercial relations with one another would be virtually citizens of a single state; at all events they have agreements about imports and covenants as to abstaining from dishonesty and treaties of alliance for mutual defence;

+ +
+

but they do not have officials common to them all appointed to enforce these covenants, but different officials with either party, nor yet does either party take any concern as to the proper moral character of the other, nor attempt to secure that nobody in the states under the covenant shall be dishonest or in any way immoral, but only that they shall not commit any wrong against each other. All those on the other hand who are concerned about good government do take civic virtue and vice into their purview. Thus it is also clear that any state that is truly so called and is not a state merely in name must pay attention to virtue; for otherwise the community becomes merely an alliance, differing only in locality from the other alliances, those of allies that live apart. And the law is a covenant or, in the phrase of the sophist Lycophron,Probably a pupil of Gorgias, see 1275b 26 n. a guarantee of men’s just claims on one another, but it is not designed to make the citizens virtuous and just. And that this is how the matter stands is manifest. For if one were actually to bring the sites of two cities together into one, so that the city-walls of Megara and those of Corinth were contiguous, even so they would not be one city; nor would they if they enacted rights of intermarriage with each other, although intermarriage between citizens is one of the elements of community which are characteristic of states. And similarly even if certain people lived in separate places yet not so far apart as not to have intercourse, but had laws to prevent their wronging one anotherin their interchange of products— for instance, if one man were a carpenter, another a farmer, another a shoemaker and another something else of the kind,—and the whole population numbered ten thousand, but nevertheless they had no mutual dealings in anything else except such things as exchange of commodities and military alliance, even then this would still not be a state. What then exactly is the reason for this? for clearly it is not because their intercourse is from a distance since even if they came together for intercourse of this sort (each nevertheless using his individual house as a city) and for one another’s military aid against wrongful aggressors only, as under a defensive alliance, not even then would they seem to those who consider the matter carefully to constitute a state, if they associated on the same footing when they came together as they did when they were apart. It is manifest therefore that a state is not merely the sharing of a common locality for the purpose of preventing mutual injury and exchanging goods. These are necessary preconditions of a state’s existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life,

+ +
+

which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.

+

It is therefore clear from what has been said that all those who dispute about the forms of constitution assert a part of the just principle.

+

But it is a matter of question what ought to be the sovereign power in the state. Clearly it must be either the multitude, or the rich, or the good, or the one man who is best of all, or a tyrant. But all of these arrangements appear to involve disagreeable consequences. For instance, if the poor take advantage of their greater numbers to divide up the property of the rich, is not this unjust? No, it may be said, for it was a resolution made by the supreme authority in just form. Then what must be pronounced to be the extreme of injustice? And again, when everybody is taken into account, suppose the majority share out among themselves the property of the minority, it is manifest that they are destroying the state; but assuredly virtue does not destroyits possessor, and justice is not destructive of the state, so that it is clear that this principle also cannot be just. Also it follows from it that all the actions done by a tyrant are just, for his use of force is based upon superior strength, as is the compulsion exerted by the multitude against the rich. But is it just that the minority and the rich should rule? Suppose therefore they also act in the same way and plunder and take away the property of the multitude, is this just? If it is, so also is the plunder of the rich by the multitude. It is clear therefore that all these things are bad and not just. But ought the good to rule, and be in control of all classes? If so, then it follows that all the other classes will be dishonored,The term is technical and means disfranchisement and loss of civic rights. if they are not honored by holding the offices of government; for we speak of offices as honors, and if the same persons are always in office the rest must necessarily be excluded from honor. But is it better for the most virtuous individual to be the ruler? But that is still more oligarchical, for the people excluded from honor will be more numerous. But perhaps some one would say that in any case it is a bad thing for a human being, having in his soul the passions that are the attributes of humanity, to be sovereign, and not the law. Suppose therefore that law is sovereign, but law of an oligarchic or democratic nature, what difference will it make as regards the difficulties that have been raised? for the results described before will come about just the same.

+

Most of these points therefore must be discussed on another occasion; but the view that it is more proper for the multitude to be sovereign than the few of greatest virtue might be thought to be explicable and to have some justification, and even to be the true view. For it is possible that the many, though not individually good men,

+ +
+

yet when they come together may be better, not individually but collectively, than those who are so, just as public dinners to which many contribute are better than those supplied at one man’s cost; for where there are many, each individual, it may be argued, has some portion of virtue and wisdom, and when they have come together, just as the multitude becomes a single man with many feet and many hands and many senses, so also it becomes one personality as regards the moral and intellectual faculties. This is why the general public is a better judge of the works of music and those of the poets, because different men can judge a different part of the performance, and all of them all of it. But the superiority of good men over the mass of men individually, like that of handsome men, so it is said, over plain men and of the works of the painter’s art over the real objects, really consists in this, that a number of scattered good points have been collected together into one example; since if the features be taken separately, the eye of one real person is more beautiful than that of the man in the picture, and some other feature of somebody else. It is not indeed clear whether this collective superiority of the many compared with the few good men can possibly exist in regard to every democracy and every multitude, and perhaps it may be urged that it is manifestly impossible in the case of some—for the same argument would also apply to animals, yet what difference is there,practically, between some multitudes and animals?—but nothing prevents what has been said from being true about some particular multitude. One might therefore employ these considerations to solve not only the previously stated difficulty but also the related question, over what matters is the authority of the freemen, the mass of the citizens, to extend (using that expression to denote those who are not rich nor possessed of any distinguishing excellence at all)? For it is not safe for them to participate in the highest offices (for injustice and folly would inevitably cause them to act unjustly in some things and to make mistakes in others), but yet not to admit them and for them not to participate is an alarming situation, for when there are a number of persons without political honors and in poverty, the city then is bound to be full of enemies. It remains therefore for them to share the deliberative and judicial functions. For this reason Solon and certain other lawgivers appoint the common citizens toProbably words meaning these functions and to have fallen out. the election of the magistrates and the function of calling them to audit, although they do not allow them to hold office singly. For all when assembled together have sufficient discernment, and by mingling with the better class are of benefit to the state, just as impure food mixed with what is pure makes the whole more nourishing than the small amount of pure food alone; but separately the individual is immature in judgement. This arrangement of the constitution is however open to question in the first place on the ground that it might be held that the best man to judge which physician has given the right treatment is the man that is himself capable of treating and curing the patient of his present disease, and this is the man who is himself a physician;

+ +
+

and that this is the case similarly with regard to the other arts and crafts. Hence just as a court of physicians must judge the work of a physician, so also all other practitioners ought to be called to account before their fellows. But physician means both the ordinary practitioner, and the master of the craft, and thirdly, the man who has studied medicine as part of his general education (for in almost all the arts there are some such students, and we assign the right of judgement just as much to cultivated amateurs as to experts). Further the same might be thought to hold good also of the election of officials, for to elect rightly is a task for experts—for example, it is for experts in the science of mensuration to elect a land-surveyor and for experts in navigation to choose a pilot; for even though in some occupations and arts some laymen also have a voice in appointments, yet they certainly do not have more voice than the experts. Hence according to this argument the masses should not be put in control over either the election of magistrates or their audit. But perhaps this statement is not entirely correct, both for the reason stated above,See 6.4. in case the populace is not of too slavish a character (for although each individual separately will be a worse judge than the experts, the whole of them assembled together will be better or at least as good judges), and also because about some things the man who made them would not be the only nor the best judge, in the case of professionals whose products come within the knowledge of laymen also:to judge a house, for instance, does not belong only to the man who built it, but in fact the man who uses the house (that is, the householder) will be an even better judge of it, and a steersman judges a rudder better than a carpenter, and the diner judges a banquet better than the cook.

+

This difficulty then might perhaps be thought to be satisfactorily solved in this way. But there is another connected with it: it is thought to be absurd that the base should be in control over more important matters than the respectable; but the audits and the elections of magistrates are a very important matter, yet in some constitutions, as has been said, they are assigned to the common people, for all such matters are under the control of the assembly, yet persons of a low property-assessment and of any age take part in the assembly and the council and sit on juries, whereas treasury officials, generals and the holders of the highest magistracies are drawn from among persons of large property. Now this difficulty also may be solved in a similar way; for perhaps these regulations also are sound, since it is not the individual juryman or councillor or member of the assembly in whom authority rests, but the court, the council and the people, while each of the individuals named (I mean the councillor, the members of assembly and the juryman) is a part of those bodies. Hence justly the multitude is sovereign in greater matters, for the popular assembly, the council and the jury-court are formed of a number of people, and also the assessed property of all these members collectively is more than that of the magistrates holding great offices individually or in small groups.

+

Let these points therefore be decided in this manner.

+ +
+

But the difficulty first mentionedViz. that in whatever class sovereignty is vested, some hardships will result, 1281a 14 ff. proves nothing else so clearly as that it is proper for the laws when rightly laid down to be sovereign, while the ruler or rulers in office should have supreme powers over matters as to which the laws are quite unable to pronounce with precision because of the difficulty of making a general rule to cover all cases. We have not however yet ascertained at all what particular character a code of laws correctly laid down ought to possess, but the difficulty raised at the startSee 1281a 36. still remains;Probably this clause should stand after the next, though—constitution (which will be a parenthesis), and should run but 〈the difficulty is there〉 for necessarily—states. for necessarily the laws are good or bad, just or unjust, simultaneously with and similarly to the constitutions of states (though of course it is obvious that the laws are bound to be adapted to the constitution); yet if so, it is clear that the laws in conformity with the right constitutions must necessarily be just and those in conformity with the divergentThe usual rendering is perverted, but the Greek term is more neutral. forms of constitution unjust.

+

What follows is a summary of Aristot. Nic. Eth. 2.And inasmuch as in all the sciences and arts the End is a good, and the greatest good and good in the highest degree in the most authoritative of all, which is the political faculty, and the good in the political field, that is, the general advantage, is justice, it is therefore thought by all men that justice is some sort of equality, and up to a certain point at all events they agree with the philosophical discourses in whichconclusions have been reached about questions of ethicsSee also Aristot. Nic. Eth. 5.3.; for justice is a quality of a thing in relation to persons,Literally, the just is (a just) something and (something just) for somebody. and they hold that for persons that are equal the thing must be equal. But equality in what characteristics does this mean, and inequality in what? This must be made clear, since this too raises a difficulty, and calls for political philosophy. For perhaps someone might say that the offices of state ought to be distributed unequally according to superiority in every good quality, even if the candidates in all other respects did not differ at all but were exactly alike, because men that are differenti.e. different in some good quality. have different rights and merits. Yet if this is true, those who are superior in complexion or stature or any good quality will have an advantage in respect of political rights. But surely the error here is obvious, and it comes out clearly if we consider the other sciences and faculties. Among flute-players equally good at their art it is not proper to give an advantage in respect of the flutes to those of better birth, for they will not play any better, but it is the superior performers who ought to be given the superior instruments. And if our meaning is not yet plain, it will become still clearer when we have carried the matter further. Suppose someone is superior in playing the flute but much inferior in birth or in good looks, then, even granting that each of these things—birth and beauty—is a greater good than ability to play the flute, and even though they surpass flute-playing proportionately more than the best flute-player surpasses the others in flute-playing, even so the best flute-player ought to be given the outstandingly good flutes;

+ +
+

for otherwise superiority both in wealth and in birth ought to contribute to the excellence of the performance, but they do not do so at all. Moreover on this theory every good thing would be commensurable with every other. For if to be of some particular height gave more claim, then height in general would be in competition with wealth and with free birth; therefore if A excels in height more than B does in virtue, and speaking generally size gives more superiority than virtue,Perhaps we should rewrite the Greek to give even though speaking generally virtue gives more superiority than size. all things would be commensurable for; if such-and-such an amount of one thing is better than such-and-such an amount of another, it is clear that such-and-such an amount of the one is equal to that amount of another. But since this is impossible, it is clear that in politics with good reason men do not claim a right to office on the ground of inequality of every kind—if one set of men are slow runners and another fast, this is no good ground for the one set having more and the other lessDoubtless the author meant the other way round, for the slow having less and the fast more political power. political power, but the latter’s superiority receives its honor in athletic contests; but the claim to office must necessarily be based on superiority in those things which go to the making of the state. Hence it is reasonable for the well-born, free and wealthy to lay claim to honor; for there must be free men and tax-payers, since a state consisting entirely of poor men would not be a state, any more than one consisting of slaves. But then, granting there is need of these, it is clear thatthere is also need of justice and civic virtue, for these are also indispensable in the administration of a state; except that wealth and freedom are indispensable for a state’s existence, whereas justice and civic virtue are indispensable for its good administration.

+

As a means therefore towards a state’s existence all or at all events some of these factors would seem to make a good claim, although as means to a good life education and virtue would make the most just claim, as has been said also before. On the other hand since those who are equal in one thing only ought not to have equality in all things nor those unequal as regards one thing inequality in all, it follows that all these forms of constitution must be deviations. Now it has been said before that all make a claim that is in a manner just, though not all a claim that is absolutely just; the rich claiming because they have a larger share of the land, and the land is common property, and also as being for the most part more faithful to their covenants; the free and well-born as being closely connected together (for the better-born are citizens to a greater degree than those of claims, low birth, and good birth is in every community held in honor at home), and also because it is probable that the children of better parents will be better, for good birth means goodness of breed; and we shall admit that virtue also makes an equally just claim, for we hold that justice is social virtue, which necessarily brings all the other virtues in its train; but moreover the majority have a just claim as compared with the minority, since they are stronger and richer and better if their superior numbers are taken in comparison with the others’ inferior numbers.

+ +
+

Therefore supposing all were in one city, I mean, that is, the good and the wealthy and noble and also an additional mass of citizens, will there be a dispute, or will there not, as to who ought to govern? It is true that under each of the forms of constitution that have been mentioned the decision as to who ought to govern is undisputed (for the difference between them lies in their sovereign classes—one is distinguished by being governed by the rich men, one by being governed by the good men, and similarly each of the others); but nevertheless we are considering the question how we are to decide between these classes supposing that they all exist in the state at the same period.

+

+ If then the possessors of virtue should be quite few in number, how is the decision to be made? ought we to consider their fewness in relation to the task, and whether they are able to administer the state, or sufficiently numerous to constitute a state? And there is some difficulty as regards all the rival claimants to political honors. Those who claim to rule because of their wealth might seem to have no justice in their proposal, and similarly also those who claim on the score of birth; for it is clear that if, to go a step further, a single individual is richer than all the others together, according to the same principle of justice it will obviously be right for this one man to rule over all, and similarly the man of outstanding nobility among the claimantson the score of freebirth. And this same thing will perhaps result in the case of aristocratic government based on virtue; for if there be some one man who is better than the other virtuous men in the state, by the same principle of justice that man must be sovereign. Accordingly if it is actually proper for the multitude to be sovereign because they are better than the few, then also, if one person or if more than one but fewer than the many are better than the rest, it would be proper for these rather than the multitude to be sovereign. All these considerations therefore seem to prove the incorrectness of all of the standards on which men claim that they themselves shall govern and everybody else be governed by them. For surely even against those who claim to be sovereign over the government on account of virtue, and similarly against those who claim on account of wealth, the multitudes might be able to advance a just plea; for it is quite possible that at some time the multitude may be collectively better and richer than the few, although not individually.

+

+ Hence it is also possible to meet in this way the question which some persons investigate and put forward (for some raise the question whether the legislator desiring to lay down the rightest laws should legislate with a view to the advantage of the better people or that of the larger number) in cases when the situation mentionedAt the end of the last sentence, 7.12. occurs. And right must be taken in the sense of equally right, and this means right in regard to the interest of the whole state and in regard to the common welfare of the citizens; and a citizen is in general one who shares in governing and being governed,

+ +
+

although he is different according to each form of constitution, but in relation to the best form a citizen is one who has the capacity and the will to be governed and to govern with a view to the life in accordance with virtue.

+

But if there is any one man so greatly distinguished in outstanding virtue, or more than one but not enough to be able to make up a complete state, so that the virtue of all the rest and their political ability is not comparable with that of the men mentioned, if they are several, or if one, with his alone, it is no longer proper to count these exceptional men a part of the state; for they will be treated unjustly if deemed worthy of equal status, being so widely unequal in virtue and in their political ability: since such a man will naturally be as a god among men. Hence it is clear that legislation also must necessarily be concerned with persons who are equal in birth and in ability, but there can be no law dealing with such men as those described, for they are themselves a law; indeed a man would be ridiculous if he tried to legislate for them, for probably they would say what in the story of AntisthenesPupil of Socrates and founder of the Cynic sect of philosophers. the lions said‘Where are your claws and teeth?’ when the hares made speeches in the assembly and demanded that all should have equality. This is why democratically governed states institute the system of ostracism, because of a reason of this nature; for these are the states considered to pursue equality most of all things,so that they used to ostracize men thought to be outstandingly powerful on account of wealth or popularity or some other form of political strength, and used to banish them out of the city for fixed periods of time. And there is a mythical story that the Argonauts left Heracles behind for a similar reason; for the ArgoCf. Apollod. 1.9.19 τῆς Ἀργοῦς φθεγξαμένης μὴ δύνασθαι πέρειν τὸ τούτου βάρος. Argo was a live creature, and Athena had built a talking timber into her cutwater. refused to carry him with the others because he was so much heavier than the sailors. Hence also those who blame tyranny and Periander’s advice to ThrasybulusPeriander was tyrant of Corinth circa 626-585 B.C.; Thrasybulus was tyrant of Miletus. Hdt. 5.92 tells the story with their parts reversed. must not be thought to be absolutely right in their censure (the story is that Periander made no reply to the herald sent to ask his advice, but levelled the corn-field by plucking off the ears that stood out above the rest; and consequently, although the herald did not know the reason for what was going on, when he carried back news of what had occurred, Thrasybulus understood that he was to destroy the outstanding citizens); for this policy is advantageous not only for tyrants, nor is it only tyrants that use it, but the same is the case with oligarchies and democracies as well; for ostracism has in a way the same effect as docking off the outstanding men by exile. And the same course is adopted in regard to cities and races by the holders of sovereign power, for example the Athenians so dealt with the Samians and Chians and LesbiansIn 440, 424 and 427 B.C. respectively (for no sooner did they get a strong hold of their empire than they humbled them in contravention of their covenants),

+ +
+

and the king of the Persians frequently used to cut down the numbers of the Medes and Babylonians and the other races that had waxed proud because they had once been head of an empire. And the problem applies universally to all the forms of constitution, even the right forms; for while the divergent forms of government do this because their regard is fixed on their private advantage, nevertheless with the constitutions directed to the common good the same is the case. And this is also clear in the field of the other arts and sciences; a painter would not let his animal have its foot of disproportionately large size, even though it was an exceptionally beautiful foot, nor would a shipbuilder make the stern or some other part of a ship disproportionately big, nor yet will a trainer of choruses allow a man who sings louder and more beautifully than the whole band to be a member of it. Hence as far as this practice goes nothing prevents monarchs from being in harmony with the cities they rule, if they resort to it when their own personal rule is beneficial to the cities. Therefore in relation to acknowledged superiorities the argument for ostracism has a certain element of political justice. True, it is better for the lawgiver so to constitute the state at the outset that it does not need this medicine; but the next best course to steer, if occasion arises, is to endeavor to correctthe constitution by some such method of rectification. But this was not what happened with the states, for they were not looking at what was advantageous for their proper constitution, but their acts of ostracism were done in a revolutionary spirit. In the divergent forms of constitution therefore it is evident that ostracism is advantageous and just under the special constitution, though perhaps it is also evident that it is notPerhaps not should be struck out; but if it stands, the clause refers to 8.5 init.—in these cases ostracism is practiced only in the interest of those in power. just absolutely; but in the case of the best constitution there is much doubt as to what ought to be done, not as regards superiority in the other things of value, such as strength and wealth and popularity, but in the case of a person becoming exceptionally distinguished for virtue. It certainly would not be said that such a man must be banished and got out of the way; yet nevertheless no doubt men would not think that they ought to rule over such a man, for that would be the same as if they claimed to rule over Zeus, dividing up his spheres of government. It remains therefore, and this seems to be the natural course, for all to obey such a man gladly, so that men of this sort may be kings in the cities for all time.

+

And perhaps it is well after the subjects that have been discussed to pass over to consider royal government; for we pronounce this to be one of the correct constitutions. And it has to be considered whether it is advantageous for a city or a country that is to be well administered to be ruled by a king, or whether it is not so but some other constitution is more expedient, or whether royal rule is expedient for some states and not for others. But it is needful to decide first whether there is only one sort of kingship or whether it has several varieties.

+ +
+

Now it is at all events easy to discern that kingship includes several kinds, and that the mode of government is not the same in all. For the kingship in the Spartan constitution, which is held to be a typical royalty of the kind guided by law, does not carry sovereignty in all matters, though when a king goes on a foreign expedition he is the leader in all matters relating to the war; and also matters relating to religion have been assigned to the kings. This kingship therefore is a sort of military command vested in generals with absolute powers and held for life; for the king has not authority to put a subject to death, except [in a certain reign]Inexplicable, and omitted in one of the earliest editions; possibly βασιλείᾳ is to be emended to ἐλάσειexcept on some march-out. as in ancient times kings on their military expeditions could kill an offender out of hand, as Homer proves, for Agamemnon endured being reviled in the assemblies but when they were on an expedition had authority to put a man to death: at all events he says But whomsoe’er I see far from the fray Shall have no hope to fly from dogs and vultures, For death is in my hands!Quoted from Hom. Il. 2.391, but the last line is not in our Homer. This then is one sort of kingship, a lifelong generalship, and some of the kingships of this kind are hereditary, others elective; and by its side there is another sort of monarchy, examples of which are kingships existing among some of the barbarians. The power possessed by all of these resembles that of tyrannies, but they govern according to law and are hereditary;for because the barbarians are more servile in their nature than the Greeks, and the Asiatics than the Europeans, they endure despotic rule without any resentment. These kingships therefore are for these reasons of a tyrannical nature, but they are secure because they are hereditary and rule by law. Also their bodyguard is of a royal and not a tyrannical type for the same reason; for kings are guarded by the citizens in arms, whereas tyrants have foreign guards, for kings rule in accordance with law and over willing subjects, but tyrants rule over unwilling subjects, owing to which kings take their guards from among the citizens but tyrants have them to guard against the citizens. These then are two kinds of monarchy; while another is that which existed among the ancient Greeks, the type of rulers called aesymnetae. This, to put it simply, is an elective tyranny, and it differs from the monarchy that exists among barbarians not in governing without the guidance of law but only in not being hereditary. Some holders of this type of monarchy ruled for life, others until certain fixed limits of time or until certain undertakings were ended, as for example the people of Mitylene once elected Pittacus to resist the exiles under the leadership of Antimenides and the poet Alcaeus. That they elected PittacusPittacus held the office 587-579 B.C. He was one of the Seven Sages. Antimenides and Alcaeus were brothers. as tyrant is proved by Alcaeus in one of his catches; for he rebukes the people because The base-born Pittacus they did set up As tyrant of the meek and luckless city, And all did greatly praise him.

+ +
+

These monarchies therefore now and in the past are of the nature of tyrannies because they are autocratic, but of the nature of kingships because they are elective and rule over willing subjects. A fourth class of royal monarchy consists of the hereditary legal kingships over willing subjects in the heroic period. For because the first of the line had been benefactors of the multitude in the arts or in war, or through having drawn them together or provided them with land, these kings used to come to the throne with the consent of the subjects and hand it on to their successors by lineal descent. And they had supreme command in war and control over all sacrifices that were not in the hands of the priestly class, and in addition to these functions they were judges in law-suits; some gave judgement not on oath and some on oath—the oath was taken by holding up the sceptre.This ritual is mentioned in Hom. Il. 1.234, Hom. Il. 7.412, Hom. Il. 10.328. These kings then of ancient times used to govern continuously in matters within the city and in the country and across the frontiers; but later on when gradually the kings relinquished some of their powers and had others taken from them by the multitudes, in the cities in general only the sacrifices were left to the kings,The monarchy was reduced to a priesthood at Cyrene (Hdt. 4.161) and at Ephesus. while where anything that deserves the name of royalty survived the kings only had the command in military expeditions across the frontiers.

+

There are then these kinds of kingship, four in number: one belonging to the heroic times, which was exercised over willing subjects, but in certain limited fields, for the king was general and judge and master of religious ceremonies; second, the barbarian monarchy, which is an hereditary despotism governing in conformity with law; third, the rule of the functionary called an aesymnetes, which is an elective tyranny; and fourth among these is the Spartan kingship, which may be described simply as an hereditary generalship held for life. These kingships then differ from one another in this manner. But a fifth kind of kingship is when a single ruler is sovereign over all matters in the way in which each race and each city is sovereign over its common affairs; this monarchy ranges with the rule of a master over a household, for just as the master’s rule is a sort of monarchy in the home, so absolute monarchy is domestic mastership over a city, or over a race or several races.

+

There are therefore, we may say, virtually two kinds of kingship that have been examined, this one and the Spartan. For most of the others lie between these, since with them the king is sovereign over fewer things than under absolute monarchy, but over more than under the Spartan kingship. Hence our inquiry is virtually about two questions, one whether it is expedient or inexpedient for states to have a military commander holding office for life, and that either by descent or by class,Some MSS. give or by election.

+ +
+

and one whether it is expedient or inexpedient for one man to be sovereign over everything. Now the study of a militarycommand of the kind mentioned has more the aspect of a legal than of a constitutional inquiry (for it is possible for this form of office to exist under all constitutions), so let it be dismissed at the first stageCf. 1289a 11 ff.; but the promise of a full discussion of law is not fulfilled; but the remaining mode of kingship is a kind of constitution, so that it is necessary to consider this one and to run over the difficulties that it involves.

+

And the starting-point of the inquiry is the question whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best men or by the best laws. Those of the opinion that it is advantageous to be governed by a king think that laws enunciate only general principles but do not give directions for dealing with circumstances as they arise; so that in an art of any kind it is foolish to govern procedure by written rules (and indeed in Egypt physicians have the right to alter their prescription after four days, although if one of them alters it before he does so at his own risk); it is clear therefore that government according to written rules, that is laws, is not the best, for the same reason. At the same time, however, rulers ought to be in possession of the general principle before mentioned as well. And a thing that does not contain the emotional element is generally superior to a thing in which it is innate; now the law does not possess this factor, but every human soulnecessarily has it. But perhaps someone might say that in compensation for this a single ruler will decide better about particular cases. Therefore it is clear that on the one hand the ruler must necessarily be a legislator, and that there must or be laws laid down, although these must not be sovereigni.e. unalterably binding, and not be set aside by special dispensation of the ruler when deemed to be unjust in some particular case. where they go astray—admittedly in all other cases they ought to be sovereign; but on the other hand in matters which it is impossible for the law either to decide at all or to decide well, ought the one best man to govern or all the citizens? As it is, the citizens assembled hear lawsuits and deliberate and give judgements, but these judgements are all on particular cases. Now no doubt any one of them individually is inferior compared with the best man, but a state consists of a number of individuals, and just as a banquet towhich many contribute dishes is finer than a single plain dinner, for this reason in many cases a crowd judges better than any single person. Also the multitude is more incorruptible—just as the larger stream of water is purer, so the mass of citizens is less corruptible than the few; and the individual’s judgement is bound to be corrupted when he is overcome by anger or some other such emotion, whereas in the other case it is a difficult thing for all the people to be roused to anger and go wrong together. But the multitude must consist of the freemen, doing nothing apart from the law except about matters as to which the law must of necessity be deficient. And if this is not indeed easy to ensure in the case of many men, yet if there were a majority of good men and good citizens, would an individual make a more incorruptible ruler or rather those who though the majority in number yet are all good?

+ +
+

The majority, is it not obvious? But it will be said that they will split up into factions, whereas with a single ruler this cannot happen. But against this must perhaps be set the fact that they are as virtuous in soul as the single ruler. If then the rule of the majority when these are all good men is to be considered an aristocracy, and that of the one man kingship, aristocracy would be preferable for the states to kingship, whether the royal office be conjoined with military force or without it, if it be possible to get a larger number of men than one who are of similar quality. And it was perhaps only owing to this that kingships existed in earlier times, because it was rare to find men who greatly excelled in virtue, especially as in those days they dwelt in small cities. Moreover they used to appoint their kings on the ground of public service, and to perform this is a task for the good men. But as it began to come about that many men arose who were alike in respect of virtue, they would no longer submit to royalty, but sought for some form of commonwealth, and set up a republican constitution. And as men becoming baser began to make money out of the community, it is reasonable to suppose that some such cause as this occasioned the rise of oligarchies; for they brought wealth into honor. And from oligarchies they first changed to tyrannies, and from tyrannies to democracy; for by constantly bringing the government into fewer hands owing to a base love of gain, they made the multitude stronger,i.e. more men of ability and position went over to the opposition. so that it set upon the oligarchs, and democracies came into existence.But now that the states have come to be even greater than they were, perhaps it is not easy for yet another form of constitution beside democracy to come into existence. And even if one held that royal government is best for states, what is to be the position as regards the king’s children? is the sovereignty to be hereditary? But this will be disastrous if the king’s sons turn out to be like what some have been. It may be said that the king being sovereign will not in that case bequeath the throne to his children. But that is too much to be easy to believe: it would be difficult for a king to disinherit his sons, and an act of virtue above the level of human nature. And there is a difficulty also about the royal power: ought the man who is to reign as king to force to have an armed force about him, by means of which he willhave power to compel those who may be unwilling to obey, or if not, how is it possible for him to administer his office? For even if he were a law-abiding sovereign and never acted according to his own will against the law, nevertheless it would be essential for him to have power behind him whereby to safeguard the laws. Probably therefore it is not difficult to define the regulations for a king of this sort: he must have a force of his own, but the force must be only so large as to be stronger than a single individual or even several individuals banded together, but weaker than the multitude, on the principle on which the men of old times used to assign bodyguards whenever they appointed somebody as what they termed aesymnetes or tyrantOr tyrant looks like an incorrect note, see 1285b 25. of the state, and also, when DionysiusSee 1259a 39 n. asked for his guards, somebody advised him to give the same number of guards to the citizens of Syracuse.

+ +
+

Our discussion has now reached the case of the king who acts in all matters according to his own will, and we must examine this type of royalty. For the so-called constitutional monarchy, as we said,See 10.3. is not a special kind of constitution (since it is possible for a life-long generalship to exist under all constitutions, for example under a democracy and an aristocracy, and many people make one man sovereign over the administration, for instance there is a government of this sort in Epidamnus, Durazzo, on the Adriatic. and also at OpusChief town of Locri, near the Straits of Euboea to a certain smaller extent); but we have now to discuss what is called Absolute Monarchy, which is the monarchy under which the king governs all men according to his own will. Some people think that it is entirely contrary to nature for one person to be sovereign over all the citizens where the state consists of men who are alike; for necessarily persons alike in nature must in accordance with nature have the same principle of justice and the same value, so that inasmuch as for persons who are unequal to have an equal amount of food or clothing is harmful for their bodies, the same is the case also in regard to honors; similarly therefore it is wrong for those who are equal to have inequality, owing to which it is just for no one person to govern or be governed more than another, and therefore for everybody to govern and be governed alike in turn. And this constitutes law for regulation is law. Therefore it is preferable for the law to rule rather than any one of the citizens,and according to this same principle, even if it be better for certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in subordination to them; for there must be some government, but it is clearly not just, men say, for one person to be governor when all the citizens are alike. It may be objected that any case which the law appears to be unable to define, a human being also would be unable to decide. But the law first specially educates the magistrates for the purpose and then commissions them to decide and administer the matters that it leaves over according to the best of their judgement,This formula came in the oath taken by the dicasts at Athens. and furthermore it allows them to introduce for themselves any amendment that experience leads them to think better than the established code. He therefore that recommends that the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason alone shall govern, but he that would have man govern adds a wild animal also; for appetite is like a wild animal, and also passion warps the rule even of the best men. Therefore the law is wisdom without desire. And there seems to be no truth in the analogy which argues from the artsi.e. the practical sciences, of which medicine is taken as an example. that it is a bad thing to doctor oneself by book, but preferable to employ the experts in the arts. For they never act contrary to principle from motives of friendship, but earn their fee when (for instance) they have cured their patients, whereas holders of political office usually do many things out of spite and to win favor; since when people suspect even the physicians of being in the confidence of their enemies and of trying to make away with them for gain, in that case they would sooner look up the treatment in the books.

+ +
+

Yet certainly physicians themselves call in other physicians to treat them when they are ill, and gymnastic trainers put themselves under other trainers when they are doing exercises, believing that they are unable to judge truly because they are judging about their own cases and when they are under the influence of feeling. Hence it is clear that when men seek for what is just they seek for what is impartial; forPerhaps this should be and. the law is that which is impartial. Again, customary lawsi.e. the rules of duty and of manners that are customary but not embodied in legislation: cf. 1319b 40 the laws both written and unwritten. are more sovereign and deal with more sovereign matters than written laws, so that if a human ruler is less liable to error than written laws, yet he is not less liable to error than the laws of custom. But also it is certainly not easy for the single ruler to oversee a multitude of things; it will therefore be necessary for the officials appointed by him to be numerous; so that what difference does it make whether this has been the arrangement immediately from the outset or the single ruler appoints them in this manner? Again, a thing that has also been said before, if the virtuous man justly deserves to rule because he is better, yet two good men are better than one: for that is the meaning of the line Hom. Il. 10.224: The passage goes on καί τε πρὸ ὃ τοῦ ἐνόησεν ὅππως κέρδος ἔῃ, then one discerneth Before the other how advantage lieth. When two together go— and of the prayer of Agamemnon Hom. Il. 2.372. May ten such fellow-councillors be mine. And even now the magistrates, like the Athenian dicast, have power to judge certain cases about which the law is unable to give a clear declaration, since nobody disputes that in matters about which it can do so the law would be the best ruler and judge. But since, although some things can be covered by the laws,other things cannot, it is the latter that cause doubt and raise the question whether it is preferable for the best law to rule or the best man. For to lay down a law about things that are subjects for deliberation is an impossibility. Therefore men do not deny that it must be for a human being to judge about such matters, but they say that it ought not to be a single human being only but a number. For the individual official judges well when he has been instructed by the law, and it would doubtless seem curious if a person saw better when judging with two eyes and two organs of hearing and acting with two feet and hands than many persons with many, since even as it is monarchs make many eyes and ears and hands and feet their own, for they adopt persons that are friendly to their rule and to themselves as their fellow-rulers. Although therefore if these assistants are not friendly they will not act in conformity with the monarch’s policy, if they are friends of him and of his rule, well, a friend is one’s equal and like, so that if the monarch thinks that his friends ought to rule he thinks that people who are equal to and like himself ought to rule like himself.

+

This then more or less is the case advanced by those who argue against kingship.

+

But perhaps, although this is a true account of the matter in some cases, it does not apply in others. For there is such a thing as being naturally fitted to be controlled by a master, and in another case, to be governed by a king, and in another, for citizenship, and this is just and expedient; but there is no such thing as natural fitness for tyranny, nor for any other of the forms of government that are divergences, for these come about against nature.

+ +
+

But merely from what has been said, it is clear that among people who are alike and equal it is neither expedient nor just for one to be sovereign over all—neither when there are no laws, but he himself is in the place of law, nor when there are laws, neither when both sovereign and subjects are good nor when both are bad, nor yet when the sovereign is superior in virtue, except in a certain manner. What this manner is must be stated; and in a way it has been stated already even before. But first we must define what constitutes fitness for royal government, what fitness for aristocracy, and what for a republic. A fit subject for royal government is a populace of such a sort as to be naturally capable of producing a family of outstanding excellence for political leadership; a community fit for aristocracy is one that naturally produces a populaceThe clause translated that—populace some editors excise as a superfluous insertion. capable of being governed under the form of government fit for free men by those who are fitted by virtue for taking the part of leaders in constitutional government; a republican community, one in which there naturally grows up a military populaceThey also excise in which-populace capable of being governed and of governing under a law that distributes the offices among the well-to-do in accordance with merit. When therefore it comes about that there is either a whole family or even some one individual that differs from the other citizens in virtue so greatly that his virtue exceeds that of all the others, then it is just for this family to be the royal family or this individual king, and sovereign over all matters. For, as has been said before,this holds good not only in accordance with the right that is usually brought forward by those who are founding aristocratic and oligarchic constitutions, and from the other side by those who are founding democratic ones (for they all make their claim on the ground of superiority, though not the same superiority), but it also holds good in accordance with the right spoken of before.i.e. the right of merit, 8.7. For it is not seemly to put to death or banish, nor yet obviously to ostracize, such a man, nor is it seemly to call upon him to take his turn as a subject; for it is not in the order of nature for the part to overtop the whole, but the man that is so exceptionally outstanding has come to overtop the whole community. Hence it only remains for the community to obey such a man, and for him to be sovereign not in turn but absolutely.

+

Let this be our answer to the questions as regards kingship, what are its varieties, and whether it is disadvantageous for states or advantageous, and for what states, and under what conditions.

+

And since we pronounce the right constitutions to be three, and of these the one governed by the best men must necessarily be the best, and such is the one in which it has come about either that some one man or a whole family or a group of men is superior in virtue to all the citizens together, the latter being able to be governed and the former to govern on the principles of the most desirable life, and since in the first part of the discourseBook 3.2, 3. it was proved that the virtue of a man and that of a citizen in the best state must of necessity be the same, it is evident that a man becomes good in the same way and by the same means as one might establish an aristocratically or monarchically governed state,Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give established a state governed in the best way by an aristocracy or a monarchy.

+ +
+

so that it will be almost the same education and habits that make a man good and that make him capable as a citizen or a king.

+

These conclusions having been laid down, we must now endeavor to discuss the best form of constitution and to say in what way it is natural for it to come into existence and how it is natural for it to be organized.The concluding sentence, by whomever written, clearly leads on to the Book that is No. 7 in the MSS. and in this edition; and after it the MSS. add half the first sentence of that Book, slightly altered. Some editors therefore transfer Books 7 and 8 here and put Books 4, 5 and 6 after them; opinions vary as to the proper order of Books 4, 5. and 6 among themselves.

+ +
+
+

Transposed as Book 6 by some editors; see Book 3 fin., note.In all the arts and the sciences that are not merely sectional but that in relation to some one class of subject are complete, it is the function of a single art or science to study what is suited to each class,Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give to each individual. for instance what sort of gymnastic exercise is beneficial for what sort of bodily frame, and what is the best sort (for the best must naturally suit the person of the finest natural endowment and equipment), and also what one exercise taken by all is the best for the largest number (for this is also a question for gymnastic science), and in addition, in case someone desires a habit of body and a knowledge of athletic exercises that are not the ones adapted to him, it is clearly just as much the task of the trainer and gymnastic master to produce this capacityi.e. a bodily bearing and athletic skill that are not the ones most suited to the pupil’s particular physique. also; and we notice this also happening similarly in regard to medicine, and shipbuilding, and the making of clothes, and every other craft. Hence it is clear that in the case of the constitution as well it is the business of the same science to study which is the best constitution and what character it must have to be the most ideal if no external circumstance stands in the way, and what constitution is adapted to what people (since for many it is doubtless impossible to attain the best one, so that the good lawgiver and the true statesman must be acquainted with both the form of constitution that is the highest absolutely and that which is best under assumed conditions), and also thirdly the form of constitution based on a certain supposition (for he must be also capable of considering both how some given constitution could be brought into existence originally and also in what way having been brought into existence it could be preserved for the longest time: I mean for example if it has befallen some state not only not to possess the best constitution and to be unprovided even with the things necessary for it, but also not to have the constitution that is practicable under the circumstances but an inferior one); and beside all these matters he must ascertain the form of constitution most suited to all states, since most of those who make pronouncements about the constitution, even if the rest of what they say is good, entirely miss the points of practical utility. For it is proper to considerThe fourfold classification given just before is repeated in rather loose terms in this sentence. not only what is the best constitution but also what is the one possible of achievement, and likewise also what is the one that is easier and more generally shared by all states. But as it is, some students inquire which is the highest form of all even though requiring much material equipment,The word originally denoted the duty of the wealthy citizen holding office of Choregus to supply dresses, etc., for the chorus and actors in a drama. while those who rather state some general form sweep aside the constitutions actually existing and praise that of Sparta or some other;

+ +
+

but the proper course is to bring forward an organization of such a sort that men will easily be persuaded and be able in the existing circumstances to take part in it, since to reform a constitution is no less a task than to frame one from the beginning, just as to re-learn a science is just as hard as to learn it originally; in addition therefore to the things mentioned the student of politics must also be able to render aid to the constitutions that exist already, as was also said before.Book 3.5. But this is impossible if he does not know how many kinds of constitution there are; but at present some people think that there is only one kind of democracy and one kind of oligarchy, but this is not true. Hence he must take in view the different varieties of the constitutions, and know how many there are and how many are their combinations. And after this it needs this same discrimination also to discern the laws that are the best, and those that are suited to each of the forms of constitution. For the laws should be laid down, and all people lay them down, to suit the constitutions—the constitutions must not be made to suit the laws; for a constitution is the regulation of the offices of the state in regard to the mode of their distribution and to the question what is the sovereign power in the state and what is the object of each community, but laws are distinct from the principles of the constitution, and regulate how the magistrates are to govern and to guard against thosewho transgress them. So that clearly it is necessary to be in possession of the different varieties of each form of constitution, and the number of these, even for the purpose of legislation; for it is impossible for the same laws to be expedient for all oligarchies or democracies if there are really several kinds of them, and not one sort of democracy or oligarchy only.

+

And inasmuch as in our first inquiryBook 3.5. about the forms of the constitution we classified the right constitutions as three, kingship, aristocracy and constitutional government, and the deviations from these as three, tyranny from kingship, oligarchy from aristocracy and democracy from constitutional government, and about aristocracy and kingship we have spoken (for to study the best constitution is the same thing as to speak about the forms that bear those names, since each of them means a system based on the qualification of virtue equipped with means), and as also the question what constitutes the difference between aristocracy and kingship and when a royal government is to be adopted has been decided before, it remains to discuss the form of constitution designated by the namei.e. πολιτεία, polity, which denotes not only a constitution of any form, but also (like our term constitutional government) a particular form, viz., a republic, cf. Book 3.5.2. common to them all, and the other forms, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Now it is manifest also which of these deviationsThe three forms of constitution last mentioned. is the worst and which the second worst. For necessarily the deviation from the first and most divine must be the worst, Corruptio optimi pessima, a Socratic notion: the men of the best natural gifts, when educated, are the worst, Xen. Mem. 4.1.3. and kingship must of necessity either possess the name only, without really being kingship,

+ +
+

or be based on the outstanding superiority of the man who is king; so that tyranny being the worst form must be the one farthest removed from constitutional government, and oligarchy must be the second farthest (for aristocracy is widely separated from that constitution), while democracy must be the most moderate. An account of their relative merits has indeed already been given also by one of the former writers, Plat. Stat. 302a ff. though not on the same principle as ours; for he inclined to judge that there were good varieties of all the forms, for instance a good sort of oligarchy and so on, and that democracy was the worst among these, but the best among the bad varieties, whereas we say that the deviations are wholly wrong, and that it is not right to speak of one form of oligarchy as better than another, but only as less bad. But let us for the present dismiss the question of a classification of this nature. Our business is first to distinguish how many different forms of the constitutions there are, assuming that there do exist several kinds of democracy and of oligarchy; next, which form is most general, and which most desirable after the best constitution, and also if there exists some other form that is aristocratic in nature and well constructed but not fitted to the largest number of cities, which this is; next, which of the other forms too is desirable for what people (since probably for some democracy is necessary more than oligarchy, and for others oligarchy more than democracy);and after this, in what way should one proceed who wishes to set up these constitutions, I mean the various forms of democracy and of oligarchy; and finally, when as far as possible we have concisely touched upon all these questions, we must endeavor to review what are the agencies that destroy and what are those that preserve constitutions generally and each variety of constitution in particular, and what are the causes by which it is most natural for these events to be brought about.

+

Now the reason of there being several forms of constitution is that every city has a considerable number of parts. For in the first place we see that all the cities are composed of households, and then again that of this multitude some must necessarily be rich and some poor and some between the two, and also of the rich and the poor the former class is heavy-armed and the latter without armor. And we see that one portion of the common people is agricultural, another engaged in trade and another mechanic. And the upper classes have distinctions also corresponding to their wealth and the amounts of their property (for example in a stud of horses—for it is not easy to rear horses without being rich, and this is why in ancient times there were oligarchies in all the states whose strength lay in their cavalry, and they used to use horses for their wars against their neighbors, as for instance did the Eretrians and Chalcidians and the people of Magnesia on the Maeander and many of the other Asiatic peoples). Moreover in addition to differences in wealth there is the difference of birth, and that in regard to virtue,

+ +
+

and indeed any other similar distinction that in the discussion of aristocracy has been stated to constitute a part of the state (for there we distinguished how many necessary parts there are of which every state must consist); for sometimes all of these parts participate in the constitution and sometimes a smaller or a larger number ofthem. It is clear therefore that there must necessarily be several forms of constitution differing in kind from one another, inasmuch as these parts differ in kind among themselves. For a constitution means the arrangement of the magistracies, and this all people plan out either according to the power of those who share political rights, or according to some common equality between them, I mean for example between the poor or between the rich, or some equality common to them both.This clause looks like an interpolation. It follows therefore that there are as many forms of constitution as there are modes of arrangement according to the superiorities and the differences of the sections. But the forms mostly are thought to be two—just as in the case of the winds we speak of some as north and some as south and regard the rest as deviations from these,Aristotle refers to this view in Aristot. Meteor. 364a 19, saying that west winds are classed with north and east winds with south, because wind from the setting sun is cooler and from the rising sun warmer. He notes that north and south winds are the most frequent, Aristot. Meteor. 361a 6; this may have suggested the idea that they were the typical winds. so also of constitutions there are held to be two forms, democracy and oligarchy; for men reckon aristocracy as a kind of oligarchy because it is oligarchy of a sort, and what is called constitutional government as democracy, just as in the case of the winds they reckon the west wind as a kind of north wind and the east wind as a kind of south wind.And the case is similar with musical modes, as some people say: for there too they posit two kinds, the Dorian mode and the Phrygian, and call the other scales some of them Dorian and the others Phrygian. For the most part therefore they are accustomed to think in this way about the constitutions; but it is truer and better to class them as we did, and assuming that there are two well-constructed forms, or else one, to say that the others are deviations, some from the well-blended constitution and the others from the best one, the more tense and masterful constitutions being oligarchic and the relaxed and soft ones demotic.

+

But it is not right to define democracy, as some people are in the custom of doing now, merely as the constitution in which the multitude is sovereign (for even in oligarchies and everywhere the majority is sovereign) nor oligarchy as the constitution in which a few are sovereign over the government. For if the whole number were thirteen hundred, and a thousand of these were rich and did not give the three hundred poor a share in the government although they were free-born and like themselves in all other respects, no one would say that this people was governed democratically; and similarly also if there were few poor, but these more powerful than the rich who were more numerous, no one would call such a government a democracy either, if the other citizens being rich had no share in the honors.

+ +
+

Rather therefore ought we to say that it is a democracy when the free are sovereign and an oligarchy when the rich are, but that it comes about that the sovereign class in a democracy is numerous and that in an oligarchy small because there are many men of free birth and few rich. For otherwise, suppose people assigned the offices by height, as some personse.g. Hdt. 3.20. say is done in Ethiopia, or by beauty, that would be an oligarchy, because both the handsome and the tall are few in number. Nevertheless it is not enough to define these constitutions even by wealth and free birth only; but inasmuch as there are more elements than one both in democracy and in oligarchy, we must add the further distinction that neither is it a democracy if the freei.e. those of citizen birth. being few govern the majority who are not of free birth, as for instance at Apollonia on the Ionian Gulf and at Thera (for in each of these cities the offices of honor were filled by the specially noble families who had been the first settlers of the colonies, and these were few out of many), nor is it a democracyPerhaps the Greek should be altered here to give an oligarchy. if the rich rule because they are in a majority, as in ancient times at Colophon (for there the majority of the population owned large property before the war against the Lydians took place), but it is a democracy when those who are free are in the majority and have sovereignty over the government, and an oligarchy when the rich and more well bornare few and sovereign.

+

It has then been stated that there are several forms of constitution, and what is the cause of this; but let us take the starting-point that was laid down beforeSee 3.1. and say that there are more forms than those mentioned, and what these forms are, and why they vary. For we agree that every state possesses not one part but several. Therefore just as, in case we intended to obtain a classification of animals, we should first define the properties necessarily belonging to every animal (for instance some of the sense organs, and the machinery for masticating and for receiving food, such as a mouth and a stomach, and in addition to these the locomotive organs of the various species), and if there were only so many necessary parts, but there were different varieties of these (I mean for instance certain various kinds of mouth and stomach and sensory organs, and also of the locomotive parts as well), the number of possible combinations of these variations will necessarily produce a variety of kinds of animals (for it is not possible for the same animal to have several different sorts of mouth, nor similarly of ears either), so that when all the possible combinations of these are taken they will all produce animal species, and there will be as many species of the animal as there are combinations of the necessary parts:—so in the same way also we shall classify the varieties of the constitutions that have been mentioned. For states also are composed not of one but of several parts, as has been said often. One of these parts therefore is the mass of persons concerned with food who are called farmers,

+ +
+

and second is what is called the mechanic class (and this is the group engaged in the arts without which it is impossible for a city to be inhabited, and some of these arts are indispensably necessary, while others contribute to luxury or noble living), and third is a commercial class (by which I mean the class that is engaged in selling and buying and in wholesale and retail trade), and fourth is the class of manual laborers, and the fifth class is the one to defend the state in war, which is no less indispensable than the others if the people are not to become the slaves of those who come against them; for surely it is quite out of the question that it should be proper to give the name of state to a community that is by nature a slave, for a state is self-sufficient, but that which is a slave is not self-sufficient. Therefore the statement made in the Republic Plat. Rep. 369b-371e is witty but not adequate. For Socrates says that the most necessary elements of which a state is composed are four, and he specifies these as a weaver, a farmer, a shoemaker and a builder; and then again he adds, on the ground that these are not self-sufficient, a copper-smith and the people to look after the necessary live-stock, and in addition a merchant and a retail trader. These elements together constitute the full complement of his first city,i.e. the first sketch of the City-state, loc. cit. implying that every city is formed for the sake of the necessaries of life and not rather for the sake of what is noble, and that it has equal need of both shoemakers and farmers; but the warrior classhe does not assign to it until as the territory is increased and comes into contact with that of the neighbors they are brought into war. But yet even among the four partners or whatever their number be there must necessarily be somebody to assign justice and to judge their claims; inasmuch therefore as one would count the soul of an animal to be more a part of it than the body, so also the factors in states corresponding to the soul must be deemed to be parts of them more than those factors which contribute to necessary utility,—the former being the military class and the class that plays a part in judicial justice, and in addition to these the deliberative class, deliberation being a function of political intelligence. And it makes no difference to the argument whether these functions are held by special classes separately or by the same persons; for it often happens for the same men to be both soldiers and farmers. Hence inasmuch as both groupsThe first four classes and the fifth and sixth (the military and judicial). of classes must be counted parts of the state, it is clear that the heavy-armed soldiery at any rateLower grades of the forces may be excluded from citizenship, e.g. the rowers of the triremes (see below, 1376b 15). must be a part of the state. And a seventh class is the one that serves the community by means of its property, the class that we call the rich. And an eighth is the class of public servants, that is, those who serve in the magistracies, inasmuch as without rulers it is impossible for a city to exist; it is therefore necessary that there should be some men who are able to govern and who render this service to the state either continuously or in turn. And there remain the classes which we happen to have defined just before, the deliberative class and the one that judges the claims of litigants. If therefore it is proper for the states to have these functions performed, and well and justly performed,

+ +
+

it is necessary for there also to be some men possessing virtue in the form of political excellence. Now as to the other capacities many people think that it is possible for them to be possessed in combination, for example, for the same men to be the soldiers that defend the state in war and the farmers that till the land and the artisans, and also the councillors and judges, and indeed all men claim to possess virtue and think themselves capable of filling most of the offices of state; but it is not possible for the same men to be poor and rich. Hence these seem to be in the fullest sense the parts of the state, the rich and the poor. And also the fact that the rich are usually few and the poor many makes these two among the parts of the state appear as opposite sections; so that the superior claimsCf. 3.11, 12 fin. of these classes are even made the guiding principles upon which constitutions are constructed, and it is thought that there are two forms of constitution, democracy and oligarchy.

+

That there are then several forms of constitution, and what are the reasons for this, has been stated before; let us now say that there are several varieties both of democracy and of oligarchy. And this is clear even from what has been said already. For there are several classes both of the people and of those called the notables; for instance classes of the people are, one the farmers, another the class dealing with the arts and crafts, another the commercial classoccupied in buying and selling and another the one occupied with the sea—and this is divided into the classes concerned with naval warfare, with trade, with ferrying passengers and with fishing (for each of these classes is extremely numerous in various places, for instance fishermen at Tarentum and Byzantium, navy men at Athens, the mercantile class at Aegina and Chios, and the ferryman-class at Tenedos), and in addition to these the hand-working class and the people possessing little substance so that they cannot live a life of leisure, also those that are not free men of citizen parentage on both sides, and any other similar class of common people; while among the notables wealth, birth, virtue, education, and the distinctions that are spoken of in the same group as these, form the classes.

+

The first kind of democracy therefore is the one which receives the name chiefly in respect of equality. For the law of this sort of democracy ascribes equality to the state of things in which the poor have no more prominence than the rich, and neither class is sovereign, but both are alike; for assuming that freedom is chiefly found in a democracy, as some persons suppose, and also equality, this would be so most fully when to the fullest extent all alike share equally in the government. And since the people are in the majority, and a resolution passed by a majority is paramount, this must necessarily be a democracy. This therefore is one kind of democracy, where the offices are held on property qualifications, but these low ones, although it is essential that the man who acquires the specified amount should have the right to hold office, and the man who loses it should not hold office.

+ +
+

And another kind of democracy is for all the citizens that are not open to challengei.e. on the score of birth, cf. 5.4. to have a share in office, but for the law to rule; and another kind of democracy is for all to share in the offices on the mere qualification of being a citizen, but for the law to rule. Another kind of democracy is where all the other regulations are the same, but the multitude is sovereign and not the law; and this comes about when the decrees of the assembly over-ride the law. This state of things is brought about by the demagogues; for in the states under democratic government guided by law a demagogue does not arise, but the best classes of citizens are in the most prominent position; but where the laws are not sovereign, then demagogues arise; for the common people become a single composite monarch, since the many are sovereign not as individuals but collectively. Yet what kind of democracy Homer Hom. Il. 2.204 means by the words no blessing is the lordship of the many—whether he means this kind or when those who rule as individuals are more numerous, is not clear. However, a people of this sort, as being monarch, seeks to exercise monarchic rule through not being ruled by the law, and becomes despotic, so that flatterers are held in honor. And a democracy of this nature is comparable to the tyrannical form of monarchy, because their spirit is the same, and both exercise despotic control over the better classes, and the decrees voted by the assemblyare like the commands issued in a tyranny, and the demagogues and the flatterers are the same people or a corresponding class, and either set has the very strongest influence with the respective ruling power, the flatterers with the tyrants and the demagogues with democracies of this kind. And these men cause the resolutions of the assembly to be supreme and not the laws, by referring all things to the people; for they owe their rise to greatness to the fact that the people is sovereign over all things while they are sovereign over the opinion of the people, for the multitude believes them. Moreover those who bring charges against the magistrates say that the people ought to judge the suits, and the people receive the invitation gladly, so that all the magistracies are put down. And it would seem to be a reasonable criticism to say that such a democracy is not a constitution at all; for where the laws do not govern there is no constitution, as the law ought togovern all things while the magistrates control particulars, and we ought to judge this to be constitutional government; if then democracy really is one of the forms of constitution, it is manifest that an organization of this kind, in which all things are administered by resolutions of the assembly, is not even a democracy in the proper sense, for it is impossible for a voted resolution to be a universal rule.

+

Let this be our discussion of the different kinds of democracy.

+

Of the kinds of oligarchy, one is for the magistracies to be appointed from property-assessments so high that the poor who are the majority have no share in the government, but for the man who acquires the requisite amount of property to be allowed to take part in it;

+ +
+

another is when the magistracies are filled from high assessments and the magistrates themselves elect to fill vacancies (so that if they do so from all the citizens of this assessment, this appears rather to be of the nature of an aristocracy, but if from a particular section of them, it is oligarchical); another variety of oligarchy is when son succeeds father in office; and a fourth kind is when the hereditary system just mentioned exists and also the magistrates govern and not the law. This among oligarchies is the form corresponding to tyranny among monarchies and to the form of democracy about which we spoke last among democracies, and indeed oligarchy of this sort has the special name of dynasty.Government controlled by a few powerful families. Cf. Thuc. 3.62.4, where the Thebans say, In those days our state was not governed by an oligarchy that granted equal justice to all, nor yet by a democracy; the power was in the hands of a small cabal ( δυναστεία ὀλίγων ἀνδρῶν), than which nothing is more opposed to law or to true political order, or more nearly resembles a tyranny (Jowett).

+

So many therefore are the kinds of oligarchy and of democracy; butit must not escape notice that in many places it has come about that although the constitution as framed by the laws is not democratic, yet owing to custom and the social system it is democratically administered, and similarly by a reverse process in other states although the legal constitution is more democratic, yet by means of the social system and customs it is carried on rather as an oligarchy. This occurs chiefly after alterations of the constitutions have taken place; for the people do not change over to the new system immediately but are content at the first stages to gain small advantages from the other party,so that the previously existing laws continue although power is in the hands of the party that is changing the constitution.

And that these various kinds of democracy and oligarchy exist ismanifest from the actual things that have been said. For necessarily either all the parts of the population that have been mentioned must have a share in the government, or some and not others. When therefore the farmer class and the class possessed of moderate property is sovereign over the government, they govern according to laws; for they have a livelihood if they work, but are not able to be at leisure, so that they put the law in control and hold the minimum of assemblies necessary; and the other persons have the right to take part when they have acquired the property-assessment fixed by the laws, so that to take part in the government is open to all who have got that amount of property; since for it not to be open to everybody on any terms at all is a characteristic of oligarchy, but then on the other hand it is impossible for it to be open to them to have leisure if there are no revenues.i.e. revenues from abroad; the poor can only attend often if paid for attendance, and this can only be financed if the state has income from tribute or foreign property. This then is one kind of democracy for these reasons. Another kind is due to the distinction that comes next: it is possible that all the citizens not liable to objection on the score of birth may have the right to take part in the assembly, but may actually take part only when they are able to be at leisure; hence in a democracy of this nature the laws govern because there is no revenue. A third kind is when all those who are free men have the right to take part in the government yet do not do so because of the aforesaid reason, so that it follows that in this form of democracy also the law governs.

+ +
+

And a fourth kind of democracy is the one that has been the last in point of time to come into existence in the states. Because the states have become much greater than the original ones and possess large supplies of revenue, while all the citizens have a share in the government because of the superiorityCf. 1288a 20 ff. of the multitude, all actually take part in it and exercise their citizenship because even the poor are enabled to be at leisure by receiving pay. Indeed the multitude in this kind of state has a very great deal of leisure, for they are not hampered at all by the care of their private affairs, but the rich are, so that often they take no part in the assembly nor in judging lawsuits. Owing to this the multitude of the poor becomes sovereign over the government, instead of the laws. Such in number and in nature are the kinds of democracy that these causes necessarily bring into existence. To turn to the varieties and of oligarchy, when more men possess property, but less of it and not a very large amount, this is the first form of oligarchy; for they allow the man that acquires property the right to participate, and because there is a large number of persons participating in the government it necessarily follows that not the men but the law is sovereign (for the farther removed they are from monarchy, and as they have not so much property as to be idle and neglect it, nor yet so little as to be kept at the expense of the state,they are compelled to call upon the law to rule instead of ruling themselves). But then if the owners of the properties are fewer than those who owned them previously, and own more, the second form of oligarchy comes into being; for as they become stronger they claim to have a larger share, and therefore they themselves select those from among the rest of the citizens who go into the government, but as they are not yet strong enough to rule without law they make the law conform with this.i.e. they legalize the recruiting of the ruling class by co-optation; or the words may mean they make the law ruler. And if they carry matters further by becoming fewer and holding larger properties, there comes about the third advance in oligarchy, which consists in their keeping the offices in their own hands, but under a law enacting that they are to be hereditary. And when finally they attain very great pre-eminence by their wealth and their multitude of friends, a dynasty of this nature is near to monarchy, and men become supreme instead of the law; and this is the fourth kind of oligarchy, the counterpart of the last kind of democracy.

+

FurthermoreWe now pass from the varieties of Oligarchy and of Democracy to those of the other actually existing constitutions, Aristocracy so-called and Constitutional Government. there are two constitutions by the side of democracy and oligarchy, onei.e. aristocracy. of which is counted by everybody and has been referred to as one of the four forms of constitution (and the four meant are monarchy, oligarchy, democracy and fourth the form called aristocracy), but there is a fifth, entitled by the common name of them all (for it is called constitutional government), but as it does not often occur it is overlooked by those who try to enumerate the forms of constitution, and they use the four names only (as does Plato) in the list of constitutions.

+ +
+

Now the name of aristocracy is indeed properly given to the constitution that we discussed in our first discoursesBook 3. 1279a 35 ff., 1286b 3 ff. (for it is right to apply the name aristocracy—government of the best—only to the constitution of which the citizens are best in virtue absolutely and not merely good men in relation to some arbitrary standard, for under it alone the same person is a good man and a good citizen absolutely, whereas those who are good under the other constitutions are good relatively to their own form of constitution); nevertheless there are also some constitutions that have differences both in comparison with oligarchically governed states and with what is termed constitutional government, inasmuch as in them they elect the officials not only by wealth but also by goodness; this form of constitution differs from both and is called aristocratic. For even in the states that do not pay any public attention to virtue there are nevertheless some men that are held in high esteem and are thought worthy of respect. Where then the constitution takes in view wealth and virtue as well as the common people, as for instance at Carthage, this is of the nature of an aristocracy; and so also are the states, in which the constitution, like that of Sparta, takes in view two of these things only, virtue and the common people, and there is a mingling of these two factors, democracy and virtue. These then are two kinds of aristocracy beside the first, which is the best constitution,and a third kind is those instances of what is called constitutional government that incline more in the direction of oligarchy.

+

It remains for us to speak about what is termed constitutional government and also about tyranny. Though neither the former nor the aristocracies spoken of just now are really deviations, we have classed them thus because in actual truth they have all fallen away from the most correct constitution, and consequently are counted with the deviation-forms, and those are deviations from them, as we said in our remarks at the beginning.See 1279b 4 ff. Actual aristocracies are a falling-off from the Aristocracy and Polity is a decline from Monarchy and Aristocracy; but they are not deviations in the technical sense. Tyranny is reasonably mentioned last because it is the least constitutional of all governments, whereas our investigation is about constitutional government.

+

Having then stated the reason for this mode of classification, we have now to set forth our view about constitutional government. For its meaning is clearer now that the characteristics of oligarchy and democracy have been defined; since constitutional government is, to put it simply, a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. But people customarily give the name of constitutional government only to those among such mixed constitutions that incline towards democracy, and entitle those that incline more towards oligarchy aristocracies, because education and good birth go more with the wealthier classes, and also the wealthy are thought to have already the things to get which wrongdoers commit wrong; owing to which people apply the terms gentry and notabilities to the rich. Since therefore aristocracy means the assignment of the highest place to the best of the citizens, oligarchies also are said to be drawn rather from the gentry.

+ +
+

And it seems an impossibility for a city governed not by the aristocracy but by the base to have well-ordered government, and similarly also for a city that has not a well-ordered government to be governed aristocratically. But to have good laws enacted but not obey them does not constitute well-ordered government. Hence one form of good government must be understood to consist in the laws enacted being obeyed, and another form in the laws which the citizens keep being well enacted (for it is possible to obey badly enacted laws). And for laws to be well enacted is possible in two ways: they must either be the best laws possible for the given people or the best absolutely. But aristocracy in the fullest sense seems to consist in the distribution of the honors according to virtue; for virtue is the defining factor of aristocracy, as wealth is of oligarchy, and freedom of democracy (while the principle that a decision of the majority is supreme is found in them all: for in both oligarchy and aristocracy and democracies whatever the larger part of those who have a share in the government decides is supreme). In most statesi.e. in most states that are considered aristocracies. then the name of aristocracy is given to that form of constitutional government,i.e. the more oligarchical form, 1293b 36. for the combination aims only at the well-off and the poor, wealth and freedom (since in almost the largest number of states the rich seem to occupy the place of the gentry); butas there are three things that claim equal participationin the constitution, freedom, wealth and virtue (for the fourth, what is called nobility, accompanies the two latter—nobility means ancient wealth and virtue), it is manifest that the mixture of the two factors, the rich and the poor,Loosely put for wealth and free birth. ought to be termed constitutional government, while the mixture of the three factors deserves the name of aristocracy most of all the various forms of aristocracy beside the true and best form.

+

It has then been stated that other forms of constitution also exist besides monarchy, democracy and oligarchy, and what their characteristics are, and how the various sorts of aristocracy and of constitutional government differ from one another; and it is manifest that aristocracy and constitutional government are not widely apart from one another.

+

Next to what has been said let us state the way in which what is called constitutional government comes into existence by the side of democracy and oligarchy, and how it is proper to establish it. At the same time the defining characteristics of democracy and oligarchy will also be clear; for we must grasp the distinction between these and then make a combination out of them, taking, so to say, a contribution from each. And there are three principles determining this combination or mixture. Under one plan we must adopt both features from the legislative schemes of the two different constitutions: for example, in regard to the administration of justice, in oligarchies they institute a fine for the rich if they do not serve on juries but no pay for the poor for serving, while in democracies they assign pay for the poor but no fine for the rich, but a common and intermediate principle is to have both payment and fine, and therefore this is a mark of a constitutional government, since it is a mixture of elements from both oligarchy and democracy.

+ +
+

This then is one mode of combining the two. Another is to take the middle course between the regulations of each: for example, democracies permit membership of the assembly on no property-qualification at all or a quite small one, oligarchies on a large property-qualification, but the combination clearly is to have neither principle, but one which lies in the middle between either of these two qualifications. In the third place is a combination of the two systems, taking some features from the oligarchical law and some from the democratic; I mean, for example, that it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected oligarchic, and democratic for them not to have a property-qualification, oligarchic to have one; therefore it is aristocratic and constitutional to take one feature from one form and the other from the other, from oligarchy that offices are to be elected, and from democracy that this is not to be on a property-qualification. This then is the mode of the mixture; and the mark of a good mixture of democracy and oligarchy is when it is possible to speak of the same constitution as a democracy and as an oligarchy; for manifestly this is so when it is said because they have been mixed well, and this is the case with the form that lies in the middle, for each of the two extreme forms can be seen in it. This is the case with the constitution of Sparta. For many peopleendeavor to describe it as being a democracy, because its system has many democratic features, for instance first of all its regulation for the rearing of boys, since the sons of the rich are brought up in the same way as those of the poor, and are educated in a manner in which the sons of the poor also could be educated, and they are also treated similarly at the next age, and in the same manner when they are grown up, for there is nothing that distinguishes the rich man from the poor man—thus the arrangements for food are the same for all at the common messes, and the rich wear clothes such as even any poor man could procure, and also because of the two greatest offices the common people elect to one and share in the other (they elect the Elders and share in the Ephorate); but others call it an oligarchy, because it has many oligarchical features, for instance that all the offices are elective and none appointed by lot and few persons have the power to sentence to death and exile, and a number of other such matters. But in a well-constructed mixed constitution both of the two factors, and neither of them,A conjectural emendation removes this mysterious epigram, giving and not one of the two (only). should seem to be present, and it should be kept safe by its own means and not by outside aid, and by its own means not because those who desire its security are more numerous outside itOr, if ἔξωθεν is an interpolation, not merely because those (citizens) who wish it to survive are more numerous (than those who do not). (for even a bad constitution might possess this quality), but because no section of the state whatever would even wish for another constitution.

+

The proper way therefore to establish a constitutional government, and similarly also the governments named aristocracies, has now been stated.

+ +
+

It remained for us to speak of tyranny, not because there is much that can be said about it, but in order that it may receive its part in our inquiry, since we rank this also as one among the kinds of constitution. The nature of kingship we have defined in our first discourses,Book 3.9-12. in which we examined the question in relation to the constitution most commonly denoted by the term kingship, whether it is disadvantageous or an advantage to states, and what person ought to be set up as king, and from what source, and by what procedure; and in the passage in which we were considering kingship we distinguished two kinds of tyranny, because their power in a manner borders upon royalty, because both these forms of rule are in accordance with law (for among some of the barbarians they elect monarchic rulers with autocratic powers, and also in old times among the ancient Greeks some men used to become monarchs of this sort, the rulers called aesymnetae), but these two forms of tyranny have certain differences from one another, although they were on the one hand of the nature of royalty because they were in accordance with law and because they exercised monarchic rule over willing subjects, and on the other hand of the nature of a tyranny because they ruled despotically and according to their own judgement. But there is a third kind of tyranny which is thought to be tyranny in the fullest degree, being the counterpart of universal kingship; to this sort of tyranny must necessarily belong a monarchythat exercises irresponsible rule over subjects all of the same or of a higher class with a view to its own private interest and not in the interest of the persons ruled. Hence it is held against the will of the subjects, since no free man willingly endures such rule.

+

These then are the kinds of tyranny and such is their number, for the reasons stated.

+

But what is the best constitution and what is the best mode of life for most cities and most of mankind, if we do not judge by the standard of a virtue that is above the level of private citizens or of an education that needs natural gifts and means supplied by fortune, norby the standard of the ideal constitution, but of a mode of life able to be shared by most men and a constitution possible for most states to attain? For the constitutions called aristocracies, of which we spoke just now,See 1293b 7-21, cf. 1293b 36-1294a 25. in some cases fall somewhat out of the scope of most states, and in others approximate to what is called constitutional government, so that it is proper to speak of these two forms as if they were one. And indeed the decision in regard to all these questions is based on the same elementary principles. For if it has been rightly said in theEthics Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1101a 14. that the happy life is the life that is lived without impediment in accordance with virtue, and that virtue is a middle course, it necessarily follows that the middle course of life is the best—such a middle course as it is possible for each class of men to attain. And these same criteria must also necessarily apply to the goodness and badness of a state, and of a constitution—for a constitution is a certain mode of life of a state.

+ +
+

In all states therefore there exist three divisions of the state, the very rich, the very poor, and thirdly those who are between the two. Since then it is admitted that what is moderate or in the middle is best, it is manifest that the middle amount of all of the good things of fortune is the best amount to possess. For this degree of wealth is the readiest to obey reason, whereas for a person who is exceedingly beautiful or strong or nobly born or rich, or the opposite—exceedingly poor or weak or of very mean station, it is difficult to follow the bidding of reason; for the former turn more to insolence and grand wickedness, and the latter overmuch to malice and petty wickedness, and the motive of all wrongdoing is either insolence or malice. And moreover the middle class are the least inclined to shun office and to covet office,The text is an emendation; some MSS. give to rule the tribe and to rule the council, but most have to love office and rule the council, apparently thinking that the verb translated rule the council meant wish office. and both these tendencies are injurious to states. And in addition to these points, those who have an excess of fortune’s goods, strength, wealth, friends and the like, are not willing to be governed and do not know how to be (and they have acquired this quality even in their boyhood from their homelife, which was so luxurious that they have not got used to submitting to authority even in school), while those who are excessively in need of these things are too humble. Hence the latter class do not know how to govern but know how to submit togovernment of a servile kind, while the former class do not know how to submit to any government, and only know how to govern in the manner of a master. The result is a state consisting of slaves and masters, not of free men, and of one class envious and another contemptuous of their fellows. This condition of affairs is very far removed from friendliness, and from political partnership—for friendliness is an element of partnership, since men are not willing to be partners with their enemies even on a journey. But surely the ideal of the state is to consist as much as possible of persons that are equal and alike, and this similarity is most found in the middle classes; therefore the middle-class state will necessarily be best constituted in respect of those elementsProbably Lambinus’s alteration of the Greek should be accepted, giving hence that state will necessarily be best governed which consists of those elements—. of which we say that the state is by nature composed. And also this class of citizens have the greatest security in the states; for they do not themselves covet other men’s goods as do the poor, nor do the other classes covet their substance as the poor covet that of the rich; and because they are neither plotted against nor plotting they live free from danger. Because of this it was a good prayer of PhocylidesA gnomic poet of Miletus, born 560 B.C.— In many things the middle have the best; Be mine a middle station. It is clear therefore also that the political community administered by the middle class is the best, and that it is possible for those states to be well governed that are of the kind in which the middle class is numerous, and preferably stronger than both the other two classes, or at all events than one of them, for by throwing in its weight it sways the balance and prevents the opposite extremesi.e. extreme democracy and very limited oligarchy. from coming into existence. Hence it is the greatest good fortune if the men that have political power possess a moderate and sufficient substance,

+ +

+ since where some own a very great deal of property and others none there comes about either an extreme democracy or an unmixed oligarchy, or a tyranny may result from both of the two extremes, for tyranny springs from both democracy and oligarchy of the most unbridled kind, but much less often from the middle forms of constitution and those near to them. The cause of this we will speak of later in our treatment of political revolutions. That the middle form of constitution is the best is evident; for it alone is free from faction, since where the middle class is numerous, factions and party divisions among the citizens are least likely to occur. And the great states are more free from faction for the same reason, because the middle class is numerous, whereas in the small states it is easy to divide the whole people into two parties leaving nothing in between, and also almost everybody is needy or wealthy. Also democracies are more secure and more long-lived than oligarchies owing to the citizens of the middle class (for they are more numerous and have a larger share of the honors in democracies than in oligarchies), since when the poor are in a majority without the middle class, adversity sets in and they are soon ruined. And it must be deemed a significant fact that the best lawgivers are from among the middle citizens; for Solon was of that class,as appears from his poetry, and so was Lycurgus (for he was not a king) and Charondas and almost the greatest number of the other lawgivers.

+

And these considerations also show the reason why the constitutions of most states are either democratic or oligarchical; owing to the middle class in these states being often a small one, the classes diverging from the middle status—whichever of the two, the owners of the estates or the people, from time to time has the upper hand—conduct the government on their own lines, so that it becomes either a democracy or an oligarchy. And in addition to this, because factions occur and fights between the people and the wealthy, whichever party happens to gain the upper hand over its opponents does not establish a common or equal government, but takes the superior share in the government as a prize of victory, and makes it a democracy in the one case and an oligarchy in the other. Moreover each of the two states that in the past held the leadership of Greece took as a pattern the form of government that existed among themselves and set up in the one case democracies and in the other oligarchies in the cities, not considering the interest of the cities but their own advantage. Hence owing to these causes the middle form of constitution either never comes into existence or seldom and in few places; for one manIt is quite uncertain who is meant, possibly Solon or Theramenes. only among the states that have formerly held the leadership was induced to grant this form of organization, and by this time it has become a fixed habit with the people of the separate cities also not even to desire equality,

+ +
+

but either to seek to rule or to endure being under a master.

+

These considerations therefore make it clear which is the best constitution, and why it is the best; and now that the best has been defined, it is not difficult to see, among the other forms of constitution (inasmuch as we pronounce that there are various forms of democracy and various oligarchies), what kind is to be placed first, what second, and what next in this order, by reason of one being better and another worse. For at each stage the form nearest to the best one must necessarily be superior, and the form that is more remote from the middle must be inferior—unless one is judging relatively to given conditions: I make this reservation because it is quite possible that although one form of constitution is preferable it may often be more advantageous for certain people to have another form.

+

The next thing after what has been said is to discuss which constitution is advantageous for which people, and what sort of constitution for what sort of people. Now we must first grasp a general principle that applies equally to all sorts of constitution: it is essential that the part of the state that wishes the constitution to remain should be stronger than the part that does not wish it. But every state consists of both quality and quantity: by quality I mean freedom, wealth, education, good birth, and by quantity the superior numbers of the multitude. And it is possible that,while the quality of the state belongs to one among the parts of which the state consists and its quantity to another part—for example the low-born may be more numerous than the noble or the poor than the rich, yet the more numerous class may not exceed in quantity as much as they fall behind in quality. Hence these two factors have to be judged in comparison with one another.

+

Where therefore the multitude of the poor exceeds in the proportion stated,i.e. so as to outbalance their inferiority in quality. here it is natural for there to be democracy, and each kind of democracy in accordance with the superior number of the common people of each sort, for example if the number of the farming class exceeds, the first sort of democracy, but if that of the common laborers and wage-earners, the last sort, and similarly also with the other sorts that lie between these two; but where the class of the well-to-do and notable exceeds in quality more than it falls behind in quantity, here it is natural for there to be an oligarchy, and likewise the various kinds of oligarchy according to the degree of superiorityi.e. superiority in quality. of the oligarchical multitude.The word is loosely used of this small class. But the lawgiver in his constitution must always take in the middle class; if he is making the laws of anoligarchical character he must keep the middle class in view, and if democratic, he must legislate so as to bring them in. And where the number of the middle class exceeds both the extreme classes together, or even one of them only, here it is possible for a constitutional government to be lasting;

+ +
+

for there is no fear of the rich ever coming to terms with the poor against this numerous middle class; for neither class will ever wish to be subject to the other, and if they look for another constitution fairer to both than this they will not find one, for they would not endure to take turns to govern because they distrust each other: everywhere it is the arbitrator that is most trusted, and the man in the middle is an arbitrator. And the better the constitution is mixed, the more permanent it is; and many even of those who want to establish aristocratic forms of constitution make a great mistake not only in giving too large a share to the well-to-do but also in cheating the people; for false benefits inevitably result ultimately in true evil, as the encroachments of the rich ruin the constitution more than those of the people.

+

The artifices employed in constitutions as a pretext in regard to the people are five in number, and are concerned with the assembly, the magistracies, the law-courts, the bearing of heavy arms, and gymnastic exercises; in relation to the assembly, the granting to all of the right to attend but the imposition of a fine for non-attendance on the well-to-do only, or a much larger fine on them than others; in relation to the magistracies, the denial to the owners of rated property of the right to swear off serving, while the poor have this right; in relation to the law-courts, the imposition of a fine on the well-to-do if they do not serve on a jury, but no penalty for the poor, or else a large fine for the one class and a small one for the others, as in the laws of Charondas. In some places all have the right to serve in the assembly and on juries after having their names put on a register, but large fines are imposed on those who after so registering fail to attend in either capacity, in order that the fine may cause them to avoid registration and that owing to their not registering they may not serve on juries or in the assembly. They also legislate in the same manner about owning heavy arms and engaging in gymnastic exercises: the poor are not allowed to possess arms, but the well-to-do are liable to a fine if they have not got them, and there is no fine for the former class if they abstain from gymnastics, but the well-to-do are liable to a fine, in order that the one class because of the fine may take part in them and the other because they have no penalty to fear may not. These artifices of legislation then are of an oligarchic nature; in democracies they introduce contrary devices in regard to these matters: they provide pay for the poor for serving in the assembly and on juries and impose no fine upon the well-to-do for abstaining. Hence it is manifest that if anybody wishes to make a just blend, he must bring together the regulations existing in each of the two forms of constitution, and provide pay for attendance and a fine for non-attendance; for thus all would participate, whereas in the other way the government comes to be in the hands of only one of the two classes.

+ +
+

And although it is proper that the government should be drawn only from those who possess heavy armor, yet it is not possible to define the amount of the property-qualification absolutely and to say that they must possess so much, but only to consider what sort of amount is the highest that is compatible with making those who have a share in the constitution more numerous than those who have not, and to fix thatlimit. For those who are poor and have no share in the honors are willing to keep quiet if no one insults them or takes away any part of their substance; but this is not easy to secure, for it does not always happen that those who are in the governing class are gentlemen. Also people have a way of being reluctant to serve when there is a war if they do not get rations and are poor men but; if somebody provides food they want to fight. In some states the citizen-body consists not only of those who are serving as heavy-armed soldiers, but also of those who have so served; and at Malea the citizen-body consistedof these, while the magistrates were elected from those who were actually on service. And indeed the earliest form of constitution among the Greeks after the kingships consisted of those who were actually soldiers, the original form consisting of the cavalry （for war had its strength and its pre-eminence in cavalry, since without orderly formation heavy-armed infantry is useless, and the sciences and systems dealing with tactics did not exist among the men of old times, so that their strength lay in their cavalry）; but as the states grew and the wearers of heavy armor had become stronger, more persons came to have a part in the government. Hence what we now call constitutional governments the men of former times called democracies; but the constitutional governments of early days were naturally oligarchical and royal, for owing to the smallness of the populations their middle class was not numerous, so that because of their small numbers as well as in conformity with the structure of the state the middle class more readily endured being in a subject position.

+

It has then been said what is the reason of there being several forms of constitution, and why there are others besides those designated by name （for there is not one single democracy only, and similarly there are more than one of the other forms）, and also what are the differences between them and what is the reason why these differences occur, and in addition to these points, which is the best of the constitutions speaking generally, and of the other constitutions which sort is suited to which sort of people.

+

And again, let us speak about the points that come next, both generally and with reference to each constitution separately, taking their appropriate starting-point. All forms of constitution then have three factors in reference to which the good lawgiver has to consider what is expedient for each constitution; and if these factors are well-ordered the constitution must of necessity be well-ordered, and the superiority of one constitution over another necessarily consists in the superiority of each of these factors. Of these three factors one is, what is to be the body that deliberates about the common interests,

+ +
+

second the one connected with the magistracies, that is, what there are to be and what matters they are to control, and what is to be the method of their election, and a third is, what is to be the judiciary.

+

The deliberative factor is sovereign about war and peace and the formation and dissolution of alliances, and about laws, and about sentences of death and exile and confiscation of property, and about the audits of magistrates. And necessarily either all these decisions must be assigned to all the citizens, or all to some of them (for instance to some one magistracy or to several), or different ones to different magistracies, or some of them to all the citizens and some to certain persons.

+

For all the citizens to be members of the deliberative body and to decide all these matters is a mark of a popular government, for the common people seek for equality of this nature. But there are several modes of such universal membership. One is for the citizens to serve in rotation and not all in a body (as is enacted in the constitution of the Milesian Telecles,Otherwise unknown and in other constitutions also the boards of magistrates deliberate in joint assemblies but all the citizens enter into the magistracies from the tribes or from the very smallest sections of the citizen-body in rotation until office has gone through the whole body), and for there to be joint assemblies only to consider legislation and reforms of the constitution and to hear the reports submitted by the magistrates. Another mode isfor all to assemble in a body, but only for the purpose of electing magistrates, enacting laws, considering the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace and holding the audit of magistrates, but for all other matters to be considered by the magistrates appointed to deal with each respectively and elected by suffrage or by lot from all the citizens. Another mode is for the citizens to meet about the magistracies and the audits and in order to deliberate about declaring war and concluding an alliance, but for all other matters to be dealt with by the magistrates, elected by suffrage in as many cases as circumstances allow,i.e. in an advanced democracy. and such magistracies are all those which must of necessity be filled by experts. A fourth mode is for all to meet in council about all matters, and for the magistracies to decide about nothing but only to make preliminary decisions; this is the mode in which democracy in its last form is administered at the present day—the form of democracy which we pronounce to correspond to dynastic oligarchy and to tyrannical monarchy. These modes then are all of them democratic. On the other hand for some persons to deliberate upon all matters is oligarchic. But this also has several variations. For when the members of the deliberative body are elected on comparatively moderate property-qualifications, and the eligible persons are comparatively numerous because of the moderateness of the qualification, and when they do not make changes in things in which the law forbids it but follow the law, and when anybody acquiring the property-qualification is allowed to become a member, a constitution of this sort is indeed an oligarchy, but one of the nature of constitutional government, because of its moderation. When on the other hand not everybody thus qualified participates in deliberation but only certain persons previously chosen by election,

+ +
+

and these govern in accordance with law as in the former case, this is oligarchical; and also when the deliberative officials are elected by co-optation, and when the office is hereditary and has supreme control over the laws, this system is bound to be oligarchical. But when certain persons control certain matters, for instance when all the citizens control decisions as to war and peace and the audit of officials while everything else is controlled by magistrates and these are elected by vote, not by lot,The MSS. give or by lot. the constitution is an aristocracy; while if some matters are controlled by magistrates elected by vote and others by magistrates chosen by lot, and this either directly or from a list previously selected by vote, or if magistrates elected by vote and by lot sit in a joint body, some of these regulations are features of an aristocratic constitution and others of constitutional government itself.

+

We have then in this way distinguished the different kinds of deliberative body in relation to the forms of constitution, and each form of constitution carries on the administration in accordance with the distinction stated. But for a democracy of the form that at the present day is considered to be democracy in the fullest degree (and I mean one of the sort in which the people is sovereign even over the laws) it is advantageous for the improvement of its deliberative function for it to do the same as is done in oligarchies in the matter of the law-courts (for they enact a fine to compel the attendance on juries of those whom they want to attend, whereas democratic states institute payment for attendance for the benefit of the poor), and also to do this in respect of the assemblies(for they will deliberate better when all are deliberating jointly, the common people when with the notables and these when with the masses), and it is also advantageous for those who deliberate to be elected by vote or by lot equally from the different sections, and, if the men of the people far exceed the political class in number, it is advantageous either not to give pay to all but only to as many as are commensurate with the number of the notables, or to discard by lot those who exceed this number. In oligarchies on the other hand it is advantageous either to co-opt some persons from the multitude, or to institute an office like the one that exists in certain constitutional governments under the flame of Preliminary Councillors or Guardians of the Law,There were πρόβουλοι at Corinth as well as a βουλή and an ἐκκλησία; and νομοφύλακες at Sparta, Athens and elsewhere: at Athens they sat with the presidents of the βουλή and ἐκκλησία to check illegal procedure. and deal with the matters about which these officials have held a preliminary deliberation (for thus the common people will have a share in deliberation and will not have the power to abolish any part of the constitution), and then for the people by their vote either to confirm or at all events not to pass anything contrary to the resolutions brought before them, or to allow all to take part in debate but only the magistrates to frame resolutions; and in fact it is proper to do just the opposite of what takes place in constitutionally governed states; for the common people ought to be given power to vote the rejection of a measure, but not to vote its ratification, but it should be referred back to the magistrates. In constitutional governments the procedure is the reverse; the few are competent to vote the rejection of a resolution but are not competent to vote its ratification, this being always referred back to the most numerous body.

+ +
+

Let us then decide in this manner about the deliberative body, which in fact is the sovereign power in the constitution.

+

+ Connected with this subject is the determination in regard to the magistracies (for this part of the constitution also has many varieties), how many magistracies there are to be, and what are to be their powers, and what their various periods of tenure (for some people make their magistracies tenable for six months, others for less, others for a year and others for a longer period)—shall the magistracies be for life or for a long period, or if for a shorter term shall the same people be allowed to hold them several times or not the same man twice but once only? and also as to the appointment of magistrates, who shall be eligible, who the electors, and what the mode of election? For on all these points it is needful to be able to determine how many modes of procedure are possible, and then to settle what modes are expedient for what sorts of constitution. Nor is it easy to decide to what kinds of office the name of magistracy ought to be applied; for the political community requires a great many officials, owing to which it is not proper to reckon all of them magistrates, whether elected by vote or by lot,—for instance first the priests (for this office must be considered as something different from the political magistracies), and again there are leaders of choruses, and heralds, and persons are also elected as ambassadors. And of the offices exercising superintendence some are political, and are exercised either over the whole of the citizens in regard to some operation—for instance ageneral superintends them when serving as soldiers, or over a section—for instance the superintendent of women or of children; while others are economic (for states often elect officers to dole out cornDistributions of corn were made at times of scarcity, or when the state had received a present of corn.); and others are subordinate, and are the sort of services to which people when well off appoint slaves. But the title of magistracy, to put it simply, is chiefly to be applied to all those offices to which have been assigned the duties of deliberating about certain matters and of acting as judges and of issuing orders, and especially the last, for to give orders is most characteristic of authority. But this question is of virtually no practical importance (for no decision has yet been given, our discussion being merely about the name), although it does admit of some further inquiry of a speculative kind. On the other hand the questions what kinds and what number of magistracies are necessary to constitute a state at all, and what kinds although not necessary are advantageous for a good constitution, are questions that might preferablybe discussed, both indeed as regards every form of constitution and particularly in regard to the small states. For it is true that in the large states it is possible and proper for one magistracy to be assigned to one function (for the large number of the citizens makes it possible for many people to enter on an official career, so as to intermit their tenure of some offices for a long time and to hold others only once, and also every task is better attended to if the attention is directed to one thing only than if it is busy with many);

+ +
+

but in the small states it is inevitable that many offices must be gathered into few hands (for owing to shortage of manpower it is not easy for many people to be in office, since who will take over the posts as their successors?). But sometimes small states require the same magistracies and laws as large ones except that the latter require the same persons to serve often, but in the former this only occurs after a long interval. Hence it is possible to assign several duties to one man at the same time (since they will not interfere with one another), and to meet the shortage of man-power it is necessary to make the magistracies like spit-lampholders.An implement (its exact shape does not appear to be known) used by soldiers on campaign, here mentioned as an illustration of one tool serving two purposes, cf. 1252b 1. If therefore we are able to say how many magistracies every state must necessarily possess and how many, though not absolutely necessary, it ought to possess, knowing these points one might more easily make a combination of those magistracies which are of a suitable nature to be combined into a single office. And it is suitable for the further question not to be overlooked, what kinds of matters ought to be attended to by a number of officials locally distributed and what ought to be under the authority of one magistrate for all localities, for example should good order be seen to in the market-place by a Controller of the Market and elsewhere by another official, or everywhere by the same one? and ought the offices to be divided according to the function or according to the persons concerned—I mean, for instance, should there be a single official in control of good order, or a different onefor children and for women? and also under the various constitutions does the nature of the magistracies vary in accordance with each or does it not vary at all—for example in democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy and monarchy are the magistracies the same in their powers, although they are not filled from equal ranks nor from similar classes but are different in different constitutions (for example in aristocracies drawn from the educated, in oligarchies from the wealthy, and in democracies from the free), or although some constitutions happen to be correspondent with the actual differences of their magistracies, yet in other cases are the same magistracies advantageous even where the constitutions differ (for in some places it is suitable for the same magistracies to have large functions and in other places small ones)? Not but what there are also some offices peculiar to special forms of constitution, for instance the office of Preliminary Councillors.See 1298b 29 n. This is undemocratic, although a Council is a popular body, for there is bound to be some body of this nature to have the duty of preparing measures for the popular assembly, in order that it may be able to attend to its business; but a preparatory committee, if small, is oligarchical, and Preliminary Councillors must necessarily be few in number, so that they are an oligarchical element. But where both of these magistracies exist, the Preliminary Councillors are in authority over the Councillors, since a councillor is a democratic official, but a preliminary councillor is an oligarchic one. Also the power of the Council is weakened in democracies of the sort in which the people in assembly deals with everything itself;

+ +
+

and this usually happens when there is a plentiful supply of pay for those who attend the assembly, for being at leisure they meet frequently and decide all things themselves. But a Superintendent of Children and a Superintendent of Women, and any other magistrates that exercise a similar sort of supervision, are an aristocratic feature, and not democratic (for how is it possible to prevent the wives of the poor from going out of doorsOr possibly from going in processions: Solon made regulations ταῖς ἐξόδοις τῶν γυναικῶν καὶ τοῖς πένθεσι καὶ ταῖς ἑορταῖς(Plut. Sol. 21).?) nor yet oligarchic (for the wives of oligarchic rulers are luxurious). But let the discussion of these matters go no further at present, and let us attempt to go through from the beginning the question of the ways of appointing the magistrates. The varieties here depend on three determinants, the combinations of which must give all the possible modes. One of these three determining points is, who are the persons who appoint the magistrates? the second is, from whom? and last, in what manner? And of each of these three determinants there are three variations: either all the citizens appoint or some, and either from all or from a certain class (defined for instance by property-assessment or birth or virtue or some other such qualification, as at Megara only those were eligible who returned in a body from exile and fought together against the common people),It is quite uncertain when this event took place and whether it is the same as those referred to at 1302b 30 f. and l304b 34 ff. and the mode of appointment may be either by vote or by lot; again, these systems may be coupled together—I mean that some citizens may appoint to some offices but all to others, and to some offices all citizens may be eligible but to others only a certain class, and to some appointment may be by vote but to others by lot. And of each variation of these determinants there will be four modes: either all citizens may appoint from all by vote, or all from all by lot—and from all either section by section, for instance by tribes or demes or brotherhoods until the procedure has gone through all the citizens, or from the whole number every time,—or else partly in one way and partly in the other. Again, if the electors are some of the citizens, they must either appoint from all by vote, or from all by lot, or from some by vote, or from some by lot, or partly in one way and partly in the other—I mean partly by vote and partly by lot. Hence the modes prove to be twelve, apart from the two combinations. And among these, two ways of appointment are democratic—for all to appoint from all by vote, or by lot, or by both—some offices by lot and others by vote; but for not all to be the electors and for them to appoint simultaneously, and either from all or from some either by lot or by vote or by both, or some offices from all and others from some by both (by which I mean some by lot and others by vote) is constitutional. And for some to appoint from all, to some offices by vote and to others by lot or by bothPerhaps the Greek should be rewritten to give for some to appoint from all either by vote or by lot or by both. (to some by lot and to others by vote) is oligarchical; and it is even more oligarchical to appoint from both classes. But to appoint some offices from all and the others from a certain class is constitutional with an aristocratic bias;

+ +
+

or to appoint some by vote and others by lot. And for a certain class to appoint from a certain class 〈by vote〉This insertion by Lambinus seems certain. is oligarchical, and so it is for a certain class to appoint from a certain class by lot (although not working out in the same way), and for a certain class to appoint from a certain class by both methods. And for a certain class to make a preliminary selection from the whole body and then for all to appoint from among certain persons (thus selected) is aristocratic.

+

So many in number therefore are the modes of appointing to the magistracies, and this is how the modes are classified according to the different constitutions; and what regulations are advantageous for what people and how the appointments ought to be conducted will be made clear at the same time as we consider what are the powers of the offices. By the power of an office I mean for instance the control of the revenues and the control of the guard; since a different sort of power belongs for example to a generalship and to the office that controls market contracts.

+

Of the three factors of a constitution it remains to speak of the judiciary, and of judicial bodies also we must consider the various modes, in accordance with the same plan. And a difference among judicial courts rests upon three determinants—constituents, sphere of action, and mode of appointment. As to their constituents I mean are the courts drawn from all the citizens or from a certain class? as to sphere of action, how many kinds of courts are there? and as to mode of appointment, are they appointed by lot or by vote? First then let us distinguish how many kinds of courts there are. They are eight in number, one a court of audit,another to deal with offenders against any public interest, another with matters that bear on the constitution, a fourth for both magistrates and private persons in disputes about penalties, fifth the court dealing with private contracts that are on an important scale, and beside these there is (6) the court that tries homicide, and (7) that which hears alien suits (of courts of homicide there are four kinds, whether the jury is the same or different—namely, for cases of deliberate homicide, of involuntary homicide, of homicide admitted but claimed to be justifiable, and fourth to deal with charges of homicide brought against men that have fled from the country for homicide, upon their return,i.e. men that had been allowed to flee the country when charged with accidental homicide, and on their return were accused of another homicide, a willful murder. such as at Athens for instance the Court at Phreatto is said to be, although such cases are of rare occurrence in the whole course of history, even in the great states and of the aliens’ court one branch hears suits of aliens against aliens and another of aliens against citizens); and also beside all of these there are (8) courts to try cases of petty contracts, involving sums of one drachma, five drachmas or a little more—for even these cases have to be tried, though they are not suitable for a numerous jury. But let us dismiss the subject of these petty suits, and the courts for homicide and those for aliens, and let us speak about political trials, which when not well conducted cause party divisions and revolutionary disturbances. And necessarily either all the judges of all the cases that have been classified will be appointed by vote, or by lot, or all in all cases partly by lot and partly by vote, or in some cases some judges will be appointed by lot and others by vote for the same case.

-Revision 1.14 2009/06/26 17:25:19 student -fixed Pindar bibl error - zr +
+

These modes then are four in number, and the sectional modes also make as many others; for here again the judges for all cases may be drawn by vote from a certain class, or for all cases by lot from a certain class, or some courts may be appointed by lot and others by vote, or some courts may be composed of judges chosen by lot and by vote for the same cases. These then are the modes, as was said, corresponding to those mentioned. And there are also the same courts in combination—I mean for example some drawn from the whole body and some from a class and some from both, as for instance if the same court contained some members from the whole body and others from a class, and appointed either by lot or by vote or both. We have then stated all the modes in which it is possible for the courts to be composed; and of these the first set, drawn from all the citizens and dealing with all cases, are popular, the second, drawn from a certain class to deal with all cases, are oligarchic, and the third, drawn partly from all and partly from a certain class, are suited to an aristocracy and to a constitutional government.

+ +
+
+

Book 5 is placed as Book 7 by some editors, as Book 8 by others, see Book 3 fin., note.Almost all the other subjects which we intended to treathave now been discussed. There must follow the consideration of the questions, what are the number and the nature of the causes that give rise to revolutions in constitutions, and what are the causes that destroy each form of constitution, and out of what forms into what forms do they usually change, and again what are the safeguards of constitutions in general and of each form in particular, and what are the means by which the safeguarding of each may best be put into effect.For this distinction between broad methods of guarding against revolution and the practical means by which those methods can be put into effect Newman compares 9.2 f., 10 f.; 4.2.5 fin., 6.1.1.

+

And we must first assume the starting-point, that many forms of constitution have come into existence with everybody agreeing as to what is just, that is proportionate equality, but failing to attain it (as has also been said before). Thus democracy arose from men’s thinking that if they are equal in any respect they are equal absolutely (for they suppose that because they are all alike free they are equal absolutely), oligarchy arose from their assuming that if they are unequal as regards some one thing they are unequal wholly (for being unequal in property they assume that they are unequal absolutely); and then the democrats claim as being equal to participate in all things in equal shares, while the oligarchs as being unequal seek to have a larger share, for a larger share is unequal. All these forms of constitution then have some element of justice, but from an absolute point of view they are erroneous; and owing to this cause, when each of the two parties has not got the share in the constitution which accords with the fundamental assumption that they happen to entertain, faction ensues. And of all men those who excel in virtue would most justifiably stir up faction, though they are least given to doing so;

+ +
+

for they alone can with the fullest reason be deemed absolutely unequal. And there are some men who being superior in birth claim unequal rights because of this inequality; for persons who have ancestral virtue and wealth behind them are thought to be noble.

+

These then roughly speaking are the starting-points and sources of factions, which give rise to party strife (and revolutions due to this take place in two ways: sometimes they are in regard to the constitution, and aim at changing from the one established to another, for instance from democracy to oligarchy, or to democracy from oligarchy, or from these to constitutional government and aristocracy, or from those to these; but sometimes the revolution is not in regard to the established constitution, but its promoters desire the same form of government, for instance oligarchy or monarchy, but wish it to be in their own control. Again it may be a question of degree; for instance, when there is an oligarchy the object may be to change to a more oligarchical government or to a less, or when there is a democracy to a more or to a less democratic government, and similarly in the case of the remaining constitutions, the aim may be either to tighten them up or to relax them. Or again the aim may be to change a certain part of the constitution, for example to establish or abolish a certain magistracy, as according to some accounts Lysanderattempted to abolish the kingship at Sparta and the king Pausanias the ephorateSee 1307a 34 n.; and also at Epidamnus the constitution was altered in part, for they set up a council instead of the tribal rulers, and it is still compulsory for the magistrates alone of the class that has political power to come to the popular assembly when an appointment to a magistracy is put to the vote; and the single supreme magistrate was also an oligarchical feature in this constitution). For party strife is everywhere due to inequality, where classes that are unequal do not receive a share of power in proportion (for a lifelong monarchy is an unequal feature when it exists among equals); for generally the motive for factious strife is the desire for equality. But equality is of two kinds, numerical equality and equality according to worth—by numerically equal I mean that which is the same and equal in number or dimension, by equal according to worth that which is equal by proportionThis ethical arithmetic is helped out in Greek by the fact that, even without the qualification κατ’ ἀξίαν, ἴσος often means equal to desert, fair, just.; for instance numerically 3 exceeds 2 and 2 exceeds 1 by an equal amount, but by proportion 4 exceeds 2 and 2 exceeds 1 equally, since 2 and 1 are equal parts of 4 and 2, both being halves. But although men agree that the absolutely just is what is according to worth, they disagree (as was said beforeSee 1301a 27 ff. and note.) in that some think that if they are equal in something they are wholly equal, and others claim that if they are unequal in something they deserve an unequal share of all things. Owing to this two principal varieties of constitution come into existence, democracy and oligarchy; for noble birth and virtue are found in few men,

+ +
+

but the qualifications specifiedThat is, numbers and wealth. in more: nowhere are there a hundred men nobly born and good, but there are rich menPerhaps the text should be emended to give there are many rich men and poor men in many places. in many places. But for the constitution to be framed absolutely and entirely according to either kind of equality is bad. And this is proved by experience, for not one of the constitutions formed on such lines is permanent. And the cause of this is that it is impossible for some evil not to occur ultimately from the first and initial error that has been made. Hence the proper course is to employ numerical equality in some things and equality according to worth in others. But nevertheless democracy is safer and more free from civil strife than oligarchy; for in oligarchies two kinds of strife spring up, faction between different members of the oligarchy and also faction between the oligarchs and the people, whereas in democracies only strife between the people and the oligarchical party occurs, but party strife between different sections of the people itself does not occur to any degree worth mentioning. And again the government formed of the middle classes is nearer to the people than to the few, and it is the safest of the kinds of constitution mentioned.

+

And since we are considering what circumstances give rise to party factions and revolutions in constitutions, we must first ascertain their origins and causes generally. They are, speaking roughly, three in number,Viz. the material, final and efficient causes of revolutions (Jowett). which we must first define in outline separately.For we must ascertain what state of affairs gives rise to party strife, and for what objects it is waged, and thirdly what are the origins of political disorders and internal party struggles.

+

Now the principal cause, speaking generally, of the citizens being themselves disposed in a certain manner towards revolution is the one about which we happen to have spoken already. Those that desire equality enter on party strife if they think that they have too little although they are the equals of those who have more, while those that desire inequality or superiority do so if they suppose that although they are unequal they have not got more but an equal amount or less (and these desires may be felt justly, and they may also be felt unjustly); for when inferior, people enter on strife in order that they may be equal, and when equal, in order that they may be greater. We have therefore said what are the states of feeling in which men engage in party strife.

+

The objects about which it is waged are gain and honor, and their opposites, for men carry on party faction in states in order to avoid dishonor and loss, either on their own behalf or on behalf of their friends.

+

And the causes and origins of the disturbances which occasion the actual states of feeling described and their direction to the objects mentioned, according to one account happen to be seven in number, though according to another they are more. Two of them are the same as those spoken of before although not operating in the same way: the motives of gain and honor also stir men up against each other not in order that they may get them for themselves, as has been said before,

+ +
+

but because they see other men in some cases justly and in other cases unjustly getting a larger share of them. Other causes are insolence, fear, excessive predominance, contempt, disproportionate growth of power; and also other modes of causeThe four causes now mentioned are those alluded to just above (1302a 38) as an addition to the seven enumerated above, 1302a 38-b 5. are election intrigue, carelessness, pettiness, dissimilarity. Among these motives the power possessed by insolence and gain, and their mode of operation, is almost obvious; for when the men in office show insolence and greed, people rise in revolt against one another and against the constitutions that afford the opportunity for such conduct; and greed sometimes preys on private property and sometimes on common funds. It is clear also what is the power of honor and how it can cause party faction; for men form factions both when they are themselves dishonored and when they see others honored; and the distribution of honors is unjust when persons are either honored or dishonored against their deserts, just when it is according to desert. Excessive predominance causes faction, when some individual or body of men is greater and more powerful than is suitable to the state and the power of the government; for such are the conditions that usually result in the rise of a monarchy or dynasty. Owing to this in some places they have the custom of temporary banishment,Cf. 1284a 18. as at Argos and Athens; yet it would be better to provide from the outset that there may be no persons in the stateso greatly predominant, than first to allow them to come into existence and afterwards to apply a remedy. Fear is the motive of faction with those who have inflicted wrong and are afraid of being punished, and also with those who are in danger of suffering a wrong and wish to act in time before the wrong is inflicted, as the notables at Rhodes banded togetherPerhaps in 390 B.C., cf. 1302b 32 f. and 1304b 27 ff. against the people because of the law-suits that were being brought against them. Contempt is a cause of faction and of actual attacks, upon the government, for instance in oligarchies when those who have no share in the government are more numerous (for they think themselves the stronger party), and in democracies when the rich have begun to feel contempt for the disorder and anarchy that prevails, as for example at Thebes the democracy was destroyed owing to bad government after the battle of Oenophyta,Against Athens, 456 B.C. and that of the Megarians was destroyed when they had been defeated owing to disorder and anarchy,See 1300a 18 n. and at Syracuse before the tyranny 485 B.C. of Gelo, and at Rhodes See 1302b 23 n. the common people had fallen into contempt before the rising against them. Revolutions in the constitutions also take place on account of disproportionate growth; for just as the bodyIt is not clear whether what follows refers to a work of art (cf. 1284b 8) or is an exaggerated account of a disease; Galen describes one called σατυρίασις, in which the bones of the temple swell out like satyrs’ horns. is composed of parts, and needs to grow proportionately in order that its symmetry may remain, and if it does not it is spoiled, when the foot is four cubits long and the rest of the body two spans, and sometimes it might even change into the shape of another animal if it increased disproportionately not only in size but also in quality,i.e. if, for example, the foot became as hard as a hoof. so also a state is composed of parts,

+ +
+

one of which often grows without its being noticed, as for example the number of the poor in democracies and constitutional states. And sometimes this is also brought about by accidental occurrences, as for instance at Tarentum when a great many notables were defeated and killed by the Iapygians a short time after the Persian wars a constitutional government was changed to a democracy, and at Argos when those in the seventh tribeThe word to be understood here may be φυλῇ, or possibly ἡμέρᾳ: the seventh day of the month was sacred to Apollo, especially at Sparta, and one account assigns Cleomenes’ victory to that day, in which case the casualties may well have been known afterwards as those who fell on the seventh. had been destroyed by the Spartan Cleomenes the citizens were compelled to admit some of the surrounding people, and at Athens when they suffered disasters by land the notables became fewer because at the time of the war against Sparta the army was drawn from a muster-roll.i.e. was made up of citizens and not of mercenaries. And this happens also in democracies, though to a smaller extent; for when the wealthy become more numerous or their properties increase, the governments change to oligarchies and dynasties.See 1292b 10 n. And revolutions in constitutions take place even without factious strife, owing to election intrigue, as at Heraea On the Alpheus, in Arcadia. (for they made their magistrates elected by lot instead of by vote for this reason, because the people used to elect those who canvassed); and also owing to carelessness, when people allow men that are not friends of the constitution to enter into the sovereign offices, as at OreusIn Euboea; its secession from Sparta to Athens, 377 B.C., was perhaps the occasion of this revolution. oligarchy was broken up when Heracleodorus became one of the magistrates, who in place of an oligarchyformed a constitutional government, or rather a democracy. Another cause is alteration by small stages; by this I mean that often a great change of institutions takes place unnoticed when people overlook a small alteration, as in Ambracia the property-qualification was small, and finally men hold office with none at all, as a little is near to nothing, or practically the same. Also difference of race is a cause of faction, until harmony of spirit is reached; for just as any chance multitude of people does not form a state, so a state is not formed in any chance period of time. Hence most of the states that have hitherto admitted joint settlers or additional settlersi.e. colonists not from the mother-city, admitted either at the foundation of the colony or later. have split into factions; for example Achaeans settled at Sybaris Sybaris, founded 720 B.C., became very wealthy. The Troezenian population when expelled were received at Croton, which made war on Sybaris and destroyed it 510 B.C. To what exactly τὸ ἄγος refers is unknown. jointly with Troezenians, and afterwards the Achaeans having become more numerous expelled the Troezenians, which was the Cause of the curse that fell on the Sybarites; and at Thurii Sybarites quarrelled with those who had settled there with them, for they claimed to have the larger share in the country as being their own, and were ejected; and at Byzantium the additional settlers were discovered plotting against the colonists and were expelled by force of arms; and the people of Antissa In Lesbos. after admitting the Chian exiles expelled them by arms; and the people of Zancle Later Messana, Messina. after admitting settlers from Samos were themselves expelled; and the people of Apollonia on the Euxine Sea after bringing in additional settlers fell into faction;

+ +
+

and the Syracusans after the period of the tyrantsThrasybulus succeeded his brother Hiero as tyrant in 467 B.C. and fell within a year. conferred citizenship on their foreign troops and mercenaries and then faction set in and they came to battle; and the Amphipolitans having received settlers from Chalcis were most of them driven out by them.Cf. 1306a 2. The exact circumstances are unknown; Amphipolis was colonized from Athens 437 B.C.

+

(And in oligarchies civil strife is raised by the many, on the ground that they are treated unjustly because they are not admitted to an equal share although they are equal, as has been said before, but in democracies it begins with the notables, because they have an equal share although they are not equal.)This sentence is out of place here, and would fit in better if placed (as it is by Newman) above at 1301a 39, after στασιάζουσι, or (with other editors) 1301b 26.

+

Also states sometimes enter on faction for geographical reasons, when the nature of the country is not suited for there being a single city, as for example at ClazomenaeTopography uncertain: Clazomenae near Smyrna was partly on a small island, which Alexander joined to the mainland with a causeway. the people near Chytrum are in feud with the inhabitants of the island, and the Colophonians and the Notians Notium was the port of Colophon.; and at Athens the population is not uniformly democratic in spirit, but the inhabitants of Piraeus are more so than those of the city. For just as in wars the fording of watercourses, even quite small ones, causes the formations to lose contact, so every difference seems to cause division. Thus perhaps the greatest division is that between virtue and vice, next that between wealth and poverty, and so with other differences in varying degree, one of which is the one mentioned.i.e. difference of locality.

+

Factions arise therefore not about but out of small matters; but they are carried on about great matters. And even the small ones grow extremely violent when they spring up among men of the ruling class,as happened for example at Syracuse in ancient times. For the constitution underwent a revolution as a result of a quarrel that arosePerhaps under the oligarch of the Gamori, overthrown by the people and followed by Gelo’s tyranny, 485 B.C. between two young men, who belonged to the ruling class, about a love affair. While one of them was abroad the other who was his comrade won over the youth with whom he was in love, and the former in his anger against him retaliated by persuading his wife to come to him; owing to which they stirred up a party struggle among all the people in the state, enlisting them on their sides. On account of this it is necessary to guard against such affairs at their beginning, and to break up the factions of the leaders and powerful men; for the error occurs at the beginning, andthe beginning as the proverb says is half of the whole, so that even a small mistake at the beginning stands in the same ratioi.e. the ratio of being a half to the whole: a bad start does as much to harm as all the later mistakes put together. to mistakes at the other stages. And in general the faction quarrels of the notables involve the whole state in the consequences, as happened at HestiaeaAlso called Oreus, see 1303a 18. after the Persian wars, when two brothers quarrelled about the division of their patrimony; for the poorer of the two, on the ground that the other would not make a return of the estate and of the treasure that their father had found, got the common people on his side, and the other possessing much property was supported by therich. And at Delphi the beginning of all the factions that occurred afterwards was when a quarrel arose out of a marriage;

+ +
+

the bridegroom interpreted some chance occurrence when he came to fetch the bride as a bad omen and went away without taking her, and her relatives thinking themselves insulted threw some articles of sacred property into the fire when he was performing a sacrifice and then put him to death as guilty of sacrilege. And also at Mitylene The revolt of Mitylene 428 B.C. is ascribed to purely political causes by Thuc. 3.1-30. a faction that arose out of some heiresses was the beginning of many misfortunes, and of the war with the Athenians in which Paches captured the city of Mitylene: a wealthy citizen named Timophanes left two daughters, and a man who was rejected in his suit to obtain them for his own sons, Doxander, started the faction and kept on stirring up the Athenians, whose consul he was at Mitylene. And among the Phocians when a faction arising out of an heiress sprang up in connection with Mnaseas the father of Mnason and Euthykrates the father of Onomarchus,i.e. the fathers of the two suitors for the heiress’s hand turned the quarrel into a faction fight. this faction proved to be the beginning for the Phocians of the Holy War. At Epidamnus also circumstances relating to a marriage gave rise to a revolution in the constitutionPerhaps the same event as that referred to 1301b 21.; somebody had betrothed his daughter, and the father of the man to whom he had betrothed her became a magistrate, and had to sentence him to a fine; the other thinking that he had been treated with insolence formed a party of the unenfranchised classes to assist him. And also revolutions to oligarchy and democracy and constitutional government arise from the growth in reputation or in power of some magistracy or some section of the state;as for example the Council on the Areopagus having risen in reputation during the Persian wars was believed to have made the constitution more rigid, and then again the naval multitude, having been the cause of the victory off Salamis and thereby of the leadership of Athens due to her power at sea, made the democracy stronger; and at Argos the notables having risen in repute in connection with the battle against the Spartans at Mantinea took in hand to put down the people; and at Syracuse the people having been the cause of the victory in the war against Athens made a revolution from constitutional government to democracy; and at Chalcis the people with the aid of the notables overthrew the tyrant PhoxusUnknown. and then immediately seized the government; and again at Ambracia similarly the people joined with the adversaries of the tyrant Periander in expelling him and then brought the government round to themselves. 580 B.C; cf. 1311a 39 ff. And indeed in general it must not escape notice that the persons who have caused a state to win power, whether private citizens or magistrates or tribes, or in general a section or group of any kind, stir up faction; for either those who envy these men for being honored begin the faction, or these men owing to their superiority are not willing to remain in a position of equality. And constitutions also undergo revolution when what are thought of as opposing sections of the state become equal to one another,

+ +
+

for instance the rich and the people, and there is no middle class or only an extremely small one; for if either of the two sections becomes much the superior, the remainder is not willing to risk an encounter with its manifestly stronger opponent. Owing to this men who are exceptional in virtue generally speaking do not cause faction, because they find themselves few against many. Universally then in connection with all the forms of constitution the origins and causes of factions and revolutions are of this nature.

+

The means used to cause revolutions of constitutions are sometimes force and sometimes fraud. Force is employed either when the revolutionary leaders exert compulsion immediately from the start or later on—as indeed the mode of using fraud is also twofold: sometimes the revolutionaries after completely deceiving the people at the first stage alter the constitution with their consent, but then at a later stage retain their hold on it by force against the people’s will: for instance, at the time of the Four Hundred,The oligarchy at Athens 411 B.C., cf. 1305a 27. they deceived the people by saying that the Persian King would supply money for the war against the Spartans, and after telling them this falsehood endeavored to keep a hold upon the government; but in other cases they both persuade the people at the start and afterwards repeat the persuasion and govern them with their consent.

+

Speaking generally therefore in regard to all the forms of constitution, the causes that have been stated are those from which revolutions have occurred.

+

But in the light of these general rules we must consider the usual course of eventsas classified according to each different kind of constitution. In democracies the principal cause of revolutions is the insolence of the demagogues; for they cause the owners of property to band together, partly by malicious prosecutions of individuals among them (for common fear brings together even the greatest enemies), and partly by setting on the common people against them as a class. And one may see this taking place in this manner in many instances. In Cos the democracy was overthrownDate unknown. when evil demagogues had arisen there, for the notables banded themselves together; and also in Rhodes,See 1302b 23 n. for the demagogues used to provide pay for public services, and also to hinder the payment of money owedi.e. owed for repairs to the ships, and perhaps also for advances of pay to the crews. to the naval captains, and these because of the lawsuits that were brought against them were forced to make common cause and overthrow the people. And also at Heraclea Probably the Pontic Heraclea (cf. 1305b 5, 36, 1306a 37), founded middle of the 6th century B.C., not the Trachinian. the people were put down immediately after the foundation of the colony because of the people’s leaders; for the notables being unjustly treated by them used to be driven out, but later on those who were driven out collecting together effected their return and put down the people. And also the democracy at Megara was put down in a similar mannerSee 1300a 18 ff. n.; the people’s leaders in order to have money to distribute to the people went on expelling many of the notables, until they made the exiles a large body, and these came back and defeated the people in a battle and set up the oligarchy.

+ +
+

And the same thing happened also at Cyme in the time of the democracy which Thrasymachus put downAn event otherwise unknown., and in the case of other states also examination would show that revolutions take place very much in this manner. Sometimes they make the notables combine by wronging them in order to curry favor, causing either their estates to be divided up or their revenues by imposing public services, and sometimes by so slandering them that they may have the property of the wealthy to confiscate. And in old times whenever the same man became both leader of the people and general, they used to change the constitution to a tyranny; for almost the largest number of the tyrants of early days have risen from being leaders of the people. And the reason why this used to happen then but does not do so now is because then the leaders of the people were drawn from those who held the office of general (for they were not yet skilled in oratory), but now when rhetoric has developed the able speakers are leaders of the people, but owing to their inexperience in military matters they are not put in control of these, except in so far as something of the kind has taken place to a small extent in some places. And tyrannies also used to occur in former times more than they do now because important offices were entrusted to certain men, as at Miletus a tyrannyPerhaps that of Thrasybulus (Hdt. 1.20), 612 B.C. arose out of the presidency (for the president had control of many important matters). And moreover, because the cities in those times were not large but the common people lived on their farmsbusily engaged in agriculture, the people’s champions when they became warlike used to aim at tyranny. And they all used to do this when they had acquired the confidence of the people, and their pledge of confidence was their enmity towards the rich, as at Athens Pisistratus made himself tyrant by raising up a party against the men of the plain, and Theagenes at Megara by slaughtering the cattle of the well-to-do which he captured grazing by the river, and DionysiusDionysius the elder, see 1259a 29 n. established a claim to become tyrant when he accused Daphnaeus and the rich, since his hostility to them caused him to be trusted as a true man of the people. And revolutions also take place from the ancestral form of democracy to one of the most modern kind; for where the magistracies are elective, but not on property-assessments, and the people elect, men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things to the point of the people’s being sovereign even over the laws. A remedy to prevent this or to reduce its extent is for the tribes to elect the magistrates, and not the people collectively.

+

These then are the causes through which almost all the revolutions in democracies take place.

+

Oligarchies undergo revolution principally through two ways that are the most obvious. One is if they treat the multitude unjustly; for anybody makes an adequate people’s champion, and especially so when their leader happens to come from the oligarchy itself, like Lygdamis at Naxos, who afterwards actually became tyrant of the Naxians.

+ +
+

Faction originating with other people also has various ways of arising. Sometimes when the honors of office are shared by very few, dissolution originates from the wealthy themselves,The contrasted case, of dissolution of oligarchy arising from the people, should follow, but is omitted. but not those that are in office, as for example has occurred at Marseilles,Cf. 1321a 29 ff. at Istrus,Near the mouth of the Danube. at Heraclea,See 1304b 31 n. and in other states; for those who did not share in the magistracies raised disturbances until as a first stage the older brothers were admitted, and later the younger ones again (for in some places a father and a son may not hold office together, and in others an elder and a younger brother may not). At Marseilles the oligarchy became more constitutional, while at Istrus it ended in becoming democracy, and in Heraclea the government passed from a smaller number to six hundred. At Cnidus also there was a revolutionPerhaps not the same as the one mentioned at 1306b 3. of the oligarchy caused by a faction formed by the notables against one another, because few shared in the government, and the rule stated held, that if a father was a member a son could not be, nor if there were several brothers could any except the eldest; for the common people seized the opportunity of their quarrel and, taking a champion from among the notables, fell upon them and conquered them, for a party divided against itself is weak. Another case was at Erythrae,Just west of Smyrna. The family name implies a claim to royal ancestry. where at the time of the oligarchy of the Basilidae in ancient days, althoughthe persons in the government directed affairs well, nevertheless the common people were resentful because they were governed by a few, and brought about a revolution of the constitution.

+

On the other hand, oligarchies are overthrown from within themselves bothThis sentence is interrupted by a parenthesis and is resumed in 5.6, And revolution is oligarchy also—. when from motives of rivalry they play the demagogue (and this demagogy is of two sorts, one among the oligarchs themselves, for a demagogue can arise among them even when they are a very small body,—as for instance in the time of the Thirty at Athens, the party of Charicles rose to power by currying popularity with the Thirty, and in the time of the Four HundredSee 1304b 12 n. the party of Phrynichus rose in the same way,— + +the other when the members of the oligarchy curry popularity with the mob, as the Civic Guards at Larisa See 1275b 29 n. courted popularity with the mob because it elected them, and in all the oligarchies in which the magistracies are not elected by the class from which the magistrates come but are filled from high property-grades or from political clubs while the electors are the heavy-armed soldiers or the common people, as used to be the case at Abydos, and in places where the jury-courts are not made up from the governmenti.e. (apparently) where membership is not confined to the class eligible for the magistracies.—for there members of the oligarchy by courting popular favor with a view to their trials cause a revolution of the constitution, as took place at Heraclea on the EuxineSee 1304b 31 n.; and a further instance is when some men try to narrow down the oligarchy to a smaller number, for those who seek equality are forced to bring in the people as a helper.) And revolutions in oligarchy also take place when they squander their private means by riotous living; for also men of this sort seek to bring about a new state of affairs, and either aim at tyranny themselves or suborn somebody else

+ +
+

(as Hipparinus put forward DionysiusSee 1259a 29 n. at Syracuse, and at Amphipolis See 1303b 2 n. a man named Cleotimus led the additional settlers that came from Chalcis and on their arrival stirred them up to sedition against the wealthy, and in Aegina the man who carried out the transactions with Chares attempted to cause a revolution in the constitution for a reason of this sorti.e. he had squandered his fortune in riotous living; this deal with the Athenian general may have been in 367 B.C.); so sometimes they attempt at once to introduce some reform, at other times they rob the public funds and in consequence either they or those who fight against them in their peculations stir up faction against the government, as happened at Apollonia on the Black Sea. On the other hand, harmonious oligarchy does not easily cause its own destruction; and an indication of this is the constitutional government at Pharsalus, for there the ruling class though few are masters of many meni.e. both of the lower classes and of the subject cities. because on good terms with one another. Also oligarchical governments break up when they create a second oligarchy within the oligarchy. This is when, although the whole citizen class is small, its few members are not all admitted to the greatest offices; this is what once occurred in Elis, for the government being in the hands of a few, very few men used to become members of the Elders,i.e. the small governing body. because these numbering ninety held office for life, and the mode of election was of a dynastic typei.e. like a dynasteia, favorable to the interest of a few very wealthy families; see 1292b 10 n. and resembled that of the Elders at Sparta.

+

Revolutionsof oligarchies occur both during war and in time of peace— during war since the oligarchs are forced by their distrust of the people to employ mercenary troops (for the man in whose hands they place them often becomes tyrant, as Timophanes did at Corinth, Corinth was at war with Argos circa 350 B.C. Timophanes was killed by his brother the famous Timoleon, in order to restore constitutional government. and if they put several men in command, these win for themselves dynastic power), and when through fear of this they give a share in the constitution to the multitude, the oligarchy falls because they are compelled to make use of the common people; during peace, on the other hand, because of their distrust of one another they place their protection in the hands of mercenary troops and a magistrate between the two parties, who sometimes becomes master of both, which happened at Larisa in the time of the government of the Aleuadae led by Simus,A probable emendation of the Greek gives happened at Larisa to Simus and his party at the time of the government of the Aleuadae. This family were hereditary rulers of Larisa (see also 1275b 29 ff. n., and 1305b 29 ff.) and at Abydos in the time of the political clubs of which that of Iphiades was one. And factions arise also in consequence of one set of the members of the oligarchy themselves being pushed aside by another set and being driven into party strife in regard to marriages or law-suits; examples of such disorders arising out of a cause related to marriage are the instances spoken of before, and also the oligarchy of the knights at Eretria was put downPossibly before the Persian wars. See 1289b 36 ff. The two following cases are unrecorded elsewhere. by Diagoras when he had been wronged in respect of a marriage, while the faction at Heraclea and that at Thebes arose out of a judgement of a law-court, when the people at Heraclea justly but factiously enforced the punishment against Eurytion on a charge of adultery and those at Thebes did so against Archias;

+ +
+

for their personal enemies stirred up party feeling against them so as to get them bound in the pillory in the market-place. Also many governments have been put down by some of their members who had become resentful because the oligarchies were too despotic; this is how the oligarchies fell at Cnidus See 1305b 13 n. and at Chios. And revolutions also occur from an accident, both in what is called a constitutional government and in those oligarchies in which membership of the council and the law-courts and tenure of the other offices are based on a property-qualification. For often the qualification first having been fixed to suit the circumstances of the time, so that in an oligarchy a few may be members and in a constitutional government the middle classes, when peace or some other good fortune leads to a good harvest it comes about that the same properties become worth many times as large an assessment, so that all the citizens share in all the rights, the change sometimes taking place gradually and little by little and not being noticed, but at other times more quickly.

+

Such then are the causes that lead to revolutions and factions in oligarchies (and generally, both democracies and oligarchies are sometimes altered not into the opposite forms of constitution but into ones of the same class, for instancefrom legitimate democracies and oligarchies into autocratic ones and from the latter into the former).

+

In aristocracies factions arise in some cases because few men share in the honors (which has also been saidSee 1306a 13 ff. to be the cause of disturbances in oligarchies, because an aristocracy too is a sort of oligarchy, for in both those who govern are few—although the reason for this is not the same in both—since this does cause it to be thought that aristocracy is a form of oligarchy). And this is most bound to come about when there is a considerable number of people who are proud-spirited on the ground of being equals in virtue (for example the clan called the Maidens’ SonsSaid to be descended from irregular unions authorized in order to keep up population during the First Messenian War. They founded Taranto 708 B.C. at Sparta—for they were descended from the Equals—whom the Spartans detected in a conspiracy and sent away to colonize Tarentum); or when individuals although great men and inferior to nobody in virtue are treated dishonorably by certain men in higher honor (for example Lysander by the kingsKing Pausanias II. checked Lysander after his conquest of Athens in 403 B.C. and King Agesilaus thwarted him on the expedition into Asia Minor in 396.); or when a person of manly nature has no share in the honors (for example Cinadon,His conspiracy against the Ὅμοιοι in 398 B.C. was discovered and he was executed. who got together the attack upon the Spartans in the reign of Agesilaus). Faction in aristocracies also arises when some of the well-born are too poor and others too rich (which happens especially during wars, and this also occurred at Sparta at the time of the Messenian War—as appears from the poem of Tyrtaeus entitledLaw and Order;

+ +
+

for some men being in distress because of the war put forward a claim to carry out a re-division of the land of the country). Also if a man is great and capable of being yet greater, he stirs up faction in order that he may be sole ruler (as Pausanias who commanded the army through the Persian war seems to have done at Sparta, and HannoPerhaps Hanno who fought in Sicily against the elder Dionysius circa 4OO B.C. at Carthage).

+

But the actual overthrow of both constitutional governments and aristocracies is mostly due to a departure from justice in the actual framework of the constitution. For what starts it in the case of a constitutional government is that it does not contain a good blend of democracy and oligarchy; and in the case of an aristocracy it is the lack of a good blend of those two elements and of virtue, but chiefly of the two elements (I mean popular government and oligarchy), for both constitutional governments and most of the constitutions that are called aristocracies aim at blending these. For thisi.e. their mode of blending oligarchy and democracy. is the point of distinction between aristocracies and what are called constitutional governments, and it is owing to this that some of themThe writer loosely speaks of aristocracies and polities as a single class, differing only in degree of concentration of power in the hands of the upper classes. are less and others more stable; for the constitutions inclining more towards oligarchy men call aristocracies and those inclining more to the side of the multitude constitutional governments, owing to which those of the latter sort are more secure than the others, for the greater number is the stronger, and also men are more content when they have an equal amount, whereas the owners of wealthy properties, if the constitution gives them the superior position,seek to behave insolently and to gain money. And speaking broadly, to whichever side the constitution leans, that is the side to which it shifts as either of the two parties increases its own side—a constitutional government shifts to democracy and an aristocracy to oligarchy, or to the opposite extremes, that is, aristocracy to democracy (for the poorer people feeling they are unjustly treated pull it round to the opposite) and constitutional governments to oligarchy (for the only lasting thing is equality in accordance with desert and the possession of what is their own). And the change mentionedi.e. from aristocracy to democracy. Possibly these events occurred after the defeat of Athens at Syracuse in 413 B.C., when the Athenian party at Thurii was banished (Lysias 835 D). The events in 8 were perhaps in the fourth century. came about at Thurii, for because the property-qualification for honors was too high, the constitution was altered to a lower property-qualification and to a larger number of official posts, but because the notables illegally bought up the whole of the land (for the constitution was too oligarchical, so that they were able to grasp at wealth) . . .Probably a clause meaning civil strife ensued has been lost. And the people having been trained in the war overpowered the guards, until those who were in the position of having too much land relinquished it.

+

Besides, as all aristocratic constitutions are inclined towards oligarchy, the notables grasp at wealth (for example at Sparta the estates are coming into a few hands); and the notables have more power to do what they like, and to form marriage connections with whom they like (which was the cause of the fall of the state of Locri, as a result of the marriage with Dionysius,See 1259a 28 n. He married in 397 B.C. the daughter of a Locrian citizen, who bore him the younger Dionysius. which would not have taken place in a democracy; nor in a well-blended aristocracy).

+ +
+

And aristocracies are most liable to undergo revolution unobserved, through gradual relaxation, just as it has been said in what has gone before about all forms of constitution in general, that even a small change may cause a revolution. For when they give up one of the details of the constitution, afterwards they also make another slightly bigger change more readily, until they alter the whole system. This occurred for instance with the constitution of Thurii. There was a law that the office of general could be held at intervals of four years, but some of the younger men, becoming warlike and winning high repute with the mass of the guards, came to despise the men engaged in affairs, and thought that they would easily get control; so first they tried to repeal the law referred to, so as to enable the same persons to serve as generals continuously, as they saw that the people would vote for themselves with enthusiasm. And though the magistrates in charge of this matter, called the Councillors, at first made a movement to oppose them, they were won over, believing that after repealing this law they would allow the rest of the constitution to stand; but later, though they wished to prevent them when other laws were being repealed, they could no longer do anything more, but the whole system of the constitution was converted into a dynasty of the men who had initiated the innovations.

+

And constitutions of all formsare broken up some times from movements initiating from within themselves, but sometimes from outside, when there is an opposite form of constitution either near by or a long way off yet possessed of power. This used to happen in the days of the Athenians and the Spartans; the Athenians used to put down oligarchies everywhere and the Spartans democracies.

+

We have then approximately stated the causes that give rise to revolutions in the constitutions of states and to party factions.

+

The next thing to speak about is security both in general and for each form of constitution separately. First then it is clear that if we know the causes by which constitutions are destroyed we also know the causes by which they are preserved; for opposites create opposites, and destruction is the opposite of security. In well-blended constitutions therefore, if care must be taken to prevent men from committing any other breach of the law, most of all must a small breach be guarded against, for transgression of the law creeps in unnoticed, just as a small expenditure occurring often ruins men’s estates; for the expense is not noticed because it does not come all at once, for the mind is led astray by the repeated small outlays, just like the sophistic puzzle, if each is little, then all are alittle.This is the soritesfallacy; add to one stone another, and another, and another—when do they make a heap ( σωρός)? and take away stone after stone—when do they cease to be a heap? Horace’s ratio ruentis acerui (Hor. Ep. 2.47. This is true in one way but in another it is not; for the whole or total is not little, but made up of little parts. One thing therefore that we must guard against is this beginning; and the next point is that we must not put faith in the arguments strung together for the sake of tricking the multitude,

+ +
+

for they are refuted by the facts (and what sort of constitutional sophistries we refer to hasbeen said before). And again we must observe that not only some aristocracies but also some oligarchies endure not because the constitutions are secure but because those who get in the offices treat both those outside the constitution and those in the government well, on the one hand by not treating those who are not members of it unjustly and by bringing their leading men into the constitution and not wronging the ambitious ones in the matter of dishonor or the multitude in the matter of gain, and on the other hand, in relation to themselves and those who are members, by treating one another in a democratic spirit. For that equality which men of democratic spirit seek for in the case of the multitude is not only just but also expedient in the case of their compeers. Hence if there are a greater number in the governing class, many of the legislative enactments of a democratic nature are advantageous, for example for the offices to be tenable for six months, to enable all the compeers to participate in them; for the compeers in this case are as it were the people (owing to which demagogues often arise even among them, as has been said already), and also oligarchies and aristocracies fall into dynasties less (for it is not so easy to do wrongs when in office for a short time as when in for a long time, since it is long tenure of office that causes tyrannies to spring up in oligarchies and democracies; for either those who are the greatest men in either sort of state aim at tyranny, in the one sort the demagogues and in the other the dynasts, or those who hold the greatest offices, when they are in office for along time). And constitutions are kept secure not only through being at a distance from destroyers but sometimes also through being near them,This modifies 1207a 31. for when they are afraid the citizens keep a closer hold on the government; hence those who take thought for the constitution must contrive causes of fear, in order that the citizens may keep guard and not relax their vigilance for the constitution like a watch in the night, and they must make the distant near. Again, they must also endeavor to guard against the quarrels and party struggles of the notables by means of legislation, and to keep out those who are outside the quarrel before they too have taken it over; since to discern a growing evil at the commencement is not any ordinary person’s work but needs a statesman. And to deal with the revolution from oligarchy and constitutional government that arises because of the property-qualifications, when this occurs while the rates of qualification remain the same but money is becoming plentiful, it is advantageous to examine the total amount of the rated value of the community as compared with the past amount, in states where the assessment is made yearly, over that period,

+ +
+

and three years or five years ago in the larger states, and if the new total is many times larger or many times smaller than the former one at the time when the rates qualifying for citizenship were fixed, it is advantageous that there should be a law for the magistrates correspondingly to tighten up or to relax the rates, tightening them up in proportion to the ratio of increase if the new total rated value exceeds the old, and relaxing them and making the qualification lower if the new total falls below theold. For in oligarchies and constitutional states, when they do not do this, in the one casei.e. if the total valuation has decreased. the result is that in the latter an oligarchy comes into existence and in the former a dynasty, and in the other casei.e. if the total has increased. a constitutional government turns into a democracy and an oligarchy into a constitutional government or a government of the people. But it is a policy common to democracy and oligarchy [and to monarchy],Some MSS. and many editors omit these words. and every form of constitution not to raise up any man too much beyond due proportion, but rather to try to assign small honors and of long tenure or great ones quicklyThe text should probably be emended with a short tenure. (for officials grow corrupt, and not every man can bear good fortune), or if not, at all events not to bestow honors in clusters and take them away again in clusters, but by a gradual process; and best of all to try so to regulate people by the law that there may be nobody among them specially pre-eminent in power due to friends or wealth, or, failing this, to cause their periods out of office to be spent abroad.And since men also cause revolutions through their private lives, some magistracy must be set up to inspect those whose mode of living is unsuited to the constitution—unsuited to democracy in a democracy, to oligarchy in an oligarchy, and similarly for each of the other forms of constitution. And also sectional prosperity in the state must be guarded against for the same reasons; and the way to avert this is always to entrust business and office to the opposite sections (I mean that the respectable are opposite to the multitude and the poor to the wealthy), and to endeavor either to mingle together the multitude of the poor and that of the wealthy or to increase the middle class (for this dissolves party factions due to inequality). And in every form of constitution it is a very great thing for it to be so framed both by its laws and by its other institutions that it is impossible for the magistracies to make a profit. And this has most to be guarded against in oligarchies; for the many are not so much annoyed at being excluded from holding office (but in fact they are glad if somebody lets them have leisure to spend on their own affairs) as they are if they think that the magistrates are stealing the common funds, but then both things annoy them, exclusion from the honors of office and exclusion from its profits. And indeed the sole way in which a combination of democracy and aristocracy is possible is if someone could contrive this arrangementi.e. render it impossible to make money out of office;

+ +
+

for it would then be possible for the notables and also the multitude both to have what they want; for it is the democratic principle for all to have the right to hold office and the aristocratic one for the offices to be filled by the notables, and this will be the case when it is impossible to make money from office; for the poor will not want to hold office because of making nothing out of it, but rather to attend to their own affairs, while the wealthy will be able to hold office because they have no need to add to their resources from the public funds; so that the result will be that the poor will become well-off through spending their time upon their work, and the notables will not be governed by any casual persons. Therefore to prevent peculation of the public property, let the transfer of the funds take place in the presence of all the citizens, and let copies of the lists be deposited for each brotherhood,Groups of citizens normally three to a tribe, supposed to be based on relationship. companyOriginally a military, later a civil classification. and tribe; and to get men to hold office without profit there must be honors assigned by law to officials of good repute. And in democracies it is necessary to be sparing of the wealthy not only by not causing properties to be divided up, but not incomes either (which under some constitutions takes place unnoticed), and it is better to prevent men from undertaking costly but useless public services like equipping choruses and torch-racesEquipping the chorus and actors for tragedies and comedies and providing for the ceremonial torch-races were public services borne by individuals at Athens. and all other similar services, even if they wish to; in an oligarchy on the other hand it is necessary to take much care of the poor, and to allot to them the offices of profit, and the penalty if one of the rich commits an outrage against them must be greater than if it is done by one of themselves,Or possibly than if he does it against one of his own class. and inheritance must not go by bequest but by family, and the same man must not inherit more than one estate, for so estates would be more on a level, and more of the poor would establish themselves as prosperous. And it is expedient both in a democracy and in an oligarchy to assign to those who have a smaller share in the government—in a democracy to the wealthy and in anoligarchy to the poor—either equality or precedence in all other things excepting the supreme offices of state; but these should be entrusted to those prescribed by the constitution exclusively, or to them for the most part.

+

There are some three qualities which those who are to hold the supreme magistracies ought to possess, first, loyalty to the established constitution, next, very great capacity to do the duties of the office, and third, virtue and justice—in each constitution the sort of justice suited to the constitution (for if the rules of justice are not the same under all constitutions, it follows that there must be differences in the nature of justice also). It is a difficult question how the choice ought to be made when it happens that all these qualities are not found in the same person;

+ +
+

for instance, if one man is a good military commander but a bad man and no friend of the constitution, and the other is just and loyal, how should the choice be made? It seems that two things ought to be considered, what is the quality of which all men have a larger share, and what the one of which all have a smaller share? Therefore in the case of military command one must consider experience more than virtue, for men have a smaller share of military experience and a larger share of moral goodness; but in the case of a trusteeship or a stewardship the opposite, for these require more virtue than most men possess, but the knowledge required is common to all men. And somebody might raise the question, why is virtue needed if both capacity and loyalty to the constitution are forthcoming, as even these two qualities will do what is suitable? May not the answer be, because those who possess these two qualities may possibly lack self-control, so that just as they do not serve themselves well although they know how to and although they love themselves, so possibly in some cases they may behave in this way in regard to the community also? And broadly, whatever provisions in the laws we describe as advantageous to constitutions, these are all preservative of the constitutions, and so is the supreme elementary principle that has been often stated, that of taking precautions that the section desirous of the constitution shall be stronger in numbers than the section not desirous off it. And beside all these matters one thing must not be overlooked which at present is overlooked by the, deviation-formsSee 1279a 20. of constitution—the middle party; for many of the institutions thought to be popular destroy democracies, and many of those thought oligarchical destroy oligarchies. But the adherents of the deviation-form, thinking that this form is the only right thing, drag it to excess, not knowing that just as there can be a nose that although deviating from the most handsome straightness towards being hooked or snub nevertheless is still beautiful and agreeable to look at, yet all the same, if a sculptor carries it still further in the direction of excess, he will first lose the symmetry of the feature and finally will make it not even look like a nose at all, because of its excess and deficiency in the two opposite qualities (and the same is the ease also in regard to the other parts of the body), so this is what happens about constitutions likewise; for it is possible for an oligarchy and a democracy to be satisfactory although they have diverged from the best structure, but if one strains either of them further, first he will make the constitution worse, and finally he will make it not a constitution at all. Therefore the legislator and the statesman must not fail to know what sort of democratic institutions save and what destroy a democracy, and what sort of oligarchical institutions an oligarchy; for neither constitution can exist and endure without the well-to-do and the multitude, but when an even level of property comes about, the constitution resulting must of necessity be another one,

+ +
+

so that when men destroy these classes by laws carried to excess they destroy the constitutions. And a mistake is made both in democracies and in oligarchies—in democracies by the demagogues, where the multitude is supreme over the laws; for they always divide the state into two by fighting with the well-to-do, but they ought on the contrary always to pretend to be speaking on behalf of men that are well-to-do, while in democracies the oligarchical statesmen ought to pretend to be speaking on behalf of the people, and the oligarchics ought to take oath in terms exactly opposite to those which they use now, for at present in some oligarchies they swear, And I will be hostile to the people and will plan whatever evil I can against them,The scoffing anapaestic cadence of this oath has been noted. In 411 B.C. the democratic reaction at Athens swore to be enemies of the Four Hundred and to hold no parley with them. but they ought to hold, and to act the part of holding, the opposite notion, declaring in their oaths, I will not wrong the people. But the greatest of all the means spoken of to secure the stability of constitutions is one that at present all people despise: it is a system of education suited to the constitutions. For there is no use in the most valuable laws, ratified by the unanimous judgement of the whole body of citizens, if these are not trained and educated in the constitution, popularly if the laws are popular, oligarchically if they are oligarchical; for there is such a thing as want of self-discipline in a state, as well as in an individual. But to have been educated to suit the constitution does not mean to do the things that give pleasure to the adherents of oligarchy or to the supportersof democracy, but the things that will enable the former to govern oligarchically and the latter to govern themselves democratically. But at present in the oligarchies the sons of the rulers are luxurious, and the sons of the badly-off become trained by exercise and labor, so that they are both more desirous of reform and more able to bring it about; + while in the democracies thought to be the most democratic the opposite of what is expedient has come about. And the cause of this is that they define liberty wrongly (for there are two things that are thought to be defining features of democracy, the sovereignty of the majority and liberty); for justice is supposed to be equality, and equality the sovereignty of what ever may have been decided by the multitude, and liberty doing just what one likes. Hence in democracies of this sort everybody lives as he likes, and unto what end he listeth, as EuripidesFragment 883, from an unknown play. says. But this is bad; for to live in conformity with the constitution ought not to be considered slavery but safety.

+

This therefore, speaking broadly, is a list of the things that cause the alteration and the destruction of constitutions, and of those that cause their security and continuance.

+

It remains to speak of monarchy, the causes that destroy it and the natural means of its preservation.

+ +
+

And the things that happen about royal governments and tyrannies are almost similar to those that have been narrated about constitutional governments. For royal government corresponds with aristocracy, while tyranny is a combination of the last form of oligarchyCf. 1296a 3, 1312b 35. and of democracy; and for that very reason it is most harmful to its subjects, inasmuch as it is a combination of two bad things, and is liable to the deviations and errors that spring from both forms of constitution. And these two different sorts of monarchy have their origins from directly opposite sources; royalty has come into existence for the assistance of the distinguished against the people, and a king is appointed from those distinguished by superiority in virtue or the actions that spring from virtue, or by superiority in coming from a family of that character, while a tyrant is set up from among the people and the multitude to oppose the notables, in order that the people may suffer no injustice from them. And this is manifest from the facts of history. For almost the greatest number of tyrants have risen, it may be said, from being demagogues, having won the people’s confidence by slandering the notables. For some tyrannies were set up in this manner when the states had already grown great, but others that came before them arose from kings departing from the ancestral customs and aiming at a more despotic rule,and others from the men elected to fill the supreme magistracies (for in old times the peoples used to appoint the popular officialsHere δημιουργία means magistracy generally; δημιουργός was the title of a special officer in some Peloponnesian states. and the sacred embassiesOfficial missions to religious games and to oracles. for long terms of office), and others from oligarchies electing some one supreme official for the greatest magistracies. For in all these methods they had it in their powerto effect their purpose easily, if only they wished, because they already possessed the power of royal rule in the one set of cases and of their honorable office in the other, for example Phidon in Argos Perhaps circa 750 B.C. and others became tyrants when they possessed royal power already, while the Ionian tyrantse.g. Thrasybulus, tyrant of Miletus, 612 B.C. and PhalarisTyrant of Agrigentum 572 B.C. arose from offices of honor, and Panaetius at Leontini and Cypselus at Corinth and PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. at Athens and DionysiusSee 1259a 28 n. at Syracuse and others in the same manner from the position of demagogue. + +Therefore, as we said, royalty is ranged in correspondence with aristocracy, for it goes by merit, either by private virtue or by family or by services or by a combination of these things and ability. For in every instance this honor fell to men after they had conferred benefit or because they had the ability to confer benefit on their cities or their nations, some having prevented their enslavement in war, for instance Codrus,The usual tradition was that Codrus was already king when he saved Athens by sacrificing his life. others having set them free, for instance Cyrus,Cyrus liberated Persia from the Median empire 559 B.C. or having settled or acquired territory, for instance the kings of Sparta and Macedon and the Molossians.Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, conquered the Molossi and became their king. And a king wishes to be a guardian,

+ +
+

to protect the owners of estates from suffering injustice and the people from suffering insult, but tyranny, as has repeatedly been said, pays regard to no common interest unless for the sake of its private benefit; and the aim of tyranny is what is pleasant, that of royalty what is noble. Hence even in their requisitions money is the aim of tyrants but rather marks of honor that of kings; and a king’s body-guard consists of citizens, a tyrant’s of foreign mercenaries. And it is manifest that tyranny has the evils of both democracy and oligarchy; it copies oligarchy in making wealth its object (for inevitably that is the only way in which the tyrant’s body-guard and his luxury can be kept up) and in putting no trust in the multitude (which is why they resort to the measure of stripping the people of arms, and why ill-treatment of the mob and its expulsion from the city and settlement in scattered places is common to both forms of government, both oligarchy and tyranny), while it copies democracy in making war on the notables and destroying them secretly and openly and banishing them as plotting against it and obstructive to its rule. For it is from them that counter-movements actually spring, some of them wishing themselves to rule, and others notto be slaves. Hence comes the advice of Periander to Thrasybulus,See 1284a 26 n. his docking of the prominent cornstalks, meaning that the prominent citizens must always be made away with.

+

Therefore, as was virtually stated,This has not been stated, but can be inferred from what precedes. the causes of revolutions in constitutional and in royal governments must be deemed to be the same; for subjects in many cases attack monarchies because of unjust treatment and fear and contempt, and among the forms of unjust treatment most of all because of insolence, and sometimes the cause is the seizure of private property. Also the objects aimed at by the revolutionaries in the case both of tyrannies and of royal governments are the same as in revolts against constitutional government; for monarchs possess great wealth and great honor, which are desired by all men. And in some cases the attack is aimed at the person of the rulers, in others at their office. Risings provoked by insolence are aimed against the person; and though insolence has many varieties, each of them gives rise to anger, and when men are angry they mostly attack for the sake of revenge, not of ambition. For example the attack on the Pisistratidae took place because they outraged Harmodius’s sister and treated Harmodius with contumely (for Harmodius attacked them because of his sister and Aristogiton because of Harmodius, and also the plot was laid against Periander the tyrant in Ambracia See 1304a 31 n. because when drinking with his favorite he asked him if he was yet with child by him),

+ +
+

and the attack on Philip by PausaniasA Macedonian youth of family, who murdered Philip 336 B.C. Attalus was the uncle of Philip’s wife Cleopatra. was because he allowed him to be insulted by Attalus and his friends, and that on Amyntas the LittlePerhaps the adjective should be transferred to Derdas and expunged as an interpolated note. The persons referred to are uncertain. by Derdas because he mocked at his youth, and the attack of the eunuch on Evagoras of Cyprus was for revenge, for he murdered him as being insulted, because Evagoras’s son had taken away his wife. And many risings have also occurred because of shameful personal indignities committed by certain monarchs. One instance is the attack of Crataeas on ArchelausKing of Macedon 413-399 B.C. Euripides went to reside at his court 408 B.C. and died there 406 B.C. at the age of 75.; for he was always resentful of the association, so that even a smaller excuse became sufficient, or perhaps it was because he did not give him the hand of one of his daughters after agreeing to do so, but gave the elder to the king of Elimea when hard pressed in a war against Sirras and Arrabaeus, and the younger to his son Amyntas, thinking that thus Amyntas would be least likely to quarrel with his son by Cleopatra; but at all events Crataeas’s estrangement was primarily caused by resentment because of the love affair. And Hellanocrates of Larisa also joined in the attack for the same reason; for because while enjoying his favors Archelaus would not restore him to his home although he had promised to do so, he thought that the motive of the familiarity that had taken placehad been insolence and not passionate desire. And Pytho and Heraclides of Aenus made away with CotysKing of Thrace 382-358 B.C. to avenge their father, and Adamas revolted from Cotys because he had been mutilated by him when a boy, on the ground of the insult. And also many men when enraged by the indignity of corporal chastisement have avenged the insult by destroying or attempting to destroy its author, even when a magistrate or member of a royal dynasty. For example when the PenthilidaeThe ruling family in the early oligarchy there, claiming descent from Penthilus, an illegitimate son of Orestes. at Mitylene went about striking people with their staves Megacles with his friends set on them and made away with them, and afterwards Smerdis when he had been beaten and dragged out from his wife’s presence killed Penthilus. Also Decamnichus took a leading part in the attack upon Archelaus, being the first to stir on the attackers; and the cause of his anger was that he had handed him over to Euripides the poet to flog, Euripides being angry because he had made a remark about his breath smelling. And many others also for similar reasons have been made away with or plotted against. And similarly also from the motive of fear; for this was one of the causes we mentioned in the case of monarchies, as also in that of constitutional governments; for instance ArtapanesCaptain of Xerxes’ body-guard. killed Xerxes fearing the charge about Darius, because he had hanged him when Xerxes had ordered him not to but he had thought that he would forgive him because he would forget, as he had been at dinner. And other attacks on monarchs have been on account of contempt,

+ +
+

as somebody killed SardanapallusLast king of the Assyrian empire at Nineveh. when he saw him combing his hair with his women (if this story told by the narrators of legends is true—and if it did not happen with Sardanapallus, it might quite well be true of somebody else), and Dion attacked the younger DionysiusTyrant of Syracuse 367-356 and 346-343 B.C., cf. 1312a 34 ff. because he despised him, when he saw the citizens despising him and the king himself always drunk. And contempt has led some even of the friends of monarchs to attack them, for they despise them for trusting them and think they will not be found out. And contempt is in a manner the motive of those who attack monarchs thinking that they are able to seize the government; for they make the attempt with a light heart, feeling that they have the power and because of their power despising the danger, as generals commanding the armies attack their monarchs; for instance Cyrus attacked AstyagesThe last king of Media, reigned 594-559 B.C. when he despised both his mode of life and his power, because his power had waned and he himself was living luxuriously, and the Thracian Seuthes attacked AmadocusBoth these Thracian kings became allies of Athens 390 B.C., but the event referred to may be later. when his general. Others again attack monarchs for more than one of these motives, for instance both because they despise them and for the sake of gain, as MithridatesPerhaps Mithridates II., who succeeded his father Ariobarzanes as satrap of Pontus 336 B.C. attacked Ariobarzanes.The following sentence may have been shifted by mistake from the end of 8.14 above. And it is men of bold nature and who hold a military office with monarchs who most often make the attempt for this reason; for courage possessing power is boldness,and they make their attacks thinking that with courage and power they will easily prevail. But with those whose attack is prompted by ambition the motive operates in a different way from those spoken of before; some men attack tyrantsbecause they see great profits and great honors belonging to them, but that is not the reason that in each case leads the persons who attack from motives of ambition to resolve on the venture; those others are led by the motive stated, but these attack monarchs from a wish to gain not monarchy but glory, just as they would wishto take part in doing any other uncommon deed that makes men famous and known to their fellows. Not but what those who make the venture from this motive are very few indeed in number, for underlying it there must be an utter disregard of safety, if regard for safety is not to check the enterprise; they must always have present in their minds the opinion of Dion, although it is not easy for many men to have it; Dion marched with a small force against Dionysius, saying that his feeling was that, whatever point he might be able to get to, it would be enough for him to have had that much share in the enterprise—for instance, if it should befall him to die as soon as he had just set foot in the country, that death would satisfy him.

+

And one way in which tyranny is destroyed, as is eachof the other forms of constitution also, is from without,

+ +
+

if some state with an opposite constitution is stronger (for the wish to destroy it will clearly be present in such a neighbor because of the opposition of principle, and all men do what they wish if they have the power)—and the constitutions opposed to tyranny are, on the one hand democracy, which is opposed to it as (in Hesiod’s phrase Hes. WD 25 καὶ κεραμεὺς κεραμεῖ κοτέει καὶ τέκτονι τέκτων, two of a trade never agree.) potter to potter, because the final form of democracy is tyranny, and on the other hand royalty and aristocracy are opposed to tyranny because of the opposite nature of their constitutional structure (owing towhich the Spartans put down a very great many tyrannies, and so did the Syracusans at the period when they were governed well.) But one way is from within itself, when the partners in it fall into discord, as the tyranny of the family of GeloTyrant of Syracuse 485-478 B.C., succeeded by his brother Hiero who died 467. Gelo’s son is unknown. Cf. 1315b 35 ff. was destroyed, and in modern times 356 B.C., a good many years before this book was written. that of the family of DionysiusSee 1312a 4 n.—Gelo’s, when Thrasybulus the brother of Hiero paid court to the son of Gelo and urged him into indulgences in order that he himself might rule, and the son’s connections banded together a body of confederates in order that the tyranny might not be put down entirely but only Thrasybulus, but their confederates seizing the opportunity expelled them all; Dionysius was put down by Dion, his relative, who got the people on to his side and expelled him, but was afterwards killed. There are two causes that chiefly lead men to attack tyranny, hatred and contempt; the former, hatred,attaches to tyrants always, but it is their being despised that causes their downfall in many cases. A proof of this is that most of those that have won tyrannies have also kept their offices to the end, but those that have inherited them almost all lose them at once; for they live a life of indulgence, and so become despicable and also give many opportunities to their attackers. And also anger must be counted as an element in the hatred felt for them, for in a way it occasions the same actions. And often it is even more active than hatred, since angry men attack more vigorously because passion does not employ calculation (and insolence most frequently causes men to be led by their angry tempers, which was the cause of the fall of the tyranny of the Pisistratidae and many others), but hatred calculates more; for anger brings with it an element of pain, making calculation difficult, but enmity is not accompanied by pain. And to speak summarily, all the things that we have mentioned as causing the down fall of unmixed and extreme oligarchy and of the last form of democracy must be counted as destructive of tyranny as well, since extreme oligarchy and democracy are in reality dividedi.e. divided among several persons, put into commission. tyrannies. Royal government on the other hand is very seldom destroyed by external causes, so that it is long-lasting; but in most cases its destruction arises out of itself. And it is destroyed in two ways,

+ +
+

one when those who participate in it quarrel, and another when the kings try to administer the government too tyrannically, claiming to exercise sovereignty in more things and contrary to the law. Royal governments do not occur any more now, but if ever monarchies do occur they are rather tyrannies, because royalty is government over willing subjects but with sovereignty over greater matters, but men of equal quality are numerous and no one is so outstanding as to fit the magnitude and dignity of the office; so that for this reason the subjects do not submit willingly, and if a man has made himself ruler by deception or force, then this is thought to be a tyranny. In cases of hereditary royalty we must also set down a cause of their destruction, in addition to those mentioned, the fact that hereditary kings often become despicable, and that although possessing not the power of a tyrant but the dignity of a king they commit insolent outrages; for the deposition of kings used to be easy, since a king will at once cease to be king if his subjects do not wish him to be, whereas a tyrant will still be tyrant even though his subjects do not wish it.

+

These causes then and others of the same nature are those that bring about the destruction of monarchies.

+

On the other hand it is clear that monarchies, speaking generally, are preserved in safety as a result of the opposite causes to those by which they are destroyed. But taking the different sorts of monarchy separately—royalties are preserved by bringing theminto a more moderate form; for the fewer powers the kings have, the longer time the office in its entirety must last, for they themselves become less despotic and more equal to their subjects in temper, and their subjects envy them less. For this was the cause of the long persistence of the Molossian royalty, and that of Sparta has continued because the office was from the beginning divided into two halves, and because it was again limited in various ways by Theopompus,King of Sparta circa 770-720 B.C. in particular by his instituting the office of the ephors to keep a check upon it; for by taking away some of the kings’ power he increased the permanence of the royal office, so that in a manner he did not make it less but greater. This indeed as the story goes is what he said in reply to his wife, when she asked if he felt no shame in bequeathing the royal power to his sons smaller than he had inherited it from his father: Indeed I do not, he is said to have answered, for Ihand it on more lasting.

+

Tyrannies on the other hand are preserved in two extremely opposite ways. One of these is the traditional way and the one in which most tyrants administer their office. Most of these ordinary safeguards of tyranny are said to have been instituted by PerianderSee 1284a 26 n. of Corinth, and also many such devices may be borrowed from the Persian empire. These are both the measures mentioned some time back to secure the safety of a tyranny as far as possible—the lopping off of outstanding men and the destruction of the proud,—and also the prohibition of common meals and club-fellowship and education and all other things of this nature,

+ +
+

in fact the close watch upon all things that usually engender the two emotions of pride and confidence, and the prevention of the formation of study-circles and other conferences for debate,The phrases cover Plato’s gatherings in the Academy, Aristotle’s in the Peripatos of the Lyceum, and other meetings for the intellectual use of leisure in gymnasia, palaestrae and leschae. and the employment of every means that will make people as much as possible unknown to one another (for familiarity increases mutual confidence); and for the people in the city to be always visible and to hang about the palace-gates (for thus there would be least concealment about what they are doing, and they would get into a habit of being humble from always acting in a servile way); and all the other similar devices of Persian and barbarian tyranny (for all have the same effect); and to try not to be uninformed about any chance utterances or actions of any of the subjects, but to have spies like the women called provocatrices at Syracuse and the sharp-ears that used to be sent out by Hiero wherever there was any gathering or conference (for when men are afraid of spies of this sort they keep a check on their tongues, and if they do speak freely are less likely not to be found out); and to set men at variance with one another and cause quarrels between friend and friend and between the people and the notables and among the rich. And it is a device of tyranny to make the subjects poor, so that a guardApparently this means a citizen force side by side with the tyrant’s mercenaries; a variant gives in order that the (tyrant’s) guard may be kept. may not be kept, and also that the people being busy with their daily affairs may not have leisure to plot against their ruler. Instances of this are the pyramids in Egypt and the votive offerings of the Cypselids,Cypselus and his son Periander (1310b 29 n., 1284a 26 n.) dedicated a colossal statue of Zeus at Olympia and other monuments there and at Delphi. and the building of the temple of Olympian Zeus by the PisistratidaePisistratus is said to have begun the temple of Olympian Zeus at Athens, not finished till the time of Hadrian. and of the temples at Samos, works of PolycratesTyrant of Samos, d. 522 B.C. (for all these undertakings produce the same effect, constant occupation and poverty among the subject people); and the levying of taxes, as at Syracuse (for in the reign of DionysiusSee 1259a 28 n. the result of taxation used to be that in five years men had contributed the whole of their substance). Also the tyrant is a stirrer-up of war, with the deliberate purpose of keeping the people busy and also of making them constantly in need of a leader. Also whereas friends are a means of security to royalty, it is a mark of a tyrant to be extremely distrustful of his friends, on the ground that, while all have the wish, these chiefly have the power. Also the things that occur in connection with the final form of democracyCf. 1309b 27 ff. are all favorable to tyranny—dominance of women in the homes, in order that they may carry abroad reports against the men, and lack of discipline among the slaves, for the same reason; for slaves and women do not plot against tyrants, and also, if they prosper under tyrannies, must feel well-disposed to them, and to democracies as well (for the common people also wishes to be sole ruler). Hence also the flatterer is in honor with both—with democracies the demagogue (for the demagogue is a flatterer of the people), and with the tyrants those who associate with them humbly, which is the task of flattery.

+ +
+

In fact owing to this tyranny is a friend of the base; for tyrants enjoy being flattered, but nobody would ever flatter them if he possessed a free spirit—men of character love their ruler, or at all events do not flatter him. And the base are useful for base business, for nail is driven out by nail, as the proverb goes.The proverb ἡλῷ ἧλος ἐκκρούεται usually meant driving out something by a thing of the same kind (‘set a thief to catch a thief’), not as here the execution of evil designs by appropriate agents. And it is a mark of a tyrant to dislike anyone that is proud or free-spirited; for the tyrant claims for himself alone the right to bear that character, and the man who meets his pride with pride and shows a free spirit robs tyranny of its superiority and position of mastery; tyrants therefore hate the proud as undermining their authority. And it is a mark of a tyrant to have men of foreign extraction rather than citizens as guests at table and companions, feeling that citizens are hostile but strangers make no claim against him.i.e. do not claim honors as against their patron, claim to be his equals. These and similar habits are characteristic of tyrants and preservative of their office, but they lack no element of baseness. And broadly speaking, they are all included under three heads; for tyranny aims at three things, one to keep its subjects humble (for a humble-spirited man would not plot against anybody), second to have them continually distrust one another (for a tyranny is not destroyed until some men come to trust each other, owing to which tyrants also make war on the respectable, as detrimentalto their rule not only because of their refusal to submit to despotic rule, but also because they are faithful to one another and to the other citizens, and do not inform against one another nor against the others); and the third is lack of power for political action (since nobody attempts impossibilities, so that nobody tries to put down a tyranny if he has not power behind him). + + These then in fact are the three aims to which the wishes of tyrants are directed; for all the measures taken by tyrants one might class under these principles—some are designed to prevent mutual confidence among the subjects, others to curtail their power, and others to make them humble-spirited.

+

Such then is the nature of one method by which security is obtained for tyrannies. The other tries to operate in a manner almost the opposite of the devices mentioned. And it can be ascertained from considering the downfall of royal governments. For just as one mode of destroying royalty is to make its government more tyrannical, so a mode of securing tyranny is to make it more regal, protecting one thing only, its power, in order that the ruler may govern not only with the consent of the subjects but even without it; for if he gives up this, he also gives up his position as tyrant. But while this must stand as a fundamental principle, all the other measures he may either adopt or pretend to adopt by cleverly acting the royal part. The first step is to be careful of the public funds,

+ +
+

not squandering presents such as the multitudes resent, when tyrants take money from the people themselves while they toil and labor in penury and lavish it on mistresses and foreigners and craftsmen, and also rendering account of receipts and expenditure, as some tyrants have done already （for this careful management would make a ruler seem a steward of the state and not a tyrant, and he need not be afraid of ever being at a loss for funds while he is master of the state; on the contrary, for those tyrants who go abroad on foreign campaigns this is actually more expedient than to leave their money there collected into one sum, for there is less fear of those guarding it making an attempt on power; since for tyrants campaigning abroad the keepers of the treasury are more to be feared than the citizens, for the citizens go abroad with him but the others stay at home）. Secondly he must be seen to collect his taxes and benevolences for purposes of administration and to meet his occasional requirements for military emergencies, and generally must pose as guardian and steward as it were of a public fund and not a private estate. And his bearing must not be harsh but dignified, and also such as to inspire not fear but rather respect in those who encounter him, though this is not easy to achieve if he is a contemptible personality; so that even if he neglects the other virtues he is bound to cultivate military valor, and to make himself a reputation as a soldier. And further more not only must he himself be known not to outrage any of his subjects, either boy or girl, but so also must everybody about him, and also their wives must similarly show respect towards the other women, since even the insolences of women have caused the fall of many tyrannies. And in regard to bodily enjoyments he must do the opposite of what some tyrants do now (for they not only begin their debaucheries at daybreak and carry them on for many days at a time, but also wish to be seen doing so by the public, in order that people may admire them as fortunate and happy(, but best of all he must be moderate in such matters, or if not, he must at all events avoid displaying his indulgences to his fellows (for not the sober man but the drunkard is easy to attack and to despise, not the wakeful man but the sleeper). And he must do the opposite of almost all the things mentioned some time back, for he must lay out and adorn the city as if he were a trustee and not a tyrant. And further he must be seen always to be exceptionally zealous as regards religious observances (for people are less afraid of suffering any illegal treatment from men of this sort,

+ +
+

if they think that their ruler has religious scruples and pays regard to the gods, and also they plot against him less, thinking that he has even the gods as allies), though he should not display a foolish religiosity. And he must pay such honor to those who display merit in any matter that they may think that they could never be more honored by the citizens if they were in dependent; and honors of this kind he should bestow in person, but inflict his punishments by the agency of other magistrates and law-courts. And it is a protection common to every sort of monarchy to make no one man great, but if necessary to exalt several (for they will keep watch on one another), and if after all the ruler has to elevate an individual, at all events not take a man of bold spirit (for such a character is most enterprising in all undertakings); and if he thinks fit to remove somebody from his power, to do this by gradual stages and not take away the whole of his authority at once. And again he should carefully avoid all forms of outrage, and two beyond all, violent bodily punishments and outrage of the young. And this caution must especially be exercised in relation to the ambitious, for while to be slighted in regard to property annoys the lovers of wealth, slights that involve dishonor are what men of honorable ambition and high character resent.Hence the tyrant should either not consort with men of this kind, or appear to inflict his punishments paternally and not because of contempt, and to indulge in the society of the young for reasons of passion, not because he has the power, and in general he should buy off what are thought to be dishonors by greater honors. And among those who make attempts upon the life of a ruler the most formidable and those against whom the greatest precaution is needed are those that are ready to sacrifice their lives if they can destroy him. Hence the greatest care must be taken to guard against those who think that insolent outrage is being done either to themselves or to those who happen to be under their care; for men attacking under the influence of anger are reckless of themselves, as HeraclitusThe natural philosopher of Ephesus, fl. circa 513 B.C., known as ὁ σκοτεινός for his epigrammatic obscurity. also observed when he said that anger was hard to combat because it would buy revenge with a life. And since states consist of two parts, the poor people and the rich, the most important thing is for both to think that they owe their safety to the government and for it to prevent either from being wronged by the other, but whichever class is the stronger, this must be made to be entirely on the side of the government, as, if this support for the tyrant’s interests is secured, there is no need for him to institute a liberation of slaves or a disarming of the citizens, for one of the two parts of the state added to his power will be enough to make him and them stronger than their attackers. But to discuss each of such matters separately is superfluous; for the thing to aim at is clear,

+ +
+

that it is necessary to appear to the subjects to be not a tyrannical ruler but a steward and a royal governor, and not an appropriator of wealth but a trustee, and to pursue the moderate things of life and not its extravagances, and also to make the notables one’s comrades and the many one’s followers. For the result of these methods must be that not only the tyrant’s rule will be more honorable and more enviable because he will rule nobler subjects and not men that have been humiliated, and will not be continually hated and feared, but also that his rule will endure longer, and moreover that he himself in his personal character will be nobly disposed towards virtue, or at all events half-virtuous, and not base but only half-base.

+

Nevertheless oligarchy and tyrannyOligarchy is not mentioned in what follows, and the context deals with the forms of monarchy. Tyranny is included among the constitutions at 1312a 40, but not elsewhere in this Book. Some editors bracket ll. 19-29 as spurious or out of place. are less lasting than any of the constitutional governments. For the longest-lived was the tyranny at Sicyon, that of the sonsi.e. descendants; Cleisthenes was his grandson. of Orthagoras and of Orthagoras himself, and this lasted a hundred years.From 670 B.C. The cause of this was that they treated their subjects moderately and in many matters were subservient to the laws, and Cleisthenes because he was a warlike man was not easily despised, and in most things they kept the lead of the people by looking after their interests. At all events it is said that Cleisthenes placed a wreath on the judge who awarded the victory away from him, and some say that the statueof a seated figure in the market-place is a statue of the man who gave this judgement. And they say that PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. also once submitted to a summons for trial before the Areopagus. And the second longest is the tyranny at Corinth, that of the Cypselids,From 655 B.C. for even this lasted seventy-three and a half years, as Cypselus was tyrant for thirty years, Periander for forty-four,The Greek may be corrected to forty and a half to give the stated total. and Psammetichus son of Gordias for three years. And the reasons for the permanence of this tyranny also are the same: Cypselus was a leader of the people and continuously throughout his period of office dispensed with a bodyguard; and although Periander became tyrannical, yet he was warlike. The third longest tyranny is that of the Pisistratidae at Athens, but it was not continuous; for while PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. was tyrant he twice fled into exile, so that in a period of thirty-three years he was tyrant for seventeen years out of the total, and his sons for eighteen years, so that the whole duration of their rule was thirty-five years. Among the remaining tyrannies is the one connected with Hiero and GeloSee 1312b 12 n. at Syracuse, but even this did not last many years, but only eighteen in all, for Gelo after being tyrant for seven years ended his life in the eighth, and Hiero ruled ten years, but Thrasybulus was expelled after ten months. And the usual tyrannies have all of them been of quite short duration.

+

The causes therefore of the destruction of constitutional governments and of monarchies and those again of their preservation have almost all of them been discussed.

+ +
+

The subject of revolutions is discussed by Socrates in the Republic,Plato, Republic, Bks. 8, 9 init.; the mathematical formula for the change from Aristocracy to Timocracy quoted here occurs at Plat. Rep. 546c—see Adam’s note there. but is not discussed well. For his account of revolution in the constitution that is the best one and the first does not apply to it particularly. He says that the cause is that nothing is permanent but everything changes in a certain cycle, and that change has its origin in those numbers whose basic ratio 4 : 3 linked with the number 5 gives two harmonies,—meaning whenever the number of this figure becomes cubed,—in the belief that nature sometimes engenders men that are evil, and too strong for education to influence—speaking perhaps not ill as far as this particular dictum goes (for it is possible that there are some persons incapable of being educated and becoming men of noble character), but why should this process of revolution belong to the constitution which Socrates speaks of as the best, more than to all the other forms of constitution, and to all men that come into existence? and why merely by the operation of time, which he says is the cause of change in all things, do even things that did not begin to exist simultaneously change simultaneously? for instance, if a thing came into existence the day before the completion of the cycle, why does it yet change simultaneously with everything else? And in addition to these points, what is the reason why the republic changes from the constitution mentioned into the Spartan formTimocracy, Plat. Rep. 545a. ? For all constitutions more often change into the opposite form than into theone near them. And the same remark applies to the other revolutions as well. For from the Spartan constitution the state changes, he says, to oligarchy, and from this to democracy, and from democracy to tyranny. Yet revolutions also occur the other way about, for example from democracy to oligarchy, and more often so than from democracy to monarchy. Again as to tyranny he does not say whether it will undergo revolution or not, nor, if it will, what will be the cause of it, and into what sort of constitution it will change; and the reason for this is that he would not have found it easy to say, for it is irregular; since according to him tyranny ought to change into the first and best constitution, for so the process would be continuous and a circle, but as a matter of fact tyranny also changes into tyranny, as the constitution of Sicyon See 1315b 13 n. passed from the tyranny of Myron to that of Cleisthenes, and into oligarchy, as did that of AntileonUnknown, cf. 1304a 29 n. at Chalcis, and into democracy, as that of the family of GeloSee 1302b 33 n. at Syracuse, and into aristocracy, as that of CharilausSee 1271b 26 n. at Sparta [and as at Carthage].This clause seems an interpolation; cf. b 6. And constitutions change from oligarchy to tyranny, asdid almost the greatest number of the ancient oligarchies in Sicily, at Leontini to the tyranny of Panaetius,See 1310b 29 n. at Gelo to that of Cleander, at Rhegium to that of Anaxilaus,Unknown. Reggio is related to Sicily as Dover is to France. and in many other cities similarly. And it is also a strange idea that revolutions into oligarchy take place because the occupants of the offices are lovers of money and engaged in money-making,

+ +
+

but not because owners of much more than the average amount of property think it unjust for those who do not own any property to have an equal share in the state with those who do; and in many oligarchies those in office are not allowed to engage in business, but there are laws preventing it, whereas in Carthage, which has a democratic government,Apparently this clause also is an interpolation, or democratic is a copyist’s mistake for oligarchic or timocratic, see 1272b 24 ff. the magistrates go in for business, and they have not yet had a revolution. + + And it is also a strange remark Plat. Rep. 551d that the oligarchical state is two states, one of rich men and one of poor men. For what has happened to this state rather than to the Spartan or any other sort of state where all do not own an equal amount of wealth or where all are not equally good men? and when nobody has become poorer than he was before, none the less revolution takes place from oligarchy to democracy if the men of no property become more numerous, and from democracy to oligarchy if the wealthy class is stronger than the multitude and the latter neglect politics but the former give their mind to them. And although there are many causes through which revolutions in oligarchies occur, he mentions only one—that of men becoming poor through riotous living, by paying away their money in interest on loans—as if at the start all men or most men were rich. + + But this is not true, but although when some of the leaders have lost their properties they stir up innovations, when men of the other classes are ruined nothing strange happens;and even when such a revolution does occur it is no more likely to end in a democracy than in another form of constitution. And furthermore men also form factions and cause revolutions in the constitution if they are not allowed a share of honors, and if they are unjustly or insolently treated, even if they have not run through all their property . . .Some words appear to be lost here; what follows refers to democracy, cf. Plat. Rep. 587b. because of being allowed to do whatever they like; the cause of which he states to be excessive liberty. And although there are several forms of oligarchy and of democracy, Socrates speaks of the revolutions that occur in them as though there were only one form of each.

+ +
+
+

Book 7 in some editions, Book 8 in others.We have already discussedBook 4, 1297b 35 ff. how many and what are the varieties of the deliberative body or sovereign power in the state, and of the system of magistracies and of law-courts, and which variety is adapted to which form of constitution, and alsoBook 5. the destruction of constitutions and their preservation, from what sort of people they originate and what are their causes. But as a matter of fact since there have come into existence several kinds of democracy and similarly of the other forms of constitution, it will be well at the same time to consider1318b—1319a 6. any point that remains about these varieties, and also determine the mode of organization appropriate and advantageous for each. + And further we must also investigateThese topics do not occur in the extant work. the combinations of all the modes of organizing the actual departments of state that have been mentioned,i.e. the deliberative, executive and judicial, see 1297b 41 ff.

+ +
+

for these modes when coupled together make the constitutions overlap, so as to produce oligarchical aristocracies and republics inclining towards democracy. I refer to the combinations which ought to be investigated but have not at present been studied, for example if the deliberative body and the system of electing magistrates are organized oligarchically but the regulations as to the law-courts aristocratically, or these and the structure of the deliberative body oligarchically and the election of magistracy aristocratically, or if in some other manner not all the parts of the constitution are appropriately combined

+

Now it has been stated before1296b 13—1297a 13. what kind of democracy is suited to what kind of state, and similarly which of the kinds of oligarchy is suited to what kind of populace, and also which of the remaining constitutions is advantageous for which people; but nevertheless since it must not only be made clear which variety of these constitutions is best for states, but also how both these best varieties and the other forms must be established, let us briefly pursue the subject. And first let us speak about democracy; for at the same time the facts will also become clear about the opposite form of constitution, that is, the constitution which some people call oligarchy.Rule of the few, i.e. the few rich, but the name is not exact, for in aristocracy also the rulers are few.

+

And for this inquiry we must take into view all the features that are popular and that are thoughtto go with democracies; for it comes about from combinations of these that the kinds of democracy are formed, and that there are different democracies and more than one sort. In fact there are two causes for there being several kinds of democracy, first the one stated before, the fact that the populations are different (for we find one multitude engaged in agriculture and another consisting of handicraftsmen and day-laborers, and when the first of these is added to the second and again the third to both of them it not only makes a difference in that the quality of the democracy becomes better or worse but also by its becoming different in kind); and the second cause is the one about which we now speak. For the institutions that go with democracies and seem to be appropriate to this form of constitution make the democracies different by their combinations; for one form of democracy will be accompanied by fewer, another by more, and another by all of them. And it is serviceable to ascertain each of them both for the purpose of instituting whichever of these kinds of democracy one happens to wish and for the purpose of amending existing ones. For people setting up constitutions seek to collect together all the features appropriate to their fundamental principle, but in so doing they make a mistake, as has been said before in the passage dealing with the causes of the destruction and the preservation of constitutions. And now let us state the postulates, the ethical characters and the aims of the various forms of democracy.

+

Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty—that is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty,

+ +
+

for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.This clause is obscure: perhaps it is an interpolation. And these principles having been laid down and this being the nature of democratic government, the following institutions are democratic in character: election of officials by all from all; government of each by all,and of all by each in turn; election by lot either to all magistracies or to all that do not need experience and skill; no property-qualification for office, or only a very low one; no office to be held twice, or more than a few times, by the same person, or few offices except the military ones; short tenure either of all offices or of as many as possible; judicial functions to be exercised by all citizens, that is by persons selected from all, and on all matters, or on most and the greatest and most important, for instance the audit of official accounts, constitutional questions, private contracts; the assembly to be sovereign over all matters, but no official over any or only over extremely few; or else a council to be sovereign over the most important matters (and a council is the most democratic of magistracies in states where there is not a plentiful supply of pay for everybody—for where there is, they deprive even this office of its power, since the people draws all the trials to itself when it has plenty of pay, as has been said before in the treatise preceding this oneBook 4, 1299b 38 ff. (Books 4. and 5. are regarded as forming one treatise).); also payment for public duties, preferably in all branches, assembly, law-courts, magistracies, or if not, for the magistracies, the law-courts, council and sovereign assemblies, or for those magistracies which are boundi.e. owing to the nature of their duties, and by general custom. to have common mess tables. Also inasmuch as oligarchy is defined by birth, wealth and education, the popular qualifications are thought to be the opposite of these, low birth, poverty, vulgarity. And in respect of the magistracies it is democratic to have none tenable for life,

+ +
+

and if any life-office has been left after an ancient revolution, at all events to deprive it of its power and to substitute election by lot for election by vote.

+

TheseThe rest of the chapter is most obscure, and its authenticity is questioned. then are the features common to democracies. But what is thought to be the extreme form of democracy and of popular government comes about as a result of the principle of justice that is admitted to be democratic, and this is for all to have equality according to number. For it is equality for the poor to have no larger share of power than the rich, and not for the poor alone to be supreme but for all to govern equally; for in this way they would feel that the constitution possessed both equality and liberty. But the question follows, how will they have equality? are the property-assessments of five hundred citizens to be divided among a thousand and the thousand to have equal power to the five hundredi.e. two groups of voters, with equal total wealth and total voting-power, but one group twice as numerous as the other, so that a man in the rich group has two votes and one in the poor group one, the former being on the average twice as rich as the latter.? or is equality on this principlei.e. equality in proportion to number. not to be arranged in this manner, but the division into classes to be on this system, but then an equal number to be taken from the five hundred and from the thousand and these to control the elections and the law-courts? Is this then the justest form of constitution in accordance with popular justice, or is it rather one that goes by counting heads?i.e. one man one vote. For democrats say that justice is whatever seems good to the larger number,but advocates of oligarchy think that it is whatever seems good to the owners of the larger amount of property, for they say that the decision ought to go by amount of property. But both views involve inequality and injustice; for if the will of the few is to prevail, this means a tyranny, since if one man owns more than the other rich men,i.e. apparently, more than the property of all the others put together. according to the oligarchic principle of justice it is just for him to rule alone; whereas if the will of the numerical majority is to prevail, they will do injustice by confiscating the property of the rich minority, as has been said before.1281a 14. What form of equality therefore would be one on which both parties will agree must be considered in the light of the principles of justice as defined by both sets. For they say that whatever seems good to the majority of the citizens ought to be sovereign. Let us then accept this principle, yet not wholly without qualification, but inasmuch as fortune has brought into existence two component parts of the state, rich and poor, let any resolution passed by both classes, or by a majority of each, be sovereign, but if the two classes carry opposite resolutions, let the decision of the majority, in the sense of the group whose total property assessment is the larger, prevail: for instance, if there are ten rich citizens and twenty poor ones, and opposite votes have been cast by six of the rich on one side and by fifteen of the less wealthy on the other, four of the rich have sided with the poor and five of the poor with the rich; then the side that has the larger total property when the assessments of both classes on either side are added together carries the voting.If the rich citizens are on the average twice as wealthy as the poor (1.11), and therefore a rich man has two votes to a poor man’s one, when 6 rich and 5 poor vote one way, and 15 poor and 4 rich the other, the division is 17 to 23, and the view of the latter party, which is carried, represents a larger total of wealth but a larger proportion of poor men. But if the totals fall out exactly equal, this is to be deemed an impasse common to both sides, as it is at present if the assembly or law-court is exactly divided;

+ +
+

either a decision must be made by casting lots or some other such device must be adopted. But on questions of equality and justice, even though it is very difficult to discover the truth about them, nevertheless it is easier to hit upon it than to persuade people that have the power to get an advantage to agree to it; equality and justice are always sought by the weaker party, but those that have the upper hand pay no attention to them.

+

There being four kinds of democracy, the best is the one that stands first in structure, as was said in the discourses preceding theseCf. 4, 1291b 30-41, 1292b 25-33.; it is also the oldest of them all, but by first I mean first as it were in a classification of the kinds of common people. The best common people are the agricultural population, so that it is possible to introduce democracy as well as other forms of constitution where the multitude lives by agriculture or by pasturing cattle. For owing to their not having much property they are busy, so that they cannot often meet in the assembly, while owing to their havingThe MSS. give not having, but editors do not explain how in that case people would avoid starvation. the necessaries of life they pass their time attending to their farm work and do not covet their neighbors’ goods, but find more pleasure in working than in taking part in politics and holding office, where the profits to be made from the offices are not large; for the mass of mankind are more covetous of gain than of honor. And this is indicated by the fact that men endured the tyrannies of former times, and endure oligarchies, if a ruler does not preventthem from working orrob them; for then some of them soon get rich and the others free from want. And also, if they have any ambition, to have control over electing magistrates and calling them to account makes up for the lack of office, since in some democracies even if the people have no part in electing the magistrates but these are elected by a special committee selected in turn out of the whole number, as at Mantinea, yet if they have the power of deliberating on policy, the multitude are satisfied. (And this too must be counted as one form of democracy, on the lines on which it once existed at Mantinea.) Indeed it is for this reason that it is advantageous for the form of democracy spoken of before, and is a customary institution in it, for all the citizens to elect the magistrates and call them to account, and to try law-suits, but for the holders of the greatest magistracies to be elected and to have property-qualifications, the higher offices being elected from the higher property-grades, or else for no office to be elected on a property-qualification, but for officials to be chosen on the ground of capacity. And a state governed in this way is bound to be governed well (for the offices will always be administered by the best men with the consent of the people and without their being jealous of the upper classes), and this arrangement is certain to be satisfactory for the upper classes and notables, for they will not be under the government of others inferior to themselves, and they will govern justly because a different class will be in control of the audits— since it is expedient to be in a state of suspense and not to be able to do everything exactly as seems good to one, for liberty to do whatever one likes cannot guard against the evil that is in every man’s character.

+ +
+

Hence there necessarily results the condition of affairs that is the most advantageous in the government of states—for the upper classes to govern without doing wrong, the common people not being deprived of any rights. It is manifest therefore that this is the best of the forms of democracy, and why this is so—namely, because in it the common people are of a certain kind.

+

For the purpose of making the people an agricultural community, not only were some of the laws that were enacted in many states in early times entirely serviceable, prohibiting the ownership of more than a certain amount of land under any conditions or else of more than a certain amount lying between a certain place and the citadel or city (and in early times at all events in many states there was even legislation prohibiting the sale of the original allotments; and there is a law said to be due to OxylusLeader of the Heraclidae in their invasion of the Peloponnese, and afterwards king of Elis. with some similar provision, forbidding loans secured on a certain portion of a man’s existing estate), but at the present day it would also be well to introduce reform by means of the law of the Aphytaeans, as it is serviceable for the purpose of which we are speaking; the citizens of AphytisAphytis was on the Isthmus of Pallene in Macedonia. although numerous and possessing a small territory nevertheless are all engaged in agriculture, for they are assessed not on the whole of their estates, but on divisions of them so small that even the poor can exceed the required minimum in their assessments.No satisfactory explanation seems to have been suggested of whatthis means.

+

After the agricultural communitythe best kind of democracy is where the people are herdsmen and get their living from cattle; for this life has many points of resemblance to agriculture, and as regards military duties pastoral people are in a very well trained condition and serviceable in body and capable of living in the open. But almost all the other classes of populace, of which the remaining kinds of democracy are composed, are very inferior to these, for their mode of life is mean, and there is no element of virtue in any of the occupations in which the multitude of artisans and market-people and the wage-earning class take part, and also owing to their loitering about the market-place and the city almost all people of this class find it easy to attend the assembly; whereas the farmers owing to their being scattered over the country do not attend, and have not an equal desire for this opportunity of meeting. Andwhere it also happens that the lie of the land is such that the country is widely separated from the city, it is easy to establish a good democracy and also a good constitutional government, for the multitude is forced to live at a distance on the farms; and so, even if there is a crowd that frequents the market-place, it is best in democracies not to hold assemblies without the multitude scattered over the country.i.e. in a largely agricultural democracy, even though there may be a considerable idle population, which would attend frequent assemblies, it is best to hold them infrequently, so as to secure the attendance of the farmers.

+

It has then been stated how the best and first kind of democracy is to be organized, and it is clear how we ought to organize the other kinds also. For they must diverge in a corresponding order, and at each stage we must admit the next inferior class.

+ +
+

The last kind of democracy, because all the population share in the government, it is not within the power of every state to endure, and it is not easy for it to persist if it is not well constituted in its laws and customs (but the things that result in destroying both this state and the other forms of constitution have been nearly all of them spoken of beforeIn Book 5.). With a view to setting up this kind of democracy and making the people powerful their leaders usually acquire as many supporters as possible and admit to citizenship not only the legitimate children of citizens but also the base-born and those of citizen-birth on one side, I mean those whose father or mother is a citizen; for all this element is specially congenial to a to democracy of this sort. Popular leaders therefore regularly introduce such institutions; they ought however only to go on adding citizens up to the point where the multitude outnumbers the notables and the middle class and not to go beyond that point; for if they exceed it they make the government more disorderly, and also provoke the notables further in the direction of being reluctant to endure the democracy, which actually took place and caused the revolution at Cyrene In N. Africa. Diodorus (Diod. 14.34) describes a revolution there in 401 B.C., when five hundred of the rich were put to death and others fled, but after a battle a compromise was arranged.; for a small base element is overlooked, but when it grows numerous it is more in evidence. A democracy of this kind will also find useful such institutions as were employed by CleisthenesSee 1275b 36 n. at Athens when he wished to increase the power of the democracy, and by the party setting up the democracy at Cyrene; different tribes and brotherhoods must be created outnumbering the old ones, and the celebrations of private religious rites must be grouped together into a small number of public celebrations, and every device must be employed to make all the people as much as possible intermingled with one another, and to break up the previously existing groups of associates. Moreover the characteristics of a tyranny also are all thought to be democratic, I mean for instance licence among slaves, which may really be advantageous for the popular party up to a point, and among women and children, and indulgence to live as one likes; a constitution of this sort will have a large number of supporters, as disorderly living is pleasanter to the mass of mankind than sober living.

+

But it is not the greatest or only task of the legislator or of those who desire to construct a constitution of this kind merely to set it up, but rather to ensure its preservation; for it is not difficult for any form of constitution to last for one or two or three days. We must therefore employ the results obtained in the inquiries that we have made alreadyBook 5. into the causes of the preservation and the destruction of constitutions, and attempt in the light of those results to establish the safety of the state, carefully avoiding the things that cause destruction, and enacting such laws both written and unwritten

+ +
+

as shall best compass the results preservative of constitutions, and not think that a measure is democratic or oligarchic which will cause the state to be democratically or oligarchically governed in the greatest degree, but which will cause it to be so governed for the longest time. But the demagogues of today to court the favor of the peoples often use the law-courts to bring about confiscations of property. Hence those who are caring for the safety of the constitution must counteract this by enacting that nothing belonging to persons condemned at law shall be confiscated and liable to be carried to the public treasury, but that their property shall be consecrated to the service of religion; for male-factors will be no less on their guard, as they will be punished just the same, while the mob will less often vote guilty against men on trial when it is not going to get anything out of it. Also they must always make the public trials that occur as few as possible, checking those who bring indictments at random by big penalties; for they do not usually indict men of the people but notables, whereas even with this form of constitution it is desirable for all the citizens if possible to be friendly to the state, or failing that, at all events not to think of their rulers as enemies. And inasmuch as the ultimate forms of democracy tend to have large populations and it is difficult for their citizens to sit in the assembly without pay, and this in a state where there do not happen to be revenues is inimical to the notables (for pay has to be obtained from a property-tax and confiscation, and from corruption of the law-courts, which has caused the overthrow of many democracies before now),—where therefore there happen to be no revenues, few meetings of the assembly must be held, and the law-courts must consist of many members but only sit a few days (for this not only contributes to the rich not being in fear of the cost of the system even if the well-off do not take the pay and only the poor do, but also leads to far greater efficiency in the trial of law-suits, for the well-to-do, though not wishing to be away from their private affairs for many days, are willing to leave them for a short time), while where there are revenues men must not do what the popular leaders do now (for they usethe surplus for doles, and people no sooner get them than they want the same doles again, because this way of helping the poor is the legendary jar with a hole in itThe fifty daughters of Danaus were married to their cousins, and all but one murdered their husbands on the bridal night, and were punished in Hades by having to pour water into the jar described.), but the truly democratic statesman must study how the multitude may be saved from extreme poverty; for this is what causes democracy to be corrupt. Measures must therefore be contrived that may bring about lasting prosperity. And since this is advantageous also for the well-to-do, the proper course is to collect all the proceeds of the revenues into a fund and distribute this in lump sums to the needy, best of all, if one can, in sums large enough for acquiring a small estate, or, failing this, to serve as capital for trade or husbandry,

+ +
+

and if this is not possible for all, at all events to distribute the money by tribes or some other division of the population in turn, while in the meantime the well-to-do must contribute pay for attendance at the necessary assemblies, beingthemselves excused from useless public services. By following some such policy as this the Carthaginians have won the friendship of the common people; for they constantly send out some of the people to the surrounding territories and so make them well-off. And if the notables are men of good feeling and sense they may also divide the needy among them in groups and supply them with capital to start them in businesses. It is also a good plan to imitate the policyCf. 1263a 35. of the Tarentines. They get the goodwill of the multitude by making property communal for the purpose of use by the needyThis seems to mean that the land was in private ownership, but that there was some system of poor-relief, to provide for the destitute out of the produce.; also they have divided the whole number of their magistracies into two classes, one elected by vote and the other filled by lot,—the latter to ensure that the people may have a share in them, and the former to improve the conduct of public affairs. And it is also possible to effect this by dividing the holders of the same magistracy into two groups, one appointed by lot and the other by vote.

+

We have then said how democracies should be organized.

+

It is also fairly clear from these considerations how oligarchies ought to be organized. We must infer them from their opposites, reasoning out each form of oligarchywith reference to the form of democracy opposite to it, starting with the most well-blended and first form of oligarchyIn contrast with the first and best form of democracy, 2 init.—and this is the one near to what is called a constitutional government, and for it the property-qualifications must be divided into one group of smaller properties and another of larger ones, smaller properties qualifying their owners for the indispensable offices and larger ones for the more important; and a person owning the qualifying property must be allowed to take a share in the government,—introducing by the assessment a large enough number of the common people to secure that with them the governing class will have a majority over those excluded; and persons to share in the government must constantly be brought in from the better class of the common people. + And the next form of oligarchy also must be constructed in a similar way with a slight tightening up of the qualification. But the form of oligarchy that stands opposite to the last form of democracy, the most autocratic and tyrannical of the oligarchies, in as far as it is the worst requires a correspondingly great amount of safe-guarding. For just as human bodies in a good state of health and ships well equipped with their crews for a voyage admit of more mistakes without being destroyed thereby, but bodies of a morbid habit and vessels strained in their timbers and manned with bad crews cannot endure even the smallest mistakes, so also the worst constitutions need the most safe-guarding.

+ +
+

Democracies therefore generally speaking are kept safe by the largeness of the citizen-body, for this is the antithesis of justice according to desert; but oligarchy on the contrary must manifestly obtain its security by means of good organization.

+

And since the mass of the population falls principally into four divisions, the farming class, artisans, retail traders and hired laborers, and military forces are of four classes, cavalry, heavy infantry, light infantry and marines, in places where the country happens to be suitable for horsemanship, there natural conditions favor the establishment of an oligarchy that will be powerful (for the security of the inhabitants depends on the strength of this element, and keeping studs of horses is the pursuit of those who own extensive estates); and where the ground is suitable for heavy infantry, conditions favor the next form of oligarchy (for heavy infantry is a service for the well-to-do rather than the poor); but light infantry and naval forces are an entirely democratic element. As things are therefore, where there is a large multitude of this class, when party strife occurs the oligarchs often get the worst of the struggle; and a remedy for this must be adopted from military commanders, who combine with their cavalry and heavy infantry forces a contingent of light infantry. And this is the wayi.e. by superior mobility. in which the common people get the better over the well-to-do in outbreaks of party strife:being unencumbered they fight easily against cavalry and heavy infantry. Therefore to establish this force out of this class is to establish it against itself, but the right plan is for the men of military age to be separated into a division of older and one of younger men, and to have their own sons while still young trained in the exercises of light and unarmed troops, and for youths selected from among the boys to be themselves trained in active operations. And the bestowal of a share in the government upon the multitude should either go on the lines stated before,4.1, 1320b 25 ff. and be made to those who acquire the property-qualification, or as at Thebes, to people after they have abstained for a time from mechanic industries, or as at Marseilles, by making a selection among members of the governing classes and those outside it of persons who deserveIf the text is corrected it seems to mean that the list was revised from time to time and some old names taken off and new ones put on. inclusion. And furthermore the most supreme offices also, which must be retained by those within the constitution, must have expensive duties attached to them, in order that the common people may be willing to be excluded from them, and may feel no resentment against the ruling class, because it pays a high price for office. And it fits in with this that they should offer splendid sacrifices and build up some public monument on entering upon office, so that the common people sharing in the festivities and seeing the city decorated both with votive offerings and with building may be glad to see the constitution enduring; and an additional result will be that the notables will have memorials of their outlay. But at present the members of oligarchies do not adopt this course but the opposite, for they seek the gains of office just as much as the honor; hence these oligarchies are well described as miniature democracies.The phrase suggests that in democracy public duties are cheifly undertaken for their emoluments.

+ +
+

Let this then be a description of the proper way to organize the various forms of democracy and of oligarchy.

+

As a consequence of what has been said there follow satisfactory conclusions to the questions concerning magistracies—how many and what they should be and to whom they should belong, as has also been said before.Book 4 ,1297b 35 ff., 1299a 3 ff. For without the indispensableCf. 4.1. magistracies a state cannot exist, while without those that contribute to good order and seemliness it cannot be well governed. And furthermore the magistracies are bound to be fewer in the small states and more numerous in the large ones, as in fact has been said beforeBook 4, 1299b 30 ff.; it must therefore be kept in view what kinds of magistracies it is desirable to combine and what kinds to keep separate. First among the indispensable services is the superintendence of the market, over which there must be an official to superintend contracts and good order; since it is a necessity for almost all states that people shall sell some things and buy others according to one another’s necessary requirements, and this is the readiest means of securing self-sufficiency, which seems to be the reason for men’s having united into a single state. Another superintendency connected very closely with this one is the curatorship of public and private properties in the city,to secure good order and the preservation and rectification of falling buildings and roads, and of the bounds between different persons’ estates, so that disputes may not arise about them, and all the other duties of superintendence similar to these. An office of this nature is in most states entitled that of City-controller, but it has several departments, each of which is filled by separate officials in the states with larger populations, for instance Curators of Walls, Superintendents of Wells, Harbors-guardians. And another office also is indispensable and closely akin to these, for it controls the same matters but deals with the country and there regions outside the city; and these magistrates are called in some places Land-controllers and in others Custodians of Forests. These then are three departments of control over these matters, while another office is that to which the revenues of the public funds are paid in, the officials who guard them and by whom they are divided out to the several administrative departments; these magistrates are called Receivers and Stewards. Another magistracy is the one that has to receive a written return of private contracts and of the verdicts of the law-courts; and with these same officials the registration of legal proceedings and their institution have also to take place. In some states this office also is divided into several, but there are places where one magistracy controls all these matters; and these officials are called Sacred Recorders, Superintendents, Recorders, and other names akin to these. And after these is the office connectedwith it but perhaps the most indispensable and most difficult of all, the one concerned with the execution of judgement upon persons cast in suits and those posted as defaulters according to the lists, and with the custody of prisoners.

+ +
+

This is an irksome office because it involves great unpopularity, so that where it is not possible to make a great deal of profit out of it men will not undertake it, or when they have undertaken it are reluctant to carry out its functions according to the laws; but it is necessary, because there is no use in trials being held about men’s rights when the verdicts are not put into execution, so that if when no legal trial of disputes takes place social intercourse is impossible, so also is it when judgements are not executed. Hence it is better for this magistracy not to be a single office but to consist of several persons drawn from different courts, and it is desirable similarly to try to divide up the functions connected with the posting up of people registered as public debtors, and further also in some cases for the sentences to be executed by magistrates, especially by the newly elected ones preferably in suits tried by the outgoing ones, and in those tried by men actually in office for the magistrate executing the sentence to be different from the one that passed it, for instance the City-controllers to execute the judgements passed on from the Market-controllers and other magistrates those passed on by the City-controllers. For the less odium involved for those who execute the judgements, the more adequately the judgements will be carried out; so for the same magistrates to have imposed the sentence and to execute it involves a twofold odium, and for the same ones to execute it in all cases makes them the enemies of everybody. And in many places also the office of keeping custody of prisoners, forexample at Athens the office of the magistrates known as the ElevenThis example looks like a mistaken note interpolated in the text. The Eleven had both functions.,is separate from the magistracy that executes sentences. It is better therefore to keep this also separate, and to attempt the same device with regard to this as well. For though it is no less necessary than the office of which I spoke, yet in practice respectable people avoid it most of all offices, while it is not safe to put it into the hands of the base, for they themselves need others to guard them instead of being able to keep guard over others. Hence there must not be one magistracy specially assigned to the custody of prisoners nor must the same magistracy perform this duty continuously, but it should be performed by the young, in places where there is a regiment of cadetsAt Athens and elsewhere young citizens from eighteen to twenty were enrolled in training corps for military instruction; these served as police and home troops. or guards, and by the magistrates, in successive sections.

+

These magistracies therefore must be counted first as supremely necessary, and next to them must be put those that are not less necessary but are ranked on a higher grade of dignity, because they require much experience and trustworthiness; in this class would come the magistracies concerned with guarding the city and those assigned to military requirements. And both in peace and in war it is equally necessary for there to be magistrates to superintend the guarding of gates and walls and the inspection and drill of the citizen troops. In some places therefore there are more magistracies assigned to all these duties, and in others fewer—for instance in the small states there is one to deal with all of them. And the officers of this sort are entitled Generals or War-lords.

+ +
+

And moreover if there are also cavalry or light infantry or archers or a navy, sometimes a magistracy is appointed to have charge of each of these arms also, and they carry the titles of Admiral, Cavalry-commander and Taxiarch, and also the divisional commissions subordinate to these of Captains of Triremes, Company-commanders and Captains of Tribes, and all the subdivisions of these commands. But the whole of this sort of officers constituted a single class, that of military command. This then is how the matter stands in regard to this office; but inasmuch as some of the magistracies, if not all, handle large sums of public money, there must be another office to receive an account and subject it to audit, which must itself handle no other business; and these officials are called Auditors by some people, Accountants by others, Examiners by others and Advocates by others. And by the side of all these offices is the one that is most supreme over all matters, for often the same magistracy has the execution of business that controls its introduction, or presides over the general assembly in places where the people are supreme; for the magistracy that convenes the sovereign assembly is bound to be the sovereign power in the state. It is styled in some places the Preliminary Council because it considers business in advance, but where there is a democracyCf. 1323a 9 below. Apparently πλῆθός ἐστι stands for τὸ πλῆθος κύριόν ἐστι, but editors quote no parallel. it is more usually called a Council. This more or less completes the number of the offices of a political nature; but another kind of superintendence is that concerned with divine worship; in this class are priests and superintendents of mattersconnected with the temples, the preservation of existing buildings and the restoration of those that are ruinous, and the other duties relating to the gods. In practice this superintendence in some places forms a single office, for instance in the small cities, but in others it belongs to a number of officials who are not members of the priesthood, for example Sacrificial Officers and Temple-guardians and Stewards of Sacred Funds. And connected with this is the office devoted to the management of all the public festivals which the law does not assign to the priests but the officials in charge of which derive their honor from the common sacrificial hearth, and these officials are called in some places Archons, in others Kings and in others Presidents. To sum up therefore, the necessary offices of superintendence deal with the following matters : institutions of religion, military institutions, revenue and expenditure, control of the market, citadel, harbors and country, also the arrangements of the law-courts, registration of contracts, collection of fines, custodyof prisoners, supervision of accounts and inspections, and the auditing of officials, and lastly the offices connected with the body that deliberates about public affairs. On the other hand, peculiar to the states that have more leisure and prosperity, and also pay attention to public decorum, are the offices of Superintendent of Women, Guardian of the Laws, Superintendent of Children, Controller of Physical Training,

-Revision 1.13 2009/06/24 15:49:59 lcerrato -fixed bad bibls +
+

and in addition to these the superintendence of athletic and Dionysiac contests and of any similar displays that happen to be held. Some of these offices are obviously not of a popular character, for instance that of Superintendent of Women and of Children; for the poor having no slaves are forced to employ their women and children as servants. There are three offices which in some states supervise the election of the chief magistrates—Guardians of the Laws, Preliminary Councillors and Council; of these the Guardians of the Laws are an aristocratic institution, the Preliminary Councillors oligarchic, and a Council democratic.

+

We have now therefore spoken in outline about almost all the offices of state.

+ +
+
+

+ + Book 4 in some editions.The student who is going to make a suitable investigation of the best form of constitution must necessarily decide first of all what is the most desirable mode of life. For while this is uncertain it is also bound to be uncertain what is the best constitution, since it is to be expected that the people that have the best form of government available under their given conditions will fare the best, exceptional circumstances apart. Hence we must firstagree what life is most desirable for almost all men, and after that whether the same life is most desirable both for the community and for the individual, or a different one. Believing therefore in the adequacy of much of what is said even in extraneous discoursesCf. 3.6. It is debated whether the phrase refers to Aristotle’s own popular writings, or to those of other philosophers, or to discussions of the subject in ordinary intercourse. on the subject of the best life, let us make use of these pronouncements now. For as regards at all events one classification of things good, putting them in three groups, external goods, goods of the soul and goods of the body, assuredly nobody would deny that the ideally happy are bound to possess all three. For nobody would call a man ideally happy that has not got a particle of courage nor of temperance nor of justice nor of wisdom, but is afraid of the flies that flutter by him, cannot refrain from any of the most outrageous actions in order to gratify a desire to eat or to drink, ruins his dearest friends for the sake of a farthing, and similarly in matters of the intellect also is as senseless and mistaken as any child or lunatic. But although these are propositions which when uttered everybody would agree to, yet men differ about amount and degrees of value. They think it is enough to possess however small a quantity of virtue, but of wealth, riches, power, glory and everything of that kind they seek a larger and larger amount without limit. We on the other hand shall tell them that it is easy to arrive at conviction on these matters in the light of the actual facts, when one sees that men do not acquire and preserve the virtues by means of these external goods, but external goods by means of the virtues,

+ +
+

and that whether the life of happiness consists for man in enjoyment or in virtue or in both, it is found in larger measure with those who are of surpassingly high cultivation in character and intellect but only moderate as regards the external acquisition of goods, than with those who own more than they can use of the latter but are deficient in the former. Not but what the truth is also easily seen if we consider the matter in the light of reason. For external goods have a limit, as has any instrument (and everything useful is useful for something), so an excessive amount of them must necessarily do harm, or do no good, to its possessor; whereas with any of the goods of the soul, the more abundant it is, the more useful it must be—if even to goods of the soul not only the term noble but also the term useful can be properly applied. And broadly, it is clear that we shall declare that the best condition of each particular thing, comparing things with one another, corresponds in point of superiority to the distance that subsists between the things of which we declare these conditions themselves to be conditions.e.g. the finest man excels the finest monkey to the degree in which the species man excels the species monkey. Hence inasmuch as our soul is a more valuable thing both absolutely and relatively to ourselves than either our property or our body, the best conditions of these things must necessarily stand in the same relation to one another as the things themselves do. Moreover it is for the sake of the soul that these goods are in their nature desirable, and that all wise men mustchoose them, not the soul for the sake of those other things. Let us then take it as agreed between us that to each man there falls just so large a measure of happiness as he achieves of virtue and wisdom and of virtuous and wise action: in evidence of this we have the case of God, who is happy and blessed, but is so on account of no external goods, but on account of himself, and by being of a certain quality in his nature; since it is also for this reason that prosperity is necessarily different from happiness—for the cause of goods external to the soul is the spontaneous and fortune,Aristotle taught that some events are the result of the undesigned interaction of two lines of causation in nature’s design; he denoted this (1) in general, by the automatic or self-acting (represented in Latin by sponte, spontaneous), (2) as concerning man, by fortune. but nobody is just or temperate as a result of or owing to the action of fortune. And connected is a truth requiring the same arguments to prove it, that it is also the best state, and the one that does well,The common play on the ambiguity of do well, meaning either prosper or act rightly. that is happy. But to do well is impossible save for those who do good actions, and there is no good action either of a man or of a state without virtue and wisdom; and courage, justice and wisdom belonging to a state have the same meaning and form as have those virtues whose possession bestows the titles of just and wise and temperate on an individual human being.

+

These remarks however must suffice by way of preface to our discourse: for neither is it possible to abstain from touching on these subjects altogether, nor is it feasible to follow out all the arguments that are germane to them, for that is the business of another course of study. For the present let us take it as established that the best life, whether separately for an individual or collectively for states,

+ +
+

is the life conjoined with virtue furnished with sufficient means for taking part in virtuous actions Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1099a 32, Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1179a 4 ff. ; while objections to this position we must pass over in the course of the present inquiry, and reserve them for future consideration, if anyone be found to disagree with what has been said.

+

Onthe other hand it remains to say whether the happiness of a state is to be pronounced the same as that of each individual man, or whether it is different. Here too the answer is clear: everybody would agree that it is the same; for all those who base the good life upon wealth in the case of the individual, also assign felicity to the state as a whole if it is wealthy; and all who value the life of the tyrant highest, would also say that the state which rules the widest empire is the happiest; and if any body accepts the individual as happy on account of virtue, he will also say that the state which is the better morally is the happier.

But there now arise these two questions that require consideration: first, which mode of life is the more desirable, the life of active citizenship and participation in politics, or rather the life of an alien and that of detachment from the political partnership; next, what constitution and what organization of a state is to be deemed the best,—either on the assumption that to take an active part in the state is desirable for everybody, or that it is undesirable for some men although desirable for most. But as it isthe latter question that is the business of political study and speculation, and not the question of what is desirable for the individual, and as it is the investigation of politics that we have now taken up, the former question would be a side issue, and the latter is the business of political inquiry.

+

Now it is clear that the best constitution is the system under which anybody whatsoever would be best off and would live in felicity; but the question is raised even on the part of those who agree that the life accompanied by virtue is the most desirable, whether the life of citizenship and activity is desirable or rather a life released from all external affairs, for example some form of contemplative life, which is said by some to be the only life that is philosophic.Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give which alone is said to be desirable by some philosophers. For it is manifest that these are the two modes of life principally chosen by the men most ambitious of excelling in virtue, both in past times and at the present day—I mean the life of politics and the life of philosophy. And it makes no little difference which way the truth lies; for assuredly the wise are bound to arrange their affairs in the direction of the better goal—and this applies to the state collectively as well as to the individual human being. Some persons think that empire over one’s neighbors, if despotically exercised, involves a definite injustice of the greatest kind, and if constitutionally, although it carries no injustice, yet is a hindrance to the ruler’s own well-being; but others hold almost the opposite view to these—they think that the life of action and citizenship is the only life fit for a man, since with each of the virtues its exercise in actions is just as possible for men engaged in public affairs and in politics as for those who live a private life.

+ +
+

Some people then hold the former view, while others declare that the despotic and tyrannical form of constitution alone achieves happiness; and in some states it is also the distinctive aim of the constitution and the laws to enable them to exercise despotic rule over their neighbors. Hence even though with most peoples most of the legal ordinances have been laid down virtually at random, nevertheless if there are places where the laws aim at one definite object, that object is in all cases power, as in Sparta and Crete both the system of education and the mass of the laws are framed in the main with a view to war; and also among all the non-Hellenic nations that are strong enough to expand at the expense of others, military strength has been held in honor, for example, among the Scythians, Persians, Thracians and Celts. Indeed among some peoples there are even certain laws stimulating military valor; for instance at Carthage, we are told, warriors receive the decoration of armlets of the same number as the campaigns on which they have served; and at one time there was also a law in Macedonia that a man who had never killed an enemy must wear his halter instead of a belt. Among Scythian tribes at a certain festival a cup was carried round from which a man that had not killed an enemy was not allowed to drink. Among the Iberians, a warlike race, they fix small spitsOr perhaps pointed stones. in the earth round a man’s grave corresponding in number to the enemies he has killed. So with other races there are many other practices of a similar kind, some established by law and others by custom.

+

Nevertheless those who wish to examine the matter closely might perhaps think it exceedingly strange that it should be the business of a statesman to be able to devise means of holding empire and mastery over the neighboring peoples whether they desire it or not. How can that be worthy of a statesman or lawgiver which is not even lawful? and government is not lawful when it is carried on not only justly but also unjustly—and superior strength may be unjustly exercised. Moreover we do not see this in the other sciences either: it is no part of a physician’s or ship-captain’s business to use either persuasion or compulsion upon the patients in the one case and the crewOr perhaps the passengers. in the other. Yet most peoples seem to think that despotic rule is statesmanship, and are not ashamed to practise towards others treatment which they declare to be unjust and detrimental for themselves; for in their own internal affairs they demand just government, yet in their relations with other peoples they pay no attention to justice. Yet it is strange if there is not a natural distinction between peoples suited to be despotically ruled and those not suited; so that if this is so, it is not proper to attempt to exercise despotic government over all people, but only over those suited for it, just as it is not right to hunt human beings for food or sacrifice, but only the game suitable for this purpose, that is, such wild creatures as are good to eat. And moreover it is possible even for a single state in isolation to be happy,

+ +
+

that is one that is well governed, in as much as it is conceivable that a state might be carried on somewhere in isolation, enjoying good laws, and in such a state the system of the constitution will not be framed for the purpose of war or of overpowering its enemies—for we are to suppose everything to do with war to be excluded. It is evident therefore that while all military pursuits are to be deemed honorable, they are not so as being the ultimate end of all things but as means to that end. And it is the business of the good lawgiver to study how a state, a race of men or any other community is to partake of the good life and the happiness possible for them. Some however of the regulations laid down will vary; and in case there exist any neighbor peoples, it is the business of the legislative art to consider what sort of exercises should be practised in relation to what sort of neighbors or how the state is to adopt the regulations that are suitable in relation to each.

+

But this question of the proper end for the best constitutions to aim at may receive its due consideration later.See 13, 14.

+

We turn to those who, while agreeing that the life of virtue is the most desirable, differ about the way in which that life should be pursued. Some disapprove of holding office in the state, thinking that the life of the free manis different from the life of politics and is the most desirable of any; whereas others think the political life the best life, for they argue that it is impossible for the man who does nothing to do well, and doing well and happiness are the same thing.On the ambiguous use of do well see 1323b 32 n. To these two parties we must reply that both are partly right and partly wrong. The former are right in saying that the life of the free man is better than the life of mastership, for this is true—there is nothing specially dignified in employing a slave, as a slave, for giving orders about menial duties has in it nothing of nobility; yet to think that all government is exercising the authority of a master is a mistake, for there is as wide a difference between ruling free men and ruling slaves as there is between the natural freeman and the natural slave themselves. But these things have been adequately decided in the first discourses.i.e. Book 1. But to praise inaction more highly than action is an error, for happiness is an activity, and further the actions of the just and temperate have in them the realization of much that is noble. Yet on the strength of these decisions somebody might perhaps suppose that the highest good is to be the master of the world, since thus one would have the power to compass the greatest number and the noblest kind of actions, and therefore it is not the duty of the man that is capable of ruling to surrender office to his neighbor, but rather to take it from him, and no account must be taken by father of sons nor by sons of father nor in general by one friend of another, and no heed must be paid to them in comparison with this; for the best thing is the most to be desired, and to do well is the best thing. Now this statement is perhaps true

+ +
+

if it is the case that the most desirable of existing things will belong to men that use robbery and violence. But perhaps it cannot belong to them, and this is a false assumption. For a man’s acts can no longer be noble if he does not excel as greatly as a man excels a woman or a father his children or a master his slaves, so that one who transgresses cannot afterwards achieve anything sufficient to rectify the lapse from virtue that he had already committed; because for equals the noble and just consists in their taking turns, since this is equal and alike, but for those that are equal to have an unequal share and those that are alike an unlike share is contrary to nature, and nothing contrary to nature is noble. Hence in case there is another person who is our superior in virtue and in practical capacity for the highest functions, him it is noble to follow and him it is just to obey; though he must possess not only virtue but also capacity that will render him capable of action. But if these things are well said, and if happiness is to be defined as well-doing, the active life is the best life both for the whole state collectively and for each man individually. But the active life is not necessarily active in relation to other men, as some people think, nor are only those processes of thought active that are pursued for the sake of the objects that result from action, but far morethose speculations and thoughts that have their end in themselves and are pursued for their own sake; for the end is to do well, and therefore is a certain form of action.Cf. 1323b 32 n., 1325a 21. And even with actions done in relation to external objects we predicate action in the full sense chiefly of the master-craftsmen who direct the action by their thoughts. Moreover with cities also, those that occupy an isolated situation and pursue a policy of isolation are not necessarily inactive; for state activities also can be sectional, since the sections of the state have many common relations with one another. And this is also possible similarly in the case of any individual human being; for otherwise God and the whole universe could hardly be well circumstanced, since they have no external activities by the side of their own private activities.

+

It is therefore manifest that the same life must be the best both for each human being individually and for states and mankind collectively.

+

And as we have prepared the way by this prefatory discussion of the subject, and have previously studied all the other forms of constitution,This seems to refer to Books 4-6. the starting-point for the remainder of our subject is first to specify the nature of the conditions that are necessary in the case of the state that is to be constituted in the ideally best manner. For the best constitution cannot be realized without suitable equipment.Cf. 1288b 39 n. We must therefore posit as granted in advance a number of as it were ideal conditions, although none of these must be actually impossible. I mean for instance in reference to number of citizens and territory. + All other craftsmen, for example a weaver or a shipwright,

+ +
+

have to be supplied with their material in a condition suitable for their trade, for the better this material has been prepared, the finer is bound to be the product of their craft; so also the statesman and the lawgiver ought to be furnished with their proper material in a suitable condition. Under the head of material equipment for the state there first come the questions as to a supply of population—what precisely ought to be its number and what its natural character? and similarly in regard to the territory, what is to be its particular size and nature? Most people imagine that the prosperous state must be a great state; but granted the truth of this, they fail to realize in what quality the greatness or smallness of a state consists: they judge a great state by the numerical magnitude of the population, but really the more proper thing to look at is not numbers but efficiency. For a state like other things has a certain function to perform, so that it is the state most capable of performing this function that is to be deemed the greatest, just as one would pronounce Hippocrates to be greater, not as a human being but as a physician, than somebody who surpassed him in bodily size. All the same, even if it be right to judge the state by the test of its multitude, this ought not to be done with regard to the multitude of any and every class (for states are doubtless bound to contain a large number of slavesand resident aliens and foreigners), but the test should be the number of those who are a part of the state—the special parts of which a state consists. It is superiority in the number of these that indicates a great state; a state that sends forth to war a large number of the baser sort and a small number of heavy-armed soldiers cannot possibly be a great state—for a great state is not the same thing as a state with a large population. But certainly experience also shows that it is difficult and perhaps impossible for a state with too large a population to have good legal government. At all events we see that none of the states reputed to be well governed is without some restriction in regard to numbers. The evidence of theory proves the same point. Law is a form of order, and good law must necessarily mean good order; but an excessively large number cannot participate in order: to give it order would surely be a task for divine power, which holds even this universe together.In the MSS. this clause follows the next. Hence that state also must necessarily be the most beautiful with whose magnitude is combined the above-mentioned limiting principle; for certainly beauty is usually found in number and magnitude, but there is a due measure of magnitude for a city-state as there also is for all other things—animals, plants, tools; each of these if too small or excessively large will not possess its own proper efficiency, but in some cases will have entirely lost its true nature and in others will be in a defective condition: for instance, a ship a span long will not be a ship at all, nor will a ship a quarter of a mile long, and even when it reaches a certain size,

+ +
+

in some cases smallness and in others excessive largeness will make it sail badly. Similarly a state consisting of too few people will not be self-sufficing (which is an essential quality of a state), and one consisting of too many, though self-sufficing in the mere necessaries, will be so in the way in which a nationi.e. presumably an Ethnos in the usual sense, a community composed of villages loosely bound together by relationship and trade, and united for defence, but not for political life; not an Ethnos of associated cities. is, and not as a state, since it will not be easy for it to possess constitutional government—for who will command its over-swollen multitude in war? or who will serve as its herald, unless he have the lungs of a Stentor? It follows that the lowest limit for the existence of a state is when it consists of a population that reaches the minimum number that is self-sufficient for the purpose of living the good life after the manner of a political community. It is possible also for one that exceeds this one in number to be a greater state, but, as we said, this possibility of increase is not without limit, and what the limit of the state’s expansion is can easily be seen from practical considerations. The activities of the state are those of the rulers and those of the persons ruled, and the work of a ruler is to direct the administration and to judge law-suits; but in order to decide questions of justice and in order to distribute the offices according to merit it is necessary for the citizens to know each other’s personal characters, since where this does not happen to be the case the business of electing officials and trying law-suits is bound to go badly; haphazard decision is unjust in both matters, and thismust obviously prevail in an excessively numerous community. Also in such a community it is easy for foreigners and resident aliens to usurp the rights of citizenship, for the excessive number of the population makes it not difficult to escape detection. It is clear therefore that the best limiting principle for a state is the largest expansion of the population, with a view to self-sufficiency that can well be taken in at one view.

+

Such may be our conclusion on the question of the size of the state.

+

Very much the same holds good about its territory. As to the question what particular kind of land it ought to have, it is clear that everybody would command that which is most self-sufficing (and such is necessarily that which bears every sort of produce, for self-sufficiency means having a supply of everything and lacking nothing). In extent and magnitude the land ought to be of a size that will enable the inhabitants to live a life of liberal and at the same time temperate leisure. Whether this limiting principle is rightly or wrongly stated must be considered more precisely later on,This promise is not fulfilled in the work as it has come down to us. when we come to raise the general subject of property and the ownership of wealth,—how and in what way it ought to be related to the employment of wealthThe distinction seems to be between owning (or perhaps getting) wealth and using it; but a probable emendation of the Greek gives how we ought to stand in relation to its employment.; about this question there are many controversies, owing to those that draw us towards either extreme of life, the one school towards parsimony and the other towards luxury. The proper configuration of the country it is not difficult to state (though there are some points on which the advice of military experts also must be taken): on the one hand it should be difficult for enemies to invade and easy for the people themselves to march out from,

+ +
+

and in addition, on the other hand, the same thing holds good of the territory that we said about the size of the population—it must be well able to be taken in at one view, and that means being a country easy for military defence. As to the site of the city, if it is to be ideally placed, it is proper for it to be well situated with regard both to the sea and to the country. One defining principle is that mentioned aboveAt the beginning of 5.2.—the city must be in communication with all parts of the territory for the purpose of sending out military assistance; and the remaining principle is that it must be easily accessible for the conveyance to it of the agricultural produce, and also of timber-wood and any other such material that the country happens to possess.

+

As to communication with the sea it is in fact much debated whether it is advantageous to well-ordered states or harmful. It is maintained that the visits of persons brought up under other institutions are detrimental to law and order, and so also is a swollen population, which grows out of sending out abroad and receiving in a number of traders, but is unfavorable to good government. Now it is not difficult to see that, if these consequences are avoided, it is advantageous in respect of both security and the supply of necessary commoditiesthat the city and the country should have access to the sea. With a view to enduring wars more easily people that are to be secure must be capable of defensive operations on both elements, land and sea, and with a view to striking at assailants, even if it be not possible on both elements, yet to do so on one or the other will be more in the power of people that have access to both. And the importation of commodities that they do not happen to have in their own country and the export of their surplus products are things indispensable; for the state ought to engage in commerce for its own interest, but not for the interest of the foreigner. People that throw open their market to the world do so for the sake of revenue, but a state that is not to take part in that sort of profit-making need not possess a great commercial port. But since even now we see many countries and cities possessing sea-ports and harbors conveniently situated with regard to the city, so as not to form part of the same townPerhaps the Greek should be altered to give part of the town itself. and yet not to be too far off, but commanded by walls and other defence-works of the kind, it is manifest that if any advantage does result through the communication of city with port the state will possess this advantage, and if there is any harmful result it is easy to guard against it by means of laws stating and regulating what persons are not and what persons are to have intercourse with one another. On the question of naval forces, there is no doubt that to possess them up to a certain strength is most desirable

+ +
+

(for a state ought to be formidable, and also capable of the defence of not only its own people but also some of its neighbors, by sea as well as by land); but when we come to the question of the number and size of this force, we have to consider the state’s manner of life if it is to live a life of leadership and affairs,i.e. relations with other states—a broader term than hegemony, leadership of an alliance. it must possess maritime as well as other forces commensurate with its activities. On the other hand it is not necessary for states to include the teeming population that grows up in connection with common sailors, as there is no need for these to be citizens; for the marines are free men and are a part of the infantry, and it is they who have command and control the crew; and if there exists a mass of villagers and tillers of the soil, there is bound to be no lack of sailors too. In fact we see this state of thing existing even now in some places, for instance in the city of Heraclea; the Heracleotes man a large fleet of triremes, although they possess a city of but moderate size as compared with others.

+

Let such then be our conclusions about the territories and harbors of cities, and the sea, and about naval forces.

About the citizen population, we said before what is its proper limit of numbers. Let us now speakof what ought to be the citizens’ natural character. Now this one might almost discern by looking at the famous cities of Greece and by observing how the whole inhabited world is divided up among the nations.4. fin. The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill, so that they continue comparatively free, but lacking in political organization and capacity to rule their neighbors. The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit, so that they are in continuous subjection and slavery. But the Greek race participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, for it is both spirited and intelligent; hence it continues to be free and to have very good political institutions, and to be capable of ruling all mankind if it attains constitutional unity. The same diversity also exists among the Greek races compared with one another: some have a one-sided nature, others are happily blended in regard to both these capacities.i.e. intelligence and high spirit, capacity for self-government and capacity for empire. It is clear therefore that people that are to be easily guided to virtue by the lawgiver must be both intellectual and spirited in their nature. For as to what is said by certain persons about the character that should belong to their GuardiansThe ruling class in Plato’s Ideal State,Plat. Rep. 375c.—they should be affectionate to their friends but fierce towards strangers—it is spirit that causes affectionateness, for spirit is the capacity of the soul whereby we love.

+ +
+

A sign of this is that spirit is more roused against associates and friends than against strangers, when it thinks itself slighted. Therefore ArchilochusArchilochus of Paros (one of the earliest lyric poets, fl. 600 B.C., the inventor of the iambic meter, which he used for lampoons), fr. 61 Bergk, 676 Diehl, 67 Edmonds,Elegy and Iambus, 2. 133. for instance, when reproaching his friends, appropriately apostrophizes his spirit: For ’tis thy friends that make thee choke with rage. Moreover it is from this faculty that power to command and love of freedom are in all cases derived; for spirit is a commanding and indomitable element. But it is a mistake to describe the Guardians as cruel towards strangers; it is not right to be cruel towards anybody, and men of great-souled nature are not fierce except towards wrongdoers, and their anger is stillfiercer against their companions if they think that these are wronging them, as has been said before. And this is reasonable, because they think that in addition to the harm done them they are also being defrauded of a benefit by persons whom they believe to owe them one. Hence the sayings For brothers’ wars are cruel, Eur. frag. 965. and They that too deeply loved too deeply hate. Nauck frag. 78

+

We have now approximately decided what are the proper numbers and the natural qualities of those who exercise the right of citizens, and the proper extent and nature of the territory (for we must notseek to attain the same exactness by means of theoretical discussions as is obtained by means of the facts that come to us through sense-perceptions).

+

But since, just as with all other natural organisms those things that are indispensable for the existence of the whole are not partsi.e. they are not all of themparts: the parts of a thing are among the indispensable conditions of its existence, but there are others also. of the whole organization, it is also clear that not all the things that are necessary for states to possess are to be counted as parts of a state (any more than this is so with any other association that forms something one in kind, for there must be something that is one and common and the same for the partners, whether the shares that they take be equal or unequal: for example this common property may be food or an area of land or something else of the same sort—The sentence is unfinished. but when of two related things one is a means and the other an end, in their case there is nothing in common except for the one to act and the other to receive the action. I mean for instance the relation between any instrument or artificer and the work that they produce: between a house and a builder there is nothing that is produced in common, but the builder’s craft exists for the sake of the house. Hence although states need property, the property is no part of the state. And there are many living things that fall under the head of property.Possibly the words from the beginning of 7.2 But when to this point should be transferred below to 7.3 mid. after different constitutions. And the state is one form of partnership of similar people, and its object is the best life that is possible. And since the greatest good is happiness, and this is some perfect activity or employment of virtue, and since it has so come about that it is possible for some men to participate in it, but for others only to a small extent or not at all, it is clear that this is the cause for there arising different kinds and varieties of state and several forms of constitution;

+ +
+

for as each set of people pursues participation in happiness in a different manner and by different means they make for themselves different modes of life and different constitutions. And we must also further consider how many there are of these things referred to that are indispensable for the existence of a state; for among them will be the things which we pronounce to be parts of a state, owing to which their presence is essential. We must therefore consider the list of occupations that a state requires : for from these it will appear what the indispensable classes are. First then a state must have a supply of food; secondly, handicrafts (since life needs many tools); third, arms (since the members of the association must necessarily possess arms both to use among themselves and for purposes of government, in cases of insubordination, and to employ against those who try to molest them from without); also a certain abundance of money, in order that they may have enough both for their internal needs and for requirements of war; fifth, a primary need, the service of religion, termed a priesthood; and sixth in number and most necessary of all, a provision for deciding questions of interests and of rights between the citizens. These then are the occupations that virtually every state requires (for the state is not any chance multitude of people but one self-sufficient for the needs of life, as we say,Cf. Books 2.1.7, 3.1.8, 5.2.10. and if any of these industries happens to be wanting, it is impossible for that association to be absolutely self-sufficient). It is necessary therefore for the state to be organizedon the lines of these functions; consequently it must possess a number of farmers who will provide the food, and craftsmen, and the military class, and the wealthy, and priests and judges to decide questions of necessityPerhaps the text should be altered to give matters of justice. and of interests.

+

These matters having been settled, it remains to consider whether everybody is to take part in all of these functions (for it is possible for the whole of the people to be at once farmers and craftsmen and the councillors and judges), or whether we are to assume different classes corresponding to each of the functions mentioned, or whether some of them must necessarily be specialized and others combined. But it will not be the same in every form of constitution; for, as we said,Cf. Book 4.4 and 14. it is possible either for all the people to take part in all the functions or for not all to take part in all but for certain people to have certain functions. In fact these different distributions of functions are the cause of the difference between constitutions: democracies are states in which all the people participate in all the functions, oligarchies where the contrary is the case. But at present we are studying the best constitution, and this is the constitution under which the state would be most happy, and it has been stated before1.5. that happiness cannot be forthcoming without virtue; it is therefore clear from these considerations that in the most nobly constituted state, and the one that possesses men that are absolutely just, not merely just relatively to the principle that is the basis of the constitution, the citizens must not live a mechanic or a mercantile life (for such a life is ignoble and inimical to virtue), nor yet must those who are to be citizens in the best state be tillers of the soil

+ +
+

(for leisure is needed both for the development of virtue and for active participation in politics). And since the state also contains the military class and the class that deliberates about matters of policy and judges questions of justice, and these are manifestly in a special sense parts of the state, are these classes also to be set down as distinct or are both functions to be assigned to the same persons? But here also the answer is clear, because in a certain sense they should be assigned to the same persons, but in a certain sense to different ones. Inasmuch as each of these two functions belongs to a different prime of life, and one requires wisdom, the other strength, they are to be assigned to different people; but inasmuch as it is a thing impossible that when a set of men are able to employ force and to resist control, these should submit always to be ruled, from this point of view both functions must be assigned to the same people; for those who have the power of arms have the power to decide whether the constitution shall stand or fall. The only course left them is to assign this constitutional function to both sets of men without distinction,Or, amending this curious Greek, for the constitution to assign both these functions to the same people. yet not simultaneously, but, as in the natural order of things strength is found in the younger men and wisdom in the elder, it seems to be expedient and just for their functions to be allotted to both in this way, for this mode of division possesses conformity with merit. Moreover the ownership of properties also must be centered round these classes, for the citizens must necessarily possess plentiful means, and these are the citizens. For theartisan class has no share in the state, nor has any other class that is not an artificer of virtue.A Platonic phrase, Plat. Rep. 500d. And this is clear from our basic principle; for in conjunction with virtue happiness is bound to be forthcoming, but we should pronounce a state happy having regard not to a particular section of it but to all its citizens. And it is also manifest that the properties must belong to these classes, inasmuch asAs this is a new point, perhaps we should transpose inasmuch as ( εἴπερ) and that ( ὅτι) in the line above. it is necessary for the tillers of the soil to be slaves, or serfs of alien race. There remains of the list enumerated the class of priests; and the position of this class also is manifest. Priests must be appointed neither from the tillers of the soil nor from the artisans, for it is seemly that the gods should be worshipped by citizens; and since the citizen body is divided into two parts, the military class and the councillor class, and as it is seemly that those who have relinquished these duties owing to age should render to the gods their due worship and should spend their retirement in their service, it is to these that the priestly offices should be assigned.

+

We have therefore stated the things indispensable for the constitution of a state, and the things that are parts of a state: tillers of the soil, craftsmen and the laboring class generally are a necessary appurtenance of states, but the military and deliberative classes are parts of the state; and moreover each of these divisions is separate from the others, either permanently or by turn.i.e. the appurtenances are permanently separate form the army and the deliberative, which are the parts, and which are separate from each other only by turn, i.e. a citizen passes on from one to the other.

+

And that it is proper for the state to be divided up into castes and for the military class to be distinct from that of the tillers of the soil does not seem to be a discovery of political philosophers of today or one made recently.Perhaps to be read as denying the originality of Plato’sRepublic.

+ +
+

In Egypt this arrangement still exists even now, as also in Crete; it is said to have been established in Egypt by the legislation of Sesostris and in Crete by thatof Minos. Common meals also seem to be an ancient institution, those in Crete having begun in the reign of Minos, while those in Italy are much older than these. According to the historians one of the settlers there, a certain Italus, became king of Oenotria, and from him they took the name of Italians instead of that of Oenotrians, and the name of Italy was given to all that promontoryi.e. the south-west peninsula or toe of Italy. of Europe lying between the Gulfs of Scylletium and of Lametus,i.e. the Gulfs of Squillace and Eufemia. which are half a day’s journey apart. It was this Italus then who according to tradition converted the Oenotrians from a pastoral life to one of agriculture and gave them various ordinances, being the first to institute their system of common meals; hence the common meals and some of his laws are still observed by certain of his successors even today. The settlers in the direction of TyrrheniaThe modern Tuscany, i.e. the people of Lucania, Campania and Latium. were Opicans, who today as in former times bear the surname ofAusonians; the region towards IapygiaThe south-east promontory or heel of Italy. and the Ionian Gulf, called Syrtis, was inhabited by the Chones, who also were Oenotrians by race. It is from this country that the system of common meals has its origin, while the division of the citizen-body by hereditary caste came from Egypt, for the reign of Sesostris long antedates that of Minos. We may almost take it therefore that all other political devices also have been discovered repeatedly, or rather an infinite number of times over, in the lapse of ages; for the discoveries of a necessary kind are probably taught by need itself, and when the necessaries have been provided it is reasonable that things contributing to refinement and luxury should find their development; so that we must assume that this is the way with political institutions also. The antiquity of all of them is indicated by the history of Egypt; for the Egyptians are reputed to be the oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system. Hence we should use the results of previous discovery when adequate, while endeavoring to investigate matters hitherto passed over.

+

It has been stated before that the land ought to be owned by those who possess arms and those who share the rights of the constitution, and why the cultivators ought to be a different caste from these, and what is the proper extent and conformation of the country. We have now to discuss first the allotment of the land, and the proper class and character of its cultivators; since we advocate not common ownership of land, as some have done,

+ +
+

but community in it brought about in a friendly way by the use of it,This vague phrase (based on the proverb κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων, friends’ goods are common property) seems to denote some sort of customary communism in the cultivation of the land and enjoyment of the produce, combined with private ownership of the freehold. and we hold that no citizen should be ill supplied with means of subsistence. As to common meals, all agree that this is an institution advantageous for well-organized states to possess; our own reasons for sharing this view we will state later.This promise is not fulfilled. But the common meals must be shared by all the citizens, and it is not easy for the poor to contribute their assessed share from their private means and also to maintain their household as well. And moreover the expenses connected with religion are the common concern of the whole state. It is necessary therefore for the land to be divided into two parts, of which one must be common and the other the private property of individuals; and each of these two divisions must again be divided in two. Of the common land one portion should be assigned to the services of religion, and the other to defray the cost of the common meals; of the land in private ownership one part should be the district near the frontiers, and another the district near the city, in order that two plots may be assigned to each citizen and all may have a share in both districts. This arrangement satisfies equity and justice, and also conduces to greater unanimity in facing border warfare. Where this system is not followed, one set of people are reckless about quarrelling with the neighboring states,and the other set are too cautious and neglect considerations of honor. Hence some people have a law that the citizens whose land is near the frontier are not to take part in deliberation as to wars against neighboring states, on the ground that private interest would prevent them from being able to take counsel wisely. The land must therefore be divided up in this manner because of the reasons aforesaid.

+

Those who are to cultivate the soil should best of all, if the ideal system is to be stated, be slaves, not drawn from people all of one tribe nor of a spirited character (for thus they would be both serviceable for their work and safe to abstain from insurrection), but as a second best they should be alien serfs of a similar nature. Of these laborers those in private employment must be among the private possessions of the owners of the estates, and those working on the common land common property. How slaves should be employed, and why it is advantageous that all slaves should have their freedom set before them as a reward, we will say later.This promise is not fulfilled.

+

It has been said before that the city should so far as circumstances permit be in communication alike with the mainland, the sea and the whole of its territory. The site of the city itself we must pray that fortune may place on sloping ground, having regard to four considerationsApparently (1) fresh air, (2) water supply, (3) administration, (4) military requirements.: first, as a thing essential, the consideration of health (for cities whose site slopes east or towards the breezes that blow from the sunrise are more healthy, and in the second degree those that face away from the north wind,Literally, in the direction in which the north wind blows. for these are milder in winter);

+ +
+

and among the remaining considerations, a sloping site is favorable both for political and for military purposes. For military purposes therefore the site should be easy of exit for the citizens themselves, and difficult for the adversary to approach and to blockade, and it must possess if possible a plentiful natural supply of pools and springs, but failing this, a mode has been invented of supplying water by means of constructing an abundance of large reservoirs for rain-water, so that a supply may never fail the citizens when they are debarred from their territory by war. And since we have to consider the health of the inhabitants, and this depends upon the place being well situated both on healthy ground and with a healthy aspect, and secondly upon using wholesome water-supplies, the following matter also must be attended to as of primary importance. Those things which we use for the body in the largest quantity, and most frequently, contribute most to health; and the influence of the water-supply and of the air is of this nature. Hence in wise cities if all the sources of water are not equally pure and there is not an abundance of suitable springs, the water-supplies for drinking must be kept separate from those for other requirements. As to fortified positions, what is expedient is not the same for all forms of constitution alike; for example, a citadel-hill is suitable for oligarchy and monarchy,and a level site for democracy; neither is favorable to an aristocracy, but rather several strong positions. The arrangement of the private dwellings is thought to be more agreeable and more convenient for general purposes if they are laid out in straight streets, after the modern fashion, that is, the one introduced by HippodamusSee Book 2.5.; but it is more suitable for security in war if it is on the contrary plan, as cities used to be in ancient times; for that arrangement is difficult for foreign troopsi.e. an enemy’s mercenaries; but the MSS. give difficult for foreign troops to make sorties from [i.e. presumably to find their way out when once they have got in, cf. Thuc. 2.4.2] and for attackers to find their way about in. to enter and to find their way about in when attacking. Hence it is well to combine the advantages of both plans (for this is possible if the houses arelaid out in the way which among the farmers some people call on the slantThe Roman quincunx, each plant of one row being in line with the gap between two plants of the next row, thus: in the case of vines), and not to lay out the whole city in straight streets, but only certain parts and districts, for in this way it will combine security with beauty.

+

As regards walls, those who aver that cities which pretend to valor should not have them hold too old-fashioned a view—and that though they see that the cities that indulge in that form of vanity are refuted by experience. It is true that against an evenly matched foe and one little superior in numbers it is not honorable to try to secure oneself bythe strength of one’s fortifications; but as it does and may happen that the superior numbers of the attackers may be too much for the human valor of a small force, if the city is to survive and not to suffer disaster or insult, the securest fortification of walls must be deemed to be the most warlike,

+ +
+

particularly in view of the inventions that have now been made in the direction of precision with missiles and artillery for sieges. To claim not to encompass cities with walls is like desiringPerhaps a word should be added to the Greek giving desiring to make the country easy to invade, and to strip it—. the country to be easy to invade and stripping it of hilly regions, and similarly not surrounding even private dwellings with house-walls on the ground that the inhabitants will be cowardly. Another point moreover that must not be forgotten is that those who have walls round the city can use their cities in both ways, both as walled cities and as open ones, whereas cities not possessing walls cannot be used in both ways. If then this is so, not only must walls be put round a city, but also attention must be paid to them in order that they may be suitable both in regard to the adornment of the city and in respect of military requirements, especially the new devices recently invented. For just as the attackers of a city are concerned to study the means by which they can gain the advantage, so also for the defenders some devices have already been invented and others they must discover and think out; for people do not even start attempting to attack those who are well prepared.

+

And since the multitude of citizens must be distributedin separate messes, and the city walls must be divided up by guard-posts and towers in suitable places, it is clear that these facts themselves call for some of the messes to be organized at these guard-posts. These things then might be arranged in this manner.

+

But it is fitting that the dwellings assigned to the gods and the most important of the official messes should have a suitable site, and the same for all, excepting those temples which are assigned a special place apart by the law or else by some utterance of the Pythian oracle. And the site would be suitable if it is one that is sufficiently conspicuous in regard to the excellence of its position, and also of superior strength in regard to the adjacentparts of the city. It is convenient that below this site should be laid out an agora of the kind customary in Thessalywhich they call a free agora, that is, one which has to be kept clear of all merchandise and into which no artisan or farmer or any other such person may intrude unless summoned by the magistrates. It would give amenity to the site if the gymnasia of the older men were also situated here—for it is proper to have this institution also divided according to ages,Or for in this noble practice different ages should be separated (Jowett). and for certain magistrates to pass their time among the youths while the older men spend theirs with the magistrates; for the presence of the magistrates before men’s eyes most engenders true respect and a freeman’s awe.

+ +
+

The agora for merchandise must be different from the free agora, and in another place; it must have a site convenient for the collection there of all the goods sent from the seaport and from the country. And as the divisions of the state’s populace includePerhaps the Greek should be altered to τὸ προεστός, as the governing class is divided into. priests and magistrates, it is suitable that the priests’ mess-rooms also should have their position round that of the sacred buildings. And all the magistracies that superintend contracts, and the registration of actions at law, summonses and other such matters of administration, and also those that deal with the control of the markets and with what is termed policing the city, should have buildings adjacent to an agora or some public place of resort, and such a place is the neighborhood of the business agora, for we assign the upper agora as the place in which to spend leisure, and this one for necessary business.

+

The arrangements in the country also should copy the plan described; there too the magistrates called in some states Wardens of the Woods and in others Land-superintendents must have their guard-posts and mess-rooms for patrol duty, and also temples must be distributed over the country, some dedicated to gods and some to heroes. But to linger at this point over the detailed statement and discussion of questions of this kind is waste of time.The difficulty with such things is not so much in the matter of theory but in that of practice; to lay down principles is a work of aspiration, but their realization is the task of fortune. Hence we will relinquish for the present the further consideration of matters of this sort.

+

We must now discuss the constitution itself, and ask what and of what character should be the components of the state that is to have felicity and good government. There are two things in which the welfare of all men consists: one of these is the correct establishment of the aim and end of their actions, the other the ascertainment of the actions leading to that end. (For the end proposed and the means adopted may be inconsistent with one another, as also they may be consistent; sometimes the aim has been correctly proposed, but people fail to achieve it in action, sometimes they achieve all the means successfully but the end that they posited was a bad one, and sometimes they err as to both—for instance, in medicine practitioners are sometimes both wrong in their judgement of what qualities a healthy body ought to possess and unsuccessful in hitting on effective means to produce the distinctive aim that they have set before them; whereas in the arts and sciences both these things have to be secured, the end and the practical means to the end.) Now it is clear that all men aim at the good life and at happiness, but though some possess the power to attain these things, some do not, owing to some factor of fortune or of nature

+ +
+

(fortune because the good life needs also a certain equipment of means, and although it needs less of this for men of better natural disposition it needs more for those of worse); while others, although they have the power, go wrong at the start in their search for happiness.i.e. they misconceive the nature of happiness and select the wrong thing to aim at. But the object before us is to discern the best constitution, and this is the one under which a state will be best governed, and a state will be best governed under the constitution under which it has the most opportunity for happiness; it is therefore clear that we must know whathappiness is. The view that we maintain (and this is the definition that we laid down in theEthics, Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1098a 16 and Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1176b 4 if those discourses are of any value) is that happiness is the complete activity and employment of virtue, and this not conditionally but absolutely. When I say conditionally I refer to things necessary, by absolutely I mean nobly: for instance, to take the case of just actions, just acts of vengeance and of punishment spring it is true from virtue, but are necessary, and have the quality of nobility only in a limited manner (since it would be preferable that neither individual nor state should have any need of such things), whereas actions aiming at honors and resourcesA conjectural emendation gives distinctions. are the noblest actions absolutely; for the former class of acts consist in the removalThis is a conjectural emendation; the MSS. give the adoption. of something evil, but actions of the latter kind are the opposite—they are the foundation and the generation of things good. The virtuous man will use even poverty, disease, andthe other forms of bad fortune in a noble manner, but felicity consists in their opposites (for it is a definition established by our ethical discourses Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1113a 15 ff. that the virtuous man is the man of such a character that because of his virtue things absolutely good are good to him, and it is therefore clear that his employment of these goods must also be virtuous and noble absolutely); and hence men actually suppose that external goods are the cause of happiness, just as if they were to assign the cause of a brilliantly fine performance on the harp to the instrument rather than to the skill of the player. It follows therefore from what has been said that some goods must be forthcoming to start with and others must be provided by the legislator. Hence we pray that the organization of the state may be successful in securing those goods which are in the control of fortune (for that fortune does control externalgoods we take as axiomatic); but when we come to the state’s being virtuous, to secure this is not the function of fortune but of science and policy. But then the virtue of the state is of course caused by the citizens who share in its government being virtuous; and in our state all the citizens share in the government. The point we have to consider therefore is, how does a man become virtuous? For even if it be possible for the citizens to be virtuous collectively without being so individually, the latter is preferable, since for each individual to be virtuous entails as a consequence the collective virtue of all. But there are admittedly three things by which men are made good and virtuous, and these three things are nature, habit and reason. For to start with, one must be born with the nature of a human being and not of some other animal; and secondly, one must be born of a certain quality of body and of soul. But there are some qualities that it is of no use to be born with,

+ +
+

for our habits make us alter them: some qualities in fact are made by nature liable to be modified by the habits in either direction, for the worse or for the better. Now the other animals live chiefly by nature, though some in small degrees are guided by habits too; but man lives by reason also, for he alone of animals possesses reason; so that in him these three things must be in harmony with one another; for men often act contrary to their acquired habits and to their nature because of their reason, if they are convinced that some other course of action is preferable.

+

Now we have alreadyIn 4. defined the proper natural character of those who are to be amenable to the hand of the legislator; what now remains is the task of education, for men learn some things by practice, others by precept.

+

But since every political community is composed of rulers and subjects, we must therefore consider whether the rulers and the subjects ought to change, or to remain the same through life; for it is clear that their education also will have to be made to correspond with this distribution of functions. If then it were the case that the one class differed from the other as widely as we believe the gods and heroes to differ from mankind, having first a great superiority in regard to the body and then in regard to the soul, so that the pre-eminence of the rulers was indisputable and manifest to the subjects, it is clear that it would be better for the same persons always to be rulers and subjects once for all; but as this is not easy to secure, and as we do not find anything corresponding to the great difference that Scylax states to exist between kings and subjects in India, it is clear that for many reasons it is necessary for all to share alike in ruling and being ruled in turn. For equality means for persons who are alike identity of status, and also it is difficultThe emendation suggested by Richards gives For equality and identity (of status) are just for persons who are alike, and it is difficult, etc. for a constitution to endure that is framed in contravention of justice. For all the people throughout the country are ranged on the side of the subject class in wishing for a revolution, and it is a thing inconceivable that those in the government should be sufficiently numerous to over power all of these together. But yet on the other hand that the rulers ought to be superior to the subjects cannot be disputed; therefore the lawgiver must consider how this is to be secured, and how they are to participate in the government. And this has been already8.3, 1329a 4 ff. discussed. Nature has given the distinction by making the group that is itself the same in race partly younger and partly older, of which two sets it is appropriate to the one to be governed and for the other to govern; and no one chafes or thinks himself better than his rulers when he is governed on the ground of age, especially as he is going to get back what he has thus contributed to the common stock when he reaches the proper age. + In a sense therefore we must say that the rulers and ruled are the same, and in a sense different.

+ +
+

Hence their education also is bound to be in one way the same and in another different. For he who is to be a good ruler must have first been ruled, as the saying isThe sentence here breaks off into a long parenthesis, after which it is not resumed. (and government, as has been said in the first discourses,Book 3.6.6-12, 1278b 30 ff. is of two sorts, one carried on for the sake of the ruler and the other for the sake of the subject; of these the former is what we call the rule of a master,the latter is the government of free men . . .One sentence or more has been lost here. But some of the commands given differ not in nature of the services commanded but in their object. Hence a number of what are thought to be menial services can be honorably performed even by freemen in youth; since in regard to honor and dishonor actions do not differ so much in themselves as in their end and object). But since we say that the goodness of a citizenPerhaps the Greek should be altered to give of the best citizen. and ruler are the same as that of the best man, and that the same person ought to become a subject first and a ruler afterwards, it will be important for the legislator to study how and by what courses of training good men are to be produced, and what is the end of the best life.

+

The soul is divided into two parts, of which one is in itself possessed of reason, while the other is not rational in itselfbut capable of obeying reason. To these parts in our view belong those virtues in accordance with which a man is pronounced to be good in some way. But in which of thesetwo parts the end of man rather resides, those who define the parts of the soul in accordance with our view will have no doubt as to how they should decide. The worse always exists as a means to the better, and this is manifest alike in the products of art and in those of nature; but the rational part of the soul is better than the irrational. And the rational part is subdivided into two, according to our usual scheme of division; for reason is of two kinds, practical and theoretic, so that obviously the rational part of the soul must also be subdivided accordingly. A corresponding classification we shall also pronounce to hold among its activities: the activities of the part of the soul that is by nature superior must be preferable for those persons who are capable of attaining either all the soul’s activities or twoi.e. the two lower ones, the three being the activities of the theoretic reason, of the practical reason, and of the passions that although irrational are amenable to reason. out of the three; since that thing is always most desirable for each person which is the highest to which it is possible for him to attain. Also life as a whole is divided into business and leisure, and war and peace, and our actions are aimed some of them at things necessary and useful, others at things noble. In these matters the same principle of preference that applies to the parts of the soul must apply also to the activities of those parts: war must be for the sake of peace, business for the sake of leisure, things necessary and useful for the purpose of things noble. The statesman therefore must legislate with all these considerations in view, both in respect of the parts of the soul and of their activities, and aiming more particularly at the greater goods and the ends. And the same principle applies in regard to modes of life and choices of conduct: a man should be capable of engaging in business and war,

+ +
+

but still more capable of living in peace and leisure; and he should do what is necessary and useful, but still more should he do what is noble. These then are the aims that ought to be kept in view in the education of the citizens both while still children and at the later ages that require education. But the Greek peoples reputed at the present day to have the best constitutions, and the lawgivers that established them, manifestly did not frame their constitutional systems with reference to the best end, nor construct their laws and their scheme of education with a view to all the virtues, but they swerved aside in a vulgar manner towards those excellences that are supposed to be useful and more conducive to gain. And following the same lines as they, some later writers also have pronounced the same opinion: in praising the Spartan constitution they express admiration for the aim of its founder on the ground that he framed the whole of his legislation with a view to conquest and to war. These views are easy to refute on theoretical grounds and also have now been refuted by the facts of history. For just as most of mankind covet being master of many servantsOr possibly, covet a wide empire. because this produces a manifold supply of fortune’s goods, so ThibronUnknown. and all the other writers about the Spartan constitutionshow admiration for the lawgiver of the Spartans because owing to their having been trained to meet dangers they governed a wide empire. Yet it clearly follows that since as a matter of fact at the present day the Spartans no longer possess an empire, they are not happy, and their lawgiver was not a good one. And it is ridiculous that although they have kept to his laws, and although nothing hinders their observing the laws, they have lost the noble life. Also writers have a wrong conception of the power for which the lawgiver should display esteem; to govern freemen is nobler and more conjoined with virtue than to rule despotically. And again it is not a proper ground for deeming a state happy and for praising its lawgiver, that it has practised conquest with a view to rulingA probable emendation gives that he has trained it with a view to ruling. over its neighbors. This principle is most disastrous; it follows from it that an individual citizen who has the capacity ought to endeavor to attain the power to hold sway over his own city; but this is just what the Spartans charge as a reproach against their king Pausanias, although he attained such high honor. No principle therefore and no law of this nature is either statesmanlike or profitable, nor is it true; the same ideals are the best both for individuals and for communities, and the lawgiver should endeavor to implant them in the souls of mankind. The proper object of practising military training is not in order that men may enslave those who do not deserve slavery, but in order that first they may themselves avoid becoming enslaved to others; then so that they may seek suzerainty for the benefit of the subject people,

+ +
+

but not for the sake of world-wide despotism; and thirdly to hold despotic power over those who deserve to be slaves. Experience supports the testimony of theory, that it is the duty of the lawgiver rather to study how he may frame his legislation both with regard to warfare and in other departments for the object of leisure and of peace. Most military states remain safe while at war but perish when they have won their empire; in peace-time they lose their keen temper, like iron.i.e. an iron blade when not used loses keenness and has to be re-tempered. The lawgiver is to blame, because he did not educate them to be able to employ leisure.

+

And since it appears that men have the same end collectively and individually, and since the same distinctive aim must necessarily belong both to the best man and to the best government, it is clear that the virtues relating to leisure are essentiali.e. to the state as well as to the individual.; since, as has been said repeatedly, peace is the end of war, leisure of business. But the virtues useful for leisure and for its employment are not only those that operate during leisure but also those that operate in business; for many of the necessaries must needs be forthcoming to give us opportunity for leisure. Therefore it is proper for the state to be temperate,brave and enduring; since, as the proverb goes, there is no leisure for slaves, but people unable to face danger bravely are the slaves of their assailants. Therefore courage and fortitude are needed for business, love of wisdom for leisure, temperance and justice for both seasons, and more especially when men are at peace and have leisure; for war compels men to be just and temperate, whereas the enjoyment of prosperity and peaceful leisure tend to make them insolent. Therefore much justice and much temperance are needed by those who are deemed very prosperous and who enjoy all the things counted as blessings, like the persons, if such there be, as the poets say, Hes. WD 170 ff. that dwell in the Islands of the Blest; these will most need wisdom, temperance and justice, the more they are at leisure and have an abundance of such blessings. It is clear therefore why a state that is to be happy and righteous must share in these virtues; for if it is disgraceful to be unable to use our good things, it is still more disgraceful to be unable to use them in time of leisure, and although showing ourselves good men when engaged in business and war, in times of peace and leisure to seem no better than slaves. Therefore we must not cultivate virtue after the manner of the state of Sparta.

+ +
+

The superiority of the Spartans over other races does not lie in their holding a different opinion from others as to what things are the greatest goods, but rather in their believing that these are obtained by means of one particular virtue; yet because they both deem these things and their enjoyment to be greater goods than the enjoyment of the virtues The end of this sentence and the beginning of the next appear to have been lost.

+

and that it is to be practised for its own sake is manifest from these considerations; but it must now be considered how and by what means this will come about. Now we have indeed previously decided that it requires nature and habit and reason, and among these, what particular quality of nature men ought to possess has been defined previously; but it remains to consider whether men ought to be educated first by means of the reason or by the habits. For between reason and habit the most perfect harmony ought to exist, as it is possible both for the reason to have missed the highest principle and for men to have been as wrongly trained through the habits. This therefore at all events is clear in the first place, in the case of men as of other creatures, that their engendering starts from a beginning, and that the end starts from a certain beginning that is another end,A conjectural addition to the text gives the end to which a certain beginning leads is itself the beginning of another end. The active use of the reason is the end (i.e. the completion and the purpose) of the birth and growth of the human animal. and that reason and intelligence are for us the end of our natural development, so that it is with a view to these ends that our engendering and the training of our habits must be regulated. And secondly, as soul and body are two, so we observe that the soul also has two parts, the irrational part and the part possessing reason, and that the states which they experience are two in number,the one being desire and the other intelligence; and as the body is prior in its development to the soul, so the irrational part of the soul is prior to the rational. And this also is obvious, because passion and will, and also appetite,These three emotions are subdivisions of desire above. exist in children even as soon as they are born, but it is the nature of reasoning and intelligence to arise in them as they grow older. Therefore in the first place it is necessary for the training of the body to precede that of the mind, and secondly for the training of the appetite to precede that of the intelligence; but the training of the appetite must be for the sake of the intellect, and that of the body for the sake of the soul.

+

Inasmuch therefore as it is the duty of the lawgiver to consider from the start how the children reared are to obtain the best bodily frames, he must first pay attention to the union of the sexes, and settle when and in what condition a couple should practise matrimonial intercourse. In legislating for this partnership he must pay regard partly to the persons themselves and to their span of life, so that they may arrive together at the same period in their ages, and their powers may not be at discord through the man being still capable of parentage and the wife incapable, or the wife capable and the man not (for this causes differences and actual discord between them), and also he must consider as well the succession of the children, for the children must neither be too far removed in their ages from the fathers (since elderly fathers get no good from their children’s return of their favors, nor do the children from the help they get from the fathers),

+ +
+

nor must they be too near them (for this involves much unpleasantness, since in such families there is less respect felt between them, as between companions of the same age, and also the nearness of age leads to friction in household affairs); and in addition, to return to the point from which we began this digression, measures must be taken to ensure that the children produced may have bodily frames suited to the wish of the lawgiver. These results then are almost all attained by one mode of regulation. For since the period of parentage terminates, speaking generally, with men at the age of seventy at the outside, and with women at fifty, the commencement of their union should correspond in respect of age with these times. But the mating of the young is bad for child-bearing; for in all animal species the offspring of the young are more imperfect and likely to produce female children,Some editors write θηλύτοκα and interpret more likely to be born females. ( θηλυτόκα, likely to bear females, is applied to the young parents themselves in Aristot. Hist. An. 766b 29.) and small in figure, so that the same thing must necessarily occur in the human race also. And a proof of this is that in all the states where it is the local custom to mate young men and young women, the people are deformed and small of body. And again young women labor more, and more of them die in childbirth; indeed according to some accounts such was the reason why the oracle Μὴ τέμνε νέαν ἄλοκα (‘cut not a new furrow’) schol. was givento the people of Troezen, because many were dying owing to its being their custom for the women to marry young, and it did not refer to the harvest. And again it also contributes tochastity for the bestowal of women in marriage to be made when they are older, for it is thought that they are more licentious when they have had intercourse in youth. Also the males are thought to be arrested in bodily growth if they have intercourse while the seed is still growing, for this also has a fixed period after passing which it is no longer plentiful. Therefore it is fitting for the women to be married at about the age of eighteen and the men at thirty-seven or a little beforeThe word before is a conjectural insertion.—for that will give long enough for the union to take place with their bodily vigor at its prime, and for it to arrive with a convenient coincidence of dates at the time when procreation ceases. Moreover the succession of the children to the estates, if their birth duly occurs soon after the parents marry, will take place when they are beginning their prime, and when the parents’ period of vigor has now come to a close, towards the age of seventy. The proper age therefore for union has been discussed; as to the proper times in respect of the season we may accept what is customary with most people, who have rightly decided even as it is to practise marital cohabitation in winter. And people should also study for themselves, when their time comes, the teachings of physicians and natural philosophers on the subject of the procreation of children; the suitable bodily seasons are adequately discussed by the physicians,

+ +
+

and the question of weather by the natural philosophers, who say that north winds are more favorable than south. The particular kind of bodily constitution in the parents that will be most beneficial for the offspring must be dwelt on more in detail in our discussion of the management of childrenThis was never written, or has been lost.; it is sufficient to speak of it in outline now. The athlete’s habit of body is not serviceable for bodily fitness as required by a citizen, nor for health and parentage, nor yet is a habit that is too valetudinarian and unfit for labor, but the condition that lies between them. The bodily habit therefore should have been trained by exercise, but not by exercises that are violent, and not for one form of labor only, as is the athlete’s habit of body, but for the pursuits of free men. And these arrangements must be provided alike for men and women. And pregnant women also must take care of their bodies, not avoiding exercise nor adopting a low diet; this it is easy for the lawgiver to secure by ordering them to make a journey daily for the due worship of the deities whose office is the control of childbirth. As regards the mind, however, on the contrary it suits them to pass the time more indolently than as regards their bodies; for children before birth are evidently affected by the mother just as growing plants are by the earth. As to exposing orrearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive. And since the beginning of the fit age for a man and for a woman, at which they are to begin their union, has been defined, let it also be decided for how long a time it is suitable for them to serve the state in the matter of producing children. For the offspring of too elderly parents, as those of too young ones, are born imperfect both in body and mind, and the children of those that have arrived at old age are weaklings. Therefore the period must be limited to correspond with the mental prime; and this in the case of most men is the age stated by some of the poets, who measure men’s age by periods of seven years, Solon fr. 27 —it is about the age of fifty. Therefore persons exceeding this age by four or five years must be discharged from the duty of producing children for the community, and for the rest of their lives if they have intercourse it must be manifestly for the sake of health or for some other similar reason. As to intercourse with another woman or man, in general it must be dishonorable for them to be known to take any part in it in any circumstances whatsoever as long as they are husband and wife and bear those names,

+ +
+

but any who may be discovered doing anything of the sort during their period of parentage must be punished with a loss of privilege suited to the offence.

+

When the children have been born, the particular mode of rearing adopted must be deemed an important determining influence in regard to their power of body. It appears from examining the other animals, and is also shown by the foreign races that make it their aim to keep up the military habit of body, that a diet giving an abundance of milk is mostsuited to the bodies of children, and one that allows rather little wine because of the diseases that it causes. Moreover it is advantageous to subject them to as many movements as are practicable with children of that age. To prevent the limbs from being distorted owing to softness, some races even now employ certain mechanical appliances that keep the bodies of infants from being twisted. And it is also advantageous to accustom them at once from early childhood to cold, for this is most useful both for health and with a view to military service. Hence among many non-Greek races it is customary in the case of some peoples to wash the children at birth by dipping them in a cold river, and with others, for instance the Celts, to give them scanty covering. For it is better to inure them at the very start to everything possible, but to inure them gradually;and the bodily habit of children is naturally well fitted by warmth to be trained to bear cold. In the earliest period of life then it is expedient to employ this or a similar method of nursing; and the next period to this, up to the age of five, which it is not well to direct as yet to any study nor to compulsory labors, in order that they may not hinder the growth, should nevertheless be allowed enough movement to avoid bodily inactivity; and this exercise should be obtained by means of various pursuits, particularly play. But even the games must not be unfit for freemen, nor laborious, nor undisciplined. Also the question of the kind of tales and stories that should be told to children of this age must be attended to by the officials called Children’s Tutors. For all such amusements should prepare the way for their later pursuits; hence most children’s games should be imitations of the serious occupations of later life. The legislators in theLaws Plat. Laws 792a. Plato merely says that a child’s crying shows it to be annoyed, and that it ought to have as little pain as possible or else it will grow up morose. forbid allowing children to have paroxysms of crying, but this prohibition is a mistake; violent crying contributes to growth, for it serves in a way as exercise for the body, since holding the breath is the strength giving factor in hard labor, and this takes place also with children when they stretch themselves in crying. The Tutors must supervise the children’s pastimes, and in particular must see that they associate as little as possible with slaves. For children of this age,

+ +
+

and up to seven years old, must necessarily be reared at home; so it is reasonable to suppose that even at this age they may acquire a taint of illiberality from what they hear and see. The lawgiver ought therefore to banish indecent talk, as much as anything else, out of the state altogether (for light talk about anything disgraceful soon passes into action)—so most of all from among the young, so that they may not say nor hear anything of the sort; and anybody found saying or doing any of the things prohibited, if he is of free station but not yet promoted to reclining at the public meals, must be punished with marks of dishonor and with beating, and an older offender must be punished with marks of dishonor degrading to a free man, because of his slavish behavior. And since we banish any talk of this kind, clearly we must also banish the seeing of either pictures or representations that are indecent. The officials must therefore be careful that there may be no sculpture or painting that represents indecent actions, except in the temples of a certain class of gods to whom the law allows even scurrility; but in regard to theseThe MS. text gives and in addition to these; and the word still may be an interpolation. the law permits men still of suitable age to worship the gods both on their own behalf and on behalf of the children and women. But the younger ones must not be allowed in the audience at lampoonsIambic verses, often abusive and indecent, recited at festivals of Dionysus. and at comedy, before they reach the age at which they will now have the right to recline at table in company and to drink deeply, and at which their education will render all of them immune to the harmful effects of such things. For the present therefore we have merely mentioned these matters in passing, but later we must stop to settle them more definitely, first discussing fully whether legislation prohibiting the attendance of the young is desirable or not, and how such prohibition should be put in force; but on the present occasion we have touched on the question only in the manner necessary. For perhaps the tragic actor TheodorusA great Athenian performer of Sophocles; he took the part of Antigone. used to put the matter not badly: he had never once allowed anybody to produce his partLoosely put for to appear on the stage. before him, not even one of the poor actors, as he said that audiences are attracted by what they hear first; and this happens alike in regard to our dealings with people and to our dealings with things—all that comes first we like better. On this account we ought to make all base things unfamiliar to the young, and especially those that involve either depravity or malignity.

+

But when the five years from two to seven have passed, the children must now become spectators at the lessonsi.e. in gymnastics and music. which they will themselves have to learn. And there are two ages corresponding to which education should be divided—there must be a break after the period from seven to puberty, and again after that from puberty to twenty-one. For those who divide the ages by periods of seven years are generally speaking not wrong,The MSS. give not right.

-Revision 1.12 2009/06/09 18:34:36 student -fixed bibl errors - zr - -Revision 1.11 2009/05/27 15:55:14 rsingh04 -added cvs log keyword - - - - - - - - -
-

- - - Every state is as we see a sort of partnership,The Greek word had not acquired a specially political - connotation as the English word ‘community’ has. - and every partnership is formed with a view to some good (since all the - actions of all mankind are done with a view to what they think to be - good). It is therefore evident that, while all partnerships aim at some - good the partnership that is the most supreme of all and includes all the others - does so most of all, and aims at the most supreme of all goods; and this is the - partnership entitled the state, the political association. Those then who think that the natures of the - statesman, the royal ruler, the head of an estate - oi)kono/mos denoting a higher - grade than despo/ths is unusual. For their - ordinary use see 2.1 fin. and the master of a family are the same, - are mistaken (they imagine that the difference between these various - forms of authority is one of greater and smaller numbers, not a difference in - the kind—that is, that the ruler over a few people is a master, over - more the head of an estate, over more still a statesman or royal ruler, as if - there were no difference between a large household and a small city; and also as - to the statesman and the royal ruler, they think that one who governs as sole - head is royal, and one who, while the government follows the principles of the - science of royalty, takes turns to govern and be governed is a statesman; but - these views are not true). And a proof that these people are mistaken will appear if we examine the - question in accordance with our regular method of investigation. In every other - matter it is necessary to analyze the composite whole down to its uncompounded - elements (for these are the smallest parts of the whole); so too with the state, by - examining the elements of which it is composed we shall better discern in - relation to these different kinds of rulers what is the difference between them, - and whether it is possible to obtain any scientific precision in regard to the - various statements made above.In this subject as - in others the best method of investigation is to study things in the process of - development from the beginning. The - first coupling together of persons then to which necessity gives rise is that - between those who are unable to exist without one another: for instance the - union of female and male for the continuance of the species (and this - not of deliberate purpose, but with man as with the other animals and with - plants there is a natural instinct to desire to leave behind one another being - of the same sort as oneself); and the union of natural ruler and - natural subject for the sake of security (for he that can foresee with - his mind is naturally ruler and naturally master, and he that can do these - thingsA probable emendation gives - ‘that can carry out labor.’ with his body is - subject and naturally a slave; so that master and slave have the same - interest).

-
-
-

- - Thus - the female and the slave are by nature distinct (for nature makes - nothing as the cutlers make the Delphic knife,Uncertain: possibly a dagger and a carving-knife in - one. in a niggardly way, but one thing for one purpose; for so each - tool will be turned out in the finest perfection, if it serves not many uses but - one). Yet among barbarians the female and the slave have the same rank; - and the cause of this is that barbarians have no class of natural rulers, but - with them the conjugal partnership is a partnership of female slave and male - slave. Hence the saying of the poets - Eur. IA 1400.— - 'Tis meet that Greeks should rule barbarians,— - implying that barbarian and slave are the same in nature. From these two partnerships then is first - composed the household, and Hesiod - Hes. WD 405. was right when he wrote - - First and foremost a house and a wife and an ox for the - ploughing— - for the ox serves instead of a servant for the poor. The partnership - therefore that comes about in the course of nature for everyday purposes is the - ‘house,’ the persons whom CharondasA law-giver of Catana in Sicily, - 6th century B.C. or earlier. speaks of as - ‘meal-tub-fellows’ and the Cretan EpimenidesA poet and prophet invited to Athens - 596 B.C. to purify it of plague. as - ‘manger-fellows.’The - variant reading o(moka/pnous, - ‘smoke-sharers,’ seems to mean - ‘hearth-fellows.’ - - On - the other hand the primary partnership made up of several households for the - satisfaction of not mere daily needs is the village. The village according to - the most natural account seems to be a colony fromPerhaps the Greek should be altered to give - ‘consists of colonies from.’ a household, formed - of those whom some people speak of as ‘fellow-sucklings,’ - sons and sons' sons.The words - ‘sons and sons' sons’ are probably an interpolated - note. It is owing to this that our cities were at first under royal - sway and that foreign races are so still,because they were made up of parts that were under royal rule; - for every household is under the royal rule of its eldest member, so that the - colonies from the household were so too, because of the kinship of their - members. And this is what Homer - Hom. Od. 9.114 f. on the Cyclopes. - means: - And each one giveth law - To sons and eke to spouses— - for his Cyclopes live in scattered families; and that is the way in - which people used to live in early times. Also this explains why all races speak - of the gods as ruled by a king, because they themselves too are some of them - actually now so ruled and in other cases used to be of old; and as men imagine - the gods in human form, so also they suppose their manner of life to be like - their own. - The partnership finally composed of several villages is the - city-state; it has at last attained the limit of virtually complete - self-sufficiency, and thus, while it comes into existence for the sake of life, - it exists for the good life. Hence every city-state exists by nature, inasmuch - as the first partnerships so exist; for the city-state is the end of the other - partnerships, and nature is an end, since that which each thing is when its - growth is completed we speak of as being the nature of each thing, for instance - of a man, a horse, a household. Again, the object for which a thing exists, its - end, is its chief good;

-
-
-

- and self-sufficiency is an end, and a chief good. - From these things therefore it - is clear that the city-state is a natural growth, and that man is by nature a - political animal, and a man that is by nature and not merely by fortune citiless - is either low in the scale of humanity or above it (like the - clanless, lawless, hearthless - man reviled by Homer, - Hom. Il. 9.63; the passage goes on: e)sti\n e)kei=nos | o(\s pole/mou - e)/ratai. for one by nature unsocial is also ‘a - lover of war’) inasmuch as he is solitary, like an isolated - piece at draughts. And why man is a - political animal in a greater measure than any bee or any gregarious animal is - clear. For nature, as we declare, does nothing without purpose; and man alone of - the animals possesses speech. The mere voice, it is true, can indicate pain and - pleasure, and therefore is possessed by the other animals as well (for - their nature has been developed so far as to have sensations of what is painful - and pleasant and to indicate those sensations to one another), but - speech is designed to indicate the advantageous and the harmful, and therefore - also the right and the wrong; for - it is the special property of man in distinction from the other animals that he - alone has perception of good and bad and right and wrong and the other moral - qualities, and it is partnership in these things that makes a household and a - city-state.Thus also the city-state is prior - in nature to the household and to each of us individually.For the whole must necessarily be prior to the - part; since when the whole body is destroyed, foot or hand will not exist except - in an equivocal sense, like the sense in which one speaks of a hand sculptured - in stone as a hand; because a hand in those circumstances will be a hand - spoiled, and all things are defined by their function and capacity, so that when - they are no longer such as to perform their function they must not be said to be - the same things, but to bear their names in an equivocal sense. It is clear therefore that the state is - also prior by nature to the individual; for if each individual when separate is - not self-sufficient, he must be related to the whole state as other parts are to - their whole, while a man who is incapable of entering into partnership, or who - is so self-sufficing that he has no need to do so, is no part of a state, so - that he must be either a lower animal or a god.Therefore the impulse to form a partnership of this kind is present in all men - by nature; but the man who first united people in such a partnership was the - greatest of benefactors. For as man is the best of the animals when perfected, - so he is the worst of all when sundered from law and justice. For - unrighteousness is most pernicious when possessed of weapons, and man is born - possessing weapons for the use of wisdom and virtue, which it is possible to - employ entirely for the opposite ends. Hence when devoid of virtue man is the - most unholy and savage of animals, and the worst in regard to sexual indulgence - and gluttony. Justice on the other hand is an element of the state; for judicial - procedure, which means the decision of what is just, is the regulation of the - political partnership.

-
-
-

- - - And now that it is clear what are the - component parts of the state, we have first of all to discuss household - management; for every state is composed of households. Household management - falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its - turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and - freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, - and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, - husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper - constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of - marriageThe Greek word properly denotes - the marriage ceremony, not the married state. (there is no - exact term denoting the relation uniting wife and husband), and thirdly - the progenitive relationship (this too has not been designated by a - special name). Let us then accept these three relationships that we - have mentioned. There is also a department which some people consider the same - as household management and others the most important part of it, and the true - position of which we shall have to consider: I mean what is called the art of - getting wealth.No English word covers all - the associations of the Greek, which means ‘dealing in xrh/mata,’ - ‘things,’—goods, property, money—and - so ‘business.’ - Let us begin by discussing the relation of master - and slave, in order to observe the facts that have a bearing on practical - utility, and also in the hope that we may be able to obtain something better - than the notions at present entertained, with a view to a theoretic knowledge of - the subject. For some thinkers hold - the function of the master to be a definite science, and moreover think that - household management, mastership, statesmanship and monarchy are the same - thing,as we said at the beginning - of the treatise; others however maintain that for one man to be another man's - master is contrary to nature, because it is only convention that makes the one a - slave and the other a freeman and there is no difference between them by nature, - and that therefore it is unjust, for it is based on force.Since therefore property is a part of a household and the art - of acquiring property a part of household management (for without the - necessaries even life, as well as the good life,‘As well as the good life’ is probably an - interpolation. is impossible), and since, just as for the particular arts it would be - necessary for the proper tools to be forthcoming if their work is to be - accomplished, so also the manager of a household must have his tools, and of - tools some are lifeless and others living (for example, for a helmsman - the rudder is a lifeless tool and the look-out man a live tool—for an - assistant in the arts belongs to the class of tools), so also an - article of property is a tool for the purpose of life, and property generally is - a collection of tools, and a slave is a live article of property. And every assistant is as it were a tool - that serves for several tools; for if every tool could perform its own work when - ordered, or by seeing what to do in advance, like the statues of Daedalus in the - story,This legendary sculptor first - represented the eyes as open and the limbs as in motion, so his statues had - to be chained to prevent them from running away (Plat. Meno 97d). or the - tripods of Hephaestus which the poet says ‘enter self-moved the - company divine,’ - Hom. Il. 18.369 - —if thus shuttles wove and quills played harps of themselves, - master-craftsmen would have no need of assistants and masters no need of slaves. -

-
-
-

- Now the tools mentioned are instruments of production, whereas - an article of property is an instrument of actioni.e. with it we do not make something but - do something (e.g. wear a dress, lie in a - bed).; for from a shuttle we get something else beside the - mere use of the shuttle, but from a garment or a bed we get only their use. - And also inasmuch as there is a - difference in kind between production and action, and both need tools, it - follows that those tools also must possess the same difference. But life is - doing things, not making things; hence the slave is an assistant in the class of - instruments of action.And the term - ‘article of property’ is used in the same way as the term - ‘part’: a thing that is a part is not only a part of another - thing but absolutely belongs to another thing, and so also does an article of - property. Hence whereas the master is merely the slave's master and does not - belong to the slave, the slave is not merely the slave of the master but wholly - belongs to the master. These - considerations therefore make clear the nature of the slave and his essential - quality: one who is a human being belonging by nature not to himself but to - another is by nature a slave, and a person is a human being belonging to another - if being a man he is an article of property, and an article of property - is an instrument for action separable from its owner. But we must next consider - whether or not anyone exists who is by nature of this character, and whether it - is advantageous and just for anyone to be a slave, or whether on the contrary - all slavery is against nature. - And it is not difficult either - to discern the answer by theory or to learn it empirically. Authority and - subordination are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient; in some - cases things are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or to be ruled. And - there are many varieties both of rulers and of subjects (and the higher - the type of the subjects, the loftier is the nature of the authority exercised - over them, for example to control a human being is a higher thing than to tame a - wild beast; for the higher the type of the parties to the performance of a - function, the higher is the function, and when one party rules and another is - ruled, there is a function performed between them)—because in every composite thing, where a - plurality of parts, whether continuous or discrete, is combined to make a single - common whole, there is always found a ruling and a subject factor, and this - characteristic of living things is present in them as an outcome of the whole of - nature, since even in things that do not partake of life there is a ruling - principle, as in the case of a musical scale.Each ‘mode’ (Dorian, the modern minor scale, - Phrygian and Lydian, two forms of major) was ruled by its - key-note. However, this matter perhaps belongs to an investigation - lying somewhat outside our subject; but an animal consists primarily of soul and body, of which the former is by - nature the ruling and the latter the subject factor. And to discover what is - natural we must study it preferably in things that are in a natural state, and - not in specimens that are degenerate. Hence in studying man we must consider a - man that is in the best possible condition in regard to both body and soul, and - in him the principle stated will clearly appear,—

-
-
-

- It is - manifest therefore that there are cases of people of whom some are freemen and - the others slaves by nature, and for these slavery is an institution both - expedient and just. But at the same - time it is not difficult to see that those who assert the opposite are also - right in a manner. The fact is that the terms ‘slavery’ and - ‘slave’ are ambiguous; for there is also such a thing as a - slave or a man that is in slavery by law, for the law is a sort of agreement - under which the things conquered in war are said to belong to their conquerors. - Now this conventional right is arraigned by many jurists just as a statesman is - impeached for proposing an unconstitutional measure; they say that it is - monstrous if the person powerful enough to use force, and superior in power, is - to have the victim of his force as his slave and subject; and even among the - learned some hold this view, though others hold the other. But the reason of this dispute and what makes the - theories overlap is the fact that in a certain manner virtue when it obtains - resources has in fact very great power to use force, and the stronger party - always possesses superiority in something that is good,The difficulty turns on the ambiguity of a)reth/, (a) moral goodness, - virtue, (b) goodness of any kind, e.g. strength. so - that it is thought that force cannot be devoid of goodness, but that the dispute - is merely about the justice of the matter (for it is due to the one - party holding that the justification of authority is good-will, while the other - identifies justice with the mere rule of the stronger); because - obviously if these theories be separated apart,the other theories have no force or plausibility at all, - implying that the superior in goodness has no claim to rule and be master. - But some persons, simply - clinging, as they think, to principle of justice (for the law is a - principle of justice), assert that the enslavement of prisoners of war - is just; yet at the same time they deny the assertion, for there is the - possibility that wars may be unjust in their origin and one would by no means - admit that a man that does not deserve slavery can be really a - slave—otherwise we shall have the result that persons reputed of the - highest nobility are slaves and the descendants of slaves if they happen to be - taken prisoners of war and sold. Therefore they do not mean to assert that - Greeks themselves if taken prisoners are slaves, but that barbarians are. Yet - when they say this, they are merely seeking for the principles of natural - slavery of which we spoke at the outset; for they are compelled to say that - there exist certain persons who are essentially slaves everywhere and certain - others who are so nowhere. And the - same applies also about nobility: our nobles consider themselves noble not only - in their own country but everywhere, but they think that barbarian noblemen are - only noble in their own country—which implies that there are two kinds - of nobility and of freedom, one absolute and the other relative, as Helen says - in TheodectesA tragic poet, a friend of - Aristotle.: - But who would dare to call me menial, - The scion of a twofold stock divine? - Yet in so speaking they make nothing but virtue and vice the - distinction between slave and free, the noble and the base-born;

-
-
-

- for they - assume that just as from a man springs a man and from brutes a brute, so also - from good parents comes a good son but as a matter of fact nature frequently - while intending to do this is unable to bring it about.It is clear therefore that there is some reason for this - dispute, and that in some instances it is not the case that one set are slaves - and the other freemen by nature; and also that in some instances such a distinction does exist, when slavery - for the one and mastership for the other are advantageous and just, and it is - proper for the one party to be governed and for the other to govern by the form - of government for which they are by nature fitted, and therefore by the exercise - of mastership, while to govern badly is to govern disadvantageously for both - parties (for the same thing is advantageous for a part and for the - whole body or the whole soul, and the slave is a part of the master—he - is, as it were, a part of the body, alive but yet separated from it; hence there is a certain community of - interest and friendship between slave and master in cases when they have been - qualified by nature for those positions, although when they do not hold them in - that way but by law and by constraint of force the opposite is the - case).And even from these - considerations it is clear that the authority of a master over slaves is not the - same as the authority of a magistrate in a republic, nor are all forms of - government the same, as some assert. Republican government controls men who are - by nature free, the master's authority men who are by nature slaves; and the - government of a household is monarchy (since every house is governed by - a single ruler),whereas - statesmanship is the government of men free and equal. The term ‘master’ therefore - denotes the possession not of a certain branch of knowledge but of a certain - character, and similarly also the terms ‘slave’ and - ‘freeman.’ Yet there might be a science of mastership and a - slave's science—the latter being the sort of knowledge that used to be - imparted by the professor at Syracuse (for there used to be a man there who for a - fee gave lessons to servants in their ordinary duties); and indeed - there might be more advanced scientific study of such matters, for instance a - science of cookery and the other such kinds of domestic service—for - different servants have different functions, some more honorable and some more - menial, and as the proverb says, - Slave before slave and master before master.Probably from a comedy of Aristotle's - contemporary Philemon. - - - The slave's sciences then are all - the various branches of domestic work; the master's science is the science of - employing slaves—for the master's function consists not in acquiring - slaves but in employing them. This science however is one of no particular - importance or dignity: the master must know how to direct the tasks which the - slave must know how to execute. Therefore all people rich enough to be able to - avoid personal trouble have a steward who takes this office, while they - themselves engage in politics or philosophy. The science of acquiring slaves is - different both from their ownership and their direction—that is, the - just acquiring of slaves, which is akin to the art of war or that of the chase. - Let this then stand as our definition of slave and master.

-
-
-

- - But let us follow our normal method and investigate - generally the nature of all kinds of property and the art of getting wealth, - inasmuch as we saw the slave to be one division of property. In the first place - therefore one might raise the question whether the art of getting wealth is the - same as that of household management, or a part of it, or subsidiary to it; and - if subsidiary, whether it is so in the sense in which the art of making shuttles - is subsidiary to the art of weaving or in that in which the art of casting - bronze is subsidiary to the making of statues (for the two are not - subsidiary in the same way, but shuttle-making supplies tools whereas - bronze-founding supplies material—and by material I mean the substance - out of which certain work is produced, for example fleeces are material for a - weaver and bronze for a statuary). Now it is clear that wealth-getting is not the same art as - household management, for the function of the former is to provide and that of - the latter to use—for what will be the art that will use the contents - of the house if not the art of household management? but whether wealth-getting - is a part of the art of household management, or a different sort of science, is - open to debate. For if it is the function of the getter of wealth to study the - source from which money and property are to be procured, . . .Some words seem to have fallen out in the - Greek. But property and riches comprise many divisions; hence first - of all is husbandry a division of the household art, or is it a different kind - of science? and so in general of the superintendence and acquisition of articles - of food. But furthermore, there are - many sorts of food,owing to which - both animals and men have many modes of life; for it is impossible to live - without food, so that the differences of food have made the lives of animals - different. Among wild animals some are nomadic and others solitary, according to - whichever habit is advantageous for their supply of food, because some of them - are carnivorous, others graminivorous, and others eat all kinds of food; so that - nature has differentiated their modes of life to suit their facilities and their - predilection for those articles of food. And as different kinds of animals by - nature relish different sorts of food, and not each kind the same, even within - the classes of carnivorous and graminivorous animals their modes of life differ - from one another. And similarly in - the human race also, for there are wide differences of life among mankind. The - idlest men are nomads (for to procure food from domesticated animals - involves no toil or industry, but as it is necessary for the herds to move from - place to place because of the pastures, the people themselves are forced to - follow along with them, as though they were farming a live farm). Other - men live from hunting, and different people from different kinds of hunting, for - instance some from brigandage,Perhaps - ‘slave-raiding,’ cf. 3.9, the appropriation of the - ‘live tools’ that are a part of nature's supplies; but - Thuc. 1.5 speaks of brigandage and piracy as - common in earlier times, and as still deemed respectable professions in - Northern Greece. others from fishing—these are those that - dwell on the banks of lakes, marshes and rivers or of a sea suitable for - fishing,—and others live on wild birds and animals. But the largest - class of men live from the land and the fruits of cultivation. This then virtually completes the list of - the various modes of life, those at least that have their industry sprung from - themselves and do not procure their food by barter and trade— -

-
-
-

- the lives of the herdsman, the brigand, the fisherman, the - hunter, the husband-man. Others also live pleasantly by combining some of these - pursuits, supplementing the more deficient life where it happens to fall short - in regard to being self-sufficing: for instance, some combine a pastoral life - and brigandage, others husbandry and hunting, and similarly with the - others—they pass their time in such a combination of pursuits as their - need compels. Property of this sort - then seems to be bestowed by nature herself upon all, as immediately upon their - first coming into existence, so also when they have reached maturity. For even - at the original coming into existence of the young some kinds of animals bring - forth with them at birth enough sustenance to suffice until the offspring can - provide for itself, for example all the species that bear their young in the - form of larvae or in eggs. The viviparous species have sustenance for their - offspring inside themselves for a certain period, the substance called milk. - So that clearly we must suppose - that nature also provides for them in a similar way when grown up, and that - plants exist for the sake of animals and the other animals for the good of man, - the domestic species both for his service and for his food, and if not all at - all events most of the wild ones for the sake of his food and of his supplies of - other kinds, in order thatthey may - furnish him both with clothing and with other appliances. If therefore nature - makes nothing without purpose or in vain, it follows that nature has made all - the animals for the sake of men. Hence even the art of war will by nature be in a manner an art of acquisition - (for the art of hunting is a part of it) that is properly - employed both against wild animals and against such of mankind as though - designed by nature for subjection refuse to submit to it, inasmuch as this - warfare is by nature just.One kind of acquisition - therefore in the order of nature is a part of the household art,Rassow would transpose the clause - (with a slight alteration) to give ‘of the - household art, that is, the acquisition of those goods capable of - accumulation that are necessary for life and useful for the community of - city and household, a supply of which must be forthcoming or else the art - must procure it to be forthcoming.’ in accordance with - which either there must be forthcoming or else that art must procure to be - forthcoming a supply of those goods, capable of accumulation, which are - necessary for life and useful for the community of city or household. And it is of these goods that riches in the - true sense at all events seem to consist. For the amount of such property - sufficient in itself for a good life is not unlimited, as Solon - Solon - 13.71. says that it is in the verse - But of riches no bound has been fixed or revealed to - men; - for a limit has been fixed, as with the other arts, since no tool - belonging to any art is without a limit whether in number or in size, and riches - are a collection of tools for the householder and the statesman. Therefore that - there is a certain art of acquisition belonging in the order of nature to - householders and to statesmen, and for what reason this is so, is clear. - But there is another kind of - acquisition that is specially called wealth-getting, and that is so called with - justice and to this kind it is due that there is thought to be no limit to - riches and property.

-
-
-

- Owing to its affinity to the art of acquisition of - which we spoke, it is supposed by many people to be one and the same as that; - and as a matter of fact, while it is not the same as the acquisition spoken of, - it is not far removed from it. One of them is natural, the other is not natural, - but carried on rather by means of a certain acquired skill or art. We may take - our starting-point for its study from the following consideration: with every article of property there is a - double way of using it; both uses are related to the article itself, but not - related to it in the same manner—one is peculiar to the thing and the - other is not peculiar to it. Take for example a shoe—there is its wear - as a shoe and there is its use as an article of exchange; for both are ways of - using a shoe, inasmuch as even he that barters a shoe for money or food with the - customer that wants a shoe uses it as a shoe, though not for the use peculiar to - a shoe, since shoes have not come into existence for the purpose of barter. And - the same also holds good about the other articles of property; for all of them - have an art of exchange related to them, which began in the first instance from - the natural order of things, because men had more than enough of some things and - less than enough of others. This - consideration also shows that the art of trade is not by nature a part of the - art of wealth-gettingPerhaps Aristotle wrote - ‘of the art of exchange’: Bernays suggests metablhtikh=s for xrhmatistikh=s.; for the practice of barter was - necessary only so far as to satisfy men's own needs. In the primaryassociation therefore (I mean the - household) there is no function for trade, but it only arises after the - association has become more numerous. For the members of the primitive household - used to share commodities that were all their own, whereas on the contrary a - group divided into several households participated also in a number of - commodities belonging to their neighbors, according to their needs for which - they were forced to make their interchanges by way of barter, as also many - barbarian tribes do still; for such tribes do not go beyond exchanging actual - commodities for actual commodities, for example giving and taking wine for corn, - and so with the various other things of the sort. Exchange on these lines therefore is not contrary to - nature, nor is it any branch of the art of wealth-getting, for it existed for - the replenishment of natural self-sufficiency; yet out of it the art of business - in due course arose. For when they had come to supply themselves more from - abroad by importing things in which they were deficient and exporting those of - which they had a surplus, the employment of money necessarily came to be - devised. For the natural necessaries are not in every case readily portable; - hence for the purpose of barter - men made a mutual compact to give and accept some substance of such a sort as - being itself a useful commodity was easy to handle in use for general life, iron - for instance, silver and other metals, at the first stage defined merely by size - and weight, but finally also by impressing on it a stamp in order that this - might relieve them of having to measure it; for the stamp was put on as a token - of the amount.

-
-
-

- - So when currency - had been now invented as an outcome of the necessary interchange of goods, there - came into existence the other form of wealth-getting, trade, which at first no - doubt went on in a simple form, but later became more highly organized as - experience discovered the sources and methods of exchange that would cause most - profit. Hence arises the idea that the art of wealth-getting deals specially - with money, and that its function is to be able to discern from what source a - large supply can be procured, as this art is supposed to be creative of riches - and wealth; indeed riches are often - assumed to consist of a quantity of money, because money is the thing with which - the art of business and of trade deals. But at other times, on the contrary, it - is thought that money is nonsense, and nothing by nature but entirely a - convention, because when those who use it have changed the currency it is worth - nothing, and because it is of no use for any of the necessary needs of life and - a man well supplied with money may oftene.g. - on a desert island. be destitute of the bare necessities of - subsistence, yet it is anomalous that wealth should be of such a kind that a man - may be well supplied with it and yet die of hunger, like the famous Midas in the - legend, when owing to the insatiable covetousness of his prayer all the viands - served up to him turned into gold. Hence people seek for a different definition of riches and the art of getting - wealth, and rightly; for natural wealth-getting and natural riches are - different:natural wealth-getting - belongs to household management, whereas the other kind belongs to trade, - producing goods not in every way but only by the method of exchanging goods. It - is this art of wealth-getting that is thought to be concerned with money, for - money is the first principle and limit of commerce. And these riches, that are - derived from this art of wealth-getting, are truly unlimitedi.e. a trader cannot get too much of his goods, any more than - a doctor can make his patient too healthy.; for just as the art of - medicine is without limit in respect of health, and each of the arts is without - limit in respect of its end (for they desire to produce that in the - highest degree possible), whereas they are not without limit as regards - the means to their end (for with all of them the end is a limit to the - means), so also this wealth-getting has no limit in respect of its end, - and its end is riches and the acquisition of goods in the commercial sense. - But the household branch of - wealth-getting has a limit, since the acquisition of commercial riches is not - the function of household management. Hence from this point of view it appears - necessary that there should be a limit to all riches, yet in actual fact we - observe that the opposite takes place; for all men engaged in wealth-getting try - to increase their money to an unlimited amount. The reason of this is the close - affinity of the two branches of the art of business. Their common ground is that - the thing that each makes use of is the same; they use the same property, - although not in the same way—the one has another end in view, the aim - of the other is the increase of the property. Consequently some people suppose - that it is the function of household management to increase property, and they - are continually under the idea that it is their duty to be either safeguarding - their substance in money or increasing it to an unlimited amount. The cause of this state of mind is that - their interests are set upon life but not upon the good life;

-
-
-

- as - therefore the desire for life is unlimited, they also desire without limit the - means productive of life. And even those who fix their aim on the good life seek - the good life as measured by bodily enjoyments, so that inasmuch as this also - seems to be found in the possession of property, all their energies are occupied - in the business of getting wealth; and owing to this the second kind of the art - of wealth-getting has arisen. For as their enjoyment is in excess, they try to - discover the art that is productive of enjoyable excess; and if they cannot - procure it by the art of wealth-getting, they try to do so by some other means, - employing each of the faculties in an unnatural way. For it is not the function of courage to produce wealth, - but to inspire daring; nor is it the function of the military art nor of the - medical art, but it belongs to the former to bring victory and to the latter to - cause health. Yet these people make all these faculties means for the business - of providing wealth, in the belief that wealth is the end and that everything - must be directed to the end.We have therefore - discussed both the unnecessary branch of wealth-getting, defining it and also - explaining the cause why we require it, and the necessary branch, showing that - this branch which has to do with food is different from the unnecessary branch - and is by nature a part of household management, not being like that branch - unlimited but having a limit. And - we can also see the answer to the question raised at the beginning,See 3.1. whetherthe art of wealth-getting belongs to the - householder and the statesman, or whether on the contrary supplies ought to be - provided already (for just as statesmanship does not create human - beings but having received them from nature makes use of them, so also it is - necessary for nature to bestow food by bestowing land or sea or something - else), and the task of the householder is, starting with these supplies - given, to dispose of them in the proper way. For it does not belong to the art - of weaving to make fleeces, but to use them, and also to know what sort of - fleece is good and suitable or bad and unsuitable. In fact the question might be raised, why the getting of - wealth is a part of the household art whereas the art of medicine is not a part - of it, although the members of the household ought to be healthy, just as they - must be alive or fulfil any of the other essential conditions. But inasmuch as - although in a way it does belong to the householder and the ruler to see even to - health, yet in a way it does not belong to them but to the physician, so also - with regard to wealth, although in a way it is the affair of the house-holder, - in a way it is not, but is a matter for the subsidiary art. But best of all, as - has been said before, this provision ought to be made in advance by nature. For - it is the work of nature to supply nourishment for her offspring, since every - creature has for nourishment the residue of the substance from which it - springs.i.e. animals are made of earth - and water and live on the products of earth and water. Hence the - business of drawing provision from the fruits of the soil and from animals is - natural to all. But, as we said, - this art is twofold, one branch being of the nature of trade while the other - belongs to the household art; and the latter branch is necessary and in good - esteem, but the branch connected with exchange is justly discredited

-
-
-

- (for it is not in accordance with nature, but involves men's taking - things from one another). As this is so, usury is most reasonably - hated, because its gain comes from money itself and not from that for the sake - of which money was invented. For money was brought into existence for the - purpose of exchange, but interest increases the amount of the money itself - (and this is the actual origin of the Greek word: offspring resembles - parent, and interest is money born of money); consequently this form of - the business of getting wealth is of all forms the most contrary to nature. - And since we have adequately - defined the scientific side of the subject, we ought to discuss it from the - point of view of practice; although, whereas the theory of such matters is a - liberal study, the practical pursuit of them is narrowing. The practically - useful branches of the art of wealth-getting are first, an expert knowledge of - stock, what breeds are most profitable and in what localities and under what - conditions, for instance what particular stock in horses or cattle or sheep, and - similarly of the other animals also (for the farmer must be an expert - as to which of these animals are most profitable compared with one another, and - also as to what breeds are most profitable on what sorts of land, since - different breeds flourish in different places); secondly, the subject - of agriculture, and this again is divided into corn-growing and fruit-farming; - also bee-keeping, and the breeding of the other creatures finned and - featheredwhich can be used to - furnish supplies. These then are the - branches and primary parts of wealth-getting in the most proper sense. Of the - kind that deals with exchange, the largest branch is commerce (which - has three departments, ship-owning, transport and marketing: these departments - differ from each other in the fact that some are safer and others carry larger - profits); the second branch is money-lending, and the third labor for - hire, one department of which is that of the mechanic - ba/nausos(said to be - from bau=nos‘furnace,’ - au)/w‘to - dry’), ‘artisan’ (ranged - with farmers, traders, and laborers, as forming the common people 1321a - 6); it acquires the senses of ‘cramped in body’ - (1341a 7) and ‘vulgar in taste’ - (1337b 8). arts and the other that of unskilled - laborers who are useful only for bodily service. And there is a third form of - wealth-getting that lies between the latter and the one placed first, since it - possesses mediate an element both of natural wealth-getting and of the sort that - employs exchange; it deals with all the commodities that are obtained from the - earth and from those fruitless but useful things that come from the - earth—examples are the felling of timbera very probable variant gives ‘the quarrying of - stone.’ and all sorts of mining; and of mining itself there - are many classes, since there are many sorts of metals obtained out of the - earth. TheIn the mss. this sentence follows the next one. most - scientific of these industries are those which involve the smallest element of - chance, the most mechanic those in which the operatives undergo the greatest - amount of bodily degradation, the most servile those in which the most uses are - made of the body, and the most ignoble those in which there is the least - requirement of virtue as an accessory. But while we have even now given a - general description of these various branches, yet a detailed and particular - account of them, though useful for the practice of the industries, would be - illiberal as a subject of prolonged study. There are books on these subjects by certain authors, for - example CharetidesOtherwise unknown. - of Paros -

-
-
-

- and ApollodorusAlso mentioned by Varro and - Pliny. of Lemnos have - written about both agriculture and fruit-farming, and similarly others also on - other topics, so these subjects may be studied from these authors by anybody - concerned to do so; but in addition a collection ought also to be madeThe author of the Second Book of the - pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica seems to have taken the - hint. of the scattered accounts of methods that have brought success - in business to certain individuals. All these methods are serviceable for those - who value wealth-getting, for - example the plan of ThalesThe founder of - Greek philosophy and mathematics, and one of the Seven Sages, 6th-5th cent. - B.C. of Miletus, which is a - device for the business of getting wealth, but which, though it is attributed to - him because of his wisdom, is really of universal application. Thales, so the - story goes, because of his poverty was taunted with the uselessness of - philosophy; but from his knowledge of astronomy he had observed while it was - still winter that there was going to be a large crop of olives, so he raised a - small sum of money and paid round deposits for the whole of the olive-presses in - Miletus and Chios, which he hired at a low rent as nobody - was running him up; and when the season arrived, there was a sudden demand for a - number of presses at the same time, and by letting them out on what terms he - liked he realized a large sum of money, so proving that it is easy for - philosophers to be rich if they choose, but this is not what they care about. - Thales then is reported to have - thus displayed his wisdom, but asa - matter of fact this device of taking an opportunity to secure a monopoly is a - universal principle of business; hence even some states have recourse to this - plan as a method of raising revenue when short of funds: they introduce a - monopoly of marketable goods. There - was a man in Sicily who used a sum of - money deposited with him to buy up all the iron from the iron mines, and - afterwards when the dealers came from the trading-centers he was the only - seller, though he did not greatly raise the price, but all the same he made a - profit of a hundred talentsThe talent was - about 240 pounds. on his capital of fifty. When DionysiusDionysius the elder, tyrant of Syracuse - 405-367 B.C. came to - know of it he ordered the man to take his money with him but clear out of - Syracuse on the spot,cf. Thucydides oi( d' - ou)ke/ti e)/meinan a)lla\ . . . - since he was inventing - means of profit detrimental to the tyrant's own affairs. Yet really this device - is the same as the discovery of Thales, for both men alike contrived to secure - themselves a monopoly. An acquaintance with these devices is also serviceable - for statesmen, for many states need financial aid and modes of revenue like - those described, just as a household may, but in greater degree; hence some - statesmen even devote their political activity exclusively to finance. - And since, as we saw,2 init. the science of household - management has three divisions, one the relation of master to slave, of which we - have spoken before,3 fin., 4. one the - paternal relation, and the third the conjugalThe construction of the sentence is interrupted, and never - completed.—for it is a part of the household science to - rule over wife and children (over both as over freemen, yet not with the same mode of government, - but over the wife to exercise republican government and over the children - monarchical);

-
-
-

- for the male is by nature better fitted to command - than the female (except in some cases where their union has been formed - contrary to nature) and the older and fully developed person than the - younger and immature. It is true that in most cases of republican government the - ruler and the ruled interchange in turn (for they tend to be on in - equal level in their nature and to have no difference at all), although - nevertheless during the period when one is ruler and the other ruled they seek - to have a distinction by means of insignia and titles and honors, just as Amasis - made his speech about the foot-bath - Hdt. 1.172. Amasis king of Egypt was despised by his subjects for his - low birth, so he had a statue made out of a gold foot-bath and set it up for - them to worship, afterwards explaining to them its lowly origin.; but - the male stands in this relationship to the female continuously. The rule of the - father over the children on the other hand is that of a king; for the male - parent is the ruler in virtue both of affection and of seniority, which is - characteristic of royal government (and therefore Homer - Hom. Il. - 1.544. finely designated Zeus by the words - father of men and gods, - as the king of them all). For though in nature the king must - be superior, in race he should be the same as his subjects, and this is the - position of the elder in relation to the younger and of the father in relation - to the child. It is clear then that - household management takes more interest in the human members of the household - than in its inanimate property, andin - the excellence of these than in that of its property, which we style riches, and - more in that of its free members than in that of slaves.First of all then as to slaves the difficulty might be raised, - does a slave possess any other excellence, besides his merits as a tool and a - servant, more valuable than these, for instance temperance, have the courage, - justice and any of the other moral virtues, or has he no excellence beside his - bodily service? For either way there is difficulty; if slaves do possess moral - virtue, wherein will they differ from freemen? or if they do not, this is - strange, as they are human beings and participate in reason. And nearly the same is the question also raised - about the woman and the child: have they too virtues, and ought a woman to be - temperate, brave and just, and can a child be intemperate or temperate, or not? - This point therefore requires general consideration in relation to natural ruler - and subject: is virtue the same for ruler and ruled, or different? If it is - proper for both to partake in nobility of character, how could it be proper for - the one to rule and the other to be ruled unconditionally? we cannot say that - the difference is to be one of degree, for ruling and being ruled differ in - kind, and difference of degree is not a difference in kind at all. Whereas if on the contrary it is proper for - the one to have moral nobility but not for the other, this is surprising. For if - the ruler is not temperate and just, how will he rule well? And if the ruled, - how will he obey well?

-
-
-

- If intemperate and cowardly he will not perform any - of the duties of his position. It is evident therefore that both must possess - virtue, but that there are differences in their virtue (as also there - are differences between those who are by nature ruled).This clause seems to have been interpolated; - one ms. has a marginal correction, ‘by nature rulers and - ruled.’ And of this we straightway find an indication in - connection with the soul; for the soul by nature contains a part that rules and - a part that is ruled, to which we assign different virtues, that is, the virtue - of the rational and that of the irrational. It is clear then that the case is the same also with the - other instances of ruler and ruled. Hence there are by nature various classes of - rulers and ruled. For the free rules the slave, the male the female, and the man - the child in a different way. And all possess the various parts of the soul, but - possess them in different ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part - at all, and the female has it, but without full authority, while the child has - it, but in an undeveloped form. HenceIn the mss. this sentence follows - the next one, ‘We must suppose—function,’ and - begins ‘Hence the ruler must possess moral - virtue.’ the ruler must possess intellectual virtue in - completeness (for any work, taken absolutely, belongs to the - master-craftsman, and rational principle is a master-craftsman); while - each of the other parties must have that share of this virtue which is - appropriate to them. We must suppose therefore that the same necessarily holds - good of the moral virtues: all must partake of them, but not in the same way, - but in such measure as is proper to each in relation to his own - function. - Hence it is manifest that all the persons mentioned - have a moral virtue of their own, and that the temperance of a woman and that of - a man are not the same, nor their courage and justice, as Socrates thought, - Plat. Meno 74bff. - but the one is the courage of command, and the other that of - subordination, and the case is similar with the other virtues. And this is also - clear when we examine the matter more in detail, for it is misleading to give a - general definition of virtue, as some do, who say that virtue is being in good - condition as regards the soul or acting uprightly or the like; those who - enumerate the virtues of different persons separately, as Gorgias does,i.e. in - Plato, Meno (see 7 above), - where this sophist figures as a character in the dialogue; see also 3.1.9, - note. are much more correct than those who define virtue in that way. - Hence we must hold that all of these persons have their appropriate virtues, as - the poet said of woman: - Silence gives grace to woman - Soph. Aj. 293 - — - though that is not the case likewise with a man. Also the child is not completely developed, so that - manifestly his virtue also is not personal to himself, but relative to the fully - developed being, that is, the person in authority over him. And similarly the - slave's virtue also is in relation to the master.And we laid it down that the slave is serviceable for the mere necessaries of - life, so that clearly he needs only a small amount of virtue, in fact just - enough to prevent him from failing in his tasks owing to intemperance and - cowardice. (But the - question might be raised, supposing that what has just been said is true, will - artisans also need to have virtue? for they frequently fall short in their tasks - owing to intemperance. Or is their case entirely different? For the slave is a - partner in his master's life, but the artisan is more remote, and only so much - of virtue falls to his share as of slaveryi.e. his excellences as an artisan are the qualities of a subordinate - (his virtues as a human being, apart from his trade, are not - considered).—

-
-
-

- for the mechanic artisan is - under a sort of limited slavery, and whereas the slave is one of the natural - classes, no shoemaker or other craftsman belongs to his trade by - nature.) It is manifest - therefore that the master ought to be the cause to the slave of the virtue - proper to a slave, but not as possessing that art of mastership which teaches a - slave his tasks. Hence those persons are mistaken who deprive the slave of - reasoning and tell us to use command only; for admonition is more properly - employed with slaves than with children.But on - these subjects let us conclude our decisions in this manner; while the question - of the virtue severally belonging to man and woman and children and father, and - of the right and wrong mode of conducting their mutual intercourse and the - proper way of pursuing the good mode and avoiding the bad one, are matters that - it will be necessary to follow up in the part of our treatise dealing with the - various forms of constitution.As a matter of - fact in Books 7, 8 dealing with the best constitution this subject is not - reached. - For since every household is part - of a state, and these relationships are part of the household, and the - excellence of the part must have regard to that of the whole, it is necessary - that the education both of the children and of the women should be carried on - with a regard to the form of the constitution, if it makes any difference as - regards the goodness of the state for the children and the women to be good. And - it must necessarily make a difference; for the women are a half of the free - population, and the childrengrow up - to be the partners in the government of the state. So that as these questions - have been decided, and those that remain must be discussed elsewhere, let us - relinquish the present subjects as completed, and make a fresh start in our - discourse, and first let us consider those thinkers who have advanced views - about the Ideal State.

-
- - -
-

- But is it better for a city that - is to be well ordered to have community in everything which can possibly be made - common property, or is it better to have some things in common and others not? - For example, it is possible for the citizens to have children, wives and - possessions in common with each other, as in Plato's Republic, in - which Socrates says that there must be - community of children, women and possessions. Well then, which is preferable, - the system that now obtains, or one conforming with the regulation described in - the Republic - On the following - criticisms see Grote, Plato, 3, pp. 211-233.? - - Now for all the citizens to have their wives in common involves a variety of - difficulties; in particular,(1) 1.3-7; (2) 1.8-2.11; - (3) 2.11-13; also (4) other objections - 2.15-16. (1) the object which - Socrates advances as the reason why this - enactment should be made clearly does not follow from his arguments; also - (2) as a means to the end which he asserts should be the - fundamental object of the city, the scheme as actually set forth in the dialogue - is not practicable; yet (3) how it is to be further worked out - has been nowhere definitely stated. I refer to the ideal of the fullest possible - unity of the entire state, which - Socrates takes as his fundamental principle. - Yet it is clear that - if the process of unification advances beyond a certain point, the city will not - be a city at all for a state essentially consists of a multitude of persons, and - if its unification is carried beyond a certain point, city will be reduced to - family and family to individual,for - we should pronounce the family to be a more complete unity than the city, and - the single person than the family; so that even if any lawgiver were able to - unify the state, he must not do so, for he will destroy it in the process. And - not only does a city consist of a multitude of human beings, it consists of - human beings differing in kind. A collection of persons all alike does not - constitute a state. For a city is not the same thing as a league; a league is of - value by its quantity, even though it is art the same in kind (since - the essential object of the league is military strength), just as a - weight would be worth more if it weighed more, whereasIn the mss. of the Greek - ‘whereas—kind’ comes below after - ‘ - Arcadian.’ components which are to make up a - unity must differ in kind (and it is by this characteristic that a city will also surpass a - tribe of which the population is not scattered among villages but organized like - the Arcadians). Hence reciprocal equalityAs the best state consists of different classes, its unity is - secured by each citizen giving services to society and receiving in return - benefits proportionate to his service. Probably to\ - i)/son is an interpolation (though - Newman explains it as 'the reciprocal - rendering of an equal amount of dissimilar things'): omitting - to\ i)/son, we render - ‘reciprocity’ and not ‘reciprocal - equality’; cf. Aristot. Nic. - Eth. 1132b 33, ‘In the interchange of services Justice - in the form of Reciprocity is the bond that maintains the association: - reciprocity, that is, on the basis of proportion, not on the basis of - equality.’ is the preservative of states, as has been said - before in the Ethics. For even among the free and equal this - principle must necessarily obtain, since all cannot govern at once: they must - hold office for a year at a time or by some other arrangement or period; and in - this manner it does actually come about that all govern, just as all shoemakers - would be also carpenters if the shoemakers and the carpenters kept on changing - trades instead of the same persons being shoemakers and carpenters always. - But since such permanence of - function is better for the political community also, it is clear that it is - better for the same persons to govern always, if possible; and among peoples - where it is impossible because all the citizens are equal in their nature, -

-
-
-

- yet at the same time it is only just, whether governing is a - good thing or a bad, that all should partake in it, and for equals thus to - submit to authority in turn imitates their being originally dissimilarThe best form of constitution is where there - is a superior class that governs continuously—an aristocracy; so - where there are no class-distinctions, the next best thing is for all the - citizens to take turns in governing and being governed, those in office for - the time being forming a sort of aristocracy. - Richards's alteration of the text gives ‘to take - turns to govern is an imitation of original inequality and - class-distinction.‘; for some govern and others are - governed by turn, as though becoming other persons; and also similarly when they - hold office the holders of different offices are different persons. It is clear then from these considerations - that it is not an outcome of nature for the state to be a unity in the manner in - which certain persons say that it is, and that what has been said to be the - greatest good in states really destroys states; yet surely a thing's particular - good acts as its preservative.—Another line of consideration also - shows that to seek to unify the state excessively is not beneficial. In point of - self-sufficiency the individual is surpassed by the family and the family by the - state, and in principle a state is fully realized only when it comes to pass - that the community of numbers is self-sufficing; if therefore the more - self-sufficing a community is, the more desirable is its condition, then a less - degree of unity is more desirable than a greater. - Again, even granting that - it is best for the community to be as complete a unity as possible, complete - unity does not seem to be proved by the formula ‘if all the citizens - say “Mine” and “Not mine” at the same - time,’ which SocratesThe reference is to Plat. Rep. 462c. Unity is secured when everyone thinks that - everything belongs equally to him and to everybody else, i.e. everything is - common property. thinks to be a sign of thecity's being completely one. - ‘All’ is an ambiguous term. If it means ‘each - severally,’ very likely this would more fully realize the state of - things which Socrates wishes to produce - (for in that case every citizen will call the same boy his son and also - the same woman his wife, and will speak in the same way of property and indeed - of each of the accessories of life) but ex hypothesi the citizens, having - community of women and children, will not call them ‘theirs’ - in this sense, but will mean theirs collectively and not severally, and - similarly they will call property ‘theirs’ meaning the - property of them all, not of each of them severally. We see then that the phrase - ‘all say’ is equivocal (in fact the words - ‘all,’ ‘both,’ - ‘odd,’ ‘even,’ owing to their ambiguity, - occasion argumentative quibbling even in philosophical discussions); - hence really for all to say the same thing is in one sense admirable, although - impracticable, but in another sense is not at all a sign of concord. And furthermore, the proposal has another - disadvantage. Property that is common to the greatest number of owners receives - the least attention; men care most for their private possessions, and for what - they own in common less, or only so far as it falls to their own individual - share for in addition to the other reasons, they think less of it on the ground - that someone else is thinking about it, just as in household service a large - number of domestics sometimes give worse attendance than a smaller number. - And it results in each - citizen's having a thousand sons, and these do not belong to them as individuals - but any child is equally the son of anyone, so that all alike will regard them - with indifference.

-
-
-

- - Again, each speaks - of one of his fellow-citizens who is prospering or getting on badly as - ‘my son’ only in the sense of the fractional part which he - forms of the whole number—that is, he says ‘my - son’ or ‘so-and-so's son,’ specifying as the - father any individual of the thousand citizens or whatever the number be of - which the state consists, and even this dubiously, for it is uncertain who has - chanced to have had a son born to him and when born safely reared. Yet which is the better way to use the - word ‘mine’—this way, each of two thousand or ten - thousand people applying it to the same thing, or rather the way in which they - say ‘mine’ in the actual states now? for the same person is - called ‘my son’ by one man and ‘my - brother’ by another, and another calls him - ‘nephew,’ or by some other relationship, whether of blood or - by affinity and marriage, the speaker's own in the first place, or that of his - relations; and in addition someone else calls him - ‘fellow-clansman’ or ‘fellow-tribesman.’ - For it is better for a boy to be one's own private nephew than one's son in the - way described. Moreover it would - also be impossible to avoid men's supposing certain persons to be their real - brothers and sons and fathers and mothers; for they would be bound to form their - belief about each other by the resemblances which occur between children and - parents. This indeed is said by some of those who write of travels round the - worldBooks of geography, founded on - travellers' reports—a famous one by Hecataeus, scoffed at by Hdt. 4.36. actually to occur;they say that some of the people of Upper - Libya have their wives in common, yet the children born are divided among them - according to their personal resemblances. And there are some females both of the - human race and of the other animals, for instance horses and cattle, who have a - strong natural tendency to produce off-spring resembling the male parents, as - was the case with the mare at Pharsalus - named Honest Lady.Or possibly - ‘Docile’ ( - Jackson), cf. Xen. Hunt. - 7.4. - - Moreover it is not easy for those who institute this communism to guard - against such objectionable occurrences as outrage, involuntary and in some cases - voluntary homicide, fights, abusive language; all of which are violations of - piety when committed against fathers, mothers and near relatives as if they were - not relatives; but these are bound to occur more frequently when people do not - know their relations than when they do, and also, when they do occur, if the - offenders know their relationship it is possible for them to have the customary - expiations performed, but for those who do not no expiation is possible. - Also it is curious that a - theorist who makes the sons common property only debars lovers from intercourse - and does not prohibit love, nor the other familiarities, which between father - and son or brother and brother are most unseemly, since even the fact of love - between them is unseemly. And it is also strange that he deprives them of - intercourse for no other reason except because the pleasure is too violent; and - that he thinks it makes no difference that the parties are in the one case - father or son and in the other case brothers of one another. And it seems that - this community of wives and sons is more serviceable for the Farmer class than - for the Guardians;

-
-
-

- for there will be less friendship among them if - their children and women are in common, and unfriendliness in the subject - classes is a good thing with a view to their being submissive to authority and - not making revolution. But speaking - generally such a law is bound to bring about the opposite state of things to - that which rightly enacted laws ought properly to cause, and because of which - Socrates thinks it necessary to - make these regulations about the children and women. For we think that - friendship is the greatest of blessings for the state, since it is the best - safeguard against revolution, and the unity of the state, which - Socrates praises most highly, both appears to - be and is said by him to be the effect of friendship, just as we know that - AristophanesThe comic poet, figuring as - a character in Plato's - Symposium, see especially Plat. - Sym. 192c ff.. in the discourses on love describes how the - lovers owing to their extreme affection desire to grow together and both become - one instead of being two. In such a - union it would be inevitable that both would be spoiled, or at least one, and in - the state friendship would inevitably become watery in consequence of such - association, and the expressions ‘my father’ and - ‘my son’ would quite go out. For just as putting a little - sugar into a quantity of water makes the mixture imperceptible, so it also must - come about that the mutual relationship based on these names must become - imperceptible,since in the - republic described by Plato there will - be the least possible necessity for people to care for one another as father for - sons or as son for father or as brother for brother. For there are two things - that most cause men to care for and to love each other, the sense of ownership - and the sense of preciousness; and neither motive can be present with the - citizens of a state so constituted. Again, as to the transference of some of the children at birth from the - Farmers and Artisans to the GuardiansThe - three classes in Plato's Republic. and of others from - the Guardians to the Farmers and Artisans, there is much confusion as to how it - is to be done; and the parents who give the children and the officials who - transfer them are bound to know which they give to whom. And again, the things - spoken of above are bound to occur even more with these transferred children, - such as outrage, love-making and murder; for the children of the Guardians - transferred to the other citizens will no longer speak of the Guardians as - brothers and children and fathers and mothers, nor yet will those living among - the Guardians so speak of the other classes, so as to be careful not to commit - any such offence because of their relationship.Such therefore may be our decision as to community of children and women. - - In connection with this we have to consider the due regulation of property in - a community that is to have the best political institutions: should property be - owned in common or privately? This question might indeed be considered - separately from the system laid down by law with regard to the children and the - women:

-
-
-

- I mean, even if there be separate families as is now the case - with all nations, is it better for both the ownership and the employment of - property to be in common. . . ,Something has - clearly been lost here, signifying ‘or should there be some - limited form of communism?’ for example, should the farms - be separate property but the farm-produce be brought into the common stock for - consumption (as is the practice with some non-Greek races); or - on the contrary should the land be common and farmed in common, but the produce - be divided for private use (and this form of communism also is said to - prevail among some of the barbarians); or should both farms and produce - be common property? Now if the - tillers of the soil be of a different classi.e. a class of serfs, like the Helots at Sparta. there might be another and easier system, - but if the citizens do the work for themselves, the regulations for the common - ownership of property would give more causes for discontent; for if both in the - enjoyment of the produce and in the work of production they prove not equal but - unequal, complaints are bound to arise between those who enjoy or take much but - work little and those who take less but work more. And in general to live together and share all our human - affairs is difficult, and especially to share such things as these. And this is - shown in the partnerships of fellow-travellers, for almost the greatest number - of them quarrel because they come into collision with one another as a result of - ordinary matters and trifles; and also we come into collision most with those of - our servantswhom we employ most often - for ordinary attendance. Community - of property therefore involves these and other similar difficulties; and the - present system, if further improved by good morals and by the regulation of - correct legislation, would be greatly superior. For it will possess the merit of - both systems, by which I mean the advantage of property being common and the - advantage of its being private. For property ought to be common in a sense but - private speaking absolutely. For the superintendence of properties being divided - among the owners will not cause these mutual complaints, and will improve the - more because each will apply himself to it as to private business of his own; - while on the other hand virtue will be exercised to make ‘friends' - goods common goods,’ as the proverbThe saying was ascribed to Pythgagoras. goes, for the purpose of - use. Such a system exists even now - in outline in some states, showing that it is not impracticable, and especially - in the ones that are well-administered parts of it are realized already and - parts might be realized; for individuals while owning their property privately - put their own possessions at the service of their friends and make use of their - friends' possessions as common property; for instance in Sparta people use one another's slaves as - virtually their own, as well as horses and hounds, and also use the produce in - the fields throughout the country if they need provisions on a journey. It is - clear therefore that it is better for possessions to be privately owned, but to - make them common property in use; and to train the citizens to this is the - special task of the legislator. And - moreover to feel that a thing is one's private property makes an inexpressibly - great difference for pleasure; for the universal feeling of love for oneself is - surely not purposeless, but a natural instinct.

-
-
-

- Selfishness on the - other hand is justly blamed; but this is not to love oneself but to love oneself - more than one ought, just as covetousness means loving money to - excess—since some love of self, money and so on is practically - universal. Moreover, to bestow favors and assistance on friends or visitors or - comrades is a great pleasure, and a condition of this is the private ownership - of property. These advantages - therefore do not come to those who carry the unification of the state too far; - and in addition to this they manifestly do away with the practice of two - virtues, temperance in relation to women (for it is a noble deed to - refrain from one through temperance when she belongs to another) and - liberality in relation to possessions (for one will not be able to - display liberality nor perform a single liberal action, since the active - exercise of liberality takes place in the use of - possessions). - Such legislation therefore has an attractive appearance, - and might be thought to be humane; for he who is told about it welcomes it with - gladness, thinking that it will result in a marvellous friendliness of everybody - towards everybody, especially when somebody denounces the evils at present - existing in states as due to the fact thatwealth is not owned in common— I mean lawsuits - between citizens about breach of contract, and trials for perjury, and the - flattery of the rich. But the real - cause of all these evils is not the absence of communism, but wickedness, since - we see far more quarrels occurring among those who own or use property in common - than among those who have their estates separate; but we notice that those who - quarrel as a result of their partnerships are few when compared with the total - number of private owners. And again it is just to state not only all the evils - that men will lose by adopting communism, but also all the good things; and life - in such circumstances is seen to be utterly impossible. The cause of - Socrates' error must be deemed to be that his - fundamental assumption was incorrect. It is certain that in a way both the - household and the state should be a unit, but they should not be so in every - way. For in one way the state as its unification proceeds will cease to be a - state, and in another way, though it continues a state, yet by coming near to - ceasing to be one it will be a worse state, just as if one turned a harmony into - unison or a rhythm into a single foot. The proper thing is for the state, while being a - multitude, to be made a partnership and a unity by means of education, as has - been said before and it is strange that the very philosopher who intends to - introduce a system of education and thinks that this will make the city morally - good should fancy that he can regulate society by such measures as have been - mentioned instead of by manners and culture and laws, just as the legislator - introduced community of property in Sparta and Crete by - the institution of public messes.

-
-
-

- And this very point also must - not be ignored, that attention must be paid to length of time and to the long - period of years, in which it would not have escaped notice if these measures - were good ones; for nearly all of them have been discovered already, although - some of them have not been collected together and others though brought to - knowledge are not put into practice. And their value would become most manifest if one could see such a - constitution in actual process of formation; for one will only be able to - construct Plato's state by introducing its partitions and dividing up the - community into common messes and also into brotherhoods and tribes. So that in - the upshot no other regulation will have been enacted except the exemption of - the Guardians from the work of agriculture, which is a measure that even now the - Spartans attempt to introduce.Moreover, the - working of the constitution as a whole in regard to the members of the state has - also not been described by Socrates, - nor is it easy to say what it will be. Yet the general mass of the citizens of - the other classes make almost the bulk of the state, and about these no definite - regulations are laid down, as to whether the Farmers also are to have their - property in common or to hold it in private ownership, and also whether - community of wives and children is to apply to them or not. For if the Farmers are to have the same complete - communism, what will be the difference between them and the Guardian class? or - what advantage will they gain by submitting to their government? or what - consideration will induce them to submit tothe government, unless the Guardians adopt some clever device - like that of the Cretans? These have conceded to their slaves all the same - rights as they have themselves except that they are forbidden gymnastic - exercises and the possession of arms. But if the family life and property of the - Farmers are to be such as they are in other states, what sort of communism will - there be? For there will inevitably be two states in one, and these antagonistic - to one another. For Socrates makes the - Guardians a sort of garrison, while the Farmers, Artisans and other classes are - the citizens.Or (omitting tou\s before texni/tas) ‘For - Socrates makes one set of men guardians, a - sort of garrison, and another set farmers and artisans and citizens of the - other sorts.’ - But quarrels and lawsuits and all - the other evils which according to - Socrates exist in actual states will all be found among his - citizens too. Yet he says that owing to their education they will not need many - regulations such as city and market by-laws and the other regulations of that - sort, although he assigns his education only to the Guardians. Again, he makes - the Farmers the masters of the estates, for which they pay rent; but they are - likely to be far more unmanageable and rebellious than the classes of helots, - serfs and slaves in certain states today. However, whether this communism is to be compulsory for - the Farmers in the same way as for the Guardians or whether it is not, has as a - matter of fact not been definitely stated anywhere, nor is there any information - about the connected questions, what are to be the political functions and the - education of the lower classes, and the laws affecting them. But it is not easy - to discover the answers to these questions, yet the character of the lower - classes is of no small importance for the preservation of the community of the - Guardians.

-
-
-

- But again, if Socrates - intends to make the Farmers have their wives in common but their property - private, who is to manage the household in the way in which the women's husbands - will carry on the work of the farms? And if the property and the wives of the - Farmers are to be common . . . A passage has - been lost here. - - It - is also strange that Socrates employs - the comparison of the lower animals to show that the women are to have the same - occupations as the men, considering that animals have no households to manage. - Also Socrates' method of appointing the - magistrates is not a safe one. For he makes the same persons hold office always; - but this occasions rebellion even among people of no special distinction, much - more so then among high-spirited and warlike men. But it is clear that he is - compelled to make the same persons govern always, for the god-given admixture of - gold in the soul is not bestowed on some at one time and others at another time, - but is always in the same men, and - Socrates says that at the moment of birth some men receive an - admixture of gold and others of silver and those who are to be the Artisans and - Farmers an admixture of copper and iron. And again, although he deprives the Guardians of - happiness, he says that it is the duty of the law-giver to make the whole city - happy. But it is not possible for the whole to be happy unless most or all of - its parts, or some of them, possess happiness. For happiness is not a thing of - the same sortas being an even number: - that may belong to a whole but not to either of its parts, but happiness cannot - belong to the whole and not to its parts. But yet, if the Guardians are not - happy, what other class is? For clearly the Artisans and the general mass of the - vulgar classes are not.The Republic discussed by - Socrates therefore possesses these - difficulties and also others not smaller than these. - And almost the same holds - good of the Laws also, which was written later, so that it will - be advantageous to make some small examination of the constitution described in - that book as well. For in the Republic - Socrates has laid down details about - very few matters—regulations about community of wives and children and - about property, and the structure of the constitution (for the mass of - the population is divided into two parts, one forming the Farmer class and the - other the class that defends the state in war, and there is a third class drawn - from these latter that forms the council and governs the state), but - about the Farmers and the Artisans, whether they are excluded from government or - have some part in it, and whether these classes also are to possess arms and to - serve in war with the others or not, on these points - Socrates has made no decision, but though he - thinks that the women ought to serve in war with the Guardians and share the - same education, the rest of the discourse he has filled up with external topics, - and about the sort of education which it is proper for the Guardians to - have.The last clause, ‘and - about—to have,’ has almost certainly been misplaced by a - copyist, and should come near the beginning of the sentence, after - ‘about property.’ -

-
-
-

- - But though the - Laws consists for the most part of a treatise on law, the - author has said a little about the form of the constitution, and in a desire to - make this more suitable for adoption by actual states he brings it round by - degrees back to the other form, that of the Republic. For except - community in wives and property, he assigns all his other regulations in the - same form to both states, for he prescribes for both the same scheme of - education, and a life detached from menial tasks, and similarly as regards - common meals, except that in the state described in the Laws he - says there are to be common meals for women also, and he makes the Republic - consist of a class possessing arms that numbers a thousand, but the state of the - Laws has five thousand. - Now it is true that all the - discourses of Socrates possess brilliance, cleverness, originality and keenness - of inquiry, but it is no doubt difficult to be right about everything: for - instance with regard to the size of population just mentioned it must not be - over-looked that a territory as large as that of Babylon will be needed for so many inhabitants, or some other - country of unlimited extent, to support five thousand men in idleness and - another swarm of women and servants around them many times as numerous. It is - proper no doubt to assume ideal conditions, but not to go beyond all bounds of - possibility. And it is said that in - laying down the laws the legislator must have his attention fixed on two - things,the territory and the - population. But also it would be well to add that he must take into account the - neighboring regions also, if the city is to live a life of politicsi.e. a life of intercourse with other states, - cf. 1327b 5. Some mss. add ‘not one of isolation’; this - looks like an explanatory note interpolated. (for it is - necessary for it to use for war not only such arms as are serviceable within its - own territory but also such as are serviceable against places outside - it); and if one does not accept such a description whether for the life - of the individual or for the common life of the state, yet it is none the less - necessary for the citizens to be formidable to their enemies not only when they - have entered the country but also when they have left it.Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give ‘when - they are away from it.’ - Also the amount of property requires - consideration: would it not perhaps be better to define it differently, by a - clearer formula? The writer says that it ought to be sufficiently large for the - citizens ‘to live a temperate life’—as if one were - to say ‘to live a good life’; but really that phrase is too - general, since it is possible to live temperately yet miserably. But a better - definition would be ‘to live temperately and liberally’ - (for if the two are separated a liberal mode of life is liable to slip - into luxury and a temperate one into a life of hardship), since surely - these are the only desirable qualities relating to the use of - wealth—for instance you cannot use wealth gently or bravely, but you - can use it temperately and liberally, so that it follows that these are - qualities that have to do with wealth. And it is also strange that although equalizing properties - the writer does not regulate the number of the citizens, but leaves the - birth-rate uncontrolled, on the assumption that it will be sufficiently levelled - up to the same total owing to childless marriages, however many children are - begotten,

-
-
-

- because this seems to take place in the states at present. But - this ought to be regulated much more in the supposed case than it is now, for - now nobody is destitute, because estates are divided among any number, but then, - as division of estates will not be allowed, the extra children will necessarily - have nothing, whether they are fewer in number or more. And one might think that restriction ought to be - put on the birth-rate rather than on property, so as not to allow more than a - certain number of children to be produced, and that in fixing their number - consideration should be paid to the chances of its happening that some of the - children born may die, and to the absence of children in the other marriages; - but for the matter to be left alone, as it is in most states, is bound to lead - to poverty among the citizens, and poverty produces sedition and crime. The - Corinthian PhidonOtherwise unknown. - in fact, one of the most ancient lawgivers, thought that the house-holds and the - citizen population ought to remain at the same numbers, even though at the - outset the estates of all were unequal in size; but in Plato's - Laws the opposite is the case.i.e. the estates are equal, and the number of households - fixed, but not the number of citizens. However, we must say later - what we think would be a better system in these matters; but another question omitted in the - Laws is how the rulers will be different from the classes - ruled; the writer prescribesthat the - rulers are to stand in the same relation to the ruled as the warp of cloth - stands to the woof by being made of different wool. - Plat. Laws 734e ff. In - weaving cloth the warp (the threads set up first) must be - of strong wool, the woof (the threads woven across the - warp) must be softer. And inasmuch as he allows a man's - total property to be increased up to five times its original value, for what - reason should not an increase in his landed estate be allowed up to a certain - point? Also it must be considered whether the proposed separation of homesteads - is not inexpedient for household economy—for the writer allotted two - homesteads separate from one another to each citizen; but it is difficult to - manage two households.The object was to - provide a separate establishment for a married son, Plat. Laws 776a. - And the whole constitution is - intended, it is true, to be neither a democracy nor an oligarchy, but of the - form intermediate between them which is termed a republic, for the government is - constituted from the class that bears arms. If therefore he introduces this - constitution as the one most commonly existing of all forms of constitution in - the actual states, he has perhaps made a good proposal, but if he introduces it - as the next best to the first form of constitution, it is not a good proposal; - for very likely one might approve the Spartan constitution more highly, or - perhaps some other form nearer to an aristocracy. In fact some people assert that the best constitution must - be a combination of all the forms of constitution, and therefore praise the - constitution of Sparta (for - some people say that it consists of oligarchy, monarchy and democracy, meaning - that the kingship is monarchy and the rule of the ephors oligarchy, but that an - element of democracy is introduced by the rule of the ephors because the ephors - come from the common people; while others pronounce the ephorate a tyranny but - find an element of democracy in the public mess-tables and in the other - regulations of daily life).

-
-
-

- - In Plato's Laws on the other hand it is - stated that the best constitution must consist of a combination of democracy and - tyranny,Plato wrote - ‘monarchy,’ Plat. Laws - 693d (cf. here 3.13). which one might - refuse to count as constitutional governments at all, or else rank as the worst - of all constitutions. A better theory therefore is put forward by those who - intermingle a larger number of forms, for the constitution composed of a - combination of a larger number of forms is better. In the next place, the - constitution in the Laws proves as a matter of fact not to - contain any element of monarchy at all, but its factors are taken from oligarchy - and democracy, and for the most part it tends to incline towards oligarchy. This - appears from the regulations for the appointment of the magistrates; for their - selection by lot from a list previously elected by vote is a feature common to - both oligarchy and democracy, but the compulsion put upon the richer citizens to - attend the assembly and vote for magistrates or perform any other political - function, while the others are allowed to do as they like, is oligarchical, as - is the endeavor to secure that a majority of the magistrates shall be drawn from - the wealthy and that the highest offices shall be filled from the highest of the - classes assessed by wealth. But the - writer also makes the election of the council oligarchical for everybody is - compelled to elect, but from the first property-class, and then again an equal - number from the second class, and then from the members of the third class, - except that it was not to be compulsory for all to vote for those to be elected - from the members of the third or the fourth class, and to elect from the fourth - class was only compulsory for the members of the first and second classes; and - afterwards from those thus selected he says that they are to appointan equal number from each class. Thus those - who elect the members from the highest property classes will be more numerous - and better,i.e. a better ellective body - because representative of all classes. because some of the lower - orders will abstain from votingi.e. from - voting for the preliminary list from the third and fourth classes. as - it is not compulsory. Accordingly - that it is not proper to establish a constitution of this character from a blend - of democracy and monarchy appears clearly from these considerations, and from - what will be said later when our inquiry comes to deal with this class of - constitution; also the provision for the election of the rulers from among - candidates chosen at a preliminary election is dangerous, for if even a moderate - number of people choose to combine into a party, the elections will always go - according to their wish.Such are the points as to - the constitution in the Laws. - - There - are also certain other constitutional schemes, some drawn up by amateurs and - others by philosophers and statesmen, but all of them are nearer to those which - have been actually established and by which states are governed at present than - are both of those which have been considered; for nobody else has introduced the - innovation of community of children and women, nor that of public meals for the - women, but they start rather with the necessary reforms. For some persons think - that the right regulation of property is the most important; for the question of - property, they say, is universally the cause of party strife. Therefore the - Chalcedonian PhaleasOtherwise - unknown. was the first who introduced this expedient; for he says that the citizens' estates - ought to be equal

-
-
-

- and he thought that this would not be difficult to - secure at the outset for cities in process of foundation, while in those already - settled, although it would be a more irksome task, nevertheless a levelling - would most easily be effected by the rich giving dowries but not receiving them - and the poor receiving but not giving them. Plato when writing the - Laws thought that up to a certain point inequality ought to - be allowed, but that no citizen should be permitted to acquire more land than - would make his estate five times the size of the smallest, as has also been said - before. - But those who bring in legislation of this sort must also not - overlook this point, which is overlooked at present, that when regulating the - amount of property legislators ought also to regulate the size of the family; - for if the number of children becomes too large for the property, the law is - quite sure to be broken, and apart from the breach of the law it is a bad thing - that many citizens who were rich should become poor, for it is difficult for - such men not to be advocates of a new order. That a level standard of property affects the community of - the citizens in an important manner some men even in old times clearly have - recognized; for example there is the legislation of Solon, and other states have - a law prohibiting the acquisition of land to any amount that the individual may - desire; and similarly there is legislation to prevent the sale of estates, as at - Locri there is a lawthat a man shall not sell unless he can - prove that manifest misfortune has befallen him and also there is legislation to - preserve the old allotments, and the repeal of this restriction at Leucas made the Leucadian constitution - excessively democratic, for it came about that the offices were no longer filled - from the established property-qualifications. But it is possible that equality of estates may be - maintained, but their size may be either too large and promote luxury, or too - small, causing a penurious standard of living; it is clear therefore that it is - not enough for the lawgiver to make the estates equal, but he must aim at - securing a medium size. And again, even if one prescribed a moderate property - for all, it would be of no avail, since it is more needful to level men's - desires than their properties, and this can only be done by an adequate system - of education enforced by law. But - perhaps Phaleas would say that he himself actually prescribes this, as he - considers it fundamentally necessary for states to have equality in these two - things, property and education. But the nature of the education needs to be - defined: it is no use merely for it to be one and the same for all, for it is - possible for all to have one and the same education but for this to be of such a - nature as to make them desirous of getting more than their share of money or - honor or both; moreoverProbably the Greek should be altered to give - ‘because’ instead of - ‘moreover.’ civil strife is caused not only by - inequality of property but also by inequality of honors, though the two motives - operate in opposite ways—the masses are discontented if possessions - are unequally distributed,

-
-
-

- the upper classes if honors are equally - distributed, bringing it about that - Noble and base in equal honor stand. - Hom. Il. 9.319 - - - Nor do men do wrong for the sake of the bare necessities only, the sort - of wrongdoing for which Phaleas thinks that equality of substance is a - cure—preventing highway robbery by removing the motive of cold or - hunger; men also do wrong to gain pleasure and to satisfy desire. For if they - have a desire above the bare necessities of existence, they will transgress to - cure this desire; and moreover not because of desire only, but in order that - they may enjoy the pleasures that are not associated with pains. What remedy then is there for these three - classes of offenders? For the first class, a modest competence and work; for the - second, temperance; and as for the third sort, any people who desire pleasures - that depend on themselves would require no cure for their desires save that - which is derived from philosophy, for the other pleasures require the aid of - fellow-creatures. Since clearly the greatest transgressions spring from a desire - for superfluities, not for bare necessaries (for example, men do not - become tyrants in order to avoid shivering with cold, and accordingly high - honors are awarded to one who kills a tyrant, but not to one who kills a - thief); so that the method of the constitution of Phaleas is - efficacious only against the minor social disorders. Again, Phaleas desires to frame institutions for the most - part which will lead to a right state of affairs in the internal relations of - the citizens, but the legislator should also have regard to relations with the - neighboring peoples and with all foreign nations.It is essential therefore for the constitution to be framed - with a view to military strength, about which Phaleas has said nothing. And the - same is true also about property; for the citizens should not only possess - enough to meet their requirements in civic life, but also to encounter the - perils that face them from outside; hence they should possess neither so large - an amount of wealth that it will be coveted by their neighbors and by stronger - states while its possessors will be unable to repel their assailants, nor yet so - small an amount as not to be capable of sustaining a war even against equal and - similar states. Phaleas, it is - true, has laid down no rule at all, but the question must not be overlooked, - what amount of wealth is advantageous. Perhaps therefore the best limit to - prescribe is that it must not profit a stronger people to make war upon the - state because of its excessive wealth, but only just as it might do even if the - citizens had not got so much property. For example, when Autophradates was about - to lay siege to Atarneus,A stronghold on the coast of Asia Minor acquired by Eubulus, a - Bithynian banker, when the Persian empire was breaking up, middle 4th - century B.C.; Autophradates was a Persian general. Eubulus bade him - consider how long it would take him to capture the place, and then calculate - what his expenditure would be for that period, for he himself was willing for - the payment of a smaller sum than that to evacuate Atarneus at once; these words caused - Autophradates to ponder and led him to abandon the siege. Now equality of property among the citizens is - certainly one of the factors that contribute to the avoidance of party faction; - it is not however a particularly important one. For the upper classes may resent - it on the ground that their merits are not equal, owing to which we actually see - them often attacking the government and rebelling;

-
-
-

- and also the - baseness of human beings is a thing insatiable, and though at the first a dole - of only two obolsTwopence-halfpenny for a - seat in the theater at Athens - paid for citizens by the State after the time of Pericles. is enough, - yet when this has now become an established custom, they always want more, until - they get to an unlimited amount; for appetite is in its nature unlimited, and - the majority of mankind live for the satisfaction of appetite. The starting-point in such matters - therefore, rather than levelling estates, is to train those that are respectable - by nature so that they may not wish for excessive wealth, and to contrive that - the base may not be able to do so, and this is secured if they are inferior in - number and not unjustly treated. And also we cannot approve what Phaleas has - said about equality of property, for he makes the citizens equal in respect of - landed estate only, but wealth also consists in slaves and cattle and money, and - there is an abundance of property in the shape of what is called furniture; we - must therefore either seek to secure equality or some moderate regulation as - regards all these things, or we must permit all forms of wealth. And it is clear from Phaleas's legislation - that he makes the citizen-population a small one, inasmuch as all the artisans - are to be publicly owned slaves and are not to furnish any complement of the - citizen-body. But if it is proper to have public slaves, the laborers employed - upon the public works ought to be of that status (as is the case at - Epidamnus and as Diophantus once - tried to institute at Athens).These remarks - may serve fairly well to indicate such meritsand defects as may be contained in the constitution of - Phaleas. - HippodamusA famous - architect and town-planner (see 1330b 24) circa 475 B.C. son of Euryphon, a Milesian - (who invented the division of cities into blocks and cut up Piraeus, and who also became somewhat - eccentric in his general mode of life owing to a desire for distinction, so that - some people thought that he lived too fussily, with a quantity of hairAt Sparta men wore their hair long, but at Athens this was the mark of a - dandy. and expensive ornaments, and also a quantity of cheap yet warm - clothes not only in winter but also in the summer periods, and who wished to be - a man of learning in natural science generally), was the first man not - engaged in politics who attempted to speak on the subject of the best form of - constitution. His system was for a - city with a population of ten thousand, divided into three classes; for he made - one class of artisans, one of farmers, and the third the class that fought for - the state in war and was the armed class. He divided the land into three parts, - one sacred, one public and one private: sacred land to supply the customary - offerings to the gods, common land to provide the warrior class with food, and - private land to be owned by the farmers. He thought that there are only three - divisions of the law, since the matters about which lawsuits take place are - three in number—outrage, damage, homicide. He also proposed to establish one supreme court of - justice, to which were to be carried up all the cases at law thought to have - been decided wrongly, and this court he made to consist of certain selected - elders.

-
-
-

- He held that the verdicts in the courts ought not to be given - by ballot, but that each juryman should bring a tablet on which if he found a - simple verdict of guilty he should write the penalty, and if simply not guilty - leave a blank, but if he found the prisoner guilty on some counts but not on - others he should state this; for the present state of the law he thought - unsatisfactory, since it forces jurors to commit perjury by giving either the - one verdict or the other. He - proposed a law that those who discovered something of advantage to the state - should receive honor, and that the children of those who died in war should have - their maintenance from the state, in the belief that this had never yet been - provided by law among other people—but as a matter of fact this law - exists at present both at Athens and - in others of the cities. The governing officials were all to be chosen by the - assembly of the people, and this he made to consist of the three classes of the - city; and the officials elected were to superintend the business of the - community and the affairs of foreign residents and of orphans. These then are - the greatest number and the most noteworthy of the provisions in the system of - Hippodamus. But doubt might be - raised first of all about the division of the general mass of the citizens. The - artisans, the farmers and the military class all participate in the government, - though the farmers have not got arms and the artisans neither arms nor - land,which makes them almost the - slaves of those who possess the arms. Therefore for them to share in all the - offices is impossible (for it is inevitable that both military - commanders and civic guards and in general the most important offices should be - appointed from those that have the arms); but if they do not share in - the government of the state, how is it possible for them to be friendly towards - the constitution? But it may be said - that the ruling class as possessing the arms is bound to be stronger than both - classes. But this is not easy if they are not numerous and if this be the case, - why should the other classes participate in the government and control the - appointment of the rulers?As military posts - must be filled by the military class, the civilians will feel excluded and - be disaffected; and the military class may not be strong enough to control - them. Better, then, not to give full citizenship to civilians. Again, - what use are the farmers to the state? artisans there must necessarily be - (for every state requires artisans), and they can make a - living as in the other states from the practice of their craft; but as for the - farmers, although it would have been reasonable for them to be a portion of the - state if they provided the class possessing the arms with its food, as it is - they have private land of their own and farm it for themselves. And again, if the common land from which - those who fight for the state are to have their food is to be farmed by - themselves, the military class would not be different from the agricultural, but - the legislator intends it to be; while if the cultivators of the common land are - to be a different set of people from both those who cultivate the private farms - and the soldiers, this will be yet a forth section of the state, holding no part - in it but quite estranged from the government. But yet if one is to make those - who cultivate the private and the common land the same people, the amount of the - produce from the farms which each man will cultivate will be scanty for two - households,

-
-
-

- 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 minaeThe mina, 100 drachmas, may be put at 4 pounds - (gold). 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 jurorwho - 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,

-
-
-

- as for example at Cyme there is - a law relating to trials for murder, that if the prosecutor on the charge of - murder produces a certain number of his own relatives as witnesses, the - defendant is guilty of the murder. And in general all men really seek what is - good, not what was customary with their forefathers; and it is probable that - primitive mankind, whether sprung from the earthSo Hes. WD 108, Pind. N. 6.1. or the survivors of some - destructive cataclysm,So Plat. Laws 676 ff., Plat. Tim. 22 ff. Aristotle believed that man had existed for - ever, and that the world had experienced only local cataclysms. were - just like ordinary foolish people, as indeed is actually said of the earth-born - race, so that it is odd that we should abide by their notions. Moreover even - written codes of law may with advantage not be left unaltered. For just as in - the other arts as well, so with the structure of the state it is impossible that - it should have been framed aright in all its details; for it must of necessity - be couched in general terms, but our actions deal with particular things. These - considerations therefore make it clear that it is proper for some laws sometimes - to be altered. But if we consider - the matter in another way, it would seem to be a thing that needs much caution. - For when it is the case that the improvement would be small, but it is a bad - thing to accustom men to repeal the laws lightly, it is clear that some mistakes - both of the legislator and of the magistrate should be passed over; for the - people will not be as much benefited by making an alteration as they will be - harmed by becoming accustomed to distrust their rulers. Also, the example from the case of the arts is a - mistake,as to change the practice - of an art is a different thing from altering a law; for the law has no power to - compel obedience beside the force of custom, and custom only grows up in long - lapse of time, so that lightly to change from the existing laws to other new - laws is to weaken the power of the law. Again, even if alteration of the laws is - proper, are all the laws to be open to alteration, and in every form of - constitution, or not? and is any chance person to be competent to introduce - alterations or only certain people? for there is a great difference between - these alternatives. Therefore let us abandon this inquiry for the present, since - it belongs to other occasions. - On the subject of the constitution of - Sparta and that of Crete, and virtually in regard to the other - forms of constitution also, the questions that arise for consideration are two, - one whether their legal structure has any feature that is admirable or the - reverse in comparison with the best system, another whether it contains any - provision that is really opposed to the fundamental principle and character of - the constitution that the founders had in view. - Now it is a thing admitted - that a state that is to be well governed must be provided with leisure from - menial occupations; but how this is to be provided it is not easy to ascertain. - The serf class in Thessaly repeatedly - rose against its masters, and so did the Helots at Sparta, where they are like an enemy - constantly sitting in wait for the disasters of the Spartiates. Nothing of the kind has hitherto occurred - in Crete, the reason perhaps being that - the neighboring cities,

-
-
-

- even when at war with one another, in no instance - ally themselves with the rebels, because as they themselves also possess a serf - class this would not be for their interest; whereas the Laconians were entirely - surrounded by hostile neighbors, Argives, Messenians and Arcadians. For with the - Thessalians too the serf risings originally began because they were still at war - with their neighbors, the Achaeans, Perraebi and Magnesians. Also, apart from other drawbacks, the mere - necessity of policing a serf class is an irksome burden—the problem of - how intercourse with them is to be carried on: if allowed freedom they grow - insolent and claim equal rights with their masters, and if made to live a hard - life they plot against them and hate them. It is clear therefore that those - whose helot-system works out in this way do not discover the best mode of - treating the problem. Again, the - freedom in regard to women is detrimental both in regard to the purpose of the - constitution and in regard to the happiness of the state. For just as man and - wife are part of a household, it is clear that the state also is divided nearly - in half into its male and female population, so that in all constitutions in - which the position of the women is badly regulated one half of the state must be - deemed to have been neglected in framing the law. And this has taken place in - the state under consideration,for the - lawgiver wishing the whole city to be of strong character displays his intention - clearly in relation to the men, but in the case of the women has entirely - neglected the matter; for they live dissolutelyThe textual emendation giving ‘live without - restraint’ is probably correct. in respect of every sort of - dissoluteness, and luxuriously. So - that the inevitable result is that in a state thus constituted wealth is held in - honor, especially if it is the case that the people are under the sway of their - women, as most of the military and warlike races are, except the Celts and such - other races as have openly held in honor passionate friendship between males. - For it appears that the original teller of the legend had good reason for - uniting Ares with Aphrodite, for all men of martial spirit appear to be - attracted to the companionship either of male associates or of women. Hence this characteristic existed among the - Spartans, and in the time of their empire many things were controlled by the - women; yet what difference does it make whether the women rule or the rulers are - ruled by the women? The result is the same. And although bravery is of service - for none of the regular duties of life, but if at all, in war, even in this - respect the Spartans' women were most harmful; and they showed this at the time - of the Theban invasion,Under Epaminondas, - 369 B.C. for they rendered no useful - service, as the women do in other states, while they caused more confusion than - the enemy. It is true therefore that - at the outset the freedom allowed to women at Sparta seems to have come about with good reason,

-
-
-

- for the - Spartans used to be away in exile abroad for long periods on account of their - military expeditions, both when fighting the war against the Argives and again - during the war against the Arcadians and Messenians; but when they had turned to - peaceful pursuits, although they handed over themselves to the lawgiver already - prepared for obedience by military life (for this has many elements of - virtue), as for the women it is said that Lycurgus did attempt to bring - them under the laws, but since they resisted he gave it up. So the Spartan women are, it is true, responsible - for what took place, and therefore manifestly for this mistake among the rest; - although for our own part we are not considering the question who deserves - excuse or does not, but what is the right or wrong mode of action. But, as was - also said before, errors as regards the status of women seem not only to cause a - certain unseemliness in the actual conduct of the state but to contribute in - some degree to undue love of money. For next to the things just spoken of one might censure the Spartan - institutions with respect to the unequal distribution of wealth. It has come - about that some of the Spartans own too much property and some extremely little; - owing to which the land has fallen into few hands, and this has also been badly - regulated by the laws;for the - lawgiver made it dishonorable to sell a family's existing estate, and did so - rightly, but he granted liberty to alienate land at will by gift or bequest; yet - the result that has happened was bound to follow in the one case as well as in - the other. And also nearly - two-fifths of the whole area of the country is owned by women, because of the - number of women who inherit estates and the practice of giving large dowries; - yet it would have been better if dowries had been prohibited by law or limited - to a small or moderate amount . . .A clause - seems to have been lost: ‘Also it would have been better to - regulate by law the marriage of heiresses.’ But as it is he - is allowed to give an heiress in marriage to whomever he likes; and if he dies - without having made directions as to this by will, whoever he leaves as his - executor bestows her upon whom he chooses. As a result of thisi.e. the consequent fall in the number of men - rich enough to keep a horse or even to provide themselves with heavy - arms. although the country is capable of supporting fifteen hundred - cavalry and thirty thousand heavy-armed troopers, they numbered not even a - thousand. And the defective nature - of their system of land-tenure has been proved by the actual facts of history: - the state did not succeed in enduring a single blow,The battle of Leuctra, 371 - B.C. but perished owing to the smallness of its population. They have - a tradition that in the earlier reigns they used to admit foreigners to their - citizenship, with the result that dearth of population did not occur in those - days, although they were at war for a long period; and it is stated that at one - time the Spartiates numbered as many as ten thousand. However, whether this is - true or not, it is better for a state's male population to be kept up by - measures to equalize property. The - law in relation to parentage is also somewhat adverse to the correction of this - evil.

-
-
-

- For the lawgiver desiring to make the Spartiates as numerous as - possible holds out inducements to the citizens to have as many children as - possible: for they have a law releasing the man who has been father of three - sons from military service, and exempting the father of four from all taxes. Yet - it is clear that if a number of sons are born and the land is correspondingly - divided there will inevitably come to be many poor men. - Moreover the - regulations for the EphorateThe five Ephors, - elected for a year by the people, were the real rulers of Sparta. The two kings were hereditary; - the senate of twenty-eight nobles advised them, and the Ephors presided at - the Assembly of citizens over thirty years old, who voted on the measures of - the Kings and Ephors but could not discuss them. The small fleet was - commanded by a single admiral appointed for a year by the Ephors and not - allowed to hold office twice. are also bad. For this office has - absolute control over their most important affairs, but the Ephors are appointed - from the entire people, so that quite poor men often happen to get into the - office, who owing to their poverty used to bePerhaps the Greek should be altered to give - ‘are.’ easily bought. This was often manifested - in earlier times, and also lately in the affairUnknown at Andros; for certain Ephors were corrupted with money and so far - as lay in their power ruined the whole state. And because the office was too - powerful, and equal to a tyranny, the kings also were compelled to cultivate - popular favor, so that in this way too the constitution was jointly injured, for - out of an aristocracy came to be evolved a democracy. Thus this office does, it is true, hold together the - constitution—for the common people keep quiet because they have a - share in the highest office of state, so that whether this is due to the - lawgiver orhas come about by chance, - the Ephorate is advantageous for the conduct of affairs; for if a constitution - is to be preserved, all the sections of the state must wish it to exist and to - continue on the same lines; so the kings are in this frame of mind owing to - their own honorable rank, the nobility owing to the office of the Elders, which - is a prize of virtue, and the common people because of the Ephorate, which is - appointed from the whole population—but yet the Ephorate, though rightly open to all the - citizens, ought not to be elected as it is now, for the method is too - childish.There is no clear evidence what - the method was. And further the Ephors have jurisdiction in lawsuits - of high importance, although they are any chance people, so that it would be - better if they did not decide cases on their own judgement but by written rules - and according to the laws. Also the mode of life of the Ephors is not in - conformity with the aim of the state, for it is itself too luxurious, whereas in - the case of the other citizens the prescribed life goes too far in the direction - of harshness, so that they are unable to endure it, and secretly desert the law - and enjoy the pleasures of the body. Also their regulations for the office of the Elders are not good; it is true - that if these were persons of a high class who had been adequately trained in - manly valor, one might perhaps say that the institution was advantageous to the - state, although their life-tenure of the judgeship in important trials is indeed - a questionable feature (for there is old age of mind as well as of - body);

-
-
-

- but as their education has been on such lines that - even the lawgiver himself cannot trust in them as men of virtue, it is a - dangerous institution. And it is - known that those who have been admitted to this office take bribes and betray - many of the public interests by favoritism; so that it would be better if they - were not exempt from having to render an account of their office, but at present - they are. And it might be held that the magistracy of the Ephors serves to hold - all the offices to account; but this gives altogether too much to the Ephorate, - and it is not the way in which, as we maintain, officials ought to be called to - account. Again, the procedure in the election of the Elders as a mode of - selection is not only childish, but it is wrong that one who is to be the holder - of this honorable office should canvass for it, for the man worthy of the office - ought to hold it whether he wants to or not. But as it is the lawgiver clearly does the same here as in - the rest of the constitution: he makes the citizens ambitious and has used this - for the election of the Elders, for nobody would ask for office if he were not - ambitious; yet surely ambition and love of money are the motives that bring - about almost the greatest part of the voluntary wrongdoing that takes place - among mankind. As to monarchy, the - question whether it is not or is an advantageous institution for states to - possessmay be left to another - discussion; but at all events it would be advantageous that kings should not be - appointed as they are now, but chosen in each case with regard to their own life - and conduct. But it is clear that even the lawgiver himself does not suppose - that he can make the kings men of high character: at all events he distrusts - them as not being persons of sufficient worth owing to which the Spartans used - to send kings who were enemies as colleagues on embassies, and thought that the - safety of the state depended on division between the kings. Also the regulations for the the public mess-tables - called Phiditia have been badly laid down by their originator. The revenue for - these ought to come rather from public funds, as in Crete; but among the Spartans everybody has to contribute, - although some of them are very poor and unable to find money for this charge, so - that the result is the opposite of what the lawgiver purposed. For he intends - the organization of the common tables to be democratic, but when regulated by - the law in this manner it works out as by no means democratic; for it is not - easy for the very poor to participate, yet their ancestral regulation of the - citizenship is that it is not to belong to one who is unable to pay this tax. - The law about the Admirals has - been criticized by some other writers also, and rightly criticized; for it acts - as a cause of sedition, since in addition to the kings who are military - commanders the office of Admiral stands almost as another kingship. Another - criticism that may be made against the fundamental principle of the lawgiver -

-
-
-

- is one that Plato has made in the Laws. The - entire system of the laws is directed towards one part of virtue only, military - valor, because this is serviceable for conquest. Owing to this they remained - secure while at war, but began to decline when they had won an empire, because - they did not know how to live a life of leisure, and had been trained in no - other form of training more important than the art of war. And another error no less serious than that one is - this: they think that the coveted prizes of life are won by valor more than by - cowardice, and in this they are right, yet they imagine wrongly that these - prizes are worth more than the valor that wins them. The public finance of - Sparta is also badly regulated: - when compelled to carry on wars on a large scale she has nothing in the state - treasury, and the Spartiates pay war taxes badly because, as most of the land is - owned by them, they do not scrutinize each other's contributions. And the - lawgiver has achieved the opposite result to what is advantageous—he - has made the state poor and the individual citizen covetous.So much for a discussion of the constitution of Sparta: for these are the main points in it - for criticism. - - The Cretan - constitution approximates to that of Sparta, but though in a few points it is not worse framed, for - the larger part it has a less perfect finish. For the Spartan constitution - appears and indeed is actually statede.g. by - Hdt 1.65. to have been copied in most of its provisions from the - Cretan; and as a rule old things have been less fully elaborated than newer - ones. For it is said that when Lycurgus relinquished his post as guardian of - King CharilausPosthumous son of Lycurgus's - elder brother King Polydectes; cf.1316a 34. and went abroad, he - subsequently passed most of his time in Crete because of the relationship between the Cretans and the - Spartans; for the Lyctians - Lyctus was an inland city in the east - of Crete, not far from Cnossus. were colonists from - Sparta, and the settlers that - went out to the colony found the system of laws already existing among the - previous inhabitants of the place; owing to which the neighboring villagers even - now use these laws in the same manner, in the belief that MinosLegendary ruler of Crete, son of Zeus and Europa, and after - death a judge in the lower world. first instituted this code of laws. - And also the island appears to - have been designed by nature and to be well situated to be under Greek rule, as - it lies across the whole of the sea, round which almost all the Greeks are - settled; for Crete is only a short - distance from the Peloponnese in one - direction, and from the part of Asia - around Triopium and from Rhodes in the - other. Owing to this Minos won the empire of the sea,See Thuc. 1.4, 8. The tradition of - the wealth of Minos is supported by the recent excavations at Cnossus. and made some of the - islands subject to him and settled colonies in others, but finally when making - an attack on Sicily he ended his life - there near Camicus. - The Cretan organization is on the same lines as that of - Sparta. In Sparta the land is tilled by the Helots and - in Crete by the serfs;

-
-
-

- and also - both have public mess-tables, and in old days the Spartans called them not - ‘phiditia’ but ‘men's messes,’ as the - Cretans do, which is a proof that they came from Crete. And so also did the system of government; for the Ephors - have the same power as the magistrates called Cosmi in Crete, except that the Ephors are five in - number and the Cosmi ten; and the Elders at Sparta are equal in number to the Elders whom the Cretans call - the Council; and monarchy existed in former times, but then the Cretans - abolished it, and the Cosmi hold the leadership in war; and all are members of the Assembly, though it has - no powers except the function of confirming by vote the resolutions already - formed by the Elders and the Cosmi.Now the Cretan - arrangements for the public mess-tables are better than the Spartan; for at - Sparta each citizen pays a fixed - poll-tax, failing which he is prevented by law from taking part in the - government, as has been said before; but in Crete the system is more communal, for out of all the crops and - cattle produced from the public lands, and the tributes paid by the serfs, one - part is assigned for the worship of the gods and the maintenance of the public - services,and the other for the - public mess-tables, so that all the citizens are maintained from the common - funds, women and children as well as men; and the lawgiver has devised many wise measures to secure - the benefit of moderation at table, and the segregation of the women in order - that they may not bear many children, for which purpose he instituted - association with the male sex, as to which there will be another occasionThis promise is not fulfilled to - consider whether it was a bad thing or a good one. That the regulations for the - common mess-tables therefore are better in Crete than at Sparta is manifest; but the regulations for the Cosmi are even - worse than those regarding the Ephors. For the evil attaching to the office of - the Ephors belongs to the Cosmi also, as the post is filled by any chance - persons, while the benefit conferred on the government by this office at - Sparta is lacking in Crete. At Sparta, as the election is made from all the citizens, the - common people sharing in the highest office desire the maintenance of the - constitution, but in Crete they do not - elect the Cosmi from all the citizens but from certain clans, and the Elders - from those who have held the office of Cosmos, about which regulations the same comments might be made as - about what takes place at Sparta: - their freedom from being called to account and their tenure for life gives them - greater rank than their merit deserves, and their administration of their office - at their own discretion and not under the guidance of a written code is - dangerous. And the fact that the common people quietly tolerate their exclusion - is no proof that the arrangement is a sound one; for the Cosmi unlike the Ephors - make no sort of profit,

-
-
-

- as they live in an island remote from any people to - corrupt them. Also the remedy which they employ for this defecti.e. the defect of the undue restriction of - the office. is a curious one, and less characteristic of a republic - than of a dynastySee 1292b 10 n.: - often the Cosmi are expelled by - a conspiracy formed among some of their actual colleagues or the private - citizens. Also the Cosmi are allowed to resign during their term of office. Now - it would be preferable for all these expedients to be put in force by law rather - than at the discretion of individuals, for that is a dangerous principle. And - the worst expedient of all is that of the suspension of the office of Cosmi, - which is often brought about by members of the powerful class who wish to escape - being punished; this proves that the constitution has a republican element, - although it is not actually a republic but rather a dynasty.See 1292b 10 n. And the nobles frequently form parties - among the common people and among their friends and so bring about a suspension - of government,The MSS. give ‘bring - about a monarchy.’ and form factions and engage in war with - one another. Yet such a state of - things is virtually the same as if for a period of time the state underwent an - entire revolution, and the bonds of civil society were loosened.And it is a precarious position for a state to be in, - when those who wish to attack it also have the power to do so. But, as has been - said, it is saved by its locality; for distance has had the same effect as - alien-acts.Aliens required special - permission to reside at Sparta, - and the ephors had powers to expel them for undesirable conduct. A - result of this is that with the Cretans the serf population stands firm, whereas - the Helots often revolt; for the Cretanstake no part in foreign empire, and also the island has only - lately been invaded by warfare from abroad, rendering manifest the weakness of - the legal system there.Let this suffice for our - discussion of this form of constitution. - - Carthage also appears to have a good - constitution, with many outstanding features as compared with those of other - nations, but most nearly resembling the Spartan in some points. For these three - constitutions are in a way near to one another and are widely different from the - others—the Cretan, the Spartan and, thirdly, that of Carthage. Many regulations at Carthage are good; and a proof of a - well-regulated constitution is that the populace willingly remain faithful to - the constitutional system, and that neither civil strife has arisen in any - degree worth mentioning, nor yet a tyrant. - Points in which the - Carthaginian constitution resembles the Spartan are the common mess-tables of - its Comradeships corresponding to the Phiditia, and the magistracy of the - Hundred and Four corresponding to the Ephors (except one point of - superiority—the Ephors are drawn from any class, but the Carthaginians - elect this magistracy by merit); the kings and the council of Elders - correspond to the kings and Elders at Sparta, and it is another superior feature that the - Carthaginian kings are not confined to the same family and that one of no - particular distinction, and also that if any family distinguishes itself . . - .Clauses seem to have been lost - concluding the account of the appointment of the Kings and turning to the - Elders and their selection on grounds of wealth. the Elders are to be - chosen from these rather than by age; for as they are put in control of - important matters, if they are men of no value they do great harm,

-
-
-

- and they - have already injured the Spartan State. - Most of the points - therefore in the Carthaginian system that would be criticized on the ground of - their divergences happen to be common to all the constitutions of which we have - spoken; but the features open to criticism as judged by the principle of an - aristocracy or republic are some of them departures in the direction of - democracy and others in the direction of oligarchy. The reference of some - matters and not of others to the popular assembly rests with the kings in - consultation with the Elders in case they agreei.e. agree to refer or not to refer unanimously, but - failing that, these matters also lie with the peoplei.e. even when the Kings only or the Elders only desire - reference, it takes place; and when the kings introduce business in - the assembly, they do not merely let the people sit and listen to the decisions - that have been taken by their rulers, but the people have the sovereign - decision, and anybody who wishes may speak against the proposals introduced, a - right that does not exist under the other constitutions. The appointment by co-optation of the Boards of - Five which control many important matters, and the election by these boards of - the supreme magistracy of the Hundred, and also their longer tenure of authority - than that of any other officers (for they are in power after they have - gone out of office and before they have actually entered upon it) are - oligarchical features; their receiving no pay and not being chosen by lot and - other similar regulations must be set down as aristocratic, and so must the fact - that the members of the Boards are the judges in all lawsuits,instead of different suits being tried by different - courts as at Sparta. But the Carthaginian system diverges from - aristocracy in the direction of oligarchy most signally in respect of a certain - idea that is shared by the mass of mankind; they think that the rulers should be - chosen not only for their merit but also for their wealth, as it is not possible - for a poor man to govern well or to have leisure for his duties. If therefore - election by wealth is oligarchical and election by merit aristocratic, this will - be a third system exhibited in the organization of the constitution of - Carthage, for there elections - are made with an eye to these two qualifications, and especially elections to - the most important offices, those of the kings and of the generals. But it must be held that this divergence - from aristocracy is an error on the part of a lawgiver; for one of the most - important points to keep in view from the outset is that the best citizens may - be able to have leisure and may not have to engage in any unseemly occupation, - not only when in office but also when living in private life. And if it is - necessary to look to the question of means for the sake of leisure, it is a bad - thing that the greatest offices of state, the kingship and the generalship, - should be for sale. For this law makes wealth more honored than worth, and - renders the whole state avaricious; and whatever the holders of supreme power deem honorable, the opinion of the - other citizens also is certain to follow them, and a state in which virtue is - not held in the highest honor

-
-
-

- cannot be securely governed by an - aristocracy. And it is probable that those who purchase office will learn by - degrees to make a profit out of it, when they hold office for money spent; for - it would be odd if a man of small means but respectable should want to make a - profit but an inferior person when he has spent money to get elected should not - want to. Hence the persons who should be in office are those most capable of - holding office. And even if the lawgiver neglected to secure comfortable means - for respectable people, it would at all events be better that he should provide - for their leisure while in office. - And it might also be thought a bad thing - for the same person to hold several offices, which is considered a distinction - at Carthage. One man one job is - the best rule for efficiency, and the lawgiver ought to see that this may be - secured, and not appoint the same man to play the flute and make shoes. Hence - except in a small city it is more statesmanlike for a larger number to share in - the offices and more democratic, for it is fairer to all, as we said, and also - functions are performed better and more quickly when separate than by the same - people. This is clear in military and naval matters; for in both of these - departments command and subordination penetrate throughout almost the whole - body.i.e. everyone in command - (except the commander-in-chief) has someone of higher rank - over him. - - But - the constitution being oligarchical they best escape the dangers by being - wealthy, as they constantly send out a portion of the common people toappointments in the cities; by this means - they heal the social sore and make the constitution stable. However, this is the - achievement of fortune, whereas freedom from civil strife ought to be secured by - the lawgiver; but as it is, suppose some misfortune occurs and the multitude of - the subject class revolts, there is no remedy provided by the laws to restore - tranquillity.This then is the character of - the Spartan, Cretan and Carthaginian constitutions, which are justly - famous. - Of those that have put forward views about politics, some have - taken no part in any political activities whatever but have passed their whole - life as private citizens; and something has been said about almost all the - writers of this class about whom there is anything noteworthy. Some on the other - hand have been lawgivers, either for their native cities or even for certain - foreign peoples, after having themselves been actively engaged in government; - and of these some have been framers of laws only, and others of a constitution - also, for instance Solon and Lycurgus, who instituted both laws and - constitutions. The Spartan constitution has been discussed. As for Solon, he is considered by some people to - have been a good lawgiver, as having put an end to oligarchy when it was too - unqualified and having liberated the people from slavery and restored the - ancestral democracy with a skilful blending of the constitution: the Council on - the Areopagus being an oligarchic element, the elective magistracies - aristocratic and the law-courts democratic. And although really in regard to - certain of these features, the Council and the election of magistrates, -

-
-
-

- Solon seems merely to have abstained from destroying - institutions that existed already, he does appear to have founded the democracy - by constituting the jury-courts from all the citizens. For this he is actually blamed by some persons, as having - dissolved the power of the other parts of the community by making the law-court, - which was elected by lot, all-powerful. For as the law-court grew strong, men - courted favor with the people as with a tyrant, and so brought the constitution - to the present democracy; and Ephialtes and Pericles docked the power of the - Council on the Areopagus, while Pericles instituted payment for serving in the - law-courts, and in this manner finally the successive leaders of the people led - them on by growing stages to the present democracy. But this does not seem to - have come about in accordance with the intention of Solon, but rather as a - result of accident (for the - common people having been the cause of the naval victories at the time of the - Persian invasion became proud and adopted bad men as popular leaders when the - respectable classes opposed their policy); inasmuch as Solon for his - part appears to bestow only the minimum of power upon the people, the function - of electing the magistrates and of calling them to account (for if even - this were not under the control of the populace it would be a mere slave and a - foreign enemy), whereas he appointed all the offices from the notable - and the wealthy, the Five-hundred-bushel classand the Teamsters and a third property-class called the - Knighthood; while the fourth class, the Thetes, were admitted to no office.For Solon's classification of the citizens by - the annual income of their estates see Aristot. Ath. Pol. 7. - - Laws - were givenPerhaps 664 B.C. by Zaleucus to the Epizephyrian - Zephyrium, a promontory in S. Italy. Locrians and by - CharondasSee 1252b 14. of - Catana to his fellow-citizens - and to the other Chalcidic citiesColonies - from Chalcis in Euboea. on the coasts of Italy and - Sicily. Some persons try to connect - Zaleucus and Charondas together: they say that Onomacritus first arose as an - able lawgiver, and that he was trained in Crete, being a Locrian and travelling there to practise the art - of soothsaying, and Thales became his companion, and Lycurgus and Zaleucus were - pupils of Thales, and Charondas of Zaleucus; but these stories give too little - attention to the dates. Philolaus of - Corinth also arose as lawgiver - at Thebes. Philolaus belonged by - birth to the Bacchiad family; he became the lover of Diocles the winnerIn 728 B.C. - at Olympia, but when Diocles - quitted the city because of his loathing for the passion of his mother Alcyone, - he went away to Thebes, and there - they both ended their life. Even now people still show their tombs, in full view - of each other and one of them fully open to view in the direction of the - Corinthian country but the other one not; for the story goes that they arranged to be buried in this - manner, Diocles owing to his hatred for his misfortune securing that the land of - Corinth might not be visible - from his tomb, and Philolaus that it might be from his.

-
-
-

- It was due then to - a reason of this nature that they went to live at Thebes; but Philolaus became the Thebans' - lawgiver in regard to various matters, among others the size of - families,—the laws called by the Thebans laws of adoption; about this - Philolaus enacted special legislation, in order that the number of the estates - in land might be preserved. There is - nothing special in the code of Charondas except the trials for false witness - (for he was the first to introduce the procedure of - denunciation), but in the accuracy of his laws he is a more finished - workman even than the legislators of today. (Peculiar to PhaleasDealt with already in 4. is the measure - for equalizing properties; to Plato,Above, - 1-3 community of wives and children and of property, and the common - meals for the women, and also the law about drunkenness, enacting that sober - persons are to be masters of the drinking-bouts, and the regulation for military - training to make men ambidextrous during drill, on the ground that it is a - mistake to have one of the two hands useful but the other - useless.)There are laws - of Draco,Author of the first written code at - Athens, 621 B.C. (though in Aristot. Ath. Pol. 4, his legislation is hardly mentioned; he - appears there as the framer of the constitution). but he - legislated for an existing constitution, and there is nothing peculiar in his - laws that is worthy of mention, except their severity in imposing heavy - punishment. PittacusOf Mitylene in Lesbos, one of the Seven Sages, dictator 589-579 B.C. also was a framer - of laws, but not of a constitution; a special law of his is that if men commit - any offence when drunk,they are to - pay a larger fine than those who offend when sober; because since more men are - insolent when drunk than when sober he had regard not to the view that drunken - offenders are to be shown more mercy, but to expediency. AndrodamasOtherwise unknown. of Rhegium also became lawgiver to the - Chalcidians in the direction of Thrace, - Chalcidice, the peninsula in the N. - Aegean, was colonized from Chalcis in Euboea. and to him belong the laws dealing with cases of - murder and with heiresses; however one cannot mention any provision that is - peculiar to him.Let such be our examination of - the constitutional schemes actually in force and of those that have been - proposed by certain persons.

-
- - -
-

- - - For the student of government, and of nature and characteristics of the - various forms of constitution, almost the first question to consider is in - regard to the state: what exactly is the essential nature of a state? As it is, - this is a matter of dispute: a public act is spoken of by some people as the - action of the state, others speak of it as the action not of the state but of - the oligarchy or the tyrant in powerSo we - speak of an action planned and carried by the party in power as an Act of - Parliament, and technically as an act of the sovereign.; and we see - that the activity of the statesman and lawgiver is entirely concerned with a - state as its object, and a constitution is a form of organization of the - inhabitants of a state. But a state - is a composite thing, in the same sense as any other of the things that are - wholes but consist of many parts; it is therefore clear that we must first - inquire into the nature of a citizen; for a state is a collection of citizens, -

-
-
-

- so that we have to consider who is entitled to the name of - citizen, and what the essential nature of a citizen is. For there is often a - difference of opinion as to this: people do not all agree that the same person - is a citizen; often somebody who would be a citizen in a democracy is not a - citizen under an oligarchy. We need - not here consider those who acquire the title of citizen in some exceptional - manner, for example those who are citizens by adoption; and citizenship is not - constituted by domicile in a certain place (for resident aliens and - slaves share the domicile of citizens), nor are those citizens who - participate in a common system of justice, conferring the right to defend an - action and to bring one in the law-courts (for this right belongs also - to the parties under a commercial treaty, as they too can sue and be sued at - law,—or rather, in many places even the right of legal action is not - shared completely by resident aliens, but they are obliged to produce a patron, - so that they only share in a common legal procedure to an incomplete - degree), but these are only - citizens in the manner in which children who are as yet too young to have been - enrolled in the list and old men who have been dischargedThis seems to imply that aged citizens were excused - attendance at the assembly and law-courts, as well as military - service must be pronounced to be citizens in a sense, yet not quite - absolutely, but with the added qualification of ‘under age’ - in the case of the former and ‘superannuated’ or some other - similar term (it makes no difference, the meaning being clear) - in that of the latter. For we seek to define a citizen in the absolute sense, - and one possessing nodisqualification - of this nature that requires a correcting term, since similar difficulties may - also be raised, and solved, about citizens who have been disfranchised or - exiled. A citizen pure and simple is defined by nothing else so much as by the - right to participate in judicial functions and in office. But some offices of - government are definitely limited in regard to time, so that some of them are - not allowed to be held twice by the same person at all, or only after certain - fixed intervals of time; other officials are without limit of tenure, for - example the juryman and the member of the assembly. It might perhaps be said that such persons are not - officials at all, and that the exercise of these functions does not constitute - the holding of office;Or, amending the text, - ‘and yet that it is absurd to deny the title of citizen to - those—’ and yet it is absurd to deny the title of - official to those who have the greatest power in the state. But it need not make - any difference, as it is only the question of a name, since there is no common - name for a juryman and a member of the assembly that is properly applied to - both. For the sake of distinction therefore let us call the combination of the - two functions ‘office’ without limitation. Accordingly we - lay it down that those are citizens who participate in office in this - manner.Such more or less is the definition of - ‘citizen’ that would best fit with all of those to whom the - name is applied. But it must not be - forgotten that things in the case of which the things to which they are related - differ in kind, one of them being primary, another one secondary and so on, - either do not contain a common nature at all, as being what they are, or barely - do so.The meaning of this abstract principle - is most easily seen from its application here: if states are generically - different from one another, membership of a state, citizenship, can hardly - be a single thing, and come under a single definition. Now we see - that constitutions differ from one another in kind, and that some are subsequent - and others prior;

-
-
-

- for erroneous and divergent forms are necessarily - subsequent to correct forms (in what sense we employ the terms - ‘divergent’ of constitutions will appear later). - Hence the citizen corresponding to each form of constitution will also - necessarily be different. Therefore the definition of a citizen that we have - given applies especially to citizenship in a democracy; under other forms of - government it may hold good, but will not necessarily do so. For in some states there is no body of common - citizens, and they do not have the custom of a popular assembly but councils of - specially convened members, and the office of trying law-suits goes by - sections—for example at Sparta suits for breach of contract are tried by different - ephors in different cases, while cases of homicide are tried by the ephors and - doubtless other suits by some other magistrate. The same method is notThe negative is a conjectural insertion, cf. - 1273a 20. followed at Carthage, where certain magistrates judge all the law-suits. - But still, our definition of a - citizen admits of correction. For under the other forms of constitution a member - of the assembly and of a jury-court is not ‘an official’ - without restriction, but an official defined according to his office; either all - of them or some among them are assigned deliberative and judicial duties either - in all matters or in certain matters. What constitutes a citizen is therefore - clear from these considerations: we now declare that one who has the right to - participate in deliberative or judicial office is a citizen of the - statein which he has that right, - and a state is a collection of such persons sufficiently numerous, speaking - broadly, to secure independence of life. - But in practice citizenship - is limited to the child of citizens on both sides, not on one side only, that - is, the child of a citizen father or of a citizen mother; and other people carry - this requirement further back, for example to the second or the third preceding - generation or further. But given this as a practical and hasty definition, some - people raise the difficulty, How will that ancestor three or four generations - back have been a citizen? GorgiasSicilian - orator and nihilistic philosopher, visited Athens - 427 B.C. of Leontini therefore, partly - perhaps in genuine perplexity but partly in jest, said that just as the vessels - made by mortar-makers were mortars, so the citizens made by the magistrates were - Larisaeans, since some of the magistrates were actually larisa-makers. - Larisa, a city in Thessaly, was famous for the manufacture of a kind of - kettle called ‘larisa.’ But it is really a simple - matter; for if they possessed citizenship in the manner stated in our definition - of a citizen, they were citizens—since it is clearly impossible to - apply the qualification of descent from a citizen father or mother to the - original colonizers or founders of a city. - But perhaps a question - rather arises about those who were admitted to citizenship when a revolution had - taken place, for instance such a creation of citizens as that carried outIn 509 B.C. - at Athens by Cleisthenes after the - expulsion of the tyrants, when he enrolled in his tribes many resident aliens - who had been foreigners or slaves. The dispute as to these is not about the fact - of their citizenship, but whether they received it wrongly or rightly. Yet even - as to this one might raise the further question,

-
-
-

- whether, if a man - is not rightly a citizen, he is a citizen at all, as - ‘wrongly’ means the same as ‘not truly.’ - But we sometimes see officials governing wrongly, as to whom we shall not deny - that they do govern, but shall say that they do not do it rightly, and a citizen - is defined by a certain function of government (a citizen, as we said, - is one who shares in such and such an office); therefore it is clear - that even persons wrongly admitted to citizenship are to be pronounced to be - citizens, although the question whether they are so rightly or not rightly is - connected with the question that was propounded before.The question, What is a state? 1274b 34. For some - persons raise the question, When is an occurrence the act of the state and when - is it not? for example, when the government has been altered from oligarchy or - tyranny to democracy. In such circumstances some people claim that the new - government should not discharge public debts, on the ground that the money was - borrowed by the tyrant and not by the state, and should repudiate many other - similar claims also, because some forms of government rest upon force and are - not aimed at the welfare of the community. If therefore some democracies also are governed in that - manner, the acts of the authorities in their case can only be said to be the - acts of the state in the same sense as the public acts emanating from an - oligarchy or a tyranny are said to be. Akin to this controversy seems to be the - subject, What exactly is the principle on which we ought to pronounce a city to - be the same city as it was before, or not the same but a different city? The - most obvious mode of inquiring into this difficultydeals with place and people: the place and the people may have - been divided, and some may have settled in one place, and some in another. In - this form the question must be considered as easier of solution; for, as - ‘city’ has several meanings, the inquiry so put is in a way - not difficult.i.e. po/lis means both (1) - ‘city’ (and also - ‘citadel’) and (2) - ‘state,’ a collection of citizens; and if the citizens - divide and settle in two different ‘cities’ with - different governments, they are clearly not the same - ‘state’ as before. - But it may similarly be asked, - Suppose a set of men inhabit the same place, in what circumstances are we to - consider their city to be a single city? Its unity clearly does not depend on - the walls, for it would be possible to throw a single wall round the Peloponnesus; and a case in point perhaps is - Babylon, and any other city that - has the circuit of a nation rather than of a city; for it is said that when - Babylon was captured a considerable - part of the city was not aware of it three days later. But the consideration of - this difficulty will be serviceable for another occasion, as the student of - politics must not ignore the question, What is the most advantageous size for a - city, and should its population be of one race or of several? But are we to pronounce a city, where the - same population inhabit the same place, to be the same city so long as the - population are of the same race, in spite of the fact that all the time some are - dying and others being born, just as it is our custom to say that a river or a - spring is the same river or spring although one stream of water is always being - added to it and another being withdrawn from it, or are we to say that though - the people are the same people for the similar reason of continuity, yet the - city is a different city?

-
-
-

- For inasmuch as a state is a kind of partnership, - and is in fact a partnership of citizens in a government, when the form of the - government has been altered and is different it would appear to follow that the - state is no longer the same state, just as we say that a chorus which on one - occasion acts a comedy and on another a tragedy is a different chorus although - it is often composed of the same persons, and similarly with any other common whole or composite - structure we say it is different if the form of its structure is - different—for instance a musical tune consisting of the same notes we - call a different tune if at one time it is played in the Dorian mode and at - another in the Phrygian. Therefore if this is the case, it is clear that we must - speak of a state as being the same state chiefly with regard to its - constitution; and it is possible for it to be called by the same or by a - different designation both when its inhabitants are the same and when they are - entirely different persons. But whether a state is or is not bound in justice to - discharge its engagements when it has changed to a different constitution, is - another subject. - The next thing to consider after what has now been said is the - question whether we are to hold that the goodness of a good man is the same as - that of a good citizen, or not the same. However, if this point really is to - receive investigation, we must first ascertain in some general outline what - constitutes the excellence of a citizen.Now a citizen we pronounced to be one sort of partner in a - community, as is a sailor. And although sailors differ from each other in - function—one is an oarsman, another helmsman, another look-out man, - and another has some other similar special designation—and so clearly - the most exact definition of their excellence will be special to each, yet there - will also be a common definition of excellence that will apply alike to all of - them; for security in navigation is the business of them all, since each of the - sailors aims at that. Similarly - therefore with the citizens, although they are dissimilar from one another, - their business is the security of their community, and this community is the - constitution, so that the goodness of a citizen must necessarily be relative to - the constitution of the state. If therefore there are various forms of - constitution, it is clear that there cannot be one single goodness which is the - perfect goodness of the good citizen; but when we speak of a good man we mean - that he possesses one single goodness, perfect goodness. Hence it is manifestly - possible to be a good citizen without possessing the goodness that constitutes a - good man. Moreover it is also - feasible to pursue the same topic by raising the question in another manner in - relation to the best form of constitution. If it is impossiblePerhaps the Greek should be altered to give - ‘possible’. If we emend the text with Bernays to - ei) ga\r du/naton e)c a(pa/ntwn spoudai/wn o)/ntwn - ei)=nai po/lin, the sense is: assuming the possibility of a - perfect state, with all its factors the best of their kind, this means that - all the population will be good citizens, not that they will all be perfect - specimens of the human race, because the state needs citizens of the working - classes, etc., and these cannot in the nature of things be perfect human - beings for a state to consist entirely of good men, and if it is - necessary for each person to perform well the work of his position, and to do - this springs from goodness, then because it is impossible for all the citizens - to be alike,

-
-
-

- the goodness of a good citizen would not be one and the same as - the goodness of a good man; for all ought to possess the goodness of the good - citizen (that is a necessary condition of the state's being the best - possible), but it is impossible that all should possess the goodness of - a good man, if it is not necessary that all the citizens in a good state should - be good men. Again, since the state - consists of unlike persons—just as an animal (to take this - instance first) consists of soul and body, and a soul of reason and - appetite, and a household of husband and wife and [ownership - involves]These words in the - Greek are probably an interpolation. a master and slave, in the same - manner a state consists of all of these persons and also of others of different - classes in addition to these,—it necessarily follows that the goodness - of all the citizens is not one and the same, just as among dancers the skill of - a head dancer is not the same as that of a subordinate leader. It is clear then from these considerations - that the goodness of a good citizen and that of a good man are not the same in - general; but will the goodness of a good citizen of a particular sort be the - same as that of a good man? Now we say that a good ruler is virtuous and wise, - and that a citizen taking part in politics must be wise. Also some people say - that even the education of a ruler must be different, as indeed we see that the - sons of kings are educated in horsemanship and military exercises, and Euripides - saysFragment 16, from - Aeolus. - - No subtleties for me, but what the state - Requireth— - - implying that there is a - special education for a ruler. And - if the goodness of a good ruler is the same as the goodness of a good man, yet - the person ruled is also a citizen, so that the goodness of a citizen in general - will not be the same as that of a man, although that of a particular citizen - will; for goodness as a ruler is not the same as goodness as a citizen, and no - doubt this is the reason why JasonTyrant of - Pherae in Thessaly, assassinated - 370 B.C. said that when he was not - tyrant he went hungry, meaning that he did not know the art of being a private - person. Another point is that we - praise the ability to rule and to be ruled, and it is doubtless held that the - goodness of a citizen consists in ability both to rule and to be ruled well. If - then we lay it down that the goodness of the good man is displayed in ruling, - whereas that of the citizen is shown in both capacities, the two capacities - cannot be equally laudable. Since therefore both views are sometimes accepted, - and it is thought that the ruler and the subject do not have to learn the same - arts but that the citizen must know both arts and share in both capacities, . . - . .Some words seem to have been lost, - conveying ‘we must consider how this dual fitness can be - acquired,’ or possibly considerably more. But the text at the - beginning of the sentence is also corrupt. And it may be discerned - from the following illustration: one form of authority is that of a master; - by this we mean the exercise of - authority in regard to the necessary work of the house, which it is not - necessary for the master to know how to execute, but rather how to utilize; the - other capacity, I mean the ability actually to serve in these menial tasks, is - indeed a slave's quality. But we distinguish several kinds of slave, as their - employments are several. One department belongs to the handicraftsmen, who as - their name implies are the persons that live by their hands,

-
-
-

- a class - that includes the mechanic artisan. Hence in some states manual laborers were - not admitted to office in old times, before the development of extreme - democracy. The tasks of those who - are under this form of authority therefore it is not proper for the good man or - the man fit for citizenship or the good citizen to learn, except for his own - private use occasionally (for then it ceases to be a case of the one - party being master and the other slave). But there exists a form of - authority by which a man rules over persons of the same race as himself, and - free men (for that is how we describe political authority), - and this the ruler should learn by being ruled, just as a man should command - cavalry after having served as a trooper, command a regiment after having served - in a regiment and been in command of a company and of a platoon. Hence there is - much truth in the saying that it is impossible to become a good ruler without - having been a subject. And although - the goodness of a ruler and that of a subject are different, the good citizen - must have the knowledge and the ability both to be ruled and to rule, and the - merit of the good citizen consists in having a knowledge of the government of - free men on both sides. And therefore both these virtues are characteristic of a - good man, even if temperance and justice in a ruler are of a different kind from - temperance and justice in a subject; for clearly a good man's virtue, for - example his justice, will not be one and the same when he is under government - and when he is free, but it will be of different kinds,one fitting him to rule and one to be ruled, just - as temperance and courage are different in a man and in a woman (for a - man would be thought a coward if he were only as brave as a brave woman, and a - woman a chatterer if she were only as modest as a good man; since even the - household functions of a man and of a woman are different—his business - is to get and hers to keep). And practical wisdom alone of the virtues is a virtue - peculiar to a ruler; for the other virtues seem to be necessary alike for both - subjects and rulers to possess, but wisdom assuredly is not a subject's virtue, - but only right opinion: the subject corresponds to the man who makes flutes and - the ruler to the flute-player who uses them.The - question whether the goodness of a good man is the same as that of a good - citizen or different, and how they are the same and how different, is clear from - these considerations. - But one of the difficulties as to what constitutes a - citizen is still left. Is it truly the case that a citizen is a person who has - the right to share office in the government, or are the working classes also to - be counted citizens? If these persons also are to be counted who have no share - in offices, it is not possible for every citizen to possess the citizen's - virtue; for the true citizen is the man capable of governing.Or perhaps ‘for the working-man is a - citizen.’ ou(=tos ga\r poli/ths. - The translation takes poli/ths as subject - and ou(=tos as predicate (meaning - e)/xwn th\n toiau/thn a)reth/n, - possessing capacity to govern). But possibly the predicate is - poli/ths and the subject ou(=tos, which then stands for o( ba/nausos; if so, the whole sentence means - that if the non-official classes are citizens, not all the citizens will - possess civic virtue (which is capacity to govern), for - the working-man will be a citizen (and he is not capable of - governing). If on the other hand no one of the working - people is a citizen, in what class are the various workers to be ranked? for - they are neither resident aliens nor foreigners. Or shall we say that so far as - that argument goes no inconsistency results?

-
-
-

- for slaves also are not in one - of the classes mentioned, nor are freedmen. For it is true that not all the persons indispensable for - the existence of a state are to be deemed citizens, since even the sons of - citizens are not citizens in the same sense as the adults: the latter are - citizens in the full sense, the former only by presumptionOr, with Casaubon's probable correction of the Greek, - ‘only with a qualification.’—they are - citizens, but incomplete ones. In ancient times in fact the artisan class in - some states consisted of slaves or aliens, owing to which the great mass of - artisans are so even now; and the best-ordered state will not make an artisan a - citizen. While if even the artisan is a citizen, then what we said to be the - citizen's virtue must not be said to belong to every citizen, nor merely be - defined as the virtue of a free man, but will only belong to those who are - released from menial occupations. Among menial occupations those who render such services to an individual are - slaves, and those who do so for the community are artisans and hired laborers. - The state of the case about them will be manifest from what follows when we - consider it a little further[, for what has been said when made known - itself makes it clear].The - ill-expressed clause ‘for what—clear’ seems - almost certainly to be an interpolation. As there are several forms - of constitution, it follows that there are several kinds of citizen, and - especially of the citizen in a subject position; hence under one form of - constitution citizenship will necessarily extend to the artisan and the hired - laborer, while under other forms this is impossible, for instance in any - constitution that is of the form entitled aristocratic and in whichthe honors are bestowed according to - goodness and to merit, since a person living a life of manual toil or as a hired - laborer cannot practise the pursuits in which goodness is exercised. In oligarchies on the other hand, though it - is impossible for a hired laborer to be a citizen (since admission to - office of various grades is based on high property-assessments), it is - possible for an artisan; for even the general mass of the craftsmen are rich. At - Thebes there was a law that no - one who had not kept out of trade for the last ten years might be admitted to - office. But under many constitutions the law draws recruits even from - foreigners; for in some democracies the son of a citizen-mother is a citizen, - and the same rule holds good as - to base-born sons in many places. Nevertheless, inasmuch as such persons are - adopted as citizens owing to a lack of citizens of legitimate birth - (for legislation of this kind is resorted to because of - under-population), when a state becomes well off for numbers it - gradually divests itself first of the sons of a slave father or mother, then of - those whose mothers only were citizens, and finally only allows citizenship to - the children of citizens on both sides. These facts then show that there are various kinds of - citizen, and that a citizen in the fullest sense means the man who shares in the - honors of the state, as is implied in the verse of Homer - Hom. Il. 9.648, Hom. Il. 16.59 - : - Like to some alien settler without honor,— - since a native not admitted to a share in the public honors is like an - alien domiciled in the land. But in some places this exclusion is disguised, for - the purpose of deceiving those who are a part of the population.The MSS. give ‘But where such - exclusion is disguised, it (this concealment) is for the - purpose of deceiving’ etc. - The answer therefore to the question,

-
-
-

- Is the - goodness that makes a good man to be deemed the same as that which makes a - worthy citizen, or different? is now clear from what has been said in one form - of state the good man and the good citizen are the same, but in another they are - different, and also in the former case it is not every citizen but only the - statesman, the man who controls or is competent to control, singly or with - colleagues, the administration of the commonwealth, that is essentially also a - good man. - And since these points have been determined, the next question - to be considered is whether we are to lay it down that there is only one form of - constitution or several, and if several, what they are and how many and what are - the differences between them. Now a constitution is the ordering of a state in - respect of its various magistracies, and especially the magistracy that is - supreme over all matters. For the government is everywhere supreme over the - state and the constitution is the government. I mean that in democratic states - for example the people are supreme, but in oligarchies on the contrary the few - are; and we say that they have a different constitution. And we shall use the - same language about the other forms of government also. - We have therefore to - determine first the fundamental points, what is the object for which a state - exists and how many different kinds of system there are for governing mankind - and for controlling the common life.Now it has - been said in our first discourses,1253a 1 - ff. in which we determined the principles concerning household - management and the control of slaves, that man is by nature a political - animal;and so even when men have - no need of assistance from each other they none the less desire to live - together. At the same time they are - also brought together by common interest, so far as each achieves a share of the - good life. The good life then is the chief aim of society, both collectively for - all its members and individually; but they also come together and maintain the - political partnership for the sake of life merely, for doubtless there is some - element of value contained even in the mere state of being alive, provided that - there is not too great an excess on the side of the hardships of life, and it is - clear that the mass of mankind cling to life at the cost of enduring much - suffering, which shows that life contains some measure of well-being and of - sweetness in its essential nature. - And again, the several recognized varieties - of government can easily be defined; in fact we frequently discuss them in our - external discourses.Mentioned at 1323a 22 - (and also six times in other books); they are there - appealed to for the tripartite classification of foods which in Aristot. Nic. Eth.1098b 12 is - ascribed to ‘current opinion of long standing and generally - accepted by students of philosophy.’ The term may there predenote - doctrines not peculiar to the Peripatetic school. The authority of a - master over a slave, although in truth when both master and slave are designed - by nature for their positions their interests are the same, nevertheless governs - in the greater degree with a view to the interest of the master, but - incidentally with a view to that of the slave, for if the slave deteriorates the - position of the master cannot be saved from injury. Authority over children and wife [and over the - whole household, which we call the art of household managementAristotle can hardly have written this clause, - as it includes mastership over slaves.] is exercised either - in the interest of those ruled or for some common interest of both - parties,—essentially, in the interest of the ruled, as we see that the - other arts also,

-
-
-

- but they can best - excel in military valor, for this is found with numbers; and therefore with this - form of constitution the class that fights for the state in war is the most - powerful, and it is those who possess arms who are admitted to the - government.) Deviations - from the constitutions mentioned are tyranny corresponding to kingship, - oligarchy to aristocracy, and democracy to constitutional government; for - tyranny is monarchy ruling in the interest of the monarch, oligarchy government - in the interest of the rich, democracy government in the interest of the poor, - and none of these forms governs with regard to the profit of the - community.But it is necessary to say at a - little greater length what each of these constitutions is; for the question - involves certain difficulties, and it is the special mark of one who studies any - subject philosophically, and not solely with regard to its practical aspect, - that he does not overlook or omit any point, but brings to light the truth about - each. Now tyranny, as has been said, - is monarchy exerting despotic power over the political community; oligarchy is - when the control of the government is in the hands of those that own the - properties; democracy is when on the contrary it is in the hands of those that - do not possess much property, but are poor.A first difficulty is with regard to the definition. If the - majority of the citizens were wealthy and were in control of the state, yet when - the multitude is in power it is a democracy, and similarly, to take the other - case, if it were to occur somewhere that the poor were fewer than the rich but - were stronger than they and accordingly were in control of the government, yet - where a small number is in control it is said to be an oligarchy, then it would - seem that our definition of the forms of constitution was not a good one.i.e. it would be absurd to term government by - the people democracy if the people happened to be very rich, or government - by a few oligarchy if the few were poor and the many whom they governed - rich. - And once again, if one assumed the - combination of small numbers with wealth and of multitude with poverty, and - named the constitutions thus—one in which the rich being few in number - hold the offices, oligarchy: one in which the poor being many in number hold the - offices, democracy,—this involves another difficulty. What names are - we to give to the constitutions just described—the one in which there - are more rich and the one in which the poor are the fewer, and these control - their respective governments—if there exists no other form of - constitution beside those mentioned? The argument therefore seems to make it clear that for few or many to have - power is an accidental feature of oligarchies in the one case and democracies in - the other, due to the fact that the rich are few and the poor are many - everywhere (so that it is not really the case that the points mentioned - constitute a specific difference), but that the real thing in which - democracy and oligarchy differ from each other is poverty and wealth;

-
-
-

- and it - necessarily follows that wherever the rulers owe their power to wealth, whether - they be a minority or a majority, this is an oligarchy, and when the poor rule, - it is a democracy, although it does accidentally happen, as we said, that where - the rulers hold power by wealth they are few and where they hold power by - poverty they are many, because few men are rich but all men possess freedom, and - wealth and freedom are the grounds on which the two classes lay claim to the - government. - And first we must ascertain what are stated to be the - determining qualities of oligarchy and democracy, and what is the principle of - justice under the one form of government and under the other. For all men lay - hold on justice of some sort, but they only advance to a certain point, and do - not express the principle of absolute justice in its entirety. For instance, it - is thought that justice is equality, and so it is, though not for everybody but - only for those who are equals; and it is thought that inequality is just, for so - indeed it is, though not for everybody, but for those who are unequal; but these - partisans strip away the qualification of the persons concerned, and judge - badly. And the cause of this is that they are themselves concerned in the - decision, and perhaps most men are bad judges when their own interests are in - question. Hence inasmuch as - ‘just’ means just for certain persons, and it is divided in - the same way in relation to the things to be distributed and the persons that - receive them, as has been said before in the Ethics,Cf. Aristot. Nic. Eth. - 1131a 14-24. the two parties agree as to what constitutes - equality in the thing, but dispute as to what constitutes equality in the - person,chiefly for the reason - just now stated, because men are bad judges where they themselves are concerned, - but also, inasmuch as both parties put forward a plea that is just up to a - certain point, they think that what they say is absolutely just. For the one - side think that if they are unequal in some respects, for instance in wealth, - they are entirely unequal, and the other side think that if they are equal in - some respects, for instance in freedom, they are entirely equal. But the most important thing they do not - mention. If men formed the community and came together for the sake of wealth, - their share in the state is proportionate to their share in the property, so - that the argument of the champions of oligarchy would appear to be - valid—namely that in a partnership with a capital of 100 minaeSee 1268b 14 n. it would not be just - for the man who contributed one mina to have a share whether of the principal or - of the profits accruing equal to the share of the man who supplied the whole of - the remainder; but if on the other hand the state was formed not for the sake of - life only but rather for the good life (for otherwise a collection of - slaves or of lower animals would be a state, but as it is, it is not a state, - because slavesSee 1260a 12, and Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1177a 8, - ‘but no one allows a slave any measure of happiness, any more than - a life of his own.’ and animals have no share in well-being - or in purposive life), and if its object is not military alliance for - defence against injury by anybody, and it does not exist for the sake of trade - and of business relationsThe sentence here - breaks off; The inference that should have formed its conclusion is given in - 5.15.—for if so, Etruscans and Carthaginians and all the - people that have commercial relations with one another would be virtually - citizens of a single state; at all - events they have agreements about imports and covenants as to abstaining from - dishonesty and treaties of alliance for mutual defence;

-
-
-

- but they do not - have officials common to them all appointed to enforce these covenants, but - different officials with either party, nor yet does either party take any - concern as to the proper moral character of the other, nor attempt to secure - that nobody in the states under the covenant shall be dishonest or in any way - immoral, but only that they shall not commit any wrong against each other. All - those on the other hand who are concerned about good government do take civic - virtue and vice into their purview. Thus it is also clear that any state that is - truly so called and is not a state merely in name must pay attention to virtue; - for otherwise the community becomes merely an alliance, differing only in - locality from the other alliances, those of allies that live apart. And the law - is a covenant or, in the phrase of the sophist Lycophron,Probably a pupil of Gorgias, see 1275b 26 n. a - guarantee of men's just claims on one another, but it is not designed to make - the citizens virtuous and just. And - that this is how the matter stands is manifest. For if one were actually to - bring the sites of two cities together into one, so that the city-walls of - Megara and those of Corinth were contiguous, even so they - would not be one city; nor would they if they enacted rights of intermarriage - with each other, although intermarriage between citizens is one of the elements - of community which are characteristic of states. And similarly even if certain - people lived in separate places yet not so far apart as not to have intercourse, - but had laws to prevent their wronging one anotherin their interchange of products— for instance, if - one man were a carpenter, another a farmer, another a shoemaker and another - something else of the kind,—and the whole population numbered ten - thousand, but nevertheless they had no mutual dealings in anything else except - such things as exchange of commodities and military alliance, even then this - would still not be a state. What - then exactly is the reason for this? for clearly it is not because their - intercourse is from a distance since even if they came together for intercourse - of this sort (each nevertheless using his individual house as a - city) and for one another's military aid against wrongful aggressors - only, as under a defensive alliance, not even then would they seem to those who - consider the matter carefully to constitute a state, if they associated on the - same footing when they came together as they did when they were apart. It is - manifest therefore that a state is not merely the sharing of a common locality - for the purpose of preventing mutual injury and exchanging goods. These are - necessary preconditions of a state's existence, yet nevertheless, even if all - these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state - is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a - full and independent life. At the - same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the - same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family - relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for - sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by - the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; - therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means - to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and - independent life,

-
-
-

- which in our view constitutes a happy and noble - life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of - noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a - larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom - and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them - in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.It - is therefore clear from what has been said that all those who dispute about the - forms of constitution assert a part of the just principle. - But it is a matter - of question what ought to be the sovereign power in the state. Clearly it must - be either the multitude, or the rich, or the good, or the one man who is best of - all, or a tyrant. But all of these arrangements appear to involve disagreeable - consequences. For instance, if the poor take advantage of their greater numbers - to divide up the property of the rich, is not this unjust? No, it may be said, - for it was a resolution made by the supreme authority in just form. Then what - must be pronounced to be the extreme of injustice? And again, when everybody is - taken into account, suppose the majority share out among themselves the property - of the minority, it is manifest that they are destroying the state; but - assuredly virtue does not destroyits - possessor, and justice is not destructive of the state, so that it is clear that - this principle also cannot be just. Also it follows from it that all the actions done by a tyrant are just, for - his use of force is based upon superior strength, as is the compulsion exerted - by the multitude against the rich. But is it just that the minority and the rich - should rule? Suppose therefore they also act in the same way and plunder and - take away the property of the multitude, is this just? If it is, so also is the - plunder of the rich by the multitude. It is clear therefore that all these - things are bad and not just. But - ought the good to rule, and be in control of all classes? If so, then it follows - that all the other classes will be dishonored,The term is technical and means disfranchisement and loss of - civic rights. if they are not honored by holding the offices of - government; for we speak of offices as honors, and if the same persons are - always in office the rest must necessarily be excluded from honor. But is it - better for the most virtuous individual to be the ruler? But that is still more - oligarchical, for the people excluded from honor will be more numerous. But - perhaps some one would say that in any case it is a bad thing for a human being, - having in his soul the passions that are the attributes of humanity, to be - sovereign, and not the law. Suppose therefore that law is sovereign, but law of - an oligarchic or democratic nature, what difference will it make as regards the - difficulties that have been raised? for the results described before will come - about just the same. - Most of these points therefore must be discussed on - another occasion; but the view that it is more proper for the multitude to be - sovereign than the few of greatest virtue might be thought to be explicable and - to have some justification, and even to be the true view. For it is possible - that the many, though not individually good men,

-
-
-

- yet when they come - together may be better, not individually but collectively, than those who are - so, just as public dinners to which many contribute are better than those - supplied at one man's cost; for where there are many, each individual, it may be - argued, has some portion of virtue and wisdom, and when they have come together, - just as the multitude becomes a single man with many feet and many hands and - many senses, so also it becomes one personality as regards the moral and - intellectual faculties. This is why the general public is a better judge of the - works of music and those of the poets, because different men can judge a - different part of the performance, and all of them all of it. But the superiority of good men over the mass of - men individually, like that of handsome men, so it is said, over plain men and - of the works of the painter's art over the real objects, really consists in - this, that a number of scattered good points have been collected together into - one example; since if the features be taken separately, the eye of one real - person is more beautiful than that of the man in the picture, and some other - feature of somebody else. It is not indeed clear whether this collective - superiority of the many compared with the few good men can possibly exist in - regard to every democracy and every multitude, and perhaps it may be urged that - it is manifestly impossible in the case of some—for the same argument - would also apply to animals, yet what difference is there,practically, between some multitudes and - animals?—but nothing prevents what has been said from being true about - some particular multitude. One might - therefore employ these considerations to solve not only the previously stated - difficulty but also the related question, over what matters is the authority of - the freemen, the mass of the citizens, to extend (using that expression - to denote those who are not rich nor possessed of any distinguishing excellence - at all)? For it is not safe for them to participate in the highest - offices (for injustice and folly would inevitably cause them to act - unjustly in some things and to make mistakes in others), but yet not to - admit them and for them not to participate is an alarming situation, for when - there are a number of persons without political honors and in poverty, the city - then is bound to be full of enemies. It remains therefore for them to share the - deliberative and judicial functions. For this reason Solon and certain other lawgivers appoint the common citizens - toProbably words meaning - ‘these functions and to’ have fallen out. the - election of the magistrates and the function of calling them to audit, although - they do not allow them to hold office singly. For all when assembled together - have sufficient discernment, and by mingling with the better class are of - benefit to the state, just as impure food mixed with what is pure makes the - whole more nourishing than the small amount of pure food alone; but separately - the individual is immature in judgement. This arrangement of the constitution is however open to - question in the first place on the ground that it might be held that the best - man to judge which physician has given the right treatment is the man that is - himself capable of treating and curing the patient of his present disease, and - this is the man who is himself a physician;

-
-
-

- and that this is the case - similarly with regard to the other arts and crafts. Hence just as a court of - physicians must judge the work of a physician, so also all other practitioners - ought to be called to account before their fellows. But - ‘physician’ means both the ordinary practitioner, and the - master of the craft, and thirdly, the man who has studied medicine as part of - his general education (for in almost all the arts there are some such - students, and we assign the right of judgement just as much to cultivated - amateurs as to experts). Further the same might be thought to hold good also of the election of - officials, for to elect rightly is a task for experts—for example, it - is for experts in the science of mensuration to elect a land-surveyor and for - experts in navigation to choose a pilot; for even though in some occupations and - arts some laymen also have a voice in appointments, yet they certainly do not - have more voice than the experts. Hence according to this argument the masses - should not be put in control over either the election of magistrates or their - audit. But perhaps this statement - is not entirely correct, both for the reason stated above,See 6.4. in case the populace is not of too slavish a - character (for although each individual separately will be a worse - judge than the experts, the whole of them assembled together will be better or - at least as good judges), and also because about some things the man - who made them would not be the only nor the best judge, in the case of - professionals whose products come within the knowledge of laymen also:to judge a house, for instance, does not - belong only to the man who built it, but in fact the man who uses the house - (that is, the householder) will be an even better judge of it, - and a steersman judges a rudder better than a carpenter, and the diner judges a - banquet better than the cook.This difficulty then - might perhaps be thought to be satisfactorily solved in this way. But there is another connected with it: it - is thought to be absurd that the base should be in control over more important - matters than the respectable; but the audits and the elections of magistrates - are a very important matter, yet in some constitutions, as has been said, they - are assigned to the common people, for all such matters are under the control of - the assembly, yet persons of a low property-assessment and of any age take part - in the assembly and the council and sit on juries, whereas treasury officials, - generals and the holders of the highest magistracies are drawn from among - persons of large property. Now this - difficulty also may be solved in a similar way; for perhaps these regulations - also are sound, since it is not the individual juryman or councillor or member - of the assembly in whom authority rests, but the court, the council and the - people, while each of the individuals named (I mean the councillor, the - members of assembly and the juryman) is a part of those bodies. Hence - justly the multitude is sovereign in greater matters, for the popular assembly, - the council and the jury-court are formed of a number of people, and also the - assessed property of all these members collectively is more than that of the - magistrates holding great offices individually or in small groups. - Let these - points therefore be decided in this manner.

-
-
-

- But the difficulty first - mentionedViz. that in whatever class - sovereignty is vested, some hardships will result, 1281a 14 ff. - proves nothing else so clearly as that it is proper for the laws when rightly - laid down to be sovereign, while the ruler or rulers in office should have - supreme powers over matters as to which the laws are quite unable to pronounce - with precision because of the difficulty of making a general rule to cover all - cases. We have not however yet ascertained at all what particular character a - code of laws correctly laid down ought to possess, but the difficulty raised at - the startSee 1281a 36. still - remains;Probably this clause should - stand after the next, ‘though—constitution’ - (which will be a parenthesis), and should run - ‘but <the difficulty is there> for - necessarily—states.’ for necessarily the laws are - good or bad, just or unjust, simultaneously with and similarly to the - constitutions of states (though of course it is obvious that the laws - are bound to be adapted to the constitution); yet if so, it is clear - that the laws in conformity with the right constitutions must necessarily be - just and those in conformity with the divergentThe usual rendering is ‘perverted,’ but - the Greek term is more neutral. forms of constitution - unjust. - - What follows is a summary - of Aristot. Nic. Eth. 2.And - inasmuch as in all the sciences and arts the End is a good, and the greatest - good and good in the highest degree in the most authoritative of all, which is - the political faculty, and the good in the political field, that is, the general - advantage, is justice, it is therefore thought by all men that justice is some - sort of equality, and up to a certain point at all events they agree with the - philosophical discourses in whichconclusions have been reached about questions of ethicsSee also Aristot. Nic. - Eth. 5.3.; for justice is a quality of a thing in relation - to persons,Literally, ‘the just is - (a just) something and (something just) - for somebody.’ and they hold that for persons that are - equal the thing must be equal. But equality in what characteristics does this - mean, and inequality in what? This must be made clear, since this too raises a - difficulty, and calls for political philosophy. For perhaps someone might say that the offices of state - ought to be distributed unequally according to superiority in every good - quality, even if the candidates in all other respects did not differ at all but - were exactly alike, because men that are differenti.e. different in some good quality. have different - rights and merits. Yet if this is true, those who are superior in complexion or - stature or any good quality will have an advantage in respect of political - rights. But surely the error here is obvious, and it comes out clearly if we - consider the other sciences and faculties. Among flute-players equally good at - their art it is not proper to give an advantage in respect of the flutes to - those of better birth, for they will not play any better, but it is the superior - performers who ought to be given the superior instruments. And if our meaning is not yet plain, it will become - still clearer when we have carried the matter further. Suppose someone is - superior in playing the flute but much inferior in birth or in good looks, then, - even granting that each of these things—birth and beauty—is - a greater good than ability to play the flute, and even though they surpass - flute-playing proportionately more than the best flute-player surpasses the - others in flute-playing, even so the best flute-player ought to be given the - outstandingly good flutes;

-
-
-

- for otherwise superiority both in wealth and in - birth ought to contribute to the excellence of the performance, but they do not - do so at all. Moreover on this - theory every good thing would be commensurable with every other. For if to be of - some particular height gave more claim, then height in general would be in - competition with wealth and with free birth; therefore if A excels in height - more than B does in virtue, and speaking generally size gives more superiority - than virtue,Perhaps we should rewrite the - Greek to give ‘even though speaking generally virtue gives more - superiority than size.’ all things would be commensurable - for; if such-and-such an amount of one thing is better than such-and-such an - amount of another, it is clear that such-and-such an amount of the one is equal - to that amount of another. But since - this is impossible, it is clear that in politics with good reason men do not - claim a right to office on the ground of inequality of every kind—if - one set of men are slow runners and another fast, this is no good ground for the - one set having more and the other lessDoubtless the author meant the other way round, ‘for the slow - having less and the fast more political power.’ political - power, but the latter's superiority receives its honor in athletic contests; but - the claim to office must necessarily be based on superiority in those things - which go to the making of the state. Hence it is reasonable for the well-born, - free and wealthy to lay claim to honor; for there must be free men and - tax-payers, since a state consisting entirely of poor men would not be a state, - any more than one consisting of slaves. But then, granting there is need of these, it is clear - thatthere is also need of justice - and civic virtue, for these are also indispensable in the administration of a - state; except that wealth and freedom are indispensable for a state's existence, - whereas justice and civic virtue are indispensable for its good - administration.As a means therefore towards a - state's existence all or at all events some of these factors would seem to make - a good claim, although as means to a good life education and virtue would make - the most just claim, as has been said also before. On the other hand since those who are equal in one thing - only ought not to have equality in all things nor those unequal as regards one - thing inequality in all, it follows that all these forms of constitution must be - deviations. Now it has been said before that all make a claim that is in a - manner just, though not all a claim that is absolutely just; the rich claiming - because they have a larger share of the land, and the land is common property, - and also as being for the most part more faithful to their covenants; the free - and well-born as being closely connected together (for the better-born - are citizens to a greater degree than those of claims, low birth, and good birth - is in every community held in honor at home), and also because it is - probable that the children of better parents will be better, for good birth - means goodness of breed; and we - shall admit that virtue also makes an equally just claim, for we hold that - justice is social virtue, which necessarily brings all the other virtues in its - train; but moreover the majority have a just claim as compared with the - minority, since they are stronger and richer and better if their superior - numbers are taken in comparison with the others' inferior numbers. Therefore - supposing all were in one city,

-
-
-

- I mean, that is, the good and the wealthy and - noble and also an additional mass of citizens, will there be a dispute, or will - there not, as to who ought to govern? It is true that under each of the forms of constitution that have been - mentioned the decision as to who ought to govern is undisputed (for the - difference between them lies in their sovereign classes—one is - distinguished by being governed by the rich men, one by being governed by the - good men, and similarly each of the others); but nevertheless we are - considering the question how we are to decide between these classes supposing - that they all exist in the state at the same period. - If then the possessors of - virtue should be quite few in number, how is the decision to be made? ought we - to consider their fewness in relation to the task, and whether they are able to - administer the state, or sufficiently numerous to constitute a state? And there - is some difficulty as regards all the rival claimants to political honors. Those - who claim to rule because of their wealth might seem to have no justice in their - proposal, and similarly also those who claim on the score of birth; for it is - clear that if, to go a step further, a single individual is richer than all the - others together, according to the same principle of justice it will obviously be - right for this one man to rule over all, and similarly the man of outstanding - nobility among the claimantson the - score of free birth. And this same - thing will perhaps result in the case of aristocratic government based on - virtue; for if there be some one man who is better than the other virtuous men - in the state, by the same principle of justice that man must be sovereign. - Accordingly if it is actually proper for the multitude to be sovereign because - they are better than the few, then also, if one person or if more than one but - fewer than the many are better than the rest, it would be proper for these - rather than the multitude to be sovereign. All these considerations therefore seem to prove the - incorrectness of all of the standards on which men claim that they themselves - shall govern and everybody else be governed by them. For surely even against - those who claim to be sovereign over the government on account of virtue, and - similarly against those who claim on account of wealth, the multitudes might be - able to advance a just plea; for it is quite possible that at some time the - multitude may be collectively better and richer than the few, although not - individually. - Hence it is also possible to meet in this way the question - which some persons investigate and put forward (for some raise the - question whether the legislator desiring to lay down the rightest laws should - legislate with a view to the advantage of the better people or that of the - larger number) in cases when the situation mentionedAt the end of the last sentence, 7.12. - occurs. And ‘right’ must be taken in the sense of - ‘equally right,’ and this means right in regard to the - interest of the whole state and in regard to the common welfare of the citizens; - and a citizen is in general one who shares in governing and being governed, -

-
-
-

- although he is different according to each form of - constitution, but in relation to the best form a citizen is one who has the - capacity and the will to be governed and to govern with a view to the life in - accordance with virtue. - But if there is any one man so greatly distinguished in - outstanding virtue, or more than one but not enough to be able to make up a - complete state, so that the virtue of all the rest and their political ability - is not comparable with that of the men mentioned, if they are several, or if - one, with his alone, it is no longer proper to count these exceptional men a - part of the state; for they will be treated unjustly if deemed worthy of equal - status, being so widely unequal in virtue and in their political ability: since - such a man will naturally be as a god among men. Hence it is clear that legislation also must necessarily - be concerned with persons who are equal in birth and in ability, but there can - be no law dealing with such men as those described, for they are themselves a - law; indeed a man would be ridiculous if he tried to legislate for them, for - probably they would say what in the story of AntisthenesPupil of Socrates and founder of the Cynic sect of - philosophers. the lions said‘Where are your claws and teeth?’ when the hares - made speeches in the assembly and demanded that all should have equality. This - is why democratically governed states institute the system of ostracism, because - of a reason of this nature; for these are the states considered to pursue - equality most of all things,so that - they used to ostracize men thought to be outstandingly powerful on account of - wealth or popularity or some other form of political strength, and used to - banish them out of the city for fixed periods of time. And there is a mythical story that the Argonauts left - Heracles behind for a similar reason; for the - ArgoCf. Apollod. 1.9.19 - th=s *)argou=s fqegcame/nhs mh\ du/nasqai pe/rein to\ - tou/tou ba/ros. Argo - was a live creature, and Athena had built a ‘talking - timber’ into her cutwater. refused to carry him with the - others because he was so much heavier than the sailors. Hence also those who - blame tyranny and Periander's advice to ThrasybulusPeriander was tyrant of Corinth circa 626-585 B.C.; Thrasybulus was tyrant of Miletus. Hdt. - 5.92 tells the story with their parts reversed. must not - be thought to be absolutely right in their censure (the story is that - Periander made no reply to the herald sent to ask his advice, but levelled the - corn-field by plucking off the ears that stood out above the rest; and - consequently, although the herald did not know the reason for what was going on, - when he carried back news of what had occurred, Thrasybulus understood that he - was to destroy the outstanding citizens); for this policy is advantageous not only for tyrants, nor - is it only tyrants that use it, but the same is the case with oligarchies and - democracies as well; for ostracism has in a way the same effect as docking off - the outstanding men by exile. And the same course is adopted in regard to cities - and races by the holders of sovereign power, for example the Athenians so dealt - with the Samians and Chians and LesbiansIn - 440, 424 and 427 B.C. respectively - (for no sooner did they get a strong hold of their empire than they - humbled them in contravention of their covenants),

-
-
-

- and the king of - the Persians frequently used to cut down the numbers of the Medes and - Babylonians and the other races that had waxed proud because they had once been - head of an empire. And the problem - applies universally to all the forms of constitution, even the right forms; for - while the divergent forms of government do this because their regard is fixed on - their private advantage, nevertheless with the constitutions directed to the - common good the same is the case. And this is also clear in the field of the - other arts and sciences; a painter would not let his animal have its foot of - disproportionately large size, even though it was an exceptionally beautiful - foot, nor would a shipbuilder make the stern or some other part of a ship - disproportionately big, nor yet will a trainer of choruses allow a man who sings - louder and more beautifully than the whole band to be a member of it. Hence as far as this practice goes nothing - prevents monarchs from being in harmony with the cities they rule, if they - resort to it when their own personal rule is beneficial to the cities. Therefore - in relation to acknowledged superiorities the argument for ostracism has a - certain element of political justice. True, it is better for the lawgiver so to - constitute the state at the outset that it does not need this medicine; but the - next best course to steer, if occasion arises, is to endeavor to - correctthe constitution by some - such method of rectification. But this was not what happened with the states, - for they were not looking at what was advantageous for their proper - constitution, but their acts of ostracism were done in a revolutionary spirit. - In the divergent forms of constitution therefore it is evident that ostracism is - advantageous and just under the special constitution, though perhaps it is also - evident that it is notPerhaps - ‘not’ should be struck out; but if it stands, the clause - refers to 8.5 init.—in these cases ostracism is practiced only in - the interest of those in power. just absolutely; but in the case of the best constitution there is - much doubt as to what ought to be done, not as regards superiority in the other - things of value, such as strength and wealth and popularity, but in the case of - a person becoming exceptionally distinguished for virtue. It certainly would not - be said that such a man must be banished and got out of the way; yet - nevertheless no doubt men would not think that they ought to rule over such a - man, for that would be the same as if they claimed to rule over Zeus, dividing - up his spheres of government. It remains therefore, and this seems to be the - natural course, for all to obey such a man gladly, so that men of this sort may - be kings in the cities for all time. - And perhaps it is well after the subjects - that have been discussed to pass over to consider royal government; for we - pronounce this to be one of the correct constitutions. And it has to be - considered whether it is advantageous for a city or a country that is to be well - administered to be ruled by a king, or whether it is not so but some other - constitution is more expedient, or whether royal rule is expedient for some - states and not for others. But it is needful to decide first whether there is - only one sort of kingship or whether it has several varieties.

-
-
-

- - - Now it is at all events easy to discern that kingship includes several kinds, - and that the mode of government is not the same in all. For the kingship in the - Spartan constitution, which is held to be a typical royalty of the kind guided - by law, does not carry sovereignty in all matters, though when a king goes on a - foreign expedition he is the leader in all matters relating to the war; and also - matters relating to religion have been assigned to the kings. This kingship - therefore is a sort of military command vested in generals with absolute powers - and held for life; for the king has not authority to put a subject to death, - except [in a certain reign]Inexplicable, and omitted in one of the earliest editions; possibly - basilei/a| is to be emended to e)la/sei‘except on some - march-out.’ as in ancient times kings on their military - expeditions could kill an offender out of hand, as Homer proves, for Agamemnon - endured being reviled in the assemblies but when they were on an expedition had - authority to put a man to death: at all events he says - But whomsoe'er I see far from the fray . . . - Shall have no hope to fly from dogs and vultures, - For death is in my hands!Quoted from - Hom. Il. 2.391, but the last - line is not in our Homer. - - - - This - then is one sort of kingship, a lifelong generalship, and some of the kingships - of this kind are hereditary, others elective; and by its side there is another - sort of monarchy, examples of which are kingships existing among some of the - barbarians. The power possessed by all of these resembles that of tyrannies, but - they govern according to law and are hereditary;for because the barbarians are more servile in their nature - than the Greeks, and the Asiatics than the Europeans, they endure despotic rule - without any resentment. These kingships therefore are for these reasons of a - tyrannical nature, but they are secure because they are hereditary and rule by - law. Also their bodyguard is of a - royal and not a tyrannical type for the same reason; for kings are guarded by - the citizens in arms, whereas tyrants have foreign guards, for kings rule in - accordance with law and over willing subjects, but tyrants rule over unwilling - subjects, owing to which kings take their guards from among the citizens but - tyrants have them to guard against the citizens. These then are two kinds of monarchy; while another is - that which existed among the ancient Greeks, the type of rulers called - aesymnetae. This, to put it simply, is an elective tyranny, and - it differs from the monarchy that exists among barbarians not in governing - without the guidance of law but only in not being hereditary. Some holders of - this type of monarchy ruled for life, others until certain fixed limits of time - or until certain undertakings were ended, as for example the people of - Mitylene once elected Pittacus to - resist the exiles under the leadership of Antimenides and the poet Alcaeus. - That they elected PittacusPittacus held the office 587-579 B.C. He was one of the Seven - Sages. Antimenides and Alcaeus were brothers. as tyrant is proved by - Alcaeus in one of his catches; for he rebukes the people because - The base-born Pittacus they did set up - As tyrant of the meek and luckless city, - And all did greatly praise him. - -

-
-
-

- These monarchies therefore now and in the past are of the nature of tyrannies - because they are autocratic, but of the nature of kingships because they are - elective and rule over willing subjects. A fourth class of royal monarchy consists of the - hereditary legal kingships over willing subjects in the heroic period. For - because the first of the line had been benefactors of the multitude in the arts - or in war, or through having drawn them together or provided them with land, - these kings used to come to the throne with the consent of the subjects and hand - it on to their successors by lineal descent. And they had supreme command in war - and control over all sacrifices that were not in the hands of the priestly - class, and in addition to these functions they were judges in law-suits; some - gave judgement not on oath and some on oath—the oath was taken by - holding up the sceptre.This ritual is - mentioned in Hom. Il. 1.234, Hom. Il. 7.412, Hom. - Il. 10.328. - These kings then of ancient times - used to govern continuously in matters within the city and in the country and - across the frontiers; but later on when gradually the kings relinquished some of - their powers and had others taken from them by the multitudes, in the cities in - general only the sacrifices were left to the kings,The monarchy was reduced to a priesthood at Cyrene (Hdt. - 4.161) and at Ephesus. while where anything that deserves the name - of royalty survived the kings only had the command in military expeditions - across the frontiers. - - There are - then these kinds of kingship, four in number: one belonging to the heroic times, - which was exercised over willing subjects, but in certain limited fields, for - the king was general and judge and master of religious ceremonies; second, the - barbarian monarchy, which is an hereditary despotism governing in conformity - with law; third, the rule of the functionary called an aesymnetes, - which is an elective tyranny; and fourth among these is the Spartan kingship, - which may be described simply as an hereditary generalship held for life. These - kingships then differ from one another in this manner. But a fifth kind of kingship is when a single ruler - is sovereign over all matters in the way in which each race and each city is - sovereign over its common affairs; this monarchy ranges with the rule of a - master over a household, for just as the master's rule is a sort of monarchy in - the home, so absolute monarchy is domestic mastership over a city, or over a - race or several races.There are therefore, we may - say, virtually two kinds of kingship that have been examined, this one and the - Spartan. For most of the others lie between these, since with them the king is - sovereign over fewer things than under absolute monarchy, but over more than - under the Spartan kingship. Hence our inquiry is virtually about two questions, - one whether it is expedient or inexpedient for states to have a military - commander holding office for life, and that either by descent or by class,Some MSS. give ‘or by - election.’ -

-
-
-

- and one whether it is expedient or inexpedient for one man to be sovereign - over everything. Now the study of a - military command of the kind mentioned has more the aspect of a legal than of a - constitutional inquiry (for it is possible for this form of office to - exist under all constitutions), so let it be dismissed at the first - stageCf. 1289a 11 ff.; but the promise - of a full discussion of law is not fulfilled; but the remaining mode - of kingship is a kind of constitution, so that it is necessary to consider this - one and to run over the difficulties that it involves.And the starting-point of the inquiry is the question whether - it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best men or by the best laws. - Those of the opinion that it is - advantageous to be governed by a king think that laws enunciate only general - principles but do not give directions for dealing with circumstances as they - arise; so that in an art of any kind it is foolish to govern procedure by - written rules (and indeed in Egypt physicians have the right to alter their prescription - after four days, although if one of them alters it before he does so at his own - risk); it is clear therefore that government according to written - rules, that is laws, is not the best, for the same reason. At the same time, - however, rulers ought to be in possession of the general principle before - mentioned as well. And a thing that does not contain the emotional element is - generally superior to a thing in which it is innate; now the law does not - possess this factor, but every human soulnecessarily has it. But perhaps someone might say that in compensation for this a single ruler - will decide better about particular cases. Therefore it is clear that on the one - hand the ruler must necessarily be a legislator, and that there must or be laws - laid down, although these must not be sovereigni.e. unalterably binding, and not be set aside by special - dispensation of the ruler when deemed to be unjust in some particular - case. where they go astray—admittedly in all other cases - they ought to be sovereign; but on the other hand in matters which it is - impossible for the law either to decide at all or to decide well, ought the one - best man to govern or all the citizens? As it is, the citizens assembled hear - lawsuits and deliberate and give judgements, but these judgements are all on - particular cases. Now no doubt any one of them individually is inferior compared - with the best man, but a state consists of a number of individuals, and just as - a banquet to which many contribute dishes is finer than a single plain dinner, - for this reason in many cases a crowd judges better than any single person. - Also the multitude is more - incorruptible—just as the larger stream of water is purer, so the mass - of citizens is less corruptible than the few; and the individual's judgement is - bound to be corrupted when he is overcome by anger or some other such emotion, - whereas in the other case it is a difficult thing for all the people to be - roused to anger and go wrong together. But the multitude must consist of the - freemen, doing nothing apart from the law except about matters as to which the - law must of necessity be deficient. And if this is not indeed easy to ensure in - the case of many men, yet if there were a majority of good men and good - citizens, would an individual make a more incorruptible ruler or rather those - who though the majority in number yet are all good?

-
-
-

- The majority, is - it not obvious? But it will be said that they will split up into factions, - whereas with a single ruler this cannot happen. But against this must perhaps be - set the fact that they are as virtuous in soul as the single ruler. If then the rule of the majority when - these are all good men is to be considered an aristocracy, and that of the one - man kingship, aristocracy would be preferable for the states to kingship, - whether the royal office be conjoined with military force or without it, if it - be possible to get a larger number of men than one who are of similar quality. - And it was perhaps only owing to this that kingships existed in earlier times, - because it was rare to find men who greatly excelled in virtue, especially as in - those days they dwelt in small cities. Moreover they used to appoint their kings - on the ground of public service, and to perform this is a task for the good men. - But as it began to come about that many men arose who were alike in respect of - virtue, they would no longer submit to royalty, but sought for some form of - commonwealth, and set up a republican constitution. And as men becoming baser began to make money out of the - community, it is reasonable to suppose that some such cause as this occasioned - the rise of oligarchies; for they brought wealth into honor. And from - oligarchies they first changed to tyrannies, and from tyrannies to democracy; - for by constantly bringing the government into fewer hands owing to a base love - of gain, they made the multitude stronger,i.e. more men of ability and position went over to the opposition. - so that it set upon the oligarchs, and democracies came into - existence.But now that the states - have come to be even greater than they were, perhaps it is not easy for yet - another form of constitution beside democracy to come into existence. And even if one held that royal government - is best for states, what is to be the position as regards the king's children? - is the sovereignty to be hereditary? But this will be disastrous if the king's - sons turn out to be like what some have been. It may be said that the king being - sovereign will not in that case bequeath the throne to his children. But that is - too much to be easy to believe: it would be difficult for a king to disinherit - his sons, and an act of virtue above the level of human nature. And there is a difficulty also about the - royal power: ought the man who is to reign as king to force to have an armed - force about him, by means of which he will have power to compel those who may be - unwilling to obey, or if not, how is it possible for him to administer his - office? For even if he were a law-abiding sovereign and never acted according to - his own will against the law, nevertheless it would be essential for him to have - power behind him whereby to safeguard the laws. Probably therefore it is not - difficult to define the regulations for a king of this sort: he must have a - force of his own, but the force must be only so large as to be stronger than a - single individual or even several individuals banded together, but weaker than - the multitude, on the principle on which the men of old times used to assign - bodyguards whenever they appointed somebody as what they termed - aesymnetes or tyrant‘Or tyrant’ looks like an incorrect note, see 1285b - 25. of the state, and also, when DionysiusSee 1259a 39 n. asked for his guards, somebody advised - him to give the same number of guards to the citizens of Syracuse.

-
-
-

- - - Our - discussion has now reached the case of the king who acts in all matters - according to his own will, and we must examine this type of royalty. For the - so-called constitutional monarchy, as we said,See 10.3. is not a special kind of constitution - (since it is possible for a life-long generalship to exist under all - constitutions, for example under a democracy and an aristocracy, and many people - make one man sovereign over the administration, for instance there is a - government of this sort in Epidamnus, - Durazzo, on the Adriatic. and also - at OpusChief town of Locri, near the Straits of Euboea - to a certain smaller - extent); but we have now - to discuss what is called Absolute Monarchy, which is the monarchy under which - the king governs all men according to his own will. Some people think that it is - entirely contrary to nature for one person to be sovereign over all the citizens - where the state consists of men who are alike; for necessarily persons alike in - nature must in accordance with nature have the same principle of justice and the - same value, so that inasmuch as for persons who are unequal to have an equal - amount of food or clothing is harmful for their bodies, the same is the case - also in regard to honors; similarly - therefore it is wrong for those who are equal to have inequality, owing to which - it is just for no one person to govern or be governed more than another, and - therefore for everybody to govern and be governed alike in turn. And this - constitutes law for regulation is law. Therefore it is preferable for the law to - rule rather than any one of the citizens,and according to this same principle, even if it be better for - certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in - subordination to them; for there must be some government, but it is clearly not - just, men say, for one person to be governor when all the citizens are alike. - It may be objected that any - case which the law appears to be unable to define, a human being also would be - unable to decide. But the law first specially educates the magistrates for the - purpose and then commissions them to decide and administer the matters that it - leaves over ‘according to the best of their judgement,’This formula came in the oath taken by the - dicasts at Athens. and - furthermore it allows them to introduce for themselves any amendment that - experience leads them to think better than the established code. He therefore - that recommends that the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason - alone shall govern, but he that would have man govern adds a wild animal also; - for appetite is like a wild animal, and also passion warps the rule even of the - best men. Therefore the law is wisdom without desire. And there seems to be no truth in the analogy which argues - from the artsi.e. the practical sciences, of - which medicine is taken as an example. that it is a bad thing to - doctor oneself by book, but preferable to employ the experts in the arts. For - they never act contrary to principle from motives of friendship, but earn their - fee when (for instance) they have cured their patients, - whereas holders of political office usually do many things out of spite and to - win favor; since when people suspect even the physicians of being in the - confidence of their enemies and of trying to make away with them for gain, in - that case they would sooner look up the treatment in the books.

-
-
-

- - Yet certainly physicians - themselves call in other physicians to treat them when they are ill, and - gymnastic trainers put themselves under other trainers when they are doing - exercises, believing that they are unable to judge truly because they are - judging about their own cases and when they are under the influence of feeling. - Hence it is clear that when men seek for what is just they seek for what is - impartial; forPerhaps this should be - ‘and.’ the law is that which is impartial. Again, - customary lawsi.e. the rules of duty and of - manners that are customary but not embodied in legislation: cf. 1319b 40 - ‘the laws both written and unwritten.’ are more - sovereign and deal with more sovereign matters than written laws, so that if a - human ruler is less liable to error than written laws, yet he is not less liable - to error than the laws of custom. But also it is certainly not easy for the single ruler to oversee a multitude - of things; it will therefore be necessary for the officials appointed by him to - be numerous; so that what difference does it make whether this has been the - arrangement immediately from the outset or the single ruler appoints them in - this manner? Again, a thing that has also been said before, if the virtuous man - justly deserves to rule because he is better, yet two good men are better than - one: for that is the meaning of the line - Hom. Il. 10.224: The passage goes on - kai/ te pro\ o(\ tou= e)no/hsen o(/ppws ke/rdos - e)/h|, ‘then one discerneth Before the other how - advantage lieth.’ - - When two together go— - and of the prayer of Agamemnon - Hom. Il. 2.372. - - May ten such fellow-councillors be mine. - And even now the magistrates, like the Athenian dicast, have power to - judge certain cases about which the law is unable to give a clear declaration, - since nobody disputes that in matters about which it can do so the law would be - the best ruler and judge. But - since, although some things can be covered by the laws,other things cannot, it is the latter that cause - doubt and raise the question whether it is preferable for the best law to rule - or the best man. For to lay down a law about things that are subjects for - deliberation is an impossibility. Therefore men do not deny that it must be for - a human being to judge about such matters, but they say that it ought not to be - a single human being only but a number. For the individual official judges well - when he has been instructed by the law, and it would doubtless seem curious if a person saw better - when judging with two eyes and two organs of hearing and acting with two feet - and hands than many persons with many, since even as it is monarchs make many - eyes and ears and hands and feet their own, for they adopt persons that are - friendly to their rule and to themselves as their fellow-rulers. Although - therefore if these assistants are not friendly they will not act in conformity - with the monarch's policy, if they are friends of him and of his rule, well, a - friend is one's equal and like, so that if the monarch thinks that his friends - ought to rule he thinks that people who are equal to and like himself ought to - rule like himself.This then more or less is the - case advanced by those who argue against kingship. - But perhaps, although this - is a true account of the matter in some cases, it does not apply in others. For - there is such a thing as being naturally fitted to be controlled by a master, - and in another case, to be governed by a king, and in another, for citizenship, - and this is just and expedient; but there is no such thing as natural fitness - for tyranny, nor for any other of the forms of government that are divergences, - for these come about against nature.

-
-
-

- But merely from what has been - said, it is clear that among people who are alike and equal it is neither - expedient nor just for one to be sovereign over all—neither when there - are no laws, but he himself is in the place of law, nor when there are laws, - neither when both sovereign and subjects are good nor when both are bad, nor yet - when the sovereign is superior in virtue, except in a certain manner. What this - manner is must be stated; and in a way it has been stated already even before. - But first we must define what - constitutes fitness for royal government, what fitness for aristocracy, and what - for a republic. A fit subject for royal government is a populace of such a sort - as to be naturally capable of producing a family of outstanding excellence for - political leadership; a community fit for aristocracy is one that naturally - produces a populaceThe clause translated - ‘that—populace’ some editors excise as a - superfluous insertion. capable of being governed under the form of - government fit for free men by those who are fitted by virtue for taking the - part of leaders in constitutional government; a republican community, one in - which there naturally grows up a military populaceThey also excise ‘in - which-populace’ capable of being governed and of governing - under a law that distributes the offices among the well-to-do in accordance with - merit. When therefore it comes - about that there is either a whole family or even some one individual that - differs from the other citizens in virtue so greatly that his virtue exceeds - that of all the others, then it is just for this family to be the royal family - or this individual king, and sovereign over all matters. For, as has been said - before,this holds good not only - in accordance with the right that is usually brought forward by those who are - founding aristocratic and oligarchic constitutions, and from the other side by - those who are founding democratic ones (for they all make their claim - on the ground of superiority, though not the same superiority), but it - also holds good in accordance with the right spoken of before.i.e. the right of merit, 8.7. - For it is not seemly to put to - death or banish, nor yet obviously to ostracize, such a man, nor is it seemly to - call upon him to take his turn as a subject; for it is not in the order of - nature for the part to overtop the whole, but the man that is so exceptionally - outstanding has come to overtop the whole community. Hence it only remains for - the community to obey such a man, and for him to be sovereign not in turn but - absolutely.Let this be our answer to the - questions as regards kingship, what are its varieties, and whether it is - disadvantageous for states or advantageous, and for what states, and under what - conditions. - And since we pronounce the right constitutions to be three, and - of these the one governed by the best men must necessarily be the best, and such - is the one in which it has come about either that some one man or a whole family - or a group of men is superior in virtue to all the citizens together, the latter - being able to be governed and the former to govern on the principles of the most - desirable life, and since in the first part of the discourseBook 3.2, 3. it was proved that the virtue of a man - and that of a citizen in the best state must of necessity be the same, it is - evident that a man becomes good in the same way and by the same means as one - might establish an aristocratically or monarchically governed state,Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give - ‘established a state governed in the best way by an aristocracy or - a monarchy.’ -

-
-
-

- - so that it will be almost the - same education and habits that make a man good and that make him capable as a - citizen or a king.These conclusions having been - laid down, we must now endeavor to discuss the best form of constitution and to - say in what way it is natural for it to come into existence and how it is - natural for it to be organized.The - concluding sentence, by whomever written, clearly leads on to the Book that - is No. 7 in the MSS. and in this edition; and after it the MSS. add half the - first sentence of that Book, slightly altered. Some editors therefore - transfer Books 7 and 8 here and put Books 4, 5 and 6 after them; opinions - vary as to the proper order of Books 4, 5. and 6 among - themselves. -

-
- - -
-

- - - - Transposed as Book 6 by some editors; - see Book 3 fin., note.In all the arts and the sciences that are not - merely sectional but that in relation to some one class of subject are complete, - it is the function of a single art or science to study what is suited to each - class,Perhaps the Greek should be - altered to give ‘to each individual.’ for - instance what sort of gymnastic exercise is beneficial for what sort of bodily - frame, and what is the best sort (for the best must naturally suit the - person of the finest natural endowment and equipment), and also what - one exercise taken by all is the best for the largest number (for this - is also a question for gymnastic science), and in addition, in case - someone desires a habit of body and a knowledge of athletic exercises that are - not the ones adapted to him, it is clearly just as much the task of the trainer - and gymnastic master to produce this capacityi.e. a bodily bearing and athletic skill that are not the ones most suited - to the pupil's particular physique. also; - and we - notice this also happening similarly in regard to medicine, and shipbuilding, - and the making of clothes, and every other craft. Hence it is clear that in the - case of the constitution as well it is the business of the same science to study - which is the best constitution and what character it must have to be the most - ideal if no external circumstance stands in the way, and what constitution is - adapted to what people (since for many it is doubtless impossible to - attain the best one, so that the good lawgiver and the true statesman must be - acquainted with both the form of constitution that is the highest absolutely and - that which is best under assumed conditions), and also thirdly the form - of constitution based on a certain supposition (for he must be also - capable of considering both how some given constitution could be brought into - existence originally and also in what way having been brought into existence it - could be preserved for the longest time: I mean for example if it has befallen - some state not only not to possess the best constitution and to be unprovided - even with the things necessary for it, but also not to have the constitution - that is practicable under the circumstances but an inferior one); - and beside all these matters he - must ascertain the form of constitution most suited to all states, since most of - those who make pronouncements about the constitution, even if the rest of what - they say is good, entirely miss the points of practical utility. For it is - proper to considerThe fourfold - classification given just before is repeated in rather loose terms in this - sentence. not only what is the best constitution but also what is the - one possible of achievement, and likewise also what is the one that is easier - and more generally shared by all states. But as it is, some students inquire - which is the highest form of all even though requiring much material - equipment,The word originally denoted - the duty of the wealthy citizen holding office of Choregus to supply - dresses, etc., for the chorus and actors in a drama. while those who - rather state some general form sweep aside the constitutions actually existing - and praise that of Sparta or some - other;

-
-
-

- - but the proper - course is to bring forward an organization of such a sort that men will easily - be persuaded and be able in the existing circumstances to take part in it, since - to reform a constitution is no less a task than to frame one from the beginning, - just as to re-learn a science is just as hard as to learn it originally; in - addition therefore to the things mentioned the student of politics must also be - able to render aid to the constitutions that exist already, as was also said - before.Book 3.5. But this is - impossible if he does not know how many kinds of constitution there are; but at - present some people think that there is only one kind of democracy and one kind - of oligarchy, but this is not true. Hence he must take in view the different varieties of the constitutions, and - know how many there are and how many are their combinations. And after this it - needs this same discrimination also to discern the laws that are the best, and - those that are suited to each of the forms of constitution. For the laws should - be laid down, and all people lay them down, to suit the - constitutions—the constitutions must not be made to suit the laws; for - a constitution is the regulation of the offices of the state in regard to the - mode of their distribution and to the question what is the sovereign power in - the state and what is the object of each community, but laws are distinct from - the principles of the constitution, and regulate how the magistrates are to - govern and to guard against thosewho - transgress them. So that clearly it - is necessary to be in possession of the different varieties of each form of - constitution, and the number of these, even for the purpose of legislation; for - it is impossible for the same laws to be expedient for all oligarchies or - democracies if there are really several kinds of them, and not one sort of - democracy or oligarchy only. - And inasmuch as in our first inquiryBook 3.5. about the forms of the - constitution we classified the right constitutions as three, kingship, - aristocracy and constitutional government, and the deviations from these as - three, tyranny from kingship, oligarchy from aristocracy and democracy from - constitutional government, and about aristocracy and kingship we have spoken - (for to study the best constitution is the same thing as to speak about - the forms that bear those names, since each of them means a system based on the - qualification of virtue equipped with means), and as also the question - what constitutes the difference between aristocracy and kingship and when a - royal government is to be adopted has been decided before, it remains to discuss - the form of constitution designated by the namei.e. politei/a, - ‘polity,’ which denotes not only a constitution of any - form, but also (like our term ‘constitutional - government’) a particular form, viz., a republic, cf. - Book 3.5.2. common to them all, and the other forms, oligarchy, - democracy and tyranny. Now it is - manifest also which of these deviationsThe - three forms of constitution last mentioned. is the worst and which - the second worst. For necessarily the deviation from the first and most divine - must be the worst, - Corruptio optimi - pessima, a Socratic notion: ‘the men of the best - natural gifts, when educated, are the worst,’ Xen. Mem. 4.1.3. and kingship must of - necessity either possess the name only, without really being kingship, -

-
-
-

- or be based on the outstanding superiority of the man who is - king; so that tyranny being the worst form must be the one farthest removed from - constitutional government, and oligarchy must be the second farthest - (for aristocracy is widely separated from that constitution), - while democracy must be the most moderate. An account of their relative merits has indeed already - been given also by one of the former writers, - Plat. Stat. 302a ff. - though not on the same principle as ours; for he inclined to judge that - there were good varieties of all the forms, for instance a good sort of - oligarchy and so on, and that democracy was the worst among these, but the best - among the bad varieties, whereas we - say that the deviations are wholly wrong, and that it is not right to speak of - one form of oligarchy as better than another, but only as less bad. But let us - for the present dismiss the question of a classification of this nature. Our - business is first to distinguish how many different forms of the constitutions - there are, assuming that there do exist several kinds of democracy and of - oligarchy; next, which form is most - general, and which most desirable after the best constitution, and also if there - exists some other form that is aristocratic in nature and well constructed but - not fitted to the largest number of cities, which this is; next, which of the - other forms too is desirable for what people (since probably for some - democracy is necessary more than oligarchy, and for others oligarchy more than - democracy);and after - this, in what way should one proceed who wishes to set up these constitutions, I - mean the various forms of democracy and of oligarchy; and finally, when as far - as possible we have concisely touched upon all these questions, we must endeavor - to review what are the agencies that destroy and what are those that preserve - constitutions generally and each variety of constitution in particular, and what - are the causes by which it is most natural for these events to be brought - about. - Now the reason of there being several forms of constitution is - that every city has a considerable number of parts. For in the first place we - see that all the cities are composed of households, and then again that of this - multitude some must necessarily be rich and some poor and some between the two, - and also of the rich and the poor the former class is heavy-armed and the latter - without armor. And we see that one portion of the common people is agricultural, - another engaged in trade and another mechanic. And the upper classes have - distinctions also corresponding to their wealth and the amounts of their - property (for example in a stud of horses—for it is not easy - to rear horses without being rich, and this is why in ancient times there were oligarchies in all the states - whose strength lay in their cavalry, and they used to use horses for their wars - against their neighbors, as for instance did the Eretrians and Chalcidians and - the people of Magnesia on the - Maeander and many of the other - Asiatic peoples). Moreover in addition to differences in wealth there - is the difference of birth, and that in regard to virtue,

-
-
-

- and indeed any - other similar distinction that in the discussion of aristocracy has been stated - to constitute a part of the state (for there we distinguished how many - necessary parts there are of which every state must consist); for - sometimes all of these parts participate in the constitution and sometimes a - smaller or a larger number of them. It is clear therefore that there must necessarily be several forms of - constitution differing in kind from one another, inasmuch as these parts differ - in kind among themselves. For a constitution means the arrangement of the - magistracies, and this all people plan out either according to the power of - those who share political rights, or according to some common equality between - them, I mean for example between the poor or between the rich, or some equality - common to them both.This clause looks like - an interpolation. It follows therefore that there are as many forms - of constitution as there are modes of arrangement according to the superiorities - and the differences of the sections. But the forms mostly are thought to be two—just as in the case of - the winds we speak of some as north and some as south and regard the rest as - deviations from these,Aristotle refers to - this view in Aristot. Meteor. 364a - 19, saying that west winds are classed with north and east winds - with south, because wind from the setting sun is cooler and from the rising - sun warmer. He notes that north and south winds are the most frequent, Aristot. Meteor. 361a 6; this may have - suggested the idea that they were the typical winds. so also of - constitutions there are held to be two forms, democracy and oligarchy; for men - reckon aristocracy as a kind of oligarchy because it is oligarchy of a sort, and - what is called constitutional government as democracy, just as in the case of - the winds they reckon the west wind as a kind of north wind and the east wind as - a kind of south wind.And the case is - similar with musical modes, as some people say: for there too they posit two - kinds, the Dorian mode and the Phrygian, and call the other scales some of them - Dorian and the others Phrygian. For - the most part therefore they are accustomed to think in this way about the - constitutions; but it is truer and better to class them as we did, and assuming - that there are two well-constructed forms, or else one, to say that the others - are deviations, some from the well-blended constitution and the others from the - best one, the more tense and masterful constitutions being oligarchic and the - relaxed and soft ones demotic. - But it is not right to define democracy, as - some people are in the custom of doing now, merely as the constitution in which - the multitude is sovereign (for even in oligarchies and everywhere the - majority is sovereign) nor oligarchy as the constitution in which a few - are sovereign over the government. For if the whole number were thirteen - hundred, and a thousand of these were rich and did not give the three hundred - poor a share in the government although they were free-born and like themselves - in all other respects, no one would say that this people was governed - democratically; and similarly also if there were few poor, but these more - powerful than the rich who were more numerous, no one would call such a - government a democracy either, if the other citizens being rich had no share in - the honors. Rather therefore ought - we to say that it is a democracy

-
-
-

- when the free are sovereign and an oligarchy - when the rich are, but that it comes about that the sovereign class in a - democracy is numerous and that in an oligarchy small because there are many men - of free birth and few rich. For otherwise, suppose people assigned the offices - by height, as some personse.g. Hdt. 3.20. say is done in Ethiopia, or by beauty, that would be an - oligarchy, because both the handsome and the tall are few in number. Nevertheless it is not enough to define - these constitutions even by wealth and free birth only; but inasmuch as there - are more elements than one both in democracy and in oligarchy, we must add the - further distinction that neither is it a democracy if the freei.e. those of citizen birth. being few - govern the majority who are not of free birth, as for instance at Apollonia on the Ionian Gulf and at - Thera (for in each of - these cities the offices of honor were filled by the specially noble families - who had been the first settlers of the colonies, and these were few out of - many), nor is it a democracyPerhaps - the Greek should be altered here to give ‘an - oligarchy.’ if the rich rule because they are in a - majority, as in ancient times at Colophon (for there the majority of the population - owned large property before the war against the Lydians took place), - but it is a democracy when those who are free are in the majority and have - sovereignty over the government, and an oligarchy when the rich and more well - bornare few and sovereign. - - It has then been stated that there are several forms of constitution, and what - is the cause of this; but let us take the starting-point that was laid down - beforeSee 3.1. and say that there - are more forms than those mentioned, and what these forms are, and why they - vary. For we agree that every state possesses not one part but several. - Therefore just as, in case we intended to obtain a classification of animals, we - should first define the properties necessarily belonging to every animal - (for instance some of the sense organs, and the machinery for - masticating and for receiving food, such as a mouth and a stomach, and in - addition to these the locomotive organs of the various species), - and if there were only so many - necessary parts, but there were different varieties of these (I mean - for instance certain various kinds of mouth and stomach and sensory organs, and - also of the locomotive parts as well), the number of possible - combinations of these variations will necessarily produce a variety of kinds of - animals (for it is not possible for the same animal to have several - different sorts of mouth, nor similarly of ears either), so that when - all the possible combinations of these are taken they will all produce animal - species, and there will be as many species of the animal as there are - combinations of the necessary parts:—so in the same way also we shall classify the varieties of - the constitutions that have been mentioned. For states also are composed not of - one but of several parts, as has been said often. One of these parts therefore - is the mass of persons concerned with food who are called farmers,

-
-
-

- and - second is what is called the mechanic class (and this is the group - engaged in the arts without which it is impossible for a city to be inhabited, - and some of these arts are indispensably necessary, while others contribute to - luxury or noble living), and third is a commercial class (by - which I mean the class that is engaged in selling and buying and in wholesale - and retail trade), and fourth is the class of manual laborers, and the - fifth class is the one to defend the state in war, which is no less - indispensable than the others if the people are not to become the slaves of - those who come against them; for surely it is quite out of the question that it - should be proper to give the name of state to a community that is by nature a - slave, for a state is self-sufficient, but that which is a slave is not - self-sufficient. Therefore the - statement made in the Republic - - Plat. Rep. 369b-371e - is witty but not adequate. For Socrates says that the most necessary - elements of which a state is composed are four, and he specifies these as a - weaver, a farmer, a shoemaker and a builder; and then again he adds, on the - ground that these are not self-sufficient, a copper-smith and the people to look - after the necessary live-stock, and in addition a merchant and a retail trader. - These elements together constitute the full complement of his first city,i.e. the first sketch of the City-state, loc. - cit. implying that every city is formed for the sake of the - necessaries of life and not rather for the sake of what is noble, and that it - has equal need of both shoemakers and farmers; but the warrior classhe does not assign to it until as the territory is increased - and comes into contact with that of the neighbors they are brought into war. But - yet even among the four partners or whatever their number be there must - necessarily be somebody to assign justice and to judge their claims; inasmuch - therefore as one would count the soul of an animal to be more a part of it than - the body, so also the factors in states corresponding to the soul must be deemed - to be parts of them more than those factors which contribute to necessary - utility,—the former being the military class and the class that plays - a part in judicial justice, and in addition to these the deliberative class, - deliberation being a function of political intelligence. And it makes no - difference to the argument whether these functions are held by special classes - separately or by the same persons; for it often happens for the same men to be both soldiers and farmers. Hence - inasmuch as both groupsThe first four - classes and the fifth and sixth (the military and - judicial). of classes must be counted parts of the state, it - is clear that the heavy-armed soldiery at any rateLower grades of the forces may be excluded from citizenship, - e.g. the rowers of the triremes (see below, 1376b - 15). must be a part of the state. And a seventh class is the - one that serves the community by means of its property, the class that we call - the rich. And an eighth is the class of public servants, that is, those who - serve in the magistracies, inasmuch as without rulers it is impossible for a - city to exist; it is therefore necessary that there should be some men who are - able to govern and who render this service to the state either continuously or - in turn. And there remain the classes which we happen to have defined just - before, the deliberative class and the one that judges the claims of litigants. - If therefore it is proper for the states to have these functions performed, and - well and justly performed,

-
-
-

- it is necessary for there also to be some men - possessing virtue in the form of political excellence. Now as to the other capacities many people think - that it is possible for them to be possessed in combination, for example, for - the same men to be the soldiers that defend the state in war and the farmers - that till the land and the artisans, and also the councillors and judges, and - indeed all men claim to possess virtue and think themselves capable of filling - most of the offices of state; but it is not possible for the same men to be poor - and rich. Hence these seem to be in the fullest sense the parts of the state, - the rich and the poor. And also the fact that the rich are usually few and the - poor many makes these two among the parts of the state appear as opposite - sections; so that the superior claimsCf. - 3.11, 12 fin. of these classes are even made the guiding principles - upon which constitutions are constructed, and it is thought that there are two - forms of constitution, democracy and oligarchy. - That there are then several - forms of constitution, and what are the reasons for this, has been stated - before; let us now say that there are several varieties both of democracy and of - oligarchy. And this is clear even from what has been said already. For there are - several classes both of the people and of those called the notables; for - instance classes of the people are, one the farmers, another the class dealing - with the arts and crafts, another the commercial classoccupied in buying and selling and another the one - occupied with the sea—and this is divided into the classes concerned - with naval warfare, with trade, with ferrying passengers and with fishing - (for each of these classes is extremely numerous in various places, for - instance fishermen at Tarentum and - Byzantium, navy men at - Athens, the mercantile class at - Aegina and Chios, and the ferryman-class at Tenedos), and in addition to - these the hand-working class and the people possessing little substance so that - they cannot live a life of leisure, also those that are not free men of citizen - parentage on both sides, and any other similar class of common people; while - among the notables wealth, birth, virtue, education, and the distinctions that - are spoken of in the same group as these, form the classes. - The first kind of - democracy therefore is the one which receives the name chiefly in respect of - equality. For the law of this sort of democracy ascribes equality to the state - of things in which the poor have no more prominence than the rich, and neither - class is sovereign, but both are alike; for assuming that freedom is chiefly - found in a democracy, as some persons suppose, and also equality, this would be - so most fully when to the fullest extent all alike share equally in the - government. And since the people are in the majority, and a resolution passed by - a majority is paramount, this must necessarily be a democracy. This therefore is one kind of democracy, - where the offices are held on property qualifications, but these low ones, - although it is essential that the man who acquires the specified amount should - have the right to hold office, and the man who loses it should not hold office. -

-
-
-

- And another kind of democracy is for all the citizens that are - not open to challengei.e. on the score of - birth, cf. 5.4. to have a share in office, but for the law to rule; - and another kind of democracy is for all to share in the offices on the mere - qualification of being a citizen, but for the law to rule. Another kind of - democracy is where all the other regulations are the same, but the multitude is - sovereign and not the law; and this - comes about when the decrees of the assembly over-ride the law. This state of - things is brought about by the demagogues; for in the states under democratic - government guided by law a demagogue does not arise, but the best classes of - citizens are in the most prominent position; but where the laws are not - sovereign, then demagogues arise; for the common people become a single - composite monarch, since the many are sovereign not as individuals but - collectively. Yet what kind of democracy Homer - Hom. Il. 2.204 - means by the words ‘no blessing is the lordship of the - many’—whether he means this kind or when those who rule as - individuals are more numerous, is not clear. However, a people of this sort, as being monarch, seeks to - exercise monarchic rule through not being ruled by the law, and becomes - despotic, so that flatterers are held in honor. And a democracy of this nature - is comparable to the tyrannical form of monarchy, because their spirit is the - same, and both exercise despotic control over the better classes, and the - decrees voted by the assemblyare like - the commands issued in a tyranny, and the demagogues and the flatterers are the - same people or a corresponding class, and either set has the very strongest - influence with the respective ruling power, the flatterers with the tyrants and - the demagogues with democracies of this kind. And these men cause the resolutions of the assembly to be - supreme and not the laws, by referring all things to the people; for they owe - their rise to greatness to the fact that the people is sovereign over all things - while they are sovereign over the opinion of the people, for the multitude - believes them. Moreover those who bring charges against the magistrates say that - the people ought to judge the suits, and the people receive the invitation - gladly, so that all the magistracies are put down. And it would seem to be a reasonable criticism to say that - such a democracy is not a constitution at all; for where the laws do not govern - there is no constitution, as the law ought to govern all things while the - magistrates control particulars, and we ought to judge this to be constitutional - government; if then democracy really is one of the forms of constitution, it is - manifest that an organization of this kind, in which all things are administered - by resolutions of the assembly, is not even a democracy in the proper sense, for - it is impossible for a voted resolution to be a universal rule.Let this be our discussion of the different kinds of - democracy. - Of the kinds of oligarchy, one is for the magistracies to be - appointed from property-assessments so high that the poor who are the majority - have no share in the government, but for the man who acquires the requisite - amount of property to be allowed to take part in it;

-
-
-

- another is when - the magistracies are filled from high assessments and the magistrates themselves - elect to fill vacancies (so that if they do so from all the citizens of - this assessment, this appears rather to be of the nature of an aristocracy, but - if from a particular section of them, it is oligarchical); another - variety of oligarchy is when son succeeds father in office; and a fourth kind is - when the hereditary system just mentioned exists and also the magistrates govern - and not the law. This among oligarchies is the form corresponding to tyranny - among monarchies and to the form of democracy about which we spoke last among - democracies, and indeed oligarchy of this sort has the special name of - dynasty.Government controlled by a few - powerful families. Cf. Thuc. 3.62.4, where the - Thebans say, ‘In those days our state was not governed by an - oligarchy that granted equal justice to all, nor yet by a democracy; the - power was in the hands of a small cabal ( dunastei/a o)li/gwn a)ndrw=n), than which nothing is - more opposed to law or to true political order, or more nearly resembles a - tyranny’ (Jowett). - - So - many therefore are the kinds of oligarchy and of democracy; but it must not - escape notice that in many places it has come about that although the - constitution as framed by the laws is not democratic, yet owing to custom and - the social system it is democratically administered, and similarly by a reverse - process in other states although the legal constitution is more democratic, yet - by means of the social system and customs it is carried on rather as an - oligarchy. This occurs chiefly after alterations of the constitutions have taken - place; for the people do not change over to the new system immediately but are - content at the first stages to gain small advantages from the other - party,so that the previously - existing laws continue although power is in the hands of the party that is - changing the constitution. - And that these various kinds of democracy and oligarchy - exist is manifest from the actual things that have been said. For necessarily - either all the parts of the population that have been mentioned must have a - share in the government, or some and not others. When therefore the farmer class - and the class possessed of moderate property is sovereign over the government, - they govern according to laws; for they have a livelihood if they work, but are - not able to be at leisure, so that they put the law in control and hold the - minimum of assemblies necessary; and the other persons have the right to take - part when they have acquired the property-assessment fixed by the laws, so that - to take part in the government is open to all who have got that amount of - property; since for it not to be open to everybody on any terms at all is a - characteristic of oligarchy, but then on the other hand it is impossible for it - to be open to them to have leisure if there are no revenues.i.e. revenues from abroad; the poor can only attend often if - paid for attendance, and this can only be financed if the state has income - from tribute or foreign property. This then is one kind of democracy - for these reasons. Another kind is - due to the distinction that comes next: it is possible that all the citizens not - liable to objection on the score of birth may have the right to take part in the - assembly, but may actually take part only when they are able to be at leisure; - hence in a democracy of this nature the laws govern because there is no revenue. - A third kind is when all those who are free men have the right to take part in - the government yet do not do so because of the aforesaid reason, so that it - follows that in this form of democracy also the law governs.

-
-
-

- - And a fourth kind of democracy - is the one that has been the last in point of time to come into existence in the - states. Because the states have become much greater than the original ones and - possess large supplies of revenue, while all the citizens have a share in the - government because of the superiorityCf. - 1288a 20 ff. of the multitude, all actually take part in it and - exercise their citizenship because even the poor are enabled to be at leisure by - receiving pay. Indeed the multitude in this kind of state has a very great deal - of leisure, for they are not hampered at all by the care of their private - affairs, but the rich are, so that often they take no part in the assembly nor - in judging lawsuits. Owing to this the multitude of the poor becomes sovereign - over the government, instead of the laws. Such in number and in nature are the - kinds of democracy that these causes necessarily bring into existence. - To turn to the varieties and of - oligarchy, when more men possess property, but less of it and not a very large - amount, this is the first form of oligarchy; for they allow the man that - acquires property the right to participate, and because there is a large number - of persons participating in the government it necessarily follows that not the - men but the law is sovereign (for the farther removed they are from - monarchy, and as they have not so much property as to be idle and neglect it, - nor yet so little as to be kept at the expense of the state,they are compelled to call upon the law to rule - instead of ruling themselves). But then if the owners of the properties are fewer than - those who owned them previously, and own more, the second form of oligarchy - comes into being; for as they become stronger they claim to have a larger share, - and therefore they themselves select those from among the rest of the citizens - who go into the government, but as they are not yet strong enough to rule - without law they make the law conform with this.i.e. they legalize the recruiting of the ruling class by - co-optation; or the words may mean ‘they make the law - ruler.’ - And if they carry matters further by - becoming fewer and holding larger properties, there comes about the third - advance in oligarchy, which consists in their keeping the offices in their own - hands, but under a law enacting that they are to be hereditary. And when finally - they attain very great pre-eminence by their wealth and their multitude of - friends, a dynasty of this nature is near to monarchy, and men become supreme - instead of the law; and this is the fourth kind of oligarchy, the counterpart of - the last kind of democracy. - FurthermoreWe now pass from the varieties of Oligarchy and of Democracy - to those of the other actually existing constitutions, Aristocracy so-called - and Constitutional Government. there are two constitutions by the - side of democracy and oligarchy, onei.e. - aristocracy. of which is counted by everybody and has been referred - to as one of the four forms of constitution (and the four meant are - monarchy, oligarchy, democracy and fourth the form called aristocracy), - but there is a fifth, entitled by the common name of them all (for it - is called constitutional government), but as it does not often occur it - is overlooked by those who try to enumerate the forms of constitution, and they - use the four names only (as does Plato) in the list of - constitutions.

-
-
-

- - Now the name of - aristocracy is indeed properly given to the constitution that we discussed in - our first discoursesBook 3. 1279a 35 ff., - 1286b 3 ff. (for it is right to apply the name - ‘aristocracy’—‘government of the - best’—only to the constitution of which the citizens are - best in virtue absolutely and not merely good men in relation to some arbitrary - standard, for under it alone the same person is a good man and a good citizen - absolutely, whereas those who are good under the other constitutions are good - relatively to their own form of constitution); nevertheless there are - also some constitutions that have differences both in comparison with - oligarchically governed states and with what is termed constitutional - government, inasmuch as in them they elect the officials not only by wealth but - also by goodness; this form of - constitution differs from both and is called aristocratic. For even in the - states that do not pay any public attention to virtue there are nevertheless - some men that are held in high esteem and are thought worthy of respect. Where - then the constitution takes in view wealth and virtue as well as the common - people, as for instance at Carthage, this is of the nature of an aristocracy; and so also - are the states, in which the constitution, like that of Sparta, takes in view two of these things - only, virtue and the common people, and there is a mingling of these two - factors, democracy and virtue. These then are two kinds of aristocracy beside - the first, which is the best constitution,and a third kind is those instances of what is called - constitutional government that incline more in the direction of - oligarchy. - It remains for us to speak about what is termed constitutional - government and also about tyranny. Though neither the former nor the - aristocracies spoken of just now are really deviations, we have classed them - thus because in actual truth they have all fallen away from the most correct - constitution, and consequently are counted with the deviation-forms, and those - are deviations from them, as we said in our remarks at the beginning.See 1279b 4 ff. Actual aristocracies are a - falling-off from the Aristocracy and Polity is a decline from Monarchy and - Aristocracy; but they are not deviations in the technical sense. - Tyranny is reasonably mentioned last because it is the least constitutional of - all governments, whereas our investigation is about constitutional - government.Having then stated the reason for - this mode of classification, we have now to set forth our view about - constitutional government. For its - meaning is clearer now that the characteristics of oligarchy and democracy have - been defined; since constitutional government is, to put it simply, a mixture of - oligarchy and democracy. But people customarily give the name of constitutional - government only to those among such mixed constitutions that incline towards - democracy, and entitle those that incline more towards oligarchy aristocracies, - because education and good birth go more with the wealthier classes, and also - the wealthy are thought to have already the things to get which wrongdoers - commit wrong; owing to which people apply the terms ‘gentry’ - and ‘notabilities’ to the rich. Since therefore aristocracy means the assignment of the - highest place to the best of the citizens, oligarchies also are said to be drawn - rather from the gentry.

-
-
-

- And it seems an impossibility for a city governed - not by the aristocracy but by the base to have well-ordered government, and - similarly also for a city that has not a well-ordered government to be governed - aristocratically. But to have good laws enacted but not obey them does not - constitute well-ordered government. Hence one form of good government must be - understood to consist in the laws enacted being obeyed, and another form in the - laws which the citizens keep being well enacted (for it is possible to - obey badly enacted laws). And for laws to be well enacted is possible - in two ways: they must either be the best laws possible for the given people or - the best absolutely. But aristocracy - in the fullest sense seems to consist in the distribution of the honors - according to virtue; for virtue is the defining factor of aristocracy, as wealth - is of oligarchy, and freedom of democracy (while the principle that a - decision of the majority is supreme is found in them all: for in both oligarchy - and aristocracy and democracies whatever the larger part of those who have a - share in the government decides is supreme). In most statesi.e. in most states that are considered - aristocracies. then the name of aristocracy is given to that form of - constitutional government,i.e. the more - oligarchical form, 1293b 36. for the combination aims only at the - well-off and the poor, wealth and freedom (since in almost the largest - number of states the rich seem to occupy the place of the gentry); - but as there are three things - that claim equal participationin the - constitution, freedom, wealth and virtue (for the fourth, what is - called nobility, accompanies the two latter—nobility means ancient - wealth and virtue), it is manifest that the mixture of the two factors, - the rich and the poor,Loosely put for - ‘wealth and free birth.’ ought to be termed - constitutional government, while the mixture of the three factors deserves the - name of aristocracy most of all the various forms of aristocracy beside the true - and best form.It has then been stated that other - forms of constitution also exist besides monarchy, democracy and oligarchy, and - what their characteristics are, and how the various sorts of aristocracy and of - constitutional government differ from one another; and it is manifest that - aristocracy and constitutional government are not widely apart from one - another. - Next to what has been said let us state the way in which what - is called constitutional government comes into existence by the side of - democracy and oligarchy, and how it is proper to establish it. At the same time - the defining characteristics of democracy and oligarchy will also be clear; for - we must grasp the distinction between these and then make a combination out of - them, taking, so to say, a contribution from each. And there are three - principles determining this combination or mixture. Under one plan we must adopt both features from the - legislative schemes of the two different constitutions: for example, in regard - to the administration of justice, in oligarchies they institute a fine for the - rich if they do not serve on juries but no pay for the poor for serving, while - in democracies they assign pay for the poor but no fine for the rich, but a - common and intermediate principle is to have both payment and fine, and - therefore this is a mark of a constitutional government, since it is a mixture - of elements from both oligarchy and democracy.

-
-
-

- - This then is one mode of combining the two. Another - is to take the middle course between the regulations of each: for example, - democracies permit membership of the assembly on no property-qualification at - all or a quite small one, oligarchies on a large property-qualification, but the - combination clearly is to have neither principle, but one which lies in the - middle between either of these two qualifications. In the third place is a - combination of the two systems, taking some features from the oligarchical law - and some from the democratic; I mean, for example, that it is thought to be - democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected - oligarchic, and democratic for them not to have a property-qualification, - oligarchic to have one; therefore it is aristocratic and constitutional to take - one feature from one form and the other from the other, from oligarchy that - offices are to be elected, and from democracy that this is not to be on a - property-qualification. This then is the mode of the mixture; and the mark of a good mixture of democracy and - oligarchy is when it is possible to speak of the same constitution as a - democracy and as an oligarchy; for manifestly this is so when it is said because - they have been mixed well, and this is the case with the form that lies in the - middle, for each of the two extreme forms can be seen in it. This is the case with the constitution of - Sparta. For many - peopleendeavor to describe it as - being a democracy, because its system has many democratic features, for instance - first of all its regulation for the rearing of boys, since the sons of the rich - are brought up in the same way as those of the poor, and are educated in a - manner in which the sons of the poor also could be educated, and they are also - treated similarly at the next age, and in the same manner when they are grown - up, for there is nothing that distinguishes the rich man from the poor - man—thus the arrangements for food are the same for all at the common - messes, and the rich wear clothes such as even any poor man could procure, and - also because of the two greatest offices the common people elect to one and - share in the other (they elect the Elders and share in the - Ephorate); but others call it an oligarchy, because it has many - oligarchical features, for instance that all the offices are elective and none - appointed by lot and few persons have the power to sentence to death and exile, - and a number of other such matters. But in a well-constructed mixed constitution both of the two factors, and - neither of them,A conjectural emendation - removes this mysterious epigram, giving ‘and not one of the two - (only).’ should seem to be present, and - it should be kept safe by its own means and not by outside aid, and by its own - means not because those who desire its security are more numerous outside - itOr, if e)/cwqen is an interpolation, ‘not merely because - those (citizens) who wish it to survive are more numerous - (than those who do not).’ (for - even a bad constitution might possess this quality), but because no - section of the state whatever would even wish for another - constitution.The proper way therefore to - establish a constitutional government, and similarly also the governments named - aristocracies, has now been stated.

-
-
-

- - - It remained for us to speak - of tyranny, not because there is much that can be said about it, but in order - that it may receive its part in our inquiry, since we rank this also as one - among the kinds of constitution. The nature of kingship we have defined in our - first discourses,Book 3.9-12. in - which we examined the question in relation to the constitution most commonly - denoted by the term ‘kingship,’ whether it is - disadvantageous or an advantage to states, and what person ought to be set up as king, and from what - source, and by what procedure; and in the passage in which we were considering - kingship we distinguished two kinds of tyranny, because their power in a manner - borders upon royalty, because both these forms of rule are in accordance with - law (for among some of the barbarians they elect monarchic rulers with - autocratic powers, and also in old times among the ancient Greeks some men used - to become monarchs of this sort, the rulers called - aesymnetae), but these two forms of tyranny have certain - differences from one another, although they were on the one hand of the nature - of royalty because they were in accordance with law and because they exercised - monarchic rule over willing subjects, and on the other hand of the nature of a - tyranny because they ruled despotically and according to their own judgement. - But there is a third kind of - tyranny which is thought to be tyranny in the fullest degree, being the - counterpart of universal kingship; to this sort of tyranny must necessarily - belong a monarchythat exercises - irresponsible rule over subjects all of the same or of a higher class with a - view to its own private interest and not in the interest of the persons ruled. - Hence it is held against the will of the subjects, since no free man willingly - endures such rule.These then are the kinds of - tyranny and such is their number, for the reasons stated - But what is the best - constitution and what is the best mode of life for most cities and most of - mankind, if we do not judge by the standard of a virtue that is above the level - of private citizens or of an education that needs natural gifts and means - supplied by fortune, nor by the standard of the ideal constitution, but of a - mode of life able to be shared by most men and a constitution possible for most - states to attain? For the - constitutions called aristocracies, of which we spoke just now,See 1293b 7-21, cf. 1293b 36-1294a 25. - in some cases fall somewhat out of the scope of most states, and in others - approximate to what is called constitutional government, so that it is proper to - speak of these two forms as if they were one. And indeed the decision in regard - to all these questions is based on the same elementary principles. For if it has - been rightly said in theEthics - - Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1101a - 14. that the happy life is the life that is lived without - impediment in accordance with virtue, and that virtue is a middle course, it - necessarily follows that the middle course of life is the best—such a - middle course as it is possible for each class of men to attain. And these same criteria must also - necessarily apply to the goodness and badness of a state, and of a - constitution—for a constitution is a certain mode of life of a state. -

-
-
-

- In all states therefore there exist three divisions of the - state, the very rich, the very poor, and thirdly those who are between the two. - Since then it is admitted that what is moderate or in the middle is best, it is - manifest that the middle amount of all of the good things of fortune is the best - amount to possess. For this degree - of wealth is the readiest to obey reason, whereas for a person who is - exceedingly beautiful or strong or nobly born or rich, or the - opposite—exceedingly poor or weak or of very mean station, it is - difficult to follow the bidding of reason; for the former turn more to insolence - and grand wickedness, and the latter overmuch to malice and petty wickedness, - and the motive of all wrongdoing is either insolence or malice. And moreover the - middle class are the least inclined to shun office and to covet office,The text is an emendation; some MSS. give - ‘to rule the tribe and to rule the council,’ but most - have ‘to love office and rule the council,’ apparently - thinking that the verb translated ‘rule the council’ - meant ‘wish office.’ and both these tendencies - are injurious to states. And in - addition to these points, those who have an excess of fortune's goods, strength, - wealth, friends and the like, are not willing to be governed and do not know how - to be (and they have acquired this quality even in their boyhood from - their homelife, which was so luxurious that they have not got used to submitting - to authority even in school), while those who are excessively in need - of these things are too humble. Hence the latter class do not know how to govern - but know how to submit togovernment - of a servile kind, while the former class do not know how to submit to any - government, and only know how to govern in the manner of a master. The result is a state consisting of slaves - and masters, not of free men, and of one class envious and another contemptuous - of their fellows. This condition of affairs is very far removed from - friendliness, and from political partnership—for friendliness is an - element of partnership, since men are not willing to be partners with their - enemies even on a journey. But surely the ideal of the state is to consist as - much as possible of persons that are equal and alike, and this similarity is - most found in the middle classes; therefore the middle-class state will - necessarily be best constituted in respect of those elementsProbably Lambinus's alteration of the Greek should be - accepted, giving ‘hence that state will necessarily be best - governed which consists of those elements—.’ of - which we say that the state is by nature composed. And also this class of citizens have the greatest security - in the states; for they do not themselves covet other men's goods as do the - poor, nor do the other classes covet their substance as the poor covet that of - the rich; and because they are neither plotted against nor plotting they live - free from danger. Because of this it was a good prayer of PhocylidesA gnomic poet of Miletus, born 560 B.C.— - In many things the middle have the best; - Be mine a middle station. - - It is clear therefore also that the - political community administered by the middle class is the best, and that it is - possible for those states to be well governed that are of the kind in which the - middle class is numerous, and preferably stronger than both the other two - classes, or at all events than one of them, for by throwing in its weight it - sways the balance and prevents the opposite extremesi.e. extreme democracy and very limited oligarchy. - from coming into existence. Hence it is the greatest good fortune if the men - that have political power possess a moderate and sufficient substance, -

-
-
-

- since where some own a very great deal of property and others - none there comes about either an extreme democracy or an unmixed oligarchy, or a - tyranny may result from both of the two extremes, for tyranny springs from both - democracy and oligarchy of the most unbridled kind, but much less often from the - middle forms of constitution and those near to them. The cause of this we will - speak of later in our treatment of political revolutions. That the middle form of constitution is the best is - evident; for it alone is free from faction, since where the middle class is - numerous, factions and party divisions among the citizens are least likely to - occur. And the great states are more free from faction for the same reason, - because the middle class is numerous, whereas in the small states it is easy to - divide the whole people into two parties leaving nothing in between, and also - almost everybody is needy or wealthy. Also democracies are more secure and more - long-lived than oligarchies owing to the citizens of the middle class - (for they are more numerous and have a larger share of the honors in - democracies than in oligarchies), since when the poor are in a majority - without the middle class, adversity sets in and they are soon ruined. And it must be deemed a significant fact - that the best lawgivers are from among the middle citizens; for Solon was of - that class,as appears from his - poetry, and so was Lycurgus (for he was not a king) and - Charondas and almost the greatest number of the other lawgivers.And these considerations also show the reason why the - constitutions of most states are either democratic or oligarchical; owing to the - middle class in these states being often a small one, the classes diverging from - the middle status—whichever of the two, the owners of the estates or - the people, from time to time has the upper hand—conduct the - government on their own lines, so that it becomes either a democracy or an - oligarchy. And in addition to this, - because factions occur and fights between the people and the wealthy, whichever - party happens to gain the upper hand over its opponents does not establish a - common or equal government, but takes the superior share in the government as a - prize of victory, and makes it a democracy in the one case and an oligarchy in - the other. Moreover each of the two states that in the past held the leadership - of Greece took as a pattern the form of - government that existed among themselves and set up in the one case democracies - and in the other oligarchies in the cities, not considering the interest of the - cities but their own advantage. Hence owing to these causes the middle form of constitution either never comes - into existence or seldom and in few places; for one manIt is quite uncertain who is meant, possibly Solon or - Theramenes. only among the states that have formerly held the - leadership was induced to grant this form of organization, and by this time it - has become a fixed habit with the people of the separate cities also not even to - desire equality,

-
-
-

- but either to seek to rule or to endure being under - a master.These considerations therefore make it - clear which is the best constitution, and why it is the best; and now that the best has been defined, it - is not difficult to see, among the other forms of constitution - (inasmuch as we pronounce that there are various forms of democracy and - various oligarchies), what kind is to be placed first, what second, and - what next in this order, by reason of one being better and another worse. For at - each stage the form nearest to the best one must necessarily be superior, and - the form that is more remote from the middle must be inferior—unless - one is judging relatively to given conditions: I make this reservation because - it is quite possible that although one form of constitution is preferable it may - often be more advantageous for certain people to have another form. - The next - thing after what has been said is to discuss which constitution is advantageous - for which people, and what sort of constitution for what sort of people. Now we - must first grasp a general principle that applies equally to all sorts of - constitution: it is essential that the part of the state that wishes the - constitution to remain should be stronger than the part that does not wish it. - But every state consists of both quality and quantity: by quality I mean - freedom, wealth, education, good birth, and by quantity the superior numbers of - the multitude. And it is possible - that,while the quality of the - state belongs to one among the parts of which the state consists and its - quantity to another part—for example the low-born may be more numerous - than the noble or the poor than the rich, yet the more numerous class may not - exceed in quantity as much as they fall behind in quality. Hence these two - factors have to be judged in comparison with one another.Where therefore the multitude of the poor exceeds in the - proportion stated,i.e. so as to outbalance - their inferiority in quality. here it is natural for there to be - democracy, and each kind of democracy in accordance with the superior number of - the common people of each sort, for example if the number of the farming class - exceeds, the first sort of democracy, but if that of the common laborers and - wage-earners, the last sort, and similarly also with the other sorts that lie - between these two; but where the - class of the well-to-do and notable exceeds in quality more than it falls behind - in quantity, here it is natural for there to be an oligarchy, and likewise the - various kinds of oligarchy according to the degree of superiorityi.e. superiority in quality. of the - oligarchical multitude.The word is loosely - used of this small class. But the lawgiver in his constitution must - always take in the middle class; if he is making the laws of an oligarchical - character he must keep the middle class in view, and if democratic, he must - legislate so as to bring them in. And where the number of the middle class exceeds both the extreme classes - together, or even one of them only, here it is possible for a constitutional - government to be lasting;

-
-
-

- second the one connected with the magistracies, that is, what - there are to be and what matters they are to control, and what is to be the - method of their election, and a third is, what is to be the judiciary.The deliberative factor is sovereign about war and peace - and the formation and dissolution of alliances, and about laws, and about - sentences of death and exile and confiscation of property, and about the audits - of magistrates. And necessarily - either all these decisions must be assigned to all the citizens, or all to some - of them (for instance to some one magistracy or to several), - or different ones to different magistracies, or some of them to all the citizens - and some to certain persons.For all the citizens - to be members of the deliberative body and to decide all these matters is a mark - of a popular government, for the common people seek for equality of this nature. - But there are several modes of - such universal membership. One is for the citizens to serve in rotation and not - all in a body (as is enacted in the constitution of the Milesian - Telecles,Otherwise unknown and in - other constitutions also the boards of magistrates deliberate in joint - assemblies but all the citizens enter into the magistracies from the tribes or - from the very smallest sections of the citizen-body in rotation until office has - gone through the whole body), and for there to be joint assemblies only - to consider legislation and reforms of the constitution and to hear the reports - submitted by the magistrates. Another mode isfor all to assemble - in a body, but only for the purpose of electing magistrates, enacting laws, - considering the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace and holding the - audit of magistrates, but for all other matters to be considered by the - magistrates appointed to deal with each respectively and elected by suffrage or - by lot from all the citizens. Another mode is for the citizens to meet about the - magistracies and the audits and in order to deliberate about declaring war and - concluding an alliance, but for all other matters to be dealt with by the - magistrates, elected by suffrage in as many cases as circumstances allow,i.e. in an advanced democracy. and such - magistracies are all those which must of necessity be filled by experts. - A fourth mode is for all to - meet in council about all matters, and for the magistracies to decide about - nothing but only to make preliminary decisions; this is the mode in which - democracy in its last form is administered at the present day—the form - of democracy which we pronounce to correspond to dynastic oligarchy and to - tyrannical monarchy. These modes - then are all of them democratic. On the other hand for some persons to - deliberate upon all matters is oligarchic. But this also has several variations. - For when the members of the deliberative body are elected on comparatively - moderate property-qualifications, and the eligible persons are comparatively - numerous because of the moderateness of the qualification, and when they do not - make changes in things in which the law forbids it but follow the law, and when - anybody acquiring the property-qualification is allowed to become a member, a - constitution of this sort is indeed an oligarchy, but one of the nature of - constitutional government, because of its moderation. When on the other hand not - everybody thus qualified participates in deliberation but only certain persons - previously chosen by election,

-
-
-

- and these govern in accordance with law as in - the former case, this is oligarchical; and also when the deliberative officials - are elected by co-optation, and when the office is hereditary and has supreme - control over the laws, this system is bound to be oligarchical. But when certain persons control certain - matters, for instance when all the citizens control decisions as to war and - peace and the audit of officials while everything else is controlled by - magistrates and these are elected by vote, not by lot,The MSS. give ‘or by lot.’ the - constitution is an aristocracy; while if some matters are controlled by - magistrates elected by vote and others by magistrates chosen by lot, and this - either directly or from a list previously selected by vote, or if magistrates - elected by vote and by lot sit in a joint body, some of these regulations are - features of an aristocratic constitution and others of constitutional government - itself.We have then in this way distinguished - the different kinds of deliberative body in relation to the forms of - constitution, and each form of constitution carries on the administration in - accordance with the distinction stated. But for a democracy of the form that at the present day is - considered to be democracy in the fullest degree (and I mean one of the - sort in which the people is sovereign even over the laws) it is - advantageous for the improvement of its deliberative function for it to do the - same as is done in oligarchies in the matter of the law-courts (for - they enact a fine to compel the attendance on juries of those whom they want to - attend, whereas democratic states institute payment for attendance for the - benefit of the poor), and also to do this in respect of the - assemblies(for they will - deliberate better when all are deliberating jointly, the common people when with - the notables and these when with the masses), and it is also - advantageous for those who deliberate to be elected by vote or by lot equally - from the different sections, and, if the men of the people far exceed the - political class in number, it is advantageous either not to give pay to all but - only to as many as are commensurate with the number of the notables, or to - discard by lot those who exceed this number. In oligarchies on the other hand it is advantageous either - to co-opt some persons from the multitude, or to institute an office like the - one that exists in certain constitutional governments under the flame of - Preliminary Councillors or Guardians of the Law,There were pro/bouloi at - Corinth as well as a - boulh/ and an e)kklhsi/a; and nomofu/lakes - at Sparta, Athens and elsewhere: at Athens they sat with the presidents of - the boulh/ and e)kklhsi/a to check illegal procedure. and deal with - the matters about which these officials have held a preliminary deliberation - (for thus the common people will have a share in deliberation and will - not have the power to abolish any part of the constitution), and then - for the people by their vote either to confirm or at all events not to pass - anything contrary to the resolutions brought before them, or to allow all to - take part in debate but only the magistrates to frame resolutions; and in fact it is proper to do just the - opposite of what takes place in constitutionally governed states; for the common - people ought to be given power to vote the rejection of a measure, but not to - vote its ratification, but it should be referred back to the magistrates. In - constitutional governments the procedure is the reverse; the few are competent - to vote the rejection of a resolution but are not competent to vote its - ratification, this being always referred back to the most numerous body. -

-
-
-

- - Let us then decide in this - manner about the deliberative body, which in fact is the sovereign power in the - constitution. - Connected with this subject is the determination in regard to - the magistracies (for this part of the constitution also has many - varieties), how many magistracies there are to be, and what are to be - their powers, and what their various periods of tenure (for some people - make their magistracies tenable for six months, others for less, others for a - year and others for a longer period)—shall the magistracies - be for life or for a long period, or if for a shorter term shall the same people - be allowed to hold them several times or not the same man twice but once only? - and also as to the appointment - of magistrates, who shall be eligible, who the electors, and what the mode of - election? For on all these points it is needful to be able to determine how many - modes of procedure are possible, and then to settle what modes are expedient for - what sorts of constitution. Nor is it easy to decide to what kinds of office the - name of magistracy ought to be applied; for the political community requires a - great many officials, owing to which it is not proper to reckon all of them - magistrates, whether elected by vote or by lot,—for instance first the - priests (for this office must be considered as something different from - the political magistracies), and again there are leaders of choruses, - and heralds, and persons are also elected as ambassadors. - And of - the offices exercising superintendence some are political, and are exercised - either over the whole of the citizens in regard to some operation—for - instance a general superintends them when serving as soldiers, or over a - section—for instance the superintendent of women or of children; while - others are economic (for states often elect officers to dole out - cornDistributions of corn were made at - times of scarcity, or when the state had received a present of - corn.); and others are subordinate, and are the sort of services - to which people when well off appoint slaves. But the title of magistracy, to - put it simply, is chiefly to be applied to all those offices to which have been - assigned the duties of deliberating about certain matters and of acting as - judges and of issuing orders, and especially the last, for to give orders is - most characteristic of authority. But this question is of virtually no practical - importance (for no decision has yet been given, our discussion being - merely about the name), although it does admit of some further inquiry - of a speculative kind. On the other - hand the questions what kinds and what number of magistracies are necessary to - constitute a state at all, and what kinds although not necessary are - advantageous for a good constitution, are questions that might preferably be - discussed, both indeed as regards every form of constitution and particularly in - regard to the small states. For it is true that in the large states it is - possible and proper for one magistracy to be assigned to one function - (for the large number of the citizens makes it possible for many people - to enter on an official career, so as to intermit their tenure of some offices - for a long time and to hold others only once, and also every task is better - attended to if the attention is directed to one thing only than if it is busy - with many);

-
-
-

- - but in - the small states it is inevitable that many offices must be gathered into few - hands (for owing to shortage of manpower it is not easy for many people - to be in office, since who will take over the posts as their - successors?). But sometimes small states require the same magistracies - and laws as large ones except that the latter require the same persons to serve - often, but in the former this only occurs after a long interval. Hence it is - possible to assign several duties to one man at the same time (since - they will not interfere with one another), and to meet the shortage of - man-power it is necessary to make the magistracies like spit-lampholders.An implement (its exact shape does - not appear to be known) used by soldiers on campaign, here - mentioned as an illustration of one tool serving two purposes, cf. 1252b - 1. - If therefore we are able to say how - many magistracies every state must necessarily possess and how many, though not - absolutely necessary, it ought to possess, knowing these points one might more - easily make a combination of those magistracies which are of a suitable nature - to be combined into a single office. And it is suitable for the further question - not to be overlooked, what kinds of matters ought to be attended to by a number - of officials locally distributed and what ought to be under the authority of one - magistrate for all localities, for example should good order be seen to in the - market-place by a Controller of the Market and elsewhere by another official, or - everywhere by the same one? and ought the offices to be divided according to the - function or according to the persons concerned—I mean, for instance, - should there be a single official in control of good order, or a different - onefor children and for women? - and also under the various - constitutions does the nature of the magistracies vary in accordance with each - or does it not vary at all—for example in democracy, oligarchy, - aristocracy and monarchy are the magistracies the same in their powers, although - they are not filled from equal ranks nor from similar classes but are different - in different constitutions (for example in aristocracies drawn from the - educated, in oligarchies from the wealthy, and in democracies from the - free), or although some constitutions happen to be correspondent with - the actual differences of their magistracies, yet in other cases are the same - magistracies advantageous even where the constitutions differ (for in - some places it is suitable for the same magistracies to have large functions and - in other places small ones)? Not but what there are also some offices peculiar to - special forms of constitution, for instance the office of Preliminary - Councillors.See 1298b 29 n. This - is undemocratic, although a Council is a popular body, for there is bound to be - some body of this nature to have the duty of preparing measures for the popular - assembly, in order that it may be able to attend to its business; but a - preparatory committee, if small, is oligarchical, and Preliminary Councillors - must necessarily be few in number, so that they are an oligarchical element. But - where both of these magistracies exist, the Preliminary Councillors are in - authority over the Councillors, since a councillor is a democratic official, but - a preliminary councillor is an oligarchic one. Also the power of the Council is weakened in democracies - of the sort in which the people in assembly deals with everything itself; -

-
-
-

- and this usually happens when there is a plentiful supply of - pay for those who attend the assembly, for being at leisure they meet frequently - and decide all things themselves. But a Superintendent of Children and a - Superintendent of Women, and any other magistrates that exercise a similar sort - of supervision, are an aristocratic feature, and not democratic (for - how is it possible to prevent the wives of the poor from going out of doorsOr possibly ‘from going in - processions’: Solon made regulations tai=s - e)co/dois tw=n gunaikw=n kai\ toi=s pe/nqesi kai\ tai=s - e(ortai=s(Plut. Sol. - 21).?) nor yet oligarchic (for - the wives of oligarchic rulers are luxurious). But let the discussion of these matters go no - further at present, and let us attempt to go through from the beginning the - question of the ways of appointing the magistrates. The varieties here depend on - three determinants, the combinations of which must give all the possible modes. - One of these three determining points is, who are the persons who appoint the - magistrates? the second is, from whom? and last, in what manner? And of each of - these three determinants there are three variations: either all the citizens - appoint or some, and either from all or from a certain class (defined - for instance by property-assessment or birth or virtue or some other such - qualification, as at Megara only - those were eligible who returned in a body from exile and fought together - against the common people),It is - quite uncertain when this event took place and whether it is the same as - those referred to at 1302b 30 f. and l304b 34 ff. and the mode of - appointment may be either by vote or by lot; again, these systems may be coupled - together—I mean that - some citizens may appoint to some offices but all to others, and to some offices - all citizens may be eligible but to others only a certain class, and to some - appointment may be by vote but to others by lot. And of each variation of these - determinants there will be four modes: either all citizens may appoint from all - by vote, or all from all by lot—and from all either section by - section, for instance by tribes or demes or brotherhoods until the procedure has - gone through all the citizens, or from the whole number every time,—or - else partly in one way and partly in the other. Again, if the electors are some - of the citizens, they must either appoint from all by vote, or from all by lot, - or from some by vote, or from some by lot, or partly in one way and partly in - the other—I mean partly by vote and partly by lot. Hence the modes - prove to be twelve, apart from the two combinations. And among these, two ways of appointment are - democratic—for all to appoint from all by vote, or by lot, or by - both—some offices by lot and others by vote; but for not all to be the - electors and for them to appoint simultaneously, and either from all or from - some either by lot or by vote or by both, or some offices from all and others - from some by both (by which I mean some by lot and others by - vote) is constitutional. And for some to appoint from all, to some - offices by vote and to others by lot or by bothPerhaps the Greek should be rewritten to give ‘for - some to appoint from all either by vote or by lot or by - both.’ (to some by lot and to others by - vote) is oligarchical; and it is even more oligarchical to appoint from - both classes. But to appoint some - offices from all and the others from a certain class is constitutional with an - aristocratic bias;

-
-
-

- or to appoint some by vote and others by lot. And - for a certain class to appoint from a certain class <by vote>This insertion by Lambinus seems - certain. is oligarchical, and so it is for a certain class to appoint - from a certain class by lot (although not working out in the same - way), and for a certain class to appoint from a certain class by both - methods. And for a certain class to make a preliminary selection from the whole - body and then for all to appoint from among certain persons (thus - selected) is aristocratic.So many in - number therefore are the modes of appointing to the magistracies, and this is - how the modes are classified according to the different constitutions; and what - regulations are advantageous for what people and how the appointments ought to - be conducted will be made clear at the same time as we consider what are the - powers of the offices. By the power of an office I mean for instance the control - of the revenues and the control of the guard; since a different sort of power - belongs for example to a generalship and to the office that controls market - contracts. - Of the three factors of a constitution it remains to speak of - the judiciary, and of judicial bodies also we must consider the various modes, - in accordance with the same plan. And a difference among judicial courts rests - upon three determinants—constituents, sphere of action, and mode of - appointment. As to their constituents I mean are the courts drawn from all the - citizens or from a certain class? as to sphere of action, how many kinds of - courts are there? and as to mode of appointment, are they appointed by lot or by - vote? First then let us distinguish how many kinds of courts there are. They are - eight in number, one a court of audit,another to deal with offenders against any public interest, another with - matters that bear on the constitution, a fourth for both magistrates and private - persons in disputes about penalties, fifth the court dealing with private - contracts that are on an important scale, and beside these there is - (6) the court that tries homicide, and (7) - that which hears alien suits (of courts of homicide there are four kinds, whether the jury is the - same or different—namely, for cases of deliberate homicide, of - involuntary homicide, of homicide admitted but claimed to be justifiable, and - fourth to deal with charges of homicide brought against men that have fled from - the country for homicide, upon their return,i.e. men that had been allowed to flee the country when charged with - accidental homicide, and on their return were accused of another homicide, a - willful murder. such as at Athens for instance the Court at Phreatto is said to be, - although such cases are of rare occurrence in the whole course of history, even - in the great states and of the aliens' court one branch hears suits of aliens - against aliens and another of aliens against citizens); and also beside - all of these there are (8) courts to try cases of petty - contracts, involving sums of one drachma, five drachmas or a little - more—for even these cases have to be tried, though they are not - suitable for a numerous jury. But - let us dismiss the subject of these petty suits, and the courts for homicide and - those for aliens, and let us speak about political trials, which when not well - conducted cause party divisions and revolutionary disturbances. And necessarily - either all the judges of all the cases that have been classified will be - appointed by vote, or by lot, or all in all cases partly by lot and partly by - vote, or in some cases some judges will be appointed by lot and others by vote - for the same case.

-
- - -
-

- - - - Book 5 is placed as Book 7 by some - editors, as Book 8 by others, see Book 3 fin., note.Almost all the - other subjects which we intended to treathave now been discussed. There must follow the consideration of - the questions, what are the number and the nature of the causes that give rise - to revolutions in constitutions, and what are the causes that destroy each form - of constitution, and out of what forms into what forms do they usually change, - and again what are the safeguards of constitutions in general and of each form - in particular, and what are the means by which the safeguarding of each may best - be put into effect.For this distinction - between broad methods of guarding against revolution and the practical means - by which those methods can be put into effect Newman compares 9.2 f., 10 f.; - 4.2.5 fin., 6.1.1. - - And - we must first assume the starting-point, that many forms of constitution have - come into existence with everybody agreeing as to what is just, that is - proportionate equality, but failing to attain it (as has also been said - before). Thus democracy arose from men's thinking that if they are - equal in any respect they are equal absolutely (for they suppose that - because they are all alike free they are equal absolutely), oligarchy - arose from their assuming that if they are unequal as regards some one thing - they are unequal wholly (for being unequal in property they assume that - they are unequal absolutely); and then the democrats claim as being equal to participate - in all things in equal shares, while the oligarchs as being unequal seek to have - a larger share, for a larger share is unequal. All these forms of constitution - then have some element of justice, but from an absolute point of view they are - erroneous; and owing to this cause, when each of the two parties has not got the - share in the constitution which accords with the fundamental assumption that - they happen to entertain, faction ensues. And of all men those who excel in - virtue would most justifiably stir up faction, though they are least given to - doing so;

-
-
-

- for they alone can with the fullest reason be deemed absolutely - unequal. And there are some men who being superior in birth claim unequal rights - because of this inequality; for persons who have ancestral virtue and wealth - behind them are thought to be noble. - These then roughly speaking are the - starting-points and sources of factions, which give rise to party strife - (and revolutions due to this take place in two ways: sometimes they are - in regard to the constitution, and aim at changing from the one established to - another, for instance from democracy to oligarchy, or to democracy from - oligarchy, or from these to constitutional government and aristocracy, or from - those to these; but sometimes the revolution is not in regard to the established - constitution, but its promoters desire the same form of government, for instance - oligarchy or monarchy, but wish it to be in their own control. Again it may be a question of degree; for - instance, when there is an oligarchy the object may be to change to a more - oligarchical government or to a less, or when there is a democracy to a more or - to a less democratic government, and similarly in the case of the remaining - constitutions, the aim may be either to tighten them up or to relax them. Or - again the aim may be to change a certain part of the constitution, for example - to establish or abolish a certain magistracy, as according to some accounts - Lysanderattempted to abolish the - kingship at Sparta and the king - Pausanias the ephorateSee 1307a 34 - n.; and also at Epidamnus the constitution was altered in - part, for they set up a council instead of the tribal rulers, and it is still - compulsory for the magistrates alone of the class that has political power to - come to the popular assembly when an appointment to a magistracy is put to the - vote; and the single supreme magistrate was also an oligarchical feature in this - constitution). For party strife is everywhere due to inequality, where - classes that are unequal do not receive a share of power in proportion - (for a lifelong monarchy is an unequal feature when it exists among - equals); for generally the motive for factious strife is the desire for - equality. But equality is of two - kinds, numerical equality and equality according to worth—by - numerically equal I mean that which is the same and equal in number or - dimension, by equal according to worth that which is equal by proportionThis ethical arithmetic is helped out in Greek - by the fact that, even without the qualification kat' - a)ci/an, i)/sos often means ‘equal to - desert,’ fair, just.; for instance numerically 3 exceeds 2 - and 2 exceeds 1 by an equal amount, but by proportion 4 exceeds 2 and 2 exceeds - 1 equally, since 2 and 1 are equal parts of 4 and 2, both being halves. But - although men agree that the absolutely just is what is according to worth, they - disagree (as was said beforeSee - 1301a 27 ff. and note.) in that some think that if they are - equal in something they are wholly equal, and others claim that if they are - unequal in something they deserve an unequal share of all things. Owing to this two principal varieties of - constitution come into existence, democracy and oligarchy; for noble birth and - virtue are found in few men, but the qualifications specifiedThat is, numbers and wealth. in more: -

-
-
-

- nowhere are there a hundred men nobly born and good, but there - are rich menPerhaps the text should be - emended to give ‘there are many rich men and poor men in many - places.’ in many places. But for the constitution to be - framed absolutely and entirely according to either kind of equality is bad. And - this is proved by experience, for not one of the constitutions formed on such - lines is permanent. And the cause of this is that it is impossible for some evil - not to occur ultimately from the first and initial error that has been made. - Hence the proper course is to employ numerical equality in some things and - equality according to worth in others. But nevertheless democracy is safer and more free from - civil strife than oligarchy; for in oligarchies two kinds of strife spring up, - faction between different members of the oligarchy and also faction between the - oligarchs and the people, whereas in democracies only strife between the people - and the oligarchical party occurs, but party strife between different sections - of the people itself does not occur to any degree worth mentioning. And again - the government formed of the middle classes is nearer to the people than to the - few, and it is the safest of the kinds of constitution mentioned. - And since we - are considering what circumstances give rise to party factions and revolutions - in constitutions, we must first ascertain their origins and causes generally. - They are, speaking roughly, three in number,Viz. the material, final and efficient causes of revolutions - (Jowett). which we must first define in outline - separately.For we must ascertain - what state of affairs gives rise to party strife, and for what objects it is - waged, and thirdly what are the origins of political disorders and internal - party struggles.Now the principal cause, speaking - generally, of the citizens being themselves disposed in a certain manner towards - revolution is the one about which we happen to have spoken already. Those that - desire equality enter on party strife if they think that they have too little - although they are the equals of those who have more, while those that desire - inequality or superiority do so if they suppose that although they are unequal - they have not got more but an equal amount or less (and these desires may be felt justly, and they - may also be felt unjustly); for when inferior, people enter on strife - in order that they may be equal, and when equal, in order that they may be - greater. We have therefore said what are the states of feeling in which men - engage in party strife.The objects about which it - is waged are gain and honor, and their opposites, for men carry on party faction - in states in order to avoid dishonor and loss, either on their own behalf or on - behalf of their friends. - And the causes and origins of the disturbances which - occasion the actual states of feeling described and their direction to the - objects mentioned, according to one account happen to be seven in number, though - according to another they are more. Two of them are the same as those spoken of - before although not operating in the same way: the motives of gain and honor - also stir men up against each other not in order that they may get them for - themselves, as has been said before,

-
-
-

- but because they see other men - in some cases justly and in other cases unjustly getting a larger share of them. - Other causes are insolence, fear, excessive predominance, contempt, - disproportionate growth of power; and also other modes of causeThe four causes now mentioned are those - alluded to just above (1302a 38) as an addition to the - seven enumerated above, 1302a 38-b 5. are election intrigue, - carelessness, pettiness, dissimilarity. Among these motives the power possessed by insolence and - gain, and their mode of operation, is almost obvious; for when the men in office - show insolence and greed, people rise in revolt against one another and against - the constitutions that afford the opportunity for such conduct; and greed - sometimes preys on private property and sometimes on common funds. It is clear - also what is the power of honor and how it can cause party faction; for men form - factions both when they are themselves dishonored and when they see others - honored; and the distribution of honors is unjust when persons are either - honored or dishonored against their deserts, just when it is according to - desert. Excessive predominance causes faction, when some individual or body of - men is greater and more powerful than is suitable to the state and the power of - the government; for such are the conditions that usually result in the rise of a - monarchy or dynasty. Owing to this - in some places they have the custom of temporary banishment,Cf. 1284a 18. as at Argos and Athens; - yet it would be better to provide from the outset that there may be no persons - in the stateso greatly predominant, - than first to allow them to come into existence and afterwards to apply a - remedy. Fear is the motive of faction with those who have inflicted wrong and - are afraid of being punished, and also with those who are in danger of suffering - a wrong and wish to act in time before the wrong is inflicted, as the notables - at Rhodes banded togetherPerhaps in 390 B.C., - cf. 1302b 32 f. and 1304b 27 ff. against the people because of the - law-suits that were being brought against them. Contempt is a cause of faction and of actual attacks, upon - the government, for instance in oligarchies when those who have no share in the - government are more numerous (for they think themselves the stronger - party), and in democracies when the rich have begun to feel contempt - for the disorder and anarchy that prevails, as for example at Thebes the democracy was destroyed owing to - bad government after the battle of Oenophyta,Against Athens, 456 B.C. and that of the Megarians was - destroyed when they had been defeated owing to disorder and anarchy,See 1300a 18 n. and at Syracuse before the tyranny - 485 B.C. of - Gelo, and at Rhodes - See 1302b 23 n. the common people had fallen into - contempt before the rising against them. Revolutions in the constitutions also take place on - account of disproportionate growth; for just as the bodyIt is not clear whether what follows refers to a work of art - (cf. 1284b 8) or is an exaggerated account of a disease; - Galen describes one called saturi/asis, in - which the bones of the temple swell out like satyrs' horns. is - composed of parts, and needs to grow proportionately in order that its symmetry - may remain, and if it does not it is spoiled, when the foot is four cubits long - and the rest of the body two spans, and sometimes it might even change into the - shape of another animal if it increased disproportionately not only in size but - also in quality,i.e. if, for example, the - foot became as hard as a hoof. so also a state is composed of parts, -

-
-
-

- one of which often grows without its being noticed, as for - example the number of the poor in democracies and constitutional states. - And sometimes this is also - brought about by accidental occurrences, as for instance at Tarentum when a great many notables were - defeated and killed by the Iapygians a short time after the Persian wars a - constitutional government was changed to a democracy, and at Argos when those in the seventh tribeThe word to be understood here may be fulh=|, or possibly h(me/ra|: the seventh day of the month was sacred to Apollo, - especially at Sparta, and one - account assigns Cleomenes' victory to that day, in which case the casualties - may well have been known afterwards as ‘those who fell on the - seventh.’ had been destroyed by the Spartan Cleomenes the - citizens were compelled to admit some of the surrounding people, and at - Athens when they suffered - disasters by land the notables became fewer because at the time of the war - against Sparta the army was drawn - from a muster-roll.i.e. was made up of - citizens and not of mercenaries. And this happens also in - democracies, though to a smaller extent; for when the wealthy become more - numerous or their properties increase, the governments change to oligarchies and - dynasties.See 1292b 10 n. - And revolutions in constitutions - take place even without factious strife, owing to election intrigue, as at - Heraea - On the Alpheus, in Arcadia. (for they made their magistrates - elected by lot instead of by vote for this reason, because the people used to - elect those who canvassed); and also owing to carelessness, when people - allow men that are not friends of the constitution to enter into the sovereign - offices, as at OreusIn Euboea; its secession from Sparta to Athens, 377 - B.C., was perhaps the occasion of this revolution. oligarchy was - broken up when Heracleodorus became one of the magistrates, who in place of an - oligarchyformed a constitutional - government, or rather a democracy. Another cause is alteration by small stages; - by this I mean that often a great change of institutions takes place unnoticed - when people overlook a small alteration, as in Ambracia the property-qualification was small, and finally men - hold office with none at all, as a little is near to nothing, or practically the - same. Also difference of race is a - cause of faction, until harmony of spirit is reached; for just as any chance - multitude of people does not form a state, so a state is not formed in any - chance period of time. Hence most of the states that have hitherto admitted - joint settlers or additional settlersi.e. - colonists not from the mother-city, admitted either at the foundation of the - colony or later. have split into factions; for example Achaeans - settled at Sybaris - - Sybaris, founded 720 B.C., became - very wealthy. The Troezenian population when expelled were received at - Croton, which made war on - Sybaris and destroyed it - 510 B.C. To what exactly to\ a)/gos refers is unknown. jointly with - Troezenians, and afterwards the Achaeans having become more numerous expelled - the Troezenians, which was the Cause of the curse that fell on the Sybarites; - and at Thurii Sybarites quarrelled with those who had settled there with them, - for they claimed to have the larger share in the country as being their own, and - were ejected; and at Byzantium - the additional settlers were discovered plotting against the colonists and were - expelled by force of arms; and the people of Antissa - In Lesbos. after admitting the Chian - exiles expelled them by arms; and - the people of Zancle - Later Messana, Messina. after admitting settlers from Samos were themselves expelled; and the people - of Apollonia on the Euxine Sea after bringing in additional - settlers fell into faction; and the Syracusans after the period of the - tyrantsThrasybulus succeeded his brother - Hiero as tyrant in 467 B.C. and fell within a - year. -

-
-
-

- conferred citizenship on their foreign troops and mercenaries and then faction - set in and they came to battle; and the Amphipolitans having received settlers - from Chalcis were most of them - driven out by them.Cf. 1306a 2. The exact - circumstances are unknown; Amphipolis was colonized from Athens - 437 B.C. - (And in oligarchies civil strife is - raised by the many, on the ground that they are treated unjustly because they - are not admitted to an equal share although they are equal, as has been said - before, but in democracies it begins with the notables, because they have an - equal share although they are not equal.)This sentence is out of place here, and would fit in better - if placed (as it is by Newman) above at 1301a 39, after - stasia/zousi, or (with other - editors) 1301b 26. - - Also - states sometimes enter on faction for geographical reasons, when the nature of - the country is not suited for there being a single city, as for example at - ClazomenaeTopography uncertain: - Clazomenae near Smyrna was - partly on a small island, which Alexander joined to the mainland with a - causeway. the people near Chytrum are in feud with the inhabitants of - the island, and the Colophonians and the Notians - Notium was the - port of Colophon.; and - at Athens the population is not - uniformly democratic in spirit, but the inhabitants of Piraeus are more so than those of the - city. For just as in wars the fording of watercourses, even quite small ones, - causes the formations to lose contact, so every difference seems to cause - division. Thus perhaps the greatest division is that between virtue and vice, - next that between wealth and poverty, and so with other differences in varying - degree, one of which is the one mentioned.i.e. difference of locality. - - Factions arise therefore not about but out of small matters; but they are - carried on about great matters. And even the small ones grow extremely violent - when they spring up among men of the ruling class,as happened for example at Syracuse in ancient times. For the constitution underwent a - revolution as a result of a quarrel that arosePerhaps under the oligarch of the Gamori, overthrown by the - people and followed by Gelo's tyranny, 485 - B.C. between two young men, who belonged to the ruling class, about a - love affair. While one of them was abroad the other who was his comrade won over - the youth with whom he was in love, and the former in his anger against him - retaliated by persuading his wife to come to him; owing to which they stirred up - a party struggle among all the people in the state, enlisting them on their - sides. On account of this it is - necessary to guard against such affairs at their beginning, and to break up the - factions of the leaders and powerful men; for the error occurs at the beginning, - and the beginning as the proverb says is half of the whole, so that even a small - mistake at the beginning stands in the same ratioi.e. the ratio of being a half to the whole: a bad start does - as much to harm as all the later mistakes put together. to mistakes - at the other stages. And in general the faction quarrels of the notables involve - the whole state in the consequences, as happened at HestiaeaAlso called Oreus, see 1303a 18. after the Persian - wars, when two brothers quarrelled about the division of their patrimony; for - the poorer of the two, on the ground that the other would not make a return of - the estate and of the treasure that their father had found, got the common - people on his side, and the other possessing much property was supported by the - rich. And at Delphi the beginning of all the factions - that occurred afterwards was when a quarrel arose out of a marriage;

-
-
-

- the - bridegroom interpreted some chance occurrence when he came to fetch the bride as - a bad omen and went away without taking her, and her relatives thinking - themselves insulted threw some articles of sacred property into the fire when he - was performing a sacrifice and then put him to death as guilty of sacrilege. And - also at Mitylene - The revolt of Mitylene - 428 B.C. is ascribed to purely political causes by - Thuc. 3.1-30. a faction that arose out - of some heiresses was the beginning of many misfortunes, and of the war with the - Athenians in which Paches captured the city of Mitylene: a wealthy citizen named Timophanes left two - daughters, and a man who was rejected in his suit to obtain them for his own - sons, Doxander, started the faction and kept on stirring up the Athenians, whose - consul he was at Mitylene. And among the Phocians when a faction - arising out of an heiress sprang up in connection with Mnaseas the father of - Mnason and Euthykrates the father of Onomarchus,i.e. the fathers of the two suitors for the heiress's hand - turned the quarrel into a faction fight. this faction proved to be - the beginning for the Phocians of the Holy War. At Epidamnus also circumstances - relating to a marriage gave rise to a revolution in the constitutionPerhaps the same event as that referred to - 1301b 21.; somebody had betrothed his daughter, and the father of the - man to whom he had betrothed her became a magistrate, and had to sentence him to - a fine; the other thinking that he had been treated with insolence formed a - party of the unenfranchised classes to assist him. And also revolutions to oligarchy and democracy and - constitutional government arise from the growth in reputation or in power of - some magistracy or some section of the state;as for example the Council on the Areopagus having risen in - reputation during the Persian wars was believed to have made the constitution - more rigid, and then again the naval multitude, having been the cause of the - victory off Salamis and thereby of the - leadership of Athens due to her - power at sea, made the democracy stronger; and at Argos the notables having risen in repute in connection with - the battle against the Spartans at Mantinea took in hand to put down the people; and at Syracuse the people having been the cause of the victory in the - war against Athens made a revolution - from constitutional government to democracy; and at Chalcis the people with the aid of the - notables overthrew the tyrant PhoxusUnknown. and then immediately seized the government; and again at - Ambracia similarly the people - joined with the adversaries of the tyrant Periander in expelling him and then - brought the government round to themselves. - 580 B.C; cf. 1311a 39 ff. - And indeed in general it must not - escape notice that the persons who have caused a state to win power, whether - private citizens or magistrates or tribes, or in general a section or group of - any kind, stir up faction; for either those who envy these men for being honored - begin the faction, or these men owing to their superiority are not willing to - remain in a position of equality. And constitutions also undergo revolution when - what are thought of as opposing sections of the state become equal to one - another,

-
-
-

- for instance the rich and the people, and there is no middle - class or only an extremely small one; for if either of the two sections becomes - much the superior, the remainder is not willing to risk an encounter with its - manifestly stronger opponent. Owing to this men who are exceptional in virtue - generally speaking do not cause faction, because they find themselves few - against many. Universally then in connection with all the forms of constitution - the origins and causes of factions and revolutions are of this nature. - The means - used to cause revolutions of constitutions are sometimes force and sometimes - fraud. Force is employed either when the revolutionary leaders exert compulsion - immediately from the start or later on—as indeed the mode of using - fraud is also twofold: sometimes the revolutionaries after completely deceiving - the people at the first stage alter the constitution with their consent, but - then at a later stage retain their hold on it by force against the people's - will: for instance, at the time of the Four Hundred,The oligarchy at Athens - 411 B.C., cf. 1305a 27. they deceived the - people by saying that the Persian King would supply money for the war against - the Spartans, and after telling them this falsehood endeavored to keep a hold - upon the government; but in other cases they both persuade the people at the - start and afterwards repeat the persuasion and govern them with their - consent.Speaking generally therefore in - regard to all the forms of constitution, the causes that have been stated are - those from which revolutions have occurred. - But in the light of these - general rules we must consider the usual course of eventsas classified according to each different kind of - constitution. In democracies the principal cause of revolutions is the insolence - of the demagogues; for they cause the owners of property to band together, - partly by malicious prosecutions of individuals among them (for common - fear brings together even the greatest enemies), and partly by setting - on the common people against them as a class. And one may see this taking place in this manner in many - instances. In Cos the democracy was overthrownDate unknown. when evil demagogues had arisen there, - for the notables banded themselves together; and also in Rhodes,See - 1302b 23 n. for the demagogues used to provide pay for public - services, and also to hinder the payment of money owedi.e. owed for repairs to the ships, and perhaps also for - advances of pay to the crews. to the naval captains, and these - because of the lawsuits that were brought against them were forced to make - common cause and overthrow the people. And also at Heraclea - Probably the Pontic - Heraclea (cf. 1305b 5, 36, 1306a 37), founded middle of - the 6th century B.C., not the Trachinian. the people were put down - immediately after the foundation of the colony because of the people's leaders; - for the notables being unjustly treated by them used to be driven out, but later - on those who were driven out collecting together effected their return and put - down the people. And also the - democracy at Megara was put down in - a similar mannerSee 1300a 18 ff. n.; - the people's leaders in order to have money to distribute to the people went on - expelling many of the notables, until they made the exiles a large body, and - these came back and defeated the people in a battle and set up the oligarchy. - And the same thing happened also at Cyme

-
-
-

- in the time of the democracy - which Thrasymachus put downAn event - otherwise unknown., and in the case of other states also examination - would show that revolutions take place very much in this manner. Sometimes they - make the notables combine by wronging them in order to curry favor, causing - either their estates to be divided up or their revenues by imposing public - services, and sometimes by so slandering them that they may have the property of - the wealthy to confiscate. And in - old times whenever the same man became both leader of the people and general, - they used to change the constitution to a tyranny; for almost the largest number - of the tyrants of early days have risen from being leaders of the people. And - the reason why this used to happen then but does not do so now is because then - the leaders of the people were drawn from those who held the office of general - (for they were not yet skilled in oratory), but now when - rhetoric has developed the able speakers are leaders of the people, but owing to - their inexperience in military matters they are not put in control of these, - except in so far as something of the kind has taken place to a small extent in - some places. And tyrannies also used - to occur in former times more than they do now because important offices were - entrusted to certain men, as at Miletus a tyrannyPerhaps - that of Thrasybulus (Hdt. - 1.20), 612 B.C. arose out - of the presidency (for the president had control of many important - matters). And moreover, because the cities in those times were not - large but the common people lived on their farmsbusily engaged in agriculture, the people's champions when they - became warlike used to aim at tyranny. And they all used to do this when they - had acquired the confidence of the people, and their pledge of confidence was - their enmity towards the rich, as at Athens Pisistratus made himself tyrant by - raising up a party against the men of the plain, and Theagenes at Megara by slaughtering the cattle of the - well-to-do which he captured grazing by the river, and DionysiusDionysius the elder, see 1259a 29 n. - established a claim to become tyrant when he accused Daphnaeus and the rich, - since his hostility to them caused him to be trusted as a true man of the - people. And revolutions also take - place from the ancestral form of democracy to one of the most modern kind; for - where the magistracies are elective, but not on property-assessments, and the - people elect, men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things - to the point of the people's being sovereign even over the laws. A remedy to - prevent this or to reduce its extent is for the tribes to elect the magistrates, - and not the people collectively.These then are - the causes through which almost all the revolutions in democracies take - place. - Oligarchies undergo revolution principally through two ways - that are the most obvious. One is if they treat the multitude unjustly; for - anybody makes an adequate people's champion, and especially so when their leader - happens to come from the oligarchy itself, like Lygdamis at Naxos, who afterwards actually became tyrant - of the Naxians.

-
-
-

- - Faction - originating with other people also has various ways of arising. Sometimes when - the honors of office are shared by very few, dissolution originates from the - wealthy themselves,The contrasted case, of - dissolution of oligarchy arising from the people, should follow, but is - omitted. but not those that are in office, as for example has - occurred at Marseilles,Cf. 1321a 29 ff. at Istrus,Near the mouth of the Danube. at Heraclea,See 1304b 31 - n. and in other states; for those who did not share in the - magistracies raised disturbances until as a first stage the older brothers were - admitted, and later the younger ones again (for in some places a father - and a son may not hold office together, and in others an elder and a younger - brother may not). At Marseilles the oligarchy became more constitutional, while at - Istrus it ended in becoming - democracy, and in Heraclea the - government passed from a smaller number to six hundred. At Cnidus - also there was a revolutionPerhaps not the - same as the one mentioned at 1306b 3. of the oligarchy caused by a - faction formed by the notables against one another, because few shared in the - government, and the rule stated held, that if a father was a member a son could - not be, nor if there were several brothers could any except the eldest; for the - common people seized the opportunity of their quarrel and, taking a champion - from among the notables, fell upon them and conquered them, for a party divided - against itself is weak. Another case - was at Erythrae,Just west of Smyrna. The family name implies a claim - to royal ancestry. where at the time of the oligarchy of the - Basilidae in ancient days, althoughthe persons in the government directed affairs well, nevertheless the common - people were resentful because they were governed by a few, and brought about a - revolution of the constitution.On the other hand, - oligarchies are overthrown from within themselves bothThis sentence is interrupted by a parenthesis and is resumed - in 5.6, ‘And revolution is oligarchy - also—’. when from motives of rivalry they play - the demagogue (and this demagogy is of two sorts, one among the - oligarchs themselves, for a demagogue can arise among them even when they are a - very small body,—as for instance in the time of the Thirty at - Athens, the party of Charicles - rose to power by currying popularity with the Thirty, and in the time of the - Four HundredSee 1304b 12 n. the party - of Phrynichus rose in the same way,—the other when the members of the oligarchy curry - popularity with the mob, as the Civic Guards at Larisa - See 1275b 29 - n. courted popularity with the mob because it elected them, and in - all the oligarchies in which the magistracies are not elected by the class from - which the magistrates come but are filled from high property-grades or from - political clubs while the electors are the heavy-armed soldiers or the common - people, as used to be the case at Abydos, and in places where the jury-courts are not made up - from the governmenti.e. - (apparently) where membership is not confined to the class - eligible for the magistracies.—for there members of the - oligarchy by courting popular favor with a view to their trials cause a - revolution of the constitution, as took place at Heraclea on the EuxineSee - 1304b 31 n.; and a - further instance is when some men try to narrow down the oligarchy to a smaller - number, for those who seek equality are forced to bring in the people as a - helper.) And revolutions in oligarchy also take place when they - squander their private means by riotous living; for also men of this sort seek - to bring about a new state of affairs, and either aim at tyranny themselves or - suborn somebody else

-
-
-

- (as Hipparinus put forward DionysiusSee 1259a 29 n. at Syracuse, and at Amphipolis - See 1303b 2 n. a man named Cleotimus led the - additional settlers that came from Chalcis and on their arrival stirred them up to sedition - against the wealthy, and in Aegina the - man who carried out the transactions with Chares attempted to cause a revolution - in the constitution for a reason of this sorti.e. he had squandered his fortune in riotous living; this deal with the - Athenian general may have been in 367 - B.C.); so sometimes - they attempt at once to introduce some reform, at other times they rob the - public funds and in consequence either they or those who fight against them in - their peculations stir up faction against the government, as happened at - Apollonia on the Black Sea. - On the other hand, harmonious oligarchy does not easily cause its own - destruction; and an indication of this is the constitutional government at - Pharsalus, for there the ruling - class though few are masters of many meni.e. - both of the lower classes and of the subject cities. because on good - terms with one another. Also - oligarchical governments break up when they create a second oligarchy within the - oligarchy. This is when, although the whole citizen class is small, its few - members are not all admitted to the greatest offices; this is what once occurred - in Elis, for the government being in - the hands of a few, very few men used to become members of the Elders,i.e. the small governing body. because - these numbering ninety held office for life, and the mode of election was of a - dynastic typei.e. like a - dynasteia, favorable to the interest of a few very wealthy - families; see 1292b 10 n. and resembled that of the Elders at - Sparta. - Revolutionsof oligarchies occur both during war and in - time of peace— during war since the oligarchs are forced by their - distrust of the people to employ mercenary troops (for the man in whose - hands they place them often becomes tyrant, as Timophanes did at Corinth, - Corinth was at - war with Argos circa 350 B.C. Timophanes was killed by his brother the - famous Timoleon, in order to restore constitutional government. and - if they put several men in command, these win for themselves dynastic - power), and when through fear of this they give a share in the - constitution to the multitude, the oligarchy falls because they are compelled to - make use of the common people; during peace, on the other hand, because of their - distrust of one another they place their protection in the hands of mercenary - troops and a magistrate between the two parties, who sometimes becomes master of - both, which happened at Larisa in the - time of the government of the Aleuadae led by Simus,A probable emendation of the Greek gives ‘happened - at Larisa to Simus and his party at - the time of the government of the Aleuadae.’ This family were - hereditary rulers of Larisa - (see also 1275b 29 ff. n., and 1305b 29 ff.) and at - Abydos in the time of the political - clubs of which that of Iphiades was one. And factions arise also in consequence of one set of the - members of the oligarchy themselves being pushed aside by another set and being - driven into party strife in regard to marriages or law-suits; examples of such - disorders arising out of a cause related to marriage are the instances spoken of - before, and also the oligarchy of the knights at Eretria was put downPossibly before the Persian wars. See 1289b 36 ff. The two - following cases are unrecorded elsewhere. by Diagoras when he had - been wronged in respect of a marriage, while the faction at Heraclea and that at Thebes arose out of a judgement of a - law-court, when the people at Heraclea - justly but factiously enforced the punishment against Eurytion on a charge of - adultery

-
-
-

- and those at Thebes - did so against Archias; for their personal enemies stirred up party feeling - against them so as to get them bound in the pillory in the market-place. - Also many governments have been - put down by some of their members who had become resentful because the - oligarchies were too despotic; this is how the oligarchies fell at Cnidus - See - 1305b 13 n. and at Chios. - And revolutions also occur from an accident, both in what is called a - constitutional government and in those oligarchies in which membership of the - council and the law-courts and tenure of the other offices are based on a - property-qualification. For often the qualification first having been fixed to - suit the circumstances of the time, so that in an oligarchy a few may be members - and in a constitutional government the middle classes, when peace or some other - good fortune leads to a good harvest it comes about that the same properties - become worth many times as large an assessment, so that all the citizens share - in all the rights, the change sometimes taking place gradually and little by - little and not being noticed, but at other times more quickly. - Such then - are the causes that lead to revolutions and factions in oligarchies - (and generally, both democracies and oligarchies are sometimes altered - not into the opposite forms of constitution but into ones of the same class, for - instancefrom legitimate - democracies and oligarchies into autocratic ones and from the latter into the - former). - In aristocracies factions arise in some cases because - few men share in the honors (which has also been saidSee 1306a 13 ff. to be the cause of - disturbances in oligarchies, because an aristocracy too is a sort of oligarchy, - for in both those who govern are few—although the reason for this is - not the same in both—since this does cause it to be thought that - aristocracy is a form of oligarchy). And this is most bound to come - about when there is a considerable number of people who are proud-spirited on - the ground of being equals in virtue (for example the clan called the - Maidens' SonsSaid to be descended from - irregular unions authorized in order to keep up population during the First - Messenian War. They founded Taranto - 708 B.C. at Sparta—for they were - descended from the Equals—whom the Spartans detected in a conspiracy - and sent away to colonize Tarentum); or - when individuals although great men and inferior to nobody in virtue are treated - dishonorably by certain men in higher honor (for example Lysander by - the kingsKing Pausanias II. checked Lysander - after his conquest of Athens in - 403 B.C. and King Agesilaus thwarted him on - the expedition into Asia Minor in - 396.); or when a person of manly nature has no share in the - honors (for example Cinadon,His - conspiracy against the *(/omoioi in 398 B.C. was discovered and he was executed. - who got together the attack upon the Spartans in the reign of - Agesilaus). Faction in aristocracies also arises when some of the - well-born are too poor and others too rich (which happens especially - during wars, and this also occurred at Sparta at the time of the Messenian War—as appears - from the poem of Tyrtaeus entitledLaw and Order;

-
-
-

- for some - men being in distress because of the war put forward a claim to carry out a - re-division of the land of the country). Also if a man is great and - capable of being yet greater, he stirs up faction in order that he may be sole - ruler (as Pausanias who commanded the army through the Persian war - seems to have done at Sparta, and - HannoPerhaps Hanno who fought in - Sicily against the elder - Dionysius circa 4OO B.C. at Carthage). - But the actual overthrow of both - constitutional governments and aristocracies is mostly due to a departure from - justice in the actual framework of the constitution. For what starts it in the - case of a constitutional government is that it does not contain a good blend of - democracy and oligarchy; and in the case of an aristocracy it is the lack of a - good blend of those two elements and of virtue, but chiefly of the two elements - (I mean popular government and oligarchy), for both - constitutional governments and most of the constitutions that are called - aristocracies aim at blending these. For thisi.e. their mode of blending - oligarchy and democracy. is the point of distinction between - aristocracies and what are called constitutional governments, and it is owing to - this that some of themThe writer loosely - speaks of aristocracies and polities as a single class, differing only in - degree of concentration of power in the hands of the upper classes. - are less and others more stable; for the constitutions inclining more towards - oligarchy men call aristocracies and those inclining more to the side of the - multitude constitutional governments, owing to which those of the latter sort - are more secure than the others, for the greater number is the stronger, and - also men are more content when they have an equal amount, whereas the owners of - wealthy properties, if the constitution gives them the superior - position,seek to behave - insolently and to gain money. And - speaking broadly, to whichever side the constitution leans, that is the side to - which it shifts as either of the two parties increases its own side—a - constitutional government shifts to democracy and an aristocracy to oligarchy, - or to the opposite extremes, that is, aristocracy to democracy (for the - poorer people feeling they are unjustly treated pull it round to the - opposite) and constitutional governments to oligarchy (for the - only lasting thing is equality in accordance with desert and the possession of - what is their own). And the - change mentionedi.e. from aristocracy to - democracy. Possibly these events occurred after the defeat of Athens at Syracuse in 413 B.C., when the Athenian party at Thurii was banished (Lysias - 835 D). The events in 8 were perhaps in the fourth century. - came about at Thurii, for because - the property-qualification for honors was too high, the constitution was altered - to a lower property-qualification and to a larger number of official posts, but - because the notables illegally bought up the whole of the land (for the - constitution was too oligarchical, so that they were able to grasp at - wealth) . . .Probably a clause - meaning ‘civil strife ensued’ has been lost. And - the people having been trained in the war overpowered the guards, until those - who were in the position of having too much land relinquished it. - Besides, as - all aristocratic constitutions are inclined towards oligarchy, the notables - grasp at wealth (for example at Sparta the estates are coming into a few hands); and - the notables have more power to do what they like, and to form marriage - connections with whom they like (which was the cause of the fall of the - state of Locri, as a result of the - marriage with Dionysius,See 1259a 28 n. He - married in 397 B.C. the daughter of a Locrian - citizen, who bore him the younger Dionysius. which would not have - taken place in a democracy; nor in a well-blended aristocracy). -

-
-
-

- And aristocracies are most liable to undergo revolution - unobserved, through gradual relaxation, just as it has been said in what has - gone before about all forms of constitution in general, that even a small change - may cause a revolution. For when they give up one of the details of the - constitution, afterwards they also make another slightly bigger change more - readily, until they alter the whole system. This occurred for instance with the constitution of - Thurii. There was a law that the - office of general could be held at intervals of four years, but some of the - younger men, becoming warlike and winning high repute with the mass of the - guards, came to despise the men engaged in affairs, and thought that they would - easily get control; so first they tried to repeal the law referred to, so as to - enable the same persons to serve as generals continuously, as they saw that the - people would vote for themselves with enthusiasm. And though the magistrates in - charge of this matter, called the Councillors, at first made a movement to - oppose them, they were won over, believing that after repealing this law they - would allow the rest of the constitution to stand; but later, though they wished - to prevent them when other laws were being repealed, they could no longer do - anything more, but the whole system of the constitution was converted into a - dynasty of the men who had initiated the innovations. - And constitutions of all - formsare broken up some times - from movements initiating from within themselves, but sometimes from outside, - when there is an opposite form of constitution either near by or a long way off - yet possessed of power. This used to happen in the days of the Athenians and the - Spartans; the Athenians used to put down oligarchies everywhere and the Spartans - democracies.We have then approximately stated - the causes that give rise to revolutions in the constitutions of states and to - party factions. - The next thing to speak about is security both in general and - for each form of constitution separately. First then it is clear that if we know - the causes by which constitutions are destroyed we also know the causes by which - they are preserved; for opposites create opposites, and destruction is the - opposite of security. In well-blended constitutions therefore, if care must be - taken to prevent men from committing any other breach of the law, most of all - must a small breach be guarded against, for transgression of the law creeps in unnoticed, just as - a small expenditure occurring often ruins men's estates; for the expense is not - noticed because it does not come all at once, for the mind is led astray by the - repeated small outlays, just like the sophistic puzzle, ‘if each is - little, then all are a little.’This is the soritesfallacy; add to one stone another, and - another, and another—when do they make a heap ( swro/s)? and take away stone after - stone—when do they cease to be a heap? Horace's ‘ratio - ruentis acerui’ (Hor. Ep. - 2.47. This is true in one way but in another it is not; - for the whole or total is not little, but made up of little parts. One thing - therefore that we must guard against is this beginning; and the next point is - that we must not put faith in the arguments strung together for the sake of - tricking the multitude,

-
-
-

- for they are refuted by the facts (and - what sort of constitutional sophistries we refer to has been said - before). And again we must - observe that not only some aristocracies but also some oligarchies endure not - because the constitutions are secure but because those who get in the offices - treat both those outside the constitution and those in the government well, on - the one hand by not treating those who are not members of it unjustly and by - bringing their leading men into the constitution and not wronging the ambitious - ones in the matter of dishonor or the multitude in the matter of gain, and on - the other hand, in relation to themselves and those who are members, by treating - one another in a democratic spirit. For that equality which men of democratic - spirit seek for in the case of the multitude is not only just but also expedient - in the case of their compeers. Hence - if there are a greater number in the governing class, many of the legislative - enactments of a democratic nature are advantageous, for example for the offices - to be tenable for six months, to enable all the compeers to participate in them; - for the compeers in this case are as it were the people (owing to which - demagogues often arise even among them, as has been said already), and - also oligarchies and aristocracies fall into dynasties less (for it is - not so easy to do wrongswhen in - office for a short time as when in for a long time, since it is long tenure of - office that causes tyrannies to spring up in oligarchies and democracies; for - either those who are the greatest men in either sort of state aim at tyranny, in - the one sort the demagogues and in the other the dynasts, or those who hold the - greatest offices, when they are in office for along time). And constitutions are kept secure not only - through being at a distance from destroyers but sometimes also through being - near them,This modifies 1207a 31. for - when they are afraid the citizens keep a closer hold on the government; hence - those who take thought for the constitution must contrive causes of fear, in - order that the citizens may keep guard and not relax their vigilance for the - constitution like a watch in the night, and they must make the distant near. - Again, they must also endeavor to guard against the quarrels and party struggles - of the notables by means of legislation, and to keep out those who are outside - the quarrel before they too have taken it over; since to discern a growing evil - at the commencement is not any ordinary person's work but needs a statesman. - And to deal with the revolution - from oligarchy and constitutional government that arises because of the - property-qualifications, when this occurs while the rates of qualification - remain the same but money is becoming plentiful, it is advantageous to examine - the total amount of the rated value of the community as compared with the past - amount, in states where the assessment is made yearly, over that period, -

-
-
-

- and three years or five years ago in the larger states, and if - the new total is many times larger or many times smaller than the former one at - the time when the rates qualifying for citizenship were fixed, it is - advantageous that there should be a law for the magistrates correspondingly to - tighten up or to relax the rates, tightening them up in proportion to the ratio - of increase if the new total rated value exceeds the old, and relaxing them and - making the qualification lower if the new total falls below the old. For in oligarchies and constitutional - states, when they do not do this, in the one casei.e. if the total valuation has decreased. the result - is that in the latter an oligarchy comes into existence and in the former a - dynasty, and in the other casei.e. if the - total has increased. a constitutional government turns into a - democracy and an oligarchy into a constitutional government or a government of - the people. But it is a policy common to democracy and oligarchy [and - to monarchy],Some MSS. and many - editors omit these words. and every form of constitution not to raise - up any man too much beyond due proportion, but rather to try to assign small - honors and of long tenure or great ones quicklyThe text should probably be emended ‘with a short - tenure.’ (for officials grow corrupt, and not - every man can bear good fortune), or if not, at all events not to - bestow honors in clusters and take them away again in clusters, but by a gradual - process; and best of all to try so - to regulate people by the law that there may be nobody among them specially - pre-eminent in power due to friends or wealth, or, failing this, to cause their - periods out of office to be spent abroad.And since men also cause revolutions through their private - lives, some magistracy must be set up to inspect those whose mode of living is - unsuited to the constitution—unsuited to democracy in a democracy, to - oligarchy in an oligarchy, and similarly for each of the other forms of - constitution. And also sectional prosperity in the state must be guarded against - for the same reasons; and the way to avert this is always to entrust business - and office to the opposite sections (I mean that the respectable are - opposite to the multitude and the poor to the wealthy), and to endeavor - either to mingle together the multitude of the poor and that of the wealthy or - to increase the middle class (for this dissolves party factions due to - inequality). And in every - form of constitution it is a very great thing for it to be so framed both by its - laws and by its other institutions that it is impossible for the magistracies to - make a profit. And this has most to be guarded against in oligarchies; for the - many are not so much annoyed at being excluded from holding office (but - in fact they are glad if somebody lets them have leisure to spend on their own - affairs) as they are if they think that the magistrates are stealing - the common funds, but then both things annoy them, exclusion from the honors of - office and exclusion from its profits. And indeed the sole way in which a combination of - democracy and aristocracy is possible is if someone could contrive this - arrangementi.e. render it impossible to - make money out of office;

-
-
-

- for it would then be possible - for the notables and also the multitude both to have what they want; for it is - the democratic principle for all to have the right to hold office and the - aristocratic one for the offices to be filled by the notables, and this will be - the case when it is impossible to make money from office; for the poor will not - want to hold office because of making nothing out of it, but rather to attend to - their own affairs, while the wealthy will be able to hold office because they - have no need to add to their resources from the public funds; so that the result - will be that the poor will become well-off through spending their time upon - their work, and the notables will not be governed by any casual persons. - Therefore to prevent peculation - of the public property, let the transfer of the funds take place in the presence - of all the citizens, and let copies of the lists be deposited for each - brotherhood,Groups of citizens normally - three to a tribe, supposed to be based on relationship. companyOriginally a military, later a civil - classification. and tribe; and to get men to hold office without - profit there must be honors assigned by law to officials of good repute. And in - democracies it is necessary to be sparing of the wealthy not only by not causing - properties to be divided up, but not incomes either (which under some - constitutions takes place unnoticed), and it is better to prevent men - from undertaking costly but useless public services like equipping choruses and - torch-racesEquipping the chorus and - actors for tragedies and comedies and providing for the ceremonial - torch-races were public services borne by individuals at Athens. and all other similar - services, even if they wish to; - in an oligarchy on the other - hand it is necessary to take much care of the poor, and to allot to them the - offices of profit, and the penalty if one of the rich commits an outrage against - them must be greater than if it is done by one of themselves,Or possibly ‘than if he does it - against one of his own class.’ and inheritance must not go - by bequest but by family, and the same man must not inherit more than one - estate, for so estates would be more on a level, and more of the poor would - establish themselves as prosperous. And it is expedient both in a democracy and in an oligarchy to assign to those - who have a smaller share in the government—in a democracy to the - wealthy and in an oligarchy to the poor—either equality or precedence - in all other things excepting the supreme offices of state; but these should be - entrusted to those prescribed by the constitution exclusively, or to them for - the most part. - There are some three qualities which those who are to hold the - supreme magistracies ought to possess, first, loyalty to the established - constitution, next, very great capacity to do the duties of the office, and - third, virtue and justice—in each constitution the sort of justice - suited to the constitution (for if the rules of justice are not the - same under all constitutions, it follows that there must be differences in the - nature of justice also). It is a difficult question how the choice - ought to be made when it happens that all these qualities are not found in the - same person;

-
-
-

- for instance, if one man is a good military commander but a bad - man and no friend of the constitution, and the other is just and loyal, how - should the choice be made? It seems - that two things ought to be considered, what is the quality of which all men - have a larger share, and what the one of which all have a smaller share? - Therefore in the case of military command one must consider experience more than - virtue, for men have a smaller share of military experience and a larger share - of moral goodness; but in the case of a trusteeship or a stewardship the - opposite, for these require more virtue than most men possess, but the knowledge - required is common to all men. And somebody might raise the question, why is - virtue needed if both capacity and loyalty to the constitution are forthcoming, - as even these two qualities will do what is suitable? May not the answer be, - because those who possess these two qualities may possibly lack self-control, so - that just as they do not serve themselves well although they know how to and - although they love themselves, so possibly in some cases they may behave in this - way in regard to the community also? And broadly, whatever provisions in the laws we describe as advantageous to - constitutions, these are all preservative of the constitutions, and so is the - supreme elementary principle that has been often stated, that of taking - precautions that the section desirous of the constitution shall be stronger in - numbers than the section not desirous off it. And beside all these matters one - thing must not be overlooked which at present is overlooked by the, - deviation-formsSee 1279a 20. of - constitution—the middle party;for many of the institutions thought to be popular destroy - democracies, and many of those thought oligarchical destroy oligarchies. - But the adherents of the - deviation-form, thinking that this form is the only right thing, drag it to - excess, not knowing that just as there can be a nose that although deviating - from the most handsome straightness towards being hooked or snub nevertheless is - still beautiful and agreeable to look at, yet all the same, if a sculptor - carries it still further in the direction of excess, he will first lose the - symmetry of the feature and finally will make it not even look like a nose at - all, because of its excess and deficiency in the two opposite qualities - (and the same is the ease also in regard to the other parts of the - body), so this is what happens about constitutions likewise; for it is possible for an oligarchy and a - democracy to be satisfactory although they have diverged from the best - structure, but if one strains either of them further, first he will make the - constitution worse, and finally he will make it not a constitution at all. - Therefore the legislator and the statesman must not fail to know what sort of - democratic institutions save and what destroy a democracy, and what sort of - oligarchical institutions an oligarchy; for neither constitution can exist and - endure without the well-to-do and the multitude, but when an even level of - property comes about, the constitution resulting must of necessity be another - one,

-
-
-

- so that when men destroy these classes by laws carried to - excess they destroy the constitutions. And a mistake is made both in democracies and in - oligarchies—in democracies by the demagogues, where the multitude is - supreme over the laws; for they always divide the state into two by fighting - with the well-to-do, but they ought on the contrary always to pretend to be - speaking on behalf of men that are well-to-do, while in democracies the - oligarchical statesmen ought to pretend to be speaking on behalf of the people, - and the oligarchics ought to take oath in terms exactly opposite to those which - they use now, for at present in some oligarchies they swear, “And I - will be hostile to the people and will plan whatever evil I can against - them,”The ‘scoffing - anapaestic cadence’ of this oath has been noted. In 411 B.C. the democratic reaction at Athens swore ‘to be enemies - of the Four Hundred and to hold no parley with them.’ but - they ought to hold, and to act the part of holding, the opposite notion, - declaring in their oaths, “I will not wrong the people.” - But the greatest of all the - means spoken of to secure the stability of constitutions is one that at present - all people despise: it is a system of education suited to the constitutions. For - there is no use in the most valuable laws, ratified by the unanimous judgement - of the whole body of citizens, if these are not trained and educated in the - constitution, popularly if the laws are popular, oligarchically if they are - oligarchical; for there is such a thing as want of self-discipline in a state, - as well as in an individual.But to - have been educatedto suit the - constitution does not mean to do the things that give pleasure to the adherents - of oligarchy or to the supporters of democracy, but the things that will enable - the former to govern oligarchically and the latter to govern themselves - democratically. But at present in the oligarchies the sons of the rulers are - luxurious, and the sons of the badly-off become trained by exercise and labor, - so that they are both more desirous of reform and more able to bring it about; - while in the democracies - thought to be the most democratic the opposite of what is expedient has come - about. And the cause of this is that they define liberty wrongly (for - there are two things that are thought to be defining features of democracy, the - sovereignty of the majority and liberty); for justice is supposed to be - equality, and equality the sovereignty of what ever may have been decided by the - multitude, and liberty doing just what one likes. Hence in democracies of this - sort everybody lives as he likes, and ‘unto what end he - listeth,’ as EuripidesFragment - 883, from an unknown play. says. But this is bad; for to live in - conformity with the constitution ought not to be considered slavery but - safety.This therefore, speaking broadly, is a - list of the things that cause the alteration and the destruction of - constitutions, and of those that cause their “security and - continuance.” - It remains to speak of monarchy, the causes - that destroy it and the natural means of its preservation.

-
-
-

- And the things - that happen about royal governments and tyrannies are almost similar to those - that have been narrated about constitutional governments. For royal government - corresponds with aristocracy, while tyranny is a combination of the last form of - oligarchyCf. 1296a 3, 1312b 35. - and of democracy; and for that very reason it is most harmful to its subjects, - inasmuch as it is a combination of two bad things, and is liable to the - deviations and errors that spring from both forms of constitution. And these two different sorts of monarchy - have their origins from directly opposite sources; royalty has come into - existence for the assistance of the distinguished against the people, and a king - is appointed from those distinguished by superiority in virtue or the actions - that spring from virtue, or by superiority in coming from a family of that - character, while a tyrant is set up from among the people and the multitude to - oppose the notables, in order that the people may suffer no injustice from them. - And this is manifest from the - facts of history. For almost the greatest number of tyrants have risen, it may - be said, from being demagogues, having won the people's confidence by slandering - the notables. For some tyrannies were set up in this manner when the states had - already grown great, but others that came before them arose from kings departing - from the ancestral customs and aiming at a more despotic rule,and others from the men elected to fill the supreme - magistracies (for in old times the peoples used to appoint the popular - officialsHere dhmiourgi/a means ‘magistracy’ generally; - dhmiourgo/s was the title of a special - officer in some Peloponnesian states. and the sacred embassiesOfficial missions to religious games and to - oracles. for long terms of office), and others from - oligarchies electing some one supreme official for the greatest magistracies. - For in all these methods they - had it in their power to effect their purpose easily, if only they wished, - because they already possessed the power of royal rule in the one set of cases - and of their honorable office in the other, for example Phidon in Argos - Perhaps circa 750 B.C. and others became - tyrants when they possessed royal power already, while the Ionian tyrantse.g. Thrasybulus, tyrant of Miletus, 612 - B.C. and PhalarisTyrant of - Agrigentum - 572 B.C. arose from offices of honor, and - Panaetius at Leontini and Cypselus at Corinth and PisistratusSee - 1305a 23 n. at Athens and - DionysiusSee 1259a 28 n. at - Syracuse and others in the - same manner from the position of demagogue. Therefore, as we said, royalty is ranged in correspondence - with aristocracy, for it goes by merit, either by private virtue or by family or - by services or by a combination of these things and ability. For in every - instance this honor fell to men after they had conferred benefit or because they - had the ability to confer benefit on their cities or their nations, some having - prevented their enslavement in war, for instance Codrus,The usual tradition was that Codrus was already king when he - saved Athens by sacrificing his - life. others having set them free, for instance Cyrus,Cyrus liberated Persia from the Median empire 559 - B.C. or having settled or acquired territory, for instance the kings - of Sparta and Macedon and the Molossians.Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, conquered the - Molossi and became their king. - And a king wishes to be a guardian, -

-
-
-

- to protect the owners of estates from suffering injustice and - the people from suffering insult, but tyranny, as has repeatedly been said, pays - regard to no common interest unless for the sake of its private benefit; and the - aim of tyranny is what is pleasant, that of royalty what is noble. Hence even in - their requisitions money is the aim of tyrants but rather marks of honor that of - kings; and a king's body-guard consists of citizens, a tyrant's of foreign - mercenaries. And it is manifest that - tyranny has the evils of both democracy and oligarchy; it copies oligarchy in - making wealth its object (for inevitably that is the only way in which - the tyrant's body-guard and his luxury can be kept up) and in putting - no trust in the multitude (which is why they resort to the measure of - stripping the people of arms, and why ill-treatment of the mob and its expulsion - from the city and settlement in scattered places is common to both forms of - government, both oligarchy and tyranny), while it copies democracy in - making war on the notables and destroying them secretly and openly and banishing - them as plotting against it and obstructive to its rule. For it is from them - that counter-movements actually spring, some of them wishing themselves to rule, - and others notto be slaves. Hence - comes the advice of Periander to Thrasybulus,See 1284a 26 n. his docking of the prominent cornstalks, meaning - that the prominent citizens must always be made away with. - Therefore, as was - virtually stated,This has not been stated, - but can be inferred from what precedes. the causes of revolutions in - constitutional and in royal governments must be deemed to be the same; for - subjects in many cases attack monarchies because of unjust treatment and fear - and contempt, and among the forms of unjust treatment most of all because of - insolence, and sometimes the cause is the seizure of private property. Also the - objects aimed at by the revolutionaries in the case both of tyrannies and of - royal governments are the same as in revolts against constitutional government; - for monarchs possess great wealth and great honor, which are desired by all men. - And in some cases the attack is - aimed at the person of the rulers, in others at their office. Risings provoked - by insolence are aimed against the person; and though insolence has many - varieties, each of them gives rise to anger, and when men are angry they mostly - attack for the sake of revenge, not of ambition. For example the attack on the - Pisistratidae took place because they outraged Harmodius's sister and treated - Harmodius with contumely (for Harmodius attacked them because of his - sister and Aristogiton because of Harmodius, and also the plot was laid against - Periander the tyrant in Ambracia - See 1304a 31 - n. because when drinking

-
-
-

- with his favorite he asked him - if he was yet with child by him),and the attack on Philip by PausaniasA Macedonian youth of family, who murdered Philip 336 B.C. Attalus was the uncle of Philip's wife - Cleopatra. was because he allowed him to be insulted by Attalus and - his friends, and that on Amyntas the LittlePerhaps the adjective should be transferred to Derdas and expunged as an - interpolated note. The persons referred to are uncertain. by Derdas - because he mocked at his youth, and the attack of the eunuch on Evagoras of - Cyprus was for revenge, for he - murdered him as being insulted, because Evagoras's son had taken away his wife. - And many risings have also - occurred because of shameful personal indignities committed by certain monarchs. - One instance is the attack of Crataeas on ArchelausKing of Macedon - 413-399 B.C. Euripides went to - reside at his court 408 B.C. and died there 406 B.C. at the age of 75.; for he was always - resentful of the association, so that even a smaller excuse became sufficient, - or perhaps it was because he did not give him the hand of one of his daughters - after agreeing to do so, but gave the elder to the king of Elimea when hard - pressed in a war against Sirras and Arrabaeus, and the younger to his son - Amyntas, thinking that thus Amyntas would be least likely to quarrel with his - son by Cleopatra; but at all events Crataeas's estrangement was primarily caused - by resentment because of the love affair. And Hellanocrates of Larisa also joined in the attack for the same reason; for - because while enjoying his favors Archelaus would not restore him to his home - although he had promised to do so, he thought that the motive of the familiarity - that had taken placehad been - insolence and not passionate desire. And Pytho and Heraclides of Aenus made away with CotysKing of Thrace - 382-358 B.C. to avenge - their father, and Adamas revolted from Cotys because he had been mutilated by - him when a boy, on the ground of the insult. And also many men when enraged by the indignity of - corporal chastisement have avenged the insult by destroying or attempting to - destroy its author, even when a magistrate or member of a royal dynasty. For - example when the PenthilidaeThe ruling - family in the early oligarchy there, claiming descent from Penthilus, an - illegitimate son of Orestes. at Mitylene went about striking people with their staves Megacles - with his friends set on them and made away with them, and afterwards Smerdis - when he had been beaten and dragged out from his wife's presence killed - Penthilus. Also Decamnichus took a leading part in the attack upon Archelaus, - being the first to stir on the attackers; and the cause of his anger was that he - had handed him over to Euripides the poet to flog, Euripides being angry because - he had made a remark about his breath smelling. And many others also for similar reasons have been made - away with or plotted against. And similarly also from the motive of fear; for - this was one of the causes we mentioned in the case of monarchies, as also in - that of constitutional governments; for instance ArtapanesCaptain of Xerxes' body-guard. killed Xerxes fearing - the charge about Darius, because he had hanged him when Xerxes had ordered him - not to but he had thought that he would forgive him because he would forget, as - he had been at dinner. And other attacks on monarchs have been on account of - contempt,

-
-
-

- as somebody killed SardanapallusLast king of the Assyrian empire at Nineveh. when he saw him combing - his hair with his women (if this story told by the narrators of legends - is true—and if it did not happen with Sardanapallus, it might quite - well be true of somebody else), and Dion attacked the younger DionysiusTyrant of Syracuse 367-356 and 346-343 B.C., cf. 1312a 34 ff. because he despised - him, when he saw the citizens despising him and the king himself always drunk. - And contempt has led some even - of the friends of monarchs to attack them, for they despise them for trusting - them and think they will not be found out. And contempt is in a manner the - motive of those who attack monarchs thinking that they are able to seize the - government; for they make the attempt with a light heart, feeling that they have - the power and because of their power despising the danger, as generals - commanding the armies attack their monarchs; for instance Cyrus attacked - AstyagesThe last king of Media, reigned - 594-559 B.C. when he - despised both his mode of life and his power, because his power had waned and he - himself was living luxuriously, and the Thracian Seuthes attacked AmadocusBoth these Thracian kings became allies of - Athens - 390 B.C., but the event referred to may be - later. when his general. Others again attack monarchs for more than - one of these motives, for instance both because they despise them and for the - sake of gain, as MithridatesPerhaps - Mithridates II., who succeeded his father Ariobarzanes as satrap of - Pontus - 336 B.C. attacked Ariobarzanes.The following sentence may have been shifted - by mistake from the end of 8.14 above. And it is men of bold nature - and who hold a military office with monarchs who most often make the attempt for - this reason; for courage possessing power is boldness,and they make their attacks thinking that with - courage and power they will easily prevail. But with those whose attack is prompted by ambition the - motive operates in a different way from those spoken of before; some men attack - tyrants because they see great profits and great honors belonging to them, but - that is not the reason that in each case leads the persons who attack from - motives of ambition to resolve on the venture; those others are led by the - motive stated, but these attack monarchs from a wish to gain not monarchy but - glory, just as they would wish to take part in doing any other uncommon deed - that makes men famous and known to their fellows. Not but what those who make the venture from this motive - are very few indeed in number, for underlying it there must be an utter - disregard of safety, if regard for safety is not to check the enterprise; they - must always have present in their minds the opinion of Dion, although it is not easy for many men to - have it; Dion marched with a small - force against Dionysius, saying that his feeling was that, whatever point he - might be able to get to, it would be enough for him to have had that much share - in the enterprise—for instance, if it should befall him to die as soon - as he had just set foot in the country, that death would satisfy him. - And one way - in which tyranny is destroyed, as is each of the other forms of constitution - also, is from without,

-
-
-

- if some state with an opposite constitution is - stronger (for the wish to destroy it will clearly be present in such a - neighbor because of the opposition of principle, and all men do what they wish - if they have the power)—and the constitutions opposed to - tyranny are, on the one hand democracy, which is opposed to it as (in - Hesiod's phrase - Hes. WD - 25 - kai\ kerameu\s keramei= kote/ei kai\ - te/ktoni te/ktwn, ‘two of a trade never - agree.’) ‘potter to potter,’ - because the final form of democracy is tyranny, and on the other hand royalty - and aristocracy are opposed to tyranny because of the opposite nature of their - constitutional structure (owing to which the Spartans put down a very - great many tyrannies, and so did the Syracusans at the period when they were - governed well.) But one - way is from within itself, when the partners in it fall into discord, as the - tyranny of the family of GeloTyrant of - Syracuse - 485-478 B.C., succeeded by his - brother Hiero who died 467. Gelo's son is unknown. Cf. 1315b 35 ff. - was destroyed, and in modern times - 356 B.C., a good many years before this book was - written. that of the family of DionysiusSee 1312a 4 n.—Gelo's, when Thrasybulus the - brother of Hiero paid court to the son of Gelo and urged him into indulgences in - order that he himself might rule, and the son's connections banded together a - body of confederates in order that the tyranny might not be put down entirely - but only Thrasybulus, but their confederates seizing the opportunity expelled - them all; Dionysius was put down by Dion, his relative, who got the people on to his side and - expelled him, but was afterwards killed. There are two causes that chiefly lead men to attack - tyranny, hatred and contempt; the former, hatred,attaches to tyrants always, but it is their being despised that - causes their downfall in many cases. A proof of this is that most of those that - have won tyrannies have also kept their offices to the end, but those that have - inherited them almost all lose them at once; for they live a life of indulgence, - and so become despicable and also give many opportunities to their attackers. - And also anger must be counted - as an element in the hatred felt for them, for in a way it occasions the same - actions. And often it is even more active than hatred, since angry men attack - more vigorously because passion does not employ calculation (and - insolence most frequently causes men to be led by their angry tempers, which was - the cause of the fall of the tyranny of the Pisistratidae and many - others), but hatred calculates more; for anger brings with it an - element of pain, making calculation difficult, but enmity is not accompanied by - pain. And to speak summarily, all the things that we have mentioned as causing - the down fall of unmixed and extreme oligarchy and of the last form of democracy - must be counted as destructive of tyranny as well, since extreme oligarchy and - democracy are in reality dividedi.e. divided - among several persons, ‘put into commission.’ - tyrannies. Royal government on the - other hand is very seldom destroyed by external causes, so that it is - long-lasting; but in most cases its destruction arises out of itself. And it is - destroyed in two ways,

-
-
-

- one when those who participate in it quarrel, and - another when the kings try to administer the government too tyrannically, - claiming to exercise sovereignty in more things and contrary to the law. Royal - governments do not occur any more now, but if ever monarchies do occur they are - rather tyrannies, because royalty is government over willing subjects but with - sovereignty over greater matters, but men of equal quality are numerous and no - one is so outstanding as to fit the magnitude and dignity of the office; so that - for this reason the subjects do not submit willingly, and if a man has made - himself ruler by deception or force, then this is thought to be a tyranny. - In cases of hereditary royalty - we must also set down a cause of their destruction, in addition to those - mentioned, the fact that hereditary kings often become despicable, and that - although possessing not the power of a tyrant but the dignity of a king they - commit insolent outrages; for the deposition of kings used to be easy, since a - king will at once cease to be king if his subjects do not wish him to be, - whereas a tyrant will still be tyrant even though his subjects do not wish - it.These causes then and others of the same - nature are those that bring about the destruction of monarchies. - On the other - hand it is clear that monarchies, speaking generally, are preserved in safety as - a result of the opposite causes to those by which they are destroyed. But taking - the different sorts of monarchy separately—royalties are preserved by - bringing theminto a more moderate - form; for the fewer powers the kings have, the longer time the office in its - entirety must last, for they themselves become less despotic and more equal to - their subjects in temper, and their subjects envy them less. For this was the - cause of the long persistence of the Molossian royalty, and that of Sparta has continued because the office was - from the beginning divided into two halves, and because it was again limited in - various ways by Theopompus,King of - Sparta circa 770-720 B.C. in particular by - his instituting the office of the ephors to keep a check upon it; for by taking - away some of the kings' power he increased the permanence of the royal office, - so that in a manner he did not make it less but greater. This indeed as the - story goes is what he said in reply to his wife, when she asked if he felt no - shame in bequeathing the royal power to his sons smaller than he had inherited - it from his father: “Indeed I do not,” he is said to have - answered, “for I hand it on more lasting.” - Tyrannies on the - other hand are preserved in two extremely opposite ways. One of these is the - traditional way and the one in which most tyrants administer their office. Most - of these ordinary safeguards of tyranny are said to have been instituted by - PerianderSee 1284a 26 n. of - Corinth, and also many such - devices may be borrowed from the Persian empire. These are both the measures - mentioned some time back to secure the safety of a tyranny as far as - possible—the lopping off of outstanding men and the destruction of the - proud,—and also the prohibition of common meals and club-fellowship - and education and all other things of this nature,

-
-
-

- in fact the close - watch upon all things that usually engender the two emotions of pride and - confidence, and the prevention of the formation of study-circles and other - conferences for debate,The phrases cover - Plato's gatherings in the Academy, Aristotle's in the Peripatos of the - Lyceum, and other meetings for the intellectual use of leisure in gymnasia, - palaestrae and leschae. and the employment of every means that will - make people as much as possible unknown to one another (for familiarity - increases mutual confidence); and for the people in the city to be always visible and to - hang about the palace-gates (for thus there would be least concealment - about what they are doing, and they would get into a habit of being humble from - always acting in a servile way); and all the other similar devices of - Persian and barbarian tyranny (for all have the same effect); - and to try not to be uninformed about any chance utterances or actions of any of - the subjects, but to have spies like the women called - ‘provocatrices’ at Syracuse and the ‘sharp-ears’ that used to - be sent out by Hiero wherever there was any gathering or conference - (for when men are afraid of spies of this sort they keep a check on - their tongues, and if they do speak freely are less likely not to be found - out); and to set men at - variance with one another and cause quarrels between friend and friend and - between the people and the notables and among the rich. And it is a device of - tyranny to make the subjects poor, so that a guardApparently this means a citizen force side by side with the - tyrant's mercenaries; a variant gives ‘in order that the - (tyrant's) guard may be kept.’ - may not be kept, and also that the people - being busy with their daily affairs may not have leisure to plot against their - ruler. Instances of this are the pyramids in Egypt and the votive offerings of the Cypselids,Cypselus and his son Periander (1310b - 29 n., 1284a 26 n.) dedicated a colossal statue of Zeus at - Olympia and other monuments - there and at Delphi. and - the building of the temple of Olympian Zeus by the PisistratidaePisistratus is said to have begun the temple - of Olympian Zeus at Athens, not - finished till the time of Hadrian. and of the temples at Samos, works of PolycratesTyrant of Samos, d. - 522 B.C. (for all these - undertakings produce the same effect, constant occupation and poverty among the - subject people); and the - levying of taxes, as at Syracuse - (for in the reign of DionysiusSee - 1259a 28 n. the result of taxation used to be that in five years men - had contributed the whole of their substance). Also the tyrant is a - stirrer-up of war, with the deliberate purpose of keeping the people busy and - also of making them constantly in need of a leader. Also whereas friends are a - means of security to royalty, it is a mark of a tyrant to be extremely - distrustful of his friends, on the ground that, while all have the wish, these - chiefly have the power. Also the - things that occur in connection with the final form of democracyCf. 1309b 27 ff. are all favorable to - tyranny—dominance of women in the homes, in order that they may carry - abroad reports against the men, and lack of discipline among the slaves, for the - same reason; for slaves and women do not plot against tyrants, and also, if they - prosper under tyrannies, must feel well-disposed to them, and to democracies as - well (for the common people also wishes to be sole ruler). - Hence also the flatterer is in honor with both—with democracies the - demagogue (for the demagogue is a flatterer of the people), - and with the tyrants those who associate with them humbly, which is the task of - flattery.

-
-
-

- In fact owing to this tyranny is a friend of the base; for - tyrants enjoy being flattered, but nobody would ever flatter them if he - possessed a free spirit—men of character love their ruler, or at all - events do not flatter him. And the base are useful for base business, for nail - is driven out by nail, as the proverb goes.The proverb h(lw=| h(=los e)kkrou/etai - usually meant driving out something by a thing of the same kind - (‘set a thief to catch a thief’), not - as here the execution of evil designs by appropriate agents. - And it is a mark of a tyrant to - dislike anyone that is proud or free-spirited; for the tyrant claims for himself - alone the right to bear that character, and the man who meets his pride with - pride and shows a free spirit robs tyranny of its superiority and position of - mastery; tyrants therefore hate the proud as undermining their authority. And it - is a mark of a tyrant to have men of foreign extraction rather than citizens as - guests at table and companions, feeling that citizens are hostile but strangers - make no claim against him.i.e. do not claim - honors as against their patron, claim to be his equals. These and - similar habits are characteristic of tyrants and preservative of their office, - but they lack no element of baseness. And broadly speaking, they are all included under three heads; for tyranny - aims at three things, one to keep its subjects humble (for a - humble-spirited man would not plot against anybody), second to have - them continually distrust one another (for a tyranny is not destroyed - until some men come to trust each other, owing to which tyrants also make war on - the respectable, as detrimentalto - their rule not only because of their refusal to submit to despotic rule, but - also because they are faithful to one another and to the other citizens, and do - not inform against one another nor against the others); and the third - is lack of power for political action (since nobody attempts - impossibilities, so that nobody tries to put down a tyranny if he has not power - behind him). These then in - fact are the three aims to which the wishes of tyrants are directed; for all the - measures taken by tyrants one might class under these principles—some - are designed to prevent mutual confidence among the subjects, others to curtail - their power, and others to make them humble-spirited. - Such then is the nature of - one method by which security is obtained for tyrannies. The other tries to - operate in a manner almost the opposite of the devices mentioned. And it can be - ascertained from considering the downfall of royal governments. For just as one - mode of destroying royalty is to make its government more tyrannical, so a mode - of securing tyranny is to make it more regal, protecting one thing only, its - power, in order that the ruler may govern not only with the consent of the - subjects but even without it; for if he gives up this, he also gives up his - position as tyrant. But while this must stand as a fundamental principle, all - the other measures he may either adopt or pretend to adopt by cleverly acting - the royal part. The first step is - to be careful of the public funds,

-
-
-

- if they think that their ruler has religious scruples and pays - regard to the gods, and also they plot against him less, thinking that he has - even the gods as allies), though he should not display a foolish - religiosity. And he must pay such - honor to those who display merit in any matter that they may think that they - could never be more honored by the citizens if they were in dependent; and - honors of this kind he should bestow in person, but inflict his punishments by - the agency of other magistrates and law-courts. And it is a protection common to - every sort of monarchy to make no one man great, but if necessary to exalt - several (for they will keep watch on one another), and if - after all the ruler has to elevate an individual, at all events not take a man - of bold spirit (for such a character is most enterprising in all - undertakings); and if he thinks fit to remove somebody from his power, - to do this by gradual stages and not take away the whole of his authority at - once. And again he should carefully - avoid all forms of outrage, and two beyond all, violent bodily punishments and - outrage of the young. And this caution must especially be exercised in relation - to the ambitious, for while to be slighted in regard to property annoys the - lovers of wealth, slights that involve dishonor are what men of honorable - ambition and high character resent.Hence the tyrant should either not consort with men of this kind, or appear to - inflict his punishments paternally and not because of contempt, and to indulge - in the society of the young for reasons of passion, not because he has the - power, and in general he should buy off what are thought to be dishonors by - greater honors. And among those who - make attempts upon the life of a ruler the most formidable and those against - whom the greatest precaution is needed are those that are ready to sacrifice - their lives if they can destroy him. Hence the greatest care must be taken to - guard against those who think that insolent outrage is being done either to - themselves or to those who happen to be under their care; for men attacking - under the influence of anger are reckless of themselves, as HeraclitusThe natural philosopher of Ephesus, fl. circa 513 B.C., known as o( skoteino/s - for his epigrammatic obscurity. also observed when he said that anger - was hard to combat because it would buy revenge with a life. And since states consist of two parts, the poor - people and the rich, the most important thing is for both to think that they owe - their safety to the government and for it to prevent either from being wronged - by the other, but whichever class is the stronger, this must be made to be - entirely on the side of the government, as, if this support for the tyrant's - interests is secured, there is no need for him to institute a liberation of - slaves or a disarming of the citizens, for one of the two parts of the state - added to his power will be enough to make him and them stronger than their - attackers. But to discuss each of - such matters separately is superfluous; for the thing to aim at is clear, -

-
-
-

- that it is necessary to appear to the subjects to be not a - tyrannical ruler but a steward and a royal governor, and not an appropriator of - wealth but a trustee, and to pursue the moderate things of life and not its - extravagances, and also to make the notables one's comrades and the many one's - followers. For the result of these methods must be that not only the tyrant's - rule will be more honorable and more enviable because he will rule nobler - subjects and not men that have been humiliated, and will not be continually - hated and feared, but also that his rule will endure longer, and moreover that - he himself in his personal character will be nobly disposed towards virtue, or - at all events half-virtuous, and not base but only half-base. - Nevertheless - oligarchy and tyrannyOligarchy is not - mentioned in what follows, and the context deals with the forms of monarchy. - Tyranny is included among the constitutions at 1312a 40, but not elsewhere - in this Book. Some editors bracket ll. 19-29 as spurious or out of - place. are less lasting than any of the constitutional governments. - For the longest-lived was the tyranny at Sicyon, that of the sonsi.e. descendants; Cleisthenes was his grandson. of Orthagoras and of - Orthagoras himself, and this lasted a hundred years.From 670 B.C. The cause of - this was that they treated their subjects moderately and in many matters were - subservient to the laws, and Cleisthenes because he was a warlike man was not - easily despised, and in most things they kept the lead of the people by looking - after their interests. At all events it is said that Cleisthenes placed a wreath - on the judge who awarded the victory away from him, and some say that the - statueof a seated figure in the - market-place is a statue of the man who gave this judgement. And they say that - PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. also - once submitted to a summons for trial before the Areopagus. And the second longest is the tyranny at Corinth, that of the Cypselids,From 655 B.C. - for even this lasted seventy-three and a half years, as Cypselus was tyrant for - thirty years, Periander for forty-four,The - Greek may be corrected to ‘forty and a half’ to give the - stated total. and Psammetichus son of Gordias for three years. And - the reasons for the permanence of this tyranny also are the same: Cypselus was a - leader of the people and continuously throughout his period of office dispensed - with a bodyguard; and although Periander became tyrannical, yet he was warlike. - The third longest tyranny is - that of the Pisistratidae at Athens, - but it was not continuous; for while PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. was tyrant he twice fled into exile, - so that in a period of thirty-three years he was tyrant for seventeen years out - of the total, and his sons for eighteen years, so that the whole duration of - their rule was thirty-five years. Among the remaining tyrannies is the one - connected with Hiero and GeloSee 1312b 12 - n. at Syracuse, but - even this did not last many years, but only eighteen in all, for Gelo after - being tyrant for seven years ended his life in the eighth, and Hiero ruled ten - years, but Thrasybulus was expelled after ten months. And the usual tyrannies - have all of them been of quite short duration.The - causes therefore of the destruction of constitutional governments and of - monarchies and those again of their preservation have almost all of them been - discussed.

-
-
-

- - - The subject of revolutions is discussed by Socrates in the - Republic,Plato, Republic, - Bks. 8, 9 init.; the mathematical formula for the change from Aristocracy to - Timocracy quoted here occurs at Plat. Rep. - 546c—see Adam's note there. but is not discussed - well. For his account of revolution in the constitution that is the best one and - the first does not apply to it particularly. He says that the cause is that - nothing is permanent but everything changes in a certain cycle, and that change - has its origin in those numbers ‘whose basic ratio 4 : 3 linked with - the number 5 gives two harmonies,’—meaning whenever the - number of this figure becomes cubed,—in the belief that nature - sometimes engenders men that are evil, and too strong for education to - influence—speaking perhaps not ill as far as this particular dictum - goes (for it is possible that there are some persons incapable of being - educated and becoming men of noble character), but why should this - process of revolution belong to the constitution which Socrates speaks of as the - best, more than to all the other forms of constitution, and to all men that come - into existence? and why merely by - the operation of time, which he says is the cause of change in all things, do - even things that did not begin to exist simultaneously change simultaneously? - for instance, if a thing came into existence the day before the completion of - the cycle, why does it yet change simultaneously with everything else? And in - addition to these points, what is the reason why the republic changes from the - constitution mentioned into the Spartan formTimocracy, Plat. Rep. 545a. - ? For - all constitutions more often change into the opposite form than into - theone near them. And the same - remark applies to the other revolutions as well. For from the Spartan - constitution the state changes, he says, to oligarchy, and from this to - democracy, and from democracy to tyranny. Yet revolutions also occur the other - way about, for example from democracy to oligarchy, and more often so than from - democracy to monarchy. Again as to - tyranny he does not say whether it will undergo revolution or not, nor, if it - will, what will be the cause of it, and into what sort of constitution it will - change; and the reason for this is that he would not have found it easy to say, - for it is irregular; since according to him tyranny ought to change into the - first and best constitution, for so the process would be continuous and a - circle, but as a matter of fact tyranny also changes into tyranny, as the - constitution of Sicyon - See 1315b 13 n. passed from the tyranny - of Myron to that of Cleisthenes, and into oligarchy, as did that of - AntileonUnknown, cf. 1304a 29 n. - at Chalcis, and into democracy, as - that of the family of GeloSee 1302b 33 - n. at Syracuse, and - into aristocracy, as that of CharilausSee - 1271b 26 n. at Sparta - [and as at Carthage].This - clause seems an interpolation; cf. b 6. - And constitutions change from - oligarchy to tyranny, as did almost the greatest number of the ancient - oligarchies in Sicily, at Leontini to - the tyranny of Panaetius,See 1310b 29 - n. at Gelo to that of Cleander, at Rhegium to that of Anaxilaus,Unknown. Reggio is - related to Sicily as Dover is to - France. and in many other cities similarly. And it is also a strange - idea that revolutions into oligarchy take place because the occupants of the - offices are lovers of money and engaged in money-making,

-
-
-

- but not because - owners of much more than the average amount of property think it unjust for - those who do not own any property to have an equal share in the state with those - who do; and in many oligarchies those in office are not allowed to engage in - business, but there are laws preventing it, whereas in Carthage, which has a democratic - government,Apparently this clause also - is an interpolation, or ‘democratic’ is a copyist's - mistake for ‘oligarchic’ or - ‘timocratic,’ see 1272b 24 ff. the magistrates go - in for business, and they have not yet had a revolution. And it is also a strange remark - Plat. Rep. 551d - that the oligarchical state is two states, one of rich men and one of - poor men. For what has happened to this state rather than to the Spartan or any - other sort of state where all do not own an equal amount of wealth or where all - are not equally good men? and when nobody has become poorer than he was before, - none the less revolution takes place from oligarchy to democracy if the men of - no property become more numerous, and from democracy to oligarchy if the wealthy - class is stronger than the multitude and the latter neglect politics but the - former give their mind to them. And although there are many causes through which - revolutions in oligarchies occur, he mentions only one—that of men - becoming poor through riotous living, by paying away their money in interest on - loans—as if at the start all men or most men were rich. But this is not true, but although when - some of the leaders have lost their properties they stir up innovations, when - men of the other classes are ruined nothing strange happens;and even when such a revolution does occur it is no - more likely to end in a democracy than in another form of constitution. And - furthermore men also form factions and cause revolutions in the constitution if - they are not allowed a share of honors, and if they are unjustly or insolently - treated, even if they have not run through all their property . . .Some words appear to be lost here; what - follows refers to democracy, cf. Plat. Rep. - 587b. because of being allowed to do whatever they like; - the cause of which he states to be excessive liberty. And although there are - several forms of oligarchy and of democracy, Socrates speaks of the revolutions - that occur in them as though there were only one form of each.

-
- - -
-

- - - - Book 7 in some editions, Book 8 in - others.We have already discussedBook 4, 1297b 35 ff. how many and what are the varieties of the - deliberative body or sovereign power in the state, and of the system of - magistracies and of law-courts, and which variety is adapted to which form of - constitution, and alsoBook 5. the - destruction of constitutions and their preservation, from what sort of people - they originate and what are their causes. But as a matter of fact since there - have come into existence several kinds of democracy and similarly of the other - forms of constitution, it will be well at the same time to consider1318b—1319a 6. any point that - remains about these varieties, and also determine the mode of organization - appropriate and advantageous for each. And further we must also investigateThese topics do not occur in the extant work. the - combinations of all the modes of organizing the actual departments of state that - have been mentioned,i.e. the deliberative, - executive and judicial, see 1297b 41 ff. -

-
-
-

- for these modes when coupled together make the constitutions overlap, so as to - produce oligarchical aristocracies and republics inclining towards democracy. I - refer to the combinations which ought to be investigated but have not at present - been studied, for example if the deliberative body and the system of electing - magistrates are organized oligarchically but the regulations as to the - law-courts aristocratically, or these and the structure of the deliberative body - oligarchically and the election of magistracy aristocratically, or if in some - other manner not all the parts of the constitution are appropriately - combined. - Now it has been stated before1296b 13—1297a 13. what kind of democracy is - suited to what kind of state, and similarly which of the kinds of oligarchy is - suited to what kind of populace, and also which of the remaining constitutions - is advantageous for which people; but nevertheless since it must not only be - made clear which variety of these constitutions is best for states, but also how - both these best varieties and the other forms must be established, let us - briefly pursue the subject. And first let us speak about democracy; for at the - same time the facts will also become clear about the opposite form of - constitution, that is, the constitution which some people call oligarchy.‘Rule of the few,’ i.e. - the few rich, but the name is not exact, for in aristocracy also the rulers - are few. - - And - for this inquiry we must take into view all the features that are popular and - that are thoughtto go with - democracies; for it comes about from combinations of these that the kinds of - democracy are formed, and that there are different democracies and more than one - sort. In fact there are two causes for there being several kinds of democracy, - first the one stated before, the fact that the populations are different - (for we find one multitude engaged in agriculture and another - consisting of handicraftsmen and day-laborers, and when the first of these is - added to the second and again the third to both of them it not only makes a - difference in that the quality of the democracy becomes better or worse but also - by its becoming different in kind); and the second cause is the one - about which we now speak. For the - institutions that go with democracies and seem to be appropriate to this form of - constitution make the democracies different by their combinations; for one form - of democracy will be accompanied by fewer, another by more, and another by all - of them. And it is serviceable to ascertain each of them both for the purpose of - instituting whichever of these kinds of democracy one happens to wish and for - the purpose of amending existing ones. For people setting up constitutions seek - to collect together all the features appropriate to their fundamental principle, - but in so doing they make a mistake, as has been said before in the passage - dealing with the causes of the destruction and the preservation of - constitutions. And now let us state the postulates, the ethical characters and - the aims of the various forms of democracy. - Now a fundamental principle - of the democratic form of constitution is liberty—that is what is - usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate - in liberty,

-
-
-

- for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one - factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular - principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if - this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be - sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute - justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so - that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, - because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is - sovereign. This then is one mark of - liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one - is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of - liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a - slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim - not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be - governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes - to equalitarian liberty.This clause is - obscure: perhaps it is an interpolation. - And these principles having been - laid down and this being the nature of democratic government, the following - institutions are democratic in character: election of officials by all from all; - government of each by all,and of all - by each in turn; election by lot either to all magistracies or to all that do - not need experience and skill; no property-qualification for office, or only a - very low one; no office to be held twice, or more than a few times, by the same - person, or few offices except the military ones; short tenure either of all - offices or of as many as possible; judicial functions to be exercised by all - citizens, that is by persons selected from all, and on all matters, or on most - and the greatest and most important, for instance the audit of official - accounts, constitutional questions, private contracts; the assembly to be - sovereign over all matters, but no official over any or only over extremely few; - or else a council to be sovereign over the most important matters (and a council is the most - democratic of magistracies in states where there is not a plentiful supply of - pay for everybody—for where there is, they deprive even this office of - its power, since the people draws all the trials to itself when it has plenty of - pay, as has been said before in the treatise preceding this oneBook 4, 1299b 38 ff. (Books 4. and 5. - are regarded as forming one treatise).); also - payment for public duties, preferably in all branches, assembly, law-courts, - magistracies, or if not, for the magistracies, the law-courts, council and - sovereign assemblies, or for those magistracies which are boundi.e. owing to the nature of their duties, and - by general custom. to have common mess tables. Also inasmuch as - oligarchy is defined by birth, wealth and education, the popular qualifications - are thought to be the opposite of these, low birth, poverty, vulgarity. And in - respect of the magistracies it is democratic to have none tenable for life, -

-
-
-

- and if any life-office has been left after an ancient - revolution, at all events to deprive it of its power and to substitute election - by lot for election by vote. - TheseThe rest of the chapter is most obscure, and its authenticity is - questioned. then are the features common to democracies. But what is - thought to be the extreme form of democracy and of popular government comes - about as a result of the principle of justice that is admitted to be democratic, - and this is for all to have equality according to number. For it is equality for - the poor to have no larger share of power than the rich, and not for the poor - alone to be supreme but for all to govern equally; for in this way they would - feel that the constitution possessed both equality and liberty. But the question follows, how will they - have equality? are the property-assessments of five hundred citizens to be - divided among a thousand and the thousand to have equal power to the five - hundredi.e. two groups of voters, with - equal total wealth and total voting-power, but one group twice as numerous - as the other, so that a man in the rich group has two votes and one in the - poor group one, the former being on the average twice as rich as the - latter.? or is equality on this principlei.e. ‘equality in proportion to - number.’ not to be arranged in this manner, but the - division into classes to be on this system, but then an equal number to be taken - from the five hundred and from the thousand and these to control the elections - and the law-courts? Is this then the justest form of constitution in accordance - with popular justice, or is it rather one that goes by counting heads?i.e. ‘one man one - vote.’ For democrats say that justice is whatever seems - good to the larger number,but - advocates of oligarchy think that it is whatever seems good to the owners of the - larger amount of property, for they say that the decision ought to go by amount - of property. But both views involve - inequality and injustice; for if the will of the few is to prevail, this means a - tyranny, since if one man owns more than the other rich men,i.e. apparently, more than the property of all the others put - together. according to the oligarchic principle of justice it is just - for him to rule alone; whereas if the will of the numerical majority is to - prevail, they will do injustice by confiscating the property of the rich - minority, as has been said before.1281a - 14. What form of equality therefore would be one on which both - parties will agree must be considered in the light of the principles of justice - as defined by both sets. For they say that whatever seems good to the majority - of the citizens ought to be sovereign. Let us then accept this principle, yet not wholly without - qualification, but inasmuch as fortune has brought into existence two component - parts of the state, rich and poor, let any resolution passed by both classes, or - by a majority of each, be sovereign, but if the two classes carry opposite - resolutions, let the decision of the majority, in the sense of the group whose - total property assessment is the larger, prevail: for instance, if there are ten - rich citizens and twenty poor ones, and opposite votes have been cast by six of - the rich on one side and by fifteen of the less wealthy on the other, four of - the rich have sided with the poor and five of the poor with the rich; then the - side that has the larger total property when the assessments of both classes on - either side are added together carries the voting.If the rich citizens are on the average twice as wealthy as - the poor (1.11), and therefore a rich man has two votes to - a poor man's one, when 6 rich and 5 poor vote one way, and 15 poor and 4 - rich the other, the division is 17 to 23, and the view of the latter party, - which is carried, represents a larger total of wealth but a larger - proportion of poor men. - But if the totals fall out exactly - equal, this is to be deemed an impasse common to both sides, as it is at present - if the assembly or law-court is exactly divided;

-
-
-

- either a decision - must be made by casting lots or some other such device must be adopted. But on - questions of equality and justice, even though it is very difficult to discover - the truth about them, nevertheless it is easier to hit upon it than to persuade - people that have the power to get an advantage to agree to it; equality and - justice are always sought by the weaker party, but those that have the upper - hand pay no attention to them. - There being four kinds of democracy, the - best is the one that stands first in structure, as was said in the discourses - preceding theseCf. 4, 1291b 30-41, 1292b - 25-33.; it is also the oldest of them all, but by first I mean first - as it were in a classification of the kinds of common people. The best common - people are the agricultural population, so that it is possible to introduce - democracy as well as other forms of constitution where the multitude lives by - agriculture or by pasturing cattle. For owing to their not having much property - they are busy, so that they cannot often meet in the assembly, while owing to - their havingThe MSS. give ‘not - having,’ but editors do not explain how in that case people would - avoid starvation. the necessaries of life they pass their time - attending to their farm work and do not covet their neighbors' goods, but find - more pleasure in working than in taking part in politics and holding office, - where the profits to be made from the offices are not large; for the mass of - mankind are more covetous of gain than of honor. And this is indicated by the fact that men endured the - tyrannies of former times, and endure oligarchies, if a ruler does not prevent - them from working orrob them; for - then some of them soon get rich and the others free from want. And also, if they - have any ambition, to have control over electing magistrates and calling them to - account makes up for the lack of office, since in some democracies even if the - people have no part in electing the magistrates but these are elected by a - special committee selected in turn out of the whole number, as at Mantinea, yet if they have the power of - deliberating on policy, the multitude are satisfied. (And this too must - be counted as one form of democracy, on the lines on which it once existed at - Mantinea.) Indeed it is for this reason that it is - advantageous for the form of democracy spoken of before, and is a customary - institution in it, for all the citizens to elect the magistrates and call them - to account, and to try law-suits, but for the holders of the greatest - magistracies to be elected and to have property-qualifications, the higher - offices being elected from the higher property-grades, or else for no office to - be elected on a property-qualification, but for officials to be chosen on the - ground of capacity. And a state governed in this way is bound to be governed - well (for the offices will always be administered by the best men with - the consent of the people and without their being jealous of the upper - classes), and this arrangement is certain to be satisfactory for the - upper classes and notables, for they will not be under the government of others - inferior to themselves, and they will govern justly because a different class - will be in control of the audits—since it is expedient to be in a state of suspense and not - to be able to do everything exactly as seems good to one, for liberty to do - whatever one likes cannot guard against the evil that is in every man's - character.

-
-
-

- Hence there necessarily results the condition of affairs that - is the most advantageous in the government of states—for the upper - classes to govern without doing wrong, the common people not being deprived of - any rights. It is manifest therefore that this is the best of the forms of - democracy, and why this is so—namely, because in it the common people - are of a certain kind. - For the purpose of making the people an agricultural - community, not only were some of the laws that were enacted in many states in - early times entirely serviceable, prohibiting the ownership of more than a - certain amount of land under any conditions or else of more than a certain - amount lying between a certain place and the citadel or city (and in - early times at all events in many states there was even legislation prohibiting - the sale of the original allotments; and there is a law said to be due to - OxylusLeader of the Heraclidae in their - invasion of the Peloponnese, and - afterwards king of Elis. - with some similar provision, forbidding loans secured on a certain portion of a - man's existing estate), but - at the present day it would also be well to introduce reform by means of the law - of the Aphytaeans, as it is serviceable for the purpose of which we are - speaking; the citizens of AphytisAphytis was - on the Isthmus of Pallene in - Macedonia. although - numerous and possessing a small territory nevertheless are all engaged in - agriculture, for they are assessed not on the whole of their estates, but on - divisions of them so small that even the poor can exceed the required minimum in - their assessments.No satisfactory - explanation seems to have been suggested of what this means. - - After - the agricultural communitythe best - kind of democracy is where the people are herdsmen and get their living from - cattle; for this life has many points of resemblance to agriculture, and as - regards military duties pastoral people are in a very well trained condition and - serviceable in body and capable of living in the open. But almost all the other - classes of populace, of which the remaining kinds of democracy are composed, are - very inferior to these, for their mode of life is mean, and there is no element - of virtue in any of the occupations in which the multitude of artisans and - market-people and the wage-earning class take part, and also owing to their - loitering about the market-place and the city almost all people of this class - find it easy to attend the assembly; whereas the farmers owing to their being - scattered over the country do not attend, and have not an equal desire for this - opportunity of meeting. And where it - also happens that the lie of the land is such that the country is widely - separated from the city, it is easy to establish a good democracy and also a - good constitutional government, for the multitude is forced to live at a - distance on the farms; and so, even if there is a crowd that frequents the - market-place, it is best in democracies not to hold assemblies without the - multitude scattered over the country.i.e. in - a largely agricultural democracy, even though there may be a considerable - idle population, which would attend frequent assemblies, it is best to hold - them infrequently, so as to secure the attendance of the farmers. - It has then been stated how the best and first - kind of democracy is to be organized, and it is clear how we ought to organize - the other kinds also. For they must diverge in a corresponding order, and at - each stage we must admit the next inferior class.

-
-
-

- - The last kind of democracy, because all the - population share in the government, it is not within the power of every state to - endure, and it is not easy for it to persist if it is not well constituted in - its laws and customs (but the things that result in destroying both - this state and the other forms of constitution have been nearly all of them - spoken of beforeIn Book 5.). - With a view to setting up this kind of democracy and making the people powerful - their leaders usually acquire as many supporters as possible and admit to - citizenship not only the legitimate children of citizens but also the base-born - and those of citizen-birth on one side, I mean those whose father or mother is a - citizen; for all this element is specially congenial to a to democracy of this - sort. Popular leaders therefore - regularly introduce such institutions; they ought however only to go on adding - citizens up to the point where the multitude outnumbers the notables and the - middle class and not to go beyond that point; for if they exceed it they make - the government more disorderly, and also provoke the notables further in the - direction of being reluctant to endure the democracy, which actually took place - and caused the revolution at Cyrene - In N. Africa. - Diodorus (Diod. 14.34) - describes a revolution there in 401 B.C., when - five hundred of the rich were put to death and others fled, but after a - battle a compromise was arranged.; for a small base element is - overlooked, but when it grows numerous it is more in evidence. - A - democracy of this kind will also find useful such institutions as were employed - by CleisthenesSee 1275b 36 n. at - Athens when he wished to - increase the power of the democracy, and by the party setting up the democracy - at Cyrene; different tribes and - brotherhoods must be created outnumbering the old ones, and the celebrations of - private religious rites must be grouped together into a small number of public - celebrations, and every device must be employed to make all the people as much - as possible intermingled with one another, and to break up the previously - existing groups of associates. Moreover the characteristics of a tyranny also are all thought to be - democratic, I mean for instance licence among slaves, which may really be - advantageous for the popular party up to a point, and among women and children, - and indulgence to live as one likes; a constitution of this sort will have a - large number of supporters, as disorderly living is pleasanter to the mass of - mankind than sober living. - But it is not the greatest or only task of the - legislator or of those who desire to construct a constitution of this kind - merely to set it up, but rather to ensure its preservation; for it is not - difficult for any form of constitution to last for one or two or three days. We - must therefore employ the results obtained in the inquiries that we have made - alreadyBook 5. into the causes of - the preservation and the destruction of constitutions, and attempt in the light - of those results to establish the safety of the state, carefully avoiding the - things that cause destruction, and enacting such laws both written and unwritten -

-
-
-

- as shall best compass the results preservative of - constitutions, and not think that a measure is democratic or oligarchic which - will cause the state to be democratically or oligarchically governed in the - greatest degree, but which will cause it to be so governed for the longest time. - But the demagogues of today to - court the favor of the peoples often use the law-courts to bring about - confiscations of property. Hence those who are caring for the safety of the - constitution must counteract this by enacting that nothing belonging to persons - condemned at law shall be confiscated and liable to be carried to the public - treasury, but that their property shall be consecrated to the service of - religion; for male-factors will be no less on their guard, as they will be - punished just the same, while the mob will less often vote guilty against men on - trial when it is not going to get anything out of it. Also they must always make - the public trials that occur as few as possible, checking those who bring - indictments at random by big penalties; for they do not usually indict men of - the people but notables, whereas even with this form of constitution it is - desirable for all the citizens if possible to be friendly to the state, or - failing that, at all events not to think of their rulers as enemies. And inasmuch as the ultimate forms of - democracy tend to have large populations and it is difficult for their citizens - to sit in the assembly without pay, and this in a state where there do not - happen to be revenues is inimical to the notables (for pay has to be obtained from a property-tax and - confiscation, and from corruption of the law-courts, which has caused the - overthrow of many democracies before now),—where therefore - there happen to be no revenues, few meetings of the assembly must be held, and - the law-courts must consist of many members but only sit a few days - (for this not only contributes to the rich not being in fear of the - cost of the system even if the well-off do not take the pay and only the poor - do, but also leads to far greater efficiency in the trial of law-suits, for the - well-to-do, though not wishing to be away from their private affairs for many - days, are willing to leave them for a short time), while where there are revenues men must not do what - the popular leaders do now (for they use the surplus for doles, and - people no sooner get them than they want the same doles again, because this way - of helping the poor is the legendary jar with a hole in itThe fifty daughters of Danaus were married to their cousins, - and all but one murdered their husbands on the bridal night, and were - punished in Hades by having to pour water into the jar - described.), but the truly democratic statesman must study how - the multitude may be saved from extreme poverty; for this is what causes - democracy to be corrupt. Measures must therefore be contrived that may bring - about lasting prosperity. And since this is advantageous also for the - well-to-do, the proper course is to collect all the proceeds of the revenues - into a fund and distribute this in lump sums to the needy, best of all, if one - can, in sums large enough for acquiring a small estate, or, failing this, to - serve as capital for trade or husbandry,

-
-
-

- and if this is not possible for - all, at all events to distribute the money by tribes or some other division of - the population in turn, while in the meantime the well-to-do must contribute pay - for attendance at the necessary assemblies, being themselves excused from - useless public services. By - following some such policy as this the Carthaginians have won the friendship of - the common people; for they constantly send out some of the people to the - surrounding territories and so make them well-off. And if the notables are men - of good feeling and sense they may also divide the needy among them in groups - and supply them with capital to start them in businesses. It is also a good plan - to imitate the policyCf. 1263a 35. of - the Tarentines. They get the goodwill of the multitude by making property - communal for the purpose of use by the needyThis seems to mean that the land was in private ownership, but that there - was some system of poor-relief, to provide for the destitute out of the - produce.; also they have divided the whole number of their - magistracies into two classes, one elected by vote and the other filled by - lot,—the latter to ensure that the people may have a share in them, - and the former to improve the conduct of public affairs. And it is also possible - to effect this by dividing the holders of the same magistracy into two groups, - one appointed by lot and the other by vote.We - have then said how democracies should be organized. - It is also fairly clear - from these considerations how oligarchies ought to be organized. We must infer - them from their opposites, reasoning out each form of oligarchywith reference to the form of democracy opposite to - it, starting with the most well-blended and first form of oligarchyIn contrast with the first and best form of - democracy, 2 init.—and this is the one near to what is - called a constitutional government, and for it the property-qualifications must - be divided into one group of smaller properties and another of larger ones, - smaller properties qualifying their owners for the indispensable offices and - larger ones for the more important; and a person owning the qualifying property - must be allowed to take a share in the government,—introducing by the - assessment a large enough number of the common people to secure that with them - the governing class will have a majority over those excluded; and persons to - share in the government must constantly be brought in from the better class of - the common people. And the next form - of oligarchy also must be constructed in a similar way with a slight tightening - up of the qualification. But the form of oligarchy that stands opposite to the - last form of democracy, the most autocratic and tyrannical of the oligarchies, - in as far as it is the worst requires a correspondingly great amount of - safe-guarding. For just as human bodies in a good state of health and ships well - equipped with their crews for a voyage admit of more mistakes without being - destroyed thereby, but bodies of a morbid habit and vessels strained in their - timbers and manned with bad crews cannot endure even the smallest mistakes, so - also the worst constitutions need the most safe-guarding.

-
-
-

- - Democracies therefore generally speaking are kept - safe by the largeness of the citizen-body, for this is the antithesis of justice - according to desert; but oligarchy on the contrary must manifestly obtain its - security by means of good organization.And since - the mass of the population falls principally into four divisions, the farming - class, artisans, retail traders and hired laborers, and military forces are of - four classes, cavalry, heavy infantry, light infantry and marines, in places - where the country happens to be suitable for horsemanship, there natural - conditions favor the establishment of an oligarchy that will be powerful - (for the security of the inhabitants depends on the strength of this - element, and keeping studs of horses is the pursuit of those who own extensive - estates); and where the ground is suitable for heavy infantry, - conditions favor the next form of oligarchy (for heavy infantry is a - service for the well-to-do rather than the poor); but light infantry - and naval forces are an entirely democratic element. As things are therefore, where there is a large multitude - of this class, when party strife occurs the oligarchs often get the worst of the - struggle; and a remedy for this must be adopted from military commanders, who - combine with their cavalry and heavy infantry forces a contingent of light - infantry. And this is the wayi.e. by - superior mobility. in which the common people get the better over the - well-to-do in outbreaks of party strife:being unencumbered they fight easily against cavalry and heavy - infantry. Therefore to establish - this force out of this class is to establish it against itself, but the right - plan is for the men of military age to be separated into a division of older and - one of younger men, and to have their own sons while still young trained in the - exercises of light and unarmed troops, and for youths selected from among the - boys to be themselves trained in active operations. And the bestowal of a share - in the government upon the multitude should either go on the lines stated - before,4.1, 1320b 25 ff. and be - made to those who acquire the property-qualification, or as at Thebes, to people after they have abstained - for a time from mechanic industries, or as at Marseilles, by making a selection among members of the - governing classes and those outside it of persons who deserveIf the text is corrected it seems to mean that - the list was revised from time to time and some old names taken off and new - ones put on. inclusion. And furthermore the most supreme offices also, which must be retained by those - within the constitution, must have expensive duties attached to them, in order - that the common people may be willing to be excluded from them, and may feel no - resentment against the ruling class, because it pays a high price for office. - And it fits in with this that they should offer splendid sacrifices and build up - some public monument on entering upon office, so that the common people sharing - in the festivities and seeing the city decorated both with votive offerings and - with building may be glad to see the constitution enduring; and an additional - result will be that the notables will have memorials of their outlay. But at - present the members of oligarchies do not adopt this course but the opposite, - for they seek the gains of office just as much as the honor; hence these - oligarchies are well described as miniature democracies.The phrase suggests that in democracy public duties are - cheifly undertaken for their emoluments. -

-
-
-

- Let this then be a description of the proper way to organize the various forms - of democracy and of oligarchy. - As a consequence of what has been said - there follow satisfactory conclusions to the questions concerning - magistracies—how many and what they should be and to whom they should - belong, as has also been said before.Book 4 - ,1297b 35 ff., 1299a 3 ff. For without the indispensableCf. 4.1. magistracies a state cannot - exist, while without those that contribute to good order and seemliness it - cannot be well governed. And furthermore the magistracies are bound to be fewer - in the small states and more numerous in the large ones, as in fact has been - said beforeBook 4, 1299b 30 ff.; it - must therefore be kept in view what kinds of magistracies it is desirable to - combine and what kinds to keep separate. First among the indispensable services is the - superintendence of the market, over which there must be an official to - superintend contracts and good order; since it is a necessity for almost all - states that people shall sell some things and buy others according to one - another's necessary requirements, and this is the readiest means of securing - self-sufficiency, which seems to be the reason for men's having united into a - single state. Another - superintendency connected very closely with this one is the curatorship of - public and private properties in the city,to secure good order and the preservation and rectification of - falling buildings and roads, and of the bounds between different persons' - estates, so that disputes may not arise about them, and all the other duties of - superintendence similar to these. An office of this nature is in most states - entitled that of City-controller, but it has several departments, each of which - is filled by separate officials in the states with larger populations, for - instance Curators of Walls, Superintendents of Wells, Harbors-guardians. - And another office also is - indispensable and closely akin to these, for it controls the same matters but - deals with the country and there regions outside the city; and these magistrates - are called in some places Land-controllers and in others Custodians of Forests. - These then are three departments of control over these matters, while another - office is that to which the revenues of the public funds are paid in, the - officials who guard them and by whom they are divided out to the several - administrative departments; these magistrates are called Receivers and Stewards. - Another magistracy is the one that has to receive a written return of private - contracts and of the verdicts of the law-courts; and with these same officials - the registration of legal proceedings and their institution have also to take - place. In some states this office also is divided into several, but there are - places where one magistracy controls all these matters; and these officials are - called Sacred Recorders, Superintendents, Recorders, and other names akin to - these. And after these is the office - connected with it but perhaps the most indispensable and most difficult of all, - the one concerned with the execution of judgement upon persons cast in suits and - those posted as defaulters according to the lists,

-
-
-

- and with the - custody of prisoners. This is an irksome office because it involves great - unpopularity, so that where it is not possible to make a great deal of profit - out of it men will not undertake it, or when they have undertaken it are - reluctant to carry out its functions according to the laws; but it is necessary, - because there is no use in trials being held about men's rights when the - verdicts are not put into execution, so that if when no legal trial of disputes - takes place social intercourse is impossible, so also is it when judgements are - not executed. Hence it is better for - this magistracy not to be a single office but to consist of several persons - drawn from different courts, and it is desirable similarly to try to divide up - the functions connected with the posting up of people registered as public - debtors, and further also in some cases for the sentences to be executed by - magistrates, especially by the newly elected ones preferably in suits tried by - the outgoing ones, and in those tried by men actually in office for the - magistrate executing the sentence to be different from the one that passed it, - for instance the City-controllers to execute the judgements passed on from the - Market-controllers and other magistrates those passed on by the - City-controllers. For the less odium involved for those who execute the - judgements, the more adequately the judgements will be carried out; so for the - same magistrates to have imposed the sentence and to execute it involves a - twofold odium, and for the same ones to execute it in all cases makes them the - enemies of everybody. And in many - places also the office of keeping custody of prisoners, for example at - Athens the office of the - magistrates known as the ElevenThis example - looks like a mistaken note interpolated in the text. The Eleven had both - functions.,is separate - from the magistracy that executes sentences. It is better therefore to keep this - also separate, and to attempt the same device with regard to this as well. For - though it is no less necessary than the office of which I spoke, yet in practice - respectable people avoid it most of all offices, while it is not safe to put it - into the hands of the base, for they themselves need others to guard them - instead of being able to keep guard over others. Hence there must not be one - magistracy specially assigned to the custody of prisoners nor must the same - magistracy perform this duty continuously, but it should be performed by the - young, in places where there is a regiment of cadetsAt Athens and - elsewhere young citizens from eighteen to twenty were enrolled in training - corps for military instruction; these served as police and home - troops. or guards, and by the magistrates, in successive - sections. - These magistracies therefore must be counted first as supremely - necessary, and next to them must be put those that are not less necessary but - are ranked on a higher grade of dignity, because they require much experience - and trustworthiness; in this class would come the magistracies concerned with - guarding the city and those assigned to military requirements. And both in peace - and in war it is equally necessary for there to be magistrates to superintend - the guarding of gates and walls and the inspection and drill of the citizen - troops. In some places therefore - there are more magistracies assigned to all these duties, and in others - fewer—for instance in the small states there is one to deal with all - of them. And the officers of this sort are entitled Generals or War-lords. -

-
-
-

- And moreover if there are also cavalry or light infantry or - archers or a navy, sometimes a magistracy is appointed to have charge of each of - these arms also, and they carry the titles of Admiral, Cavalry-commander and - Taxiarch, and also the divisional commissions subordinate to these of Captains - of Triremes, Company-commanders and Captains of Tribes, and all the subdivisions - of these commands. But the whole of this sort of officers constituted a single - class, that of military command. This then is how the matter stands in regard to this office; but inasmuch as - some of the magistracies, if not all, handle large sums of public money, there - must be another office to receive an account and subject it to audit, which must - itself handle no other business; and these officials are called Auditors by some - people, Accountants by others, Examiners by others and Advocates by others. And - by the side of all these offices is the one that is most supreme over all - matters, for often the same magistracy has the execution of business that - controls its introduction, or presides over the general assembly in places where - the people are supreme; for the magistracy that convenes the sovereign assembly - is bound to be the sovereign power in the state. It is styled in some places the - Preliminary Council because it considers business in advance, but where there is - a democracyCf. 1323a 9 below. Apparently - plh=qo/s e)sti stands for to\ plh=qos ku/rio/n e)sti, but editors quote no - parallel. it is more usually called a Council. This more or less - completes the number of the offices of a political nature; but another kind of superintendence is that - concerned with divine worship; in this class are priests and superintendents of - mattersconnected with the - temples, the preservation of existing buildings and the restoration of those - that are ruinous, and the other duties relating to the gods. In practice this - superintendence in some places forms a single office, for instance in the small - cities, but in others it belongs to a number of officials who are not members of - the priesthood, for example Sacrificial Officers and Temple-guardians and - Stewards of Sacred Funds. And connected with this is the office devoted to the - management of all the public festivals which the law does not assign to the - priests but the officials in charge of which derive their honor from the common - sacrificial hearth, and these officials are called in some places Archons, in - others Kings and in others Presidents. To sum up therefore, the necessary offices of - superintendence deal with the following matters : institutions of religion, - military institutions, revenue and expenditure, control of the market, citadel, - harbors and country, also the arrangements of the law-courts, registration of - contracts, collection of fines, custody of prisoners, supervision of accounts - and inspections, and the auditing of officials, and lastly the offices connected - with the body that deliberates about public affairs. On the other hand, peculiar to the states that have more - leisure and prosperity, and also pay attention to public decorum, are the - offices of Superintendent of Women, Guardian of the Laws, Superintendent of - Children, Controller of Physical Training,

-
- - -
-

- - - - Book 4 in some editions.The - student who is going to make a suitable investigation of the best form of - constitution must necessarily decide first of all what is the most desirable - mode of life. For while this is uncertain it is also bound to be uncertain what - is the best constitution, since it is to be expected that the people that have - the best form of government available under their given conditions will fare the - best, exceptional circumstances apart. Hence we must firstagree what life is most desirable for almost all - men, and after that whether the same life is most desirable both for the - community and for the individual, or a different one. Believing therefore in the adequacy of much of what is - said even in extraneous discoursesCf. 3.6. - It is debated whether the phrase refers to Aristotle's own popular writings, - or to those of other philosophers, or to discussions of the subject in - ordinary intercourse. on the subject of the best life, let us make - use of these pronouncements now. For as regards at all events one classification - of things good, putting them in three groups, external goods, goods of the soul - and goods of the body, assuredly nobody would deny that the ideally happy are - bound to possess all three. For nobody would call a man ideally happy that has - not got a particle of courage nor of temperance nor of justice nor of wisdom, - but is afraid of the flies that flutter by him, cannot refrain from any of the - most outrageous actions in order to gratify a desire to eat or to drink, ruins - his dearest friends for the sake of a farthing, and similarly in matters of the - intellect also is as senseless and mistaken as any child or lunatic. But although these are propositions which - when uttered everybody would agree to, yet men differ about amount and degrees - of value. They think it is enough to possess however small a quantity of virtue, - but of wealth, riches, power, glory and everything of that kind they seek a - larger and larger amount without limit. We on the other hand shall tell them - that it is easy to arrive at conviction on these matters in the light of the - actual facts, when one sees that men do not acquire and preserve the virtues by - means of these external goods, but external goods by means of the virtues, -

-
-
-

- and that whether the life of happiness consists for man in - enjoyment or in virtue or in both, it is found in larger measure with those who - are of surpassingly high cultivation in character and intellect but only - moderate as regards the external acquisition of goods, than with those who own - more than they can use of the latter but are deficient in the former. Not but what the truth is also easily seen - if we consider the matter in the light of reason. For external goods have a - limit, as has any instrument (and everything useful is useful for - something), so an excessive amount of them must necessarily do harm, or - do no good, to its possessor; whereas with any of the goods of the soul, the - more abundant it is, the more useful it must be—if even to goods of - the soul not only the term ‘noble’ but also the term - ‘useful’ can be properly applied. And broadly, it is clear - that we shall declare that the best condition of each particular thing, - comparing things with one another, corresponds in point of superiority to the - distance that subsists between the things of which we declare these conditions - themselves to be conditions.e.g. the finest - man excels the finest monkey to the degree in which the species man excels - the species monkey. Hence inasmuch as our soul is a more valuable - thing both absolutely and relatively to ourselves than either our property or - our body, the best conditions of these things must necessarily stand in the same - relation to one another as the things themselves do. Moreover it is for the sake - of the soul that these goods are in their nature desirable, and that all wise - men mustchoose them, not the soul for - the sake of those other things. Let - us then take it as agreed between us that to each man there falls just so large - a measure of happiness as he achieves of virtue and wisdom and of virtuous and - wise action: in evidence of this we have the case of God, who is happy and - blessed, but is so on account of no external goods, but on account of himself, - and by being of a certain quality in his nature; since it is also for this - reason that prosperity is necessarily different from happiness—for the - cause of goods external to the soul is the spontaneous and fortune,Aristotle taught that some events are the - result of the undesigned interaction of two lines of causation in nature's - design; he denoted this (1) in general, by ‘the - automatic’ or self-acting (represented in Latin by - sponte, spontaneous), (2) as - concerning man, by ‘fortune.’ but nobody is just - or temperate as a result of or owing to the action of fortune. And connected is - a truth requiring the same arguments to prove it, that it is also the best - state, and the one that does well,The common - play on the ambiguity of ‘do well,’ meaning either - ‘prosper’ or ‘act rightly.’ - that is happy. But to do well is impossible save for those who do good actions, - and there is no good action either of a man or of a state without virtue and - wisdom; and courage, justice and wisdom belonging to a state have the same - meaning and form as have those virtues whose possession bestows the titles of - just and wise and temperate on an individual human being. - These remarks - however must suffice by way of preface to our discourse: for neither is it - possible to abstain from touching on these subjects altogether, nor is it - feasible to follow out all the arguments that are germane to them, for that is - the business of another course of study. For the present let us take it as - established that the best life, whether separately for an individual or - collectively for states,

-
-
-

- is the life conjoined with virtue furnished with - sufficient means for taking part in virtuous actions - Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1099a - 32, Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1179a 4 - ff. - ; while objections to this position we must pass over - in the course of the present inquiry, and reserve them for future consideration, - if anyone be found to disagree with what has been said. - On the other hand it - remains to say whether the happiness of a state is to be pronounced the same as - that of each individual man, or whether it is different. Here too the answer is - clear: everybody would agree that it is the same; for all those who base the - good life upon wealth in the case of the individual, also assign felicity to the - state as a whole if it is wealthy; and all who value the life of the tyrant - highest, would also say that the state which rules the widest empire is the - happiest; and if any body accepts the individual as happy on account of virtue, - he will also say that the state which is the better morally is the happier. - But there now arise these two - questions that require consideration: first, which mode of life is the more - desirable, the life of active citizenship and participation in politics, or - rather the life of an alien and that of detachment from the political - partnership; next, what constitution and what organization of a state is to be - deemed the best,—either on the assumption that to take an active part - in the state is desirable for everybody, or that it is undesirable for some men - although desirable for most. But as it isthe latter question that is the business of political study and - speculation, and not the question of what is desirable for the individual, and - as it is the investigation of politics that we have now taken up, the former - question would be a side issue, and the latter is the business of political - inquiry. - Now it is clear that the best constitution is the system under - which anybody whatsoever would be best off and would live in felicity; but the - question is raised even on the part of those who agree that the life accompanied - by virtue is the most desirable, whether the life of citizenship and activity is - desirable or rather a life released from all external affairs, for example some - form of contemplative life, which is said by some to be the only life that is - philosophic.Perhaps the Greek should be - altered to give ‘which alone is said to be desirable by some - philosophers.’ For it is manifest that these are the two - modes of life principally chosen by the men most ambitious of excelling in - virtue, both in past times and at the present day—I mean the life of - politics and the life of philosophy. And it makes no little difference which way the truth lies; for assuredly the - wise are bound to arrange their affairs in the direction of the better - goal—and this applies to the state collectively as well as to the - individual human being. Some persons think that empire over one's neighbors, if - despotically exercised, involves a definite injustice of the greatest kind, and - if constitutionally, although it carries no injustice, yet is a hindrance to the - ruler's own well-being; but others hold almost the opposite view to - these—they think that the life of action and citizenship is the only - life fit for a man, since with each of the virtues its exercise in actions is - just as possible for men engaged in public affairs and in politics as for those - who live a private life.

-
-
-

- - Some - people then hold the former view, while others declare that the despotic and - tyrannical form of constitution alone achieves happiness; and in some states it - is also the distinctive aim of the constitution and the laws to enable them to - exercise despotic rule over their neighbors. Hence even though with most peoples - most of the legal ordinances have been laid down virtually at random, - nevertheless if there are places where the laws aim at one definite object, that - object is in all cases power, as in Sparta and Crete both - the system of education and the mass of the laws are framed in the main with a - view to war; and also among all the non-Hellenic nations that are strong enough - to expand at the expense of others, military strength has been held in honor, - for example, among the Scythians, Persians, Thracians and Celts. Indeed among some peoples there are even - certain laws stimulating military valor; for instance at Carthage, we are told, warriors receive - the decoration of armlets of the same number as the campaigns on which they have - served; and at one time there was also a law in Macedonia that a man who had never killed an enemy must wear - his halter instead of a belt. Among Scythian tribes at a certain festival a cup - was carried round from which a man that had not killed an enemy was not allowed - to drink. Among the Iberians, a warlike race, they fix small spitsOr perhaps ‘pointed - stones.’ - in the - earth round a man's grave corresponding in number to the enemies he has killed. - So with other races there are many other practices of a similar kind, some - established by law and others by custom. - Nevertheless those who wish - to examine the matter closely might perhaps think it exceedingly strange that it - should be the business of a statesman to be able to devise means of holding - empire and mastery over the neighboring peoples whether they desire it or not. - How can that be worthy of a statesman or lawgiver which is not even lawful? and - government is not lawful when it is carried on not only justly but also - unjustly—and superior strength may be unjustly exercised. Moreover we do not see this in the other - sciences either: it is no part of a physician's or ship-captain's business to - use either persuasion or compulsion upon the patients in the one case and the - crewOr perhaps ‘the - passengers.’ in the other. Yet most peoples seem to think - that despotic rule is statesmanship, and are not ashamed to practise towards - others treatment which they declare to be unjust and detrimental for themselves; - for in their own internal affairs they demand just government, yet in their - relations with other peoples they pay no attention to justice. Yet it is strange if there is not a natural - distinction between peoples suited to be despotically ruled and those not - suited; so that if this is so, it is not proper to attempt to exercise despotic - government over all people, but only over those suited for it, just as it is not - right to hunt human beings for food or sacrifice, but only the game suitable for - this purpose, that is, such wild creatures as are good to eat. And moreover it - is possible even for a single state in isolation to be happy,

-
-
-

- that is - one that is well governed, in as much as it is conceivable that a state might be - carried on somewhere in isolation, enjoying good laws, and in such a state the - system of the constitution will not be framed for the purpose of war or of - overpowering its enemies—for we are to suppose everything to do with - war to be excluded. It is evident - therefore that while all military pursuits are to be deemed honorable, they are - not so as being the ultimate end of all things but as means to that end. And it - is the business of the good lawgiver to study how a state, a race of men or any - other community is to partake of the good life and the happiness possible for - them. Some however of the regulations laid down will vary; and in case there - exist any neighbor peoples, it is the business of the legislative art to - consider what sort of exercises should be practised in relation to what sort of - neighbors or how the state is to adopt the regulations that are suitable in - relation to each.But this question of the proper - end for the best constitutions to aim at may receive its due consideration - later.See 13, 14. - - We - turn to those who, while agreeing that the life of virtue is the most desirable, - differ about the way in which that life should be pursued. Some disapprove of - holding office in the state, thinking that the life of the free manis different from the life of politics and - is the most desirable of any; whereas others think the political life the best - life, for they argue that it is impossible for the man who does nothing to do - well, and doing well and happiness are the same thing.On the ambiguous use of ‘do well’ see - 1323b 32 n. To these two parties we must reply that both are partly - right and partly wrong. The former are right in saying that the life of the free - man is better than the life of mastership, for this is true—there is - nothing specially dignified in employing a slave, as a slave, for giving orders - about menial duties has in it nothing of nobility; yet to think that all government is exercising the - authority of a master is a mistake, for there is as wide a difference between - ruling free men and ruling slaves as there is between the natural freeman and - the natural slave themselves. But these things have been adequately decided in - the first discourses.i.e. Book 1. But - to praise inaction more highly than action is an error, for happiness is an - activity, and further the actions of the just and temperate have in them the - realization of much that is noble. Yet on the strength of these decisions somebody might perhaps suppose that the - highest good is to be the master of the world, since thus one would have the - power to compass the greatest number and the noblest kind of actions, and - therefore it is not the duty of the man that is capable of ruling to surrender - office to his neighbor, but rather to take it from him, and no account must be - taken by father of sons nor by sons of father nor in general by one friend of - another, and no heed must be paid to them in comparison with this; for the best - thing is the most to be desired, and to do well is the best thing. Now this statement is perhaps true -

-
-
-

- if it is the case that the most desirable of existing things - will belong to men that use robbery and violence. But perhaps it cannot belong - to them, and this is a false assumption. For a man's acts can no longer be noble - if he does not excel as greatly as a man excels a woman or a father his children - or a master his slaves, so that one who transgresses cannot afterwards achieve - anything sufficient to rectify the lapse from virtue that he had already - committed; because for equals the noble and just consists in their taking turns, - since this is equal and alike, but for those that are equal to have an unequal - share and those that are alike an unlike share is contrary to nature, and - nothing contrary to nature is noble. Hence in case there is another person who - is our superior in virtue and in practical capacity for the highest functions, - him it is noble to follow and him it is just to obey; though he must possess not - only virtue but also capacity that will render him capable of action. But if these things are well said, and if - happiness is to be defined as well-doing, the active life is the best life both - for the whole state collectively and for each man individually. But the active - life is not necessarily active in relation to other men, as some people think, - nor are only those processes of thought active that are pursued for the sake of - the objects that result from action, but far morethose speculations and thoughts that have their end in - themselves and are pursued for their own sake; for the end is to do well, and - therefore is a certain form of action.Cf. - 1323b 32 n., 1325a 21. And even with actions done in relation to - external objects we predicate action in the full sense chiefly of the - master-craftsmen who direct the action by their thoughts. Moreover with cities also, those that occupy an - isolated situation and pursue a policy of isolation are not necessarily - inactive; for state activities also can be sectional, since the sections of the - state have many common relations with one another. And this is also possible - similarly in the case of any individual human being; for otherwise God and the - whole universe could hardly be well circumstanced, since they have no external - activities by the side of their own private activities.It is therefore manifest that the same life must be the best - both for each human being individually and for states and mankind - collectively. - And as we have prepared the way by this prefatory discussion of - the subject, and have previously studied all the other forms of - constitution,This seems to refer to - Books 4-6. the starting-point for the remainder of our subject is - first to specify the nature of the conditions that are necessary in the case of - the state that is to be constituted in the ideally best manner. For the best - constitution cannot be realized without suitable equipment.Cf. 1288b 39 n. We must therefore posit as granted in - advance a number of as it were ideal conditions, although none of these must be - actually impossible. I mean for instance in reference to number of citizens and - territory. All other craftsmen, for - example a weaver or a shipwright,

-
-
-

- have to be supplied with their - material in a condition suitable for their trade, for the better this material - has been prepared, the finer is bound to be the product of their craft; so also - the statesman and the lawgiver ought to be furnished with their proper material - in a suitable condition. Under the head of material equipment for the state - there first come the questions as to a supply of population—what - precisely ought to be its number and what its natural character? and similarly - in regard to the territory, what is to be its particular size and nature? - Most people imagine that the - prosperous state must be a great state; but granted the truth of this, they fail - to realize in what quality the greatness or smallness of a state consists: they - judge a great state by the numerical magnitude of the population, but really the - more proper thing to look at is not numbers but efficiency. For a state like - other things has a certain function to perform, so that it is the state most - capable of performing this function that is to be deemed the greatest, just as - one would pronounce Hippocrates to be greater, not as a human being but as a - physician, than somebody who surpassed him in bodily size. All the same, even if it be right to judge the - state by the test of its multitude, this ought not to be done with regard to the - multitude of any and every class (for states are doubtless bound to - contain a large number of slavesand - resident aliens and foreigners), but the test should be the number of - those who are a part of the state—the special parts of which a state - consists. It is superiority in the number of these that indicates a great state; - a state that sends forth to war a large number of the baser sort and a small - number of heavy-armed soldiers cannot possibly be a great state—for a - great state is not the same thing as a state with a large population. But certainly experience also shows that it - is difficult and perhaps impossible for a state with too large a population to - have good legal government. At all events we see that none of the states reputed - to be well governed is without some restriction in regard to numbers. The - evidence of theory proves the same point. Law is a form of order, and good law - must necessarily mean good order; but an excessively large number cannot - participate in order: to give it order would surely be a task for divine power, - which holds even this universe together.In - the MSS. this clause follows the next. Hence that state also must - necessarily be the most beautiful with whose magnitude is combined the - above-mentioned limiting principle; for certainly beauty is usually found in number and magnitude, but there is a - due measure of magnitude for a city-state as there also is for all other - things—animals, plants, tools; each of these if too small or - excessively large will not possess its own proper efficiency, but in some cases - will have entirely lost its true nature and in others will be in a defective - condition: for instance, a ship a span long will not be a ship at all, nor will - a ship a quarter of a mile long, and even when it reaches a certain size, -

-
-
-

- in some cases smallness and in others excessive largeness will - make it sail badly. Similarly a - state consisting of too few people will not be self-sufficing (which is - an essential quality of a state), and one consisting of too many, - though self-sufficing in the mere necessaries, will be so in the way in which a - nationi.e. presumably an Ethnos in the - usual sense, a community composed of villages loosely bound together by - relationship and trade, and united for defence, but not for political life; - not an Ethnos of associated cities. is, and not as a state, since it - will not be easy for it to possess constitutional government—for who - will command its over-swollen multitude in war? or who will serve as its herald, - unless he have the lungs of a Stentor? It follows that the lowest limit for the - existence of a state is when it consists of a population that reaches the - minimum number that is self-sufficient for the purpose of living the good life - after the manner of a political community. It is possible also for one that - exceeds this one in number to be a greater state, but, as we said, this - possibility of increase is not without limit, and what the limit of the state's - expansion is can easily be seen from practical considerations. The activities of - the state are those of the rulers and those of the persons ruled, and the work - of a ruler is to direct the administration and to judge law-suits; but in order - to decide questions of justice and in order to distribute the offices according - to merit it is necessary for the citizens to know each other's personal - characters, since where this does not happen to be the case the business of - electing officials and trying law-suits is bound to go badly; haphazard decision - is unjust in both matters, and thismust obviously prevail in an excessively numerous community. Also in such a community it is easy for - foreigners and resident aliens to usurp the rights of citizenship, for the - excessive number of the population makes it not difficult to escape detection. - It is clear therefore that the best limiting principle for a state is the - largest expansion of the population, with a view to self-sufficiency that can - well be taken in at one view.Such may be our - conclusion on the question of the size of the state. - Very much the same holds - good about its territory. As to the question what particular kind of land it - ought to have, it is clear that everybody would command that which is most - self-sufficing (and such is necessarily that which bears every sort of - produce, for self-sufficiency means having a supply of everything and lacking - nothing). In extent and magnitude the land ought to be of a size that - will enable the inhabitants to live a life of liberal and at the same time - temperate leisure. Whether this limiting principle is rightly or wrongly stated - must be considered more precisely later on,This promise is not fulfilled in the work as it has come down to us. - when we come to raise the general subject of property and the ownership of - wealth,—how and in what way it ought to be related to the employment - of wealthThe distinction seems to be between - owning (or perhaps getting) wealth and using it; but a - probable emendation of the Greek gives ‘how we ought to stand in - relation to its employment.’; about this question there are - many controversies, owing to those that draw us towards either extreme of life, - the one school towards parsimony and the other towards luxury. The proper configuration of the country it - is not difficult to state (though there are some points on which the - advice of military experts also must be taken): on the one hand it - should be difficult for enemies to invade and easy for the people themselves to - march out from,

-
-
-

- and in addition, on the other hand, the same thing - holds good of the territory that we said about the size of the - population—it must be well able to be taken in at one view, and that - means being a country easy for military defence. As to the site of the city, if - it is to be ideally placed, it is proper for it to be well situated with regard - both to the sea and to the country. One defining principle is that mentioned - aboveAt the beginning of - 5.2.—the city must be in communication with all parts of the - territory for the purpose of sending out military assistance; and the remaining - principle is that it must be easily accessible for the conveyance to it of the - agricultural produce, and also of timber-wood and any other such material that - the country happens to possess. - As to communication with the sea it is in - fact much debated whether it is advantageous to well-ordered states or harmful. - It is maintained that the visits of persons brought up under other institutions - are detrimental to law and order, and so also is a swollen population, which - grows out of sending out abroad and receiving in a number of traders, but is - unfavorable to good government. Now - it is not difficult to see that, if these consequences are avoided, it is - advantageous in respect of both security and the supply of necessary - commoditiesthat the city and the - country should have access to the sea. With a view to enduring wars more easily - people that are to be secure must be capable of defensive operations on both - elements, land and sea, and with a view to striking at assailants, even if it be - not possible on both elements, yet to do so on one or the other will be more in - the power of people that have access to both. And the importation of commodities - that they do not happen to have in their own country and the export of their - surplus products are things indispensable; for the state ought to engage in - commerce for its own interest, but not for the interest of the foreigner. - People that throw open their - market to the world do so for the sake of revenue, but a state that is not to - take part in that sort of profit-making need not possess a great commercial - port. But since even now we see many countries and cities possessing sea-ports - and harbors conveniently situated with regard to the city, so as not to form - part of the same townPerhaps the Greek - should be altered to give ‘part of the town - itself.’ and yet not to be too far off, but commanded by - walls and other defence-works of the kind, it is manifest that if any advantage - does result through the communication of city with port the state will possess - this advantage, and if there is any harmful result it is easy to guard against - it by means of laws stating and regulating what persons are not and what persons - are to have intercourse with one another. On the question of naval forces, there is no doubt that to - possess them up to a certain strength is most desirable

-
-
-

- (for a - state ought to be formidable, and also capable of the defence of not only its - own people but also some of its neighbors, by sea as well as by land); - but when we come to the question of the number and size of this force, we have - to consider the state's manner of life if it is to live a life of leadership and - affairs,i.e. relations with other - states—a broader term than hegemony, leadership of an - alliance. it must possess maritime as well as other forces - commensurate with its activities. On - the other hand it is not necessary for states to include the teeming population - that grows up in connection with common sailors, as there is no need for these - to be citizens; for the marines are free men and are a part of the infantry, and - it is they who have command and control the crew; and if there exists a mass of - villagers and tillers of the soil, there is bound to be no lack of sailors too. - In fact we see this state of thing existing even now in some places, for - instance in the city of Heraclea; the - Heracleotes man a large fleet of triremes, although they possess a city of but - moderate size as compared with others.Let such - then be our conclusions about the territories and harbors of cities, and the - sea, and about naval forces. - About the citizen population, we said - before what is its proper limit of numbers. Let us now speakof what ought to be the citizens' natural - character. Now this one might almost discern by looking at the famous cities of - Greece and by observing how the - whole inhabited world is divided up among the nations.4. fin. The nations inhabiting the cold places and - those of Europe are full of spirit but - somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill, so that they continue - comparatively free, but lacking in political organization and capacity to rule - their neighbors. The peoples of Asia on - the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit, so - that they are in continuous subjection and slavery. But the Greek race - participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position - geographically, for it is both spirited and intelligent; hence it continues to - be free and to have very good political institutions, and to be capable of - ruling all mankind if it attains constitutional unity. The same diversity also exists among the Greek races - compared with one another: some have a one-sided nature, others are happily - blended in regard to both these capacities.i.e. intelligence and high spirit, capacity for self-government and - capacity for empire. It is clear therefore that people that are to be - easily guided to virtue by the lawgiver must be both intellectual and spirited - in their nature. For as to what is said by certain persons about the character - that should belong to their GuardiansThe - ruling class in Plato's Ideal State,Plat. Rep. - 375c.—they should be affectionate to their - friends but fierce towards strangers—it is spirit that causes - affectionateness, for spirit is the capacity of the soul whereby we love. -

-
-
-

- - A sign of this is - that spirit is more roused against associates and friends than against - strangers, when it thinks itself slighted. Therefore ArchilochusArchilochus of Paros (one of the earliest lyric poets, fl. 600 B.C., the inventor of the iambic meter, which he - used for lampoons), fr. 61 Bergk, 676 Diehl, 67 - Edmonds,Elegy and Iambus, 2. 133. for instance, - when reproaching his friends, appropriately apostrophizes his spirit: - For 'tis thy friends that make thee choke with rage. - Moreover it is from this faculty that power to command and love of - freedom are in all cases derived; for spirit is a commanding and indomitable - element. But it is a mistake to describe the Guardians as cruel towards - strangers; it is not right to be cruel towards anybody, and men of great-souled - nature are not fierce except towards wrongdoers, and their anger is still - fiercer against their companions if they think that these are wronging them, as - has been said before. And this is - reasonable, because they think that in addition to the harm done them they are - also being defrauded of a benefit by persons whom they believe to owe them one. - Hence the sayings - For brothers' wars are cruel, - Eur. frag. - 965. - - and - They that too deeply loved too deeply hate. - Nauck frag. 78 - - - - We have now approximately decided what are the - proper numbers and the natural qualities of those who exercise the right of - citizens, and the proper extent and nature of the territory (for we - must notseek to attain the same - exactness by means of theoretical discussions as is obtained by means of the - facts that come to us through sense-perceptions). - But since, just as - with all other natural organisms those things that are indispensable for the - existence of the whole are not partsi.e. - they are not all of themparts: the ‘parts’ - of a thing are among the ‘indispensable conditions’ of - its existence, but there are others also. of the whole organization, - it is also clear that not all the things that are necessary for states to - possess are to be counted as parts of a state (any more than this is so - with any other association that forms something one in kind, for there must be - something that is one and common and the same for the partners, whether the - shares that they take be equal or unequal: for example this common property may - be food or an area of land or something else of the same sort—The sentence is unfinished. - but when of two related things one - is a means and the other an end, in their case there is nothing in common except - for the one to act and the other to receive the action. I mean for instance the - relation between any instrument or artificer and the work that they produce: - between a house and a builder there is nothing that is produced in common, but - the builder's craft exists for the sake of the house. Hence although states need - property, the property is no part of the state. And there are many living things - that fall under the head of property.Possibly the words from the beginning of 7.2 ‘But when’ - to this point should be transferred below to 7.3 mid. after - ‘different constitutions.’ And the state is one - form of partnership of similar people, and its object is the best life that is - possible. And since the greatest - good is happiness, and this is some perfect activity or employment of virtue, - and since it has so come about that it is possible for some men to participate - in it, but for others only to a small extent or not at all, it is clear that - this is the cause for there arising different kinds and varieties of state and - several forms of constitution;

-
-
-

- for as each set of people pursues - participation in happiness in a different manner and by different means they - make for themselves different modes of life and different constitutions. And we - must also further consider how many there are of these things referred to that - are indispensable for the existence of a state; for among them will be the - things which we pronounce to be parts of a state, owing to which their presence - is essential. We must therefore - consider the list of occupations that a state requires : for from these it will - appear what the indispensable classes are. First then a state must have a supply - of food; secondly, handicrafts (since life needs many tools); - third, arms (since the members of the association must necessarily - possess arms both to use among themselves and for purposes of government, in - cases of insubordination, and to employ against those who try to molest them - from without); also a certain abundance of money, in order that they - may have enough both for their internal needs and for requirements of war; - fifth, a primary need, the service of religion, termed a priesthood; and sixth - in number and most necessary of all, a provision for deciding questions of - interests and of rights between the citizens. These then are the occupations that virtually every state - requires (for the state is not any chance multitude of people but one - self-sufficient for the needs of life, as we say,Cf. Books 2.1.7, 3.1.8, 5.2.10. and if any of these - industries happens to be wanting, it is impossible for that association to be - absolutely self-sufficient). It is necessary therefore for the state to - be organizedon the lines of these - functions; consequently it must possess a number of farmers who will provide the - food, and craftsmen, and the military class, and the wealthy, and priests and - judges to decide questions of necessityPerhaps the text should be altered to give ‘matters of - justice.’ and of interests. - These matters having been - settled, it remains to consider whether everybody is to take part in all of - these functions (for it is possible for the whole of the people to be - at once farmers and craftsmen and the councillors and judges), or - whether we are to assume different classes corresponding to each of the - functions mentioned, or whether some of them must necessarily be specialized and - others combined. But it will not be the same in every form of constitution; for, - as we said,Cf. Book 4.4 and 14. it is - possible either for all the people to take part in all the functions or for not - all to take part in all but for certain people to have certain functions. In - fact these different distributions of functions are the cause of the difference - between constitutions: democracies are states in which all the people - participate in all the functions, oligarchies where the contrary is the case. - But at present we are studying - the best constitution, and this is the constitution under which the state would - be most happy, and it has been stated before1.5. that happiness cannot be forthcoming without virtue; it is - therefore clear from these considerations that in the most nobly constituted - state, and the one that possesses men that are absolutely just, not merely just - relatively to the principle that is the basis of the constitution, the citizens - must not live a mechanic or a mercantile life (for such a life is - ignoble and inimical to virtue), nor yet must those who are to be - citizens in the best state be tillers of the soil

-
-
-

- (for - leisure is needed both for the development of virtue and for active - participation in politics). And since the state also contains the military class and the class that - deliberates about matters of policy and judges questions of justice, and these - are manifestly in a special sense parts of the state, are these classes also to - be set down as distinct or are both functions to be assigned to the same - persons? But here also the answer is clear, because in a certain sense they - should be assigned to the same persons, but in a certain sense to different - ones. Inasmuch as each of these two functions belongs to a different prime of - life, and one requires wisdom, the other strength, they are to be assigned to - different people; but inasmuch as it is a thing impossible that when a set of - men are able to employ force and to resist control, these should submit always - to be ruled, from this point of view both functions must be assigned to the same - people; for those who have the power of arms have the power to decide whether - the constitution shall stand or fall. The only course left them is to assign this constitutional function to both - sets of men without distinction,Or, amending - this curious Greek, ‘for the constitution to assign both these - functions to the same people.’ yet not simultaneously, but, - as in the natural order of things strength is found in the younger men and - wisdom in the elder, it seems to be expedient and just for their functions to be - allotted to both in this way, for this mode of division possesses conformity - with merit. Moreover the ownership - of properties also must be centered round these classes, for the citizens must - necessarily possess plentiful means, and these are the citizens. For - theartisan class has no share in - the state, nor has any other class that is not ‘an artificer of - virtue.’A Platonic phrase, - Plat. Rep. 500d. And this is - clear from our basic principle; for in conjunction with virtue happiness is - bound to be forthcoming, but we should pronounce a state happy having regard not - to a particular section of it but to all its citizens. And it is also manifest - that the properties must belong to these classes, inasmuch asAs this is a new point, perhaps we should - transpose ‘inasmuch as’ ( ei)/per) and ‘that’ ( - o(/ti) in the line - above. it is necessary for the tillers of the soil to be slaves, or - serfs of alien race. There remains - of the list enumerated the class of priests; and the position of this class also - is manifest. Priests must be appointed neither from the tillers of the soil nor - from the artisans, for it is seemly that the gods should be worshipped by - citizens; and since the citizen body is divided into two parts, the military - class and the councillor class, and as it is seemly that those who have - relinquished these duties owing to age should render to the gods their due - worship and should spend their retirement in their service, it is to these that - the priestly offices should be assigned.We have - therefore stated the things indispensable for the constitution of a state, and - the things that are parts of a state: tillers of the soil, craftsmen and the - laboring class generally are a necessary appurtenance of states, but the - military and deliberative classes are parts of the state; and moreover each of - these divisions is separate from the others, either permanently or by turn.i.e. the ‘appurtenances’ - are permanently separate form the army and the deliberative, which are the - ‘parts,’ and which are separate from each other only - ‘by turn,’ i.e. a citizen passes on from one to the - other. - - And - that it is proper for the state to be divided up into castes and for the - military class to be distinct from that of the tillers of the soil

-
-
-

- does not - seem to be a discovery of political philosophers of today or one made - recently.Perhaps to be read as denying - the originality of Plato'sRepublic. In Egypt this arrangement still exists even now, - as also in Crete; it is said to have - been established in Egypt by the - legislation of Sesostris and in Crete - by that of Minos. Common meals also - seem to be an ancient institution, those in Crete having begun in the reign of Minos, while those in - Italy are much older than these. - According to the historians one of the settlers there, a certain Italus, became - king of Oenotria, and from him they took the name of Italians instead of that of - Oenotrians, and the name of Italy was given to all that promontoryi.e. the south-west peninsula or toe of - Italy. of Europe lying - between the Gulfs of Scylletium and of Lametus,i.e. the Gulfs of Squillace and Eufemia. which are half a day's - journey apart. It was this Italus - then who according to tradition converted the Oenotrians from a pastoral life to - one of agriculture and gave them various ordinances, being the first to - institute their system of common meals; hence the common meals and some of his - laws are still observed by certain of his successors even today. The settlers in - the direction of TyrrheniaThe modern - Tuscany, i.e. the people of - Lucania, Campania and Latium. were Opicans, who today as in former times - bear the surname ofAusonians; the - region towards IapygiaThe south-east - promontory or heel of Italy. and the Ionian Gulf, called Syrtis, was - inhabited by the Chones, who also were Oenotrians by race. It is from this country that the system of common - meals has its origin, while the division of the citizen-body by hereditary caste - came from Egypt, for the reign of - Sesostris long antedates that of Minos. We may almost take it therefore that all - other political devices also have been discovered repeatedly, or rather an - infinite number of times over, in the lapse of ages; for the discoveries of a - necessary kind are probably taught by need itself, and when the necessaries have - been provided it is reasonable that things contributing to refinement and luxury - should find their development; so that we must assume that this is the way with - political institutions also. The - antiquity of all of them is indicated by the history of Egypt; for the Egyptians are reputed to be the - oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system. Hence - we should use the results of previous discovery when adequate, while endeavoring - to investigate matters hitherto passed over.It - has been stated before that the land ought to be owned by those who possess arms - and those who share the rights of the constitution, and why the cultivators - ought to be a different caste from these, and what is the proper extent and - conformation of the country. We have - now to discuss first the allotment of the land, and the proper class and - character of its cultivators; since we advocate not common ownership of land, as - some have done,

-
-
-

- but community in it brought about in a friendly way - by the use of it,This vague phrase - (based on the proverb koina\ ta\ tw=n - fi/lwn, ‘friends' goods are common - property’) seems to denote some sort of customary - communism in the cultivation of the land and enjoyment of the produce, - combined with private ownership of the freehold. and we hold that no - citizen should be ill supplied with means of subsistence. As to common meals, - all agree that this is an institution advantageous for well-organized states to - possess; our own reasons for sharing this view we will state later.This promise is not fulfilled. But the - common meals must be shared by all the citizens, and it is not easy for the poor - to contribute their assessed share from their private means and also to maintain - their household as well. And - moreover the expenses connected with religion are the common concern of the - whole state. It is necessary therefore for the land to be divided into two - parts, of which one must be common and the other the private property of - individuals; and each of these two divisions must again be divided in two. Of - the common land one portion should be assigned to the services of religion, and - the other to defray the cost of the common meals; of the land in private - ownership one part should be the district near the frontiers, and another the - district near the city, in order that two plots may be assigned to each citizen - and all may have a share in both districts. This arrangement satisfies equity and justice, and also - conduces to greater unanimity in facing border warfare. Where this system is not - followed, one set of people are reckless about quarrelling with the neighboring - states,and the other set are too - cautious and neglect considerations of honor. Hence some people have a law that - the citizens whose land is near the frontier are not to take part in - deliberation as to wars against neighboring states, on the ground that private - interest would prevent them from being able to take counsel wisely. The land - must therefore be divided up in this manner because of the reasons - aforesaid. - Those who are to cultivate the soil should best of all, if the - ideal system is to be stated, be slaves, not drawn from people all of one tribe - nor of a spirited character (for thus they would be both serviceable - for their work and safe to abstain from insurrection), but as a second - best they should be alien serfs of a similar nature. Of these laborers those in - private employment must be among the private possessions of the owners of the - estates, and those working on the common land common property. How slaves should - be employed, and why it is advantageous that all slaves should have their - freedom set before them as a reward, we will say later.This promise is not fulfilled. - - It - has been said before that the city should so far as circumstances permit be in - communication alike with the mainland, the sea and the whole of its territory. - The site of the city itself we must pray that fortune may place on sloping - ground, having regard to four considerationsApparently (1) fresh air, (2) water - supply, (3) administration, (4) military - requirements.: first, as a thing essential, the consideration of - health (for cities whose site slopes east or towards the breezes that - blow from the sunrise are more healthy, and in the second degree those that face - away from the north wind,Literally, - ‘in the direction in which the north wind blows.’ - for these are milder in winter);

-
-
-

- - and among the remaining considerations, a sloping site is - favorable both for political and for military purposes. For military purposes - therefore the site should be easy of exit for the citizens themselves, and - difficult for the adversary to approach and to blockade, and it must possess if - possible a plentiful natural supply of pools and springs, but failing this, a - mode has been invented of supplying water by means of constructing an abundance - of large reservoirs for rain-water, so that a supply may never fail the citizens - when they are debarred from their territory by war. And since we have to consider the health of the - inhabitants, and this depends upon the place being well situated both on healthy - ground and with a healthy aspect, and secondly upon using wholesome - water-supplies, the following matter also must be attended to as of primary - importance. Those things which we use for the body in the largest quantity, and - most frequently, contribute most to health; and the influence of the - water-supply and of the air is of this nature. Hence in wise cities if all the - sources of water are not equally pure and there is not an abundance of suitable - springs, the water-supplies for drinking must be kept separate from those for - other requirements. As to fortified - positions, what is expedient is not the same for all forms of constitution - alike; for example, a citadel-hill is suitable for oligarchy and - monarchy,and a level site for - democracy; neither is favorable to an aristocracy, but rather several strong - positions. The arrangement of the private dwellings is thought to be more - agreeable and more convenient for general purposes if they are laid out in - straight streets, after the modern fashion, that is, the one introduced by - HippodamusSee Book 2.5.; but it - is more suitable for security in war if it is on the contrary plan, as cities - used to be in ancient times; for that arrangement is difficult for foreign - troopsi.e. an enemy's mercenaries; but - the MSS. give ‘difficult for foreign troops to make sorties from - [i.e. presumably to find their way out when once they have got in, - cf. Thuc. 2.4.2] and for attackers to - find their way about in.’ to enter and to find their way - about in when attacking. Hence it - is well to combine the advantages of both plans (for this is possible - if the houses are laid out in the way which among the farmers some people call - ‘on the slant’The Roman - quincunx, each plant of one row being in line with the gap - between two plants of the next row, thus: in the case of - vines), and not to lay out the whole city in straight streets, but only - certain parts and districts, for in this way it will combine security with - beauty.As regards walls, those who aver that - cities which pretend to valor should not have them hold too old-fashioned a - view—and that though they see that the cities that indulge in that - form of vanity are refuted by experience. It is true that against an evenly matched foe and one - little superior in numbers it is not honorable to try to secure oneself by the - strength of one's fortifications; but as it does and may happen that the - superior numbers of the attackers may be too much for the human valor of a small - force, if the city is to survive and not to suffer disaster or insult, the - securest fortification of walls must be deemed to be the most warlike, -

-
-
-

- particularly in view of the inventions that have now been made - in the direction of precision with missiles and artillery for sieges. To claim not to encompass cities with - walls is like desiringPerhaps a word should - be added to the Greek giving ‘desiring to make the country easy to - invade, and to strip it—’. the country to be easy - to invade and stripping it of hilly regions, and similarly not surrounding even - private dwellings with house-walls on the ground that the inhabitants will be - cowardly. Another point moreover that must not be forgotten is that those who - have walls round the city can use their cities in both ways, both as walled - cities and as open ones, whereas cities not possessing walls cannot be used in - both ways. If then this is so, not - only must walls be put round a city, but also attention must be paid to them in - order that they may be suitable both in regard to the adornment of the city and - in respect of military requirements, especially the new devices recently - invented. For just as the attackers of a city are concerned to study the means - by which they can gain the advantage, so also for the defenders some devices - have already been invented and others they must discover and think out; for - people do not even start attempting to attack those who are well - prepared.And since the multitude of citizens - must be distributedin separate - messes, and the city walls must be divided up by guard-posts and towers in - suitable places, it is clear that these facts themselves call for some of the - messes to be organized at these guard-posts. These things then might be arranged - in this manner. But it is fitting - that the dwellings assigned to the gods and the most important of the official - messes should have a suitable site, and the same for all, excepting those - temples which are assigned a special place apart by the law or else by some - utterance of the Pythian oracle. And the site would be suitable if it is one - that is sufficiently conspicuous in regard to the excellence of its position, - and also of superior strength in regard to the adjacent parts of the city. - It is convenient that below - this site should be laid out an agora of the kind customary in Thessaly which they call a free agora, that - is, one which has to be kept clear of all merchandise and into which no artisan - or farmer or any other such person may intrude unless summoned by the - magistrates. It would give amenity to the site if the gymnasia of the older men - were also situated here—for it is proper to have this institution also - divided according to ages,Or ‘for - in this noble practice different ages should be separated’ - (Jowett). and for certain magistrates to pass their - time among the youths while the older men spend theirs with the magistrates; for - the presence of the magistrates before men's eyes most engenders true respect - and a freeman's awe.

-
-
-

- The agora for merchandise must be different from - the free agora, and in another place; it must have a site convenient for the - collection there of all the goods sent from the seaport and from the country. - And as the divisions of the - state's populace includePerhaps the Greek - should be altered to to\ proesto/s, - ‘as the governing class is divided into.’ priests - and magistrates, it is suitable that the priests' mess-rooms also should have - their position round that of the sacred buildings. And all the magistracies that - superintend contracts, and the registration of actions at law, summonses and - other such matters of administration, and also those that deal with the control - of the markets and with what is termed policing the city, should have buildings - adjacent to an agora or some public place of resort, and such a place is the - neighborhood of the business agora, for we assign the upper agora as the place - in which to spend leisure, and this one for necessary business. - The - arrangements in the country also should copy the plan described; there too the - magistrates called in some states Wardens of the Woods and in others - Land-superintendents must have their guard-posts and mess-rooms for patrol duty, - and also temples must be distributed over the country, some dedicated to gods - and some to heroes. But to linger at this point over the detailed statement and - discussion of questions of this kind is waste of time.The difficulty with such things is not so much in - the matter of theory but in that of practice; to lay down principles is a work - of aspiration, but their realization is the task of fortune. Hence we will - relinquish for the present the further consideration of matters of this - sort. - We must now discuss the constitution itself, and ask what and - of what character should be the components of the state that is to have felicity - and good government. There are two things in which the welfare of all men - consists: one of these is the correct establishment of the aim and end of their - actions, the other the ascertainment of the actions leading to that end. - (For the end proposed and the means adopted may be inconsistent with - one another, as also they may be consistent; sometimes the aim has been - correctly proposed, but people fail to achieve it in action, sometimes they - achieve all the means successfully but the end that they posited was a bad one, - and sometimes they err as to both—for instance, in medicine - practitioners are sometimes both wrong in their judgement of what qualities a - healthy body ought to possess and unsuccessful in hitting on effective means to - produce the distinctive aim that they have set before them; whereas in the arts - and sciences both these things have to be secured, the end and the practical - means to the end.) Now it - is clear that all men aim at the good life and at happiness, but though some - possess the power to attain these things, some do not, owing to some factor of - fortune or of nature (fortune because the good life needs also a - certain equipment of means,

-
-
-

- and although it needs less of this for men of - better natural disposition it needs more for those of worse); while - others, although they have the power, go wrong at the start in their search for - happiness.i.e. they misconceive the - nature of happiness and select the wrong thing to aim at. But the - object before us is to discern the best constitution, and this is the one under - which a state will be best governed, and a state will be best governed under the - constitution under which it has the most opportunity for happiness; it is - therefore clear that we must know what happiness is. The view that we maintain (and this is the - definition that we laid down in theEthics, - Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1098a - 16 and Aristot. Nic. Eth. - 1176b 4 - if those discourses are of any value) is - that happiness is the complete activity and employment of virtue, and this not - conditionally but absolutely. When I say ‘conditionally’ I - refer to things necessary, by ‘absolutely’ I mean - ‘nobly’: for instance, to take the case of just actions, - just acts of vengeance and of punishment spring it is true from virtue, but are - necessary, and have the quality of nobility only in a limited manner - (since it would be preferable that neither individual nor state should - have any need of such things), whereas actions aiming at honors and - resourcesA conjectural emendation gives - ‘distinctions.’ are the noblest actions - absolutely; for the former class of acts consist in the removalThis is a conjectural emendation; the MSS. - give ‘the adoption.’ of something evil, but - actions of the latter kind are the opposite—they are the foundation - and the generation of things good. The virtuous man will use even poverty, disease, andthe other forms of bad fortune in a noble manner, - but felicity consists in their opposites (for it is a definition - established by our ethical discourses - Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1113a 15 ff. - that the virtuous man is the man of such a character that because of his - virtue things absolutely good are good to him, and it is therefore clear that - his employment of these goods must also be virtuous and noble - absolutely); and hence men actually suppose that external goods are the - cause of happiness, just as if they were to assign the cause of a brilliantly - fine performance on the harp to the instrument rather than to the skill of the - player. It follows therefore from what has been said that some goods must be - forthcoming to start with and others must be provided by the legislator. - Hence we pray that the - organization of the state may be successful in securing those goods which are in - the control of fortune (for that fortune does control external goods we - take as axiomatic); but when we come to the state's being virtuous, to - secure this is not the function of fortune but of science and policy. But then - the virtue of the state is of course caused by the citizens who share in its - government being virtuous; and in our state all the citizens share in the - government. The point we have to consider therefore is, how does a man become - virtuous? For even if it be possible for the citizens to be virtuous - collectively without being so individually, the latter is preferable, since for - each individual to be virtuous entails as a consequence the collective virtue of - all. But there are admittedly three - things by which men are made good and virtuous, and these three things are - nature, habit and reason. For to start with, one must be born with the nature of - a human being and not of some other animal; and secondly, one must be born of a - certain quality of body and of soul. But there are some qualities that it is of - no use to be born with,

-
-
-

- for our habits make us alter them: some qualities - in fact are made by nature liable to be modified by the habits in either - direction, for the worse or for the better. Now the other animals live chiefly by nature, though some - in small degrees are guided by habits too; but man lives by reason also, for he - alone of animals possesses reason; so that in him these three things must be in - harmony with one another; for men often act contrary to their acquired habits - and to their nature because of their reason, if they are convinced that some - other course of action is preferable.Now we have - alreadyIn 4. defined the proper - natural character of those who are to be amenable to the hand of the legislator; - what now remains is the task of education, for men learn some things by - practice, others by precept. - But since every political community is - composed of rulers and subjects, we must therefore consider whether the rulers - and the subjects ought to change, or to remain the same through life; for it is - clear that their education also will have to be made to correspond with this - distribution of functions. If then it were the case that the one class differed - from the other as widely as we believe the gods and heroes to differ from - mankind, having first a great superiority in regard to the body and then in - regard tothe soul, so that the - pre-eminence of the rulers was indisputable and manifest to the subjects, it is - clear that it would be better for the same persons always to be rulers and - subjects once for all; but as this - is not easy to secure, and as we do not find anything corresponding to the great - difference that Scylax states to exist between kings and subjects in India, it is clear that for many reasons it is - necessary for all to share alike in ruling and being ruled in turn. For equality - means for persons who are alike identity of status, and also it is - difficultThe emendation suggested by - Richards gives ‘For equality and identity (of - status) are just for persons who are alike, and it is - difficult,’ etc. for a constitution to endure that is - framed in contravention of justice. For all the people throughout the country - are ranged on the side of the subject class in wishing for a revolution, and it - is a thing inconceivable that those in the government should be sufficiently - numerous to over power all of these together. But yet on the other hand that the rulers ought to be - superior to the subjects cannot be disputed; therefore the lawgiver must - consider how this is to be secured, and how they are to participate in the - government. And this has been already8.3, - 1329a 4 ff. discussed. Nature has given the distinction by making the - group that is itself the same in race partly younger and partly older, of which - two sets it is appropriate to the one to be governed and for the other to - govern; and no one chafes or thinks himself better than his rulers when he is - governed on the ground of age, especially as he is going to get back what he has - thus contributed to the common stock when he reaches the proper age. In a sense therefore we must say that the - rulers and ruled are the same, and in a sense different.

-
-
-

- Hence their - education also is bound to be in one way the same and in another different. For - he who is to be a good ruler must have first been ruled, as the saying isThe sentence here breaks off into a long - parenthesis, after which it is not resumed. (and government, - as has been said in the first discourses,Book 3.6.6-12, 1278b 30 ff. is of two sorts, one carried on for the - sake of the ruler and the other for the sake of the subject; of these the former - is what we call the rule of a master,the latter is the government of free men . - . .One sentence or more has been lost - here. - But some of the commands given - differ not in nature of the services commanded but in their object. Hence a - number of what are thought to be menial services can be honorably performed even - by freemen in youth; since in regard to honor and dishonor actions do not differ - so much in themselves as in their end and object). But since we say - that the goodness of a citizenPerhaps the - Greek should be altered to give ‘of the best - citizen.’ and ruler are the same as that of the best man, - and that the same person ought to become a subject first and a ruler afterwards, - it will be important for the legislator to study how and by what courses of - training good men are to be produced, and what is the end of the best - life. - The soul is divided into two parts, of which one is in itself - possessed of reason, while the other is not rational in itself but capable of - obeying reason. To these parts in our view belong those virtues in accordance - with which a man is pronounced to be good in some way. But in which of - thesetwo parts the end of man - rather resides, those who define the parts of the soul in accordance with our - view will have no doubt as to how they should decide. The worse always exists as - a means to the better, and this is manifest alike in the products of art and in - those of nature; but the rational part of the soul is better than the - irrational. And the rational part - is subdivided into two, according to our usual scheme of division; for reason is - of two kinds, practical and theoretic, so that obviously the rational part of - the soul must also be subdivided accordingly. A corresponding classification we - shall also pronounce to hold among its activities: the activities of the part of - the soul that is by nature superior must be preferable for those persons who are - capable of attaining either all the soul's activities or twoi.e. the two lower ones, the three being the activities of - the theoretic reason, of the practical reason, and of the passions that - although irrational are amenable to reason. out of the three; since - that thing is always most desirable for each person which is the highest to - which it is possible for him to attain. Also life as a whole is divided into business and leisure, - and war and peace, and our actions are aimed some of them at things necessary - and useful, others at things noble. In these matters the same principle of - preference that applies to the parts of the soul must apply also to the - activities of those parts: war must be for the sake of peace, business for the - sake of leisure, things necessary and useful for the purpose of things noble. - The statesman therefore must - legislate with all these considerations in view, both in respect of the parts of - the soul and of their activities, and aiming more particularly at the greater - goods and the ends. And the same principle applies in regard to modes of life - and choices of conduct: a man should be capable of engaging in business and war, -

-
-
-

- but still more capable of living in peace and leisure; and he - should do what is necessary and useful, but still more should he do what is - noble. These then are the aims that ought to be kept in view in the education of - the citizens both while still children and at the later ages that require - education. But the Greek peoples - reputed at the present day to have the best constitutions, and the lawgivers - that established them, manifestly did not frame their constitutional systems - with reference to the best end, nor construct their laws and their scheme of - education with a view to all the virtues, but they swerved aside in a vulgar - manner towards those excellences that are supposed to be useful and more - conducive to gain. And following the same lines as they, some later writers also - have pronounced the same opinion: in praising the Spartan constitution they - express admiration for the aim of its founder on the ground that he framed the - whole of his legislation with a view to conquest and to war. These views are easy to refute on - theoretical grounds and also have now been refuted by the facts of history. For - just as most of mankind covet being master of many servantsOr possibly, ‘covet a wide - empire.’ because this produces a manifold supply of - fortune's goods, so ThibronUnknown. - and all the other writers about the Spartan constitutionshow admiration for the lawgiver of the Spartans - because owing to their having been trained to meet dangers they governed a wide - empire. Yet it clearly follows - that since as a matter of fact at the present day the Spartans no longer possess - an empire, they are not happy, and their lawgiver was not a good one. And it is - ridiculous that although they have kept to his laws, and although nothing - hinders their observing the laws, they have lost the noble life. Also writers - have a wrong conception of the power for which the lawgiver should display - esteem; to govern freemen is nobler and more conjoined with virtue than to rule - despotically. And again it is not - a proper ground for deeming a state happy and for praising its lawgiver, that it - has practised conquest with a view to rulingA probable emendation gives ‘that he has trained it with a view - to ruling.’ over its neighbors. This principle is most - disastrous; it follows from it that an individual citizen who has the capacity - ought to endeavor to attain the power to hold sway over his own city; but this - is just what the Spartans charge as a reproach against their king Pausanias, - although he attained such high honor. No principle therefore and no law of this - nature is either statesmanlike or profitable, nor is it true; the same ideals - are the best both for individuals and for communities, and the lawgiver should - endeavor to implant them in the souls of mankind. The proper object of practising military training is not - in order that men may enslave those who do not deserve slavery, but in order - that first they may themselves avoid becoming enslaved to others; then so that - they may seek suzerainty for the benefit of the subject people,

-
-
-

- but not - for the sake of world-wide despotism; and thirdly to hold despotic power over - those who deserve to be slaves. Experience supports the testimony of theory, that it is the duty of the - lawgiver rather to study how he may frame his legislation both with regard to - warfare and in other departments for the object of leisure and of peace. Most - military states remain safe while at war but perish when they have won their - empire; in peace-time they lose their keen temper, like iron.i.e. an iron blade when not used loses - keenness and has to be re-tempered. The lawgiver is to blame, because - he did not educate them to be able to employ leisure. - And since it appears that - men have the same end collectively and individually, and since the same - distinctive aim must necessarily belong both to the best man and to the best - government, it is clear that the virtues relating to leisure are essentiali.e. to the state as well as to the - individual.; since, as has been said repeatedly, peace is the end of - war, leisure of business. But the - virtues useful for leisure and for its employment are not only those that - operate during leisure but also those that operate in business; for many of the - necessaries must needs be forthcoming to give us opportunity for leisure. - Therefore it is proper for the state to be temperate,brave and enduring; since, as the proverb goes, - there is no leisure for slaves, but people unable to face danger bravely are the - slaves of their assailants. Therefore courage and fortitude are needed for business, love of wisdom for - leisure, temperance and justice for both seasons, and more especially when men - are at peace and have leisure; for war compels men to be just and temperate, - whereas the enjoyment of prosperity and peaceful leisure tend to make them - insolent. Therefore much justice - and much temperance are needed by those who are deemed very prosperous and who - enjoy all the things counted as blessings, like the persons, if such there be, - as the poets say, - Hes. WD 170 ff. - that dwell in the Islands of the Blest; these will most need wisdom, - temperance and justice, the more they are at leisure and have an abundance of - such blessings. It is clear therefore why a state that is to be happy and - righteous must share in these virtues; for if it is disgraceful to be unable to - use our good things, it is still more disgraceful to be unable to use them in - time of leisure, and although showing ourselves good men when engaged in - business and war, in times of peace and leisure to seem no better than slaves. - Therefore we must not - cultivate virtue after the manner of the state of Sparta. The superiority of the Spartans - over other races does not lie

-
-
-

- in their holding a different opinion from - others as to what things are the greatest goods, but rather in their believing - that these are obtained by means of one particular virtue; yet because they both - deem these things and their enjoyment to be greater goods than the enjoyment of - the virtues . . .The end of this sentence - and the beginning of the next appear to have been lost. - . . . and that it is to be practised for its own - sake is manifest from these considerations; but it must now be considered how and by what means this - will come about. Now we have indeed previously decided that it requires nature - and habit and reason, and among these, what particular quality of nature men - ought to possess has been defined previously; but it remains to consider whether - men ought to be educated first by means of the reason or by the habits. For - between reason and habit the most perfect harmony ought to exist, as it is - possible both for the reason to have missed the highest principle and for men to - have been as wrongly trained through the habits. This therefore at all events is clear in the first place, - in the case of men as of other creatures, that their engendering starts from a - beginning, and that the end starts from a certain beginning that is another - end,A conjectural addition to the text - gives ‘the end to which a certain beginning leads is itself the - beginning of another end.’ The active use of the reason is the end - (i.e. the completion and the purpose) of the birth and - growth of the human animal. and that reason and intelligence are for - us the end of our natural development, so that it is with a view to these ends - that our engendering and the training of our habits must be regulated. - And secondly, as soul and body - are two, so we observe that the soul also has two parts, the irrational part and - the part possessing reason, and that the states which they experience are two in - number,the one being desire and - the other intelligence; and as the body is prior in its development to the soul, - so the irrational part of the soul is prior to the rational. And this also is - obvious, because passion and will, and also appetite,These three emotions are subdivisions of - ‘desire’ above. exist in children even as soon as - they are born, but it is the nature of reasoning and intelligence to arise in - them as they grow older. Therefore in the first place it is necessary for the - training of the body to precede that of the mind, and secondly for the training - of the appetite to precede that of the intelligence; but the training of the - appetite must be for the sake of the intellect, and that of the body for the - sake of the soul. - Inasmuch therefore as it is the duty of the lawgiver to - consider from the start how the children reared are to obtain the best bodily - frames, he must first pay attention to the union of the sexes, and settle when - and in what condition a couple should practise matrimonial intercourse. In - legislating for this partnership he must pay regard partly to the persons - themselves and to their span of life, so that they may arrive together at the - same period in their ages, and their powers may not be at discord through the - man being still capable of parentage and the wife incapable, or the wife capable - and the man not (for this causes differences and actual discord between - them), and also he must - consider as well the succession of the children, for the children must neither - be too far removed in their ages from the fathers (since elderly - fathers get no good from their children's return of their favors, nor do the - children from the help they get from the fathers),

-
-
-

- nor must they be - too near them (for this involves much unpleasantness, since in such - families there is less respect felt between them, as between companions of the - same age, and also the nearness of age leads to friction in household - affairs); and in addition, to return to the point from which we began - this digression, measures must be taken to ensure that the children produced may - have bodily frames suited to the wish of the lawgiver. These results then are almost all attained by one - mode of regulation. For since the period of parentage terminates, speaking - generally, with men at the age of seventy at the outside, and with women at - fifty, the commencement of their union should correspond in respect of age with - these times. But the mating of the - young is bad for child-bearing; for in all animal species the offspring of the - young are more imperfect and likely to produce female children,Some editors write qhlu/toka and interpret ‘more likely to be born - females.’ ( qhluto/ka, - ‘likely to bear females,’ is applied to the young - parents themselves in Aristot. Hist. An. 766b - 29.) and small in figure, so that the same thing - must necessarily occur in the human race also. And a proof of this is that in - all the states where it is the local custom to mate young men and young women, - the people are deformed and small of body. And again young women labor more, and - more of them die in childbirth; indeed according to some accounts such was the - reason why the oracle - *mh\ te/mne ne/an a)/loka(‘cut not a new - furrow’) schol. was givento the people of Troezen, because many were dying owing to its being their - custom for the women to marry young, and it did not refer to the harvest. - And again it also contributes - to chastity for the bestowal of women in marriage to be made when they are - older, for it is thought that they are more licentious when they have had - intercourse in youth. Also the males are thought to be arrested in bodily growth - if they have intercourse while the seed is still growing, for this also has a - fixed period after passing which it is no longer plentiful. Therefore it is fitting for the women to be married - at about the age of eighteen and the men at thirty-seven or a little beforeThe word ‘before’ is a - conjectural insertion.—for that will give long enough for - the union to take place with their bodily vigor at its prime, and for it to - arrive with a convenient coincidence of dates at the time when procreation - ceases. Moreover the succession of the children to the estates, if their birth - duly occurs soon after the parents marry, will take place when they are - beginning their prime, and when the parents' period of vigor has now come to a - close, towards the age of seventy. The proper age therefore for union has been discussed; as to the proper times - in respect of the season we may accept what is customary with most people, who - have rightly decided even as it is to practise marital cohabitation in winter. - And people should also study for themselves, when their time comes, the - teachings of physicians and natural philosophers on the subject of the - procreation of children; the suitable bodily seasons are adequately discussed by - the physicians,

-
-
-

- and the question of weather by the natural - philosophers, who say that north winds are more favorable than south. The particular kind of bodily constitution - in the parents that will be most beneficial for the offspring must be dwelt on - more in detail in our discussion of the management of childrenThis was never written, or has been - lost.; it is sufficient to speak of it in outline now. The athlete's - habit of body is not serviceable for bodily fitness as required by a citizen, - nor for health and parentage, nor yet is a habit that is too valetudinarian and - unfit for labor, but the condition that lies between them. The bodily habit - therefore should have been trained by exercise, but not by exercises that are - violent, and not for one form of labor only, as is the athlete's habit of body, - but for the pursuits of free men. And these arrangements must be provided alike - for men and women. And pregnant - women also must take care of their bodies, not avoiding exercise nor adopting a - low diet; this it is easy for the lawgiver to secure by ordering them to make a - journey daily for the due worship of the deities whose office is the control of - childbirth. As regards the mind, however, on the contrary it suits them to pass - the time more indolently than as regards their bodies; for children before birth - are evidently affected by the mother just as growing plants are by the - earth.As to exposing - orrearing the children born, let - there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of - number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being - exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any - people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these - regulations, abortion must be practised on it before it has developed sensation - and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by - the fact of having sensation and being alive. And since the beginning of the fit age for a man and for a - woman, at which they are to begin their union, has been defined, let it also be - decided for how long a time it is suitable for them to serve the state in the - matter of producing children. For the offspring of too elderly parents, as those - of too young ones, are born imperfect both in body and mind, and the children of - those that have arrived at old age are weaklings. Therefore the period must be - limited to correspond with the mental prime; and this in the case of most men is - the age stated by some of the poets, who measure men's age by periods of seven - years, - Solon fr. 27 - —it is about the age of fifty. Therefore persons exceeding this age by four or five years - must be discharged from the duty of producing children for the community, and - for the rest of their lives if they have intercourse it must be manifestly for - the sake of health or for some other similar reason. As to intercourse with - another woman or man, in general it must be dishonorable for them to be known to - take any part in it in any circumstances whatsoever as long as they are husband - and wife and bear those names, but any who may be discovered doing anything of - the sort during their period of parentage

-
-
-

- must be punished with a loss of - privilege suited to the offence. - When the children have been born, the - particular mode of rearing adopted must be deemed an important determining - influence in regard to their power of body. It appears from examining the other - animals, and is also shown by the foreign races that make it their aim to keep - up the military habit of body, that a diet giving an abundance of milk is most - suited to the bodies of children, and one that allows rather little wine because - of the diseases that it causes. Moreover it is advantageous to subject them to as many movements as are - practicable with children of that age. To prevent the limbs from being distorted - owing to softness, some races even now employ certain mechanical appliances that - keep the bodies of infants from being twisted. And it is also advantageous to - accustom them at once from early childhood to cold, for this is most useful both - for health and with a view to military service. Hence among many non-Greek races - it is customary in the case of some peoples to wash the children at birth by - dipping them in a cold river, and with others, for instance the Celts, to give - them scanty covering. For it is - better to inure them at the very start to everything possible, but to inure them - gradually;and the bodily habit of - children is naturally well fitted by warmth to be trained to bear cold. In the - earliest period of life then it is expedient to employ this or a similar method - of nursing; and the next period to - this, up to the age of five, which it is not well to direct as yet to any study - nor to compulsory labors, in order that they may not hinder the growth, should - nevertheless be allowed enough movement to avoid bodily inactivity; and this - exercise should be obtained by means of various pursuits, particularly play. But - even the games must not be unfit for freemen, nor laborious, nor undisciplined. - Also the question of the kind - of tales and stories that should be told to children of this age must be - attended to by the officials called Children's Tutors. For all such amusements - should prepare the way for their later pursuits; hence most children's games - should be imitations of the serious occupations of later life. The legislators in - theLaws - - Plat. Laws 792a. Plato merely says that a - child's crying shows it to be annoyed, and that it ought to have as little - pain as possible or else it will grow up morose. forbid allowing - children to have paroxysms of crying, but this prohibition is a mistake; violent - crying contributes to growth, for it serves in a way as exercise for the body, - since holding the breath is the strength giving factor in hard labor, and this - takes place also with children when they stretch themselves in crying. The - Tutors must supervise the children's pastimes, and in particular must see that - they associate as little as possible with slaves. For children of this age, -

-
-
-

- and up to seven years old, must necessarily be reared at home; - so it is reasonable to suppose - that even at this age they may acquire a taint of illiberality from what they - hear and see. The lawgiver ought therefore to banish indecent talk, as much as - anything else, out of the state altogether (for light talk about - anything disgraceful soon passes into action)—so most of all - from among the young, so that they may not say nor hear anything of the sort; - and anybody found saying or doing any of the things prohibited, if he is of free - station but not yet promoted to reclining at the public meals, must be punished - with marks of dishonor and with beating, and an older offender must be punished - with marks of dishonor degrading to a free man, because of his slavish behavior. - And since we banish any talk of - this kind, clearly we must also banish the seeing of either pictures or - representations that are indecent. The officials must therefore be careful that - there may be no sculpture or painting that represents indecent actions, except - in the temples of a certain class of gods to whom the law allows even - scurrility; but in regard to theseThe MS. - text gives ‘and in addition to these’; and the word - ‘still’ may be an interpolation. the law permits - men still of suitable age to worship the gods both on their own behalf and on - behalf of the children and women. - But the younger ones must not - be allowed in the audience at lampoonsIambic - verses, often abusive and indecent, recited at festivals of Dionysus. - and at comedy, before they reach the age at which they will now have the right - to recline at table in company and to drink deeply, and at which their education - will render all of them immune to the harmful effects of such things. For the - present therefore we have merely mentioned these matters in passing, but later - we must stop to settle them more definitely, first discussing fully whether - legislation prohibiting the attendance of the young is desirable or not, and how - such prohibition should be put in force; but on the present occasion we have - touched on the question only in the manner necessary. For perhaps the tragic actor TheodorusA great Athenian performer of Sophocles; he - took the part of Antigone. used to put the matter not badly: he had - never once allowed anybody to produce his partLoosely put for ‘to appear on the - stage.’ before him, not even one of the poor actors, as he - said that audiences are attracted by what they hear first; and this happens - alike in regard to our dealings with people and to our dealings with - things—all that comes first we like better. On this account we ought - to make all base things unfamiliar to the young, and especially those that - involve either depravity or malignity.But when - the five years from two to seven have passed, the children must now become - spectators at the lessonsi.e. in gymnastics - and music. which they will themselves have to learn. And there are two ages corresponding to - which education should be divided—there must be a break after the - period from seven to puberty, and again after that from puberty to twenty-one. - For those who divide the ages by periods of seven years are generally speaking - not wrong,The MSS. give ‘not - right.’ -

-
- - -
-

- - - - Book 5 in some editions.Now - nobody would dispute that the education of the young requires the special - attention of the lawgiver. Indeed the neglect of this in states is injurious to - their constitutions; for education ought to be adapted to the particular form of - constitution, since the particular character belonging to each constitution both - guards the constitution generally and originally establishes it—for - instance the democratic spirit promotes democracy and the oligarchic spirit - oligarchy; and the best spirit always causes a better constitution. Moreover in regard to all the faculties and - crafts certain forms of preliminary educationand training in their various operations are necessarys o that - manifestly this is also requisite in regard to the actions of virtue. And - inasmuch as the end for the whole state is one, it is manifest that education - also must necessarily be one and the same for all and that the superintendence - of this must be public, and not on private lines, in the way in which at present - each man superintends the education of his own children, teaching them - privately, and whatever special branch of knowledge he thinks fit. But matters - of public interest ought to be under public supervision; at the same time we - ought not to think that any of the citizens belongs to himself, but that all - belong to the state, for each is a part of the state, and it is natural for the - superintendence of the several parts to have regard to the superintendence of - the whole. And one might praise the - Spartans in respect of this, for they pay the greatest attention to the training - of their children, and conduct it on a public system.It is clear then that there should be legislation about - education and that it should be conducted on a public system. But consideration - must be given to the question, what constitutes education and what is the proper - way to be educated. At present there are differences of opinion as to the proper - tasks to be set; for all peoples do not agree as to the things that the young - ought to learn, either with a view to virtue or with a view to the best life, - nor is it clear whether their studies should be regulated more with regard to - intellect or with regard to character. And confusing questions arise out of the education that - actually prevails, and it is not at all clear whether the pupils should practise - pursuits that are practically morally edifying, or higher - accomplishments—for all these views have won the support of some - judges;

-
-
-

- and nothing is agreed as regards the exercise conducive to - virtue, for, to start with, all men do not honor the same virtue, so that they - naturally hold different opinions in regard to training in virtue. - It is - therefore not difficult to see that the young must be taught those useful arts - that are indispensably necessary; but it is clear that they should not be taught - all the useful arts, those pursuits that are liberal being kept distinct from - those that are illiberal, and that they must participate in such among the - useful arts as will not render the person who participates in them vulgar. A - task and also an art or a science must be deemed vulgar if it renders the body - or soul or mind of free men useless for the employments and actions of virtue. - Hence we entitle vulgar all such arts as deteriorate the condition of the body, - and also the industries that earn wages; for they make the mind preoccupied and - degraded. And even with the liberal - sciences, although it is not illiberal to take part in some of them up to a - point, to devote oneself to them too assiduously and carefully is liable to have - the injurious results specified. Also it makes much difference what object one - has in view in a pursuit or study; if one follows it for the sake of oneself or - one's friends, or on moral grounds, it is not illiberal,but the man who follows the same pursuit because of - other people would often appear to be acting in a menial and servile - manner.The branches of study at present - established fall into both classes, as was said before.1.4. - There are perhaps four customary - subjects of education, reading and writing, gymnastics, music, and fourth, with - some people, drawing; reading and writing and drawing being taught as being - useful for the purposes of life and very serviceable, and gymnastics as - contributing to manly courage; but as to music, here one might raise a question. - For at present most people take part in it for the sake of pleasure; but those, - who originally included it in education did so because, as has often been said, - nature itself seeks to be able not only to engage rightly in business but also - to occupy leisure nobly; for—to speak about it yet againCf. Book 7, 1334a 2-10.—this - is the first principle of all things. For if although both business and leisure are necessary, yet leisure is more - desirable and more fully an end than business, we must inquire what is the - proper occupation of leisure. For assuredly it should not be employed in play, - since it would follow that play is our end in life. But if this is impossible, - and sports should rather be employed in our times of business (for a - man who is at work needs rest, and rest is the object of play, while business is - accompanied by toil and exertion), it follows that in introducing - sports we must watch the right opportunity for their employment, since we are - applying them to serve as medicine; for the activity of play is a relaxation of - the soul, and serves as recreation because of its pleasantness.

-
-
-

- - But leisure seems itself to - contain pleasure and happiness and felicity of life. And this is not possessed - by the busy but by the leisured; for the busy man busies himself for the sake of - some end as not being in his possession, but happiness is an end achieved, which - all men think is accompanied by pleasure and not by pain. But all men do not go - on to define this pleasure in the same way, but according to their various - natures and to their own characters, and the pleasure with which the best man - thinks that happiness is conjoined is the best pleasure and the one arising from - the noblest sources. So that it is clear that some subjects must be learnt and - acquired merely with a view to the pleasure in their pursuit, and that these - studies and these branches of learning are ends in themselves, while the forms - of learning related to business are studied as necessary and as means to other - things. Hence our predecessors - included music in education not as a necessity (for there is nothing - necessary about it), nor as useful (in the way in which - reading and writing are useful for business and for household management and for - acquiring learning and for many pursuits of civil life, while drawing also seems - to be useful in making us better judges of the works of artists), nor - yet again as we pursue gymnastics,for - the sake of health and strength (for we do not see either of these - things produced as a result of music); it remains therefore that it is - useful as a pastime in leisure, which is evidently the purpose for which people - actually introduce it, for they rank it as a form of pastime that they think - proper for free men. For this reason Homer wrote thus: - But him alone - 'Tis meet to summon to the festal banquetThis line is not in our Odyssey, but - apparently followed Hom. Od.17.383. - The passage runs (382 ff.): - - ti/s ga\r dh\ cei=non kalei= a)/lloqen - au)to\s e)pelqw\n - - - a)/llon g', ei) mh\ tw=n oi(\ - dhmioergoi\ e)/asi, - - - ma/ntin h)\ i)hth=ra kakw=n h)\ - te/ktona dou/rwn, - - - h)\ kai\ qe/spin a)oido/n, o(/ ken - te/rph|sin a)ei/dwn; - - - ; - and after these words he speaks of certain others - Who call the bard that he may gladden all.The fourth line quoted corresponds to - this, but not exactly. - - And also in other verses Odysseus says that this is the best pastime, - when, as men are enjoying good cheer, - The banqueters, seated in order due - Throughout the hall, may hear a minstrel sing. - Hom. Od. - 9.5-6. - - - - It is - clear therefore that there is a form of education in which boys should be - trained not because it is useful or necessary but as being liberal and noble; - though whether there is one such subject of education or several, and what these - are and how they are to be pursued, must be discussed later,This promise is not fulfilled. but as it is we have - made this much progress on the way, that we have some testimony even from the - ancients, derived from the courses of education which they founded—for - the point is proved by music. And it is also clear that some of the useful - subjects as well ought to be studied by the young not only because of their - utility, like the study of reading and writing, but also because they may lead - on to many other branches of knowledge; and similarly they should study drawing not in order that - they may not go wrong in their private purchases and may avoid being cheated in - buying and selling furniture,

-
-
-

- but rather because this study makes a man - observant of bodily beauty; and to seek for utility everywhere is entirely - unsuited to men that are great-souled and free. And since it is plain that - education by habit must come before education by reason, and training of the - body before training of the mind, it is clear from these considerations that the - boys must be handed over to the care of the wrestling-master and the trainer; - for the latter imparts a certain quality to the habit of the body and the former - to its actions. - Now at the present time some of the states reputed to pay the - greatest attention to children produce in them an athletic habiti.e. premature and disproportionate muscular - development, directed to some particular competition. Cf. 1288b 12 - ff. to the detriment of their bodily form and growth, while the - Spartans although they have avoided this error yet make their boys animal in - nature by their laborious exercises, in the belief that this is most - contributory to manly courage. Yet, as has often been said, it is not right to - regulate education with a view to one virtue only, or to this one most of all; - indeed they do not even investigate the question whether this virtue is to be - had in view at all. For neither in the lower animals nor in the case of foreign - races do we see that courage goes with the wildest, but rather with the gentler - and lion-like temperaments. - Aristot. Hist. An. 629b 8 (the - lion is gentle except when hungry); Plat. Soph. 231a (the dog the gentlest of - animals). - And there are manyforeign races inclined to murder and cannibalism, - for example among the tribes of the Black - Sea the Achaeans and Heniochi, and others of the mainland races, - some in the same degree as those named and some more, which although piratical - have got no share of manly courage. And again we know that even the Spartans, - although so long as they persisted by themselves in their laborious exercises - they surpassed all other peoples, now fall behind others both in gymnastic and - in military contests; for they used not to excel because they exercised their - young men in this fashion but only because they trained and their adversaries - did not. Consequently honor and not - animal ferocity should play the first part; for it is not a wolf nor one of the - other wild animals that will venture upon any noble hazard, but rather a good - man. But those who let boys pursue these hard exercises too much and turn them - out untrained in necessary things in real truth render them vulgar, making them - available for statesmanship to use for one task only, and even for this task - training them worse than others do, as our argument proves. AndThis sentence would come better at the end of - 3.4. we must not judge them from their former achievements but from - the facts of today; for they have rivals in their education now, but they used - to have none before. - It is therefore agreed that we should employ gymnastic - training, and how we should employ it. For until puberty we should apply lighter - exercises, forbidding hard diet and severe exertions, in order that nothing may - hinder the growth;

-
-
-

- for there is no small proof that too severe - training can produce this result in the fact that in the list of Olympic victors - one would only find two or three persons who have won both as men and as boys, - because when people go into training in youth the severe exercises rob them of - their strength. But when they have - spent three years after puberty upon their other studies, then it is suitable to - occupy the next period of life with laborious exercises and strict training - dieti.e. compulsion to eat very large - rations of prescribed food—the Greek way of training.; for - it is wrong to work hard with the mind and the body at the same time; for it is - the nature of the two different sorts of exertion to produce opposite effects, - bodily toil impeding the development of the mind and mental toil that of the - body. - About music on the other hand we have previously raised some - questions in the course of our argument, but it is well to take them up again - and carry them further now, in order that this may give the key so to speak for - the principles which one might advance in pronouncing about it. For it is not - easy to say precisely what potency it possesses, nor yet for the sake of what - object one should participate in it—whether for amusement and - relaxation, as one indulges in sleep and deep drinking (for these in - themselves are not serious pursuits but merely pleasant, and ‘relax - our care,’ as Euripides says - Eur. Ba. 378 (Bromios) - o(\s ta/d' e)/xei, qiaseu/ein te xo/rois meta/ t' - au)lw=n gela=sai a)napau=sai/ te meri/mnas - ; owing to - which people actually class music with them andemploy all of these things, sleep, deep drinking and music, in - the same way, and they also place dancing in the same class); - or whether we ought rather to - think that music tends in some degree to virtue (music being capable of - producing a certain quality of character just as gymnastics are capable of - producing a certain quality of body, music accustoming men to be able to rejoice - rightly); or that it contributes something to intellectual - entertainmentThe term diagwgh/, ‘pastime,’ is - idiomatically used of the pursuits of cultured leisure—serious - conversation, music, the drama. and culture (for this must - be set down as a third alternative among those mentioned). Now it is - not difficult to see that one must not make amusement the object of the - education of the young; for amusement does not go with - learning—learning is a painful process. Nor yet moreover is it - suitable to assign intellectual entertainment to boys and to the young; for a - thing that is an end does not belong to anything that is imperfect. But perhaps it might be thought that the - serious pursuits of boys are for the sake of amusement when they have grown up - to be men. But, if something of this sort is the case, why should the young need - to learn this accomplishment themselves, and not, like the Persian and Median - kings, participate in the pleasure and the education of music by means of others - performing it? for those who have made music a business and profession must - necessarily perform better than those who practise only long enough to learn. - But if it is proper for them to labor at accomplishments of this sort, then it - would also be right for them to prepare the dishes of an elaborate cuisine; but - this is absurd. And the same - difficulty also arises as to the question whether learning music can improve - their characters; for why should they learn to perform edifying music - themselves,

-
-
-

- instead of learning to enjoy it rightly and be able to judge it - when they hear others performing, as the Spartans do? for the Spartans although - they do not learn to perform can nevertheless judge good and bad music - correctly, so it is said. And the same argument applies also if music is to be - employed for refined enjoyment and entertainment; why need people learn to - perform themselves instead of enjoying music played by others? And we may consider the conception that we - have about the gods: Zeus does not sing and harp to the poets himself. But - professional musicians we speak of as vulgar people, and indeed we think it not - manly to perform music, except when drunk or for fun. - But perhaps these points - will have to be considered afterwards; our first inquiry is whether music ought - not or ought to be included in education, and what is its efficacy among the - three uses of it that have been discussed—does it serve for education - or amusement or entertainment? It is reasonable to reckon it under all of these - heads, and it appears to participate in them all. Amusement is for the sake of - relaxation, and relaxation must necessarily be pleasant, for it is a way of - curing the pain due to laborious work; also entertainment ought admittedly to be - not only honorable but also pleasant, for happiness is derived from both honor - and pleasure;but we all pronounce - music to be one of the pleasantest things, whether instrumental or instrumental - and vocal music together (at least MusaeusA semi-legendary - bard, to whom a number of oracular verses that were current were - attributed. says, ‘Song is man's sweetest joy,’ - and that is why people with good reason introduce it at parties and - entertainments, for its exhilarating effect), so that for this reason - also one might suppose that the younger men ought to be educated in music. For - all harmless pleasures are not only suitable for the ultimate object but also - for relaxation; and as it but rarely happens for men to reach their ultimate - object, whereas they often relax and pursue amusement not so much with some - ulterior object but because of the pleasure of it, it would be serviceable to - let them relax at intervals in the pleasures derived from music. But it has come about that men make - amusements an end; for the end also perhaps contains a certain pleasure, but not - any ordinary pleasure, and seeking this they take the other as being this - because it has a certain resemblance to the achievement of the end of their - undertakings. For the end is desirable not for the sake of anything that will - result from it, and also pleasures of the sort under consideration are not - desirable for the sake of some future result, but because of things that have - happened already, for instance labor and pain. One might then perhaps assume - this to be the reason which causes men to seek to procure happiness by means of - those pleasures; but in the case of - taking part in music, this is not because of this reason only, but also because - performing music is useful, as it seems, for relaxation. But nevertheless we - must examine whether it is not the case that, although this has come about, -

-
-
-

- yet the nature of music is more honorable than corresponds with - the employment of it mentioned, and it is proper not only to participate in the - common pleasure that springs from it, which is perceptible to everybody - (for the pleasure contained in music is of a natural kind, owing to - which the use of it is dear to those of all ages and characters), but - to see if its influence reaches also in a manner to the character and to the - soul. And this would clearly be the case if we are affected in our characters in - a certain manner by it. But it is - clear that we are affected in a certain manner, both by many other kinds of - music and not least by the melodies of Olympus - A Phrygian composer - of the seventh century B.C.; for these admittedly make our souls - enthusiastic, and enthusiasm is an affection of the character of the soul. And - moreover everybody when listening to imitationsMusic dramatically expressing various states of - emotion. is thrown into a corresponding state of feeling, even apart - from the rhythms and tunes themselves.A - probable correction of the Greek gives ‘by the rhythms and tunes - themselves, even apart from the words.’ And since it is the - case that music is one of the things that give pleasure, and that virtue has to - do with feeling delight and love and hatred rightly, there is obviously nothing - that it is more needful to learn and become habituated to than to judge - correctly and to delight in virtuous characters and noble actions; but rhythms and melodies contain - representations of angerand mildness, - and also of courage and temperance and all their opposites and the other moral - qualities, that most closely correspond to the true natures of these qualities - (and this is clear from the facts of what occurs—when we - listen to such representations we change in our soul); and habituation - in feeling pain and delight at representations of reality is close to feeling - them towards actual reality (for example, if a man delights in - beholding the statue of somebody for no other reason than because of its actual - form, the actual sight of the person whose statue he beholds must also of - necessity give him pleasure); and it is the case that whereas the other objects of - sensation contain no representation of character, for example the objects of - touch and taste (though the objects of sight do so slightly, for there - are forms that represent character, but only to a small extent, and not‘Not’ is a conjectural - insertion. all men participate in visual perception of such - qualities; also visual works of art are not representations of character but - rather the forms and colors produced are mere indications of character, and - these indications are only bodily sensations during the emotions; not but what - in so far as there is a difference even in regard to the observation of these - indications,i.e. these visual - impressions do vary to some extent in moral effect. the young must - not look at the works of Pauson but those of Polygnotus,Pauson is a painter otherwise little known. Polygnotus - decorated the Stoa Poikile and other famous public buildings at Athens, in the middle of the 5th - century B.C. ‘Polygnotus represented men as better than they - really were, Pauson as worse’ (Aristot. Poet. 1448a - 5). and of any other moral painter or - sculptor), pieces of music - on the contrary do actually contain in them selves imitations of character; and - this is manifest, for even in the nature of the mere melodies there are - differences, so that people when hearing them are affected differently and have - not the same feelings in regard to each of them, but listen to some in a more - mournful and restrained state,

-
-
-

- for instance the mode called Mixolydian, and - to others in a softer state of mind, but in a midway state and with the greatest - composure to another, as the Dorian mode alone of tunes seems to act, while the - Phrygian makes men enthusiastic; for - these things are well stated by those who have studied this form of education, - as they derive the evidence for their theories from the actual facts of - experience. And the same holds good about the rhythms also, for some have a more - stable and others a more emotional character, and of the latter some are more - vulgar in their emotional effects and others more liberal. From these - considerations therefore it is plain that music has the power of producing a - certain effect on the moral character of the soul, and if it has the power to do - this, it is clear that the young must be directed to music and must be educated - in it. Also education in music is - well adapted to the youthful nature; for the young owing to their youth cannot - endure any thing not sweetened by pleasure, and music is by nature a thing that - has a pleasant sweetness. And we seem to have a certain affinity with tunes and - rhythms; owing to which many wise men say either that the soul is a harmony or - that it has harmony.The former doctrine is - Pythagorean, the latter is stated by Plat. Phaedo - 93. - - - We ought now - to decide the question raised earlier, whether the young ought to learn music by - singing and playing themselves or not. It is not difficult to see that it makes - a great difference in the process of acquiring a certain quality whether one - takes a part in the actions that impart it oneself; for it is a thing that is - impossible, or difficult, to become a good judge of performances if one has not - taken part in them. At the same time also boys must have some occupation, and - one must think Archytas's rattleArchytas a - Pythagorean philosopher, mathematician, statesman, and general of Tarentum, contemporary with Plato. He was - interested in mechanics; but one tradition ascribes the toy in question to a - carpenter of the same name. a good invention, which people give to - children in order that while occupied with this they may not break any of the - furniture; for young things cannot keep still. Whereas then a rattle is a - suitable occupation for infant children, education serves as a rattle for young - people when older. Such considerations therefore prove that children should be - trained in music so as actually to take part in its performance; and it is not difficult to distinguish what - is suitable and unsuitable for various ages, and to refute those who assert that - the practice of music is vulgar. For first, inasmuch as it is necessary to take - part in the performances for the sake of judging them, it is therefore proper - for the pupils when young actually to engage in the performances, though when - they get older they should be released from performing, but be able to judge - what is beautiful and enjoy it rightly because of the study in which they - engaged in their youth. Then as to - the objection raised by some people that music makes people vulgar, it is not - difficult to solve it by considering how far pupils who are being educated with - a view to civic virtue should take part in the actual performance of music, -

-
-
-

- and in what times and what rhythms they should take part, and - also what kinds of instruments should be used in their studies, as this - naturally makes a difference. For the solution of the objection depends upon - these points, as it is quite possible that some modes of music do produce the - result mentioned. It is manifest - therefore that the study of music must not place a hindrance in the way of - subsequent activities, nor vulgarize the bodily frame and make it useless for - the exercises of the soldier and the citizen, either for their practical pursuit - now or for their scientific study later on.It is difficult not to think that either the nouns or the adverbs in the - Greek have been erroneously transposed, and that we should translate - ‘either for learning them now or for practising them later - on.’ And this would come about in respect of their study if - the pupils did not go on toiling at the exercises that aim at professional - competitions, nor the wonderful and elaborate performances which have now - entered into the competitions and have passed from the competitions into - education, but also only practised exercises not of that sort until they are - able to enjoy beautiful tunes and rhythms, and not merely the charm common to - all music, which even some lower animals enjoy, as well as a multitude of slaves - and children. And it is also clear - from these considerations what sort of instruments they should use. Flutes must - not be introduced into education, nor any other professional instrument, such as - the harp or any other of that sort, butsuch instruments as will make them attentive pupils either at their musical - training or in their other lessons. Moreover the flute is not a moralizing but - rather an exciting influence, so that it ought to be used for occasions of the - kind at which attendance has the effect of purification rather than - instruction.See 1341a 33 ff. And - let us add that the flute happens to possess the additional property telling - against its use in education that playing it prevents the employment of speech. - Hence former ages rightly rejected its use by the young and the free, although - at first they had employed it. For - as they came to have more leisure because of their wealth and grew more - high-spirited and valorous, both at a still earlier date and because after the - Persian Wars they were filled with pride as a result of their achievements, they - began to engage in all branches of learning, making no distinction but pursuing - research further. Because of this they even included flute-playing among their - studies; for in Sparta a certain - chorus-leader played the flute to his chorus himself,A wealthy citizen who undertook the duty of equipping and - training a chorus for a religious celebration (especially the - production of a drama at Athens) usually had an assistant of lower station to - supply the instrumental music. The office of choregus is not elsewhere - referred to as existing at Sparta. and at Athens it became so fashionable that almost the majority of - freemen went in for flute-playing, as is shown by the tablet erected by - Thrasippus after having provided the chorus for Ecphantides.Ecphantides was one of the earliest comic poets; Thrasippus - is not elsewhere recorded. Who the flute-player was is unknown. - But later on it came to be - disapproved of as a result of actual experience, when men were more capable of - judging what music conduced to virtue and what did not; and similarly also many - of the old instruments were disapproved of, like the pectis and the - barbitosThese were old-fashioned forms - of the lyre. and the instruments designed to give pleasure to those - who hear people playing them,A possible - emendation of the Greek gives ‘those who listen to their - modulations.’ the septangle, the triangle and the - sambyc,Three different stringed - instruments, the last having four strings stretched in a triangular - frame. -

-
-
-

- and all the instruments that require manual skill.And indeed there is a reasonable foundation for the story - that was told by the ancients about the flute. The tale goes that Athena found a - flute and threw it away. Now it is not a bad point in the story that the goddess - did this out of annoyance because of the ugly distortion of her features; but as - a matter of fact it is more likely that it was because education in - flute-playing has no effect on the intelligence, whereas we attribute science - and art to Athena. - And since we reject professional education in the instruments - and in performanceThe Greek should probably - be altered to give ‘reject, some instruments and professional - education in performance.’ (and we count - performance in competitions as professional, for the performer does not take - part in it for his own improvement, but for his hearers' pleasure, and that a - vulgar pleasure, owing to which we do not consider performing to be proper for - free men, but somewhat menial; and indeed performers do become vulgar, since the - object at which they aim is a low one, as vulgarity in the audience usually - influences the music, so that it imparts to the artists who practise it with a - view to suit the audience a special kind of personality, and also of bodily - frame because of the movements required)—we must therefore give some consideration to tunes - and rhythms,and to the question - whether for educational purposes we must employ all the tunes and all the - rhythms or make distinctions; and next, whether for those who are working at - music for education we shall lay down the same regulation, or ought we to - establish some other third one (inasmuch as we see that the factors in - music are melody and rhythm, and it is important to notice what influence each - of these has upon education), and whether we are to prefer music with a - good melody or music with a good rhythm. Now we consider that much is well said on these matters by - some of the musicians of the present day and by some of those engaged in - philosophy who happen to be experienced in musical education, and we will - abandon the precise discussion as to each of these matters for any who wish it - to seek it from those teachers, while for the present let us lay down general - principles, merely stating the outlines of the subjects. And since we accept the classification of melodies - made by some philosophers, as ethical melodies, melodies of action, and - passionate melodies,i.e. representative of - character, of action and of emotion. distributing the various - harmonies among these classes as being in nature akin to one or the other, and - as we say that music ought to be employed not for the purpose of one benefit - that it confers but on account of several (for it serves the purpose - both of education and of purgation—the term purgation we use for the - present without explanation, but we will return to discuss the meaning that we - give to it more explicitly in our treatise on poetryIn Aristot. Poet. 6 - tragedy is said to purge the emotion of pity and fear by giving them an - outlet; the reference here is probably to the lost Second Book of - Poetics.—and thirdly it serves for - amusement, serving to relax our tension and to give rest from it), -

-
-
-

- - it is clear that we - should employ all the harmonies, yet not employ them all in the same way, but - use the most ethical ones for education, and the active and passionate kinds for - listening to when others are performing (for any experience that occurs - violently in some souls is found in all, though with different degrees of - intensity—for example pity and fear, and also religious excitement; - for some persons are very liable to this form of emotion, and under the - influence of sacred music we see these people, when they use tunes that - violently arouse the soul, being thrown into a state as if they had received - medicinal treatment and taken a purge; the same experience then must come also to the - compassionate and the timid and the other emotional people generally in such - degree as befalls each individual of these classes, and all must undergo a - purgation and a pleasant feeling of relief; and similarly also the purgative - melodies afford harmless delight to people). Therefore those who go in - for theatrical music must be set to compete in harmonies and melodies of this - kind (and since the - audience is of two classes, one freemen and educated people, and the - otherthe vulgar class composed of - mechanics and laborers and other such persons, the latter sort also must be - assigned competitions and shows for relaxation; and just as their souls are - warped from the natural state, so those harmonies and melodies that are highly - strung and irregular in colorationSaid to - mean divergent from the regular scale in having smaller intervals. - are deviations, but people of each sort receive pleasure from what is naturally - suited to them, owing to which the competitors before an audience of this sort - must be allowed to employ some such kind of music as this); but for education, as has been said,1342a 2. the ethical class of melodies - and of harmonies must be employed. And of that nature is the Dorian mode, as we - said before1343b 3 ff.; but we must - also accept any other mode that those who take part in the pursuit of philosophy - and in musical education may recommend to us. Socrates in the - Republic - - Plat. Rep. 399a - does not do well in allowing only the Phrygian mode along with the - Dorian, and that when he has rejected the flute among instruments;

-
-
-

- for the - Phrygian mode has the same effect among harmonies as the flute among - instruments—both are violently exciting and emotional. This is shown by poetry; for all Bacchiac - versification and all movement of that sortOr perhaps bakxei/a and ki/nhsis denote bodily movement accompanying the - song; or they may denote the emotional frenzy expressed and stimulated by - it. The dithyramb was a form of poetry of this class, originally celebrating - the birth of Dionysus. Philoxenus, one of the most famous dithyrambic poets, - 435-380 B.C., lived at - Athens, and later at the court - of Dionysius of Syracuse. - belongs particularly to the flute among the instruments, and these meters find - their suitable accompaniment in tunes in the Phrygian mode among the harmonies: - for example the dithyramb is admittedly held to be a Phrygian meter, and the - experts on this subject adduce many instances to prove this, particularly the - fact that Philoxenus when he attempted to compose a dithyramb, The - Mysians, in the Dorian mode - was unable to do so, but merely by the force of nature fell back again into the - suitable harmony, the Phrygian. And - all agree that the Dorian mode is more - sedate and of a specially manly character. Moreover since we praise and say that - we ought to pursue the mean between extremes, and the Dorian mode has this nature in relation to the - other harmonies, it is clear that it suits the younger pupils to be educated - rather in the Dorian melodies. But - there are two objects to aim at, the possible as well as the suitable; for we - are bound rather to attempt the things that are possible and those that are - suitable for the particular class of people concerned;and in these matters also there are dividing lines - drawn by the ages—for instance, those whose powers have waned through - lapse of time cannot easily sing the highly strung harmonies, but to persons of - that age nature suggests the relaxed harmonies. Therefore some musical experts also rightly criticize - Socrates - Plat. Rep. 338e - because he disapproved of the relaxed harmonies for amusement, taking - them to have the character of intoxication, not in the sense of the effect of - strong drink, for that clearly has more the result of making men frenzied - revellers, but as failing in power. Hence even with a view to the period of life - that is to follow, that of the comparatively old, it is proper to engage in the - harmonies and melodies of this kind too, and also any kind of harmony that is - suited to the age of boyhood because it is capable of being at once decorous and - educative, which seems to be the nature of the Lydian mode most of all the - harmonies. It is clear therefore that we should lay down these three canons to - guide education, moderation, possibility and suitability.

-
- - - - +
+

and it is proper to follow the division of nature, for all art and education aim at filling up nature's deficiencies. First therefore we must consider whether some regulation in regard to the boys ought to be instituted, next whether it is advantageous for their supervision to be conducted on a public footing or in a private manner as is done at present in most states, and thirdly of what particular nature this supervision ought to be.

+
+ +
+
+

Book 5 in some editions.Now nobody would dispute that the education of the young requires the special attention of the lawgiver. Indeed the neglect of this in states is injurious to their constitutions; for education ought to be adapted to the particular form of constitution, since the particular character belonging to each constitution both guards the constitution generally and originally establishes it—for instance the democratic spirit promotes democracy and the oligarchic spirit oligarchy; and the best spirit always causes a better constitution. Moreover in regard to all the faculties and crafts certain forms of preliminary educationand training in their various operations are necessarys o that manifestly this is also requisite in regard to the actions of virtue. And inasmuch as the end for the whole state is one, it is manifest that education also must necessarily be one and the same for all and that the superintendence of this must be public, and not on private lines, in the way in which at present each man superintends the education of his own children, teaching them privately, and whatever special branch of knowledge he thinks fit. But matters of public interest ought to be under public supervision; at the same time we ought not to think that any of the citizens belongs to himself, but that all belong to the state, for each is a part of the state, and it is natural for the superintendence of the several parts to have regard to the superintendence of the whole. And one might praise the Spartans in respect of this, for they pay the greatest attention to the training of their children, and conduct it on a public system.

+

It is clear then that there should be legislation about education and that it should be conducted on a public system. But consideration must be given to the question, what constitutes education and what is the proper way to be educated. At present there are differences of opinion as to the proper tasks to be set; for all peoples do not agree as to the things that the young ought to learn, either with a view to virtue or with a view to the best life, nor is it clear whether their studies should be regulated more with regard to intellect or with regard to character. And confusing questions arise out of the education that actually prevails, and it is not at all clear whether the pupils should practise pursuits that are practically morally edifying, or higher accomplishments—for all these views have won the support of some judges;

+ +
+

and nothing is agreed as regards the exercise conducive to virtue, for, to start with, all men do not honor the same virtue, so that they naturally hold different opinions in regard to training in virtue.

+

It is therefore not difficult to see that the young must be taught those useful arts that are indispensably necessary; but it is clear that they should not be taught all the useful arts, those pursuits that are liberal being kept distinct from those that are illiberal, and that they must participate in such among the useful arts as will not render the person who participates in them vulgar. A task and also an art or a science must be deemed vulgar if it renders the body or soul or mind of free men useless for the employments and actions of virtue. Hence we entitle vulgar all such arts as deteriorate the condition of the body, and also the industries that earn wages; for they make the mind preoccupied and degraded. And even with the liberal sciences, although it is notilliberal to take part in some of them up to a point, to devote oneself to them too assiduously and carefully is liable to have the injurious results specified. Also it makes much difference what object one has in view in a pursuit or study; if one follows it for the sake of oneself or one’s friends, or on moral grounds, it is not illiberal,but the man who follows the same pursuit because of other people would often appear to be acting in a menial and servile manner.

+

The branches of study at present established fall into both classes, as was said before.1.4. There are perhaps fourcustomary subjects of education, reading and writing, gymnastics, music, and fourth, with some people, drawing; reading and writing and drawing being taught as being useful for the purposes of life and very serviceable, and gymnastics as contributing to manly courage; but as to music, here one might raise a question. For at present most people take part in it for the sake of pleasure; but those, who originally included it in education did so because, as has often been said, nature itself seeks to be able not only to engage rightly in business but also to occupy leisure nobly; for—to speak about it yet againCf. Book 7, 1334a 2-10.—this is the first principle of all things. For if although both business and leisure are necessary, yet leisure is more desirable and more fully an end than business, we must inquire what is the proper occupation of leisure. For assuredly it should not be employed in play, since it would follow that play is our end in life. But if this is impossible, and sports should rather be employed in our times of business (for a man who is at work needs rest, and rest is the object of play, while business is accompanied by toil and exertion), it follows that in introducing sports we must watch the right opportunity for their employment, since we are applying them to serve as medicine; for the activity of play is a relaxation of the soul, and serves as recreation because of its pleasantness.

+ +
+

But leisure seems itself to contain pleasure and happiness and felicity of life. And this is not possessed by the busy but by the leisured; for the busy man busies himself for the sake of some end as not being in his possession, but happiness is an end achieved, which all men think is accompanied by pleasure and not by pain. But all men do not go on to define this pleasure in the same way, but according to their various natures and to their own characters, and the pleasure with which the best man thinks that happiness is conjoined is the best pleasure and the one arising from the noblest sources. So that it is clear that some subjects must be learnt and acquired merely with a view to the pleasure in their pursuit, and that these studies and these branches of learning are ends in themselves, while the forms of learning related to business are studied as necessary and as means to other things. Hence our predecessors included music in education not as a necessity (for there is nothing necessary about it), nor as useful (in the way in which reading and writing are useful for business and for household management and for acquiring learning and for many pursuits of civil life, while drawing also seems to be useful in making us better judges of the works of artists), nor yet again as we pursue gymnastics, for the sake of health and strength (for we do not see either of these things produced as a result of music); it remains therefore that it is useful as a pastime in leisure, which is evidently the purpose for which people actually introduce it, for they rank it as a form of pastime that they think proper for free men. For this reason Homer wrote thus: But him alone ’Tis meet to summon to the festal banquetThis line is not in our Odyssey, but apparently followed Hom. Od.17.383. The passage runs (382 ff.): τίς γὰρ δὴ ξεῖνον καλεῖ ἄλλοθεν αὐτὸς ἐπελθὼν ἄλλον γ’, εἰ μὴ τῶν οἳ δημιοεργοὶ ἔασι, μάντιν ἢ ἰητῆρα κακῶν ἢ τέκτονα δούρων, ἢ καὶ θέσπιν ἀοιδόν, ὅ κεν τέρπῃσιν ἀείδων; ; and after these words he speaks of certain others Who call the bard that he may gladden all.The fourth line quoted corresponds to this, but not exactly. And also in other verses Odysseus says that this is the best pastime, when, as men are enjoying good cheer, The banqueters, seated in order due Throughout the hall, may hear a minstrel sing. Hom. Od. 9.5-6.

+

+ It is clear therefore that there is a form of education in which boys should be trained not because it is useful or necessary but as being liberal and noble; though whether there is one such subject of education or several, and what these are and how they are to be pursued, must be discussed later,This promise is not fulfilled. but as it is we have made this much progress on the way, that we have some testimony even from the ancients, derived from the courses of education which they founded—for the point is proved by music. And it is also clear that some of the useful subjects as well ought to be studied by the young not only because of their utility, like the study of reading and writing, but also because they may lead on to many other branches of knowledge; and similarly they should study drawing not in order that they may not go wrong in their private purchases and may avoid being cheated in buying and selling furniture,

+ +
+

but rather because this study makes a man observant of bodily beauty; and to seek for utility everywhere is entirely unsuited to men that are great-souled and free. And since it is plain that education by habit must come before education by reason, and training of the body before training of the mind, it is clear from these considerations that the boys must be handed over to the care of the wrestling-master and the trainer; for the latter imparts a certain quality to the habit of the body and the former to its actions.

+

Now at the present time some of the states reputed to pay the greatest attention to children produce in them an athletic habiti.e. premature and disproportionate muscular development, directed to some particular competition. Cf. 1288b 12 ff. to the detriment of their bodily form and growth, while the Spartans although they have avoided this error yet make their boys animal in nature by their laborious exercises, in the belief that this is most contributory to manly courage. Yet, as has often been said, it is not right to regulate education with a view to one virtue only, or to this one most of all; indeed they do not even investigate the question whether this virtue is to be had in view at all. For neither in the lower animals nor in the case of foreign races do we see that courage goes with the wildest, but rather with the gentler and lion-like temperaments. Aristot. Hist. An. 629b 8 (the lion is gentle except when hungry); Plat. Soph. 231a (the dog the gentlest of animals). And there are manyforeign races inclined to murder and cannibalism, for example among the tribes of the Black Sea the Achaeans and Heniochi, and others of the mainland races, some in the same degree as those named and some more, which although piratical have got no share of manly courage. And again we know that even the Spartans, although so long as they persisted by themselves in their laborious exercises they surpassed all other peoples, now fall behind others both in gymnastic and in military contests; for they used not to excel because they exercised their young men in this fashion but only because they trained and their adversaries did not. Consequently honor and not animal ferocity should play the first part; for it is not a wolf nor one of the other wild animals that will venture upon any noble hazard, but rather a good man. But those who let boys pursue these hard exercises too much and turn them out untrained in necessary things in real truth render them vulgar, making them available for statesmanship to use for one task only, and even for this task training them worse than others do, as our argument proves. AndThis sentence would come better at the end of 3.4. we must not judge them from their former achievements but from the facts of today; for they have rivals in their education now, but they used to have none before.

+

It is therefore agreed that we should employ gymnastic training, and how we should employ it. For until pubertywe should apply lighter exercises, forbidding hard diet and severe exertions, in order that nothing may hinder the growth;

+ +
+

for there is no small proof that too severe training can produce this result in the fact that in the list of Olympic victors one would only find two or three persons who have won both as men and as boys, because when people go into training in youththe severe exercises rob them of their strength. But when they have spent three years after puberty upon their other studies, then it is suitable to occupy the next period of life with laborious exercises and strict training dieti.e. compulsion to eat very large rations of prescribed food—the Greek way of training.; for it is wrong to work hard with the mind and the body at the same time; for it is the nature of the two different sorts of exertion to produce opposite effects, bodily toil impeding the development of the mind and mental toil that of the body.

+

About music on the other hand we have previously raised some questions in the course of our argument, but it is well to take them up again and carry them further now, in order that this may give the key so to speak for the principles which one might advance in pronouncing about it. For it is not easy to say precisely what potency it possesses, nor yet for the sake of what object one should participate in it—whether for amusement and relaxation, as one indulges in sleep and deep drinking (for these in themselves are not serious pursuits but merely pleasant, and relax our care, as Euripides says Eur. Ba. 378 (Bromios) ὃς τάδ’ ἔχει, θιασεύειν τε χόροις μετά τ’ αὐλῶν γελᾶσαι ἀναπαῦσαί τε μερίμνας ; owing to which people actually class music with them andemploy all of these things, sleep, deep drinking and music, in the same way, and they also place dancing in the same class); + + or whether we ought rather to think that music tends in some degree to virtue (music being capable of producing a certain quality of character just as gymnastics are capable of producing a certain quality of body, music accustoming men to be able to rejoice rightly); or that it contributes something to intellectual entertainmentThe term διαγωγή, pastime, is idiomatically used of the pursuits of cultured leisure—serious conversation, music, the drama. and culture (for this must be set down as a third alternative among those mentioned). Now it is not difficult to see that one must not make amusement the object of the education of the young; for amusement does not go with learning—learning is a painful process. Nor yet moreover is it suitable to assign intellectual entertainment to boys and to the young; for a thing that is an end does not belong to anything that is imperfect. + + But perhaps it might be thought that the serious pursuits of boys are for the sake of amusement when they have grown up to be men. But, if something of this sort is the case, why should the young need to learn this accomplishment themselves, and not, like the Persian and Median kings, participate in the pleasure and the education of music by means of others performing it? for those who have made music a business and profession must necessarily perform better than those who practise only long enough to learn. But if it is proper for them to labor at accomplishments of this sort, then it would also be right for them to prepare the dishes of an elaborate cuisine; but this is absurd. + + And the same difficulty also arises as to the question whether learning music can improve their characters; for why should they learn to perform edifying music themselves,

+ +
+

instead of learning to enjoy it rightly and be able to judge it when they hear others performing, as the Spartans do? for the Spartans although they do not learn to perform can nevertheless judge good and bad music correctly, so it is said. And the same argument applies also if music is to be employed for refined enjoyment and entertainment; why need people learn to perform themselves instead of enjoying music played by others? + +And we may consider the conception that we have about the gods: Zeus does not sing and harp to the poets himself. But professional musicians we speak of as vulgar people, and indeed we think it not manly to perform music, except when drunk or for fun.

+

But perhaps these points will have to be considered afterwards; our first inquiry is whether music ought not or ought to be included in education, and what is its efficacy among the three uses of it that have been discussed—does it serve for education or amusement or entertainment? It is reasonable to reckon it under all of these heads, and it appears to participate in them all. Amusement is for the sake of relaxation, and relaxation must necessarily be pleasant, for it is a way of curing the pain due to laborious work; also entertainment ought admittedly to be not only honorable but also pleasant, for happiness is derived from both honor and pleasure;but we all pronounce music to be one of the pleasantest things, whether instrumental or instrumental and vocal music together (at least MusaeusA semi-legendary bard, to whom a number of oracular verses that were current were attributed. says, Song is man’s sweetest joy, and that is why people with good reason introduce it at parties and entertainments, for its exhilarating effect), so that for this reason also one might suppose that the younger men ought to be educated in music. For all harmless pleasures are not only suitable for the ultimate object but also for relaxation; and as it but rarely happens for men to reach their ultimate object, whereas they often relax and pursue amusement not so much with some ulterior object but because of the pleasure of it, it would be serviceable to let them relax at intervals in the pleasures derived from music. But it has come about that men make amusements an end; for the end also perhaps contains a certain pleasure, but not any ordinary pleasure, and seeking this they take the other as being this because it has a certain resemblance to the achievement of the end of their undertakings. For the end is desirable not for the sake of anything that will result from it, and also pleasures of the sort under consideration are not desirable for the sake of some future result, but because of things that have happened already, for instance labor and pain. One might then perhaps assume this to be the reason which causes men to seek to procure happiness by means of those pleasures; but in the case of taking part in music, this isnot because of this reason only, but also because performing music is useful, as it seems, for relaxation. But nevertheless we must examine whether it is not the case that, although this has come about,

+ +
+

yet the nature of music is more honorable than corresponds with the employment of it mentioned, and it is proper not only to participate in the common pleasure that springs from it, which is perceptible to everybody (for the pleasure contained in music is of a natural kind, owing to which the use of it is dear to those of all ages and characters), but to see if its influence reachesalso in a manner to the character and to the soul. And this would clearly be the case if we are affected in our characters in a certain manner by it. But it is clear that we are affected in a certain manner, both by many other kinds of music and not least by the melodies of OlympusA Phrygian composer of the seventh century B.C.; for these admittedly make our souls enthusiastic, and enthusiasm is an affection of the character of the soul. And moreover everybody when listening to imitationsMusic dramatically expressing various states of emotion. is thrown into a corresponding state of feeling, even apart from the rhythms and tunes themselves.A probable correction of the Greek gives by the rhythms and tunes themselves, even apart from the words. And since it is the case that music is one of the things that give pleasure, and that virtue has to do with feeling delight and love and hatred rightly, there is obviously nothing that it is more needful to learn and become habituated to than to judge correctly and to delight in virtuous characters and noble actions; but rhythms and melodies contain representations of angerand mildness, and also of courage and temperance and all their opposites and the other moral qualities, that most closely correspond to the true natures of these qualities (and this is clear from the facts of what occurs—when we listen to such representations we change in our soul); and habituation in feeling pain and delight at representations of reality is close to feeling them towards actual reality (for example, if a man delights in beholding the statue of somebody for no other reason than because of its actual form, the actual sight of the person whose statue he beholds must also of necessity give him pleasure); and it is the case that whereas the other objects of sensation contain no representation of character, for example the objects of touch and taste (though the objects of sight do so slightly, for there are forms that represent character, but only to a small extent, and notNot is a conjectural insertion. all men participate in visual perception of such qualities; also visual works of art are not representations of character but rather the forms and colors produced are mere indications of character, and these indications are only bodily sensations during the emotions; not but what in so far as there is a difference even in regard to the observation of these indications,i.e. these visual impressions do vary to some extent in moral effect. the young must not look at the works of Pauson but those of Polygnotus,Pauson is a painter otherwise little known. Polygnotus decorated the Stoa Poikile and other famous public buildings at Athens, in the middle of the 5th century B.C. Polygnotus represented men as better than they really were, Pauson as worse (Aristot. Poet. 1448a 5). and of any other moral painter or sculptor), pieces of music on the contrary do actually contain in them selves imitations of character; and this is manifest, for even in the nature of the mere melodies there are differences, so that people when hearing them are affected differently and have not the same feelings in regard to each of them, but listen to some in a more mournful and restrained state,

+ +
+

for instance the mode called Mixolydian, and to others in a softer state of mind, but in a midway state and with the greatest composure to another, as the Dorian mode alone of tunes seems to act, while the Phrygian makes men enthusiastic; for these things are well stated by those who have studied this form of education, as they derive the evidence for their theories from the actual facts of experience. And the same holds good about the rhythms also, for some have a more stable and others a more emotional character, and of the latter some are more vulgar in their emotional effects and others more liberal. From these considerations therefore it is plain that music has the power of producing a certain effect on the moral character of the soul, and if it has the power to do this, it is clear that the young must be directed to music and must be educated in it. Also education in music is well adapted to the youthful nature; for the young owing to their youth cannot endure any thing not sweetened by pleasure, and music is by nature a thing that has a pleasant sweetness. And we seem to have a certain affinity with tunes and rhythms; owing to which many wise men say either that the soul is a harmony or that it has harmony.The former doctrine is Pythagorean, the latter is stated by Plat. Phaedo 93.

+

We ought now to decide the question raised earlier, whether theyoung ought to learn music by singing and playing themselves or not. It is not difficult to see that it makes a great difference in the process of acquiring a certain quality whether one takes a part in the actions that impart it oneself; for it is a thing that is impossible, or difficult, to become a good judge of performances if one has not taken part in them. At the same time also boys must have some occupation, and one must think Archytas’s rattleArchytas a Pythagorean philosopher, mathematician, statesman, and general of Tarentum, contemporary with Plato. He was interested in mechanics; but one tradition ascribes the toy in question to a carpenter of the same name. a good invention, which people give to children in order that while occupied with this they may not break any of the furniture; for young things cannot keep still. Whereas then a rattle is a suitable occupation for infant children, education serves as a rattle for young people when older. Such considerations therefore prove that children should be trained in music so as actually to take part in its performance; and it is not difficult to distinguish what is suitable and unsuitable for various ages, and to refute those who assert that the practice of music is vulgar. For first, inasmuch as it is necessary to take part in the performances for the sake of judging them, it is therefore proper for the pupils when young actually to engage in the performances, though when they get older they should be released from performing, but be able to judge what is beautiful and enjoy it rightly because of the study in which they engaged in their youth. Then as to the objection raised by some people that music makes peoplevulgar, it is not difficult to solve it by considering how far pupils who are being educated with a view to civic virtue should take part in the actual performance of music,

+ +
+

and in what times and what rhythms they should take part, and also what kinds of instruments should be used in their studies, as this naturally makes a difference. For the solution of the objection depends upon these points, as it is quite possible that some modes of music do produce the result mentioned. It is manifest therefore that the study of music must not place a hindrance in the way of subsequent activities, nor vulgarize the bodily frame and make it useless for the exercises of the soldier and the citizen, either for their practical pursuit now or for their scientific study later on.It is difficult not to think that either the nouns or the adverbs in the Greek have been erroneously transposed, and that we should translate either for learning them now or for practising them later on. And this would come about in respect of their study if the pupils did not go on toiling at the exercises that aim at professional competitions, nor the wonderful and elaborate performances which have now entered into the competitions and have passed from the competitions into education, but also only practised exercises not of that sort until they are able to enjoy beautiful tunes and rhythms, and not merely the charm common to all music, which even some lower animals enjoy, as well as a multitude of slaves and children. And it is also clear from these considerations what sort of instruments they should use. Flutes must not be introduced into education, nor any other professional instrument, such as the harp or any other of that sort, butsuch instruments as will make them attentive pupils either at their musical training or in their other lessons. Moreover the flute is not a moralizing but rather an exciting influence, so that it ought to be used for occasions of the kind at which attendance has the effect of purification rather than instruction.See 1341a 33 ff. And let us add that the flute happens to possess the additional property telling against its use in education that playing it prevents the employment of speech. Hence former ages rightly rejected its use by the young and the free, although at first they had employed it. For as they came to have more leisure because of their wealth and grew more high-spirited and valorous, both at a still earlier date and because after the Persian Wars they were filled with pride as a result of their achievements, they began to engage in all branches of learning, making no distinction but pursuing research further. Because of this they even included flute-playing among their studies; for in Sparta a certain chorus-leader played the flute to his chorus himself,A wealthy citizen who undertook the duty of equipping and training a chorus for a religious celebration (especially the production of a drama at Athens) usually had an assistant of lower station to supply the instrumental music. The office of choregus is not elsewhere referred to as existing at Sparta. and at Athens it became so fashionable that almost the majority of freemen went in for flute-playing, as is shown by the tablet erected by Thrasippus after having provided the chorus for Ecphantides.Ecphantides was one of the earliest comic poets; Thrasippus is not elsewhere recorded. Who the flute-player was is unknown. But later on it came to be disapproved of as a result of actual experience, when men were more capable of judging what music conduced to virtue and what did not; and similarly also many of the old instruments were disapproved of, like the pectis and the barbitosThese were old-fashioned forms of the lyre. and the instruments designed to give pleasure to those who hear people playing them,A possible emendation of the Greek gives those who listen to their modulations. the septangle, the triangle and the sambyc,Three different stringed instruments, the last having four strings stretched in a triangular frame.

+ +
+

and all the instruments that require manual skill. And indeed there is a reasonable foundation for the story that was told by the ancients about the flute. The tale goes that Athena found a flute and threw it away. Now it is not a bad point in the story that the goddess did this out of annoyance because of the ugly distortion of her features; but as a matter of fact it is more likely that it was because education in flute-playing has no effect on the intelligence, whereas we attribute science and art to Athena.

+

And since we reject professional education in the instruments and in performanceThe Greek should probably be altered to give reject, some instruments and professional education in performance. (and we count performance in competitions as professional, for the performer does not take part in it for his own improvement, but for his hearers’ pleasure, and that a vulgar pleasure, owing to which we do not consider performing to be proper for free men, but somewhat menial; and indeed performers do become vulgar, since the object at which they aim is a low one, as vulgarity in the audience usually influences the music, so that it imparts to the artists who practise it with a view to suit the audience a special kind of personality, and also of bodily frame because of the movements required)— we must therefore give some consideration to tunes and rhythms,and to the question whether for educational purposes we must employ all the tunes and all the rhythms or make distinctions; and next, whether for those who are working at music for education we shall lay down the same regulation, or ought we to establish some other third one (inasmuch as we see that the factors in music are melody and rhythm, and it is important to notice what influence each of these has upon education), and whether we are to prefer music with a good melody or music with a good rhythm. Now we consider that much is well said on these matters by some of the musicians of the present day and by some of those engaged in philosophy who happen to be experienced in musical education, and we will abandon the precise discussion as to each of these matters for any who wish it to seek it from those teachers, while for the present let us lay down general principles, merely stating the outlines of the subjects. And since we accept the classification of melodies made by some philosophers, as ethical melodies, melodies of action, and passionate melodies,i.e. representative of character, of action and of emotion. distributing the various harmonies among these classes as being in nature akin to one or the other, and as we say that music ought to be employed not for the purpose of one benefit that it confers but on account of several (for it serves the purpose both of education and of purgation—the term purgation we use for the present without explanation, but we will return to discuss the meaning that we give to it more explicitly in our treatise on poetryIn Aristot. Poet. 6 tragedy is said to purge the emotion of pity and fear by giving them an outlet; the reference here is probably to the lost Second Book of Poetics.—and thirdly it serves for amusement, serving to relax our tension and to give rest from it),

+ +
+

it is clear that we should employ all the harmonies, yet not employ them all in the same way, but use the most ethical ones for education, and the active and passionate kinds for listening to when others are performing (for any experience that occurs violently in some souls is found in all, though with different degrees of intensity—for example pity and fear, and also religious excitement; for some persons are very liable to this form of emotion, and under the influence of sacred music we see these people, when they use tunes that violently arouse the soul, being thrown into a state as if they had received medicinal treatment and taken a purge; the same experience then must come also to the compassionate and the timid and the other emotional people generally in such degree as befalls each individual of these classes, and all must undergo a purgation and a pleasant feeling of relief; and similarly also the purgative melodies afford harmless delight to people). Therefore those who go in for theatrical music must be set to compete in harmonies and melodies of this kind (and since the audience is of two classes, one freemen and educated people, and the otherthe vulgar class composed of mechanics and laborers and other such persons, the latter sort also must be assigned competitions and shows for relaxation; and just as their souls are warped from the natural state, so those harmonies and melodies that are highly strung and irregular in colorationSaid to mean divergent from the regular scale in having smaller intervals. are deviations, but people of each sort receive pleasure from what is naturally suited to them, owing to which the competitors before an audience of this sort must be allowed to employ some such kind of music as this); but for education, as has been said,1342a 2. the ethical class of melodies and of harmonies must be employed. And of that nature is the Dorian mode, as we said before1343b 3 ff.; but we must also accept any other mode that those who take part in the pursuit of philosophy and in musical education may recommend to us. Socrates in the Republic Plat. Rep. 399a does not do well in allowing only the Phrygian mode along with the Dorian, and that when he has rejected the flute among instruments;

+ +
+

for the Phrygian mode has the same effect among harmonies as the flute among instruments—both are violently exciting and emotional. This is shown by poetry; for all Bacchiac versification and all movement of that sortOr perhaps βακχεία and κίνησις denote bodily movement accompanying the song; or they may denote the emotional frenzy expressed and stimulated by it. The dithyramb was a form of poetry of this class, originally celebrating the birth of Dionysus. Philoxenus, one of the most famous dithyrambic poets, 435-380 B.C., lived at Athens, and later at the court of Dionysius of Syracuse. belongs particularly to the flute among the instruments, and these meters find their suitable accompaniment in tunes in the Phrygian mode among the harmonies: for example the dithyramb is admittedly held to be a Phrygian meter, and the experts on this subject adduce many instances to prove this, particularly the fact that Philoxenus when he attempted to compose a dithyramb, The Mysians, in the Dorian mode was unable to do so, but merely by the force of nature fell back again into the suitable harmony, the Phrygian. And all agree that the Dorian mode is more sedate and of a specially manly character. Moreover since we praise and say that we ought to pursue the mean between extremes, and the Dorian mode has this nature in relation to the other harmonies, it is clear that it suits the younger pupils to be educated rather in the Dorian melodies. But there are two objects to aim at, the possible as well as the suitable; for we are bound rather to attempt the things that are possible and those that are suitable for the particular class of people concerned;and in these matters also there are dividing lines drawn by the ages—for instance, those whose powers have waned through lapse of time cannot easily sing the highly strung harmonies, but to persons of that age nature suggests the relaxed harmonies. Therefore some musical experts also rightly criticize Socrates Plat. Rep. 338e because he disapproved of the relaxed harmonies for amusement, taking them to have the character of intoxication, not in the sense of the effect of strong drink, for that clearly has more the result of making men frenzied revellers, but as failing in power. Hence even with a view to the period of life that is to follow, that of the comparatively old, it is proper to engage in the harmonies and melodies of this kind too, and also any kind of harmony that is suited to the age of boyhood because it is capable of being at once decorous and educative, which seems to be the nature of the Lydian mode most of all the harmonies. It is clear therefore that we should lay down these three canons to guide education, moderation, possibility and suitability.

+ + + diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1922e8cbd --- /dev/null +++ b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml @@ -0,0 +1,932 @@ + + + + + + +Politics + Aristotle + Harris Rackham + Perseus Project, Tufts University + Gregory Crane + + Prepared under the supervision of + Lisa Cerrato + William Merrill + Elli Mylonas + David Smith + + The Annenberg CPB/Project + + + + Trustees of Tufts University + Medford, MA + Perseus Digital Library Project + Perseus 2.0 + tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml + + Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License + + + + + + + Aristotle + Politics + Harris Rackham + + William Heinemann Ltd. + London + Harvard University Press + Cambridge, MA + 1944 + + + + + Loeb Classical Library + + HathiTrust + + + + + + + + + +

This pointer pattern extracts book and Bekker page.

+ + +

This pointer pattern extracts book.

+ + + + + + +Greek +English + + + + +EpiDoc and CTS conversion and general header review. +fixed Aristotle bibls +fixed repeated words (typo) 1254a +cleaned up bad place tags in a few texts and cleaned up the document format +more reorganizing of texts module by collection +began reorganizing texts module by collection. created separate work directory in texts module to keep hopper files separate from in progress files +fixed typo +fixed cvs log keyword +edited entity tags up to line 4264 CEH +fixed Pindar bibl error - zr +fixed bad bibls +fixed bibl errors - zr +added cvs log keyword +Corrected two typos in 1449a. +added cvs log keyword +Put Bekker line 1 milestone tags at the beginning of each section so that the incoming list creator would work. Changed RREFDECL. +Tagged in conformance with Prose.g dtd. +Text was scanned at St. Olaf Spring, 1992. + + + + + +
+
+
+

+ + Every state is as we see a sort of partnership,The Greek word had not acquired a specially political connotation as the English word community has. and every partnership is formed with a view to some good (since all the actions of all mankind are done with a view to what they think to be good). It is therefore evident that, while all partnerships aim at some good the partnership that is the most supreme of all and includes all the others does so most of all, and aims at the most supreme of all goods; and this is the partnership entitled the state, the political association. Those then who think that the natures of the statesman, the royal ruler, the head of an estate οἰκονόμος denoting a higher grade than δεσπότης is unusual. For their ordinary use see 2.1 fin. and the master of a family are the same, are mistaken (they imagine that the difference between these various forms of authority is one of greater and smaller numbers, not a difference in the kind—that is, that the ruler over a few people is a master, over more the head of an estate, over more still a statesman or royal ruler, as if there were no difference between a large household and a small city; and also as to the statesman and the royal ruler, they think that one who governs as sole head is royal, and one who, while the government follows the principles of the science of royalty, takes turns to govern and be governed is a statesman; but these views are not true). And a proof that these people are mistaken will appear if we examine the question in accordance with our regular method of investigation. In every other matter it is necessary to analyze the composite whole down to its uncompounded elements (for these are the smallest parts of the whole); so too with the state, by examining the elements of which it is composed we shall better discern in relation to these different kinds of rulers what is the difference between them, and whether it is possible to obtain any scientific precision in regard to the various statements made above.

+

In this subject as in others the best method of investigation is to study things in the process of development from the beginning. The first coupling together of persons then to which necessity gives rise is that between those who are unable to exist without one another: for instance the union of female and male for the continuance of the species (and this not of deliberate purpose, but with man as with the other animals and with plants there is a natural instinct to desire to leave behind one another being of the same sort as oneself); and the union of natural ruler and natural subject for the sake of security (for he that can foresee with his mind is naturally ruler and naturally master, and he that can do these thingsA probable emendation gives that can carry out labor. with his body is subject and naturally a slave; so that master and slave have the same interest).

+ +
+

Thus the female and the slave are by nature distinct (for nature makes nothing as the cutlers make the Delphic knife,Uncertain: possibly a dagger and a carving-knife in one. in a niggardly way, but one thing for one purpose; for so each tool will be turned out in the finest perfection, if it serves not many uses but one). Yet among barbarians the female and the slave have the same rank; and the cause of this is that barbarians have no class of natural rulers, but with them the conjugal partnership is a partnership of female slave and male slave. Hence the saying of the poets Eur. IA 1400.— ’Tis meet that Greeks should rule barbarians,— implying that barbarian and slave are the same in nature. From these two partnerships then is first composed the household, and Hesiod Hes. WD 405. was right when he wrote First and foremost a house and a wife and an ox for the ploughing— for the ox serves instead of a servant for the poor. The partnership therefore that comes about in the course of nature for everyday purposes is the house, the persons whom CharondasA law-giver of Catana in Sicily, 6th century B.C. or earlier. speaks of as meal-tub-fellows and the Cretan EpimenidesA poet and prophet invited to Athens 596 B.C. to purify it of plague. as manger-fellows.The variant reading ὁμοκάπνους, smoke-sharers, seems to mean hearth-fellows.

+

On the other hand the primary partnership made up of several households for the satisfaction of not mere daily needs is the village. The village according to the most natural account seems to be a colony fromPerhaps the Greek should be altered to give consists of colonies from. a household, formed of those whom some people speak of as fellow-sucklings, sons and sons’ sons.The words sons and sons’ sons are probably an interpolated note. It is owing to this that our cities were at first under royal sway and that foreign races are so still,because they were made up of parts that were under royal rule; for every household is under the royal rule of its eldest member, so that the colonies from the household were so too, because of the kinship of their members. And this is what Homer Hom. Od. 9.114 f. on the Cyclopes. means: And each one giveth law To sons and eke to spouses— for his Cyclopes live in scattered families; and that is the way in which people used to live in early times. Also this explains why all races speak of the gods as ruled by a king, because they themselves too are some of them actually now so ruled and in other cases used to be of old; and as men imagine the gods in human form, so also they suppose their manner of life to be like their own.

+

The partnership finally composed of several villages is the city-state; it has at last attained the limit of virtually complete self-sufficiency, and thus, while it comes into existence for the sake of life, it exists for the good life. Hence every city-state exists by nature, inasmuch as the first partnerships so exist; for the city-state is the end of the other partnerships, and nature is an end, since that which each thing is when its growth is completed we speak of as being the nature of each thing, for instance of a man, a horse, a household. Again, the object for which a thing exists, its end, is its chief good;

+ +
+

and self-sufficiency is an end, and a chief good. From these things therefore it is clear that the city-state is a natural growth, and that man is by nature a political animal, and a man that is by nature and not merely by fortune citiless is either low in the scale of humanity or above it (like the clanless, lawless, hearthless man reviled by Homer, Hom. Il. 9.63; the passage goes on: ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνος | ὃς πολέμου ἔραται. for one by nature unsocial is also a lover of war) inasmuch as he is solitary, like an isolated piece at draughts. And why man is a political animal in a greater measure than any bee or any gregarious animal is clear. For nature, as we declare, does nothing without purpose; and man alone of the animals possesses speech. The mere voice, it is true, can indicate pain and pleasure, and therefore is possessed by the other animals as well (for their nature has been developed so far as to have sensations of what is painful and pleasant and to indicate those sensations to one another), but speech is designed to indicate the advantageous and the harmful, and therefore also the right and the wrong; for it is the special property of man in distinction from the other animals that he alone has perception of good and bad and right and wrong and the other moral qualities, and it is partnership in these things that makes a household and a city-state.

+

Thus also the city-state is prior in nature to the household and to each of us individually.For the whole must necessarily be prior to the part; since when the whole body is destroyed, foot or hand will not exist except in an equivocal sense, like the sense in which one speaks of a hand sculptured in stone as a hand; because a hand in those circumstances will be a hand spoiled, and all things are defined by their function and capacity, so that when they are no longer such as to perform their function they must not be said to be the same things, but to bear their names in an equivocal sense. It is clear therefore that the state is also prior by nature to the individual; for if each individual when separate is not self-sufficient, he must be related to the whole state as other parts are to their whole, while a man who is incapable of entering into partnership, or who is so self-sufficing that he has no need to do so, is no part of a state, so that he must be either a lower animal or a god.

+

Therefore the impulse to form a partnership of this kind is present in all men by nature; but the man who first united people in such a partnership was the greatest of benefactors. For as man is the best of the animals when perfected, so he is the worst of all when sundered from law and justice. For unrighteousness is most pernicious when possessed of weapons, and man is born possessing weapons for the use of wisdom and virtue, which it is possible to employ entirely for the opposite ends. Hence when devoid of virtue man is the most unholy and savage of animals, and the worst in regard to sexual indulgence and gluttony. Justice on the other hand is an element of the state; for judicial procedure, which means the decision of what is just, is the regulation of the political partnership.

+ +
+

+ And now that it is clear what are the component parts of the state, we have first of all to discuss household management; for every state is composed of households. Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of marriageThe Greek word properly denotes the marriage ceremony, not the married state. (there is no exact term denoting the relation uniting wife and husband), and thirdly the progenitive relationship (this too has not been designated by a special name). Let us then accept these three relationships that we have mentioned. There is also a department which some people consider the same as household management and others the most important part of it, and the true position of which we shall have to consider: I mean what is called the art of getting wealth.No English word covers all the associations of the Greek, which means dealing in χρήματα, things,—goods, property, money—and so business.

+

Let us begin by discussing the relation of master and slave, in order to observe the facts that have a bearing on practical utility, and also in the hope that we may be able to obtain something better than the notions at present entertained, with a view to a theoretic knowledge of the subject. For some thinkers hold the function of the master to be a definite science, and moreover think that household management, mastership, statesmanship and monarchy are the same thing,as we said at the beginning of the treatise; others however maintain that for one man to be another man’s master is contrary to nature, because it is only convention that makes the one a slave and the other a freeman and there is no difference between them by nature, and that therefore it is unjust, for it is based on force.

+

Since therefore property is a part of a household and the art of acquiring property a part of household management (for without the necessaries even life, as well as the good life,As well as the good life is probably an interpolation. is impossible), and since, just as for the particular arts it would be necessary for the proper tools to be forthcoming if their work is to be accomplished, so also the manager of a household must have his tools, and of tools some are lifeless and others living (for example, for a helmsman the rudder is a lifeless tool and the look-out man a live tool—for an assistant in the arts belongs to the class of tools), so also an article of property is a tool for the purpose of life, and property generally is a collection of tools, and a slave is a live article of property. And every assistant is as it were a tool that serves for several tools; for if every tool could perform its own work when ordered, or by seeing what to do in advance, like the statues of Daedalus in the story,This legendary sculptor first represented the eyes as open and the limbs as in motion, so his statues had to be chained to prevent them from running away (Plat. Meno 97d). or the tripods of Hephaestus which the poet says enter self-moved the company divine, Hom. Il. 18.369 —if thus shuttles wove and quills played harps of themselves, master-craftsmen would have no need of assistants and masters no need of slaves.

+ +
+

Now the tools mentioned are instruments of production, whereas an article of property is an instrument of actioni.e. with it we do not make something but do something (e.g. wear a dress, lie in a bed).; for from a shuttle we get something else beside the mere use of the shuttle, but from a garment or a bed we get only their use. And also inasmuch as there is a difference in kind between production and action, and both need tools, it follows that those tools also must possess the same difference. But life is doing things, not making things; hence the slave is an assistant in the class of instruments of action.

+

And the term article of property is used in the same way as the term part: a thing that is a part is not only a part of another thing but absolutely belongs to another thing, and so also does an article of property. Hence whereas the master is merely the slave’s master and does not belong to the slave, the slave is not merely the slave of the master but wholly belongs to the master.

+

These considerations therefore make clear the nature of the slave and his essential quality: one who is a human being belonging by nature not to himself but to another is by nature a slave, and a person is a human being belonging to another if being a man he is an article of property, and an article of property is an instrument for action separable from its owner. But we must next consider whether or not anyone exists who is by nature of this character, and whether it is advantageous and just for anyone to be a slave, or whether on the contrary all slavery is against nature. And it is not difficult either to discern the answer by theory or to learn it empirically. Authority and subordination are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient; in some cases things are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or to be ruled. And there are many varieties both of rulers and of subjects (and the higher the type of the subjects, the loftier is the nature of the authority exercised over them, for example to control a human being is a higher thing than to tame a wild beast; for the higher the type of the parties to the performance of a function, the higher is the function, and when one party rules and another is ruled, there is a function performed between them)— because in every composite thing, where a plurality of parts, whether continuous or discrete, is combined to make a single common whole, there is always found a ruling and a subject factor, and this characteristic of living things is present in them as an outcome of the whole of nature, since even in things that do not partake of life there is a ruling principle, as in the case of a musical scale.Each mode (Dorian, the modern minor scale, Phrygian and Lydian, two forms of major) was ruled by its key-note. However, this matter perhaps belongs to an investigation lying somewhat outside our subject. But in the first place an animal consists of soul and body, of which the former is by nature the ruling and the latter the subject factor. And to discover what is natural we must study it preferably in things that are in a natural state, and not in specimens that are degenerate. Hence in studying man we must consider a man that is in the best possible condition in regard to both body and soul, and in him the principle stated will clearly appear,—

+ +
+

since in those that are bad or in a bad condition it might be thought that the body often rules the soul because of its vicious and unnatural condition. But to resume—it is in a living creature, as we say, that it is first possible to discern the rule both of master and of statesman the soul rules the body with the sway of a master, the intelligence rules the appetites with that of a statesman or a king and in these examples it is manifest that it is natural and expedient for the body to be governed by the soul and for the emotional part to be governed by the intellect, the part possessing reason, whereas for the two parties to be on an equal footing or in the contrary positions is harmful in all cases. Again, the same holds good between man and the other animals: tame animals are superior in their nature to wild animals, yet for all the former it is advantageous to be ruled by man, since this gives them security. Again, as between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject. And the same must also necessarily apply in the case of mankind as a whole; therefore all men that differ as widely as the soul does from the body and the human being from the lower animal （and this is the condition of those whose function is the use of the body and from whom this is the best that is forthcoming） these are by nature slaves, for whom to be governed by this kind of authority is advantageous, inasmuch as it is advantageous to the subject things already mentioned. For he is by nature a slave who is capable of belonging to another （and that is why he does so belong）, and who participates in reason so far as to apprehend it but not to possess it; for the animals other than man are subservient not to reason, by apprehending it, but to feelings. And also the usefulness of slaves diverges little from that of animals; bodily service for the necessities of life is forthcoming from both, from slaves and from domestic animals alike. The intention of nature therefore is to make the bodies also of freemen and of slaves different—the latter strong for necessary service, the former erect and unserviceable for such occupations, but serviceable for a life of citizenship （and that again divides into the employments of war and those of peace）; but as a matter of fact often the very opposite comes about—some persons have the bodies of free men and others the souls; since this is certainly clear, that if persons were born as distinguished only in body as are the statues of the gods, everyone would say that those who were inferior deserved to be these men’s slaves. And if this is true in the case of the body, there is far juster reason for this rule being laid down in the case of the soul; but beauty of soul is not so easy to see as beauty of body.

+ +
+

It is manifest therefore that there are cases of people of whom some are freemen and the others slaves by nature, and for these slavery is an institution both expedient and just.

+

But at the same time it is not difficult to see that those who assert the opposite are also right in a manner. The fact is that the terms slavery and slave are ambiguous; for there is also such a thing as a slave or a man that is in slavery by law, for the law is a sort of agreement under which the things conquered in war are said to belong to their conquerors. Now this conventional right is arraigned by many jurists just as a statesman is impeached for proposing an unconstitutional measure; they say that it is monstrous if the person powerful enough to use force, and superior in power, is to have the victim of his force as his slave and subject; and even among the learned some hold this view, though others hold the other. But the reason of this dispute and what makes the theories overlap is the fact that in a certain manner virtue when it obtains resources has in fact very great power to use force, and the stronger party always possesses superiority in something that is good,The difficulty turns on the ambiguity of ἀρετή, (a) moral goodness, virtue, (b) goodness of any kind, e.g. strength. so that it is thought that force cannot be devoid of goodness, but that the dispute is merely about the justice of the matter (for it is due to the one party holding that the justification of authority is good-will, while the other identifies justice with the mere rule of the stronger); because obviously if these theories be separated apart,the other theories have no force or plausibility at all, implying that the superior in goodness has no claim to rule and be master. But some persons, simply clinging, as they think, to principle of justice (for the law is a principle of justice), assert that the enslavement of prisoners of war is just; yet at the same time they deny the assertion, for there is the possibility that wars may be unjust in their origin and one would by no means admit that a man that does not deserve slavery can be really a slave—otherwise we shall have the result that persons reputed of the highest nobility are slaves and the descendants of slaves if they happen to be taken prisoners of war and sold. Therefore they do not mean to assert that Greeks themselves if taken prisoners are slaves, but that barbarians are. Yet when they say this, they are merely seeking for the principles of natural slavery of which we spoke at the outset; for they are compelled to say that there exist certain persons who are essentially slaves everywhere and certain others who are so nowhere. And the same applies also about nobility: our nobles consider themselves noble not only in their own country but everywhere, but they think that barbarian noblemen are only noble in their own country—which implies that there are two kinds of nobility and of freedom, one absolute and the other relative, as Helen says in TheodectesA tragic poet, a friend of Aristotle.: But who would dare to call me menial, The scion of a twofold stock divine? Yet in so speaking they make nothing but virtue and vice the distinction between slave and free, the noble and the base-born;

+ +
+

for they assume that just as from a man springs a man and from brutes a brute, so also from good parents comes a good son but as a matter of fact nature frequently while intending to do this is unable to bring it about.

+

It is clear therefore that there is some reason for this dispute, and that in some instances it is not the case that one set are slaves and the other freemen by nature; and also that in some instances such a distinction does exist, when slavery for the one and mastership for the other are advantageous and just, and it is proper for the one party to be governed and for the other to govern by the form of government for which they are by nature fitted, and therefore by the exercise of mastership, while to govern badly is to govern disadvantageously for both parties (for the same thing is advantageous for a part and for the whole body or the whole soul, and the slave is a part of the master—he is, as it were, a part of the body, alive but yet separated from it; hence there is a certain community of interest and friendship between slave and master in cases when they have been qualified by nature for those positions, although when they do not hold them in that way but by law and by constraint of force the opposite is the case).

+

And even from these considerations it is clear that the authority of a master over slaves is not the same as the authority of a magistrate in a republic, nor are all forms of government the same, as some assert. Republican government controls men who are by nature free, the master’s authority men who are by nature slaves; and the government of a household is monarchy (since every house is governed by a single ruler),whereas statesmanship is the government of men free and equal. The term master therefore denotes the possession not of a certain branch of knowledge but of a certain character, and similarly also the terms slave and freeman. Yet there might be a science of mastership and a slave’s science—the latter being the sort of knowledge that used to be imparted by the professor at Syracuse (for there used to be a man there who for a fee gave lessons to servants in their ordinary duties); and indeed there might be more advanced scientific study of such matters, for instance a science of cookery and the other such kinds of domestic service—for different servants have different functions, some more honorable and some more menial, and as the proverb says, Slave before slave and master before master.Probably from a comedy of Aristotle’s contemporary Philemon. The slave’s sciences then are all the various branches of domestic work; the master’s science is the science of employing slaves—for the master’s function consists not in acquiring slaves but in employing them. This science however is one of no particular importance or dignity: the master must know how to direct the tasks which the slave must know how to execute. Therefore all people rich enough to be able to avoid personal trouble have a steward who takes this office, while they themselves engage in politics or philosophy. The science of acquiring slaves is different both from their ownership and their direction—that is, the just acquiring of slaves, which is akin to the art of war or that of the chase. Let this then stand as our definition of slave and master.

+ +
+

But let us follow our normal method and investigate generally the nature of all kinds of property and the art of getting wealth, inasmuch as we saw the slave to be one division of property. In the first place therefore one might raise the question whether the art of getting wealth is the same as that of household management, or a part of it, or subsidiary to it; and if subsidiary, whether it is so in the sense in which the art of making shuttles is subsidiary to the art of weaving or in that in which the art of casting bronze is subsidiary to the making of statues (for the two are not subsidiary in the same way, but shuttle-making supplies tools whereas bronze-founding supplies material—and by material I mean the substance out of which certain work is produced, for example fleeces are material for a weaver and bronze for a statuary).

+

Now it is clear that wealth-getting is not the same art as household management, for the function of the former is to provide and that of the latter to use—for what will be the art that will use the contents of the house if not the art of household management? but whether wealth-getting is a part of the art of household management, or a different sort of science, is open to debate. For if it is the function of the getter of wealth to study the source from which money and property are to be procured, . . .Some words seem to have fallen out in the Greek. But property and riches comprise many divisions; hence first of all is husbandry a division of the household art, or is it a different kind of science? and so in general of the superintendence and acquisition of articles of food.

+

But furthermore, there are many sorts of food,owing to which both animals and men have many modes of life; for it is impossible to live without food, so that the differences of food have made the lives of animals different. Among wild animals some are nomadic and others solitary, according to whichever habit is advantageous for their supply of food, because some of them are carnivorous, others graminivorous, and others eat all kinds of food; so that nature has differentiated their modes of life to suit their facilities and their predilection for those articles of food. And as different kinds of animals by nature relish different sorts of food, and not each kind the same, even within the classes of carnivorous and graminivorous animals their modes of life differ from one another. And similarly in the human race also, for there are wide differences of life among mankind. The idlest men are nomads (for to procure food from domesticated animals involves no toil or industry, but as it is necessary for the herds to move from place to place because of the pastures, the people themselves are forced to follow along with them, as though they were farming a live farm). Other men live from hunting, and different people from different kinds of hunting, for instance some from brigandage,Perhaps slave-raiding, cf. 3.9, the appropriation of the live tools that are a part of nature’s supplies; but Thuc. 1.5 speaks of brigandage and piracy as common in earlier times, and as still deemed respectable professions in Northern Greece. others from fishing—these are those that dwell on the banks of lakes, marshes and rivers or of a sea suitable for fishing,—and others live on wild birds and animals. But the largest class of men live from the land and the fruits of cultivation. This then virtually completes the list of the various modes of life, those at least that have their industry sprung from themselves and do not procure their food by barter and trade—

+ +
+

the lives of the herdsman, the brigand, the fisherman, the hunter, the husband-man. Others also live pleasantly by combining some of these pursuits, supplementing the more deficient life where it happens to fall short in regard to being self-sufficing: for instance, some combine a pastoral life and brigandage, others husbandry and hunting, and similarly with the others—they pass their time in such a combination of pursuits as their need compels. Property of this sort then seems to be bestowed by nature herself upon all, as immediately upon their first coming into existence, so also when they have reached maturity. For even at the original coming into existence of the young some kinds of animals bring forth with them at birth enough sustenance to suffice until the offspring can provide for itself, for example all the species that bear their young in the form of larvae or in eggs. The viviparous species have sustenance for their offspring inside themselves for a certain period, the substance called milk. So that clearly we must suppose that nature also provides for them in a similar way when grown up, and that plants exist for the sake of animals and the other animals for the good of man, the domestic species both for his service and for his food, and if not all at all events most of the wild ones for the sake of his food and of his supplies of other kinds, in order thatthey may furnish him both with clothing and with other appliances. If therefore nature makes nothing without purpose or in vain, it follows that nature has made all the animals for the sake of men. Hence even the art of war will by nature be in a manner an art of acquisition (for the art of hunting is a part of it) that is properly employed both against wild animals and against such of mankind as though designed by nature for subjection refuse to submit to it, inasmuch as this warfare is by nature just.

+

One kind of acquisition therefore in the order of nature is a part of the household art,Rassow would transpose the clause (with a slight alteration) to give of the household art, that is, the acquisition of those goods capable of accumulation that are necessary for life and useful for the community of city and household, a supply of which must be forthcoming or else the art must procure it to be forthcoming. in accordance with which either there must be forthcoming or else that art must procure to be forthcoming a supply of those goods, capable of accumulation, which are necessary for life and useful for the community of city or household. And it is of these goods that riches in the true sense at all events seem to consist. For the amount of such property sufficient in itself for a good life is not unlimited, as Solon Solon 13.71. says that it is in the verse But of riches no bound has been fixed or revealed to men; for a limit has been fixed, as with the other arts, since no tool belonging to any art is without a limit whether in number or in size, and riches are a collection of tools for the householder and the statesman. Therefore that there is a certain art of acquisition belonging in the order of nature to householders and to statesmen, and for what reason this is so, is clear.

+

But there is another kind of acquisition that is specially called wealth-getting, and that is so called with justice and to this kind it is due that there is thought to be no limit to riches and property.

+ +
+

Owing to its affinity to the art of acquisition of which we spoke, it is supposed by many people to be one and the same as that; and as a matter of fact, while it is not the same as the acquisition spoken of, it is not far removed from it. One of them is natural, the other is not natural, but carried on rather by means of a certain acquired skill or art. We may take our starting-point for its study from the following consideration: with every article of property there is a double way of using it; both uses are related to the article itself, but not related to it in the same manner—one is peculiar to the thing and the other is not peculiar to it. Take for example a shoe—there is its wear as a shoe and there is its use as an article of exchange; for both are ways of using a shoe, inasmuch as even he that barters a shoe for money or food with the customer that wants a shoe uses it as a shoe, though not for the use peculiar to a shoe, since shoes have not come into existence for the purpose of barter. And the same also holds good about the other articles of property; for all of them have an art of exchange related to them, which began in the first instance from the natural order of things, because men had more than enough of some things and less than enough of others. This consideration also shows that the art of trade is not by nature a part of the art of wealth-gettingPerhaps Aristotle wrote of the art of exchange: Bernays suggests μεταβλητικῆς for χρηματιστικῆς.; for the practice of barter was necessary only so far as to satisfy men’s own needs. In the primaryassociation therefore (I mean the household) there is no function for trade, but it only arises after the association has become more numerous. For the members of the primitive household used to share commodities that were all their own, whereas on the contrary a group divided into several households participated also in a number of commodities belonging to their neighbors, according to their needs for which they were forced to make their interchanges by way of barter, as also many barbarian tribes do still; for such tribes do not go beyond exchanging actual commodities for actual commodities, for example giving and taking wine for corn, and so with the various other things of the sort. + Exchange on these lines therefore is not contrary to nature, nor is it any branch of the art of wealth-getting, for it existed for the replenishment of natural self-sufficiency; yet out of it the art of business in due course arose. For when they had come to supply themselves more from abroad by importing things in which they were deficient and exporting those of which they had a surplus, the employment of money necessarily came to be devised. For the natural necessaries are not in every case readily portable; hence for the purpose of barter men made a mutual compact to give and accept some substance of such a sort as being itself a useful commodity was easy to handle in use for general life, iron for instance, silver and other metals, at the first stage defined merely by size and weight, but finally also by impressing on it a stamp in order that this might relieve them of having to measure it; for the stamp was put on as a token of the amount.

+ +
+

So when currency had been now invented as an outcome of the necessary interchange of goods, there came into existence the other form of wealth-getting, trade, which at first no doubt went on in a simple form, but later became more highly organized as experience discovered the sources and methods of exchange that would cause most profit. Hence arises the idea that the art of wealth-getting deals specially with money, and that its function is to be able to discern from what source a large supply can be procured, as this art is supposed to be creative of riches and wealth; indeed riches are often assumed to consist of a quantity of money, because money is the thing with which the art of business and of trade deals. But at other times, on the contrary, it is thought that money is nonsense, and nothing by nature but entirely a convention, because when those who use it have changed the currency it is worth nothing, and because it is of no use for any of the necessary needs of life and a man well supplied with money may oftene.g. on a desert island. be destitute of the bare necessities of subsistence, yet it is anomalous that wealth should be of such a kind that a man may be well supplied with it and yet die of hunger, like the famous Midas in the legend, when owing to the insatiable covetousness of his prayer all the viands served up to him turned into gold. Hence people seek for a different definition of riches and the art of getting wealth, and rightly; for natural wealth-getting and natural riches are different:natural wealth-getting belongs to household management, whereas the other kind belongs to trade, producing goods not in every way but only by the method of exchanging goods. It is this art of wealth-getting that is thought to be concerned with money, for money is the first principle and limit of commerce. And these riches, that are derived from this art of wealth-getting, are truly unlimitedi.e. a trader cannot get too much of his goods, any more than a doctor can make his patient too healthy.; for just as the art of medicine is without limit in respect of health, and each of the arts is without limit in respect of its end (for they desire to produce that in the highest degree possible), whereas they are not without limit as regards the means to their end (for with all of them the end is a limit to the means), so also this wealth-getting has no limit in respect of its end, and its end is riches and the acquisition of goods in the commercial sense. But the household branch of wealth-getting has a limit, since the acquisition of commercial riches is not the function of household management. Hence from this point of view it appears necessary that there should be a limit to all riches, yet in actual fact we observe that the opposite takes place; for all men engaged in wealth-getting try to increase their money to an unlimited amount. The reason of this is the close affinity of the two branches of the art of business. Their common ground is that the thing that each makes use of is the same; they use the same property, although not in the same way—the one has another end in view, the aim of the other is the increase of the property. Consequently some people suppose that it is the function of household management to increase property, and they are continually under the idea that it is their duty to be either safeguarding their substance in money or increasing it to an unlimited amount. The cause of this state of mind is that their interests are set upon life but not upon the good life;

+ +
+

as therefore the desire for life is unlimited, they also desire without limit the means productive of life. And even those who fix their aim on the good life seek the good life as measured by bodily enjoyments, so that inasmuch as this also seems to be found in the possession of property, all their energies are occupied in the business of getting wealth; and owing to this the second kind of the art of wealth-getting has arisen. For as their enjoyment is in excess, they try to discover the art that is productive of enjoyable excess; and if they cannot procure it by the art of wealth-getting, they try to do so by some other means, employing each of the faculties in an unnatural way. For it is not the function of courage to produce wealth, but to inspire daring; nor is it the function of the military art nor of the medical art, but it belongs to the former to bring victory and to the latter to cause health. Yet these people make all these faculties means for the business of providing wealth, in the belief that wealth is the end and that everything must be directed to the end.

+

We have therefore discussed both the unnecessary branch of wealth-getting, defining it and also explaining the cause why we require it, and the necessary branch, showing that this branch which has to do with food is different from the unnecessary branch and is by nature a part of household management, not being like that branch unlimited but having a limit.

+

And we can also see the answer to the question raised at the beginning,See 3.1. whetherthe art of wealth-getting belongs to the householder and the statesman, or whether on the contrary supplies ought to be provided already (for just as statesmanship does not create human beings but having received them from nature makes use of them, so also it is necessary for nature to bestow food by bestowing land or sea or something else), and the task of the householder is, starting with these supplies given, to dispose of them in the proper way. For it does not belong to the art of weaving to make fleeces, but to use them, and also to know what sort of fleece is good and suitable or bad and unsuitable. Otherwise the question might be raised, why the getting of wealth is a part of the household art whereas the art of medicine is not a part of it, although the members of the household ought to be healthy, just as they must be alive or fulfil any of the other essential conditions. But inasmuch as although in a way it does belong to the householder and the ruler to see even to health, yet in a way it does not belong to them but to the physician, so also with regard to wealth, although in a way it is the affair of the house-holder, in a way it is not, but is a matter for the subsidiary art. But best of all, as has been said before, this provision ought to be made in advance by nature. For it is the work of nature to supply nourishment for her offspring, since every creature has for nourishment the residue of the substance from which it springs.i.e. animals are made of earth and water and live on the products of earth and water. Hence the business of drawing provision from the fruits of the soil and from animals is natural to all.

+

But, as we said, this art is twofold, one branch being of the nature of trade while the other belongs to the household art; and the latter branch is necessary and in good esteem,

+ +
+

but the branch connected with exchange is justly discredited (for it is not in accordance with nature, but involves men’s taking things from one another). As this is so, usury is most reasonably hated, because its gain comes from money itself and not from that for the sake of which money was invented. For money was brought into existence for the purpose of exchange, but interest increases the amount of the money itself (and this is the actual origin of the Greek word: offspring resembles parent, and interest is money born of money); consequently this form of the business of getting wealth is of all forms the most contrary to nature.

+

And since we have adequately defined the scientific side of the subject, we ought to discuss it from the point of view of practice; although, whereas the theory of such matters is a liberal study, the practical pursuit of them is narrowing. The practically useful branches of the art of wealth-getting are first, an expert knowledge of stock, what breeds are most profitable and in what localities and under what conditions, for instance what particular stock in horses or cattle or sheep, and similarly of the other animals also (for the farmer must be an expert as to which of these animals are most profitable compared with one another, and also as to what breeds are most profitable on what sorts of land, since different breeds flourish in different places); secondly, the subject of agriculture, and this again is divided into corn-growing and fruit-farming; also bee-keeping, and the breeding of the other creatures finned and featheredwhich can be used to furnish supplies. These then are the branches and primary parts of wealth-getting in the most proper sense. Of the kind that deals with exchange, the largest branch is commerce (which has three departments, ship-owning, transport and marketing: these departments differ from each other in the fact that some are safer and others carry larger profits); the second branch is money-lending, and the third labor for hire, one department of which is that of the mechanic βάναυσος(said to be from βαῦνος furnace, αὔω to dry), artisan (ranged with farmers, traders, and laborers, as forming the common people 1321a 6); it acquires the senses of cramped in body (1341a 7) and vulgar in taste (1337b 8). arts and the other that of unskilled laborers who are useful only for bodily service. And there is a third form of wealth-getting that lies between the latter and the one placed first, since it possesses mediate an element both of natural wealth-getting and of the sort that employs exchange; it deals with all the commodities that are obtained from the earth and from those fruitless but useful things that come from the earth—examples are the felling of timbera very probable variant gives the quarrying of stone. and all sorts of mining; and of mining itself there are many classes, since there are many sorts of metals obtained out of the earth. TheIn the mss. this sentence follows the next one. most scientific of these industries are those which involve the smallest element of chance, the most mechanic those in which the operatives undergo the greatest amount of bodily degradation, the most servile those in which the most uses are made of the body, and the most ignoble those in which there is the least requirement of virtue as an accessory. But while we have even now given a general description of these various branches, yet a detailed and particular account of them, though useful for the practice of the industries, would be illiberal as a subject of prolonged study. There are books on these subjects by certain authors,

+ +
+

for example CharetidesOtherwise unknown. of Paros and ApollodorusAlso mentioned by Varro and Pliny. of Lemnos have written about both agriculture and fruit-farming, and similarly others also on other topics, so these subjects may be studied from these authors by anybody concerned to do so; but in addition a collection ought also to be madeThe author of the Second Book of the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica seems to have taken the hint. of the scattered accounts of methods that have brought success in business to certain individuals. All these methods are serviceable for those who value wealth-getting, for example the plan of ThalesThe founder of Greek philosophy and mathematics, and one of the Seven Sages, 6th-5th cent. B.C. of Miletus, which is a device for the business of getting wealth, but which, though it is attributed to him because of his wisdom, is really of universal application. Thales, so the story goes, because of his poverty was taunted with the uselessness of philosophy; but from his knowledge of astronomy he had observed while it was still winter that there was going to be a large crop of olives, so he raised a small sum of money and paid round deposits for the whole of the olive-presses in Miletus and Chios, which he hired at a low rent as nobody was running him up; and when the season arrived, there was a sudden demand for a number of presses at the same time, and by letting them out on what terms he liked he realized a large sum of money, so proving that it is easy for philosophers to be rich if they choose, but this is not what they care about. Thales then is reported to have thus displayed his wisdom, but asa matter of fact this device of taking an opportunity to secure a monopoly is a universal principle of business; hence even some states have recourse to this plan as a method of raising revenue when short of funds: they introduce a monopoly of marketable goods. There was a man in Sicily who used a sum of money deposited with him to buy up all the iron from the iron mines, and afterwards when the dealers came from the trading-centers he was the only seller, though he did not greatly raise the price, but all the same he made a profit of a hundred talentsThe talent was about 240 pounds. on his capital of fifty. When DionysiusDionysius the elder, tyrant of Syracuse 405-367 B.C. came to know of it he ordered the man to take his money with him but clear out of Syracuse on the spot,cf. Thucydides οἱ δ’ οὐκέτι ἔμειναν ἀλλὰ . . . since he was inventing means of profit detrimental to the tyrant’s own affairs. Yet really this device is the same as the discovery of Thales, for both men alike contrived to secure themselves a monopoly. An acquaintance with these devices is also serviceable for statesmen, for many states need financial aid and modes of revenue like those described, just as a household may, but in greater degree; hence some statesmen even devote their political activity exclusively to finance.

+

And since, as we saw,2 init. the science of household management has three divisions, one the relation of master to slave, of which we have spoken before,3 fin., 4. one the paternal relation, and the third the conjugalThe construction of the sentence is interrupted, and never completed.—for it is a part of the household science to rule over wife and children (over both as over freemen, yet not with the same mode of government,

+ +
+

but over the wife to exercise republican government and over the children monarchical); for the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female (except in some cases where their union has been formed contrary to nature) and the older and fully developed person than the younger and immature. It is true that in most cases of republican government the ruler and the ruled interchange in turn (for they tend to be on in equal level in their nature and to have no difference at all), although nevertheless during the period when one is ruler and the other ruled they seek to have a distinction by means of insignia and titles and honors, just as Amasis made his speech about the foot-bath Hdt. 1.172. Amasis king of Egypt was despised by his subjects for his low birth, so he had a statue made out of a gold foot-bath and set it up for them to worship, afterwards explaining to them its lowly origin.; but the male stands in this relationship to the female continuously. The rule of the father over the children on the other hand is that of a king; for the male parent is the ruler in virtue both of affection and of seniority, which is characteristic of royal government (and therefore Homer Hom. Il. 1.544. finely designated Zeus by the words father of men and gods, as the king of them all). For though in nature the king must be superior, in race he should be the same as his subjects, and this is the position of the elder in relation to the younger and of the father in relation to the child.

+

It is clear then that household management takes more interest in the human members of the household than in its inanimate property, andin the excellence of these than in that of its property, which we style riches, and more in that of its free members than in that of slaves.

+

First of all then as to slaves the difficulty might be raised, does a slave possess any other excellence, besides his merits as a tool and a servant, more valuable than these, for instance temperance, have the courage, justice and any of the other moral virtues, or has he no excellence beside his bodily service? For either way there is difficulty; if slaves do possess moral virtue, wherein will they differ from freemen? or if they do not, this is strange, as they are human beings and participate in reason. And nearly the same is the question also raised about the woman and the child: have they too virtues, and ought a woman to be temperate, brave and just, and can a child be intemperate or temperate, or not? This point therefore requires general consideration in relation to natural ruler and subject: is virtue the same for ruler and ruled, or different? If it is proper for both to partake in nobility of character, how could it be proper for the one to rule and the other to be ruled unconditionally? we cannot say that the difference is to be one of degree, for ruling and being ruled differ in kind, and difference of degree is not a difference in kind at all. Whereas if on the contrary it is proper for the one to have moral nobility but not for the other, this is surprising. For if the ruler is not temperate and just, how will he rule well? And if the ruled, how will he obey well?

+ +
+

If intemperate and cowardly he will not perform any of the duties of his position. It is evident therefore that both must possess virtue, but that there are differences in their virtue (as also there are differences between those who are by nature ruled).This clause seems to have been interpolated; one ms. has a marginal correction, by nature rulers and ruled. And of this we straightway find an indication in connection with the soul; for the soul by nature contains a part that rules and a part that is ruled, to which we assign different virtues, that is, the virtue of the rational and that of the irrational. It is clear then that the case is the same also with the other instances of ruler and ruled. Hence there are by nature various classes of rulers and ruled. For the free rules the slave, the male the female, and the man the child in a different way. And all possess the various parts of the soul, but possess them in different ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part at all, and the female has it, but without full authority, while the child has it, but in an undeveloped form. HenceIn the mss. this sentence follows the next one, We must suppose—function, and begins Hence the ruler must possess moral virtue. the ruler must possess intellectual virtue in completeness (for any work, taken absolutely, belongs to the master-craftsman, and rational principle is a master-craftsman); while each of the other parties must have that share of this virtue which is appropriate to them. We must suppose therefore that the same necessarily holds good of the moral virtues: all must partake of them, but not in the same way, but in such measure as is proper to each in relation to his own function. Hence it is manifest that all the persons mentioned have a moral virtue of their own, and that the temperance of a woman and that of a man are not the same, nor their courage and justice, as Socrates thought,Plat. Meno 74bff. but the one is the courage of command, and the other that of subordination, and the case is similar with the other virtues. And this is also clear when we examine the matter more in detail, for it is misleading to give a general definition of virtue, as some do, who say that virtue is being in good condition as regards the soul or acting uprightly or the like; those who enumerate the virtues of different persons separately, as Gorgias does,i.e. in Plato, Meno (see 7 above), where this sophist figures as a character in the dialogue; see also 3.1.9, note. are much more correct than those who define virtue in that way. Hence we must hold that all of these persons have their appropriate virtues, as the poet said of woman: Silence gives grace to woman Soph. Aj. 293 — though that is not the case likewise with a man. Also the child is not completely developed, so that manifestly his virtue also is not personal to himself, but relative to the fully developed being, that is, the person in authority over him. And similarly the slave’s virtue also is in relation to the master.

+

And we laid it down that the slave is serviceable for the mere necessaries of life, so that clearly he needs only a small amount of virtue, in fact just enough to prevent him from failing in his tasks owing to intemperance and cowardice. (But the question might be raised, supposing that what has just been said is true, will artisans also need to have virtue? for they frequently fall short in their tasks owing to intemperance. Or is their case entirely different? For the slave is a partner in his master’s life, but the artisan is more remote, and only so much of virtue falls to his share as of slaveryi.e. his excellences as an artisan are the qualities of a subordinate (his virtues as a human being, apart from his trade, are not considered).—

+ +
+

for the mechanic artisan is under a sort of limited slavery, and whereas the slave is one of the natural classes, no shoemaker or other craftsman belongs to his trade by nature.) It is manifest therefore that the master ought to be the cause to the slave of the virtue proper to a slave, but not as possessing that art of mastership which teaches a slave his tasks. Hence those persons are mistaken who deprive the slave of reasoning and tell us to use command only; for admonition is more properly employed with slaves than with children.

+

But on these subjects let us conclude our decisions in this manner; while the question of the virtue severally belonging to man and woman and children and father, and of the right and wrong mode of conducting their mutual intercourse and the proper way of pursuing the good mode and avoiding the bad one, are matters that it will be necessary to follow up in the part of our treatise dealing with the various forms of constitution.As a matter of fact in Books 7, 8 dealing with the best constitution this subject is not reached. For since every household is part of a state, and these relationships are part of the household, and the excellence of the part must have regard to that of the whole, it is necessary that the education both of the children and of the women should be carried on with a regard to the form of the constitution, if it makes any difference as regards the goodness of the state for the children and the women to be good. And it must necessarily make a difference; for the women are a half of the free population, and the children grow up to be the partners in the government of the state. So that as these questions have been decided, and those that remain must be discussed elsewhere, let us relinquish the present subjects as completed, and make a fresh start in our discourse, and first let us consider those thinkers who have advanced views about the Ideal State.

+ +
+
+

+ And since we take for our special consideration the study of the form of political community that is the best of all the forms for a people able to pursue the most ideal mode of life, we must also examine the other constitutions actually employed by certain of the states said to be well governed, as well as any others propounded by certain thinkers and reputed to be of merit, in order that we may discern what there is in them that is right and expedient, and also in order that it may not be thought that to seek for something different from them springs entirely from a desire to display ingenuity, but that we may be thought to enter upon this inquiry because these forms of constitution that already exist are not satisfactory.

+

We must first adopt as a starting-point that which is the natural point of departure for this inquiry. There are three possible systems of property: either all the citizens must own everything in common, or they must own nothing in common, or some things must be common property and others not. To have nothing in common is clearly impossible for the state is essentially a form of community, and to begin with there is bound to be a common locality: a single city occupies a single site, and the single city belongs to its citizens in common.

+ +
+

But is it better for a city that is to be well ordered to have community in everything which can possibly be made common property, or is it better to have some things in common and others not? For example, it is possible for the citizens to have children, wives and possessions in common with each other, as in Plato’s Republic, in which Socrates says that there must be community of children, women and possessions. Well then, which is preferable, the system that now obtains, or one conforming with the regulation described in the Republic On the following criticisms see Grote, Plato, 3, pp. 211-233.?

+

Now for all the citizens to have their wives in common involves a variety of difficulties; in particular,(1) 1.3-7; (2) 1.8-2.11; (3) 2.11-13; also (4) other objections 2.15-16. (1) the object which Socrates advances as the reason why this enactment should be made clearly does not follow from his arguments; also (2) as a means to the end which he asserts should be the fundamental object of the city, the scheme as actually set forth in the dialogue is not practicable; yet (3) how it is to be further worked out has been nowhere definitely stated. I refer to the ideal of the fullest possible unity of the entire state, which Socrates takes as his fundamental principle.

+

Yet it is clear that if the process of unification advances beyond a certain point, the city will not be a city at all for a state essentially consists of a multitude of persons, and if its unification is carried beyond a certain point, city will be reduced to family and family to individual,for we should pronounce the family to be a more complete unity than the city, and the single person than the family; so that even if any lawgiver were able to unify the state, he must not do so, for he will destroy it in the process. And not only does a city consist of a multitude of human beings, it consists of human beings differing in kind. A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state. For a city is not the same thing as a league; a league is of value by its quantity, even though it is art the same in kind (since the essential object of the league is military strength), just as a weight would be worth more if it weighed more, whereasIn the mss. of the Greek whereas—kind comes below after Arcadian. components which are to make up a unity must differ in kind (and it is by this characteristic that a city will also surpass a tribe of which the population is not scattered among villages but organized like the Arcadians). Hence reciprocal equalityAs the best state consists of different classes, its unity is secured by each citizen giving services to society and receiving in return benefits proportionate to his service. Probably τὸ ἴσον is an interpolation (though Newman explains it as the reciprocal rendering of an equal amount of dissimilar things): omitting τὸ ἴσον, we render reciprocity and not reciprocal equality; cf. Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1132b 33, In the interchange of services Justice in the form of Reciprocity is the bond that maintains the association: reciprocity, that is, on the basis of proportion, not on the basis of equality. is the preservative of states, as has been said before in the Ethics. For even among the free and equal this principle must necessarily obtain, since all cannot govern at once: they must hold office for a year at a time or by some other arrangement or period; and in this manner it does actually come about that all govern, just as all shoemakers would be also carpenters if the shoemakers and the carpenters kept on changing trades instead of the same persons being shoemakers and carpenters always. But since such permanence of function is better for the political community also, it is clear that it is better for the same persons to govern always, if possible; and among peoples where it is impossible because all the citizens are equal in their nature,

+ +
+

yet at the same time it is only just, whether governing is a good thing or a bad, that all should partake in it, and for equals thus to submit to authority in turn imitates their being originally dissimilarThe best form of constitution is where there is a superior class that governs continuously—an aristocracy; so where there are no class-distinctions, the next best thing is for all the citizens to take turns in governing and being governed, those in office for the time being forming a sort of aristocracy. Richards’s alteration of the text gives to take turns to govern is an imitation of original inequality and class-distinction.; for some govern and others are governed by turn, as though becoming other persons; and also similarly when they hold office the holders of different offices are different persons. It is clear then from these considerations that it is not an outcome of nature for the state to be a unity in the manner in which certain persons say that it is, and that what has been said to be the greatest good in states really destroys states; yet surely a thing’s particular good acts as its preservative.—Another line of consideration also shows that to seek to unify the state excessively is not beneficial. In point of self-sufficiency the individual is surpassed by the family and the family by the state, and in principle a state is fully realized only when it comes to pass that the community of numbers is self-sufficing; if therefore the more self-sufficing a community is, the more desirable is its condition, then a less degree of unity is more desirable than a greater.

+

Again, even granting that it is best for the community to be as complete a unity as possible, complete unity does not seem to be proved by the formula if all the citizens say Mine and Not mine at the same time, which SocratesThe reference is to Plat. Rep. 462c. Unity is secured when everyone thinks that everything belongs equally to him and to everybody else, i.e. everything is common property. thinks to be a sign of thecity’s being completely one. All is an ambiguous term. If it means each severally, very likely this would more fully realize the state of things which Socrates wishes to produce (for in that case every citizen will call the same boy his son and also the same woman his wife, and will speak in the same way of property and indeed of each of the accessories of life) but ex hypothesi the citizens, having community of women and children, will not call them theirs in this sense, but will mean theirs collectively and not severally, and similarly they will call property theirs meaning the property of them all, not of each of them severally. We see then that the phrase all say is equivocal (in fact the words all, both, odd, even, owing to their ambiguity, occasion argumentative quibbling even in philosophical discussions); hence really for all to say the same thing is in one sense admirable, although impracticable, but in another sense is not at all a sign of concord. And furthermore, the proposal has another disadvantage. Property that is common to the greatest number of owners receives the least attention; men care most for their private possessions, and for what they own in common less, or only so far as it falls to their own individual share for in addition to the other reasons, they think less of it on the ground that someone else is thinking about it, just as in household service a large number of domestics sometimes give worse attendance than a smaller number. And it results in each citizen’s having a thousand sons, and these do not belong to them as individuals but any child is equally the son of anyone,

+ +
+

so that all alike will regard them with indifference.

+

Again, each speaks of one of his fellow-citizens who is prospering or getting on badly as my son only in the sense of the fractional part which he forms of the whole number—that is, he says my son or so-and-so’s son, specifying as the father any individual of the thousand citizens or whatever the number be of which the state consists, and even this dubiously, for it is uncertain who has chanced to have had a son born to him and when born safely reared. Yet which is the better way to use the word mine—this way, each of two thousand or ten thousand people applying it to the same thing, or rather the way in which they say mine in the actual states now? for the same person is called my son by one man and my brother by another, and another calls him nephew, or by some other relationship, whether of blood or by affinity and marriage, the speaker’s own in the first place, or that of his relations; and in addition someone else calls him fellow-clansman or fellow-tribesman. For it is better for a boy to be one’s own private nephew than one’s son in the way described. + Moreover it would also be impossible to avoid men’s supposing certain persons to be their real brothers and sons and fathers and mothers; for they would be bound to form their belief about each other by the resemblances which occur between children and parents. This indeed is said by some of those who write of travels round the worldBooks of geography, founded on travellers’ reports—a famous one by Hecataeus, scoffed at by Hdt. 4.36. actually to occur;they say that some of the people of Upper Libya have their wives in common, yet the children born are divided among them according to their personal resemblances. And there are some females both of the human race and of the other animals, for instance horses and cattle, who have a strong natural tendency to produce off-spring resembling the male parents, as was the case with the mare at Pharsalus named Honest Lady.Or possibly Docile ( Jackson), cf. Xen. Hunt. 7.4.

+

Moreover it is not easy for those who institute this communism to guard against such objectionable occurrences as outrage, involuntary and in some cases voluntary homicide, fights, abusive language; all of which are violations of piety when committed against fathers, mothers and near relatives as if they were not relatives; but these are bound to occur more frequently when people do not know their relations than when they do, and also, when they do occur, if the offenders know their relationship it is possible for them to have the customary expiations performed, but for those who do not no expiation is possible. Also it is curious that a theorist who makes the sons common property only debars lovers from intercourse and does not prohibit love, nor the other familiarities, which between father and son or brother and brother are most unseemly, since even the fact of love between them is unseemly. And it is also strange that he deprives them of intercourse for no other reason except because the pleasure is too violent; and that he thinks it makes no difference that the parties are in the one case father or son and in the other case brothers of one another. And it seems that this community of wives and sons is more serviceable for the Farmer class than for the Guardians;

+ +
+

for there will be less friendship among them if their children and women are in common, and unfriendliness in the subject classes is a good thing with a view to their being submissive to authority and not making revolution. But speaking generally such a law is bound to bring about the opposite state of things to that which rightly enacted laws ought properly to cause, and because of which Socrates thinks it necessary to make these regulations about the children and women. For we think that friendship is the greatest of blessings for the state, since it is the best safeguard against revolution, and the unity of the state, which Socrates praises most highly, both appears to be and is said by him to be the effect of friendship, just as we know that AristophanesThe comic poet, figuring as a character in Plato’s Symposium, see especially Plat. Sym. 192c ff.. in the discourses on love describes how the lovers owing to their extreme affection desire to grow together and both become one instead of being two. In such a union it would be inevitable that both would be spoiled, or at least one, and in the state friendship would inevitably become watery in consequence of such association, and the expressions my father and my son would quite go out. For just as putting a little sugar into a quantity of water makes the mixture imperceptible, so it also must come about that the mutual relationship based on these names must become imperceptible,since in the republic described by Plato there will be the least possible necessity for people to care for one another as father for sons or as son for father or as brother for brother. For there are two things that most cause men to care for and to love each other, the sense of ownership and the sense of preciousness; and neither motive can be present with the citizens of a state so constituted. Again, as to the transference of some of the children at birth from the Farmers and Artisans to the GuardiansThe three classes in Plato’s Republic. and of others from the Guardians to the Farmers and Artisans, there is much confusion as to how it is to be done; and the parents who give the children and the officials who transfer them are bound to know which they give to whom. And again, the things spoken of above are bound to occur even more with these transferred children, such as outrage, love-making and murder; for the children of the Guardians transferred to the other citizens will no longer speak of the Guardians as brothers and children and fathers and mothers, nor yet will those living among the Guardians so speak of the other classes, so as to be careful not to commit any such offence because of their relationship.

+

Such therefore may be our decision as to community of children and women.

+

In connection with this we have to consider the due regulation of property in a community that is to have the best political institutions: should property be owned in common or privately? This question might indeed be considered separately from the system laid down by law with regard to the children and the women:

+ +

I mean, even if there be separate families as is now the case with all nations, is it better for both the ownership and the employment of property to be in common. . . ,Something has clearly been lost here, signifying or should there be some limited form of communism? for example, should the farms be separate property but the farm-produce be brought into the common stock for consumption (as is the practice with some non-Greek races); or on the contrary should the land be common and farmed in common, but the produce be divided for private use (and this form of communism also is said to prevail among some of the barbarians); or should both farms and produce be common property? Now if the tillers of the soil be of a different classi.e. a class of serfs, like the Helots at Sparta. there might be another and easier system, but if the citizens do the work for themselves, the regulations for the common ownership of property would give more causes for discontent; for if both in the enjoyment of the produce and in the work of production they prove not equal but unequal, complaints are bound to arise between those who enjoy or take much but work little and those who take less but work more. And in general to live together and share all our human affairs is difficult, and especially to share such things as these. And this is shown in the partnerships of fellow-travellers, for almost the greatest number of them quarrel because they come into collision with one another as a result of ordinary matters and trifles; and also we come into collision most with those of our servantswhom we employ most often for ordinary attendance. Community of property therefore involves these and other similar difficulties; and the present system, if further improved by good morals and by the regulation of correct legislation, would be greatly superior. For it will possess the merit of both systems, by which I mean the advantage of property being common and the advantage of its being private. For property ought to be common in a sense but private speaking absolutely. For the superintendence of properties being divided among the owners will not cause these mutual complaints, and will improve the more because each will apply himself to it as to private business of his own; while on the other hand virtue will be exercised to make friends’ goods common goods, as the proverbThe saying was ascribed to Pythgagoras. goes, for the purpose of use. Such a system exists even now in outline in some states, showing that it is not impracticable, and especially in the ones that are well-administered parts of it are realized already and parts might be realized; for individuals while owning their property privately put their own possessions at the service of their friends and make use of their friends’ possessions as common property; for instance in Sparta people use one another’s slaves as virtually their own, as well as horses and hounds, and also use the produce in the fields throughout the country if they need provisions on a journey. It is clear therefore that it is better for possessions to be privately owned, but to make them common property in use; and to train the citizens to this is the special task of the legislator. And moreover to feel that a thing is one’s private property makes an inexpressibly great difference for pleasure;

+ +
+

for the universal feeling of love for oneself is surely not purposeless, but a natural instinct. Selfishness on the other hand is justly blamed; but this is not to love oneself but to love oneself more than one ought, just as covetousness means loving money to excess—since some love of self, money and so on is practically universal. Moreover, to bestow favors and assistance on friends or visitors or comrades is a great pleasure, and a condition of this is the private ownership of property.These advantages therefore do not come to those who carry the unification of the state too far; and in addition to this they manifestly do away with the practice of two virtues, temperance in relation to women (for it is a noble deed to refrain from one through temperance when she belongs to another) and liberality in relation to possessions (for one will not be able to display liberality nor perform a single liberal action, since the active exercise of liberality takes place in the use of possessions).

+

Such legislation therefore has an attractive appearance, and might be thought to be humane; for he who is told about it welcomes it with gladness, thinking that it will result in a marvellous friendliness of everybody towards everybody, especially when somebody denounces the evils at present existing in states as due to the fact thatwealth is not owned in common— I mean lawsuits between citizens about breach of contract, and trials for perjury, and the flattery of the rich.But the real cause of all these evils is not the absence of communism, but wickedness, since we see far more quarrels occurring among those who own or use property in common than among those who have their estates separate; but we notice that those who quarrel as a result of their partnerships are few when compared with the total number of private owners. And again it is just to state not only all the evils that men will lose by adopting communism, but also all the good things; and life in such circumstances is seen to be utterly impossible.

+

The cause of Socrates’ error must be deemed to be that his fundamental assumption was incorrect. It is certain that in a way both the household and the state should be a unit, but they should not be so in every way. For in one way the state as its unification proceeds will cease to be a state, and in another way, though it continues a state, yet by coming near to ceasing to be one it will be a worse state, just as if one turned a harmony into unison or a rhythm into a single foot. The proper thing is for the state, while being a multitude, to be made a partnership and a unity by means of education, as has been said before and it is strange that the very philosopher who intends to introduce a system of education and thinks that this will make the city morally good should fancy that he can regulate society by such measures as have been mentioned instead of by manners and culture and laws, just as the legislator introduced community of property in Sparta and Crete by the institution of public messes.

+ +
+

And this very point also must not be ignored, that attention must be paid to length of time and to the long period of years, in which it would not have escaped notice if these measures were good ones; for nearly all of them have been discovered already, although some of them have not been collected together and others though brought to knowledge are not put into practice. And their value would become most manifest if one could see such a constitution in actual process of formation; for one will only be able to construct Plato’s state by introducing its partitions and dividing up the community into common messes and also into brotherhoods and tribes. So that in the upshot no other regulation will have been enacted except the exemption of the Guardians from the work of agriculture, which is a measure that even now the Spartans attempt to introduce.

+

Moreover, the working of the constitution as a whole in regard to the members of the state has also not been described by Socrates, nor is it easy to say what it will be. Yet the general mass of the citizens of the other classes make almost the bulk of the state, and about these no definite regulations are laid down, as to whether the Farmers also are to have their property in common or to hold it in private ownership, and also whether community of wives and children is to apply to them or not. For if the Farmers are to have the same complete communism, what will be the difference between them and the Guardian class? or what advantage will they gain by submitting to their government? or what consideration will induce them to submit tothe government, unless the Guardians adopt some clever device like that of the Cretans? These have conceded to their slaves all the same rights as they have themselves except that they are forbidden gymnastic exercises and the possession of arms. But if the family life and property of the Farmers are to be such as they are in other states, what sort of communism will there be? For there will inevitably be two states in one, and these antagonistic to one another. For Socrates makes the Guardians a sort of garrison, while the Farmers, Artisans and other classes are the citizens.Or (omitting τοὺς before τεχνίτας) For Socrates makes one set of men guardians, a sort of garrison, and another set farmers and artisans and citizens of the other sorts. But quarrels and lawsuits and all the other evils which according to Socrates exist in actual states will all be found among his citizens too. Yet he says that owing to their education they will not need many regulations such as city and market by-laws and the other regulations of that sort, although he assigns his education only to the Guardians. Again, he makes the Farmers the masters of the estates, for which they pay rent; but they are likely to be far more unmanageable and rebellious than the classes of helots, serfs and slaves in certain states today. However, whether this communism is to be compulsory for the Farmers in the same way as for the Guardians or whether it is not, has as a matter of fact not been definitely stated anywhere, nor is there any information about the connected questions, what are to be the political functions and the education of the lower classes, and the laws affecting them. But it is not easy to discover the answers to these questions, yet the character of the lower classes is of no small importance for the preservation of the community of the Guardians.

+ +
+

But again, if Socrates intends to make the Farmers have their wives in common but their property private, who is to manage the household in the way in which the women’s husbands will carry on the work of the farms? And if the property and the wives of the Farmers are to be common A passage has been lost here.

+

It is also strange that Socrates employs the comparison of the lower animals to show that the women are to have the same occupations as the men, considering that animals have no households to manage. Also Socrates’ method of appointing the magistrates is not a safe one. For he makes the same persons hold office always; but this occasions rebellion even among people of no special distinction, much more so then among high-spirited and warlike men. But it is clear that he is compelled to make the same persons govern always, for the god-given admixture of gold in the soul is not bestowed on some at one time and others at another time, but is always in the same men, and Socrates says that at the moment of birth some men receive an admixture of gold and others of silver and those who are to be the Artisans and Farmers an admixture of copper and iron. And again, although he deprives the Guardians of happiness, he says that it is the duty of the law-giver to make the whole city happy. But it is not possible for the whole to be happy unless most or all of its parts, or some of them, possess happiness. For happiness is not a thing of the same sort as being an even number: that may belong to a whole but not to either of its parts, but happiness cannot belong to the whole and not to its parts. But yet, if the Guardians are not happy, what other class is? For clearly the Artisans and the general mass of the vulgar classes are not.

+

The Republic discussed by Socrates therefore possesses these difficulties and also others not smaller than these.

+

And almost the same holds good of the Laws also, which was written later, so that it will be advantageous to make some small examination of the constitution described in that book as well. For in the Republic Socrates has laid down details about very few matters—regulations about community of wives and children and about property, and the structure of the constitution (for the mass of the population is divided into two parts, one forming the Farmer class and the other the class that defends the state in war, and there is a third class drawn from these latter that forms the council and governs the state), but about the Farmers and the Artisans, whether they are excluded from government or have some part in it, and whether these classes also are to possess arms and to serve in war with the others or not, on these points Socrates has made no decision, but though he thinks that the women ought to serve in war with the Guardians and share the same education, the rest of the discourse he has filled up with external topics, and about the sort of education which it is proper for the Guardians to have.The last clause, and about—to have, has almost certainly been misplaced by a copyist, and should come near the beginning of the sentence, after about property.

+ +
+

But though the Laws consists for the most part of a treatise on law, the author has said a little about the form of the constitution, and in a desire to make this more suitable for adoption by actual states he brings it round by degrees back to the other form, that of the Republic. For except community in wives and property, he assigns all his other regulations in the same form to both states, for he prescribes for both the same scheme of education, and a life detached from menial tasks, and similarly as regards common meals, except that in the state described in the Laws he says there are to be common meals for women also, and he makes the Republic consist of a class possessing arms that numbers a thousand, but the state of the Laws has five thousand.

+

Now it is true that all the discourses of Socrates possess brilliance, cleverness, originality and keenness of inquiry, but it is no doubt difficult to be right about everything: for instance with regard to the size of population just mentioned it must not be over-looked that a territory as large as that of Babylon will be needed for so many inhabitants, or some other country of unlimited extent, to support five thousand men in idleness and another swarm of women and servants around them many times as numerous. It is proper no doubt to assume ideal conditions, but not to go beyond all bounds of possibility. And it is said that in laying down the laws the legislator must have his attention fixed on two things,the territory and the population. But also it would be well to add that he must take into account the neighboring regions also, if the city is to live a life of politicsi.e. a life of intercourse with other states, cf. 1327b 5. Some mss. add not one of isolation; this looks like an explanatory note interpolated. (for it is necessary for it to use for war not only such arms as are serviceable within its own territory but also such as are serviceable against places outside it); and if one does not accept such a description whether for the life of the individual or for the common life of the state, yet it is none the less necessary for the citizens to be formidable to their enemies not only when they have entered the country but also when they have left it.Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give when they are away from it. Also the amount of property requires consideration: would it not perhaps be better to define it differently, by a clearer formula? The writer says that it ought to be sufficiently large for the citizens to live a temperate life—as if one were to say to live a good life; but really that phrase is too general, since it is possible to live temperately yet miserably. But a better definition would be to live temperately and liberally (for if the two are separated a liberal mode of life is liable to slip into luxury and a temperate one into a life of hardship), since surely these are the only desirable qualities relating to the use of wealth—for instance you cannot use wealth gently or bravely, but you can use it temperately and liberally, so that it follows that these are qualities that have to do with wealth. And it is also strange that although equalizing properties the writer does not regulate the number of the citizens, but leaves the birth-rate uncontrolled, on the assumption that it will be sufficiently levelled up to the same total owing to childless marriages, however many children are begotten,

+ +
+

because this seems to take place in the states at present. But this ought to be regulated much more in the supposed case than it is now, for now nobody is destitute, because estates are divided among any number, but then, as division of estates will not be allowed, the extra children will necessarily have nothing, whether they are fewer in number or more. And one might think that restriction ought to be put on the birth-rate rather than on property, so as not to allow more than a certain number of children to be produced, and that in fixing their number consideration should be paid to the chances of its happening that some of the children born may die, and to the absence of children in the other marriages; but for the matter to be left alone, as it is in most states, is bound to lead to poverty among the citizens, and poverty produces sedition and crime. The Corinthian PhidonOtherwise unknown. in fact, one of the most ancient lawgivers, thought that the house-holds and the citizen population ought to remain at the same numbers, even though at the outset the estates of all were unequal in size; but in Plato’s Laws the opposite is the case.i.e. the estates are equal, and the number of households fixed, but not the number of citizens. However, we must say later what we think would be a better system in these matters; but another question omitted in the Laws is how the rulers will be different from the classes ruled; the writer prescribesthat the rulers are to stand in the same relation to the ruled as the warp of cloth stands to the woof by being made of different wool. Plat. Laws 734e ff. In weaving cloth the warp (the threads set up first) must be of strong wool, the woof (the threads woven across the warp) must be softer. And inasmuch as he allows a man’s total property to be increased up to five times its original value, for what reason should not an increase in his landed estate be allowed up to a certain point? Also it must be considered whether the proposed separation of homesteads is not inexpedient for household economy—for the writer allotted two homesteads separate from one another to each citizen; but it is difficult to manage two households.The object was to provide a separate establishment for a married son, Plat. Laws 776a. And the whole constitution is intended, it is true, to be neither a democracy nor an oligarchy, but of the form intermediate between them which is termed a republic, for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms. If therefore he introduces this constitution as the one most commonly existing of all forms of constitution in the actual states, he has perhaps made a good proposal, but if he introduces it as the next best to the first form of constitution, it is not a good proposal; for very likely one might approve the Spartan constitution more highly, or perhaps some other form nearer to an aristocracy. In fact some people assert that the best constitution must be a combination of all the forms of constitution, and therefore praise the constitution of Sparta (for some people say that it consists of oligarchy, monarchy and democracy, meaning that the kingship is monarchy and the rule of the ephors oligarchy, but that an element of democracy is introduced by the rule of the ephors because the ephors come from the common people; while others pronounce the ephorate a tyranny but find an element of democracy in the public mess-tables and in the other regulations of daily life).

+ +
+

In Plato’s Laws on the other hand it is stated that the best constitution must consist of a combination of democracy and tyranny,Plato wrote monarchy, Plat. Laws 693d (cf. here 3.13). which one might refuse to count as constitutional governments at all, or else rank as the worst of all constitutions. A better theory therefore is put forward by those who intermingle a larger number of forms, for the constitution composed of a combination of a larger number of forms is better. In the next place, the constitution in the Laws proves as a matter of fact not to contain any element of monarchy at all, but its factors are taken from oligarchy and democracy, and for the most part it tends to incline towards oligarchy. This appears from the regulations for the appointment of the magistrates; for their selection by lot from a list previously elected by vote is a feature common to both oligarchy and democracy, but the compulsion put upon the richer citizens to attend the assembly and vote for magistrates or perform any other political function, while the others are allowed to do as they like, is oligarchical, as is the endeavor to secure that a majority of the magistrates shall be drawn from the wealthy and that the highest offices shall be filled from the highest of the classes assessed by wealth. But the writer also makes the election of the council oligarchical for everybody is compelled to elect, but from the first property-class, and then again an equal number from the second class, and then from the members of the third class, except that it was not to be compulsory for all to vote for those to be elected from the members of the third or the fourth class, and to elect from the fourth class was only compulsory for the members of the first and second classes; and afterwards from those thus selected he says that they are to appointan equal number from each class. Thus those who elect the members from the highest property classes will be more numerous and better,i.e. a better ellective body because representative of all classes. because some of the lower orders will abstain from votingi.e. from voting for the preliminary list from the third and fourth classes. as it is not compulsory. Accordingly that it is not proper to establish a constitution of this character from a blend of democracy and monarchy appears clearly from these considerations, and from what will be said later when our inquiry comes to deal with this class of constitution; also the provision for the election of the rulers from among candidates chosen at a preliminary election is dangerous, for if even a moderate number of people choose to combine into a party, the elections will always go according to their wish.

+

Such are the points as to the constitution in the Laws.

+

There are also certain other constitutional schemes, some drawn up by amateurs and others by philosophers and statesmen, but all of them are nearer to those which have been actually established and by which states are governed at present than are both of those which have been considered; for nobody else has introduced the innovation of community of children and women, nor that of public meals for the women, but they start rather with the necessary reforms. For some persons think that the right regulation of property is the most important; for the question of property, they say, is universally the cause of party strife. Therefore the Chalcedonian PhaleasOtherwise unknown. was the first who introduced this expedient;

+ +
+

for he says that the citizens’ estates ought to be equal and he thought that this would not be difficult to secure at the outset for cities in process of foundation, while in those already settled, although it would be a more irksome task, nevertheless a levelling would most easily be effected by the rich giving dowries but not receiving them and the poor receiving but not giving them. Plato when writing the Laws thought that up to a certain point inequality ought to be allowed, but that no citizen should be permitted to acquire more land than would make his estate five times the size of the smallest, as has also been said before.

+

But those who bring in legislation of this sort must also not overlook this point, which is overlooked at present, that when regulating the amount of property legislators ought also to regulate the size of the family; for if the number of children becomes too large for the property, the law is quite sure to be broken, and apart from the breach of the law it is a bad thing that many citizens who were rich should become poor, for it is difficult for such men not to be advocates of a new order. That a level standard of property affects the community of the citizens in an important manner some men even in old times clearly have recognized; for example there is the legislation of Solon, and other states have a law prohibiting the acquisition of land to any amount that the individual may desire; and similarly there is legislation to prevent the sale of estates, as at Locri there is a lawthat a man shall not sell unless he can prove that manifest misfortune has befallen him and also there is legislation to preserve the old allotments, and the repeal of this restriction at Leucas made the Leucadian constitution excessively democratic, for it came about that the offices were no longer filled from the established property-qualifications. But it is possible that equality of estates may be maintained, but their size may be either too large and promote luxury, or too small, causing a penurious standard of living; it is clear therefore that it is not enough for the lawgiver to make the estates equal, but he must aim at securing a medium size. And again, even if one prescribed a moderate property for all, it would be of no avail, since it is more needful to level men’s desires than their properties, and this can only be done by an adequate system of education enforced by law. But perhaps Phaleas would say that he himself actually prescribes this, as he considers it fundamentally necessary for states to have equality in these two things, property and education. But the nature of the education needs to be defined: it is no use merely for it to be one and the same for all, for it is possible for all to have one and the same education but for this to be of such a nature as to make them desirous of getting more than their share of money or honor or both; moreoverProbably the Greek should be altered to give because instead of moreover. civil strife is caused not only by inequality of property but also by inequality of honors, though the two motives operate in opposite ways—the masses are discontented if possessions are unequally distributed,

+ +
+

the upper classes if honors are equally distributed, bringing it about that Noble and base in equal honor stand. Hom. Il. 9.319 Nor do men do wrong for the sake of the bare necessities only, the sort of wrongdoing for which Phaleas thinks that equality of substance is a cure—preventing highway robbery by removing the motive of cold or hunger; men also do wrong to gain pleasure and to satisfy desire. For if they have a desire above the bare necessities of existence, they will transgress to cure this desire; and moreover not because of desire only, but in order that they may enjoy the pleasures that are not associated with pains. What remedy then is there for these three classes of offenders? For the first class, a modest competence and work; for the second, temperance; and as for the third sort, any people who desire pleasures that depend on themselves would require no cure for their desires save that which is derived from philosophy, for the other pleasures require the aid of fellow-creatures. Since clearly the greatest transgressions spring from a desire for superfluities, not for bare necessaries (for example, men do not become tyrants in order to avoid shivering with cold, and accordingly high honors are awarded to one who kills a tyrant, but not to one who kills a thief); so that the method of the constitution of Phaleas is efficacious only against the minor social disorders. Again, Phaleas desires to frame institutions for the most part which will lead to a right state of affairs in the internal relations of the citizens, but the legislator should also have regard to relations with the neighboring peoples and with all foreign nations.It is essential therefore for the constitution to be framed with a view to military strength, about which Phaleas has said nothing. And the same is true also about property; for the citizens should not only possess enough to meet their requirements in civic life, but also to encounter the perils that face them from outside; hence they should possess neither so large an amount of wealth that it will be coveted by their neighbors and by stronger states while its possessors will be unable to repel their assailants, nor yet so small an amount as not to be capable of sustaining a war even against equal and similar states. Phaleas, it is true, has laid down no rule at all, but the question must not be overlooked, what amount of wealth is advantageous. Perhaps therefore the best limit to prescribe is that it must not profit a stronger people to make war upon the state because of its excessive wealth, but only just as it might do even if the citizens had not got so much property. For example, when Autophradates was about to lay siege to Atarneus,A stronghold on the coast of Asia Minor acquired by Eubulus, a Bithynian banker, when the Persian empire was breaking up, middle 4th century B.C.; Autophradates was a Persian general. Eubulus bade him consider how long it would take him to capture the place, and then calculate what his expenditure would be for that period, for he himself was willing for the payment of a smaller sum than that to evacuate Atarneus at once; these words caused Autophradates to ponder and led him to abandon the siege. Now equality of property among the citizens is certainly one of the factors that contribute to the avoidance of party faction; it is not however a particularly important one. For the upper classes may resent it on the ground that their merits are not equal, owing to which we actually see them often attacking the government and rebelling;

+ +
+

and also the baseness of human beings is a thing insatiable, and though at the first a dole of only two obolsTwopence-halfpenny for a seat in the theater at Athens paid for citizens by the State after the time of Pericles. is enough, yet when this has now become an established custom, they always want more, until they get to an unlimited amount; for appetite is in its nature unlimited, and the majority of mankind live for the satisfaction of appetite. The starting-point in such matters therefore, rather than levelling estates, is to train those that are respectable by nature so that they may not wish for excessive wealth, and to contrive that the base may not be able to do so, and this is secured if they are inferior in number and not unjustly treated. And also we cannot approve what Phaleas has said about equality of property, for he makes the citizens equal in respect of landed estate only, but wealth also consists in slaves and cattle and money, and there is an abundance of property in the shape of what is called furniture; we must therefore either seek to secure equality or some moderate regulation as regards all these things, or we must permit all forms of wealth. And it is clear from Phaleas’s legislation that he makes the citizen-population a small one, inasmuch as all the artisans are to be publicly owned slaves and are not to furnish any complement of the citizen-body. But if it is proper to have public slaves, the laborers employed upon the public works ought to be of that status (as is the case at Epidamnus and as Diophantus once tried to institute at Athens).

+

These remarks may serve fairly well to indicate such meritsand defects as may be contained in the constitution of Phaleas.

+

HippodamusA famous architect and town-planner (see 1330b 24) circa 475 B.C. son of Euryphon, a Milesian (who invented the division of cities into blocks and cut up Piraeus, and who also became somewhat eccentric in his general mode of life owing to a desire for distinction, so that some people thought that he lived too fussily, with a quantity of hairAt Sparta men wore their hair long, but at Athens this was the mark of a dandy. and expensive ornaments, and also a quantity of cheap yet warm clothes not only in winter but also in the summer periods, and who wished to be a man of learning in natural science generally), was the first man not engaged in politics who attempted to speak on the subject of the best form of constitution. His system was for a city with a population of ten thousand, divided into three classes; for he made one class of artisans, one of farmers, and the third the class that fought for the state in war and was the armed class. He divided the land into three parts, one sacred, one public and one private: sacred land to supply the customary offerings to the gods, common land to provide the warrior class with food, and private land to be owned by the farmers. He thought that there are only three divisions of the law, since the matters about which lawsuits take place are three in number—outrage, damage, homicide. He also proposed to establish one supreme court of justice, to which were to be carried up all the cases at law thought to have been decided wrongly, and this court he made to consist of certain selected elders.

+ +
+

He held that the verdicts in the courts ought not to be given by ballot, but that each juryman should bring a tablet on which if he found a simple verdict of guilty he should write the penalty, and if simply not guilty leave a blank, but if he found the prisoner guilty on some counts but not on others he should state this; for the present state of the law he thought unsatisfactory, since it forces jurors to commit perjury by giving either the one verdict or the other. He proposed a law that those who discovered something of advantage to the state should receive honor, and that the children of those who died in war should have their maintenance from the state, in the belief that this had never yet been provided by law among other people—but as a matter of fact this law exists at present both at Athens and in others of the cities. The governing officials were all to be chosen by the assembly of the people, and this he made to consist of the three classes of the city; and the officials elected were to superintend the business of the community and the affairs of foreign residents and of orphans. These then are the greatest number and the most noteworthy of the provisions in the system of Hippodamus. But doubt might be raised first of all about the division of the general mass of the citizens. The artisans, the farmers and the military class all participate in the government, though the farmers have not got arms and the artisans neither arms nor land,which makes them almost the slaves of those who possess the arms. Therefore for them to share in all the offices is impossible (for it is inevitable that both military commanders and civic guards and in general the most important offices should be appointed from those that have the arms); but if they do not share in the government of the state, how is it possible for them to be friendly towards the constitution? But it may be said that the ruling class as possessing the arms is bound to be stronger than both classes. But this is not easy if they are not numerous and if this be the case, why should the other classes participate in the government and control the appointment of the rulers?As military posts must be filled by the military class, the civilians will feel excluded and be disaffected; and the military class may not be strong enough to control them. Better, then, not to give full citizenship to civilians. Again, what use are the farmers to the state? artisans there must necessarily be (for every state requires artisans), and they can make a living as in the other states from the practice of their craft; but as for the farmers, although it would have been reasonable for them to be a portion of the state if they provided the class possessing the arms with its food, as it is they have private land of their own and farm it for themselves. And again, if the common land from which those who fight for the state are to have their food is to be farmed by themselves, the military class would not be different from the agricultural, but the legislator intends it to be; while if the cultivators of the common land are to be a different set of people from both those who cultivate the private farms and the soldiers, this will be yet a forth section of the state, holding no part in it but quite estranged from the government. But yet if one is to make those who cultivate the private and the common land the same people, the amount of the produce from the farms which each man will cultivate will be scanty for two households,

+ +
+

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 minaeThe mina, 100 drachmas, may be put at 4 pounds (gold). 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 jurorwho 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,

+ +
+

as for example at Cyme there is a law relating to trials for murder, that if the prosecutor on the charge of murder produces a certain number of his own relatives as witnesses, the defendant is guilty of the murder. And in general all men really seek what is good, not what was customary with their forefathers; and it is probable that primitive mankind, whether sprung from the earthSo Hes. WD 108, Pind. N. 6.1. or the survivors of some destructive cataclysm,So Plat. Laws 676 ff., Plat. Tim. 22 ff. Aristotle believed that man had existed for ever, and that the world had experienced only local cataclysms. were just like ordinary foolish people, as indeed is actually said of the earth-born race, so that it is odd that we should abide by their notions. Moreover even written codes of law may with advantage not be left unaltered. For just as in the other arts as well, so with the structure of the state it is impossible that it should have been framed aright in all its details; for it must of necessity be couched in general terms, but our actions deal with particular things. These considerations therefore make it clear that it is proper for some laws sometimes to be altered. But if we consider the matter in another way, it would seem to be a thing that needs much caution. For when it is the case that the improvement would be small, but it is a bad thing to accustom men to repeal the laws lightly, it is clear that some mistakes both of the legislator and of the magistrate should be passed over; for the people will not be as much benefited by making an alteration as they will be harmed by becoming accustomed to distrust their rulers. Also, the example from the case of the arts is a mistake, as to change the practice of an art is a different thing from altering a law; for the law has no power to compel obedience beside the force of custom, and custom only grows up in long lapse of time, so that lightly to change from the existing laws to other new laws is to weaken the power of the law. Again, even if alteration of the laws is proper, are all the laws to be open to alteration, and in every form of constitution, or not? and is any chance person to be competent to introduce alterations or only certain people? for there is a great difference between these alternatives. Therefore let us abandon this inquiry for the present, since it belongs to other occasions.

+

On the subject of the constitution of Sparta and that of Crete, and virtually in regard to the other forms of constitution also, the questions that arise for consideration are two, one whether their legal structure has any feature that is admirable or the reverse in comparison with the best system, another whether it contains any provision that is really opposed to the fundamental principle and character of the constitution that the founders had in view.

+

Now it is a thing admitted that a state that is to be well governed must be provided with leisure from menial occupations; but how this is to be provided it is not easy to ascertain. The serf class in Thessaly repeatedly rose against its masters, and so did the Helots at Sparta, where they are like an enemy constantly sitting in wait for the disasters of the Spartiates. Nothing of the kind has hitherto occurred in Crete, the reason perhaps being that the neighboring cities,

+ +
+

even when at war with one another, in no instance ally themselves with the rebels, because as they themselves also possess a serf class this would not be for their interest; whereas the Laconians were entirely surrounded by hostile neighbors, Argives, Messenians and Arcadians. For with the Thessalians too the serf risings originally began because they were still at war with their neighbors, the Achaeans, Perraebi and Magnesians. Also, apart from other drawbacks, the mere necessity of policing a serf class is an irksome burden—the problem of how intercourse with them is to be carried on: if allowed freedom they grow insolent and claim equal rights with their masters, and if made to live a hard life they plot against them and hate them. It is clear therefore that those whose helot-system works out in this way do not discover the best mode of treating the problem. Again, the freedom in regard to women is detrimental both in regard to the purpose of the constitution and in regard to the happiness of the state. For just as man and wife are part of a household, it is clear that the state also is divided nearly in half into its male and female population, so that in all constitutions in which the position of the women is badly regulated one half of the state must be deemed to have been neglected in framing the law. And this has taken place in the state under consideration,for the lawgiver wishing the whole city to be of strong character displays his intention clearly in relation to the men, but in the case of the women has entirely neglected the matter; for they live dissolutelyThe textual emendation giving live without restraint is probably correct. in respect of every sort of dissoluteness, and luxuriously. So that the inevitable result is that in a state thus constituted wealth is held in honor, especially if it is the case that the people are under the sway of their women, as most of the military and warlike races are, except the Celts and such other races as have openly held in honor passionate friendship between males. For it appears that the original teller of the legend had good reason for uniting Ares with Aphrodite, for all men of martial spirit appear to be attracted to the companionship either of male associates or of women. Hence this characteristic existed among the Spartans, and in the time of their empire many things were controlled by the women; yet what difference does it make whether the women rule or the rulers are ruled by the women? The result is the same. And although bravery is of service for none of the regular duties of life, but if at all, in war, even in this respect the Spartans’ women were most harmful; and they showed this at the time of the Theban invasion,Under Epaminondas, 369 B.C. for they rendered no useful service, as the women do in other states, while they caused more confusion than the enemy. It is true therefore that at the outset the freedom allowed to women at Sparta seems to have come about with good reason,

+ +
+

for the Spartans used to be away in exile abroad for long periods on account of their military expeditions, both when fighting the war against the Argives and again during the war against the Arcadians and Messenians; but when they had turned to peaceful pursuits, although they handed over themselves to the lawgiver already prepared for obedience by military life (for this has many elements of virtue), as for the women it is said that Lycurgus did attempt to bring them under the laws, but since they resisted he gave it up. So the Spartan women are, it is true, responsible for what took place, and therefore manifestly for this mistake among the rest; although for our own part we are not considering the question who deserves excuse or does not, but what is the right or wrong mode of action. But, as was also said before, errors as regards the status of women seem not only to cause a certain unseemliness in the actual conduct of the state but to contribute in some degree to undue love of money. For next to the things just spoken of one might censure the Spartan institutions with respect to the unequal distribution of wealth. It has come about that some of the Spartans own too much property and some extremely little; owing to which the land has fallen into few hands, and this has also been badly regulated by the laws;for the lawgiver made it dishonorable to sell a family’s existing estate, and did so rightly, but he granted liberty to alienate land at will by gift or bequest; yet the result that has happened was bound to follow in the one case as well as in the other. And also nearly two-fifths of the whole area of the country is owned by women, because of the number of women who inherit estates and the practice of giving large dowries; yet it would have been better if dowries had been prohibited by law or limited to a small or moderate amount . . .A clause seems to have been lost: Also it would have been better to regulate by law the marriage of heiresses. But as it is he is allowed to give an heiress in marriage to whomever he likes; and if he dies without having made directions as to this by will, whoever he leaves as his executor bestows her upon whom he chooses. As a result of thisi.e. the consequent fall in the number of men rich enough to keep a horse or even to provide themselves with heavy arms. although the country is capable of supporting fifteen hundred cavalry and thirty thousand heavy-armed troopers, they numbered not even a thousand. And the defective nature of their system of land-tenure has been proved by the actual facts of history: the state did not succeed in enduring a single blow,The battle of Leuctra, 371 B.C. but perished owing to the smallness of its population. They have a tradition that in the earlier reigns they used to admit foreigners to their citizenship, with the result that dearth of population did not occur in those days, although they were at war for a long period; and it is stated that at one time the Spartiates numbered as many as ten thousand. However, whether this is true or not, it is better for a state’s male population to be kept up by measures to equalize property. The law in relation to parentage is also somewhat adverse to the correction of this evil.

+ +
+

For the lawgiver desiring to make the Spartiates as numerous as possible holds out inducements to the citizens to have as many children as possible: for they have a law releasing the man who has been father of three sons from military service, and exempting the father of four from all taxes. Yet it is clear that if a number of sons are born and the land is correspondingly divided there will inevitably come to be many poor men.

+

Moreover the regulations for the EphorateThe five Ephors, elected for a year by the people, were the real rulers of Sparta. The two kings were hereditary; the senate of twenty-eight nobles advised them, and the Ephors presided at the Assembly of citizens over thirty years old, who voted on the measures of the Kings and Ephors but could not discuss them. The small fleet was commanded by a single admiral appointed for a year by the Ephors and not allowed to hold office twice. are also bad. For this office has absolute control over their most important affairs, but the Ephors are appointed from the entire people, so that quite poor men often happen to get into the office, who owing to their poverty used to bePerhaps the Greek should be altered to give are. easily bought. This was often manifested in earlier times, and also lately in the affairUnknown at Andros; for certain Ephors were corrupted with money and so far as lay in their power ruined the whole state. And because the office was too powerful, and equal to a tyranny, the kings also were compelled to cultivate popular favor, so that in this way too the constitution was jointly injured, for out of an aristocracy came to be evolved a democracy. Thus this office does, it is true, hold together the constitution—for the common people keep quiet because they have a share in the highest office of state, so that whether this is due to the lawgiver orhas come about by chance, the Ephorate is advantageous for the conduct of affairs; for if a constitution is to be preserved, all the sections of the state must wish it to exist and to continue on the same lines; so the kings are in this frame of mind owing to their own honorable rank, the nobility owing to the office of the Elders, which is a prize of virtue, and the common people because of the Ephorate, which is appointed from the whole population— but yet the Ephorate, though rightly open to all the citizens, ought not to be elected as it is now, for the method is too childish.There is no clear evidence what the method was. And further the Ephors have jurisdiction in lawsuits of high importance, although they are any chance people, so that it would be better if they did not decide cases on their own judgement but by written rules and according to the laws. Also the mode of life of the Ephors is not in conformity with the aim of the state, for it is itself too luxurious, whereas in the case of the other citizens the prescribed life goes too far in the direction of harshness, so that they are unable to endure it, and secretly desert the law and enjoy the pleasures of the body. Also their regulations for the office of the Elders are not good; it is true that if these were persons of a high class who had been adequately trained in manly valor, one might perhaps say that the institution was advantageous to the state, although their life-tenure of the judgeship in important trials is indeed a questionable feature (for there is old age of mind as well as of body);

+ +
+

but as their education has been on such lines that even the lawgiver himself cannot trust in them as men of virtue, it is a dangerous institution. And it is known that those who have been admitted to this office take bribes and betray many of the public interests by favoritism; so that it would be better if they were not exempt from having to render an account of their office, but at present they are. And it might be held that the magistracy of the Ephors serves to hold all the offices to account; but this gives altogether too much to the Ephorate, and it is not the way in which, as we maintain, officials ought to be called to account. Again, the procedure in the election of the Elders as a mode of selection is not only childish, but it is wrong that one who is to be the holder of this honorable office should canvass for it, for the man worthy of the office ought to hold it whether he wants to or not. But as it is the lawgiver clearly does the same here as in the rest of the constitution: he makes the citizens ambitious and has used this for the election of the Elders, for nobody would ask for office if he were not ambitious; yet surely ambition and love of money are the motives that bring about almost the greatest part of the voluntary wrongdoing that takes place among mankind. As to monarchy, the question whether it is not or is an advantageous institution for states to possessmay be left to another discussion; but at all events it would be advantageous that kings should not be appointed as they are now, but chosen in each case with regard to their own life and conduct. But it is clear that even the lawgiver himself does not suppose that he can make the kings men of high character: at all events he distrusts them as not being persons of sufficient worth owing to which the Spartans used to send kings who were enemies as colleagues on embassies, and thought that the safety of the state depended on division between the kings. Also the regulations for the the public mess-tables called Phiditia have been badly laid down by their originator. The revenue for these ought to come rather from public funds, as in Crete; but among the Spartans everybody has to contribute, although some of them are very poor and unable to find money for this charge, so that the result is the opposite of what the lawgiver purposed. For he intends the organization of the common tables to be democratic, but when regulated by the law in this manner it works out as by no means democratic; for it is not easy for the very poor to participate, yet their ancestral regulation of the citizenship is that it is not to belong to one who is unable to pay this tax. The law about the Admirals has been criticized by some other writers also, and rightly criticized; for it acts as a cause of sedition, since in addition to the kings who are military commanders the office of Admiral stands almost as another kingship. Another criticism that may be made against the fundamental principle of the lawgiver is one that Plato has made in the Laws.

+ +
+

The entire system of the laws is directed towards one part of virtue only, military valor, because this is serviceable for conquest. Owing to this they remained secure while at war, but began to decline when they had won an empire, because they did not know how to live a life of leisure, and had been trained in no other form of training more important than the art of war. And another error no less serious than that one is this: they think that the coveted prizes of life are won by valor more than by cowardice, and in this they are right, yet they imagine wrongly that these prizes are worth more than the valor that wins them. The public finance of Sparta is also badly regulated: when compelled to carry on wars on a large scale she has nothing in the state treasury, and the Spartiates pay war taxes badly because, as most of the land is owned by them, they do not scrutinize each other’s contributions. And the lawgiver has achieved the opposite result to what is advantageous—he has made the state poor and the individual citizen covetous.

+

So much for a discussion of the constitution of Sparta: for these are the main points in it for criticism.

+

The Cretan constitution approximates to that of Sparta, but though in a few points it is not worse framed, for the larger part it has a less perfect finish. For the Spartan constitution appears and indeed is actually statede.g. by Hdt 1.65. to have been copied in most of its provisions from the Cretan; and as a rule old things have been less fully elaborated than newer ones. For it is said that when Lycurgus relinquished his post as guardian of King CharilausPosthumous son of Lycurgus’s elder brother King Polydectes; cf.1316a 34. and went abroad, he subsequently passed most of his time in Crete because of the relationship between the Cretans and the Spartans; for the Lyctians Lyctus was an inland city in the east of Crete, not far from Cnossus. were colonists from Sparta, and the settlers that went out to the colony found the system of laws already existing among the previous inhabitants of the place; owing to which the neighboring villagers even now use these laws in the same manner, in the belief that MinosLegendary ruler of Crete, son of Zeus and Europa, and after death a judge in the lower world. first instituted this code of laws. And also the island appears to have been designed by nature and to be well situated to be under Greek rule, as it lies across the whole of the sea, round which almost all the Greeks are settled; for Crete is only a short distance from the Peloponnese in one direction, and from the part of Asia around Triopium and from Rhodes in the other. Owing to this Minos won the empire of the sea,See Thuc. 1.4, 8. The tradition of the wealth of Minos is supported by the recent excavations at Cnossus. and made some of the islands subject to him and settled colonies in others, but finally when making an attack on Sicily he ended his life there near Camicus.

+

The Cretan organization is on the same lines as that of Sparta. In Sparta the land is tilled by the Helots and in Crete by the serfs;

+ +
+

and also both have public mess-tables, and in old days the Spartans called them not phiditia but men’s messes, as the Cretans do, which is a proof that they came from Crete. And so also did the system of government; for the Ephors have the same power as the magistrates called Cosmi in Crete, except that the Ephors are five in number and the Cosmi ten; and the Elders at Sparta are equal in number to the Elders whom the Cretans call the Council; and monarchy existed in former times, but then the Cretans abolished it, and the Cosmi hold the leadership in war; and all are members of the Assembly, though it has no powers except the function of confirming by vote the resolutions already formed by the Elders and the Cosmi.

+

Now the Cretan arrangements for the public mess-tables are better than the Spartan; for at Sparta each citizen pays a fixed poll-tax, failing which he is prevented by law from taking part in the government, as has been said before; but in Crete the system is more communal, for out of all the crops and cattle produced from the public lands, and the tributes paid by the serfs, one part is assigned for the worship of the gods and the maintenance of the public services,and the other for the public mess-tables, so that all the citizens are maintained from the common funds, women and children as well as men; and the lawgiver has devised many wise measures to secure the benefit of moderation at table, and the segregation of the women in order that they may not bear many children, for which purpose he instituted association with the male sex, as to which there will be another occasionThis promise is not fulfilled to consider whether it was a bad thing or a good one. That the regulations for the common mess-tables therefore are better in Crete than at Sparta is manifest; but the regulations for the Cosmi are even worse than those regarding the Ephors. For the evil attaching to the office of the Ephors belongs to the Cosmi also, as the post is filled by any chance persons, while the benefit conferred on the government by this office at Sparta is lacking in Crete. At Sparta, as the election is made from all the citizens, the common people sharing in the highest office desire the maintenance of the constitution, but in Crete they do not elect the Cosmi from all the citizens but from certain clans, and the Elders from those who have held the office of Cosmos, about which regulations the same comments might be made as about what takes place at Sparta: their freedom from being called to account and their tenure for life gives them greater rank than their merit deserves, and their administration of their office at their own discretion and not under the guidance of a written code is dangerous. And the fact that the common people quietly tolerate their exclusion is no proof that the arrangement is a sound one; for the Cosmi unlike the Ephors make no sort of profit, as they live in an island remote from any people to corrupt them.

+ +
+

Also the remedy which they employ for this defecti.e. the defect of the undue restriction of the office. is a curious one, and less characteristic of a republic than of a dynastySee 1292b 10 n.: often the Cosmi are expelled by a conspiracy formed among some of their actual colleagues or the private citizens. Also the Cosmi are allowed to resign during their term of office. Now it would be preferable for all these expedients to be put in force by law rather than at the discretion of individuals, for that is a dangerous principle. And the worst expedient of all is that of the suspension of the office of Cosmi, which is often brought about by members of the powerful class who wish to escape being punished; this proves that the constitution has a republican element, although it is not actually a republic but rather a dynasty.See 1292b 10 n. And the nobles frequently form parties among the common people and among their friends and so bring about a suspension of government,The MSS. give bring about a monarchy. and form factions and engage in war with one another. Yet such a state of things is virtually the same as if for a period of time the state underwent an entire revolution, and the bonds of civil society were loosened.

+

And it is a precarious position for a state to be in, when those who wish to attack it also have the power to do so. But, as has been said, it is saved by its locality; for distance has had the same effect as alien-acts.Aliens required special permission to reside at Sparta, and the ephors had powers to expel them for undesirable conduct. A result of this is that with the Cretans the serf population stands firm, whereas the Helots often revolt; for the Cretanstake no part in foreign empire, and also the island has only lately been invaded by warfare from abroad, rendering manifest the weakness of the legal system there.

+

Let this suffice for our discussion of this form of constitution.

+

Carthage also appears to have a good constitution, with many outstanding features as compared with those of other nations, but most nearly resembling the Spartan in some points. For these three constitutions are in a way near to one another and are widely different from the others—the Cretan, the Spartan and, thirdly, that of Carthage. Many regulations at Carthage are good; and a proof of a well-regulated constitution is that the populace willingly remain faithful to the constitutional system, and that neither civil strife has arisen in any degree worth mentioning, nor yet a tyrant.

Points in which the Carthaginian constitution resembles the Spartan are the common mess-tables of its Comradeships corresponding to the Phiditia, and the magistracy of the Hundred and Four corresponding to the Ephors (except one point of superiority—the Ephors are drawn from any class, but the Carthaginians elect this magistracy by merit); the kings and the council of Elders correspond to the kings and Elders at Sparta, and it is another superior feature that the Carthaginian kings are not confined to the same family and that one of no particular distinction, and also that if any family distinguishes itself . . .Clauses seem to have been lost concluding the account of the appointment of the Kings and turning to the Elders and their selection on grounds of wealth. the Elders are to be chosen from these rather than by age; for as they are put in control of important matters, if they are men of no value they do great harm,

+ +
+

and they have already injured the Spartan State.

+

Most of the points therefore in the Carthaginian system that would be criticized on the ground of their divergences happen to be common to all the constitutions of which we have spoken; but the features open to criticism as judged by the principle of an aristocracy or republic are some of them departures in the direction of democracy and others in the direction of oligarchy. The reference of some matters and not of others to the popular assembly rests with the kings in consultation with the Elders in case they agreei.e. agree to refer or not to refer unanimously, but failing that, these matters also lie with the peoplei.e. even when the Kings only or the Elders only desire reference, it takes place; and when the kings introduce business in the assembly, they do not merely let the people sit and listen to the decisions that have been taken by their rulers, but the people have the sovereign decision, and anybody who wishes may speak against the proposals introduced, a right that does not exist under the other constitutions. The appointment by co-optation of the Boards of Five which control many important matters, and the election by these boards of the supreme magistracy of the Hundred, and also their longer tenure of authority than that of any other officers (for they are in power after they have gone out of office and before they have actually entered upon it) are oligarchical features; their receiving no pay and not being chosen by lot and other similar regulations must be set down as aristocratic, and so must the fact that the members of the Boards are the judges in all lawsuits,instead of different suits being tried by different courts as at Sparta. But the Carthaginian system diverges from aristocracy in the direction of oligarchy most signally in respect of a certain idea that is shared by the mass of mankind; they think that the rulers should be chosen not only for their merit but also for their wealth, as it is not possible for a poor man to govern well or to have leisure for his duties. If therefore election by wealth is oligarchical and election by merit aristocratic, this will be a third system exhibited in the organization of the constitution of Carthage, for there elections are made with an eye to these two qualifications, and especially elections to the most important offices, those of the kings and of the generals. But it must be held that this divergence from aristocracy is an error on the part of a lawgiver; for one of the most important points to keep in view from the outset is that the best citizens may be able to have leisure and may not have to engage in any unseemly occupation, not only when in office but also when living in private life. And if it is necessary to look to the question of means for the sake of leisure, it is a bad thing that the greatest offices of state, the kingship and the generalship, should be for sale. For this law makes wealth more honored than worth, and renders the whole state avaricious; and whatever the holders of supreme power deem honorable, the opinion of the other citizens also is certain to follow them, and a state in which virtue is not held in the highest honor cannot be securely governed by an aristocracy.

+ +
+

And it is probable that those who purchase office will learn by degrees to make a profit out of it, when they hold office for money spent; for it would be odd if a man of small means but respectable should want to make a profit but an inferior person when he has spent money to get elected should not want to. Hence the persons who should be in office are those most capable of holding office. And even if the lawgiver neglected to secure comfortable means for respectable people, it would at all events be better that he should provide for their leisure while in office.

+

And it might also be thought a bad thing for the same person to hold several offices, which is considered a distinction at Carthage. One man one job is the best rule for efficiency, and the lawgiver ought to see that this may be secured, and not appoint the same man to play the flute and make shoes. Hence except in a small city it is more statesmanlike for a larger number to share in the offices and more democratic, for it is fairer to all, as we said, and also functions are performed better and more quickly when separate than by the same people. This is clear in military and naval matters; for in both of these departments command and subordination penetrate throughout almost the whole body.i.e. everyone in command (except the commander-in-chief) has someone of higher rank over him.

+

But the constitution being oligarchical they best escape the dangers by being wealthy, as they constantly send out a portion of the common people toappointments in the cities; by this means they heal the social sore and make the constitution stable. However, this is the achievement of fortune, whereas freedom from civil strife ought to be secured by the lawgiver; but as it is, suppose some misfortune occurs and the multitude of the subject class revolts, there is no remedy provided by the laws to restore tranquillity.

+

This then is the character of the Spartan, Cretan and Carthaginian constitutions, which are justly famous.

+

Of those that have put forward views about politics, some have taken no part in any political activities whatever but have passed their whole life as private citizens; and something has been said about almost all the writers of this class about whom there is anything noteworthy. Some on the other hand have been lawgivers, either for their native cities or even for certain foreign peoples, after having themselves been actively engaged in government; and of these some have been framers of laws only, and others of a constitution also, for instance Solon and Lycurgus, who instituted both laws and constitutions. The Spartan constitution has been discussed. As for Solon, he is considered by some people to have been a good lawgiver, as having put an end to oligarchy when it was too unqualified and having liberated the people from slavery and restored the ancestral democracy with a skilful blending of the constitution: the Council on the Areopagus being an oligarchic element, the elective magistracies aristocratic and the law-courts democratic.

+ +
+

And although really in regard to certain of these features, the Council and the election of magistrates, Solon seems merely to have abstained from destroying institutions that existed already, he does appear to have founded the democracy by constituting the jury-courts from all the citizens. For this he is actually blamed by some persons, as having dissolved the power of the other parts of the community by making the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful. For as the law-court grew strong, men courted favor with the people as with a tyrant, and so brought the constitution to the present democracy; and Ephialtes and Pericles docked the power of the Council on the Areopagus, while Pericles instituted payment for serving in the law-courts, and in this manner finally the successive leaders of the people led them on by growing stages to the present democracy. But this does not seem to have come about in accordance with the intention of Solon, but rather as a result of accident (for the common people having been the cause of the naval victories at the time of the Persian invasion became proud and adopted bad men as popular leaders when the respectable classes opposed their policy); inasmuch as Solon for his part appears to bestow only the minimum of power upon the people, the function of electing the magistrates and of calling them to account (for if even this were not under the control of the populace it would be a mere slave and a foreign enemy), whereas he appointed all the offices from the notable and the wealthy, the Five-hundred-bushel classand the Teamsters and a third property-class called the Knighthood; while the fourth class, the Thetes, were admitted to no office.For Solon’s classification of the citizens by the annual income of their estates see Aristot. Ath. Pol. 7.

+

Laws were givenPerhaps 664 B.C. by Zaleucus to the Epizephyrian Zephyrium, a promontory in S. Italy. Locrians and by CharondasSee 1252b 14. of Catana to his fellow-citizens and to the other Chalcidic citiesColonies from Chalcis in Euboea. on the coasts of Italy and Sicily. Some persons try to connect Zaleucus and Charondas together: they say that Onomacritus first arose as an able lawgiver, and that he was trained in Crete, being a Locrian and travelling there to practise the art of soothsaying, and Thales became his companion, and Lycurgus and Zaleucus were pupils of Thales, and Charondas of Zaleucus; but these stories give too little attention to the dates. Philolaus of Corinth also arose as lawgiver at Thebes. Philolaus belonged by birth to the Bacchiad family; he became the lover of Diocles the winnerIn 728 B.C. at Olympia, but when Diocles quitted the city because of his loathing for the passion of his mother Alcyone, he went away to Thebes, and there they both ended their life. Even now people still show their tombs, in full view of each other and one of them fully open to view in the direction of the Corinthian country but the other one not; for the story goes that they arranged to be buried in this manner, Diocles owing to his hatred for his misfortune securing that the land of Corinth might not be visible from his tomb, and Philolaus that it might be from his.

+ +
+

It was due then to a reason of this nature that they went to live at Thebes; but Philolaus became the Thebans’ lawgiver in regard to various matters, among others the size of families,—the laws called by the Thebans laws of adoption; about this Philolaus enacted special legislation, in order that the number of the estates in land might be preserved. There is nothing special in the code of Charondas except the trials for false witness (for he was the first to introduce the procedure of denunciation), but in the accuracy of his laws he is a more finished workman even than the legislators of today. (Peculiar to PhaleasDealt with already in 4. is the measure for equalizing properties; to Plato,Above, 1-3 community of wives and children and of property, and the common meals for the women, and also the law about drunkenness, enacting that sober persons are to be masters of the drinking-bouts, and the regulation for military training to make men ambidextrous during drill, on the ground that it is a mistake to have one of the two hands useful but the other useless.) There are laws of Draco,Author of the first written code at Athens, 621 B.C. (though in Aristot. Ath. Pol. 4, his legislation is hardly mentioned; he appears there as the framer of the constitution). but he legislated for an existing constitution, and there is nothing peculiar in his laws that is worthy of mention, except their severity in imposing heavy punishment. PittacusOf Mitylene in Lesbos, one of the Seven Sages, dictator 589-579 B.C. also was a framer of laws, but not of a constitution; a special law of his is that if men commit any offence when drunk,they are to pay a larger fine than those who offend when sober; because since more men are insolent when drunk than when sober he had regard not to the view that drunken offenders are to be shown more mercy, but to expediency. AndrodamasOtherwise unknown. of Rhegium also became lawgiver to the Chalcidians in the direction of Thrace, Chalcidice, the peninsula in the N. Aegean, was colonized from Chalcis in Euboea. and to him belong the laws dealing with cases of murder and with heiresses; however one cannot mention any provision that is peculiar to him.

+

Let such be our examination of the constitutional schemes actually in force and of those that have been proposed by certain persons.

+ +
+
+

For the student of government, and of nature and characteristics of the various forms of constitution, almost the first question to consider is in regard to the state: what exactly is the essential nature of a state? As it is, this is a matter of dispute: a public act is spoken of by some people as the action of the state, others speak of it as the action not of the state but of the oligarchy or the tyrant in powerSo we speak of an action planned and carried by the party in power as an Act of Parliament, and technically as an act of the sovereign.; and we see that the activity of the statesman and lawgiver is entirely concerned with a state as its object, and a constitution is a form of organization of the inhabitants of a state. But a state is a composite thing, in the same sense as any other of the things that are wholes but consist of many parts; it is therefore clear that we must first inquire into the nature of a citizen; for a state is a collection of citizens,

+ +
+

so that we have to consider who is entitled to the name of citizen, and what the essential nature of a citizen is. For there is often a difference of opinion as to this: people do not all agree that the same person is a citizen; often somebody who would be a citizen in a democracy is not a citizen under an oligarchy. We need not here consider those who acquire the title of citizen in some exceptional manner, for example those who are citizens by adoption; and citizenship is not constituted by domicile in a certain place (for resident aliens and slaves share the domicile of citizens), nor are those citizens who participate in a common system of justice, conferring the right to defend an action and to bring one in the law-courts (for this right belongs also to the parties under a commercial treaty, as they too can sue and be sued at law,—or rather, in many places even the right of legal action is not shared completely by resident aliens, but they are obliged to produce a patron, so that they only share in a common legal procedure to an incomplete degree), but these are only citizens in the manner in which children who are as yet too young to have been enrolled in the list and old men who have been dischargedThis seems to imply that aged citizens were excused attendance at the assembly and law-courts, as well as military service must be pronounced to be citizens in a sense, yet not quite absolutely, but with the added qualification of under age in the case of the former and superannuated or some other similar term (it makes no difference, the meaning being clear) in that of the latter. For we seek to define a citizen in the absolute sense, and one possessing nodisqualification of this nature that requires a correcting term, since similar difficulties may also be raised, and solved, about citizens who have been disfranchised or exiled. A citizen pure and simple is defined by nothing else so much as by the right to participate in judicial functions and in office. But some offices of government are definitely limited in regard to time, so that some of them are not allowed to be held twice by the same person at all, or only after certain fixed intervals of time; other officials are without limit of tenure, for example the juryman and the member of the assembly. It might perhaps be said that such persons are not officials at all, and that the exercise of these functions does not constitute the holding of office;Or, amending the text, and yet that it is absurd to deny the title of citizen to those— and yet it is absurd to deny the title of official to those who have the greatest power in the state. But it need not make any difference, as it is only the question of a name, since there is no common name for a juryman and a member of the assembly that is properly applied to both. For the sake of distinction therefore let us call the combination of the two functions office without limitation. Accordingly we lay it down that those are citizens who participate in office in this manner.

+

Such more or less is the definition of citizen that would best fit with all of those to whom the name is applied. But it must not be forgotten that things in the case of which the things to which they are related differ in kind, one of them being primary, another one secondary and so on, either do not contain a common nature at all, as being what they are, or barely do so.The meaning of this abstract principle is most easily seen from its application here: if states are generically different from one another, membership of a state, citizenship, can hardly be a single thing, and come under a single definition. Now we see that constitutions differ from one another in kind, and that some are subsequent and others prior;

+ +
+

for erroneous and divergent forms are necessarily subsequent to correct forms (in what sense we employ the terms divergent of constitutions will appear later). Hence the citizen corresponding to each form of constitution will also necessarily be different. Therefore the definition of a citizen that we have given applies especially to citizenship in a democracy; under other forms of government it may hold good, but will not necessarily do so. For in some states there is no body of common citizens, and they do not have the custom of a popular assembly but councils of specially convened members, and the office of trying law-suits goes by sections—for example at Sparta suits for breach of contract are tried by different ephors in different cases, while cases of homicide are tried by the ephors and doubtless other suits by some other magistrate. The same method is notThe negative is a conjectural insertion, cf. 1273a 20. followed at Carthage, where certain magistrates judge all the law-suits. But still, our definition of a citizen admits of correction. For under the other forms of constitution a member of the assembly and of a jury-court is not an official without restriction, but an official defined according to his office; either all of them or some among them are assigned deliberative and judicial duties either in all matters or in certain matters. What constitutes a citizen is therefore clear from these considerations: we now declare that one who has the right to participate in deliberative or judicial office is a citizen of the statein which he has that right, and a state is a collection of such persons sufficiently numerous, speaking broadly, to secure independence of life.

+

But in practice citizenship is limited to the child of citizens on both sides, not on one side only, that is, the child of a citizen father or of a citizen mother; and other people carry this requirement further back, for example to the second or the third preceding generation or further. But given this as a practical and hasty definition, some people raise the difficulty, How will that ancestor three or four generations back have been a citizen? GorgiasSicilian orator and nihilistic philosopher, visited Athens 427 B.C. of Leontini therefore, partly perhaps in genuine perplexity but partly in jest, said that just as the vessels made by mortar-makers were mortars, so the citizens made by the magistrates were Larisaeans, since some of the magistrates were actually larisa-makers. Larisa, a city in Thessaly, was famous for the manufacture of a kind of kettle called larisa. But it is really a simple matter; for if they possessed citizenship in the manner stated in our definition of a citizen, they were citizens—since it is clearly impossible to apply the qualification of descent from a citizen father or mother to the original colonizers or founders of a city.

+

But perhaps a question rather arises about those who were admitted to citizenship when a revolution had taken place, for instance such a creation of citizens as that carried outIn 509 B.C. at Athens by Cleisthenes after the expulsion of the tyrants, when he enrolled in his tribes many resident aliens who had been foreigners or slaves. The dispute as to these is not about the fact of their citizenship, but whether they received it wrongly or rightly. Yet even as to this one might raise the further question,

+ +
+

whether, if a man is not rightly a citizen, he is a citizen at all, as wrongly means the same as not truly. But we sometimes see officials governing wrongly, as to whom we shall not deny that they do govern, but shall say that they do not do it rightly, and a citizen is defined by a certain function of government (a citizen, as we said, is one who shares in such and such an office); therefore it is clear that even persons wrongly admitted to citizenship are to be pronounced to be citizens, although the question whether they are so rightly or not rightly is connected with the question that was propounded before.The question, What is a state? 1274b 34. For some persons raise the question, When is an occurrence the act of the state and when is it not? for example, when the government has been altered from oligarchy or tyranny to democracy. In such circumstances some people claim that the new government should not discharge public debts, on the ground that the money was borrowed by the tyrant and not by the state, and should repudiate many other similar claims also, because some forms of government rest upon force and are not aimed at the welfare of the community. If therefore some democracies also are governed in that manner, the acts of the authorities in their case can only be said to be the acts of the state in the same sense as the public acts emanating from an oligarchy or a tyranny are said to be. Akin to this controversy seems to be the subject, What exactly is the principle on which we ought to pronounce a city to be the same city as it was before, or not the same but a different city? The most obvious mode of inquiring into this difficultydeals with place and people: the place and the people may have been divided, and some may have settled in one place, and some in another. In this form the question must be considered as easier of solution; for, as city has several meanings, the inquiry so put is in a way not difficult.i.e. πόλις means both (1) city (and also citadel) and (2) state, a collection of citizens; and if the citizens divide and settle in two different cities with different governments, they are clearly not the same state as before. But it may similarly be asked, Suppose a set of men inhabit the same place, in what circumstances are we to consider their city to be a single city? Its unity clearly does not depend on the walls, for it would be possible to throw a single wall round the Peloponnesus; and a case in point perhaps is Babylon, and any other city that has the circuit of a nation rather than of a city; for it is said that when Babylon was captured a considerable part of the city was not aware of it three days later. But the consideration of this difficulty will be serviceable for another occasion, as the student of politics must not ignore the question, What is the most advantageous size for a city, and should its population be of one race or of several? But are we to pronounce a city, where the same population inhabit the same place, to be the same city so long as the population are of the same race, in spite of the fact that all the time some are dying and others being born, just as it is our custom to say that a river or a spring is the same river or spring although one stream of water is always being added to it and another being withdrawn from it, or are we to say that though the people are the same people for the similar reason of continuity, yet the city is a different city?

+ +
+

For inasmuch as a state is a kind of partnership, and is in fact a partnership of citizens in a government, when the form of the government has been altered and is different it would appear to follow that the state is no longer the same state, just as we say that a chorus which on one occasion acts a comedy and on another a tragedy is a different chorus although it is often composed of the same persons, and similarly with any other common whole or composite structure we say it is different if the form of its structure is different—for instance a musical tune consisting of the same notes we call a different tune if at one time it is played in the Dorian mode and at another in the Phrygian. Therefore if this is the case, it is clear that we must speak of a state as being the same state chiefly with regard to its constitution; and it is possible for it to be called by the same or by a different designation both when its inhabitants are the same and when they are entirely different persons. But whether a state is or is not bound in justice to discharge its engagements when it has changed to a different constitution, is another subject.

+

The next thing to consider after what has now been said is the question whether we are to hold that the goodness of a good man is the same as that of a good citizen, or not the same. However, if this point really is to receive investigation, we must first ascertain in some general outline what constitutes the excellence of a citizen.Now a citizen we pronounced to be one sort of partner in a community, as is a sailor. And although sailors differ from each other in function—one is an oarsman, another helmsman, another look-out man, and another has some other similar special designation—and so clearly the most exact definition of their excellence will be special to each, yet there will also be a common definition of excellence that will apply alike to all of them; for security in navigation is the business of them all, since each of the sailors aims at that. Similarly therefore with the citizens, although they are dissimilar from one another, their business is the security of their community, and this community is the constitution, so that the goodness of a citizen must necessarily be relative to the constitution of the state. If therefore there are various forms of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be one single goodness which is the perfect goodness of the good citizen; but when we speak of a good man we mean that he possesses one single goodness, perfect goodness. Hence it is manifestly possible to be a good citizen without possessing the goodness that constitutes a good man. Moreover it is also feasible to pursue the same topic by raising the question in another manner in relation to the best form of constitution. If it is impossiblePerhaps the Greek should be altered to give possible. If we emend the text with Bernays to εἰ γὰρ δύνατον ἐξ ἁπάντων σπουδαίων ὄντων εἶναι πόλιν, the sense is: assuming the possibility of a perfect state, with all its factors the best of their kind, this means that all the population will be good citizens, not that they will all be perfect specimens of the human race, because the state needs citizens of the working classes, etc., and these cannot in the nature of things be perfect human beings for a state to consist entirely of good men, and if it is necessary for each person to perform well the work of his position, and to do this springs from goodness, then because it is impossible for all the citizens to be alike,

+ +
+

the goodness of a good citizen would not be one and the same as the goodness of a good man; for all ought to possess the goodness of the good citizen (that is a necessary condition of the state’s being the best possible), but it is impossible that all should possess the goodness of a good man, if it is not necessary that all the citizens in a good state should be good men. Again, since the state consists of unlike persons—just as an animal (to take this instance first) consists of soul and body, and a soul of reason and appetite, and a household of husband and wife and [ownership involves]These words in the Greek are probably an interpolation. a master and slave, in the same manner a state consists of all of these persons and also of others of different classes in addition to these,—it necessarily follows that the goodness of all the citizens is not one and the same, just as among dancers the skill of a head dancer is not the same as that of a subordinate leader. It is clear then from these considerations that the goodness of a good citizen and that of a good man are not the same in general; but will the goodness of a good citizen of a particular sort be the same as that of a good man? Now we say that a good ruler is virtuous and wise, and that a citizen taking part in politics must be wise. Also some people say that even the education of a ruler must be different, as indeed we see that the sons of kings are educated in horsemanship and military exercises, and Euripides saysFragment 16, from Aeolus. No subtleties for me, but what the state Requireth— implying that there is a special education for a ruler. And if the goodness of a good ruler is the same as the goodness of a good man, yet the person ruled is also a citizen, so that the goodness of a citizen in general will not be the same as that of a man, although that of a particular citizen will; for goodness as a ruler is not the same as goodness as a citizen, and no doubt this is the reason why JasonTyrant of Pherae in Thessaly, assassinated 370 B.C. said that when he was not tyrant he went hungry, meaning that he did not know the art of being a private person. Another point is that we praise the ability to rule and to be ruled, and it is doubtless held that the goodness of a citizen consists in ability both to rule and to be ruled well. If then we lay it down that the goodness of the good man is displayed in ruling, whereas that of the citizen is shown in both capacities, the two capacities cannot be equally laudable. Since therefore both views are sometimes accepted, and it is thought that the ruler and the subject do not have to learn the same arts but that the citizen must know both arts and share in both capacities, Some words seem to have been lost, conveying we must consider how this dual fitness can be acquired, or possibly considerably more. But the text at the beginning of the sentence is also corrupt. And it may be discerned from the following illustration: one form of authority is that of a master; by this we mean the exercise of authority in regard to the necessary work of the house, which it is not necessary for the master to know how to execute, but rather how to utilize; the other capacity, I mean the ability actually to serve in these menial tasks, is indeed a slave’s quality. But we distinguish several kinds of slave, as their employments are several. One department belongs to the handicraftsmen, who as their name implies are the persons that live by their hands,

+ +
+

a class that includes the mechanic artisan. Hence in some states manual laborers were not admitted to office in old times, before the development of extreme democracy. The tasks of those who are under this form of authority therefore it is not proper for the good man or the man fit for citizenship or the good citizen to learn, except for his own private use occasionally (for then it ceases to be a case of the one party being master and the other slave). But there exists a form of authority by which a man rules over persons of the same race as himself, and free men (for that is how we describe political authority), and this the ruler should learn by being ruled, just as a man should command cavalry after having served as a trooper, command a regiment after having served in a regiment and been in command of a company and of a platoon. Hence there is much truth in the saying that it is impossible to become a good ruler without having been a subject. And although the goodness of a ruler and that of a subject are different, the good citizen must have the knowledge and the ability both to be ruled and to rule, and the merit of the good citizen consists in having a knowledge of the government of free men on both sides. And therefore both these virtues are characteristic of a good man, even if temperance and justice in a ruler are of a different kind from temperance and justice in a subject; for clearly a good man’s virtue, for example his justice, will not be one and the same when he is under government and when he is free, but it will be of different kinds,one fitting him to rule and one to be ruled, just as temperance and courage are different in a man and in a woman (for a man would be thought a coward if he were only as brave as a brave woman, and a woman a chatterer if she were only as modest as a good man; since even the household functions of a man and of a woman are different—his business is to get and hers to keep). And practical wisdom alone of the virtues is a virtue peculiar to a ruler; for the other virtues seem to be necessary alike for both subjects and rulers to possess, but wisdom assuredly is not a subject’s virtue, but only right opinion: the subject corresponds to the man who makes flutes and the ruler to the flute-player who uses them.

+

The question whether the goodness of a good man is the same as that of a good citizen or different, and how they are the same and how different, is clear from these considerations.

+

But one of the difficulties as to what constitutes a citizen is still left. Is it truly the case that a citizen is a person who has the right to share office in the government, or are the working classes also to be counted citizens? If these persons also are to be counted who have no share in offices, it is not possible for every citizen to possess the citizen’s virtue; for the true citizen is the man capable of governing.Or perhaps for the working-man is a citizen. οὗτος γὰρ πολίτης. The translation takes πολίτης as subject and οὗτος as predicate (meaning ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρετήν, possessing capacity to govern). But possibly the predicate is πολίτης and the subject οὗτος, which then stands for ὁ βάναυσος; if so, the whole sentence means that if the non-official classes are citizens, not all the citizens will possess civic virtue (which is capacity to govern), for the working-man will be a citizen (and he is not capable of governing). If on the other hand no one of the working people is a citizen, in what class are the various workers to be ranked? for they are neither resident aliens nor foreigners. Or shall we say that so far as that argument goes no inconsistency results?

+ +
+

for slaves also are not in one of the classes mentioned, nor are freedmen. For it is true that not all the persons indispensable for the existence of a state are to be deemed citizens, since even the sons of citizens are not citizens in the same sense as the adults: the latter are citizens in the full sense, the former only by presumptionOr, with Casaubon’s probable correction of the Greek, only with a qualification.—they are citizens, but incomplete ones. In ancient times in fact the artisan class in some states consisted of slaves or aliens, owing to which the great mass of artisans are so even now; and the best-ordered state will not make an artisan a citizen. While if even the artisan is a citizen, then what we said to be the citizen’s virtue must not be said to belong to every citizen, nor merely be defined as the virtue of a free man, but will only belong to those who are released from menial occupations. Among menial occupations those who render such services to an individual are slaves, and those who do so for the community are artisans and hired laborers. The state of the case about them will be manifest from what follows when we consider it a little further[, for what has been said when made known itself makes it clear].The ill-expressed clause for what—clear seems almost certainly to be an interpolation. As there are several forms of constitution, it follows that there are several kinds of citizen, and especially of the citizen in a subject position; hence under one form of constitution citizenship will necessarily extend to the artisan and the hired laborer, while under other forms this is impossible, for instance in any constitution that is of the form entitled aristocratic and in whichthe honors are bestowed according to goodness and to merit, since a person living a life of manual toil or as a hired laborer cannot practise the pursuits in which goodness is exercised. In oligarchies on the other hand, though it is impossible for a hired laborer to be a citizen (since admission to office of various grades is based on high property-assessments), it is possible for an artisan; for even the general mass of the craftsmen are rich. At Thebes there was a law that no one who had not kept out of trade for the last ten years might be admitted to office. But under many constitutions the law draws recruits even from foreigners; for in some democracies the son of a citizen-mother is a citizen, and the same rule holds good as to base-born sons in many places. Nevertheless, inasmuch as such persons are adopted as citizens owing to a lack of citizens of legitimate birth (for legislation of this kind is resorted to because of under-population), when a state becomes well off for numbers it gradually divests itself first of the sons of a slave father or mother, then of those whose mothers only were citizens, and finally only allows citizenship to the children of citizens on both sides. These facts then show that there are various kinds of citizen, and that a citizen in the fullest sense means the man who shares in the honors of the state, as is implied in the verse of Homer Hom. Il. 9.648, Hom. Il. 16.59 : Like to some alien settler without honor,— since a native not admitted to a share in the public honors is like an alien domiciled in the land. But in some places this exclusion is disguised, for the purpose of deceiving those who are a part of the population.The MSS. give But where such exclusion is disguised, it (this concealment) is for the purpose of deceiving etc.

+ +
+

The answer therefore to the question, Is the goodness that makes a good man to be deemed the same as that which makes a worthy citizen, or different? is now clear from what has been said in one form of state the good man and the good citizen are the same, but in another they are different, and also in the former case it is not every citizen but only the statesman, the man who controls or is competent to control, singly or with colleagues, the administration of the commonwealth, that is essentially also a good man.

+

And since these points have been determined, the next question to be considered is whether we are to lay it down that there is only one form of constitution or several, and if several, what they are and how many and what are the differences between them. Now a constitution is the ordering of a state in respect of its various magistracies, and especially the magistracy that is supreme over all matters. For the government is everywhere supreme over the state and the constitution is the government. I mean that in democratic states for example the people are supreme, but in oligarchies on the contrary the few are; and we say that they have a different constitution. And we shall use the same language about the other forms of government also.

+

We have therefore to determine first the fundamental points, what is the object for which a state exists and how many different kinds of system there are for governing mankind and for controlling the common life.

+

Now it has been said in our first discourses,1253a 1 ff. in which we determined the principles concerning household management and the control of slaves, that man is by nature a political animal;and so even when men have no need of assistance from each other they none the less desire to live together. At the same time they are also brought together by common interest, so far as each achieves a share of the good life. The good life then is the chief aim of society, both collectively for all its members and individually; but they also come together and maintain the political partnership for the sake of life merely, for doubtless there is some element of value contained even in the mere state of being alive, provided that there is not too great an excess on the side of the hardships of life, and it is clear that the mass of mankind cling to life at the cost of enduring much suffering, which shows that life contains some measure of well-being and of sweetness in its essential nature.

+

And again, the several recognized varieties of government can easily be defined; in fact we frequently discuss them in our external discourses.Mentioned at 1323a 22 (and also six times in other books); they are there appealed to for the tripartite classification of foods which in Aristot. Nic. Eth.1098b 12 is ascribed to current opinion of long standing and generally accepted by students of philosophy. The term may there predenote doctrines not peculiar to the Peripatetic school. The authority of a master over a slave, although in truth when both master and slave are designed by nature for their positions their interests are the same, nevertheless governs in the greater degree with a view to the interest of the master, but incidentally with a view to that of the slave, for if the slave deteriorates the position of the master cannot be saved from injury. Authority over children and wife [and over the whole household, which we call the art of household managementAristotle can hardly have written this clause, as it includes mastership over slaves.] is exercised either in the interest of those ruled or for some common interest of both parties,—essentially, in the interest of the ruled, as we see that the other arts also,

+ +
+

like medicine and athletic training, are pursued in the interest of the persons upon whom they are practised, although incidentally they may also be in the interest of the practitioners themselves; for nothing prevents the trainer from being on occasions himself also one of the persons in training, just as the pilot is always a member of the crew; so although the trainer or pilot studies the good of those under his authority, when he himself also becomes one among them he incidentally shares the benefit, for the pilot is a sailor in the ship and the trainer can become one of the persons in training under his own direction. Hence in regard to the political offices also, when the state is constituted on the principle of equality and of similarity between the citizens, these claim to hold office by turn—in earlier times, under the natural system, claiming to do public services in turn, and for somebody in return to look after their own welfare just as previously they looked after his interest when in office themselves; but nowadays owing to the benefits to be got from public sources and from holding office people wish to be in office continuously, just as if it were the case that those in office although sickly people always enjoyed good health—in which case office would no doubt be much run after by invalids.

+

It is clear then that those constitutions that aim at the common advantage are in effect rightly framed in accordance with absolute justice, while those that aim at the rulers’ own advantage only are faulty, and are all of them deviations from the right constitutions; for they have an element of despotism, whereas a city is a partnership of free men.

+

These matters having been determined the next step is to consider how many forms of constitution there are and what they are; and first to study the right forms of constitution, since the deviations will also become manifest when these are defined.

+

But inasmuch as constitution means the same as government, and the government is the supreme power in the state, and this must be either a single ruler or a few or the mass of the citizens, in cases when the one or the few or the many govern with an eye to the common interest, these constitutions must necessarily be right ones, while those administered with an eye to the private interest of either the one or the few or the multitude are deviations. For either we must not say that those who are part of the state are citizens, or those who are part of the state must share in the advantage of membership. Our customary designation for a monarchy that aims at the common advantage is kingship; for a government of more than one yet only a few aristocracy （either because the best men rule or because they rule with a view to what is best for the state and for its members）; while when the multitude govern the state with a view to the common advantage, it is called by the name common to all the forms of constitution, constitutional government. (And this comes about reasonably, since although it is possible for one man or a few to excel in virtue, when the number is larger it becomes difficult for them to possess perfect excellence in respect of every form of virtue,

+ +
+

but they can best excel in military valor, for this is found with numbers; and therefore with this form of constitution the class that fights for the state in war is the most powerful, and it is those who possess arms who are admitted to the government.) Deviations from the constitutions mentioned are tyranny corresponding to kingship, oligarchy to aristocracy, and democracy to constitutional government; for tyranny is monarchy ruling in the interest of the monarch, oligarchy government in the interest of the rich, democracy government in the interest of the poor, and none of these forms governs with regard to the profit of the community.

+

But it is necessary to say at a little greater length what each of these constitutions is; for the question involves certain difficulties, and it is the special mark of one who studies any subject philosophically, and not solely with regard to its practical aspect, that he does not overlook or omit any point, but brings to light the truth about each. Now tyranny, as has been said, is monarchy exerting despotic power over the political community; oligarchy is when the control of the government is in the hands of those that own the properties; democracy is when on the contrary it is in the hands of those that do not possess much property, but are poor.A first difficulty is with regard to the definition. If the majority of the citizens were wealthy and were in control of the state, yet when the multitude is in power it is a democracy, and similarly, to take the other case, if it were to occur somewhere that the poor were fewer than the rich but were stronger than they and accordingly were in control of the government, yet where a small number is in control it is said to be an oligarchy, then it would seem that our definition of the forms of constitution was not a good one.i.e. it would be absurd to term government by the people democracy if the people happened to be very rich, or government by a few oligarchy if the few were poor and the many whom they governed rich. And once again, if one assumed the combination of small numbers with wealth and of multitude with poverty, and named the constitutions thus—one in which the rich being few in number hold the offices, oligarchy: one in which the poor being many in number hold the offices, democracy,—this involves another difficulty. What names are we to give to the constitutions just described—the one in which there are more rich and the one in which the poor are the fewer, and these control their respective governments—if there exists no other form of constitution beside those mentioned? The argument therefore seems to make it clear that for few or many to have power is an accidental feature of oligarchies in the one case and democracies in the other, due to the fact that the rich are few and the poor are many everywhere (so that it is not really the case that the points mentioned constitute a specific difference), but that the real thing in which democracy and oligarchy differ from each other is poverty and wealth;

+ +
+

and it necessarily follows that wherever the rulers owe their power to wealth, whether they be a minority or a majority, this is an oligarchy, and when the poor rule, it is a democracy, although it does accidentally happen, as we said, that where the rulers hold power by wealth they are few and where they hold power by poverty they are many, because few men are rich but all men possess freedom, and wealth and freedom are the grounds on which the two classes lay claim to the government.

+

And first we must ascertain what are stated to be the determining qualities of oligarchy and democracy, and what is the principle of justice under the one form of government and under the other. For all men lay hold on justice of some sort, but they only advance to a certain point, and do not express the principle of absolute justice in its entirety. For instance, it is thought that justice is equality, and so it is, though not for everybody but only for those who are equals; and it is thought that inequality is just, for so indeed it is, though not for everybody, but for those who are unequal; but these partisans strip away the qualification of the persons concerned, and judge badly. And the cause of this is that they are themselves concerned in the decision, and perhaps most men are bad judges when their own interests are in question. Hence inasmuch as just means just for certain persons, and it is divided in the same way in relation to the things to be distributed and the persons that receive them, as has been said before in the Ethics,Cf. Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1131a 14-24. the two parties agree as to what constitutes equality in the thing, but dispute as to what constitutes equality in the person,chiefly for the reason just now stated, because men are bad judges where they themselves are concerned, but also, inasmuch as both parties put forward a plea that is just up to a certain point, they think that what they say is absolutely just. For the one side think that if they are unequal in some respects, for instance in wealth, they are entirely unequal, and the other side think that if they are equal in some respects, for instance in freedom, they are entirely equal. But the most important thing they do not mention. If men formed the community and came together for the sake of wealth, their share in the state is proportionate to their share in the property, so that the argument of the champions of oligarchy would appear to be valid—namely that in a partnership with a capital of 100 minaeSee 1268b 14 n. it would not be just for the man who contributed one mina to have a share whether of the principal or of the profits accruing equal to the share of the man who supplied the whole of the remainder; but if on the other hand the state was formed not for the sake of life only but rather for the good life (for otherwise a collection of slaves or of lower animals would be a state, but as it is, it is not a state, because slavesSee 1260a 12, and Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1177a 8, but no one allows a slave any measure of happiness, any more than a life of his own. and animals have no share in well-being or in purposive life), and if its object is not military alliance for defence against injury by anybody, and it does not exist for the sake of trade and of business relationsThe sentence here breaks off; The inference that should have formed its conclusion is given in 5.15.—for if so, Etruscans and Carthaginians and all the people that have commercial relations with one another would be virtually citizens of a single state; at all events they have agreements about imports and covenants as to abstaining from dishonesty and treaties of alliance for mutual defence;

+ +
+

but they do not have officials common to them all appointed to enforce these covenants, but different officials with either party, nor yet does either party take any concern as to the proper moral character of the other, nor attempt to secure that nobody in the states under the covenant shall be dishonest or in any way immoral, but only that they shall not commit any wrong against each other. All those on the other hand who are concerned about good government do take civic virtue and vice into their purview. Thus it is also clear that any state that is truly so called and is not a state merely in name must pay attention to virtue; for otherwise the community becomes merely an alliance, differing only in locality from the other alliances, those of allies that live apart. And the law is a covenant or, in the phrase of the sophist Lycophron,Probably a pupil of Gorgias, see 1275b 26 n. a guarantee of men’s just claims on one another, but it is not designed to make the citizens virtuous and just. And that this is how the matter stands is manifest. For if one were actually to bring the sites of two cities together into one, so that the city-walls of Megara and those of Corinth were contiguous, even so they would not be one city; nor would they if they enacted rights of intermarriage with each other, although intermarriage between citizens is one of the elements of community which are characteristic of states. And similarly even if certain people lived in separate places yet not so far apart as not to have intercourse, but had laws to prevent their wronging one anotherin their interchange of products— for instance, if one man were a carpenter, another a farmer, another a shoemaker and another something else of the kind,—and the whole population numbered ten thousand, but nevertheless they had no mutual dealings in anything else except such things as exchange of commodities and military alliance, even then this would still not be a state. What then exactly is the reason for this? for clearly it is not because their intercourse is from a distance since even if they came together for intercourse of this sort (each nevertheless using his individual house as a city) and for one another’s military aid against wrongful aggressors only, as under a defensive alliance, not even then would they seem to those who consider the matter carefully to constitute a state, if they associated on the same footing when they came together as they did when they were apart. It is manifest therefore that a state is not merely the sharing of a common locality for the purpose of preventing mutual injury and exchanging goods. These are necessary preconditions of a state’s existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life,

+ +
+

which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.

+

It is therefore clear from what has been said that all those who dispute about the forms of constitution assert a part of the just principle.

+

But it is a matter of question what ought to be the sovereign power in the state. Clearly it must be either the multitude, or the rich, or the good, or the one man who is best of all, or a tyrant. But all of these arrangements appear to involve disagreeable consequences. For instance, if the poor take advantage of their greater numbers to divide up the property of the rich, is not this unjust? No, it may be said, for it was a resolution made by the supreme authority in just form. Then what must be pronounced to be the extreme of injustice? And again, when everybody is taken into account, suppose the majority share out among themselves the property of the minority, it is manifest that they are destroying the state; but assuredly virtue does not destroyits possessor, and justice is not destructive of the state, so that it is clear that this principle also cannot be just. Also it follows from it that all the actions done by a tyrant are just, for his use of force is based upon superior strength, as is the compulsion exerted by the multitude against the rich. But is it just that the minority and the rich should rule? Suppose therefore they also act in the same way and plunder and take away the property of the multitude, is this just? If it is, so also is the plunder of the rich by the multitude. It is clear therefore that all these things are bad and not just. But ought the good to rule, and be in control of all classes? If so, then it follows that all the other classes will be dishonored,The term is technical and means disfranchisement and loss of civic rights. if they are not honored by holding the offices of government; for we speak of offices as honors, and if the same persons are always in office the rest must necessarily be excluded from honor. But is it better for the most virtuous individual to be the ruler? But that is still more oligarchical, for the people excluded from honor will be more numerous. But perhaps some one would say that in any case it is a bad thing for a human being, having in his soul the passions that are the attributes of humanity, to be sovereign, and not the law. Suppose therefore that law is sovereign, but law of an oligarchic or democratic nature, what difference will it make as regards the difficulties that have been raised? for the results described before will come about just the same.

+

Most of these points therefore must be discussed on another occasion; but the view that it is more proper for the multitude to be sovereign than the few of greatest virtue might be thought to be explicable and to have some justification, and even to be the true view. For it is possible that the many, though not individually good men,

+ +
+

yet when they come together may be better, not individually but collectively, than those who are so, just as public dinners to which many contribute are better than those supplied at one man’s cost; for where there are many, each individual, it may be argued, has some portion of virtue and wisdom, and when they have come together, just as the multitude becomes a single man with many feet and many hands and many senses, so also it becomes one personality as regards the moral and intellectual faculties. This is why the general public is a better judge of the works of music and those of the poets, because different men can judge a different part of the performance, and all of them all of it. But the superiority of good men over the mass of men individually, like that of handsome men, so it is said, over plain men and of the works of the painter’s art over the real objects, really consists in this, that a number of scattered good points have been collected together into one example; since if the features be taken separately, the eye of one real person is more beautiful than that of the man in the picture, and some other feature of somebody else. It is not indeed clear whether this collective superiority of the many compared with the few good men can possibly exist in regard to every democracy and every multitude, and perhaps it may be urged that it is manifestly impossible in the case of some—for the same argument would also apply to animals, yet what difference is there,practically, between some multitudes and animals?—but nothing prevents what has been said from being true about some particular multitude. One might therefore employ these considerations to solve not only the previously stated difficulty but also the related question, over what matters is the authority of the freemen, the mass of the citizens, to extend (using that expression to denote those who are not rich nor possessed of any distinguishing excellence at all)? For it is not safe for them to participate in the highest offices (for injustice and folly would inevitably cause them to act unjustly in some things and to make mistakes in others), but yet not to admit them and for them not to participate is an alarming situation, for when there are a number of persons without political honors and in poverty, the city then is bound to be full of enemies. It remains therefore for them to share the deliberative and judicial functions. For this reason Solon and certain other lawgivers appoint the common citizens toProbably words meaning these functions and to have fallen out. the election of the magistrates and the function of calling them to audit, although they do not allow them to hold office singly. For all when assembled together have sufficient discernment, and by mingling with the better class are of benefit to the state, just as impure food mixed with what is pure makes the whole more nourishing than the small amount of pure food alone; but separately the individual is immature in judgement. This arrangement of the constitution is however open to question in the first place on the ground that it might be held that the best man to judge which physician has given the right treatment is the man that is himself capable of treating and curing the patient of his present disease, and this is the man who is himself a physician;

+ +
+

and that this is the case similarly with regard to the other arts and crafts. Hence just as a court of physicians must judge the work of a physician, so also all other practitioners ought to be called to account before their fellows. But physician means both the ordinary practitioner, and the master of the craft, and thirdly, the man who has studied medicine as part of his general education (for in almost all the arts there are some such students, and we assign the right of judgement just as much to cultivated amateurs as to experts). Further the same might be thought to hold good also of the election of officials, for to elect rightly is a task for experts—for example, it is for experts in the science of mensuration to elect a land-surveyor and for experts in navigation to choose a pilot; for even though in some occupations and arts some laymen also have a voice in appointments, yet they certainly do not have more voice than the experts. Hence according to this argument the masses should not be put in control over either the election of magistrates or their audit. But perhaps this statement is not entirely correct, both for the reason stated above,See 6.4. in case the populace is not of too slavish a character (for although each individual separately will be a worse judge than the experts, the whole of them assembled together will be better or at least as good judges), and also because about some things the man who made them would not be the only nor the best judge, in the case of professionals whose products come within the knowledge of laymen also:to judge a house, for instance, does not belong only to the man who built it, but in fact the man who uses the house (that is, the householder) will be an even better judge of it, and a steersman judges a rudder better than a carpenter, and the diner judges a banquet better than the cook.

+

This difficulty then might perhaps be thought to be satisfactorily solved in this way. But there is another connected with it: it is thought to be absurd that the base should be in control over more important matters than the respectable; but the audits and the elections of magistrates are a very important matter, yet in some constitutions, as has been said, they are assigned to the common people, for all such matters are under the control of the assembly, yet persons of a low property-assessment and of any age take part in the assembly and the council and sit on juries, whereas treasury officials, generals and the holders of the highest magistracies are drawn from among persons of large property. Now this difficulty also may be solved in a similar way; for perhaps these regulations also are sound, since it is not the individual juryman or councillor or member of the assembly in whom authority rests, but the court, the council and the people, while each of the individuals named (I mean the councillor, the members of assembly and the juryman) is a part of those bodies. Hence justly the multitude is sovereign in greater matters, for the popular assembly, the council and the jury-court are formed of a number of people, and also the assessed property of all these members collectively is more than that of the magistrates holding great offices individually or in small groups.

+

Let these points therefore be decided in this manner.

+ +
+

But the difficulty first mentionedViz. that in whatever class sovereignty is vested, some hardships will result, 1281a 14 ff. proves nothing else so clearly as that it is proper for the laws when rightly laid down to be sovereign, while the ruler or rulers in office should have supreme powers over matters as to which the laws are quite unable to pronounce with precision because of the difficulty of making a general rule to cover all cases. We have not however yet ascertained at all what particular character a code of laws correctly laid down ought to possess, but the difficulty raised at the startSee 1281a 36. still remains;Probably this clause should stand after the next, though—constitution (which will be a parenthesis), and should run but 〈the difficulty is there〉 for necessarily—states. for necessarily the laws are good or bad, just or unjust, simultaneously with and similarly to the constitutions of states (though of course it is obvious that the laws are bound to be adapted to the constitution); yet if so, it is clear that the laws in conformity with the right constitutions must necessarily be just and those in conformity with the divergentThe usual rendering is perverted, but the Greek term is more neutral. forms of constitution unjust.

+

What follows is a summary of Aristot. Nic. Eth. 2.And inasmuch as in all the sciences and arts the End is a good, and the greatest good and good in the highest degree in the most authoritative of all, which is the political faculty, and the good in the political field, that is, the general advantage, is justice, it is therefore thought by all men that justice is some sort of equality, and up to a certain point at all events they agree with the philosophical discourses in whichconclusions have been reached about questions of ethicsSee also Aristot. Nic. Eth. 5.3.; for justice is a quality of a thing in relation to persons,Literally, the just is (a just) something and (something just) for somebody. and they hold that for persons that are equal the thing must be equal. But equality in what characteristics does this mean, and inequality in what? This must be made clear, since this too raises a difficulty, and calls for political philosophy. For perhaps someone might say that the offices of state ought to be distributed unequally according to superiority in every good quality, even if the candidates in all other respects did not differ at all but were exactly alike, because men that are differenti.e. different in some good quality. have different rights and merits. Yet if this is true, those who are superior in complexion or stature or any good quality will have an advantage in respect of political rights. But surely the error here is obvious, and it comes out clearly if we consider the other sciences and faculties. Among flute-players equally good at their art it is not proper to give an advantage in respect of the flutes to those of better birth, for they will not play any better, but it is the superior performers who ought to be given the superior instruments. And if our meaning is not yet plain, it will become still clearer when we have carried the matter further. Suppose someone is superior in playing the flute but much inferior in birth or in good looks, then, even granting that each of these things—birth and beauty—is a greater good than ability to play the flute, and even though they surpass flute-playing proportionately more than the best flute-player surpasses the others in flute-playing, even so the best flute-player ought to be given the outstandingly good flutes;

+ +
+

for otherwise superiority both in wealth and in birth ought to contribute to the excellence of the performance, but they do not do so at all. Moreover on this theory every good thing would be commensurable with every other. For if to be of some particular height gave more claim, then height in general would be in competition with wealth and with free birth; therefore if A excels in height more than B does in virtue, and speaking generally size gives more superiority than virtue,Perhaps we should rewrite the Greek to give even though speaking generally virtue gives more superiority than size. all things would be commensurable for; if such-and-such an amount of one thing is better than such-and-such an amount of another, it is clear that such-and-such an amount of the one is equal to that amount of another. But since this is impossible, it is clear that in politics with good reason men do not claim a right to office on the ground of inequality of every kind—if one set of men are slow runners and another fast, this is no good ground for the one set having more and the other lessDoubtless the author meant the other way round, for the slow having less and the fast more political power. political power, but the latter’s superiority receives its honor in athletic contests; but the claim to office must necessarily be based on superiority in those things which go to the making of the state. Hence it is reasonable for the well-born, free and wealthy to lay claim to honor; for there must be free men and tax-payers, since a state consisting entirely of poor men would not be a state, any more than one consisting of slaves. But then, granting there is need of these, it is clear thatthere is also need of justice and civic virtue, for these are also indispensable in the administration of a state; except that wealth and freedom are indispensable for a state’s existence, whereas justice and civic virtue are indispensable for its good administration.

+

As a means therefore towards a state’s existence all or at all events some of these factors would seem to make a good claim, although as means to a good life education and virtue would make the most just claim, as has been said also before. On the other hand since those who are equal in one thing only ought not to have equality in all things nor those unequal as regards one thing inequality in all, it follows that all these forms of constitution must be deviations. Now it has been said before that all make a claim that is in a manner just, though not all a claim that is absolutely just; the rich claiming because they have a larger share of the land, and the land is common property, and also as being for the most part more faithful to their covenants; the free and well-born as being closely connected together (for the better-born are citizens to a greater degree than those of claims, low birth, and good birth is in every community held in honor at home), and also because it is probable that the children of better parents will be better, for good birth means goodness of breed; and we shall admit that virtue also makes an equally just claim, for we hold that justice is social virtue, which necessarily brings all the other virtues in its train; but moreover the majority have a just claim as compared with the minority, since they are stronger and richer and better if their superior numbers are taken in comparison with the others’ inferior numbers.

+ +
+

Therefore supposing all were in one city, I mean, that is, the good and the wealthy and noble and also an additional mass of citizens, will there be a dispute, or will there not, as to who ought to govern? It is true that under each of the forms of constitution that have been mentioned the decision as to who ought to govern is undisputed (for the difference between them lies in their sovereign classes—one is distinguished by being governed by the rich men, one by being governed by the good men, and similarly each of the others); but nevertheless we are considering the question how we are to decide between these classes supposing that they all exist in the state at the same period.

+

+ If then the possessors of virtue should be quite few in number, how is the decision to be made? ought we to consider their fewness in relation to the task, and whether they are able to administer the state, or sufficiently numerous to constitute a state? And there is some difficulty as regards all the rival claimants to political honors. Those who claim to rule because of their wealth might seem to have no justice in their proposal, and similarly also those who claim on the score of birth; for it is clear that if, to go a step further, a single individual is richer than all the others together, according to the same principle of justice it will obviously be right for this one man to rule over all, and similarly the man of outstanding nobility among the claimantson the score of freebirth. And this same thing will perhaps result in the case of aristocratic government based on virtue; for if there be some one man who is better than the other virtuous men in the state, by the same principle of justice that man must be sovereign. Accordingly if it is actually proper for the multitude to be sovereign because they are better than the few, then also, if one person or if more than one but fewer than the many are better than the rest, it would be proper for these rather than the multitude to be sovereign. All these considerations therefore seem to prove the incorrectness of all of the standards on which men claim that they themselves shall govern and everybody else be governed by them. For surely even against those who claim to be sovereign over the government on account of virtue, and similarly against those who claim on account of wealth, the multitudes might be able to advance a just plea; for it is quite possible that at some time the multitude may be collectively better and richer than the few, although not individually.

+

+ Hence it is also possible to meet in this way the question which some persons investigate and put forward (for some raise the question whether the legislator desiring to lay down the rightest laws should legislate with a view to the advantage of the better people or that of the larger number) in cases when the situation mentionedAt the end of the last sentence, 7.12. occurs. And right must be taken in the sense of equally right, and this means right in regard to the interest of the whole state and in regard to the common welfare of the citizens; and a citizen is in general one who shares in governing and being governed,

+ +
+

although he is different according to each form of constitution, but in relation to the best form a citizen is one who has the capacity and the will to be governed and to govern with a view to the life in accordance with virtue.

+

But if there is any one man so greatly distinguished in outstanding virtue, or more than one but not enough to be able to make up a complete state, so that the virtue of all the rest and their political ability is not comparable with that of the men mentioned, if they are several, or if one, with his alone, it is no longer proper to count these exceptional men a part of the state; for they will be treated unjustly if deemed worthy of equal status, being so widely unequal in virtue and in their political ability: since such a man will naturally be as a god among men. Hence it is clear that legislation also must necessarily be concerned with persons who are equal in birth and in ability, but there can be no law dealing with such men as those described, for they are themselves a law; indeed a man would be ridiculous if he tried to legislate for them, for probably they would say what in the story of AntisthenesPupil of Socrates and founder of the Cynic sect of philosophers. the lions said‘Where are your claws and teeth?’ when the hares made speeches in the assembly and demanded that all should have equality. This is why democratically governed states institute the system of ostracism, because of a reason of this nature; for these are the states considered to pursue equality most of all things,so that they used to ostracize men thought to be outstandingly powerful on account of wealth or popularity or some other form of political strength, and used to banish them out of the city for fixed periods of time. And there is a mythical story that the Argonauts left Heracles behind for a similar reason; for the ArgoCf. Apollod. 1.9.19 τῆς Ἀργοῦς φθεγξαμένης μὴ δύνασθαι πέρειν τὸ τούτου βάρος. Argo was a live creature, and Athena had built a talking timber into her cutwater. refused to carry him with the others because he was so much heavier than the sailors. Hence also those who blame tyranny and Periander’s advice to ThrasybulusPeriander was tyrant of Corinth circa 626-585 B.C.; Thrasybulus was tyrant of Miletus. Hdt. 5.92 tells the story with their parts reversed. must not be thought to be absolutely right in their censure (the story is that Periander made no reply to the herald sent to ask his advice, but levelled the corn-field by plucking off the ears that stood out above the rest; and consequently, although the herald did not know the reason for what was going on, when he carried back news of what had occurred, Thrasybulus understood that he was to destroy the outstanding citizens); for this policy is advantageous not only for tyrants, nor is it only tyrants that use it, but the same is the case with oligarchies and democracies as well; for ostracism has in a way the same effect as docking off the outstanding men by exile. And the same course is adopted in regard to cities and races by the holders of sovereign power, for example the Athenians so dealt with the Samians and Chians and LesbiansIn 440, 424 and 427 B.C. respectively (for no sooner did they get a strong hold of their empire than they humbled them in contravention of their covenants),

+ +
+

and the king of the Persians frequently used to cut down the numbers of the Medes and Babylonians and the other races that had waxed proud because they had once been head of an empire. And the problem applies universally to all the forms of constitution, even the right forms; for while the divergent forms of government do this because their regard is fixed on their private advantage, nevertheless with the constitutions directed to the common good the same is the case. And this is also clear in the field of the other arts and sciences; a painter would not let his animal have its foot of disproportionately large size, even though it was an exceptionally beautiful foot, nor would a shipbuilder make the stern or some other part of a ship disproportionately big, nor yet will a trainer of choruses allow a man who sings louder and more beautifully than the whole band to be a member of it. Hence as far as this practice goes nothing prevents monarchs from being in harmony with the cities they rule, if they resort to it when their own personal rule is beneficial to the cities. Therefore in relation to acknowledged superiorities the argument for ostracism has a certain element of political justice. True, it is better for the lawgiver so to constitute the state at the outset that it does not need this medicine; but the next best course to steer, if occasion arises, is to endeavor to correctthe constitution by some such method of rectification. But this was not what happened with the states, for they were not looking at what was advantageous for their proper constitution, but their acts of ostracism were done in a revolutionary spirit. In the divergent forms of constitution therefore it is evident that ostracism is advantageous and just under the special constitution, though perhaps it is also evident that it is notPerhaps not should be struck out; but if it stands, the clause refers to 8.5 init.—in these cases ostracism is practiced only in the interest of those in power. just absolutely; but in the case of the best constitution there is much doubt as to what ought to be done, not as regards superiority in the other things of value, such as strength and wealth and popularity, but in the case of a person becoming exceptionally distinguished for virtue. It certainly would not be said that such a man must be banished and got out of the way; yet nevertheless no doubt men would not think that they ought to rule over such a man, for that would be the same as if they claimed to rule over Zeus, dividing up his spheres of government. It remains therefore, and this seems to be the natural course, for all to obey such a man gladly, so that men of this sort may be kings in the cities for all time.

+

And perhaps it is well after the subjects that have been discussed to pass over to consider royal government; for we pronounce this to be one of the correct constitutions. And it has to be considered whether it is advantageous for a city or a country that is to be well administered to be ruled by a king, or whether it is not so but some other constitution is more expedient, or whether royal rule is expedient for some states and not for others. But it is needful to decide first whether there is only one sort of kingship or whether it has several varieties.

+ +
+

Now it is at all events easy to discern that kingship includes several kinds, and that the mode of government is not the same in all. For the kingship in the Spartan constitution, which is held to be a typical royalty of the kind guided by law, does not carry sovereignty in all matters, though when a king goes on a foreign expedition he is the leader in all matters relating to the war; and also matters relating to religion have been assigned to the kings. This kingship therefore is a sort of military command vested in generals with absolute powers and held for life; for the king has not authority to put a subject to death, except [in a certain reign]Inexplicable, and omitted in one of the earliest editions; possibly βασιλείᾳ is to be emended to ἐλάσειexcept on some march-out. as in ancient times kings on their military expeditions could kill an offender out of hand, as Homer proves, for Agamemnon endured being reviled in the assemblies but when they were on an expedition had authority to put a man to death: at all events he says But whomsoe’er I see far from the fray Shall have no hope to fly from dogs and vultures, For death is in my hands!Quoted from Hom. Il. 2.391, but the last line is not in our Homer. This then is one sort of kingship, a lifelong generalship, and some of the kingships of this kind are hereditary, others elective; and by its side there is another sort of monarchy, examples of which are kingships existing among some of the barbarians. The power possessed by all of these resembles that of tyrannies, but they govern according to law and are hereditary;for because the barbarians are more servile in their nature than the Greeks, and the Asiatics than the Europeans, they endure despotic rule without any resentment. These kingships therefore are for these reasons of a tyrannical nature, but they are secure because they are hereditary and rule by law. Also their bodyguard is of a royal and not a tyrannical type for the same reason; for kings are guarded by the citizens in arms, whereas tyrants have foreign guards, for kings rule in accordance with law and over willing subjects, but tyrants rule over unwilling subjects, owing to which kings take their guards from among the citizens but tyrants have them to guard against the citizens. These then are two kinds of monarchy; while another is that which existed among the ancient Greeks, the type of rulers called aesymnetae. This, to put it simply, is an elective tyranny, and it differs from the monarchy that exists among barbarians not in governing without the guidance of law but only in not being hereditary. Some holders of this type of monarchy ruled for life, others until certain fixed limits of time or until certain undertakings were ended, as for example the people of Mitylene once elected Pittacus to resist the exiles under the leadership of Antimenides and the poet Alcaeus. That they elected PittacusPittacus held the office 587-579 B.C. He was one of the Seven Sages. Antimenides and Alcaeus were brothers. as tyrant is proved by Alcaeus in one of his catches; for he rebukes the people because The base-born Pittacus they did set up As tyrant of the meek and luckless city, And all did greatly praise him.

+ +
+

These monarchies therefore now and in the past are of the nature of tyrannies because they are autocratic, but of the nature of kingships because they are elective and rule over willing subjects. A fourth class of royal monarchy consists of the hereditary legal kingships over willing subjects in the heroic period. For because the first of the line had been benefactors of the multitude in the arts or in war, or through having drawn them together or provided them with land, these kings used to come to the throne with the consent of the subjects and hand it on to their successors by lineal descent. And they had supreme command in war and control over all sacrifices that were not in the hands of the priestly class, and in addition to these functions they were judges in law-suits; some gave judgement not on oath and some on oath—the oath was taken by holding up the sceptre.This ritual is mentioned in Hom. Il. 1.234, Hom. Il. 7.412, Hom. Il. 10.328. These kings then of ancient times used to govern continuously in matters within the city and in the country and across the frontiers; but later on when gradually the kings relinquished some of their powers and had others taken from them by the multitudes, in the cities in general only the sacrifices were left to the kings,The monarchy was reduced to a priesthood at Cyrene (Hdt. 4.161) and at Ephesus. while where anything that deserves the name of royalty survived the kings only had the command in military expeditions across the frontiers.

+

There are then these kinds of kingship, four in number: one belonging to the heroic times, which was exercised over willing subjects, but in certain limited fields, for the king was general and judge and master of religious ceremonies; second, the barbarian monarchy, which is an hereditary despotism governing in conformity with law; third, the rule of the functionary called an aesymnetes, which is an elective tyranny; and fourth among these is the Spartan kingship, which may be described simply as an hereditary generalship held for life. These kingships then differ from one another in this manner. But a fifth kind of kingship is when a single ruler is sovereign over all matters in the way in which each race and each city is sovereign over its common affairs; this monarchy ranges with the rule of a master over a household, for just as the master’s rule is a sort of monarchy in the home, so absolute monarchy is domestic mastership over a city, or over a race or several races.

+

There are therefore, we may say, virtually two kinds of kingship that have been examined, this one and the Spartan. For most of the others lie between these, since with them the king is sovereign over fewer things than under absolute monarchy, but over more than under the Spartan kingship. Hence our inquiry is virtually about two questions, one whether it is expedient or inexpedient for states to have a military commander holding office for life, and that either by descent or by class,Some MSS. give or by election.

+ +
+

and one whether it is expedient or inexpedient for one man to be sovereign over everything. Now the study of a militarycommand of the kind mentioned has more the aspect of a legal than of a constitutional inquiry (for it is possible for this form of office to exist under all constitutions), so let it be dismissed at the first stageCf. 1289a 11 ff.; but the promise of a full discussion of law is not fulfilled; but the remaining mode of kingship is a kind of constitution, so that it is necessary to consider this one and to run over the difficulties that it involves.

+

And the starting-point of the inquiry is the question whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best men or by the best laws. Those of the opinion that it is advantageous to be governed by a king think that laws enunciate only general principles but do not give directions for dealing with circumstances as they arise; so that in an art of any kind it is foolish to govern procedure by written rules (and indeed in Egypt physicians have the right to alter their prescription after four days, although if one of them alters it before he does so at his own risk); it is clear therefore that government according to written rules, that is laws, is not the best, for the same reason. At the same time, however, rulers ought to be in possession of the general principle before mentioned as well. And a thing that does not contain the emotional element is generally superior to a thing in which it is innate; now the law does not possess this factor, but every human soulnecessarily has it. But perhaps someone might say that in compensation for this a single ruler will decide better about particular cases. Therefore it is clear that on the one hand the ruler must necessarily be a legislator, and that there must or be laws laid down, although these must not be sovereigni.e. unalterably binding, and not be set aside by special dispensation of the ruler when deemed to be unjust in some particular case. where they go astray—admittedly in all other cases they ought to be sovereign; but on the other hand in matters which it is impossible for the law either to decide at all or to decide well, ought the one best man to govern or all the citizens? As it is, the citizens assembled hear lawsuits and deliberate and give judgements, but these judgements are all on particular cases. Now no doubt any one of them individually is inferior compared with the best man, but a state consists of a number of individuals, and just as a banquet towhich many contribute dishes is finer than a single plain dinner, for this reason in many cases a crowd judges better than any single person. Also the multitude is more incorruptible—just as the larger stream of water is purer, so the mass of citizens is less corruptible than the few; and the individual’s judgement is bound to be corrupted when he is overcome by anger or some other such emotion, whereas in the other case it is a difficult thing for all the people to be roused to anger and go wrong together. But the multitude must consist of the freemen, doing nothing apart from the law except about matters as to which the law must of necessity be deficient. And if this is not indeed easy to ensure in the case of many men, yet if there were a majority of good men and good citizens, would an individual make a more incorruptible ruler or rather those who though the majority in number yet are all good?

+ +
+

The majority, is it not obvious? But it will be said that they will split up into factions, whereas with a single ruler this cannot happen. But against this must perhaps be set the fact that they are as virtuous in soul as the single ruler. If then the rule of the majority when these are all good men is to be considered an aristocracy, and that of the one man kingship, aristocracy would be preferable for the states to kingship, whether the royal office be conjoined with military force or without it, if it be possible to get a larger number of men than one who are of similar quality. And it was perhaps only owing to this that kingships existed in earlier times, because it was rare to find men who greatly excelled in virtue, especially as in those days they dwelt in small cities. Moreover they used to appoint their kings on the ground of public service, and to perform this is a task for the good men. But as it began to come about that many men arose who were alike in respect of virtue, they would no longer submit to royalty, but sought for some form of commonwealth, and set up a republican constitution. And as men becoming baser began to make money out of the community, it is reasonable to suppose that some such cause as this occasioned the rise of oligarchies; for they brought wealth into honor. And from oligarchies they first changed to tyrannies, and from tyrannies to democracy; for by constantly bringing the government into fewer hands owing to a base love of gain, they made the multitude stronger,i.e. more men of ability and position went over to the opposition. so that it set upon the oligarchs, and democracies came into existence.But now that the states have come to be even greater than they were, perhaps it is not easy for yet another form of constitution beside democracy to come into existence. And even if one held that royal government is best for states, what is to be the position as regards the king’s children? is the sovereignty to be hereditary? But this will be disastrous if the king’s sons turn out to be like what some have been. It may be said that the king being sovereign will not in that case bequeath the throne to his children. But that is too much to be easy to believe: it would be difficult for a king to disinherit his sons, and an act of virtue above the level of human nature. And there is a difficulty also about the royal power: ought the man who is to reign as king to force to have an armed force about him, by means of which he willhave power to compel those who may be unwilling to obey, or if not, how is it possible for him to administer his office? For even if he were a law-abiding sovereign and never acted according to his own will against the law, nevertheless it would be essential for him to have power behind him whereby to safeguard the laws. Probably therefore it is not difficult to define the regulations for a king of this sort: he must have a force of his own, but the force must be only so large as to be stronger than a single individual or even several individuals banded together, but weaker than the multitude, on the principle on which the men of old times used to assign bodyguards whenever they appointed somebody as what they termed aesymnetes or tyrantOr tyrant looks like an incorrect note, see 1285b 25. of the state, and also, when DionysiusSee 1259a 39 n. asked for his guards, somebody advised him to give the same number of guards to the citizens of Syracuse.

+ +
+

Our discussion has now reached the case of the king who acts in all matters according to his own will, and we must examine this type of royalty. For the so-called constitutional monarchy, as we said,See 10.3. is not a special kind of constitution (since it is possible for a life-long generalship to exist under all constitutions, for example under a democracy and an aristocracy, and many people make one man sovereign over the administration, for instance there is a government of this sort in Epidamnus, Durazzo, on the Adriatic. and also at OpusChief town of Locri, near the Straits of Euboea to a certain smaller extent); but we have now to discuss what is called Absolute Monarchy, which is the monarchy under which the king governs all men according to his own will. Some people think that it is entirely contrary to nature for one person to be sovereign over all the citizens where the state consists of men who are alike; for necessarily persons alike in nature must in accordance with nature have the same principle of justice and the same value, so that inasmuch as for persons who are unequal to have an equal amount of food or clothing is harmful for their bodies, the same is the case also in regard to honors; similarly therefore it is wrong for those who are equal to have inequality, owing to which it is just for no one person to govern or be governed more than another, and therefore for everybody to govern and be governed alike in turn. And this constitutes law for regulation is law. Therefore it is preferable for the law to rule rather than any one of the citizens,and according to this same principle, even if it be better for certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in subordination to them; for there must be some government, but it is clearly not just, men say, for one person to be governor when all the citizens are alike. It may be objected that any case which the law appears to be unable to define, a human being also would be unable to decide. But the law first specially educates the magistrates for the purpose and then commissions them to decide and administer the matters that it leaves over according to the best of their judgement,This formula came in the oath taken by the dicasts at Athens. and furthermore it allows them to introduce for themselves any amendment that experience leads them to think better than the established code. He therefore that recommends that the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason alone shall govern, but he that would have man govern adds a wild animal also; for appetite is like a wild animal, and also passion warps the rule even of the best men. Therefore the law is wisdom without desire. And there seems to be no truth in the analogy which argues from the artsi.e. the practical sciences, of which medicine is taken as an example. that it is a bad thing to doctor oneself by book, but preferable to employ the experts in the arts. For they never act contrary to principle from motives of friendship, but earn their fee when (for instance) they have cured their patients, whereas holders of political office usually do many things out of spite and to win favor; since when people suspect even the physicians of being in the confidence of their enemies and of trying to make away with them for gain, in that case they would sooner look up the treatment in the books.

+ +
+

Yet certainly physicians themselves call in other physicians to treat them when they are ill, and gymnastic trainers put themselves under other trainers when they are doing exercises, believing that they are unable to judge truly because they are judging about their own cases and when they are under the influence of feeling. Hence it is clear that when men seek for what is just they seek for what is impartial; forPerhaps this should be and. the law is that which is impartial. Again, customary lawsi.e. the rules of duty and of manners that are customary but not embodied in legislation: cf. 1319b 40 the laws both written and unwritten. are more sovereign and deal with more sovereign matters than written laws, so that if a human ruler is less liable to error than written laws, yet he is not less liable to error than the laws of custom. But also it is certainly not easy for the single ruler to oversee a multitude of things; it will therefore be necessary for the officials appointed by him to be numerous; so that what difference does it make whether this has been the arrangement immediately from the outset or the single ruler appoints them in this manner? Again, a thing that has also been said before, if the virtuous man justly deserves to rule because he is better, yet two good men are better than one: for that is the meaning of the line Hom. Il. 10.224: The passage goes on καί τε πρὸ ὃ τοῦ ἐνόησεν ὅππως κέρδος ἔῃ, then one discerneth Before the other how advantage lieth. When two together go— and of the prayer of Agamemnon Hom. Il. 2.372. May ten such fellow-councillors be mine. And even now the magistrates, like the Athenian dicast, have power to judge certain cases about which the law is unable to give a clear declaration, since nobody disputes that in matters about which it can do so the law would be the best ruler and judge. But since, although some things can be covered by the laws,other things cannot, it is the latter that cause doubt and raise the question whether it is preferable for the best law to rule or the best man. For to lay down a law about things that are subjects for deliberation is an impossibility. Therefore men do not deny that it must be for a human being to judge about such matters, but they say that it ought not to be a single human being only but a number. For the individual official judges well when he has been instructed by the law, and it would doubtless seem curious if a person saw better when judging with two eyes and two organs of hearing and acting with two feet and hands than many persons with many, since even as it is monarchs make many eyes and ears and hands and feet their own, for they adopt persons that are friendly to their rule and to themselves as their fellow-rulers. Although therefore if these assistants are not friendly they will not act in conformity with the monarch’s policy, if they are friends of him and of his rule, well, a friend is one’s equal and like, so that if the monarch thinks that his friends ought to rule he thinks that people who are equal to and like himself ought to rule like himself.

+

This then more or less is the case advanced by those who argue against kingship.

+

But perhaps, although this is a true account of the matter in some cases, it does not apply in others. For there is such a thing as being naturally fitted to be controlled by a master, and in another case, to be governed by a king, and in another, for citizenship, and this is just and expedient; but there is no such thing as natural fitness for tyranny, nor for any other of the forms of government that are divergences, for these come about against nature.

+ +
+

But merely from what has been said, it is clear that among people who are alike and equal it is neither expedient nor just for one to be sovereign over all—neither when there are no laws, but he himself is in the place of law, nor when there are laws, neither when both sovereign and subjects are good nor when both are bad, nor yet when the sovereign is superior in virtue, except in a certain manner. What this manner is must be stated; and in a way it has been stated already even before. But first we must define what constitutes fitness for royal government, what fitness for aristocracy, and what for a republic. A fit subject for royal government is a populace of such a sort as to be naturally capable of producing a family of outstanding excellence for political leadership; a community fit for aristocracy is one that naturally produces a populaceThe clause translated that—populace some editors excise as a superfluous insertion. capable of being governed under the form of government fit for free men by those who are fitted by virtue for taking the part of leaders in constitutional government; a republican community, one in which there naturally grows up a military populaceThey also excise in which-populace capable of being governed and of governing under a law that distributes the offices among the well-to-do in accordance with merit. When therefore it comes about that there is either a whole family or even some one individual that differs from the other citizens in virtue so greatly that his virtue exceeds that of all the others, then it is just for this family to be the royal family or this individual king, and sovereign over all matters. For, as has been said before,this holds good not only in accordance with the right that is usually brought forward by those who are founding aristocratic and oligarchic constitutions, and from the other side by those who are founding democratic ones (for they all make their claim on the ground of superiority, though not the same superiority), but it also holds good in accordance with the right spoken of before.i.e. the right of merit, 8.7. For it is not seemly to put to death or banish, nor yet obviously to ostracize, such a man, nor is it seemly to call upon him to take his turn as a subject; for it is not in the order of nature for the part to overtop the whole, but the man that is so exceptionally outstanding has come to overtop the whole community. Hence it only remains for the community to obey such a man, and for him to be sovereign not in turn but absolutely.

+

Let this be our answer to the questions as regards kingship, what are its varieties, and whether it is disadvantageous for states or advantageous, and for what states, and under what conditions.

+

And since we pronounce the right constitutions to be three, and of these the one governed by the best men must necessarily be the best, and such is the one in which it has come about either that some one man or a whole family or a group of men is superior in virtue to all the citizens together, the latter being able to be governed and the former to govern on the principles of the most desirable life, and since in the first part of the discourseBook 3.2, 3. it was proved that the virtue of a man and that of a citizen in the best state must of necessity be the same, it is evident that a man becomes good in the same way and by the same means as one might establish an aristocratically or monarchically governed state,Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give established a state governed in the best way by an aristocracy or a monarchy.

+ +
+

so that it will be almost the same education and habits that make a man good and that make him capable as a citizen or a king.

+

These conclusions having been laid down, we must now endeavor to discuss the best form of constitution and to say in what way it is natural for it to come into existence and how it is natural for it to be organized.The concluding sentence, by whomever written, clearly leads on to the Book that is No. 7 in the MSS. and in this edition; and after it the MSS. add half the first sentence of that Book, slightly altered. Some editors therefore transfer Books 7 and 8 here and put Books 4, 5 and 6 after them; opinions vary as to the proper order of Books 4, 5. and 6 among themselves.

+ +
+
+

Transposed as Book 6 by some editors; see Book 3 fin., note.In all the arts and the sciences that are not merely sectional but that in relation to some one class of subject are complete, it is the function of a single art or science to study what is suited to each class,Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give to each individual. for instance what sort of gymnastic exercise is beneficial for what sort of bodily frame, and what is the best sort (for the best must naturally suit the person of the finest natural endowment and equipment), and also what one exercise taken by all is the best for the largest number (for this is also a question for gymnastic science), and in addition, in case someone desires a habit of body and a knowledge of athletic exercises that are not the ones adapted to him, it is clearly just as much the task of the trainer and gymnastic master to produce this capacityi.e. a bodily bearing and athletic skill that are not the ones most suited to the pupil’s particular physique. also; and we notice this also happening similarly in regard to medicine, and shipbuilding, and the making of clothes, and every other craft. Hence it is clear that in the case of the constitution as well it is the business of the same science to study which is the best constitution and what character it must have to be the most ideal if no external circumstance stands in the way, and what constitution is adapted to what people (since for many it is doubtless impossible to attain the best one, so that the good lawgiver and the true statesman must be acquainted with both the form of constitution that is the highest absolutely and that which is best under assumed conditions), and also thirdly the form of constitution based on a certain supposition (for he must be also capable of considering both how some given constitution could be brought into existence originally and also in what way having been brought into existence it could be preserved for the longest time: I mean for example if it has befallen some state not only not to possess the best constitution and to be unprovided even with the things necessary for it, but also not to have the constitution that is practicable under the circumstances but an inferior one); and beside all these matters he must ascertain the form of constitution most suited to all states, since most of those who make pronouncements about the constitution, even if the rest of what they say is good, entirely miss the points of practical utility. For it is proper to considerThe fourfold classification given just before is repeated in rather loose terms in this sentence. not only what is the best constitution but also what is the one possible of achievement, and likewise also what is the one that is easier and more generally shared by all states. But as it is, some students inquire which is the highest form of all even though requiring much material equipment,The word originally denoted the duty of the wealthy citizen holding office of Choregus to supply dresses, etc., for the chorus and actors in a drama. while those who rather state some general form sweep aside the constitutions actually existing and praise that of Sparta or some other;

+ +
+

but the proper course is to bring forward an organization of such a sort that men will easily be persuaded and be able in the existing circumstances to take part in it, since to reform a constitution is no less a task than to frame one from the beginning, just as to re-learn a science is just as hard as to learn it originally; in addition therefore to the things mentioned the student of politics must also be able to render aid to the constitutions that exist already, as was also said before.Book 3.5. But this is impossible if he does not know how many kinds of constitution there are; but at present some people think that there is only one kind of democracy and one kind of oligarchy, but this is not true. Hence he must take in view the different varieties of the constitutions, and know how many there are and how many are their combinations. And after this it needs this same discrimination also to discern the laws that are the best, and those that are suited to each of the forms of constitution. For the laws should be laid down, and all people lay them down, to suit the constitutions—the constitutions must not be made to suit the laws; for a constitution is the regulation of the offices of the state in regard to the mode of their distribution and to the question what is the sovereign power in the state and what is the object of each community, but laws are distinct from the principles of the constitution, and regulate how the magistrates are to govern and to guard against thosewho transgress them. So that clearly it is necessary to be in possession of the different varieties of each form of constitution, and the number of these, even for the purpose of legislation; for it is impossible for the same laws to be expedient for all oligarchies or democracies if there are really several kinds of them, and not one sort of democracy or oligarchy only.

+

And inasmuch as in our first inquiryBook 3.5. about the forms of the constitution we classified the right constitutions as three, kingship, aristocracy and constitutional government, and the deviations from these as three, tyranny from kingship, oligarchy from aristocracy and democracy from constitutional government, and about aristocracy and kingship we have spoken (for to study the best constitution is the same thing as to speak about the forms that bear those names, since each of them means a system based on the qualification of virtue equipped with means), and as also the question what constitutes the difference between aristocracy and kingship and when a royal government is to be adopted has been decided before, it remains to discuss the form of constitution designated by the namei.e. πολιτεία, polity, which denotes not only a constitution of any form, but also (like our term constitutional government) a particular form, viz., a republic, cf. Book 3.5.2. common to them all, and the other forms, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Now it is manifest also which of these deviationsThe three forms of constitution last mentioned. is the worst and which the second worst. For necessarily the deviation from the first and most divine must be the worst, Corruptio optimi pessima, a Socratic notion: the men of the best natural gifts, when educated, are the worst, Xen. Mem. 4.1.3. and kingship must of necessity either possess the name only, without really being kingship,

+ +
+

or be based on the outstanding superiority of the man who is king; so that tyranny being the worst form must be the one farthest removed from constitutional government, and oligarchy must be the second farthest (for aristocracy is widely separated from that constitution), while democracy must be the most moderate. An account of their relative merits has indeed already been given also by one of the former writers, Plat. Stat. 302a ff. though not on the same principle as ours; for he inclined to judge that there were good varieties of all the forms, for instance a good sort of oligarchy and so on, and that democracy was the worst among these, but the best among the bad varieties, whereas we say that the deviations are wholly wrong, and that it is not right to speak of one form of oligarchy as better than another, but only as less bad. But let us for the present dismiss the question of a classification of this nature. Our business is first to distinguish how many different forms of the constitutions there are, assuming that there do exist several kinds of democracy and of oligarchy; next, which form is most general, and which most desirable after the best constitution, and also if there exists some other form that is aristocratic in nature and well constructed but not fitted to the largest number of cities, which this is; next, which of the other forms too is desirable for what people (since probably for some democracy is necessary more than oligarchy, and for others oligarchy more than democracy);and after this, in what way should one proceed who wishes to set up these constitutions, I mean the various forms of democracy and of oligarchy; and finally, when as far as possible we have concisely touched upon all these questions, we must endeavor to review what are the agencies that destroy and what are those that preserve constitutions generally and each variety of constitution in particular, and what are the causes by which it is most natural for these events to be brought about.

+

Now the reason of there being several forms of constitution is that every city has a considerable number of parts. For in the first place we see that all the cities are composed of households, and then again that of this multitude some must necessarily be rich and some poor and some between the two, and also of the rich and the poor the former class is heavy-armed and the latter without armor. And we see that one portion of the common people is agricultural, another engaged in trade and another mechanic. And the upper classes have distinctions also corresponding to their wealth and the amounts of their property (for example in a stud of horses—for it is not easy to rear horses without being rich, and this is why in ancient times there were oligarchies in all the states whose strength lay in their cavalry, and they used to use horses for their wars against their neighbors, as for instance did the Eretrians and Chalcidians and the people of Magnesia on the Maeander and many of the other Asiatic peoples). Moreover in addition to differences in wealth there is the difference of birth, and that in regard to virtue,

+ +
+

and indeed any other similar distinction that in the discussion of aristocracy has been stated to constitute a part of the state (for there we distinguished how many necessary parts there are of which every state must consist); for sometimes all of these parts participate in the constitution and sometimes a smaller or a larger number ofthem. It is clear therefore that there must necessarily be several forms of constitution differing in kind from one another, inasmuch as these parts differ in kind among themselves. For a constitution means the arrangement of the magistracies, and this all people plan out either according to the power of those who share political rights, or according to some common equality between them, I mean for example between the poor or between the rich, or some equality common to them both.This clause looks like an interpolation. It follows therefore that there are as many forms of constitution as there are modes of arrangement according to the superiorities and the differences of the sections. But the forms mostly are thought to be two—just as in the case of the winds we speak of some as north and some as south and regard the rest as deviations from these,Aristotle refers to this view in Aristot. Meteor. 364a 19, saying that west winds are classed with north and east winds with south, because wind from the setting sun is cooler and from the rising sun warmer. He notes that north and south winds are the most frequent, Aristot. Meteor. 361a 6; this may have suggested the idea that they were the typical winds. so also of constitutions there are held to be two forms, democracy and oligarchy; for men reckon aristocracy as a kind of oligarchy because it is oligarchy of a sort, and what is called constitutional government as democracy, just as in the case of the winds they reckon the west wind as a kind of north wind and the east wind as a kind of south wind.And the case is similar with musical modes, as some people say: for there too they posit two kinds, the Dorian mode and the Phrygian, and call the other scales some of them Dorian and the others Phrygian. For the most part therefore they are accustomed to think in this way about the constitutions; but it is truer and better to class them as we did, and assuming that there are two well-constructed forms, or else one, to say that the others are deviations, some from the well-blended constitution and the others from the best one, the more tense and masterful constitutions being oligarchic and the relaxed and soft ones demotic.

+

But it is not right to define democracy, as some people are in the custom of doing now, merely as the constitution in which the multitude is sovereign (for even in oligarchies and everywhere the majority is sovereign) nor oligarchy as the constitution in which a few are sovereign over the government. For if the whole number were thirteen hundred, and a thousand of these were rich and did not give the three hundred poor a share in the government although they were free-born and like themselves in all other respects, no one would say that this people was governed democratically; and similarly also if there were few poor, but these more powerful than the rich who were more numerous, no one would call such a government a democracy either, if the other citizens being rich had no share in the honors.

+ +
+

Rather therefore ought we to say that it is a democracy when the free are sovereign and an oligarchy when the rich are, but that it comes about that the sovereign class in a democracy is numerous and that in an oligarchy small because there are many men of free birth and few rich. For otherwise, suppose people assigned the offices by height, as some personse.g. Hdt. 3.20. say is done in Ethiopia, or by beauty, that would be an oligarchy, because both the handsome and the tall are few in number. Nevertheless it is not enough to define these constitutions even by wealth and free birth only; but inasmuch as there are more elements than one both in democracy and in oligarchy, we must add the further distinction that neither is it a democracy if the freei.e. those of citizen birth. being few govern the majority who are not of free birth, as for instance at Apollonia on the Ionian Gulf and at Thera (for in each of these cities the offices of honor were filled by the specially noble families who had been the first settlers of the colonies, and these were few out of many), nor is it a democracyPerhaps the Greek should be altered here to give an oligarchy. if the rich rule because they are in a majority, as in ancient times at Colophon (for there the majority of the population owned large property before the war against the Lydians took place), but it is a democracy when those who are free are in the majority and have sovereignty over the government, and an oligarchy when the rich and more well bornare few and sovereign.

+

It has then been stated that there are several forms of constitution, and what is the cause of this; but let us take the starting-point that was laid down beforeSee 3.1. and say that there are more forms than those mentioned, and what these forms are, and why they vary. For we agree that every state possesses not one part but several. Therefore just as, in case we intended to obtain a classification of animals, we should first define the properties necessarily belonging to every animal (for instance some of the sense organs, and the machinery for masticating and for receiving food, such as a mouth and a stomach, and in addition to these the locomotive organs of the various species), and if there were only so many necessary parts, but there were different varieties of these (I mean for instance certain various kinds of mouth and stomach and sensory organs, and also of the locomotive parts as well), the number of possible combinations of these variations will necessarily produce a variety of kinds of animals (for it is not possible for the same animal to have several different sorts of mouth, nor similarly of ears either), so that when all the possible combinations of these are taken they will all produce animal species, and there will be as many species of the animal as there are combinations of the necessary parts:—so in the same way also we shall classify the varieties of the constitutions that have been mentioned. For states also are composed not of one but of several parts, as has been said often. One of these parts therefore is the mass of persons concerned with food who are called farmers,

+ +
+

and second is what is called the mechanic class (and this is the group engaged in the arts without which it is impossible for a city to be inhabited, and some of these arts are indispensably necessary, while others contribute to luxury or noble living), and third is a commercial class (by which I mean the class that is engaged in selling and buying and in wholesale and retail trade), and fourth is the class of manual laborers, and the fifth class is the one to defend the state in war, which is no less indispensable than the others if the people are not to become the slaves of those who come against them; for surely it is quite out of the question that it should be proper to give the name of state to a community that is by nature a slave, for a state is self-sufficient, but that which is a slave is not self-sufficient. Therefore the statement made in the Republic Plat. Rep. 369b-371e is witty but not adequate. For Socrates says that the most necessary elements of which a state is composed are four, and he specifies these as a weaver, a farmer, a shoemaker and a builder; and then again he adds, on the ground that these are not self-sufficient, a copper-smith and the people to look after the necessary live-stock, and in addition a merchant and a retail trader. These elements together constitute the full complement of his first city,i.e. the first sketch of the City-state, loc. cit. implying that every city is formed for the sake of the necessaries of life and not rather for the sake of what is noble, and that it has equal need of both shoemakers and farmers; but the warrior classhe does not assign to it until as the territory is increased and comes into contact with that of the neighbors they are brought into war. But yet even among the four partners or whatever their number be there must necessarily be somebody to assign justice and to judge their claims; inasmuch therefore as one would count the soul of an animal to be more a part of it than the body, so also the factors in states corresponding to the soul must be deemed to be parts of them more than those factors which contribute to necessary utility,—the former being the military class and the class that plays a part in judicial justice, and in addition to these the deliberative class, deliberation being a function of political intelligence. And it makes no difference to the argument whether these functions are held by special classes separately or by the same persons; for it often happens for the same men to be both soldiers and farmers. Hence inasmuch as both groupsThe first four classes and the fifth and sixth (the military and judicial). of classes must be counted parts of the state, it is clear that the heavy-armed soldiery at any rateLower grades of the forces may be excluded from citizenship, e.g. the rowers of the triremes (see below, 1376b 15). must be a part of the state. And a seventh class is the one that serves the community by means of its property, the class that we call the rich. And an eighth is the class of public servants, that is, those who serve in the magistracies, inasmuch as without rulers it is impossible for a city to exist; it is therefore necessary that there should be some men who are able to govern and who render this service to the state either continuously or in turn. And there remain the classes which we happen to have defined just before, the deliberative class and the one that judges the claims of litigants. If therefore it is proper for the states to have these functions performed, and well and justly performed,

+ +
+

it is necessary for there also to be some men possessing virtue in the form of political excellence. Now as to the other capacities many people think that it is possible for them to be possessed in combination, for example, for the same men to be the soldiers that defend the state in war and the farmers that till the land and the artisans, and also the councillors and judges, and indeed all men claim to possess virtue and think themselves capable of filling most of the offices of state; but it is not possible for the same men to be poor and rich. Hence these seem to be in the fullest sense the parts of the state, the rich and the poor. And also the fact that the rich are usually few and the poor many makes these two among the parts of the state appear as opposite sections; so that the superior claimsCf. 3.11, 12 fin. of these classes are even made the guiding principles upon which constitutions are constructed, and it is thought that there are two forms of constitution, democracy and oligarchy.

+

That there are then several forms of constitution, and what are the reasons for this, has been stated before; let us now say that there are several varieties both of democracy and of oligarchy. And this is clear even from what has been said already. For there are several classes both of the people and of those called the notables; for instance classes of the people are, one the farmers, another the class dealing with the arts and crafts, another the commercial classoccupied in buying and selling and another the one occupied with the sea—and this is divided into the classes concerned with naval warfare, with trade, with ferrying passengers and with fishing (for each of these classes is extremely numerous in various places, for instance fishermen at Tarentum and Byzantium, navy men at Athens, the mercantile class at Aegina and Chios, and the ferryman-class at Tenedos), and in addition to these the hand-working class and the people possessing little substance so that they cannot live a life of leisure, also those that are not free men of citizen parentage on both sides, and any other similar class of common people; while among the notables wealth, birth, virtue, education, and the distinctions that are spoken of in the same group as these, form the classes.

+

The first kind of democracy therefore is the one which receives the name chiefly in respect of equality. For the law of this sort of democracy ascribes equality to the state of things in which the poor have no more prominence than the rich, and neither class is sovereign, but both are alike; for assuming that freedom is chiefly found in a democracy, as some persons suppose, and also equality, this would be so most fully when to the fullest extent all alike share equally in the government. And since the people are in the majority, and a resolution passed by a majority is paramount, this must necessarily be a democracy. This therefore is one kind of democracy, where the offices are held on property qualifications, but these low ones, although it is essential that the man who acquires the specified amount should have the right to hold office, and the man who loses it should not hold office.

+ +
+

And another kind of democracy is for all the citizens that are not open to challengei.e. on the score of birth, cf. 5.4. to have a share in office, but for the law to rule; and another kind of democracy is for all to share in the offices on the mere qualification of being a citizen, but for the law to rule. Another kind of democracy is where all the other regulations are the same, but the multitude is sovereign and not the law; and this comes about when the decrees of the assembly over-ride the law. This state of things is brought about by the demagogues; for in the states under democratic government guided by law a demagogue does not arise, but the best classes of citizens are in the most prominent position; but where the laws are not sovereign, then demagogues arise; for the common people become a single composite monarch, since the many are sovereign not as individuals but collectively. Yet what kind of democracy Homer Hom. Il. 2.204 means by the words no blessing is the lordship of the many—whether he means this kind or when those who rule as individuals are more numerous, is not clear. However, a people of this sort, as being monarch, seeks to exercise monarchic rule through not being ruled by the law, and becomes despotic, so that flatterers are held in honor. And a democracy of this nature is comparable to the tyrannical form of monarchy, because their spirit is the same, and both exercise despotic control over the better classes, and the decrees voted by the assemblyare like the commands issued in a tyranny, and the demagogues and the flatterers are the same people or a corresponding class, and either set has the very strongest influence with the respective ruling power, the flatterers with the tyrants and the demagogues with democracies of this kind. And these men cause the resolutions of the assembly to be supreme and not the laws, by referring all things to the people; for they owe their rise to greatness to the fact that the people is sovereign over all things while they are sovereign over the opinion of the people, for the multitude believes them. Moreover those who bring charges against the magistrates say that the people ought to judge the suits, and the people receive the invitation gladly, so that all the magistracies are put down. And it would seem to be a reasonable criticism to say that such a democracy is not a constitution at all; for where the laws do not govern there is no constitution, as the law ought togovern all things while the magistrates control particulars, and we ought to judge this to be constitutional government; if then democracy really is one of the forms of constitution, it is manifest that an organization of this kind, in which all things are administered by resolutions of the assembly, is not even a democracy in the proper sense, for it is impossible for a voted resolution to be a universal rule.

+

Let this be our discussion of the different kinds of democracy.

+

Of the kinds of oligarchy, one is for the magistracies to be appointed from property-assessments so high that the poor who are the majority have no share in the government, but for the man who acquires the requisite amount of property to be allowed to take part in it;

+ +
+

another is when the magistracies are filled from high assessments and the magistrates themselves elect to fill vacancies (so that if they do so from all the citizens of this assessment, this appears rather to be of the nature of an aristocracy, but if from a particular section of them, it is oligarchical); another variety of oligarchy is when son succeeds father in office; and a fourth kind is when the hereditary system just mentioned exists and also the magistrates govern and not the law. This among oligarchies is the form corresponding to tyranny among monarchies and to the form of democracy about which we spoke last among democracies, and indeed oligarchy of this sort has the special name of dynasty.Government controlled by a few powerful families. Cf. Thuc. 3.62.4, where the Thebans say, In those days our state was not governed by an oligarchy that granted equal justice to all, nor yet by a democracy; the power was in the hands of a small cabal ( δυναστεία ὀλίγων ἀνδρῶν), than which nothing is more opposed to law or to true political order, or more nearly resembles a tyranny (Jowett).

+

So many therefore are the kinds of oligarchy and of democracy; butit must not escape notice that in many places it has come about that although the constitution as framed by the laws is not democratic, yet owing to custom and the social system it is democratically administered, and similarly by a reverse process in other states although the legal constitution is more democratic, yet by means of the social system and customs it is carried on rather as an oligarchy. This occurs chiefly after alterations of the constitutions have taken place; for the people do not change over to the new system immediately but are content at the first stages to gain small advantages from the other party,so that the previously existing laws continue although power is in the hands of the party that is changing the constitution.

And that these various kinds of democracy and oligarchy exist ismanifest from the actual things that have been said. For necessarily either all the parts of the population that have been mentioned must have a share in the government, or some and not others. When therefore the farmer class and the class possessed of moderate property is sovereign over the government, they govern according to laws; for they have a livelihood if they work, but are not able to be at leisure, so that they put the law in control and hold the minimum of assemblies necessary; and the other persons have the right to take part when they have acquired the property-assessment fixed by the laws, so that to take part in the government is open to all who have got that amount of property; since for it not to be open to everybody on any terms at all is a characteristic of oligarchy, but then on the other hand it is impossible for it to be open to them to have leisure if there are no revenues.i.e. revenues from abroad; the poor can only attend often if paid for attendance, and this can only be financed if the state has income from tribute or foreign property. This then is one kind of democracy for these reasons. Another kind is due to the distinction that comes next: it is possible that all the citizens not liable to objection on the score of birth may have the right to take part in the assembly, but may actually take part only when they are able to be at leisure; hence in a democracy of this nature the laws govern because there is no revenue. A third kind is when all those who are free men have the right to take part in the government yet do not do so because of the aforesaid reason, so that it follows that in this form of democracy also the law governs.

+ +
+

And a fourth kind of democracy is the one that has been the last in point of time to come into existence in the states. Because the states have become much greater than the original ones and possess large supplies of revenue, while all the citizens have a share in the government because of the superiorityCf. 1288a 20 ff. of the multitude, all actually take part in it and exercise their citizenship because even the poor are enabled to be at leisure by receiving pay. Indeed the multitude in this kind of state has a very great deal of leisure, for they are not hampered at all by the care of their private affairs, but the rich are, so that often they take no part in the assembly nor in judging lawsuits. Owing to this the multitude of the poor becomes sovereign over the government, instead of the laws. Such in number and in nature are the kinds of democracy that these causes necessarily bring into existence. To turn to the varieties and of oligarchy, when more men possess property, but less of it and not a very large amount, this is the first form of oligarchy; for they allow the man that acquires property the right to participate, and because there is a large number of persons participating in the government it necessarily follows that not the men but the law is sovereign (for the farther removed they are from monarchy, and as they have not so much property as to be idle and neglect it, nor yet so little as to be kept at the expense of the state,they are compelled to call upon the law to rule instead of ruling themselves). But then if the owners of the properties are fewer than those who owned them previously, and own more, the second form of oligarchy comes into being; for as they become stronger they claim to have a larger share, and therefore they themselves select those from among the rest of the citizens who go into the government, but as they are not yet strong enough to rule without law they make the law conform with this.i.e. they legalize the recruiting of the ruling class by co-optation; or the words may mean they make the law ruler. And if they carry matters further by becoming fewer and holding larger properties, there comes about the third advance in oligarchy, which consists in their keeping the offices in their own hands, but under a law enacting that they are to be hereditary. And when finally they attain very great pre-eminence by their wealth and their multitude of friends, a dynasty of this nature is near to monarchy, and men become supreme instead of the law; and this is the fourth kind of oligarchy, the counterpart of the last kind of democracy.

+

FurthermoreWe now pass from the varieties of Oligarchy and of Democracy to those of the other actually existing constitutions, Aristocracy so-called and Constitutional Government. there are two constitutions by the side of democracy and oligarchy, onei.e. aristocracy. of which is counted by everybody and has been referred to as one of the four forms of constitution (and the four meant are monarchy, oligarchy, democracy and fourth the form called aristocracy), but there is a fifth, entitled by the common name of them all (for it is called constitutional government), but as it does not often occur it is overlooked by those who try to enumerate the forms of constitution, and they use the four names only (as does Plato) in the list of constitutions.

+ +
+

Now the name of aristocracy is indeed properly given to the constitution that we discussed in our first discoursesBook 3. 1279a 35 ff., 1286b 3 ff. (for it is right to apply the name aristocracy—government of the best—only to the constitution of which the citizens are best in virtue absolutely and not merely good men in relation to some arbitrary standard, for under it alone the same person is a good man and a good citizen absolutely, whereas those who are good under the other constitutions are good relatively to their own form of constitution); nevertheless there are also some constitutions that have differences both in comparison with oligarchically governed states and with what is termed constitutional government, inasmuch as in them they elect the officials not only by wealth but also by goodness; this form of constitution differs from both and is called aristocratic. For even in the states that do not pay any public attention to virtue there are nevertheless some men that are held in high esteem and are thought worthy of respect. Where then the constitution takes in view wealth and virtue as well as the common people, as for instance at Carthage, this is of the nature of an aristocracy; and so also are the states, in which the constitution, like that of Sparta, takes in view two of these things only, virtue and the common people, and there is a mingling of these two factors, democracy and virtue. These then are two kinds of aristocracy beside the first, which is the best constitution,and a third kind is those instances of what is called constitutional government that incline more in the direction of oligarchy.

+

It remains for us to speak about what is termed constitutional government and also about tyranny. Though neither the former nor the aristocracies spoken of just now are really deviations, we have classed them thus because in actual truth they have all fallen away from the most correct constitution, and consequently are counted with the deviation-forms, and those are deviations from them, as we said in our remarks at the beginning.See 1279b 4 ff. Actual aristocracies are a falling-off from the Aristocracy and Polity is a decline from Monarchy and Aristocracy; but they are not deviations in the technical sense. Tyranny is reasonably mentioned last because it is the least constitutional of all governments, whereas our investigation is about constitutional government.

+

Having then stated the reason for this mode of classification, we have now to set forth our view about constitutional government. For its meaning is clearer now that the characteristics of oligarchy and democracy have been defined; since constitutional government is, to put it simply, a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. But people customarily give the name of constitutional government only to those among such mixed constitutions that incline towards democracy, and entitle those that incline more towards oligarchy aristocracies, because education and good birth go more with the wealthier classes, and also the wealthy are thought to have already the things to get which wrongdoers commit wrong; owing to which people apply the terms gentry and notabilities to the rich. Since therefore aristocracy means the assignment of the highest place to the best of the citizens, oligarchies also are said to be drawn rather from the gentry.

+ +
+

And it seems an impossibility for a city governed not by the aristocracy but by the base to have well-ordered government, and similarly also for a city that has not a well-ordered government to be governed aristocratically. But to have good laws enacted but not obey them does not constitute well-ordered government. Hence one form of good government must be understood to consist in the laws enacted being obeyed, and another form in the laws which the citizens keep being well enacted (for it is possible to obey badly enacted laws). And for laws to be well enacted is possible in two ways: they must either be the best laws possible for the given people or the best absolutely. But aristocracy in the fullest sense seems to consist in the distribution of the honors according to virtue; for virtue is the defining factor of aristocracy, as wealth is of oligarchy, and freedom of democracy (while the principle that a decision of the majority is supreme is found in them all: for in both oligarchy and aristocracy and democracies whatever the larger part of those who have a share in the government decides is supreme). In most statesi.e. in most states that are considered aristocracies. then the name of aristocracy is given to that form of constitutional government,i.e. the more oligarchical form, 1293b 36. for the combination aims only at the well-off and the poor, wealth and freedom (since in almost the largest number of states the rich seem to occupy the place of the gentry); butas there are three things that claim equal participationin the constitution, freedom, wealth and virtue (for the fourth, what is called nobility, accompanies the two latter—nobility means ancient wealth and virtue), it is manifest that the mixture of the two factors, the rich and the poor,Loosely put for wealth and free birth. ought to be termed constitutional government, while the mixture of the three factors deserves the name of aristocracy most of all the various forms of aristocracy beside the true and best form.

+

It has then been stated that other forms of constitution also exist besides monarchy, democracy and oligarchy, and what their characteristics are, and how the various sorts of aristocracy and of constitutional government differ from one another; and it is manifest that aristocracy and constitutional government are not widely apart from one another.

+

Next to what has been said let us state the way in which what is called constitutional government comes into existence by the side of democracy and oligarchy, and how it is proper to establish it. At the same time the defining characteristics of democracy and oligarchy will also be clear; for we must grasp the distinction between these and then make a combination out of them, taking, so to say, a contribution from each. And there are three principles determining this combination or mixture. Under one plan we must adopt both features from the legislative schemes of the two different constitutions: for example, in regard to the administration of justice, in oligarchies they institute a fine for the rich if they do not serve on juries but no pay for the poor for serving, while in democracies they assign pay for the poor but no fine for the rich, but a common and intermediate principle is to have both payment and fine, and therefore this is a mark of a constitutional government, since it is a mixture of elements from both oligarchy and democracy.

+ +
+

This then is one mode of combining the two. Another is to take the middle course between the regulations of each: for example, democracies permit membership of the assembly on no property-qualification at all or a quite small one, oligarchies on a large property-qualification, but the combination clearly is to have neither principle, but one which lies in the middle between either of these two qualifications. In the third place is a combination of the two systems, taking some features from the oligarchical law and some from the democratic; I mean, for example, that it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected oligarchic, and democratic for them not to have a property-qualification, oligarchic to have one; therefore it is aristocratic and constitutional to take one feature from one form and the other from the other, from oligarchy that offices are to be elected, and from democracy that this is not to be on a property-qualification. This then is the mode of the mixture; and the mark of a good mixture of democracy and oligarchy is when it is possible to speak of the same constitution as a democracy and as an oligarchy; for manifestly this is so when it is said because they have been mixed well, and this is the case with the form that lies in the middle, for each of the two extreme forms can be seen in it. This is the case with the constitution of Sparta. For many peopleendeavor to describe it as being a democracy, because its system has many democratic features, for instance first of all its regulation for the rearing of boys, since the sons of the rich are brought up in the same way as those of the poor, and are educated in a manner in which the sons of the poor also could be educated, and they are also treated similarly at the next age, and in the same manner when they are grown up, for there is nothing that distinguishes the rich man from the poor man—thus the arrangements for food are the same for all at the common messes, and the rich wear clothes such as even any poor man could procure, and also because of the two greatest offices the common people elect to one and share in the other (they elect the Elders and share in the Ephorate); but others call it an oligarchy, because it has many oligarchical features, for instance that all the offices are elective and none appointed by lot and few persons have the power to sentence to death and exile, and a number of other such matters. But in a well-constructed mixed constitution both of the two factors, and neither of them,A conjectural emendation removes this mysterious epigram, giving and not one of the two (only). should seem to be present, and it should be kept safe by its own means and not by outside aid, and by its own means not because those who desire its security are more numerous outside itOr, if ἔξωθεν is an interpolation, not merely because those (citizens) who wish it to survive are more numerous (than those who do not). (for even a bad constitution might possess this quality), but because no section of the state whatever would even wish for another constitution.

+

The proper way therefore to establish a constitutional government, and similarly also the governments named aristocracies, has now been stated.

+ +
+

It remained for us to speak of tyranny, not because there is much that can be said about it, but in order that it may receive its part in our inquiry, since we rank this also as one among the kinds of constitution. The nature of kingship we have defined in our first discourses,Book 3.9-12. in which we examined the question in relation to the constitution most commonly denoted by the term kingship, whether it is disadvantageous or an advantage to states, and what person ought to be set up as king, and from what source, and by what procedure; and in the passage in which we were considering kingship we distinguished two kinds of tyranny, because their power in a manner borders upon royalty, because both these forms of rule are in accordance with law (for among some of the barbarians they elect monarchic rulers with autocratic powers, and also in old times among the ancient Greeks some men used to become monarchs of this sort, the rulers called aesymnetae), but these two forms of tyranny have certain differences from one another, although they were on the one hand of the nature of royalty because they were in accordance with law and because they exercised monarchic rule over willing subjects, and on the other hand of the nature of a tyranny because they ruled despotically and according to their own judgement. But there is a third kind of tyranny which is thought to be tyranny in the fullest degree, being the counterpart of universal kingship; to this sort of tyranny must necessarily belong a monarchythat exercises irresponsible rule over subjects all of the same or of a higher class with a view to its own private interest and not in the interest of the persons ruled. Hence it is held against the will of the subjects, since no free man willingly endures such rule.

+

These then are the kinds of tyranny and such is their number, for the reasons stated.

+

But what is the best constitution and what is the best mode of life for most cities and most of mankind, if we do not judge by the standard of a virtue that is above the level of private citizens or of an education that needs natural gifts and means supplied by fortune, norby the standard of the ideal constitution, but of a mode of life able to be shared by most men and a constitution possible for most states to attain? For the constitutions called aristocracies, of which we spoke just now,See 1293b 7-21, cf. 1293b 36-1294a 25. in some cases fall somewhat out of the scope of most states, and in others approximate to what is called constitutional government, so that it is proper to speak of these two forms as if they were one. And indeed the decision in regard to all these questions is based on the same elementary principles. For if it has been rightly said in theEthics Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1101a 14. that the happy life is the life that is lived without impediment in accordance with virtue, and that virtue is a middle course, it necessarily follows that the middle course of life is the best—such a middle course as it is possible for each class of men to attain. And these same criteria must also necessarily apply to the goodness and badness of a state, and of a constitution—for a constitution is a certain mode of life of a state.

+ +
+

In all states therefore there exist three divisions of the state, the very rich, the very poor, and thirdly those who are between the two. Since then it is admitted that what is moderate or in the middle is best, it is manifest that the middle amount of all of the good things of fortune is the best amount to possess. For this degree of wealth is the readiest to obey reason, whereas for a person who is exceedingly beautiful or strong or nobly born or rich, or the opposite—exceedingly poor or weak or of very mean station, it is difficult to follow the bidding of reason; for the former turn more to insolence and grand wickedness, and the latter overmuch to malice and petty wickedness, and the motive of all wrongdoing is either insolence or malice. And moreover the middle class are the least inclined to shun office and to covet office,The text is an emendation; some MSS. give to rule the tribe and to rule the council, but most have to love office and rule the council, apparently thinking that the verb translated rule the council meant wish office. and both these tendencies are injurious to states. And in addition to these points, those who have an excess of fortune’s goods, strength, wealth, friends and the like, are not willing to be governed and do not know how to be (and they have acquired this quality even in their boyhood from their homelife, which was so luxurious that they have not got used to submitting to authority even in school), while those who are excessively in need of these things are too humble. Hence the latter class do not know how to govern but know how to submit togovernment of a servile kind, while the former class do not know how to submit to any government, and only know how to govern in the manner of a master. The result is a state consisting of slaves and masters, not of free men, and of one class envious and another contemptuous of their fellows. This condition of affairs is very far removed from friendliness, and from political partnership—for friendliness is an element of partnership, since men are not willing to be partners with their enemies even on a journey. But surely the ideal of the state is to consist as much as possible of persons that are equal and alike, and this similarity is most found in the middle classes; therefore the middle-class state will necessarily be best constituted in respect of those elementsProbably Lambinus’s alteration of the Greek should be accepted, giving hence that state will necessarily be best governed which consists of those elements—. of which we say that the state is by nature composed. And also this class of citizens have the greatest security in the states; for they do not themselves covet other men’s goods as do the poor, nor do the other classes covet their substance as the poor covet that of the rich; and because they are neither plotted against nor plotting they live free from danger. Because of this it was a good prayer of PhocylidesA gnomic poet of Miletus, born 560 B.C.— In many things the middle have the best; Be mine a middle station. It is clear therefore also that the political community administered by the middle class is the best, and that it is possible for those states to be well governed that are of the kind in which the middle class is numerous, and preferably stronger than both the other two classes, or at all events than one of them, for by throwing in its weight it sways the balance and prevents the opposite extremesi.e. extreme democracy and very limited oligarchy. from coming into existence. Hence it is the greatest good fortune if the men that have political power possess a moderate and sufficient substance,

+ +

+ since where some own a very great deal of property and others none there comes about either an extreme democracy or an unmixed oligarchy, or a tyranny may result from both of the two extremes, for tyranny springs from both democracy and oligarchy of the most unbridled kind, but much less often from the middle forms of constitution and those near to them. The cause of this we will speak of later in our treatment of political revolutions. That the middle form of constitution is the best is evident; for it alone is free from faction, since where the middle class is numerous, factions and party divisions among the citizens are least likely to occur. And the great states are more free from faction for the same reason, because the middle class is numerous, whereas in the small states it is easy to divide the whole people into two parties leaving nothing in between, and also almost everybody is needy or wealthy. Also democracies are more secure and more long-lived than oligarchies owing to the citizens of the middle class (for they are more numerous and have a larger share of the honors in democracies than in oligarchies), since when the poor are in a majority without the middle class, adversity sets in and they are soon ruined. And it must be deemed a significant fact that the best lawgivers are from among the middle citizens; for Solon was of that class,as appears from his poetry, and so was Lycurgus (for he was not a king) and Charondas and almost the greatest number of the other lawgivers.

+

And these considerations also show the reason why the constitutions of most states are either democratic or oligarchical; owing to the middle class in these states being often a small one, the classes diverging from the middle status—whichever of the two, the owners of the estates or the people, from time to time has the upper hand—conduct the government on their own lines, so that it becomes either a democracy or an oligarchy. And in addition to this, because factions occur and fights between the people and the wealthy, whichever party happens to gain the upper hand over its opponents does not establish a common or equal government, but takes the superior share in the government as a prize of victory, and makes it a democracy in the one case and an oligarchy in the other. Moreover each of the two states that in the past held the leadership of Greece took as a pattern the form of government that existed among themselves and set up in the one case democracies and in the other oligarchies in the cities, not considering the interest of the cities but their own advantage. Hence owing to these causes the middle form of constitution either never comes into existence or seldom and in few places; for one manIt is quite uncertain who is meant, possibly Solon or Theramenes. only among the states that have formerly held the leadership was induced to grant this form of organization, and by this time it has become a fixed habit with the people of the separate cities also not even to desire equality,

+ +
+

but either to seek to rule or to endure being under a master.

+

These considerations therefore make it clear which is the best constitution, and why it is the best; and now that the best has been defined, it is not difficult to see, among the other forms of constitution (inasmuch as we pronounce that there are various forms of democracy and various oligarchies), what kind is to be placed first, what second, and what next in this order, by reason of one being better and another worse. For at each stage the form nearest to the best one must necessarily be superior, and the form that is more remote from the middle must be inferior—unless one is judging relatively to given conditions: I make this reservation because it is quite possible that although one form of constitution is preferable it may often be more advantageous for certain people to have another form.

+

The next thing after what has been said is to discuss which constitution is advantageous for which people, and what sort of constitution for what sort of people. Now we must first grasp a general principle that applies equally to all sorts of constitution: it is essential that the part of the state that wishes the constitution to remain should be stronger than the part that does not wish it. But every state consists of both quality and quantity: by quality I mean freedom, wealth, education, good birth, and by quantity the superior numbers of the multitude. And it is possible that,while the quality of the state belongs to one among the parts of which the state consists and its quantity to another part—for example the low-born may be more numerous than the noble or the poor than the rich, yet the more numerous class may not exceed in quantity as much as they fall behind in quality. Hence these two factors have to be judged in comparison with one another.

+

Where therefore the multitude of the poor exceeds in the proportion stated,i.e. so as to outbalance their inferiority in quality. here it is natural for there to be democracy, and each kind of democracy in accordance with the superior number of the common people of each sort, for example if the number of the farming class exceeds, the first sort of democracy, but if that of the common laborers and wage-earners, the last sort, and similarly also with the other sorts that lie between these two; but where the class of the well-to-do and notable exceeds in quality more than it falls behind in quantity, here it is natural for there to be an oligarchy, and likewise the various kinds of oligarchy according to the degree of superiorityi.e. superiority in quality. of the oligarchical multitude.The word is loosely used of this small class. But the lawgiver in his constitution must always take in the middle class; if he is making the laws of anoligarchical character he must keep the middle class in view, and if democratic, he must legislate so as to bring them in. And where the number of the middle class exceeds both the extreme classes together, or even one of them only, here it is possible for a constitutional government to be lasting;

+ +
+

for there is no fear of the rich ever coming to terms with the poor against this numerous middle class; for neither class will ever wish to be subject to the other, and if they look for another constitution fairer to both than this they will not find one, for they would not endure to take turns to govern because they distrust each other: everywhere it is the arbitrator that is most trusted, and the man in the middle is an arbitrator. And the better the constitution is mixed, the more permanent it is; and many even of those who want to establish aristocratic forms of constitution make a great mistake not only in giving too large a share to the well-to-do but also in cheating the people; for false benefits inevitably result ultimately in true evil, as the encroachments of the rich ruin the constitution more than those of the people.

+

The artifices employed in constitutions as a pretext in regard to the people are five in number, and are concerned with the assembly, the magistracies, the law-courts, the bearing of heavy arms, and gymnastic exercises; in relation to the assembly, the granting to all of the right to attend but the imposition of a fine for non-attendance on the well-to-do only, or a much larger fine on them than others; in relation to the magistracies, the denial to the owners of rated property of the right to swear off serving, while the poor have this right; in relation to the law-courts, the imposition of a fine on the well-to-do if they do not serve on a jury, but no penalty for the poor, or else a large fine for the one class and a small one for the others, as in the laws of Charondas. In some places all have the right to serve in the assembly and on juries after having their names put on a register, but large fines are imposed on those who after so registering fail to attend in either capacity, in order that the fine may cause them to avoid registration and that owing to their not registering they may not serve on juries or in the assembly. They also legislate in the same manner about owning heavy arms and engaging in gymnastic exercises: the poor are not allowed to possess arms, but the well-to-do are liable to a fine if they have not got them, and there is no fine for the former class if they abstain from gymnastics, but the well-to-do are liable to a fine, in order that the one class because of the fine may take part in them and the other because they have no penalty to fear may not. These artifices of legislation then are of an oligarchic nature; in democracies they introduce contrary devices in regard to these matters: they provide pay for the poor for serving in the assembly and on juries and impose no fine upon the well-to-do for abstaining. Hence it is manifest that if anybody wishes to make a just blend, he must bring together the regulations existing in each of the two forms of constitution, and provide pay for attendance and a fine for non-attendance; for thus all would participate, whereas in the other way the government comes to be in the hands of only one of the two classes.

+ +
+

And although it is proper that the government should be drawn only from those who possess heavy armor, yet it is not possible to define the amount of the property-qualification absolutely and to say that they must possess so much, but only to consider what sort of amount is the highest that is compatible with making those who have a share in the constitution more numerous than those who have not, and to fix thatlimit. For those who are poor and have no share in the honors are willing to keep quiet if no one insults them or takes away any part of their substance; but this is not easy to secure, for it does not always happen that those who are in the governing class are gentlemen. Also people have a way of being reluctant to serve when there is a war if they do not get rations and are poor men but; if somebody provides food they want to fight. In some states the citizen-body consists not only of those who are serving as heavy-armed soldiers, but also of those who have so served; and at Malea the citizen-body consistedof these, while the magistrates were elected from those who were actually on service. And indeed the earliest form of constitution among the Greeks after the kingships consisted of those who were actually soldiers, the original form consisting of the cavalry （for war had its strength and its pre-eminence in cavalry, since without orderly formation heavy-armed infantry is useless, and the sciences and systems dealing with tactics did not exist among the men of old times, so that their strength lay in their cavalry）; but as the states grew and the wearers of heavy armor had become stronger, more persons came to have a part in the government. Hence what we now call constitutional governments the men of former times called democracies; but the constitutional governments of early days were naturally oligarchical and royal, for owing to the smallness of the populations their middle class was not numerous, so that because of their small numbers as well as in conformity with the structure of the state the middle class more readily endured being in a subject position.

+

It has then been said what is the reason of there being several forms of constitution, and why there are others besides those designated by name （for there is not one single democracy only, and similarly there are more than one of the other forms）, and also what are the differences between them and what is the reason why these differences occur, and in addition to these points, which is the best of the constitutions speaking generally, and of the other constitutions which sort is suited to which sort of people.

+

And again, let us speak about the points that come next, both generally and with reference to each constitution separately, taking their appropriate starting-point. All forms of constitution then have three factors in reference to which the good lawgiver has to consider what is expedient for each constitution; and if these factors are well-ordered the constitution must of necessity be well-ordered, and the superiority of one constitution over another necessarily consists in the superiority of each of these factors. Of these three factors one is, what is to be the body that deliberates about the common interests,

+ +
+

second the one connected with the magistracies, that is, what there are to be and what matters they are to control, and what is to be the method of their election, and a third is, what is to be the judiciary.

+

The deliberative factor is sovereign about war and peace and the formation and dissolution of alliances, and about laws, and about sentences of death and exile and confiscation of property, and about the audits of magistrates. And necessarily either all these decisions must be assigned to all the citizens, or all to some of them (for instance to some one magistracy or to several), or different ones to different magistracies, or some of them to all the citizens and some to certain persons.

+

For all the citizens to be members of the deliberative body and to decide all these matters is a mark of a popular government, for the common people seek for equality of this nature. But there are several modes of such universal membership. One is for the citizens to serve in rotation and not all in a body (as is enacted in the constitution of the Milesian Telecles,Otherwise unknown and in other constitutions also the boards of magistrates deliberate in joint assemblies but all the citizens enter into the magistracies from the tribes or from the very smallest sections of the citizen-body in rotation until office has gone through the whole body), and for there to be joint assemblies only to consider legislation and reforms of the constitution and to hear the reports submitted by the magistrates. Another mode isfor all to assemble in a body, but only for the purpose of electing magistrates, enacting laws, considering the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace and holding the audit of magistrates, but for all other matters to be considered by the magistrates appointed to deal with each respectively and elected by suffrage or by lot from all the citizens. Another mode is for the citizens to meet about the magistracies and the audits and in order to deliberate about declaring war and concluding an alliance, but for all other matters to be dealt with by the magistrates, elected by suffrage in as many cases as circumstances allow,i.e. in an advanced democracy. and such magistracies are all those which must of necessity be filled by experts. A fourth mode is for all to meet in council about all matters, and for the magistracies to decide about nothing but only to make preliminary decisions; this is the mode in which democracy in its last form is administered at the present day—the form of democracy which we pronounce to correspond to dynastic oligarchy and to tyrannical monarchy. These modes then are all of them democratic. On the other hand for some persons to deliberate upon all matters is oligarchic. But this also has several variations. For when the members of the deliberative body are elected on comparatively moderate property-qualifications, and the eligible persons are comparatively numerous because of the moderateness of the qualification, and when they do not make changes in things in which the law forbids it but follow the law, and when anybody acquiring the property-qualification is allowed to become a member, a constitution of this sort is indeed an oligarchy, but one of the nature of constitutional government, because of its moderation. When on the other hand not everybody thus qualified participates in deliberation but only certain persons previously chosen by election,

+ +
+

and these govern in accordance with law as in the former case, this is oligarchical; and also when the deliberative officials are elected by co-optation, and when the office is hereditary and has supreme control over the laws, this system is bound to be oligarchical. But when certain persons control certain matters, for instance when all the citizens control decisions as to war and peace and the audit of officials while everything else is controlled by magistrates and these are elected by vote, not by lot,The MSS. give or by lot. the constitution is an aristocracy; while if some matters are controlled by magistrates elected by vote and others by magistrates chosen by lot, and this either directly or from a list previously selected by vote, or if magistrates elected by vote and by lot sit in a joint body, some of these regulations are features of an aristocratic constitution and others of constitutional government itself.

+

We have then in this way distinguished the different kinds of deliberative body in relation to the forms of constitution, and each form of constitution carries on the administration in accordance with the distinction stated. But for a democracy of the form that at the present day is considered to be democracy in the fullest degree (and I mean one of the sort in which the people is sovereign even over the laws) it is advantageous for the improvement of its deliberative function for it to do the same as is done in oligarchies in the matter of the law-courts (for they enact a fine to compel the attendance on juries of those whom they want to attend, whereas democratic states institute payment for attendance for the benefit of the poor), and also to do this in respect of the assemblies(for they will deliberate better when all are deliberating jointly, the common people when with the notables and these when with the masses), and it is also advantageous for those who deliberate to be elected by vote or by lot equally from the different sections, and, if the men of the people far exceed the political class in number, it is advantageous either not to give pay to all but only to as many as are commensurate with the number of the notables, or to discard by lot those who exceed this number. In oligarchies on the other hand it is advantageous either to co-opt some persons from the multitude, or to institute an office like the one that exists in certain constitutional governments under the flame of Preliminary Councillors or Guardians of the Law,There were πρόβουλοι at Corinth as well as a βουλή and an ἐκκλησία; and νομοφύλακες at Sparta, Athens and elsewhere: at Athens they sat with the presidents of the βουλή and ἐκκλησία to check illegal procedure. and deal with the matters about which these officials have held a preliminary deliberation (for thus the common people will have a share in deliberation and will not have the power to abolish any part of the constitution), and then for the people by their vote either to confirm or at all events not to pass anything contrary to the resolutions brought before them, or to allow all to take part in debate but only the magistrates to frame resolutions; and in fact it is proper to do just the opposite of what takes place in constitutionally governed states; for the common people ought to be given power to vote the rejection of a measure, but not to vote its ratification, but it should be referred back to the magistrates. In constitutional governments the procedure is the reverse; the few are competent to vote the rejection of a resolution but are not competent to vote its ratification, this being always referred back to the most numerous body.

+ +
+

Let us then decide in this manner about the deliberative body, which in fact is the sovereign power in the constitution.

+

+ Connected with this subject is the determination in regard to the magistracies (for this part of the constitution also has many varieties), how many magistracies there are to be, and what are to be their powers, and what their various periods of tenure (for some people make their magistracies tenable for six months, others for less, others for a year and others for a longer period)—shall the magistracies be for life or for a long period, or if for a shorter term shall the same people be allowed to hold them several times or not the same man twice but once only? and also as to the appointment of magistrates, who shall be eligible, who the electors, and what the mode of election? For on all these points it is needful to be able to determine how many modes of procedure are possible, and then to settle what modes are expedient for what sorts of constitution. Nor is it easy to decide to what kinds of office the name of magistracy ought to be applied; for the political community requires a great many officials, owing to which it is not proper to reckon all of them magistrates, whether elected by vote or by lot,—for instance first the priests (for this office must be considered as something different from the political magistracies), and again there are leaders of choruses, and heralds, and persons are also elected as ambassadors. And of the offices exercising superintendence some are political, and are exercised either over the whole of the citizens in regard to some operation—for instance ageneral superintends them when serving as soldiers, or over a section—for instance the superintendent of women or of children; while others are economic (for states often elect officers to dole out cornDistributions of corn were made at times of scarcity, or when the state had received a present of corn.); and others are subordinate, and are the sort of services to which people when well off appoint slaves. But the title of magistracy, to put it simply, is chiefly to be applied to all those offices to which have been assigned the duties of deliberating about certain matters and of acting as judges and of issuing orders, and especially the last, for to give orders is most characteristic of authority. But this question is of virtually no practical importance (for no decision has yet been given, our discussion being merely about the name), although it does admit of some further inquiry of a speculative kind. On the other hand the questions what kinds and what number of magistracies are necessary to constitute a state at all, and what kinds although not necessary are advantageous for a good constitution, are questions that might preferablybe discussed, both indeed as regards every form of constitution and particularly in regard to the small states. For it is true that in the large states it is possible and proper for one magistracy to be assigned to one function (for the large number of the citizens makes it possible for many people to enter on an official career, so as to intermit their tenure of some offices for a long time and to hold others only once, and also every task is better attended to if the attention is directed to one thing only than if it is busy with many);

+ +
+

but in the small states it is inevitable that many offices must be gathered into few hands (for owing to shortage of manpower it is not easy for many people to be in office, since who will take over the posts as their successors?). But sometimes small states require the same magistracies and laws as large ones except that the latter require the same persons to serve often, but in the former this only occurs after a long interval. Hence it is possible to assign several duties to one man at the same time (since they will not interfere with one another), and to meet the shortage of man-power it is necessary to make the magistracies like spit-lampholders.An implement (its exact shape does not appear to be known) used by soldiers on campaign, here mentioned as an illustration of one tool serving two purposes, cf. 1252b 1. If therefore we are able to say how many magistracies every state must necessarily possess and how many, though not absolutely necessary, it ought to possess, knowing these points one might more easily make a combination of those magistracies which are of a suitable nature to be combined into a single office. And it is suitable for the further question not to be overlooked, what kinds of matters ought to be attended to by a number of officials locally distributed and what ought to be under the authority of one magistrate for all localities, for example should good order be seen to in the market-place by a Controller of the Market and elsewhere by another official, or everywhere by the same one? and ought the offices to be divided according to the function or according to the persons concerned—I mean, for instance, should there be a single official in control of good order, or a different onefor children and for women? and also under the various constitutions does the nature of the magistracies vary in accordance with each or does it not vary at all—for example in democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy and monarchy are the magistracies the same in their powers, although they are not filled from equal ranks nor from similar classes but are different in different constitutions (for example in aristocracies drawn from the educated, in oligarchies from the wealthy, and in democracies from the free), or although some constitutions happen to be correspondent with the actual differences of their magistracies, yet in other cases are the same magistracies advantageous even where the constitutions differ (for in some places it is suitable for the same magistracies to have large functions and in other places small ones)? Not but what there are also some offices peculiar to special forms of constitution, for instance the office of Preliminary Councillors.See 1298b 29 n. This is undemocratic, although a Council is a popular body, for there is bound to be some body of this nature to have the duty of preparing measures for the popular assembly, in order that it may be able to attend to its business; but a preparatory committee, if small, is oligarchical, and Preliminary Councillors must necessarily be few in number, so that they are an oligarchical element. But where both of these magistracies exist, the Preliminary Councillors are in authority over the Councillors, since a councillor is a democratic official, but a preliminary councillor is an oligarchic one. Also the power of the Council is weakened in democracies of the sort in which the people in assembly deals with everything itself;

+ +
+

and this usually happens when there is a plentiful supply of pay for those who attend the assembly, for being at leisure they meet frequently and decide all things themselves. But a Superintendent of Children and a Superintendent of Women, and any other magistrates that exercise a similar sort of supervision, are an aristocratic feature, and not democratic (for how is it possible to prevent the wives of the poor from going out of doorsOr possibly from going in processions: Solon made regulations ταῖς ἐξόδοις τῶν γυναικῶν καὶ τοῖς πένθεσι καὶ ταῖς ἑορταῖς(Plut. Sol. 21).?) nor yet oligarchic (for the wives of oligarchic rulers are luxurious). But let the discussion of these matters go no further at present, and let us attempt to go through from the beginning the question of the ways of appointing the magistrates. The varieties here depend on three determinants, the combinations of which must give all the possible modes. One of these three determining points is, who are the persons who appoint the magistrates? the second is, from whom? and last, in what manner? And of each of these three determinants there are three variations: either all the citizens appoint or some, and either from all or from a certain class (defined for instance by property-assessment or birth or virtue or some other such qualification, as at Megara only those were eligible who returned in a body from exile and fought together against the common people),It is quite uncertain when this event took place and whether it is the same as those referred to at 1302b 30 f. and l304b 34 ff. and the mode of appointment may be either by vote or by lot; again, these systems may be coupled together—I mean that some citizens may appoint to some offices but all to others, and to some offices all citizens may be eligible but to others only a certain class, and to some appointment may be by vote but to others by lot. And of each variation of these determinants there will be four modes: either all citizens may appoint from all by vote, or all from all by lot—and from all either section by section, for instance by tribes or demes or brotherhoods until the procedure has gone through all the citizens, or from the whole number every time,—or else partly in one way and partly in the other. Again, if the electors are some of the citizens, they must either appoint from all by vote, or from all by lot, or from some by vote, or from some by lot, or partly in one way and partly in the other—I mean partly by vote and partly by lot. Hence the modes prove to be twelve, apart from the two combinations. And among these, two ways of appointment are democratic—for all to appoint from all by vote, or by lot, or by both—some offices by lot and others by vote; but for not all to be the electors and for them to appoint simultaneously, and either from all or from some either by lot or by vote or by both, or some offices from all and others from some by both (by which I mean some by lot and others by vote) is constitutional. And for some to appoint from all, to some offices by vote and to others by lot or by bothPerhaps the Greek should be rewritten to give for some to appoint from all either by vote or by lot or by both. (to some by lot and to others by vote) is oligarchical; and it is even more oligarchical to appoint from both classes. But to appoint some offices from all and the others from a certain class is constitutional with an aristocratic bias;

+ +
+

or to appoint some by vote and others by lot. And for a certain class to appoint from a certain class 〈by vote〉This insertion by Lambinus seems certain. is oligarchical, and so it is for a certain class to appoint from a certain class by lot (although not working out in the same way), and for a certain class to appoint from a certain class by both methods. And for a certain class to make a preliminary selection from the whole body and then for all to appoint from among certain persons (thus selected) is aristocratic.

+

So many in number therefore are the modes of appointing to the magistracies, and this is how the modes are classified according to the different constitutions; and what regulations are advantageous for what people and how the appointments ought to be conducted will be made clear at the same time as we consider what are the powers of the offices. By the power of an office I mean for instance the control of the revenues and the control of the guard; since a different sort of power belongs for example to a generalship and to the office that controls market contracts.

+

Of the three factors of a constitution it remains to speak of the judiciary, and of judicial bodies also we must consider the various modes, in accordance with the same plan. And a difference among judicial courts rests upon three determinants—constituents, sphere of action, and mode of appointment. As to their constituents I mean are the courts drawn from all the citizens or from a certain class? as to sphere of action, how many kinds of courts are there? and as to mode of appointment, are they appointed by lot or by vote? First then let us distinguish how many kinds of courts there are. They are eight in number, one a court of audit,another to deal with offenders against any public interest, another with matters that bear on the constitution, a fourth for both magistrates and private persons in disputes about penalties, fifth the court dealing with private contracts that are on an important scale, and beside these there is (6) the court that tries homicide, and (7) that which hears alien suits (of courts of homicide there are four kinds, whether the jury is the same or different—namely, for cases of deliberate homicide, of involuntary homicide, of homicide admitted but claimed to be justifiable, and fourth to deal with charges of homicide brought against men that have fled from the country for homicide, upon their return,i.e. men that had been allowed to flee the country when charged with accidental homicide, and on their return were accused of another homicide, a willful murder. such as at Athens for instance the Court at Phreatto is said to be, although such cases are of rare occurrence in the whole course of history, even in the great states and of the aliens’ court one branch hears suits of aliens against aliens and another of aliens against citizens); and also beside all of these there are (8) courts to try cases of petty contracts, involving sums of one drachma, five drachmas or a little more—for even these cases have to be tried, though they are not suitable for a numerous jury. But let us dismiss the subject of these petty suits, and the courts for homicide and those for aliens, and let us speak about political trials, which when not well conducted cause party divisions and revolutionary disturbances. And necessarily either all the judges of all the cases that have been classified will be appointed by vote, or by lot, or all in all cases partly by lot and partly by vote, or in some cases some judges will be appointed by lot and others by vote for the same case.

+ +
+

These modes then are four in number, and the sectional modes also make as many others; for here again the judges for all cases may be drawn by vote from a certain class, or for all cases by lot from a certain class, or some courts may be appointed by lot and others by vote, or some courts may be composed of judges chosen by lot and by vote for the same cases. These then are the modes, as was said, corresponding to those mentioned. And there are also the same courts in combination—I mean for example some drawn from the whole body and some from a class and some from both, as for instance if the same court contained some members from the whole body and others from a class, and appointed either by lot or by vote or both. We have then stated all the modes in which it is possible for the courts to be composed; and of these the first set, drawn from all the citizens and dealing with all cases, are popular, the second, drawn from a certain class to deal with all cases, are oligarchic, and the third, drawn partly from all and partly from a certain class, are suited to an aristocracy and to a constitutional government.

+ +
+
+

Book 5 is placed as Book 7 by some editors, as Book 8 by others, see Book 3 fin., note.Almost all the other subjects which we intended to treathave now been discussed. There must follow the consideration of the questions, what are the number and the nature of the causes that give rise to revolutions in constitutions, and what are the causes that destroy each form of constitution, and out of what forms into what forms do they usually change, and again what are the safeguards of constitutions in general and of each form in particular, and what are the means by which the safeguarding of each may best be put into effect.For this distinction between broad methods of guarding against revolution and the practical means by which those methods can be put into effect Newman compares 9.2 f., 10 f.; 4.2.5 fin., 6.1.1.

+

And we must first assume the starting-point, that many forms of constitution have come into existence with everybody agreeing as to what is just, that is proportionate equality, but failing to attain it (as has also been said before). Thus democracy arose from men’s thinking that if they are equal in any respect they are equal absolutely (for they suppose that because they are all alike free they are equal absolutely), oligarchy arose from their assuming that if they are unequal as regards some one thing they are unequal wholly (for being unequal in property they assume that they are unequal absolutely); and then the democrats claim as being equal to participate in all things in equal shares, while the oligarchs as being unequal seek to have a larger share, for a larger share is unequal. All these forms of constitution then have some element of justice, but from an absolute point of view they are erroneous; and owing to this cause, when each of the two parties has not got the share in the constitution which accords with the fundamental assumption that they happen to entertain, faction ensues. And of all men those who excel in virtue would most justifiably stir up faction, though they are least given to doing so;

+ +
+

for they alone can with the fullest reason be deemed absolutely unequal. And there are some men who being superior in birth claim unequal rights because of this inequality; for persons who have ancestral virtue and wealth behind them are thought to be noble.

+

These then roughly speaking are the starting-points and sources of factions, which give rise to party strife (and revolutions due to this take place in two ways: sometimes they are in regard to the constitution, and aim at changing from the one established to another, for instance from democracy to oligarchy, or to democracy from oligarchy, or from these to constitutional government and aristocracy, or from those to these; but sometimes the revolution is not in regard to the established constitution, but its promoters desire the same form of government, for instance oligarchy or monarchy, but wish it to be in their own control. Again it may be a question of degree; for instance, when there is an oligarchy the object may be to change to a more oligarchical government or to a less, or when there is a democracy to a more or to a less democratic government, and similarly in the case of the remaining constitutions, the aim may be either to tighten them up or to relax them. Or again the aim may be to change a certain part of the constitution, for example to establish or abolish a certain magistracy, as according to some accounts Lysanderattempted to abolish the kingship at Sparta and the king Pausanias the ephorateSee 1307a 34 n.; and also at Epidamnus the constitution was altered in part, for they set up a council instead of the tribal rulers, and it is still compulsory for the magistrates alone of the class that has political power to come to the popular assembly when an appointment to a magistracy is put to the vote; and the single supreme magistrate was also an oligarchical feature in this constitution). For party strife is everywhere due to inequality, where classes that are unequal do not receive a share of power in proportion (for a lifelong monarchy is an unequal feature when it exists among equals); for generally the motive for factious strife is the desire for equality. But equality is of two kinds, numerical equality and equality according to worth—by numerically equal I mean that which is the same and equal in number or dimension, by equal according to worth that which is equal by proportionThis ethical arithmetic is helped out in Greek by the fact that, even without the qualification κατ’ ἀξίαν, ἴσος often means equal to desert, fair, just.; for instance numerically 3 exceeds 2 and 2 exceeds 1 by an equal amount, but by proportion 4 exceeds 2 and 2 exceeds 1 equally, since 2 and 1 are equal parts of 4 and 2, both being halves. But although men agree that the absolutely just is what is according to worth, they disagree (as was said beforeSee 1301a 27 ff. and note.) in that some think that if they are equal in something they are wholly equal, and others claim that if they are unequal in something they deserve an unequal share of all things. Owing to this two principal varieties of constitution come into existence, democracy and oligarchy; for noble birth and virtue are found in few men,

+ +
+

but the qualifications specifiedThat is, numbers and wealth. in more: nowhere are there a hundred men nobly born and good, but there are rich menPerhaps the text should be emended to give there are many rich men and poor men in many places. in many places. But for the constitution to be framed absolutely and entirely according to either kind of equality is bad. And this is proved by experience, for not one of the constitutions formed on such lines is permanent. And the cause of this is that it is impossible for some evil not to occur ultimately from the first and initial error that has been made. Hence the proper course is to employ numerical equality in some things and equality according to worth in others. But nevertheless democracy is safer and more free from civil strife than oligarchy; for in oligarchies two kinds of strife spring up, faction between different members of the oligarchy and also faction between the oligarchs and the people, whereas in democracies only strife between the people and the oligarchical party occurs, but party strife between different sections of the people itself does not occur to any degree worth mentioning. And again the government formed of the middle classes is nearer to the people than to the few, and it is the safest of the kinds of constitution mentioned.

+

And since we are considering what circumstances give rise to party factions and revolutions in constitutions, we must first ascertain their origins and causes generally. They are, speaking roughly, three in number,Viz. the material, final and efficient causes of revolutions (Jowett). which we must first define in outline separately.For we must ascertain what state of affairs gives rise to party strife, and for what objects it is waged, and thirdly what are the origins of political disorders and internal party struggles.

+

Now the principal cause, speaking generally, of the citizens being themselves disposed in a certain manner towards revolution is the one about which we happen to have spoken already. Those that desire equality enter on party strife if they think that they have too little although they are the equals of those who have more, while those that desire inequality or superiority do so if they suppose that although they are unequal they have not got more but an equal amount or less (and these desires may be felt justly, and they may also be felt unjustly); for when inferior, people enter on strife in order that they may be equal, and when equal, in order that they may be greater. We have therefore said what are the states of feeling in which men engage in party strife.

+

The objects about which it is waged are gain and honor, and their opposites, for men carry on party faction in states in order to avoid dishonor and loss, either on their own behalf or on behalf of their friends.

+

And the causes and origins of the disturbances which occasion the actual states of feeling described and their direction to the objects mentioned, according to one account happen to be seven in number, though according to another they are more. Two of them are the same as those spoken of before although not operating in the same way: the motives of gain and honor also stir men up against each other not in order that they may get them for themselves, as has been said before,

+ +
+

but because they see other men in some cases justly and in other cases unjustly getting a larger share of them. Other causes are insolence, fear, excessive predominance, contempt, disproportionate growth of power; and also other modes of causeThe four causes now mentioned are those alluded to just above (1302a 38) as an addition to the seven enumerated above, 1302a 38-b 5. are election intrigue, carelessness, pettiness, dissimilarity. Among these motives the power possessed by insolence and gain, and their mode of operation, is almost obvious; for when the men in office show insolence and greed, people rise in revolt against one another and against the constitutions that afford the opportunity for such conduct; and greed sometimes preys on private property and sometimes on common funds. It is clear also what is the power of honor and how it can cause party faction; for men form factions both when they are themselves dishonored and when they see others honored; and the distribution of honors is unjust when persons are either honored or dishonored against their deserts, just when it is according to desert. Excessive predominance causes faction, when some individual or body of men is greater and more powerful than is suitable to the state and the power of the government; for such are the conditions that usually result in the rise of a monarchy or dynasty. Owing to this in some places they have the custom of temporary banishment,Cf. 1284a 18. as at Argos and Athens; yet it would be better to provide from the outset that there may be no persons in the stateso greatly predominant, than first to allow them to come into existence and afterwards to apply a remedy. Fear is the motive of faction with those who have inflicted wrong and are afraid of being punished, and also with those who are in danger of suffering a wrong and wish to act in time before the wrong is inflicted, as the notables at Rhodes banded togetherPerhaps in 390 B.C., cf. 1302b 32 f. and 1304b 27 ff. against the people because of the law-suits that were being brought against them. Contempt is a cause of faction and of actual attacks, upon the government, for instance in oligarchies when those who have no share in the government are more numerous (for they think themselves the stronger party), and in democracies when the rich have begun to feel contempt for the disorder and anarchy that prevails, as for example at Thebes the democracy was destroyed owing to bad government after the battle of Oenophyta,Against Athens, 456 B.C. and that of the Megarians was destroyed when they had been defeated owing to disorder and anarchy,See 1300a 18 n. and at Syracuse before the tyranny 485 B.C. of Gelo, and at Rhodes See 1302b 23 n. the common people had fallen into contempt before the rising against them. Revolutions in the constitutions also take place on account of disproportionate growth; for just as the bodyIt is not clear whether what follows refers to a work of art (cf. 1284b 8) or is an exaggerated account of a disease; Galen describes one called σατυρίασις, in which the bones of the temple swell out like satyrs’ horns. is composed of parts, and needs to grow proportionately in order that its symmetry may remain, and if it does not it is spoiled, when the foot is four cubits long and the rest of the body two spans, and sometimes it might even change into the shape of another animal if it increased disproportionately not only in size but also in quality,i.e. if, for example, the foot became as hard as a hoof. so also a state is composed of parts,

+ +
+

one of which often grows without its being noticed, as for example the number of the poor in democracies and constitutional states. And sometimes this is also brought about by accidental occurrences, as for instance at Tarentum when a great many notables were defeated and killed by the Iapygians a short time after the Persian wars a constitutional government was changed to a democracy, and at Argos when those in the seventh tribeThe word to be understood here may be φυλῇ, or possibly ἡμέρᾳ: the seventh day of the month was sacred to Apollo, especially at Sparta, and one account assigns Cleomenes’ victory to that day, in which case the casualties may well have been known afterwards as those who fell on the seventh. had been destroyed by the Spartan Cleomenes the citizens were compelled to admit some of the surrounding people, and at Athens when they suffered disasters by land the notables became fewer because at the time of the war against Sparta the army was drawn from a muster-roll.i.e. was made up of citizens and not of mercenaries. And this happens also in democracies, though to a smaller extent; for when the wealthy become more numerous or their properties increase, the governments change to oligarchies and dynasties.See 1292b 10 n. And revolutions in constitutions take place even without factious strife, owing to election intrigue, as at Heraea On the Alpheus, in Arcadia. (for they made their magistrates elected by lot instead of by vote for this reason, because the people used to elect those who canvassed); and also owing to carelessness, when people allow men that are not friends of the constitution to enter into the sovereign offices, as at OreusIn Euboea; its secession from Sparta to Athens, 377 B.C., was perhaps the occasion of this revolution. oligarchy was broken up when Heracleodorus became one of the magistrates, who in place of an oligarchyformed a constitutional government, or rather a democracy. Another cause is alteration by small stages; by this I mean that often a great change of institutions takes place unnoticed when people overlook a small alteration, as in Ambracia the property-qualification was small, and finally men hold office with none at all, as a little is near to nothing, or practically the same. Also difference of race is a cause of faction, until harmony of spirit is reached; for just as any chance multitude of people does not form a state, so a state is not formed in any chance period of time. Hence most of the states that have hitherto admitted joint settlers or additional settlersi.e. colonists not from the mother-city, admitted either at the foundation of the colony or later. have split into factions; for example Achaeans settled at Sybaris Sybaris, founded 720 B.C., became very wealthy. The Troezenian population when expelled were received at Croton, which made war on Sybaris and destroyed it 510 B.C. To what exactly τὸ ἄγος refers is unknown. jointly with Troezenians, and afterwards the Achaeans having become more numerous expelled the Troezenians, which was the Cause of the curse that fell on the Sybarites; and at Thurii Sybarites quarrelled with those who had settled there with them, for they claimed to have the larger share in the country as being their own, and were ejected; and at Byzantium the additional settlers were discovered plotting against the colonists and were expelled by force of arms; and the people of Antissa In Lesbos. after admitting the Chian exiles expelled them by arms; and the people of Zancle Later Messana, Messina. after admitting settlers from Samos were themselves expelled; and the people of Apollonia on the Euxine Sea after bringing in additional settlers fell into faction;

+ +
+

and the Syracusans after the period of the tyrantsThrasybulus succeeded his brother Hiero as tyrant in 467 B.C. and fell within a year. conferred citizenship on their foreign troops and mercenaries and then faction set in and they came to battle; and the Amphipolitans having received settlers from Chalcis were most of them driven out by them.Cf. 1306a 2. The exact circumstances are unknown; Amphipolis was colonized from Athens 437 B.C.

+

(And in oligarchies civil strife is raised by the many, on the ground that they are treated unjustly because they are not admitted to an equal share although they are equal, as has been said before, but in democracies it begins with the notables, because they have an equal share although they are not equal.)This sentence is out of place here, and would fit in better if placed (as it is by Newman) above at 1301a 39, after στασιάζουσι, or (with other editors) 1301b 26.

+

Also states sometimes enter on faction for geographical reasons, when the nature of the country is not suited for there being a single city, as for example at ClazomenaeTopography uncertain: Clazomenae near Smyrna was partly on a small island, which Alexander joined to the mainland with a causeway. the people near Chytrum are in feud with the inhabitants of the island, and the Colophonians and the Notians Notium was the port of Colophon.; and at Athens the population is not uniformly democratic in spirit, but the inhabitants of Piraeus are more so than those of the city. For just as in wars the fording of watercourses, even quite small ones, causes the formations to lose contact, so every difference seems to cause division. Thus perhaps the greatest division is that between virtue and vice, next that between wealth and poverty, and so with other differences in varying degree, one of which is the one mentioned.i.e. difference of locality.

+

Factions arise therefore not about but out of small matters; but they are carried on about great matters. And even the small ones grow extremely violent when they spring up among men of the ruling class,as happened for example at Syracuse in ancient times. For the constitution underwent a revolution as a result of a quarrel that arosePerhaps under the oligarch of the Gamori, overthrown by the people and followed by Gelo’s tyranny, 485 B.C. between two young men, who belonged to the ruling class, about a love affair. While one of them was abroad the other who was his comrade won over the youth with whom he was in love, and the former in his anger against him retaliated by persuading his wife to come to him; owing to which they stirred up a party struggle among all the people in the state, enlisting them on their sides. On account of this it is necessary to guard against such affairs at their beginning, and to break up the factions of the leaders and powerful men; for the error occurs at the beginning, andthe beginning as the proverb says is half of the whole, so that even a small mistake at the beginning stands in the same ratioi.e. the ratio of being a half to the whole: a bad start does as much to harm as all the later mistakes put together. to mistakes at the other stages. And in general the faction quarrels of the notables involve the whole state in the consequences, as happened at HestiaeaAlso called Oreus, see 1303a 18. after the Persian wars, when two brothers quarrelled about the division of their patrimony; for the poorer of the two, on the ground that the other would not make a return of the estate and of the treasure that their father had found, got the common people on his side, and the other possessing much property was supported by therich. And at Delphi the beginning of all the factions that occurred afterwards was when a quarrel arose out of a marriage;

+ +
+

the bridegroom interpreted some chance occurrence when he came to fetch the bride as a bad omen and went away without taking her, and her relatives thinking themselves insulted threw some articles of sacred property into the fire when he was performing a sacrifice and then put him to death as guilty of sacrilege. And also at Mitylene The revolt of Mitylene 428 B.C. is ascribed to purely political causes by Thuc. 3.1-30. a faction that arose out of some heiresses was the beginning of many misfortunes, and of the war with the Athenians in which Paches captured the city of Mitylene: a wealthy citizen named Timophanes left two daughters, and a man who was rejected in his suit to obtain them for his own sons, Doxander, started the faction and kept on stirring up the Athenians, whose consul he was at Mitylene. And among the Phocians when a faction arising out of an heiress sprang up in connection with Mnaseas the father of Mnason and Euthykrates the father of Onomarchus,i.e. the fathers of the two suitors for the heiress’s hand turned the quarrel into a faction fight. this faction proved to be the beginning for the Phocians of the Holy War. At Epidamnus also circumstances relating to a marriage gave rise to a revolution in the constitutionPerhaps the same event as that referred to 1301b 21.; somebody had betrothed his daughter, and the father of the man to whom he had betrothed her became a magistrate, and had to sentence him to a fine; the other thinking that he had been treated with insolence formed a party of the unenfranchised classes to assist him. And also revolutions to oligarchy and democracy and constitutional government arise from the growth in reputation or in power of some magistracy or some section of the state;as for example the Council on the Areopagus having risen in reputation during the Persian wars was believed to have made the constitution more rigid, and then again the naval multitude, having been the cause of the victory off Salamis and thereby of the leadership of Athens due to her power at sea, made the democracy stronger; and at Argos the notables having risen in repute in connection with the battle against the Spartans at Mantinea took in hand to put down the people; and at Syracuse the people having been the cause of the victory in the war against Athens made a revolution from constitutional government to democracy; and at Chalcis the people with the aid of the notables overthrew the tyrant PhoxusUnknown. and then immediately seized the government; and again at Ambracia similarly the people joined with the adversaries of the tyrant Periander in expelling him and then brought the government round to themselves. 580 B.C; cf. 1311a 39 ff. And indeed in general it must not escape notice that the persons who have caused a state to win power, whether private citizens or magistrates or tribes, or in general a section or group of any kind, stir up faction; for either those who envy these men for being honored begin the faction, or these men owing to their superiority are not willing to remain in a position of equality. And constitutions also undergo revolution when what are thought of as opposing sections of the state become equal to one another,

+ +
+

for instance the rich and the people, and there is no middle class or only an extremely small one; for if either of the two sections becomes much the superior, the remainder is not willing to risk an encounter with its manifestly stronger opponent. Owing to this men who are exceptional in virtue generally speaking do not cause faction, because they find themselves few against many. Universally then in connection with all the forms of constitution the origins and causes of factions and revolutions are of this nature.

+

The means used to cause revolutions of constitutions are sometimes force and sometimes fraud. Force is employed either when the revolutionary leaders exert compulsion immediately from the start or later on—as indeed the mode of using fraud is also twofold: sometimes the revolutionaries after completely deceiving the people at the first stage alter the constitution with their consent, but then at a later stage retain their hold on it by force against the people’s will: for instance, at the time of the Four Hundred,The oligarchy at Athens 411 B.C., cf. 1305a 27. they deceived the people by saying that the Persian King would supply money for the war against the Spartans, and after telling them this falsehood endeavored to keep a hold upon the government; but in other cases they both persuade the people at the start and afterwards repeat the persuasion and govern them with their consent.

+

Speaking generally therefore in regard to all the forms of constitution, the causes that have been stated are those from which revolutions have occurred.

+

But in the light of these general rules we must consider the usual course of eventsas classified according to each different kind of constitution. In democracies the principal cause of revolutions is the insolence of the demagogues; for they cause the owners of property to band together, partly by malicious prosecutions of individuals among them (for common fear brings together even the greatest enemies), and partly by setting on the common people against them as a class. And one may see this taking place in this manner in many instances. In Cos the democracy was overthrownDate unknown. when evil demagogues had arisen there, for the notables banded themselves together; and also in Rhodes,See 1302b 23 n. for the demagogues used to provide pay for public services, and also to hinder the payment of money owedi.e. owed for repairs to the ships, and perhaps also for advances of pay to the crews. to the naval captains, and these because of the lawsuits that were brought against them were forced to make common cause and overthrow the people. And also at Heraclea Probably the Pontic Heraclea (cf. 1305b 5, 36, 1306a 37), founded middle of the 6th century B.C., not the Trachinian. the people were put down immediately after the foundation of the colony because of the people’s leaders; for the notables being unjustly treated by them used to be driven out, but later on those who were driven out collecting together effected their return and put down the people. And also the democracy at Megara was put down in a similar mannerSee 1300a 18 ff. n.; the people’s leaders in order to have money to distribute to the people went on expelling many of the notables, until they made the exiles a large body, and these came back and defeated the people in a battle and set up the oligarchy.

+ +
+

And the same thing happened also at Cyme in the time of the democracy which Thrasymachus put downAn event otherwise unknown., and in the case of other states also examination would show that revolutions take place very much in this manner. Sometimes they make the notables combine by wronging them in order to curry favor, causing either their estates to be divided up or their revenues by imposing public services, and sometimes by so slandering them that they may have the property of the wealthy to confiscate. And in old times whenever the same man became both leader of the people and general, they used to change the constitution to a tyranny; for almost the largest number of the tyrants of early days have risen from being leaders of the people. And the reason why this used to happen then but does not do so now is because then the leaders of the people were drawn from those who held the office of general (for they were not yet skilled in oratory), but now when rhetoric has developed the able speakers are leaders of the people, but owing to their inexperience in military matters they are not put in control of these, except in so far as something of the kind has taken place to a small extent in some places. And tyrannies also used to occur in former times more than they do now because important offices were entrusted to certain men, as at Miletus a tyrannyPerhaps that of Thrasybulus (Hdt. 1.20), 612 B.C. arose out of the presidency (for the president had control of many important matters). And moreover, because the cities in those times were not large but the common people lived on their farmsbusily engaged in agriculture, the people’s champions when they became warlike used to aim at tyranny. And they all used to do this when they had acquired the confidence of the people, and their pledge of confidence was their enmity towards the rich, as at Athens Pisistratus made himself tyrant by raising up a party against the men of the plain, and Theagenes at Megara by slaughtering the cattle of the well-to-do which he captured grazing by the river, and DionysiusDionysius the elder, see 1259a 29 n. established a claim to become tyrant when he accused Daphnaeus and the rich, since his hostility to them caused him to be trusted as a true man of the people. And revolutions also take place from the ancestral form of democracy to one of the most modern kind; for where the magistracies are elective, but not on property-assessments, and the people elect, men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things to the point of the people’s being sovereign even over the laws. A remedy to prevent this or to reduce its extent is for the tribes to elect the magistrates, and not the people collectively.

+

These then are the causes through which almost all the revolutions in democracies take place.

+

Oligarchies undergo revolution principally through two ways that are the most obvious. One is if they treat the multitude unjustly; for anybody makes an adequate people’s champion, and especially so when their leader happens to come from the oligarchy itself, like Lygdamis at Naxos, who afterwards actually became tyrant of the Naxians.

+ +
+

Faction originating with other people also has various ways of arising. Sometimes when the honors of office are shared by very few, dissolution originates from the wealthy themselves,The contrasted case, of dissolution of oligarchy arising from the people, should follow, but is omitted. but not those that are in office, as for example has occurred at Marseilles,Cf. 1321a 29 ff. at Istrus,Near the mouth of the Danube. at Heraclea,See 1304b 31 n. and in other states; for those who did not share in the magistracies raised disturbances until as a first stage the older brothers were admitted, and later the younger ones again (for in some places a father and a son may not hold office together, and in others an elder and a younger brother may not). At Marseilles the oligarchy became more constitutional, while at Istrus it ended in becoming democracy, and in Heraclea the government passed from a smaller number to six hundred. At Cnidus also there was a revolutionPerhaps not the same as the one mentioned at 1306b 3. of the oligarchy caused by a faction formed by the notables against one another, because few shared in the government, and the rule stated held, that if a father was a member a son could not be, nor if there were several brothers could any except the eldest; for the common people seized the opportunity of their quarrel and, taking a champion from among the notables, fell upon them and conquered them, for a party divided against itself is weak. Another case was at Erythrae,Just west of Smyrna. The family name implies a claim to royal ancestry. where at the time of the oligarchy of the Basilidae in ancient days, althoughthe persons in the government directed affairs well, nevertheless the common people were resentful because they were governed by a few, and brought about a revolution of the constitution.

+

On the other hand, oligarchies are overthrown from within themselves bothThis sentence is interrupted by a parenthesis and is resumed in 5.6, And revolution is oligarchy also—. when from motives of rivalry they play the demagogue (and this demagogy is of two sorts, one among the oligarchs themselves, for a demagogue can arise among them even when they are a very small body,—as for instance in the time of the Thirty at Athens, the party of Charicles rose to power by currying popularity with the Thirty, and in the time of the Four HundredSee 1304b 12 n. the party of Phrynichus rose in the same way,— + +the other when the members of the oligarchy curry popularity with the mob, as the Civic Guards at Larisa See 1275b 29 n. courted popularity with the mob because it elected them, and in all the oligarchies in which the magistracies are not elected by the class from which the magistrates come but are filled from high property-grades or from political clubs while the electors are the heavy-armed soldiers or the common people, as used to be the case at Abydos, and in places where the jury-courts are not made up from the governmenti.e. (apparently) where membership is not confined to the class eligible for the magistracies.—for there members of the oligarchy by courting popular favor with a view to their trials cause a revolution of the constitution, as took place at Heraclea on the EuxineSee 1304b 31 n.; and a further instance is when some men try to narrow down the oligarchy to a smaller number, for those who seek equality are forced to bring in the people as a helper.) And revolutions in oligarchy also take place when they squander their private means by riotous living; for also men of this sort seek to bring about a new state of affairs, and either aim at tyranny themselves or suborn somebody else

+ +
+

(as Hipparinus put forward DionysiusSee 1259a 29 n. at Syracuse, and at Amphipolis See 1303b 2 n. a man named Cleotimus led the additional settlers that came from Chalcis and on their arrival stirred them up to sedition against the wealthy, and in Aegina the man who carried out the transactions with Chares attempted to cause a revolution in the constitution for a reason of this sorti.e. he had squandered his fortune in riotous living; this deal with the Athenian general may have been in 367 B.C.); so sometimes they attempt at once to introduce some reform, at other times they rob the public funds and in consequence either they or those who fight against them in their peculations stir up faction against the government, as happened at Apollonia on the Black Sea. On the other hand, harmonious oligarchy does not easily cause its own destruction; and an indication of this is the constitutional government at Pharsalus, for there the ruling class though few are masters of many meni.e. both of the lower classes and of the subject cities. because on good terms with one another. Also oligarchical governments break up when they create a second oligarchy within the oligarchy. This is when, although the whole citizen class is small, its few members are not all admitted to the greatest offices; this is what once occurred in Elis, for the government being in the hands of a few, very few men used to become members of the Elders,i.e. the small governing body. because these numbering ninety held office for life, and the mode of election was of a dynastic typei.e. like a dynasteia, favorable to the interest of a few very wealthy families; see 1292b 10 n. and resembled that of the Elders at Sparta.

+

Revolutionsof oligarchies occur both during war and in time of peace— during war since the oligarchs are forced by their distrust of the people to employ mercenary troops (for the man in whose hands they place them often becomes tyrant, as Timophanes did at Corinth, Corinth was at war with Argos circa 350 B.C. Timophanes was killed by his brother the famous Timoleon, in order to restore constitutional government. and if they put several men in command, these win for themselves dynastic power), and when through fear of this they give a share in the constitution to the multitude, the oligarchy falls because they are compelled to make use of the common people; during peace, on the other hand, because of their distrust of one another they place their protection in the hands of mercenary troops and a magistrate between the two parties, who sometimes becomes master of both, which happened at Larisa in the time of the government of the Aleuadae led by Simus,A probable emendation of the Greek gives happened at Larisa to Simus and his party at the time of the government of the Aleuadae. This family were hereditary rulers of Larisa (see also 1275b 29 ff. n., and 1305b 29 ff.) and at Abydos in the time of the political clubs of which that of Iphiades was one. And factions arise also in consequence of one set of the members of the oligarchy themselves being pushed aside by another set and being driven into party strife in regard to marriages or law-suits; examples of such disorders arising out of a cause related to marriage are the instances spoken of before, and also the oligarchy of the knights at Eretria was put downPossibly before the Persian wars. See 1289b 36 ff. The two following cases are unrecorded elsewhere. by Diagoras when he had been wronged in respect of a marriage, while the faction at Heraclea and that at Thebes arose out of a judgement of a law-court, when the people at Heraclea justly but factiously enforced the punishment against Eurytion on a charge of adultery and those at Thebes did so against Archias;

+ +
+

for their personal enemies stirred up party feeling against them so as to get them bound in the pillory in the market-place. Also many governments have been put down by some of their members who had become resentful because the oligarchies were too despotic; this is how the oligarchies fell at Cnidus See 1305b 13 n. and at Chios. And revolutions also occur from an accident, both in what is called a constitutional government and in those oligarchies in which membership of the council and the law-courts and tenure of the other offices are based on a property-qualification. For often the qualification first having been fixed to suit the circumstances of the time, so that in an oligarchy a few may be members and in a constitutional government the middle classes, when peace or some other good fortune leads to a good harvest it comes about that the same properties become worth many times as large an assessment, so that all the citizens share in all the rights, the change sometimes taking place gradually and little by little and not being noticed, but at other times more quickly.

+

Such then are the causes that lead to revolutions and factions in oligarchies (and generally, both democracies and oligarchies are sometimes altered not into the opposite forms of constitution but into ones of the same class, for instancefrom legitimate democracies and oligarchies into autocratic ones and from the latter into the former).

+

In aristocracies factions arise in some cases because few men share in the honors (which has also been saidSee 1306a 13 ff. to be the cause of disturbances in oligarchies, because an aristocracy too is a sort of oligarchy, for in both those who govern are few—although the reason for this is not the same in both—since this does cause it to be thought that aristocracy is a form of oligarchy). And this is most bound to come about when there is a considerable number of people who are proud-spirited on the ground of being equals in virtue (for example the clan called the Maidens’ SonsSaid to be descended from irregular unions authorized in order to keep up population during the First Messenian War. They founded Taranto 708 B.C. at Sparta—for they were descended from the Equals—whom the Spartans detected in a conspiracy and sent away to colonize Tarentum); or when individuals although great men and inferior to nobody in virtue are treated dishonorably by certain men in higher honor (for example Lysander by the kingsKing Pausanias II. checked Lysander after his conquest of Athens in 403 B.C. and King Agesilaus thwarted him on the expedition into Asia Minor in 396.); or when a person of manly nature has no share in the honors (for example Cinadon,His conspiracy against the Ὅμοιοι in 398 B.C. was discovered and he was executed. who got together the attack upon the Spartans in the reign of Agesilaus). Faction in aristocracies also arises when some of the well-born are too poor and others too rich (which happens especially during wars, and this also occurred at Sparta at the time of the Messenian War—as appears from the poem of Tyrtaeus entitledLaw and Order;

+ +
+

for some men being in distress because of the war put forward a claim to carry out a re-division of the land of the country). Also if a man is great and capable of being yet greater, he stirs up faction in order that he may be sole ruler (as Pausanias who commanded the army through the Persian war seems to have done at Sparta, and HannoPerhaps Hanno who fought in Sicily against the elder Dionysius circa 4OO B.C. at Carthage).

+

But the actual overthrow of both constitutional governments and aristocracies is mostly due to a departure from justice in the actual framework of the constitution. For what starts it in the case of a constitutional government is that it does not contain a good blend of democracy and oligarchy; and in the case of an aristocracy it is the lack of a good blend of those two elements and of virtue, but chiefly of the two elements (I mean popular government and oligarchy), for both constitutional governments and most of the constitutions that are called aristocracies aim at blending these. For thisi.e. their mode of blending oligarchy and democracy. is the point of distinction between aristocracies and what are called constitutional governments, and it is owing to this that some of themThe writer loosely speaks of aristocracies and polities as a single class, differing only in degree of concentration of power in the hands of the upper classes. are less and others more stable; for the constitutions inclining more towards oligarchy men call aristocracies and those inclining more to the side of the multitude constitutional governments, owing to which those of the latter sort are more secure than the others, for the greater number is the stronger, and also men are more content when they have an equal amount, whereas the owners of wealthy properties, if the constitution gives them the superior position,seek to behave insolently and to gain money. And speaking broadly, to whichever side the constitution leans, that is the side to which it shifts as either of the two parties increases its own side—a constitutional government shifts to democracy and an aristocracy to oligarchy, or to the opposite extremes, that is, aristocracy to democracy (for the poorer people feeling they are unjustly treated pull it round to the opposite) and constitutional governments to oligarchy (for the only lasting thing is equality in accordance with desert and the possession of what is their own). And the change mentionedi.e. from aristocracy to democracy. Possibly these events occurred after the defeat of Athens at Syracuse in 413 B.C., when the Athenian party at Thurii was banished (Lysias 835 D). The events in 8 were perhaps in the fourth century. came about at Thurii, for because the property-qualification for honors was too high, the constitution was altered to a lower property-qualification and to a larger number of official posts, but because the notables illegally bought up the whole of the land (for the constitution was too oligarchical, so that they were able to grasp at wealth) . . .Probably a clause meaning civil strife ensued has been lost. And the people having been trained in the war overpowered the guards, until those who were in the position of having too much land relinquished it.

+

Besides, as all aristocratic constitutions are inclined towards oligarchy, the notables grasp at wealth (for example at Sparta the estates are coming into a few hands); and the notables have more power to do what they like, and to form marriage connections with whom they like (which was the cause of the fall of the state of Locri, as a result of the marriage with Dionysius,See 1259a 28 n. He married in 397 B.C. the daughter of a Locrian citizen, who bore him the younger Dionysius. which would not have taken place in a democracy; nor in a well-blended aristocracy).

+ +
+

And aristocracies are most liable to undergo revolution unobserved, through gradual relaxation, just as it has been said in what has gone before about all forms of constitution in general, that even a small change may cause a revolution. For when they give up one of the details of the constitution, afterwards they also make another slightly bigger change more readily, until they alter the whole system. This occurred for instance with the constitution of Thurii. There was a law that the office of general could be held at intervals of four years, but some of the younger men, becoming warlike and winning high repute with the mass of the guards, came to despise the men engaged in affairs, and thought that they would easily get control; so first they tried to repeal the law referred to, so as to enable the same persons to serve as generals continuously, as they saw that the people would vote for themselves with enthusiasm. And though the magistrates in charge of this matter, called the Councillors, at first made a movement to oppose them, they were won over, believing that after repealing this law they would allow the rest of the constitution to stand; but later, though they wished to prevent them when other laws were being repealed, they could no longer do anything more, but the whole system of the constitution was converted into a dynasty of the men who had initiated the innovations.

+

And constitutions of all formsare broken up some times from movements initiating from within themselves, but sometimes from outside, when there is an opposite form of constitution either near by or a long way off yet possessed of power. This used to happen in the days of the Athenians and the Spartans; the Athenians used to put down oligarchies everywhere and the Spartans democracies.

+

We have then approximately stated the causes that give rise to revolutions in the constitutions of states and to party factions.

+

The next thing to speak about is security both in general and for each form of constitution separately. First then it is clear that if we know the causes by which constitutions are destroyed we also know the causes by which they are preserved; for opposites create opposites, and destruction is the opposite of security. In well-blended constitutions therefore, if care must be taken to prevent men from committing any other breach of the law, most of all must a small breach be guarded against, for transgression of the law creeps in unnoticed, just as a small expenditure occurring often ruins men’s estates; for the expense is not noticed because it does not come all at once, for the mind is led astray by the repeated small outlays, just like the sophistic puzzle, if each is little, then all are alittle.This is the soritesfallacy; add to one stone another, and another, and another—when do they make a heap ( σωρός)? and take away stone after stone—when do they cease to be a heap? Horace’s ratio ruentis acerui (Hor. Ep. 2.47. This is true in one way but in another it is not; for the whole or total is not little, but made up of little parts. One thing therefore that we must guard against is this beginning; and the next point is that we must not put faith in the arguments strung together for the sake of tricking the multitude,

+ +
+

for they are refuted by the facts (and what sort of constitutional sophistries we refer to hasbeen said before). And again we must observe that not only some aristocracies but also some oligarchies endure not because the constitutions are secure but because those who get in the offices treat both those outside the constitution and those in the government well, on the one hand by not treating those who are not members of it unjustly and by bringing their leading men into the constitution and not wronging the ambitious ones in the matter of dishonor or the multitude in the matter of gain, and on the other hand, in relation to themselves and those who are members, by treating one another in a democratic spirit. For that equality which men of democratic spirit seek for in the case of the multitude is not only just but also expedient in the case of their compeers. Hence if there are a greater number in the governing class, many of the legislative enactments of a democratic nature are advantageous, for example for the offices to be tenable for six months, to enable all the compeers to participate in them; for the compeers in this case are as it were the people (owing to which demagogues often arise even among them, as has been said already), and also oligarchies and aristocracies fall into dynasties less (for it is not so easy to do wrongs when in office for a short time as when in for a long time, since it is long tenure of office that causes tyrannies to spring up in oligarchies and democracies; for either those who are the greatest men in either sort of state aim at tyranny, in the one sort the demagogues and in the other the dynasts, or those who hold the greatest offices, when they are in office for along time). And constitutions are kept secure not only through being at a distance from destroyers but sometimes also through being near them,This modifies 1207a 31. for when they are afraid the citizens keep a closer hold on the government; hence those who take thought for the constitution must contrive causes of fear, in order that the citizens may keep guard and not relax their vigilance for the constitution like a watch in the night, and they must make the distant near. Again, they must also endeavor to guard against the quarrels and party struggles of the notables by means of legislation, and to keep out those who are outside the quarrel before they too have taken it over; since to discern a growing evil at the commencement is not any ordinary person’s work but needs a statesman. And to deal with the revolution from oligarchy and constitutional government that arises because of the property-qualifications, when this occurs while the rates of qualification remain the same but money is becoming plentiful, it is advantageous to examine the total amount of the rated value of the community as compared with the past amount, in states where the assessment is made yearly, over that period,

+ +
+

and three years or five years ago in the larger states, and if the new total is many times larger or many times smaller than the former one at the time when the rates qualifying for citizenship were fixed, it is advantageous that there should be a law for the magistrates correspondingly to tighten up or to relax the rates, tightening them up in proportion to the ratio of increase if the new total rated value exceeds the old, and relaxing them and making the qualification lower if the new total falls below theold. For in oligarchies and constitutional states, when they do not do this, in the one casei.e. if the total valuation has decreased. the result is that in the latter an oligarchy comes into existence and in the former a dynasty, and in the other casei.e. if the total has increased. a constitutional government turns into a democracy and an oligarchy into a constitutional government or a government of the people. But it is a policy common to democracy and oligarchy [and to monarchy],Some MSS. and many editors omit these words. and every form of constitution not to raise up any man too much beyond due proportion, but rather to try to assign small honors and of long tenure or great ones quicklyThe text should probably be emended with a short tenure. (for officials grow corrupt, and not every man can bear good fortune), or if not, at all events not to bestow honors in clusters and take them away again in clusters, but by a gradual process; and best of all to try so to regulate people by the law that there may be nobody among them specially pre-eminent in power due to friends or wealth, or, failing this, to cause their periods out of office to be spent abroad.And since men also cause revolutions through their private lives, some magistracy must be set up to inspect those whose mode of living is unsuited to the constitution—unsuited to democracy in a democracy, to oligarchy in an oligarchy, and similarly for each of the other forms of constitution. And also sectional prosperity in the state must be guarded against for the same reasons; and the way to avert this is always to entrust business and office to the opposite sections (I mean that the respectable are opposite to the multitude and the poor to the wealthy), and to endeavor either to mingle together the multitude of the poor and that of the wealthy or to increase the middle class (for this dissolves party factions due to inequality). And in every form of constitution it is a very great thing for it to be so framed both by its laws and by its other institutions that it is impossible for the magistracies to make a profit. And this has most to be guarded against in oligarchies; for the many are not so much annoyed at being excluded from holding office (but in fact they are glad if somebody lets them have leisure to spend on their own affairs) as they are if they think that the magistrates are stealing the common funds, but then both things annoy them, exclusion from the honors of office and exclusion from its profits. And indeed the sole way in which a combination of democracy and aristocracy is possible is if someone could contrive this arrangementi.e. render it impossible to make money out of office;

+ +
+

for it would then be possible for the notables and also the multitude both to have what they want; for it is the democratic principle for all to have the right to hold office and the aristocratic one for the offices to be filled by the notables, and this will be the case when it is impossible to make money from office; for the poor will not want to hold office because of making nothing out of it, but rather to attend to their own affairs, while the wealthy will be able to hold office because they have no need to add to their resources from the public funds; so that the result will be that the poor will become well-off through spending their time upon their work, and the notables will not be governed by any casual persons. Therefore to prevent peculation of the public property, let the transfer of the funds take place in the presence of all the citizens, and let copies of the lists be deposited for each brotherhood,Groups of citizens normally three to a tribe, supposed to be based on relationship. companyOriginally a military, later a civil classification. and tribe; and to get men to hold office without profit there must be honors assigned by law to officials of good repute. And in democracies it is necessary to be sparing of the wealthy not only by not causing properties to be divided up, but not incomes either (which under some constitutions takes place unnoticed), and it is better to prevent men from undertaking costly but useless public services like equipping choruses and torch-racesEquipping the chorus and actors for tragedies and comedies and providing for the ceremonial torch-races were public services borne by individuals at Athens. and all other similar services, even if they wish to; in an oligarchy on the other hand it is necessary to take much care of the poor, and to allot to them the offices of profit, and the penalty if one of the rich commits an outrage against them must be greater than if it is done by one of themselves,Or possibly than if he does it against one of his own class. and inheritance must not go by bequest but by family, and the same man must not inherit more than one estate, for so estates would be more on a level, and more of the poor would establish themselves as prosperous. And it is expedient both in a democracy and in an oligarchy to assign to those who have a smaller share in the government—in a democracy to the wealthy and in anoligarchy to the poor—either equality or precedence in all other things excepting the supreme offices of state; but these should be entrusted to those prescribed by the constitution exclusively, or to them for the most part.

+

There are some three qualities which those who are to hold the supreme magistracies ought to possess, first, loyalty to the established constitution, next, very great capacity to do the duties of the office, and third, virtue and justice—in each constitution the sort of justice suited to the constitution (for if the rules of justice are not the same under all constitutions, it follows that there must be differences in the nature of justice also). It is a difficult question how the choice ought to be made when it happens that all these qualities are not found in the same person;

+ +
+

for instance, if one man is a good military commander but a bad man and no friend of the constitution, and the other is just and loyal, how should the choice be made? It seems that two things ought to be considered, what is the quality of which all men have a larger share, and what the one of which all have a smaller share? Therefore in the case of military command one must consider experience more than virtue, for men have a smaller share of military experience and a larger share of moral goodness; but in the case of a trusteeship or a stewardship the opposite, for these require more virtue than most men possess, but the knowledge required is common to all men. And somebody might raise the question, why is virtue needed if both capacity and loyalty to the constitution are forthcoming, as even these two qualities will do what is suitable? May not the answer be, because those who possess these two qualities may possibly lack self-control, so that just as they do not serve themselves well although they know how to and although they love themselves, so possibly in some cases they may behave in this way in regard to the community also? And broadly, whatever provisions in the laws we describe as advantageous to constitutions, these are all preservative of the constitutions, and so is the supreme elementary principle that has been often stated, that of taking precautions that the section desirous of the constitution shall be stronger in numbers than the section not desirous off it. And beside all these matters one thing must not be overlooked which at present is overlooked by the, deviation-formsSee 1279a 20. of constitution—the middle party; for many of the institutions thought to be popular destroy democracies, and many of those thought oligarchical destroy oligarchies. But the adherents of the deviation-form, thinking that this form is the only right thing, drag it to excess, not knowing that just as there can be a nose that although deviating from the most handsome straightness towards being hooked or snub nevertheless is still beautiful and agreeable to look at, yet all the same, if a sculptor carries it still further in the direction of excess, he will first lose the symmetry of the feature and finally will make it not even look like a nose at all, because of its excess and deficiency in the two opposite qualities (and the same is the ease also in regard to the other parts of the body), so this is what happens about constitutions likewise; for it is possible for an oligarchy and a democracy to be satisfactory although they have diverged from the best structure, but if one strains either of them further, first he will make the constitution worse, and finally he will make it not a constitution at all. Therefore the legislator and the statesman must not fail to know what sort of democratic institutions save and what destroy a democracy, and what sort of oligarchical institutions an oligarchy; for neither constitution can exist and endure without the well-to-do and the multitude, but when an even level of property comes about, the constitution resulting must of necessity be another one,

+ +
+

so that when men destroy these classes by laws carried to excess they destroy the constitutions. And a mistake is made both in democracies and in oligarchies—in democracies by the demagogues, where the multitude is supreme over the laws; for they always divide the state into two by fighting with the well-to-do, but they ought on the contrary always to pretend to be speaking on behalf of men that are well-to-do, while in democracies the oligarchical statesmen ought to pretend to be speaking on behalf of the people, and the oligarchics ought to take oath in terms exactly opposite to those which they use now, for at present in some oligarchies they swear, And I will be hostile to the people and will plan whatever evil I can against them,The scoffing anapaestic cadence of this oath has been noted. In 411 B.C. the democratic reaction at Athens swore to be enemies of the Four Hundred and to hold no parley with them. but they ought to hold, and to act the part of holding, the opposite notion, declaring in their oaths, I will not wrong the people. But the greatest of all the means spoken of to secure the stability of constitutions is one that at present all people despise: it is a system of education suited to the constitutions. For there is no use in the most valuable laws, ratified by the unanimous judgement of the whole body of citizens, if these are not trained and educated in the constitution, popularly if the laws are popular, oligarchically if they are oligarchical; for there is such a thing as want of self-discipline in a state, as well as in an individual. But to have been educated to suit the constitution does not mean to do the things that give pleasure to the adherents of oligarchy or to the supportersof democracy, but the things that will enable the former to govern oligarchically and the latter to govern themselves democratically. But at present in the oligarchies the sons of the rulers are luxurious, and the sons of the badly-off become trained by exercise and labor, so that they are both more desirous of reform and more able to bring it about; + while in the democracies thought to be the most democratic the opposite of what is expedient has come about. And the cause of this is that they define liberty wrongly (for there are two things that are thought to be defining features of democracy, the sovereignty of the majority and liberty); for justice is supposed to be equality, and equality the sovereignty of what ever may have been decided by the multitude, and liberty doing just what one likes. Hence in democracies of this sort everybody lives as he likes, and unto what end he listeth, as EuripidesFragment 883, from an unknown play. says. But this is bad; for to live in conformity with the constitution ought not to be considered slavery but safety.

+

This therefore, speaking broadly, is a list of the things that cause the alteration and the destruction of constitutions, and of those that cause their security and continuance.

+

It remains to speak of monarchy, the causes that destroy it and the natural means of its preservation.

+ +
+

And the things that happen about royal governments and tyrannies are almost similar to those that have been narrated about constitutional governments. For royal government corresponds with aristocracy, while tyranny is a combination of the last form of oligarchyCf. 1296a 3, 1312b 35. and of democracy; and for that very reason it is most harmful to its subjects, inasmuch as it is a combination of two bad things, and is liable to the deviations and errors that spring from both forms of constitution. And these two different sorts of monarchy have their origins from directly opposite sources; royalty has come into existence for the assistance of the distinguished against the people, and a king is appointed from those distinguished by superiority in virtue or the actions that spring from virtue, or by superiority in coming from a family of that character, while a tyrant is set up from among the people and the multitude to oppose the notables, in order that the people may suffer no injustice from them. And this is manifest from the facts of history. For almost the greatest number of tyrants have risen, it may be said, from being demagogues, having won the people’s confidence by slandering the notables. For some tyrannies were set up in this manner when the states had already grown great, but others that came before them arose from kings departing from the ancestral customs and aiming at a more despotic rule,and others from the men elected to fill the supreme magistracies (for in old times the peoples used to appoint the popular officialsHere δημιουργία means magistracy generally; δημιουργός was the title of a special officer in some Peloponnesian states. and the sacred embassiesOfficial missions to religious games and to oracles. for long terms of office), and others from oligarchies electing some one supreme official for the greatest magistracies. For in all these methods they had it in their powerto effect their purpose easily, if only they wished, because they already possessed the power of royal rule in the one set of cases and of their honorable office in the other, for example Phidon in Argos Perhaps circa 750 B.C. and others became tyrants when they possessed royal power already, while the Ionian tyrantse.g. Thrasybulus, tyrant of Miletus, 612 B.C. and PhalarisTyrant of Agrigentum 572 B.C. arose from offices of honor, and Panaetius at Leontini and Cypselus at Corinth and PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. at Athens and DionysiusSee 1259a 28 n. at Syracuse and others in the same manner from the position of demagogue. + +Therefore, as we said, royalty is ranged in correspondence with aristocracy, for it goes by merit, either by private virtue or by family or by services or by a combination of these things and ability. For in every instance this honor fell to men after they had conferred benefit or because they had the ability to confer benefit on their cities or their nations, some having prevented their enslavement in war, for instance Codrus,The usual tradition was that Codrus was already king when he saved Athens by sacrificing his life. others having set them free, for instance Cyrus,Cyrus liberated Persia from the Median empire 559 B.C. or having settled or acquired territory, for instance the kings of Sparta and Macedon and the Molossians.Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, conquered the Molossi and became their king. And a king wishes to be a guardian,

+ +
+

to protect the owners of estates from suffering injustice and the people from suffering insult, but tyranny, as has repeatedly been said, pays regard to no common interest unless for the sake of its private benefit; and the aim of tyranny is what is pleasant, that of royalty what is noble. Hence even in their requisitions money is the aim of tyrants but rather marks of honor that of kings; and a king’s body-guard consists of citizens, a tyrant’s of foreign mercenaries. And it is manifest that tyranny has the evils of both democracy and oligarchy; it copies oligarchy in making wealth its object (for inevitably that is the only way in which the tyrant’s body-guard and his luxury can be kept up) and in putting no trust in the multitude (which is why they resort to the measure of stripping the people of arms, and why ill-treatment of the mob and its expulsion from the city and settlement in scattered places is common to both forms of government, both oligarchy and tyranny), while it copies democracy in making war on the notables and destroying them secretly and openly and banishing them as plotting against it and obstructive to its rule. For it is from them that counter-movements actually spring, some of them wishing themselves to rule, and others notto be slaves. Hence comes the advice of Periander to Thrasybulus,See 1284a 26 n. his docking of the prominent cornstalks, meaning that the prominent citizens must always be made away with.

+

Therefore, as was virtually stated,This has not been stated, but can be inferred from what precedes. the causes of revolutions in constitutional and in royal governments must be deemed to be the same; for subjects in many cases attack monarchies because of unjust treatment and fear and contempt, and among the forms of unjust treatment most of all because of insolence, and sometimes the cause is the seizure of private property. Also the objects aimed at by the revolutionaries in the case both of tyrannies and of royal governments are the same as in revolts against constitutional government; for monarchs possess great wealth and great honor, which are desired by all men. And in some cases the attack is aimed at the person of the rulers, in others at their office. Risings provoked by insolence are aimed against the person; and though insolence has many varieties, each of them gives rise to anger, and when men are angry they mostly attack for the sake of revenge, not of ambition. For example the attack on the Pisistratidae took place because they outraged Harmodius’s sister and treated Harmodius with contumely (for Harmodius attacked them because of his sister and Aristogiton because of Harmodius, and also the plot was laid against Periander the tyrant in Ambracia See 1304a 31 n. because when drinking with his favorite he asked him if he was yet with child by him),

+ +
+

and the attack on Philip by PausaniasA Macedonian youth of family, who murdered Philip 336 B.C. Attalus was the uncle of Philip’s wife Cleopatra. was because he allowed him to be insulted by Attalus and his friends, and that on Amyntas the LittlePerhaps the adjective should be transferred to Derdas and expunged as an interpolated note. The persons referred to are uncertain. by Derdas because he mocked at his youth, and the attack of the eunuch on Evagoras of Cyprus was for revenge, for he murdered him as being insulted, because Evagoras’s son had taken away his wife. And many risings have also occurred because of shameful personal indignities committed by certain monarchs. One instance is the attack of Crataeas on ArchelausKing of Macedon 413-399 B.C. Euripides went to reside at his court 408 B.C. and died there 406 B.C. at the age of 75.; for he was always resentful of the association, so that even a smaller excuse became sufficient, or perhaps it was because he did not give him the hand of one of his daughters after agreeing to do so, but gave the elder to the king of Elimea when hard pressed in a war against Sirras and Arrabaeus, and the younger to his son Amyntas, thinking that thus Amyntas would be least likely to quarrel with his son by Cleopatra; but at all events Crataeas’s estrangement was primarily caused by resentment because of the love affair. And Hellanocrates of Larisa also joined in the attack for the same reason; for because while enjoying his favors Archelaus would not restore him to his home although he had promised to do so, he thought that the motive of the familiarity that had taken placehad been insolence and not passionate desire. And Pytho and Heraclides of Aenus made away with CotysKing of Thrace 382-358 B.C. to avenge their father, and Adamas revolted from Cotys because he had been mutilated by him when a boy, on the ground of the insult. And also many men when enraged by the indignity of corporal chastisement have avenged the insult by destroying or attempting to destroy its author, even when a magistrate or member of a royal dynasty. For example when the PenthilidaeThe ruling family in the early oligarchy there, claiming descent from Penthilus, an illegitimate son of Orestes. at Mitylene went about striking people with their staves Megacles with his friends set on them and made away with them, and afterwards Smerdis when he had been beaten and dragged out from his wife’s presence killed Penthilus. Also Decamnichus took a leading part in the attack upon Archelaus, being the first to stir on the attackers; and the cause of his anger was that he had handed him over to Euripides the poet to flog, Euripides being angry because he had made a remark about his breath smelling. And many others also for similar reasons have been made away with or plotted against. And similarly also from the motive of fear; for this was one of the causes we mentioned in the case of monarchies, as also in that of constitutional governments; for instance ArtapanesCaptain of Xerxes’ body-guard. killed Xerxes fearing the charge about Darius, because he had hanged him when Xerxes had ordered him not to but he had thought that he would forgive him because he would forget, as he had been at dinner. And other attacks on monarchs have been on account of contempt,

+ +
+

as somebody killed SardanapallusLast king of the Assyrian empire at Nineveh. when he saw him combing his hair with his women (if this story told by the narrators of legends is true—and if it did not happen with Sardanapallus, it might quite well be true of somebody else), and Dion attacked the younger DionysiusTyrant of Syracuse 367-356 and 346-343 B.C., cf. 1312a 34 ff. because he despised him, when he saw the citizens despising him and the king himself always drunk. And contempt has led some even of the friends of monarchs to attack them, for they despise them for trusting them and think they will not be found out. And contempt is in a manner the motive of those who attack monarchs thinking that they are able to seize the government; for they make the attempt with a light heart, feeling that they have the power and because of their power despising the danger, as generals commanding the armies attack their monarchs; for instance Cyrus attacked AstyagesThe last king of Media, reigned 594-559 B.C. when he despised both his mode of life and his power, because his power had waned and he himself was living luxuriously, and the Thracian Seuthes attacked AmadocusBoth these Thracian kings became allies of Athens 390 B.C., but the event referred to may be later. when his general. Others again attack monarchs for more than one of these motives, for instance both because they despise them and for the sake of gain, as MithridatesPerhaps Mithridates II., who succeeded his father Ariobarzanes as satrap of Pontus 336 B.C. attacked Ariobarzanes.The following sentence may have been shifted by mistake from the end of 8.14 above. And it is men of bold nature and who hold a military office with monarchs who most often make the attempt for this reason; for courage possessing power is boldness,and they make their attacks thinking that with courage and power they will easily prevail. But with those whose attack is prompted by ambition the motive operates in a different way from those spoken of before; some men attack tyrantsbecause they see great profits and great honors belonging to them, but that is not the reason that in each case leads the persons who attack from motives of ambition to resolve on the venture; those others are led by the motive stated, but these attack monarchs from a wish to gain not monarchy but glory, just as they would wishto take part in doing any other uncommon deed that makes men famous and known to their fellows. Not but what those who make the venture from this motive are very few indeed in number, for underlying it there must be an utter disregard of safety, if regard for safety is not to check the enterprise; they must always have present in their minds the opinion of Dion, although it is not easy for many men to have it; Dion marched with a small force against Dionysius, saying that his feeling was that, whatever point he might be able to get to, it would be enough for him to have had that much share in the enterprise—for instance, if it should befall him to die as soon as he had just set foot in the country, that death would satisfy him.

+

And one way in which tyranny is destroyed, as is eachof the other forms of constitution also, is from without,

+ +
+

if some state with an opposite constitution is stronger (for the wish to destroy it will clearly be present in such a neighbor because of the opposition of principle, and all men do what they wish if they have the power)—and the constitutions opposed to tyranny are, on the one hand democracy, which is opposed to it as (in Hesiod’s phrase Hes. WD 25 καὶ κεραμεὺς κεραμεῖ κοτέει καὶ τέκτονι τέκτων, two of a trade never agree.) potter to potter, because the final form of democracy is tyranny, and on the other hand royalty and aristocracy are opposed to tyranny because of the opposite nature of their constitutional structure (owing towhich the Spartans put down a very great many tyrannies, and so did the Syracusans at the period when they were governed well.) But one way is from within itself, when the partners in it fall into discord, as the tyranny of the family of GeloTyrant of Syracuse 485-478 B.C., succeeded by his brother Hiero who died 467. Gelo’s son is unknown. Cf. 1315b 35 ff. was destroyed, and in modern times 356 B.C., a good many years before this book was written. that of the family of DionysiusSee 1312a 4 n.—Gelo’s, when Thrasybulus the brother of Hiero paid court to the son of Gelo and urged him into indulgences in order that he himself might rule, and the son’s connections banded together a body of confederates in order that the tyranny might not be put down entirely but only Thrasybulus, but their confederates seizing the opportunity expelled them all; Dionysius was put down by Dion, his relative, who got the people on to his side and expelled him, but was afterwards killed. There are two causes that chiefly lead men to attack tyranny, hatred and contempt; the former, hatred,attaches to tyrants always, but it is their being despised that causes their downfall in many cases. A proof of this is that most of those that have won tyrannies have also kept their offices to the end, but those that have inherited them almost all lose them at once; for they live a life of indulgence, and so become despicable and also give many opportunities to their attackers. And also anger must be counted as an element in the hatred felt for them, for in a way it occasions the same actions. And often it is even more active than hatred, since angry men attack more vigorously because passion does not employ calculation (and insolence most frequently causes men to be led by their angry tempers, which was the cause of the fall of the tyranny of the Pisistratidae and many others), but hatred calculates more; for anger brings with it an element of pain, making calculation difficult, but enmity is not accompanied by pain. And to speak summarily, all the things that we have mentioned as causing the down fall of unmixed and extreme oligarchy and of the last form of democracy must be counted as destructive of tyranny as well, since extreme oligarchy and democracy are in reality dividedi.e. divided among several persons, put into commission. tyrannies. Royal government on the other hand is very seldom destroyed by external causes, so that it is long-lasting; but in most cases its destruction arises out of itself. And it is destroyed in two ways,

+ +
+

one when those who participate in it quarrel, and another when the kings try to administer the government too tyrannically, claiming to exercise sovereignty in more things and contrary to the law. Royal governments do not occur any more now, but if ever monarchies do occur they are rather tyrannies, because royalty is government over willing subjects but with sovereignty over greater matters, but men of equal quality are numerous and no one is so outstanding as to fit the magnitude and dignity of the office; so that for this reason the subjects do not submit willingly, and if a man has made himself ruler by deception or force, then this is thought to be a tyranny. In cases of hereditary royalty we must also set down a cause of their destruction, in addition to those mentioned, the fact that hereditary kings often become despicable, and that although possessing not the power of a tyrant but the dignity of a king they commit insolent outrages; for the deposition of kings used to be easy, since a king will at once cease to be king if his subjects do not wish him to be, whereas a tyrant will still be tyrant even though his subjects do not wish it.

+

These causes then and others of the same nature are those that bring about the destruction of monarchies.

+

On the other hand it is clear that monarchies, speaking generally, are preserved in safety as a result of the opposite causes to those by which they are destroyed. But taking the different sorts of monarchy separately—royalties are preserved by bringing theminto a more moderate form; for the fewer powers the kings have, the longer time the office in its entirety must last, for they themselves become less despotic and more equal to their subjects in temper, and their subjects envy them less. For this was the cause of the long persistence of the Molossian royalty, and that of Sparta has continued because the office was from the beginning divided into two halves, and because it was again limited in various ways by Theopompus,King of Sparta circa 770-720 B.C. in particular by his instituting the office of the ephors to keep a check upon it; for by taking away some of the kings’ power he increased the permanence of the royal office, so that in a manner he did not make it less but greater. This indeed as the story goes is what he said in reply to his wife, when she asked if he felt no shame in bequeathing the royal power to his sons smaller than he had inherited it from his father: Indeed I do not, he is said to have answered, for Ihand it on more lasting.

+

Tyrannies on the other hand are preserved in two extremely opposite ways. One of these is the traditional way and the one in which most tyrants administer their office. Most of these ordinary safeguards of tyranny are said to have been instituted by PerianderSee 1284a 26 n. of Corinth, and also many such devices may be borrowed from the Persian empire. These are both the measures mentioned some time back to secure the safety of a tyranny as far as possible—the lopping off of outstanding men and the destruction of the proud,—and also the prohibition of common meals and club-fellowship and education and all other things of this nature,

+ +
+

in fact the close watch upon all things that usually engender the two emotions of pride and confidence, and the prevention of the formation of study-circles and other conferences for debate,The phrases cover Plato’s gatherings in the Academy, Aristotle’s in the Peripatos of the Lyceum, and other meetings for the intellectual use of leisure in gymnasia, palaestrae and leschae. and the employment of every means that will make people as much as possible unknown to one another (for familiarity increases mutual confidence); and for the people in the city to be always visible and to hang about the palace-gates (for thus there would be least concealment about what they are doing, and they would get into a habit of being humble from always acting in a servile way); and all the other similar devices of Persian and barbarian tyranny (for all have the same effect); and to try not to be uninformed about any chance utterances or actions of any of the subjects, but to have spies like the women called provocatrices at Syracuse and the sharp-ears that used to be sent out by Hiero wherever there was any gathering or conference (for when men are afraid of spies of this sort they keep a check on their tongues, and if they do speak freely are less likely not to be found out); and to set men at variance with one another and cause quarrels between friend and friend and between the people and the notables and among the rich. And it is a device of tyranny to make the subjects poor, so that a guardApparently this means a citizen force side by side with the tyrant’s mercenaries; a variant gives in order that the (tyrant’s) guard may be kept. may not be kept, and also that the people being busy with their daily affairs may not have leisure to plot against their ruler. Instances of this are the pyramids in Egypt and the votive offerings of the Cypselids,Cypselus and his son Periander (1310b 29 n., 1284a 26 n.) dedicated a colossal statue of Zeus at Olympia and other monuments there and at Delphi. and the building of the temple of Olympian Zeus by the PisistratidaePisistratus is said to have begun the temple of Olympian Zeus at Athens, not finished till the time of Hadrian. and of the temples at Samos, works of PolycratesTyrant of Samos, d. 522 B.C. (for all these undertakings produce the same effect, constant occupation and poverty among the subject people); and the levying of taxes, as at Syracuse (for in the reign of DionysiusSee 1259a 28 n. the result of taxation used to be that in five years men had contributed the whole of their substance). Also the tyrant is a stirrer-up of war, with the deliberate purpose of keeping the people busy and also of making them constantly in need of a leader. Also whereas friends are a means of security to royalty, it is a mark of a tyrant to be extremely distrustful of his friends, on the ground that, while all have the wish, these chiefly have the power. Also the things that occur in connection with the final form of democracyCf. 1309b 27 ff. are all favorable to tyranny—dominance of women in the homes, in order that they may carry abroad reports against the men, and lack of discipline among the slaves, for the same reason; for slaves and women do not plot against tyrants, and also, if they prosper under tyrannies, must feel well-disposed to them, and to democracies as well (for the common people also wishes to be sole ruler). Hence also the flatterer is in honor with both—with democracies the demagogue (for the demagogue is a flatterer of the people), and with the tyrants those who associate with them humbly, which is the task of flattery.

+ +
+

In fact owing to this tyranny is a friend of the base; for tyrants enjoy being flattered, but nobody would ever flatter them if he possessed a free spirit—men of character love their ruler, or at all events do not flatter him. And the base are useful for base business, for nail is driven out by nail, as the proverb goes.The proverb ἡλῷ ἧλος ἐκκρούεται usually meant driving out something by a thing of the same kind (‘set a thief to catch a thief’), not as here the execution of evil designs by appropriate agents. And it is a mark of a tyrant to dislike anyone that is proud or free-spirited; for the tyrant claims for himself alone the right to bear that character, and the man who meets his pride with pride and shows a free spirit robs tyranny of its superiority and position of mastery; tyrants therefore hate the proud as undermining their authority. And it is a mark of a tyrant to have men of foreign extraction rather than citizens as guests at table and companions, feeling that citizens are hostile but strangers make no claim against him.i.e. do not claim honors as against their patron, claim to be his equals. These and similar habits are characteristic of tyrants and preservative of their office, but they lack no element of baseness. And broadly speaking, they are all included under three heads; for tyranny aims at three things, one to keep its subjects humble (for a humble-spirited man would not plot against anybody), second to have them continually distrust one another (for a tyranny is not destroyed until some men come to trust each other, owing to which tyrants also make war on the respectable, as detrimentalto their rule not only because of their refusal to submit to despotic rule, but also because they are faithful to one another and to the other citizens, and do not inform against one another nor against the others); and the third is lack of power for political action (since nobody attempts impossibilities, so that nobody tries to put down a tyranny if he has not power behind him). + + These then in fact are the three aims to which the wishes of tyrants are directed; for all the measures taken by tyrants one might class under these principles—some are designed to prevent mutual confidence among the subjects, others to curtail their power, and others to make them humble-spirited.

+

Such then is the nature of one method by which security is obtained for tyrannies. The other tries to operate in a manner almost the opposite of the devices mentioned. And it can be ascertained from considering the downfall of royal governments. For just as one mode of destroying royalty is to make its government more tyrannical, so a mode of securing tyranny is to make it more regal, protecting one thing only, its power, in order that the ruler may govern not only with the consent of the subjects but even without it; for if he gives up this, he also gives up his position as tyrant. But while this must stand as a fundamental principle, all the other measures he may either adopt or pretend to adopt by cleverly acting the royal part. The first step is to be careful of the public funds,

+ +
+

not squandering presents such as the multitudes resent, when tyrants take money from the people themselves while they toil and labor in penury and lavish it on mistresses and foreigners and craftsmen, and also rendering account of receipts and expenditure, as some tyrants have done already （for this careful management would make a ruler seem a steward of the state and not a tyrant, and he need not be afraid of ever being at a loss for funds while he is master of the state; on the contrary, for those tyrants who go abroad on foreign campaigns this is actually more expedient than to leave their money there collected into one sum, for there is less fear of those guarding it making an attempt on power; since for tyrants campaigning abroad the keepers of the treasury are more to be feared than the citizens, for the citizens go abroad with him but the others stay at home）. Secondly he must be seen to collect his taxes and benevolences for purposes of administration and to meet his occasional requirements for military emergencies, and generally must pose as guardian and steward as it were of a public fund and not a private estate. And his bearing must not be harsh but dignified, and also such as to inspire not fear but rather respect in those who encounter him, though this is not easy to achieve if he is a contemptible personality; so that even if he neglects the other virtues he is bound to cultivate military valor, and to make himself a reputation as a soldier. And further more not only must he himself be known not to outrage any of his subjects, either boy or girl, but so also must everybody about him, and also their wives must similarly show respect towards the other women, since even the insolences of women have caused the fall of many tyrannies. And in regard to bodily enjoyments he must do the opposite of what some tyrants do now (for they not only begin their debaucheries at daybreak and carry them on for many days at a time, but also wish to be seen doing so by the public, in order that people may admire them as fortunate and happy(, but best of all he must be moderate in such matters, or if not, he must at all events avoid displaying his indulgences to his fellows (for not the sober man but the drunkard is easy to attack and to despise, not the wakeful man but the sleeper). And he must do the opposite of almost all the things mentioned some time back, for he must lay out and adorn the city as if he were a trustee and not a tyrant. And further he must be seen always to be exceptionally zealous as regards religious observances (for people are less afraid of suffering any illegal treatment from men of this sort,

+ +
+

if they think that their ruler has religious scruples and pays regard to the gods, and also they plot against him less, thinking that he has even the gods as allies), though he should not display a foolish religiosity. And he must pay such honor to those who display merit in any matter that they may think that they could never be more honored by the citizens if they were in dependent; and honors of this kind he should bestow in person, but inflict his punishments by the agency of other magistrates and law-courts. And it is a protection common to every sort of monarchy to make no one man great, but if necessary to exalt several (for they will keep watch on one another), and if after all the ruler has to elevate an individual, at all events not take a man of bold spirit (for such a character is most enterprising in all undertakings); and if he thinks fit to remove somebody from his power, to do this by gradual stages and not take away the whole of his authority at once. And again he should carefully avoid all forms of outrage, and two beyond all, violent bodily punishments and outrage of the young. And this caution must especially be exercised in relation to the ambitious, for while to be slighted in regard to property annoys the lovers of wealth, slights that involve dishonor are what men of honorable ambition and high character resent.Hence the tyrant should either not consort with men of this kind, or appear to inflict his punishments paternally and not because of contempt, and to indulge in the society of the young for reasons of passion, not because he has the power, and in general he should buy off what are thought to be dishonors by greater honors. And among those who make attempts upon the life of a ruler the most formidable and those against whom the greatest precaution is needed are those that are ready to sacrifice their lives if they can destroy him. Hence the greatest care must be taken to guard against those who think that insolent outrage is being done either to themselves or to those who happen to be under their care; for men attacking under the influence of anger are reckless of themselves, as HeraclitusThe natural philosopher of Ephesus, fl. circa 513 B.C., known as ὁ σκοτεινός for his epigrammatic obscurity. also observed when he said that anger was hard to combat because it would buy revenge with a life. And since states consist of two parts, the poor people and the rich, the most important thing is for both to think that they owe their safety to the government and for it to prevent either from being wronged by the other, but whichever class is the stronger, this must be made to be entirely on the side of the government, as, if this support for the tyrant’s interests is secured, there is no need for him to institute a liberation of slaves or a disarming of the citizens, for one of the two parts of the state added to his power will be enough to make him and them stronger than their attackers. But to discuss each of such matters separately is superfluous; for the thing to aim at is clear,

+ +
+

that it is necessary to appear to the subjects to be not a tyrannical ruler but a steward and a royal governor, and not an appropriator of wealth but a trustee, and to pursue the moderate things of life and not its extravagances, and also to make the notables one’s comrades and the many one’s followers. For the result of these methods must be that not only the tyrant’s rule will be more honorable and more enviable because he will rule nobler subjects and not men that have been humiliated, and will not be continually hated and feared, but also that his rule will endure longer, and moreover that he himself in his personal character will be nobly disposed towards virtue, or at all events half-virtuous, and not base but only half-base.

+

Nevertheless oligarchy and tyrannyOligarchy is not mentioned in what follows, and the context deals with the forms of monarchy. Tyranny is included among the constitutions at 1312a 40, but not elsewhere in this Book. Some editors bracket ll. 19-29 as spurious or out of place. are less lasting than any of the constitutional governments. For the longest-lived was the tyranny at Sicyon, that of the sonsi.e. descendants; Cleisthenes was his grandson. of Orthagoras and of Orthagoras himself, and this lasted a hundred years.From 670 B.C. The cause of this was that they treated their subjects moderately and in many matters were subservient to the laws, and Cleisthenes because he was a warlike man was not easily despised, and in most things they kept the lead of the people by looking after their interests. At all events it is said that Cleisthenes placed a wreath on the judge who awarded the victory away from him, and some say that the statueof a seated figure in the market-place is a statue of the man who gave this judgement. And they say that PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. also once submitted to a summons for trial before the Areopagus. And the second longest is the tyranny at Corinth, that of the Cypselids,From 655 B.C. for even this lasted seventy-three and a half years, as Cypselus was tyrant for thirty years, Periander for forty-four,The Greek may be corrected to forty and a half to give the stated total. and Psammetichus son of Gordias for three years. And the reasons for the permanence of this tyranny also are the same: Cypselus was a leader of the people and continuously throughout his period of office dispensed with a bodyguard; and although Periander became tyrannical, yet he was warlike. The third longest tyranny is that of the Pisistratidae at Athens, but it was not continuous; for while PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. was tyrant he twice fled into exile, so that in a period of thirty-three years he was tyrant for seventeen years out of the total, and his sons for eighteen years, so that the whole duration of their rule was thirty-five years. Among the remaining tyrannies is the one connected with Hiero and GeloSee 1312b 12 n. at Syracuse, but even this did not last many years, but only eighteen in all, for Gelo after being tyrant for seven years ended his life in the eighth, and Hiero ruled ten years, but Thrasybulus was expelled after ten months. And the usual tyrannies have all of them been of quite short duration.

+

The causes therefore of the destruction of constitutional governments and of monarchies and those again of their preservation have almost all of them been discussed.

+ +
+

The subject of revolutions is discussed by Socrates in the Republic,Plato, Republic, Bks. 8, 9 init.; the mathematical formula for the change from Aristocracy to Timocracy quoted here occurs at Plat. Rep. 546c—see Adam’s note there. but is not discussed well. For his account of revolution in the constitution that is the best one and the first does not apply to it particularly. He says that the cause is that nothing is permanent but everything changes in a certain cycle, and that change has its origin in those numbers whose basic ratio 4 : 3 linked with the number 5 gives two harmonies,—meaning whenever the number of this figure becomes cubed,—in the belief that nature sometimes engenders men that are evil, and too strong for education to influence—speaking perhaps not ill as far as this particular dictum goes (for it is possible that there are some persons incapable of being educated and becoming men of noble character), but why should this process of revolution belong to the constitution which Socrates speaks of as the best, more than to all the other forms of constitution, and to all men that come into existence? and why merely by the operation of time, which he says is the cause of change in all things, do even things that did not begin to exist simultaneously change simultaneously? for instance, if a thing came into existence the day before the completion of the cycle, why does it yet change simultaneously with everything else? And in addition to these points, what is the reason why the republic changes from the constitution mentioned into the Spartan formTimocracy, Plat. Rep. 545a. ? For all constitutions more often change into the opposite form than into theone near them. And the same remark applies to the other revolutions as well. For from the Spartan constitution the state changes, he says, to oligarchy, and from this to democracy, and from democracy to tyranny. Yet revolutions also occur the other way about, for example from democracy to oligarchy, and more often so than from democracy to monarchy. Again as to tyranny he does not say whether it will undergo revolution or not, nor, if it will, what will be the cause of it, and into what sort of constitution it will change; and the reason for this is that he would not have found it easy to say, for it is irregular; since according to him tyranny ought to change into the first and best constitution, for so the process would be continuous and a circle, but as a matter of fact tyranny also changes into tyranny, as the constitution of Sicyon See 1315b 13 n. passed from the tyranny of Myron to that of Cleisthenes, and into oligarchy, as did that of AntileonUnknown, cf. 1304a 29 n. at Chalcis, and into democracy, as that of the family of GeloSee 1302b 33 n. at Syracuse, and into aristocracy, as that of CharilausSee 1271b 26 n. at Sparta [and as at Carthage].This clause seems an interpolation; cf. b 6. And constitutions change from oligarchy to tyranny, asdid almost the greatest number of the ancient oligarchies in Sicily, at Leontini to the tyranny of Panaetius,See 1310b 29 n. at Gelo to that of Cleander, at Rhegium to that of Anaxilaus,Unknown. Reggio is related to Sicily as Dover is to France. and in many other cities similarly. And it is also a strange idea that revolutions into oligarchy take place because the occupants of the offices are lovers of money and engaged in money-making,

+ +
+

but not because owners of much more than the average amount of property think it unjust for those who do not own any property to have an equal share in the state with those who do; and in many oligarchies those in office are not allowed to engage in business, but there are laws preventing it, whereas in Carthage, which has a democratic government,Apparently this clause also is an interpolation, or democratic is a copyist’s mistake for oligarchic or timocratic, see 1272b 24 ff. the magistrates go in for business, and they have not yet had a revolution. + + And it is also a strange remark Plat. Rep. 551d that the oligarchical state is two states, one of rich men and one of poor men. For what has happened to this state rather than to the Spartan or any other sort of state where all do not own an equal amount of wealth or where all are not equally good men? and when nobody has become poorer than he was before, none the less revolution takes place from oligarchy to democracy if the men of no property become more numerous, and from democracy to oligarchy if the wealthy class is stronger than the multitude and the latter neglect politics but the former give their mind to them. And although there are many causes through which revolutions in oligarchies occur, he mentions only one—that of men becoming poor through riotous living, by paying away their money in interest on loans—as if at the start all men or most men were rich. + + But this is not true, but although when some of the leaders have lost their properties they stir up innovations, when men of the other classes are ruined nothing strange happens;and even when such a revolution does occur it is no more likely to end in a democracy than in another form of constitution. And furthermore men also form factions and cause revolutions in the constitution if they are not allowed a share of honors, and if they are unjustly or insolently treated, even if they have not run through all their property . . .Some words appear to be lost here; what follows refers to democracy, cf. Plat. Rep. 587b. because of being allowed to do whatever they like; the cause of which he states to be excessive liberty. And although there are several forms of oligarchy and of democracy, Socrates speaks of the revolutions that occur in them as though there were only one form of each.

+ +
+
+

Book 7 in some editions, Book 8 in others.We have already discussedBook 4, 1297b 35 ff. how many and what are the varieties of the deliberative body or sovereign power in the state, and of the system of magistracies and of law-courts, and which variety is adapted to which form of constitution, and alsoBook 5. the destruction of constitutions and their preservation, from what sort of people they originate and what are their causes. But as a matter of fact since there have come into existence several kinds of democracy and similarly of the other forms of constitution, it will be well at the same time to consider1318b—1319a 6. any point that remains about these varieties, and also determine the mode of organization appropriate and advantageous for each. + And further we must also investigateThese topics do not occur in the extant work. the combinations of all the modes of organizing the actual departments of state that have been mentioned,i.e. the deliberative, executive and judicial, see 1297b 41 ff.

+ +
+

for these modes when coupled together make the constitutions overlap, so as to produce oligarchical aristocracies and republics inclining towards democracy. I refer to the combinations which ought to be investigated but have not at present been studied, for example if the deliberative body and the system of electing magistrates are organized oligarchically but the regulations as to the law-courts aristocratically, or these and the structure of the deliberative body oligarchically and the election of magistracy aristocratically, or if in some other manner not all the parts of the constitution are appropriately combined

+

Now it has been stated before1296b 13—1297a 13. what kind of democracy is suited to what kind of state, and similarly which of the kinds of oligarchy is suited to what kind of populace, and also which of the remaining constitutions is advantageous for which people; but nevertheless since it must not only be made clear which variety of these constitutions is best for states, but also how both these best varieties and the other forms must be established, let us briefly pursue the subject. And first let us speak about democracy; for at the same time the facts will also become clear about the opposite form of constitution, that is, the constitution which some people call oligarchy.Rule of the few, i.e. the few rich, but the name is not exact, for in aristocracy also the rulers are few.

+

And for this inquiry we must take into view all the features that are popular and that are thoughtto go with democracies; for it comes about from combinations of these that the kinds of democracy are formed, and that there are different democracies and more than one sort. In fact there are two causes for there being several kinds of democracy, first the one stated before, the fact that the populations are different (for we find one multitude engaged in agriculture and another consisting of handicraftsmen and day-laborers, and when the first of these is added to the second and again the third to both of them it not only makes a difference in that the quality of the democracy becomes better or worse but also by its becoming different in kind); and the second cause is the one about which we now speak. For the institutions that go with democracies and seem to be appropriate to this form of constitution make the democracies different by their combinations; for one form of democracy will be accompanied by fewer, another by more, and another by all of them. And it is serviceable to ascertain each of them both for the purpose of instituting whichever of these kinds of democracy one happens to wish and for the purpose of amending existing ones. For people setting up constitutions seek to collect together all the features appropriate to their fundamental principle, but in so doing they make a mistake, as has been said before in the passage dealing with the causes of the destruction and the preservation of constitutions. And now let us state the postulates, the ethical characters and the aims of the various forms of democracy.

+

Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty—that is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty,

+ +
+

for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.This clause is obscure: perhaps it is an interpolation. And these principles having been laid down and this being the nature of democratic government, the following institutions are democratic in character: election of officials by all from all; government of each by all,and of all by each in turn; election by lot either to all magistracies or to all that do not need experience and skill; no property-qualification for office, or only a very low one; no office to be held twice, or more than a few times, by the same person, or few offices except the military ones; short tenure either of all offices or of as many as possible; judicial functions to be exercised by all citizens, that is by persons selected from all, and on all matters, or on most and the greatest and most important, for instance the audit of official accounts, constitutional questions, private contracts; the assembly to be sovereign over all matters, but no official over any or only over extremely few; or else a council to be sovereign over the most important matters (and a council is the most democratic of magistracies in states where there is not a plentiful supply of pay for everybody—for where there is, they deprive even this office of its power, since the people draws all the trials to itself when it has plenty of pay, as has been said before in the treatise preceding this oneBook 4, 1299b 38 ff. (Books 4. and 5. are regarded as forming one treatise).); also payment for public duties, preferably in all branches, assembly, law-courts, magistracies, or if not, for the magistracies, the law-courts, council and sovereign assemblies, or for those magistracies which are boundi.e. owing to the nature of their duties, and by general custom. to have common mess tables. Also inasmuch as oligarchy is defined by birth, wealth and education, the popular qualifications are thought to be the opposite of these, low birth, poverty, vulgarity. And in respect of the magistracies it is democratic to have none tenable for life,

+ +
+

and if any life-office has been left after an ancient revolution, at all events to deprive it of its power and to substitute election by lot for election by vote.

+

TheseThe rest of the chapter is most obscure, and its authenticity is questioned. then are the features common to democracies. But what is thought to be the extreme form of democracy and of popular government comes about as a result of the principle of justice that is admitted to be democratic, and this is for all to have equality according to number. For it is equality for the poor to have no larger share of power than the rich, and not for the poor alone to be supreme but for all to govern equally; for in this way they would feel that the constitution possessed both equality and liberty. But the question follows, how will they have equality? are the property-assessments of five hundred citizens to be divided among a thousand and the thousand to have equal power to the five hundredi.e. two groups of voters, with equal total wealth and total voting-power, but one group twice as numerous as the other, so that a man in the rich group has two votes and one in the poor group one, the former being on the average twice as rich as the latter.? or is equality on this principlei.e. equality in proportion to number. not to be arranged in this manner, but the division into classes to be on this system, but then an equal number to be taken from the five hundred and from the thousand and these to control the elections and the law-courts? Is this then the justest form of constitution in accordance with popular justice, or is it rather one that goes by counting heads?i.e. one man one vote. For democrats say that justice is whatever seems good to the larger number,but advocates of oligarchy think that it is whatever seems good to the owners of the larger amount of property, for they say that the decision ought to go by amount of property. But both views involve inequality and injustice; for if the will of the few is to prevail, this means a tyranny, since if one man owns more than the other rich men,i.e. apparently, more than the property of all the others put together. according to the oligarchic principle of justice it is just for him to rule alone; whereas if the will of the numerical majority is to prevail, they will do injustice by confiscating the property of the rich minority, as has been said before.1281a 14. What form of equality therefore would be one on which both parties will agree must be considered in the light of the principles of justice as defined by both sets. For they say that whatever seems good to the majority of the citizens ought to be sovereign. Let us then accept this principle, yet not wholly without qualification, but inasmuch as fortune has brought into existence two component parts of the state, rich and poor, let any resolution passed by both classes, or by a majority of each, be sovereign, but if the two classes carry opposite resolutions, let the decision of the majority, in the sense of the group whose total property assessment is the larger, prevail: for instance, if there are ten rich citizens and twenty poor ones, and opposite votes have been cast by six of the rich on one side and by fifteen of the less wealthy on the other, four of the rich have sided with the poor and five of the poor with the rich; then the side that has the larger total property when the assessments of both classes on either side are added together carries the voting.If the rich citizens are on the average twice as wealthy as the poor (1.11), and therefore a rich man has two votes to a poor man’s one, when 6 rich and 5 poor vote one way, and 15 poor and 4 rich the other, the division is 17 to 23, and the view of the latter party, which is carried, represents a larger total of wealth but a larger proportion of poor men. But if the totals fall out exactly equal, this is to be deemed an impasse common to both sides, as it is at present if the assembly or law-court is exactly divided;

+ +
+

either a decision must be made by casting lots or some other such device must be adopted. But on questions of equality and justice, even though it is very difficult to discover the truth about them, nevertheless it is easier to hit upon it than to persuade people that have the power to get an advantage to agree to it; equality and justice are always sought by the weaker party, but those that have the upper hand pay no attention to them.

+

There being four kinds of democracy, the best is the one that stands first in structure, as was said in the discourses preceding theseCf. 4, 1291b 30-41, 1292b 25-33.; it is also the oldest of them all, but by first I mean first as it were in a classification of the kinds of common people. The best common people are the agricultural population, so that it is possible to introduce democracy as well as other forms of constitution where the multitude lives by agriculture or by pasturing cattle. For owing to their not having much property they are busy, so that they cannot often meet in the assembly, while owing to their havingThe MSS. give not having, but editors do not explain how in that case people would avoid starvation. the necessaries of life they pass their time attending to their farm work and do not covet their neighbors’ goods, but find more pleasure in working than in taking part in politics and holding office, where the profits to be made from the offices are not large; for the mass of mankind are more covetous of gain than of honor. And this is indicated by the fact that men endured the tyrannies of former times, and endure oligarchies, if a ruler does not preventthem from working orrob them; for then some of them soon get rich and the others free from want. And also, if they have any ambition, to have control over electing magistrates and calling them to account makes up for the lack of office, since in some democracies even if the people have no part in electing the magistrates but these are elected by a special committee selected in turn out of the whole number, as at Mantinea, yet if they have the power of deliberating on policy, the multitude are satisfied. (And this too must be counted as one form of democracy, on the lines on which it once existed at Mantinea.) Indeed it is for this reason that it is advantageous for the form of democracy spoken of before, and is a customary institution in it, for all the citizens to elect the magistrates and call them to account, and to try law-suits, but for the holders of the greatest magistracies to be elected and to have property-qualifications, the higher offices being elected from the higher property-grades, or else for no office to be elected on a property-qualification, but for officials to be chosen on the ground of capacity. And a state governed in this way is bound to be governed well (for the offices will always be administered by the best men with the consent of the people and without their being jealous of the upper classes), and this arrangement is certain to be satisfactory for the upper classes and notables, for they will not be under the government of others inferior to themselves, and they will govern justly because a different class will be in control of the audits— since it is expedient to be in a state of suspense and not to be able to do everything exactly as seems good to one, for liberty to do whatever one likes cannot guard against the evil that is in every man’s character.

+ +
+

Hence there necessarily results the condition of affairs that is the most advantageous in the government of states—for the upper classes to govern without doing wrong, the common people not being deprived of any rights. It is manifest therefore that this is the best of the forms of democracy, and why this is so—namely, because in it the common people are of a certain kind.

+

For the purpose of making the people an agricultural community, not only were some of the laws that were enacted in many states in early times entirely serviceable, prohibiting the ownership of more than a certain amount of land under any conditions or else of more than a certain amount lying between a certain place and the citadel or city (and in early times at all events in many states there was even legislation prohibiting the sale of the original allotments; and there is a law said to be due to OxylusLeader of the Heraclidae in their invasion of the Peloponnese, and afterwards king of Elis. with some similar provision, forbidding loans secured on a certain portion of a man’s existing estate), but at the present day it would also be well to introduce reform by means of the law of the Aphytaeans, as it is serviceable for the purpose of which we are speaking; the citizens of AphytisAphytis was on the Isthmus of Pallene in Macedonia. although numerous and possessing a small territory nevertheless are all engaged in agriculture, for they are assessed not on the whole of their estates, but on divisions of them so small that even the poor can exceed the required minimum in their assessments.No satisfactory explanation seems to have been suggested of whatthis means.

+

After the agricultural communitythe best kind of democracy is where the people are herdsmen and get their living from cattle; for this life has many points of resemblance to agriculture, and as regards military duties pastoral people are in a very well trained condition and serviceable in body and capable of living in the open. But almost all the other classes of populace, of which the remaining kinds of democracy are composed, are very inferior to these, for their mode of life is mean, and there is no element of virtue in any of the occupations in which the multitude of artisans and market-people and the wage-earning class take part, and also owing to their loitering about the market-place and the city almost all people of this class find it easy to attend the assembly; whereas the farmers owing to their being scattered over the country do not attend, and have not an equal desire for this opportunity of meeting. Andwhere it also happens that the lie of the land is such that the country is widely separated from the city, it is easy to establish a good democracy and also a good constitutional government, for the multitude is forced to live at a distance on the farms; and so, even if there is a crowd that frequents the market-place, it is best in democracies not to hold assemblies without the multitude scattered over the country.i.e. in a largely agricultural democracy, even though there may be a considerable idle population, which would attend frequent assemblies, it is best to hold them infrequently, so as to secure the attendance of the farmers.

+

It has then been stated how the best and first kind of democracy is to be organized, and it is clear how we ought to organize the other kinds also. For they must diverge in a corresponding order, and at each stage we must admit the next inferior class.

+ +
+

The last kind of democracy, because all the population share in the government, it is not within the power of every state to endure, and it is not easy for it to persist if it is not well constituted in its laws and customs (but the things that result in destroying both this state and the other forms of constitution have been nearly all of them spoken of beforeIn Book 5.). With a view to setting up this kind of democracy and making the people powerful their leaders usually acquire as many supporters as possible and admit to citizenship not only the legitimate children of citizens but also the base-born and those of citizen-birth on one side, I mean those whose father or mother is a citizen; for all this element is specially congenial to a to democracy of this sort. Popular leaders therefore regularly introduce such institutions; they ought however only to go on adding citizens up to the point where the multitude outnumbers the notables and the middle class and not to go beyond that point; for if they exceed it they make the government more disorderly, and also provoke the notables further in the direction of being reluctant to endure the democracy, which actually took place and caused the revolution at Cyrene In N. Africa. Diodorus (Diod. 14.34) describes a revolution there in 401 B.C., when five hundred of the rich were put to death and others fled, but after a battle a compromise was arranged.; for a small base element is overlooked, but when it grows numerous it is more in evidence. A democracy of this kind will also find useful such institutions as were employed by CleisthenesSee 1275b 36 n. at Athens when he wished to increase the power of the democracy, and by the party setting up the democracy at Cyrene; different tribes and brotherhoods must be created outnumbering the old ones, and the celebrations of private religious rites must be grouped together into a small number of public celebrations, and every device must be employed to make all the people as much as possible intermingled with one another, and to break up the previously existing groups of associates. Moreover the characteristics of a tyranny also are all thought to be democratic, I mean for instance licence among slaves, which may really be advantageous for the popular party up to a point, and among women and children, and indulgence to live as one likes; a constitution of this sort will have a large number of supporters, as disorderly living is pleasanter to the mass of mankind than sober living.

+

But it is not the greatest or only task of the legislator or of those who desire to construct a constitution of this kind merely to set it up, but rather to ensure its preservation; for it is not difficult for any form of constitution to last for one or two or three days. We must therefore employ the results obtained in the inquiries that we have made alreadyBook 5. into the causes of the preservation and the destruction of constitutions, and attempt in the light of those results to establish the safety of the state, carefully avoiding the things that cause destruction, and enacting such laws both written and unwritten

+ +
+

as shall best compass the results preservative of constitutions, and not think that a measure is democratic or oligarchic which will cause the state to be democratically or oligarchically governed in the greatest degree, but which will cause it to be so governed for the longest time. But the demagogues of today to court the favor of the peoples often use the law-courts to bring about confiscations of property. Hence those who are caring for the safety of the constitution must counteract this by enacting that nothing belonging to persons condemned at law shall be confiscated and liable to be carried to the public treasury, but that their property shall be consecrated to the service of religion; for male-factors will be no less on their guard, as they will be punished just the same, while the mob will less often vote guilty against men on trial when it is not going to get anything out of it. Also they must always make the public trials that occur as few as possible, checking those who bring indictments at random by big penalties; for they do not usually indict men of the people but notables, whereas even with this form of constitution it is desirable for all the citizens if possible to be friendly to the state, or failing that, at all events not to think of their rulers as enemies. And inasmuch as the ultimate forms of democracy tend to have large populations and it is difficult for their citizens to sit in the assembly without pay, and this in a state where there do not happen to be revenues is inimical to the notables (for pay has to be obtained from a property-tax and confiscation, and from corruption of the law-courts, which has caused the overthrow of many democracies before now),—where therefore there happen to be no revenues, few meetings of the assembly must be held, and the law-courts must consist of many members but only sit a few days (for this not only contributes to the rich not being in fear of the cost of the system even if the well-off do not take the pay and only the poor do, but also leads to far greater efficiency in the trial of law-suits, for the well-to-do, though not wishing to be away from their private affairs for many days, are willing to leave them for a short time), while where there are revenues men must not do what the popular leaders do now (for they usethe surplus for doles, and people no sooner get them than they want the same doles again, because this way of helping the poor is the legendary jar with a hole in itThe fifty daughters of Danaus were married to their cousins, and all but one murdered their husbands on the bridal night, and were punished in Hades by having to pour water into the jar described.), but the truly democratic statesman must study how the multitude may be saved from extreme poverty; for this is what causes democracy to be corrupt. Measures must therefore be contrived that may bring about lasting prosperity. And since this is advantageous also for the well-to-do, the proper course is to collect all the proceeds of the revenues into a fund and distribute this in lump sums to the needy, best of all, if one can, in sums large enough for acquiring a small estate, or, failing this, to serve as capital for trade or husbandry,

+ +
+

and if this is not possible for all, at all events to distribute the money by tribes or some other division of the population in turn, while in the meantime the well-to-do must contribute pay for attendance at the necessary assemblies, beingthemselves excused from useless public services. By following some such policy as this the Carthaginians have won the friendship of the common people; for they constantly send out some of the people to the surrounding territories and so make them well-off. And if the notables are men of good feeling and sense they may also divide the needy among them in groups and supply them with capital to start them in businesses. It is also a good plan to imitate the policyCf. 1263a 35. of the Tarentines. They get the goodwill of the multitude by making property communal for the purpose of use by the needyThis seems to mean that the land was in private ownership, but that there was some system of poor-relief, to provide for the destitute out of the produce.; also they have divided the whole number of their magistracies into two classes, one elected by vote and the other filled by lot,—the latter to ensure that the people may have a share in them, and the former to improve the conduct of public affairs. And it is also possible to effect this by dividing the holders of the same magistracy into two groups, one appointed by lot and the other by vote.

+

We have then said how democracies should be organized.

+

It is also fairly clear from these considerations how oligarchies ought to be organized. We must infer them from their opposites, reasoning out each form of oligarchywith reference to the form of democracy opposite to it, starting with the most well-blended and first form of oligarchyIn contrast with the first and best form of democracy, 2 init.—and this is the one near to what is called a constitutional government, and for it the property-qualifications must be divided into one group of smaller properties and another of larger ones, smaller properties qualifying their owners for the indispensable offices and larger ones for the more important; and a person owning the qualifying property must be allowed to take a share in the government,—introducing by the assessment a large enough number of the common people to secure that with them the governing class will have a majority over those excluded; and persons to share in the government must constantly be brought in from the better class of the common people. + And the next form of oligarchy also must be constructed in a similar way with a slight tightening up of the qualification. But the form of oligarchy that stands opposite to the last form of democracy, the most autocratic and tyrannical of the oligarchies, in as far as it is the worst requires a correspondingly great amount of safe-guarding. For just as human bodies in a good state of health and ships well equipped with their crews for a voyage admit of more mistakes without being destroyed thereby, but bodies of a morbid habit and vessels strained in their timbers and manned with bad crews cannot endure even the smallest mistakes, so also the worst constitutions need the most safe-guarding.

+ +
+

Democracies therefore generally speaking are kept safe by the largeness of the citizen-body, for this is the antithesis of justice according to desert; but oligarchy on the contrary must manifestly obtain its security by means of good organization.

+

And since the mass of the population falls principally into four divisions, the farming class, artisans, retail traders and hired laborers, and military forces are of four classes, cavalry, heavy infantry, light infantry and marines, in places where the country happens to be suitable for horsemanship, there natural conditions favor the establishment of an oligarchy that will be powerful (for the security of the inhabitants depends on the strength of this element, and keeping studs of horses is the pursuit of those who own extensive estates); and where the ground is suitable for heavy infantry, conditions favor the next form of oligarchy (for heavy infantry is a service for the well-to-do rather than the poor); but light infantry and naval forces are an entirely democratic element. As things are therefore, where there is a large multitude of this class, when party strife occurs the oligarchs often get the worst of the struggle; and a remedy for this must be adopted from military commanders, who combine with their cavalry and heavy infantry forces a contingent of light infantry. And this is the wayi.e. by superior mobility. in which the common people get the better over the well-to-do in outbreaks of party strife:being unencumbered they fight easily against cavalry and heavy infantry. Therefore to establish this force out of this class is to establish it against itself, but the right plan is for the men of military age to be separated into a division of older and one of younger men, and to have their own sons while still young trained in the exercises of light and unarmed troops, and for youths selected from among the boys to be themselves trained in active operations. And the bestowal of a share in the government upon the multitude should either go on the lines stated before,4.1, 1320b 25 ff. and be made to those who acquire the property-qualification, or as at Thebes, to people after they have abstained for a time from mechanic industries, or as at Marseilles, by making a selection among members of the governing classes and those outside it of persons who deserveIf the text is corrected it seems to mean that the list was revised from time to time and some old names taken off and new ones put on. inclusion. And furthermore the most supreme offices also, which must be retained by those within the constitution, must have expensive duties attached to them, in order that the common people may be willing to be excluded from them, and may feel no resentment against the ruling class, because it pays a high price for office. And it fits in with this that they should offer splendid sacrifices and build up some public monument on entering upon office, so that the common people sharing in the festivities and seeing the city decorated both with votive offerings and with building may be glad to see the constitution enduring; and an additional result will be that the notables will have memorials of their outlay. But at present the members of oligarchies do not adopt this course but the opposite, for they seek the gains of office just as much as the honor; hence these oligarchies are well described as miniature democracies.The phrase suggests that in democracy public duties are cheifly undertaken for their emoluments.

+ +
+

Let this then be a description of the proper way to organize the various forms of democracy and of oligarchy.

+

As a consequence of what has been said there follow satisfactory conclusions to the questions concerning magistracies—how many and what they should be and to whom they should belong, as has also been said before.Book 4 ,1297b 35 ff., 1299a 3 ff. For without the indispensableCf. 4.1. magistracies a state cannot exist, while without those that contribute to good order and seemliness it cannot be well governed. And furthermore the magistracies are bound to be fewer in the small states and more numerous in the large ones, as in fact has been said beforeBook 4, 1299b 30 ff.; it must therefore be kept in view what kinds of magistracies it is desirable to combine and what kinds to keep separate. First among the indispensable services is the superintendence of the market, over which there must be an official to superintend contracts and good order; since it is a necessity for almost all states that people shall sell some things and buy others according to one another’s necessary requirements, and this is the readiest means of securing self-sufficiency, which seems to be the reason for men’s having united into a single state. Another superintendency connected very closely with this one is the curatorship of public and private properties in the city,to secure good order and the preservation and rectification of falling buildings and roads, and of the bounds between different persons’ estates, so that disputes may not arise about them, and all the other duties of superintendence similar to these. An office of this nature is in most states entitled that of City-controller, but it has several departments, each of which is filled by separate officials in the states with larger populations, for instance Curators of Walls, Superintendents of Wells, Harbors-guardians. And another office also is indispensable and closely akin to these, for it controls the same matters but deals with the country and there regions outside the city; and these magistrates are called in some places Land-controllers and in others Custodians of Forests. These then are three departments of control over these matters, while another office is that to which the revenues of the public funds are paid in, the officials who guard them and by whom they are divided out to the several administrative departments; these magistrates are called Receivers and Stewards. Another magistracy is the one that has to receive a written return of private contracts and of the verdicts of the law-courts; and with these same officials the registration of legal proceedings and their institution have also to take place. In some states this office also is divided into several, but there are places where one magistracy controls all these matters; and these officials are called Sacred Recorders, Superintendents, Recorders, and other names akin to these. And after these is the office connectedwith it but perhaps the most indispensable and most difficult of all, the one concerned with the execution of judgement upon persons cast in suits and those posted as defaulters according to the lists, and with the custody of prisoners.

+ +
+

This is an irksome office because it involves great unpopularity, so that where it is not possible to make a great deal of profit out of it men will not undertake it, or when they have undertaken it are reluctant to carry out its functions according to the laws; but it is necessary, because there is no use in trials being held about men’s rights when the verdicts are not put into execution, so that if when no legal trial of disputes takes place social intercourse is impossible, so also is it when judgements are not executed. Hence it is better for this magistracy not to be a single office but to consist of several persons drawn from different courts, and it is desirable similarly to try to divide up the functions connected with the posting up of people registered as public debtors, and further also in some cases for the sentences to be executed by magistrates, especially by the newly elected ones preferably in suits tried by the outgoing ones, and in those tried by men actually in office for the magistrate executing the sentence to be different from the one that passed it, for instance the City-controllers to execute the judgements passed on from the Market-controllers and other magistrates those passed on by the City-controllers. For the less odium involved for those who execute the judgements, the more adequately the judgements will be carried out; so for the same magistrates to have imposed the sentence and to execute it involves a twofold odium, and for the same ones to execute it in all cases makes them the enemies of everybody. And in many places also the office of keeping custody of prisoners, forexample at Athens the office of the magistrates known as the ElevenThis example looks like a mistaken note interpolated in the text. The Eleven had both functions.,is separate from the magistracy that executes sentences. It is better therefore to keep this also separate, and to attempt the same device with regard to this as well. For though it is no less necessary than the office of which I spoke, yet in practice respectable people avoid it most of all offices, while it is not safe to put it into the hands of the base, for they themselves need others to guard them instead of being able to keep guard over others. Hence there must not be one magistracy specially assigned to the custody of prisoners nor must the same magistracy perform this duty continuously, but it should be performed by the young, in places where there is a regiment of cadetsAt Athens and elsewhere young citizens from eighteen to twenty were enrolled in training corps for military instruction; these served as police and home troops. or guards, and by the magistrates, in successive sections.

+

These magistracies therefore must be counted first as supremely necessary, and next to them must be put those that are not less necessary but are ranked on a higher grade of dignity, because they require much experience and trustworthiness; in this class would come the magistracies concerned with guarding the city and those assigned to military requirements. And both in peace and in war it is equally necessary for there to be magistrates to superintend the guarding of gates and walls and the inspection and drill of the citizen troops. In some places therefore there are more magistracies assigned to all these duties, and in others fewer—for instance in the small states there is one to deal with all of them. And the officers of this sort are entitled Generals or War-lords.

+ +
+

And moreover if there are also cavalry or light infantry or archers or a navy, sometimes a magistracy is appointed to have charge of each of these arms also, and they carry the titles of Admiral, Cavalry-commander and Taxiarch, and also the divisional commissions subordinate to these of Captains of Triremes, Company-commanders and Captains of Tribes, and all the subdivisions of these commands. But the whole of this sort of officers constituted a single class, that of military command. This then is how the matter stands in regard to this office; but inasmuch as some of the magistracies, if not all, handle large sums of public money, there must be another office to receive an account and subject it to audit, which must itself handle no other business; and these officials are called Auditors by some people, Accountants by others, Examiners by others and Advocates by others. And by the side of all these offices is the one that is most supreme over all matters, for often the same magistracy has the execution of business that controls its introduction, or presides over the general assembly in places where the people are supreme; for the magistracy that convenes the sovereign assembly is bound to be the sovereign power in the state. It is styled in some places the Preliminary Council because it considers business in advance, but where there is a democracyCf. 1323a 9 below. Apparently πλῆθός ἐστι stands for τὸ πλῆθος κύριόν ἐστι, but editors quote no parallel. it is more usually called a Council. This more or less completes the number of the offices of a political nature; but another kind of superintendence is that concerned with divine worship; in this class are priests and superintendents of mattersconnected with the temples, the preservation of existing buildings and the restoration of those that are ruinous, and the other duties relating to the gods. In practice this superintendence in some places forms a single office, for instance in the small cities, but in others it belongs to a number of officials who are not members of the priesthood, for example Sacrificial Officers and Temple-guardians and Stewards of Sacred Funds. And connected with this is the office devoted to the management of all the public festivals which the law does not assign to the priests but the officials in charge of which derive their honor from the common sacrificial hearth, and these officials are called in some places Archons, in others Kings and in others Presidents. To sum up therefore, the necessary offices of superintendence deal with the following matters : institutions of religion, military institutions, revenue and expenditure, control of the market, citadel, harbors and country, also the arrangements of the law-courts, registration of contracts, collection of fines, custodyof prisoners, supervision of accounts and inspections, and the auditing of officials, and lastly the offices connected with the body that deliberates about public affairs. On the other hand, peculiar to the states that have more leisure and prosperity, and also pay attention to public decorum, are the offices of Superintendent of Women, Guardian of the Laws, Superintendent of Children, Controller of Physical Training,

+ +
+

and in addition to these the superintendence of athletic and Dionysiac contests and of any similar displays that happen to be held. Some of these offices are obviously not of a popular character, for instance that of Superintendent of Women and of Children; for the poor having no slaves are forced to employ their women and children as servants. There are three offices which in some states supervise the election of the chief magistrates—Guardians of the Laws, Preliminary Councillors and Council; of these the Guardians of the Laws are an aristocratic institution, the Preliminary Councillors oligarchic, and a Council democratic.

+

We have now therefore spoken in outline about almost all the offices of state.

+ +
+
+

+ + Book 4 in some editions.The student who is going to make a suitable investigation of the best form of constitution must necessarily decide first of all what is the most desirable mode of life. For while this is uncertain it is also bound to be uncertain what is the best constitution, since it is to be expected that the people that have the best form of government available under their given conditions will fare the best, exceptional circumstances apart. Hence we must firstagree what life is most desirable for almost all men, and after that whether the same life is most desirable both for the community and for the individual, or a different one. Believing therefore in the adequacy of much of what is said even in extraneous discoursesCf. 3.6. It is debated whether the phrase refers to Aristotle’s own popular writings, or to those of other philosophers, or to discussions of the subject in ordinary intercourse. on the subject of the best life, let us make use of these pronouncements now. For as regards at all events one classification of things good, putting them in three groups, external goods, goods of the soul and goods of the body, assuredly nobody would deny that the ideally happy are bound to possess all three. For nobody would call a man ideally happy that has not got a particle of courage nor of temperance nor of justice nor of wisdom, but is afraid of the flies that flutter by him, cannot refrain from any of the most outrageous actions in order to gratify a desire to eat or to drink, ruins his dearest friends for the sake of a farthing, and similarly in matters of the intellect also is as senseless and mistaken as any child or lunatic. But although these are propositions which when uttered everybody would agree to, yet men differ about amount and degrees of value. They think it is enough to possess however small a quantity of virtue, but of wealth, riches, power, glory and everything of that kind they seek a larger and larger amount without limit. We on the other hand shall tell them that it is easy to arrive at conviction on these matters in the light of the actual facts, when one sees that men do not acquire and preserve the virtues by means of these external goods, but external goods by means of the virtues,

+ +
+

and that whether the life of happiness consists for man in enjoyment or in virtue or in both, it is found in larger measure with those who are of surpassingly high cultivation in character and intellect but only moderate as regards the external acquisition of goods, than with those who own more than they can use of the latter but are deficient in the former. Not but what the truth is also easily seen if we consider the matter in the light of reason. For external goods have a limit, as has any instrument (and everything useful is useful for something), so an excessive amount of them must necessarily do harm, or do no good, to its possessor; whereas with any of the goods of the soul, the more abundant it is, the more useful it must be—if even to goods of the soul not only the term noble but also the term useful can be properly applied. And broadly, it is clear that we shall declare that the best condition of each particular thing, comparing things with one another, corresponds in point of superiority to the distance that subsists between the things of which we declare these conditions themselves to be conditions.e.g. the finest man excels the finest monkey to the degree in which the species man excels the species monkey. Hence inasmuch as our soul is a more valuable thing both absolutely and relatively to ourselves than either our property or our body, the best conditions of these things must necessarily stand in the same relation to one another as the things themselves do. Moreover it is for the sake of the soul that these goods are in their nature desirable, and that all wise men mustchoose them, not the soul for the sake of those other things. Let us then take it as agreed between us that to each man there falls just so large a measure of happiness as he achieves of virtue and wisdom and of virtuous and wise action: in evidence of this we have the case of God, who is happy and blessed, but is so on account of no external goods, but on account of himself, and by being of a certain quality in his nature; since it is also for this reason that prosperity is necessarily different from happiness—for the cause of goods external to the soul is the spontaneous and fortune,Aristotle taught that some events are the result of the undesigned interaction of two lines of causation in nature’s design; he denoted this (1) in general, by the automatic or self-acting (represented in Latin by sponte, spontaneous), (2) as concerning man, by fortune. but nobody is just or temperate as a result of or owing to the action of fortune. And connected is a truth requiring the same arguments to prove it, that it is also the best state, and the one that does well,The common play on the ambiguity of do well, meaning either prosper or act rightly. that is happy. But to do well is impossible save for those who do good actions, and there is no good action either of a man or of a state without virtue and wisdom; and courage, justice and wisdom belonging to a state have the same meaning and form as have those virtues whose possession bestows the titles of just and wise and temperate on an individual human being.

+

These remarks however must suffice by way of preface to our discourse: for neither is it possible to abstain from touching on these subjects altogether, nor is it feasible to follow out all the arguments that are germane to them, for that is the business of another course of study. For the present let us take it as established that the best life, whether separately for an individual or collectively for states,

+ +
+

is the life conjoined with virtue furnished with sufficient means for taking part in virtuous actions Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1099a 32, Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1179a 4 ff. ; while objections to this position we must pass over in the course of the present inquiry, and reserve them for future consideration, if anyone be found to disagree with what has been said.

+

Onthe other hand it remains to say whether the happiness of a state is to be pronounced the same as that of each individual man, or whether it is different. Here too the answer is clear: everybody would agree that it is the same; for all those who base the good life upon wealth in the case of the individual, also assign felicity to the state as a whole if it is wealthy; and all who value the life of the tyrant highest, would also say that the state which rules the widest empire is the happiest; and if any body accepts the individual as happy on account of virtue, he will also say that the state which is the better morally is the happier.

But there now arise these two questions that require consideration: first, which mode of life is the more desirable, the life of active citizenship and participation in politics, or rather the life of an alien and that of detachment from the political partnership; next, what constitution and what organization of a state is to be deemed the best,—either on the assumption that to take an active part in the state is desirable for everybody, or that it is undesirable for some men although desirable for most. But as it isthe latter question that is the business of political study and speculation, and not the question of what is desirable for the individual, and as it is the investigation of politics that we have now taken up, the former question would be a side issue, and the latter is the business of political inquiry.

+

Now it is clear that the best constitution is the system under which anybody whatsoever would be best off and would live in felicity; but the question is raised even on the part of those who agree that the life accompanied by virtue is the most desirable, whether the life of citizenship and activity is desirable or rather a life released from all external affairs, for example some form of contemplative life, which is said by some to be the only life that is philosophic.Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give which alone is said to be desirable by some philosophers. For it is manifest that these are the two modes of life principally chosen by the men most ambitious of excelling in virtue, both in past times and at the present day—I mean the life of politics and the life of philosophy. And it makes no little difference which way the truth lies; for assuredly the wise are bound to arrange their affairs in the direction of the better goal—and this applies to the state collectively as well as to the individual human being. Some persons think that empire over one’s neighbors, if despotically exercised, involves a definite injustice of the greatest kind, and if constitutionally, although it carries no injustice, yet is a hindrance to the ruler’s own well-being; but others hold almost the opposite view to these—they think that the life of action and citizenship is the only life fit for a man, since with each of the virtues its exercise in actions is just as possible for men engaged in public affairs and in politics as for those who live a private life.

+ +
+

Some people then hold the former view, while others declare that the despotic and tyrannical form of constitution alone achieves happiness; and in some states it is also the distinctive aim of the constitution and the laws to enable them to exercise despotic rule over their neighbors. Hence even though with most peoples most of the legal ordinances have been laid down virtually at random, nevertheless if there are places where the laws aim at one definite object, that object is in all cases power, as in Sparta and Crete both the system of education and the mass of the laws are framed in the main with a view to war; and also among all the non-Hellenic nations that are strong enough to expand at the expense of others, military strength has been held in honor, for example, among the Scythians, Persians, Thracians and Celts. Indeed among some peoples there are even certain laws stimulating military valor; for instance at Carthage, we are told, warriors receive the decoration of armlets of the same number as the campaigns on which they have served; and at one time there was also a law in Macedonia that a man who had never killed an enemy must wear his halter instead of a belt. Among Scythian tribes at a certain festival a cup was carried round from which a man that had not killed an enemy was not allowed to drink. Among the Iberians, a warlike race, they fix small spitsOr perhaps pointed stones. in the earth round a man’s grave corresponding in number to the enemies he has killed. So with other races there are many other practices of a similar kind, some established by law and others by custom.

+

Nevertheless those who wish to examine the matter closely might perhaps think it exceedingly strange that it should be the business of a statesman to be able to devise means of holding empire and mastery over the neighboring peoples whether they desire it or not. How can that be worthy of a statesman or lawgiver which is not even lawful? and government is not lawful when it is carried on not only justly but also unjustly—and superior strength may be unjustly exercised. Moreover we do not see this in the other sciences either: it is no part of a physician’s or ship-captain’s business to use either persuasion or compulsion upon the patients in the one case and the crewOr perhaps the passengers. in the other. Yet most peoples seem to think that despotic rule is statesmanship, and are not ashamed to practise towards others treatment which they declare to be unjust and detrimental for themselves; for in their own internal affairs they demand just government, yet in their relations with other peoples they pay no attention to justice. Yet it is strange if there is not a natural distinction between peoples suited to be despotically ruled and those not suited; so that if this is so, it is not proper to attempt to exercise despotic government over all people, but only over those suited for it, just as it is not right to hunt human beings for food or sacrifice, but only the game suitable for this purpose, that is, such wild creatures as are good to eat. And moreover it is possible even for a single state in isolation to be happy,

+ +
+

that is one that is well governed, in as much as it is conceivable that a state might be carried on somewhere in isolation, enjoying good laws, and in such a state the system of the constitution will not be framed for the purpose of war or of overpowering its enemies—for we are to suppose everything to do with war to be excluded. It is evident therefore that while all military pursuits are to be deemed honorable, they are not so as being the ultimate end of all things but as means to that end. And it is the business of the good lawgiver to study how a state, a race of men or any other community is to partake of the good life and the happiness possible for them. Some however of the regulations laid down will vary; and in case there exist any neighbor peoples, it is the business of the legislative art to consider what sort of exercises should be practised in relation to what sort of neighbors or how the state is to adopt the regulations that are suitable in relation to each.

+

But this question of the proper end for the best constitutions to aim at may receive its due consideration later.See 13, 14.

+

We turn to those who, while agreeing that the life of virtue is the most desirable, differ about the way in which that life should be pursued. Some disapprove of holding office in the state, thinking that the life of the free manis different from the life of politics and is the most desirable of any; whereas others think the political life the best life, for they argue that it is impossible for the man who does nothing to do well, and doing well and happiness are the same thing.On the ambiguous use of do well see 1323b 32 n. To these two parties we must reply that both are partly right and partly wrong. The former are right in saying that the life of the free man is better than the life of mastership, for this is true—there is nothing specially dignified in employing a slave, as a slave, for giving orders about menial duties has in it nothing of nobility; yet to think that all government is exercising the authority of a master is a mistake, for there is as wide a difference between ruling free men and ruling slaves as there is between the natural freeman and the natural slave themselves. But these things have been adequately decided in the first discourses.i.e. Book 1. But to praise inaction more highly than action is an error, for happiness is an activity, and further the actions of the just and temperate have in them the realization of much that is noble. Yet on the strength of these decisions somebody might perhaps suppose that the highest good is to be the master of the world, since thus one would have the power to compass the greatest number and the noblest kind of actions, and therefore it is not the duty of the man that is capable of ruling to surrender office to his neighbor, but rather to take it from him, and no account must be taken by father of sons nor by sons of father nor in general by one friend of another, and no heed must be paid to them in comparison with this; for the best thing is the most to be desired, and to do well is the best thing. Now this statement is perhaps true

+ +
+

if it is the case that the most desirable of existing things will belong to men that use robbery and violence. But perhaps it cannot belong to them, and this is a false assumption. For a man’s acts can no longer be noble if he does not excel as greatly as a man excels a woman or a father his children or a master his slaves, so that one who transgresses cannot afterwards achieve anything sufficient to rectify the lapse from virtue that he had already committed; because for equals the noble and just consists in their taking turns, since this is equal and alike, but for those that are equal to have an unequal share and those that are alike an unlike share is contrary to nature, and nothing contrary to nature is noble. Hence in case there is another person who is our superior in virtue and in practical capacity for the highest functions, him it is noble to follow and him it is just to obey; though he must possess not only virtue but also capacity that will render him capable of action. But if these things are well said, and if happiness is to be defined as well-doing, the active life is the best life both for the whole state collectively and for each man individually. But the active life is not necessarily active in relation to other men, as some people think, nor are only those processes of thought active that are pursued for the sake of the objects that result from action, but far morethose speculations and thoughts that have their end in themselves and are pursued for their own sake; for the end is to do well, and therefore is a certain form of action.Cf. 1323b 32 n., 1325a 21. And even with actions done in relation to external objects we predicate action in the full sense chiefly of the master-craftsmen who direct the action by their thoughts. Moreover with cities also, those that occupy an isolated situation and pursue a policy of isolation are not necessarily inactive; for state activities also can be sectional, since the sections of the state have many common relations with one another. And this is also possible similarly in the case of any individual human being; for otherwise God and the whole universe could hardly be well circumstanced, since they have no external activities by the side of their own private activities.

+

It is therefore manifest that the same life must be the best both for each human being individually and for states and mankind collectively.

+

And as we have prepared the way by this prefatory discussion of the subject, and have previously studied all the other forms of constitution,This seems to refer to Books 4-6. the starting-point for the remainder of our subject is first to specify the nature of the conditions that are necessary in the case of the state that is to be constituted in the ideally best manner. For the best constitution cannot be realized without suitable equipment.Cf. 1288b 39 n. We must therefore posit as granted in advance a number of as it were ideal conditions, although none of these must be actually impossible. I mean for instance in reference to number of citizens and territory. + All other craftsmen, for example a weaver or a shipwright,

+ +
+

have to be supplied with their material in a condition suitable for their trade, for the better this material has been prepared, the finer is bound to be the product of their craft; so also the statesman and the lawgiver ought to be furnished with their proper material in a suitable condition. Under the head of material equipment for the state there first come the questions as to a supply of population—what precisely ought to be its number and what its natural character? and similarly in regard to the territory, what is to be its particular size and nature? Most people imagine that the prosperous state must be a great state; but granted the truth of this, they fail to realize in what quality the greatness or smallness of a state consists: they judge a great state by the numerical magnitude of the population, but really the more proper thing to look at is not numbers but efficiency. For a state like other things has a certain function to perform, so that it is the state most capable of performing this function that is to be deemed the greatest, just as one would pronounce Hippocrates to be greater, not as a human being but as a physician, than somebody who surpassed him in bodily size. All the same, even if it be right to judge the state by the test of its multitude, this ought not to be done with regard to the multitude of any and every class (for states are doubtless bound to contain a large number of slavesand resident aliens and foreigners), but the test should be the number of those who are a part of the state—the special parts of which a state consists. It is superiority in the number of these that indicates a great state; a state that sends forth to war a large number of the baser sort and a small number of heavy-armed soldiers cannot possibly be a great state—for a great state is not the same thing as a state with a large population. But certainly experience also shows that it is difficult and perhaps impossible for a state with too large a population to have good legal government. At all events we see that none of the states reputed to be well governed is without some restriction in regard to numbers. The evidence of theory proves the same point. Law is a form of order, and good law must necessarily mean good order; but an excessively large number cannot participate in order: to give it order would surely be a task for divine power, which holds even this universe together.In the MSS. this clause follows the next. Hence that state also must necessarily be the most beautiful with whose magnitude is combined the above-mentioned limiting principle; for certainly beauty is usually found in number and magnitude, but there is a due measure of magnitude for a city-state as there also is for all other things—animals, plants, tools; each of these if too small or excessively large will not possess its own proper efficiency, but in some cases will have entirely lost its true nature and in others will be in a defective condition: for instance, a ship a span long will not be a ship at all, nor will a ship a quarter of a mile long, and even when it reaches a certain size,

+ +
+

in some cases smallness and in others excessive largeness will make it sail badly. Similarly a state consisting of too few people will not be self-sufficing (which is an essential quality of a state), and one consisting of too many, though self-sufficing in the mere necessaries, will be so in the way in which a nationi.e. presumably an Ethnos in the usual sense, a community composed of villages loosely bound together by relationship and trade, and united for defence, but not for political life; not an Ethnos of associated cities. is, and not as a state, since it will not be easy for it to possess constitutional government—for who will command its over-swollen multitude in war? or who will serve as its herald, unless he have the lungs of a Stentor? It follows that the lowest limit for the existence of a state is when it consists of a population that reaches the minimum number that is self-sufficient for the purpose of living the good life after the manner of a political community. It is possible also for one that exceeds this one in number to be a greater state, but, as we said, this possibility of increase is not without limit, and what the limit of the state’s expansion is can easily be seen from practical considerations. The activities of the state are those of the rulers and those of the persons ruled, and the work of a ruler is to direct the administration and to judge law-suits; but in order to decide questions of justice and in order to distribute the offices according to merit it is necessary for the citizens to know each other’s personal characters, since where this does not happen to be the case the business of electing officials and trying law-suits is bound to go badly; haphazard decision is unjust in both matters, and thismust obviously prevail in an excessively numerous community. Also in such a community it is easy for foreigners and resident aliens to usurp the rights of citizenship, for the excessive number of the population makes it not difficult to escape detection. It is clear therefore that the best limiting principle for a state is the largest expansion of the population, with a view to self-sufficiency that can well be taken in at one view.

+

Such may be our conclusion on the question of the size of the state.

+

Very much the same holds good about its territory. As to the question what particular kind of land it ought to have, it is clear that everybody would command that which is most self-sufficing (and such is necessarily that which bears every sort of produce, for self-sufficiency means having a supply of everything and lacking nothing). In extent and magnitude the land ought to be of a size that will enable the inhabitants to live a life of liberal and at the same time temperate leisure. Whether this limiting principle is rightly or wrongly stated must be considered more precisely later on,This promise is not fulfilled in the work as it has come down to us. when we come to raise the general subject of property and the ownership of wealth,—how and in what way it ought to be related to the employment of wealthThe distinction seems to be between owning (or perhaps getting) wealth and using it; but a probable emendation of the Greek gives how we ought to stand in relation to its employment.; about this question there are many controversies, owing to those that draw us towards either extreme of life, the one school towards parsimony and the other towards luxury. The proper configuration of the country it is not difficult to state (though there are some points on which the advice of military experts also must be taken): on the one hand it should be difficult for enemies to invade and easy for the people themselves to march out from,

+ +
+

and in addition, on the other hand, the same thing holds good of the territory that we said about the size of the population—it must be well able to be taken in at one view, and that means being a country easy for military defence. As to the site of the city, if it is to be ideally placed, it is proper for it to be well situated with regard both to the sea and to the country. One defining principle is that mentioned aboveAt the beginning of 5.2.—the city must be in communication with all parts of the territory for the purpose of sending out military assistance; and the remaining principle is that it must be easily accessible for the conveyance to it of the agricultural produce, and also of timber-wood and any other such material that the country happens to possess.

+

As to communication with the sea it is in fact much debated whether it is advantageous to well-ordered states or harmful. It is maintained that the visits of persons brought up under other institutions are detrimental to law and order, and so also is a swollen population, which grows out of sending out abroad and receiving in a number of traders, but is unfavorable to good government. Now it is not difficult to see that, if these consequences are avoided, it is advantageous in respect of both security and the supply of necessary commoditiesthat the city and the country should have access to the sea. With a view to enduring wars more easily people that are to be secure must be capable of defensive operations on both elements, land and sea, and with a view to striking at assailants, even if it be not possible on both elements, yet to do so on one or the other will be more in the power of people that have access to both. And the importation of commodities that they do not happen to have in their own country and the export of their surplus products are things indispensable; for the state ought to engage in commerce for its own interest, but not for the interest of the foreigner. People that throw open their market to the world do so for the sake of revenue, but a state that is not to take part in that sort of profit-making need not possess a great commercial port. But since even now we see many countries and cities possessing sea-ports and harbors conveniently situated with regard to the city, so as not to form part of the same townPerhaps the Greek should be altered to give part of the town itself. and yet not to be too far off, but commanded by walls and other defence-works of the kind, it is manifest that if any advantage does result through the communication of city with port the state will possess this advantage, and if there is any harmful result it is easy to guard against it by means of laws stating and regulating what persons are not and what persons are to have intercourse with one another. On the question of naval forces, there is no doubt that to possess them up to a certain strength is most desirable

+ +
+

(for a state ought to be formidable, and also capable of the defence of not only its own people but also some of its neighbors, by sea as well as by land); but when we come to the question of the number and size of this force, we have to consider the state’s manner of life if it is to live a life of leadership and affairs,i.e. relations with other states—a broader term than hegemony, leadership of an alliance. it must possess maritime as well as other forces commensurate with its activities. On the other hand it is not necessary for states to include the teeming population that grows up in connection with common sailors, as there is no need for these to be citizens; for the marines are free men and are a part of the infantry, and it is they who have command and control the crew; and if there exists a mass of villagers and tillers of the soil, there is bound to be no lack of sailors too. In fact we see this state of thing existing even now in some places, for instance in the city of Heraclea; the Heracleotes man a large fleet of triremes, although they possess a city of but moderate size as compared with others.

+

Let such then be our conclusions about the territories and harbors of cities, and the sea, and about naval forces.

About the citizen population, we said before what is its proper limit of numbers. Let us now speakof what ought to be the citizens’ natural character. Now this one might almost discern by looking at the famous cities of Greece and by observing how the whole inhabited world is divided up among the nations.4. fin. The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill, so that they continue comparatively free, but lacking in political organization and capacity to rule their neighbors. The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit, so that they are in continuous subjection and slavery. But the Greek race participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, for it is both spirited and intelligent; hence it continues to be free and to have very good political institutions, and to be capable of ruling all mankind if it attains constitutional unity. The same diversity also exists among the Greek races compared with one another: some have a one-sided nature, others are happily blended in regard to both these capacities.i.e. intelligence and high spirit, capacity for self-government and capacity for empire. It is clear therefore that people that are to be easily guided to virtue by the lawgiver must be both intellectual and spirited in their nature. For as to what is said by certain persons about the character that should belong to their GuardiansThe ruling class in Plato’s Ideal State,Plat. Rep. 375c.—they should be affectionate to their friends but fierce towards strangers—it is spirit that causes affectionateness, for spirit is the capacity of the soul whereby we love.

+ +
+

A sign of this is that spirit is more roused against associates and friends than against strangers, when it thinks itself slighted. Therefore ArchilochusArchilochus of Paros (one of the earliest lyric poets, fl. 600 B.C., the inventor of the iambic meter, which he used for lampoons), fr. 61 Bergk, 676 Diehl, 67 Edmonds,Elegy and Iambus, 2. 133. for instance, when reproaching his friends, appropriately apostrophizes his spirit: For ’tis thy friends that make thee choke with rage. Moreover it is from this faculty that power to command and love of freedom are in all cases derived; for spirit is a commanding and indomitable element. But it is a mistake to describe the Guardians as cruel towards strangers; it is not right to be cruel towards anybody, and men of great-souled nature are not fierce except towards wrongdoers, and their anger is stillfiercer against their companions if they think that these are wronging them, as has been said before. And this is reasonable, because they think that in addition to the harm done them they are also being defrauded of a benefit by persons whom they believe to owe them one. Hence the sayings For brothers’ wars are cruel, Eur. frag. 965. and They that too deeply loved too deeply hate. Nauck frag. 78

+

We have now approximately decided what are the proper numbers and the natural qualities of those who exercise the right of citizens, and the proper extent and nature of the territory (for we must notseek to attain the same exactness by means of theoretical discussions as is obtained by means of the facts that come to us through sense-perceptions).

+

But since, just as with all other natural organisms those things that are indispensable for the existence of the whole are not partsi.e. they are not all of themparts: the parts of a thing are among the indispensable conditions of its existence, but there are others also. of the whole organization, it is also clear that not all the things that are necessary for states to possess are to be counted as parts of a state (any more than this is so with any other association that forms something one in kind, for there must be something that is one and common and the same for the partners, whether the shares that they take be equal or unequal: for example this common property may be food or an area of land or something else of the same sort—The sentence is unfinished. but when of two related things one is a means and the other an end, in their case there is nothing in common except for the one to act and the other to receive the action. I mean for instance the relation between any instrument or artificer and the work that they produce: between a house and a builder there is nothing that is produced in common, but the builder’s craft exists for the sake of the house. Hence although states need property, the property is no part of the state. And there are many living things that fall under the head of property.Possibly the words from the beginning of 7.2 But when to this point should be transferred below to 7.3 mid. after different constitutions. And the state is one form of partnership of similar people, and its object is the best life that is possible. And since the greatest good is happiness, and this is some perfect activity or employment of virtue, and since it has so come about that it is possible for some men to participate in it, but for others only to a small extent or not at all, it is clear that this is the cause for there arising different kinds and varieties of state and several forms of constitution;

+ +
+

for as each set of people pursues participation in happiness in a different manner and by different means they make for themselves different modes of life and different constitutions. And we must also further consider how many there are of these things referred to that are indispensable for the existence of a state; for among them will be the things which we pronounce to be parts of a state, owing to which their presence is essential. We must therefore consider the list of occupations that a state requires : for from these it will appear what the indispensable classes are. First then a state must have a supply of food; secondly, handicrafts (since life needs many tools); third, arms (since the members of the association must necessarily possess arms both to use among themselves and for purposes of government, in cases of insubordination, and to employ against those who try to molest them from without); also a certain abundance of money, in order that they may have enough both for their internal needs and for requirements of war; fifth, a primary need, the service of religion, termed a priesthood; and sixth in number and most necessary of all, a provision for deciding questions of interests and of rights between the citizens. These then are the occupations that virtually every state requires (for the state is not any chance multitude of people but one self-sufficient for the needs of life, as we say,Cf. Books 2.1.7, 3.1.8, 5.2.10. and if any of these industries happens to be wanting, it is impossible for that association to be absolutely self-sufficient). It is necessary therefore for the state to be organizedon the lines of these functions; consequently it must possess a number of farmers who will provide the food, and craftsmen, and the military class, and the wealthy, and priests and judges to decide questions of necessityPerhaps the text should be altered to give matters of justice. and of interests.

+

These matters having been settled, it remains to consider whether everybody is to take part in all of these functions (for it is possible for the whole of the people to be at once farmers and craftsmen and the councillors and judges), or whether we are to assume different classes corresponding to each of the functions mentioned, or whether some of them must necessarily be specialized and others combined. But it will not be the same in every form of constitution; for, as we said,Cf. Book 4.4 and 14. it is possible either for all the people to take part in all the functions or for not all to take part in all but for certain people to have certain functions. In fact these different distributions of functions are the cause of the difference between constitutions: democracies are states in which all the people participate in all the functions, oligarchies where the contrary is the case. But at present we are studying the best constitution, and this is the constitution under which the state would be most happy, and it has been stated before1.5. that happiness cannot be forthcoming without virtue; it is therefore clear from these considerations that in the most nobly constituted state, and the one that possesses men that are absolutely just, not merely just relatively to the principle that is the basis of the constitution, the citizens must not live a mechanic or a mercantile life (for such a life is ignoble and inimical to virtue), nor yet must those who are to be citizens in the best state be tillers of the soil

+ +
+

(for leisure is needed both for the development of virtue and for active participation in politics). And since the state also contains the military class and the class that deliberates about matters of policy and judges questions of justice, and these are manifestly in a special sense parts of the state, are these classes also to be set down as distinct or are both functions to be assigned to the same persons? But here also the answer is clear, because in a certain sense they should be assigned to the same persons, but in a certain sense to different ones. Inasmuch as each of these two functions belongs to a different prime of life, and one requires wisdom, the other strength, they are to be assigned to different people; but inasmuch as it is a thing impossible that when a set of men are able to employ force and to resist control, these should submit always to be ruled, from this point of view both functions must be assigned to the same people; for those who have the power of arms have the power to decide whether the constitution shall stand or fall. The only course left them is to assign this constitutional function to both sets of men without distinction,Or, amending this curious Greek, for the constitution to assign both these functions to the same people. yet not simultaneously, but, as in the natural order of things strength is found in the younger men and wisdom in the elder, it seems to be expedient and just for their functions to be allotted to both in this way, for this mode of division possesses conformity with merit. Moreover the ownership of properties also must be centered round these classes, for the citizens must necessarily possess plentiful means, and these are the citizens. For theartisan class has no share in the state, nor has any other class that is not an artificer of virtue.A Platonic phrase, Plat. Rep. 500d. And this is clear from our basic principle; for in conjunction with virtue happiness is bound to be forthcoming, but we should pronounce a state happy having regard not to a particular section of it but to all its citizens. And it is also manifest that the properties must belong to these classes, inasmuch asAs this is a new point, perhaps we should transpose inasmuch as ( εἴπερ) and that ( ὅτι) in the line above. it is necessary for the tillers of the soil to be slaves, or serfs of alien race. There remains of the list enumerated the class of priests; and the position of this class also is manifest. Priests must be appointed neither from the tillers of the soil nor from the artisans, for it is seemly that the gods should be worshipped by citizens; and since the citizen body is divided into two parts, the military class and the councillor class, and as it is seemly that those who have relinquished these duties owing to age should render to the gods their due worship and should spend their retirement in their service, it is to these that the priestly offices should be assigned.

+

We have therefore stated the things indispensable for the constitution of a state, and the things that are parts of a state: tillers of the soil, craftsmen and the laboring class generally are a necessary appurtenance of states, but the military and deliberative classes are parts of the state; and moreover each of these divisions is separate from the others, either permanently or by turn.i.e. the appurtenances are permanently separate form the army and the deliberative, which are the parts, and which are separate from each other only by turn, i.e. a citizen passes on from one to the other.

+

And that it is proper for the state to be divided up into castes and for the military class to be distinct from that of the tillers of the soil does not seem to be a discovery of political philosophers of today or one made recently.Perhaps to be read as denying the originality of Plato’sRepublic.

+ +
+

In Egypt this arrangement still exists even now, as also in Crete; it is said to have been established in Egypt by the legislation of Sesostris and in Crete by thatof Minos. Common meals also seem to be an ancient institution, those in Crete having begun in the reign of Minos, while those in Italy are much older than these. According to the historians one of the settlers there, a certain Italus, became king of Oenotria, and from him they took the name of Italians instead of that of Oenotrians, and the name of Italy was given to all that promontoryi.e. the south-west peninsula or toe of Italy. of Europe lying between the Gulfs of Scylletium and of Lametus,i.e. the Gulfs of Squillace and Eufemia. which are half a day’s journey apart. It was this Italus then who according to tradition converted the Oenotrians from a pastoral life to one of agriculture and gave them various ordinances, being the first to institute their system of common meals; hence the common meals and some of his laws are still observed by certain of his successors even today. The settlers in the direction of TyrrheniaThe modern Tuscany, i.e. the people of Lucania, Campania and Latium. were Opicans, who today as in former times bear the surname ofAusonians; the region towards IapygiaThe south-east promontory or heel of Italy. and the Ionian Gulf, called Syrtis, was inhabited by the Chones, who also were Oenotrians by race. It is from this country that the system of common meals has its origin, while the division of the citizen-body by hereditary caste came from Egypt, for the reign of Sesostris long antedates that of Minos. We may almost take it therefore that all other political devices also have been discovered repeatedly, or rather an infinite number of times over, in the lapse of ages; for the discoveries of a necessary kind are probably taught by need itself, and when the necessaries have been provided it is reasonable that things contributing to refinement and luxury should find their development; so that we must assume that this is the way with political institutions also. The antiquity of all of them is indicated by the history of Egypt; for the Egyptians are reputed to be the oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system. Hence we should use the results of previous discovery when adequate, while endeavoring to investigate matters hitherto passed over.

+

It has been stated before that the land ought to be owned by those who possess arms and those who share the rights of the constitution, and why the cultivators ought to be a different caste from these, and what is the proper extent and conformation of the country. We have now to discuss first the allotment of the land, and the proper class and character of its cultivators; since we advocate not common ownership of land, as some have done,

+ +
+

but community in it brought about in a friendly way by the use of it,This vague phrase (based on the proverb κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων, friends’ goods are common property) seems to denote some sort of customary communism in the cultivation of the land and enjoyment of the produce, combined with private ownership of the freehold. and we hold that no citizen should be ill supplied with means of subsistence. As to common meals, all agree that this is an institution advantageous for well-organized states to possess; our own reasons for sharing this view we will state later.This promise is not fulfilled. But the common meals must be shared by all the citizens, and it is not easy for the poor to contribute their assessed share from their private means and also to maintain their household as well. And moreover the expenses connected with religion are the common concern of the whole state. It is necessary therefore for the land to be divided into two parts, of which one must be common and the other the private property of individuals; and each of these two divisions must again be divided in two. Of the common land one portion should be assigned to the services of religion, and the other to defray the cost of the common meals; of the land in private ownership one part should be the district near the frontiers, and another the district near the city, in order that two plots may be assigned to each citizen and all may have a share in both districts. This arrangement satisfies equity and justice, and also conduces to greater unanimity in facing border warfare. Where this system is not followed, one set of people are reckless about quarrelling with the neighboring states,and the other set are too cautious and neglect considerations of honor. Hence some people have a law that the citizens whose land is near the frontier are not to take part in deliberation as to wars against neighboring states, on the ground that private interest would prevent them from being able to take counsel wisely. The land must therefore be divided up in this manner because of the reasons aforesaid.

+

Those who are to cultivate the soil should best of all, if the ideal system is to be stated, be slaves, not drawn from people all of one tribe nor of a spirited character (for thus they would be both serviceable for their work and safe to abstain from insurrection), but as a second best they should be alien serfs of a similar nature. Of these laborers those in private employment must be among the private possessions of the owners of the estates, and those working on the common land common property. How slaves should be employed, and why it is advantageous that all slaves should have their freedom set before them as a reward, we will say later.This promise is not fulfilled.

+

It has been said before that the city should so far as circumstances permit be in communication alike with the mainland, the sea and the whole of its territory. The site of the city itself we must pray that fortune may place on sloping ground, having regard to four considerationsApparently (1) fresh air, (2) water supply, (3) administration, (4) military requirements.: first, as a thing essential, the consideration of health (for cities whose site slopes east or towards the breezes that blow from the sunrise are more healthy, and in the second degree those that face away from the north wind,Literally, in the direction in which the north wind blows. for these are milder in winter);

+ +
+

and among the remaining considerations, a sloping site is favorable both for political and for military purposes. For military purposes therefore the site should be easy of exit for the citizens themselves, and difficult for the adversary to approach and to blockade, and it must possess if possible a plentiful natural supply of pools and springs, but failing this, a mode has been invented of supplying water by means of constructing an abundance of large reservoirs for rain-water, so that a supply may never fail the citizens when they are debarred from their territory by war. And since we have to consider the health of the inhabitants, and this depends upon the place being well situated both on healthy ground and with a healthy aspect, and secondly upon using wholesome water-supplies, the following matter also must be attended to as of primary importance. Those things which we use for the body in the largest quantity, and most frequently, contribute most to health; and the influence of the water-supply and of the air is of this nature. Hence in wise cities if all the sources of water are not equally pure and there is not an abundance of suitable springs, the water-supplies for drinking must be kept separate from those for other requirements. As to fortified positions, what is expedient is not the same for all forms of constitution alike; for example, a citadel-hill is suitable for oligarchy and monarchy,and a level site for democracy; neither is favorable to an aristocracy, but rather several strong positions. The arrangement of the private dwellings is thought to be more agreeable and more convenient for general purposes if they are laid out in straight streets, after the modern fashion, that is, the one introduced by HippodamusSee Book 2.5.; but it is more suitable for security in war if it is on the contrary plan, as cities used to be in ancient times; for that arrangement is difficult for foreign troopsi.e. an enemy’s mercenaries; but the MSS. give difficult for foreign troops to make sorties from [i.e. presumably to find their way out when once they have got in, cf. Thuc. 2.4.2] and for attackers to find their way about in. to enter and to find their way about in when attacking. Hence it is well to combine the advantages of both plans (for this is possible if the houses arelaid out in the way which among the farmers some people call on the slantThe Roman quincunx, each plant of one row being in line with the gap between two plants of the next row, thus: in the case of vines), and not to lay out the whole city in straight streets, but only certain parts and districts, for in this way it will combine security with beauty.

+

As regards walls, those who aver that cities which pretend to valor should not have them hold too old-fashioned a view—and that though they see that the cities that indulge in that form of vanity are refuted by experience. It is true that against an evenly matched foe and one little superior in numbers it is not honorable to try to secure oneself bythe strength of one’s fortifications; but as it does and may happen that the superior numbers of the attackers may be too much for the human valor of a small force, if the city is to survive and not to suffer disaster or insult, the securest fortification of walls must be deemed to be the most warlike,

+ +
+

particularly in view of the inventions that have now been made in the direction of precision with missiles and artillery for sieges. To claim not to encompass cities with walls is like desiringPerhaps a word should be added to the Greek giving desiring to make the country easy to invade, and to strip it—. the country to be easy to invade and stripping it of hilly regions, and similarly not surrounding even private dwellings with house-walls on the ground that the inhabitants will be cowardly. Another point moreover that must not be forgotten is that those who have walls round the city can use their cities in both ways, both as walled cities and as open ones, whereas cities not possessing walls cannot be used in both ways. If then this is so, not only must walls be put round a city, but also attention must be paid to them in order that they may be suitable both in regard to the adornment of the city and in respect of military requirements, especially the new devices recently invented. For just as the attackers of a city are concerned to study the means by which they can gain the advantage, so also for the defenders some devices have already been invented and others they must discover and think out; for people do not even start attempting to attack those who are well prepared.

+

And since the multitude of citizens must be distributedin separate messes, and the city walls must be divided up by guard-posts and towers in suitable places, it is clear that these facts themselves call for some of the messes to be organized at these guard-posts. These things then might be arranged in this manner.

+

But it is fitting that the dwellings assigned to the gods and the most important of the official messes should have a suitable site, and the same for all, excepting those temples which are assigned a special place apart by the law or else by some utterance of the Pythian oracle. And the site would be suitable if it is one that is sufficiently conspicuous in regard to the excellence of its position, and also of superior strength in regard to the adjacentparts of the city. It is convenient that below this site should be laid out an agora of the kind customary in Thessalywhich they call a free agora, that is, one which has to be kept clear of all merchandise and into which no artisan or farmer or any other such person may intrude unless summoned by the magistrates. It would give amenity to the site if the gymnasia of the older men were also situated here—for it is proper to have this institution also divided according to ages,Or for in this noble practice different ages should be separated (Jowett). and for certain magistrates to pass their time among the youths while the older men spend theirs with the magistrates; for the presence of the magistrates before men’s eyes most engenders true respect and a freeman’s awe.

+ +
+

The agora for merchandise must be different from the free agora, and in another place; it must have a site convenient for the collection there of all the goods sent from the seaport and from the country. And as the divisions of the state’s populace includePerhaps the Greek should be altered to τὸ προεστός, as the governing class is divided into. priests and magistrates, it is suitable that the priests’ mess-rooms also should have their position round that of the sacred buildings. And all the magistracies that superintend contracts, and the registration of actions at law, summonses and other such matters of administration, and also those that deal with the control of the markets and with what is termed policing the city, should have buildings adjacent to an agora or some public place of resort, and such a place is the neighborhood of the business agora, for we assign the upper agora as the place in which to spend leisure, and this one for necessary business.

+

The arrangements in the country also should copy the plan described; there too the magistrates called in some states Wardens of the Woods and in others Land-superintendents must have their guard-posts and mess-rooms for patrol duty, and also temples must be distributed over the country, some dedicated to gods and some to heroes. But to linger at this point over the detailed statement and discussion of questions of this kind is waste of time.The difficulty with such things is not so much in the matter of theory but in that of practice; to lay down principles is a work of aspiration, but their realization is the task of fortune. Hence we will relinquish for the present the further consideration of matters of this sort.

+

We must now discuss the constitution itself, and ask what and of what character should be the components of the state that is to have felicity and good government. There are two things in which the welfare of all men consists: one of these is the correct establishment of the aim and end of their actions, the other the ascertainment of the actions leading to that end. (For the end proposed and the means adopted may be inconsistent with one another, as also they may be consistent; sometimes the aim has been correctly proposed, but people fail to achieve it in action, sometimes they achieve all the means successfully but the end that they posited was a bad one, and sometimes they err as to both—for instance, in medicine practitioners are sometimes both wrong in their judgement of what qualities a healthy body ought to possess and unsuccessful in hitting on effective means to produce the distinctive aim that they have set before them; whereas in the arts and sciences both these things have to be secured, the end and the practical means to the end.) Now it is clear that all men aim at the good life and at happiness, but though some possess the power to attain these things, some do not, owing to some factor of fortune or of nature

+ +
+

(fortune because the good life needs also a certain equipment of means, and although it needs less of this for men of better natural disposition it needs more for those of worse); while others, although they have the power, go wrong at the start in their search for happiness.i.e. they misconceive the nature of happiness and select the wrong thing to aim at. But the object before us is to discern the best constitution, and this is the one under which a state will be best governed, and a state will be best governed under the constitution under which it has the most opportunity for happiness; it is therefore clear that we must know whathappiness is. The view that we maintain (and this is the definition that we laid down in theEthics, Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1098a 16 and Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1176b 4 if those discourses are of any value) is that happiness is the complete activity and employment of virtue, and this not conditionally but absolutely. When I say conditionally I refer to things necessary, by absolutely I mean nobly: for instance, to take the case of just actions, just acts of vengeance and of punishment spring it is true from virtue, but are necessary, and have the quality of nobility only in a limited manner (since it would be preferable that neither individual nor state should have any need of such things), whereas actions aiming at honors and resourcesA conjectural emendation gives distinctions. are the noblest actions absolutely; for the former class of acts consist in the removalThis is a conjectural emendation; the MSS. give the adoption. of something evil, but actions of the latter kind are the opposite—they are the foundation and the generation of things good. The virtuous man will use even poverty, disease, andthe other forms of bad fortune in a noble manner, but felicity consists in their opposites (for it is a definition established by our ethical discourses Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1113a 15 ff. that the virtuous man is the man of such a character that because of his virtue things absolutely good are good to him, and it is therefore clear that his employment of these goods must also be virtuous and noble absolutely); and hence men actually suppose that external goods are the cause of happiness, just as if they were to assign the cause of a brilliantly fine performance on the harp to the instrument rather than to the skill of the player. It follows therefore from what has been said that some goods must be forthcoming to start with and others must be provided by the legislator. Hence we pray that the organization of the state may be successful in securing those goods which are in the control of fortune (for that fortune does control externalgoods we take as axiomatic); but when we come to the state’s being virtuous, to secure this is not the function of fortune but of science and policy. But then the virtue of the state is of course caused by the citizens who share in its government being virtuous; and in our state all the citizens share in the government. The point we have to consider therefore is, how does a man become virtuous? For even if it be possible for the citizens to be virtuous collectively without being so individually, the latter is preferable, since for each individual to be virtuous entails as a consequence the collective virtue of all. But there are admittedly three things by which men are made good and virtuous, and these three things are nature, habit and reason. For to start with, one must be born with the nature of a human being and not of some other animal; and secondly, one must be born of a certain quality of body and of soul. But there are some qualities that it is of no use to be born with,

+ +
+

for our habits make us alter them: some qualities in fact are made by nature liable to be modified by the habits in either direction, for the worse or for the better. Now the other animals live chiefly by nature, though some in small degrees are guided by habits too; but man lives by reason also, for he alone of animals possesses reason; so that in him these three things must be in harmony with one another; for men often act contrary to their acquired habits and to their nature because of their reason, if they are convinced that some other course of action is preferable.

+

Now we have alreadyIn 4. defined the proper natural character of those who are to be amenable to the hand of the legislator; what now remains is the task of education, for men learn some things by practice, others by precept.

+

But since every political community is composed of rulers and subjects, we must therefore consider whether the rulers and the subjects ought to change, or to remain the same through life; for it is clear that their education also will have to be made to correspond with this distribution of functions. If then it were the case that the one class differed from the other as widely as we believe the gods and heroes to differ from mankind, having first a great superiority in regard to the body and then in regard to the soul, so that the pre-eminence of the rulers was indisputable and manifest to the subjects, it is clear that it would be better for the same persons always to be rulers and subjects once for all; but as this is not easy to secure, and as we do not find anything corresponding to the great difference that Scylax states to exist between kings and subjects in India, it is clear that for many reasons it is necessary for all to share alike in ruling and being ruled in turn. For equality means for persons who are alike identity of status, and also it is difficultThe emendation suggested by Richards gives For equality and identity (of status) are just for persons who are alike, and it is difficult, etc. for a constitution to endure that is framed in contravention of justice. For all the people throughout the country are ranged on the side of the subject class in wishing for a revolution, and it is a thing inconceivable that those in the government should be sufficiently numerous to over power all of these together. But yet on the other hand that the rulers ought to be superior to the subjects cannot be disputed; therefore the lawgiver must consider how this is to be secured, and how they are to participate in the government. And this has been already8.3, 1329a 4 ff. discussed. Nature has given the distinction by making the group that is itself the same in race partly younger and partly older, of which two sets it is appropriate to the one to be governed and for the other to govern; and no one chafes or thinks himself better than his rulers when he is governed on the ground of age, especially as he is going to get back what he has thus contributed to the common stock when he reaches the proper age. + In a sense therefore we must say that the rulers and ruled are the same, and in a sense different.

+ +
+

Hence their education also is bound to be in one way the same and in another different. For he who is to be a good ruler must have first been ruled, as the saying isThe sentence here breaks off into a long parenthesis, after which it is not resumed. (and government, as has been said in the first discourses,Book 3.6.6-12, 1278b 30 ff. is of two sorts, one carried on for the sake of the ruler and the other for the sake of the subject; of these the former is what we call the rule of a master,the latter is the government of free men . . .One sentence or more has been lost here. But some of the commands given differ not in nature of the services commanded but in their object. Hence a number of what are thought to be menial services can be honorably performed even by freemen in youth; since in regard to honor and dishonor actions do not differ so much in themselves as in their end and object). But since we say that the goodness of a citizenPerhaps the Greek should be altered to give of the best citizen. and ruler are the same as that of the best man, and that the same person ought to become a subject first and a ruler afterwards, it will be important for the legislator to study how and by what courses of training good men are to be produced, and what is the end of the best life.

+

The soul is divided into two parts, of which one is in itself possessed of reason, while the other is not rational in itselfbut capable of obeying reason. To these parts in our view belong those virtues in accordance with which a man is pronounced to be good in some way. But in which of thesetwo parts the end of man rather resides, those who define the parts of the soul in accordance with our view will have no doubt as to how they should decide. The worse always exists as a means to the better, and this is manifest alike in the products of art and in those of nature; but the rational part of the soul is better than the irrational. And the rational part is subdivided into two, according to our usual scheme of division; for reason is of two kinds, practical and theoretic, so that obviously the rational part of the soul must also be subdivided accordingly. A corresponding classification we shall also pronounce to hold among its activities: the activities of the part of the soul that is by nature superior must be preferable for those persons who are capable of attaining either all the soul’s activities or twoi.e. the two lower ones, the three being the activities of the theoretic reason, of the practical reason, and of the passions that although irrational are amenable to reason. out of the three; since that thing is always most desirable for each person which is the highest to which it is possible for him to attain. Also life as a whole is divided into business and leisure, and war and peace, and our actions are aimed some of them at things necessary and useful, others at things noble. In these matters the same principle of preference that applies to the parts of the soul must apply also to the activities of those parts: war must be for the sake of peace, business for the sake of leisure, things necessary and useful for the purpose of things noble. The statesman therefore must legislate with all these considerations in view, both in respect of the parts of the soul and of their activities, and aiming more particularly at the greater goods and the ends. And the same principle applies in regard to modes of life and choices of conduct: a man should be capable of engaging in business and war,

+ +
+

but still more capable of living in peace and leisure; and he should do what is necessary and useful, but still more should he do what is noble. These then are the aims that ought to be kept in view in the education of the citizens both while still children and at the later ages that require education. But the Greek peoples reputed at the present day to have the best constitutions, and the lawgivers that established them, manifestly did not frame their constitutional systems with reference to the best end, nor construct their laws and their scheme of education with a view to all the virtues, but they swerved aside in a vulgar manner towards those excellences that are supposed to be useful and more conducive to gain. And following the same lines as they, some later writers also have pronounced the same opinion: in praising the Spartan constitution they express admiration for the aim of its founder on the ground that he framed the whole of his legislation with a view to conquest and to war. These views are easy to refute on theoretical grounds and also have now been refuted by the facts of history. For just as most of mankind covet being master of many servantsOr possibly, covet a wide empire. because this produces a manifold supply of fortune’s goods, so ThibronUnknown. and all the other writers about the Spartan constitutionshow admiration for the lawgiver of the Spartans because owing to their having been trained to meet dangers they governed a wide empire. Yet it clearly follows that since as a matter of fact at the present day the Spartans no longer possess an empire, they are not happy, and their lawgiver was not a good one. And it is ridiculous that although they have kept to his laws, and although nothing hinders their observing the laws, they have lost the noble life. Also writers have a wrong conception of the power for which the lawgiver should display esteem; to govern freemen is nobler and more conjoined with virtue than to rule despotically. And again it is not a proper ground for deeming a state happy and for praising its lawgiver, that it has practised conquest with a view to rulingA probable emendation gives that he has trained it with a view to ruling. over its neighbors. This principle is most disastrous; it follows from it that an individual citizen who has the capacity ought to endeavor to attain the power to hold sway over his own city; but this is just what the Spartans charge as a reproach against their king Pausanias, although he attained such high honor. No principle therefore and no law of this nature is either statesmanlike or profitable, nor is it true; the same ideals are the best both for individuals and for communities, and the lawgiver should endeavor to implant them in the souls of mankind. The proper object of practising military training is not in order that men may enslave those who do not deserve slavery, but in order that first they may themselves avoid becoming enslaved to others; then so that they may seek suzerainty for the benefit of the subject people,

+ +
+

but not for the sake of world-wide despotism; and thirdly to hold despotic power over those who deserve to be slaves. Experience supports the testimony of theory, that it is the duty of the lawgiver rather to study how he may frame his legislation both with regard to warfare and in other departments for the object of leisure and of peace. Most military states remain safe while at war but perish when they have won their empire; in peace-time they lose their keen temper, like iron.i.e. an iron blade when not used loses keenness and has to be re-tempered. The lawgiver is to blame, because he did not educate them to be able to employ leisure.

+

And since it appears that men have the same end collectively and individually, and since the same distinctive aim must necessarily belong both to the best man and to the best government, it is clear that the virtues relating to leisure are essentiali.e. to the state as well as to the individual.; since, as has been said repeatedly, peace is the end of war, leisure of business. But the virtues useful for leisure and for its employment are not only those that operate during leisure but also those that operate in business; for many of the necessaries must needs be forthcoming to give us opportunity for leisure. Therefore it is proper for the state to be temperate,brave and enduring; since, as the proverb goes, there is no leisure for slaves, but people unable to face danger bravely are the slaves of their assailants. Therefore courage and fortitude are needed for business, love of wisdom for leisure, temperance and justice for both seasons, and more especially when men are at peace and have leisure; for war compels men to be just and temperate, whereas the enjoyment of prosperity and peaceful leisure tend to make them insolent. Therefore much justice and much temperance are needed by those who are deemed very prosperous and who enjoy all the things counted as blessings, like the persons, if such there be, as the poets say, Hes. WD 170 ff. that dwell in the Islands of the Blest; these will most need wisdom, temperance and justice, the more they are at leisure and have an abundance of such blessings. It is clear therefore why a state that is to be happy and righteous must share in these virtues; for if it is disgraceful to be unable to use our good things, it is still more disgraceful to be unable to use them in time of leisure, and although showing ourselves good men when engaged in business and war, in times of peace and leisure to seem no better than slaves. Therefore we must not cultivate virtue after the manner of the state of Sparta.

+ +
+

The superiority of the Spartans over other races does not lie in their holding a different opinion from others as to what things are the greatest goods, but rather in their believing that these are obtained by means of one particular virtue; yet because they both deem these things and their enjoyment to be greater goods than the enjoyment of the virtues The end of this sentence and the beginning of the next appear to have been lost.

+

and that it is to be practised for its own sake is manifest from these considerations; but it must now be considered how and by what means this will come about. Now we have indeed previously decided that it requires nature and habit and reason, and among these, what particular quality of nature men ought to possess has been defined previously; but it remains to consider whether men ought to be educated first by means of the reason or by the habits. For between reason and habit the most perfect harmony ought to exist, as it is possible both for the reason to have missed the highest principle and for men to have been as wrongly trained through the habits. This therefore at all events is clear in the first place, in the case of men as of other creatures, that their engendering starts from a beginning, and that the end starts from a certain beginning that is another end,A conjectural addition to the text gives the end to which a certain beginning leads is itself the beginning of another end. The active use of the reason is the end (i.e. the completion and the purpose) of the birth and growth of the human animal. and that reason and intelligence are for us the end of our natural development, so that it is with a view to these ends that our engendering and the training of our habits must be regulated. And secondly, as soul and body are two, so we observe that the soul also has two parts, the irrational part and the part possessing reason, and that the states which they experience are two in number,the one being desire and the other intelligence; and as the body is prior in its development to the soul, so the irrational part of the soul is prior to the rational. And this also is obvious, because passion and will, and also appetite,These three emotions are subdivisions of desire above. exist in children even as soon as they are born, but it is the nature of reasoning and intelligence to arise in them as they grow older. Therefore in the first place it is necessary for the training of the body to precede that of the mind, and secondly for the training of the appetite to precede that of the intelligence; but the training of the appetite must be for the sake of the intellect, and that of the body for the sake of the soul.

+

Inasmuch therefore as it is the duty of the lawgiver to consider from the start how the children reared are to obtain the best bodily frames, he must first pay attention to the union of the sexes, and settle when and in what condition a couple should practise matrimonial intercourse. In legislating for this partnership he must pay regard partly to the persons themselves and to their span of life, so that they may arrive together at the same period in their ages, and their powers may not be at discord through the man being still capable of parentage and the wife incapable, or the wife capable and the man not (for this causes differences and actual discord between them), and also he must consider as well the succession of the children, for the children must neither be too far removed in their ages from the fathers (since elderly fathers get no good from their children’s return of their favors, nor do the children from the help they get from the fathers),

+ +
+

nor must they be too near them (for this involves much unpleasantness, since in such families there is less respect felt between them, as between companions of the same age, and also the nearness of age leads to friction in household affairs); and in addition, to return to the point from which we began this digression, measures must be taken to ensure that the children produced may have bodily frames suited to the wish of the lawgiver. These results then are almost all attained by one mode of regulation. For since the period of parentage terminates, speaking generally, with men at the age of seventy at the outside, and with women at fifty, the commencement of their union should correspond in respect of age with these times. But the mating of the young is bad for child-bearing; for in all animal species the offspring of the young are more imperfect and likely to produce female children,Some editors write θηλύτοκα and interpret more likely to be born females. ( θηλυτόκα, likely to bear females, is applied to the young parents themselves in Aristot. Hist. An. 766b 29.) and small in figure, so that the same thing must necessarily occur in the human race also. And a proof of this is that in all the states where it is the local custom to mate young men and young women, the people are deformed and small of body. And again young women labor more, and more of them die in childbirth; indeed according to some accounts such was the reason why the oracle Μὴ τέμνε νέαν ἄλοκα (‘cut not a new furrow’) schol. was givento the people of Troezen, because many were dying owing to its being their custom for the women to marry young, and it did not refer to the harvest. And again it also contributes tochastity for the bestowal of women in marriage to be made when they are older, for it is thought that they are more licentious when they have had intercourse in youth. Also the males are thought to be arrested in bodily growth if they have intercourse while the seed is still growing, for this also has a fixed period after passing which it is no longer plentiful. Therefore it is fitting for the women to be married at about the age of eighteen and the men at thirty-seven or a little beforeThe word before is a conjectural insertion.—for that will give long enough for the union to take place with their bodily vigor at its prime, and for it to arrive with a convenient coincidence of dates at the time when procreation ceases. Moreover the succession of the children to the estates, if their birth duly occurs soon after the parents marry, will take place when they are beginning their prime, and when the parents’ period of vigor has now come to a close, towards the age of seventy. The proper age therefore for union has been discussed; as to the proper times in respect of the season we may accept what is customary with most people, who have rightly decided even as it is to practise marital cohabitation in winter. And people should also study for themselves, when their time comes, the teachings of physicians and natural philosophers on the subject of the procreation of children; the suitable bodily seasons are adequately discussed by the physicians,

+ +
+

and the question of weather by the natural philosophers, who say that north winds are more favorable than south. The particular kind of bodily constitution in the parents that will be most beneficial for the offspring must be dwelt on more in detail in our discussion of the management of childrenThis was never written, or has been lost.; it is sufficient to speak of it in outline now. The athlete’s habit of body is not serviceable for bodily fitness as required by a citizen, nor for health and parentage, nor yet is a habit that is too valetudinarian and unfit for labor, but the condition that lies between them. The bodily habit therefore should have been trained by exercise, but not by exercises that are violent, and not for one form of labor only, as is the athlete’s habit of body, but for the pursuits of free men. And these arrangements must be provided alike for men and women. And pregnant women also must take care of their bodies, not avoiding exercise nor adopting a low diet; this it is easy for the lawgiver to secure by ordering them to make a journey daily for the due worship of the deities whose office is the control of childbirth. As regards the mind, however, on the contrary it suits them to pass the time more indolently than as regards their bodies; for children before birth are evidently affected by the mother just as growing plants are by the earth. As to exposing orrearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive. And since the beginning of the fit age for a man and for a woman, at which they are to begin their union, has been defined, let it also be decided for how long a time it is suitable for them to serve the state in the matter of producing children. For the offspring of too elderly parents, as those of too young ones, are born imperfect both in body and mind, and the children of those that have arrived at old age are weaklings. Therefore the period must be limited to correspond with the mental prime; and this in the case of most men is the age stated by some of the poets, who measure men’s age by periods of seven years, Solon fr. 27 —it is about the age of fifty. Therefore persons exceeding this age by four or five years must be discharged from the duty of producing children for the community, and for the rest of their lives if they have intercourse it must be manifestly for the sake of health or for some other similar reason. As to intercourse with another woman or man, in general it must be dishonorable for them to be known to take any part in it in any circumstances whatsoever as long as they are husband and wife and bear those names,

+ +
+

but any who may be discovered doing anything of the sort during their period of parentage must be punished with a loss of privilege suited to the offence.

+

When the children have been born, the particular mode of rearing adopted must be deemed an important determining influence in regard to their power of body. It appears from examining the other animals, and is also shown by the foreign races that make it their aim to keep up the military habit of body, that a diet giving an abundance of milk is mostsuited to the bodies of children, and one that allows rather little wine because of the diseases that it causes. Moreover it is advantageous to subject them to as many movements as are practicable with children of that age. To prevent the limbs from being distorted owing to softness, some races even now employ certain mechanical appliances that keep the bodies of infants from being twisted. And it is also advantageous to accustom them at once from early childhood to cold, for this is most useful both for health and with a view to military service. Hence among many non-Greek races it is customary in the case of some peoples to wash the children at birth by dipping them in a cold river, and with others, for instance the Celts, to give them scanty covering. For it is better to inure them at the very start to everything possible, but to inure them gradually;and the bodily habit of children is naturally well fitted by warmth to be trained to bear cold. In the earliest period of life then it is expedient to employ this or a similar method of nursing; and the next period to this, up to the age of five, which it is not well to direct as yet to any study nor to compulsory labors, in order that they may not hinder the growth, should nevertheless be allowed enough movement to avoid bodily inactivity; and this exercise should be obtained by means of various pursuits, particularly play. But even the games must not be unfit for freemen, nor laborious, nor undisciplined. Also the question of the kind of tales and stories that should be told to children of this age must be attended to by the officials called Children’s Tutors. For all such amusements should prepare the way for their later pursuits; hence most children’s games should be imitations of the serious occupations of later life. The legislators in theLaws Plat. Laws 792a. Plato merely says that a child’s crying shows it to be annoyed, and that it ought to have as little pain as possible or else it will grow up morose. forbid allowing children to have paroxysms of crying, but this prohibition is a mistake; violent crying contributes to growth, for it serves in a way as exercise for the body, since holding the breath is the strength giving factor in hard labor, and this takes place also with children when they stretch themselves in crying. The Tutors must supervise the children’s pastimes, and in particular must see that they associate as little as possible with slaves. For children of this age,

+ +
+

and up to seven years old, must necessarily be reared at home; so it is reasonable to suppose that even at this age they may acquire a taint of illiberality from what they hear and see. The lawgiver ought therefore to banish indecent talk, as much as anything else, out of the state altogether (for light talk about anything disgraceful soon passes into action)—so most of all from among the young, so that they may not say nor hear anything of the sort; and anybody found saying or doing any of the things prohibited, if he is of free station but not yet promoted to reclining at the public meals, must be punished with marks of dishonor and with beating, and an older offender must be punished with marks of dishonor degrading to a free man, because of his slavish behavior. And since we banish any talk of this kind, clearly we must also banish the seeing of either pictures or representations that are indecent. The officials must therefore be careful that there may be no sculpture or painting that represents indecent actions, except in the temples of a certain class of gods to whom the law allows even scurrility; but in regard to theseThe MS. text gives and in addition to these; and the word still may be an interpolation. the law permits men still of suitable age to worship the gods both on their own behalf and on behalf of the children and women. But the younger ones must not be allowed in the audience at lampoonsIambic verses, often abusive and indecent, recited at festivals of Dionysus. and at comedy, before they reach the age at which they will now have the right to recline at table in company and to drink deeply, and at which their education will render all of them immune to the harmful effects of such things. For the present therefore we have merely mentioned these matters in passing, but later we must stop to settle them more definitely, first discussing fully whether legislation prohibiting the attendance of the young is desirable or not, and how such prohibition should be put in force; but on the present occasion we have touched on the question only in the manner necessary. For perhaps the tragic actor TheodorusA great Athenian performer of Sophocles; he took the part of Antigone. used to put the matter not badly: he had never once allowed anybody to produce his partLoosely put for to appear on the stage. before him, not even one of the poor actors, as he said that audiences are attracted by what they hear first; and this happens alike in regard to our dealings with people and to our dealings with things—all that comes first we like better. On this account we ought to make all base things unfamiliar to the young, and especially those that involve either depravity or malignity.

+

But when the five years from two to seven have passed, the children must now become spectators at the lessonsi.e. in gymnastics and music. which they will themselves have to learn. And there are two ages corresponding to which education should be divided—there must be a break after the period from seven to puberty, and again after that from puberty to twenty-one. For those who divide the ages by periods of seven years are generally speaking not wrong,The MSS. give not right.

+ +
+

and it is proper to follow the division of nature, for all art and education aim at filling up nature's deficiencies. First therefore we must consider whether some regulation in regard to the boys ought to be instituted, next whether it is advantageous for their supervision to be conducted on a public footing or in a private manner as is done at present in most states, and thirdly of what particular nature this supervision ought to be.

+
+ +
+
+

Book 5 in some editions.Now nobody would dispute that the education of the young requires the special attention of the lawgiver. Indeed the neglect of this in states is injurious to their constitutions; for education ought to be adapted to the particular form of constitution, since the particular character belonging to each constitution both guards the constitution generally and originally establishes it—for instance the democratic spirit promotes democracy and the oligarchic spirit oligarchy; and the best spirit always causes a better constitution. Moreover in regard to all the faculties and crafts certain forms of preliminary educationand training in their various operations are necessarys o that manifestly this is also requisite in regard to the actions of virtue. And inasmuch as the end for the whole state is one, it is manifest that education also must necessarily be one and the same for all and that the superintendence of this must be public, and not on private lines, in the way in which at present each man superintends the education of his own children, teaching them privately, and whatever special branch of knowledge he thinks fit. But matters of public interest ought to be under public supervision; at the same time we ought not to think that any of the citizens belongs to himself, but that all belong to the state, for each is a part of the state, and it is natural for the superintendence of the several parts to have regard to the superintendence of the whole. And one might praise the Spartans in respect of this, for they pay the greatest attention to the training of their children, and conduct it on a public system.

+

It is clear then that there should be legislation about education and that it should be conducted on a public system. But consideration must be given to the question, what constitutes education and what is the proper way to be educated. At present there are differences of opinion as to the proper tasks to be set; for all peoples do not agree as to the things that the young ought to learn, either with a view to virtue or with a view to the best life, nor is it clear whether their studies should be regulated more with regard to intellect or with regard to character. And confusing questions arise out of the education that actually prevails, and it is not at all clear whether the pupils should practise pursuits that are practically morally edifying, or higher accomplishments—for all these views have won the support of some judges;

+ +
+

and nothing is agreed as regards the exercise conducive to virtue, for, to start with, all men do not honor the same virtue, so that they naturally hold different opinions in regard to training in virtue.

+

It is therefore not difficult to see that the young must be taught those useful arts that are indispensably necessary; but it is clear that they should not be taught all the useful arts, those pursuits that are liberal being kept distinct from those that are illiberal, and that they must participate in such among the useful arts as will not render the person who participates in them vulgar. A task and also an art or a science must be deemed vulgar if it renders the body or soul or mind of free men useless for the employments and actions of virtue. Hence we entitle vulgar all such arts as deteriorate the condition of the body, and also the industries that earn wages; for they make the mind preoccupied and degraded. And even with the liberal sciences, although it is notilliberal to take part in some of them up to a point, to devote oneself to them too assiduously and carefully is liable to have the injurious results specified. Also it makes much difference what object one has in view in a pursuit or study; if one follows it for the sake of oneself or one’s friends, or on moral grounds, it is not illiberal,but the man who follows the same pursuit because of other people would often appear to be acting in a menial and servile manner.

+

The branches of study at present established fall into both classes, as was said before.1.4. There are perhaps fourcustomary subjects of education, reading and writing, gymnastics, music, and fourth, with some people, drawing; reading and writing and drawing being taught as being useful for the purposes of life and very serviceable, and gymnastics as contributing to manly courage; but as to music, here one might raise a question. For at present most people take part in it for the sake of pleasure; but those, who originally included it in education did so because, as has often been said, nature itself seeks to be able not only to engage rightly in business but also to occupy leisure nobly; for—to speak about it yet againCf. Book 7, 1334a 2-10.—this is the first principle of all things. For if although both business and leisure are necessary, yet leisure is more desirable and more fully an end than business, we must inquire what is the proper occupation of leisure. For assuredly it should not be employed in play, since it would follow that play is our end in life. But if this is impossible, and sports should rather be employed in our times of business (for a man who is at work needs rest, and rest is the object of play, while business is accompanied by toil and exertion), it follows that in introducing sports we must watch the right opportunity for their employment, since we are applying them to serve as medicine; for the activity of play is a relaxation of the soul, and serves as recreation because of its pleasantness.

+ +
+

But leisure seems itself to contain pleasure and happiness and felicity of life. And this is not possessed by the busy but by the leisured; for the busy man busies himself for the sake of some end as not being in his possession, but happiness is an end achieved, which all men think is accompanied by pleasure and not by pain. But all men do not go on to define this pleasure in the same way, but according to their various natures and to their own characters, and the pleasure with which the best man thinks that happiness is conjoined is the best pleasure and the one arising from the noblest sources. So that it is clear that some subjects must be learnt and acquired merely with a view to the pleasure in their pursuit, and that these studies and these branches of learning are ends in themselves, while the forms of learning related to business are studied as necessary and as means to other things. Hence our predecessors included music in education not as a necessity (for there is nothing necessary about it), nor as useful (in the way in which reading and writing are useful for business and for household management and for acquiring learning and for many pursuits of civil life, while drawing also seems to be useful in making us better judges of the works of artists), nor yet again as we pursue gymnastics, for the sake of health and strength (for we do not see either of these things produced as a result of music); it remains therefore that it is useful as a pastime in leisure, which is evidently the purpose for which people actually introduce it, for they rank it as a form of pastime that they think proper for free men. For this reason Homer wrote thus: But him alone ’Tis meet to summon to the festal banquetThis line is not in our Odyssey, but apparently followed Hom. Od.17.383. The passage runs (382 ff.): τίς γὰρ δὴ ξεῖνον καλεῖ ἄλλοθεν αὐτὸς ἐπελθὼν ἄλλον γ’, εἰ μὴ τῶν οἳ δημιοεργοὶ ἔασι, μάντιν ἢ ἰητῆρα κακῶν ἢ τέκτονα δούρων, ἢ καὶ θέσπιν ἀοιδόν, ὅ κεν τέρπῃσιν ἀείδων; ; and after these words he speaks of certain others Who call the bard that he may gladden all.The fourth line quoted corresponds to this, but not exactly. And also in other verses Odysseus says that this is the best pastime, when, as men are enjoying good cheer, The banqueters, seated in order due Throughout the hall, may hear a minstrel sing. Hom. Od. 9.5-6.

+

+ It is clear therefore that there is a form of education in which boys should be trained not because it is useful or necessary but as being liberal and noble; though whether there is one such subject of education or several, and what these are and how they are to be pursued, must be discussed later,This promise is not fulfilled. but as it is we have made this much progress on the way, that we have some testimony even from the ancients, derived from the courses of education which they founded—for the point is proved by music. And it is also clear that some of the useful subjects as well ought to be studied by the young not only because of their utility, like the study of reading and writing, but also because they may lead on to many other branches of knowledge; and similarly they should study drawing not in order that they may not go wrong in their private purchases and may avoid being cheated in buying and selling furniture,

+ +
+

but rather because this study makes a man observant of bodily beauty; and to seek for utility everywhere is entirely unsuited to men that are great-souled and free. And since it is plain that education by habit must come before education by reason, and training of the body before training of the mind, it is clear from these considerations that the boys must be handed over to the care of the wrestling-master and the trainer; for the latter imparts a certain quality to the habit of the body and the former to its actions.

+

Now at the present time some of the states reputed to pay the greatest attention to children produce in them an athletic habiti.e. premature and disproportionate muscular development, directed to some particular competition. Cf. 1288b 12 ff. to the detriment of their bodily form and growth, while the Spartans although they have avoided this error yet make their boys animal in nature by their laborious exercises, in the belief that this is most contributory to manly courage. Yet, as has often been said, it is not right to regulate education with a view to one virtue only, or to this one most of all; indeed they do not even investigate the question whether this virtue is to be had in view at all. For neither in the lower animals nor in the case of foreign races do we see that courage goes with the wildest, but rather with the gentler and lion-like temperaments. Aristot. Hist. An. 629b 8 (the lion is gentle except when hungry); Plat. Soph. 231a (the dog the gentlest of animals). And there are manyforeign races inclined to murder and cannibalism, for example among the tribes of the Black Sea the Achaeans and Heniochi, and others of the mainland races, some in the same degree as those named and some more, which although piratical have got no share of manly courage. And again we know that even the Spartans, although so long as they persisted by themselves in their laborious exercises they surpassed all other peoples, now fall behind others both in gymnastic and in military contests; for they used not to excel because they exercised their young men in this fashion but only because they trained and their adversaries did not. Consequently honor and not animal ferocity should play the first part; for it is not a wolf nor one of the other wild animals that will venture upon any noble hazard, but rather a good man. But those who let boys pursue these hard exercises too much and turn them out untrained in necessary things in real truth render them vulgar, making them available for statesmanship to use for one task only, and even for this task training them worse than others do, as our argument proves. AndThis sentence would come better at the end of 3.4. we must not judge them from their former achievements but from the facts of today; for they have rivals in their education now, but they used to have none before.

+

It is therefore agreed that we should employ gymnastic training, and how we should employ it. For until pubertywe should apply lighter exercises, forbidding hard diet and severe exertions, in order that nothing may hinder the growth;

+ +
+

for there is no small proof that too severe training can produce this result in the fact that in the list of Olympic victors one would only find two or three persons who have won both as men and as boys, because when people go into training in youththe severe exercises rob them of their strength. But when they have spent three years after puberty upon their other studies, then it is suitable to occupy the next period of life with laborious exercises and strict training dieti.e. compulsion to eat very large rations of prescribed food—the Greek way of training.; for it is wrong to work hard with the mind and the body at the same time; for it is the nature of the two different sorts of exertion to produce opposite effects, bodily toil impeding the development of the mind and mental toil that of the body.

+

About music on the other hand we have previously raised some questions in the course of our argument, but it is well to take them up again and carry them further now, in order that this may give the key so to speak for the principles which one might advance in pronouncing about it. For it is not easy to say precisely what potency it possesses, nor yet for the sake of what object one should participate in it—whether for amusement and relaxation, as one indulges in sleep and deep drinking (for these in themselves are not serious pursuits but merely pleasant, and relax our care, as Euripides says Eur. Ba. 378 (Bromios) ὃς τάδ’ ἔχει, θιασεύειν τε χόροις μετά τ’ αὐλῶν γελᾶσαι ἀναπαῦσαί τε μερίμνας ; owing to which people actually class music with them andemploy all of these things, sleep, deep drinking and music, in the same way, and they also place dancing in the same class); + + or whether we ought rather to think that music tends in some degree to virtue (music being capable of producing a certain quality of character just as gymnastics are capable of producing a certain quality of body, music accustoming men to be able to rejoice rightly); or that it contributes something to intellectual entertainmentThe term διαγωγή, pastime, is idiomatically used of the pursuits of cultured leisure—serious conversation, music, the drama. and culture (for this must be set down as a third alternative among those mentioned). Now it is not difficult to see that one must not make amusement the object of the education of the young; for amusement does not go with learning—learning is a painful process. Nor yet moreover is it suitable to assign intellectual entertainment to boys and to the young; for a thing that is an end does not belong to anything that is imperfect. + + But perhaps it might be thought that the serious pursuits of boys are for the sake of amusement when they have grown up to be men. But, if something of this sort is the case, why should the young need to learn this accomplishment themselves, and not, like the Persian and Median kings, participate in the pleasure and the education of music by means of others performing it? for those who have made music a business and profession must necessarily perform better than those who practise only long enough to learn. But if it is proper for them to labor at accomplishments of this sort, then it would also be right for them to prepare the dishes of an elaborate cuisine; but this is absurd. + + And the same difficulty also arises as to the question whether learning music can improve their characters; for why should they learn to perform edifying music themselves,

+ +
+

instead of learning to enjoy it rightly and be able to judge it when they hear others performing, as the Spartans do? for the Spartans although they do not learn to perform can nevertheless judge good and bad music correctly, so it is said. And the same argument applies also if music is to be employed for refined enjoyment and entertainment; why need people learn to perform themselves instead of enjoying music played by others? + +And we may consider the conception that we have about the gods: Zeus does not sing and harp to the poets himself. But professional musicians we speak of as vulgar people, and indeed we think it not manly to perform music, except when drunk or for fun.

+

But perhaps these points will have to be considered afterwards; our first inquiry is whether music ought not or ought to be included in education, and what is its efficacy among the three uses of it that have been discussed—does it serve for education or amusement or entertainment? It is reasonable to reckon it under all of these heads, and it appears to participate in them all. Amusement is for the sake of relaxation, and relaxation must necessarily be pleasant, for it is a way of curing the pain due to laborious work; also entertainment ought admittedly to be not only honorable but also pleasant, for happiness is derived from both honor and pleasure;but we all pronounce music to be one of the pleasantest things, whether instrumental or instrumental and vocal music together (at least MusaeusA semi-legendary bard, to whom a number of oracular verses that were current were attributed. says, Song is man’s sweetest joy, and that is why people with good reason introduce it at parties and entertainments, for its exhilarating effect), so that for this reason also one might suppose that the younger men ought to be educated in music. For all harmless pleasures are not only suitable for the ultimate object but also for relaxation; and as it but rarely happens for men to reach their ultimate object, whereas they often relax and pursue amusement not so much with some ulterior object but because of the pleasure of it, it would be serviceable to let them relax at intervals in the pleasures derived from music. But it has come about that men make amusements an end; for the end also perhaps contains a certain pleasure, but not any ordinary pleasure, and seeking this they take the other as being this because it has a certain resemblance to the achievement of the end of their undertakings. For the end is desirable not for the sake of anything that will result from it, and also pleasures of the sort under consideration are not desirable for the sake of some future result, but because of things that have happened already, for instance labor and pain. One might then perhaps assume this to be the reason which causes men to seek to procure happiness by means of those pleasures; but in the case of taking part in music, this isnot because of this reason only, but also because performing music is useful, as it seems, for relaxation. But nevertheless we must examine whether it is not the case that, although this has come about,

+ +
+

yet the nature of music is more honorable than corresponds with the employment of it mentioned, and it is proper not only to participate in the common pleasure that springs from it, which is perceptible to everybody (for the pleasure contained in music is of a natural kind, owing to which the use of it is dear to those of all ages and characters), but to see if its influence reachesalso in a manner to the character and to the soul. And this would clearly be the case if we are affected in our characters in a certain manner by it. But it is clear that we are affected in a certain manner, both by many other kinds of music and not least by the melodies of OlympusA Phrygian composer of the seventh century B.C.; for these admittedly make our souls enthusiastic, and enthusiasm is an affection of the character of the soul. And moreover everybody when listening to imitationsMusic dramatically expressing various states of emotion. is thrown into a corresponding state of feeling, even apart from the rhythms and tunes themselves.A probable correction of the Greek gives by the rhythms and tunes themselves, even apart from the words. And since it is the case that music is one of the things that give pleasure, and that virtue has to do with feeling delight and love and hatred rightly, there is obviously nothing that it is more needful to learn and become habituated to than to judge correctly and to delight in virtuous characters and noble actions; but rhythms and melodies contain representations of angerand mildness, and also of courage and temperance and all their opposites and the other moral qualities, that most closely correspond to the true natures of these qualities (and this is clear from the facts of what occurs—when we listen to such representations we change in our soul); and habituation in feeling pain and delight at representations of reality is close to feeling them towards actual reality (for example, if a man delights in beholding the statue of somebody for no other reason than because of its actual form, the actual sight of the person whose statue he beholds must also of necessity give him pleasure); and it is the case that whereas the other objects of sensation contain no representation of character, for example the objects of touch and taste (though the objects of sight do so slightly, for there are forms that represent character, but only to a small extent, and notNot is a conjectural insertion. all men participate in visual perception of such qualities; also visual works of art are not representations of character but rather the forms and colors produced are mere indications of character, and these indications are only bodily sensations during the emotions; not but what in so far as there is a difference even in regard to the observation of these indications,i.e. these visual impressions do vary to some extent in moral effect. the young must not look at the works of Pauson but those of Polygnotus,Pauson is a painter otherwise little known. Polygnotus decorated the Stoa Poikile and other famous public buildings at Athens, in the middle of the 5th century B.C. Polygnotus represented men as better than they really were, Pauson as worse (Aristot. Poet. 1448a 5). and of any other moral painter or sculptor), pieces of music on the contrary do actually contain in them selves imitations of character; and this is manifest, for even in the nature of the mere melodies there are differences, so that people when hearing them are affected differently and have not the same feelings in regard to each of them, but listen to some in a more mournful and restrained state,

+ +
+

for instance the mode called Mixolydian, and to others in a softer state of mind, but in a midway state and with the greatest composure to another, as the Dorian mode alone of tunes seems to act, while the Phrygian makes men enthusiastic; for these things are well stated by those who have studied this form of education, as they derive the evidence for their theories from the actual facts of experience. And the same holds good about the rhythms also, for some have a more stable and others a more emotional character, and of the latter some are more vulgar in their emotional effects and others more liberal. From these considerations therefore it is plain that music has the power of producing a certain effect on the moral character of the soul, and if it has the power to do this, it is clear that the young must be directed to music and must be educated in it. Also education in music is well adapted to the youthful nature; for the young owing to their youth cannot endure any thing not sweetened by pleasure, and music is by nature a thing that has a pleasant sweetness. And we seem to have a certain affinity with tunes and rhythms; owing to which many wise men say either that the soul is a harmony or that it has harmony.The former doctrine is Pythagorean, the latter is stated by Plat. Phaedo 93.

+

We ought now to decide the question raised earlier, whether theyoung ought to learn music by singing and playing themselves or not. It is not difficult to see that it makes a great difference in the process of acquiring a certain quality whether one takes a part in the actions that impart it oneself; for it is a thing that is impossible, or difficult, to become a good judge of performances if one has not taken part in them. At the same time also boys must have some occupation, and one must think Archytas’s rattleArchytas a Pythagorean philosopher, mathematician, statesman, and general of Tarentum, contemporary with Plato. He was interested in mechanics; but one tradition ascribes the toy in question to a carpenter of the same name. a good invention, which people give to children in order that while occupied with this they may not break any of the furniture; for young things cannot keep still. Whereas then a rattle is a suitable occupation for infant children, education serves as a rattle for young people when older. Such considerations therefore prove that children should be trained in music so as actually to take part in its performance; and it is not difficult to distinguish what is suitable and unsuitable for various ages, and to refute those who assert that the practice of music is vulgar. For first, inasmuch as it is necessary to take part in the performances for the sake of judging them, it is therefore proper for the pupils when young actually to engage in the performances, though when they get older they should be released from performing, but be able to judge what is beautiful and enjoy it rightly because of the study in which they engaged in their youth. Then as to the objection raised by some people that music makes peoplevulgar, it is not difficult to solve it by considering how far pupils who are being educated with a view to civic virtue should take part in the actual performance of music,

+ +
+

and in what times and what rhythms they should take part, and also what kinds of instruments should be used in their studies, as this naturally makes a difference. For the solution of the objection depends upon these points, as it is quite possible that some modes of music do produce the result mentioned. It is manifest therefore that the study of music must not place a hindrance in the way of subsequent activities, nor vulgarize the bodily frame and make it useless for the exercises of the soldier and the citizen, either for their practical pursuit now or for their scientific study later on.It is difficult not to think that either the nouns or the adverbs in the Greek have been erroneously transposed, and that we should translate either for learning them now or for practising them later on. And this would come about in respect of their study if the pupils did not go on toiling at the exercises that aim at professional competitions, nor the wonderful and elaborate performances which have now entered into the competitions and have passed from the competitions into education, but also only practised exercises not of that sort until they are able to enjoy beautiful tunes and rhythms, and not merely the charm common to all music, which even some lower animals enjoy, as well as a multitude of slaves and children. And it is also clear from these considerations what sort of instruments they should use. Flutes must not be introduced into education, nor any other professional instrument, such as the harp or any other of that sort, butsuch instruments as will make them attentive pupils either at their musical training or in their other lessons. Moreover the flute is not a moralizing but rather an exciting influence, so that it ought to be used for occasions of the kind at which attendance has the effect of purification rather than instruction.See 1341a 33 ff. And let us add that the flute happens to possess the additional property telling against its use in education that playing it prevents the employment of speech. Hence former ages rightly rejected its use by the young and the free, although at first they had employed it. For as they came to have more leisure because of their wealth and grew more high-spirited and valorous, both at a still earlier date and because after the Persian Wars they were filled with pride as a result of their achievements, they began to engage in all branches of learning, making no distinction but pursuing research further. Because of this they even included flute-playing among their studies; for in Sparta a certain chorus-leader played the flute to his chorus himself,A wealthy citizen who undertook the duty of equipping and training a chorus for a religious celebration (especially the production of a drama at Athens) usually had an assistant of lower station to supply the instrumental music. The office of choregus is not elsewhere referred to as existing at Sparta. and at Athens it became so fashionable that almost the majority of freemen went in for flute-playing, as is shown by the tablet erected by Thrasippus after having provided the chorus for Ecphantides.Ecphantides was one of the earliest comic poets; Thrasippus is not elsewhere recorded. Who the flute-player was is unknown. But later on it came to be disapproved of as a result of actual experience, when men were more capable of judging what music conduced to virtue and what did not; and similarly also many of the old instruments were disapproved of, like the pectis and the barbitosThese were old-fashioned forms of the lyre. and the instruments designed to give pleasure to those who hear people playing them,A possible emendation of the Greek gives those who listen to their modulations. the septangle, the triangle and the sambyc,Three different stringed instruments, the last having four strings stretched in a triangular frame.

+ +
+

and all the instruments that require manual skill. And indeed there is a reasonable foundation for the story that was told by the ancients about the flute. The tale goes that Athena found a flute and threw it away. Now it is not a bad point in the story that the goddess did this out of annoyance because of the ugly distortion of her features; but as a matter of fact it is more likely that it was because education in flute-playing has no effect on the intelligence, whereas we attribute science and art to Athena.

+

And since we reject professional education in the instruments and in performanceThe Greek should probably be altered to give reject, some instruments and professional education in performance. (and we count performance in competitions as professional, for the performer does not take part in it for his own improvement, but for his hearers’ pleasure, and that a vulgar pleasure, owing to which we do not consider performing to be proper for free men, but somewhat menial; and indeed performers do become vulgar, since the object at which they aim is a low one, as vulgarity in the audience usually influences the music, so that it imparts to the artists who practise it with a view to suit the audience a special kind of personality, and also of bodily frame because of the movements required)— we must therefore give some consideration to tunes and rhythms,and to the question whether for educational purposes we must employ all the tunes and all the rhythms or make distinctions; and next, whether for those who are working at music for education we shall lay down the same regulation, or ought we to establish some other third one (inasmuch as we see that the factors in music are melody and rhythm, and it is important to notice what influence each of these has upon education), and whether we are to prefer music with a good melody or music with a good rhythm. Now we consider that much is well said on these matters by some of the musicians of the present day and by some of those engaged in philosophy who happen to be experienced in musical education, and we will abandon the precise discussion as to each of these matters for any who wish it to seek it from those teachers, while for the present let us lay down general principles, merely stating the outlines of the subjects. And since we accept the classification of melodies made by some philosophers, as ethical melodies, melodies of action, and passionate melodies,i.e. representative of character, of action and of emotion. distributing the various harmonies among these classes as being in nature akin to one or the other, and as we say that music ought to be employed not for the purpose of one benefit that it confers but on account of several (for it serves the purpose both of education and of purgation—the term purgation we use for the present without explanation, but we will return to discuss the meaning that we give to it more explicitly in our treatise on poetryIn Aristot. Poet. 6 tragedy is said to purge the emotion of pity and fear by giving them an outlet; the reference here is probably to the lost Second Book of Poetics.—and thirdly it serves for amusement, serving to relax our tension and to give rest from it),

+ +
+

it is clear that we should employ all the harmonies, yet not employ them all in the same way, but use the most ethical ones for education, and the active and passionate kinds for listening to when others are performing (for any experience that occurs violently in some souls is found in all, though with different degrees of intensity—for example pity and fear, and also religious excitement; for some persons are very liable to this form of emotion, and under the influence of sacred music we see these people, when they use tunes that violently arouse the soul, being thrown into a state as if they had received medicinal treatment and taken a purge; the same experience then must come also to the compassionate and the timid and the other emotional people generally in such degree as befalls each individual of these classes, and all must undergo a purgation and a pleasant feeling of relief; and similarly also the purgative melodies afford harmless delight to people). Therefore those who go in for theatrical music must be set to compete in harmonies and melodies of this kind (and since the audience is of two classes, one freemen and educated people, and the otherthe vulgar class composed of mechanics and laborers and other such persons, the latter sort also must be assigned competitions and shows for relaxation; and just as their souls are warped from the natural state, so those harmonies and melodies that are highly strung and irregular in colorationSaid to mean divergent from the regular scale in having smaller intervals. are deviations, but people of each sort receive pleasure from what is naturally suited to them, owing to which the competitors before an audience of this sort must be allowed to employ some such kind of music as this); but for education, as has been said,1342a 2. the ethical class of melodies and of harmonies must be employed. And of that nature is the Dorian mode, as we said before1343b 3 ff.; but we must also accept any other mode that those who take part in the pursuit of philosophy and in musical education may recommend to us. Socrates in the Republic Plat. Rep. 399a does not do well in allowing only the Phrygian mode along with the Dorian, and that when he has rejected the flute among instruments;

+ +
+

for the Phrygian mode has the same effect among harmonies as the flute among instruments—both are violently exciting and emotional. This is shown by poetry; for all Bacchiac versification and all movement of that sortOr perhaps βακχεία and κίνησις denote bodily movement accompanying the song; or they may denote the emotional frenzy expressed and stimulated by it. The dithyramb was a form of poetry of this class, originally celebrating the birth of Dionysus. Philoxenus, one of the most famous dithyrambic poets, 435-380 B.C., lived at Athens, and later at the court of Dionysius of Syracuse. belongs particularly to the flute among the instruments, and these meters find their suitable accompaniment in tunes in the Phrygian mode among the harmonies: for example the dithyramb is admittedly held to be a Phrygian meter, and the experts on this subject adduce many instances to prove this, particularly the fact that Philoxenus when he attempted to compose a dithyramb, The Mysians, in the Dorian mode was unable to do so, but merely by the force of nature fell back again into the suitable harmony, the Phrygian. And all agree that the Dorian mode is more sedate and of a specially manly character. Moreover since we praise and say that we ought to pursue the mean between extremes, and the Dorian mode has this nature in relation to the other harmonies, it is clear that it suits the younger pupils to be educated rather in the Dorian melodies. But there are two objects to aim at, the possible as well as the suitable; for we are bound rather to attempt the things that are possible and those that are suitable for the particular class of people concerned;and in these matters also there are dividing lines drawn by the ages—for instance, those whose powers have waned through lapse of time cannot easily sing the highly strung harmonies, but to persons of that age nature suggests the relaxed harmonies. Therefore some musical experts also rightly criticize Socrates Plat. Rep. 338e because he disapproved of the relaxed harmonies for amusement, taking them to have the character of intoxication, not in the sense of the effect of strong drink, for that clearly has more the result of making men frenzied revellers, but as failing in power. Hence even with a view to the period of life that is to follow, that of the comparatively old, it is proper to engage in the harmonies and melodies of this kind too, and also any kind of harmony that is suited to the age of boyhood because it is capable of being at once decorous and educative, which seems to be the nature of the Lydian mode most of all the harmonies. It is clear therefore that we should lay down these three canons to guide education, moderation, possibility and suitability.

+ + + diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml index 81ae5544f..b8cb61a5c 100644 --- a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml +++ b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml @@ -92,29 +92,29 @@

ἐπειδὴ πᾶσαν πόλιν ὁρῶμεν κοινωνίαν τινὰ οὖσαν καὶ πᾶσαν κοινωνίαν ἀγαθοῦ τινος ἕνεκεν συνεστηκυῖαν (τοῦ γὰρ εἶναι δοκοῦντος ἀγαθοῦ χάριν πάντα πράττουσι πάντες), δῆλον ὡς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγαθοῦ τινος στοχάζονται, μάλιστα δὲ καὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου πάντων ἡ πασῶν κυριωτάτη καὶ πάσας περιέχουσα τὰς ἄλλας. αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ καλουμένη πόλις καὶ ἡ κοινωνία ἡ πολιτική. ὅσοι μὲν οὖν οἴονται πολιτικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν καὶ οἰκονομικὸν καὶ δεσποτικὸν εἶναι τὸν αὐτὸν οὐ καλῶς λέγουσιν (πλήθει γὰρ καὶ ὀλιγότητι νομίζουσι διαφέρειν ἀλλʼ οὐκ εἴδει τούτων ἕκαστον, οἷον ἂν μὲν ὀλίγων, δεσπότην, ἂν δὲ πλειόνων, οἰκονόμον, ἂν δʼ ἔτι πλειόνων, πολιτικὸν ἢ βασιλικόν, ὡς οὐδὲν διαφέρουσαν μεγάλην οἰκίαν ἢ μικρὰν πόλιν· καὶ πολιτικὸν δὲ καὶ βασιλικόν, ὅταν μὲν αὐτὸς ἐφεστήκῃ, βασιλικόν, ὅταν δὲ κατὰ τοὺς λόγους τῆς ἐπιστήμης τῆς τοιαύτης κατὰ μέρος ἄρχων καὶ ἀρχόμενος, πολιτικόν· ταῦτα δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθῆ)· δῆλον δʼ ἔσται τὸ λεγόμενον ἐπισκοποῦσι κατὰ τὴν ὑφηγημένην μέθοδον. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις τὸ σύνθετον μέχρι τῶν ἀσυνθέτων ἀνάγκη διαιρεῖν (ταῦτα γὰρ ἐλάχιστα μόρια τοῦ παντός), οὕτω καὶ πόλιν ἐξ ὧν σύγκειται σκοποῦντες ὀψόμεθα καὶ περὶ τούτων μᾶλλον, τί τε διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων καὶ εἴ τι τεχνικὸν ἐνδέχεται λαβεῖν περὶ ἕκαστον τῶν ῥηθέντων.

-

εἰ δή τις ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ πράγματα φυόμενα βλέψειεν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις, καὶ ἐν τούτοις κάλλιστʼ ἂν οὕτω θεωρήσειεν. ἀνάγκη δὴ πρῶτον συνδυάζεσθαι τοὺς ἄνευ ἀλλήλων μὴ δυναμένους εἶναι, οἷον θῆλυ μὲν καὶ ἄρρεν τῆς γενέσεως ἕνεκεν (καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐκ προαιρέσεως, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις καὶ φυτοῖς φυσικὸν τὸ ἐφίεσθαι, οἷον αὐτό, τοιοῦτον καταλιπεῖν ἕτερον), ἄρχον δὲ καὶ ἀρχόμενον φύσει, διὰ τὴν σωτηρίαν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ δυνάμενον τῇ διανοίᾳ προορᾶν ἄρχον φύσει καὶ δεσπόζον φύσει, τὸ δὲ δυνάμενον τῷ σώματι ταῦτα πονεῖν ἀρχόμενον καὶ φύσει δοῦλον· διὸ δεσπότῃ καὶ δούλῳ ταὐτὸ συμφέρει. φύσει μὲν οὖν διώρισται τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ δοῦλον (οὐθὲν γὰρ ἡ φύσις ποιεῖ τοιοῦτον οἷον οἱ χαλκοτύποι τὴν Δελφικὴν μάχαιραν, πενιχρῶς, ἀλλʼ ἓν πρὸς ἕν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἀποτελοῖτο κάλλιστα τῶν ὀργάνων ἕκαστον, μὴ πολλοῖς ἔργοις ἀλλʼ ἑνὶ δουλεῦον)· ἐν δὲ τοῖς βαρβάροις τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ δοῦλον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει τάξιν. αἴτιον δʼ ὅτι τὸ φύσει ἄρχον οὐκ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ γίνεται ἡ κοινωνία αὐτῶν δούλης καὶ δούλου. διό φασιν οἱ ποιηταὶ βαρβάρων δʼ Ἕλληνας ἄρχειν εἰκός, Eur. IA 1400 ὡς ταὐτὸ φύσει βάρβαρον καὶ δοῦλον ὄν. ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων τῶν δύο κοινωνιῶν οἰκία πρώτη, καὶ ὀρθῶς Ἡσίοδος εἶπε ποιήσας οἶκον μὲν πρώτιστα γυναῖκά τε βοῦν τʼ ἀροτῆρα· Hes. WD 405 ὁ γὰρ βοῦς ἀντʼ οἰκέτου τοῖς πένησίν ἐστιν. ἡ μὲν οὖν εἰς πᾶσαν ἡμέραν συνεστηκυῖα κοινωνία κατὰ φύσιν οἶκός ἐστιν, οὓς Χαρώνδας μὲν καλεῖ ὁμοσιπύους, Ἐπιμενίδης δὲ ὁ Κρὴς ὁμοκάπους· ἡ δʼ ἐκ πλειόνων οἰκιῶν κοινωνία πρώτη χρήσεως ἕνεκεν μὴ ἐφημέρου κώμη. μάλιστα δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἔοικεν ἡ κώμη ἀποικία οἰκίας εἶναι, οὓς καλοῦσί τινες ὁμογάλακτας, παῖδάς τε καὶ παίδων παῖδας. διὸ καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἐβασιλεύοντο αἱ πόλεις, καὶ νῦν ἔτι τὰ ἔθνη· ἐκ βασιλευομένων γὰρ συνῆλθον· πᾶσα γὰρ οἰκία βασιλεύεται ὑπὸ τοῦ πρεσβυτάτου, ὥστε καὶ αἱ ἀποικίαι, διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν. καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ὃ λέγει Ὅμηρος θεμιστεύει δὲ ἕκαστος παίδων ἠδʼ ἀλόχων. Hom. Od. 9.114 σποράδες γάρ· καὶ οὕτω τὸ ἀρχαῖον ᾤκουν. καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς δὲ διὰ τοῦτο πάντες φασὶ βασιλεύεσθαι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ μὲν ἔτι καὶ νῦν οἱ δὲ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐβασιλεύοντο, ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη ἑαυτοῖς ἀφομοιοῦσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς βίους τῶν θεῶν.

-

ἡ δʼ ἐκ πλειόνων κωμῶν κοινωνία τέλειος πόλις, ἤδη πάσης ἔχουσα πέρας τῆς αὐταρκείας ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, γινομένη μὲν τοῦ ζῆν ἕνεκεν, οὖσα δὲ τοῦ εὖ ζῆν. διὸ πᾶσα πόλις φύσει ἔστιν, εἴπερ καὶ αἱ πρῶται κοινωνίαι. τέλος γὰρ αὕτη ἐκείνων, ἡ δὲ φύσις τέλος ἐστίν· οἷον γὰρ ἕκαστόν ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθείσης, ταύτην φαμὲν τὴν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου ἵππου οἰκίας. ἔτι τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα καὶ τὸ τέλος βέλτιστον· ἡ δʼ αὐτάρκεια καὶ τέλος καὶ βέλτιστον. ἐκ τούτων οὖν φανερὸν ὅτι τῶν φύσει ἡ πόλις ἐστί, καὶ ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον, καὶ ὁ ἄπολις διὰ φύσιν καὶ οὐ διὰ τύχην ἤτοι φαῦλός ἐστιν, ἢ κρείττων ἢ ἄνθρωπος· ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ ὑφʼ Ὁμήρου λοιδορηθεὶς ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιος· Hom. Il. 9.63 ἅμα γὰρ φύσει τοιοῦτος καὶ πολέμου ἐπιθυμητής, ἅτε περ ἄζυξ ὢν ὥσπερ ἐν πεττοῖς. διότι δὲ πολιτικὸν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ζῷον πάσης μελίττης καὶ παντὸς ἀγελαίου ζῴου μᾶλλον, δῆλον. οὐθὲν γάρ, ὡς φαμέν, μάτην ἡ φύσις ποιεῖ· λόγον δὲ μόνον ἄνθρωπος ἔχει τῶν ζῴων· ἡ μὲν οὖν φωνὴ τοῦ λυπηροῦ καὶ ἡδέος ἐστὶ σημεῖον, διὸ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑπάρχει ζῴοις (μέχρι γὰρ τούτου ἡ φύσις αὐτῶν ἐλήλυθε, τοῦ ἔχειν αἴσθησιν λυπηροῦ καὶ ἡδέος καὶ ταῦτα σημαίνειν ἀλλήλοις), ὁ δὲ λόγος ἐπὶ τῷ δηλοῦν ἐστι τὸ συμφέρον καὶ τὸ βλαβερόν, ὥστε καὶ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ ἄδικον· τοῦτο γὰρ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἴδιον, τὸ μόνον ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ καὶ δικαίου καὶ ἀδίκου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἴσθησιν ἔχειν· ἡ δὲ τούτων κοινωνία ποιεῖ οἰκίαν καὶ πόλιν. καὶ πρότερον δὲ τῇ φύσει πόλις ἢ οἰκία καὶ ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἐστιν. τὸ γὰρ ὅλον πρότερον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ μέρους· ἀναιρουμένου γὰρ τοῦ ὅλου οὐκ ἔσται ποὺς οὐδὲ χείρ, εἰ μὴ ὁμωνύμως, ὥσπερ εἴ τις λέγοι τὴν λιθίνην (διαφθαρεῖσα γὰρ ἔσται τοιαύτη), πάντα δὲ τῷ ἔργῳ ὥρισται καὶ τῇ δυνάμει, ὥστε μηκέτι τοιαῦτα ὄντα οὐ λεκτέον τὰ αὐτὰ εἶναι ἀλλʼ ὁμώνυμα. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἡ πόλις καὶ φύσει πρότερον ἢ ἕκαστος, δῆλον· εἰ γὰρ μὴ αὐτάρκης ἕκαστος χωρισθείς, ὁμοίως τοῖς ἄλλοις μέρεσιν ἕξει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, ὁ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενος κοινωνεῖν ἢ μηδὲν δεόμενος διʼ αὐτάρκειαν οὐθὲν μέρος πόλεως, ὥστε ἢ θηρίον ἢ θεός.

+

εἰ δή τις ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ πράγματα φυόμενα βλέψειεν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις, καὶ ἐν τούτοις κάλλιστʼ ἂν οὕτω θεωρήσειεν. ἀνάγκη δὴ πρῶτον συνδυάζεσθαι τοὺς ἄνευ ἀλλήλων μὴ δυναμένους εἶναι, οἷον θῆλυ μὲν καὶ ἄρρεν τῆς γενέσεως ἕνεκεν (καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐκ προαιρέσεως, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις καὶ φυτοῖς φυσικὸν τὸ ἐφίεσθαι, οἷον αὐτό, τοιοῦτον καταλιπεῖν ἕτερον), ἄρχον δὲ καὶ ἀρχόμενον φύσει, διὰ τὴν σωτηρίαν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ δυνάμενον τῇ διανοίᾳ προορᾶν ἄρχον φύσει καὶ δεσπόζον φύσει, τὸ δὲ δυνάμενον τῷ σώματι ταῦτα πονεῖν ἀρχόμενον καὶ φύσει δοῦλον· διὸ δεσπότῃ καὶ δούλῳ ταὐτὸ συμφέρει. φύσει μὲν οὖν διώρισται τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ δοῦλον (οὐθὲν γὰρ ἡ φύσις ποιεῖ τοιοῦτον οἷον οἱ χαλκοτύποι τὴν Δελφικὴν μάχαιραν, πενιχρῶς, ἀλλʼ ἓν πρὸς ἕν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἀποτελοῖτο κάλλιστα τῶν ὀργάνων ἕκαστον, μὴ πολλοῖς ἔργοις ἀλλʼ ἑνὶ δουλεῦον)· ἐν δὲ τοῖς βαρβάροις τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ δοῦλον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει τάξιν. αἴτιον δʼ ὅτι τὸ φύσει ἄρχον οὐκ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ γίνεται ἡ κοινωνία αὐτῶν δούλης καὶ δούλου. διό φασιν οἱ ποιηταὶ βαρβάρων δʼ Ἕλληνας ἄρχειν εἰκός, Eur. IA 1400 ὡς ταὐτὸ φύσει βάρβαρον καὶ δοῦλον ὄν. ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων τῶν δύο κοινωνιῶν οἰκία πρώτη, καὶ ὀρθῶς Ἡσίοδος εἶπε ποιήσας οἶκον μὲν πρώτιστα γυναῖκά τε βοῦν τʼ ἀροτῆρα· Hes. WD 405 ὁ γὰρ βοῦς ἀντʼ οἰκέτου τοῖς πένησίν ἐστιν. ἡ μὲν οὖν εἰς πᾶσαν ἡμέραν συνεστηκυῖα κοινωνία κατὰ φύσιν οἶκός ἐστιν, οὓς Χαρώνδας μὲν καλεῖ ὁμοσιπύους, Ἐπιμενίδης δὲ ὁ Κρὴς ὁμοκάπους· ἡ δʼ ἐκ πλειόνων οἰκιῶν κοινωνία πρώτη χρήσεως ἕνεκεν μὴ ἐφημέρου κώμη. μάλιστα δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἔοικεν ἡ κώμη ἀποικία οἰκίας εἶναι, οὓς καλοῦσί τινες ὁμογάλακτας, παῖδάς τε καὶ παίδων παῖδας. διὸ καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἐβασιλεύοντο αἱ πόλεις, καὶ νῦν ἔτι τὰ ἔθνη· ἐκ βασιλευομένων γὰρ συνῆλθον· πᾶσα γὰρ οἰκία βασιλεύεται ὑπὸ τοῦ πρεσβυτάτου, ὥστε καὶ αἱ ἀποικίαι, διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν. καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ὃ λέγει Ὅμηρος θεμιστεύει δὲ ἕκαστος παίδων ἠδʼ ἀλόχων. Hom. Od. 9.114 σποράδες γάρ· καὶ οὕτω τὸ ἀρχαῖον ᾤκουν. καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς δὲ διὰ τοῦτο πάντες φασὶ βασιλεύεσθαι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ μὲν ἔτι καὶ νῦν οἱ δὲ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐβασιλεύοντο, ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη ἑαυτοῖς ἀφομοιοῦσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς βίους τῶν θεῶν.

+

ἡ δʼ ἐκ πλειόνων κωμῶν κοινωνία τέλειος πόλις, ἤδη πάσης ἔχουσα πέρας τῆς αὐταρκείας ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, γινομένη μὲν τοῦ ζῆν ἕνεκεν, οὖσα δὲ τοῦ εὖ ζῆν. διὸ πᾶσα πόλις φύσει ἔστιν, εἴπερ καὶ αἱ πρῶται κοινωνίαι. τέλος γὰρ αὕτη ἐκείνων, ἡ δὲ φύσις τέλος ἐστίν· οἷον γὰρ ἕκαστόν ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθείσης, ταύτην φαμὲν τὴν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου ἵππου οἰκίας. ἔτι τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα καὶ τὸ τέλος βέλτιστον· ἡ δʼ αὐτάρκεια καὶ τέλος καὶ βέλτιστον. ἐκ τούτων οὖν φανερὸν ὅτι τῶν φύσει ἡ πόλις ἐστί, καὶ ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον, καὶ ὁ ἄπολις διὰ φύσιν καὶ οὐ διὰ τύχην ἤτοι φαῦλός ἐστιν, ἢ κρείττων ἢ ἄνθρωπος· ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ ὑφʼ Ὁμήρου λοιδορηθεὶς ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιος· Hom. Il. 9.63 ἅμα γὰρ φύσει τοιοῦτος καὶ πολέμου ἐπιθυμητής, ἅτε περ ἄζυξ ὢν ὥσπερ ἐν πεττοῖς. διότι δὲ πολιτικὸν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ζῷον πάσης μελίττης καὶ παντὸς ἀγελαίου ζῴου μᾶλλον, δῆλον. οὐθὲν γάρ, ὡς φαμέν, μάτην ἡ φύσις ποιεῖ· λόγον δὲ μόνον ἄνθρωπος ἔχει τῶν ζῴων· ἡ μὲν οὖν φωνὴ τοῦ λυπηροῦ καὶ ἡδέος ἐστὶ σημεῖον, διὸ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑπάρχει ζῴοις (μέχρι γὰρ τούτου ἡ φύσις αὐτῶν ἐλήλυθε, τοῦ ἔχειν αἴσθησιν λυπηροῦ καὶ ἡδέος καὶ ταῦτα σημαίνειν ἀλλήλοις), ὁ δὲ λόγος ἐπὶ τῷ δηλοῦν ἐστι τὸ συμφέρον καὶ τὸ βλαβερόν, ὥστε καὶ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ ἄδικον· τοῦτο γὰρ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἴδιον, τὸ μόνον ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ καὶ δικαίου καὶ ἀδίκου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἴσθησιν ἔχειν· ἡ δὲ τούτων κοινωνία ποιεῖ οἰκίαν καὶ πόλιν. καὶ πρότερον δὲ τῇ φύσει πόλις ἢ οἰκία καὶ ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἐστιν. τὸ γὰρ ὅλον πρότερον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ μέρους· ἀναιρουμένου γὰρ τοῦ ὅλου οὐκ ἔσται ποὺς οὐδὲ χείρ, εἰ μὴ ὁμωνύμως, ὥσπερ εἴ τις λέγοι τὴν λιθίνην (διαφθαρεῖσα γὰρ ἔσται τοιαύτη), πάντα δὲ τῷ ἔργῳ ὥρισται καὶ τῇ δυνάμει, ὥστε μηκέτι τοιαῦτα ὄντα οὐ λεκτέον τὰ αὐτὰ εἶναι ἀλλʼ ὁμώνυμα. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἡ πόλις καὶ φύσει πρότερον ἢ ἕκαστος, δῆλον· εἰ γὰρ μὴ αὐτάρκης ἕκαστος χωρισθείς, ὁμοίως τοῖς ἄλλοις μέρεσιν ἕξει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, ὁ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενος κοινωνεῖν ἢ μηδὲν δεόμενος διʼ αὐτάρκειαν οὐθὲν μέρος πόλεως, ὥστε ἢ θηρίον ἢ θεός.

φύσει μὲν οὖν ἡ ὁρμὴ ἐν πᾶσιν ἐπὶ τὴν τοιαύτην κοινωνίαν· ὁ δὲ πρῶτος συστήσας μεγίστων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιος. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τελεωθὲν βέλτιστον τῶν ζῴων ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ χωρισθεὶς νόμου καὶ δίκης χείριστον πάντων. χαλεπωτάτη γὰρ ἀδικία ἔχουσα ὅπλα· ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ὅπλα ἔχων φύεται φρονήσει καὶ ἀρετῇ, οἷς ἐπὶ τἀναντία ἔστι χρῆσθαι μάλιστα. διὸ ἀνοσιώτατον καὶ ἀγριώτατον ἄνευ ἀρετῆς, καὶ πρὸς ἀφροδίσια καὶ ἐδωδὴν χείριστον. ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη πολιτικόν· ἡ γὰρ δίκη πολιτικῆς κοινωνίας τάξις ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη τοῦ δικαίου κρίσις.

ἐπεὶ δὲ φανερὸν ἐξ ὧν μορίων ἡ πόλις συνέστηκεν, ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον περὶ οἰκονομίας εἰπεῖν· πᾶσα γὰρ σύγκειται πόλις ἐξ οἰκιῶν. οἰκονομίας δὲ μέρη ἐξ ὧν πάλιν οἰκία συνέστηκεν· οἰκία δὲ τέλειος ἐκ δούλων καὶ ἐλευθέρων. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐν τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις πρῶτον ἕκαστον ζητητέον, πρῶτα δὲ καὶ ἐλάχιστα μέρη οἰκίας δεσπότης καὶ δοῦλος, καὶ πόσις καὶ ἄλοχος, καὶ πατὴρ καὶ τέκνα, περὶ τριῶν ἂν τούτων σκεπτέον εἴη τί ἕκαστον καὶ ποῖον δεῖ εἶναι. ταῦτα δʼ ἐστὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ γαμική (ἀνώνυμον γὰρ ἡ γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρὸς σύζευξις) καὶ τρίτον τεκνοποιητική (καὶ γὰρ αὕτη οὐκ ὠνόμασται ἰδίῳ ὀνόματι). ἔστωσαν δὴ αὗται τρεῖς ἃς εἴπομεν. ἔστι δέ τι μέρος ὃ δοκεῖ τοῖς μὲν εἶναι οἰκονομία, τοῖς δὲ μέγιστον μέρος αὐτῆς· ὅπως δʼ ἔχει, θεωρητέον· λέγω δὲ περὶ τῆς καλουμένης χρηματιστικῆς. πρῶτον δὲ περὶ δεσπότου καὶ δούλου εἴπωμεν, ἵνα τά τε πρὸς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν χρείαν ἴδωμεν, κἂν εἴ τι πρὸς τὸ εἰδέναι περὶ αὐτῶν δυναίμεθα λαβεῖν βέλτιον τῶν νῦν ὑπολαμβανομένων. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ ἐπιστήμη τέ τις εἶναι ἡ δεσποτεία, καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ οἰκονομία καὶ δεσποτεία καὶ πολιτικὴ καὶ βασιλική, καθάπερ εἴπομεν ἀρχόμενοι· τοῖς δὲ παρὰ φύσιν τὸ δεσπόζειν (νόμῳ γὰρ τὸν μὲν δοῦλον εἶναι τὸν δʼ ἐλεύθερον, φύσει δʼ οὐθὲν διαφέρειν)· διόπερ οὐδὲ δίκαιον· βίαιον γάρ.

ἐπεὶ οὖν ἡ κτῆσις μέρος τῆς οἰκίας ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ κτητικὴ μέρος τῆς οἰκονομίας (ἄνευ γὰρ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀδύνατον καὶ ζῆν καὶ εὖ ζῆν), ὥσπερ δὲ ταῖς ὡρισμέναις τέχναις ἀναγκαῖον ἂν εἴη ὑπάρχειν τὰ οἰκεῖα ὄργανα, εἰ μέλλει ἀποτελεσθήσεσθαι τὸ ἔργον, οὕτω καὶ τῷ οἰκονομικῷ. τῶν δʼ ὀργάνων τὰ μὲν ἄψυχα τὰ δὲ ἔμψυχα (οἷον τῷ κυβερνήτῃ ὁ μὲν οἴαξ ἄψυχον ὁ δὲ πρῳρεὺς ἔμψυχον· ὁ γὰρ ὑπηρέτης ἐν ὀργάνου εἴδει ταῖς τέχναις ἐστίν)· οὕτω καὶ τὸ κτῆμα ὄργανον πρὸς ζωήν ἐστι, καὶ ἡ κτῆσις πλῆθος ὀργάνων ἐστί, καὶ ὁ δοῦλος κτῆμά τι ἔμψυχον, καὶ ὥσπερ ὄργανον πρὸ ὀργάνων πᾶς ὑπηρέτης. εἰ γὰρ ἠδύνατο ἕκαστον τῶν ὀργάνων κελευσθὲν ἢ προαισθανόμενον ἀποτελεῖν τὸ αὑτοῦ ἔργον, καὶ ὥσπερ τὰ Δαιδάλου φασὶν ἢ τοὺς τοῦ Ἡφαίστου τρίποδας, οὕς φησιν ὁ ποιητὴς αὐτομάτους θεῖον δύεσθαι ἀγῶνα, οὕτως αἱ κερκίδες ἐκέρκιζον αὐταὶ καὶ τὰ πλῆκτρα ἐκιθάριζεν, οὐδὲν ἂν ἔδει οὔτε τοῖς ἀρχιτέκτοσιν ὑπηρετῶν οὔτε τοῖς δεσπόταις δούλων. τὰ μὲν οὖν λεγόμενα ὄργανα ποιητικὰ ὄργανά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ κτῆμα πρακτικόν· ἀπὸ μὲν γὰρ τῆς κερκίδος ἕτερόν τι γίνεται παρὰ τὴν χρῆσιν αὐτῆς, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ἐσθῆτος καὶ τῆς κλίνης ἡ χρῆσις μόνον. ἔτι δʼ ἐπεὶ διαφέρει ἡ ποίησις εἴδει καὶ ἡ πρᾶξις, καὶ δέονται ἀμφότεραι ὀργάνων, ἀνάγκη καὶ ταῦτα τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν διαφοράν. ὁ δὲ βίος πρᾶξις, οὐ ποίησις, ἐστιν· διὸ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος ὑπηρέτης τῶν πρὸς τὴν πρᾶξιν. τὸ δὲ κτῆμα λέγεται ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ μόριον. τό γὰρ μόριον οὐ μόνον ἄλλου ἐστὶ μόριον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἁπλῶς ἄλλου· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ κτῆμα. διὸ ὁ μὲν δεσπότης τοῦ δούλου δεσπότης μόνον, ἐκείνου δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν· ὁ δὲ δοῦλος οὐ μόνον δεσπότου δοῦλός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅλως ἐκείνου.

τίς μὲν οὖν ἡ φύσις τοῦ δούλου καὶ τίς ἡ δύναμις, ἐκ τούτων δῆλον· ὁ γὰρ μὴ αὑτοῦ φύσει ἀλλʼ ἄλλου ἄνθρωπος ὤν, οὗτος φύσει δοῦλός ἐστιν, ἄλλου δʼ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἂν κτῆμα ᾖ ἄνθρωπος ὤν, κτῆμα δὲ ὄργανον πρακτικὸν καὶ χωριστόν.

πότερον δʼ ἔστι τις φύσει τοιοῦτος ἢ οὔ, καὶ πότερον βέλτιον καὶ δίκαιόν τινι δουλεύειν ἢ οὔ, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα δουλεία παρὰ φύσιν ἐστί, μετὰ ταῦτα σκεπτέον. οὐ χαλεπὸν δὲ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ θεωρῆσαι καὶ ἐκ τῶν γινομένων καταμαθεῖν. τὸ γὰρ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι οὐ μόνον τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν συμφερόντων ἐστί, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ γενετῆς ἔνια διέστηκε τὰ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄρχεσθαι τὰ δʼ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄρχειν. καὶ εἴδη πολλὰ καὶ ἀρχόντων καὶ ἀρχομένων ἔστιν (καὶ ἀεὶ βελτίων ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ τῶν βελτιόνων ἀρχομένων, οἷον ἀνθρώπου ἢ θηρίου· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτελούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν βελτιόνων βέλτιον ἔργον· ὅπου δὲ τὸ μὲν ἄρχει τὸ δʼ ἄρχεται, ἔστι τι τούτων ἔργον)· ὅσα γὰρ ἐκ πλειόνων συνέστηκε καὶ γίνεται ἕν τι κοινόν, εἴτε ἐκ συνεχῶν εἴτε ἐκ διῃρημένων, ἐν ἅπασιν ἐμφαίνεται τὸ ἄρχον καὶ τὸ ἀρχόμενον, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς ἁπάσης φύσεως ἐνυπάρχει τοῖς ἐμψύχοις· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς μὴ μετέχουσι ζωῆς ἔστι τις ἀρχή, οἷον ἁρμονίας. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἴσως ἐξωτερικωτέρας ἐστὶ σκέψεως· τὸ δὲ ζῷον πρῶτον συνέστηκεν ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἄρχον ἐστὶ φύσει τὸ δʼ ἀρχόμενον. δεῖ δὲ σκοπεῖν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν ἔχουσι μᾶλλον τὸ φύσει, καὶ μὴ ἐν τοῖς διεφθαρμένοις· διὸ καὶ τὸν βέλτιστα διακείμενον καὶ κατὰ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ ψυχὴν ἄνθρωπον θεωρητέον, ἐν ᾧ τοῦτο δῆλον· τῶν γὰρ μοχθηρῶν ἢ μοχθηρῶς ἐχόντων δόξειεν ἂν ἄρχειν πολλάκις τὸ σῶμα τῆς ψυχῆς διὰ τὸ φαύλως καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ἔχειν.

ἔστι δʼ οὖν, ὥσπερ λέγομεν, πρῶτον ἐν ζῴῳ θεωρῆσαι καὶ δεσποτικὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ πολιτικήν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ψυχὴ τοῦ σώματος ἄρχει δεσποτικὴν ἀρχήν, ὁ δὲ νοῦς τῆς ὀρέξεως πολιτικὴν ἢ βασιλικήν· ἐν οἷς φανερόν ἐστιν ὅτι κατὰ φύσιν καὶ συμφέρον τὸ ἄρχεσθαι τῷ σώματι ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ τῷ παθητικῷ μορίῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τοῦ μορίου τοῦ λόγον ἔχοντος, τὸ δʼ ἐξ ἴσου ἢ ἀνάπαλιν βλαβερὸν πᾶσιν. πάλιν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις ὡσαύτως· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἥμερα τῶν ἀγρίων βελτίω τὴν φύσιν, τούτοις δὲ πᾶσι βέλτιον ἄρχεσθαι ὑπʼ ἀνθρώπου· τυγχάνει γὰρ σωτηρίας οὕτως. ἔτι δὲ τὸ ἄρρεν πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ φύσει τὸ μὲν κρεῖττον τὸ δὲ χεῖρον, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἄρχον τὸ δʼ ἀρχόμενον. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. ὅσοι μὲν οὖν τοσοῦτον διεστᾶσιν ὅσον ψυχὴ σώματος καὶ ἄνθρωπος θηρίου (διάκεινται δὲ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ὅσων ἐστὶν ἔργον ἡ τοῦ σώματος χρῆσις, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστʼ ἀπʼ αὐτῶν βέλτιστον), οὗτοι μέν εἰσι φύσει δοῦλοι, οἷς βέλτιόν ἐστιν ἄρχεσθαι ταύτην τὴν ἀρχήν, εἴπερ καὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις. ἔστι γὰρ φύσει δοῦλος ὁ δυνάμενος ἄλλου εἶναι (διὸ καὶ ἄλλου ἐστίν), καὶ ὁ κοινωνῶν λόγου τοσοῦτον ὅσον αἰσθάνεσθαι ἀλλὰ μὴ ἔχειν. τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα ζῷα οὐ λόγῳ αἰσθανόμενα ἀλλὰ παθήμασιν ὑπηρετεῖ. καὶ ἡ χρεία δὲ παραλλάττει μικρόν· ἡ γὰρ πρὸς τἀναγκαῖα τῷ σώματι βοήθεια γίνεται παρʼ ἀμφοῖν, παρά τε τῶν δούλων καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἡμέρων ζῴων. βούλεται μὲν οὖν ἡ φύσις καὶ τὰ σώματα διαφέροντα ποιεῖν τὰ τῶν ἐλευθέρων καὶ τῶν δούλων, τὰ μὲν ἰσχυρὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν χρῆσιν, τὰ δʼ ὀρθὰ καὶ ἄχρηστα πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ἐργασίας, ἀλλὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς πολιτικὸν βίον (οὗτος δὲ καὶ γίνεται διῃρημένος εἴς τε τὴν πολεμικὴν χρείαν καὶ τὴν εἰρηνικήν), συμβαίνει δὲ πολλάκις καὶ τοὐναντίον, τοὺς μὲν τὰ σώματα ἔχειν ἐλευθέρων τοὺς δὲ τὰς ψυχάς· ἐπεὶ τοῦτό γε φανερόν, ὡς εἰ τοσοῦτον γένοιντο διάφοροι τὸ σῶμα μόνον ὅσον αἱ τῶν θεῶν εἰκόνες, τοὺς ὑπολειπομένους πάντες φαῖεν ἂν ἀξίους εἶναι τούτοις δουλεύειν. εἰ δʼ ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματος τοῦτʼ ἀληθές, πολὺ δικαιότερον ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦτο διωρίσθαι· ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁμοίως ῥᾴδιον ἰδεῖν τό τε τῆς ψυχῆς κάλλος καὶ τὸ τοῦ σώματος. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν εἰσὶ φύσει τινὲς οἱ μὲν ἐλεύθεροι οἱ δὲ δοῦλοι, φανερόν, οἷς καὶ συμφέρει τὸ δουλεύειν καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστιν.

-

ὅτι δὲ καὶ οἱ τἀναντία φάσκοντες τρόπον τινὰ λέγουσιν ὀρθῶς, οὐ χαλεπὸν ἰδεῖν. διχῶς γὰρ λέγεται τὸ δουλεύειν καὶ ὁ δοῦλος. ἔστι γάρ τις καὶ κατὰ νόμον δοῦλος καὶ δουλεύων· ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὁμολογία τίς ἐστιν ἐν ᾧ τὰ κατὰ πόλεμον κρατούμενα τῶν κρατούντων εἶναί φασιν. τοῦτο δὴ τὸ δίκαιον πολλοὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις ὥσπερ ῥήτορα γράφονται παρανόμων, ὡς δεινὸν ὂν εἰ τοῦ βιάσασθαι δυναμένου καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν κρείττονος ἔσται δοῦλον καὶ ἀρχόμενον τὸ βιασθέν. καὶ τοῖς μὲν οὕτως δοκεῖ τοῖς δʼ ἐκείνως, καὶ τῶν σοφῶν. αἴτιον δὲ ταύτης τῆς ἀμφισβητήσεως, καὶ ὃ ποιεῖ τοὺς λόγους ἐπαλλάττειν, ὅτι τρόπον τινὰ ἀρετὴ τυγχάνουσα χορηγίας καὶ βιάζεσθαι δύναται μάλιστα, καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ τὸ κρατοῦν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ἀγαθοῦ τινος, ὥστε δοκεῖν μὴ ἄνευ ἀρετῆς εἶναι τὴν βίαν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ δικαίου μόνον εἶναι τὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν (διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο τοῖς μὲν ἄνοια δοκεῖν τὸ δίκαιον εἶναι, τοῖς δʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δίκαιον, τὸ τὸν κρείττονα ἄρχειν)· ἐπεὶ διαστάντων γε χωρὶς τούτων τῶν λόγων οὔτε ἰσχυρὸν οὐθὲν ἔχουσιν οὔτε πιθανὸν ἅτεροι λόγοι, ὡς οὐ δεῖ τὸ βέλτιον κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἄρχειν καὶ δεσπόζειν. ὅλως δʼ ἀντεχόμενοί τινες, ὡς οἴονται, δικαίου τινός (ὁ γὰρ νόμος δίκαιόν τι) τὴν κατὰ πόλεμον δουλείαν τιθέασι δικαίαν, ἅμα δʼ οὔ φασιν· τήν τε γὰρ ἀρχὴν ἐνδέχεται μὴ δικαίαν εἶναι τῶν πολέμων, καὶ τὸν ἀνάξιον δουλεύειν οὐδαμῶς ἂν φαίη τις δοῦλον εἶναι· εἰ δὲ μή, συμβήσεται τοὺς εὐγενεστάτους εἶναι δοκοῦντας δούλους εἶναι καὶ ἐκ δούλων, ἐὰν συμβῇ πραθῆναι ληφθέντας. διόπερ αὐτοὺς οὐ βούλονται λέγειν δούλους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς βαρβάρους. καίτοι ὅταν τοῦτο λέγωσιν, οὐθὲν ἄλλο ζητοῦσιν ἢ τὸ φύσει δοῦλον ὅπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἴπομεν· ἀνάγκη γὰρ εἶναί τινας φάναι τοὺς μὲν πανταχοῦ δούλους τοὺς δʼ οὐδαμοῦ. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ εὐγενείας· αὑτοὺς μὲν γὰρ οὐ μόνον παρʼ αὑτοῖς εὐγενεῖς ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ νομίζουσιν, τοὺς δὲ βαρβάρους οἴκοι μόνον, ὡς ὄν τι τὸ μὲν ἁπλῶς εὐγενὲς καὶ ἐλεύθερον τὸ δʼ οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ Θεοδέκτου Ἑλένη φησὶ θείων δʼ ἀπʼ ἀμφοῖν ἔκγονον ῥιζωμάτων τίς ἂν προσειπεῖν ἀξιώσειεν λάτριν; ὅταν δὲ τοῦτο λέγωσιν, οὐθενὶ ἀλλʼ ἢ ἀρετῇ καὶ κακίᾳ διορίζουσι τὸ δοῦλον καὶ ἐλεύθερον, καὶ τοὺς εὐγενεῖς καὶ τοὺς δυσγενεῖς. ἀξιοῦσι γάρ, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ θηρίων γίνεσθαι θηρίον, οὕτω καὶ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν ἀγαθόν. ἡ δὲ φύσις βούλεται μὲν τοῦτο ποιεῖν πολλάκις, οὐ μέντοι δύναται.

+

ὅτι δὲ καὶ οἱ τἀναντία φάσκοντες τρόπον τινὰ λέγουσιν ὀρθῶς, οὐ χαλεπὸν ἰδεῖν. διχῶς γὰρ λέγεται τὸ δουλεύειν καὶ ὁ δοῦλος. ἔστι γάρ τις καὶ κατὰ νόμον δοῦλος καὶ δουλεύων· ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὁμολογία τίς ἐστιν ἐν ᾧ τὰ κατὰ πόλεμον κρατούμενα τῶν κρατούντων εἶναί φασιν. τοῦτο δὴ τὸ δίκαιον πολλοὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις ὥσπερ ῥήτορα γράφονται παρανόμων, ὡς δεινὸν ὂν εἰ τοῦ βιάσασθαι δυναμένου καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν κρείττονος ἔσται δοῦλον καὶ ἀρχόμενον τὸ βιασθέν. καὶ τοῖς μὲν οὕτως δοκεῖ τοῖς δʼ ἐκείνως, καὶ τῶν σοφῶν. αἴτιον δὲ ταύτης τῆς ἀμφισβητήσεως, καὶ ὃ ποιεῖ τοὺς λόγους ἐπαλλάττειν, ὅτι τρόπον τινὰ ἀρετὴ τυγχάνουσα χορηγίας καὶ βιάζεσθαι δύναται μάλιστα, καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ τὸ κρατοῦν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ἀγαθοῦ τινος, ὥστε δοκεῖν μὴ ἄνευ ἀρετῆς εἶναι τὴν βίαν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ δικαίου μόνον εἶναι τὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν (διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο τοῖς μὲν ἄνοια δοκεῖν τὸ δίκαιον εἶναι, τοῖς δʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δίκαιον, τὸ τὸν κρείττονα ἄρχειν)· ἐπεὶ διαστάντων γε χωρὶς τούτων τῶν λόγων οὔτε ἰσχυρὸν οὐθὲν ἔχουσιν οὔτε πιθανὸν ἅτεροι λόγοι, ὡς οὐ δεῖ τὸ βέλτιον κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἄρχειν καὶ δεσπόζειν. ὅλως δʼ ἀντεχόμενοί τινες, ὡς οἴονται, δικαίου τινός (ὁ γὰρ νόμος δίκαιόν τι) τὴν κατὰ πόλεμον δουλείαν τιθέασι δικαίαν, ἅμα δʼ οὔ φασιν· τήν τε γὰρ ἀρχὴν ἐνδέχεται μὴ δικαίαν εἶναι τῶν πολέμων, καὶ τὸν ἀνάξιον δουλεύειν οὐδαμῶς ἂν φαίη τις δοῦλον εἶναι· εἰ δὲ μή, συμβήσεται τοὺς εὐγενεστάτους εἶναι δοκοῦντας δούλους εἶναι καὶ ἐκ δούλων, ἐὰν συμβῇ πραθῆναι ληφθέντας. διόπερ αὐτοὺς οὐ βούλονται λέγειν δούλους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς βαρβάρους. καίτοι ὅταν τοῦτο λέγωσιν, οὐθὲν ἄλλο ζητοῦσιν ἢ τὸ φύσει δοῦλον ὅπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἴπομεν· ἀνάγκη γὰρ εἶναί τινας φάναι τοὺς μὲν πανταχοῦ δούλους τοὺς δʼ οὐδαμοῦ. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ εὐγενείας· αὑτοὺς μὲν γὰρ οὐ μόνον παρʼ αὑτοῖς εὐγενεῖς ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ νομίζουσιν, τοὺς δὲ βαρβάρους οἴκοι μόνον, ὡς ὄν τι τὸ μὲν ἁπλῶς εὐγενὲς καὶ ἐλεύθερον τὸ δʼ οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ Θεοδέκτου Ἑλένη φησὶ θείων δʼ ἀπʼ ἀμφοῖν ἔκγονον ῥιζωμάτων τίς ἂν προσειπεῖν ἀξιώσειεν λάτριν; ὅταν δὲ τοῦτο λέγωσιν, οὐθενὶ ἀλλʼ ἢ ἀρετῇ καὶ κακίᾳ διορίζουσι τὸ δοῦλον καὶ ἐλεύθερον, καὶ τοὺς εὐγενεῖς καὶ τοὺς δυσγενεῖς. ἀξιοῦσι γάρ, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ θηρίων γίνεσθαι θηρίον, οὕτω καὶ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν ἀγαθόν. ἡ δὲ φύσις βούλεται μὲν τοῦτο ποιεῖν πολλάκις, οὐ μέντοι δύναται.

ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἔχει τινὰ λόγον ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, καὶ οὐκ εἰσί τινες οἱ μὲν φύσει δοῦλοι οἱ δʼ ἐλεύθεροι, δῆλον, καὶ ὅτι ἔν τισι διώρισται τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὧν συμφέρει τῷ μὲν τὸ δουλεύειν τῷ δὲ τὸ δεσπόζειν καὶ δίκαιον, καὶ δεῖ τὸ μὲν ἄρχεσθαι τὸ δʼ ἄρχειν ἣν πεφύκασιν ἀρχὴν ἄρχειν, ὥστε καὶ δεσπόζειν, τὸ δὲ κακῶς ἀσυμφόρως ἐστὶν ἀμφοῖν (τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ συμφέρει τῷ μέρει καὶ τῷ ὅλῳ, καὶ σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ, ὁ δὲ δοῦλος μέρος τι τοῦ δεσπότου, οἷον ἔμψυχόν τι τοῦ σώματος κεχωρισμένον δὲ μέρος· διὸ καὶ συμφέρον ἐστί τι καὶ φιλία δούλῳ καὶ δεσπότῃ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τοῖς φύσει τούτων ἠξιωμένοις, τοῖς δὲ μὴ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ νόμον καὶ βιασθεῖσι, τοὐναντίον).

-

φανερὸν δὲ καὶ ἐκ τούτων ὅτι οὐ ταὐτόν ἐστι δεσποτεία καὶ πολιτική, οὐδὲ πᾶσαι ἀλλήλαις αἱ ἀρχαί, ὥσπερ τινές φασιν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐλευθέρων φύσει ἡ δὲ δούλων ἐστίν, καὶ ἡ μὲν οἰκονομικὴ μοναρχία (μοναρχεῖται γὰρ πᾶς οἶκος), ἡ δὲ πολιτικὴ ἐλευθέρων καὶ ἴσων ἀρχή. ὁ μὲν οὖν δεσπότης οὐ λέγεται κατʼ ἐπιστήμην, ἀλλὰ τῷ τοιόσδʼ εἶναι, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος καὶ ὁ ἐλεύθερος. ἐπιστήμη δʼ ἂν εἴη καὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ δουλική, δουλικὴ μὲν οἵαν περ ὁ ἐν Συρακούσαις ἐπαίδευεν· ἐκεῖ γὰρ λαμβάνων τις μισθὸν ἐδίδασκε τὰ ἐγκύκλια διακονήματα τοὺς παῖδας· εἴη δʼ ἂν καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖον τῶν τοιούτων μάθησις, οἷον ὀψοποιικὴ καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα γένη τῆς διακονίας. ἔστι γὰρ ἕτερα ἑτέρων τὰ μὲν ἐντιμότερα ἔργα τὰ δʼ ἀναγκαιότερα, καὶ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν δοῦλος πρὸ δούλου, δεσπότης πρὸ δεσπότου. αἱ μὲν οὖν τοιαῦται πᾶσαι δουλικαὶ ἐπιστῆμαί εἰσι· δεσποτικὴ δʼ ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶν ἡ χρηστικὴ δούλων. ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης οὐκ ἐν τῷ κτᾶσθαι τοὺς δούλους, ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ χρῆσθαι δούλοις. ἔστι δʼ αὕτη ἡ ἐπιστήμη οὐδὲν μέγα ἔχουσα οὐδὲ σεμνόν· ἃ γὰρ τὸν δοῦλον ἐπίστασθαι δεῖ ποιεῖν, ἐκεῖνον δεῖ ταῦτα ἐπίστασθαι ἐπιτάττειν. διὸ ὅσοις ἐξουσία μὴ αὐτοὺς κακοπαθεῖν, ἐπίτροπός τις λαμβάνει ταύτην τὴν τιμήν, αὐτοὶ δὲ πολιτεύονται ἢ φιλοσοφοῦσιν. ἡ δὲ κτητικὴ ἑτέρα ἀμφοτέρων τούτων, οἷον ἡ δικαία, πολεμική τις οὖσα ἢ θηρευτική. περὶ μὲν οὖν δούλου καὶ δεσπότου τοῦτον διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον.

+

φανερὸν δὲ καὶ ἐκ τούτων ὅτι οὐ ταὐτόν ἐστι δεσποτεία καὶ πολιτική, οὐδὲ πᾶσαι ἀλλήλαις αἱ ἀρχαί, ὥσπερ τινές φασιν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐλευθέρων φύσει ἡ δὲ δούλων ἐστίν, καὶ ἡ μὲν οἰκονομικὴ μοναρχία (μοναρχεῖται γὰρ πᾶς οἶκος), ἡ δὲ πολιτικὴ ἐλευθέρων καὶ ἴσων ἀρχή. ὁ μὲν οὖν δεσπότης οὐ λέγεται κατʼ ἐπιστήμην, ἀλλὰ τῷ τοιόσδʼ εἶναι, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος καὶ ὁ ἐλεύθερος. ἐπιστήμη δʼ ἂν εἴη καὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ δουλική, δουλικὴ μὲν οἵαν περ ὁ ἐν Συρακούσαις ἐπαίδευεν· ἐκεῖ γὰρ λαμβάνων τις μισθὸν ἐδίδασκε τὰ ἐγκύκλια διακονήματα τοὺς παῖδας· εἴη δʼ ἂν καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖον τῶν τοιούτων μάθησις, οἷον ὀψοποιικὴ καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα γένη τῆς διακονίας. ἔστι γὰρ ἕτερα ἑτέρων τὰ μὲν ἐντιμότερα ἔργα τὰ δʼ ἀναγκαιότερα, καὶ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν δοῦλος πρὸ δούλου, δεσπότης πρὸ δεσπότου. αἱ μὲν οὖν τοιαῦται πᾶσαι δουλικαὶ ἐπιστῆμαί εἰσι· δεσποτικὴ δʼ ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶν ἡ χρηστικὴ δούλων. ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης οὐκ ἐν τῷ κτᾶσθαι τοὺς δούλους, ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ χρῆσθαι δούλοις. ἔστι δʼ αὕτη ἡ ἐπιστήμη οὐδὲν μέγα ἔχουσα οὐδὲ σεμνόν· ἃ γὰρ τὸν δοῦλον ἐπίστασθαι δεῖ ποιεῖν, ἐκεῖνον δεῖ ταῦτα ἐπίστασθαι ἐπιτάττειν. διὸ ὅσοις ἐξουσία μὴ αὐτοὺς κακοπαθεῖν, ἐπίτροπός τις λαμβάνει ταύτην τὴν τιμήν, αὐτοὶ δὲ πολιτεύονται ἢ φιλοσοφοῦσιν. ἡ δὲ κτητικὴ ἑτέρα ἀμφοτέρων τούτων, οἷον ἡ δικαία, πολεμική τις οὖσα ἢ θηρευτική. περὶ μὲν οὖν δούλου καὶ δεσπότου τοῦτον διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον.

ὅλως δὲ περὶ πάσης κτήσεως καὶ χρηματιστικῆς θεωρήσωμεν κατὰ τὸν ὑφηγημένον τρόπον, ἐπείπερ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος τῆς κτήσεως μέρος τι ἦν. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις πότερον ἡ χρηματιστικὴ ἡ αὐτὴ τῇ οἰκονομικῇ ἐστιν ἢ μέρος τι, ἢ ὑπηρετική, καὶ εἰ ὑπηρετική, πότερον ὡς ἡ κερκιδοποιικὴ τῇ ὑφαντικῇ ἢ ὡς ἡ χαλκουργικὴ τῇ ἀνδριαντοποιίᾳ (οὐ γὰρ ὡσαύτως ὑπηρετοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν ὄργανα παρέχει, ἡ δὲ τὴν ὕλην· λέγω δὲ ὕλην τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἐξ οὗ τι ἀποτελεῖται ἔργον, οἷον ὑφάντῃ μὲν ἔρια ἀνδριαντοποιῷ δὲ χαλκόν). ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ ἡ οἰκονομικὴ τῇ χρηματιστικῇ, δῆλον (τῆς μὲν γὰρ τὸ πορίσασθαι, τῆς δὲ τὸ χρήσασθαι· τίς γὰρ ἔσται ἡ χρησομένη τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν παρὰ τὴν οἰκονομικήν;)· πότερον δὲ μέρος αὐτῆς ἐστί τι ἢ ἕτερον εἶδος, ἔχει διαμφισβήτησιν· εἰ γάρ ἐστι τοῦ χρηματιστικοῦ θεωρῆσαι πόθεν χρήματα καὶ κτῆσις ἔσται, ἥ δὲ κτῆσις πολλὰ περιείληφε μέρη καὶ ὁ πλοῦτος, ὥστε πρῶτον ἡ γεωργικὴ πότερον μέρος τι τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἢ ἕτερόν τι γένος, καὶ καθόλου ἡ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ἐπιμέλεια καὶ κτῆσις; ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴδη γε πολλὰ τροφῆς, διὸ καὶ βίοι πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν ζῴων καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ζῆν ἄνευ τροφῆς, ὥστε αἱ διαφοραὶ τῆς τροφῆς τοὺς βίους πεποιήκασι διαφέροντας τῶν ζῴων. τῶν τε γὰρ θηρίων τὰ μὲν ἀγελαῖα τὰ δὲ σποραδικά ἐστιν, ὁποτέρως συμφέρει πρὸς τὴν τροφὴν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὸ τὰ μὲν ζῳοφάγα τὰ δὲ καρποφάγα τὰ δὲ παμφάγα αὐτῶν εἶναι, ὥστε πρὸς τὰς ῥᾳστώνας καὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τὴν τούτων ἡ φύσις τοὺς βίους αὐτῶν διώρισεν, ἐπεὶ δʼ οὐ ταὐτὸ ἑκάστῳ ἡδὺ κατὰ φύσιν ἀλλὰ ἕτερα ἑτέροις, καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν ζῳοφάγων καὶ τῶν καρποφάγων οἱ βίοι πρὸς ἄλληλα διεστᾶσιν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. πολὺ γὰρ διαφέρουσιν οἱ τούτων βίοι. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀργότατοι νομάδες εἰσίν (ἡ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡμέρων τροφὴ ζῴων ἄνευ πόνου γίνεται σχολάζουσιν· ἀναγκαίου δʼ ὄντος μεταβάλλειν τοῖς κτήνεσι διὰ τὰς νομὰς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀναγκάζονται συνακολουθεῖν, ὥσπερ γεωργίαν ζῶσαν γεωργοῦντες)· οἱ δʼ ἀπὸ θήρας ζῶσι, καὶ θήρας ἕτεροι ἑτέρας, οἷον οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ λῃστείας, οἱ δʼ ἀφʼ ἁλιείας, ὅσοι λίμνας καὶ ἕλη καὶ ποταμοὺς ἢ θάλατταν τοιαύτην προσοικοῦσιν, οἱ δʼ ἀπʼ ὀρνίθων ἢ θηρίων ἀγρίων· τὸ δὲ πλεῖστον γένος τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ζῇ καὶ τῶν ἡμέρων καρπῶν.

οἱ μὲν οὖν βίοι τοσοῦτοι σχεδόν εἰσιν, ὅσοι γε αὐτόφυτον ἔχουσι τὴν ἐργασίαν καὶ μὴ διʼ ἀλλαγῆς καὶ καπηλείας πορίζονται τὴν τροφήν, νομαδικὸς λῃστρικὸς ἁλιευτικὸς θηρευτικὸς γεωργικός. οἱ δὲ καὶ μιγνύντες ἐκ τούτων ἡδέως ζῶσι, προσαναπληροῦντες τὸν ἐνδεέστερον βίον, ᾗ τυγχάνει ἐλλείπων πρὸς τὸ αὐτάρκης εἶναι, οἷον οἱ μὲν νομαδικὸν ἅμα καὶ λῃστρικόν, οἱ δὲ γεωργικὸν καὶ θηρευτικόν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοὺς ἄλλους· ὡς ἂν ἡ χρεία συναναγκάζῃ, τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον διάγουσιν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοιαύτη κτῆσις ὑπʼ αὐτῆς φαίνεται τῆς φύσεως διδομένη πᾶσιν, ὥσπερ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν εὐθύς, οὕτω καὶ τελειωθεῖσιν. καὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς γένεσιν τὰ μὲν συνεκτίκτει τῶν ζῴων τοσαύτην τροφὴν ὥσθʼ ἱκανὴν εἶναι μέχρις οὗ ἂν δύνηται αὐτὸ αὑτῷ πορίζειν τὸ γεννηθέν, οἷον ὅσα σκωληκοτοκεῖ ἢ ᾠοτοκεῖ· ὅσα δὲ ζῳοτοκεῖ, τοῖς γεννωμένοις ἔχει τροφὴν ἐν αὑτοῖς μέχρι τινός, τὴν τοῦ καλουμένου γάλακτος φύσιν. ὥστε ὁμοίως δῆλον ὅτι καὶ γενομένοις οἰητέον τά τε φυτὰ τῶν ζῴων ἕνεκεν εἶναι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα τῶν ἀνθρώπων χάριν, τὰ μὲν ἥμερα καὶ διὰ τὴν χρῆσιν καὶ διὰ τὴν τροφήν, τῶν δʼ ἀγρίων, εἰ μὴ πάντα, ἀλλὰ τά γε πλεῖστα τῆς τροφῆς καὶ ἄλλης βοηθείας ἕνεκεν, ἵνα καὶ ἐσθὴς καὶ ἄλλα ὄργανα γίνηται ἐξ αὐτῶν. εἰ οὖν ἡ φύσις μηθὲν μήτε ἀτελὲς ποιεῖ μήτε μάτην, ἀναγκαῖον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἕνεκεν αὐτὰ πάντα πεποιηκέναι τὴν φύσιν. διὸ καὶ ἡ πολεμικὴ φύσει κτητική πως ἔσται (ἡ γὰρ θηρευτικὴ μέρος αὐτῆς), ᾗ δεῖ χρῆσθαι πρός τε τὰ θηρία καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅσοι πεφυκότες ἄρχεσθαι μὴ θέλουσιν, ὡς φύσει δίκαιον τοῦτον ὄντα τὸν πόλεμον.

-

ἓν μὲν οὖν εἶδος κτητικῆς κατὰ φύσιν τῆς οἰκονομικῆς μέρος ἐστίν, καθὸ δεῖ ἤτοι ὑπάρχειν ἢ πορίζειν αὐτὴν ὅπως ὑπάρχῃ ὧν ἔστι θησαυρισμὸς χρημάτων πρὸς ζωὴν ἀναγκαίων, καὶ χρησίμων εἰς κοινωνίαν πόλεως ἢ οἰκίας. καὶ ἔοικεν ὅ γʼ ἀληθινὸς πλοῦτος ἐκ τούτων εἶναι. ἡ γὰρ τῆς τοιαύτης κτήσεως αὐτάρκεια πρὸς ἀγαθὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἄπειρός ἐστιν, ὥσπερ Σόλων φησὶ ποιήσας πλούτου δʼ οὐθὲν τέρμα πεφασμένον ἀνδράσι κεῖται. Solon 13.71 κεῖται γὰρ ὥσπερ καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τέχναις· οὐδὲν γὰρ ὄργανον ἄπειρον οὐδεμιᾶς ἐστι τέχνης οὔτε πλήθει οὔτε μεγέθει, ὁ δὲ πλοῦτος ὀργάνων πλῆθός ἐστιν οἰκονομικῶν καὶ πολιτικῶν. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἔστι τις κτητικὴ κατὰ φύσιν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις καὶ τοῖς πολιτικοῖς, καὶ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν, δῆλον.

+

ἓν μὲν οὖν εἶδος κτητικῆς κατὰ φύσιν τῆς οἰκονομικῆς μέρος ἐστίν, καθὸ δεῖ ἤτοι ὑπάρχειν ἢ πορίζειν αὐτὴν ὅπως ὑπάρχῃ ὧν ἔστι θησαυρισμὸς χρημάτων πρὸς ζωὴν ἀναγκαίων, καὶ χρησίμων εἰς κοινωνίαν πόλεως ἢ οἰκίας. καὶ ἔοικεν ὅ γʼ ἀληθινὸς πλοῦτος ἐκ τούτων εἶναι. ἡ γὰρ τῆς τοιαύτης κτήσεως αὐτάρκεια πρὸς ἀγαθὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἄπειρός ἐστιν, ὥσπερ Σόλων φησὶ ποιήσας πλούτου δʼ οὐθὲν τέρμα πεφασμένον ἀνδράσι κεῖται. Solon 13.71 κεῖται γὰρ ὥσπερ καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τέχναις· οὐδὲν γὰρ ὄργανον ἄπειρον οὐδεμιᾶς ἐστι τέχνης οὔτε πλήθει οὔτε μεγέθει, ὁ δὲ πλοῦτος ὀργάνων πλῆθός ἐστιν οἰκονομικῶν καὶ πολιτικῶν. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἔστι τις κτητικὴ κατὰ φύσιν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις καὶ τοῖς πολιτικοῖς, καὶ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν, δῆλον.

ἔστι δὲ γένος ἄλλο κτητικῆς, ἣν μάλιστα καλοῦσι, καὶ δίκαιον αὐτὸ καλεῖν, χρηματιστικήν, διʼ ἣν οὐδὲν δοκεῖ πέρας εἶναι πλούτου καὶ κτήσεως· ἣν ὡς μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν τῇ λεχθείσῃ πολλοὶ νομίζουσι διὰ τὴν γειτνίασιν· ἔστι δʼ οὔτε ἡ αὐτὴ τῇ εἰρημένῃ οὔτε πόρρω ἐκείνης. ἔστι δʼ ἡ μὲν φύσει ἡ δʼ οὐ φύσει αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ διʼ ἐμπειρίας τινὸς καὶ τέχνης γίνεται μᾶλλον. λάβωμεν δὲ περὶ αὐτῆς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐντεῦθεν. ἑκάστου γὰρ κτήματος διττὴ ἡ χρῆσίς ἐστιν, ἀμφότεραι δὲ καθʼ αὑτὸ μὲν ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁμοίως καθʼ αὑτό, ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν οἰκεία ἡ δʼ οὐκ οἰκεία τοῦ πράγματος, οἷον ὑποδήματος ἥ τε ὑπόδεσις καὶ ἡ μεταβλητική. ἀμφότεραι γὰρ ὑποδήματος χρήσεις· καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἀλλαττόμενος τῷ δεομένῳ ὑποδήματος ἀντὶ νομίσματος ἢ τροφῆς χρῆται τῷ ὑποδήματι ᾗ ὑπόδημα, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν οἰκείαν χρῆσιν· οὐ γὰρ ἀλλαγῆς ἕνεκεν γέγονε. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων κτημάτων. ἔστι γὰρ ἡ μεταβλητικὴ πάντων, ἀρξαμένη τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν, τῷ τὰ μὲν πλείω τὰ δὲ ἐλάττω τῶν ἱκανῶν ἔχειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους (ᾗ καὶ δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι φύσει τῆς χρηματιστικῆς ἡ καπηλική· ὅσον γὰρ ἱκανὸν αὐτοῖς, ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀλλαγήν). ἐν μὲν οὖν τῇ πρώτῃ κοινωνίᾳ (τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν οἰκία) φανερὸν ὅτι οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔργον αὐτῆς, ἀλλʼ ἤδη πλειόνων τῆς κοινωνίας οὔσης. οἱ μὲν γὰρ τῶν αὑτῶν ἐκοινώνουν πάντων, οἱ δὲ κεχωρισμένοι πολλῶν πάλιν καὶ ἑτέρων, ὧν κατὰ τὰς δεήσεις ἀναγκαῖον ποιεῖσθαι τὰς μεταδόσεις, καθάπερ ἔτι πολλὰ ποιεῖ καὶ τῶν βαρβαρικῶν ἐθνῶν, κατὰ τὴν ἀλλαγήν. αὐτὰ γὰρ τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς αὑτὰ καταλλάττονται, ἐπὶ πλέον δʼ οὐθέν, οἷον οἶνον πρὸς σῖτον διδόντες καὶ λαμβάνοντες, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων ἕκαστον. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοιαύτη μεταβλητικὴ οὔτε παρὰ φύσιν οὔτε χρηματιστικῆς ἐστιν εἶδος οὐδέν (εἰς ἀναπλήρωσιν γὰρ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν αὐταρκείας ἦν)· ἐκ μέντοι ταύτης ἐγένετʼ ἐκείνη κατὰ λόγον. ξενικωτέρας γὰρ γενομένης τῆς βοηθείας τῷ εἰσάγεσθαι ὧν ἐνδεεῖς ἦσαν καὶ ἐκπέμπειν ὧν ἐπλεόναζον, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἡ τοῦ νομίσματος ἐπορίσθη χρῆσις. οὐ γὰρ εὐβάστακτον ἕκαστον τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἀναγκαίων· διὸ πρὸς τὰς ἀλλαγὰς τοιοῦτόν τι συνέθεντο πρὸς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς διδόναι καὶ λαμβάνειν, ὃ τῶν χρησίμων αὐτὸ ὂν εἶχε τὴν χρείαν εὐμεταχείριστον πρὸς τὸ ζῆν, οἷον σίδηρος καὶ ἄργυρος κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἁπλῶς ὁρισθὲν μεγέθει καὶ σταθμῷ, τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον καὶ χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβαλλόντων, ἵνα ἀπολύσῃ τῆς μετρήσεως αὑτούς· ὁ γὰρ χαρακτὴρ ἐτέθη τοῦ ποσοῦ σημεῖον.

πορισθέντος οὖν ἤδη νομίσματος ἐκ τῆς ἀναγκαίας ἀλλαγῆς θάτερον εἶδος τῆς χρηματιστικῆς ἐγένετο, τὸ καπηλικόν, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἁπλῶς ἴσως γινόμενον, εἶτα διʼ ἐμπειρίας ἤδη τεχνικώτερον, πόθεν καὶ πῶς μεταβαλλόμενον πλεῖστον ποιήσει κέρδος. διὸ δοκεῖ ἡ χρηματιστικὴ μάλιστα περὶ τὸ νόμισμα εἶναι, καὶ ἔργον αὐτῆς τὸ δύνασθαι θεωρῆσαι πόθεν ἔσται πλῆθος, ποιητικὴ γὰρ εἶναι πλούτου καὶ χρημάτων. καὶ γὰρ τὸν πλοῦτον πολλάκις τιθέασι νομίσματος πλῆθος, διὰ τὸ περὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναι τὴν χρηματιστικὴν καὶ τὴν καπηλικήν. ὁτὲ δὲ πάλιν λῆρος εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ νόμισμα καὶ νόμος παντάπασι, φύσει δʼ οὐθέν, ὅτι μεταθεμένων τε τῶν χρωμένων οὐθενὸς ἄξιον οὐδὲ χρήσιμον πρὸς οὐδὲν τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐστί, καὶ νομίσματος πλουτῶν πολλάκις ἀπορήσει τῆς ἀναγκαίας τροφῆς· καίτοι ἄτοπον τοιοῦτον εἶναι πλοῦτον οὗ εὐπορῶν λιμῷ ἀπολεῖται, καθάπερ καὶ τὸν Μίδαν ἐκεῖνον μυθολογοῦσι διὰ τὴν ἀπληστίαν τῆς εὐχῆς πάντων αὐτῷ γιγνομένων τῶν παρατιθεμένων χρυσῶν. διὸ ζητοῦσιν ἕτερόν τι τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τὴν χρηματιστικήν, ὀρθῶς ζητοῦντες. ἔστι γὰρ ἑτέρα ἡ χρηματιστικὴ καὶ ὁ πλοῦτος ὁ κατὰ φύσιν, καὶ αὕτη μὲν οἰκονομική, ἡ δὲ καπηλική, ποιητικὴ πλούτου οὐ πάντως ἀλλὰ διὰ χρημάτων μεταβολῆς. καὶ δοκεῖ περὶ τὸ νόμισμα αὕτη εἶναι· τὸ γὰρ νόμισμα στοιχεῖον καὶ πέρας τῆς ἀλλαγῆς ἐστιν. καὶ ἄπειρος δὴ οὗτος ὁ πλοῦτος, ὁ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς χρηματιστικῆς. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἰατρικὴ τοῦ ὑγιαίνειν εἰς ἄπειρόν ἐστι, καὶ ἑκάστη τῶν τεχνῶν τοῦ τέλους εἰς ἄπειρον (ὅτι μάλιστα γὰρ ἐκεῖνο βούλονται ποιεῖν), τῶν δὲ πρὸς τὸ τέλος οὐκ εἰς ἄπειρον (πέρας γὰρ τὸ τέλος πάσαις), οὕτω καὶ ταύτης τῆς χρηματιστικῆς οὐκ ἔστι τοῦ τέλους πέρας, τέλος δὲ ὁ τοιοῦτος πλοῦτος καὶ χρημάτων κτῆσις. τῆς δʼ οἰκονομικῆς χρηματιστικῆς ἔστι πέρας· οὐ γὰρ τοῦτο τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἔργον. διὸ τῇ μὲν φαίνεται ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι παντὸς πλούτου πέρας, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν γινομένων ὁρῶμεν συμβαῖνον τοὐναντίον· πάντες γὰρ εἰς ἄπειρον αὔξουσιν οἱ χρηματιζόμενοι τὸ νόμισμα. αἴτιον δὲ τὸ σύνεγγυς αὐτῶν. ἐπαλλάττει γὰρ ἡ χρῆσις τοῦ αὐτοῦ οὖσα ἑκατέρας τῆς χρηματιστικῆς. τῆς γὰρ αὐτῆς ἐστι κτήσεως χρῆσις, ἀλλʼ οὐ κατὰ ταὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν ἕτερον τέλος, τῆς δʼ ἡ αὔξησις. ὥστε δοκεῖ τισι τοῦτʼ εἶναι τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἔργον, καὶ διατελοῦσιν ἢ σῴζειν οἰόμενοι δεῖν ἢ αὔξειν τὴν τοῦ νομίσματος οὐσίαν εἰς ἄπειρον. αἴτιον δὲ ταύτης τῆς διαθέσεως τὸ σπουδάζειν περὶ τὸ ζῆν, ἀλλὰ μὴ τὸ εὖ ζῆν· εἰς ἄπειρον οὖν ἐκείνης τῆς ἐπιθυμίας οὔσης, καὶ τῶν ποιητικῶν ἀπείρων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν. ὅσοι δὲ καὶ τοῦ εὖ ζῆν ἐπιβάλλονται τὸ πρὸς τὰς ἀπολαύσεις τὰς σωματικὰς ζητοῦσιν, ὥστʼ ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐν τῇ κτήσει φαίνεται ὑπάρχειν, πᾶσα ἡ διατριβὴ περὶ τὸν χρηματισμόν ἐστι, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον εἶδος τῆς χρηματιστικῆς διὰ τοῦτʼ ἐλήλυθεν. ἐν ὑπερβολῇ γὰρ οὔσης τῆς ἀπολαύσεως, τὴν τῆς ἀπολαυστικῆς ὑπερβολῆς ποιητικὴν ζητοῦσιν· κἂν μὴ διὰ τῆς χρηματιστικῆς δύνωνται πορίζειν, διʼ ἄλλης αἰτίας τοῦτο πειρῶνται, ἑκάστῃ χρώμενοι τῶν δυνάμεων οὐ κατὰ φύσιν. ἀνδρείας γὰρ οὐ χρήματα ποιεῖν ἐστιν ἀλλὰ θάρσος, οὐδὲ στρατηγικῆς καὶ ἰατρικῆς, ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν νίκην τῆς δʼ ὑγίειαν. οἱ δὲ πάσας ποιοῦσι χρηματιστικάς, ὡς τοῦτο τέλος ὄν, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τέλος ἅπαντα δέον ἀπαντᾶν.

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τε μὴ ἀναγκαίας χρηματιστικῆς, καὶ τίς, καὶ διʼ αἰτίαν τίνα ἐν χρείᾳ ἐσμὲν αὐτῆς, εἴρηται, καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀναγκαίας, ὅτι ἑτέρα μὲν αὐτῆς οἰκονομικὴ δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἡ περὶ τὴν τροφήν, οὐχ ὥσπερ αὕτη ἄπειρος ἀλλʼ ἔχουσα ὅρον.

δῆλον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀπορούμενον ἐξ ἀρχῆς, πότερον τοῦ οἰκονομικοῦ καὶ πολιτικοῦ ἐστιν ἡ χρηματιστικὴ ἢ οὔ, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τοῦτο μὲν ὑπάρχειν (ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ ἀνθρώπους οὐ ποιεῖ ἡ πολιτική, ἀλλὰ λαβοῦσα παρὰ τῆς φύσεως χρῆται αὐτοῖς, οὕτω καὶ τροφὴν τὴν φύσιν δεῖ παραδοῦναι γῆν ἢ θάλατταν ἢ ἄλλο τι), ἐκ δὲ τούτων, ὡς δεῖ ταῦτα διαθεῖναι προσήκει τὸν οἰκονόμον. οὐ γὰρ τῆς ὑφαντικῆς ἔρια ποιῆσαι, ἀλλὰ χρήσασθαι αὐτοῖς, καὶ γνῶναι δὲ τὸ ποῖον χρηστὸν καὶ ἐπιτήδειον, ἢ φαῦλον καὶ ἀνεπιτήδειον. καὶ γὰρ ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις διὰ τί ἡ μὲν χρηματιστικὴ μόριον τῆς οἰκονομίας, ἡ δʼ ἰατρικὴ οὐ μόριον· καίτοι δεῖ ὑγιαίνειν τοὺς κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, ὥσπερ ζῆν ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν ἀναγκαίων. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἔστι μὲν ὡς τοῦ οἰκονόμου καὶ τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ περὶ ὑγιείας ἰδεῖν, ἔστι δʼ ὡς οὔ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἰατροῦ, οὕτω καὶ περὶ τῶν χρημάτων ἔστι μὲν ὡς τοῦ οἰκονόμου, ἔστι δʼ ὡς οὔ, ἀλλὰ τῆς ὑπηρετικῆς· μάλιστα δέ, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, δεῖ φύσει τοῦτο ὑπάρχειν. φύσεως γάρ ἐστιν ἔργον τροφὴν τῷ γεννηθέντι παρέχειν· παντὶ γάρ, ἐξ οὗ γίνεται, τροφὴ τὸ λειπόμενόν ἐστι. διὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἐστὶν ἡ χρηματιστικὴ πᾶσιν ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τῶν ζῴων. διπλῆς δʼ οὔσης αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, καὶ τῆς μὲν καπηλικῆς τῆς δʼ οἰκονομικῆς, καὶ ταύτης μὲν ἀναγκαίας καὶ ἐπαινουμένης, τῆς δὲ μεταβλητικῆς ψεγομένης δικαίως (οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἀλλʼ ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων ἐστίν), εὐλογώτατα μισεῖται ἡ ὀβολοστατικὴ διὰ τὸ ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ τοῦ νομίσματος εἶναι τὴν κτῆσιν καὶ οὐκ ἐφʼ ὅπερ ἐπορίσθη. μεταβολῆς γὰρ ἐγένετο χάριν, ὁ δὲ τόκος αὐτὸ ποιεῖ πλέον (ὅθεν καὶ τοὔνομα τοῦτʼ εἴληφεν· ὅμοια γὰρ τὰ τικτόμενα τοῖς γεννῶσιν αὐτά ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ τόκος γίνεται νόμισμα ἐκ νομίσματος)· ὥστε καὶ μάλιστα παρὰ φύσιν οὗτος τῶν χρηματισμῶν ἐστιν.

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ πρὸς τὴν γνῶσιν διωρίκαμεν ἱκανῶς, τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν δεῖ διελθεῖν. πάντα δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὴν μὲν θεωρίαν ἐλευθέραν ἔχει, τὴν δʼ ἐμπειρίαν ἀναγκαίαν. ἔστι δὲ χρηματιστικῆς μέρη χρήσιμα· τὸ περὶ τὰ κτήματα ἔμπειρον εἶναι, ποῖα λυσιτελέστατα καὶ ποῦ καὶ πῶς, οἷον ἵππων κτῆσις ποία τις ἢ βοῶν ἢ προβάτων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων (δεῖ γὰρ ἔμπειρον εἶναι πρὸς ἄλληλά τε τούτων τίνα λυσιτελέστατα, καὶ ποῖα ἐν ποίοις τόποις· ἄλλα γὰρ ἐν ἄλλαις εὐθηνεῖ χώραις), εἶτα περὶ γεωργίας, καὶ ταύτης ἤδη ψιλῆς τε καὶ πεφυτευμένης, καὶ μελιττουργίας, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων τῶν πλωτῶν ἢ πτηνῶν, ἀφʼ ὅσων ἔστι τυγχάνειν βοηθείας. τῆς μὲν οὖν οἰκειοτάτης χρηματιστικῆς ταῦτα μόρια καὶ πρῶτα· τῆς δὲ μεταβλητικῆς μέγιστον μὲν ἐμπορία (καὶ ταύτης μέρη τρία, ναυκληρία φορτηγία παράστασις· διαφέρει δὲ τούτων ἕτερα ἑτέρων τῷ τὰ μὲν ἀσφαλέστερα εἶναι, τὰ δὲ πλείω πορίζειν τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν), δεύτερον δὲ τοκισμός, τρίτον δὲ μισθαρνία (ταύτης δʼ ἡ μὲν τῶν βαναύσων τεχνῶν, ἡ δὲ τῶν ἀτέχνων καὶ τῷ σώματι μόνῳ χρησίμων)· τρίτον δὲ εἶδος χρηματιστικῆς μεταξὺ ταύτης καὶ τῆς πρώτης (ἔχει γὰρ καὶ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν τι μέρος καὶ τῆς μεταβλητικῆς), ὅσα ἀπὸ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς γιγνομένων, ἀκάρπων μὲν χρησίμων δέ, οἷον ὑλοτομία τε καὶ πᾶσα μεταλλευτική. αὕτη δὲ πολλὰ ἤδη περιείληφε γένη· πολλὰ γὰρ εἴδη τῶν ἐκ γῆς μεταλλευομένων ἔστιν. εἰσὶ δὲ τεχνικώταται μὲν τῶν ἐργασιῶν ὅπου ἐλάχιστον τῆς τύχης, βαναυσόταται δʼ ἐν αἷς τὰσώματα λωβῶνται μάλιστα, δουλικώταται δὲ ὅπου τοῦ σώματος πλεῖσται χρήσεις, ἀγεννέσταται δὲ ὅπου ἐλάχιστον προσδεῖ ἀρετῆς. περὶ ἑκάστου δὲ τούτων καθόλου μὲν εἴρηται καὶ νῦν, τὸ δὲ κατὰ μέρος ἀκριβολογεῖσθαι χρήσιμον μὲν πρὸς τὰς ἐργασίας, φορτικὸν δὲ τὸ ἐνδιατρίβειν.

ἐπεὶ δʼ ἔστιν ἐνίοις γεγραμμένα περὶ τούτων, οἷον Χαρητίδῃ τῷ Παρίῳ καὶ Ἀπολλοδώρῳ τῷ Λημνίῳ περὶ γεωργίας καὶ ψιλῆς καὶ πεφυτευμένης, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἄλλοις περὶ ἄλλων, ταῦτα μὲν ἐκ τούτων θεωρείτω ὅτῳ ἐπιμελές· ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα σποράδην, διʼ ὧν ἐπιτετυχήκασιν ἔνιοι χρηματιζόμενοι, δεῖ συλλέγειν. πάντα γὰρ ὠφέλιμα ταῦτʼ ἐστὶ τοῖς τιμῶσι τὴν χρηματιστικήν, οἷον καὶ τὸ Θάλεω τοῦ Μιλησίου· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι κατανόημά τι χρηματιστικόν, ἀλλʼ ἐκείνῳ μὲν διὰ τὴν σοφίαν προσάπτουσι, τυγχάνει δὲ καθόλου τι ὄν. ὀνειδιζόντων γὰρ αὐτῷ διὰ τὴν πενίαν ὡς ἀνωφελοῦς τῆς φιλοσοφίας οὔσης, κατανοήσαντά φασιν αὐτὸν ἐλαιῶν φορὰν ἐσομένην ἐκ τῆς ἀστρολογίας, ἔτι χειμῶνος ὄντος εὐπορήσαντα χρημάτων ὀλίγων ἀρραβῶνας διαδοῦναι τῶν ἐλαιουργίων τῶν τʼ ἐν Μιλήτῳ καὶ Χίῳ πάντων, ὀλίγου μισθωσάμενον ἅτʼ οὐθενὸς ἐπιβάλλοντος· ἐπειδὴ δʼ ὁ καιρὸς ἧκε, πολλῶν ζητουμένων ἅμα καὶ ἐξαίφνης, ἐκμισθοῦντα ὃν τρόπον ἠβούλετο, πολλὰ χρήματα συλλέξαντα ἐπιδεῖξαι ὅτι ῥᾴδιόν ἐστι πλουτεῖν τοῖς φιλοσόφοις, ἂν βούλωνται, ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ περὶ ὃ σπουδάζουσιν. Θαλῆς μὲν οὖν λέγεται τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐπίδειξιν ποιήσασθαι τῆς σοφίας· ἔστι δʼ, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, καθόλου τὸ τοιοῦτον χρηματιστικόν, ἐάν τις δύνηται μονοπωλίαν αὑτῷ κατασκευάζειν. διὸ καὶ τῶν πόλεων ἔνιαι τοῦτον ποιοῦνται τὸν πόρον, ὅταν ἀπορῶσι χρημάτων· μονοπωλίαν γὰρ τῶν ὠνίων ποιοῦσιν. ἐν Σικελίᾳ δέ τις τεθέντος παρʼ αὐτῷ νομίσματος συνεπρίατο πάντα τὸν σίδηρον ἐκ τῶν σιδηρείων, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὡς ἀφίκοντο ἐκ τῶν ἐμπορίων οἱ ἔμποροι, ἐπώλει μόνος, οὐ πολλὴν ποιήσας ὑπερβολὴν τῆς τιμῆς· ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἐπὶ τοῖς πεντήκοντα ταλάντοις ἐπέλαβεν ἑκατόν. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν Διονύσιος αἰσθόμενος τὰ μὲν χρήματα ἐκέλευσεν ἐκκομίσασθαι, μὴ μέντοι γε ἔτι μένειν ἐν Συρακούσαις, ὡς πόρους εὑρίσκοντα τοῖς αὑτοῦ πράγμασιν ἀσυμφόρους· τὸ μέντοι ὅραμα Θάλεω καὶ τοῦτο ταὐτόν ἐστιν· ἀμφότεροι γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς ἐτέχνασαν γενέσθαι μονοπωλίαν. χρήσιμον δὲ γνωρίζειν ταῦτα καὶ τοῖς πολιτικοῖς. πολλαῖς γὰρ πόλεσι δεῖ χρηματισμοῦ καὶ τοιούτων πόρων, ὥσπερ οἰκίᾳ, μᾶλλον δέ· διόπερ τινὲς καὶ πολιτεύονται τῶν πολιτευομένων ταῦτα μόνον.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ τρία μέρη τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἦν, ἓν μὲν δεσποτική, περὶ ἧς εἴρηται πρότερον, ἓν δὲ πατρική, τρίτον δὲ γαμική (καὶ γὰρ γυναικὸς ἄρχει καὶ τέκνων, ὡς ἐλευθέρων μὲν ἀμφοῖν, οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἀλλὰ γυναικὸς μὲν πολιτικῶς τέκνων δὲ βασιλικῶς· τό τε γὰρ ἄρρεν φύσει τοῦ θήλεος ἡγεμονικώτερον, εἰ μή που συνέστηκε παρὰ φύσιν, καὶ τὸ πρεσβύτερον καὶ τέλειον τοῦ νεωτέρου καὶ ἀτελοῦς)—ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς πολιτικαῖς ἀρχαῖς ταῖς πλείσταις μεταβάλλει τὸ ἄρχον καὶ τὸ ἀρχόμενον (ἐξ ἴσου γὰρ εἶναι βούλεται τὴν φύσιν καὶ διαφέρειν μηδέν), ὅμως δέ, ὅταν τὸ μὲν ἄρχῃ τὸ δʼ ἄρχηται, ζητεῖ διαφορὰν εἶναι καὶ σχήμασι καὶ λόγοις καὶ τιμαῖς, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἄμασις εἶπε τὸν περὶ τοῦ ποδανιπτῆρος λόγον· τὸ δʼ ἄρρεν ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον. ἡ δὲ τῶν τέκνων ἀρχὴ βασιλική· τὸ γὰρ γεννῆσαν καὶ κατὰ φιλίαν ἄρχον καὶ κατὰ πρεσβείαν ἐστίν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ βασιλικῆς εἶδος ἀρχῆς. διὸ καλῶς Ὅμηρος τὸν Δία προσηγόρευσεν εἰπὼν πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε Hom. Il. 1.544 τὸν βασιλέα τούτων ἁπάντων. φύσει γὰρ τὸν βασιλέα διαφέρειν μὲν δεῖ, τῷ γένει δʼ εἶναι τὸν αὐτόν· ὅπερ πέπονθε τὸ πρεσβύτερον πρὸς τὸ νεώτερον καὶ ὁ γεννήσας πρὸς τὸ τέκνον.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ τρία μέρη τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἦν, ἓν μὲν δεσποτική, περὶ ἧς εἴρηται πρότερον, ἓν δὲ πατρική, τρίτον δὲ γαμική (καὶ γὰρ γυναικὸς ἄρχει καὶ τέκνων, ὡς ἐλευθέρων μὲν ἀμφοῖν, οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἀλλὰ γυναικὸς μὲν πολιτικῶς τέκνων δὲ βασιλικῶς· τό τε γὰρ ἄρρεν φύσει τοῦ θήλεος ἡγεμονικώτερον, εἰ μή που συνέστηκε παρὰ φύσιν, καὶ τὸ πρεσβύτερον καὶ τέλειον τοῦ νεωτέρου καὶ ἀτελοῦς)—ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς πολιτικαῖς ἀρχαῖς ταῖς πλείσταις μεταβάλλει τὸ ἄρχον καὶ τὸ ἀρχόμενον (ἐξ ἴσου γὰρ εἶναι βούλεται τὴν φύσιν καὶ διαφέρειν μηδέν), ὅμως δέ, ὅταν τὸ μὲν ἄρχῃ τὸ δʼ ἄρχηται, ζητεῖ διαφορὰν εἶναι καὶ σχήμασι καὶ λόγοις καὶ τιμαῖς, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἄμασις εἶπε τὸν περὶ τοῦ ποδανιπτῆρος λόγον· τὸ δʼ ἄρρεν ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον. ἡ δὲ τῶν τέκνων ἀρχὴ βασιλική· τὸ γὰρ γεννῆσαν καὶ κατὰ φιλίαν ἄρχον καὶ κατὰ πρεσβείαν ἐστίν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ βασιλικῆς εἶδος ἀρχῆς. διὸ καλῶς Ὅμηρος τὸν Δία προσηγόρευσεν εἰπὼν πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε Hom. Il. 1.544 τὸν βασιλέα τούτων ἁπάντων. φύσει γὰρ τὸν βασιλέα διαφέρειν μὲν δεῖ, τῷ γένει δʼ εἶναι τὸν αὐτόν· ὅπερ πέπονθε τὸ πρεσβύτερον πρὸς τὸ νεώτερον καὶ ὁ γεννήσας πρὸς τὸ τέκνον.

φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι πλείων ἡ σπουδὴ τῆς οἰκονομίας περὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἢ περὶ τὴν τῶν ἀψύχων κτῆσιν, καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τούτων ἢ περὶ τὴν τῆς κτήσεως, ὃν καλοῦμεν πλοῦτον, καὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων μᾶλλον ἢ δούλων. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν περὶ δούλων ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις, πότερον ἔστιν ἀρετή τις δούλου παρὰ τὰς ὀργανικὰς καὶ διακονικὰς ἄλλη τιμιωτέρα τούτων, οἷον σωφροσύνη καὶ ἀνδρεία καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶτῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων ἕξεων, ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία παρὰ τὰς σωματικὰς ὑπηρεσίας (ἔχει γὰρ ἀπορίαν ἀμφοτέρως· εἴτε γὰρ ἔστιν, τί διοίσουσι τῶν ἐλευθέρων; εἴτε μὴ ἔστιν, ὄντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ λόγου κοινωνούντων ἄτοπον). σχεδὸν δὲ ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ ζητούμενον καὶ περὶ γυναικὸς καὶ παιδός, πότερα καὶ τούτων εἰσὶν ἀρεταί, καὶ δεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα εἶναι σώφρονα καὶ ἀνδρείαν καὶ δικαίαν, καὶ παῖς ἔστι καὶ ἀκόλαστος καὶ σώφρων, ἢ οὔ; καθόλου δὴ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἐπισκεπτέον περὶ ἀρχομένου φύσει καὶ ἄρχοντος, πότερον ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἢ ἑτέρα. εἰ μὲν γὰρ δεῖ ἀμφοτέρους μετέχειν καλοκαγαθίας, διὰ τί τὸν μὲν ἄρχειν δέοι ἂν τὸν δὲ ἄρχεσθαι καθάπαξ; οὐδὲ γὰρ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον οἷόν τε διαφέρειν· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν εἴδει διαφέρει, τὸ δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον οὐδέν. εἰ δὲ τὸν μὲν δεῖ τὸν δὲ μή, θαυμαστόν. εἴτε γὰρ ὁ ἄρχων μὴ ἔσται σώφρων καὶ δίκαιος, πῶς ἄρξει καλῶς; εἴθʼ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, πῶς ἀρχθήσεται καλῶς; ἀκόλαστος γὰρ ὢν καὶ δειλὸς οὐδὲν ποιήσει τῶν προσηκόντων. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι ἀνάγκη μὲν μετέχειν ἀμφοτέρους ἀρετῆς, ταύτης δʼ εἶναι διαφοράς, (ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν φύσει ἀρχομένων). καὶ τοῦτο εὐθὺς ὑφήγηται τὰ περὶ τὴν ψυχήν· ἐν ταύτῃ γάρ ἐστι φύσει τὸ μὲν ἄρχον τὸ δʼ ἀρχόμενον, ὧν ἑτέραν φαμὲν εἶναι ἀρετήν, οἷον τοῦ λόγον ἔχοντος καὶ τοῦ ἀλόγου. δῆλον τοίνυν ὅτι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἔχει καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ὥστε φύσει πλείω τὰ ἄρχοντα καὶ ἀρχόμενα. ἄλλον γὰρ τρόπον τὸ ἐλεύθερον τοῦ δούλου ἄρχει καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν τοῦ θήλεος καὶ ἀνὴρ παιδός, καὶ πᾶσιν ἐνυπάρχει μὲν τὰ μόρια τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλʼ ἐνυπάρχει διαφερόντως. ὁ μὲν γὰρ δοῦλος ὅλως οὐκ ἔχει τὸ βουλευτικόν, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ ἔχει μέν, ἀλλʼ ἄκυρον, ὁ δὲ παῖς ἔχει μέν, ἀλλʼ ἀτελές.διὸ τὸν μὲν ἄρχοντα τελέαν ἔχειν δεῖ τὴν διανοητικὴν ἀρετήν (τὸ γὰρ ἔργον ἐστὶν ἁπλῶς τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος, ὁ δὲ λόγος ἀρχιτέκτων), τῶν δʼ ἄλλων ἕκαστον ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει αὐτοῖς. ὁμοίως τοίνυν ἀναγκαίως ἔχειν καὶ περὶ τὰς ἠθικὰς ἀρετὰς ὑποληπτέον, δεῖν μὲν μετέχειν πάντας, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸν αὐτὸντρόπον, ἀλλʼ ὅσον ἑκάστῳ πρὸς τὸ αὑτοῦ ἔργον. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι ἔστιν ἠθικὴ ἀρετὴ τῶν εἰρημένων πάντων, καὶ οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ σωφροσύνη γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρός, οὐδʼ ἀνδρεία καὶ δικαιοσύνη, καθάπερ ᾤετο Σωκράτης, ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν ἀρχικὴ ἀνδρεία ἡ δʼ ὑπηρετική, ὁμοίως δʼ ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας.

-

δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο καὶ κατὰ μέρος μᾶλλον ἐπισκοποῦσιν· καθόλου γὰρ οἱ λέγοντες ἐξαπατῶσιν ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι τὸ εὖ ἔχειν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀρετή, ἢ τὸ ὀρθοπραγεῖν, ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων· πολὺ γὰρ ἄμεινον λέγουσιν οἱ ἐξαριθμοῦντες τὰς ἀρετάς, ὥσπερ Γοργίας, τῶν οὕτως ὁριζομένων. διὸ δεῖ, ὥσπερ ὁ ποιητὴς εἴρηκε περὶ γυναικός, οὕτω νομίζειν ἔχειν περὶ πάντων· γυναικὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει, Soph. Aj. 293 ἀλλʼ ἀνδρὶ οὐκέτι τοῦτο. ἐπεὶ δʼ ὁ παῖς ἀτελής, δῆλον ὅτι τούτου μὲν καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ οὐκ αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὑτόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ τέλος καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ δούλου πρὸς δεσπότην. ἔθεμεν δὲ πρὸς τἀναγκαῖα χρήσιμον εἶναι τὸν δοῦλον, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἀρετῆς δεῖται μικρᾶς, καὶ τοσαύτης ὅπως μήτε διʼ ἀκολασίαν μήτε διὰ δειλίαν ἐλλείψῃ τῶν ἔργων. ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις, τὸ νῦν εἰρημένον εἰ ἀληθές, ἆρα καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας δεήσει ἔχειν ἀρετήν· πολλάκις γὰρ διʼ ἀκολασίαν ἐλλείπουσι τῶν ἔργων. ἢ διαφέρει τοῦτο πλεῖστον; ὁ μὲν γὰρ δοῦλος κοινωνὸς ζωῆς, ὁ δὲ πορρώτερον, καὶ τοσοῦτον ἐπιβάλλει ἀρετῆς ὅσον περ καὶ δουλείας· ὁ γὰρ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἀφωρισμένην τινὰ ἔχει δουλείαν, καὶ ὁ μὲν δοῦλος τῶν φύσει, σκυτοτόμος δʼ οὐθείς, οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων τεχνιτῶν. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρετῆς αἴτιον εἶναι δεῖ τῷ δούλῳ τὸν δεσπότην, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν διδασκαλικὴν ἔχοντα τῶν ἔργων δεσποτικήν. διὸ λέγουσιν οὐ καλῶς οἱ λόγου τοὺς δούλους ἀποστεροῦντες καὶ φάσκοντες ἐπιτάξει χρῆσθαι μόνον· νουθετητέον γὰρ μᾶλλον τοὺς δούλους ἢ τοὺς παῖδας.

+

δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο καὶ κατὰ μέρος μᾶλλον ἐπισκοποῦσιν· καθόλου γὰρ οἱ λέγοντες ἐξαπατῶσιν ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι τὸ εὖ ἔχειν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀρετή, ἢ τὸ ὀρθοπραγεῖν, ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων· πολὺ γὰρ ἄμεινον λέγουσιν οἱ ἐξαριθμοῦντες τὰς ἀρετάς, ὥσπερ Γοργίας, τῶν οὕτως ὁριζομένων. διὸ δεῖ, ὥσπερ ὁ ποιητὴς εἴρηκε περὶ γυναικός, οὕτω νομίζειν ἔχειν περὶ πάντων· γυναικὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει, Soph. Aj. 293 ἀλλʼ ἀνδρὶ οὐκέτι τοῦτο. ἐπεὶ δʼ ὁ παῖς ἀτελής, δῆλον ὅτι τούτου μὲν καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ οὐκ αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὑτόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ τέλος καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ δούλου πρὸς δεσπότην. ἔθεμεν δὲ πρὸς τἀναγκαῖα χρήσιμον εἶναι τὸν δοῦλον, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἀρετῆς δεῖται μικρᾶς, καὶ τοσαύτης ὅπως μήτε διʼ ἀκολασίαν μήτε διὰ δειλίαν ἐλλείψῃ τῶν ἔργων. ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις, τὸ νῦν εἰρημένον εἰ ἀληθές, ἆρα καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας δεήσει ἔχειν ἀρετήν· πολλάκις γὰρ διʼ ἀκολασίαν ἐλλείπουσι τῶν ἔργων. ἢ διαφέρει τοῦτο πλεῖστον; ὁ μὲν γὰρ δοῦλος κοινωνὸς ζωῆς, ὁ δὲ πορρώτερον, καὶ τοσοῦτον ἐπιβάλλει ἀρετῆς ὅσον περ καὶ δουλείας· ὁ γὰρ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἀφωρισμένην τινὰ ἔχει δουλείαν, καὶ ὁ μὲν δοῦλος τῶν φύσει, σκυτοτόμος δʼ οὐθείς, οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων τεχνιτῶν. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρετῆς αἴτιον εἶναι δεῖ τῷ δούλῳ τὸν δεσπότην, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν διδασκαλικὴν ἔχοντα τῶν ἔργων δεσποτικήν. διὸ λέγουσιν οὐ καλῶς οἱ λόγου τοὺς δούλους ἀποστεροῦντες καὶ φάσκοντες ἐπιτάξει χρῆσθαι μόνον· νουθετητέον γὰρ μᾶλλον τοὺς δούλους ἢ τοὺς παῖδας.

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· περὶ δʼ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός, καὶ τέκνων καὶ πατρός, τῆς τε περὶ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἀρετῆς καὶ τῆς πρὸς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ὁμιλίας, τί τὸ καλῶς καὶ μὴ καλῶς ἐστι, καὶ πῶς δεῖ τὸ μὲν εὖ διώκειν τὸ δὲ κακῶς φεύγειν, ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὰς πολιτείας ἀναγκαῖον ἐπελθεῖν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ οἰκία μὲν πᾶσα μέρος πόλεως, ταῦτα δʼ οἰκίας, τὴν δὲ τοῦ μέρους πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου δεῖ βλέπειν ἀρετήν, ἀναγκαῖον πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν βλέποντας παιδεύειν καὶ τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας, εἴπερ τι διαφέρει πρὸς τὸ τὴν πόλιν εἶναι σπουδαίαν καὶ τὸ τοὺς παῖδας εἶναι σπουδαίους καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας σπουδαίας. ἀναγκαῖον δὲ διαφέρειν· αἱ μὲν γὰρ γυναῖκες ἥμισυ μέρος τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἐκ δὲ τῶν παίδων οἱ κοινωνοὶ γίνονται τῆς πολιτείας. ὥστʼ, ἐπεὶ περὶ μὲν τούτων διώρισται, περὶ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν ἄλλοις λεκτέον, ἀφέντες ὡς τέλος ἔχοντας τοὺς νῦν λόγους, ἄλλην ἀρχὴν ποιησάμενοι λέγωμεν, καὶ πρῶτον ἐπισκεψώμεθα περὶ τῶν ἀποφηναμένων περὶ τῆς πολιτείας τῆς ἀρίστης.

@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@

ἡ δὲ σύνταξις ὅλη βούλεται μὲν εἶναι μήτε δημοκρατία μήτε ὀλιγαρχία, μέση δὲ τούτων, ἣν καλοῦσι πολιτείαν· ἐκ γὰρ τῶν ὁπλιτευόντων ἐστίν. εἰ μὲν οὖν ὡς κοινοτάτην ταύτην κατασκευάζει ταῖς πόλεσι τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν, καλῶς εἴρηκεν ἴσως· εἰ δʼ ὡς ἀρίστην μετὰ τὴν πρώτην πολιτείαν, οὐ καλῶς. τάχα γὰρ τὴν τῶν Λακώνων ἄν τις ἐπαινέσειε μᾶλλον, ἢ κἂν ἄλλην τινὰ ἀριστοκρατικωτέραν. ἔνιοι μὲν οὖν λέγουσιν ὡς δεῖ τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ἐξ ἁπασῶν εἶναι τῶν πολιτειῶν μεμειγμένην, διὸ καὶ τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ἐπαινοῦσιν (εἶναι γὰρ αὐτὴν οἱ μὲν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ μοναρχίας καὶ δημοκρατίας φασίν, λέγοντες τὴν μὲν βασιλείαν μοναρχίαν, τὴν δὲ τῶν γερόντων ἀρχὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν, δημοκρατεῖσθαι δὲ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἐφόρων ἀρχὴν διὰ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ δήμου εἶναι τοὺς ἐφόρους· οἱ δὲ τὴν μὲν ἐφορείαν εἶναι τυραννίδα, δημοκρατεῖσθαι δὲ κατά τε τὰ συσσίτια καὶ τὸν ἄλλον βίον τὸν καθʼ ἡμέραν)· ἐν δὲ τοῖς νόμοις εἴρηται τούτοις ὡς δέον συγκεῖσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ἐκ δημοκρατίας καὶ τυραννίδος, ἃς ἢ τὸ παράπαν οὐκ ἄν τις θείη πολιτείας ἢ χειρίστας πασῶν. βέλτιον οὖν λέγουσιν οἱ πλείους μιγνύντες· ἡ γὰρ ἐκ πλειόνων συγκειμένη πολιτεία βελτίων. ἔπειτʼ οὐδʼ ἔχουσα φαίνεται μοναρχικὸν οὐδέν, ἀλλʼ ὀλιγαρχικὰ καὶ δημοκρατικά· μᾶλλον δʼ ἐγκλίνειν βούλεται πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν. δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀρχόντων καταστάσεως· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ αἱρετῶν κληρωτοὺς κοινὸν ἀμφοῖν, τὸ δὲ τοῖς μὲν εὐπορωτέροις ἐπάναγκες ἐκκλησιάζειν εἶναι καὶ φέρειν ἄρχοντας ἤ τι ποιεῖν ἄλλο τῶν πολιτικῶν, τοὺς δʼ ἀφεῖσθαι, τοῦτο δʼ ὀλιγαρχικόν, καὶ τὸ πειρᾶσθαι πλείους ἐκ τῶν εὐπόρων εἶναι τοὺς ἄρχοντας, καὶ τὰς μεγίστας ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων τιμημάτων. ὀλιγαρχικὴν δὲ ποιεῖ καὶ τὴν τῆς βουλῆς αἵρεσιν. αἱροῦνται μὲν γὰρ πάντες ἐπάναγκες, ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου τιμήματος, εἶτα πάλιν ἴσους ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου· εἶτʼ ἐκ τῶν τρίτων, πλὴν οὐ πᾶσιν ἐπάναγκες ἦν τοῖς ἐκ τῶν τρίτων ἢ τετάρτων, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τετάρτου μόνοις ἐπάναγκες τοῖς πρώτοις καὶ τοῖς δευτέροις· εἶτʼ ἐκ τούτων ἴσον ἀφʼ ἑκάστου τιμήματος ἀποδεῖξαί φησι δεῖν ἀριθμόν. ἔσονται δὴ πλείους οἱ ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων τιμημάτων καὶ βελτίους διὰ τὸ ἐνίους μὴ αἱρεῖσθαι τῶν δημοτικῶν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπάναγκες. ὡς μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐκ δημοκρατίας καὶ μοναρχίας δεῖ συνιστάναι τὴν τοιαύτην πολιτείαν, ἐκ τούτων φανερὸν καὶ τῶν ὕστερον ῥηθησομένων, ὅταν ἐπιβάλλῃ περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης πολιτείας ἡ σκέψις· ἔχει δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τῶν ἀρχόντων τὸ ἐξ αἱρετῶν αἱρετοὺς ἐπικίνδυνον. εἰ γάρ τινες συστῆναι θέλουσι καὶ μέτριοι τὸ πλῆθος, αἰεὶ κατὰ τὴν τούτων αἱρεθήσονται βούλησιν. τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὴν πολιτείαν τὴν ἐν τοῖς Νόμοις τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον.

εἰσὶ δέ τινες πολιτεῖαι καὶ ἄλλαι, αἱ μὲν ἰδιωτῶν αἱ δὲ φιλοσόφων καὶ πολιτικῶν, πᾶσαι δὲ τῶν καθεστηκυιῶν καὶ καθʼ ἃς πολιτεύονται νῦν ἐγγύτερόν εἰσι τούτων ἀμφοτέρων. οὐδεὶς γὰρ οὔτε τὴν περὶ τὰ τέκνα κοινότητα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἄλλος κεκαινοτόμηκεν, οὔτε περὶ τὰ συσσίτια τῶν γυναικῶν, ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἄρχονται μᾶλλον. δοκεῖ γάρ τισι τὸ περὶ τὰς οὐσίας εἶναι μέγιστον τετάχθαι καλῶς· περὶ γὰρ τούτων ποιεῖσθαί φασι τὰς στάσεις πάντας. διὸ Φαλέας ὁ Χαλκηδόνιος τοῦτʼ εἰσήνεγκε πρῶτος· φησὶ γὰρ δεῖν ἴσας εἶναι τὰς κτήσεις τῶν πολιτῶν. τοῦτο δὲ κατοικιζομέναις μὲν εὐθὺς οὐ χαλεπὸν ᾤετο ποιεῖν, τὰς δʼ ἤδη κατοικουμένας ἐργωδέστερον μέν, ὅμως δὲ τάχιστʼ ἂν ὁμαλισθῆναι τῷ τὰς προῖκας τοὺς μὲν πλουσίους διδόναι μὲν λαμβάνειν δὲ μή, τοὺς δὲ πένητας μὴ διδόναι μὲν λαμβάνειν δέ. Πλάτων δὲ τοὺς Νόμους γράφων μέχρι μέν τινος ᾤετο δεῖν ἐᾶν, πλεῖον δὲ τοῦ πενταπλασίαν εἶναι τῆς ἐλαχίστης μηδενὶ τῶν πολιτῶν ἐξουσίαν εἶναι κτήσασθαι, καθάπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον. δεῖ δὲ μηδὲ τοῦτο λανθάνειν τοὺς οὕτω νομοθετοῦντας, ὃ λανθάνει νῦν, ὅτι τὸ τῆς οὐσίας τάττοντας πλῆθος προσήκει καὶ τῶν τέκνων τὸ πλῆθος τάττειν· ἐὰν γὰρ ὑπεραίρῃ τῆς οὐσίας τὸ μέγεθος ὁ τῶν τέκνων ἀριθμός, ἀνάγκη τόν γε νόμον λύεσθαι, καὶ χωρὶς τῆς λύσεως φαῦλον τὸ πολλοὺς ἐκ πλουσίων γίνεσθαι πένητας· ἔργον γὰρ μὴ νεωτεροποιοὺς εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους. διότι μὲν οὖν ἔχει τινὰ δύναμιν εἰς τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν ἡ τῆς οὐσίας ὁμαλότης, καὶ τῶν πάλαι τινὲς φαίνονται διεγνωκότες, οἷον καὶ Σόλων ἐνομοθέτησεν, καὶ παρʼ ἄλλοις ἔστι νόμος ὃς κωλύει κτᾶσθαι γῆν ὁπόσην ἂν βούληταί τις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν πωλεῖν οἱ νόμοι κωλύουσιν, ὥσπερ ἐν Λοκροῖς νόμος ἐστὶ μὴ πωλεῖν ἐὰν μὴ φανερὰν ἀτυχίαν δείξῃ συμβεβηκυῖαν, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς παλαιοὺς κλήρους διασῴζειν (τοῦτο δὲ λυθὲν καὶ περὶ Λευκάδα δημοτικὴν ἐποίησε λίαν τὴν πολιτείαν αὐτῶν· οὐ γὰρ ἔτι συνέβαινεν ἀπὸ τῶν ὡρισμένων τιμημάτων εἰς τὰς ἀρχὰς βαδίζειν)· ἀλλʼ ἔστι τὴν ἰσότητα μὲν ὑπάρχειν τῆς οὐσίας, ταύτην δʼ ἢ λίαν εἶναι πολλήν, ὥστε τρυφᾶν, ἢ λίαν ὀλίγην, ὥστε ζῆν γλίσχρως. δῆλον οὖν ὡς οὐχ ἱκανὸν τὸ τὰς οὐσίας ἴσας ποιῆσαι τὸν νομοθέτην, ἀλλὰ τοῦ μέσου στοχαστέον. ἔτι δʼ εἴ τις καὶ τὴν μετρίαν τάξειεν οὐσίαν πᾶσιν, οὐδὲν ὄφελος· μᾶλλον γὰρ δεῖ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ὁμαλίζειν ἢ τὰς οὐσίας, τοῦτο δʼ οὐκ ἔστι μὴ παιδευομένοις ἱκανῶς ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων. ἀλλʼ ἴσως ἂν εἴπειεν ὁ Φαλέας ὅτι ταῦτα τυγχάνει λέγων αὐτός· οἴεται γὰρ δυοῖν τούτοιν ἰσότητα δεῖν ὑπάρχειν ταῖς πόλεσιν, κτήσεως καὶ παιδείας. ἀλλὰ τήν τε παιδείαν ἥτις ἔσται δεῖ λέγειν, καὶ τὸ μίαν εἶναι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐδὲν ὄφελος· ἔστι γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν μὲν εἶναι καὶ μίαν, ἀλλὰ ταύτην εἶναι τοιαύτην ἐξ ἧς ἔσονται προαιρετικοὶ τοῦ πλεονεκτεῖν ἢ χρημάτων ἢ τιμῆς ἢ συναμφοτέρων.

-

ἔτι στασιάζουσιν οὐ μόνον διὰ τὴν ἀνισότητα τῆς κτήσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν τιμῶν, τοὐναντίον δὲ περὶ ἑκάτερον· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὶ διὰ τὸ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις ἄνισον, οἱ δὲ χαρίεντες περὶ τῶν τιμῶν, ἐὰν ἴσαι· ὅθεν καὶ ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ ἠμὲν κακὸς ἠδὲ καὶ ἐσθλός. Hom. Il. 9.319 οὐ μόνον δʼ οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τἀναγκαῖα ἀδικοῦσιν, ὧν ἄκος εἶναι νομίζει τὴν ἰσότητα τῆς οὐσίας, ὥστε μὴ λωποδυτεῖν διὰ τὸ ῥιγοῦν ἢ πεινῆν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅπως χαίρωσι καὶ μὴ ἐπιθυμῶσιν· ἐὰν γὰρ μείζω ἔχωσιν ἐπιθυμίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων, διὰ τὴν ταύτης ἰατρείαν ἀδικήσουσιν· οὐ τοίνυν διὰ ταύτην μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἂν ἐπιθυμοῖεν ἵνα χαίρωσι ταῖς ἄνευ λυπῶν ἡδοναῖς. τί οὖν ἄκος τῶν τριῶν τούτων; τοῖς μὲν οὐσία βραχεῖα καὶ ἐργασία, τοῖς δὲ σωφροσύνη· τρίτον δʼ, εἴ τινες βούλοιντο διʼ αὑτῶν χαίρειν, οὐκ ἂν ἐπιζητοῖεν εἰ μὴ παρὰ φιλοσοφίας ἄκος. αἱ γὰρ ἄλλαι ἀνθρώπων δέονται· ἐπεὶ ἀδικουσί γε τὰ μέγιστα διὰ τὰς ὑπερβολάς, ἀλλʼ οὐ διὰ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα (οἷον τυραννοῦσιν οὐχ ἵνα μὴ ῥιγῶσιν· διὸ καὶ αἱ τιμαὶ μεγάλαι, ἂν ἀποκτείνῃ τις οὐ κλέπτην ἀλλὰ τύραννον)· ὥστε πρὸς τὰς μικρὰς ἀδικίας βοηθητικὸς μόνον ὁ τρόπος τῆς Φαλέου πολιτείας. ἔτι τὰ πολλὰ βούλεται κατασκευάζειν ἐξ ὧν τὰ πρὸς αὑτοὺς πολιτεύσονται καλῶς, δεῖ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς γειτνιῶντας καὶ τοὺς ἔξωθεν πάντας. ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα τὴν πολιτείαν συντετάχθαι πρὸς τὴν πολεμικὴν ἰσχύν, περὶ ἧς ἐκεῖνος οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς κτήσεως. δεῖ γὰρ οὐ μόνον πρὸς τὰς πολιτικὰς χρήσεις ἱκανὴν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξωθεν κινδύνους· διόπερ οὔτε τοσοῦτον δεῖ πλῆθος ὑπάρχειν ὅσου οἱ πλησίον καὶ κρείττους ἐπιθυμήσουσιν, οἱ δὲ ἔχοντες ἀμύνειν οὐ δυνήσονται τοὺς ἐπιόντας, οὔθʼ οὕτως ὀλίγην ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι πόλεμον ὑπενεγκεῖν μηδὲ τῶν ἴσων καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων. ἐκεῖνος μὲν οὖν οὐδὲν διώρικεν, δεῖ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ λανθάνειν, ὅ τι συμφέρει πλῆθος οὐσίας. ἴσως οὖν ἄριστος ὅρος τὸ μὴ λυσιτελεῖν τοῖς κρείττοσι διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν πολεμεῖν, ἀλλʼ οὕτως ὡς ἂν καὶ μὴ ἐχόντων τοσαύτην οὐσίαν. οἷον Εὔβουλος Αὐτοφραδάτου μέλλοντος Ἀταρνέα πολιορκεῖν ἐκέλευσεν αὐτόν, σκεψάμενον ἐν πόσῳ χρόνῳ λήψεται τὸ χωρίον, λογίσασθαι τοῦ χρόνου τούτου τὴν δαπάνην· ἐθέλειν γὰρ ἔλαττον τούτου λαβὼν ἐκλιπεῖν ἤδη τὸν Ἀταρνέα· ταῦτα δʼ εἰπὼν ἐποίησε τὸν Αὐτοφραδάτην σύννουν γενόμενον παύσασθαι τῆς πολιορκίας.

+

ἔτι στασιάζουσιν οὐ μόνον διὰ τὴν ἀνισότητα τῆς κτήσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν τιμῶν, τοὐναντίον δὲ περὶ ἑκάτερον· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὶ διὰ τὸ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις ἄνισον, οἱ δὲ χαρίεντες περὶ τῶν τιμῶν, ἐὰν ἴσαι· ὅθεν καὶ ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ ἠμὲν κακὸς ἠδὲ καὶ ἐσθλός. Hom. Il. 9.319 οὐ μόνον δʼ οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τἀναγκαῖα ἀδικοῦσιν, ὧν ἄκος εἶναι νομίζει τὴν ἰσότητα τῆς οὐσίας, ὥστε μὴ λωποδυτεῖν διὰ τὸ ῥιγοῦν ἢ πεινῆν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅπως χαίρωσι καὶ μὴ ἐπιθυμῶσιν· ἐὰν γὰρ μείζω ἔχωσιν ἐπιθυμίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων, διὰ τὴν ταύτης ἰατρείαν ἀδικήσουσιν· οὐ τοίνυν διὰ ταύτην μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἂν ἐπιθυμοῖεν ἵνα χαίρωσι ταῖς ἄνευ λυπῶν ἡδοναῖς. τί οὖν ἄκος τῶν τριῶν τούτων; τοῖς μὲν οὐσία βραχεῖα καὶ ἐργασία, τοῖς δὲ σωφροσύνη· τρίτον δʼ, εἴ τινες βούλοιντο διʼ αὑτῶν χαίρειν, οὐκ ἂν ἐπιζητοῖεν εἰ μὴ παρὰ φιλοσοφίας ἄκος. αἱ γὰρ ἄλλαι ἀνθρώπων δέονται· ἐπεὶ ἀδικουσί γε τὰ μέγιστα διὰ τὰς ὑπερβολάς, ἀλλʼ οὐ διὰ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα (οἷον τυραννοῦσιν οὐχ ἵνα μὴ ῥιγῶσιν· διὸ καὶ αἱ τιμαὶ μεγάλαι, ἂν ἀποκτείνῃ τις οὐ κλέπτην ἀλλὰ τύραννον)· ὥστε πρὸς τὰς μικρὰς ἀδικίας βοηθητικὸς μόνον ὁ τρόπος τῆς Φαλέου πολιτείας. ἔτι τὰ πολλὰ βούλεται κατασκευάζειν ἐξ ὧν τὰ πρὸς αὑτοὺς πολιτεύσονται καλῶς, δεῖ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς γειτνιῶντας καὶ τοὺς ἔξωθεν πάντας. ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα τὴν πολιτείαν συντετάχθαι πρὸς τὴν πολεμικὴν ἰσχύν, περὶ ἧς ἐκεῖνος οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς κτήσεως. δεῖ γὰρ οὐ μόνον πρὸς τὰς πολιτικὰς χρήσεις ἱκανὴν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξωθεν κινδύνους· διόπερ οὔτε τοσοῦτον δεῖ πλῆθος ὑπάρχειν ὅσου οἱ πλησίον καὶ κρείττους ἐπιθυμήσουσιν, οἱ δὲ ἔχοντες ἀμύνειν οὐ δυνήσονται τοὺς ἐπιόντας, οὔθʼ οὕτως ὀλίγην ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι πόλεμον ὑπενεγκεῖν μηδὲ τῶν ἴσων καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων. ἐκεῖνος μὲν οὖν οὐδὲν διώρικεν, δεῖ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ λανθάνειν, ὅ τι συμφέρει πλῆθος οὐσίας. ἴσως οὖν ἄριστος ὅρος τὸ μὴ λυσιτελεῖν τοῖς κρείττοσι διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν πολεμεῖν, ἀλλʼ οὕτως ὡς ἂν καὶ μὴ ἐχόντων τοσαύτην οὐσίαν. οἷον Εὔβουλος Αὐτοφραδάτου μέλλοντος Ἀταρνέα πολιορκεῖν ἐκέλευσεν αὐτόν, σκεψάμενον ἐν πόσῳ χρόνῳ λήψεται τὸ χωρίον, λογίσασθαι τοῦ χρόνου τούτου τὴν δαπάνην· ἐθέλειν γὰρ ἔλαττον τούτου λαβὼν ἐκλιπεῖν ἤδη τὸν Ἀταρνέα· ταῦτα δʼ εἰπὼν ἐποίησε τὸν Αὐτοφραδάτην σύννουν γενόμενον παύσασθαι τῆς πολιορκίας.

ἔστι μὲν οὖν τι τῶν συμφερόντων τὸ τὰς οὐσίας ἴσας εἶναι τοῖς πολίταις πρὸς τὸ μὴ στασιάζειν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, οὐ μὴν μέγα οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν. καὶ γὰρ ἂν οἱ χαρίεντες ἀγανακτοῖεν ὡς οὐκ ἴσων ὄντες ἄξιοι, διὸ καὶ φαίνονται πολλάκις ἐπιτιθέμενοι καὶ στασιάζοντες· ἔτι δʼ ἡ πονηρία τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄπληστον, καὶ τὸ πρῶτον μὲν ἱκανὸν διωβελία μόνον, ὅταν δʼ ἤδη τοῦτʼ ᾖ πάτριον, ἀεὶ δέονται τοῦ πλείονος, ἕως εἰς ἄπειρον ἔλθωσιν. ἄπειρος γὰρ ἡ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας φύσις, ἧς πρὸς τὴν ἀναπλήρωσιν οἱ πολλοὶ ζῶσιν. τῶν οὖν τοιούτων ἀρχή, μᾶλλον τοῦ τὰς οὐσίας ὁμαλίζειν, τὸ τοὺς μὲν ἐπιεικεῖς τῇ φύσει τοιούτους παρασκευάζειν ὥστε μὴ βούλεσθαι πλεονεκτεῖν, τοὺς δὲ φαύλους ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστίν, ἂν ἥττους τε ὦσι καὶ μὴ ἀδικῶνται. οὐ καλῶς δὲ οὐδὲ τὴν ἰσότητα τῆς οὐσίας εἴρηκεν. περὶ γὰρ τὴν τῆς γῆς κτῆσιν ἰσάζει μόνον, ἔστι δὲ καὶ δούλων καὶ βοσκημάτων πλοῦτος καὶ νομίσματος, καὶ κατασκευὴ πολλὴ τῶν καλουμένων ἐπίπλων· ἢ πάντων οὖν τούτων ἰσότητα ζητητέον ἢ τάξιν τινὰ μετρίαν, ἢ πάντα ἐατέον. φαίνεται δʼ ἐκ τῆς νομοθεσίας κατασκευάζων τὴν πόλιν μικράν, εἴ γʼ οἱ τεχνῖται πάντες δημόσιοι ἔσονται καὶ μὴ πλήρωμά τι παρέξονται τῆς πόλεως. ἀλλʼ εἴπερ δεῖ δημοσίους εἶναι τοὺς τὰ κοινὰ ἐργαζομένους, δεῖ (καθάπερ ἐν Ἐπιδάμνῳ τε καὶ ὡς Διόφαντός ποτε κατεσκεύαζεν Ἀθήνησι) τοῦτον ἔχειν τὸν τρόπον. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Φαλέου πολιτείας σχεδὸν ἐκ τούτων ἄν τις θεωρήσειεν, εἴ τι τυγχάνει καλῶς εἰρηκὼς ἢ μὴ καλῶς.

Ἱππόδαμος δὲ Εὐρυφῶντος Μιλήσιος (ὃς καὶ τὴν τῶν πόλεων διαίρεσιν εὗρε καὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ κατέτεμεν, γενόμενος καὶ περὶ τὸν ἄλλον βίον περιττότερος διὰ φιλοτιμίαν οὕτως ὥστε δοκεῖν ἐνίοις ζῆν περιεργότερον τριχῶν τε πλήθει καὶ κόσμῳ πολυτελεῖ, ἔτι δὲ ἐσθῆτος εὐτελοῦς μὲν ἀλεεινῆς δέ, οὐκ ἐν τῷ χειμῶνι μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοὺς θερινοὺς χρόνους, λόγιος δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν ὅλην φύσιν εἶναι βουλόμενος) πρῶτος τῶν μὴ πολιτευομένων ἐνεχείρησέ τι περὶ πολιτείας εἰπεῖν τῆς ἀρίστης. κατεσκεύαζε δὲ τὴν πόλιν τῷ πλήθει μὲν μυρίανδρον, εἰς τρία δὲ μέρη διῃρημένην· ἐποίει γὰρ ἓν μὲν μέρος τεχνίτας, ἓν δὲ γεωργούς, τρίτον δὲ τὸ προπολεμοῦν καὶ τὰ ὅπλα ἔχον. διῄρει δʼ εἰς τρία μέρη τὴν χώραν, τὴν μὲν ἱερὰν τὴν δὲ δημοσίαν τὴν δʼ ἰδίαν· ὅθεν μὲν τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιήσουσι πρὸς τοὺς θεούς, ἱεράν, ἀφʼ ὧν δʼ οἱ προπολεμοῦντες βιώσονται, κοινήν, τὴν δὲ τῶν γεωργῶν ἰδίαν. ᾤετο δʼ εἴδη καὶ τῶν νόμων εἶναι τρία μόνον· περὶ ὧν γὰρ αἱ δίκαι γίνονται, τρία ταῦτʼ εἶναι τὸν ἀριθμόν, ὕβριν βλάβην θάνατον. ἐνομοθέτει δὲ καὶ δικαστήριον ἓν τὸ κύριον, εἰς ὃ πάσας ἀνάγεσθαι δεῖν τὰς μὴ καλῶς κεκρίσθαι δοκούσας δίκας· τοῦτο δὲ κατεσκεύαζεν ἐκ τινῶν γερόντων αἱρετῶν. τὰς δὲ κρίσεις ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις οὐ διὰ ψηφοφορίας ᾤετο γίγνεσθαι δεῖν, ἀλλὰ φέρειν ἕκαστον πινάκιον, ἐν ᾧ γράφειν, εἰ καταδικάζοι ἁπλῶς, τὴν δίκην, εἰ δʼ ἀπολύοι ἁπλῶς, κενόν, εἰ δὲ τὸ μὲν τὸ δὲ μή, τοῦτο διορίζειν. νῦν γὰρ οὐκ ᾤετο νενομοθετῆσθαι καλῶς· ἀναγκάζειν γὰρ ἐπιορκεῖν ἢ ταῦτα ἢ ταῦτα δικάζοντας. ἔτι δὲ νόμον ἐτίθει περὶ τῶν εὑρισκόντων τι τῇ πόλει συμφέρον, ὅπως τυγχάνωσι τιμῆς, καὶ τοῖς παισὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τελευτώντων ἐκ δημοσίου γίνεσθαι τὴν τροφήν, ὡς οὔπω τοῦτο παρʼ ἄλλοις νενομοθετημένον (ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἀθήναις οὗτος ὁ νόμος νῦν καὶ ἐν ἑτέραις τῶν πόλεων)· τοὺς δʼ ἄρχοντας αἱρετοὺς ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου εἶναι πάντας. δῆμον δʼ ἐποίει τὰ τρία μέρη τῆς πόλεως· τοὺς δʼ αἱρεθέντας ἐπιμελεῖσθαι κοινῶν καὶ ξενικῶν καὶ ὀρφανικῶν.

τὰ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστα καὶ τὰ μάλιστα ἀξιόλογα τῆς Ἱπποδάμου τάξεως ταῦτʼ ἐστίν· ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις πρῶτον μὲν τὴν διαίρεσιν τοῦ πλήθους τῶν πολιτῶν. οἵ τε γὰρ τεχνῖται καὶ οἱ γεωργοὶ καὶ οἱ τὰ ὅπλα ἔχοντες κοινωνοῦσι τῆς πολιτείας πάντες, οἱ μὲν γεωργοὶ οὐκ ἔχοντες ὅπλα, οἱ δὲ τεχνῖται οὔτε γῆν οὔτε ὅπλα, ὥστε γίνονται σχεδὸν δοῦλοι τῶν τὰ ὅπλα κεκτημένων. μετέχειν μὲν οὖν πασῶν τῶν τιμῶν ἀδύνατον (ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἐκ τῶν τὰ ὅπλα ἐχόντων καθίστασθαι καὶ στρατηγοὺς καὶ πολιτοφύλακας καὶ τὰς κυριωτάτας ἀρχὰς ὡς εἰπεῖν)· μὴ μετέχοντας δὲ τῆς πολιτείας πῶς οἷόν τε φιλικῶς ἔχειν πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν; ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ κρείττους εἶναι τοὺς τὰ ὅπλα γε κεκτημένους ἀμφοτέρων τῶν μερῶν. τοῦτο δʼ οὐ ῥᾴδιον μὴ πολλοὺς ὄντας· εἰ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἔσται, τί δεῖ τοὺς ἄλλους μετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας καὶ κυρίους εἶναι τῆς τῶν ἀρχόντων καταστάσεως; ἔτι οἱ γεωργοὶ τί χρήσιμοι τῇ πόλει; τεχνίτας μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι (πᾶσα γὰρ δεῖται πόλις τεχνιτῶν), καὶ δύνανται διαγίγνεσθαι καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσιν ἀπὸ τῆς τέχνης· οἱ δὲ γεωργοὶ πορίζοντες μὲν τοῖς τὰ ὅπλα κεκτημένοις τὴν τροφὴν εὐλόγως ἂν ἦσάν τι τῆς πόλεως μέρος, νῦν δʼ ἰδίαν ἔχουσιν καὶ ταύτην ἰδίᾳ γεωργήσουσιν. ἔτι δὲ τὴν κοινήν, ἀφʼ ἧς οἱ προπολεμοῦντες ἕξουσι τὴν τροφήν, εἰ μὲν αὐτοὶ γεωργήσουσιν, οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὸ μάχιμον ἕτερον καὶ τὸ γεωργοῦν, βούλεται δʼ ὁ νομοθέτης· εἰ δʼ ἕτεροί τινες ἔσονται τῶν τε τὰ ἴδια γεωργούντων καὶ τῶν μαχίμων, τέταρτον αὖ μόριον ἔσται τοῦτο τῆς πόλεως, οὐδενὸς μετέχον, ἀλλὰ ἀλλότριον τῆς πολιτείας· ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ τις τοὺς αὐτοὺς θήσει τούς τε τὴν ἰδίαν καὶ τοὺς τὴν κοινὴν γεωργοῦντας, τό τε πλῆθος ἄπορον ἔσται τῶν καρπῶν ἐξ ὧν ἕκαστος γεωργήσει δύο οἰκίαις, καὶ τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐκ εὐθὺς ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν κλήρων αὑτοῖς τε τὴν τροφὴν λήψονται καὶ τοῖς μαχίμοις παρέξουσιν; ταῦτα δὴ πάντα πολλὴν ἔχει ταραχήν. οὐ καλῶς δʼ οὐδʼ ὁ περὶ τῆς κρίσεως ἔχει νόμος, τὸ κρίνειν ἀξιοῦν διαιροῦντα, τῆς δίκης ἁπλῶς γεγραμμένης, καὶ γίνεσθαι τὸν δικαστὴν διαιτητήν. τοῦτο δὲ ἐν μὲν τῇ διαίτῃ καὶ πλείοσιν ἐνδέχεται (κοινολογοῦνται γὰρ ἀλλήλοις περὶ τῆς κρίσεως), ἐν δὲ τοῖς δικαστηρίοις οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὐναντίον τούτου τῶν νομοθετῶν οἱ πολλοὶ παρασκευάζουσιν ὅπως οἱ δικασταὶ μὴ κοινολογῶνται πρὸς ἀλλήλους. ἔπειτα πῶς οὐκ ἔσται ταραχώδης ἡ κρίσις, ὅταν ὀφείλειν μὲν ὁ δικαστὴς οἴηται, μὴ τοσοῦτον δʼ ὅσον ὁ δικαζόμενος; ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἴκοσι μνᾶς, ὁ δὲ δικαστὴς κρινεῖ δέκα μνᾶς (ἢ ὁ μὲν πλέον ὁ δʼ ἔλασσον), ἄλλος δὲ πέντε, ὁ δὲ τέτταρας, καὶ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν τρόπον δῆλον ὅτι μεριοῦσιν· οἱ δὲ πάντα καταδικάσουσιν, οἱ δʼ οὐδέν. τίς οὖν ὁ τρόπος ἔσται τῆς διαλογῆς τῶν ψήφων; ἔτι δʼ οὐδὲν ἐπιορκεῖν ἀναγκάζει τὸν ἁπλῶς ἀποδικάσαντα ἢ καταδικάσαντα, εἴπερ ἁπλῶς τὸ ἔγκλημα γέγραπται, δικαίως· οὐ γὰρ μηδὲν ὀφείλειν ὁ ἀποδικάσας κρίνει, ἀλλὰ τὰς εἴκοσι μνᾶς· ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνος ἤδη ἐπιορκεῖ, ὁ καταδικάσας, μὴ νομίζων ὀφείλειν τὰς εἴκοσι μνᾶς.

@@ -175,11 +175,11 @@

τῶν δὲ νῦν εἰρημένων ἐχόμενόν ἐστιν ἐπισκέψασθαι πότερον τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρετὴν ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ καὶ πολίτου σπουδαίου θετέον, ἢ μὴ τὴν αὐτήν. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ γε τοῦτο τυχεῖν δεῖ ζητήσεως, τὴν τοῦ πολίτου τύπῳ τινὶ πρῶτον ληπτέον. ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ πλωτὴρ εἷς τις τῶν κοινωνῶν ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ τὸν πολίτην φαμέν. τῶν δὲ πλωτήρων καίπερ ἀνομοίων ὄντων τὴν δύναμιν (ὁ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐρέτης, ὁ δὲ κυβερνήτης, ὁ δὲ πρῳρεύς, ὁ δʼ ἄλλην τινʼ ἔχων τοιαύτην ἐπωνυμίαν) δῆλον ὡς ὁ μὲν ἀκριβέστατος ἑκάστου λόγος ἴδιος ἔσται τῆς ἀρετῆς, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κοινός τις ἐφαρμόσει πᾶσιν. ἡ γὰρ σωτηρία τῆς ναυτιλίας ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτῶν πάντων· τούτου γὰρ ἕκαστος ὀρέγεται τῶν πλωτήρων. ὁμοίως τοίνυν καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν, καίπερ ἀνομοίων ὄντων, ἡ σωτηρία τῆς κοινωνίας ἔργον ἐστί, κοινωνία δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ πολιτεία· διὸ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ πολίτου πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν. εἴπερ οὖν ἔστι πλείω πολιτείας εἴδη, δῆλον ὡς οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τοῦ σπουδαίου πολίτου μίαν ἀρετὴν εἶναι, τὴν τελείαν· τὸν δʼ ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα φαμὲν κατὰ μίαν ἀρετὴν εἶναι τὴν τελείαν.

ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐνδέχεται πολίτην ὄντα σπουδαῖον μὴ κεκτῆσθαι τὴν ἀρετὴν καθʼ ἣν σπουδαῖος ἀνήρ, φανερόν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ κατʼ ἄλλον τρόπον ἔστι διαποροῦντας ἐπελθεῖν τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον περὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας. εἰ γὰρ ἀδύνατον ἐξ ἁπάντων σπουδαίων ὄντων εἶναι πόλιν, δεῖ γʼ ἕκαστον τὸ καθʼ αὑτὸν ἔργον εὖ ποιεῖν, τοῦτο δὲ ἀπʼ ἀρετῆς· ἐπειδὴ ἀδύνατον ὁμοίους εἶναι πάντας τοὺς πολίτας, οὐκ ἂν εἴη μία ἀρετὴ πολίτου καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ. τὴν μὲν γὰρ τοῦ σπουδαίου πολίτου δεῖ πᾶσιν ὑπάρχειν (οὕτω γὰρ ἀρίστην ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὴν πόλιν), τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀδύνατον, εἰ μὴ πάντας ἀναγκαῖον ἀγαθοὺς εἶναι τοὺς ἐν τῇ σπουδαίᾳ πόλει πολίτας. ἔτι ἐπεὶ ἐξ ἀνομοίων ἡ πόλις, ὥσπερ ζῷον εὐθὺς ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, καὶ ψυχὴ ἐκ λόγου καὶ ὀρέξεως, καὶ οἰκία ἐξ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός, καὶ κτῆσις ἐκ δεσπότου καὶ δούλου, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ πόλις ἐξ ἁπάντων τε τούτων καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἐξ ἄλλων ἀνομοίων συνέστηκεν εἰδῶν, ἀνάγκη μὴ μίαν εἶναι τὴν τῶν πολιτῶν πάντων ἀρετήν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τῶν χορευτῶν κορυφαίου καὶ παραστάτου.

-

διότι μὲν τοίνυν ἁπλῶς οὐχ ἡ αὐτή, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων· ἀλλʼ ἆρα ἔσται τινὸς ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ πολίτου τε σπουδαίου καὶ ἀνδρὸς σπουδαίου; φαμὲν δὴ τὸν ἄρχοντα τὸν σπουδαῖον ἀγαθὸν εἶναι καὶ φρόνιμον, τὸν δὲ πολίτην οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι φρόνιμον. καὶ τὴν παιδείαν δʼ εὐθὺς ἑτέραν εἶναι λέγουσί τινες ἄρχοντος, ὥσπερ καὶ φαίνονται οἱ τῶν βασιλέων υἱεῖς ἱππικὴν καὶ πολεμικὴν παιδευόμενοι, καὶ Εὐριπίδης φησὶ μή μοι τὰ κόμψʼ ἀλλʼ ὧν πόλει δεῖ, Eur. fr. 16 ὡς οὖσάν τινα ἄρχοντος παιδείαν. εἰ δὲ ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἄρχοντός τε ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ, πολίτης δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ ἁπλῶς ἂν εἴη πολίτου καὶ ἀνδρός, τινὸς μέντοι πολίτου· οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ ἄρχοντος καὶ πολίτου, καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ ἴσως Ἰάσων ἔφη πεινῆν ὅτε μὴ τυραννοῖ, ὡς οὐκ ἐπιστάμενος ἰδιώτης εἶναι.

+

διότι μὲν τοίνυν ἁπλῶς οὐχ ἡ αὐτή, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων· ἀλλʼ ἆρα ἔσται τινὸς ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ πολίτου τε σπουδαίου καὶ ἀνδρὸς σπουδαίου; φαμὲν δὴ τὸν ἄρχοντα τὸν σπουδαῖον ἀγαθὸν εἶναι καὶ φρόνιμον, τὸν δὲ πολίτην οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι φρόνιμον. καὶ τὴν παιδείαν δʼ εὐθὺς ἑτέραν εἶναι λέγουσί τινες ἄρχοντος, ὥσπερ καὶ φαίνονται οἱ τῶν βασιλέων υἱεῖς ἱππικὴν καὶ πολεμικὴν παιδευόμενοι, καὶ Εὐριπίδης φησὶ μή μοι τὰ κόμψʼ ἀλλʼ ὧν πόλει δεῖ, Eur. fr. 16 ὡς οὖσάν τινα ἄρχοντος παιδείαν. εἰ δὲ ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἄρχοντός τε ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ, πολίτης δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ ἁπλῶς ἂν εἴη πολίτου καὶ ἀνδρός, τινὸς μέντοι πολίτου· οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ ἄρχοντος καὶ πολίτου, καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ ἴσως Ἰάσων ἔφη πεινῆν ὅτε μὴ τυραννοῖ, ὡς οὐκ ἐπιστάμενος ἰδιώτης εἶναι.

ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐπαινεῖταί γε τὸ δύνασθαι ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι, καὶ πολίτου δοκεῖ που ἡ ἀρετὴ εἶναι τὸ δύνασθαι καὶ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι καλῶς. εἰ οὖν τὴν μὲν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀνδρὸς τίθεμεν ἀρχικήν, τὴν δὲ τοῦ πολίτου ἄμφω, οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἄμφω ἐπαινετὰ ὁμοίως. ἐπεὶ οὖν ποτε δοκεῖ ἀμφότερα, καὶ οὐ ταὐτὰ δεῖν τὸν ἄρχοντα μανθάνειν καὶ τὸν ἀρχόμενον, τὸν δὲ πολίτην ἀμφότερʼ ἐπίστασθαι καὶ μετέχειν ἀμφοῖν, τοὐντεῦθεν ἂν κατίδοι τις. ἔστι γὰρ ἀρχὴ δεσποτική· ταύτην δὲ τὴν περὶ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα λέγομεν, ἃ ποιεῖν ἐπίστασθαι τὸν ἄρχοντα οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀλλὰ χρῆσθαι μᾶλλον· θάτερον δὲ καὶ ἀνδραποδῶδες. λέγω δὲ θάτερον τὸ δύνασθαι καὶ ὑπηρετεῖν τὰς διακονικὰς πράξεις. δούλου δʼ εἴδη πλείω λέγομεν· αἱ γὰρ ἐργασίαι πλείους. ὧν ἓν μέρος κατέχουσιν οἱ χερνῆτες· οὗτοι δʼ εἰσίν, ὥσπερ σημαίνει καὶ τοὔνομʼ αὐτούς, οἱ ζῶντες ἀπὸ τῶν χειρῶν, ἐν οἷς ὁ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἐστίν. διὸ παρʼ ἐνίοις οὐ μετεῖχον οἱ δημιουργοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀρχῶν, πρὶν δῆμον γενέσθαι τὸν ἔσχατον. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἔργα τῶν ἀρχομένων οὕτως οὐ δεῖ τὸν ἀγαθὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πολιτικὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πολίτην τὸν ἀγαθὸν μανθάνειν, εἰ μή ποτε χρείας χάριν αὐτῷ πρὸς αὑτόν· οὐ γὰρ ἔτι συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι τὸν μὲν δεσπότην τὸν δὲ δοῦλον.

ἀλλʼ ἔστι τις ἀρχὴ καθʼ ἣν ἄρχει τῶν ὁμοίων τῷ γένει καὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων. ταύτην γὰρ λέγομεν εἶναι τὴν πολιτικὴν ἀρχήν, ἣν δεῖ τὸν ἄρχοντα ἀρχόμενον μαθεῖν, οἷον ἱππαρχεῖν ἱππαρχηθέντα, στρατηγεῖν στρατηγηθέντα καὶ ταξιαρχήσαντα καὶ λοχαγήσαντα. διὸ λέγεται καὶ τοῦτο καλῶς, ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν εὖ ἄρξαι μὴ ἀρχθέντα. τούτων δὲ ἀρετὴ μὲν ἑτέρα, δεῖ δὲ τὸν πολίτην τὸν ἀγαθὸν ἐπίστασθαι καὶ δύνασθαι καὶ ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν, καὶ αὕτη ἀρετὴ πολίτου, τὸ τὴν τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀρχὴν ἐπίστασθαι ἐπʼ ἀμφότερα. καὶ ἀνδρὸς δὴ ἀγαθοῦ ἄμφω, καὶ εἰ ἕτερον εἶδος σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἀρχικῆς. καὶ γὰρ ἀρχομένου μὲν ἐλευθέρου δὲ δῆλον ὅτι οὐ μία ἂν εἴη τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀρετή, οἷον δικαιοσύνη, ἀλλʼ εἴδη ἔχουσα καθʼ ἃ ἄρξει καὶ ἄρξεται, ὥσπερ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς ἑτέρα σωφροσύνη καὶ ἀνδρεία (δόξαι γὰρ ἂν εἶναι δειλὸς ἀνήρ, εἰ οὕτως ἀνδρεῖος εἴη ὥσπερ γυνὴ ἀνδρεία, καὶ γυνὴ λάλος, εἰ οὕτω κοσμία εἴη ὥσπερ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἀγαθός· ἐπεὶ καὶ οἰκονομία ἑτέρα ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ κτᾶσθαι τῆς δὲ φυλάττειν ἔργον ἐστίν). ἡ δὲ φρόνησις ἄρχοντος ἴδιος ἀρετὴ μόνη. τὰς γὰρ ἄλλας ἔοικεν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι κοινὰς καὶ τῶν ἀρχομένων καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἀρχομένου δέ γε οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρετὴ φρόνησις, ἀλλὰ δόξα ἀληθής· ὥσπερ αὐλοποιὸς γὰρ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, ὁ δʼ ἄρχων αὐλητὴς ὁ χρώμενος. πότερον μὲν οὖν ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ καὶ πολίτου σπουδαίου ἢ ἑτέρα, καὶ πῶς ἡ αὐτὴ καὶ πῶς ἑτέρα, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων.

περὶ δὲ τὸν πολίτην ἔτι λείπεταί τις τῶν ἀποριῶν. ὡς ἀληθῶς γὰρ πότερον πολίτης ἐστὶν ᾧ κοινωνεῖν ἔξεστιν ἀρχῆς, ἢ καὶ τοὺς βαναύσους πολίτας θετέον; εἰ μὲν οὖν καὶ τούτους θετέον οἷς μὴ μέτεστιν ἀρχῶν, οὐχ οἷόν τε παντὸς εἶναι πολίτου τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρετήν (οὗτος γὰρ πολίτης)· εἰ δὲ μηδεὶς τῶν τοιούτων πολίτης, ἐν τίνι μέρει θετέος ἕκαστος; οὐδὲ γὰρ μέτοικος οὐδὲ ξένος. ἢ διά γε τοῦτον τὸν λόγον οὐδὲν φήσομεν συμβαίνειν ἄτοπον; οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ δοῦλοι τῶν εἰρημένων οὐδέν, οὐδʼ οἱ ἀπελεύθεροι. τοῦτο γὰρ ἀληθές, ὡς οὐ πάντας θετέον πολίτας ὧν ἄνευ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πόλις, ἐπεὶ οὐδʼ οἱ παῖδες ὡσαύτως πολῖται καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀλλʼ οἱ μὲν ἁπλῶς οἱ δʼ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως· πολῖται μὲν γάρ εἰσιν, ἀλλʼ ἀτελεῖς. ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις χρόνοις παρʼ ἐνίοις ἦν δοῦλον τὸ βάναυσον ἢ ξενικόν, διόπερ οἱ πολλοὶ τοιοῦτοι καὶ νῦν· ἡ δὲ βελτίστη πόλις οὐ ποιήσει βάναυσον πολίτην. εἰ δὲ καὶ οὗτος πολίτης, ἀλλὰ πολίτου ἀρετὴν ἣν εἴπομεν λεκτέον οὐ παντός, οὐδʼ ἐλευθέρου μόνον, ἀλλʼ ὅσοι τῶν ἔργων εἰσὶν ἀφειμένοι τῶν ἀναγκαίων. τῶν δʼ ἀναγκαίων οἱ μὲν ἑνὶ λειτουργοῦντες τὰ τοιαῦτα δοῦλοι, οἱ δὲ κοινοὶ βάναυσοι καὶ θῆτες. φανερὸν δʼ ἐντεῦθεν μικρὸν ἐπισκεψαμένοις πῶς ἔχει περὶ αὐτῶν· αὐτὸ γὰρ φανὲν τὸ λεχθὲν ποιεῖ δῆλον. ἐπεὶ γὰρ πλείους εἰσὶν αἱ πολιτεῖαι, καὶ εἴδη πολίτου ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πλείω, καὶ μάλιστα τοῦ ἀρχομένου πολίτου, ὥστʼ ἐν μὲν τινὶ πολιτείᾳ τὸν βάναυσον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ τὸν θῆτα πολίτας, ἐν τισὶ δʼ ἀδύνατον, οἷον εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἣν καλοῦσιν ἀριστοκρατικὴν καὶ ἐν ᾗ κατʼ ἀρετὴν αἱ τιμαὶ δίδονται καὶ κατʼ ἀξίαν· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τʼ ἐπιτηδεῦσαι τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς ζῶντα βίον βάναυσον ἢ θητικόν. ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις θῆτα μὲν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται εἶναι πολίτην (ἀπὸ τιμημάτων γὰρ μακρῶν αἱ μεθέξεις τῶν ἀρχῶν), βάναυσον δὲ ἐνδέχεται· πλουτοῦσι γὰρ καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν τεχνιτῶν. ἐν Θήβαις δὲ νόμος ἦν τὸν διὰ δέκα ἐτῶν μὴ ἀπεσχημένον τῆς ἀγορᾶς μὴ μετέχειν ἀρχῆς. ἐν πολλαῖς δὲ πολιτείαις προσεφέλκει τινὰς καὶ τῶν ξένων ὁ νόμος· ὁ γὰρ ἐκ πολίτιδος ἔν τισι δημοκρατίαις πολίτης ἐστίν, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς νόθους παρὰ πολλοῖς. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ ἐπεὶ διʼ ἔνδειαν τῶν γνησίων πολιτῶν ποιοῦνται πολίτας τοὺς τοιούτους (διὰ γὰρ ὀλιγανθρωπίαν οὕτω χρῶνται τοῖς νόμοις), εὐποροῦντες δὴ ὄχλου κατὰ μικρὸν παραιροῦνται τοὺς ἐκ δούλου πρῶτον ἢ δούλης, εἶτα τοὺς ἀπὸ γυναικῶν, τέλος δὲ μόνον τοὺς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἀστῶν πολίτας ποιοῦσιν.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν εἴδη πλείω πολίτου, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων, καὶ ὅτι λέγεται μάλιστα πολίτης ὁ μετέχων τῶν τιμῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἐποίησεν ὡς εἴ τινʼ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην· Hom. Il. 9.648 Hom. Il. 16.59 ὥσπερ μέτοικος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ τῶν τιμῶν μὴ μετέχων. ἀλλʼ ἐστὶν ὅπου τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐπικεκρυμμένον ἐστίν, ἀπάτης χάριν τῶν συνοικούντων ἐστίν. πότερον μὲν οὖν ἑτέραν ἢ τὴν αὐτὴν θετέον, καθʼ ἣν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός ἐστι καὶ πολίτης σπουδαῖος, δῆλον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι τινὸς μὲν πόλεως ὁ αὐτὸς τινὸς δʼ ἕτερος, κἀκεῖνος οὐ πᾶς ἀλλʼ ὁ πολιτικὸς καὶ κύριος ἢ δυνάμενος εἶναι κύριος, ἢ καθʼ αὑτὸν ἢ μετʼ ἄλλων, τῆς τῶν κοινῶν ἐπιμελείας.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν εἴδη πλείω πολίτου, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων, καὶ ὅτι λέγεται μάλιστα πολίτης ὁ μετέχων τῶν τιμῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἐποίησεν ὡς εἴ τινʼ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην· Hom. Il. 9.648 Hom. Il. 16.59 ὥσπερ μέτοικος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ τῶν τιμῶν μὴ μετέχων. ἀλλʼ ἐστὶν ὅπου τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐπικεκρυμμένον ἐστίν, ἀπάτης χάριν τῶν συνοικούντων ἐστίν. πότερον μὲν οὖν ἑτέραν ἢ τὴν αὐτὴν θετέον, καθʼ ἣν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός ἐστι καὶ πολίτης σπουδαῖος, δῆλον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι τινὸς μὲν πόλεως ὁ αὐτὸς τινὸς δʼ ἕτερος, κἀκεῖνος οὐ πᾶς ἀλλʼ ὁ πολιτικὸς καὶ κύριος ἢ δυνάμενος εἶναι κύριος, ἢ καθʼ αὑτὸν ἢ μετʼ ἄλλων, τῆς τῶν κοινῶν ἐπιμελείας.

ἐπεὶ δὲ ταῦτα διώρισται, τὸ μετὰ ταῦτα σκεπτέον, πότερον μίαν θετέον πολιτείαν ἢ πλείους, κἂν εἰ πλείους, τίνες καὶ πόσαι, καὶ διαφοραὶ τίνες αὐτῶν εἰσιν. ἔστι δὲ πολιτεία πόλεως τάξις τῶν τε ἄλλων ἀρχῶν καὶ μάλιστα τῆς κυρίας πάντων. κύριον μὲν γὰρ πανταχοῦ τὸ πολίτευμα τῆς πόλεως, πολίτευμα δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ πολιτεία. λέγω δʼ οἷον ἐν μὲν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις κύριος ὁ δῆμος, οἱ δʼ ὀλίγοι τοὐναντίον ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις, φαμὲν δὲ καὶ πολιτείαν ἑτέραν εἶναι τούτων. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τοῦτον ἐροῦμεν λόγον καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων. ὑποθετέον δὴ πρῶτον τίνος χάριν συνέστηκε πόλις, καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς εἴδη πόσα τῆς περὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς ζωῆς. εἴρηται δὴ κατὰ τοὺς πρώτους λόγους, ἐν οἷς περὶ οἰκονομίας διωρίσθη καὶ δεσποτείας, καὶ ὅτι φύσει μέν ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ζῷον πολιτικόν. διὸ καὶ μηδὲν δεόμενοι τῆς παρὰ ἀλλήλων βοηθείας οὐκ ἔλαττον ὀρέγονται τοῦ συζῆν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον συνάγει, καθʼ ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει μέρος ἑκάστῳ τοῦ ζῆν καλῶς. μάλιστα μὲν οὖν τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ τέλος, καὶ κοινῇ πᾶσι καὶ χωρίς· συνέρχονται δὲ καὶ τοῦ ζῆν ἕνεκεν αὐτοῦ καὶ συνέχουσι τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν, ἴσως γὰρ ἔνεστί τι τοῦ καλοῦ μόριον καὶ κατὰ τὸ ζῆν αὐτὸ μόνον· ἂν μὴ τοῖς χαλεποῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ὑπερβάλῃ λίαν, δῆλον δʼ ὡς καρτεροῦσι πολλὴν κακοπάθειαν οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γλιχόμενοι τοῦ ζῆν, ὡς ἐνούσης τινὸς εὐημερίας ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ γλυκύτητος φυσικῆς.

ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς γε τοὺς λεγομένους τρόπους ῥᾴδιον διελεῖν· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς λόγοις διοριζόμεθα περὶ αὐτῶν πολλάκις. ἡ μὲν γὰρ δεσποτεία, καίπερ ὄντος κατʼ ἀλήθειαν τῷ τε φύσει δούλῳ καὶ τῷ φύσει δεσπότῃ ταὐτοῦ συμφέροντος, ὅμως ἄρχει πρὸς τὸ τοῦ δεσπότου συμφέρον οὐδὲν ἧττον, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τοῦ δούλου κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεται φθειρομένου τοῦ δούλου σῴζεσθαι τὴν δεσποτείαν. ἡ δὲ τέκνων ἀρχὴ καὶ γυναικὸς καὶ τῆς οἰκίας πάσης, ἣν δὴ καλοῦμεν οἰκονομικήν ἤτοι τῶν ἀρχομένων χάριν ἐστὶν ἢ κοινοῦ τινὸς ἀμφοῖν, καθʼ αὑτὸ μὲν τῶν ἀρχομένων, ὥσπερ ὁρῶμεν καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας, οἷον ἰατρικὴν καὶ γυμναστικήν, κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς δὲ κἂν αὐτῶν εἶεν. οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει τὸν παιδοτρίβην ἕνα τῶν γυμναζομένων ἐνίοτʼ εἶναι καὶ αὐτόν, ὥσπερ ὁ κυβερνήτης εἷς ἐστιν ἀεὶ τῶν πλωτήρων· ὁ μὲν οὖν παιδοτρίβης ἢ κυβερνήτης σκοπεῖ τὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων ἀγαθόν, ὅταν δὲ τούτων εἷς γένηται καὶ αὐτός, κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς μετέχει τῆς ὠφελείας. ὁ μὲν γὰρ πλωτήρ, ὁ δὲ τῶν γυμναζομένων εἷς γίνεται, παιδοτρίβης ὤν. διὸ καὶ τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρχάς, ὅταν ᾖ κατʼ ἰσότητα τῶν πολιτῶν συνεστηκυῖα καὶ καθʼ ὁμοιότητα, κατὰ μέρος ἀξιοῦσιν ἄρχειν, πρότερον μέν, ᾗ πέφυκεν, ἀξιοῦντες ἐν μέρει λειτουργεῖν, καὶ σκοπεῖν τινα πάλιν τὸ αὑτοῦ ἀγαθόν, ὥσπερ πρότερον αὐτὸς ἄρχων ἐσκόπει τὸ ἐκείνου συμφέρον· νῦν δὲ διὰ τὰς ὠφελείας τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν κοινῶν καὶ τὰς ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς βούλονται συνεχῶς ἄρχειν, οἷον εἰ συνέβαινεν ὑγιαίνειν ἀεὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσι νοσακεροῖς οὖσιν. καὶ γὰρ ἂν οὕτως ἴσως ἐδίωκον τὰς ἀρχάς. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὡς ὅσαι μὲν πολιτεῖαι τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον σκοποῦσιν, αὗται μὲν ὀρθαὶ τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι κατὰ τὸ ἁπλῶς δίκαιον, ὅσαι δὲ τὸ σφέτερον μόνον τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἡμαρτημέναι πᾶσαι καὶ παρεκβάσεις τῶν ὀρθῶν πολιτειῶν· δεσποτικαὶ γάρ, ἡ δὲ πόλις κοινωνία τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἐστίν.

διωρισμένων δὲ τούτων ἐχόμενόν ἐστι τὰς πολιτείας ἐπισκέψασθαι, πόσαι τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ τίνες εἰσί, καὶ πρῶτον τὰς ὀρθὰς αὐτῶν· καὶ γὰρ αἱ παρεκβάσεις ἔσονται φανεραὶ τούτων διορισθεισῶν. ἐπεὶ δὲ πολιτεία μὲν καὶ πολίτευμα σημαίνει ταὐτόν, πολίτευμα δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ κύριον τῶν πόλεων, ἀνάγκη δʼ εἶναι κύριον ἢ ἕνα ἢ ὀλίγους ἢ τοὺς πολλούς, ὅταν μὲν ὁ εἷς ἢ οἱ ὀλίγοι ἢ οἱ πολλοὶ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν συμφέρον ἄρχωσι, ταύτας μὲν ὀρθὰς ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὰς πολιτείας, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὸ ἴδιον ἢ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἢ τῶν ὀλίγων ἢ τοῦ πλήθους παρεκβάσεις. ἢ γὰρ οὐ πολίτας φατέον εἶναι τοὺς μετέχοντας, ἢ δεῖ κοινωνεῖν τοῦ συμφέροντος. καλεῖν δʼ εἰώθαμεν τῶν μὲν μοναρχιῶν τὴν πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν ἀποβλέπουσαν συμφέρον βασιλείαν, τὴν δὲ τῶν ὀλίγων μὲν πλειόνων δʼ ἑνὸς ἀριστοκρατίαν (ἢ διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἀρίστους ἄρχειν, ἢ διὰ τὸ πρὸς τὸ ἄριστον τῇ πόλει καὶ τοῖς κοινωνοῦσιν αὐτῆς), ὅταν δὲ τὸ πλῆθος πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν πολιτεύηται συμφέρον, καλεῖται τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα πασῶν τῶν πολιτειῶν, πολιτεία. (συμβαίνει δʼ εὐλόγως· ἕνα μὲν γὰρ διαφέρειν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἢ ὀλίγους ἐνδέχεται, πλείους δʼ ἤδη χαλεπὸν ἠκριβῶσθαι πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀρετήν, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα τὴν πολεμικήν· αὕτη γὰρ ἐν πλήθει γίγνεται· διόπερ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν πολιτείαν κυριώτατον τὸ προπολεμοῦν καὶ μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς οἱ κεκτημένοι τὰ ὅπλα.) παρεκβάσεις δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων τυραννὶς μὲν βασιλείας, ὀλιγαρχία δὲ ἀριστοκρατίας, δημοκρατία δὲ πολιτείας. ἡ μὲν γὰρ τυραννίς ἐστι μοναρχία πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον τὸ τοῦ μοναρχοῦντος, ἡ δʼ ὀλιγαρχία πρὸς τὸ τῶν εὐπόρων, ἡ δὲ δημοκρατία πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων· πρὸς δὲ τὸ τῷ κοινῷ λυσιτελοῦν οὐδεμία αὐτῶν.

@@ -199,9 +199,9 @@

ἆρʼ οὖν εἰ πάντες εἶεν ἐν μιᾷ πόλει, λέγω δʼ οἷον οἵ τʼ ἀγαθοὶ καὶ οἱ πλούσιοι καὶ οἱ εὐγενεῖς, ἔτι δὲ πλῆθος ἄλλο τι πολιτικόν, πότερον ἀμφισβήτησις ἔσται τίνας ἄρχειν δεῖ, ἢ οὐκ ἔσται; καθʼ ἑκάστην μὲν οὖν πολιτείαν τῶν εἰρημένων ἀναμφισβήτητος ἡ κρίσις τίνας ἄρχειν δεῖ (τοῖς γὰρ κυρίοις διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων, οἷον ἡ μὲν τῷ διὰ πλουσίων ἡ δὲ τῷ διὰ τῶν σπουδαίων ἀνδρῶν εἶναι, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάστη τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον)· ἀλλʼ ὅμως σκοπῶμεν, ὅταν περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ταῦθʼ ὑπάρχῃ χρόνον, πῶς διοριστέον. εἰ δὴ τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἶεν ὀλίγοι πάμπαν οἱ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἔχοντες, τίνα δεῖ διελεῖν τρόπον; ἢ τὸ ὀλίγοι πρὸς τὸ ἔργον δεῖ σκοπεῖν, εἰ δυνατοὶ διοικεῖν τὴν πόλιν ἢ τοσοῦτοι τὸ πλῆθος ὥστʼ εἶναι πόλιν ἐξ αὐτῶν; ἔστι δὲ ἀπορία τις πρὸς ἅπαντας τοὺς διαμφισβητοῦντας περὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν τιμῶν. δόξαιεν γὰρ ἂν οὐδὲν λέγειν δίκαιον οἱ διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον ἀξιοῦντες ἄρχειν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ κατὰ γένος· δῆλον γὰρ ὡς εἴ τις πάλιν εἷς πλουσιώτερος ἁπάντων ἐστί, δηλονότι κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ δίκαιον τοῦτον ἄρχειν τὸν ἕνα ἁπάντων δεήσει, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸν εὐγενείᾳ διαφέροντα τῶν ἀμφισβητούντων διʼ ἐλευθερίαν. ταὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο ἴσως συμβήσεται καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀριστοκρατίας ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς· εἰ γάρ τις εἷς ἀμείνων ἀνὴρ εἴη τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι σπουδαίων ὄντων, τοῦτον εἶναι δεῖ κύριον κατὰ ταὐτὸ δίκαιον. οὐκοῦν εἰ καὶ τὸ πλῆθος εἶναί γε δεῖ κύριον διότι κρείττους εἰσὶ τῶν ὀλίγων, κἂν εἷς ἢ πλείους μὲν τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐλάττους δὲ τῶν πολλῶν κρείττους ὦσι τῶν ἄλλων, τούτους ἂν δέοι κυρίους εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ πλῆθος. πάντα δὴ ταῦτʼ ἔοικε φανερὸν ποιεῖν ὅτι τούτων τῶν ὅρων οὐδεὶς ὀρθός ἐστι καθʼ ὃν ἀξιοῦσιν αὐτοὶ μὲν ἄρχειν τοὺς δʼ ἄλλους ὑπὸ σφῶν ἄρχεσθαι πάντας. καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀξιοῦντας κυρίους εἶναι τοῦ πολιτεύματος, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τοὺς κατὰ πλοῦτον, ἔχοιεν ἂν λέγειν τὰ πλήθη λόγον τινὰ δίκαιον· οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει ποτὲ τὸ πλῆθος εἶναι βέλτιον· τῶν ὀλίγων καὶ πλουσιώτερον, οὐχ ὡς καθʼ ἕκαστον ἀλλʼ ὡς ἀθρόους. διὸ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀπορίαν ἣν ζητοῦσι καὶ προβάλλουσί τινες ἐνδέχεται τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἀπαντᾶν. ἀποροῦσι γάρ τινες πότερον τῷ νομοθέτῃ νομοθετητέον, βουλομένῳ τίθεσθαι τοὺς ὀρθοτάτους νόμους, πρὸς τὸ τῶν βελτιόνων συμφέρον ἢ πρὸς τὸ τῶν πλειόνων, ὅταν συμβαίνῃ τὸ λεχθέν· τὸ δʼ ὀρθὸν ληπτέον ἴσως· τὸ δʼ ἴσως ὀρθὸν πρὸς τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὅλης συμφέρον καὶ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τὸ τῶν πολιτῶν· πολίτης δὲ κοινῇ μὲν ὁ μετέχων τοῦ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαί ἐστι, καθʼ ἑκάστην δὲ πολιτείαν ἕτερος, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀρίστην ὁ δυνάμενος καὶ προαιρούμενος ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν πρὸς τὸν βίον τὸν κατʼ ἀρετήν.

εἰ δέ τις ἔστιν εἷς τοσοῦτον διαφέρων κατʼ ἀρετῆς ὑπερβολήν, ἢ πλείους μὲν ἑνὸς μὴ μέντοι δυνατοὶ πλήρωμα παρασχέσθαι πόλεως, ὥστε μὴ συμβλητὴν εἶναι τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετὴν πάντων μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν τὴν πολιτικὴν πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων, εἰ πλείους, εἰ δʼ εἷς, τὴν ἐκείνου μόνον, οὐκέτι θετέον τούτους μέρος πόλεως· ἀδικήσονται γὰρ ἀξιούμενοι τῶν ἴσων, ἄνισοι τοσοῦτον κατʼ ἀρετὴν ὄντες καὶ τὴν πολιτικὴν δύναμιν· ὥσπερ γὰρ θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποις εἰκὸς εἶναι τὸν τοιοῦτον. ὅθεν δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὴν νομοθεσίαν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι περὶ τοὺς ἴσους καὶ τῷ γένει καὶ τῇ δυνάμει, κατὰ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστι νόμος· αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσι νόμος. καὶ γὰρ γελοῖος ἂν εἴη νομοθετεῖν τις πειρώμενος κατʼ αὐτῶν. λέγοιεν γὰρ ἂν ἴσως ἅπερ Ἀντισθένης ἔφη τοὺς λέοντας δημηγορούντων τῶν δασυπόδων καὶ τὸ ἴσον ἀξιούντων πάντας ἔχειν. διὸ καὶ τίθενται τὸν ὀστρακισμὸν αἱ δημοκρατούμεναι πόλεις, διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν· αὗται γὰρ δὴ δοκοῦσι διώκειν τὴν ἰσότητα μάλιστα πάντων, ὥστε τοὺς δοκοῦντας ὑπερέχειν δυνάμει διὰ πλοῦτον ἢ πολυφιλίαν ἤ τινα ἄλλην πολιτικὴν ἰσχὺν ὠστράκιζον καὶ μεθίστασαν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως χρόνους ὡρισμένους. μυθολογεῖται δὲ καὶ τοὺς Ἀργοναύτας τὸν Ἡρακλέα καταλιπεῖν διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐθέλειν αὐτὸν ἄγειν τὴν Ἀργὼ μετὰ τῶν πλωτήρων τῶν ἄλλων, ὡς ὑπερβάλλοντα πολύ. διὸ καὶ τοὺς ψέγοντας τὴν τυραννίδα καὶ τὴν Περιάνδρου Θρασυβούλῳ συμβουλίαν οὐχ ἁπλῶς οἰητέον ὀρθῶς ἐπιτιμᾶν (φασὶ γὰρ τὸν Περίανδρον εἰπεῖν μὲν οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν πεμφθέντα κήρυκα περὶ τῆς συμβουλίας, ἀφαιροῦντα δὲ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας τῶν σταχύων ὁμαλῦναι τὴν ἄρουραν· ὅθεν ἀγνοοῦντος μὲν τοῦ κήρυκος τοῦ γιγνομένου τὴν αἰτίαν, ἀπαγγείλαντος δὲ τὸ συμπεσόν, συννοῆσαι τὸν Θρασύβουλον ὅτι δεῖ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας ἄνδρας ἀναιρεῖν). τοῦτο γὰρ οὐ μόνον συμφέρει τοῖς τυράννοις, οὐδὲ μόνον οἱ τύραννοι ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ὁμοίως ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ τὰς δημοκρατίας· ὁ γὰρ ὀστρακισμὸς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει δύναμιν τρόπον τινὰ τῷ κολούειν τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας καὶ φυγαδεύειν. τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ καὶ περὶ τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ποιοῦσιν οἱ κύριοι τῆς δυνάμεως, οἷον Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν περὶ Σαμίους καὶ Χίους καὶ Λεσβίους (ἐπεὶ γὰρ θᾶττον ἐγκρατῶς ἔσχον τὴν ἀρχήν, ἐταπείνωσαν αὐτοὺς παρὰ τὰς συνθήκας), ὁ δὲ Περσῶν βασιλεὺς Μήδους καὶ Βαβυλωνίους καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τοὺς πεφρονηματισμένους διὰ τὸ γενέσθαι ποτʼ ἐπʼ ἀρχῆς ἐπέκοπτε πολλάκις.

τὸ δὲ πρόβλημα καθόλου περὶ πάσας ἐστὶ τὰς πολιτείας, καὶ τὰς ὀρθάς· αἱ μὲν γὰρ παρεκβεβηκυῖαι πρὸς τὸ ἴδιον ἀποσκοποῦσαι τοῦτο δρῶσιν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ περὶ τὰς τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθὸν ἐπισκοπούσας τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχει τρόπον. δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τεχνῶν καὶ ἐπιστημῶν· οὔτε γὰρ γραφεὺς ἐάσειεν ἂν τὸν ὑπερβάλλοντα πόδα τῆς συμμετρίας ἔχειν τὸ ζῷον, οὐδʼ εἰ διαφέροι τὸ κάλλος, οὔτε ναυπηγὸς πρύμναν ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τι μορίων τῶν τῆς νεώς, οὐδὲ δὴ χοροδιδάσκαλος τὸν μεῖζον καὶ κάλλιον τοῦ παντὸς χοροῦ φθεγγόμενον ἐάσει συγχορεύειν. ὥστε διὰ τοῦτο μὲν οὐδὲν κωλύει τοὺς μονάρχους συμφωνεῖν ταῖς πόλεσιν, εἰ τῆς οἰκείας ἀρχῆς ὠφελίμου ταῖς πόλεσιν οὔσης τοῦτο δρῶσιν. διὸ κατὰ τὰς ὁμολογουμένας ὑπεροχὰς ἔχει τι δίκαιον πολιτικὸν ὁ λόγος ὁ περὶ τὸν ὀστρακισμόν. βέλτιον μὲν οὖν τὸν νομοθέτην ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὕτω συστῆσαι τὴν πολιτείαν ὥστε μὴ δεῖσθαι τοιαύτης ἰατρείας· δεύτερος δὲ πλοῦς, ἂν συμβῇ, πειρᾶσθαι τοιούτῳ τινὶ διορθώματι διορθοῦν. ὅπερ οὐκ ἐγίγνετο περὶ τὰς πόλεις· οὐ γὰρ ἔβλεπον πρὸς τὸ τῆς πολιτείας τῆς οἰκείας συμφέρον, ἀλλὰ στασιαστικῶς ἐχρῶντο τοῖς ὀστρακισμοῖς. ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς παρεκβεβηκυίαις πολιτείαις ὅτι μὲν ἰδίᾳ συμφέρει καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστι, φανερόν, ἴσως δὲ καὶ ὅτι οὐχ ἁπλῶς δίκαιον, καὶ τοῦτο φανερόν· ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας ἔχει πολλὴν ἀπορίαν, οὐ κατὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν τὴν ὑπεροχήν, οἷον ἰσχύος καὶ πλούτου καὶ πολυφιλίας, ἀλλὰ ἄν τις γένηται διαφέρων κατʼ ἀρετήν, τί χρὴ ποιεῖν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ φαῖεν ἂν δεῖν ἐκβάλλειν καὶ μεθιστάναι τὸν τοιοῦτον· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ἄρχειν γε τοῦ τοιούτου· παραπλήσιον γὰρ κἂν εἰ τοῦ Διὸς ἄρχειν ἀξιοῖεν, μερίζοντες τὰς ἀρχάς. λείπεται τοίνυν, ὅπερ ἔοικε πεφυκέναι, πείθεσθαι τῷ τοιούτῳ πάντας ἀσμένως, ὥστε βασιλέας εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους ἀιδίους ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν.

-

ἴσως δὲ καλῶς ἔχει μετὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους λόγους μεταβῆναι καὶ σκέψασθαι περὶ βασιλείας· φαμὲν γὰρ τῶν ὀρθῶν πολιτειῶν μίαν εἶναι ταύτην. σκεπτέον δὲ πότερον συμφέρει τῇ μελλούσῃ καλῶς οἰκήσεσθαι καὶ πόλει καὶ χώρᾳ βασιλεύεσθαι, ἢ οὔ, ἀλλʼ ἄλλη τις πολιτεία μᾶλλον, ἢ τισὶ μὲν συμφέρει τισὶ δʼ οὐ συμφέρει. δεῖ δὴ πρῶτον διελέσθαι πότερον ἕν τι γένος ἔστιν αὐτῆς ἢ πλείους ἔχει διαφοράς. ῥᾴδιον δὴ τοῦτό γε καταμαθεῖν, ὅτι πλείω τε γένη περιέχει καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ τρόπος ἐστὶν οὐχ εἷς πασῶν. ἡ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Λακωνικῇ πολιτείᾳ δοκεῖ μὲν εἶναι βασιλεία μάλιστα τῶν κατὰ νόμον, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ κυρία πάντων, ἀλλʼ ὅταν ἐξέλθῃ τὴν χώραν ἡγεμών ἐστι τῶν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον· ἔτι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ἀποδέδοται τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν. αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ βασιλεία οἷον στρατηγία τις αὐτοκρατόρων καὶ ἀίδιός ἐστιν· κτεῖναι γὰρ οὐ κύριος, εἰ μὴ ἔν τινι καιρῷ, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐν ταῖς πολεμικαῖς ἐξόδοις, ἐν χειρὸς νόμῳ. δηλοῖ δʼ Ὅμηρος· ὁ γὰρ Ἀγαμέμνων κακῶς μὲν ἀκούων ἠνείχετο ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἐξελθόντων δὲ καὶ κτεῖναι κύριος ἦν· λέγει γοῦν ὃν δέ κʼ ἐγὼν ἀπάνευθε μάχης . . , οὔ οἱ ἄρκιον ἐσσεῖται φυγέειν κύνας ἠδʼ οἰωνούς· πὰρ γὰρ ἐμοὶ θάνατος. Hom. Il. 2.391

+

ἴσως δὲ καλῶς ἔχει μετὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους λόγους μεταβῆναι καὶ σκέψασθαι περὶ βασιλείας· φαμὲν γὰρ τῶν ὀρθῶν πολιτειῶν μίαν εἶναι ταύτην. σκεπτέον δὲ πότερον συμφέρει τῇ μελλούσῃ καλῶς οἰκήσεσθαι καὶ πόλει καὶ χώρᾳ βασιλεύεσθαι, ἢ οὔ, ἀλλʼ ἄλλη τις πολιτεία μᾶλλον, ἢ τισὶ μὲν συμφέρει τισὶ δʼ οὐ συμφέρει. δεῖ δὴ πρῶτον διελέσθαι πότερον ἕν τι γένος ἔστιν αὐτῆς ἢ πλείους ἔχει διαφοράς. ῥᾴδιον δὴ τοῦτό γε καταμαθεῖν, ὅτι πλείω τε γένη περιέχει καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ τρόπος ἐστὶν οὐχ εἷς πασῶν. ἡ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Λακωνικῇ πολιτείᾳ δοκεῖ μὲν εἶναι βασιλεία μάλιστα τῶν κατὰ νόμον, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ κυρία πάντων, ἀλλʼ ὅταν ἐξέλθῃ τὴν χώραν ἡγεμών ἐστι τῶν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον· ἔτι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ἀποδέδοται τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν. αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ βασιλεία οἷον στρατηγία τις αὐτοκρατόρων καὶ ἀίδιός ἐστιν· κτεῖναι γὰρ οὐ κύριος, εἰ μὴ ἔν τινι καιρῷ, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐν ταῖς πολεμικαῖς ἐξόδοις, ἐν χειρὸς νόμῳ. δηλοῖ δʼ Ὅμηρος· ὁ γὰρ Ἀγαμέμνων κακῶς μὲν ἀκούων ἠνείχετο ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἐξελθόντων δὲ καὶ κτεῖναι κύριος ἦν· λέγει γοῦν ὃν δέ κʼ ἐγὼν ἀπάνευθε μάχης . . , οὔ οἱ ἄρκιον ἐσσεῖται φυγέειν κύνας ἠδʼ οἰωνούς· πὰρ γὰρ ἐμοὶ θάνατος. Hom. Il. 2.391

ἓν μὲν οὖν τοῦτʼ εἶδος βασιλείας, στρατηγία διὰ βίου, τούτων δʼ αἱ μὲν κατὰ γένος εἰσὶν αἱ δʼ αἱρεταί· παρὰ ταύτην δʼ ἄλλο μοναρχίας εἶδος, οἷαι παρʼ ἐνίοις εἰσὶ βασιλεῖαι τῶν βαρβάρων. ἔχουσι δʼ αὗται τὴν δύναμιν πᾶσαι παραπλησίαν τυραννίσιν, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ κατὰ νόμον καὶ πάτριαι· διὰ γὰρ τὸ δουλικώτεροι εἶναι τὰ ἤθη φύσει οἱ μὲν βάρβαροι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν τῶν περὶ τὴν Εὐρώπην, ὑπομένουσι τὴν δεσποτικὴν ἀρχὴν οὐδὲν δυσχεραίνοντες. τυραννικαὶ μὲν οὖν διὰ τὸ τοιοῦτόν εἰσιν, ἀσφαλεῖς δὲ διὰ τὸ πάτριαι καὶ κατὰ νόμον εἶναι. καὶ ἡ φυλακὴ δὲ βασιλικὴ καὶ οὐ τυραννικὴ διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν. οἱ γὰρ πολῖται φυλάττουσιν ὅπλοις τοὺς βασιλεῖς, τοὺς δὲ τυράννους ξενικόν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ νόμον καὶ ἑκόντων οἱ δʼ ἀκόντων ἄρχουσιν, ὥσθʼ οἱ μὲν παρὰ τῶν πολιτῶν οἱ δʼ ἐπὶ τοὺς πολίτας ἔχουσι τὴν φυλακήν.

-

δύο μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα μοναρχίας, ἕτερον δʼ ὅπερ ἦν ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Ἕλλησιν, οὓς καλοῦσιν αἰσυμνήτας. ἔστι δὲ τοῦθʼ ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν αἱρετὴ τυραννίς, διαφέρουσα δὲ τῆς βαρβαρικῆς οὐ τῷ μὴ κατὰ νόμον ἀλλὰ τῷ μὴ πάτριος εἶναι μόνον. ἦρχον δʼ οἱ μὲν διὰ βίου τὴν ἀρχὴν ταύτην, οἱ δὲ μέχρι τινῶν ὡρισμένων χρόνων ἢ πράξεων, οἷον εἵλοντό ποτε Μυτιληναῖοι Πιττακὸν πρὸς τοὺς φυγάδας ὧν προειστήκεσαν Ἀντιμενίδης καὶ Ἀλκαῖος ὁ ποιητής. δηλοῖ δʼ Ἀλκαῖος ὅτι τύραννον εἵλοντο τὸν Πιττακὸν ἔν τινι τῶν σκολιῶν μελῶν· ἐπιτιμᾷ γὰρ ὅτι τὸν κακοπάτριδα Πίττακον πόλιος τᾶς ἀχόλω καὶ βαρυδαίμονος ἐστάσαντο τύραννον μέγʼ ἐπαινέοντες ἀόλλεες.

+

δύο μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα μοναρχίας, ἕτερον δʼ ὅπερ ἦν ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Ἕλλησιν, οὓς καλοῦσιν αἰσυμνήτας. ἔστι δὲ τοῦθʼ ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν αἱρετὴ τυραννίς, διαφέρουσα δὲ τῆς βαρβαρικῆς οὐ τῷ μὴ κατὰ νόμον ἀλλὰ τῷ μὴ πάτριος εἶναι μόνον. ἦρχον δʼ οἱ μὲν διὰ βίου τὴν ἀρχὴν ταύτην, οἱ δὲ μέχρι τινῶν ὡρισμένων χρόνων ἢ πράξεων, οἷον εἵλοντό ποτε Μυτιληναῖοι Πιττακὸν πρὸς τοὺς φυγάδας ὧν προειστήκεσαν Ἀντιμενίδης καὶ Ἀλκαῖος ὁ ποιητής. δηλοῖ δʼ Ἀλκαῖος ὅτι τύραννον εἵλοντο τὸν Πιττακὸν ἔν τινι τῶν σκολιῶν μελῶν· ἐπιτιμᾷ γὰρ ὅτι τὸν κακοπάτριδα Πίττακον πόλιος τᾶς ἀχόλω καὶ βαρυδαίμονος ἐστάσαντο τύραννον μέγʼ ἐπαινέοντες ἀόλλεες.

αὗται μὲν οὖν εἰσί τε καὶ ἦσαν διὰ μὲν τὸ δεσποτικαὶ εἶναι τυραννικαί, διὰ δὲ τὸ αἱρεταὶ καὶ ἑκόντων βασιλικαί· τέταρτον δʼ εἶδος μοναρχίας βασιλικῆς αἱ κατὰ τοὺς ἡρωικοὺς χρόνους ἑκούσιαί τε καὶ πάτριαι γιγνόμεναι κατὰ νόμον. διὰ γὰρ τὸ τοὺς πρώτους γενέσθαι τοῦ πλήθους εὐεργέτας κατὰ τέχνας ἢ πόλεμον, ἢ διὰ τὸ συναγαγεῖν ἢ πορίσαι χώραν, ἐγίγνοντο βασιλεῖς ἑκόντων καὶ τοῖς παραλαμβάνουσι πάτριοι. κύριοι δʼ ἦσαν τῆς τε κατὰ πόλεμον ἡγεμονίας καὶ τῶν θυσιῶν, ὅσαι μὴ ἱερατικαί, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τὰς δίκας ἔκρινον. τοῦτο δʼ ἐποίουν οἱ μὲν οὐκ ὀμνύοντες οἱ δʼ ὀμνύοντες· ὁ δʼ ὅρκος ἦν τοῦ σκήπτρου ἐπανάτασις. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων χρόνων καὶ τὰ κατὰ πόλιν καὶ τὰ ἔνδημα καὶ τὰ ὑπερόρια συνεχῶς ἦρχον· ὕστερον δὲ τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν παριέντων τῶν βασιλέων, τὰ δὲ τῶν ὄχλων παραιρουμένων, ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσιν αἱ θυσίαι κατελείφθησαν τοῖς βασιλεῦσι μόνον, ὅπου δʼ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν εἶναι βασιλείαν, ἐν τοῖς ὑπερορίοις τῶν πολεμικῶν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν μόνον εἶχον.

βασιλείας μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα, τέτταρα τὸν ἀριθμόν, μία μὲν ἡ περὶ τοὺς ἡρωικοὺς χρόνους (αὕτη δʼ ἦν ἑκόντων μέν, ἐπὶ τισὶ δʼ ὡρισμένοις· στρατηγός τε γὰρ ἦν καὶ δικαστὴς ὁ βασιλεύς, καὶ τῶν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς κύριος), δευτέρα δʼ ἡ βαρβαρική (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἐκ γένους ἀρχὴ δεσποτικὴ κατὰ νόμον), τρίτη δὲ ἣν αἰσυμνητείαν προσαγορεύουσιν (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν αἱρετὴ τυραννίς), τετάρτη δʼ ἡ Λακωνικὴ τούτων (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ὡς εἰπεῖν ἁπλῶς στρατηγία κατὰ γένος ἀίδιος). αὗται μὲν οὖν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων· πέμπτον δʼ εἶδος βασιλείας, ὅταν ᾖ πάντων κύριος εἷς ὤν, ὥσπερ ἕκαστον ἔθνος καὶ πόλις ἑκάστη τῶν κοινῶν, τεταγμένη κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομικήν. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ οἰκονομικὴ βασιλεία τις οἰκίας ἐστίν, οὕτως ἡ παμβασιλεία πόλεως καὶ ἔθνους ἑνὸς ἢ πλειόνων οἰκονομία.

Σχεδὸν δὴ δύο ἐστὶν ὡς εἰπεῖν εἴδη βασιλείας περὶ ὧν σκεπτέον, αὕτη τε καὶ ἡ Λακωνική· τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων αἱ πολλαὶ μεταξὺ τούτων εἰσίν· ἐλαττόνων μὲν γὰρ κύριοι τῆς παμβασιλείας, πλειόνων δʼ εἰσὶ τῆς Λακωνικῆς. ὥστε τὸ σκέμμα σχεδὸν περὶ δυοῖν ἐστιν, ἓν μὲν πότερον συμφέρει ταῖς πόλεσι στρατηγὸν ἀίδιον εἶναι, καὶ τοῦτον ἢ κατὰ γένος ἢ κατὰ μέρος, ἢ οὐ συμφέρει, ἓν δὲ πότερον ἕνα συμφέρει κύριον εἶναι πάντων, ἢ οὐ συμφέρει. τὸ μὲν οὖν περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης στρατηγίας ἐπισκοπεῖν νόμων ἔχει μᾶλλον εἶδος ἢ πολιτείας (ἐν ἁπάσαις γὰρ ἐνδέχεται γίγνεσθαι τοῦτο ταῖς πολιτείαις), ὥστʼ ἀφείσθω τὴν πρώτην· ὁ δὲ λοιπὸς τρόπος τῆς βασιλείας πολιτείας εἶδός ἐστιν, ὥστε περὶ τούτου δεῖ θεωρῆσαι καὶ τὰς ἀπορίας ἐπιδραμεῖν τὰς ἐνούσας. ἀρχὴ δʼ ἐστὶ τῆς ζητήσεως αὕτη, πότερον συμφέρει μᾶλλον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου ἀνδρὸς ἄρχεσθαι ἢ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρίστων νόμων.

@@ -209,7 +209,7 @@

ἔτι μᾶλλον ἀδιάφθορον τὸ πολύ—καθάπερ ὕδωρ τὸ πλεῖον, οὕτω καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ὀλίγων ἀδιαφθορώτερον· τοῦ δʼ ἑνὸς ὑπʼ ὀργῆς κρατηθέντος ἤ τινος ἑτέρου πάθους τοιούτου ἀναγκαῖον διεφθάρθαι τὴν κρίσιν, ἐκεῖ δʼ ἔργον ἅμα πάντας ὀργισθῆναι καὶ ἁμαρτεῖν. ἔστω δὲ τὸ πλῆθος οἱ ἐλεύθεροι, μηδὲν παρὰ τὸν νόμον πράττοντες ἀλλʼ ἢ περὶ ὧν ἐκλείπειν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτόν. εἰ δὲ δὴ τοῦτο μὴ ῥᾴδιον ἐν πολλοῖς, ἀλλʼ εἰ πλείους εἶεν ἀγαθοὶ καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ πολῖται, πότερον ὁ εἷς ἀδιαφθορώτερος ἄρχων, ἢ μᾶλλον οἱ πλείους μὲν τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἀγαθοὶ δὲ πάντες; ἢ δῆλον ὡς οἱ πλείους; ἀλλʼ οἱ μὲν στασιάσουσιν ὁ δὲ εἷς ἀστασίαστος. ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοῦτʼ ἀντιθετέον ἴσως ὅτι σπουδαῖοι τὴν ψυχήν, ὥσπερ κἀκεῖνος ὁ εἷς. εἰ δὴ τὴν μὲν τῶν πλειόνων ἀρχὴν ἀγαθῶν δʼ ἀνδρῶν πάντων ἀριστοκρατίαν θετέον, τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἑνὸς βασιλείαν, αἱρετώτερον ἂν εἴη ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀριστοκρατία βασιλείας, καὶ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ χωρὶς δυνάμεως οὔσης τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἂν ᾖ λαβεῖν πλείους ὁμοίους. καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ ἴσως ἐβασιλεύοντο πρότερον, ὅτι σπάνιον ἦν εὑρεῖν ἄνδρας πολὺ διαφέροντας κατʼ ἀρετήν, ἄλλως τε καὶ τότε μικρὰς οἰκοῦντας πόλεις. ἔτι δʼ ἀπʼ εὐεργεσίας καθίστασαν τοὺς βασιλεῖς, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἔργον τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν. ἐπεὶ δὲ συνέβαινε γίγνεσθαι πολλοὺς ὁμοίους πρὸς ἀρετήν, οὐκέτι ὑπέμενον ἀλλʼ ἐζήτουν κοινόν τι καὶ πολιτείαν καθίστασαν. ἐπεὶ δὲ χείρους γιγνόμενοι ἐχρηματίζοντο ἀπὸ τῶν κοινῶν, ἐντεῦθέν ποθεν εὔλογον γενέσθαι τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας· ἔντιμον γὰρ ἐποίησαν τὸν πλοῦτον. ἐκ δὲ τούτων πρῶτον εἰς τυραννίδας μετέβαλλον, ἐκ δὲ τῶν τυραννίδων εἰς δημοκρατίαν· αἰεὶ γὰρ εἰς ἐλάττους ἄγοντες διʼ αἰσχροκέρδειαν ἰσχυρότερον τὸ πλῆθος κατέστησαν, ὥστʼ ἐπιθέσθαι καὶ γενέσθαι δημοκρατίας. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ μείζους εἶναι συμβέβηκε τὰς πόλεις, ἴσως οὐδὲ ῥᾴδιον ἔτι γίγνεσθαι πολιτείαν ἑτέραν παρὰ δημοκρατίαν.

εἰ δὲ δή τις ἄριστον θείη τὸ βασιλεύεσθαι ταῖς πόλεσιν, πῶς ἕξει τὰ περὶ τῶν τέκνων; πότερον καὶ τὸ γένος δεῖ βασιλεύειν; ἀλλὰ γιγνομένων ὁποῖοί τινες ἔτυχον, βλαβερόν. ἀλλʼ οὐ παραδώσει κύριος ὢν τοῖς τέκνοις. ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἔτι τοῦτο ῥᾴδιον πιστεῦσαι· χαλεπὸν γάρ, καὶ μείζονος ἀρετῆς ἢ κατʼ ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν. ἔχει δʼ ἀπορίαν καὶ περὶ τῆς δυνάμεως, πότερον ἔχειν δεῖ τὸν μέλλοντα βασιλεύειν ἰσχύν τινα περὶ αὑτόν, ᾗ δυνήσεται βιάζεσθαι τοὺς μὴ βουλομένους πειθαρχεῖν, ἢ πῶς ἐνδέχεται τὴν ἀρχὴν διοικεῖν; εἰ γὰρ καὶ κατὰ νόμον εἴη κύριος, μηδὲν πράττων κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ βούλησιν παρὰ τὸν νόμον, ὅμως ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ δύναμιν ᾗ φυλάξει τοὺς νόμους. τάχα μὲν οὖν τὰ περὶ τὸν βασιλέα τὸν τοιοῦτον οὐ χαλεπὸν διορίσαι· δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν μὲν ἔχειν ἰσχύν, εἶναι δὲ τοσαύτην τὴν ἰσχὺν ὥστε ἑκάστου μὲν καὶ ἑνὸς καὶ συμπλειόνων κρείττω τοῦ δὲ πλήθους ἥττω, καθάπερ οἵ τʼ ἀρχαῖοι τὰς φυλακὰς ἐδίδοσαν, ὅτε καθισταῖέν τινα τῆς πόλεως ὃν ἐκάλουν αἰσυμνήτην ἢ τύραννον, καὶ Διονυσίῳ τις, ὅτʼ ᾔτει τοὺς φύλακας, συνεβούλευε τοῖς Συρακουσίοις διδόναι τοσούτους τοὺς φύλακας.

περὶ δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ βούλησιν πάντα πράττοντος ὅ τε λόγος ἐφέστηκε νῦν καὶ ποιητέον τὴν σκέψιν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ νόμον λεγόμενος βασιλεὺς οὐκ ἔστιν εἶδος, καθάπερ εἴπομεν, πολιτείας (ἐν πάσαις γὰρ ὑπάρχειν ἐνδέχεται στρατηγίαν ἀίδιον, οἷον ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ καὶ ἀριστοκρατίᾳ, καὶ πολλοὶ ποιοῦσιν ἕνα κύριον τῆς διοικήσεως· τοιαύτη γὰρ ἀρχή τις ἔστι καὶ περὶ Ἐπίδαμνον, καὶ περὶ Ὀποῦντα δὲ κατά τι μέρος ἔλαττον)· περὶ δὲ τῆς παμβασιλείας καλουμένης (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶ καθʼ ἣν ἄρχει πάντων κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βούλησιν ὁ βασιλεύς) δοκεῖ δέ τισιν οὐδὲ κατὰ φύσιν εἶναι τὸ κύριον ἕνα πάντων εἶναι τῶν πολιτῶν, ὅπου συνέστηκεν ἐξ ὁμοίων ἡ πόλις· τοῖς γὰρ ὁμοίοις φύσει τὸ αὐτὸ δίκαιον ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀξίαν κατὰ φύσιν εἶναι, ὥστʼ εἴπερ καὶ τὸ ἴσην ἔχειν τοὺς ἀνίσους τροφὴν ἢ ἐσθῆτα βλαβερὸν τοῖς σώμασιν, οὕτως ἔχειν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς τιμάς· ὁμοίως τοίνυν καὶ τὸ ἄνισον τοὺς ἴσους· διόπερ οὐδένα μᾶλλον ἄρχειν ἢ ἄρχεσθαι δίκαιον, καὶ τὸ ἀνὰ μέρος τοίνυν ὡσαύτως. τοῦτο δʼ ἤδη νόμος· ἡ γὰρ τάξις νόμος. τὸν ἄρα νόμον ἄρχειν αἱρετώτερον μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν πολιτῶν ἕνα τινά, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ λόγον τοῦτον, κἂν εἴ τινας ἄρχειν βέλτιον, τούτους καταστατέον νομοφύλακας καὶ ὑπηρέτας τοῖς νόμοις· ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ εἶναί τινας ἀρχάς, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἕνα τοῦτον εἶναί φασι δίκαιον, ὁμοίων γε ὄντων πάντων. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅσα γε μὴ δοκεῖ δύνασθαι διορίζειν ὁ νόμος, οὐδʼ ἄνθρωπος ἂν δύναιτο γνωρίζειν. ἀλλʼ ἐπίτηδες παιδεύσας ὁ νόμος ἐφίστησι τὰ λοιπὰ τῇ δικαιοτάτῃ γνώμῃ κρίνειν καὶ διοικεῖν τοὺς ἄρχοντας. ἔτι δʼ ἐπανορθοῦσθαι δίδωσιν ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ πειρωμένοις ἄμεινον εἶναι τῶν κειμένων. ὁ μὲν οὖν τὸν νόμον κελεύων ἄρχειν δοκεῖ κελεύειν ἄρχειν τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν νοῦν μόνους, ὁ δʼ ἄνθρωπον κελεύων προστίθησι καὶ θηρίον· ἥ τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμία τοιοῦτον, καὶ ὁ θυμὸς ἄρχοντας διαστρέφει καὶ τοὺς ἀρίστους ἄνδρας. διόπερ ἄνευ ὀρέξεως νοῦς ὁ νόμος ἐστίν. τὸ δὲ τῶν τεχνῶν εἶναι δοκεῖ παράδειγμα ψεῦδος, ὅτι τὸ κατὰ γράμματα ἰατρεύεσθαι φαῦλον, ἀλλὰ αἱρετώτερον χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἔχουσι τὰς τέχνας. οἱ μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν διὰ φιλίαν παρὰ τὸν λόγον ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ἄρνυνται τὸν μισθὸν τοὺς κάμνοντας ὑγιάσαντες· οἱ δʼ ἐν ταῖς πολιτικαῖς ἀρχαῖς πολλὰ πρὸς ἐπήρειαν καὶ χάριν εἰώθασι πράττειν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοὺς ἰατροὺς ὅταν ὑποπτεύωσι πιστευθέντας τοῖς ἐχθροῖς διαφθείρειν διὰ κέρδος, τότε τὴν ἐκ τῶν γραμμάτων θεραπείαν ζητήσαιεν ἂν μᾶλλον. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰσάγονταί γʼ ἐφʼ ἑαυτοὺς οἱ ἰατροὶ κάμνοντες ἄλλους ἰατροὺς καὶ οἱ παιδοτρίβαι γυμναζόμενοι παιδοτρίβας, ὡς οὐ δυνάμενοι κρίνειν τὸ ἀληθὲς διὰ τὸ κρίνειν περί τε οἰκείων καὶ ἐν πάθει ὄντες. ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι τὸ δίκαιον ζητοῦντες τὸ μέσον ζητοῦσιν· ὁ γὰρ νόμος τὸ μέσον. ἔτι κυριώτεροι καὶ περὶ κυριωτέρων τῶν κατὰ γράμματα νόμων οἱ κατὰ τὰ ἔθη εἰσίν, ὥστʼ εἰ τῶν κατὰ γράμματα ἄνθρωπος ἄρχων ἀσφαλέστερος, ἀλλʼ οὐ τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἔθος.

-

ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ ῥᾴδιον ἐφορᾶν πολλὰ τὸν ἕνα· δεήσει ἄρα πλείονας εἶναι τοὺς ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ καθισταμένους ἄρχοντας, ὥστε τί διαφέρει τοῦτο ἐξ ἀρχῆς εὐθὺς ὑπάρχειν ἢ τὸν ἕνα καταστῆσαι τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον; ἔτι, ὃ καὶ πρότερον εἰρημένον ἐστίν, εἴπερ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ σπουδαῖος, διότι βελτίων, ἄρχειν δίκαιος, τοῦ γε ἑνὸς οἱ δύο ἀγαθοὶ βελτίους· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ σύν τε δύʼ ἐρχομένω Hom. Il. 10.224 καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος τοιοῦτοι δέκα μοι συμφράδμονες. Hom. Il. 2.372 εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ νῦν περὶ ἐνίων αἱ ἀρχαὶ κύριαι κρίνειν, ὥσπερ ὁ δικαστής, περὶ ὧν ὁ νόμος ἀδυνατεῖ διορίζειν, ἐπεὶ περὶ ὧν γε δυνατός, οὐδεὶς ἀμφισβητεῖ περὶ τούτων ὡς οὐκ ἂν ἄριστα ὁ νόμος ἄρξειε καὶ κρίνειεν. ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ τὰ μὲν ἐνδέχεται περιληφθῆναι τοῖς νόμοις τὰ δὲ ἀδύνατα, ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἃ ποιεῖ διαπορεῖν καὶ ζητεῖν πότερον τὸν ἄριστον νόμον ἄρχειν αἱρετώτερον ἢ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ἄριστον· περὶ ὧν γὰρ βουλεύονται νομοθετῆσαι τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἐστίν. οὐ τοίνυν τοῦτό γʼ ἀντιλέγουσιν, ὡς οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἄνθρωπον εἶναι τὸν κρινοῦντα περὶ τῶν τοιούτων, ἀλλʼ ὅτι οὐχ ἕνα μόνον ἀλλὰ πολλούς.

+

ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ ῥᾴδιον ἐφορᾶν πολλὰ τὸν ἕνα· δεήσει ἄρα πλείονας εἶναι τοὺς ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ καθισταμένους ἄρχοντας, ὥστε τί διαφέρει τοῦτο ἐξ ἀρχῆς εὐθὺς ὑπάρχειν ἢ τὸν ἕνα καταστῆσαι τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον; ἔτι, ὃ καὶ πρότερον εἰρημένον ἐστίν, εἴπερ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ σπουδαῖος, διότι βελτίων, ἄρχειν δίκαιος, τοῦ γε ἑνὸς οἱ δύο ἀγαθοὶ βελτίους· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ σύν τε δύʼ ἐρχομένω Hom. Il. 10.224 καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος τοιοῦτοι δέκα μοι συμφράδμονες. Hom. Il. 2.372 εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ νῦν περὶ ἐνίων αἱ ἀρχαὶ κύριαι κρίνειν, ὥσπερ ὁ δικαστής, περὶ ὧν ὁ νόμος ἀδυνατεῖ διορίζειν, ἐπεὶ περὶ ὧν γε δυνατός, οὐδεὶς ἀμφισβητεῖ περὶ τούτων ὡς οὐκ ἂν ἄριστα ὁ νόμος ἄρξειε καὶ κρίνειεν. ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ τὰ μὲν ἐνδέχεται περιληφθῆναι τοῖς νόμοις τὰ δὲ ἀδύνατα, ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἃ ποιεῖ διαπορεῖν καὶ ζητεῖν πότερον τὸν ἄριστον νόμον ἄρχειν αἱρετώτερον ἢ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ἄριστον· περὶ ὧν γὰρ βουλεύονται νομοθετῆσαι τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἐστίν. οὐ τοίνυν τοῦτό γʼ ἀντιλέγουσιν, ὡς οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἄνθρωπον εἶναι τὸν κρινοῦντα περὶ τῶν τοιούτων, ἀλλʼ ὅτι οὐχ ἕνα μόνον ἀλλὰ πολλούς.

κρίνει γὰρ ἕκαστος ἄρχων πεπαιδευμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καλῶς, ἄτοπον τʼ ἴσως ἂν εἶναι δόξειεν εἰ βέλτιον ἴδοι τις δυοῖν ὄμμασι καὶ δυσὶν ἀκοαῖς κρίνων καὶ πράττων δυσὶ ποσὶ καὶ χερσίν, ἢ πολλοὶ πολλοῖς· ἐπεὶ καὶ νῦν ὀφθαλμοὺς πολλοὺς οἱ μόναρχοι ποιοῦσιν αὑτῶν καὶ ὦτα καὶ χεῖρας καὶ πόδας· τοὺς γὰρ τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ αὑτοῖς φίλους ποιοῦνται συνάρχους. μὴ φίλοι μὲν οὖν ὄντες οὐ ποιήσουσι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μονάρχου προαίρεσιν· εἰ δὲ φίλοι κἀκείνου καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ὅ γε φίλος ἴσος καὶ ὅμοιος, ὥστʼ εἰ τούτους οἴεται δεῖν ἄρχειν, τοὺς ἴσους καὶ ὁμοίους ἄρχειν οἴεται δεῖν ὁμοίως. ἃ μὲν οὖν οἱ διαμφισβητοῦντες πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν λέγουσι, σχεδὸν ταῦτʼ ἐστίν.

ἀλλʼ ἴσως ταῦτʼ ἐπὶ μὲν τινῶν ἔχει τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, ἐπὶ δὲ τινῶν οὐχ οὕτως. ἔστι γάρ τι φύσει δεσποτικὸν καὶ ἄλλο βασιλευτικὸν καὶ ἄλλο πολιτικὸν καὶ δίκαιον καὶ συμφέρον ἄλλο ἄλλοις· τυραννικὸν δʼ οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ φύσιν, οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν ὅσαι παρεκβάσεις εἰσί· ταῦτα γὰρ γίνεται παρὰ φύσιν. ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων γε φανερὸν ὡς ἐν μὲν τοῖς ὁμοίοις καὶ ἴσοις οὔτε συμφέρον ἐστὶν οὔτε δίκαιον ἕνα κύριον εἶναι πάντων, οὔτε μὴ νόμων ὄντων, ἀλλʼ ὡς αὐτὸν ὄντα νόμον, οὔτε νόμων ὄντων, οὔτε ἀγαθὸν ἀγαθῶν οὔτε μὴ ἀγαθῶν μὴ ἀγαθόν, οὐδʼ ἂν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀμείνων ᾖ, εἰ μὴ τρόπον τινά. τίς δʼ ὁ τρόπος, λεκτέον· εἴρηται δέ πως ἤδη καὶ πρότερον.

πρῶτον δὲ διοριστέον τί τὸ βασιλευτὸν καὶ τί τὸ ἀριστοκρατικὸν καὶ τί τὸ πολιτικόν. βασιλευτὸν μὲν οὖν τὸ τοιοῦτόν ἐστι πλῆθος ὃ πέφυκε φέρειν γένος ὑπερέχον κατʼ ἀρετὴν πρὸς ἡγεμονίαν πολιτικήν, ἀριστοκρατικὸν δὲ ὃ πέφυκε φέρειν πλῆθος ἄρχεσθαι δυνάμενον τὴν τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀρχὴν ὑπὸ τῶν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἡγεμονικῶν πρὸς πολιτικὴν ἀρχήν, πολιτικὸν δὲ ἐν ᾧ πέφυκεν ἐγγίνεσθαι πλῆθος πολεμικὸν δυνάμενον ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν κατὰ νόμον τὸν κατʼ ἀξίαν διανέμοντα τοῖς εὐπόροις τὰς ἀρχάς. ὅταν οὖν ἢ γένος ὅλον ἢ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕνα τινὰ συμβῇ διαφέροντα γενέσθαι κατʼ ἀρετὴν τοσοῦτον ὥσθʼ ὑπερέχειν τὴν ἐκείνου τῆς τῶν ἄλλων πάντων, τότε δίκαιον τὸ γένος εἶναι τοῦτο βασιλικὸν καὶ κύριον πάντων, καὶ βασιλέα τὸν ἕνα τοῦτον. καθάπερ γὰρ εἴρηται πρότερον, οὐ μόνον οὕτως ἔχει κατὰ τὸ δίκαιον ὃ προφέρειν εἰώθασιν οἱ τὰς πολιτείας καθιστάντες, οἵ τε τὰς ἀριστοκρατικὰς καὶ οἱ τὰς ὀλιγαρχικὰς καὶ πάλιν οἱ τὰς δημοκρατικάς (πάντες γὰρ καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν ἀξιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ ὑπεροχὴν οὐ τὴν αὐτήν), ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ πρότερον λεχθέν. οὔτε γὰρ κτείνειν ἢ φυγαδεύειν οὐδʼ ὀστρακίζειν δή που τὸν τοιοῦτον πρέπον ἐστίν, οὔτʼ ἀξιοῦν ἄρχεσθαι κατὰ μέρος· οὐ γὰρ πέφυκε τὸ μέρος ὑπερέχειν τοῦ παντός, τῷ δὲ τὴν τηλικαύτην ὑπερβολὴν ἔχοντι τοῦτο συμβέβηκεν. ὥστε λείπεται μόνον τὸ πείθεσθαι τῷ τοιούτῳ καὶ κύριον εἶναι μὴ κατὰ μέρος τοῦτον ἀλλʼ ἁπλῶς. περὶ μὲν οὖν βασιλείας, τίνας ἔχει διαφοράς, καὶ πότερον οὐ συμφέρει ταῖς πόλεσιν ἢ συμφέρει, καὶ τίσι, καὶ πῶς, διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@

ὁ μὲν οὖν τρόπος τῆς μίξεως οὗτος· τοῦ δʼ εὖ μεμεῖχθαι δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν ὅρος, ὅταν ἐνδέχηται λέγειν τὴν αὐτὴν πολιτείαν δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τοῦτο πάσχουσιν οἱ λέγοντες διὰ τὸ μεμεῖχθαι καλῶς· πέπονθε δὲ τοῦτο καὶ τὸ μέσον, ἐμφαίνεται γὰρ ἑκάτερον ἐν αὐτῷ τῶν ἄκρων· ὅπερ συμβαίνει περὶ τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείαν. πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐγχειροῦσι λέγειν ὡς δημοκρατίας οὔσης διὰ τὸ δημοκρατικὰ πολλὰ τὴν τάξιν ἔχειν, οἷον πρῶτον τὸ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν τῶν παίδων (ὁμοίως γὰρ οἱ τῶν πλουσίων τρέφονται τοῖς τῶν πενήτων, καὶ παιδεύονται τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ὃν ἂν δύναιντο καὶ τῶν πενήτων οἱ παῖδες), ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐχομένης ἡλικίας, καὶ ὅταν ἄνδρες γένωνται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον (οὐθὲν γὰρ διάδηλος ὁ πλούσιος καὶ ὁ πένης οὕτω) τὰ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ταὐτὰ πᾶσιν ἐν τοῖς συσσιτίοις, καὶ τὴν ἐσθῆτα οἱ πλούσιοι τοιαύτην οἵαν ἄν τις παρασκευάσαι δύναιτο καὶ τῶν πενήτων ὁστισοῦν· ἔτι τὸ δύο τὰς μεγίστας ἀρχὰς τὴν μὲν αἱρεῖσθαι τὸν δῆμον, τῆς δὲ μετέχειν (τοὺς μὲν γὰρ γέροντας αἱροῦνται, τῆς δʼ ἐφορείας μετέχουσιν)· οἱ δʼ ὀλιχαρχίαν διὰ τὸ πολλὰ ἔχειν ὀλιγαρχικά, οἷον τὸ πάσας αἱρετὰς εἶναι καὶ μηδεμίαν κληρωτήν, καὶ ὀλίγους εἶναι κυρίους θανάτου καὶ φυγῆς, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα πολλά. δεῖ δʼ ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τῇ μεμειγμένῃ καλῶς ἀμφότερα δοκεῖν εἶναι καὶ μηδέτερον, καὶ σῴζεσθαι διʼ αὑτῆς καὶ μὴ ἔξωθεν, καὶ διʼ αὑτῆς μὴ τῷ πλείους ἔξωθεν εἶναι τοὺς βουλομένους (εἴη γὰρ ἂν καὶ πονηρᾷ πολιτείᾳ τοῦθʼ ὑπάρχον’ ἀλλὰ τῷ μηδʼ ἂν βούλεσθαι πολιτείαν ἑτέραν μηθὲν τῶν τῆς πόλεως μορίων ὅλως. τίνα μὲν οὖν τρόπον δεῖ καθιστάναι πολιτείαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς ὀνομαζομένας ἀριστοκρατίας, νῦν εἴρηται.

περὶ δὲ τυραννίδος ἦν ἡμῖν λοιπὸν εἰπεῖν, οὐχ ὡς ἐνούσης πολυλογίας περὶ αὐτήν, ἀλλʼ ὅπως λάβῃ τῆς μεθόδου τὸ μέρος, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ταύτην τίθεμεν τῶν πολιτειῶν τι μέρος. περὶ μὲν οὖν βασιλείας διωρίσαμεν ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις λόγοις, ἐν οἷς περὶ τῆς μάλιστα λεγομένης βασιλείας ἐποιούμεθα τὴν σκέψιν, πότερον ἀσύμφορος ἢ συμφέρει ταῖς πόλεσιν, καὶ τίνα καὶ πόθεν δεῖ καθιστάναι, καὶ πῶς· τυραννίδος δʼ εἴδη δύο μὲν διείλομεν ἐν οἷς περὶ βασιλείας ἐπεσκοποῦμεν, διὰ τὸ τὴν δύναμιν ἐπαλλάττειν πως αὐτῶν καὶ πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν, διὰ τὸ κατὰ νόμον εἶναι ἀμφοτέρας ταύτας τὰς ἀρχάς (ἔν τε γὰρ τῶν βαρβάρων τισὶν αἱροῦνται αὐτοκράτορας μονάρχους, καὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Ἕλλησιν ἐγίγνοντό τινες μόναρχοι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, οὓς ἐκάλουν αἰσυμνήτας), ἔχουσι δέ τινας πρὸς ἀλλήλας αὗται διαφοράς, ἦσαν δὲ διὰ μὲν τὸ κατὰ νόμον βασιλικαὶ καὶ διὰ τὸ μοναρχεῖν ἑκόντων, τυραννικαὶ δὲ διὰ τὸ δεσποτικῶς ἄρχειν καὶ κατὰ τὴν αὑτῶν γνώμην· τρίτον δὲ εἶδος τυραννίδος, ἥπερ μάλιστʼ εἶναι δοκεῖ τυραννίς, ἀντίστροφος οὖσα τῇ παμβασιλείᾳ. τοιαύτην δʼ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τυραννίδα τὴν μοναρχίαν ἥτις ἀνυπεύθυνος ἄρχει τῶν ὁμοίων καὶ βελτιόνων πάντων πρὸς τὸ σφέτερον αὐτῆς συμφέρον, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρὸς τὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων. διόπερ ἀκούσιος· οὐθεὶς γὰρ ἑκὼν ὑπομένει τῶν ἐλευθέρων τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρχήν. τυραννίδος μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτα διὰ τὰς εἰρημένας αἰτίας.

-

τίς δʼ ἀρίστη πολιτεία καὶ τίς ἄριστος βίος ταῖς πλείσταις πόλεσι καὶ τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, μήτε πρὸς ἀρετὴν συγκρίνουσι τὴν ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἰδιώτας, μήτε πρὸς παιδείαν ἣ φύσεως δεῖται καὶ χορηγίας τυχηρᾶς, μήτε πρὸς πολιτείαν τὴν κατʼ εὐχὴν γινομένην, ἀλλὰ βίον τε τὸν τοῖς πλείστοις κοινωνῆσαι δυνατὸν καὶ πολιτείαν ἧς τὰς πλείστας πόλεις ἐνδέχεται μετασχεῖν; καὶ γὰρ ἃς καλοῦσιν ἀριστοκρατίας, περὶ ὧν νῦν εἴπομεν, τὰ μὲν ἐξωτέρω πίπτουσι ταῖς πλείσταις τῶν πόλεων, τὰ δὲ γειτνιῶσι τῇ καλουμένῃ πολιτείᾳ (διὸ περὶ ἀμφοῖν ὡς μιᾶς λεκτέον). ἡ δὲ δὴ κρίσις περὶ ἁπάντων τούτων ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν στοιχείων ἐστίν. εἰ γὰρ καλῶς ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς εἴρηται τὸ τὸν εὐδαίμονα βίον εἶναι τὸν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀνεμπόδιστον, μεσότητα δὲ τὴν ἀρετήν, τὸν μέσον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι βίον βέλτιστον, τὸ τῆς ἑκάστοις ἐνδεχομένης τυχεῖν μεσότητος· τοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς τούτους ὅρους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ πόλεως ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας καὶ πολιτείας· ἡ γὰρ πολιτεία βίος τίς ἐστι πόλεως.ἐν ἁπάσαις δὴ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἔστι τρία μέρη τῆς πόλεως, οἱ μὲν εὔποροι σφόδρα, οἱ δὲ ἄποροι σφόδρα, οἱ δὲ τρίτοι οἱ μέσοι τούτων. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ὁμολογεῖται τὸ μέτριον ἄριστον καὶ τὸ μέσον, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ τῶν εὐτυχημάτων ἡ κτῆσις ἡ μέση βελτίστη πάντων. ῥᾴστη γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ πειθαρχεῖν, ὑπέρκαλον δὲ ἢ ὑπερίσχυρον ἢ ὑπερευγενῆ ἢ ὑπερπλούσιον ὄντα, ἢ τἀναντία τούτοις, ὑπέρπτωχον ἢ ὑπερασθενῆ ἢ σφόδρα ἄτιμον, χαλεπὸν τῷ λόγῳ ἀκολουθεῖν· γίγνονται γὰρ οἱ μὲν ὑβρισταὶ καὶ μεγαλοπόνηροι μᾶλλον, οἱ δὲ κακοῦργοι καὶ μικροπόνηροι λίαν, τῶν δʼ ἀδικημάτων τὰ μὲν γίγνεται διʼ ὕβριν τὰ δὲ διὰ κακουργίαν. ἔτι δὲ ἥκισθʼ οὗτοι φυγαρχοῦσι καὶ σπουδαρχοῦσιν, ταῦτα δʼ ἀμφότερα βλαβερὰ ταῖς πόλεσιν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οἱ μὲν ἐν ὑπεροχαῖς εὐτυχημάτων ὄντες, ἰσχύος καὶ πλούτου καὶ φίλων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων, ἄρχεσθαι οὔτε βούλονται οὔτε ἐπίστανται (καὶ τοῦτʼ εὐθὺς οἴκοθεν ὑπάρχει παισὶν οὖσιν· διὰ γὰρ τὴν τρυφὴν οὐδʼ ἐν τοῖς διδασκαλείοις ἄρχεσθαι σύνηθες αὐτοῖς), οἱ δὲ καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ἐν ἐνδείᾳ τούτων ταπεινοὶ λίαν. ὥσθʼ οἱ μὲν ἄρχειν οὐκ ἐπίστανται, ἀλλʼ ἄρχεσθαι δουλικὴν ἀρχήν, οἱ δʼ ἄρχεσθαι μὲν οὐδεμίαν ἀρχήν, ἄρχειν δὲ δεσποτικὴν ἀρχήν. γίνεται οὖν δούλων καὶ δεσποτῶν πόλις, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐλευθέρων, καὶ τῶν μὲν φθονούντων τῶν δὲ καταφρονούντων· ἃ πλεῖστον ἀπέχει φιλίας καὶ κοινωνίας πολιτικῆς· ἡ γὰρ κοινωνία φιλικόν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁδοῦ βούλονται κοινωνεῖν τοῖς ἐχθροῖς. βούλεται δέ γε ἡ πόλις ἐξ ἴσων εἶναι καὶ ὁμοίων ὅτι μάλιστα, τοῦτο δʼ ὑπάρχει μάλιστα τοῖς μέσοις. ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἄριστα πολιτεύεσθαι ταύτην τὴν πόλιν ἐστὶν ἐξ ὧν φαμὲν φύσει τὴν σύστασιν εἶναι τῆς πόλεως. καὶ σῴζονται δʼ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οὗτοι μάλιστα τῶν πολιτῶν. οὔτε γὰρ αὐτοὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, ὥσπερ οἱ πένητες, ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, οὔτε τῆς τούτων ἕτεροι, καθάπερ τῆς τῶν πλουσίων οἱ πένητες ἐπιθυμοῦσιν· καὶ διὰ τὸ μήτʼ ἐπιβουλεύεσθαι μήτʼ ἐπιβουλεύειν ἀκινδύνως διάγουσιν. διὰ τοῦτο καλῶς ηὔξατο Φωκυλίδης πολλὰ μέσοισιν ἄριστα· μέσος θέλω ἐν πόλει εἶναι.

+

τίς δʼ ἀρίστη πολιτεία καὶ τίς ἄριστος βίος ταῖς πλείσταις πόλεσι καὶ τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, μήτε πρὸς ἀρετὴν συγκρίνουσι τὴν ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἰδιώτας, μήτε πρὸς παιδείαν ἣ φύσεως δεῖται καὶ χορηγίας τυχηρᾶς, μήτε πρὸς πολιτείαν τὴν κατʼ εὐχὴν γινομένην, ἀλλὰ βίον τε τὸν τοῖς πλείστοις κοινωνῆσαι δυνατὸν καὶ πολιτείαν ἧς τὰς πλείστας πόλεις ἐνδέχεται μετασχεῖν; καὶ γὰρ ἃς καλοῦσιν ἀριστοκρατίας, περὶ ὧν νῦν εἴπομεν, τὰ μὲν ἐξωτέρω πίπτουσι ταῖς πλείσταις τῶν πόλεων, τὰ δὲ γειτνιῶσι τῇ καλουμένῃ πολιτείᾳ (διὸ περὶ ἀμφοῖν ὡς μιᾶς λεκτέον). ἡ δὲ δὴ κρίσις περὶ ἁπάντων τούτων ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν στοιχείων ἐστίν. εἰ γὰρ καλῶς ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς εἴρηται τὸ τὸν εὐδαίμονα βίον εἶναι τὸν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀνεμπόδιστον, μεσότητα δὲ τὴν ἀρετήν, τὸν μέσον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι βίον βέλτιστον, τὸ τῆς ἑκάστοις ἐνδεχομένης τυχεῖν μεσότητος· τοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς τούτους ὅρους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ πόλεως ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας καὶ πολιτείας· ἡ γὰρ πολιτεία βίος τίς ἐστι πόλεως.ἐν ἁπάσαις δὴ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἔστι τρία μέρη τῆς πόλεως, οἱ μὲν εὔποροι σφόδρα, οἱ δὲ ἄποροι σφόδρα, οἱ δὲ τρίτοι οἱ μέσοι τούτων. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ὁμολογεῖται τὸ μέτριον ἄριστον καὶ τὸ μέσον, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ τῶν εὐτυχημάτων ἡ κτῆσις ἡ μέση βελτίστη πάντων. ῥᾴστη γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ πειθαρχεῖν, ὑπέρκαλον δὲ ἢ ὑπερίσχυρον ἢ ὑπερευγενῆ ἢ ὑπερπλούσιον ὄντα, ἢ τἀναντία τούτοις, ὑπέρπτωχον ἢ ὑπερασθενῆ ἢ σφόδρα ἄτιμον, χαλεπὸν τῷ λόγῳ ἀκολουθεῖν· γίγνονται γὰρ οἱ μὲν ὑβρισταὶ καὶ μεγαλοπόνηροι μᾶλλον, οἱ δὲ κακοῦργοι καὶ μικροπόνηροι λίαν, τῶν δʼ ἀδικημάτων τὰ μὲν γίγνεται διʼ ὕβριν τὰ δὲ διὰ κακουργίαν. ἔτι δὲ ἥκισθʼ οὗτοι φυγαρχοῦσι καὶ σπουδαρχοῦσιν, ταῦτα δʼ ἀμφότερα βλαβερὰ ταῖς πόλεσιν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οἱ μὲν ἐν ὑπεροχαῖς εὐτυχημάτων ὄντες, ἰσχύος καὶ πλούτου καὶ φίλων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων, ἄρχεσθαι οὔτε βούλονται οὔτε ἐπίστανται (καὶ τοῦτʼ εὐθὺς οἴκοθεν ὑπάρχει παισὶν οὖσιν· διὰ γὰρ τὴν τρυφὴν οὐδʼ ἐν τοῖς διδασκαλείοις ἄρχεσθαι σύνηθες αὐτοῖς), οἱ δὲ καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ἐν ἐνδείᾳ τούτων ταπεινοὶ λίαν. ὥσθʼ οἱ μὲν ἄρχειν οὐκ ἐπίστανται, ἀλλʼ ἄρχεσθαι δουλικὴν ἀρχήν, οἱ δʼ ἄρχεσθαι μὲν οὐδεμίαν ἀρχήν, ἄρχειν δὲ δεσποτικὴν ἀρχήν. γίνεται οὖν δούλων καὶ δεσποτῶν πόλις, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐλευθέρων, καὶ τῶν μὲν φθονούντων τῶν δὲ καταφρονούντων· ἃ πλεῖστον ἀπέχει φιλίας καὶ κοινωνίας πολιτικῆς· ἡ γὰρ κοινωνία φιλικόν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁδοῦ βούλονται κοινωνεῖν τοῖς ἐχθροῖς. βούλεται δέ γε ἡ πόλις ἐξ ἴσων εἶναι καὶ ὁμοίων ὅτι μάλιστα, τοῦτο δʼ ὑπάρχει μάλιστα τοῖς μέσοις. ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἄριστα πολιτεύεσθαι ταύτην τὴν πόλιν ἐστὶν ἐξ ὧν φαμὲν φύσει τὴν σύστασιν εἶναι τῆς πόλεως. καὶ σῴζονται δʼ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οὗτοι μάλιστα τῶν πολιτῶν. οὔτε γὰρ αὐτοὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, ὥσπερ οἱ πένητες, ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, οὔτε τῆς τούτων ἕτεροι, καθάπερ τῆς τῶν πλουσίων οἱ πένητες ἐπιθυμοῦσιν· καὶ διὰ τὸ μήτʼ ἐπιβουλεύεσθαι μήτʼ ἐπιβουλεύειν ἀκινδύνως διάγουσιν. διὰ τοῦτο καλῶς ηὔξατο Φωκυλίδης πολλὰ μέσοισιν ἄριστα· μέσος θέλω ἐν πόλει εἶναι.

δῆλον ἄρα ὅτι καὶ ἡ κοινωνία ἡ πολιτικὴ ἀρίστη ἡ διὰ τῶν μέσων, καὶ τὰς τοιαύτας ἐνδέχεται εὖ πολιτεύεσθαι πόλεις ἐν αἷς δὴ πολὺ τὸ μέσον καὶ κρεῖττον, μάλιστα μὲν ἀμφοῖν, εἰ δὲ μή, θατέρου μέρους· προστιθέμενον γὰρ ποιεῖ ῥοπὴν καὶ κωλύει γίνεσθαι τὰς ἐναντίας ὑπερβολάς. διόπερ εὐτυχία μεγίστη τοὺς πολιτευομένους οὐσίαν ἔχειν μέσην καὶ ἱκανήν, ὡς ὅπου οἱ μὲν πολλὰ σφόδρα κέκτηνται οἱ δὲ μηθέν, ἢ δῆμος ἔσχατος γίγνεται ἢ ὀλιγαρχία ἄκρατος, ἢ τυραννὶς διʼ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς ὑπερβολάς· καὶ γὰρ ἐκ δημοκρατίας τῆς νεανικωτάτης καὶ ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας γίγνεται τυραννίς, ἐκ δὲ τῶν μέσων καὶ τῶν σύνεγγυς πολὺ ἧττον. τὴν δʼ αἰτίαν ὕστερον ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὰς μεταβολὰς τῶν πολιτειῶν ἐροῦμεν. ὅτι δʼ ἡ μέση βελτίστη, φανερόν· μόνη γὰρ ἀστασίαστος· ὅπου γὰρ πολὺ τὸ διὰ μέσου, ἥκιστα στάσεις καὶ διαστάσεις γίγνονται τῶν πολιτῶν. καὶ αἱ μεγάλαι πόλεις ἀστασιαστότεραι διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν, ὅτι πολὺ τὸ μέσον· ἐν δὲ ταῖς μικραῖς ῥᾴδιόν τε διαλαβεῖν εἰς δύο πάντας, ὥστε μηθὲν καταλιπεῖν μέσον, καὶ πάντες σχεδὸν ἄποροι ἢ εὔποροί εἰσι. καὶ αἱ δημοκρατίαι δὲ ἀσφαλέστεραι τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν εἰσι καὶ πολυχρονιώτεραι διὰ τοὺς μέσους (πλείους τε γάρ εἰσι καὶ μᾶλλον μετέχουσι τῶν τιμῶν ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἢ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις), ἐπεὶ ὅταν ἄνευ τούτων τῷ πλήθει ὑπερτείνωσιν οἱ ἄποροι, κακοπραγία γίνεται καὶ ἀπόλλυνται ταχέως. σημεῖον δὲ δεῖ νομίζειν καὶ τὸ τοὺς βελτίστους νομοθέτας εἶναι τῶν μέσων πολιτῶν· Σόλων τε γὰρ ἦν τούτων (δηλοῖ δʼ ἐκ τῆς ποιήσεως) καὶ Λυκοῦργος (οὐ γὰρ ἦν βασιλεύς) καὶ Χαρώνδας καὶ σχεδὸν οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἄλλων.

φανερὸν δʼ ἐκ τούτων καὶ διότι αἱ πλεῖσται πολιτεῖαι αἱ μὲν δημοκρατικαί εἰσιν αἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχικαί. διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐν ταύταις πολλάκις ὀλίγον εἶναι τὸ μέσον, αἰεὶ ὁπότεροι ἂν ὑπερέχωσιν, εἴθʼ οἱ τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντες εἴθʼ ὁ δῆμος, οἱ τὸ μέσον ἐκβαίνοντες καθʼ αὑτοὺς ἄγουσι τὴν πολιτείαν, ὥστε ἢ δῆμος γίγνεται ἢ ὀλιγαρχία. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις διὰ τὸ στάσεις γίγνεσθαι καὶ μάχας πρὸς ἀλλήλους τῷ δήμῳ καὶ τοῖς εὐπόροις, ὁποτέροις ἂν μᾶλλον συμβῇ κρατῆσαι τῶν ἐναντίων, οὐ καθιστᾶσι κοινὴν πολιτείαν οὐδʼ ἴσην, ἀλλὰ τῆς νίκης ἆθλον τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τῆς πολιτείας λαμβάνουσιν, καὶ οἱ μὲν δημοκρατίαν οἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίαν ποιοῦσιν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐν ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων τῆς Ἑλλάδος πρὸς τὴν παρʼ αὑτοῖς ἑκάτεροι πολιτείαν ἀποβλέποντες οἱ μὲν δημοκρατίας ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι καθίστασαν οἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίας, οὐ πρὸς τὸ τῶν πόλεων συμφέρον σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ σφέτερον αὐτῶν, ὥστε διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας ἢ μηδέποτε τὴν μέσην γίνεσθαι πολιτείαν ἢ ὀλιγάκις καὶ παρʼ ὀλίγοις· εἷς γὰρ ἀνὴρ συνεπείσθη μόνος τῶν πρότερον ἐφʼ ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων ταύτην ἀποδοῦναι τὴν τάξιν, ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἔθος καθέστηκε μηδὲ βούλεσθαι τὸ ἴσον, ἀλλʼ ἢ ἄρχειν ζητεῖν ἢ κρατουμένους ὑπομένειν. τίς μὲν οὖν ἀρίστη πολιτεία, καὶ διὰ τίνʼ αἰτίαν, ἐκ τούτων φανερόν· τῶν δʼ ἄλλων πολιτειῶν, ἐπειδὴ πλείους δημοκρατίας καὶ πλείους ὀλιγαρχίας φαμὲν εἶναι, ποίαν πρώτην θετέον καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν τρόπον ἐχομένην τῷ τὴν μὲν εἶναι βελτίω τὴν δὲ χείρω, διωρισμένης τῆς ἀρίστης οὐ χαλεπὸν ἰδεῖν. ἀεὶ γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι βελτίω τὴν ἐγγύτατα ταύτης, χείρω δὲ τὴν ἀφεστηκυῖαν τοῦ μέσου πλεῖον, ἂν μὴ πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν κρίνῃ τις. λέγω δὲ τὸ πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν, ὅτι πολλάκις, οὔσης ἄλλης πολιτείας αἱρετωτέρας, ἐνίοις οὐδὲν κωλύει συμφέρειν ἑτέραν μᾶλλον εἶναι πολιτείαν.

τίς δὲ πολιτεία τίσι καὶ ποία συμφέρει ποίοις, ἐχόμενόν ἐστι τῶν εἰρημένων διελθεῖν. ληπτέον δὴ πρῶτον περὶ πασῶν καθόλου ταὐτόν· δεῖ γὰρ κρεῖττον εἶναι τὸ βουλόμενον μέρος τῆς πόλεως τοῦ μὴ βουλομένου μένειν τὴν πολιτείαν. ἔστι δὲ πᾶσα πόλις ἔκ τε τοῦ ποιοῦ καὶ ποσοῦ. λέγω δὲ ποιὸν μὲν ἐλευθερίαν πλοῦτον παιδείαν εὐγένειαν, ποσὸν δὲ τὴν τοῦ πλήθους ὑπεροχήν. ἐνδέχεται δὲ τὸ μὲν ποιὸν ὑπάρχειν ἑτέρῳ μέρει τῆς πόλεως, ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκε μερῶν ἡ πόλις, ἄλλῳ δὲ μέρει τὸ ποσόν, οἷον πλείους τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἶναι τῶν γενναίων τοὺς ἀγεννεῖς ἢ τῶν πλουσίων τοὺς ἀπόρους, μὴ μέντοι τοσοῦτον ὑπερέχειν τῷ ποσῷ ὅσον λείπεται τῷ ποιῷ. διὸ ταῦτα πρὸς ἄλληλα συγκριτέον. ὅπου μὲν οὖν ὑπερέχει τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων πλῆθος τὴν εἰρημένην ἀναλογίαν, ἐνταῦθα πέφυκεν εἶναι δημοκρατίαν, καὶ ἕκαστον εἶδος δημοκρατίας κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ δήμου ἑκάστου, οἷον ἐὰν μὲν τὸ τῶν γεωργῶν ὑπερτείνῃ πλῆθος, τὴν πρώτην δημοκρατίαν, ἐὰν δὲ τὸ τῶν βαναύσων καὶ μισθαρνούντων, τὴν τελευταίαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τὰς μεταξὺ τούτων· ὅπου δὲ τὸ τῶν εὐπόρων καὶ γνωρίμων μᾶλλον ὑπερτείνει τῷ ποιῷ ἢ λείπεται τῷ ποσῷ, ἐνταῦθα ὀλιγαρχίαν, καὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἕκαστον εἶδος κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ ὀλιγαρχικοῦ πλήθους.

@@ -339,8 +339,8 @@

περὶ δὲ τῆς πρὸς τὴν θάλατταν κοινωνίας, πότερον ὠφέλιμος ταῖς εὐνομουμέναις πόλεσιν ἢ βλαβερά, πολλὰ τυγχάνουσιν ἀμφισβητοῦντες· τό τε γὰρ ἐπιξενοῦσθαί τινας ἐν ἄλλοις τεθραμμένους νόμοις ἀσύμφορον εἶναί φασι πρὸς τὴν εὐνομίαν, καὶ τὴν πολυανθρωπίαν· γίνεσθαι μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ χρῆσθαι τῇ θαλάττῃ διαπέμποντας καὶ δεχομένους ἐμπόρων πλῆθος, ὑπεναντίαν δʼ εἶναι πρὸς τὸ πολιτεύεσθαι καλῶς. ὅτι μὲν οὖν, εἰ ταῦτα μὴ συμβαίνει, βέλτιον καὶ πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν καὶ πρὸς εὐπορίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων μετέχειν τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν χώραν τῆς θαλάττης, οὐκ ἄδηλον. καὶ γὰρ πρὸς τὸ ῥᾷον φέρειν τοὺς πολέμους εὐβοηθήτους εἶναι δεῖ κατʼ ἀμφότερα τοὺς σωθησομένους, καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν, καὶ πρὸς τὸ βλάψαι τοὺς ἐπιτιθεμένους, εἰ μὴ κατʼ ἄμφω δυνατόν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ θάτερον ὑπάρξει μᾶλλον ἀμφοτέρων μετέχουσιν. ὅσα τʼ ἂν μὴ τυγχάνῃ παρʼ αὑτοῖς ὄντα, δέξασθαι ταῦτα, καὶ τὰ πλεονάζοντα τῶν γιγνομένων ἐκπέμψασθαι τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐστίν. αὑτῇ γὰρ ἐμπορικήν, ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῖς ἄλλοις, δεῖ εἶναι τὴν πόλιν· οἱ δὲ παρέχοντες σφᾶς αὐτοὺς πᾶσιν ἀγορὰν προσόδου χάριν ταῦτα πράττουσιν· ἣν δὲ μὴ δεῖ πόλιν τοιαύτης μετέχειν πλεονεξίας, οὐδʼ ἐμπόριον δεῖ κεκτῆσθαι τοιοῦτον. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ νῦν ὁρῶμεν πολλαῖς ὑπάρχοντα καὶ χώραις καὶ πόλεσιν ἐπίνεια καὶ λιμένας εὐφυῶς κείμενα πρὸς τὴν πόλιν, ὥστε μήτε τὸ αὐτὸ νέμειν ἄστυ μήτε πόρρω λίαν, ἀλλὰ κρατεῖσθαι τείχεσι καὶ τοιούτοις ἄλλοις ἐρύμασι, φανερὸν ὡς εἰ μὲν ἀγαθόν τι συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι διὰ τῆς κοινωνίας αὐτῶν, ὑπάρξει τῇ πόλει τοῦτο τὸ ἀγαθόν, εἰ δέ τι βλαβερόν, φυλάξασθαι ῥᾴδιον τοῖς νόμοις φράζοντας καὶ διορίζοντας τίνας οὐ δεῖ καὶ τίνας ἐπιμίσγεσθαι δεῖ πρὸς ἀλλήλους.

περὶ δὲ τῆς ναυτικῆς δυνάμεως, ὅτι μὲν βέλτιστον ὑπάρχειν μέχρι τινὸς πλήθους, οὐκ ἄδηλον (oὐ γὰρ μόνον αὑτοῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πλησίον τισὶ δεῖ καὶ φοβεροὺς εἶναι καὶ δύνασθαι βοηθεῖν, ὥσπερ κατὰ γῆν, καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν)· περὶ δὲ πλήθους ἤδη καὶ μεγέθους τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης πρὸς τὸν βίον ἀποσκεπτέον τῆς πόλεως. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πολιτικὸν ζήσεται βίον, ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν ὑπάρχειν πρὸς τὰς πράξεις σύμμετρον. τὴν δὲ πολυανθρωπίαν τὴν γιγνομένην περὶ τὸν ναυτικὸν ὄχλον οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν ταῖς πόλεσιν· οὐθὲν γὰρ αὐτοὺς μέρος εἶναι δεῖ τῆς πόλεως. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιβατικὸν ἐλεύθερον καὶ τῶν πεζευόντων ἐστίν, ὃ κύριόν ἐστι καὶ κρατεῖ τῆς ναυτιλίας· πλήθους δὲ ὑπάρχοντος περιοίκων καὶ τῶν τὴν χώραν γεωργούντων, ἀφθονίαν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ ναυτῶν. ὁρῶμεν δὲ τοῦτο καὶ νῦν ὑπάρχον τισίν, οἷον τῇ πόλει τῶν Ἡρακλεωτῶν· πολλὰς γὰρ ἐκπληροῦσι τριήρεις, κεκτημένοι τῷ μεγέθει πόλιν ἑτέρων ἐμμελεστέραν.

περὶ μὲν οὖν χώρας καὶ λιμένων τῶν πόλεων καὶ θαλάττης καὶ περὶ τῆς ναυτικῆς δυνάμεως ἔστω διωρισμένα τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· περὶ δὲ τοῦ πολιτικοῦ πλήθους, τίνα μὲν ὅρον ὑπάρχειν χρή, πρότερον εἴπομεν, ποίους δέ τινας τὴν φύσιν εἶναι δεῖ, νῦν λέγωμεν.

-

σχεδὸν δὴ κατανοήσειεν ἄν τις τοῦτό γε, βλέψας ἐπί τε τὰς πόλεις τὰς εὐδοκιμούσας τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην, ὡς διείληπται τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ψυχροῖς τόποις ἔθνη καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν Εὐρώπην θυμοῦ μέν ἐστι πλήρη, διανοίας δὲ ἐνδεέστερα καὶ τέχνης, διόπερ ἐλεύθερα μὲν διατελεῖ μᾶλλον, ἀπολίτευτα δὲ καὶ τῶν πλησίον ἄρχειν οὐ δυνάμενα· τὰ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν διανοητικὰ μὲν καὶ τεχνικὰ τὴν ψυχήν, ἄθυμα δέ, διόπερ ἀρχόμενα καὶ δουλεύοντα διατελεῖ· τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων γένος, ὥσπερ μεσεύει κατὰ τοὺς τόπους, οὕτως ἀμφοῖν μετέχει. καὶ γὰρ ἔνθυμον καὶ διανοητικόν ἐστιν· διόπερ ἐλεύθερόν τε διατελεῖ καὶ βέλτιστα πολιτευόμενον καὶ δυνάμενον ἄρχειν πάντων, μιᾶς τυγχάνον πολιτείας. τὴν αὐτὴν δʼ ἔχει διαφορὰν καὶ τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔθνη πρὸς ἄλληλα· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἔχει τὴν φύσιν μονόκωλον, τὰ δὲ εὖ κέκραται πρὸς ἀμφοτέρας τὰς δυνάμεις ταύτας. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι δεῖ διανοητικούς τε εἶναι καὶ θυμοειδεῖς τὴν φύσιν τοὺς μέλλοντας εὐαγώγους ἔσεσθαι τῷ νομοθέτῃ πρὸς τὴν ἀρετήν. ὅπερ γάρ φασί τινες δεῖν ὑπάρχειν τοῖς φύλαξι, τὸ φιλητικοὺς μὲν εἶναι τῶν γνωρίμων πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀγνῶτας ἀγρίους, ὁ θυμός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν τὸ φιλητικόν· αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς δύναμις ᾗ φιλοῦμεν. σημεῖον δέ· πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς συνήθεις καὶ φίλους ὁ θυμὸς αἴρεται μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγνῶτας, ὀλιγωρεῖσθαι νομίσας. διὸ καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος προσηκόντως τοῖς φίλοις ἐγκαλῶν διαλέγεται πρὸς τὸν θυμόν· σὺ γὰρ δὴ παρὰ φίλων ἀπάγχεαι.

-

καὶ τὸ ἄρχον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐλεύθερον ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης ὑπάρχει πᾶσιν· ἀρχικὸν γὰρ καὶ ἀήττητον ὁ θυμός. οὐ καλῶς δʼ ἔχει λέγειν χαλεποὺς εἶναι πρὸς τοὺς ἀγνῶτας· πρὸς οὐθένα γὰρ εἶναι χρὴ τοιοῦτον, οὐδέ εἰσιν οἱ μεγαλόψυχοι τὴν φύσιν ἄγριοι, πλὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας. τοῦτο δὲ μᾶλλον ἔτι πρὸς τοὺς συνήθεις πάσχουσιν, ὅπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, ἂν ἀδικεῖσθαι νομίσωσιν. καὶ τοῦτο συμβαίνει κατὰ λόγον· παρʼ οἷς γὰρ ὀφείλεσθαι τὴν εὐεργεσίαν ὑπολαμβάνουσι, πρὸς τῷ βλάβει καὶ ταύτης ἀποστερεῖσθαι νομίζουσιν· ὅθεν εἴρηται χαλεποὶ πόλεμοι γὰρ ἀδελφῶν Eur. fr. 965 καὶ οἵ τοι πέρᾳ στέρξαντες, οἵδε καὶ πέρᾳ μισοῦσιν. Αnon. fr. 78 (Nauck)

+

σχεδὸν δὴ κατανοήσειεν ἄν τις τοῦτό γε, βλέψας ἐπί τε τὰς πόλεις τὰς εὐδοκιμούσας τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην, ὡς διείληπται τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ψυχροῖς τόποις ἔθνη καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν Εὐρώπην θυμοῦ μέν ἐστι πλήρη, διανοίας δὲ ἐνδεέστερα καὶ τέχνης, διόπερ ἐλεύθερα μὲν διατελεῖ μᾶλλον, ἀπολίτευτα δὲ καὶ τῶν πλησίον ἄρχειν οὐ δυνάμενα· τὰ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν διανοητικὰ μὲν καὶ τεχνικὰ τὴν ψυχήν, ἄθυμα δέ, διόπερ ἀρχόμενα καὶ δουλεύοντα διατελεῖ· τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων γένος, ὥσπερ μεσεύει κατὰ τοὺς τόπους, οὕτως ἀμφοῖν μετέχει. καὶ γὰρ ἔνθυμον καὶ διανοητικόν ἐστιν· διόπερ ἐλεύθερόν τε διατελεῖ καὶ βέλτιστα πολιτευόμενον καὶ δυνάμενον ἄρχειν πάντων, μιᾶς τυγχάνον πολιτείας. τὴν αὐτὴν δʼ ἔχει διαφορὰν καὶ τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔθνη πρὸς ἄλληλα· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἔχει τὴν φύσιν μονόκωλον, τὰ δὲ εὖ κέκραται πρὸς ἀμφοτέρας τὰς δυνάμεις ταύτας. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι δεῖ διανοητικούς τε εἶναι καὶ θυμοειδεῖς τὴν φύσιν τοὺς μέλλοντας εὐαγώγους ἔσεσθαι τῷ νομοθέτῃ πρὸς τὴν ἀρετήν. ὅπερ γάρ φασί τινες δεῖν ὑπάρχειν τοῖς φύλαξι, τὸ φιλητικοὺς μὲν εἶναι τῶν γνωρίμων πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀγνῶτας ἀγρίους, ὁ θυμός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν τὸ φιλητικόν· αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς δύναμις ᾗ φιλοῦμεν. σημεῖον δέ· πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς συνήθεις καὶ φίλους ὁ θυμὸς αἴρεται μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγνῶτας, ὀλιγωρεῖσθαι νομίσας. διὸ καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος προσηκόντως τοῖς φίλοις ἐγκαλῶν διαλέγεται πρὸς τὸν θυμόν· σὺ γὰρ δὴ παρὰ φίλων ἀπάγχεαι.

+

καὶ τὸ ἄρχον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐλεύθερον ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης ὑπάρχει πᾶσιν· ἀρχικὸν γὰρ καὶ ἀήττητον ὁ θυμός. οὐ καλῶς δʼ ἔχει λέγειν χαλεποὺς εἶναι πρὸς τοὺς ἀγνῶτας· πρὸς οὐθένα γὰρ εἶναι χρὴ τοιοῦτον, οὐδέ εἰσιν οἱ μεγαλόψυχοι τὴν φύσιν ἄγριοι, πλὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας. τοῦτο δὲ μᾶλλον ἔτι πρὸς τοὺς συνήθεις πάσχουσιν, ὅπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, ἂν ἀδικεῖσθαι νομίσωσιν. καὶ τοῦτο συμβαίνει κατὰ λόγον· παρʼ οἷς γὰρ ὀφείλεσθαι τὴν εὐεργεσίαν ὑπολαμβάνουσι, πρὸς τῷ βλάβει καὶ ταύτης ἀποστερεῖσθαι νομίζουσιν· ὅθεν εἴρηται χαλεποὶ πόλεμοι γὰρ ἀδελφῶν Eur. fr. 965 καὶ οἵ τοι πέρᾳ στέρξαντες, οἵδε καὶ πέρᾳ μισοῦσιν. Αnon. fr. 78 (Nauck)

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν πολιτευομένων, πόσους τε ὑπάρχειν δεῖ καὶ ποίους τινὰς τὴν φύσιν, ἔτι δὲ τὴν χώραν πόσην τέ τινα καὶ ποίαν τινά, διώρισται σχεδόν (οὐ γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀκρίβειαν δεῖ ζητεῖν διά τε τῶν λόγων καὶ τῶν γιγνομένων διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως).

ἐπεὶ δʼ ὥσπερ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ φύσιν συνεστώτων οὐ ταῦτά ἐστι μόρια τῆς ὅλης συστάσεως ὧν ἄνευ τὸ ὅλον οὐκ ἂν εἴη, δῆλον ὡς οὐδὲ πόλεως μέρη θετέον ὅσα ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν, οὐδʼ ἄλλης κοινωνίας οὐδεμιᾶς ἐξ ἧς ἕν τι τὸ γένος (ἓν γάρ τι καὶ κοινὸν εἶναι δεῖ καὶ ταὐτὸ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς, ἄν τε ἴσον ἄν τε ἄνισον μεταλαμβάνωσιν)· οἷον εἴτε τροφὴ τοῦτό ἐστιν εἴτε χώρας πλῆθος εἴτʼ ἄλλο τι τῶν τοιούτων ἐστίν. ὅταν δʼ ᾖ τὸ μὲν τούτου ἕνεκεν τὸ δʼ οὗ ἕνεκεν, οὐθέν ἔν γε τούτοις κοινὸν ἀλλʼ ἢ τῷ μὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ δὲ λαβεῖν· λέγω δʼ οἷον ὀργάνῳ τε παντὶ πρὸς τὸ γιγνόμενον ἔργον καὶ τοῖς δημιουργοῖς· οἰκίᾳ γὰρ πρὸς οἰκοδόμον οὐθέν ἐστιν ὃ γίγνεται κοινόν, ἀλλʼ ἔστι τῆς οἰκίας χάριν ἡ τῶν οἰκοδόμων τέχνη. διὸ κτήσεως μὲν δεῖ ταῖς πόλεσιν, οὐδὲν δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ κτῆσις μέρος τῆς πόλεως· πολλὰ δʼ ἔμψυχα μέρη τῆς κτήσεώς ἐστιν· ἡ δὲ πόλις κοινωνία τίς ἐστι τῶν ὁμοίων, ἕνεκεν δὲ ζωῆς τῆς ἐνδεχομένης ἀρίστης. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐστὶν εὐδαιμονία τὸ ἄριστον, αὕτη δὲ ἀρετῆς ἐνέργεια καὶ χρῆσίς τις τέλειος, συμβέβηκε δὲ οὕτως ὥστε τοὺς μὲν ἐνδέχεσθαι μετέχειν αὐτῆς τοὺς δὲ μικρὸν ἢ μηδέν, δῆλον ὡς τοῦτʼ αἴτιον τοῦ γίγνεσθαι πόλεως εἴδη καὶ διαφορὰς καὶ πολιτείας πλείους· ἄλλον γὰρ τρόπον καὶ διʼ ἄλλων ἕκαστοι τοῦτο θηρεύοντες τούς τε βίους ἑτέρους ποιοῦνται καὶ τὰς πολιτείας. ἐπισκεπτέον δὲ καὶ πόσα ταυτί ἐστιν ὧν ἄνευ πόλις οὐκ ἂν εἴη· καὶ γὰρ ἃ λέγομεν εἶναι μέρη πόλεως ἐν τούτοις ἂν εἴη, διὸ ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν. ληπτέον τοίνυν τῶν ἔργων τὸν ἀριθμόν· ἐκ τούτων γὰρ ἔσται δῆλον. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ὑπάρχειν δεῖ τροφήν, ἔπειτα τέχνας (πολλῶν γὰρ ὀργάνων δεῖται τὸ ζῆν), τρίτον δὲ ὅπλα (τοὺς γὰρ κοινωνοῦντας ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ἐν αὑτοῖς ἔχειν ὅπλα πρός τε τὴν ἀρχήν, τῶν ἀπειθούντων χάριν, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξωθεν ἀδικεῖν ἐπιχειροῦντας), ἔτι χρημάτων τινὰ εὐπορίαν, ὅπως ἔχωσι καὶ πρὸς τὰς καθʼ αὑτοὺς χρείας καὶ πρὸς τὰς πολεμικάς, πέμπτον δὲ καὶ πρῶτον τὴν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἐπιμέλειαν, ἣν καλοῦσιν ἱερατείαν, ἕκτον δὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ πάντων ἀναγκαιότατον κρίσιν περὶ τῶν συμφερόντων καὶ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἔργα ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν ὧν δεῖται πᾶσα πόλις ὡς εἰπεῖν (ἡ γὰρ πόλις πλῆθός ἐστιν οὐ τὸ τυχὸν ἀλλὰ πρὸς ζωὴν αὔταρκες, ὥς φαμεν, ἐὰν δέ τι τυγχάνῃ τούτων ἐκλεῖπον, ἀδύνατον ἁπλῶς αὐτάρκη τὴν κοινωνίαν εἶναι ταύτην)· ἀνάγκη τοίνυν κατὰ τὰς ἐργασίας ταύτας συνεστάναι πόλιν· δεῖ ἄρα γεωργῶν τʼ εἶναι πλῆθος, οἳ παρασκευάσουσι τὴν τροφήν, καὶ τεχνίτας, καὶ τὸ μάχιμον, καὶ τὸ εὔπορον, καὶ ἱερεῖς, καὶ κριτὰς τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ συμφερόντων.

διωρισμένων δὲ τούτων λοιπὸν σκέψασθαι πότερον πᾶσι κοινωνητέον πάντων τούτων (ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἅπαντας εἶναι καὶ γεωργοὺς καὶ τεχνίτας καὶ τοὺς βουλευομένους καὶ δικάζοντας), ἢ καθʼ ἕκαστον ἔργον τῶν εἰρημένων ἄλλους ὑποθετέον, ἢ τὰ μὲν ἴδια τὰ δὲ κοινὰ τούτων ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστίν. οὐκ ἐν πάσῃ δὲ ταὐτὸ πολιτείᾳ. καθάπερ γὰρ εἴπομεν, ἐνδέχεται καὶ πάντας κοινωνεῖν πάντων καὶ μὴ πάντας πάντων ἀλλὰ τινὰς τινῶν. ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ ποιεῖ τὰς πολιτείας ἑτέρας· ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις μετέχουσι πάντες πάντων, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις τοὐναντίον. ἐπεὶ δὲ τυγχάνομεν σκοποῦντες περὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶ καθʼ ἣν ἡ πόλις ἂν εἴη μάλιστʼ εὐδαίμων, τὴν δʼ εὐδαιμονίαν ὅτι χωρὶς ἀρετῆς ἀδύνατον ὑπάρχειν εἴρηται πρότερον, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων ὡς ἐν τῇ κάλλιστα πολιτευομένῃ πόλει καὶ τῇ κεκτημένῃ δικαίους ἄνδρας ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, οὔτε βάναυσον βίον οὔτʼ ἀγοραῖον δεῖ ζῆν τοὺς πολίτας (ἀγεννὴς γὰρ ὁ τοιοῦτος βίος καὶ πρὸς ἀρετὴν ὑπεναντίος), οὐδὲ δὴ γεωργοὺς εἶναι τοὺς μέλλοντας ἔσεσθαι (δεῖ γὰρ σχολῆς καὶ πρὸς τὴν γένεσιν τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ πρὸς τὰς πράξεις τὰς πολιτικάς).

@@ -377,7 +377,7 @@

ὅτι μὲν οὖν τῷ νομοθέτῃ μάλιστα πραγματευτέον περὶ τὴν τῶν νέων παιδείαν, οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀμφισβητήσειε· καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οὐ γιγνόμενον τοῦτο βλάπτει τὰς πολιτείας· δεῖ γὰρ πρὸς ἑκάστην παιδεύεσθαι, τὸ γὰρ ἦθος τῆς πολιτείας ἑκάστης τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ φυλάττειν εἴωθε τὴν πολιτείαν καὶ καθίστησιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, οἷον τὸ μὲν δημοκρατικὸν δημοκρατίαν τὸ δʼ ὀλιγαρχικὸν ὀλιγαρχίαν· ἀεὶ δὲ τὸ βέλτιον ἦθος βελτίονος αἴτιον πολιτείας. ἔτι δὲ πρὸς πάσας δυνάμεις καὶ τέχνας ἔστιν ἃ δεῖ προπαιδεύεσθαι καὶ προεθίζεσθαι πρὸς τὰς ἑκάστων ἐργασίας, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῆς ἀρετῆς πράξεις· ἐπεὶ δʼ ἓν τὸ τέλος τῇ πόλει πάσῃ, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ τὴν παιδείαν μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πάντων, καὶ ταύτης τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν εἶναι κοινὴν καὶ μὴ κατʼ ἰδίαν, ὃν τρόπον νῦν ἕκαστος ἐπιμελεῖται τῶν αὑτοῦ τέκνων ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ μάθησιν ἰδίαν, ἣν ἂν δόξῃ, διδάσκων. δεῖ δὲ τῶν κοινῶν κοινὴν ποιεῖσθαι καὶ τὴν ἄσκησιν. ἅμα δὲ οὐδὲ χρὴ νομίζειν αὐτὸν αὑτοῦ τινα εἶναι τῶν πολιτῶν, ἀλλὰ πάντας τῆς πόλεως, μόριον γὰρ ἕκαστος τῆς πόλεως· ἡ δʼ ἐπιμέλεια πέφυκεν ἑκάστου μορίου βλέπειν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου ἐπιμέλειαν. ἐπαινέσειε δʼ ἄν τις κατὰ τοῦτο Λακεδαιμονίους· καὶ γὰρ πλείστην ποιοῦνται σπουδὴν περὶ τοὺς παῖδας καὶ κοινῇ ταύτην.

ὅτι μὲν οὖν νομοθετητέον περὶ παιδείας καὶ ταύτην κοινὴν ποιητέον, φανερόν· τίς δʼ ἔσται ἡ παιδεία καὶ πῶς χρὴ παιδεύεσθαι, δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν. νῦν γὰρ ἀμφισβητεῖται περὶ τῶν ἔργων. οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὰ πάντες ὑπολαμβάνουσι δεῖν μανθάνειν τοὺς νέους οὔτε πρὸς ἀρετὴν οὔτε πρὸς τὸν βίον τὸν ἄριστον, οὐδὲ φανερὸν πότερον πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν πρέπει μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἦθος· ἔκ τε τῆς ἐμποδὼν παιδείας ταραχώδης ἡ σκέψις καὶ δῆλον οὐδὲν πότερον ἀσκεῖν δεῖ τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς τὸν βίον ἢ τὰ τείνοντα πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἢ τὰ περιττά (πάντα γὰρ εἴληφε ταῦτα κριτάς τινας)· περί τε τῶν πρὸς ἀρετὴν οὐθέν ἐστιν ὁμολογούμενον (καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἀρετὴν οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν εὐθὺς πάντες τιμῶσιν, ὥστʼ εὐλόγως διαφέρονται καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἄσκησιν αὐτῆς). ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δεῖ διδάσκεσθαι τῶν χρησίμων, οὐκ ἄδηλον· ὅτι δὲ οὐ πάντα, διῃρημένων τῶν τε ἐλευθερίων ἔργων καὶ τῶν ἀνελευθερίων φανερόν, καὶ ὅτι τῶν τοιούτων δεῖ μετέχειν ὅσα τῶν χρησίμων ποιήσει τὸν μετέχοντα μὴ βάναυσον. βάναυσον δʼ ἔργον εἶναι δεῖ τοῦτο νομίζειν καὶ τέχνην ταύτην καὶ μάθησιν, ὅσαι πρὸς τὰς χρήσεις καὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς τῆς ἀρετῆς ἄχρηστον ἀπεργάζονται τὸ σῶμα τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἢ τὴν ψυχὴν ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν. διὸ τάς τε τοιαύτας τέχνας ὅσαι τὸ σῶμα παρασκευάζουσι χεῖρον διακεῖσθαι βαναύσους καλοῦμεν, καὶ τὰς μισθαρνικὰς ἐργασίας· ἄσχολον γὰρ ποιοῦσι τὴν διάνοιαν καὶ ταπεινήν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐλευθερίων ἐπιστημῶν μέχρι μὲν τινὸς ἐνίων μετέχειν οὐκ ἀνελεύθερον, τὸ δὲ προσεδρεύειν λίαν πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν ἔνοχον ταῖς εἰρημέναις βλάβαις. ἔχει δὲ πολλὴν διαφορὰν καὶ τὸ τίνος ἕνεκεν πράττει τις ἢ μανθάνει· τὸ μὲν γὰρ αὑτοῦ χάριν ἢ φίλων ἢ διʼ ἀρετὴν οὐκ ἀνελεύθερον, ὁ δὲ ταὐτὸ τοῦτο πράττων διʼ ἄλλους πολλάκις θητικὸν καὶ δουλικὸν δόξειεν ἂν πράττειν.

αἱ μὲν οὖν καταβεβλημέναι νῦν μαθήσεις, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη πρότερον, ἐπαμφοτερίζουσιν· ἔστι δὲ τέτταρα σχεδὸν ἃ παιδεύειν εἰώθασι,

-

γράμματα καὶ γυμναστικὴν καὶ μουσικὴν καὶ τέταρτον ἔνιοι γραφικήν, τὴν μὲν γραμματικὴν καὶ γραφικὴν ὡς χρησίμους πρὸς τὸν βίον οὔσας καὶ πολυχρήστους, τὴν δὲ γυμναστικὴν ὡς συντείνουσαν πρὸς ἀνδρείαν· τὴν δὲ μουσικὴν ἤδη διαπορήσειεν ἄν τις. νῦν μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἡδονῆς χάριν οἱ πλεῖστοι μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς· οἱ δʼ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔταξαν ἐν παιδείᾳ διὰ τὸ τὴν φύσιν αὐτὴν ζητεῖν, ὅπερ πολλάκις εἴρηται, μὴ μόνον ἀσχολεῖν ὀρθῶς ἀλλὰ καὶ σχολάζειν δύνασθαι καλῶς. αὕτη γὰρ ἀρχὴ πάντων μία· καὶ πάλιν εἴπωμεν περὶ αὐτῆς. εἰ δʼ ἄμφω μὲν δεῖ, μᾶλλον δὲ αἱρετὸν τὸ σχολάζειν τῆς ἀσχολίας καὶ τέλος, ζητητέον ὅ τι δεῖ ποιοῦντας σχολάζειν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ παίζοντας· τέλος γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ βίου τὴν παιδιὰν ἡμῖν. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἀδύνατον, καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν ταῖς ἀσχολίαις χρηστέον ταῖς παιδιαῖς (ὁ γὰρ πονῶν δεῖται τῆς ἀναπαύσεως, ἡ δὲ παιδιὰ χάριν ἀναπαύσεώς ἐστιν· τὸ δʼ ἀσχολεῖν συμβαίνει μετὰ πόνου καὶ συντονίας), διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ παιδιὰς εἰσάγεσθαι καιροφυλακοῦντας τὴν χρῆσιν, ὡς προσάγοντας φαρμακείας χάριν. ἄνεσις γὰρ ἡ τοιαύτη κίνησις τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀνάπαυσις. τὸ δὲ σχολάζειν ἔχειν αὐτὸ δοκεῖ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν καὶ τὸ ζῆν μακαρίως. τοῦτο δʼ οὐ τοῖς ἀσχολοῦσιν ὑπάρχει ἀλλὰ τοῖς σχολάζουσιν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀσχολῶν ἕνεκα τινος ἀσχολεῖ τέλους ὡς οὐχ ὑπάρχοντος, ἡ δʼ εὐδαιμονία τέλος ἐστίν, ἣν οὐ μετὰ λύπης ἀλλὰ μεθʼ ἡδονῆς οἴονται πάντες εἶναι. ταύτην μέντοι τὴν ἡδονὴν οὐκέτι τὴν αὐτὴν τιθέασιν, ἀλλὰ καθʼ ἑαυτοὺς ἕκαστος καὶ τὴν ἕξιν τὴν αὑτῶν, ὁ δʼ ἄριστος τὴν ἀρίστην καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν καλλίστων. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι δεῖ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ διαγωγῇ σχολὴν μανθάνειν ἄττα καὶ παιδεύεσθαι, καὶ ταῦτα μὲν τὰ παιδεύματα καὶ ταύτας τὰς μαθήσεις ἑαυτῶν εἶναι χάριν, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀσχολίαν ὡς ἀναγκαίας καὶ χάριν ἄλλων. διὸ καὶ τὴν μουσικὴν οἱ πρότερον εἰς παιδείαν ἔταξαν οὐχ ὡς ἀναγκαῖον (oὐδὲν γὰρ ἔχει τοιοῦτον), οὐδʼ ὡς χρήσιμον (ὥσπερ τὰ γράμματα πρὸς χρηματισμὸν καὶ πρὸς οἰκονομίαν καὶ πρὸς μάθησιν καὶ πρὸς πολιτικὰς πράξεις πολλάς, δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ γραφικὴ χρήσιμος εἶναι πρὸς τὸ κρίνειν τὰ τῶν τεχνιτῶν ἔργα κάλλιον), οὐδʼ αὖ καθάπερ ἡ γυμναστικὴ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ ἀλκήν (οὐδέτερον γὰρ τούτων ὁρῶμεν γιγνόμενον ἐκ τῆς μουσικῆς)· λείπεται τοίνυν πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ σχολῇ διαγωγήν, εἰς ὅπερ καὶ φαίνονται παράγοντες αὐτήν. ἣν γὰρ οἴονται διαγωγὴν εἶναι τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἐν ταύτῃ τάττουσιν. διόπερ Ὅμηρος οὕτως ἐποίησεν ἀλλʼ οἶον μέν ἐστι καλεῖν ἐπὶ δαῖτα θαλείην, καὶ οὕτω προειπὼν ἑτέρους τινὰς οἳ καλέουσιν ἀοιδόν φησίν, ὅ κεν τέρπῃσιν ἅπαντας. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησιν ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς ταύτην ἀρίστην εἶναι διαγωγήν, ὅταν εὐφραινομένων τῶν ἀνθρώπων δαιτυμόνες δʼ ἀνὰ δώματʼ ἀκουάζωνται ἀοιδοῦ ἥμενοι ἑξείης. Hom. Od. 9.5-6

+

γράμματα καὶ γυμναστικὴν καὶ μουσικὴν καὶ τέταρτον ἔνιοι γραφικήν, τὴν μὲν γραμματικὴν καὶ γραφικὴν ὡς χρησίμους πρὸς τὸν βίον οὔσας καὶ πολυχρήστους, τὴν δὲ γυμναστικὴν ὡς συντείνουσαν πρὸς ἀνδρείαν· τὴν δὲ μουσικὴν ἤδη διαπορήσειεν ἄν τις. νῦν μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἡδονῆς χάριν οἱ πλεῖστοι μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς· οἱ δʼ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔταξαν ἐν παιδείᾳ διὰ τὸ τὴν φύσιν αὐτὴν ζητεῖν, ὅπερ πολλάκις εἴρηται, μὴ μόνον ἀσχολεῖν ὀρθῶς ἀλλὰ καὶ σχολάζειν δύνασθαι καλῶς. αὕτη γὰρ ἀρχὴ πάντων μία· καὶ πάλιν εἴπωμεν περὶ αὐτῆς. εἰ δʼ ἄμφω μὲν δεῖ, μᾶλλον δὲ αἱρετὸν τὸ σχολάζειν τῆς ἀσχολίας καὶ τέλος, ζητητέον ὅ τι δεῖ ποιοῦντας σχολάζειν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ παίζοντας· τέλος γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ βίου τὴν παιδιὰν ἡμῖν. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἀδύνατον, καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν ταῖς ἀσχολίαις χρηστέον ταῖς παιδιαῖς (ὁ γὰρ πονῶν δεῖται τῆς ἀναπαύσεως, ἡ δὲ παιδιὰ χάριν ἀναπαύσεώς ἐστιν· τὸ δʼ ἀσχολεῖν συμβαίνει μετὰ πόνου καὶ συντονίας), διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ παιδιὰς εἰσάγεσθαι καιροφυλακοῦντας τὴν χρῆσιν, ὡς προσάγοντας φαρμακείας χάριν. ἄνεσις γὰρ ἡ τοιαύτη κίνησις τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀνάπαυσις. τὸ δὲ σχολάζειν ἔχειν αὐτὸ δοκεῖ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν καὶ τὸ ζῆν μακαρίως. τοῦτο δʼ οὐ τοῖς ἀσχολοῦσιν ὑπάρχει ἀλλὰ τοῖς σχολάζουσιν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀσχολῶν ἕνεκα τινος ἀσχολεῖ τέλους ὡς οὐχ ὑπάρχοντος, ἡ δʼ εὐδαιμονία τέλος ἐστίν, ἣν οὐ μετὰ λύπης ἀλλὰ μεθʼ ἡδονῆς οἴονται πάντες εἶναι. ταύτην μέντοι τὴν ἡδονὴν οὐκέτι τὴν αὐτὴν τιθέασιν, ἀλλὰ καθʼ ἑαυτοὺς ἕκαστος καὶ τὴν ἕξιν τὴν αὑτῶν, ὁ δʼ ἄριστος τὴν ἀρίστην καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν καλλίστων. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι δεῖ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ διαγωγῇ σχολὴν μανθάνειν ἄττα καὶ παιδεύεσθαι, καὶ ταῦτα μὲν τὰ παιδεύματα καὶ ταύτας τὰς μαθήσεις ἑαυτῶν εἶναι χάριν, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀσχολίαν ὡς ἀναγκαίας καὶ χάριν ἄλλων. διὸ καὶ τὴν μουσικὴν οἱ πρότερον εἰς παιδείαν ἔταξαν οὐχ ὡς ἀναγκαῖον (oὐδὲν γὰρ ἔχει τοιοῦτον), οὐδʼ ὡς χρήσιμον (ὥσπερ τὰ γράμματα πρὸς χρηματισμὸν καὶ πρὸς οἰκονομίαν καὶ πρὸς μάθησιν καὶ πρὸς πολιτικὰς πράξεις πολλάς, δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ γραφικὴ χρήσιμος εἶναι πρὸς τὸ κρίνειν τὰ τῶν τεχνιτῶν ἔργα κάλλιον), οὐδʼ αὖ καθάπερ ἡ γυμναστικὴ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ ἀλκήν (οὐδέτερον γὰρ τούτων ὁρῶμεν γιγνόμενον ἐκ τῆς μουσικῆς)· λείπεται τοίνυν πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ σχολῇ διαγωγήν, εἰς ὅπερ καὶ φαίνονται παράγοντες αὐτήν. ἣν γὰρ οἴονται διαγωγὴν εἶναι τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἐν ταύτῃ τάττουσιν. διόπερ Ὅμηρος οὕτως ἐποίησεν ἀλλʼ οἶον μέν ἐστι καλεῖν ἐπὶ δαῖτα θαλείην, καὶ οὕτω προειπὼν ἑτέρους τινὰς οἳ καλέουσιν ἀοιδόν φησίν, ὅ κεν τέρπῃσιν ἅπαντας. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησιν ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς ταύτην ἀρίστην εἶναι διαγωγήν, ὅταν εὐφραινομένων τῶν ἀνθρώπων δαιτυμόνες δʼ ἀνὰ δώματʼ ἀκουάζωνται ἀοιδοῦ ἥμενοι ἑξείης. Hom. Od. 9.5-6

ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἔστι παιδεία τις ἣν οὐχ ὡς χρησίμην παιδευτέον τοὺς υἱεῖς οὐδʼ ὡς ἀναγκαίαν ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐλευθέριον καὶ καλήν, φανερόν ἐστιν· πότερον δὲ μία τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἢ πλείους, καὶ τίνες αὗται καὶ πῶς, ὕστερον λεκτέον περὶ αὐτῶν. νῦν δὲ τοσοῦτον ἡμῖν εἶναι πρὸ ὁδοῦ γέγονεν, ὅτι καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἔχομέν τινα μαρτυρίαν ἐκ τῶν καταβεβλημένων παιδευμάτων· ἡ γὰρ μουσικὴ τοῦτο ποιεῖ δῆλον. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν χρησίμων ὅτι δεῖ τινα παιδεύεσθαι τοὺς παῖδας οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ χρήσιμον, οἷον τὴν τῶν γραμμάτων μάθησιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ πολλὰς ἐνδέχεσθαι γίγνεσθαι διʼ αὐτῶν μαθήσεις ἑτέρας, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν γραφικὴν οὐχ ἵνα ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις ὠνίοις μὴ διαμαρτάνωσιν ἀλλʼ ὦσιν ἀνεξαπάτητοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν σκευῶν ὠνήν τε καὶ πρᾶσιν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον δʼ ὅτι ποιεῖ θεωρητικὸν τοῦ περὶ τὰ σώματα κάλλους. τὸ δὲ ζητεῖν πανταχοῦ τὸ χρήσιμον ἥκιστα ἁρμόττει τοῖς μεγαλοψύχοις καὶ τοῖς ἐλευθερίοις. ἐπεὶ δὲ φανερὸν πρότερον τοῖς ἔθεσιν ἢ τῷ λόγῳ παιδευτέον εἶναι, καὶ περὶ τὸ σῶμα πρότερον ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν, δῆλον ἐκ τούτων ὅτι παραδοτέον τοὺς παῖδας γυμναστικῇ καὶ παιδοτριβικῇ· τούτων γὰρ ἡ μὲν ποιάν τινα ποιεῖ τὴν ἕξιν τοῦ σώματος, ἡ δὲ τὰ ἔργα.

νῦν μὲν οὖν αἱ μάλιστα δοκοῦσαι τῶν πόλεων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῶν παίδων αἱ μὲν ἀθλητικὴν ἕξιν ἐμποιοῦσι, λωβώμεναι τά τε εἴδη καὶ τὴν αὔξησιν τῶν σωμάτων, οἱ δὲ Λάκωνες ταύτην μὲν οὐχ ἥμαρτον τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, θηριώδεις δʼ ἀπεργάζονται τοῖς πόνοις, ὡς τοῦτο πρὸς ἀνδρείαν μάλιστα συμφέρον. καίτοι, καθάπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις, οὔτε πρὸς μίαν οὔτε πρὸς μάλιστα ταύτην βλέποντα ποιητέον τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν· εἰ δὲ καὶ πρὸς ταύτην, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐξευρίσκουσιν. οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις οὔτε ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν ὁρῶμεν τὴν ἀνδρείαν ἀκολουθοῦσαν τοῖς ἀγριωτάτοις, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῖς ἡμερωτέροις καὶ λεοντώδεσιν ἤθεσιν. πολλὰ δʼ ἔστι τῶν ἐθνῶν ἃ πρὸς τὸ κτείνειν καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀνθρωποφαγίαν εὐχερῶς ἔχει, καθάπερ τῶν περὶ τὸν Πόντον Ἀχαιοί τε καὶ Ἡνίοχοι καὶ τῶν ἠπειρωτικῶν ἐθνῶν ἕτερα, τὰ μὲν ὁμοίως τούτοις τὰ δὲ μᾶλλον, ἃ λῃστρικὰ μέν ἐστιν, ἀνδρείας δʼ οὐ μετειλήφασιν. ἔτι δʼ αὐτοὺς τοὺς Λάκωνας ἴσμεν, ἕως μὲν αὐτοὶ προσήδρευον ταῖς φιλοπονίαις, ὑπερέχοντας τῶν ἄλλων, νῦν δὲ κἀν τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσι κἀν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς λειπομένους ἑτέρων· οὐ γὰρ τῷ τοὺς νέους γυμνάζειν τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον διέφερον, ἀλλὰ μόνον τῷ πρὸς μὴ ἀσκοῦντας ἀσκεῖν. ὥστε τὸ καλὸν ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸ θηριῶδες δεῖ πρωταγωνιστεῖν· οὐδὲ γὰρ λύκος οὐδʼ οὐδὲν τῶν ἄλλων θηρίων τι ἀγωνίσαιτο ἂν οὐθένα καλὸν κίνδυνον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός, οἱ δὲ λίαν εἰς ταῦτα ἀνέντες τοὺς παῖδας, καὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀπαιδαγωγήτους ποιήσαντες, βαναύσους κατεργάζονται κατά γε τὸ ἀληθές, πρὸς ἕν τε μόνον ἔργον τῆς πολιτικῆς χρησίμους ποιήσαντες, καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο χεῖρον, ὥς φησιν ὁ λόγος, ἑτέρων. δεῖ δὲ οὐκ ἐκ τῶν προτέρων ἔργων κρίνειν, ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῶν νῦν· ἀνταγωνιστὰς γὰρ τῆς παιδείας νῦν ἔχουσι, πρότερον δʼ οὐκ εἶχον.

ὅτι μὲν οὖν χρηστέον τῇ γυμναστικῇ, καὶ πῶς χρηστέον, ὁμολογούμενόν ἐστιν (μέχρι μὲν γὰρ ἥβης κουφότερα γυμνάσια προσοιστέον, τὴν βίαιον τροφὴν καὶ τοὺς πρὸς ἀνάγκην πόνους ἀπείργοντας, ἵνα μηθὲν ἐμπόδιον ᾖ πρὸς τὴν αὔξησιν· σημεῖον γὰρ οὐ μικρὸν ὅτι δύνανται τοῦτο παρασκευάζειν, ἐν γὰρ τοῖς Ὀλυμπιονίκαις δύο τις ἂν ἢ τρεῖς εὕροι τοὺς αὐτοὺς νενικηκότας ἄνδρας τε καὶ παῖδας, διὰ τὸ νέους ἀσκοῦντας ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὴν δύναμιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀναγκαίων γυμνασίων· ὅταν δʼ ἀφʼ ἥβης ἔτη τρία πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις μαθήμασι γένωνται, τότε ἁρμόττει καὶ τοῖς πόνοις καὶ ταῖς ἀναγκοφαγίαις καταλαμβάνειν τὴν ἐχομένην ἡλικίαν· ἅμα γὰρ τῇ τε διανοίᾳ καὶ τῷ σώματι διαπονεῖν οὐ δεῖ, τοὐναντίον γὰρ ἑκάτερος ἀπεργάζεσθαι πέφυκε τῶν πόνων, ἐμποδίζων ὁ μὲν τοῦ σώματος πόνος τὴν διάνοιαν ὁ δὲ ταύτης τὸ σῶμα).

diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2b.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2b.xml new file mode 100644 index 000000000..04d050df7 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2b.xml @@ -0,0 +1,927 @@ + + + + + + + Πολιτικά + Aristotle + William David Ross + Perseus Project, Tufts University + Gregory Crane + + Prepared under the supervision of + Lisa Cerrato + William Merrill + Elli Mylonas + David Smith + + The Annenberg CPB/Project + + + + Trustees of Tufts University + Medford, MA + Perseus Digital Library Project + Perseus 2.0 + tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml + + Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License + + + + + + + Aristotelis Politica + Aristotle + William David Ross + + Clarendon Press + Oxford + 1957 + + + + Oxford Classical Texts + + SLUB + + + + + +

Note that some inconsistencies with this edition and this text were found. A different print source edition may have been used.

 + + + +

This pointer pattern extracts book and Bekker page.

+ + +

This pointer pattern extracts book.

+ + + + + + + Greek + English + + + + + EpiDoc and CTS conversion and general header review. + small fixes + more refinements making these files SDL compatible + QUOTE tags added; DEL tags added; ADD tags added; GAP entities added + cleaned up bad place tags in a few texts and cleaned up the document format + more reorganizing of texts module by collection + began reorganizing texts module by collection. created separate work directory in texts module to keep hopper files separate from in progress files + added cvs log keyword + Tagged in conformance with Prose.g dtd. + Text was scanned at St. Olaf Spring, 1992. + + + + + +
+
+ +
+

+ἐπειδὴ πᾶσαν πόλιν ὁρῶμεν κοινωνίαν τινὰ οὖσαν καὶ πᾶσαν κοινωνίαν ἀγαθοῦ τινος ἕνεκεν συνεστηκυῖαν (τοῦ γὰρ εἶναι δοκοῦντος ἀγαθοῦ χάριν πάντα πράττουσι πάντες), δῆλον ὡς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγαθοῦ τινος στοχάζονται, μάλιστα δὲ καὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου πάντων ἡ πασῶν κυριωτάτη καὶ πάσας περιέχουσα τὰς ἄλλας. αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ καλουμένη πόλις καὶ ἡ κοινωνία ἡ πολιτική. ὅσοι μὲν οὖν οἴονται πολιτικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν καὶ οἰκονομικὸν καὶ δεσποτικὸν εἶναι τὸν αὐτὸν οὐ καλῶς λέγουσιν (πλήθει γὰρ καὶ ὀλιγότητι νομίζουσι διαφέρειν ἀλλʼ οὐκ εἴδει τούτων ἕκαστον, οἷον ἂν μὲν ὀλίγων, δεσπότην, ἂν δὲ πλειόνων, οἰκονόμον, ἂν δʼ ἔτι πλειόνων, πολιτικὸν ἢ βασιλικόν, ὡς οὐδὲν διαφέρουσαν μεγάλην οἰκίαν ἢ μικρὰν πόλιν· καὶ πολιτικὸν δὲ καὶ βασιλικόν, ὅταν μὲν αὐτὸς ἐφεστήκῃ, βασιλικόν, ὅταν δὲ κατὰ τοὺς λόγους τῆς ἐπιστήμης τῆς τοιαύτης κατὰ μέρος ἄρχων καὶ ἀρχόμενος, πολιτικόν· ταῦτα δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθῆ)· δῆλον δʼ ἔσται τὸ λεγόμενον ἐπισκοποῦσι κατὰ τὴν ὑφηγημένην μέθοδον. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις τὸ σύνθετον μέχρι τῶν ἀσυνθέτων ἀνάγκη διαιρεῖν (ταῦτα γὰρ ἐλάχιστα μόρια τοῦ παντός), οὕτω καὶ πόλιν ἐξ ὧν σύγκειται σκοποῦντες ὀψόμεθα καὶ περὶ τούτων μᾶλλον, τί τε διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων καὶ εἴ τι τεχνικὸν ἐνδέχεται λαβεῖν περὶ ἕκαστον τῶν ῥηθέντων.

+

εἰ δή τις ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ πράγματα φυόμενα βλέψειεν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις, καὶ ἐν τούτοις κάλλιστʼ ἂν οὕτω θεωρήσειεν. ἀνάγκη δὴ πρῶτον συνδυάζεσθαι τοὺς ἄνευ ἀλλήλων μὴ δυναμένους εἶναι, οἷον θῆλυ μὲν καὶ ἄρρεν τῆς γενέσεως ἕνεκεν (καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐκ προαιρέσεως, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις καὶ φυτοῖς φυσικὸν τὸ ἐφίεσθαι, οἷον αὐτό, τοιοῦτον καταλιπεῖν ἕτερον), ἄρχον δὲ καὶ ἀρχόμενον φύσει, διὰ τὴν σωτηρίαν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ δυνάμενον τῇ διανοίᾳ προορᾶν ἄρχον φύσει καὶ δεσπόζον φύσει, τὸ δὲ δυνάμενον τῷ σώματι ταῦτα πονεῖν ἀρχόμενον καὶ φύσει δοῦλον· διὸ δεσπότῃ καὶ δούλῳ ταὐτὸ συμφέρει.

+
+

φύσει μὲν οὖν διώρισται τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ δοῦλον (οὐθὲν γὰρ ἡ φύσις ποιεῖ τοιοῦτον οἷον οἱ χαλκοτύποι τὴν Δελφικὴν μάχαιραν, πενιχρῶς, ἀλλʼ ἓν πρὸς ἕν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἀποτελοῖτο κάλλιστα τῶν ὀργάνων ἕκαστον, μὴ πολλοῖς ἔργοις ἀλλʼ ἑνὶ δουλεῦον)· ἐν δὲ τοῖς βαρβάροις τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ δοῦλον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει τάξιν. αἴτιον δʼ ὅτι τὸ φύσει ἄρχον οὐκ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ γίνεται ἡ κοινωνία αὐτῶν δούλης καὶ δούλου. διό φασιν οἱ ποιηταὶ βαρβάρων δʼ Ἕλληνας ἄρχειν εἰκός, Eur. IA 1400 ὡς ταὐτὸ φύσει βάρβαρον καὶ δοῦλον ὄν. ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων τῶν δύο κοινωνιῶν οἰκία πρώτη, καὶ ὀρθῶς Ἡσίοδος εἶπε ποιήσας οἶκον μὲν πρώτιστα γυναῖκά τε βοῦν τʼ ἀροτῆρα· Hes. WD 405 ὁ γὰρ βοῦς ἀντʼ οἰκέτου τοῖς πένησίν ἐστιν. ἡ μὲν οὖν εἰς πᾶσαν ἡμέραν συνεστηκυῖα κοινωνία κατὰ φύσιν οἶκός ἐστιν, οὓς Χαρώνδας μὲν καλεῖ ὁμοσιπύους, Ἐπιμενίδης δὲ ὁ Κρὴς ὁμοκάπους· ἡ δʼ ἐκ πλειόνων οἰκιῶν κοινωνία πρώτη χρήσεως ἕνεκεν μὴ ἐφημέρου κώμη. μάλιστα δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἔοικεν ἡ κώμη ἀποικία οἰκίας εἶναι, οὓς καλοῦσί τινες ὁμογάλακτας, παῖδάς τε καὶ παίδων παῖδας. διὸ καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἐβασιλεύοντο αἱ πόλεις, καὶ νῦν ἔτι τὰ ἔθνη· ἐκ βασιλευομένων γὰρ συνῆλθον· πᾶσα γὰρ οἰκία βασιλεύεται ὑπὸ τοῦ πρεσβυτάτου, ὥστε καὶ αἱ ἀποικίαι, διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν. καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ὃ λέγει Ὅμηρος θεμιστεύει δὲ ἕκαστος παίδων ἠδʼ ἀλόχων. Hom. Od. 9.114 σποράδες γάρ· καὶ οὕτω τὸ ἀρχαῖον ᾤκουν. καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς δὲ διὰ τοῦτο πάντες φασὶ βασιλεύεσθαι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ μὲν ἔτι καὶ νῦν οἱ δὲ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐβασιλεύοντο, ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη ἑαυτοῖς ἀφομοιοῦσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς βίους τῶν θεῶν.

+

ἡ δʼ ἐκ πλειόνων κωμῶν κοινωνία τέλειος πόλις, ἤδη πάσης ἔχουσα πέρας τῆς αὐταρκείας ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, γινομένη μὲν τοῦ ζῆν ἕνεκεν, οὖσα δὲ τοῦ εὖ ζῆν. διὸ πᾶσα πόλις φύσει ἔστιν, εἴπερ καὶ αἱ πρῶται κοινωνίαι. τέλος γὰρ αὕτη ἐκείνων, ἡ δὲ φύσις τέλος ἐστίν· οἷον γὰρ ἕκαστόν ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθείσης, ταύτην φαμὲν τὴν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου ἵππου οἰκίας. ἔτι τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα καὶ τὸ τέλος βέλτιστον·

+ +
+

ἡ δʼ αὐτάρκεια καὶ τέλος καὶ βέλτιστον. ἐκ τούτων οὖν φανερὸν ὅτι τῶν φύσει ἡ πόλις ἐστί, καὶ ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον, καὶ ὁ ἄπολις διὰ φύσιν καὶ οὐ διὰ τύχην ἤτοι φαῦλός ἐστιν, ἢ κρείττων ἢ ἄνθρωπος· ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ ὑφʼ Ὁμήρου λοιδορηθεὶς ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιος· Hom. Il. 9.63 ἅμα γὰρ φύσει τοιοῦτος καὶ πολέμου ἐπιθυμητής, ἅτε περ ἄζυξ ὢν ὥσπερ ἐν πεττοῖς. διότι δὲ πολιτικὸν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ζῷον πάσης μελίττης καὶ παντὸς ἀγελαίου ζῴου μᾶλλον, δῆλον. οὐθὲν γάρ, ὡς φαμέν, μάτην ἡ φύσις ποιεῖ· λόγον δὲ μόνον ἄνθρωπος ἔχει τῶν ζῴων· ἡ μὲν οὖν φωνὴ τοῦ λυπηροῦ καὶ ἡδέος ἐστὶ σημεῖον, διὸ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑπάρχει ζῴοις (μέχρι γὰρ τούτου ἡ φύσις αὐτῶν ἐλήλυθε, τοῦ ἔχειν αἴσθησιν λυπηροῦ καὶ ἡδέος καὶ ταῦτα σημαίνειν ἀλλήλοις), ὁ δὲ λόγος ἐπὶ τῷ δηλοῦν ἐστι τὸ συμφέρον καὶ τὸ βλαβερόν, ὥστε καὶ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ ἄδικον· τοῦτο γὰρ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἴδιον, τὸ μόνον ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ καὶ δικαίου καὶ ἀδίκου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἴσθησιν ἔχειν· ἡ δὲ τούτων κοινωνία ποιεῖ οἰκίαν καὶ πόλιν. καὶ πρότερον δὲ τῇ φύσει πόλις ἢ οἰκία καὶ ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἐστιν. τὸ γὰρ ὅλον πρότερον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ μέρους· ἀναιρουμένου γὰρ τοῦ ὅλου οὐκ ἔσται ποὺς οὐδὲ χείρ, εἰ μὴ ὁμωνύμως, ὥσπερ εἴ τις λέγοι τὴν λιθίνην (διαφθαρεῖσα γὰρ ἔσται τοιαύτη), πάντα δὲ τῷ ἔργῳ ὥρισται καὶ τῇ δυνάμει, ὥστε μηκέτι τοιαῦτα ὄντα οὐ λεκτέον τὰ αὐτὰ εἶναι ἀλλʼ ὁμώνυμα. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἡ πόλις καὶ φύσει πρότερον ἢ ἕκαστος, δῆλον· εἰ γὰρ μὴ αὐτάρκης ἕκαστος χωρισθείς, ὁμοίως τοῖς ἄλλοις μέρεσιν ἕξει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, ὁ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενος κοινωνεῖν ἢ μηδὲν δεόμενος διʼ αὐτάρκειαν οὐθὲν μέρος πόλεως, ὥστε ἢ θηρίον ἢ θεός.

+

φύσει μὲν οὖν ἡ ὁρμὴ ἐν πᾶσιν ἐπὶ τὴν τοιαύτην κοινωνίαν· ὁ δὲ πρῶτος συστήσας μεγίστων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιος. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τελεωθὲν βέλτιστον τῶν ζῴων ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ χωρισθεὶς νόμου καὶ δίκης χείριστον πάντων. χαλεπωτάτη γὰρ ἀδικία ἔχουσα ὅπλα· ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ὅπλα ἔχων φύεται φρονήσει καὶ ἀρετῇ, οἷς ἐπὶ τἀναντία ἔστι χρῆσθαι μάλιστα. διὸ ἀνοσιώτατον καὶ ἀγριώτατον ἄνευ ἀρετῆς, καὶ πρὸς ἀφροδίσια καὶ ἐδωδὴν χείριστον. ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη πολιτικόν· ἡ γὰρ δίκη πολιτικῆς κοινωνίας τάξις ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη τοῦ δικαίου κρίσις.

+ +
+

ἐπεὶ δὲ φανερὸν ἐξ ὧν μορίων ἡ πόλις συνέστηκεν, ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον περὶ οἰκονομίας εἰπεῖν· πᾶσα γὰρ σύγκειται πόλις ἐξ οἰκιῶν. οἰκονομίας δὲ μέρη ἐξ ὧν πάλιν οἰκία συνέστηκεν· οἰκία δὲ τέλειος ἐκ δούλων καὶ ἐλευθέρων. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐν τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις πρῶτον ἕκαστον ζητητέον, πρῶτα δὲ καὶ ἐλάχιστα μέρη οἰκίας δεσπότης καὶ δοῦλος, καὶ πόσις καὶ ἄλοχος, καὶ πατὴρ καὶ τέκνα, περὶ τριῶν ἂν τούτων σκεπτέον εἴη τί ἕκαστον καὶ ποῖον δεῖ εἶναι. ταῦτα δʼ ἐστὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ γαμική (ἀνώνυμον γὰρ ἡ γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρὸς σύζευξις) καὶ τρίτον τεκνοποιητική (καὶ γὰρ αὕτη οὐκ ὠνόμασται ἰδίῳ ὀνόματι). ἔστωσαν δὴ αὗται τρεῖς ἃς εἴπομεν. ἔστι δέ τι μέρος ὃ δοκεῖ τοῖς μὲν εἶναι οἰκονομία, τοῖς δὲ μέγιστον μέρος αὐτῆς· ὅπως δʼ ἔχει, θεωρητέον· λέγω δὲ περὶ τῆς καλουμένης χρηματιστικῆς. πρῶτον δὲ περὶ δεσπότου καὶ δούλου εἴπωμεν, ἵνα τά τε πρὸς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν χρείαν ἴδωμεν, κἂν εἴ τι πρὸς τὸ εἰδέναι περὶ αὐτῶν δυναίμεθα λαβεῖν βέλτιον τῶν νῦν ὑπολαμβανομένων. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ ἐπιστήμη τέ τις εἶναι ἡ δεσποτεία, καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ οἰκονομία καὶ δεσποτεία καὶ πολιτικὴ καὶ βασιλική, καθάπερ εἴπομεν ἀρχόμενοι· τοῖς δὲ παρὰ φύσιν τὸ δεσπόζειν (νόμῳ γὰρ τὸν μὲν δοῦλον εἶναι τὸν δʼ ἐλεύθερον, φύσει δʼ οὐθὲν διαφέρειν)· διόπερ οὐδὲ δίκαιον· βίαιον γάρ.

+

ἐπεὶ οὖν ἡ κτῆσις μέρος τῆς οἰκίας ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ κτητικὴ μέρος τῆς οἰκονομίας (ἄνευ γὰρ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀδύνατον καὶ ζῆν καὶ εὖ ζῆν), ὥσπερ δὲ ταῖς ὡρισμέναις τέχναις ἀναγκαῖον ἂν εἴη ὑπάρχειν τὰ οἰκεῖα ὄργανα, εἰ μέλλει ἀποτελεσθήσεσθαι τὸ ἔργον, οὕτω καὶ τῷ οἰκονομικῷ. τῶν δʼ ὀργάνων τὰ μὲν ἄψυχα τὰ δὲ ἔμψυχα (οἷον τῷ κυβερνήτῃ ὁ μὲν οἴαξ ἄψυχον ὁ δὲ πρῳρεὺς ἔμψυχον· ὁ γὰρ ὑπηρέτης ἐν ὀργάνου εἴδει ταῖς τέχναις ἐστίν)· οὕτω καὶ τὸ κτῆμα ὄργανον πρὸς ζωήν ἐστι, καὶ ἡ κτῆσις πλῆθος ὀργάνων ἐστί, καὶ ὁ δοῦλος κτῆμά τι ἔμψυχον, καὶ ὥσπερ ὄργανον πρὸ ὀργάνων πᾶς ὑπηρέτης. εἰ γὰρ ἠδύνατο ἕκαστον τῶν ὀργάνων κελευσθὲν ἢ προαισθανόμενον ἀποτελεῖν τὸ αὑτοῦ ἔργον, καὶ ὥσπερ τὰ Δαιδάλου φασὶν ἢ τοὺς τοῦ Ἡφαίστου τρίποδας, οὕς φησιν ὁ ποιητὴς αὐτομάτους θεῖον δύεσθαι ἀγῶνα, οὕτως αἱ κερκίδες ἐκέρκιζον αὐταὶ καὶ τὰ πλῆκτρα ἐκιθάριζεν, οὐδὲν ἂν ἔδει οὔτε τοῖς ἀρχιτέκτοσιν ὑπηρετῶν οὔτε τοῖς δεσπόταις δούλων.

+ +
+

τὰ μὲν οὖν λεγόμενα ὄργανα ποιητικὰ ὄργανά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ κτῆμα πρακτικόν· ἀπὸ μὲν γὰρ τῆς κερκίδος ἕτερόν τι γίνεται παρὰ τὴν χρῆσιν αὐτῆς, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ἐσθῆτος καὶ τῆς κλίνης ἡ χρῆσις μόνον. ἔτι δʼ ἐπεὶ διαφέρει ἡ ποίησις εἴδει καὶ ἡ πρᾶξις, καὶ δέονται ἀμφότεραι ὀργάνων, ἀνάγκη καὶ ταῦτα τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν διαφοράν. ὁ δὲ βίος πρᾶξις, οὐ ποίησις, ἐστιν· διὸ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος ὑπηρέτης τῶν πρὸς τὴν πρᾶξιν. τὸ δὲ κτῆμα λέγεται ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ μόριον. τό γὰρ μόριον οὐ μόνον ἄλλου ἐστὶ μόριον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἁπλῶς ἄλλου· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ κτῆμα. διὸ ὁ μὲν δεσπότης τοῦ δούλου δεσπότης μόνον, ἐκείνου δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν· ὁ δὲ δοῦλος οὐ μόνον δεσπότου δοῦλός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅλως ἐκείνου.

+

τίς μὲν οὖν ἡ φύσις τοῦ δούλου καὶ τίς ἡ δύναμις, ἐκ τούτων δῆλον· ὁ γὰρ μὴ αὑτοῦ φύσει ἀλλʼ ἄλλου ἄνθρωπος ὤν, οὗτος φύσει δοῦλός ἐστιν, ἄλλου δʼ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἂν κτῆμα ᾖ ἄνθρωπος ὤν, κτῆμα δὲ ὄργανον πρακτικὸν καὶ χωριστόν.

+

πότερον δʼ ἔστι τις φύσει τοιοῦτος ἢ οὔ, καὶ πότερον βέλτιον καὶ δίκαιόν τινι δουλεύειν ἢ οὔ, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα δουλεία παρὰ φύσιν ἐστί, μετὰ ταῦτα σκεπτέον. οὐ χαλεπὸν δὲ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ θεωρῆσαι καὶ ἐκ τῶν γινομένων καταμαθεῖν. τὸ γὰρ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι οὐ μόνον τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν συμφερόντων ἐστί, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ γενετῆς ἔνια διέστηκε τὰ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄρχεσθαι τὰ δʼ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄρχειν. καὶ εἴδη πολλὰ καὶ ἀρχόντων καὶ ἀρχομένων ἔστιν (καὶ ἀεὶ βελτίων ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ τῶν βελτιόνων ἀρχομένων, οἷον ἀνθρώπου ἢ θηρίου· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτελούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν βελτιόνων βέλτιον ἔργον· ὅπου δὲ τὸ μὲν ἄρχει τὸ δʼ ἄρχεται, ἔστι τι τούτων ἔργον)· ὅσα γὰρ ἐκ πλειόνων συνέστηκε καὶ γίνεται ἕν τι κοινόν, εἴτε ἐκ συνεχῶν εἴτε ἐκ διῃρημένων, ἐν ἅπασιν ἐμφαίνεται τὸ ἄρχον καὶ τὸ ἀρχόμενον, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς ἁπάσης φύσεως ἐνυπάρχει τοῖς ἐμψύχοις· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς μὴ μετέχουσι ζωῆς ἔστι τις ἀρχή, οἷον ἁρμονίας. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἴσως ἐξωτερικωτέρας ἐστὶ σκέψεως· τὸ δὲ ζῷον πρῶτον συνέστηκεν ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἄρχον ἐστὶ φύσει τὸ δʼ ἀρχόμενον. δεῖ δὲ σκοπεῖν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν ἔχουσι μᾶλλον τὸ φύσει, καὶ μὴ ἐν τοῖς διεφθαρμένοις· διὸ καὶ τὸν βέλτιστα διακείμενον καὶ κατὰ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ ψυχὴν ἄνθρωπον θεωρητέον, ἐν ᾧ τοῦτο δῆλον·

+ +
+

τῶν γὰρ μοχθηρῶν ἢ μοχθηρῶς ἐχόντων δόξειεν ἂν ἄρχειν πολλάκις τὸ σῶμα τῆς ψυχῆς διὰ τὸ φαύλως καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ἔχειν.

+

ἔστι δʼ οὖν, ὥσπερ λέγομεν, πρῶτον ἐν ζῴῳ θεωρῆσαι καὶ δεσποτικὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ πολιτικήν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ψυχὴ τοῦ σώματος ἄρχει δεσποτικὴν ἀρχήν, ὁ δὲ νοῦς τῆς ὀρέξεως πολιτικὴν ἢ βασιλικήν· ἐν οἷς φανερόν ἐστιν ὅτι κατὰ φύσιν καὶ συμφέρον τὸ ἄρχεσθαι τῷ σώματι ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ τῷ παθητικῷ μορίῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τοῦ μορίου τοῦ λόγον ἔχοντος, τὸ δʼ ἐξ ἴσου ἢ ἀνάπαλιν βλαβερὸν πᾶσιν. πάλιν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις ὡσαύτως· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἥμερα τῶν ἀγρίων βελτίω τὴν φύσιν, τούτοις δὲ πᾶσι βέλτιον ἄρχεσθαι ὑπʼ ἀνθρώπου· τυγχάνει γὰρ σωτηρίας οὕτως. ἔτι δὲ τὸ ἄρρεν πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ φύσει τὸ μὲν κρεῖττον τὸ δὲ χεῖρον, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἄρχον τὸ δʼ ἀρχόμενον. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. ὅσοι μὲν οὖν τοσοῦτον διεστᾶσιν ὅσον ψυχὴ σώματος καὶ ἄνθρωπος θηρίου (διάκεινται δὲ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ὅσων ἐστὶν ἔργον ἡ τοῦ σώματος χρῆσις, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστʼ ἀπʼ αὐτῶν βέλτιστον), οὗτοι μέν εἰσι φύσει δοῦλοι, οἷς βέλτιόν ἐστιν ἄρχεσθαι ταύτην τὴν ἀρχήν, εἴπερ καὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις. ἔστι γὰρ φύσει δοῦλος ὁ δυνάμενος ἄλλου εἶναι (διὸ καὶ ἄλλου ἐστίν), καὶ ὁ κοινωνῶν λόγου τοσοῦτον ὅσον αἰσθάνεσθαι ἀλλὰ μὴ ἔχειν. τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα ζῷα οὐ λόγῳ αἰσθανόμενα ἀλλὰ παθήμασιν ὑπηρετεῖ. καὶ ἡ χρεία δὲ παραλλάττει μικρόν· ἡ γὰρ πρὸς τἀναγκαῖα τῷ σώματι βοήθεια γίνεται παρʼ ἀμφοῖν, παρά τε τῶν δούλων καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἡμέρων ζῴων. βούλεται μὲν οὖν ἡ φύσις καὶ τὰ σώματα διαφέροντα ποιεῖν τὰ τῶν ἐλευθέρων καὶ τῶν δούλων, τὰ μὲν ἰσχυρὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν χρῆσιν, τὰ δʼ ὀρθὰ καὶ ἄχρηστα πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ἐργασίας, ἀλλὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς πολιτικὸν βίον (οὗτος δὲ καὶ γίνεται διῃρημένος εἴς τε τὴν πολεμικὴν χρείαν καὶ τὴν εἰρηνικήν), συμβαίνει δὲ πολλάκις καὶ τοὐναντίον, τοὺς μὲν τὰ σώματα ἔχειν ἐλευθέρων τοὺς δὲ τὰς ψυχάς· ἐπεὶ τοῦτό γε φανερόν, ὡς εἰ τοσοῦτον γένοιντο διάφοροι τὸ σῶμα μόνον ὅσον αἱ τῶν θεῶν εἰκόνες, τοὺς ὑπολειπομένους πάντες φαῖεν ἂν ἀξίους εἶναι τούτοις δουλεύειν. εἰ δʼ ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματος τοῦτʼ ἀληθές, πολὺ δικαιότερον ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦτο διωρίσθαι· ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁμοίως ῥᾴδιον ἰδεῖν τό τε τῆς ψυχῆς κάλλος καὶ τὸ τοῦ σώματος.

+ +
+

ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν εἰσὶ φύσει τινὲς οἱ μὲν ἐλεύθεροι οἱ δὲ δοῦλοι, φανερόν, οἷς καὶ συμφέρει τὸ δουλεύειν καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστιν.

+

ὅτι δὲ καὶ οἱ τἀναντία φάσκοντες τρόπον τινὰ λέγουσιν ὀρθῶς, οὐ χαλεπὸν ἰδεῖν. διχῶς γὰρ λέγεται τὸ δουλεύειν καὶ ὁ δοῦλος. ἔστι γάρ τις καὶ κατὰ νόμον δοῦλος καὶ δουλεύων· ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὁμολογία τίς ἐστιν ἐν ᾧ τὰ κατὰ πόλεμον κρατούμενα τῶν κρατούντων εἶναί φασιν. τοῦτο δὴ τὸ δίκαιον πολλοὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις ὥσπερ ῥήτορα γράφονται παρανόμων, ὡς δεινὸν ὂν εἰ τοῦ βιάσασθαι δυναμένου καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν κρείττονος ἔσται δοῦλον καὶ ἀρχόμενον τὸ βιασθέν. καὶ τοῖς μὲν οὕτως δοκεῖ τοῖς δʼ ἐκείνως, καὶ τῶν σοφῶν. αἴτιον δὲ ταύτης τῆς ἀμφισβητήσεως, καὶ ὃ ποιεῖ τοὺς λόγους ἐπαλλάττειν, ὅτι τρόπον τινὰ ἀρετὴ τυγχάνουσα χορηγίας καὶ βιάζεσθαι δύναται μάλιστα, καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ τὸ κρατοῦν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ἀγαθοῦ τινος, ὥστε δοκεῖν μὴ ἄνευ ἀρετῆς εἶναι τὴν βίαν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ δικαίου μόνον εἶναι τὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν (διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο τοῖς μὲν ἄνοια δοκεῖν τὸ δίκαιον εἶναι, τοῖς δʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δίκαιον, τὸ τὸν κρείττονα ἄρχειν)· ἐπεὶ διαστάντων γε χωρὶς τούτων τῶν λόγων οὔτε ἰσχυρὸν οὐθὲν ἔχουσιν οὔτε πιθανὸν ἅτεροι λόγοι, ὡς οὐ δεῖ τὸ βέλτιον κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἄρχειν καὶ δεσπόζειν. ὅλως δʼ ἀντεχόμενοί τινες, ὡς οἴονται, δικαίου τινός (ὁ γὰρ νόμος δίκαιόν τι) τὴν κατὰ πόλεμον δουλείαν τιθέασι δικαίαν, ἅμα δʼ οὔ φασιν· τήν τε γὰρ ἀρχὴν ἐνδέχεται μὴ δικαίαν εἶναι τῶν πολέμων, καὶ τὸν ἀνάξιον δουλεύειν οὐδαμῶς ἂν φαίη τις δοῦλον εἶναι· εἰ δὲ μή, συμβήσεται τοὺς εὐγενεστάτους εἶναι δοκοῦντας δούλους εἶναι καὶ ἐκ δούλων, ἐὰν συμβῇ πραθῆναι ληφθέντας. διόπερ αὐτοὺς οὐ βούλονται λέγειν δούλους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς βαρβάρους. καίτοι ὅταν τοῦτο λέγωσιν, οὐθὲν ἄλλο ζητοῦσιν ἢ τὸ φύσει δοῦλον ὅπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἴπομεν· ἀνάγκη γὰρ εἶναί τινας φάναι τοὺς μὲν πανταχοῦ δούλους τοὺς δʼ οὐδαμοῦ. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ εὐγενείας· αὑτοὺς μὲν γὰρ οὐ μόνον παρʼ αὑτοῖς εὐγενεῖς ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ νομίζουσιν, τοὺς δὲ βαρβάρους οἴκοι μόνον, ὡς ὄν τι τὸ μὲν ἁπλῶς εὐγενὲς καὶ ἐλεύθερον τὸ δʼ οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ Θεοδέκτου Ἑλένη φησὶ θείων δʼ ἀπʼ ἀμφοῖν ἔκγονον ῥιζωμάτων τίς ἂν προσειπεῖν ἀξιώσειεν λάτριν; ὅταν δὲ τοῦτο λέγωσιν, οὐθενὶ ἀλλʼ ἢ ἀρετῇ καὶ κακίᾳ διορίζουσι τὸ δοῦλον καὶ ἐλεύθερον, καὶ τοὺς εὐγενεῖς καὶ τοὺς δυσγενεῖς.

+ +
+

ἀξιοῦσι γάρ, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ θηρίων γίνεσθαι θηρίον, οὕτω καὶ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν ἀγαθόν. ἡ δὲ φύσις βούλεται μὲν τοῦτο ποιεῖν πολλάκις, οὐ μέντοι δύναται.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἔχει τινὰ λόγον ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, καὶ οὐκ εἰσί τινες οἱ μὲν φύσει δοῦλοι οἱ δʼ ἐλεύθεροι, δῆλον, καὶ ὅτι ἔν τισι διώρισται τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὧν συμφέρει τῷ μὲν τὸ δουλεύειν τῷ δὲ τὸ δεσπόζειν καὶ δίκαιον, καὶ δεῖ τὸ μὲν ἄρχεσθαι τὸ δʼ ἄρχειν ἣν πεφύκασιν ἀρχὴν ἄρχειν, ὥστε καὶ δεσπόζειν, τὸ δὲ κακῶς ἀσυμφόρως ἐστὶν ἀμφοῖν (τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ συμφέρει τῷ μέρει καὶ τῷ ὅλῳ, καὶ σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ, ὁ δὲ δοῦλος μέρος τι τοῦ δεσπότου, οἷον ἔμψυχόν τι τοῦ σώματος κεχωρισμένον δὲ μέρος· διὸ καὶ συμφέρον ἐστί τι καὶ φιλία δούλῳ καὶ δεσπότῃ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τοῖς φύσει τούτων ἠξιωμένοις, τοῖς δὲ μὴ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ νόμον καὶ βιασθεῖσι, τοὐναντίον).

+

φανερὸν δὲ καὶ ἐκ τούτων ὅτι οὐ ταὐτόν ἐστι δεσποτεία καὶ πολιτική, οὐδὲ πᾶσαι ἀλλήλαις αἱ ἀρχαί, ὥσπερ τινές φασιν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐλευθέρων φύσει ἡ δὲ δούλων ἐστίν, καὶ ἡ μὲν οἰκονομικὴ μοναρχία (μοναρχεῖται γὰρ πᾶς οἶκος), ἡ δὲ πολιτικὴ ἐλευθέρων καὶ ἴσων ἀρχή. ὁ μὲν οὖν δεσπότης οὐ λέγεται κατʼ ἐπιστήμην, ἀλλὰ τῷ τοιόσδʼ εἶναι, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος καὶ ὁ ἐλεύθερος. ἐπιστήμη δʼ ἂν εἴη καὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ δουλική, δουλικὴ μὲν οἵαν περ ὁ ἐν Συρακούσαις ἐπαίδευεν· ἐκεῖ γὰρ λαμβάνων τις μισθὸν ἐδίδασκε τὰ ἐγκύκλια διακονήματα τοὺς παῖδας· εἴη δʼ ἂν καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖον τῶν τοιούτων μάθησις, οἷον ὀψοποιικὴ καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα γένη τῆς διακονίας. ἔστι γὰρ ἕτερα ἑτέρων τὰ μὲν ἐντιμότερα ἔργα τὰ δʼ ἀναγκαιότερα, καὶ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν δοῦλος πρὸ δούλου, δεσπότης πρὸ δεσπότου. αἱ μὲν οὖν τοιαῦται πᾶσαι δουλικαὶ ἐπιστῆμαί εἰσι· δεσποτικὴ δʼ ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶν ἡ χρηστικὴ δούλων. ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης οὐκ ἐν τῷ κτᾶσθαι τοὺς δούλους, ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ χρῆσθαι δούλοις. ἔστι δʼ αὕτη ἡ ἐπιστήμη οὐδὲν μέγα ἔχουσα οὐδὲ σεμνόν· ἃ γὰρ τὸν δοῦλον ἐπίστασθαι δεῖ ποιεῖν, ἐκεῖνον δεῖ ταῦτα ἐπίστασθαι ἐπιτάττειν. διὸ ὅσοις ἐξουσία μὴ αὐτοὺς κακοπαθεῖν, ἐπίτροπός τις λαμβάνει ταύτην τὴν τιμήν, αὐτοὶ δὲ πολιτεύονται ἢ φιλοσοφοῦσιν. ἡ δὲ κτητικὴ ἑτέρα ἀμφοτέρων τούτων, οἷον ἡ δικαία, πολεμική τις οὖσα ἢ θηρευτική. περὶ μὲν οὖν δούλου καὶ δεσπότου τοῦτον διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον.

+ +
+

ὅλως δὲ περὶ πάσης κτήσεως καὶ χρηματιστικῆς θεωρήσωμεν κατὰ τὸν ὑφηγημένον τρόπον, ἐπείπερ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος τῆς κτήσεως μέρος τι ἦν. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις πότερον ἡ χρηματιστικὴ ἡ αὐτὴ τῇ οἰκονομικῇ ἐστιν ἢ μέρος τι, ἢ ὑπηρετική, καὶ εἰ ὑπηρετική, πότερον ὡς ἡ κερκιδοποιικὴ τῇ ὑφαντικῇ ἢ ὡς ἡ χαλκουργικὴ τῇ ἀνδριαντοποιίᾳ (οὐ γὰρ ὡσαύτως ὑπηρετοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν ὄργανα παρέχει, ἡ δὲ τὴν ὕλην· λέγω δὲ ὕλην τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἐξ οὗ τι ἀποτελεῖται ἔργον, οἷον ὑφάντῃ μὲν ἔρια ἀνδριαντοποιῷ δὲ χαλκόν). ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ ἡ οἰκονομικὴ τῇ χρηματιστικῇ, δῆλον (τῆς μὲν γὰρ τὸ πορίσασθαι, τῆς δὲ τὸ χρήσασθαι· τίς γὰρ ἔσται ἡ χρησομένη τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν παρὰ τὴν οἰκονομικήν;)· πότερον δὲ μέρος αὐτῆς ἐστί τι ἢ ἕτερον εἶδος, ἔχει διαμφισβήτησιν· εἰ γάρ ἐστι τοῦ χρηματιστικοῦ θεωρῆσαι πόθεν χρήματα καὶ κτῆσις ἔσται, ἥ δὲ κτῆσις πολλὰ περιείληφε μέρη καὶ ὁ πλοῦτος, ὥστε πρῶτον ἡ γεωργικὴ πότερον μέρος τι τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἢ ἕτερόν τι γένος, καὶ καθόλου ἡ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ἐπιμέλεια καὶ κτῆσις; ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴδη γε πολλὰ τροφῆς, διὸ καὶ βίοι πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν ζῴων καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ζῆν ἄνευ τροφῆς, ὥστε αἱ διαφοραὶ τῆς τροφῆς τοὺς βίους πεποιήκασι διαφέροντας τῶν ζῴων. τῶν τε γὰρ θηρίων τὰ μὲν ἀγελαῖα τὰ δὲ σποραδικά ἐστιν, ὁποτέρως συμφέρει πρὸς τὴν τροφὴν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὸ τὰ μὲν ζῳοφάγα τὰ δὲ καρποφάγα τὰ δὲ παμφάγα αὐτῶν εἶναι, ὥστε πρὸς τὰς ῥᾳστώνας καὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τὴν τούτων ἡ φύσις τοὺς βίους αὐτῶν διώρισεν, ἐπεὶ δʼ οὐ ταὐτὸ ἑκάστῳ ἡδὺ κατὰ φύσιν ἀλλὰ ἕτερα ἑτέροις, καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν ζῳοφάγων καὶ τῶν καρποφάγων οἱ βίοι πρὸς ἄλληλα διεστᾶσιν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. πολὺ γὰρ διαφέρουσιν οἱ τούτων βίοι. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀργότατοι νομάδες εἰσίν (ἡ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡμέρων τροφὴ ζῴων ἄνευ πόνου γίνεται σχολάζουσιν· ἀναγκαίου δʼ ὄντος μεταβάλλειν τοῖς κτήνεσι διὰ τὰς νομὰς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀναγκάζονται συνακολουθεῖν, ὥσπερ γεωργίαν ζῶσαν γεωργοῦντες)· οἱ δʼ ἀπὸ θήρας ζῶσι, καὶ θήρας ἕτεροι ἑτέρας, οἷον οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ λῃστείας, οἱ δʼ ἀφʼ ἁλιείας, ὅσοι λίμνας καὶ ἕλη καὶ ποταμοὺς ἢ θάλατταν τοιαύτην προσοικοῦσιν, οἱ δʼ ἀπʼ ὀρνίθων ἢ θηρίων ἀγρίων· τὸ δὲ πλεῖστον γένος τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ζῇ καὶ τῶν ἡμέρων καρπῶν.

+

οἱ μὲν οὖν βίοι τοσοῦτοι σχεδόν εἰσιν, ὅσοι γε αὐτόφυτον ἔχουσι τὴν ἐργασίαν καὶ μὴ διʼ ἀλλαγῆς καὶ καπηλείας πορίζονται τὴν τροφήν,

+ +
+

νομαδικὸς λῃστρικὸς ἁλιευτικὸς θηρευτικὸς γεωργικός. οἱ δὲ καὶ μιγνύντες ἐκ τούτων ἡδέως ζῶσι, προσαναπληροῦντες τὸν ἐνδεέστερον βίον, ᾗ τυγχάνει ἐλλείπων πρὸς τὸ αὐτάρκης εἶναι, οἷον οἱ μὲν νομαδικὸν ἅμα καὶ λῃστρικόν, οἱ δὲ γεωργικὸν καὶ θηρευτικόν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοὺς ἄλλους· ὡς ἂν ἡ χρεία συναναγκάζῃ, τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον διάγουσιν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοιαύτη κτῆσις ὑπʼ αὐτῆς φαίνεται τῆς φύσεως διδομένη πᾶσιν, ὥσπερ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν εὐθύς, οὕτω καὶ τελειωθεῖσιν. καὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς γένεσιν τὰ μὲν συνεκτίκτει τῶν ζῴων τοσαύτην τροφὴν ὥσθʼ ἱκανὴν εἶναι μέχρις οὗ ἂν δύνηται αὐτὸ αὑτῷ πορίζειν τὸ γεννηθέν, οἷον ὅσα σκωληκοτοκεῖ ἢ ᾠοτοκεῖ· ὅσα δὲ ζῳοτοκεῖ, τοῖς γεννωμένοις ἔχει τροφὴν ἐν αὑτοῖς μέχρι τινός, τὴν τοῦ καλουμένου γάλακτος φύσιν. ὥστε ὁμοίως δῆλον ὅτι καὶ γενομένοις οἰητέον τά τε φυτὰ τῶν ζῴων ἕνεκεν εἶναι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα τῶν ἀνθρώπων χάριν, τὰ μὲν ἥμερα καὶ διὰ τὴν χρῆσιν καὶ διὰ τὴν τροφήν, τῶν δʼ ἀγρίων, εἰ μὴ πάντα, ἀλλὰ τά γε πλεῖστα τῆς τροφῆς καὶ ἄλλης βοηθείας ἕνεκεν, ἵνα καὶ ἐσθὴς καὶ ἄλλα ὄργανα γίνηται ἐξ αὐτῶν. εἰ οὖν ἡ φύσις μηθὲν μήτε ἀτελὲς ποιεῖ μήτε μάτην, ἀναγκαῖον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἕνεκεν αὐτὰ πάντα πεποιηκέναι τὴν φύσιν. διὸ καὶ ἡ πολεμικὴ φύσει κτητική πως ἔσται (ἡ γὰρ θηρευτικὴ μέρος αὐτῆς), ᾗ δεῖ χρῆσθαι πρός τε τὰ θηρία καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅσοι πεφυκότες ἄρχεσθαι μὴ θέλουσιν, ὡς φύσει δίκαιον τοῦτον ὄντα τὸν πόλεμον.

+

ἓν μὲν οὖν εἶδος κτητικῆς κατὰ φύσιν τῆς οἰκονομικῆς μέρος ἐστίν, καθὸ δεῖ ἤτοι ὑπάρχειν ἢ πορίζειν αὐτὴν ὅπως ὑπάρχῃ ὧν ἔστι θησαυρισμὸς χρημάτων πρὸς ζωὴν ἀναγκαίων, καὶ χρησίμων εἰς κοινωνίαν πόλεως ἢ οἰκίας. καὶ ἔοικεν ὅ γʼ ἀληθινὸς πλοῦτος ἐκ τούτων εἶναι. ἡ γὰρ τῆς τοιαύτης κτήσεως αὐτάρκεια πρὸς ἀγαθὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἄπειρός ἐστιν, ὥσπερ Σόλων φησὶ ποιήσας πλούτου δʼ οὐθὲν τέρμα πεφασμένον ἀνδράσι κεῖται. Solon 13.71 κεῖται γὰρ ὥσπερ καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τέχναις· οὐδὲν γὰρ ὄργανον ἄπειρον οὐδεμιᾶς ἐστι τέχνης οὔτε πλήθει οὔτε μεγέθει, ὁ δὲ πλοῦτος ὀργάνων πλῆθός ἐστιν οἰκονομικῶν καὶ πολιτικῶν. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἔστι τις κτητικὴ κατὰ φύσιν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις καὶ τοῖς πολιτικοῖς, καὶ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν, δῆλον.

+

ἔστι δὲ γένος ἄλλο κτητικῆς, ἣν μάλιστα καλοῦσι, καὶ δίκαιον αὐτὸ καλεῖν, χρηματιστικήν, διʼ ἣν οὐδὲν δοκεῖ πέρας εἶναι πλούτου καὶ κτήσεως·

+ +
+

ἣν ὡς μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν τῇ λεχθείσῃ πολλοὶ νομίζουσι διὰ τὴν γειτνίασιν· ἔστι δʼ οὔτε ἡ αὐτὴ τῇ εἰρημένῃ οὔτε πόρρω ἐκείνης. ἔστι δʼ ἡ μὲν φύσει ἡ δʼ οὐ φύσει αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ διʼ ἐμπειρίας τινὸς καὶ τέχνης γίνεται μᾶλλον. λάβωμεν δὲ περὶ αὐτῆς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐντεῦθεν. ἑκάστου γὰρ κτήματος διττὴ ἡ χρῆσίς ἐστιν, ἀμφότεραι δὲ καθʼ αὑτὸ μὲν ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁμοίως καθʼ αὑτό, ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν οἰκεία ἡ δʼ οὐκ οἰκεία τοῦ πράγματος, οἷον ὑποδήματος ἥ τε ὑπόδεσις καὶ ἡ μεταβλητική. ἀμφότεραι γὰρ ὑποδήματος χρήσεις· καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἀλλαττόμενος τῷ δεομένῳ ὑποδήματος ἀντὶ νομίσματος ἢ τροφῆς χρῆται τῷ ὑποδήματι ᾗ ὑπόδημα, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν οἰκείαν χρῆσιν· οὐ γὰρ ἀλλαγῆς ἕνεκεν γέγονε. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων κτημάτων. ἔστι γὰρ ἡ μεταβλητικὴ πάντων, ἀρξαμένη τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν, τῷ τὰ μὲν πλείω τὰ δὲ ἐλάττω τῶν ἱκανῶν ἔχειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους (ᾗ καὶ δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι φύσει τῆς χρηματιστικῆς ἡ καπηλική· ὅσον γὰρ ἱκανὸν αὐτοῖς, ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀλλαγήν). ἐν μὲν οὖν τῇ πρώτῃ κοινωνίᾳ (τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν οἰκία) φανερὸν ὅτι οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔργον αὐτῆς, ἀλλʼ ἤδη πλειόνων τῆς κοινωνίας οὔσης. οἱ μὲν γὰρ τῶν αὑτῶν ἐκοινώνουν πάντων, οἱ δὲ κεχωρισμένοι πολλῶν πάλιν καὶ ἑτέρων, ὧν κατὰ τὰς δεήσεις ἀναγκαῖον ποιεῖσθαι τὰς μεταδόσεις, καθάπερ ἔτι πολλὰ ποιεῖ καὶ τῶν βαρβαρικῶν ἐθνῶν, κατὰ τὴν ἀλλαγήν. αὐτὰ γὰρ τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς αὑτὰ καταλλάττονται, ἐπὶ πλέον δʼ οὐθέν, οἷον οἶνον πρὸς σῖτον διδόντες καὶ λαμβάνοντες, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων ἕκαστον. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοιαύτη μεταβλητικὴ οὔτε παρὰ φύσιν οὔτε χρηματιστικῆς ἐστιν εἶδος οὐδέν (εἰς ἀναπλήρωσιν γὰρ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν αὐταρκείας ἦν)· ἐκ μέντοι ταύτης ἐγένετʼ ἐκείνη κατὰ λόγον. ξενικωτέρας γὰρ γενομένης τῆς βοηθείας τῷ εἰσάγεσθαι ὧν ἐνδεεῖς ἦσαν καὶ ἐκπέμπειν ὧν ἐπλεόναζον, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἡ τοῦ νομίσματος ἐπορίσθη χρῆσις. οὐ γὰρ εὐβάστακτον ἕκαστον τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἀναγκαίων· διὸ πρὸς τὰς ἀλλαγὰς τοιοῦτόν τι συνέθεντο πρὸς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς διδόναι καὶ λαμβάνειν, ὃ τῶν χρησίμων αὐτὸ ὂν εἶχε τὴν χρείαν εὐμεταχείριστον πρὸς τὸ ζῆν, οἷον σίδηρος καὶ ἄργυρος κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἁπλῶς ὁρισθὲν μεγέθει καὶ σταθμῷ, τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον καὶ χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβαλλόντων, ἵνα ἀπολύσῃ τῆς μετρήσεως αὑτούς· ὁ γὰρ χαρακτὴρ ἐτέθη τοῦ ποσοῦ σημεῖον.

+ +
+

πορισθέντος οὖν ἤδη νομίσματος ἐκ τῆς ἀναγκαίας ἀλλαγῆς θάτερον εἶδος τῆς χρηματιστικῆς ἐγένετο, τὸ καπηλικόν, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἁπλῶς ἴσως γινόμενον, εἶτα διʼ ἐμπειρίας ἤδη τεχνικώτερον, πόθεν καὶ πῶς μεταβαλλόμενον πλεῖστον ποιήσει κέρδος. διὸ δοκεῖ ἡ χρηματιστικὴ μάλιστα περὶ τὸ νόμισμα εἶναι, καὶ ἔργον αὐτῆς τὸ δύνασθαι θεωρῆσαι πόθεν ἔσται πλῆθος, ποιητικὴ γὰρ εἶναι πλούτου καὶ χρημάτων. καὶ γὰρ τὸν πλοῦτον πολλάκις τιθέασι νομίσματος πλῆθος, διὰ τὸ περὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναι τὴν χρηματιστικὴν καὶ τὴν καπηλικήν. ὁτὲ δὲ πάλιν λῆρος εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ νόμισμα καὶ νόμος παντάπασι, φύσει δʼ οὐθέν, ὅτι μεταθεμένων τε τῶν χρωμένων οὐθενὸς ἄξιον οὐδὲ χρήσιμον πρὸς οὐδὲν τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐστί, καὶ νομίσματος πλουτῶν πολλάκις ἀπορήσει τῆς ἀναγκαίας τροφῆς· καίτοι ἄτοπον τοιοῦτον εἶναι πλοῦτον οὗ εὐπορῶν λιμῷ ἀπολεῖται, καθάπερ καὶ τὸν Μίδαν ἐκεῖνον μυθολογοῦσι διὰ τὴν ἀπληστίαν τῆς εὐχῆς πάντων αὐτῷ γιγνομένων τῶν παρατιθεμένων χρυσῶν. διὸ ζητοῦσιν ἕτερόν τι τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τὴν χρηματιστικήν, ὀρθῶς ζητοῦντες. ἔστι γὰρ ἑτέρα ἡ χρηματιστικὴ καὶ ὁ πλοῦτος ὁ κατὰ φύσιν, καὶ αὕτη μὲν οἰκονομική, ἡ δὲ καπηλική, ποιητικὴ πλούτου οὐ πάντως ἀλλὰ διὰ χρημάτων μεταβολῆς. καὶ δοκεῖ περὶ τὸ νόμισμα αὕτη εἶναι· τὸ γὰρ νόμισμα στοιχεῖον καὶ πέρας τῆς ἀλλαγῆς ἐστιν. καὶ ἄπειρος δὴ οὗτος ὁ πλοῦτος, ὁ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς χρηματιστικῆς. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἰατρικὴ τοῦ ὑγιαίνειν εἰς ἄπειρόν ἐστι, καὶ ἑκάστη τῶν τεχνῶν τοῦ τέλους εἰς ἄπειρον (ὅτι μάλιστα γὰρ ἐκεῖνο βούλονται ποιεῖν), τῶν δὲ πρὸς τὸ τέλος οὐκ εἰς ἄπειρον (πέρας γὰρ τὸ τέλος πάσαις), οὕτω καὶ ταύτης τῆς χρηματιστικῆς οὐκ ἔστι τοῦ τέλους πέρας, τέλος δὲ ὁ τοιοῦτος πλοῦτος καὶ χρημάτων κτῆσις. τῆς δʼ οἰκονομικῆς χρηματιστικῆς ἔστι πέρας· οὐ γὰρ τοῦτο τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἔργον. διὸ τῇ μὲν φαίνεται ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι παντὸς πλούτου πέρας, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν γινομένων ὁρῶμεν συμβαῖνον τοὐναντίον· πάντες γὰρ εἰς ἄπειρον αὔξουσιν οἱ χρηματιζόμενοι τὸ νόμισμα. αἴτιον δὲ τὸ σύνεγγυς αὐτῶν. ἐπαλλάττει γὰρ ἡ χρῆσις τοῦ αὐτοῦ οὖσα ἑκατέρας τῆς χρηματιστικῆς. τῆς γὰρ αὐτῆς ἐστι κτήσεως χρῆσις, ἀλλʼ οὐ κατὰ ταὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν ἕτερον τέλος, τῆς δʼ ἡ αὔξησις. ὥστε δοκεῖ τισι τοῦτʼ εἶναι τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἔργον, καὶ διατελοῦσιν ἢ σῴζειν οἰόμενοι δεῖν ἢ αὔξειν τὴν τοῦ νομίσματος οὐσίαν εἰς ἄπειρον. αἴτιον δὲ ταύτης τῆς διαθέσεως τὸ σπουδάζειν περὶ τὸ ζῆν, ἀλλὰ μὴ τὸ εὖ ζῆν·

+ +
+

εἰς ἄπειρον οὖν ἐκείνης τῆς ἐπιθυμίας οὔσης, καὶ τῶν ποιητικῶν ἀπείρων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν. ὅσοι δὲ καὶ τοῦ εὖ ζῆν ἐπιβάλλονται τὸ πρὸς τὰς ἀπολαύσεις τὰς σωματικὰς ζητοῦσιν, ὥστʼ ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐν τῇ κτήσει φαίνεται ὑπάρχειν, πᾶσα ἡ διατριβὴ περὶ τὸν χρηματισμόν ἐστι, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον εἶδος τῆς χρηματιστικῆς διὰ τοῦτʼ ἐλήλυθεν. ἐν ὑπερβολῇ γὰρ οὔσης τῆς ἀπολαύσεως, τὴν τῆς ἀπολαυστικῆς ὑπερβολῆς ποιητικὴν ζητοῦσιν· κἂν μὴ διὰ τῆς χρηματιστικῆς δύνωνται πορίζειν, διʼ ἄλλης αἰτίας τοῦτο πειρῶνται, ἑκάστῃ χρώμενοι τῶν δυνάμεων οὐ κατὰ φύσιν. ἀνδρείας γὰρ οὐ χρήματα ποιεῖν ἐστιν ἀλλὰ θάρσος, οὐδὲ στρατηγικῆς καὶ ἰατρικῆς, ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν νίκην τῆς δʼ ὑγίειαν. οἱ δὲ πάσας ποιοῦσι χρηματιστικάς, ὡς τοῦτο τέλος ὄν, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τέλος ἅπαντα δέον ἀπαντᾶν.

+

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τε μὴ ἀναγκαίας χρηματιστικῆς, καὶ τίς, καὶ διʼ αἰτίαν τίνα ἐν χρείᾳ ἐσμὲν αὐτῆς, εἴρηται, καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀναγκαίας, ὅτι ἑτέρα μὲν αὐτῆς οἰκονομικὴ δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἡ περὶ τὴν τροφήν, οὐχ ὥσπερ αὕτη ἄπειρος ἀλλʼ ἔχουσα ὅρον.

+

δῆλον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀπορούμενον ἐξ ἀρχῆς, πότερον τοῦ οἰκονομικοῦ καὶ πολιτικοῦ ἐστιν ἡ χρηματιστικὴ ἢ οὔ, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τοῦτο μὲν ὑπάρχειν (ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ ἀνθρώπους οὐ ποιεῖ ἡ πολιτική, ἀλλὰ λαβοῦσα παρὰ τῆς φύσεως χρῆται αὐτοῖς, οὕτω καὶ τροφὴν τὴν φύσιν δεῖ παραδοῦναι γῆν ἢ θάλατταν ἢ ἄλλο τι), ἐκ δὲ τούτων, ὡς δεῖ ταῦτα διαθεῖναι προσήκει τὸν οἰκονόμον. οὐ γὰρ τῆς ὑφαντικῆς ἔρια ποιῆσαι, ἀλλὰ χρήσασθαι αὐτοῖς, καὶ γνῶναι δὲ τὸ ποῖον χρηστὸν καὶ ἐπιτήδειον, ἢ φαῦλον καὶ ἀνεπιτήδειον. καὶ γὰρ ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις διὰ τί ἡ μὲν χρηματιστικὴ μόριον τῆς οἰκονομίας, ἡ δʼ ἰατρικὴ οὐ μόριον· καίτοι δεῖ ὑγιαίνειν τοὺς κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, ὥσπερ ζῆν ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν ἀναγκαίων. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἔστι μὲν ὡς τοῦ οἰκονόμου καὶ τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ περὶ ὑγιείας ἰδεῖν, ἔστι δʼ ὡς οὔ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἰατροῦ, οὕτω καὶ περὶ τῶν χρημάτων ἔστι μὲν ὡς τοῦ οἰκονόμου, ἔστι δʼ ὡς οὔ, ἀλλὰ τῆς ὑπηρετικῆς· μάλιστα δέ, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, δεῖ φύσει τοῦτο ὑπάρχειν. φύσεως γάρ ἐστιν ἔργον τροφὴν τῷ γεννηθέντι παρέχειν· παντὶ γάρ, ἐξ οὗ γίνεται, τροφὴ τὸ λειπόμενόν ἐστι. διὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἐστὶν ἡ χρηματιστικὴ πᾶσιν ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τῶν ζῴων. διπλῆς δʼ οὔσης αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, καὶ τῆς μὲν καπηλικῆς τῆς δʼ οἰκονομικῆς, καὶ ταύτης μὲν ἀναγκαίας καὶ ἐπαινουμένης,

+ +
+

τῆς δὲ μεταβλητικῆς ψεγομένης δικαίως (οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἀλλʼ ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων ἐστίν), εὐλογώτατα μισεῖται ἡ ὀβολοστατικὴ διὰ τὸ ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ τοῦ νομίσματος εἶναι τὴν κτῆσιν καὶ οὐκ ἐφʼ ὅπερ ἐπορίσθη. μεταβολῆς γὰρ ἐγένετο χάριν, ὁ δὲ τόκος αὐτὸ ποιεῖ πλέον (ὅθεν καὶ τοὔνομα τοῦτʼ εἴληφεν· ὅμοια γὰρ τὰ τικτόμενα τοῖς γεννῶσιν αὐτά ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ τόκος γίνεται νόμισμα ἐκ νομίσματος)· ὥστε καὶ μάλιστα παρὰ φύσιν οὗτος τῶν χρηματισμῶν ἐστιν.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ πρὸς τὴν γνῶσιν διωρίκαμεν ἱκανῶς, τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν δεῖ διελθεῖν. πάντα δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὴν μὲν θεωρίαν ἐλευθέραν ἔχει, τὴν δʼ ἐμπειρίαν ἀναγκαίαν. ἔστι δὲ χρηματιστικῆς μέρη χρήσιμα· τὸ περὶ τὰ κτήματα ἔμπειρον εἶναι, ποῖα λυσιτελέστατα καὶ ποῦ καὶ πῶς, οἷον ἵππων κτῆσις ποία τις ἢ βοῶν ἢ προβάτων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων (δεῖ γὰρ ἔμπειρον εἶναι πρὸς ἄλληλά τε τούτων τίνα λυσιτελέστατα, καὶ ποῖα ἐν ποίοις τόποις· ἄλλα γὰρ ἐν ἄλλαις εὐθηνεῖ χώραις), εἶτα περὶ γεωργίας, καὶ ταύτης ἤδη ψιλῆς τε καὶ πεφυτευμένης, καὶ μελιττουργίας, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων τῶν πλωτῶν ἢ πτηνῶν, ἀφʼ ὅσων ἔστι τυγχάνειν βοηθείας. τῆς μὲν οὖν οἰκειοτάτης χρηματιστικῆς ταῦτα μόρια καὶ πρῶτα· τῆς δὲ μεταβλητικῆς μέγιστον μὲν ἐμπορία (καὶ ταύτης μέρη τρία, ναυκληρία φορτηγία παράστασις· διαφέρει δὲ τούτων ἕτερα ἑτέρων τῷ τὰ μὲν ἀσφαλέστερα εἶναι, τὰ δὲ πλείω πορίζειν τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν), δεύτερον δὲ τοκισμός, τρίτον δὲ μισθαρνία (ταύτης δʼ ἡ μὲν τῶν βαναύσων τεχνῶν, ἡ δὲ τῶν ἀτέχνων καὶ τῷ σώματι μόνῳ χρησίμων)· τρίτον δὲ εἶδος χρηματιστικῆς μεταξὺ ταύτης καὶ τῆς πρώτης (ἔχει γὰρ καὶ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν τι μέρος καὶ τῆς μεταβλητικῆς), ὅσα ἀπὸ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς γιγνομένων, ἀκάρπων μὲν χρησίμων δέ, οἷον ὑλοτομία τε καὶ πᾶσα μεταλλευτική. αὕτη δὲ πολλὰ ἤδη περιείληφε γένη· πολλὰ γὰρ εἴδη τῶν ἐκ γῆς μεταλλευομένων ἔστιν. εἰσὶ δὲ τεχνικώταται μὲν τῶν ἐργασιῶν ὅπου ἐλάχιστον τῆς τύχης, βαναυσόταται δʼ ἐν αἷς τὰσώματα λωβῶνται μάλιστα, δουλικώταται δὲ ὅπου τοῦ σώματος πλεῖσται χρήσεις, ἀγεννέσταται δὲ ὅπου ἐλάχιστον προσδεῖ ἀρετῆς. περὶ ἑκάστου δὲ τούτων καθόλου μὲν εἴρηται καὶ νῦν, τὸ δὲ κατὰ μέρος ἀκριβολογεῖσθαι χρήσιμον μὲν πρὸς τὰς ἐργασίας, φορτικὸν δὲ τὸ ἐνδιατρίβειν.

+

ἐπεὶ δʼ ἔστιν ἐνίοις γεγραμμένα περὶ τούτων,

+ +
+

οἷον Χαρητίδῃ τῷ Παρίῳ καὶ Ἀπολλοδώρῳ τῷ Λημνίῳ περὶ γεωργίας καὶ ψιλῆς καὶ πεφυτευμένης, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἄλλοις περὶ ἄλλων, ταῦτα μὲν ἐκ τούτων θεωρείτω ὅτῳ ἐπιμελές· ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα σποράδην, διʼ ὧν ἐπιτετυχήκασιν ἔνιοι χρηματιζόμενοι, δεῖ συλλέγειν. πάντα γὰρ ὠφέλιμα ταῦτʼ ἐστὶ τοῖς τιμῶσι τὴν χρηματιστικήν, οἷον καὶ τὸ Θάλεω τοῦ Μιλησίου· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι κατανόημά τι χρηματιστικόν, ἀλλʼ ἐκείνῳ μὲν διὰ τὴν σοφίαν προσάπτουσι, τυγχάνει δὲ καθόλου τι ὄν. ὀνειδιζόντων γὰρ αὐτῷ διὰ τὴν πενίαν ὡς ἀνωφελοῦς τῆς φιλοσοφίας οὔσης, κατανοήσαντά φασιν αὐτὸν ἐλαιῶν φορὰν ἐσομένην ἐκ τῆς ἀστρολογίας, ἔτι χειμῶνος ὄντος εὐπορήσαντα χρημάτων ὀλίγων ἀρραβῶνας διαδοῦναι τῶν ἐλαιουργίων τῶν τʼ ἐν Μιλήτῳ καὶ Χίῳ πάντων, ὀλίγου μισθωσάμενον ἅτʼ οὐθενὸς ἐπιβάλλοντος· ἐπειδὴ δʼ ὁ καιρὸς ἧκε, πολλῶν ζητουμένων ἅμα καὶ ἐξαίφνης, ἐκμισθοῦντα ὃν τρόπον ἠβούλετο, πολλὰ χρήματα συλλέξαντα ἐπιδεῖξαι ὅτι ῥᾴδιόν ἐστι πλουτεῖν τοῖς φιλοσόφοις, ἂν βούλωνται, ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ περὶ ὃ σπουδάζουσιν. Θαλῆς μὲν οὖν λέγεται τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐπίδειξιν ποιήσασθαι τῆς σοφίας· ἔστι δʼ, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, καθόλου τὸ τοιοῦτον χρηματιστικόν, ἐάν τις δύνηται μονοπωλίαν αὑτῷ κατασκευάζειν. διὸ καὶ τῶν πόλεων ἔνιαι τοῦτον ποιοῦνται τὸν πόρον, ὅταν ἀπορῶσι χρημάτων· μονοπωλίαν γὰρ τῶν ὠνίων ποιοῦσιν. ἐν Σικελίᾳ δέ τις τεθέντος παρʼ αὐτῷ νομίσματος συνεπρίατο πάντα τὸν σίδηρον ἐκ τῶν σιδηρείων, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὡς ἀφίκοντο ἐκ τῶν ἐμπορίων οἱ ἔμποροι, ἐπώλει μόνος, οὐ πολλὴν ποιήσας ὑπερβολὴν τῆς τιμῆς· ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἐπὶ τοῖς πεντήκοντα ταλάντοις ἐπέλαβεν ἑκατόν. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν Διονύσιος αἰσθόμενος τὰ μὲν χρήματα ἐκέλευσεν ἐκκομίσασθαι, μὴ μέντοι γε ἔτι μένειν ἐν Συρακούσαις, ὡς πόρους εὑρίσκοντα τοῖς αὑτοῦ πράγμασιν ἀσυμφόρους· τὸ μέντοι ὅραμα Θάλεω καὶ τοῦτο ταὐτόν ἐστιν· ἀμφότεροι γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς ἐτέχνασαν γενέσθαι μονοπωλίαν. χρήσιμον δὲ γνωρίζειν ταῦτα καὶ τοῖς πολιτικοῖς. πολλαῖς γὰρ πόλεσι δεῖ χρηματισμοῦ καὶ τοιούτων πόρων, ὥσπερ οἰκίᾳ, μᾶλλον δέ· διόπερ τινὲς καὶ πολιτεύονται τῶν πολιτευομένων ταῦτα μόνον.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ τρία μέρη τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἦν, ἓν μὲν δεσποτική, περὶ ἧς εἴρηται πρότερον, ἓν δὲ πατρική, τρίτον δὲ γαμική (καὶ γὰρ γυναικὸς ἄρχει καὶ τέκνων, ὡς ἐλευθέρων μὲν ἀμφοῖν, οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον τῆς ἀρχῆς,

+ +
+

ἀλλὰ γυναικὸς μὲν πολιτικῶς τέκνων δὲ βασιλικῶς· τό τε γὰρ ἄρρεν φύσει τοῦ θήλεος ἡγεμονικώτερον, εἰ μή που συνέστηκε παρὰ φύσιν, καὶ τὸ πρεσβύτερον καὶ τέλειον τοῦ νεωτέρου καὶ ἀτελοῦς)—ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς πολιτικαῖς ἀρχαῖς ταῖς πλείσταις μεταβάλλει τὸ ἄρχον καὶ τὸ ἀρχόμενον (ἐξ ἴσου γὰρ εἶναι βούλεται τὴν φύσιν καὶ διαφέρειν μηδέν), ὅμως δέ, ὅταν τὸ μὲν ἄρχῃ τὸ δʼ ἄρχηται, ζητεῖ διαφορὰν εἶναι καὶ σχήμασι καὶ λόγοις καὶ τιμαῖς, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἄμασις εἶπε τὸν περὶ τοῦ ποδανιπτῆρος λόγον· τὸ δʼ ἄρρεν ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον. ἡ δὲ τῶν τέκνων ἀρχὴ βασιλική· τὸ γὰρ γεννῆσαν καὶ κατὰ φιλίαν ἄρχον καὶ κατὰ πρεσβείαν ἐστίν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ βασιλικῆς εἶδος ἀρχῆς. διὸ καλῶς Ὅμηρος τὸν Δία προσηγόρευσεν εἰπὼν πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε Hom. Il. 1.544 τὸν βασιλέα τούτων ἁπάντων. φύσει γὰρ τὸν βασιλέα διαφέρειν μὲν δεῖ, τῷ γένει δʼ εἶναι τὸν αὐτόν· ὅπερ πέπονθε τὸ πρεσβύτερον πρὸς τὸ νεώτερον καὶ ὁ γεννήσας πρὸς τὸ τέκνον.

+

φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι πλείων ἡ σπουδὴ τῆς οἰκονομίας περὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἢ περὶ τὴν τῶν ἀψύχων κτῆσιν, καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τούτων ἢ περὶ τὴν τῆς κτήσεως, ὃν καλοῦμεν πλοῦτον, καὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων μᾶλλον ἢ δούλων. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν περὶ δούλων ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις, πότερον ἔστιν ἀρετή τις δούλου παρὰ τὰς ὀργανικὰς καὶ διακονικὰς ἄλλη τιμιωτέρα τούτων, οἷον σωφροσύνη καὶ ἀνδρεία καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶτῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων ἕξεων, ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία παρὰ τὰς σωματικὰς ὑπηρεσίας (ἔχει γὰρ ἀπορίαν ἀμφοτέρως· εἴτε γὰρ ἔστιν, τί διοίσουσι τῶν ἐλευθέρων; εἴτε μὴ ἔστιν, ὄντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ λόγου κοινωνούντων ἄτοπον). σχεδὸν δὲ ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ ζητούμενον καὶ περὶ γυναικὸς καὶ παιδός, πότερα καὶ τούτων εἰσὶν ἀρεταί, καὶ δεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα εἶναι σώφρονα καὶ ἀνδρείαν καὶ δικαίαν, καὶ παῖς ἔστι καὶ ἀκόλαστος καὶ σώφρων, ἢ οὔ; καθόλου δὴ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἐπισκεπτέον περὶ ἀρχομένου φύσει καὶ ἄρχοντος, πότερον ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἢ ἑτέρα. εἰ μὲν γὰρ δεῖ ἀμφοτέρους μετέχειν καλοκαγαθίας, διὰ τί τὸν μὲν ἄρχειν δέοι ἂν τὸν δὲ ἄρχεσθαι καθάπαξ; οὐδὲ γὰρ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον οἷόν τε διαφέρειν· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν εἴδει διαφέρει, τὸ δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον οὐδέν. εἰ δὲ τὸν μὲν δεῖ τὸν δὲ μή, θαυμαστόν. εἴτε γὰρ ὁ ἄρχων μὴ ἔσται σώφρων καὶ δίκαιος, πῶς ἄρξει καλῶς; εἴθʼ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, πῶς ἀρχθήσεται καλῶς;

+ +
+

ἀκόλαστος γὰρ ὢν καὶ δειλὸς οὐδὲν ποιήσει τῶν προσηκόντων. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι ἀνάγκη μὲν μετέχειν ἀμφοτέρους ἀρετῆς, ταύτης δʼ εἶναι διαφοράς, (ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν φύσει ἀρχομένων). καὶ τοῦτο εὐθὺς ὑφήγηται τὰ περὶ τὴν ψυχήν· ἐν ταύτῃ γάρ ἐστι φύσει τὸ μὲν ἄρχον τὸ δʼ ἀρχόμενον, ὧν ἑτέραν φαμὲν εἶναι ἀρετήν, οἷον τοῦ λόγον ἔχοντος καὶ τοῦ ἀλόγου. δῆλον τοίνυν ὅτι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἔχει καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ὥστε φύσει πλείω τὰ ἄρχοντα καὶ ἀρχόμενα. ἄλλον γὰρ τρόπον τὸ ἐλεύθερον τοῦ δούλου ἄρχει καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν τοῦ θήλεος καὶ ἀνὴρ παιδός, καὶ πᾶσιν ἐνυπάρχει μὲν τὰ μόρια τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλʼ ἐνυπάρχει διαφερόντως. ὁ μὲν γὰρ δοῦλος ὅλως οὐκ ἔχει τὸ βουλευτικόν, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ ἔχει μέν, ἀλλʼ ἄκυρον, ὁ δὲ παῖς ἔχει μέν, ἀλλʼ ἀτελές.διὸ τὸν μὲν ἄρχοντα τελέαν ἔχειν δεῖ τὴν διανοητικὴν ἀρετήν (τὸ γὰρ ἔργον ἐστὶν ἁπλῶς τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος, ὁ δὲ λόγος ἀρχιτέκτων), τῶν δʼ ἄλλων ἕκαστον ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει αὐτοῖς. ὁμοίως τοίνυν ἀναγκαίως ἔχειν καὶ περὶ τὰς ἠθικὰς ἀρετὰς ὑποληπτέον, δεῖν μὲν μετέχειν πάντας, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸν αὐτὸντρόπον, ἀλλʼ ὅσον ἑκάστῳ πρὸς τὸ αὑτοῦ ἔργον. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι ἔστιν ἠθικὴ ἀρετὴ τῶν εἰρημένων πάντων, καὶ οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ σωφροσύνη γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρός, οὐδʼ ἀνδρεία καὶ δικαιοσύνη, καθάπερ ᾤετο Σωκράτης, ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν ἀρχικὴ ἀνδρεία ἡ δʼ ὑπηρετική, ὁμοίως δʼ ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας.

+

δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο καὶ κατὰ μέρος μᾶλλον ἐπισκοποῦσιν· καθόλου γὰρ οἱ λέγοντες ἐξαπατῶσιν ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι τὸ εὖ ἔχειν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀρετή, ἢ τὸ ὀρθοπραγεῖν, ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων· πολὺ γὰρ ἄμεινον λέγουσιν οἱ ἐξαριθμοῦντες τὰς ἀρετάς, ὥσπερ Γοργίας, τῶν οὕτως ὁριζομένων. διὸ δεῖ, ὥσπερ ὁ ποιητὴς εἴρηκε περὶ γυναικός, οὕτω νομίζειν ἔχειν περὶ πάντων· γυναικὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει, Soph. Aj. 293 ἀλλʼ ἀνδρὶ οὐκέτι τοῦτο. ἐπεὶ δʼ ὁ παῖς ἀτελής, δῆλον ὅτι τούτου μὲν καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ οὐκ αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὑτόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ τέλος καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ δούλου πρὸς δεσπότην. ἔθεμεν δὲ πρὸς τἀναγκαῖα χρήσιμον εἶναι τὸν δοῦλον, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἀρετῆς δεῖται μικρᾶς, καὶ τοσαύτης ὅπως μήτε διʼ ἀκολασίαν μήτε διὰ δειλίαν ἐλλείψῃ τῶν ἔργων. ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις, τὸ νῦν εἰρημένον εἰ ἀληθές, ἆρα καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας δεήσει ἔχειν ἀρετήν· πολλάκις γὰρ διʼ ἀκολασίαν ἐλλείπουσι τῶν ἔργων. ἢ διαφέρει τοῦτο πλεῖστον; ὁ μὲν γὰρ δοῦλος κοινωνὸς ζωῆς, ὁ δὲ πορρώτερον, καὶ τοσοῦτον ἐπιβάλλει ἀρετῆς ὅσον περ καὶ δουλείας·

+ +
+

ὁ γὰρ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἀφωρισμένην τινὰ ἔχει δουλείαν, καὶ ὁ μὲν δοῦλος τῶν φύσει, σκυτοτόμος δʼ οὐθείς, οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων τεχνιτῶν. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρετῆς αἴτιον εἶναι δεῖ τῷ δούλῳ τὸν δεσπότην, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν διδασκαλικὴν ἔχοντα τῶν ἔργων δεσποτικήν. διὸ λέγουσιν οὐ καλῶς οἱ λόγου τοὺς δούλους ἀποστεροῦντες καὶ φάσκοντες ἐπιτάξει χρῆσθαι μόνον· νουθετητέον γὰρ μᾶλλον τοὺς δούλους ἢ τοὺς παῖδας.

+

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· περὶ δʼ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός, καὶ τέκνων καὶ πατρός, τῆς τε περὶ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἀρετῆς καὶ τῆς πρὸς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ὁμιλίας, τί τὸ καλῶς καὶ μὴ καλῶς ἐστι, καὶ πῶς δεῖ τὸ μὲν εὖ διώκειν τὸ δὲ κακῶς φεύγειν, ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὰς πολιτείας ἀναγκαῖον ἐπελθεῖν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ οἰκία μὲν πᾶσα μέρος πόλεως, ταῦτα δʼ οἰκίας, τὴν δὲ τοῦ μέρους πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου δεῖ βλέπειν ἀρετήν, ἀναγκαῖον πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν βλέποντας παιδεύειν καὶ τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας, εἴπερ τι διαφέρει πρὸς τὸ τὴν πόλιν εἶναι σπουδαίαν καὶ τὸ τοὺς παῖδας εἶναι σπουδαίους καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας σπουδαίας. ἀναγκαῖον δὲ διαφέρειν· αἱ μὲν γὰρ γυναῖκες ἥμισυ μέρος τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἐκ δὲ τῶν παίδων οἱ κοινωνοὶ γίνονται τῆς πολιτείας. ὥστʼ, ἐπεὶ περὶ μὲν τούτων διώρισται, περὶ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν ἄλλοις λεκτέον, ἀφέντες ὡς τέλος ἔχοντας τοὺς νῦν λόγους, ἄλλην ἀρχὴν ποιησάμενοι λέγωμεν, καὶ πρῶτον ἐπισκεψώμεθα περὶ τῶν ἀποφηναμένων περὶ τῆς πολιτείας τῆς ἀρίστης.

+ +
+
+

ἐπεὶ δὲ προαιρούμεθα θεωρῆσαι περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς πολιτικῆς, τίς κρατίστη πασῶν τοῖς δυναμένοις ζῆν ὅτι μάλιστα κατʼ εὐχήν, δεῖ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἐπισκέψασθαι πολιτείας, αἷς τε χρῶνταί τινες τῶν πόλεων τῶν εὐνομεῖσθαι λεγομένων, κἂν εἴ τινες ἕτεραι τυγχάνουσιν ὑπὸ τινῶν εἰρημέναι καὶ δοκοῦσαι καλῶς ἔχειν, ἵνα τό τʼ ὀρθῶς ἔχον ὀφθῇ καὶ τὸ χρήσιμον, ἔτι δὲ τὸ ζητεῖν τι παρʼ αὐτὰς ἕτερον μὴ δοκῇ πάντως εἶναι σοφίζεσθαι βουλομένων, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μὴ καλῶς ἔχειν ταύτας τὰς νῦν ὑπαρχούσας, διὰ τοῦτο ταύτην δοκῶμεν ἐπιβαλέσθαι τὴν μέθοδον. ἀρχὴν δὲ πρῶτον ποιητέον ἥπερ πέφυκεν ἀρχὴ ταύτης τῆς σκέψεως. ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἤτοι πάντας πάντων κοινωνεῖν τοὺς πολίτας, ἢ μηδενός, ἢ τινῶν μὲν τινῶν δὲ μή. τὸ μὲν οὖν μηδενὸς κοινωνεῖν φανερὸν ὡς ἀδύνατον (ἡ γὰρ πολιτεία κοινωνία τίς ἐστι, καὶ πρῶτον ἀνάγκη τοῦ τόπου κοινωνεῖν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ τόπος εἷς ὁ τῆς μιᾶς πόλεως,

+ +
+

οἱ δὲ πολῖται κοινωνοὶ τῆς μιᾶς πόλεως)· ἀλλὰ πότερον ὅσων ἐνδέχεται κοινωνῆσαι, πάντων βέλτιον κοινωνεῖν τὴν μέλλουσαν οἰκήσεσθαι πόλιν καλῶς, ἢ τινῶν μὲν τινῶν δʼ οὒ βέλτιον; ἐνδέχεται γὰρ καὶ τέκνων καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ κτημάτων κοινωνεῖν τοὺς πολίτας ἀλλήλοις, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ τῇ Πλάτωνος· ἐκεῖ γὰρ ὁ Σωκράτης φησὶ δεῖν κοινὰ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας εἶναι καὶ τὰς κτήσεις. τοῦτο δὴ πότερον ὡς νῦν οὕτω βέλτιον ἔχειν, ἢ κατὰ τὸν ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ γεγραμμένον νόμον;

+

ἔχει δὴ δυσχερείας ἄλλας τε πολλὰς τὸ πάντων εἶναι τὰς γυναῖκας κοινάς, καὶ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν φησὶ δεῖν νενομοθετῆσθαι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ὁ Σωκράτης, οὐ φαίνεται συμβαῖνον ἐκ τῶν λόγων. ἔτι δὲ πρός, τὸ τέλος ὅ φησι τῇ πόλει δεῖν ὑπάρχειν, ὡς μὲν εἴρηται νῦν, ἀδύνατον, πῶς δὲ δεῖ διελεῖν, οὐδὲν διώρισται. λέγω δὲ τὸ μίαν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν ὡς ἄριστον ὂν ὅτι μάλιστα πᾶσαν· λαμβάνει γὰρ ταύτην τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ὁ Σωκράτης. καίτοι φανερόν ἐστιν ὡς προϊοῦσα καὶ γινομένη μία μᾶλλον οὐδὲ πόλις ἔσται· πλῆθος γάρ τι τὴν φύσιν ἐστὶν ἡ πόλις, γινομένη τε μία μᾶλλον οἰκία μὲν ἐκ πόλεως ἄνθρωπος δʼ ἐξ οἰκίας ἔσται· μᾶλλον γὰρ μίαν τὴν οἰκίαν τῆς πόλεως φαίημεν ἄν, καὶ τὸν ἕνα τῆς οἰκίας· ὥστʼ εἰ καὶ δυνατός τις εἴη τοῦτο δρᾶν, οὐ ποιητέον· ἀναιρήσει γὰρ τὴν πόλιν.

+

οὐ μόνον δʼ ἐκ πλειόνων ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶν ἡ πόλις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ εἴδει διαφερόντων. οὐ γὰρ γίνεται πόλις ἐξ ὁμοίων. ἕτερον γὰρ συμμαχία καὶ πόλις· τὸ μὲν γὰρ τῷ ποσῷ χρήσιμον, κἂν ᾖ τὸ αὐτὸ τῷ εἴδει (βοηθείας γὰρ χάριν ἡ συμμαχία πέφυκεν), ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ σταθμὸς πλεῖον ἑλκύσειε, ἐξ ὧν δὲ δεῖ ἓν γενέσθαι εἴδει διαφέρειν (διοίσει δὲ τῷ τοιούτῳ καὶ πόλις ἔθνους, ὅταν μὴ κατὰ κώμας ὦσι κεχωρισμένοι τὸ πλῆθος, ἀλλʼ οἷον Ἀρκάδες). διόπερ τὸ ἴσον τὸ ἀντιπεπονθὸς σῴζει τὰς πόλεις, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς εἴρηται πρότερον· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐλευθέροις καὶ ἴσοις ἀνάγκη τοῦτʼ εἶναι· ἅμα γὰρ οὐχ οἷόν τε πάντας ἄρχειν, ἀλλʼ ἢ κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ἢ κατά τινα ἄλλην τάξιν ἢ χρόνου. καὶ συμβαίνει δὴ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ὥστε πάντας ἄρχειν, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ μετέβαλλον οἱ σκυτεῖς καὶ οἱ τέκτονες καὶ μὴ ἀεὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ σκυτοτόμοι καὶ τέκτονες ἦσαν. ἐπεὶ δὲ βέλτιον οὕτως ἔχει καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τὴν πολιτικήν, δῆλον ὡς τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἀεὶ βέλτιον ἄρχειν, εἰ δυνατόν, ἐν οἷς δὲ μὴ δυνατὸν διὰ τὸ τὴν φύσιν ἴσους εἶναι πάντας,

+ +
+

ἅμα δὲ καὶ δίκαιον, εἴτʼ ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον τὸ ἄρχειν. πάντας αὐτοῦ μετέχειν, τοῦτό γε μιμεῖται τὸ ἐν μέρει τοὺς ἴσους εἴκειν τό ἀνομοίους εἶναι ἔξω ἀρχῆς· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄρχουσιν οἱ δʼ ἄρχονται κατὰ μέρος ὥσπερ ἂν ἄλλοι γενόμενοι. τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ἀρχόντων ἕτεροι ἑτέρας ἄρχουσιν ἀρχάς. φανερὸν τοίνυν ἐκ τούτων ὡς οὔτε πέφυκε μίαν οὕτως εἶναι τὴν πόλιν ὥσπερ λέγουσί τινες, καὶ τὸ λεχθὲν ὡς μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ὅτι τὰς πόλεις ἀναιρεῖ· καίτοι τό γε ἑκάστου ἀγαθὸν σῴζει ἕκαστον. ἔστι δὲ καὶ κατʼ ἄλλον τρόπον φανερὸν ὅτι τὸ λίαν ἑνοῦν ζητεῖν τὴν πόλιν οὐκ ἔστιν ἄμεινον. οἰκία μὲν γὰρ αὐταρκέστερον ἑνός, πόλις δʼ οἰκίας, καὶ βούλεταί γʼ ἤδη τότε εἶναι πόλις ὅταν αὐτάρκη συμβαίνῃ τὴν κοινωνίαν εἶναι τοῦ πλήθους· εἴπερ οὖν αἱρετώτερον τὸ αὐταρκέστερον, καὶ τὸ ἧττον ἓν τοῦ μᾶλλον αἱρετώτερον.

+

ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ εἰ τοῦτο ἄριστόν ἐστι, τὸ μίαν ὅτι μάλιστʼ εἶναι τὴν κοινωνίαν, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀποδείκνυσθαι φαίνεται κατὰ τὸν λόγον, ἐὰν πάντες ἅμα λέγωσι τὸ ἐμὸν καὶ τὸ μὴ ἐμόν· τοῦτο γὰρ οἴεται ὁ Σωκράτης σημεῖον εἶναι τοῦ τὴν πόλιν τελέως εἶναι μίαν. τὸ γὰρ πάντες διττόν. εἰ μὲν οὖν ὡς ἕκαστος, τάχʼ ἂν εἴη μᾶλλον ὃ βούλεται ποιεῖν ὁ Σωκράτης (ἕκαστος γὰρ υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ φήσει τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ γυναῖκα δὴ τὴν αὐτήν, καὶ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ περὶ ἑκάστου δὴ τῶν συμβαινόντων ὡσαύτως)· νῦν δʼ οὐχ οὕτως φήσουσιν οἱ κοιναῖς χρώμενοι ταῖς γυναιξὶ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις, ἀλλὰ πάντες μέν, οὐχ ὡς ἕκαστος δʼ αὐτῶν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν πάντες μέν, οὐχ ὡς ἕκαστος δʼ αὐτῶν. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν παραλογισμός τίς ἐστι τὸ λέγειν πάντας, φανερόν (τὸ γὰρ πάντες καὶ ἀμφότεροι, καὶ περιττὰ καὶ ἄρτια, διὰ τὸ διττὸν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἐριστικοὺς ποιεῖ συλλογισμούς· διό ἐστι τὸ πάντας τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν ὡδὶ μὲν καλὸν ἀλλʼ οὐ δυνατόν, ὡδὶ δʼ οὐδὲν ὁμονοητικόν)· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἑτέραν ἔχει βλάβην τὸ λεγόμενον. ἥκιστα γὰρ ἐπιμελείας τυγχάνει τὸ πλείστων κοινόν· τῶν γὰρ ἰδίων μάλιστα φροντίζουσιν, τῶν δὲ κοινῶν ἧττον, ἢ ὅσον ἑκάστῳ ἐπιβάλλει· πρὸς γὰρ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὡς ἑτέρου φροντίζοντος ὀλιγωροῦσι μᾶλλον, ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς οἰκετικαῖς διακονίαις οἱ πολλοὶ θεράποντες ἐνίοτε χεῖρον ὑπηρετοῦσι τῶν ἐλαττόνων. γίνονται δʼ ἑκάστῳ χίλιοι τῶν πολιτῶν υἱοί, καὶ οὗτοι οὐχ ὡς ἑκάστου, ἀλλὰ τοῦ τυχόντος ὁ τυχὼν ὁμοίως ἐστὶν υἱός·

+ +
+

ὥστε πάντες ὁμοίως ὀλιγωρήσουσιν.

+

ἔτι οὕτως ἕκαστος ἐμὸς λέγει τὸν εὖ πράττοντα τῶν πολιτῶν ἢ κακῶς, ὁπόστος τυγχάνει τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὤν, οἷον ἐμὸς ἢ τοῦ δεῖνος, τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον λέγων καθʼ ἕκαστον τῶν χιλίων, ἢ ὅσων ἡ πόλις ἐστί, καὶ τοῦτο διστάζων· ἄδηλον γὰρ ᾧ συνέβη γενέσθαι τέκνον καὶ σωθῆναι γενόμενον. καίτοι πότερον οὕτω κρεῖττον τὸ ἐμὸν λέγειν ἕκαστον, τὸ αὐτὸ ἐμὸν προσαγορεύοντα δισχιλίων καὶ μυρίων, ἢ μᾶλλον ὡς νῦν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι τὸ ἐμὸν λέγουσιν; ὁ μὲν γὰρ υἱὸν αὑτοῦ ὁ δὲ ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ προσαγορεύει τὸν αὐτόν, ὁ δʼ ἀνεψιόν, ἢ κατʼ ἄλλην τινὰ συγγένειαν ἢ πρὸς αἵματος ἢ κατʼ οἰκειότητα καὶ κηδείαν αὑτοῦ πρῶτον ἢ τῶν αὑτοῦ, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἕτερος φράτορα φυλέτην. κρεῖττον γὰρ ἴδιον ἀνεψιὸν εἶναι ἢ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον υἱόν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ διαφυγεῖν δυνατὸν τὸ μή τινας ὑπολαμβάνειν ἑαυτῶν ἀδελφούς τε καὶ παῖδας καὶ πατέρας καὶ μητέρας· κατὰ γὰρ τὰς ὁμοιότητας αἳ γίνονται τοῖς τέκνοις πρὸς τοὺς γεννήσαντας ἀναγκαῖον λαμβάνειν περὶ ἀλλήλων τὰς πίστεις. ὅπερ φασὶ καὶ συμβαίνειν τινὲς τῶν τὰς τῆς γῆς περιόδους πραγματευομένων· εἶναι γάρ τισι τῶν ἄνω Λιβύων κοινὰς τὰς γυναῖκας, τὰ μέντοι γινόμενα τέκνα διαιρεῖσθαι κατὰ τὰς ὁμοιότητας. εἰσὶ δέ τινες καὶ γυναῖκες καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων, οἷον ἵπποι καὶ βόες, αἳ σφόδρα πεφύκασιν ὅμοια ἀποδιδόναι τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν, ὥσπερ ἡ ἐν Φαρσάλῳ κληθεῖσα Δικαία ἵππος.

+

ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰς τοιαύτας δυσχερείας οὐ ῥᾴδιον εὐλαβηθῆναι τοῖς ταύτην κατασκευάζουσι τὴν κοινωνίαν, οἷον αἰκίας καὶ φόνους ἀκουσίους τοὺς δὲ ἑκουσίους, καὶ μάχας καὶ λοιδορίας· ὧν οὐδὲν ὅσιόν ἐστι γίνεσθαι πρὸς πατέρας καὶ μητέρας καὶ τοὺς μὴ πόρρω τῆς συγγενείας ὄντας, ὥσπερ πρὸς τοὺς ἄπωθεν· ἃ καὶ πλεῖον συμβαίνειν ἀναγκαῖον ἀγνοούντων ἢ γνωριζόντων, καὶ γενομένων τῶν μὲν γνωριζομένων ἐνδέχεται τὰς νομιζομένας γίνεσθαι λύσεις, τῶν δὲ μή, οὐδεμίαν. ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ κοινοὺς ποιήσαντα τοὺς υἱοὺς τὸ συνεῖναι μόνον ἀφελεῖν τῶν ἐρώντων, τὸ δʼ ἐρᾶν μὴ κωλῦσαι, μηδὲ τὰς χρήσεις τὰς ἄλλας ἃς πατρὶ πρὸς υἱὸν εἶναι πάντων ἐστὶν ἀπρεπέστατον καὶ ἀδελφῷ πρὸς ἀδελφόν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἐρᾶν μόνον. ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ τὴν συνουσίαν ἀφελεῖν διʼ ἄλλην μὲν αἰτίαν μηδεμίαν, ὡς λίαν δὲ ἰσχυρᾶς τῆς ἡδονῆς γινομένης, ὅτι δʼ ὁ μὲν πατὴρ ἢ υἱός, οἱ δʼ ἀδελφοὶ ἀλλήλων, μηδὲν οἴεσθαι διαφέρειν.

+

ἔοικε δὲ μᾶλλον τοῖς γεωργοῖς εἶναι χρήσιμον τὸ κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τοὺς παῖδας ἢ τοῖς φύλαξιν·

+ +
+

ἧττον γὰρ ἔσται φιλία κοινῶν ὄντων τῶν τέκνων καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν, δεῖ δὲ τοιούτους εἶναι τοὺς ἀρχομένους πρὸς τὸ πειθαρχεῖν καὶ μὴ νεωτερίζειν. ὅλως δὲ συμβαίνειν ἀνάγκη τοὐναντίον διὰ τὸν τοιοῦτον νόμον ὧν προσήκει τοὺς ὀρθῶς κειμένους νόμους αἰτίους γίνεσθαι, καὶ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ὁ Σωκράτης οὕτως οἴεται δεῖν τάττειν τὰ περὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας. φιλίαν τε γὰρ οἰόμεθα μέγιστον εἶναι τῶν ἀγαθῶν ταῖς πόλεσιν (οὕτως γὰρ ἂν ἥκιστα στασιάζοιεν), καὶ τὸ μίαν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν ἐπαινεῖ μάλισθʼ ὁ Σωκράτης, ὃ καὶ δοκεῖ κἀκεῖνος εἶναί φησι τῆς φιλίας ἔργον, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἐρωτικοῖς λόγοις ἴσμεν λέγοντα τὸν Ἀριστοφάνην ὡς τῶν ἐρώντων διὰ τὸ σφόδρα φιλεῖν ἐπιθυμούντων συμφῦναι καὶ γενέσθαι ἐκ δύο ὄντων ἀμφοτέρους ἕνα· ἐνταῦθα μὲν οὖν ἀνάγκη ἀμφοτέρους ἐφθάρθαι ἢ τὸν ἕνα, ἐν δὲ τῇ πόλει τὴν φιλίαν ἀναγκαῖον ὑδαρῆ γίνεσθαι διὰ τὴν κοινωνίαν τὴν τοιαύτην, καὶ ἥκιστα λέγειν τὸν ἐμὸν ἢ υἱὸν πατέρα ἢ πατέρα υἱόν. ὥσπερ γὰρ μικρὸν γλυκὺ εἰς πολὺ ὕδωρ μειχθὲν ἀναίσθητον ποιεῖ τὴν κρᾶσιν, οὕτω συμβαίνει καὶ τὴν οἰκειότητα τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων, διαφροντίζειν ἥκιστα ἀναγκαῖον ὂν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τῇ τοιαύτῃ ἢ πατέρα ὡς υἱῶν ἢ υἱὸν ὡς πατρός, ἢ ὡς ἀδελφοὺς ἀλλήλων. δύο γάρ ἐστιν ἃ μάλιστα ποιεῖ κήδεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ φιλεῖν, τό τε ἴδιον καὶ τὸ ἀγαπητόν· ὧν οὐδέτερον οἷόν τε ὑπάρχειν τοῖς οὕτω πολιτευομένοις. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ περὶ τοῦ μεταφέρειν τὰ γινόμενα τέκνα, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν γεωργῶν καὶ τεχνιτῶν εἰς τοὺς φύλακας, τὰ δʼ ἐκ τούτων εἰς ἐκείνους, πολλὴν ἔχει ταραχὴν τίνα ἔσται τρόπον· καὶ γινώσκειν ἀναγκαῖον τοὺς διδόντας καὶ μεταφέροντας τίσι τίνας διδόασιν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ πάλαι λεχθέντα μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τούτων ἀναγκαῖον συμβαίνειν, οἷον αἰκίας ἔρωτας φόνους· οὐ γὰρ ἔτι προσαγορεύσουσιν ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τέκνα καὶ πατέρας καὶ μητέρας οἵ τε εἰς τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας δοθέντες τοὺς φύλακας καὶ πάλιν οἱ παρὰ τοῖς φύλαξιν τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας, ὥστʼ εὐλαβεῖσθαι τῶν τοιούτων τι πράττειν διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν.

+

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς περὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας κοινωνίας διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

+

ἐχόμενον δὲ τούτων ἐστὶν ἐπισκέψασθαι περὶ τῆς κτήσεως, τίνα τρόπον δεῖ κατασκευάζεσθαι τοῖς μέλλουσι πολιτεύεσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν, πότερον κοινὴν ἢ μὴ κοινὴν εἶναι τὴν κτῆσιν. τοῦτο δʼ ἄν τις καὶ χωρὶς σκέψαιτο ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας νενομοθετημένων,

+ +
+

λέγω δὲ τὰ περὶ τὴν κτῆσιν πότερον κἂν ᾖ ἐκεῖνα χωρίς, καθʼ ὃν νῦν τρόπον ἔχει πᾶσι, τάς γε κτήσεις κοινὰς εἶναι βέλτιον καὶ τὰς χρήσεις, οἷον τὰ μὲν γήπεδα χωρίς, τοὺς δὲ καρποὺς εἰς τὸ κοινὸν φέροντας ἀναλίσκειν (ὅπερ ἔνια ποιεῖ τῶν ἐθνῶν), ἢ τοὐναντίον τὴν μὲν γῆν κοινὴν εἶναι καὶ γεωργεῖν κοινῇ, τοὺς δὲ καρποὺς διαιρεῖσθαι πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας χρήσεις (λέγονται δέ τινες καὶ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον κοινωνεῖν τῶν βαρβάρων), ἢ καὶ τὰ γήπεδα καὶ τοὺς καρποὺς κοινούς. ἑτέρων μὲν οὖν ὄντων τῶν γεωργούντων ἄλλος ἂν εἴη τρόπος καὶ ῥᾴων, αὐτῶν δʼ αὑτοῖς διαπονούντων τὰ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις πλείους ἂν παρέχοι δυσκολίας. καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ἀπολαύσεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις μὴ γινομένων ἴσων ἀλλʼ ἀνίσων ἀναγκαῖον ἐγκλήματα γίνεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς ἀπολαύοντας μὲν ἢ λαμβάνοντας πολλά, ὀλίγα δὲ πονοῦντας, τοῖς ἐλάττω μὲν λαμβάνουσι, πλείω δὲ πονοῦσιν. ὅλως δὲ τὸ συζῆν καὶ κοινωνεῖν τῶν ἀνθρωπικῶν πάντων χαλεπόν, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν τοιούτων. δηλοῦσι δʼ αἱ τῶν συναποδήμων κοινωνίαι· σχεδὸν γὰρ οἱ πλεῖστοι διαφέρονται ἐκ τῶν ἐν ποσὶ καὶ ἐκ μικρῶν προσκρούοντες ἀλλήλοις. ἔτι δὲ τῶν θεραπόντων τούτοις μάλιστα προσκρούομεν οἷς πλεῖστα προσχρώμεθα πρὸς τὰς διακονίας τὰς ἐγκυκλίους.

+

τὸ μὲν οὖν κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς κτήσεις ταύτας τε καὶ ἄλλας τοιαύτας ἔχει δυσχερείας, ὃν δὲ νῦν τρόπον ἔχει καὶ ἐπικοσμηθὲν ἔθεσι καὶ τάξει νόμων ὀρθῶν, οὐ μικρὸν ἂν διενέγκαι. ἕξει γὰρ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἀγαθόν· λέγω δὲ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τὸ ἐκ τοῦ κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς κτήσεις καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίας. δεῖ γὰρ πὼς μὲν εἶναι κοινάς, ὅλως δʼ ἰδίας. αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιμέλειαι διῃρημέναι τὰ ἐγκλήματα πρὸς ἀλλήλους οὐ ποιήσουσιν, μᾶλλον δʼ ἐπιδώσουσιν ὡς πρὸς ἴδιον ἑκάστου προσεδρεύοντος· διʼ ἀρετὴν δʼ ἔσται πρὸς τὸ χρῆσθαι, κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν, κοινὰ τὰ φίλων. ἔστι δὲ καὶ νῦν τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ἐν ἐνίαις πόλεσιν οὕτως ὑπογεγραμμένον, ὡς οὐκ ὂν ἀδύνατον, καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ταῖς καλῶς οἰκουμέναις τὰ μὲν ἔστι τὰ δὲ γένοιτʼ ἄν· ἰδίαν γὰρ ἕκαστος τὴν κτῆσιν ἔχων τὰ μὲν χρήσιμα ποιεῖ τοῖς φίλοις, τοῖς δὲ χρῆται κοινοῖς, οἷον καὶ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι τοῖς τε δούλοις χρῶνται τοῖς ἀλλήλων ὡς εἰπεῖν ἰδίοις, ἔτι δʼ ἵπποις καὶ κυσίν, κἂν δεηθῶσιν ἐφοδίων ἐν τοῖς ἀγροῖς κατὰ τὴν χώραν. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι βέλτιον εἶναι μὲν ἰδίας τὰς κτήσεις, τῇ δὲ χρήσει ποιεῖν κοινάς· ὅπως δὲ γίνωνται τοιοῦτοι, τοῦ νομοθέτου τοῦτʼ ἔργον ἴδιόν ἐστιν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἀμύθητον ὅσον διαφέρει τὸ νομίζειν ἴδιόν τι.

+ +
+

μὴ γὰρ οὐ μάτην τὴν πρὸς αὑτὸν αὐτὸς ἔχει φιλίαν ἕκαστος, ἀλλʼ ἔστι τοῦτο φυσικόν. τὸ δὲ φίλαυτον εἶναι ψέγεται δικαίως· οὐκ ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο τὸ φιλεῖν ἑαυτόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μᾶλλον ἢ δεῖ φιλεῖν, καθάπερ καὶ τὸ φιλοχρήματον, ἐπεὶ φιλοῦσί γε πάντες ὡς εἰπεῖν ἕκαστον τῶν τοιούτων. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ χαρίσασθαι καὶ βοηθῆσαι φίλοις ἢ ξένοις ἢ ἑταίροις ἥδιστον· ὃ γίνεται τῆς κτήσεως ἰδίας οὔσης. ταῦτά τε δὴ οὐ συμβαίνει τοῖς λίαν ἓν ποιοῦσι τὴν πόλιν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἀναιροῦσιν ἔργα δυοῖν ἀρεταῖν φανερῶς, σωφροσύνης μὲν τὸ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας (ἕργον γὰρ καλὸν ἀλλοτρίας οὔσης ἀπέχεσθαι διὰ σωφροσύνην), ἐλευθεριότητος δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις· οὔτε γὰρ ἔσται φανερὸς ἐλευθέριος ὤν, οὔτε πράξει πρᾶξιν ἐλευθέριον οὐδεμίαν· ἐν τῇ γὰρ χρήσει τῶν κτημάτων τὸ τῆς ἐλευθεριότητος ἔργον ἐστίν.

+

εὐπρόσωπος μὲν οὖν ἡ τοιαύτη νομοθεσία καὶ φιλάνθρωπος ἂν εἶναι δόξειεν· ὁ γὰρ ἀκροώμενος ἄσμενος ἀποδέχεται, νομίζων ἔσεσθαι φιλίαν τινὰ θαυμαστὴν πᾶσι πρὸς ἅπαντας, ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅταν κατηγορῇ τις τῶν νῦν ὑπαρχόντων ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις κακῶν ὡς γινομένων διὰ τὸ μὴ κοινὴν εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν, λέγω δὲ δίκας τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ συμβολαίων καὶ ψευδομαρτυριῶν κρίσεις καὶ πλουσίων κολακείας· ὧν οὐδὲν γίνεται διὰ τὴν ἀκοινωνησίαν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν μοχθηρίαν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοὺς κοινὰ κεκτημένους καὶ κοινωνοῦντας πολλῷ διαφερομένους μᾶλλον ὁρῶμεν ἢ τοὺς χωρὶς τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντας· ἀλλὰ θεωροῦμεν ὀλίγους τοὺς ἐκ τῶν κοινωνιῶν διαφερομένους, πρὸς πολλοὺς συμβάλλοντες τοὺς κεκτημένους ἰδίᾳ τὰς κτήσεις. ἔτι δὲ δίκαιοιν μὴ μόνον λέγειν ὅσων στερήσονται κακῶν κοινωνήσαντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅσων ἀγαθῶν· φαίνεται δʼ εἶναι πάμπαν ἀδύνατος ὁ βίος.

+

αἴτιον δὲ τῷ Σωκράτει τῆς παρακρούσεως χρὴ νομίζειν τὴν ὑπόθεσιν οὐκ οὖσαν ὀρθήν. δεῖ μὲν γὰρ εἶναί πως μίαν καὶ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ τὴν πόλιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντως. ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ὡς οὐκ ἔσται προϊοῦσα πόλις, ἔστι δʼ ὡς ἔσται μέν, ἐγγὺς δʼ οὖσα τοῦ μὴ πόλις εἶναι χείρων πόλις, ὥσπερ κἂν εἴ τις τὴν συμφωνίαν ποιήσειεν ὁμοφωνίαν ἢ τὸν ῥυθμὸν βάσιν μίαν. ἀλλὰ δεῖ πλῆθος ὄν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, διὰ τὴν παιδείαν κοινὴν καὶ μίαν ποιεῖν· καὶ τόν γε μέλλοντα παιδείαν εἰσάγειν καὶ νομίζοντα διὰ ταύτης ἔσεσθαι τὴν πόλιν σπουδαίαν ἄτοπον τοῖς τοιούτοις οἴεσθαι διορθοῦν, ἀλλὰ μὴ τοῖς ἔθεσι καὶ τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ καὶ τοῖς νόμοις, ὥσπερ τὰ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις ἐν Λακεδαίμονι καὶ Κρήτῃ τοῖς συσσιτίοις ὁ νομοθέτης ἐκοίνωσε.

+ +
+

δεῖ δὲ μηδὲ τοῦτο αὐτὸ ἀγνοεῖν, ὅτι χρὴ προσέχειν τῷ πολλῷ χρόνῳ καὶ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν, ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἂν ἔλαθεν, εἰ ταῦτα καλῶς εἶχεν· πάντα γὰρ σχεδὸν εὕρηται μέν, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν οὐ συνῆκται, τοῖς δʼ οὐ χρῶνται γινώσκοντες. μάλιστα δʼ ἂν γένοιτο φανερὸν εἴ τις τοῖς ἔργοις ἴδοι τὴν τοιαύτην πολιτείαν κατασκευαζομένην· οὐ γὰρ δυνήσεται μὴ μερίζων αὐτὰ καὶ χωρίζων ποιῆσαι τὴν πόλιν, τὰ μὲν εἰς συσσίτια τὰ δὲ εἰς φατρίας καὶ φυλάς. ὥστε οὐδὲν ἄλλο συμβήσεται νενομοθετημένον πλὴν μὴ γεωργεῖν τοὺς φύλακας· ὅπερ καὶ νῦν Λακεδαιμόνιοι ποιεῖν ἐπιχειροῦσιν.

+

οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ ὁ τρόπος τῆς ὅλης πολιτείας τίς ἔσται τοῖς κοινωνοῦσιν, οὔτʼ εἴρηκεν ὁ Σωκράτης οὔτε ῥᾴδιον εἰπεῖν. καίτοι σχεδὸν τό γε πλῆθος τῆς πόλεως τὸ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτῶν γίνεται πλῆθος, περὶ ὧν οὐδὲν διώρισται, πότερον καὶ τοῖς γεωργοῖς κοινὰς εἶναι δεῖ τὰς κτήσεις ἢ καὶ καθʼ ἕκαστον ἰδίας, ἔτι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας ἰδίους ἢ κοινούς. εἰ μὲν γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον κοινὰ πάντα πάντων, τί διοίσουσιν οὗτοι ἐκείνων τῶν φυλάκων; ἢ τί πλεῖον αὐτοῖς ὑπομένουσι τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτῶν, ἢ τί μαθόντες ὑπομενοῦσι τὴν ἀρχήν, ἐὰν μή τι σοφίζωνται τοιοῦτον οἷον Κρῆτες; ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ τἆλλα ταὐτὰ τοῖς δούλοις ἐφέντες μόνον ἀπειρήκασι τὰ γυμνάσια καὶ τὴν τῶν ὅπλων κτῆσιν. εἰ δέ, καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσι, καὶ παρʼ ἐκείνοις ἔσται τὰ τοιαῦτα, τίς ὁ τρόπος ἔσται τῆς κοινωνίας; ἐν μιᾷ γὰρ πόλει δύο πόλεις ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι, καὶ ταύτας ὑπεναντίας ἀλλήλαις. ποιεῖ γὰρ τοὺς μὲν φύλακας οἷον φρουρούς, τοὺς δὲ γεωργοὺς καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας· ἐγκλήματα δὲ καὶ δίκαι, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα ταῖς πόλεσιν ὑπάρχειν φησὶ κακά, πάνθʼ ὑπάρξει καὶ τούτοις. καίτοι λέγει ὁ Σωκράτης ὡς οὐ πολλῶν δεήσονται νομίμων διὰ τὴν παιδείαν, οἷον ἀστυνομικῶν καὶ ἀγορανομικῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων, ἀποδιδοὺς μόνον τὴν παιδείαν τοῖς φύλαξιν. ἔτι δὲ κυρίους ποιεῖ τῶν κτημάτων τοὺς γεωργοὺς τοὺς ἀποφορὰν φέροντας· ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον εἰκὸς εἶναι χαλεποὺς καὶ φρονημάτων πλήρεις, ἢ τὰς παρʼ ἐνίοις εἱλωτείας τε καὶ πενεστείας καὶ δουλείας. ἀλλὰ γὰρ εἴτʼ ἀναγκαῖα ταῦθʼ ὁμοίως εἴτε μή, νῦν γε οὐδὲν διώρισται. καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐχομένων τίς ἡ τούτων τε πολιτεία καὶ παιδεία καὶ νόμοι τίνες. ἔστι δʼ οὔθʼ εὑρεῖν ῥᾴδιον, οὔτε τὸ διαφέρον μικρὸν, τὸ ποιούς τινας εἶναιτούτους πρὸς τὸ σῴζεσθαι τὴν τῶν φυλάκων κοινωνίαν.

+ +
+

ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ γε τὰς μὲν γυναῖκας ποιήσει κοινὰς τὰς δὲ κτήσεις ἰδίας, τίς οἰκονομήσει ὥσπερ τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγρῶν οἱ ἄνδρες αὐτῶν—κἂν εἰ κοιναὶ αἱ κτήσεις καὶ αἱ τῶν γεωργῶν γυναῖκες; ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῶν θηρίων ποιεῖσθαι τὴν παραβολήν, ὅτι δεῖ τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπιτηδεύειν τὰς γυναῖκας τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, οἷς οἰκονομίας οὐδὲν μέτεστιν.

+

ἐπισφαλὲς δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ὡς καθίστησιν ὁ Σωκράτης. ἀεὶ γὰρ ποιεῖ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄρχοντας· τοῦτο δὲ στάσεως αἴτιον γίνεται καὶ παρὰ τοῖς μηδὲν ἀξίωμα κεκτημένοις, ἦ που δῆθεν παρά γε θυμοειδέσι καὶ πολεμικοῖς ἀνδράσιν. ὅτι δʼ ἀναγκαῖον αὐτῷ ποιεῖν τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄρχοντας, φανερόν· οὐ γὰρ ὁτὲ μὲν ἄλλοις ὁτὲ δὲ ἄλλοις μέμεικται ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὁ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ χρυσός, ἀλλʼ ἀεὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς. φησὶ δὲ τοῖς μὲν εὐθὺς γινομένοις μεῖξαι χρυσόν, τοῖς δʼ ἄργυρον, χαλκὸν δὲ καὶ σίδηρον τοῖς τεχνίταις μέλλουσιν ἔσεσθαι καὶ γεωργοῖς. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν ἀφαιρούμενος τῶν φυλάκων, ὅλην φησὶ δεῖν εὐδαίμονα ποιεῖν τὴν πόλιν τὸν νομοθέτην. ἀδύνατον δὲ εὐδαιμονεῖν ὅλην, μὴ τῶν πλείστων ἢ μὴ πάντων μερῶν ἢ τινῶν ἐχόντων τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν. οὐ γὰρ τῶν αὐτῶν τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν ὧνπερ τὸ ἄρτιον· τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ ἐνδέχεται τῷ ὅλῳ ὑπάρχειν, τῶν δὲ μερῶν μηδετέρῳ, τὸ δὲ εὐδαιμονεῖν ἀδύνατον. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ οἱ φύλακες μὴ εὐδαίμονες, τίνες ἕτεροι; οὐ γὰρ δὴ οἵ γε τεχνῖται καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τὸ τῶν βαναύσων. ἡ μὲν οὖν πολιτεία περὶ ἧς ὁ Σωκράτης εἴρηκεν ταύτας τε τὰς ἀπορίας ἔχει καὶ τούτων οὐκ ἐλάττους ἑτέρας.

+

σχεδὸν δὲ παραπλησίως καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς Νόμους ἔχει τοὺς ὕστερον γραφέντας, διὸ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐνταῦθα πολιτείας ἐπισκέψασθαι μικρὰ βέλτιον. καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ περὶ ὀλίγων πάμπαν διώρικεν ὁ Σωκράτης, περί τε γυναικῶν καὶ τέκνων κοινωνίας, πῶς ἔχειν δεῖ, καὶ περὶ κτήσεως, καὶ τῆς πολιτείας τὴν τάξιν (διαιρεῖται γὰρ εἰς δύο μέρη τὸ πλῆθος τῶν οἰκούντων, τὸ μὲν εἰς τοὺς γεωργούς, τὸ δὲ εἰς τὸ προπολεμοῦν μέρος· τρίτον δʼ ἐκ τούτων τὸ βουλευόμενον καὶ κύριον τῆς πόλεως), περὶ δὲ τῶν γεωργῶν καὶ τῶν τεχνιτῶν, πότερον οὐδεμιᾶς μεθέξουσιν ἤ τινος ἀρχῆς, καὶ πότερον ὅπλα δεῖ κεκτῆσθαι καὶ τούτους καὶ συμπολεμεῖν ἢ μή, περὶ τούτων οὐδὲν διώρικεν ὁ Σωκράτης, ἀλλὰ τὰς μὲν γυναῖκας οἴεται δεῖν συμπολεμεῖν καὶ παιδείας μετέχειν τῆς αὐτῆς τοῖς φύλαξιν, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα τοῖς ἔξωθεν πεπλήρωκε τὸν λόγον καὶ περὶ τῆς παιδείας, ποίαν τινὰ δεῖ γίνεσθαι τῶν φυλάκων.

+ +
+

τῶν δὲ Νόμων τὸ μὲν πλεῖστον μέρος νόμοι τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες, ὀλίγα δὲ περὶ τῆς πολιτείας εἴρηκεν, καὶ ταύτην βουλόμενος κοινοτέραν ποιεῖν ταῖς πόλεσι κατὰ μικρὸν περιάγει πάλιν πρὸς τὴν ἑτέραν πολιτείαν. ἔξω γὰρ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν κοινωνίας καὶ τῆς κτήσεως, τὰ ἄλλα ταὐτὰ ἀποδίδωσιν ἀμφοτέραις ταῖς πολιτείαις· καὶ γὰρ παιδείαν τὴν αὐτήν, καὶ τὸ τῶν ἔργων τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀπεχομένους ζῆν, καὶ περὶ συσσιτίων ὡσαύτως· πλὴν ἐν ταύτῃ φησὶ δεῖν εἶναι συσσίτια καὶ γυναικῶν, καὶ τὴν μὲν χιλίων τῶν ὅπλα κεκτημένων, ταύτην δὲ πεντακισχιλίων.

+

τὸ μὲν οὖν περιττὸν ἔχουσι πάντες οἱ τοῦ Σωκράτους λόγοι καὶ τὸ κομψὸν καὶ τὸ καινοτόμον καὶ τὸ ζητητικόν, καλῶς δὲ πάντα ἴσως χαλεπόν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ νῦν εἰρημένον πλῆθος δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν ὅτι χώρας δεήσει τοῖς τοσούτοις Βαβυλωνίας ἤ τινος ἄλλης ἀπεράντου τὸ πλῆθος, ἐξ ἧς ἀργοὶ πεντακισχίλιοι θρέψονται, καὶ περὶ τούτους γυναικῶν καὶ θεραπόντων ἕτερος ὄχλος πολλαπλάσιος. δεῖ μὲν οὖν ὑποτίθεσθαι κατʼ εὐχήν, μηδὲν μέντοι ἀδύνατον. λέγεται δʼ ὡς δεῖ τὸν νομοθέτην πρὸς δύο βλέποντα τιθέναι τοὺς νόμους, πρός τε τὴν χώραν καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. ἔτι δὲ καλῶς ἔχει προσθεῖναι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς γειτνιῶντας τόπους, πρῶτον μὲν εἰ δεῖ τὴν πόλιν ζῆν βίον πολιτικόν (οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν αὐτὴν τοιούτοις χρῆσθαι πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον ὅπλοις ἃ χρήσιμα κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν χώραν ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω τόπους)· εἰ δέ τις μὴ τοιοῦτον ἀποδέχεται βίον, μήτε τὸν ἴδιον μήτε τὸν κοινὸν τῆς πόλεως, ὅμως οὐδὲν ἧττον δεῖ φοβεροὺς εἶναι τοῖς πολεμίοις, μὴ μόνον ἐλθοῦσιν εἰς τὴν χώραν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπελθοῦσιν.

+

καὶ τὸ πλῆθος δὲ τῆς κτήσεως ὁρᾶν δεῖ, μή ποτε βέλτιον ἑτέρως διορίσαι τῷ σαφῶς μᾶλλον. τοσαύτην γὰρ εἶναί φησι δεῖν ὥστε ζῆν σωφρόνως, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις εἶπεν ὥστε ζῆν εὖ. τοῦτο δʼ ἄρʼ ἐστι καθόλου μᾶλλον, ἐπειδὴ ἔστι σωφρόνως μὲν ταλαιπώρως δὲ ζῆν, ἀλλὰ βελτίων ὅρος τὸ σωφρόνως καὶ ἐλευθερίως (χωρὶς γὰρ ἑκατέρῳ τῷ μὲν τὸ τρυφᾶν ἀκολουθήσει, τῷ δὲ τὸ ἐπιπόνως), ἐπεὶ μόναι γʼ εἰσὶν ἕξεις αἱρεταὶ περὶ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας χρῆσιν αὗται, οἷον οὐσίᾳ πράως μὲν ἢ ἀνδρείως χρῆσθαι οὐκ ἔστιν, σωφρόνως δὲ καὶ ἐλευθερίως ἔστιν, ὥστε καὶ τὰς ἕξεις ἀναγκαῖον περὶ αὐτὴν εἶναι ταύτας. ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ τὰς κτήσεις ἰσάζοντα τὸ περὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πολιτῶν μὴ κατασκευάζειν, ἀλλʼ ἀφεῖναι τὴν τεκνοποιίαν ἀόριστον ὡς ἱκανῶς ἀνομαλισθησομένην εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ πλῆθος διὰ τὰς ἀτεκνίας ὁσωνοῦν γεννωμένων,

+ +
+

ὅτι δοκεῖ τοῦτο καὶ νῦν συμβαίνειν περὶ τὰς πόλεις. δεῖ δὲ τοῦτʼ οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀκριβῶς ἔχειν περὶ τὰς πόλεις τότε καὶ νῦν· νῦν μὲν γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἀπορεῖ, διὰ τὸ μερίζεσθαι τὰς οὐσίας εἰς ὁποσονοῦν πλῆθος, τότε δὲ ἀδιαιρέτων οὐσῶν ἀνάγκη τοὺς παράζυγας μηδὲν ἔχειν, ἐάν τʼ ἐλάττους ὦσι τὸ πλῆθος ἐάν τε πλείους. μᾶλλον δὲ δεῖν ὑπολάβοι τις ἂν ὡρίσθαι τῆς οὐσίας τὴν τεκνοποιίαν, ὥστε ἀριθμοῦ τινὸς μὴ πλείονα γεννᾶν, τοῦτο δὲ τιθέναι τὸ πλῆθος ἀποβλέποντα πρὸς τὰς τύχας, ἂν συμβαίνῃ τελευτᾶν τινας τῶν γεννηθέντων, καὶ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ἀτεκνίαν. τὸ δʼ ἀφεῖσθαι, καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς πλείσταις πόλεσι, πενίας ἀναγκαῖον αἴτιον γίνεσθαι τοῖς πολίταις, ἡ δὲ πενία στάσιν ἐμποιεῖ καὶ κακουργίαν. Φείδων μὲν οὖν ὁ Κορίνθιος, ὢν νομοθέτης τῶν ἀρχαιοτάτων, τοὺς οἴκους ἴσους ᾠήθη δεῖν διαμένειν καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πολιτῶν, καὶ εἰ τὸ πρῶτον τοὺς κλήρους ἀνίσους εἶχον πάντες κατὰ μέγεθος· ἐν δὲ τοῖς νόμοις τούτοις τοὐναντίον ἐστίν. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων πῶς οἰόμεθα βέλτιον ἂν ἔχειν, λεκτέον ὕστερον· ἐλλέλειπται δʼ ἐν τοῖς νόμοις τούτοις καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας πῶς ἔσονται διαφέροντες τῶν ἀρχομένων. φησὶ γὰρ δεῖν, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἑτέρου τὸ στημόνιον ἐρίου γίνεται τῆς κρόκης, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἔχειν πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχομένους. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν πᾶσαν οὐσίαν ἐφίησι γίνεσθαι μείζονα μέχρι πενταπλασίας, διὰ τί τοῦτʼ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μέχρι τινός; καὶ τὴν τῶν οἰκοπέδων δὲ διαίρεσιν δεῖ σκοπεῖν, μή ποτʼ οὐ συμφέρει πρὸς οἰκονομίαν· δύο γὰρ οἰκόπεδα ἑκάστῳ ἔνειμε διελὼν χωρίς, χαλεπὸν δὲ οἰκίας δύο οἰκεῖν.

+

ἡ δὲ σύνταξις ὅλη βούλεται μὲν εἶναι μήτε δημοκρατία μήτε ὀλιγαρχία, μέση δὲ τούτων, ἣν καλοῦσι πολιτείαν· ἐκ γὰρ τῶν ὁπλιτευόντων ἐστίν. εἰ μὲν οὖν ὡς κοινοτάτην ταύτην κατασκευάζει ταῖς πόλεσι τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν, καλῶς εἴρηκεν ἴσως· εἰ δʼ ὡς ἀρίστην μετὰ τὴν πρώτην πολιτείαν, οὐ καλῶς. τάχα γὰρ τὴν τῶν Λακώνων ἄν τις ἐπαινέσειε μᾶλλον, ἢ κἂν ἄλλην τινὰ ἀριστοκρατικωτέραν. ἔνιοι μὲν οὖν λέγουσιν ὡς δεῖ τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ἐξ ἁπασῶν εἶναι τῶν πολιτειῶν μεμειγμένην, διὸ καὶ τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ἐπαινοῦσιν (εἶναι γὰρ αὐτὴν οἱ μὲν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ μοναρχίας καὶ δημοκρατίας φασίν, λέγοντες τὴν μὲν βασιλείαν μοναρχίαν, τὴν δὲ τῶν γερόντων ἀρχὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν, δημοκρατεῖσθαι δὲ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἐφόρων ἀρχὴν διὰ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ δήμου εἶναι τοὺς ἐφόρους· οἱ δὲ τὴν μὲν ἐφορείαν εἶναι τυραννίδα, δημοκρατεῖσθαι δὲ κατά τε τὰ συσσίτια καὶ τὸν ἄλλον βίον τὸν καθʼ ἡμέραν)·

+ +
+

ἐν δὲ τοῖς νόμοις εἴρηται τούτοις ὡς δέον συγκεῖσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ἐκ δημοκρατίας καὶ τυραννίδος, ἃς ἢ τὸ παράπαν οὐκ ἄν τις θείη πολιτείας ἢ χειρίστας πασῶν. βέλτιον οὖν λέγουσιν οἱ πλείους μιγνύντες· ἡ γὰρ ἐκ πλειόνων συγκειμένη πολιτεία βελτίων. ἔπειτʼ οὐδʼ ἔχουσα φαίνεται μοναρχικὸν οὐδέν, ἀλλʼ ὀλιγαρχικὰ καὶ δημοκρατικά· μᾶλλον δʼ ἐγκλίνειν βούλεται πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν. δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀρχόντων καταστάσεως· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ αἱρετῶν κληρωτοὺς κοινὸν ἀμφοῖν, τὸ δὲ τοῖς μὲν εὐπορωτέροις ἐπάναγκες ἐκκλησιάζειν εἶναι καὶ φέρειν ἄρχοντας ἤ τι ποιεῖν ἄλλο τῶν πολιτικῶν, τοὺς δʼ ἀφεῖσθαι, τοῦτο δʼ ὀλιγαρχικόν, καὶ τὸ πειρᾶσθαι πλείους ἐκ τῶν εὐπόρων εἶναι τοὺς ἄρχοντας, καὶ τὰς μεγίστας ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων τιμημάτων. ὀλιγαρχικὴν δὲ ποιεῖ καὶ τὴν τῆς βουλῆς αἵρεσιν. αἱροῦνται μὲν γὰρ πάντες ἐπάναγκες, ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου τιμήματος, εἶτα πάλιν ἴσους ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου· εἶτʼ ἐκ τῶν τρίτων, πλὴν οὐ πᾶσιν ἐπάναγκες ἦν τοῖς ἐκ τῶν τρίτων ἢ τετάρτων, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τετάρτου μόνοις ἐπάναγκες τοῖς πρώτοις καὶ τοῖς δευτέροις· εἶτʼ ἐκ τούτων ἴσον ἀφʼ ἑκάστου τιμήματος ἀποδεῖξαί φησι δεῖν ἀριθμόν. ἔσονται δὴ πλείους οἱ ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων τιμημάτων καὶ βελτίους διὰ τὸ ἐνίους μὴ αἱρεῖσθαι τῶν δημοτικῶν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπάναγκες. ὡς μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐκ δημοκρατίας καὶ μοναρχίας δεῖ συνιστάναι τὴν τοιαύτην πολιτείαν, ἐκ τούτων φανερὸν καὶ τῶν ὕστερον ῥηθησομένων, ὅταν ἐπιβάλλῃ περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης πολιτείας ἡ σκέψις· ἔχει δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τῶν ἀρχόντων τὸ ἐξ αἱρετῶν αἱρετοὺς ἐπικίνδυνον. εἰ γάρ τινες συστῆναι θέλουσι καὶ μέτριοι τὸ πλῆθος, αἰεὶ κατὰ τὴν τούτων αἱρεθήσονται βούλησιν. τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὴν πολιτείαν τὴν ἐν τοῖς Νόμοις τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον.

+

εἰσὶ δέ τινες πολιτεῖαι καὶ ἄλλαι, αἱ μὲν ἰδιωτῶν αἱ δὲ φιλοσόφων καὶ πολιτικῶν, πᾶσαι δὲ τῶν καθεστηκυιῶν καὶ καθʼ ἃς πολιτεύονται νῦν ἐγγύτερόν εἰσι τούτων ἀμφοτέρων. οὐδεὶς γὰρ οὔτε τὴν περὶ τὰ τέκνα κοινότητα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἄλλος κεκαινοτόμηκεν, οὔτε περὶ τὰ συσσίτια τῶν γυναικῶν, ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἄρχονται μᾶλλον. δοκεῖ γάρ τισι τὸ περὶ τὰς οὐσίας εἶναι μέγιστον τετάχθαι καλῶς· περὶ γὰρ τούτων ποιεῖσθαί φασι τὰς στάσεις πάντας. διὸ Φαλέας ὁ Χαλκηδόνιος τοῦτʼ εἰσήνεγκε πρῶτος· φησὶ γὰρ δεῖν ἴσας εἶναι τὰς κτήσεις τῶν πολιτῶν.

+ +
+

τοῦτο δὲ κατοικιζομέναις μὲν εὐθὺς οὐ χαλεπὸν ᾤετο ποιεῖν, τὰς δʼ ἤδη κατοικουμένας ἐργωδέστερον μέν, ὅμως δὲ τάχιστʼ ἂν ὁμαλισθῆναι τῷ τὰς προῖκας τοὺς μὲν πλουσίους διδόναι μὲν λαμβάνειν δὲ μή, τοὺς δὲ πένητας μὴ διδόναι μὲν λαμβάνειν δέ. Πλάτων δὲ τοὺς Νόμους γράφων μέχρι μέν τινος ᾤετο δεῖν ἐᾶν, πλεῖον δὲ τοῦ πενταπλασίαν εἶναι τῆς ἐλαχίστης μηδενὶ τῶν πολιτῶν ἐξουσίαν εἶναι κτήσασθαι, καθάπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον. δεῖ δὲ μηδὲ τοῦτο λανθάνειν τοὺς οὕτω νομοθετοῦντας, ὃ λανθάνει νῦν, ὅτι τὸ τῆς οὐσίας τάττοντας πλῆθος προσήκει καὶ τῶν τέκνων τὸ πλῆθος τάττειν· ἐὰν γὰρ ὑπεραίρῃ τῆς οὐσίας τὸ μέγεθος ὁ τῶν τέκνων ἀριθμός, ἀνάγκη τόν γε νόμον λύεσθαι, καὶ χωρὶς τῆς λύσεως φαῦλον τὸ πολλοὺς ἐκ πλουσίων γίνεσθαι πένητας· ἔργον γὰρ μὴ νεωτεροποιοὺς εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους. διότι μὲν οὖν ἔχει τινὰ δύναμιν εἰς τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν ἡ τῆς οὐσίας ὁμαλότης, καὶ τῶν πάλαι τινὲς φαίνονται διεγνωκότες, οἷον καὶ Σόλων ἐνομοθέτησεν, καὶ παρʼ ἄλλοις ἔστι νόμος ὃς κωλύει κτᾶσθαι γῆν ὁπόσην ἂν βούληταί τις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν πωλεῖν οἱ νόμοι κωλύουσιν, ὥσπερ ἐν Λοκροῖς νόμος ἐστὶ μὴ πωλεῖν ἐὰν μὴ φανερὰν ἀτυχίαν δείξῃ συμβεβηκυῖαν, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς παλαιοὺς κλήρους διασῴζειν (τοῦτο δὲ λυθὲν καὶ περὶ Λευκάδα δημοτικὴν ἐποίησε λίαν τὴν πολιτείαν αὐτῶν· οὐ γὰρ ἔτι συνέβαινεν ἀπὸ τῶν ὡρισμένων τιμημάτων εἰς τὰς ἀρχὰς βαδίζειν)· ἀλλʼ ἔστι τὴν ἰσότητα μὲν ὑπάρχειν τῆς οὐσίας, ταύτην δʼ ἢ λίαν εἶναι πολλήν, ὥστε τρυφᾶν, ἢ λίαν ὀλίγην, ὥστε ζῆν γλίσχρως. δῆλον οὖν ὡς οὐχ ἱκανὸν τὸ τὰς οὐσίας ἴσας ποιῆσαι τὸν νομοθέτην, ἀλλὰ τοῦ μέσου στοχαστέον. ἔτι δʼ εἴ τις καὶ τὴν μετρίαν τάξειεν οὐσίαν πᾶσιν, οὐδὲν ὄφελος· μᾶλλον γὰρ δεῖ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ὁμαλίζειν ἢ τὰς οὐσίας, τοῦτο δʼ οὐκ ἔστι μὴ παιδευομένοις ἱκανῶς ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων. ἀλλʼ ἴσως ἂν εἴπειεν ὁ Φαλέας ὅτι ταῦτα τυγχάνει λέγων αὐτός· οἴεται γὰρ δυοῖν τούτοιν ἰσότητα δεῖν ὑπάρχειν ταῖς πόλεσιν, κτήσεως καὶ παιδείας. ἀλλὰ τήν τε παιδείαν ἥτις ἔσται δεῖ λέγειν, καὶ τὸ μίαν εἶναι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐδὲν ὄφελος· ἔστι γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν μὲν εἶναι καὶ μίαν, ἀλλὰ ταύτην εἶναι τοιαύτην ἐξ ἧς ἔσονται προαιρετικοὶ τοῦ πλεονεκτεῖν ἢ χρημάτων ἢ τιμῆς ἢ συναμφοτέρων.

+

ἔτι στασιάζουσιν οὐ μόνον διὰ τὴν ἀνισότητα τῆς κτήσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν τιμῶν, τοὐναντίον δὲ περὶ ἑκάτερον· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὶ διὰ τὸ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις ἄνισον,

+ +
+

οἱ δὲ χαρίεντες περὶ τῶν τιμῶν, ἐὰν ἴσαι· ὅθεν καὶ ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ ἠμὲν κακὸς ἠδὲ καὶ ἐσθλός. Hom. Il. 9.319 οὐ μόνον δʼ οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τἀναγκαῖα ἀδικοῦσιν, ὧν ἄκος εἶναι νομίζει τὴν ἰσότητα τῆς οὐσίας, ὥστε μὴ λωποδυτεῖν διὰ τὸ ῥιγοῦν ἢ πεινῆν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅπως χαίρωσι καὶ μὴ ἐπιθυμῶσιν· ἐὰν γὰρ μείζω ἔχωσιν ἐπιθυμίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων, διὰ τὴν ταύτης ἰατρείαν ἀδικήσουσιν· οὐ τοίνυν διὰ ταύτην μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἂν ἐπιθυμοῖεν ἵνα χαίρωσι ταῖς ἄνευ λυπῶν ἡδοναῖς. τί οὖν ἄκος τῶν τριῶν τούτων; τοῖς μὲν οὐσία βραχεῖα καὶ ἐργασία, τοῖς δὲ σωφροσύνη· τρίτον δʼ, εἴ τινες βούλοιντο διʼ αὑτῶν χαίρειν, οὐκ ἂν ἐπιζητοῖεν εἰ μὴ παρὰ φιλοσοφίας ἄκος. αἱ γὰρ ἄλλαι ἀνθρώπων δέονται· ἐπεὶ ἀδικουσί γε τὰ μέγιστα διὰ τὰς ὑπερβολάς, ἀλλʼ οὐ διὰ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα (οἷον τυραννοῦσιν οὐχ ἵνα μὴ ῥιγῶσιν· διὸ καὶ αἱ τιμαὶ μεγάλαι, ἂν ἀποκτείνῃ τις οὐ κλέπτην ἀλλὰ τύραννον)· ὥστε πρὸς τὰς μικρὰς ἀδικίας βοηθητικὸς μόνον ὁ τρόπος τῆς Φαλέου πολιτείας. ἔτι τὰ πολλὰ βούλεται κατασκευάζειν ἐξ ὧν τὰ πρὸς αὑτοὺς πολιτεύσονται καλῶς, δεῖ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς γειτνιῶντας καὶ τοὺς ἔξωθεν πάντας. ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα τὴν πολιτείαν συντετάχθαι πρὸς τὴν πολεμικὴν ἰσχύν, περὶ ἧς ἐκεῖνος οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς κτήσεως. δεῖ γὰρ οὐ μόνον πρὸς τὰς πολιτικὰς χρήσεις ἱκανὴν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξωθεν κινδύνους· διόπερ οὔτε τοσοῦτον δεῖ πλῆθος ὑπάρχειν ὅσου οἱ πλησίον καὶ κρείττους ἐπιθυμήσουσιν, οἱ δὲ ἔχοντες ἀμύνειν οὐ δυνήσονται τοὺς ἐπιόντας, οὔθʼ οὕτως ὀλίγην ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι πόλεμον ὑπενεγκεῖν μηδὲ τῶν ἴσων καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων. ἐκεῖνος μὲν οὖν οὐδὲν διώρικεν, δεῖ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ λανθάνειν, ὅ τι συμφέρει πλῆθος οὐσίας. ἴσως οὖν ἄριστος ὅρος τὸ μὴ λυσιτελεῖν τοῖς κρείττοσι διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν πολεμεῖν, ἀλλʼ οὕτως ὡς ἂν καὶ μὴ ἐχόντων τοσαύτην οὐσίαν. οἷον Εὔβουλος Αὐτοφραδάτου μέλλοντος Ἀταρνέα πολιορκεῖν ἐκέλευσεν αὐτόν, σκεψάμενον ἐν πόσῳ χρόνῳ λήψεται τὸ χωρίον, λογίσασθαι τοῦ χρόνου τούτου τὴν δαπάνην· ἐθέλειν γὰρ ἔλαττον τούτου λαβὼν ἐκλιπεῖν ἤδη τὸν Ἀταρνέα· ταῦτα δʼ εἰπὼν ἐποίησε τὸν Αὐτοφραδάτην σύννουν γενόμενον παύσασθαι τῆς πολιορκίας.

+

ἔστι μὲν οὖν τι τῶν συμφερόντων τὸ τὰς οὐσίας ἴσας εἶναι τοῖς πολίταις πρὸς τὸ μὴ στασιάζειν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, οὐ μὴν μέγα οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν. καὶ γὰρ ἂν οἱ χαρίεντες ἀγανακτοῖεν ὡς οὐκ ἴσων ὄντες ἄξιοι, διὸ καὶ φαίνονται πολλάκις ἐπιτιθέμενοι καὶ στασιάζοντες·

+ +
+

ἔτι δʼ ἡ πονηρία τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄπληστον, καὶ τὸ πρῶτον μὲν ἱκανὸν διωβελία μόνον, ὅταν δʼ ἤδη τοῦτʼ ᾖ πάτριον, ἀεὶ δέονται τοῦ πλείονος, ἕως εἰς ἄπειρον ἔλθωσιν. ἄπειρος γὰρ ἡ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας φύσις, ἧς πρὸς τὴν ἀναπλήρωσιν οἱ πολλοὶ ζῶσιν. τῶν οὖν τοιούτων ἀρχή, μᾶλλον τοῦ τὰς οὐσίας ὁμαλίζειν, τὸ τοὺς μὲν ἐπιεικεῖς τῇ φύσει τοιούτους παρασκευάζειν ὥστε μὴ βούλεσθαι πλεονεκτεῖν, τοὺς δὲ φαύλους ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστίν, ἂν ἥττους τε ὦσι καὶ μὴ ἀδικῶνται. οὐ καλῶς δὲ οὐδὲ τὴν ἰσότητα τῆς οὐσίας εἴρηκεν. περὶ γὰρ τὴν τῆς γῆς κτῆσιν ἰσάζει μόνον, ἔστι δὲ καὶ δούλων καὶ βοσκημάτων πλοῦτος καὶ νομίσματος, καὶ κατασκευὴ πολλὴ τῶν καλουμένων ἐπίπλων· ἢ πάντων οὖν τούτων ἰσότητα ζητητέον ἢ τάξιν τινὰ μετρίαν, ἢ πάντα ἐατέον. φαίνεται δʼ ἐκ τῆς νομοθεσίας κατασκευάζων τὴν πόλιν μικράν, εἴ γʼ οἱ τεχνῖται πάντες δημόσιοι ἔσονται καὶ μὴ πλήρωμά τι παρέξονται τῆς πόλεως. ἀλλʼ εἴπερ δεῖ δημοσίους εἶναι τοὺς τὰ κοινὰ ἐργαζομένους, δεῖ (καθάπερ ἐν Ἐπιδάμνῳ τε καὶ ὡς Διόφαντός ποτε κατεσκεύαζεν Ἀθήνησι) τοῦτον ἔχειν τὸν τρόπον. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Φαλέου πολιτείας σχεδὸν ἐκ τούτων ἄν τις θεωρήσειεν, εἴ τι τυγχάνει καλῶς εἰρηκὼς ἢ μὴ καλῶς.

+

Ἱππόδαμος δὲ Εὐρυφῶντος Μιλήσιος (ὃς καὶ τὴν τῶν πόλεων διαίρεσιν εὗρε καὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ κατέτεμεν, γενόμενος καὶ περὶ τὸν ἄλλον βίον περιττότερος διὰ φιλοτιμίαν οὕτως ὥστε δοκεῖν ἐνίοις ζῆν περιεργότερον τριχῶν τε πλήθει καὶ κόσμῳ πολυτελεῖ, ἔτι δὲ ἐσθῆτος εὐτελοῦς μὲν ἀλεεινῆς δέ, οὐκ ἐν τῷ χειμῶνι μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοὺς θερινοὺς χρόνους, λόγιος δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν ὅλην φύσιν εἶναι βουλόμενος) πρῶτος τῶν μὴ πολιτευομένων ἐνεχείρησέ τι περὶ πολιτείας εἰπεῖν τῆς ἀρίστης. κατεσκεύαζε δὲ τὴν πόλιν τῷ πλήθει μὲν μυρίανδρον, εἰς τρία δὲ μέρη διῃρημένην· ἐποίει γὰρ ἓν μὲν μέρος τεχνίτας, ἓν δὲ γεωργούς, τρίτον δὲ τὸ προπολεμοῦν καὶ τὰ ὅπλα ἔχον. διῄρει δʼ εἰς τρία μέρη τὴν χώραν, τὴν μὲν ἱερὰν τὴν δὲ δημοσίαν τὴν δʼ ἰδίαν· ὅθεν μὲν τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιήσουσι πρὸς τοὺς θεούς, ἱεράν, ἀφʼ ὧν δʼ οἱ προπολεμοῦντες βιώσονται, κοινήν, τὴν δὲ τῶν γεωργῶν ἰδίαν. ᾤετο δʼ εἴδη καὶ τῶν νόμων εἶναι τρία μόνον· περὶ ὧν γὰρ αἱ δίκαι γίνονται, τρία ταῦτʼ εἶναι τὸν ἀριθμόν, ὕβριν βλάβην θάνατον. ἐνομοθέτει δὲ καὶ δικαστήριον ἓν τὸ κύριον, εἰς ὃ πάσας ἀνάγεσθαι δεῖν τὰς μὴ καλῶς κεκρίσθαι δοκούσας δίκας· τοῦτο δὲ κατεσκεύαζεν ἐκ τινῶν γερόντων αἱρετῶν.

+ +
+

τὰς δὲ κρίσεις ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις οὐ διὰ ψηφοφορίας ᾤετο γίγνεσθαι δεῖν, ἀλλὰ φέρειν ἕκαστον πινάκιον, ἐν ᾧ γράφειν, εἰ καταδικάζοι ἁπλῶς, τὴν δίκην, εἰ δʼ ἀπολύοι ἁπλῶς, κενόν, εἰ δὲ τὸ μὲν τὸ δὲ μή, τοῦτο διορίζειν. νῦν γὰρ οὐκ ᾤετο νενομοθετῆσθαι καλῶς· ἀναγκάζειν γὰρ ἐπιορκεῖν ἢ ταῦτα ἢ ταῦτα δικάζοντας. ἔτι δὲ νόμον ἐτίθει περὶ τῶν εὑρισκόντων τι τῇ πόλει συμφέρον, ὅπως τυγχάνωσι τιμῆς, καὶ τοῖς παισὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τελευτώντων ἐκ δημοσίου γίνεσθαι τὴν τροφήν, ὡς οὔπω τοῦτο παρʼ ἄλλοις νενομοθετημένον (ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἀθήναις οὗτος ὁ νόμος νῦν καὶ ἐν ἑτέραις τῶν πόλεων)· τοὺς δʼ ἄρχοντας αἱρετοὺς ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου εἶναι πάντας. δῆμον δʼ ἐποίει τὰ τρία μέρη τῆς πόλεως· τοὺς δʼ αἱρεθέντας ἐπιμελεῖσθαι κοινῶν καὶ ξενικῶν καὶ ὀρφανικῶν.

+

τὰ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστα καὶ τὰ μάλιστα ἀξιόλογα τῆς Ἱπποδάμου τάξεως ταῦτʼ ἐστίν· ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις πρῶτον μὲν τὴν διαίρεσιν τοῦ πλήθους τῶν πολιτῶν. οἵ τε γὰρ τεχνῖται καὶ οἱ γεωργοὶ καὶ οἱ τὰ ὅπλα ἔχοντες κοινωνοῦσι τῆς πολιτείας πάντες, οἱ μὲν γεωργοὶ οὐκ ἔχοντες ὅπλα, οἱ δὲ τεχνῖται οὔτε γῆν οὔτε ὅπλα, ὥστε γίνονται σχεδὸν δοῦλοι τῶν τὰ ὅπλα κεκτημένων. μετέχειν μὲν οὖν πασῶν τῶν τιμῶν ἀδύνατον (ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἐκ τῶν τὰ ὅπλα ἐχόντων καθίστασθαι καὶ στρατηγοὺς καὶ πολιτοφύλακας καὶ τὰς κυριωτάτας ἀρχὰς ὡς εἰπεῖν)· μὴ μετέχοντας δὲ τῆς πολιτείας πῶς οἷόν τε φιλικῶς ἔχειν πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν; ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ κρείττους εἶναι τοὺς τὰ ὅπλα γε κεκτημένους ἀμφοτέρων τῶν μερῶν. τοῦτο δʼ οὐ ῥᾴδιον μὴ πολλοὺς ὄντας· εἰ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἔσται, τί δεῖ τοὺς ἄλλους μετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας καὶ κυρίους εἶναι τῆς τῶν ἀρχόντων καταστάσεως; ἔτι οἱ γεωργοὶ τί χρήσιμοι τῇ πόλει; τεχνίτας μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι (πᾶσα γὰρ δεῖται πόλις τεχνιτῶν), καὶ δύνανται διαγίγνεσθαι καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσιν ἀπὸ τῆς τέχνης· οἱ δὲ γεωργοὶ πορίζοντες μὲν τοῖς τὰ ὅπλα κεκτημένοις τὴν τροφὴν εὐλόγως ἂν ἦσάν τι τῆς πόλεως μέρος, νῦν δʼ ἰδίαν ἔχουσιν καὶ ταύτην ἰδίᾳ γεωργήσουσιν. ἔτι δὲ τὴν κοινήν, ἀφʼ ἧς οἱ προπολεμοῦντες ἕξουσι τὴν τροφήν, εἰ μὲν αὐτοὶ γεωργήσουσιν, οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὸ μάχιμον ἕτερον καὶ τὸ γεωργοῦν, βούλεται δʼ ὁ νομοθέτης· εἰ δʼ ἕτεροί τινες ἔσονται τῶν τε τὰ ἴδια γεωργούντων καὶ τῶν μαχίμων, τέταρτον αὖ μόριον ἔσται τοῦτο τῆς πόλεως, οὐδενὸς μετέχον, ἀλλὰ ἀλλότριον τῆς πολιτείας· ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ τις τοὺς αὐτοὺς θήσει τούς τε τὴν ἰδίαν καὶ τοὺς τὴν κοινὴν γεωργοῦντας, τό τε πλῆθος ἄπορον ἔσται τῶν καρπῶν ἐξ ὧν ἕκαστος γεωργήσει δύο οἰκίαις,

+ +
+

καὶ τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐκ εὐθὺς ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν κλήρων αὑτοῖς τε τὴν τροφὴν λήψονται καὶ τοῖς μαχίμοις παρέξουσιν; ταῦτα δὴ πάντα πολλὴν ἔχει ταραχήν. οὐ καλῶς δʼ οὐδʼ ὁ περὶ τῆς κρίσεως ἔχει νόμος, τὸ κρίνειν ἀξιοῦν διαιροῦντα, τῆς δίκης ἁπλῶς γεγραμμένης, καὶ γίνεσθαι τὸν δικαστὴν διαιτητήν. τοῦτο δὲ ἐν μὲν τῇ διαίτῃ καὶ πλείοσιν ἐνδέχεται (κοινολογοῦνται γὰρ ἀλλήλοις περὶ τῆς κρίσεως), ἐν δὲ τοῖς δικαστηρίοις οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὐναντίον τούτου τῶν νομοθετῶν οἱ πολλοὶ παρασκευάζουσιν ὅπως οἱ δικασταὶ μὴ κοινολογῶνται πρὸς ἀλλήλους. ἔπειτα πῶς οὐκ ἔσται ταραχώδης ἡ κρίσις, ὅταν ὀφείλειν μὲν ὁ δικαστὴς οἴηται, μὴ τοσοῦτον δʼ ὅσον ὁ δικαζόμενος; ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἴκοσι μνᾶς, ὁ δὲ δικαστὴς κρινεῖ δέκα μνᾶς (ἢ ὁ μὲν πλέον ὁ δʼ ἔλασσον), ἄλλος δὲ πέντε, ὁ δὲ τέτταρας, καὶ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν τρόπον δῆλον ὅτι μεριοῦσιν· οἱ δὲ πάντα καταδικάσουσιν, οἱ δʼ οὐδέν. τίς οὖν ὁ τρόπος ἔσται τῆς διαλογῆς τῶν ψήφων; ἔτι δʼ οὐδὲν ἐπιορκεῖν ἀναγκάζει τὸν ἁπλῶς ἀποδικάσαντα ἢ καταδικάσαντα, εἴπερ ἁπλῶς τὸ ἔγκλημα γέγραπται, δικαίως· οὐ γὰρ μηδὲν ὀφείλειν ὁ ἀποδικάσας κρίνει, ἀλλὰ τὰς εἴκοσι μνᾶς· ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνος ἤδη ἐπιορκεῖ, ὁ καταδικάσας, μὴ νομίζων ὀφείλειν τὰς εἴκοσι μνᾶς.

+

περὶ δὲ τοῦ τοῖς εὑρίσκουσί τι τῇ πόλει συμφέρον ὡς δεῖ γίνεσθαί τινα τιμήν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἀσφαλὲς τὸ νομοθετεῖν, ἀλλʼ εὐόφθαλμον ἀκοῦσαι μόνον· ἔχει γὰρ συκοφαντίας καὶ κινήσεις, ἂν τύχῃ, πολιτείας. ἐμπίπτει δʼ εἰς ἄλλο πρόβλημα καὶ σκέψιν ἑτέραν· ἀποροῦσι γάρ τινες πότερον βλαβερὸν ἢ συμφέρον ταῖς πόλεσι τὸ κινεῖν τοὺς πατρίους νόμους, ἂν ᾖ τις ἄλλος βελτίων. διόπερ οὐ ῥᾴδιον τῷ λεχθέντι ταχὺ συγχωρεῖν, εἴπερ μὴ συμφέρει κινεῖν, ἐνδέχεται δʼ εἰσηγεῖσθαί τινας νόμων λύσιν ἢ πολιτείας ὡς κοινὸν ἀγαθόν. ἐπεὶ δὲ πεποιήμεθα μνείαν, ἔτι μικρὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ διαστείλασθαι βέλτιον. ἔχει γάρ, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, ἀπορίαν, καὶ δόξειεν ἂν βέλτιον εἶναι τὸ κινεῖν. ἐπὶ γοῦν τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιστημῶν τοῦτο συνενήνοχεν, οἷον ἰατρικὴ κινηθεῖσα παρὰ τὰ πάτρια καὶ γυμναστικὴ καὶ ὅλως αἱ τέχναι πᾶσαι καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις, ὥστʼ ἐπεὶ μίαν τούτων θετέον καὶ τὴν πολιτικήν, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ περὶ ταύτην ἀναγκαῖον ὁμοίως ἔχειν. σημεῖον δʼ ἂν γεγονέναι φαίη τις ἐπʼ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων· τοὺς γὰρ ἀρχαίους νόμους λίαν ἁπλοῦς εἶναι καὶ βαρβαρικούς. ἐσιδηροφοροῦντό τε γὰρ οἱ Ἕλληνες, καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἐωνοῦντο παρʼ ἀλλήλων, ὅσα τε λοιπὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐστί που νομίμων εὐήθη πάμπαν ἐστίν,

+ +
+

οἷον ἐν Κύμῃ περὶ τὰ φονικὰ νόμος ἔστιν, ἂν πλῆθός τι παράσχηται μαρτύρων ὁ διώκων τὸν φόνον τῶν αὑτοῦ συγγενῶν, ἔνοχον εἶναι τῷ φόνῳ τὸν φεύγοντα. ζητοῦσι δʼ ὅλως οὐ τὸ πάτριον ἀλλὰ τἀγαθὸν πάντες· εἰκός τε τοὺς πρώτους, εἴτε γηγενεῖς ἦσαν εἴτʼ ἐκ φθορᾶς τινος ἐσώθησαν, ὁμοίους εἶναι καὶ τοὺς τυχόντας καὶ τοὺς ἀνοήτους, ὥσπερ καὶ λέγεται κατὰ τῶν γηγενῶν, ὥστε ἄτοπον τὸ μένειν ἐν τοῖς τούτων δόγμασιν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οὐδὲ τοὺς γεγραμμένους ἐᾶν ἀκινήτους βέλτιον. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας, καὶ τὴν πολιτικὴν τάξιν ἀδύνατον ἀκριβῶς πάντα γραφῆναι· καθόλου γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον γράφειν, αἱ δὲ πράξεις περὶ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστόν εἰσιν.

+

ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων φανερὸν ὅτι κινητέοι καὶ τινὲς καὶ ποτὲ τῶν νόμων εἰσίν· ἄλλον δὲ τρόπον ἐπισκοποῦσιν εὐλαβείας ἂν δόξειεν εἶναι πολλῆς. ὅταν γὰρ ᾖ τὸ μὲν βέλτιον μικρόν, τὸ δʼ ἐθίζειν εὐχερῶς λύειν τοὺς νόμους φαῦλον, φανερὸν ὡς ἐατέον ἐνίας ἁμαρτίας καὶ τῶν νομοθετῶν καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων· οὐ γὰρ τοσοῦτον ὠφελήσεται κινήσας ὅσον βλαβήσεται τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἀπειθεῖν ἐθισθείς. ψεῦδος δὲ καὶ τὸ παράδειγμα τὸ περὶ τῶν τεχνῶν· οὐ γὰρ ὅμοιον τὸ κινεῖν τέχνην καὶ νόμον· ὁ γὰρ νόμος ἰσχὺν οὐδεμίαν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ πείθεσθαι παρὰ τὸ ἔθος, τοῦτο δʼ οὐ γίνεται εἰ μὴ διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος, ὥστε τὸ ῥᾳδίως μεταβάλλειν ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων νόμων εἰς ἑτέρους νόμους καινοὺς ἀσθενῆ ποιεῖν ἐστι τὴν τοῦ νόμου δύναμιν. ἔτι δʼ εἰ καὶ κινητέοι, πότερον πάντες καὶ ἐν πάσῃ πολιτείᾳ, ἢ οὔ; καὶ πότερον τῷ τυχόντι ἢ τισίν; ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχει μεγάλην διαφοράν. διὸ νῦν μὲν ἀφῶμεν ταύτην τὴν σκέψιν· ἄλλων γάρ ἐστι καιρῶν.

+

περὶ δὲ τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείας καὶ τῆς Κρητικῆς, σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν, δύο εἰσὶν αἱ σκέψεις, μία μὲν εἴ τι καλῶς ἢ μὴ καλῶς πρὸς τὴν ἀρίστην νενομοθέτηται τάξιν, ἑτέρα δʼ εἴ τι πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν καὶ τὸν τρόπον ὑπεναντίως τῆς προκειμένης αὐτοῖς πολιτείας. ὅτι μὲν οὖν δεῖ τῇ μελλούσῃ καλῶς πολιτεύεσθαι τὴν τῶν ἀναγκαίων ὑπάρχειν σχολήν, ὁμολογούμενόν ἐστιν· τίνα δὲ τρόπον ὑπάρχειν, οὐ ῥᾴδιον λαβεῖν. ἥ τε γὰρ Θετταλῶν πενεστεία πολλάκις ἐπέθετο τοῖς Θετταλοῖς, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τοῖς Λάκωσιν οἱ εἵλωτες (ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐφεδρεύοντες τοῖς ἀτυχήμασι διατελοῦσιν)· περὶ δὲ τοὺς Κρῆτας οὐδέν πω τοιοῦτον συμβέβηκεν. αἴτιον δʼ ἴσως τὸ τὰς γειτνιώσας πόλεις,

+ +
+

καίπερ πολεμούσας ἀλλήλαις, μηδεμίαν εἶναι σύμμαχον τοῖς ἀφισταμένοις διὰ τὸ μὴ συμφέρειν ταῖς καὶ αὐταῖς κεκτημέναις περιοίκους, τοῖς δὲ Λάκωσιν οἱ γειτνιῶντες ἐχθροὶ πάντες ἦσαν, Ἀργεῖοι καὶ Μεσήνιοι καὶ Ἀρκάδες· ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῖς Θετταλοῖς κατʼ ἀρχὰς ἀφίσταντο διὰ τὸ πολεμεῖν ἔτι τοῖς προσχώροις, Ἀχαιοῖς καὶ Περραιβοῖς καὶ Μάγνησιν. ἔοικε δὲ καὶ εἰ μηδὲν ἕτερον, ἀλλὰ τό γε τῆς ἐπιμελείας ἐργῶδες εἶναι, τίνα δεῖ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁμιλῆσαι τρόπον· ἀνιέμενοί τε γὰρ ὑβρίζουσι καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀξιοῦσιν ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς κυρίοις, καὶ κακοπαθῶς ζῶντες ἐπιβουλεύουσι καὶ μισοῦσιν. δῆλον οὖν ὡς οὐκ ἐξευρίσκουσι τὸν βέλτιστον τρόπον οἷς τοῦτο συμβαίνει περὶ τὴν εἱλωτείαν.

+

ἔτι δʼ ἡ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἄνεσις καὶ πρὸς τὴν προαίρεσιν τῆς πολιτείας βλαβερὰ καὶ πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν πόλεως. ὥσπερ γὰρ οἰκίας μέρος ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνή, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πόλιν ἐγγὺς τοῦ δίχα διῃρῆσθαι δεῖ νομίζειν εἴς τε τὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν πλῆθος καὶ τὸ τῶν γυναικῶν, ὥστʼ ἐν ὅσαις πολιτείαις φαύλως ἔχει τὸ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας, τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς πόλεως εἶναι δεῖ νομίζειν ἀνομοθέτητον. ὅπερ ἐκεῖ συμβέβηκεν· ὅλην γὰρ τὴν πόλιν ὁ νομοθέτης εἶναι βουλόμενος καρτερικήν, κατὰ μὲν τοὺς ἄνδρας φανερός ἐστι τοιοῦτος ὤν, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν γυναικῶν ἐξημέληκεν· ζῶσι γὰρ ἀκολάστως πρὸς ἅπασαν ἀκολασίαν καὶ τρυφερῶς. ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ πολιτείᾳ τιμᾶσθαι τὸν πλοῦτον, ἄλλως τε κἂν τύχωσι γυναικοκρατούμενοι, καθάπερ τὰ πολλὰ τῶν στρατιωτικῶν καὶ πολεμικῶν γενῶν, ἔξω Κελτῶν ἢ κἂν εἴ τινες ἕτεροι φανερῶς τετιμήκασι τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἄρρενας συνουσίαν. ἔοικε γὰρ ὁ μυθολογήσας πρῶτος οὐκ ἀλόγως συζεῦξαι τὸν Ἄρην πρὸς τὴν Ἀφροδίτην· ἢ γὰρ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀρρένων ὁμιλίαν ἢ πρὸς τὴν τῶν γυναικῶν φαίνονται κατοκώχιμοι πάντες οἱ τοιοῦτοι. διὸ παρὰ τοῖς Λάκωσι τοῦθʼ ὑπῆρχεν, καὶ πολλὰ διῳκεῖτο ὑπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν. καίτοι τί διαφέρει γυναῖκας ἄρχειν ἢ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ὑπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν ἄρχεσθαι; ταὐτὸ γὰρ συμβαίνει. χρησίμου δʼ οὔσης τῆς θρασύτητος πρὸς οὐδὲν τῶν ἐγκυκλίων, ἀλλʼ εἴπερ, πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον, βλαβερώταται καὶ πρὸς ταῦθʼ αἱ τῶν Λακώνων ἦσαν. ἐδήλωσαν δʼ ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν Θηβαίων ἐμβολῆς· χρήσιμοι μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἦσαν, ὥσπερ ἐν ἑτέραις πόλεσιν, θόρυβον δὲ παρεῖχον πλείω τῶν πολεμίων. ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν οὖν ἔοικε συμβεβηκέναι τοῖς Λάκωσιν εὐλόγως ἡ τῶν γυναικῶν ἄνεσις.

+ +
+

ἔξω γὰρ τῆς οἰκείας διὰ τὰς στρατείας ἀπεξενοῦντο πολὺν χρόνον, πολεμοῦντες τόν τε πρὸς Ἀργείους πόλεμον καὶ πάλιν τὸν πρὸς Ἀρκάδας καὶ Μεσηνίους· σχολάσαντες δὲ αὑτοὺς μὲν παρεῖχον τῷ νομοθέτῃ προωδοπεποιημένους διὰ τὸν στρατιωτικὸν βίον (πολλὰ γὰρ ἔχει μέρη τῆς ἀρετῆς), τὰς δὲ γυναῖκάς φασι μὲν ἄγειν ἐπιχειρῆσαι τὸν Λυκοῦργον ὑπὸ τοὺς νόμους, ὡς δʼ ἀντέκρουον, ἀποστῆναι πάλιν. αἰτίαι μὲν οὖν εἰσιν αὗται τῶν γενομένων, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ταύτης τῆς ἁμαρτίας· ἀλλʼ ἡμεῖς οὐ τοῦτο σκοποῦμεν, τίνι δεῖ συγγνώμην ἔχειν ἢ μὴ ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ ὀρθῶς καὶ μὴ ὀρθῶς. τὰ δὲ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἔχοντα μὴ καλῶς ἔοικεν, ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη καὶ πρότερον, οὐ μόνον ἀπρέπειάν τινα ποιεῖν τῆς πολιτείας αὐτῆς καθʼ αὑτήν, ἀλλὰ συμβάλλεσθαί τι πρὸς τὴν φιλοχρηματίαν. μετὰ γὰρ τὰ νῦν ῥηθέντα τοῖς περὶ τὴν ἀνωμαλίαν τῆς κτήσεως ἐπιτιμήσειεν ἄν τις. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν συμβέβηκε κεκτῆσθαι πολλὴν λίαν οὐσίαν, τοῖς δὲ πάμπαν μικράν· διόπερ εἰς ὀλίγους ἧκεν ἡ χώρα. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν νόμων τέτακται φαύλως· ὠνεῖσθαι μὲν γάρ, ἢ πωλεῖν τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν, ἐποίησεν οὐ καλόν, ὀρθῶς ποιήσας, διδόναι δὲ καὶ καταλείπειν ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκε τοῖς βουλομένοις· καίτοι ταὐτὸ συμβαίνειν ἀναγκαῖον ἐκείνως τε καὶ οὕτως. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν σχεδὸν τῆς πάσης χώρας τῶν πέντε μερῶν τὰ δύο, τῶν τʼ ἐπικλήρων πολλῶν γινομένων, καὶ διὰ τὸ προῖκας διδόναι μεγάλας. καίτοι βέλτιον ἦν μηδεμίαν ἢ ὀλίγην ἢ καὶ μετρίαν τετάχθαι. νῦν δʼ ἔξεστι δοῦναί τε τὴν ἐπίκληρον ὅτῳ ἂν βούληται, κἂν ἀποθάνῃ μὴ διαθέμενος, ὃν ἂν καταλίπῃ κληρονόμον, οὗτος ᾧ ἂν θέλῃ δίδωσιν. τοιγαροῦν δυναμένης τῆς χώρας χιλίους ἱππεῖς τρέφειν καὶ πεντακοσίους, καὶ ὁπλίτας τρισμυρίους, οὐδὲ χίλιοι τὸ πλῆθος ἦσαν. γέγονε δὲ διὰ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν δῆλον ὅτι φαύλως αὐτοῖς εἶχε τὰ περὶ τὴν τάξιν ταύτην· μίαν γὰρ πληγὴν οὐχ ὑπήνεγκεν ἡ πόλις, ἀλλʼ ἀπώλετο διὰ τὴν ὀλιγανθρωπίαν. λέγουσι δʼ ὡς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν προτέρων βασιλέων μετεδίδοσαν τῆς πολιτείας, ὥστʼ οὐ γίνεσθαι τότε ὀλιγανθρωπίαν, πολεμούντων πολὺν χρόνον, καί φασιν εἶναί ποτε τοῖς Σπαρτιάταις καὶ μυρίους· οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ, εἴτʼ ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ ταῦτα εἴτε μή, βέλτιον τὸ διὰ τῆς κτήσεως ὡμαλισμένης πληθύειν ἀνδρῶν τὴν πόλιν. ὑπεναντίος δὲ καὶ ὁ περὶ τὴν τεκνοποιίαν νόμος πρὸς ταύτην τὴν διόρθωσιν.

+ +
+

βουλόμενος γὰρ ὁ νομοθέτης ὡς πλείστους εἶναι τοὺς Σπαρτιάτας, προάγεται τοὺς πολίτας ὅτι πλείστους ποιεῖσθαι παῖδας· ἔστι γὰρ αὐτοῖς νόμος τὸν μὲν γεννήσαντα τρεῖς υἱοὺς ἄφρουρον εἶναι, τὸν δὲ τέτταρας ἀτελῆ πάντων. καίτοι φανερὸν ὅτι πολλῶν γινομένων, τῆς δὲ χώρας οὕτω διῃρημένης, ἀναγκαῖον πολλοὺς γίνεσθαι πένητας.

+

ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν ἐφορείαν ἔχει φαύλως. ἡ γὰρ ἀρχὴ κυρία μὲν αὐτὴ τῶν μεγίστων αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, γίνονται δʼ ἐκ τοῦ δήμου παντός, ὥστε πολλάκις ἐμπίπτουσιν ἄνθρωποι σφόδρα πένητες εἰς τὸ ἀρχεῖον, οἳ διὰ τὴν ἀπορίαν ὤνιοι ἦσαν. ἐδήλωσαν δὲ πολλάκις μὲν καὶ πρότερον, καὶ νῦν δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἀνδρίοις· διαφθαρέντες γὰρ ἀργυρίῳ τινές, ὅσον ἐφʼ ἑαυτοῖς, ὅλην τὴν πόλιν ἀπώλεσαν, καὶ διὰ τὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι λίαν μεγάλην καὶ ἰσοτύραννον δημαγωγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἠναγκάζοντο καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς, ὥστε καὶ ταύτῃ συνεπιβλάπτεσθαι τὴν πολιτείαν· δημοκρατία γὰρ ἐξ ἀριστοκρατίας συνέβαινεν. συνέχει μὲν οὖν τὴν πολιτείαν τὸ ἀρχεῖον τοῦτο—ἡσυχάζει γὰρ ὁ δῆμος διὰ τὸ μετέχειν τῆς μεγίστης ἀρχῆς, ὥστʼ εἴτε διὰ τὸν νομοθέτην εἴτε διὰ τύχην τοῦτο συμπέπτωκεν, συμφερόντως ἔχει τοῖς πράγμασιν· δεῖ γὰρ τὴν πολιτείαν τὴν μέλλουσαν σῴζεσθαι πάντα βούλεσθαι τὰ μέρη τῆς πόλεως εἶναι καὶ διαμένειν κατὰ ταὐτά· οἱ μὲν οὖν βασιλεῖς διὰ τὴν αὑτῶν τιμὴν οὕτως ἔχουσιν, οἱ δὲ καλοὶ κἀγαθοὶ διὰ τὴν γερουσίαν (ἆθλον γὰρ ἡ ἀρχὴ αὕτη τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐστιν), ὁ δὲ δῆμος διὰ τὴν ἐφορείαν (καθίσταται γὰρ ἐξ ἁπάντων)—ἀλλʼ αἱρετὴν ἔδει τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι ταύτην ἐξ ἁπάντων μέν, μὴ τὸν τρόπον δὲ τοῦτον ὃν νῦν (παιδαριώδης γάρ ἐστι λίαν). ἔτι δὲ καὶ κρίσεών εἰσι μεγάλων κύριοι, ὄντες οἱ τυχόντες, διόπερ οὐκ αὐτογνώμονας βέλτιον κρίνειν ἀλλὰ κατὰ γράμματα καὶ τοὺς νόμους. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ δίαιτα τῶν ἐφόρων οὐχ ὁμολογουμένη τῷ βουλήματι τῆς πόλεως· αὐτὴ μὲν γὰρ ἀνειμένη λίαν ἐστίν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις μᾶλλον ὑπερβάλλει ἐπὶ τὸ σκληρόν, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι καρτερεῖν ἀλλὰ λάθρᾳ τὸν νόμον ἀποδιδράσκοντας ἀπολαύειν τῶν σωματικῶν ἡδονῶν.

+

ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν τῶν γερόντων ἀρχὴν οὐ καλῶς αὐτοῖς. ἐπιεικῶν μὲν γὰρ ὄντων καὶ πεπαιδευμένων ἱκανῶς πρὸς ἀνδραγαθίαν τάχʼ ἂν εἴπειέ τις συμφέρειν τῇ πόλει, καίτοι τό γε διὰ βίου κυρίους εἶναι κρίσεων μεγάλων ἀμφισβητήσιμον (ἕστι γάρ, ὥσπερ καὶ σώματος, καὶ διανοίας γῆρας)·

+ +
+

τὸν τρόπον δὲ τοῦτον πεπαιδευμένων ὥστε καὶ τὸν νομοθέτην αὐτὸν ἀπιστεῖν ὡς οὐκ ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν, οὐκ ἀσφαλές. φαίνονται δὲ καὶ καταδωροδοκούμενοι καὶ καταχαριζόμενοι πολλὰ τῶν κοινῶν οἱ κεκοινωνηκότες τῆς ἀρχῆς ταύτης. διόπερ βέλτιον αὐτοὺς μὴ ἀνευθύνους εἶναι· νῦν δʼ εἰσίν. δόξειε δʼ ἂν ἡ τῶν ἐφόρων ἀρχὴ πάσας εὐθύνειν τὰς ἀρχάς· τοῦτο δὲ τῇ ἐφορείᾳ μέγα λίαν τὸ δῶρον, καὶ τὸν τρόπον οὐ τοῦτον λέγομεν διδόναι δεῖν τὰς εὐθύνας. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν ἣν ποιοῦνται τῶν γερόντων κατά τε τὴν κρίσιν ἐστὶ παιδαριώδης, καὶ τὸ αὐτὸν αἰτεῖσθαι τὸν ἀξιωθησόμενον τῆς ἀρχῆς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἔχει· δεῖ γὰρ καὶ βουλόμενον καὶ μὴ βουλόμενον ἄρχειν τὸν ἄξιον τῆς ἀρχῆς. νῦν δʼ ὅπερ καὶ περὶ τὴν ἄλλην πολιτείαν ὁ νομοθέτης φαίνεται ποιῶν· φιλοτίμους γὰρ κατασκευάζων τοὺς πολίτας τούτῳ κέχρηται πρὸς τὴν αἵρεσιν τῶν γερόντων· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἂν ἄρχειν αἰτήσαιτο μὴ φιλότιμος ὤν. καίτοι τῶν γʼ ἀδικημάτων τῶν γʼ ἑκουσίων τὰ πλεῖστα συμβαίνει σχεδὸν διὰ φιλοτιμίαν καὶ διὰ φιλοχρηματίαν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.

+

περὶ δὲ βασιλείας, εἰ μὲν βέλτιόν ἐστιν ὑπάρχειν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἢ μὴ βέλτιον, ἄλλος ἔστω λόγος· ἀλλὰ μὴν βέλτιόν γε μὴ καθάπερ νῦν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν αὑτοῦ βίον ἕκαστον κρίνεσθαι τῶν βασιλέων. ὅτι δʼ ὁ νομοθέτης οὐδʼ αὐτὸς οἴεται δύνασθαι ποιεῖν καλοὺς κἀγαθούς, δῆλον· ἀπιστεῖ γοῦν ὡς οὐκ οὖσιν ἱκανῶς ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν· διόπερ ἐξέπεμπον συμπρεσβευτὰς τοὺς ἐχθρούς, καὶ σωτηρίαν ἐνόμιζον τῇ πόλει εἶναι τὸ στασιάζειν τοὺς βασιλεῖς. οὐ καλῶς δʼ οὐδὲ περὶ τὰ συσσίτια τὰ καλούμενα φιδίτια νενομοθέτηται τῷ καταστήσαντι πρῶτον. ἔδει γὰρ ἀπὸ κοινοῦ μᾶλλον εἶναι τὴν σύνοδον, καθάπερ ἐν Κρήτῃ· παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Λάκωσιν ἕκαστον δεῖ φέρειν, καὶ σφόδρα πενήτων ἐνίων ὄντων καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἀνάλωμα οὐ δυναμένων δαπανᾶν, ὥστε συμβαίνει τοὐναντίον τῷ νομοθέτῃ τῆς προαιρέσεως. βούλεται μὲν γὰρ δημοκρατικὸν εἶναι τὸ κατασκεύασμα τῶν συσσιτίων, γίνεται δʼ ἥκιστα δημοκρατικὸν οὕτω νενομοθετημένον. μετέχειν μὲν γὰρ οὐ ῥᾴδιον τοῖς λίαν πένησιν, ὅρος δὲ τῆς πολιτείας οὗτός ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ὁ πάτριος, τὸν μὴ δυνάμενον τοῦτο τὸ τέλος φέρειν μὴ μετέχειν αὐτῆς· τῷ δὲ περὶ τοὺς ναυάρχους νόμῳ καὶ ἕτεροί τινες ἐπιτετιμήκασιν, ὀρθῶς ἐπιτιμῶντες. στάσεως γὰρ γίνεται αἴτιος· ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, οὖσι στρατηγοῖς ἀιδίοις, ἡ ναυαρχία σχεδὸν ἑτέρα βασιλεία καθέστηκεν. καὶ ὡδὶ δὲ τῇ ὑποθέσει τοῦ νομοθέτου ἐπιτιμήσειεν ἄν τις, ὅπερ καὶ Πλάτων ἐν τοῖς Νόμοις ἐπιτετίμηκεν·

+ +
+

πρὸς γὰρ μέρος ἀρετῆς ἡ πᾶσα σύνταξις τῶν νόμων ἐστί, τὴν πολεμικήν· αὕτη γὰρ χρησίμη πρὸς τὸ κρατεῖν. τοιγαροῦν ἐσῴζοντο μὲν πολεμοῦντες, ἀπώλλυντο δὲ ἄρξαντες διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπίστασθαι σχολάζειν μηδὲ ἠσκηκέναι μηδεμίαν ἄσκησιν ἑτέραν κυριωτέραν τῆς πολεμικῆς. τούτου δὲ ἁμάρτημα οὐκ ἔλαττον· νομίζουσι μὲν γὰρ γίνεσθαι τἀγαθὰ τὰ περιμάχητα διʼ ἀρετῆς μᾶλλον ἢ κακίας, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν καλῶς, ὅτι μέντοι ταῦτα κρείττω τῆς ἀρετῆς ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, οὐ καλῶς. φαύλως δʼ ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰ κοινὰ χρήματα τοῖς Σπαρτιάταις. οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τῷ κοινῷ τῆς πόλεως ἔστιν οὐδὲν πολέμους μεγάλους ἀναγκαζομένοις πολεμεῖν, εἰσφέρουσί τε κακῶς· διὰ γὰρ τὸ τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν εἶναι τὴν πλείστην γῆν οὐκ ἐξετάζουσιν ἀλλήλων τὰς εἰσφοράς. ἀποβέβηκέ τε τοὐναντίον τῷ νομοθέτῃ τοῦ συμφέροντος· τὴν μὲν γὰρ πόλιν πεποίηκεν ἀχρήματον, τοὺς δʼ ἰδιώτας φιλοχρημάτους. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείας ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον εἰρήσθω· ταῦτα γάρ ἐστιν ἃ μάλιστʼ ἄν τις ἐπιτιμήσειεν.

+

ἡ δὲ Κρητικὴ πολιτεία πάρεγγυς μέν ἐστι ταύτης, ἔχει δὲ μικρὰ μὲν οὐ χεῖρον, τὸ δὲ πλεῖον ἧττον γλαφυρῶς. καὶ γὰρ ἔοικε καὶ λέγεταί γε τὰ πλεῖστα μεμιμῆσθαι τὴν Κρητικὴν πολιτείαν ἡ τῶν Λακώνων· τὰ δὲ πλεῖστα τῶν ἀρχαίων ἧττον διήρθρωται τῶν νεωτέρων. φασὶ γὰρ τὸν Λυκοῦργον, ὅτε τὴν ἐπιτροπείαν τὴν Χαριλάου τοῦ βασιλέως καταλιπὼν ἀπεδήμησεν, τότε τὸν πλεῖστον διατρῖψαι χρόνον περὶ Κρήτην διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν· ἄποικοι γὰρ οἱ Λύκτιοι τῶν Λακώνων ἦσαν, κατέλαβον δʼ οἱ πρὸς τὴν ἀποικίαν ἐλθόντες τὴν τάξιν τῶν νόμων ὑπάρχουσαν ἐν τοῖς τότε κατοικοῦσιν. διὸ καὶ νῦν οἱ περίοικοι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον χρῶνται αὐτοῖς, ὡς κατασκευάσαντος Μίνω πρώτου τὴν τάξιν τῶν νόμων. δοκεῖ δʼ ἡ νῆσος καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν πεφυκέναι καὶ κεῖσθαι καλῶς· πάσῃ γὰρ ἐπίκειται τῇ θαλάττῃ, σχεδὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἱδρυμένων περὶ τὴν θάλατταν πάντων· ἀπέχει γὰρ τῇ μὲν τῆς Πελοποννήσου μικρόν, τῇ δὲ τῆς Ἀσίας τοῦ περὶ Τριόπιον τόπου καὶ Ῥόδου. διὸ καὶ τὴν τῆς θαλάττης ἀρχὴν κατέσχεν ὁ Μίνως, καὶ τὰς νήσους τὰς μὲν ἐχειρώσατο τὰς δʼ ᾤκισεν, τέλος δὲ ἐπιθέμενος τῇ Σικελίᾳ τὸν βίον ἐτελεύτησεν ἐκεῖ περὶ Καμικόν.

+

ἔχει δʼ ἀνάλογον ἡ Κρητικὴ τάξις πρὸς τὴν Λακωνικήν. γεωργοῦσί τε γὰρ τοῖς μὲν οἱ εἵλωτες τοῖς δὲ Κρησὶν οἱ περίοικοι,

+ +
+

καὶ συσσίτια παρʼ ἀμφοτέροις ἔστιν, καὶ τό γε ἀρχαῖον ἐκάλουν οἱ Λάκωνες οὐ φιδίτια ἀλλὰ ἀνδρεῖα, καθάπερ οἱ Κρῆτες, ᾗ καὶ δῆλον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἐλήλυθεν. ἔτι δὲ τῆς πολιτείας ἡ τάξις. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἔφοροι τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσι δύναμιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ Κρήτῃ καλουμένοις κόσμοις, πλὴν οἱ μὲν ἔφοροι πέντε τὸν ἀριθμὸν οἱ δὲ κόσμοι δέκα εἰσίν· οἱ δὲ γέροντες τοῖς γέρουσιν, οὓς καλοῦσιν οἱ Κρῆτες βουλήν, ἴσοι· βασιλεία δὲ πρότερον μὲν ἦν, εἶτα κατέλυσαν οἱ Κρῆτες, καὶ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν οἱ κόσμοι τὴν κατὰ πόλεμον ἔχουσιν· ἐκκλησίας δὲ μετέχουσι πάντες, κυρία δʼ οὐδενός ἐστιν ἀλλʼ ἢ συνεπιψηφίσαι τὰ δόξαντα τοῖς γέρουσι καὶ τοῖς κόσμοις.

+

τὰ μὲν οὖν τῶν συσσιτίων ἔχει βέλτιον τοῖς Κρησὶν ἢ τοῖς Λάκωσιν. ἐν μὲν γὰρ Λακεδαίμονι κατὰ κεφαλὴν ἕκαστος εἰσφέρει τὸ τεταγμένον, εἰ δὲ μή, μετέχειν νόμος κωλύει τῆς πολιτείας, καθάπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον, ἐν δὲ Κρήτῃ κοινοτέρως· ἀπὸ πάντων γὰρ τῶν γινομένων καρπῶν τε καὶ βοσκημάτων δημοσίων, καὶ ἐκ τῶν φόρων οὓς φέρουσιν οἱ περίοικοι, τέτακται μέρος τὸ μὲν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ τὰς κοινὰς λειτουργίας, τὸ δὲ τοῖς συσσιτίοις, ὥστʼ ἐκ κοινοῦ τρέφεσθαι πάντας, καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας καὶ ἄνδρας· πρὸς δὲ τὴν ὀλιγοσιτίαν ὡς ὠφέλιμον πολλὰ πεφιλοσόφηκεν ὁ νομοθέτης, καὶ πρὸς τὴν διάζευξιν τῶν γυναικῶν, ἵνα μὴ πολυτεκνῶσι, τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἄρρενας ποιήσας ὁμιλίαν, περὶ ἧς εἰ φαύλως ἢ μὴ φαύλως, ἕτερος ἔσται τοῦ διασκέψασθαι καιρός. ὅτι δὴ τὰ περὶ τὰ συσσίτια βέλτιον τέτακται τοῖς Κρησὶν ἢ τοῖς Λάκωσι, φανερόν· τὰ δὲ περὶ τοὺς κόσμους ἔτι χεῖρον τῶν ἐφόρων. ὃ μὲν γὰρ ἔχει κακὸν τὸ τῶν ἐφόρων ἀρχεῖον, ὑπάρχει καὶ τούτοις (γίνονται γὰρ οἱ τυχόντες), ὃ δʼ ἐκεῖ συμφέρει πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν, ἐνταῦθʼ οὐκ ἔστιν. ἐκεῖ μὲν γάρ, διὰ τὸ τὴν αἵρεσιν ἐκ πάντων εἶναι, μετέχων ὁ δῆμος τῆς μεγίστης ἀρχῆς βούλεται μένειν τὴν πολιτείαν· ἐνταῦθα δʼ οὐκ ἐξ ἁπάντων αἱροῦνται τοὺς κόσμους ἀλλʼ ἐκ τινῶν γενῶν, καὶ τοὺς γέροντας ἐκ τῶν κεκοσμηκότων, περὶ ὧν τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄν τις εἴπειε λόγους καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι γινομένων· τὸ γὰρ ἀνυπεύθυνον καὶ τὸ διὰ βίου μεῖζόν ἐστι γέρας τῆς ἀξίας αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὸ μὴ κατὰ γράμματα ἄρχειν ἀλλʼ αὐτογνώμονας ἐπισφαλές. τὸ δʼ ἡσυχάζειν μὴ μετέχοντα τὸν δῆμον οὐδὲν σημεῖον τοῦ τετάχθαι καλῶς. οὐδὲν γὰρ λήμματος ἔστι τοῖς κόσμοις ὥσπερ τοῖς ἐφόροις, πόρρω γʼ ἀποικοῦσιν ἐν νήσῳ τῶν διαφθερούντων.

+ +
+

ἣν δὲ ποιοῦνται τῆς ἁμαρτίας ταύτης ἰατρείαν, ἄτοπος καὶ οὐ πολιτικὴ ἀλλὰ δυναστευτική. πολλάκις γὰρ ἐκβάλλουσι συστάντες τινὲς τοὺς κόσμους ἢ τῶν συναρχόντων αὐτῶν ἢ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν· ἔξεστι δὲ καὶ μεταξὺ τοῖς κόσμοις ἀπειπεῖν τὴν ἀρχήν. ταῦτα δὴ πάντα βέλτιον γίνεσθαι κατὰ νόμον ἢ κατʼ ἀνθρώπων βούλησιν· οὐ γὰρ ἀσφαλὴς ὁ κανών. πάντων δὲ φαυλότατον τὸ τῆς ἀκοσμίας τῶν δυνατῶν, ἣν καθιστᾶσι πολλάκις οἳ ἂν μὴ δίκας βούλωνται δοῦναι τῶν δυνατῶν· ᾗ καὶ δῆλον ὡς ἔχει τι πολιτείας ἡ τάξις, ἀλλʼ οὐ πολιτεία ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ δυναστεία μᾶλλον. εἰώθασι δὲ διαλαμβάνοντες τὸν δῆμον καὶ τοὺς φίλους ἀναρχίαν ποιεῖν καὶ στασιάζειν καὶ μάχεσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους· καίτοι τί διαφέρει τὸ τοιοῦτον ἢ διά τινος χρόνου μηκέτι πόλιν εἶναι τὴν τοιαύτην, ἀλλὰ λύεσθαι τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν; ἔστι δʼ ἐπικίνδυνος οὕτως ἔχουσα πόλις, τῶν βουλομένων ἐπιτίθεσθαι καὶ δυναμένων. ἀλλά, καθάπερ εἴρηται, σῴζεται διὰ τὸν τόπον· ξενηλασίας γὰρ τὸ πόρρω πεποίηκεν. διὸ καὶ τὸ τῶν περιοίκων μένει τοῖς Κρησίν, οἱ δʼ εἵλωτες ἀφίστανται πολλάκις. οὔτε γὰρ ἐξωτερικῆς ἀρχῆς κοινωνοῦσιν οἱ Κρῆτες, νεωστί τε πόλεμος ξενικὸς διαβέβηκεν εἰς τὴν νῆσον, ὃς πεποίηκε φανερὰν τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῶν ἐκεῖ νόμων. περὶ μὲν οὖν ταύτης εἰρήσθω τοσαῦθʼ ἡμῖν τῆς πολιτείας.

+

πολιτεύεσθαι δὲ δοκοῦσι καὶ Καρχηδόνιοι καλῶς καὶ πολλὰ περιττῶς πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους, μάλιστα δʼ ἔνια παραπλησίως τοῖς Λάκωσιν. αὗται γὰρ αἱ τρεῖς πολιτεῖαι ἀλλήλαις τε σύνεγγύς πώς εἰσι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολὺ διαφέρουσιν, ἥ τε Κρητικὴ καὶ ἡ Λακωνικὴ καὶ τρίτη τούτων ἡ τῶν Καρχηδονίων. καὶ πολλὰ τῶν τεταγμένων ἔχει παρʼ αὐτοῖς καλῶς· σημεῖον δὲ πολιτείας συντεταγμένης τὸ τὸν δῆμον ἑκουσίον διαμένειν ἐν τῇ τάξει τῆς πολιτείας, καὶ μήτε στάσιν, ὅ τι καὶ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν, γεγενῆσθαι μήτε τύραννον. ἔχει δὲ παραπλήσια τῇ Λακωνικῇ πολιτείᾳ τὰ μὲν συσσίτια τῶν ἑταιριῶν τοῖς φιδιτίοις, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἑκατὸν καὶ τεττάρων ἀρχὴν τοῖς ἐφόροις (πλὴν ὃ οὐ χεῖρον· οἱ μὲν ἐκ τῶν τυχόντων εἰσί, ταύτην δʼ αἱροῦνται τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀριστίνδην), τοὺς δὲ βασιλεῖς καὶ τὴν γερουσίαν ἀνάλογον τοῖς ἐκεῖ βασιλεῦσι καὶ γέρουσιν· καὶ βέλτιον δὲ τοὺς βασιλεῖς μήτε καθʼ αὑτὸ εἶναι γένος μήτε τοῦτο τὸ τυχόν, εἰ δέ τι διαφέρει, ἐκ τούτων αἱρετοὺς μᾶλλον ἢ καθʼ ἡλικίαν. μεγάλων γὰρ κύριοι καθεστῶτες, ἂν εὐτελεῖς ὦσι μεγάλα βλάπτουσι,

+ +
+

καὶ ἔβλαψαν ἤδη τὴν πόλιν τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων.

+

τὰ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστα τῶν ἐπιτιμηθέντων ἂν διὰ τὰς παρεκβάσεις κοινὰ τυγχάνει πάσαις ὄντα ταῖς εἰρημέναις πολιτείαις· τῶν δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τῆς ἀριστοκρατίας καὶ τῆς πολιτείας τὰ μὲν εἰς δῆμον ἐκκλίνει μᾶλλον, τὰ δʼ εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν. τοῦ μὲν γὰρ τὰ μὲν προσάγειν τὰ δὲ μὴ προσάγειν πρὸς τὸν δῆμον οἱ βασιλεῖς κύριοι μετὰ τῶν γερόντων, ἂν ὁμογνωμονῶσι πάντες, εἰ δὲ μή, καὶ τούτων ὁ δῆμος. ἃ δʼ ἂν εἰσφέρωσιν οὗτοι, οὐ διακοῦσαι μόνον ἀποδιδόασι τῷ δήμῳ τὰ δόξαντα τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, ἀλλὰ κύριοι κρίνειν εἰσὶ καὶ τῷ βουλομένῳ τοῖς εἰσφερομένοις ἀντειπεῖν ἔξεστιν, ὅπερ ἐν ταῖς ἑτέραις πολιτείαις οὐκ ἔστιν. τὸ δὲ τὰς πενταρχίας κυρίας οὔσας πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων ὑφʼ αὑτῶν αἱρετὰς εἶναι, καὶ τὴν τῶν ἑκατὸν ταύτας αἱρεῖσθαι, τὴν μεγίστην ἀρχήν, ἔτι δὲ ταύτας πλείονα ἄρχειν χρόνον τῶν ἄλλων (καὶ γὰρ ἐξεληλυθότες ἄρχουσι καὶ μέλλοντες) ὀλιγαρχικόν, τὸ δὲ ἀμίσθους καὶ μὴ κληρωτὰς ἀριστοκρατικὸν θετέον, καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον, καὶ τὸ τὰς δίκας ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχείων δικάζεσθαι πάσας (καὶ μὴ ἄλλας ὑπʼ ἄλλων, καθάπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι). παρεκβαίνει δὲ τῆς ἀριστοκρατίας ἡ τάξις τῶν Καρχηδονίων μάλιστα πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν κατά τινα διάνοιαν ἣ συνδοκεῖ τοῖς πολλοῖς· οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἀριστίνδην ἀλλὰ καὶ πλουτίνδην οἴονται δεῖν αἱρεῖσθαι τοὺς ἄρχοντας· ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὸν ἀποροῦντα καλῶς ἄρχειν καὶ σχολάζειν. εἴπερ οὖν τὸ μὲν αἱρεῖσθαι πλουτίνδην ὀλιγαρχικὸν τὸ δὲ κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀριστοκρατικόν, αὕτη τις ἂν εἴη τάξις τρίτη, καθʼ ἥνπερ συντέτακται καὶ τοῖς Καρχηδονίοις τὰ περὶ τὴν πολιτείαν· αἱροῦνται γὰρ εἰς δύο ταῦτα βλέποντες, καὶ μάλιστα τὰς μεγίστας, τούς τε βασιλεῖς καὶ τοὺς στρατηγούς.

+

δεῖ δὲ νομίζειν ἁμάρτημα νομοθέτου τὴν παρέκβασιν εἶναι τῆς ἀριστοκρατίας ταύτην. ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ τοῦθʼ ὁρᾶν ἐστι τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων, ὅπως οἱ βέλτιστοι δύνωνται σχολάζειν καὶ μηδὲν ἀσχημονεῖν, μὴ μόνον ἄρχοντες ἀλλὰ μηδʼ ἰδιωτεύοντες. εἰ δὲ δεῖ βλέπειν καὶ πρὸς εὐπορίαν χάριν σχολῆς, φαῦλον τὸ τὰς μεγίστας ὠνητὰς εἶναι τῶν ἀρχῶν, τήν τε βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν στρατηγίαν. ἔντιμον γὰρ ὁ νόμος οὗτος ποιεῖ τὸν πλοῦτον μᾶλλον τῆς ἀρετῆς, καὶ τὴν πόλιν ὅλην φιλοχρήματον. ὅ τι δʼ ἂν ὑπολάβῃ τίμιον εἶναι τὸ κύριον, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν τῶν ἄλλων πολιτῶν δόξαν ἀκολουθεῖν τούτοις. ὅπου δὲ μὴ μάλιστα ἀρετὴ τιμᾶται, ταύτην οὐχ οἷόν τε βεβαίως ἀριστοκρατεῖσθαι τὴν πολιτείαν.

+ +
+

ἐθίζεσθαι δʼ εὔλογον κερδαίνειν τοὺς ὠνουμένους, ὅταν δαπανήσαντες ἄρχωσιν· ἄτοπον γὰρ εἰ πένης μὲν ὢν ἐπιεικὴς δὲ βουλήσεται κερδαίνειν, φαυλότερος δʼ ὢν οὐ βουλήσεται δαπανήσας. διὸ δεῖ τοὺς δυναμένους ἄριστʼ ἀρχεῖν, τούτους ἄρχειν. βέλτιον δʼ, εἰ καὶ προεῖτο τὴν εὐπορίαν τῶν ἐπιεικῶν ὁ νομοθέτης, ἀλλὰ ἀρχόντων γε ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς σχολῆς. φαῦλον δʼ ἂν δόξειεν εἶναι καὶ τὸ πλείους ἀρχὰς τὸν αὐτὸν ἄρχειν· ὅπερ εὐδοκιμεῖ παρὰ τοῖς Καρχηδονίοις· ἓν γὰρ ὑφʼ ἑνὸς ἔργον ἄριστʼ ἀποτελεῖται. δεῖ δʼ ὅπως γίνηται τοῦθʼ ὁρᾶν τὸν νομοθέτην, καὶ μὴ προστάττειν τὸν αὐτὸν αὐλεῖν καὶ σκυτοτομεῖν. ὥσθʼ ὅπου μὴ μικρὰ ἡ πόλις, πολιτικώτερον πλείονας μετέχειν τῶν ἀρχῶν, καὶ δημοτικώτερον· κοινότερόν τε γὰρ καθάπερ εἴπομεν καὶ κάλλιον ἕκαστον ἀποτελεῖται τῶν αὐτῶν καὶ θᾶττον. δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῶν πολεμικῶν καὶ τῶν ναυτικῶν· ἐν τούτοις γὰρ ἀμφοτέροις διὰ πάντων ὡς εἰπεῖν διελήλυθε τὸ ἄρχειν καὶ τὸ ἄρχεσθαι. ὀλιγαρχικῆς δʼ οὔσης τῆς πολιτείας ἄριστα ἐκφεύγουσι τῷ πλουτεῖν αἰεί τι τοῦ δήμου μέρος, ἐκπέμποντες ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις. τούτῳ γὰρ ἰῶνται καὶ ποιοῦσι μόνιμον τὴν πολιτείαν. ἀλλὰ τουτί ἐστι τύχης ἔργον, δεῖ δὲ ἀστασιάστους εἶναι διὰ τὸν νομοθέτην. νῦν δέ, ἂν ἀτυχία γένηταί τις καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ἀποστῇ τῶν ἀρχομένων, οὐδὲν ἔστι φάρμακον διὰ τῶν νόμων τῆς ἡσυχίας. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείας καὶ Κρητικῆς καὶ τῆς Καρχηδονίων, αἵπερ δικαίως εὐδοκιμοῦσι, τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον.

+

τῶν δὲ ἀποφηναμένων τι περὶ πολιτείας ἔνιοι μὲν οὐκ ἐκοινώνησαν πράξεων πολιτικῶν οὐδʼ ὡντινωνοῦν, ἀλλὰ διετέλεσαν ἰδιωτεύοντες τὸν βίον, περὶ ὧν εἴ τι ἀξιόλογον, εἴρηται σχεδὸν περὶ πάντων, ἔνιοι δὲ νομοθέται γεγόνασιν, οἱ μὲν ταῖς οἰκείαις πόλεσιν οἱ δὲ καὶ τῶν ὀθνείων τισί, πολιτευθέντες αὐτοί· καὶ τούτων οἱ μὲν νόμων ἐγένοντο δημιουργοὶ μόνον, οἱ δὲ καὶ πολιτείας, οἷον καὶ Λυκοῦργος καὶ Σόλων· οὗτοι γὰρ καὶ νόμους καὶ πολιτείας κατέστησαν. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων εἴρηται, Σόλωνα δʼ ἔνιοι μὲν οἴονται νομοθέτην γενέσθαι σπουδαῖον· ὀλιγαρχίαν τε γὰρ καταλῦσαι λίαν ἄκρατον οὖσαν, καὶ δουλεύοντα τὸν δῆμον παῦσαι, καὶ δημοκρατίαν καταστῆσαι τὴν πάτριον, μείξαντα καλῶς τὴν πολιτείαν· εἶναι γὰρ τὴν μὲν ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ βουλὴν ὀλιγαρχικόν, τὸ δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς αἱρετὰς ἀριστοκρατικόν, τὰ δὲ δικαστήρια δημοτικόν.

+ +
+

ἔοικε δὲ Σόλων ἐκεῖνα μὲν ὑπάρχοντα πρότερον οὐ καταλῦσαι, τήν τε βουλὴν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀρχῶν αἵρεσιν, τὸν δὲ δῆμον καταστῆσαι, τὰ δικαστήρια ποιήσας ἐκ πάντων. διὸ καὶ μέμφονταί τινες αὐτῷ· λῦσαι γὰρ θάτερα, κύριον ποιήσαντα τὸ δικαστήριον πάντων, κληρωτὸν ὄν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ τοῦτʼ ἴσχυσεν, ὥσπερ τυράννῳ τῷ δήμῳ χαριζόμενοι τὴν πολιτείαν εἰς τὴν νῦν δημοκρατίαν μετέστησαν· καὶ τὴν μὲν ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ βουλὴν Ἐφιάλτης ἐκόλουσε καὶ Περικλῆς, τὰ δὲ δικαστήρια μισθοφόρα κατέστησε Περικλῆς, καὶ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν τρόπον ἕκαστος τῶν δημαγωγῶν προήγαγεν αὔξων εἰς τὴν νῦν δημοκρατίαν. φαίνεται δʼ οὐ κατὰ τὴν Σόλωνος γενέσθαι τοῦτο προαίρεσιν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀπὸ συμπτώματος (τῆς ναυαρχίας γὰρ ἐν τοῖς Μηδικοῖς ὁ δῆμος αἴτιος γενόμενος ἐφρονηματίσθη καὶ δημαγωγοὺς ἔλαβε φαύλους ἀντιπολιτευομένων τῶν ἐπιεικῶν), ἐπεὶ Σόλων γε ἔοικε τὴν ἀναγκαιοτάτην ἀποδιδόναι τῷ δήμῳ δύναμιν, τὸ τὰς ἀρχὰς αἱρεῖσθαι καὶ εὐθύνειν (μηδὲ γὰρ τούτου κύριος ὢν ὁ δῆμος δοῦλος ἂν εἴη καὶ πολέμιος), τὰς δʼ ἀρχὰς ἐκ τῶν γνωρίμων καὶ τῶν εὐπόρων κατέστησε πάσας, ἐκ τῶν πεντακοσιομεδίμνων καὶ ζευγιτῶν καὶ τρίτου τέλους τῆς καλουμένης ἱππάδος· τὸ δὲ τέταρτον τὸ θητικόν, οἷς οὐδεμιᾶς ἀρχῆς μετῆν.

+

νομοθέται δʼ ἐγένοντο Ζάλευκός τε Λοκροῖς τοῖς ἐπιζεφυρίοις, καὶ Χαρώνδας ὁ Καταναῖος τοῖς αὑτοῦ πολίταις καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ταῖς Χαλκιδικαῖς πόλεσι ταῖς περὶ Ἰταλίαν καὶ Σικελίαν. πειρῶνται δέ τινες καὶ συνάγειν ὡς Ὀνομακρίτου μὲν γενομένου πρώτου δεινοῦ περὶ νομοθεσίαν, γυμνασθῆναι δʼ αὐτὸν ἐν Κρήτῃ, Λοκρὸν ὄντα καὶ ἐπιδημοῦντα, κατὰ τέχνην μαντικήν· τούτου δὲ γενέσθαι Θάλητα ἑταῖρον, Θάλητος δʼ ἀκροατὴν Λυκοῦργον καὶ Ζάλευκον, Ζαλεύκου δὲ Χαρώνδαν. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν λέγουσιν ἀσκεπτότερον τῶν χρόνων ἔχοντες. ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ Φιλόλαος ὁ Κορίνθιος νομοθέτης Θηβαίοις. ἦν δʼ ὁ Φιλόλαος τὸ μὲν γένος τῶν Βακχιαδῶν, ἐραστὴς δὲ γενόμενος Διοκλέους τοῦ νικήσαντος Ὀλυμπίασιν, ὡς ἐκεῖνος τὴν πόλιν ἔλιπε διαμισήσας τὸν ἔρωτα τὸν τῆς μητρὸς Ἀλκυόνης, ἀπῆλθεν εἰς Θήβας· κἀκεῖ τὸν βίον ἐτελεύτησαν ἀμφότεροι. καὶ νῦν ἔτι δεικνύουσι τοὺς τάφους αὐτῶν ἀλλήλοις μὲν εὐσυνόπτους ὄντας, πρὸς δὲ τὴν τῶν Κορινθίων χώραν τὸν μὲν σύνοπτον τὸν δʼ οὐ σύνοπτον· μυθολογοῦσι γὰρ αὐτοὺς οὕτω τάξασθαι τὴν ταφήν, τὸν μὲν Διοκλέα διὰ τὴν ἀπέχθειαν τοῦ πάθους, ὅπως μὴ ἄποπτος ἔσται ἡ Κορινθία ἀπὸ τοῦ χώματος, τὸν δὲ Φιλόλαον ὅπως ἄποπτος.

+ +
+

ᾤκησαν μὲν οὖν διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν παρὰ τοῖς Θηβαίοις, νομοθέτης δʼ αὐτοῖς ἐγένετο Φιλόλαος περί τʼ ἄλλων τινῶν καὶ περὶ τῆς παιδοποιίας, οὓς καλοῦσιν ἐκεῖνοι νόμους θετικούς· καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἰδίως ὑπʼ ἐκείνου νενομοθετημένον, ὅπως ὁ ἀριθμὸς σῴζηται τῶν κλήρων. Χαρώνδου δʼ ἴδιον μὲν οὐδέν ἐστι πλὴν αἱ δίκαι τῶν ψευδομαρτυριῶν (πρῶτος γὰρ ἐποίησε τὴν ἐπίσκηψιν), τῇ δʼ ἀκριβείᾳ τῶν νόμων ἐστὶ γλαφυρώτερος καὶ τῶν νῦν νομοθετῶν.

+

Φαλέου δʼ ἴδιον ἡ τῶν οὐσιῶν ἀνομάλωσις, Πλάτωνος δʼ ἥ τε τῶν γυναικῶν καὶ παίδων καὶ τῆς οὐσίας κοινότης καὶ τὰ συσσίτια τῶν γυναικῶν, ἔτι δʼ ὁ περὶ τὴν μέθην νόμος, τὸ τοὺς νήφοντας συμποσιαρχεῖν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς ἄσκησιν ὅπως ἀμφιδέξιοι γίνωνται κατὰ τὴν μελέτην, ὡς δέον μὴ τὴν μὲν χρήσιμον εἶναι τοῖν χεροῖν τὴν δὲ ἄχρηστον. Δράκοντος δὲ νόμοι μὲν εἰσί, πολιτείᾳ δʼ ὑπαρχούσῃ τοὺς νόμους ἔθηκεν· ἴδιον δʼ ἐν τοῖς νόμοις οὐδὲν ἔστιν ὅ τι καὶ μνείας ἄξιον, πλὴν ἡ χαλεπότης διὰ τὸ τῆς ζημίας μέγεθος. ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ Πιττακὸς νόμων δημιουργὸς ἀλλʼ οὐ πολιτείας· νόμος δʼ ἴδιος αὐτοῦ τὸ τοὺς μεθύοντας, ἄν τι πταίσωσι, πλείω ζημίαν ἀποτίνειν τῶν νηφόντων· διὰ γὰρ τὸ πλείους ὑβρίζειν μεθύοντας ἢ νήφοντας οὐ πρὸς τὴν συγγνώμην ἀπέβλεψεν, ὅτι δεῖ μεθύουσιν ἔχειν μᾶλλον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον. ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ Ἀνδροδάμας Ῥηγῖνος νομοθέτης Χαλκιδεῦσι τοῖς ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης, οὗ τὰ περί τε τὰ φονικὰ καὶ τὰς ἐπικλήρους ἐστίν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ ἴδιόν γε οὐδὲν αὐτοῦ λέγειν ἔχοι τις ἄν. τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὰς πολιτείας, τάς τε κυρίας καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ τινῶν εἰρημένας, ἔστω τεθεωρημένα τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

+ +
+
+

τῷ περὶ πολιτείας ἐπισκοποῦντι, καὶ τίς ἑκάστη καὶ ποία τις, σχεδὸν πρώτη σκέψις περὶ πόλεως ἰδεῖν, τί ποτέ ἐστιν ἡ πόλις. νῦν γὰρ ἀμφισβητοῦσιν, οἱ μὲν φάσκοντες τὴν πόλιν πεπραχέναι τὴν πρᾶξιν, οἱ δʼ οὐ τὴν πόλιν ἀλλὰ τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἢ τὸν τύραννον· τοῦ δὲ πολιτικοῦ καὶ τοῦ νομοθέτου πᾶσαν ὁρῶμεν τὴν πραγματείαν οὖσαν περὶ πόλιν, ἡ δὲ πολιτεία τῶν τὴν πόλιν οἰκούντων ἐστὶ τάξις τις. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἡ πόλις τῶν συγκειμένων, καθάπερ ἄλλο τι τῶν ὅλων μὲν συνεστώτων δʼ ἐκ πολλῶν μορίων, δῆλον ὅτι πρότερον ὁ πολίτης ζητητέος· ἡ γὰρ πόλις πολιτῶν τι πλῆθός ἐστιν.

+ +
+

ὥστε τίνα χρὴ καλεῖν πολίτην καὶ τίς ὁ πολίτης ἐστὶ σκεπτέον. καὶ γὰρ ὁ πολίτης ἀμφισβητεῖται πολλάκις· οὐ γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογοῦσι πάντες εἶναι πολίτην· ἔστι γάρ ὅστις ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ πολίτης ὢν ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ πολλάκις οὐκ ἔστι πολίτης. τοὺς μὲν οὖν ἄλλως πως τυγχάνοντας ταύτης τῆς προσηγορίας, οἷον τοὺς ποιητοὺς πολίτας, ἀφετέον· ὁ δὲ πολίτης οὐ τῷ οἰκεῖν που πολίτης ἐστίν (καὶ γὰρ μέτοικοι καὶ δοῦλοι κοινωνοῦσι τῆς οἰκήσεως), οὐδʼ οἱ τῶν δικαίων μετέχοντες οὕτως ὥστε καὶ δίκην ὑπέχειν καὶ δικάζεσθαι (τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπάρχει καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ συμβόλων κοινωνοῦσιν καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα τούτοις ὑπάρχει· πολλαχοῦ μὲν οὖν οὐδὲ τούτων τελέως οἱ μέτοικοι μετέχουσιν, ἀλλὰ νέμειν ἀνάγκη προστάτην, ὥστε ἀτελῶς πως μετέχουσι τῆς τοιαύτης κοινωνίας), ἀλλὰ καθάπερ καὶ παῖδας τοὺς μήπω διʼ ἡλικίαν ἐγγεγραμμένους καὶ τοὺς γέροντας τοὺς ἀφειμένους φατέον εἶναι μέν πως πολίτας, οὐχ ἁπλῶς δὲ λίαν ἀλλὰ προστιθέντας τοὺς μὲν ἀτελεῖς τοὺς δὲ παρηκμακότας ἤ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον (οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει· δῆλον γὰρ τὸ λεγόμενον). ζητοῦμεν γὰρ τὸν ἁπλῶς πολίτην καὶ μηδὲν ἔχοντα τοιοῦτον ἔγκλημα διορθώσεως δεόμενον, ἐπεὶ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀτίμων καὶ φυγάδων ἔστι τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ διαπορεῖν καὶ λύειν. πολίτης δʼ ἁπλῶς οὐδενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁρίζεται μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ μετέχειν κρίσεως καὶ ἀρχῆς. τῶν δʼ ἀρχῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι διῃρημέναι κατὰ χρόνον, ὥστʼ ἐνίας μὲν ὅλως δὶς τὸν αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἄρχειν, ἢ διὰ τινῶν ὡρισμένων χρόνων· ὁ δʼ ἀόριστος, οἷον ὁ δικαστὴς καὶ ὁ ἐκκλησιαστής. τάχα μὲν οὖν ἂν φαίη τις οὐδʼ ἄρχοντας εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους, οὐδὲ μετέχειν διὰ ταῦτʼ ἀρχῆς· καίτοι γελοῖον τοὺς κυριωτάτους ἀποστερεῖν ἀρχῆς. ἀλλὰ διαφερέτω μηδέν· περὶ ὀνόματος γὰρ ὁ λόγος· ἀνώνυμον γὰρ τὸ κοινὸν ἐπὶ δικαστοῦ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστοῦ, τί δεῖ ταῦτʼ ἄμφω καλεῖν. ἔστω δὴ διορισμοῦ χάριν ἀόριστος ἀρχή. τίθεμεν δὴ πολίτας τοὺς οὕτω μετέχοντας.

+

ὁ μὲν οὖν μάλιστʼ ἂν ἐφαρμόσας πολίτης ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς λεγομένους πολίτας σχεδὸν τοιοῦτός ἐστιν· δεῖ δὲ μὴ λανθάνειν ὅτι τῶν πραγμάτων ἐν οἷς τὰ ὑποκείμενα διαφέρει τῷ εἴδει, καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτῶν ἐστι πρῶτον τὸ δὲ δεύτερον τὸ δʼ ἐχόμενον, ἢ τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲν ἔνεστιν, ᾗ τοιαῦτα, τὸ κοινόν, ἢ γλίσχρως. τὰς δὲ πολιτείας ὁρῶμεν εἴδει διαφερούσας ἀλλήλων, καὶ τὰς μὲν ὑστέρας τὰς δὲ προτέρας οὔσας·

+ +
+

τὰς γὰρ ἡμαρτημένας καὶ παρεκβεβηκυίας ἀναγκαῖον ὑστέρας εἶναι τῶν ἀναμαρτήτων (τὰς δὲ παρεκβεβηκυίας πῶς λέγομεν, ὕστερον ἔσται φανερόν). ὥστε καὶ τὸν πολίτην ἕτερον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸν καθʼ ἑκάστην πολιτείαν. διόπερ ὁ λεχθεὶς ἐν μὲν δημοκρατίᾳ μάλιστʼ ἐστὶ πολίτης, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐνδέχεται μέν, οὐ μὴν ἀναγκαῖον. ἐν ἐνίαις γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι δῆμος, οὐδʼ ἐκκλησίαν νομίζουσιν ἀλλὰ συγκλήτους, καὶ τὰς δίκας δικάζουσι κατὰ μέρος, οἷον ἐν Λακεδαίμονι τὰς τῶν συμβολαίων δικάζει τῶν ἐφόρων ἄλλος ἄλλας, οἱ δὲ γέροντες τὰς φονικάς, ἑτέρα δʼ ἴσως ἀρχή τις ἑτέρας. οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ Καρχηδόνα· πάσας γὰρ ἀρχαί τινες κρίνουσι τὰς δίκας. ἀλλʼ ἔχει διόρθωσιν ὁ τοῦ πολίτου διορισμός. ἐν γὰρ ταῖς ἄλλαις πολιτείαις οὐχ ὁ ἀόριστος ἄρχων ἐκκλησιαστής ἐστι καὶ δικαστής, ἀλλὰ ὁ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὡρισμένος· τούτων γὰρ ἢ πᾶσιν ἢ τισὶν ἀποδέδοται τὸ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ δικάζειν ἢ περὶ πάντων ἢ περὶ τινῶν. τίς μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ὁ πολίτης, ἐκ τούτων φανερόν· ᾧ γὰρ ἐξουσία κοινωνεῖν ἀρχῆς βουλευτικῆς ἢ κριτικῆς, πολίτην ἤδη λέγομεν εἶναι ταύτης τῆς πόλεως, πόλιν δὲ τὸ τῶν τοιούτων πλῆθος ἱκανὸν πρὸς αὐτάρκειαν ζωῆς, ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν.

+

ὁρίζονται δὲ πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν πολίτην τὸν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων πολιτῶν καὶ μὴ θατέρου μόνον, οἷον πατρὸς ἢ μητρός, οἱ δὲ καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐπὶ πλέον ζητοῦσιν, οἷον ἐπὶ πάππους δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἢ πλείους. οὕτω δὲ ὁριζομένων πολιτικῶς καὶ ταχέως, ἀποροῦσί τινες τὸν τρίτον ἐκεῖνον ἢ τέταρτον, πῶς ἔσται πολίτης. Γοργίας μὲν οὖν ὁ Λεοντῖνος, τὰ μὲν ἴσως ἀπορῶν τὰ δʼ εἰρωνευόμενος, ἔφη, καθάπερ ὅλμους εἶναι τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν ὁλμοποιῶν πεποιημένους, οὕτω καὶ Λαρισαίους τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν δημιουργῶν πεποιημένους· εἶναι γάρ τινας λαρισοποιούς. ἔστι δʼ ἁπλοῦν. εἰ γὰρ μετεῖχον κατὰ τὸν ῥηθέντα διορισμὸν τῆς πολιτείας, ἦσαν πολῖται· καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ δυνατὸν ἐφαρμόττειν τὸ ἐκ πολίτου ἢ ἐκ πολίτιδος ἐπὶ τῶν πρώτων οἰκησάντων ἢ κτισάντων.

+

ἀλλʼ ἴσως ἐκεῖνο μᾶλλον ἔχει ἀπορίαν, ὅσοι μετέσχον μεταβολῆς γενομένης πολιτείας, οἷον Ἀθήνησιν ἐποίησε Κλεισθένης μετὰ τὴν τῶν τυράννων ἐκβολήν· πολλοὺς γὰρ ἐφυλέτευσε ξένους καὶ δούλους μετοίκους. τὸ δʼ ἀμφισβήτημα πρὸς τούτους ἐστὶν οὐ τίς πολίτης, ἀλλὰ πότερον ἀδίκως ἢ δικαίως. καίτοι κἂν τοῦτό τις ἔτι προσαπορήσειεν,

+ +
+

ἆρʼ εἰ μὴ δικαίως πολίτης, οὐ πολίτης, ὡς ταὐτὸ δυναμένου τοῦ τʼ ἀδίκου καὶ τοῦ ψευδοῦς. ἐπεὶ δʼ ὁρῶμεν καὶ ἄρχοντάς τινας ἀδίκως, οὓς ἄρχειν μὲν φήσομεν ἀλλʼ οὐ δικαίως, ὁ δὲ πολίτης ἀρχῇ τινὶ διωρισμένος ἐστίν (ὁ γὰρ κοινωνῶν τῆς τοιᾶσδε ἀρχῆς πολίτης ἐστίν, ὡς ἔφαμεν), δῆλον ὅτι πολίτας μὲν εἶναι φατέον καὶ τούτους·

+

περὶ δὲ τοῦ δικαίως ἢ μὴ δικαίως συνάπτει πρὸς τὴν εἰρημένην πρότερον ἀμφισβήτησιν. ἀποροῦσι γάρ τινες πόθʼ ἡ πόλις ἔπραξε καὶ πότε οὐχ ἡ πόλις, οἷον ὅταν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας ἢ τυραννίδος γένηται δημοκρατία (τότε γὰρ οὔτε τὰ συμβόλαια ἔνιοι βούλονται διαλύειν, ὡς οὐ τῆς πόλεως ἀλλὰ τοῦ τυράννου λαβόντος, οὔτʼ ἄλλα πολλὰ τῶν τοιούτων, ὡς ἐνίας τῶν πολιτειῶν τῷ κρατεῖν οὔσας, ἀλλὰ οὐ διὰ τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον)· εἴπερ οὖν καὶ δημοκρατοῦνταί τινες κατὰ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, ὁμοίως τῆς πόλεως φατέον εἶναι ταύτης τὰς τῆς πολιτείας ταύτης πράξεις καὶ τὰς ἐκ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ τῆς τυραννίδος. ἔοικε δʼ οἰκεῖος ὁ λόγος εἶναι τῆς ἀπορίας ταύτης πως ποτὲ χρὴ λέγειν τὴν πόλιν εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν ἢ μὴ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀλλʼ ἑτέραν. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐπιπολαιοτάτη τῆς ἀπορίας ζήτησις περὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐστίν· ἐνδέχεται γὰρ διαζευχθῆναι τὸν τόπον καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἕτερον τοὺς δʼ ἕτερον οἰκῆσαι τόπον.

+

ταύτην μὲν οὖν πραοτέραν θετέον τὴν ἀπορίαν, πολλαχῶς γὰρ τῆς πόλεως λεγομένης, ἐστί πως εὐμάρεια τῆς τοιαύτης ζητήσεως· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν τὸν αὐτὸν κατοικούντων ἀνθρώπων πότε δεῖ νομίζειν μίαν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῖς τείχεσιν· εἴη γὰρ ἂν Πελοποννήσῳ περιβαλεῖν ἓν τεῖχος. τοιαύτη δʼ ἴσως ἐστὶ καὶ Βαβυλὼν καὶ πᾶσα ἥτις ἔχει περιγραφὴν μᾶλλον ἔθνους ἢ πόλεως· ἧς γέ φασιν ἑαλωκυίας τρίτην ἡμέραν οὐκ αἰσθέσθαι τι μέρος τῆς πόλεως.

+

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν ταύτης τῆς ἀπορίας εἰς ἄλλον καιρὸν χρήσιμος ἡ σκέψις (περὶ γὰρ μεγέθους τῆς πόλεως, τό τε πόσον καὶ πότερον ἔθνος ἓν ἢ πλείω συμφέρει, δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν τὸν πολιτικόν)· ἀλλὰ τῶν αὐτῶν κατοικούντων τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον, πότερον ἕως ἂν ᾖ τὸ γένος ταὐτὸ τῶν κατοικούντων, τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι φατέον πόλιν, καίπερ αἰεὶ τῶν μὲν φθειρομένων τῶν δὲ γινομένων, ὥσπερ καὶ ποταμοὺς εἰώθαμεν λέγειν τοὺς αὐτοὺς καὶ κρήνας τὰς αὐτάς, καίπερ αἰεὶ τοῦ μὲν ἐπιγινομένου νάματος τοῦ δʼ ὑπεξιόντος, ἢ τοὺς μὲν ἀνθρώπους φατέον εἶναι τοὺς αὐτοὺς διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν, τὴν δὲ πόλιν ἑτέραν;

+ +
+

εἴπερ γάρ ἐστι κοινωνία τις ἡ πόλις, ἔστι δὲ κοινωνία πολιτῶν πολιτείας, γινομένης ἑτέρας τῷ εἴδει καὶ διαφερούσης τῆς πολιτείας ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι δόξειεν ἂν καὶ τὴν πόλιν εἶναι μὴ τὴν αὐτήν, ὥσπερ γε καὶ χορὸν ὁτὲ μὲν κωμικὸν ὁτὲ δὲ τραγικὸν ἕτερον εἶναί φαμεν, τῶν αὐτῶν πολλάκις ἀνθρώπων ὄντων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πᾶσαν ἄλλην κοινωνίαν καὶ σύνθεσιν ἑτέραν, ἂν εἶδος ἕτερον ᾖ τῆς συνθέσεως, οἷον ἁρμονίαν τῶν αὐτῶν φθόγγων ἑτέραν εἶναι λέγομεν, ἂν ὁτὲ μὲν ᾖ Δώριος ὁτὲ δὲ Φρύγιος. εἰ δὴ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, φανερὸν ὅτι μάλιστα λεκτέον τὴν αὐτὴν πόλιν εἰς τὴν πολιτείαν βλέποντας· ὄνομα δὲ καλεῖν ἕτερον ἢ ταὐτὸν ἔξεστι καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν κατοικούντων αὐτὴν καὶ πάμπαν ἑτέρων ἀνθρώπων. εἰ δὲ δίκαιον διαλύειν ἢ μὴ διαλύειν, ὅταν εἰς ἑτέραν μεταβάλῃ πολιτείαν ἡ πόλις, λόγος ἕτερος.

+

τῶν δὲ νῦν εἰρημένων ἐχόμενόν ἐστιν ἐπισκέψασθαι πότερον τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρετὴν ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ καὶ πολίτου σπουδαίου θετέον, ἢ μὴ τὴν αὐτήν. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ γε τοῦτο τυχεῖν δεῖ ζητήσεως, τὴν τοῦ πολίτου τύπῳ τινὶ πρῶτον ληπτέον. ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ πλωτὴρ εἷς τις τῶν κοινωνῶν ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ τὸν πολίτην φαμέν. τῶν δὲ πλωτήρων καίπερ ἀνομοίων ὄντων τὴν δύναμιν (ὁ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐρέτης, ὁ δὲ κυβερνήτης, ὁ δὲ πρῳρεύς, ὁ δʼ ἄλλην τινʼ ἔχων τοιαύτην ἐπωνυμίαν) δῆλον ὡς ὁ μὲν ἀκριβέστατος ἑκάστου λόγος ἴδιος ἔσται τῆς ἀρετῆς, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κοινός τις ἐφαρμόσει πᾶσιν. ἡ γὰρ σωτηρία τῆς ναυτιλίας ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτῶν πάντων· τούτου γὰρ ἕκαστος ὀρέγεται τῶν πλωτήρων. ὁμοίως τοίνυν καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν, καίπερ ἀνομοίων ὄντων, ἡ σωτηρία τῆς κοινωνίας ἔργον ἐστί, κοινωνία δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ πολιτεία· διὸ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ πολίτου πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν. εἴπερ οὖν ἔστι πλείω πολιτείας εἴδη, δῆλον ὡς οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τοῦ σπουδαίου πολίτου μίαν ἀρετὴν εἶναι, τὴν τελείαν· τὸν δʼ ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα φαμὲν κατὰ μίαν ἀρετὴν εἶναι τὴν τελείαν.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐνδέχεται πολίτην ὄντα σπουδαῖον μὴ κεκτῆσθαι τὴν ἀρετὴν καθʼ ἣν σπουδαῖος ἀνήρ, φανερόν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ κατʼ ἄλλον τρόπον ἔστι διαποροῦντας ἐπελθεῖν τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον περὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας. εἰ γὰρ ἀδύνατον ἐξ ἁπάντων σπουδαίων ὄντων εἶναι πόλιν, δεῖ γʼ ἕκαστον τὸ καθʼ αὑτὸν ἔργον εὖ ποιεῖν, τοῦτο δὲ ἀπʼ ἀρετῆς· ἐπειδὴ ἀδύνατον ὁμοίους εἶναι πάντας τοὺς πολίτας,

+ +
+

οὐκ ἂν εἴη μία ἀρετὴ πολίτου καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ. τὴν μὲν γὰρ τοῦ σπουδαίου πολίτου δεῖ πᾶσιν ὑπάρχειν (οὕτω γὰρ ἀρίστην ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὴν πόλιν), τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀδύνατον, εἰ μὴ πάντας ἀναγκαῖον ἀγαθοὺς εἶναι τοὺς ἐν τῇ σπουδαίᾳ πόλει πολίτας. ἔτι ἐπεὶ ἐξ ἀνομοίων ἡ πόλις, ὥσπερ ζῷον εὐθὺς ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, καὶ ψυχὴ ἐκ λόγου καὶ ὀρέξεως, καὶ οἰκία ἐξ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός, καὶ κτῆσις ἐκ δεσπότου καὶ δούλου, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ πόλις ἐξ ἁπάντων τε τούτων καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἐξ ἄλλων ἀνομοίων συνέστηκεν εἰδῶν, ἀνάγκη μὴ μίαν εἶναι τὴν τῶν πολιτῶν πάντων ἀρετήν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τῶν χορευτῶν κορυφαίου καὶ παραστάτου.

+

διότι μὲν τοίνυν ἁπλῶς οὐχ ἡ αὐτή, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων· ἀλλʼ ἆρα ἔσται τινὸς ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ πολίτου τε σπουδαίου καὶ ἀνδρὸς σπουδαίου; φαμὲν δὴ τὸν ἄρχοντα τὸν σπουδαῖον ἀγαθὸν εἶναι καὶ φρόνιμον, τὸν δὲ πολίτην οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι φρόνιμον. καὶ τὴν παιδείαν δʼ εὐθὺς ἑτέραν εἶναι λέγουσί τινες ἄρχοντος, ὥσπερ καὶ φαίνονται οἱ τῶν βασιλέων υἱεῖς ἱππικὴν καὶ πολεμικὴν παιδευόμενοι, καὶ Εὐριπίδης φησὶ μή μοι τὰ κόμψʼ ἀλλʼ ὧν πόλει δεῖ, Eur. fr. 16 ὡς οὖσάν τινα ἄρχοντος παιδείαν. εἰ δὲ ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἄρχοντός τε ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ, πολίτης δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ ἁπλῶς ἂν εἴη πολίτου καὶ ἀνδρός, τινὸς μέντοι πολίτου· οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ ἄρχοντος καὶ πολίτου, καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ ἴσως Ἰάσων ἔφη πεινῆν ὅτε μὴ τυραννοῖ, ὡς οὐκ ἐπιστάμενος ἰδιώτης εἶναι.

+

ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐπαινεῖταί γε τὸ δύνασθαι ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι, καὶ πολίτου δοκεῖ που ἡ ἀρετὴ εἶναι τὸ δύνασθαι καὶ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι καλῶς. εἰ οὖν τὴν μὲν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀνδρὸς τίθεμεν ἀρχικήν, τὴν δὲ τοῦ πολίτου ἄμφω, οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἄμφω ἐπαινετὰ ὁμοίως. ἐπεὶ οὖν ποτε δοκεῖ ἀμφότερα, καὶ οὐ ταὐτὰ δεῖν τὸν ἄρχοντα μανθάνειν καὶ τὸν ἀρχόμενον, τὸν δὲ πολίτην ἀμφότερʼ ἐπίστασθαι καὶ μετέχειν ἀμφοῖν, τοὐντεῦθεν ἂν κατίδοι τις. ἔστι γὰρ ἀρχὴ δεσποτική· ταύτην δὲ τὴν περὶ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα λέγομεν, ἃ ποιεῖν ἐπίστασθαι τὸν ἄρχοντα οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀλλὰ χρῆσθαι μᾶλλον· θάτερον δὲ καὶ ἀνδραποδῶδες. λέγω δὲ θάτερον τὸ δύνασθαι καὶ ὑπηρετεῖν τὰς διακονικὰς πράξεις. δούλου δʼ εἴδη πλείω λέγομεν· αἱ γὰρ ἐργασίαι πλείους. ὧν ἓν μέρος κατέχουσιν οἱ χερνῆτες· οὗτοι δʼ εἰσίν, ὥσπερ σημαίνει καὶ τοὔνομʼ αὐτούς, οἱ ζῶντες ἀπὸ τῶν χειρῶν,

+ +
+

ἐν οἷς ὁ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἐστίν. διὸ παρʼ ἐνίοις οὐ μετεῖχον οἱ δημιουργοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀρχῶν, πρὶν δῆμον γενέσθαι τὸν ἔσχατον. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἔργα τῶν ἀρχομένων οὕτως οὐ δεῖ τὸν ἀγαθὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πολιτικὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πολίτην τὸν ἀγαθὸν μανθάνειν, εἰ μή ποτε χρείας χάριν αὐτῷ πρὸς αὑτόν· οὐ γὰρ ἔτι συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι τὸν μὲν δεσπότην τὸν δὲ δοῦλον.

+

ἀλλʼ ἔστι τις ἀρχὴ καθʼ ἣν ἄρχει τῶν ὁμοίων τῷ γένει καὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων. ταύτην γὰρ λέγομεν εἶναι τὴν πολιτικὴν ἀρχήν, ἣν δεῖ τὸν ἄρχοντα ἀρχόμενον μαθεῖν, οἷον ἱππαρχεῖν ἱππαρχηθέντα, στρατηγεῖν στρατηγηθέντα καὶ ταξιαρχήσαντα καὶ λοχαγήσαντα. διὸ λέγεται καὶ τοῦτο καλῶς, ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν εὖ ἄρξαι μὴ ἀρχθέντα. τούτων δὲ ἀρετὴ μὲν ἑτέρα, δεῖ δὲ τὸν πολίτην τὸν ἀγαθὸν ἐπίστασθαι καὶ δύνασθαι καὶ ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν, καὶ αὕτη ἀρετὴ πολίτου, τὸ τὴν τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀρχὴν ἐπίστασθαι ἐπʼ ἀμφότερα. καὶ ἀνδρὸς δὴ ἀγαθοῦ ἄμφω, καὶ εἰ ἕτερον εἶδος σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἀρχικῆς. καὶ γὰρ ἀρχομένου μὲν ἐλευθέρου δὲ δῆλον ὅτι οὐ μία ἂν εἴη τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀρετή, οἷον δικαιοσύνη, ἀλλʼ εἴδη ἔχουσα καθʼ ἃ ἄρξει καὶ ἄρξεται, ὥσπερ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς ἑτέρα σωφροσύνη καὶ ἀνδρεία (δόξαι γὰρ ἂν εἶναι δειλὸς ἀνήρ, εἰ οὕτως ἀνδρεῖος εἴη ὥσπερ γυνὴ ἀνδρεία, καὶ γυνὴ λάλος, εἰ οὕτω κοσμία εἴη ὥσπερ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἀγαθός· ἐπεὶ καὶ οἰκονομία ἑτέρα ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ κτᾶσθαι τῆς δὲ φυλάττειν ἔργον ἐστίν). ἡ δὲ φρόνησις ἄρχοντος ἴδιος ἀρετὴ μόνη. τὰς γὰρ ἄλλας ἔοικεν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι κοινὰς καὶ τῶν ἀρχομένων καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἀρχομένου δέ γε οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρετὴ φρόνησις, ἀλλὰ δόξα ἀληθής· ὥσπερ αὐλοποιὸς γὰρ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, ὁ δʼ ἄρχων αὐλητὴς ὁ χρώμενος. πότερον μὲν οὖν ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ καὶ πολίτου σπουδαίου ἢ ἑτέρα, καὶ πῶς ἡ αὐτὴ καὶ πῶς ἑτέρα, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων.

+

περὶ δὲ τὸν πολίτην ἔτι λείπεταί τις τῶν ἀποριῶν. ὡς ἀληθῶς γὰρ πότερον πολίτης ἐστὶν ᾧ κοινωνεῖν ἔξεστιν ἀρχῆς, ἢ καὶ τοὺς βαναύσους πολίτας θετέον; εἰ μὲν οὖν καὶ τούτους θετέον οἷς μὴ μέτεστιν ἀρχῶν, οὐχ οἷόν τε παντὸς εἶναι πολίτου τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρετήν (οὗτος γὰρ πολίτης)· εἰ δὲ μηδεὶς τῶν τοιούτων πολίτης, ἐν τίνι μέρει θετέος ἕκαστος; οὐδὲ γὰρ μέτοικος οὐδὲ ξένος. ἢ διά γε τοῦτον τὸν λόγον οὐδὲν φήσομεν συμβαίνειν ἄτοπον;

+ +
+

οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ δοῦλοι τῶν εἰρημένων οὐδέν, οὐδʼ οἱ ἀπελεύθεροι. τοῦτο γὰρ ἀληθές, ὡς οὐ πάντας θετέον πολίτας ὧν ἄνευ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πόλις, ἐπεὶ οὐδʼ οἱ παῖδες ὡσαύτως πολῖται καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀλλʼ οἱ μὲν ἁπλῶς οἱ δʼ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως· πολῖται μὲν γάρ εἰσιν, ἀλλʼ ἀτελεῖς. ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις χρόνοις παρʼ ἐνίοις ἦν δοῦλον τὸ βάναυσον ἢ ξενικόν, διόπερ οἱ πολλοὶ τοιοῦτοι καὶ νῦν· ἡ δὲ βελτίστη πόλις οὐ ποιήσει βάναυσον πολίτην. εἰ δὲ καὶ οὗτος πολίτης, ἀλλὰ πολίτου ἀρετὴν ἣν εἴπομεν λεκτέον οὐ παντός, οὐδʼ ἐλευθέρου μόνον, ἀλλʼ ὅσοι τῶν ἔργων εἰσὶν ἀφειμένοι τῶν ἀναγκαίων. τῶν δʼ ἀναγκαίων οἱ μὲν ἑνὶ λειτουργοῦντες τὰ τοιαῦτα δοῦλοι, οἱ δὲ κοινοὶ βάναυσοι καὶ θῆτες. φανερὸν δʼ ἐντεῦθεν μικρὸν ἐπισκεψαμένοις πῶς ἔχει περὶ αὐτῶν· αὐτὸ γὰρ φανὲν τὸ λεχθὲν ποιεῖ δῆλον. ἐπεὶ γὰρ πλείους εἰσὶν αἱ πολιτεῖαι, καὶ εἴδη πολίτου ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πλείω, καὶ μάλιστα τοῦ ἀρχομένου πολίτου, ὥστʼ ἐν μὲν τινὶ πολιτείᾳ τὸν βάναυσον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ τὸν θῆτα πολίτας, ἐν τισὶ δʼ ἀδύνατον, οἷον εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἣν καλοῦσιν ἀριστοκρατικὴν καὶ ἐν ᾗ κατʼ ἀρετὴν αἱ τιμαὶ δίδονται καὶ κατʼ ἀξίαν· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τʼ ἐπιτηδεῦσαι τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς ζῶντα βίον βάναυσον ἢ θητικόν. ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις θῆτα μὲν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται εἶναι πολίτην (ἀπὸ τιμημάτων γὰρ μακρῶν αἱ μεθέξεις τῶν ἀρχῶν), βάναυσον δὲ ἐνδέχεται· πλουτοῦσι γὰρ καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν τεχνιτῶν. ἐν Θήβαις δὲ νόμος ἦν τὸν διὰ δέκα ἐτῶν μὴ ἀπεσχημένον τῆς ἀγορᾶς μὴ μετέχειν ἀρχῆς. ἐν πολλαῖς δὲ πολιτείαις προσεφέλκει τινὰς καὶ τῶν ξένων ὁ νόμος· ὁ γὰρ ἐκ πολίτιδος ἔν τισι δημοκρατίαις πολίτης ἐστίν, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς νόθους παρὰ πολλοῖς. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ ἐπεὶ διʼ ἔνδειαν τῶν γνησίων πολιτῶν ποιοῦνται πολίτας τοὺς τοιούτους (διὰ γὰρ ὀλιγανθρωπίαν οὕτω χρῶνται τοῖς νόμοις), εὐποροῦντες δὴ ὄχλου κατὰ μικρὸν παραιροῦνται τοὺς ἐκ δούλου πρῶτον ἢ δούλης, εἶτα τοὺς ἀπὸ γυναικῶν, τέλος δὲ μόνον τοὺς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἀστῶν πολίτας ποιοῦσιν.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν εἴδη πλείω πολίτου, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων, καὶ ὅτι λέγεται μάλιστα πολίτης ὁ μετέχων τῶν τιμῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἐποίησεν ὡς εἴ τινʼ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην· Hom. Il. 9.648 Hom. Il. 16.59 ὥσπερ μέτοικος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ τῶν τιμῶν μὴ μετέχων. ἀλλʼ ἐστὶν ὅπου τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐπικεκρυμμένον ἐστίν, ἀπάτης χάριν τῶν συνοικούντων ἐστίν.

+ +
+

πότερον μὲν οὖν ἑτέραν ἢ τὴν αὐτὴν θετέον, καθʼ ἣν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός ἐστι καὶ πολίτης σπουδαῖος, δῆλον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι τινὸς μὲν πόλεως ὁ αὐτὸς τινὸς δʼ ἕτερος, κἀκεῖνος οὐ πᾶς ἀλλʼ ὁ πολιτικὸς καὶ κύριος ἢ δυνάμενος εἶναι κύριος, ἢ καθʼ αὑτὸν ἢ μετʼ ἄλλων, τῆς τῶν κοινῶν ἐπιμελείας.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ ταῦτα διώρισται, τὸ μετὰ ταῦτα σκεπτέον, πότερον μίαν θετέον πολιτείαν ἢ πλείους, κἂν εἰ πλείους, τίνες καὶ πόσαι, καὶ διαφοραὶ τίνες αὐτῶν εἰσιν. ἔστι δὲ πολιτεία πόλεως τάξις τῶν τε ἄλλων ἀρχῶν καὶ μάλιστα τῆς κυρίας πάντων. κύριον μὲν γὰρ πανταχοῦ τὸ πολίτευμα τῆς πόλεως, πολίτευμα δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ πολιτεία. λέγω δʼ οἷον ἐν μὲν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις κύριος ὁ δῆμος, οἱ δʼ ὀλίγοι τοὐναντίον ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις, φαμὲν δὲ καὶ πολιτείαν ἑτέραν εἶναι τούτων. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τοῦτον ἐροῦμεν λόγον καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων. ὑποθετέον δὴ πρῶτον τίνος χάριν συνέστηκε πόλις, καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς εἴδη πόσα τῆς περὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς ζωῆς. εἴρηται δὴ κατὰ τοὺς πρώτους λόγους, ἐν οἷς περὶ οἰκονομίας διωρίσθη καὶ δεσποτείας, καὶ ὅτι φύσει μέν ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ζῷον πολιτικόν. διὸ καὶ μηδὲν δεόμενοι τῆς παρὰ ἀλλήλων βοηθείας οὐκ ἔλαττον ὀρέγονται τοῦ συζῆν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον συνάγει, καθʼ ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει μέρος ἑκάστῳ τοῦ ζῆν καλῶς. μάλιστα μὲν οὖν τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ τέλος, καὶ κοινῇ πᾶσι καὶ χωρίς· συνέρχονται δὲ καὶ τοῦ ζῆν ἕνεκεν αὐτοῦ καὶ συνέχουσι τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν, ἴσως γὰρ ἔνεστί τι τοῦ καλοῦ μόριον καὶ κατὰ τὸ ζῆν αὐτὸ μόνον· ἂν μὴ τοῖς χαλεποῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ὑπερβάλῃ λίαν, δῆλον δʼ ὡς καρτεροῦσι πολλὴν κακοπάθειαν οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γλιχόμενοι τοῦ ζῆν, ὡς ἐνούσης τινὸς εὐημερίας ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ γλυκύτητος φυσικῆς.

+

ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς γε τοὺς λεγομένους τρόπους ῥᾴδιον διελεῖν· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς λόγοις διοριζόμεθα περὶ αὐτῶν πολλάκις. ἡ μὲν γὰρ δεσποτεία, καίπερ ὄντος κατʼ ἀλήθειαν τῷ τε φύσει δούλῳ καὶ τῷ φύσει δεσπότῃ ταὐτοῦ συμφέροντος, ὅμως ἄρχει πρὸς τὸ τοῦ δεσπότου συμφέρον οὐδὲν ἧττον, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τοῦ δούλου κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεται φθειρομένου τοῦ δούλου σῴζεσθαι τὴν δεσποτείαν. ἡ δὲ τέκνων ἀρχὴ καὶ γυναικὸς καὶ τῆς οἰκίας πάσης, ἣν δὴ καλοῦμεν οἰκονομικήν ἤτοι τῶν ἀρχομένων χάριν ἐστὶν ἢ κοινοῦ τινὸς ἀμφοῖν, καθʼ αὑτὸ μὲν τῶν ἀρχομένων, ὥσπερ ὁρῶμεν καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας,

+ +
+

οἷον ἰατρικὴν καὶ γυμναστικήν, κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς δὲ κἂν αὐτῶν εἶεν. οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει τὸν παιδοτρίβην ἕνα τῶν γυμναζομένων ἐνίοτʼ εἶναι καὶ αὐτόν, ὥσπερ ὁ κυβερνήτης εἷς ἐστιν ἀεὶ τῶν πλωτήρων· ὁ μὲν οὖν παιδοτρίβης ἢ κυβερνήτης σκοπεῖ τὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων ἀγαθόν, ὅταν δὲ τούτων εἷς γένηται καὶ αὐτός, κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς μετέχει τῆς ὠφελείας. ὁ μὲν γὰρ πλωτήρ, ὁ δὲ τῶν γυμναζομένων εἷς γίνεται, παιδοτρίβης ὤν. διὸ καὶ τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρχάς, ὅταν ᾖ κατʼ ἰσότητα τῶν πολιτῶν συνεστηκυῖα καὶ καθʼ ὁμοιότητα, κατὰ μέρος ἀξιοῦσιν ἄρχειν, πρότερον μέν, ᾗ πέφυκεν, ἀξιοῦντες ἐν μέρει λειτουργεῖν, καὶ σκοπεῖν τινα πάλιν τὸ αὑτοῦ ἀγαθόν, ὥσπερ πρότερον αὐτὸς ἄρχων ἐσκόπει τὸ ἐκείνου συμφέρον· νῦν δὲ διὰ τὰς ὠφελείας τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν κοινῶν καὶ τὰς ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς βούλονται συνεχῶς ἄρχειν, οἷον εἰ συνέβαινεν ὑγιαίνειν ἀεὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσι νοσακεροῖς οὖσιν. καὶ γὰρ ἂν οὕτως ἴσως ἐδίωκον τὰς ἀρχάς. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὡς ὅσαι μὲν πολιτεῖαι τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον σκοποῦσιν, αὗται μὲν ὀρθαὶ τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι κατὰ τὸ ἁπλῶς δίκαιον, ὅσαι δὲ τὸ σφέτερον μόνον τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἡμαρτημέναι πᾶσαι καὶ παρεκβάσεις τῶν ὀρθῶν πολιτειῶν· δεσποτικαὶ γάρ, ἡ δὲ πόλις κοινωνία τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἐστίν.

+

διωρισμένων δὲ τούτων ἐχόμενόν ἐστι τὰς πολιτείας ἐπισκέψασθαι, πόσαι τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ τίνες εἰσί, καὶ πρῶτον τὰς ὀρθὰς αὐτῶν· καὶ γὰρ αἱ παρεκβάσεις ἔσονται φανεραὶ τούτων διορισθεισῶν. ἐπεὶ δὲ πολιτεία μὲν καὶ πολίτευμα σημαίνει ταὐτόν, πολίτευμα δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ κύριον τῶν πόλεων, ἀνάγκη δʼ εἶναι κύριον ἢ ἕνα ἢ ὀλίγους ἢ τοὺς πολλούς, ὅταν μὲν ὁ εἷς ἢ οἱ ὀλίγοι ἢ οἱ πολλοὶ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν συμφέρον ἄρχωσι, ταύτας μὲν ὀρθὰς ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὰς πολιτείας, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὸ ἴδιον ἢ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἢ τῶν ὀλίγων ἢ τοῦ πλήθους παρεκβάσεις. ἢ γὰρ οὐ πολίτας φατέον εἶναι τοὺς μετέχοντας, ἢ δεῖ κοινωνεῖν τοῦ συμφέροντος. καλεῖν δʼ εἰώθαμεν τῶν μὲν μοναρχιῶν τὴν πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν ἀποβλέπουσαν συμφέρον βασιλείαν, τὴν δὲ τῶν ὀλίγων μὲν πλειόνων δʼ ἑνὸς ἀριστοκρατίαν (ἢ διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἀρίστους ἄρχειν, ἢ διὰ τὸ πρὸς τὸ ἄριστον τῇ πόλει καὶ τοῖς κοινωνοῦσιν αὐτῆς), ὅταν δὲ τὸ πλῆθος πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν πολιτεύηται συμφέρον, καλεῖται τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα πασῶν τῶν πολιτειῶν, πολιτεία. (συμβαίνει δʼ εὐλόγως· ἕνα μὲν γὰρ διαφέρειν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἢ ὀλίγους ἐνδέχεται, πλείους δʼ ἤδη χαλεπὸν ἠκριβῶσθαι πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀρετήν,

+ +
+

ἀλλὰ μάλιστα τὴν πολεμικήν· αὕτη γὰρ ἐν πλήθει γίγνεται· διόπερ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν πολιτείαν κυριώτατον τὸ προπολεμοῦν καὶ μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς οἱ κεκτημένοι τὰ ὅπλα.) παρεκβάσεις δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων τυραννὶς μὲν βασιλείας, ὀλιγαρχία δὲ ἀριστοκρατίας, δημοκρατία δὲ πολιτείας. ἡ μὲν γὰρ τυραννίς ἐστι μοναρχία πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον τὸ τοῦ μοναρχοῦντος, ἡ δʼ ὀλιγαρχία πρὸς τὸ τῶν εὐπόρων, ἡ δὲ δημοκρατία πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων· πρὸς δὲ τὸ τῷ κοινῷ λυσιτελοῦν οὐδεμία αὐτῶν.

+

δεῖ δὲ μικρῷ διὰ μακροτέρων εἰπεῖν τίς ἑκάστη τούτων τῶν πολιτειῶν ἐστιν· καὶ γὰρ ἔχει τινὰς ἀπορίας, τῷ δὲ περὶ ἑκάστην μέθοδον φιλοσοφοῦντι καὶ μὴ μόνον ἀποβλέποντι πρὸς τὸ πράττειν οἰκεῖόν ἐστι τὸ μὴ παρορᾶν μηδέ τι καταλείπειν, ἀλλὰ δηλοῦν τὴν περὶ ἕκαστον ἀλήθειαν. ἔστι δὲ τυραννὶς μὲν μοναρχία, καθάπερ εἴρηται, δεσποτικὴ τῆς πολιτικῆς κοινωνίας, ὀλιγαρχία δʼ ὅταν ὦσι κύριοι τῆς πολιτείας οἱ τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντες, δημοκρατία δὲ τοὐναντίον ὅταν οἱ μὴ κεκτημένοι πλῆθος οὐσίας ἀλλʼ ἄποροι. πρώτη δʼ ἀπορία πρὸς τὸν διορισμόν ἐστιν. εἰ γὰρ εἶεν οἱ πλείους, ὄντες εὔποροι, κύριοι τῆς πόλεως, δημοκρατία δʼ ἐστὶν ὅταν ᾖ κύριον τὸ πλῆθος—ὁμοίως δὲ πάλιν κἂν εἴ που συμβαίνοι τοὺς ἀπόρους ἐλάττους μὲν εἶναι τῶν εὐπόρων, κρείττους δʼ ὄντας κυρίους εἶναι τῆς πολιτείας, ὅπου δʼ ὀλίγον κύριον πλῆθος, ὀλιγαρχίαν εἶναί φασιν—οὐκ ἂν καλῶς δόξειεν διωρίσθαι περὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν.

+

ἀλλὰ μὴν κἄν εἴ τις συνθεὶς τῇ μὲν εὐπορίᾳ τὴν ὀλιγότητα τῇ δʼ ἀπορίᾳ τὸ πλῆθος οὕτω προσαγορεύῃ τὰς πολιτείας, ὀλιγαρχίαν μὲν ἐν ᾗ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχουσιν οἱ εὔποροι, ὀλίγοι τὸ πλῆθος ὄντες, δημοκρατίαν δὲ ἐν ᾗ οἱ ἄποροι, πολλοὶ τὸ πλῆθος ὄντες, ἄλλην ἀπορίαν ἔχει. τίνας γὰρ ἐροῦμεν τὰς ἄρτι λεχθείσας πολιτείας, τὴν ἐν ᾗ πλείους οἱ εὔποροι καὶ τὴν ἐν ᾗ ἐλάττους οἱ ἄποροι, κύριοι δʼ ἑκάτεροι τῶν πολιτειῶν, εἴπερ μηδεμία ἄλλη πολιτεία παρὰ τὰς εἰρημένας ἔστιν; ἔοικε τοίνυν ὁ λόγος ποιεῖν δῆλον ὅτι τὸ μὲν ὀλίγους ἢ πολλοὺς εἶναι κυρίους συμβεβηκός ἐστιν, τὸ μὲν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις τὸ δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις, διὰ τὸ τοὺς μὲν εὐπόρους ὀλίγους, πολλοὺς δʼ εἶναι τοὺς ἀπόρους πανταχοῦ (διὸ καὶ οὐ συμβαίνει τὰς ῥηθείσας αἰτίας αἰτίας γίνεσθαι διαφορᾶς), ᾧ δὲ διαφέρουσιν ἥ τε δημοκρατία καὶ ἡ ὀλιγαρχία ἀλλήλων πενία καὶ πλοῦτός ἐστιν,

+ +
+

καὶ ἀναγκαῖον μέν, ὅπου ἂν ἄρχωσι διὰ πλοῦτον, ἄν τʼ ἐλάττους ἄν τε πλείους, εἶναι ταύτην ὀλιγαρχίαν, ὅπου δʼ οἱ ἄποροι, δημοκρατίαν, ἀλλὰ συμβαίνει, καθάπερ εἴπομεν, τοὺς μὲν ὀλίγους εἶναι τοὺς δὲ πολλούς. εὐποροῦσι μὲν γὰρ ὀλίγοι, τῆς δὲ ἐλευθερίας μετέχουσι πάντες· διʼ ἃς αἰτίας ἀμφισβητοῦσιν ἀμφότεροι τῆς πολιτείας.

+

ληπτέον δὲ πρῶτον τίνας ὅρους λέγουσι τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δημοκρατίας, καὶ τί τὸ δίκαιον τό τε ὀλιγαρχικὸν καὶ δημοκρατικόν. πάντες γὰρ ἅπτονται δικαίου τινός, ἀλλὰ μέχρι τινὸς προέρχονται, καὶ λέγουσιν οὐ πᾶν τὸ κυρίως δίκαιον. οἷον δοκεῖ ἴσον τὸ δίκαιον εἶναι, καὶ ἔστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πᾶσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἴσοις· καὶ τὸ ἄνισον δοκεῖ δίκαιον εἶναι, καὶ γὰρ ἔστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πᾶσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀνίσοις· οἱ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἀφαιροῦσι, τὸ οἷς, καὶ κρίνουσι κακῶς. τὸ δʼ αἴτιον ὅτι περὶ αὑτῶν ἡ κρίσις· σχεδὸν δʼ οἱ πλεῖστοι φαῦλοι κριταὶ περὶ τῶν οἰκείων. ὥστʼ ἐπεὶ τὸ δίκαιον τισίν, καὶ διῄρηται τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπί τε τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ οἷς, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς, τὴν μὲν τοῦ πράγματος ἰσότητα ὁμολογοῦσι, τὴν δὲ οἷς ἀμφισβητοῦσι, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ τὸ λεχθὲν ἄρτι, διότι κρίνουσι τὰ περὶ αὑτοὺς κακῶς, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ λέγειν μέχρι τινὸς ἑκατέρους δίκαιόν τι νομίζουσι δίκαιον λέγειν ἁπλῶς. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἂν κατά τι ἄνισοι ὦσιν, οἷον χρήμασιν, ὅλως οἴονται ἄνισοι εἶναι, οἱ δʼ ἂν κατά τι ἴσοι, οἷον ἐλευθερίᾳ, ὅλως ἴσοι.

+

τὸ δὲ κυριώτατον οὐ λέγουσιν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν κτημάτων χάριν ἐκοινώνησαν καὶ συνῆλθον, τοσοῦτον μετέχουσι τῆς πόλεως ὅσον περ καὶ τῆς κτήσεως, ὥσθʼ ὁ τῶν ὀλιγαρχικῶν λόγος δόξειεν ἂν ἰσχύειν (οὐ γὰρ εἶναι δίκαιον ἴσον μετέχειν τῶν ἑκατὸν μνῶν τὸν εἰσενέγκαντα μίαν μνᾶν τῷ δόντι τὸ λοιπὸν πᾶν, οὔτε τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὔτε τῶν ἐπιγινομένων)· εἰ δὲ μήτε τοῦ ζῆν μόνον ἕνεκεν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῦ εὖ ζῆν (καὶ γὰρ ἂν δούλων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἦν πόλις· νῦν δʼ οὐκ ἔστι, διὰ τὸ μὴ μετέχειν εὐδαιμονίας μηδὲ τοῦ ζῆν κατὰ προαίρεσιν), μήτε συμμαχίας ἕνεκεν, ὅπως ὑπὸ μηδενὸς ἀδικῶνται, μήτε διὰ τὰς ἀλλαγὰς καὶ τὴν χρῆσιν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους—καὶ γὰρ ἂν Τυρρηνοὶ καὶ Καρχηδόνιοι, καὶ πάντες οἷς ἔστι σύμβολα πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὡς μιᾶς ἂν πολῖται πόλεως ἦσαν· εἰσὶ γοῦν αὐτοῖς συνθῆκαι περὶ τῶν εἰσαγωγίμων καὶ σύμβολα περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἀδικεῖν καὶ γραφαὶ περὶ συμμαχίας. ἀλλʼ οὔτʼ ἀρχαὶ πᾶσιν ἐπὶ τούτοις κοιναὶ καθεστᾶσιν,

+ +
+

ἀλλʼ ἕτεραι παρʼ ἑκατέροις, οὔτε τοῦ ποίους τινὰς εἶναι δεῖ φροντίζουσιν ἅτεροι τοὺς ἑτέρους, οὐδʼ ὅπως μηδεὶς ἄδικος ἔσται τῶν ὑπὸ τὰς συνθήκας μηδὲ μοχθηρίαν ἕξει μηδεμίαν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ὅπως μηδὲν ἀδικήσουσιν ἀλλήλους. περὶ δʼ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας πολιτικῆς διασκοποῦσιν ὅσοι φροντίζουσιν εὐνομίας. ᾗ καὶ φανερὸν ὅτι δεῖ περὶ ἀρετῆς ἐπιμελὲς εἶναι τῇ γʼ ὡς ἀληθῶς ὀνομαζομένῃ πόλει, μὴ λόγου χάριν. γίγνεται γὰρ ἡ κοινωνία συμμαχία, τῶν ἄλλων τόπῳ διαφέρουσα μόνον, τῶν ἄπωθεν συμμάχων. καὶ ὁ νόμος συνθήκη καί, καθάπερ ἔφη Λυκόφρων ὁ σοφιστής, ἐγγυητὴς ἀλλήλοις τῶν δικαίων, ἀλλʼ οὐχ οἷος ποιεῖν ἀγαθοὺς καὶ δικαίους τοὺς πολίτας. ὅτι δὲ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, φανερόν. εἰ γάρ τις καὶ συναγάγοι τοὺς τόπους εἰς ἕν, ὥστε ἅπτεσθαι τὴν Μεγαρέων πόλιν καὶ Κορινθίων τοῖς τείχεσιν, ὅμως οὐ μία πόλις· οὐδʼ εἰ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐπιγαμίας ποιήσαιντο· καίτοι τοῦτο τῶν ἰδίων ταῖς πόλεσι κοινωνημάτων ἐστίν. ὁμοίως δʼ οὐδʼ εἴ τινες οἰκοῖεν χωρὶς μέν, μὴ μέντοι τοσοῦτον ἄπωθεν ὥστε μὴ κοινωνεῖν, ἀλλʼ εἴησαν αὐτοῖς νόμοι τοῦ μὴ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἀδικεῖν περὶ τὰς μεταδόσεις, οἷον εἰ ὁ μὲν εἴη τέκτων ὁ δὲ γεωργὸς ὁ δὲ σκυτοτόμος ὁ δʼ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον, καὶ τὸ πλῆθος εἶεν μύριοι, μὴ μέντοι κοινωνοῖεν ἄλλου μηδενὸς ἢ τῶν τοιούτων, οἷον ἀλλαγῆς καὶ συμμαχίας, οὐδʼ οὕτω πω πόλις.

+

διὰ τίνα δή ποτʼ αἰτίαν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ διὰ τὸ μὴ σύνεγγυς τῆς κοινωνίας. εἰ γὰρ καὶ συνέλθοιεν οὕτω κοινωνοῦντες (ἕκαστος μέντοι χρῷτο τῇ ἰδίᾳ οἰκίᾳ ὥσπερ πόλει) καὶ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ὡς ἐπιμαχίας οὔσης βοηθοῦντες ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας μόνον, οὐδʼ οὕτως ἂν εἶναι δόξειεν πόλις τοῖς ἀκριβῶς θεωροῦσιν, εἴπερ ὁμοίως ὁμιλοῖεν συνελθόντες καὶ χωρίς. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι ἡ πόλις οὐκ ἔστι κοινωνία τόπου, καὶ τοῦ μὴ ἀδικεῖν σφᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ τῆς μεταδόσεως χάριν· ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν, εἴπερ ἔσται πόλις, οὐ μὴν οὐδʼ ὑπαρχόντων τούτων ἁπάντων ἤδη πόλις, ἀλλʼ ἡ τοῦ εὖ ζῆν κοινωνία καὶ ταῖς οἰκίαις καὶ τοῖς γένεσι, ζωῆς τελείας χάριν καὶ αὐτάρκους. οὐκ ἔσται μέντοι τοῦτο μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ἕνα κατοικούντων τόπον καὶ χρωμένων ἐπιγαμίαις. διὸ κηδεῖαί τʼ ἐγένοντο κατὰ τὰς πόλεις καὶ φατρίαι καὶ θυσίαι καὶ διαγωγαὶ τοῦ συζῆν. τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον φιλίας ἔργον· ἡ γὰρ τοῦ συζῆν προαίρεσις φιλία. τέλος μὲν οὖν πόλεως τὸ εὖ ζῆν, ταῦτα δὲ τοῦ τέλους χάριν. πόλις δὲ ἡ γενῶν καὶ κωμῶν κοινωνία ζωῆς τελείας καὶ αὐτάρκους,

+ +
+

τοῦτο δʼ ἐστίν, ὡς φαμέν, τὸ ζῆν εὐδαιμόνως καὶ καλῶς. τῶν καλῶν ἄρα πράξεων χάριν θετέον εἶναι τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῦ συζῆν. διόπερ ὅσοι συμβάλλονται πλεῖστον εἰς τὴν τοιαύτην κοινωνίαν, τούτοις τῆς πόλεως μέτεστι πλεῖον ἢ τοῖς κατὰ μὲν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ γένος ἴσοις ἢ μείζοσι κατὰ δὲ τὴν πολιτικὴν ἀρετὴν ἀνίσοις, ἢ τοῖς κατὰ πλοῦτον ὑπερέχουσι κατʼ ἀρετὴν δʼ ὑπερεχομένοις. ὅτι μὲν οὖν πάντες οἱ περὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν ἀμφισβητοῦντες μέρος τι τοῦ δικαίου λέγουσι, φανερὸν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων.

+

ἔχει δʼ ἀπορίαν τί δεῖ τὸ κύριον εἶναι τῆς πόλεως. ἢ γάρ τοι τὸ πλῆθος, ἢ τοὺς πλουσίους, ἢ τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς, ἢ τὸν βέλτιστον ἕνα πάντων, ἢ τύραννον. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα πάντα ἔχειν φαίνεται δυσκολίαν. τί γάρ; ἂν οἱ πένητες διὰ τὸ πλείους εἶναι διανέμωνται τὰ τῶν πλουσίων, τοῦτʼ οὐκ ἄδικόν ἐστιν; ἔδοξε γὰρ νὴ Δία τῷ κυρίῳ δικαίως. τὴν οὖν ἀδικίαν τί χρὴ λέγειν τὴν ἐσχάτην; πάλιν τε πάντων ληφθέντων, οἱ πλείους τὰ τῶν ἐλαττόνων ἂν διανέμωνται, φανερὸν ὅτι φθείρουσι τὴν πόλιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐχ ἥ γʼ ἀρετὴ φθείρει τὸ ἔχον αὐτήν, οὐδὲ τὸ δίκαιον πόλεως φθαρτικόν· ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὸν νόμον τοῦτον οὐχ οἷόν τʼ εἶναι δίκαιον. ἔτι καὶ τὰς πράξεις ὅσας ὁ τύραννος ἔπραξεν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πάσας δικαίας· βιάζεται γὰρ ὢν κρείττων, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τοὺς πλουσίους. ἀλλʼ ἆρα τοὺς ἐλάττους δίκαιον ἄρχειν καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους; ἂν οὖν κἀκεῖνοι ταῦτα ποιῶσι καὶ διαρπάζωσι καὶ ἀφαιρῶνται τὰ κτήματα τοῦ πλήθους, τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ δίκαιον· καὶ θάτερον ἄρα. ταῦτα μὲν τοίνυν ὅτι πάντα φαῦλα καὶ οὐ δίκαια, φανερόν· ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς ἄρχειν δεῖ καὶ κυρίους εἶναι πάντων; οὐκοῦν ἀνάγκη τοὺς ἄλλους ἀτίμους εἶναι πάντας, μὴ τιμωμένους ταῖς πολιτικαῖς ἀρχαῖς· τιμὰς γὰρ λέγομεν εἶναι τὰς ἀρχάς, ἀρχόντων δʼ αἰεὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοὺς ἄλλους ἀτίμους. ἀλλʼ ἕνα τὸν σπουδαιότατον ἄρχειν βέλτιον; ἀλλʼ ἔτι τοῦτο ὀλιγαρχικώτερον· οἱ γὰρ ἄτιμοι πλείους. ἀλλʼ ἴσως φαίη τις ἂν τὸ κύριον ὅλως ἄνθρωπον εἶναι ἀλλὰ μὴ νόμον φαῦλον, ἔχοντά γε τὰ συμβαίνοντα πάθη περὶ τὴν ψυχήν. ἂν οὖν ᾖ νόμος μὲν ὀλιγαρχικὸς δὲ ἢ δημοκρατικός, τί διοίσει περὶ τῶν ἠπορημένων; συμβήσεται γὰρ ὁμοίως τὰ λεχθέντα πρότερον.

+

Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἄλλων ἔστω τις ἕτερος λόγος· ὅτι δὲ δεῖ κύριον εἶναι μᾶλλον τὸ πλῆθος ἢ τοὺς ἀρίστους μὲν ὀλίγους δέ, δόξειεν ἂν λύεσθαι καί τινʼ ἔχειν ἀπορίαν, τάχα δὲ κἂν ἀλήθειαν. τοὺς γὰρ πολλούς, ὧν ἕκαστός ἐστιν οὐ σπουδαῖος ἀνήρ,

+ +
+

ὅμως ἐνδέχεται συνελθόντας εἶναι βελτίους ἐκείνων, οὐχ ὡς ἕκαστον ἀλλʼ ὡς σύμπαντας, οἷον τὰ συμφορητὰ δεῖπνα τῶν ἐκ μιᾶς δαπάνης χορηγηθέντων· πολλῶν γὰρ ὄντων ἕκαστον μόριον ἔχειν ἀρετῆς καὶ φρονήσεως, καὶ γίνεσθαι συνελθόντας ὥσπερ ἕνα ἄνθρωπον τὸ πλῆθος, πολύποδα καὶ πολύχειρα καὶ πολλὰς ἔχοντʼ αἰσθήσεις, οὕτω καὶ περὶ τὰ ἤθη καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν. διὸ καὶ κρίνουσιν ἄμεινον οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ τὰ τῆς μουσικῆς ἔργα καὶ τὰ τῶν ποιητῶν· ἄλλοι γὰρ ἄλλο τι μόριον, πάντα δὲ πάντες. ἀλλὰ τούτῳ διαφέρουσιν οἱ σπουδαῖοι τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἑκάστου τῶν πολλῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν μὴ καλῶν τοὺς καλούς φασι, καὶ τὰ γεγραμμένα διὰ τέχνης τῶν ἀληθινῶν, τῷ συνῆχθαι τὰ διεσπαρμένα χωρὶς εἰς ἕν, ἐπεὶ κεχωρισμένων γε κάλλιον ἔχειν τοῦ γεγραμμένου τουδὶ μὲν τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἑτέρου δέ τινος ἕτερον μόριον.

+

εἰ μὲν οὖν περὶ πάντα δῆμον καὶ περὶ πᾶν πλῆθος ἐνδέχεται ταύτην εἶναι τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν πολλῶν πρὸς τοὺς ὀλίγους σπουδαίους, ἄδηλον, ἴσως δὲ νὴ Δία δῆλον ὅτι περὶ ἐνίων ἀδύνατον (ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς κἂν ἐπὶ τῶν θηρίων ἁρμόσειε λόγος· καίτοι τί διαφέρουσιν ἔνιοι τῶν θηρίων ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν;)· ἀλλὰ περὶ τὶ πλῆθος οὐδὲν εἶναι κωλύει τὸ λεχθὲν ἀληθές. διὸ καὶ τὴν πρότερον εἰρημένην ἀπορίαν λύσειεν ἄν τις διὰ τούτων καὶ τὴν ἐχομένην αὐτῆς, τίνων δεῖ κυρίους εἶναι τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πολιτῶν. τοιοῦτοι δʼ εἰσὶν ὅσοι μήτε πλούσιοι μήτε ἀξίωμα ἔχουσιν ἀρετῆς μηδὲ ἕν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ μετέχειν αὐτοὺς τῶν ἀρχῶν τῶν μεγίστων οὐκ ἀσφαλές (διά τε γὰρ ἀδικίαν καὶ διʼ ἀφροσύνην τὰ μὲν ἀδικεῖν ἀνάγκη τὰ δʼ ἁμαρτάνειν αὐτούς)· τὸ δὲ μὴ μεταδιδόναι μηδὲ μετέχειν φοβερόν (ὅταν γὰρ ἄτιμοι πολλοὶ καὶ πένητες ὑπάρχωσι, πολεμίων ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πλήρη τὴν πόλιν ταύτην). λείπεται δὴ τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ κρίνειν μετέχειν αὐτούς. διόπερ καὶ Σόλων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τινὲς νομοθετῶν τάττουσιν ἐπί τε τὰς ἀρχαιρεσίας καὶ τὰς εὐθύνας τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἄρχειν δὲ κατὰ μόνας οὐκ ἐῶσιν. πάντες μὲν γὰρ ἔχουσι συνελθόντες ἱκανὴν αἴσθησιν, καὶ μιγνύμενοι τοῖς βελτίοσι τὰς πόλεις ὠφελοῦσιν, καθάπερ ἡ μὴ καθαρὰ τροφὴ μετὰ τῆς καθαρᾶς τὴν πᾶσαν ποιεῖ χρησιμωτέραν τῆς ὀλίγης· χωρὶς δʼ ἕκαστος ἀτελὴς περὶ τὸ κρίνειν ἐστίν.

+

ἔχει δʼ ἡ τάξις αὕτη τῆς πολιτείας ἀπορίαν πρώτην μὲν ὅτι δόξειεν ἂν τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἶναι τὸ κρῖναι τίς ὀρθῶς ἰάτρευκεν, οὗπερ καὶ τὸ ἰατρεῦσαι καὶ ποιῆσαι ὑγιᾶ τὸν κάμνοντα τῆς νόσου τῆς παρούσης· οὗτος δʼ ἐστὶν ὁ ἰατρός.

+ +
+

ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦτο καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἐμπειρίας καὶ τέχνας. ὥσπερ οὖν ἰατρὸν δεῖ διδόναι τὰς εὐθύνας ἐν ἰατροῖς, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐν τοῖς ὁμοίοις. ἰατρὸς δʼ ὅ τε δημιουργὰς καὶ ὁ ἀρχιτεκτονικὸς καὶ τρίτος ὁ πεπαιδευμένος περὶ τὴν τέχνην (εἰσὶ γάρ τινες τοιοῦτοι καὶ περὶ πάσας ὡς εἰπεῖν τὰς τέχνας)· ἀποδίδομεν δὲ τὸ κρίνειν οὐδὲν ἧττον τοῖς πεπαιδευμένοις ἢ τοῖς εἰδόσιν. ἔπειτα καὶ περὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τὸν αὐτὸν ἂν δόξειεν ἔχειν τρόπον. καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἑλέσθαι ὀρθῶς τῶν εἰδότων ἔργον ἐστίν, οἷον γεωμέτρην τε τῶν γεωμετρικῶν καὶ κυβερνήτην τῶν κυβερνητικῶν. εἰ γὰρ καὶ περὶ ἐνίων ἔργων καὶ τεχνῶν μετέχουσι καὶ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν τινες, ἀλλʼ οὔ τι τῶν εἰδότων γε μᾶλλον. ὥστε κατὰ μὲν τοῦτον τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὸ πλῆθος ποιητέον κύριον οὔτε τῶν ἀρχαιρεσιῶν οὔτε τῶν εὐθυνῶν. ἀλλʼ ἴσως οὐ πάντα ταῦτα λέγεται καλῶς διά τε τὸν πάλαι λόγον, ἂν ᾖ τὸ πλῆθος μὴ λίαν ἀνδραποδῶδες (ἔσται γὰρ ἕκαστος μὲν χείρων κριτὴς τῶν εἰδότων, ἅπαντες δὲ συνελθόντες ἢ βελτίους ἢ οὐ χείρους), καὶ ὅτι περὶ ἐνίων οὔτε μόνον ὁ ποιήσας οὔτʼ ἄριστʼ ἂν κρίνειεν, ὅσων τἆργα γινώσκουσι καὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες τὴν τέχνην, οἷον οἰκίαν οὐ μόνον ἐστὶ γνῶναι τοῦ ποιήσαντος, ἀλλὰ καὶ βέλτιον ὁ χρώμενος αὐτῇ κρινεῖ (χρῆται δʼ ὁ οἰκονόμος), καὶ πηδάλιον κυβερνήτης τέκτονος, καὶ θοίνην ὁ δαιτυμὼν ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁ μάγειρος.

+

ταύτην μὲν οὖν τὴν ἀπορίαν τάχα δόξειέ τις ἂν οὕτω λύειν ἱκανῶς· ἄλλη δʼ ἐστὶν ἐχομένη ταύτης. δοκεῖ γὰρ ἄτοπον εἶναι τὸ μειζόνων εἶναι κυρίους τοὺς φαύλους τῶν ἐπιεικῶν, αἱ δʼ εὔθυναι καὶ αἱ τῶν ἀρχῶν αἱρέσεις εἰσὶ μέγιστον· ἃς ἐν ἐνίαις πολιτείαις, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, τοῖς δήμοις ἀποδιδόασιν· ἡ γὰρ ἐκκλησία κυρία πάντων τῶν τοιούτων ἐστίν. καίτοι τῆς μὲν ἐκκλησίας μετέχουσι καὶ βουλεύουσι καὶ δικάζουσιν ἀπὸ μικρῶν τιμημάτων καὶ τῆς τυχούσης ἡλικίας, ταμιεύουσι δὲ καὶ στρατηγοῦσι καὶ τὰς μεγίστας ἀρχὰς ἄρχουσιν ἀπὸ μεγάλων. ὁμοίως δή τις ἂν λύσειε καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἀπορίαν. ἴσως γὰρ ἔχει καὶ ταῦτʼ ὀρθῶς. οὐ γὰρ ὁ δικαστὴς οὐδʼ ὁ βουλευτὴς οὐδʼ ὁ ἐκκλησιαστὴς ἄρχων ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ τὸ δικαστήριον καὶ ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος· τῶν δὲ ῥηθέντων ἕκαστος μόριόν ἐστι τούτων (λέγω δὲ μόριον τὸν βουλευτὴν καὶ τὸν ἐκκλησιαστὴν καὶ τὸν δικαστήν)· ὥστε δικαίως κύριον μειζόνων τὸ πλῆθος· ἐκ γὰρ πολλῶν ὁ δῆμος καὶ ἡ βουλὴ καὶ τὸ δικαστήριον. καὶ τὸ τίμημα δὲ πλεῖον τὸ πάντων τούτων ἢ τὸ τῶν καθʼ ἕνα καὶ κατʼ ὀλίγους μεγάλας ἀρχὰς ἀρχόντων. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν διωρίσθω τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον·

+ +
+

ἡ δὲ πρώτη λεχθεῖσα ἀπορία ποιεῖ φανερὸν οὐδὲν οὕτως ἕτερον ὡς ὅτι δεῖ τοὺς νόμους εἶναι κυρίους κειμένους ὀρθῶς, τὸν ἄρχοντα δέ, ἄν τε εἷς ἄν τε πλείους ὦσι, περὶ τούτων εἶναι κυρίους περὶ ὅσων ἐξαδυνατοῦσιν οἱ νόμοι λέγειν ἀκριβῶς διὰ τὸ μὴ ῥᾴδιον εἶναι καθόλου διορίσαι περὶ πάντων. ὁποίους μέντοι τινὰς εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς ὀρθῶς κειμένους νόμους, οὐδέν πω δῆλον, ἀλλʼ ἔτι μένει τὸ πάλαι διαπορηθέν. ἅμα γὰρ καὶ ὁμοίως ταῖς πολιτείαις ἀνάγκη καὶ τοὺς νόμους φαύλους ἢ σπουδαίους εἶναι, καὶ δικαίους ἢ ἀδίκους. πλὴν τοῦτό γε φανερόν, ὅτι δεῖ πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν κεῖσθαι τοὺς νόμους. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ τοῦτο, δῆλον ὅτι τοὺς μὲν κατὰ τὰς ὀρθὰς πολιτείας ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι δικαίους τοὺς δὲ κατὰ τὰς παρεκβεβηκυίας οὐ δικαίους.

+

ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐν πάσαις μὲν ταῖς ἐπιστήμαις καὶ τέχναις ἀγαθὸν τὸ τέλος, μέγιστον δὲ καὶ μάλιστα ἐν τῇ κυριωτάτῃ πασῶν, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ πολιτικὴ δύναμις, ἔστι δὲ τὸ πολιτικὸν ἀγαθὸν τὸ δίκαιον, τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον, δοκεῖ δὴ πᾶσιν ἴσον τι τὸ δίκαιον εἶναι, καὶ μέχρι γέ τινος ὁμολογοῦσι τοῖς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγοις, ἐν οἷς διώρισται περὶ τῶν ἠθικῶν (τὶ γὰρ καὶ τισὶ τὸ δίκαιον, καὶ δεῖν τοῖς ἴσοις ἴσον εἶναι φασιν), ποίων δὴ ἰσότης ἐστὶ καὶ ποίων ἀνισότης, δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν. ἔχει γὰρ τοῦτʼ ἀπορίαν καὶ φιλοσοφίαν πολιτικήν. ἴσως γὰρ ἂν φαίη τις κατὰ παντὸς ὑπεροχὴν ἀγαθοῦ δεῖν ἀνίσως νενεμῆσθαι τὰς ἀρχάς, εἰ πάντα τὰ λοιπὰ μηδὲν διαφέροιεν ἀλλʼ ὅμοιοι τυγχάνοιεν ὄντες· τοῖς γὰρ διαφέρουσιν ἕτερον εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ κατʼ ἀξίαν. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ τοῦτʼ ἀληθές, ἔσται καὶ κατὰ χρῶμα καὶ κατὰ μέγεθος καὶ καθʼ ὁτιοῦν τῶν ἀγαθῶν πλεονεξία τις τῶν πολιτικῶν δικαίων τοῖς ὑπερέχουσιν. ἢ τοῦτο ἐπιπόλαιον τὸ ψεῦδος; φανερὸν δʼ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιστημῶν καὶ δυνάμεων· τῶν γὰρ ὁμοίων αὐλητῶν τὴν τέχνην οὐ δοτέον πλεονεξίαν τῶν αὐλῶν τοῖς εὐγενεστέροις (οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐλήσουσι βέλτιον), δεῖ δὲ τῷ κατὰ τὸ ἔργον ὑπερέχοντι διδόναι καὶ τῶν ὀργάνων τὴν ὑπεροχήν. εἰ δὲ μήπω δῆλον τὸ λεγόμενον, ἔτι μᾶλλον αὐτὸ προαγαγοῦσιν ἔσται φανερόν. εἰ γὰρ εἴη τις ὑπερέχων μὲν κατὰ τὴν αὐλητικήν, πολὺ δʼ ἐλλείπων κατʼ εὐγένειαν ἢ κάλλος, εἰ καὶ μεῖζον ἕκαστον ἐκείνων ἀγαθόν ἐστι τῆς αὐλητικῆς (λέγω δὲ τήν τʼ εὐγένειαν καὶ τὸ κάλλος), καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν ὑπερέχουσι πλέον τῆς αὐλητικῆς ἢ ἐκεῖνος κατὰ τὴν αὐλητικήν, ὅμως τούτῳ δοτέον τοὺς διαφέροντας τῶν αὐλῶν.

+ +
+

δεῖ γὰρ εἰς τὸ ἔργον συμβάλλεσθαι τὴν ὑπεροχὴν καὶ τοῦ πλούτου καὶ τῆς εὐγενείας, συμβάλλονται δʼ οὐδέν.

+

ἔτι κατά γε τοῦτον τὸν λόγον πᾶν ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πᾶν ἂν εἴη συμβλητόν. εἰ γὰρ μᾶλλον τὸ τὶ μέγεθος, καὶ ὅλως ἂν τὸ μέγεθος ἐνάμιλλον εἴη καὶ πρὸς πλοῦτον καὶ πρὸς ἐλευθερίαν· ὥστʼ εἰ πλεῖον ὁδὶ διαφέρει κατὰ μέγεθος ἢ ὁδὶ κατʼ ἀρετήν, καὶ πλεῖον ὑπερέχει ὅλως ἀρετὴ μεγέθους, εἴη ἂν συμβλητὰ πάντα. τοσόνδε γὰρ μέγεθος εἰ κρεῖττον τοσοῦδε, τοσόνδε δῆλον ὡς ἴσον. ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἀδύνατον, δῆλον ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν εὐλόγως οὐ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνισότητʼ ἀμφισβητοῦσι τῶν ἀρχῶν (εἰ γὰρ οἱ μὲν βραδεῖς οἱ δὲ ταχεῖς, οὐδὲν διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ τοὺς μὲν πλεῖον τοὺς δʼ ἔλαττον ἔχειν, ἀλλʼ ἐν τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσιν ἡ τούτων διαφορὰ λαμβάνει τὴν τιμήν)· ἀλλʼ ἐξ ὧν πόλις συνέστηκεν, ἐν τούτοις ἀναγκαῖον ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν. διόπερ εὐλόγως ἀντιποιοῦνται τῆς τιμῆς οἱ εὐγενεῖς καὶ ἐλεύθεροι καὶ πλούσιοι. δεῖ γὰρ ἐλευθέρους τʼ εἶναι καὶ τίμημα φέροντας, οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἴη πόλις ἐξ ἀπόρων πάντων, ὥσπερ οὐδʼ ἐκ δούλων· ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ δεῖ τούτων, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῆς πολιτικῆς ἀρετῆς, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνευ τούτων οἰκεῖσθαι πόλιν δυνατόν· πλὴν ἄνευ μὲν τῶν προτέρων ἀδύνατον εἶναι πόλιν, ἄνευ δὲ τούτων οἰκεῖσθαι καλῶς.

+

πρὸς μὲν οὖν τὸ πόλιν εἶναι δόξειεν ἂν ἢ πάντα ἢ ἔνιά γε τούτων ὀρθῶς ἀμφισβητεῖν, πρὸς μέντοι ζωὴν ἀγαθὴν ἡ παιδεία καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ μάλιστα δικαίως ἂν ἀμφισβητοίησαν, καθάπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον. ἐπεὶ δʼ οὔτε πάντων ἴσον ἔχειν δεῖ τοὺς ἴσους ἕν τι μόνον ὄντας, οὔτε ἄνισον τοὺς ἀνίσους καθʼ ἕν, ἀνάγκη πάσας εἶναι τὰς τοιαύτας πολιτείας περεκβάσεις. εἴρηται μὲν οὖν καὶ πρότερον ὅτι διαμφισβητοῦσι τρόπον τινὰ δικαίως πάντες, ἁπλῶς δʼ οὐ πάντες δικαίως· οἱ πλούσιοι μὲν ὅτι πλεῖον μέτεστι τῆς χώρας αὐτοῖς, ἡ δὲ χώρα κοινόν, ἔτι πρὸς τὰ συμβόλαια πιστοὶ μᾶλλον ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλέον· οἱ δὲ ἐλεύθεροι καὶ εὐγενεῖς ὡς ἐγγὺς ἀλλήλων (πολῖται γὰρ μᾶλλον οἱ γενναιότεροι τῶν ἀγεννῶν, ἡ δʼ εὐγένεια παρʼ ἑκάστοις οἴκοι τίμιος)· ἔτι διότι βελτίους εἰκὸς τοὺς ἐκ βελτιόνων, εὐγένεια γάρ ἐστιν ἀρετὴ γένους· ὁμοίως δὲ φήσομεν δικαίως καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀμφισβητεῖν, κοινωνικὴν γὰρ ἀρετὴν εἶναί φαμεν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ᾗ πάσας ἀναγκαῖον ἀκολουθεῖν τὰς ἄλλας· ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ οἱ πλείους πρὸς τοὺς ἐλάττους, καὶ γὰρ κρείττους καὶ πλουσιώτεροι καὶ βελτίους εἰσίν, ὡς λαμβανομένων τῶν πλειόνων πρὸς τοὺς ἐλάττους.

+ +
+

ἆρʼ οὖν εἰ πάντες εἶεν ἐν μιᾷ πόλει, λέγω δʼ οἷον οἵ τʼ ἀγαθοὶ καὶ οἱ πλούσιοι καὶ οἱ εὐγενεῖς, ἔτι δὲ πλῆθος ἄλλο τι πολιτικόν, πότερον ἀμφισβήτησις ἔσται τίνας ἄρχειν δεῖ, ἢ οὐκ ἔσται; καθʼ ἑκάστην μὲν οὖν πολιτείαν τῶν εἰρημένων ἀναμφισβήτητος ἡ κρίσις τίνας ἄρχειν δεῖ (τοῖς γὰρ κυρίοις διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων, οἷον ἡ μὲν τῷ διὰ πλουσίων ἡ δὲ τῷ διὰ τῶν σπουδαίων ἀνδρῶν εἶναι, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάστη τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον)· ἀλλʼ ὅμως σκοπῶμεν, ὅταν περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ταῦθʼ ὑπάρχῃ χρόνον, πῶς διοριστέον. εἰ δὴ τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἶεν ὀλίγοι πάμπαν οἱ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἔχοντες, τίνα δεῖ διελεῖν τρόπον; ἢ τὸ ὀλίγοι πρὸς τὸ ἔργον δεῖ σκοπεῖν, εἰ δυνατοὶ διοικεῖν τὴν πόλιν ἢ τοσοῦτοι τὸ πλῆθος ὥστʼ εἶναι πόλιν ἐξ αὐτῶν; ἔστι δὲ ἀπορία τις πρὸς ἅπαντας τοὺς διαμφισβητοῦντας περὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν τιμῶν. δόξαιεν γὰρ ἂν οὐδὲν λέγειν δίκαιον οἱ διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον ἀξιοῦντες ἄρχειν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ κατὰ γένος· δῆλον γὰρ ὡς εἴ τις πάλιν εἷς πλουσιώτερος ἁπάντων ἐστί, δηλονότι κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ δίκαιον τοῦτον ἄρχειν τὸν ἕνα ἁπάντων δεήσει, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸν εὐγενείᾳ διαφέροντα τῶν ἀμφισβητούντων διʼ ἐλευθερίαν. ταὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο ἴσως συμβήσεται καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀριστοκρατίας ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς· εἰ γάρ τις εἷς ἀμείνων ἀνὴρ εἴη τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι σπουδαίων ὄντων, τοῦτον εἶναι δεῖ κύριον κατὰ ταὐτὸ δίκαιον. οὐκοῦν εἰ καὶ τὸ πλῆθος εἶναί γε δεῖ κύριον διότι κρείττους εἰσὶ τῶν ὀλίγων, κἂν εἷς ἢ πλείους μὲν τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐλάττους δὲ τῶν πολλῶν κρείττους ὦσι τῶν ἄλλων, τούτους ἂν δέοι κυρίους εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ πλῆθος. πάντα δὴ ταῦτʼ ἔοικε φανερὸν ποιεῖν ὅτι τούτων τῶν ὅρων οὐδεὶς ὀρθός ἐστι καθʼ ὃν ἀξιοῦσιν αὐτοὶ μὲν ἄρχειν τοὺς δʼ ἄλλους ὑπὸ σφῶν ἄρχεσθαι πάντας. καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀξιοῦντας κυρίους εἶναι τοῦ πολιτεύματος, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τοὺς κατὰ πλοῦτον, ἔχοιεν ἂν λέγειν τὰ πλήθη λόγον τινὰ δίκαιον· οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει ποτὲ τὸ πλῆθος εἶναι βέλτιον· τῶν ὀλίγων καὶ πλουσιώτερον, οὐχ ὡς καθʼ ἕκαστον ἀλλʼ ὡς ἀθρόους. διὸ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀπορίαν ἣν ζητοῦσι καὶ προβάλλουσί τινες ἐνδέχεται τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἀπαντᾶν. ἀποροῦσι γάρ τινες πότερον τῷ νομοθέτῃ νομοθετητέον, βουλομένῳ τίθεσθαι τοὺς ὀρθοτάτους νόμους, πρὸς τὸ τῶν βελτιόνων συμφέρον ἢ πρὸς τὸ τῶν πλειόνων, ὅταν συμβαίνῃ τὸ λεχθέν· τὸ δʼ ὀρθὸν ληπτέον ἴσως· τὸ δʼ ἴσως ὀρθὸν πρὸς τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὅλης συμφέρον καὶ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τὸ τῶν πολιτῶν· πολίτης δὲ κοινῇ μὲν ὁ μετέχων τοῦ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαί ἐστι,

+ +
+

καθʼ ἑκάστην δὲ πολιτείαν ἕτερος, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀρίστην ὁ δυνάμενος καὶ προαιρούμενος ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν πρὸς τὸν βίον τὸν κατʼ ἀρετήν.

+

εἰ δέ τις ἔστιν εἷς τοσοῦτον διαφέρων κατʼ ἀρετῆς ὑπερβολήν, ἢ πλείους μὲν ἑνὸς μὴ μέντοι δυνατοὶ πλήρωμα παρασχέσθαι πόλεως, ὥστε μὴ συμβλητὴν εἶναι τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετὴν πάντων μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν τὴν πολιτικὴν πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων, εἰ πλείους, εἰ δʼ εἷς, τὴν ἐκείνου μόνον, οὐκέτι θετέον τούτους μέρος πόλεως· ἀδικήσονται γὰρ ἀξιούμενοι τῶν ἴσων, ἄνισοι τοσοῦτον κατʼ ἀρετὴν ὄντες καὶ τὴν πολιτικὴν δύναμιν· ὥσπερ γὰρ θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποις εἰκὸς εἶναι τὸν τοιοῦτον. ὅθεν δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὴν νομοθεσίαν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι περὶ τοὺς ἴσους καὶ τῷ γένει καὶ τῇ δυνάμει, κατὰ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστι νόμος· αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσι νόμος. καὶ γὰρ γελοῖος ἂν εἴη νομοθετεῖν τις πειρώμενος κατʼ αὐτῶν. λέγοιεν γὰρ ἂν ἴσως ἅπερ Ἀντισθένης ἔφη τοὺς λέοντας δημηγορούντων τῶν δασυπόδων καὶ τὸ ἴσον ἀξιούντων πάντας ἔχειν. διὸ καὶ τίθενται τὸν ὀστρακισμὸν αἱ δημοκρατούμεναι πόλεις, διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν· αὗται γὰρ δὴ δοκοῦσι διώκειν τὴν ἰσότητα μάλιστα πάντων, ὥστε τοὺς δοκοῦντας ὑπερέχειν δυνάμει διὰ πλοῦτον ἢ πολυφιλίαν ἤ τινα ἄλλην πολιτικὴν ἰσχὺν ὠστράκιζον καὶ μεθίστασαν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως χρόνους ὡρισμένους. μυθολογεῖται δὲ καὶ τοὺς Ἀργοναύτας τὸν Ἡρακλέα καταλιπεῖν διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐθέλειν αὐτὸν ἄγειν τὴν Ἀργὼ μετὰ τῶν πλωτήρων τῶν ἄλλων, ὡς ὑπερβάλλοντα πολύ. διὸ καὶ τοὺς ψέγοντας τὴν τυραννίδα καὶ τὴν Περιάνδρου Θρασυβούλῳ συμβουλίαν οὐχ ἁπλῶς οἰητέον ὀρθῶς ἐπιτιμᾶν (φασὶ γὰρ τὸν Περίανδρον εἰπεῖν μὲν οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν πεμφθέντα κήρυκα περὶ τῆς συμβουλίας, ἀφαιροῦντα δὲ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας τῶν σταχύων ὁμαλῦναι τὴν ἄρουραν· ὅθεν ἀγνοοῦντος μὲν τοῦ κήρυκος τοῦ γιγνομένου τὴν αἰτίαν, ἀπαγγείλαντος δὲ τὸ συμπεσόν, συννοῆσαι τὸν Θρασύβουλον ὅτι δεῖ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας ἄνδρας ἀναιρεῖν). τοῦτο γὰρ οὐ μόνον συμφέρει τοῖς τυράννοις, οὐδὲ μόνον οἱ τύραννοι ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ὁμοίως ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ τὰς δημοκρατίας· ὁ γὰρ ὀστρακισμὸς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει δύναμιν τρόπον τινὰ τῷ κολούειν τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας καὶ φυγαδεύειν. τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ καὶ περὶ τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ποιοῦσιν οἱ κύριοι τῆς δυνάμεως, οἷον Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν περὶ Σαμίους καὶ Χίους καὶ Λεσβίους (ἐπεὶ γὰρ θᾶττον ἐγκρατῶς ἔσχον τὴν ἀρχήν, ἐταπείνωσαν αὐτοὺς παρὰ τὰς συνθήκας),

+ +
+

ὁ δὲ Περσῶν βασιλεὺς Μήδους καὶ Βαβυλωνίους καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τοὺς πεφρονηματισμένους διὰ τὸ γενέσθαι ποτʼ ἐπʼ ἀρχῆς ἐπέκοπτε πολλάκις.

+

τὸ δὲ πρόβλημα καθόλου περὶ πάσας ἐστὶ τὰς πολιτείας, καὶ τὰς ὀρθάς· αἱ μὲν γὰρ παρεκβεβηκυῖαι πρὸς τὸ ἴδιον ἀποσκοποῦσαι τοῦτο δρῶσιν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ περὶ τὰς τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθὸν ἐπισκοπούσας τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχει τρόπον. δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τεχνῶν καὶ ἐπιστημῶν· οὔτε γὰρ γραφεὺς ἐάσειεν ἂν τὸν ὑπερβάλλοντα πόδα τῆς συμμετρίας ἔχειν τὸ ζῷον, οὐδʼ εἰ διαφέροι τὸ κάλλος, οὔτε ναυπηγὸς πρύμναν ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τι μορίων τῶν τῆς νεώς, οὐδὲ δὴ χοροδιδάσκαλος τὸν μεῖζον καὶ κάλλιον τοῦ παντὸς χοροῦ φθεγγόμενον ἐάσει συγχορεύειν. ὥστε διὰ τοῦτο μὲν οὐδὲν κωλύει τοὺς μονάρχους συμφωνεῖν ταῖς πόλεσιν, εἰ τῆς οἰκείας ἀρχῆς ὠφελίμου ταῖς πόλεσιν οὔσης τοῦτο δρῶσιν. διὸ κατὰ τὰς ὁμολογουμένας ὑπεροχὰς ἔχει τι δίκαιον πολιτικὸν ὁ λόγος ὁ περὶ τὸν ὀστρακισμόν. βέλτιον μὲν οὖν τὸν νομοθέτην ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὕτω συστῆσαι τὴν πολιτείαν ὥστε μὴ δεῖσθαι τοιαύτης ἰατρείας· δεύτερος δὲ πλοῦς, ἂν συμβῇ, πειρᾶσθαι τοιούτῳ τινὶ διορθώματι διορθοῦν. ὅπερ οὐκ ἐγίγνετο περὶ τὰς πόλεις· οὐ γὰρ ἔβλεπον πρὸς τὸ τῆς πολιτείας τῆς οἰκείας συμφέρον, ἀλλὰ στασιαστικῶς ἐχρῶντο τοῖς ὀστρακισμοῖς. ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς παρεκβεβηκυίαις πολιτείαις ὅτι μὲν ἰδίᾳ συμφέρει καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστι, φανερόν, ἴσως δὲ καὶ ὅτι οὐχ ἁπλῶς δίκαιον, καὶ τοῦτο φανερόν· ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας ἔχει πολλὴν ἀπορίαν, οὐ κατὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν τὴν ὑπεροχήν, οἷον ἰσχύος καὶ πλούτου καὶ πολυφιλίας, ἀλλὰ ἄν τις γένηται διαφέρων κατʼ ἀρετήν, τί χρὴ ποιεῖν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ φαῖεν ἂν δεῖν ἐκβάλλειν καὶ μεθιστάναι τὸν τοιοῦτον· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ἄρχειν γε τοῦ τοιούτου· παραπλήσιον γὰρ κἂν εἰ τοῦ Διὸς ἄρχειν ἀξιοῖεν, μερίζοντες τὰς ἀρχάς. λείπεται τοίνυν, ὅπερ ἔοικε πεφυκέναι, πείθεσθαι τῷ τοιούτῳ πάντας ἀσμένως, ὥστε βασιλέας εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους ἀιδίους ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν.

+

ἴσως δὲ καλῶς ἔχει μετὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους λόγους μεταβῆναι καὶ σκέψασθαι περὶ βασιλείας· φαμὲν γὰρ τῶν ὀρθῶν πολιτειῶν μίαν εἶναι ταύτην. σκεπτέον δὲ πότερον συμφέρει τῇ μελλούσῃ καλῶς οἰκήσεσθαι καὶ πόλει καὶ χώρᾳ βασιλεύεσθαι, ἢ οὔ, ἀλλʼ ἄλλη τις πολιτεία μᾶλλον, ἢ τισὶ μὲν συμφέρει τισὶ δʼ οὐ συμφέρει. δεῖ δὴ πρῶτον διελέσθαι πότερον ἕν τι γένος ἔστιν αὐτῆς ἢ πλείους ἔχει διαφοράς.

+ +
+

ῥᾴδιον δὴ τοῦτό γε καταμαθεῖν, ὅτι πλείω τε γένη περιέχει καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ τρόπος ἐστὶν οὐχ εἷς πασῶν. ἡ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Λακωνικῇ πολιτείᾳ δοκεῖ μὲν εἶναι βασιλεία μάλιστα τῶν κατὰ νόμον, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ κυρία πάντων, ἀλλʼ ὅταν ἐξέλθῃ τὴν χώραν ἡγεμών ἐστι τῶν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον· ἔτι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ἀποδέδοται τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν. αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ βασιλεία οἷον στρατηγία τις αὐτοκρατόρων καὶ ἀίδιός ἐστιν· κτεῖναι γὰρ οὐ κύριος, εἰ μὴ ἔν τινι καιρῷ, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐν ταῖς πολεμικαῖς ἐξόδοις, ἐν χειρὸς νόμῳ. δηλοῖ δʼ Ὅμηρος· ὁ γὰρ Ἀγαμέμνων κακῶς μὲν ἀκούων ἠνείχετο ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἐξελθόντων δὲ καὶ κτεῖναι κύριος ἦν· λέγει γοῦν ὃν δέ κʼ ἐγὼν ἀπάνευθε μάχης οὔ οἱ ἄρκιον ἐσσεῖται φυγέειν κύνας ἠδʼ οἰωνούς· πὰρ γὰρ ἐμοὶ θάνατος. Hom. Il. 2.391

+

ἓν μὲν οὖν τοῦτʼ εἶδος βασιλείας, στρατηγία διὰ βίου, τούτων δʼ αἱ μὲν κατὰ γένος εἰσὶν αἱ δʼ αἱρεταί· παρὰ ταύτην δʼ ἄλλο μοναρχίας εἶδος, οἷαι παρʼ ἐνίοις εἰσὶ βασιλεῖαι τῶν βαρβάρων. ἔχουσι δʼ αὗται τὴν δύναμιν πᾶσαι παραπλησίαν τυραννίσιν, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ κατὰ νόμον καὶ πάτριαι· διὰ γὰρ τὸ δουλικώτεροι εἶναι τὰ ἤθη φύσει οἱ μὲν βάρβαροι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν τῶν περὶ τὴν Εὐρώπην, ὑπομένουσι τὴν δεσποτικὴν ἀρχὴν οὐδὲν δυσχεραίνοντες. τυραννικαὶ μὲν οὖν διὰ τὸ τοιοῦτόν εἰσιν, ἀσφαλεῖς δὲ διὰ τὸ πάτριαι καὶ κατὰ νόμον εἶναι. καὶ ἡ φυλακὴ δὲ βασιλικὴ καὶ οὐ τυραννικὴ διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν. οἱ γὰρ πολῖται φυλάττουσιν ὅπλοις τοὺς βασιλεῖς, τοὺς δὲ τυράννους ξενικόν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ νόμον καὶ ἑκόντων οἱ δʼ ἀκόντων ἄρχουσιν, ὥσθʼ οἱ μὲν παρὰ τῶν πολιτῶν οἱ δʼ ἐπὶ τοὺς πολίτας ἔχουσι τὴν φυλακήν.

+

δύο μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα μοναρχίας, ἕτερον δʼ ὅπερ ἦν ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Ἕλλησιν, οὓς καλοῦσιν αἰσυμνήτας. ἔστι δὲ τοῦθʼ ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν αἱρετὴ τυραννίς, διαφέρουσα δὲ τῆς βαρβαρικῆς οὐ τῷ μὴ κατὰ νόμον ἀλλὰ τῷ μὴ πάτριος εἶναι μόνον. ἦρχον δʼ οἱ μὲν διὰ βίου τὴν ἀρχὴν ταύτην, οἱ δὲ μέχρι τινῶν ὡρισμένων χρόνων ἢ πράξεων, οἷον εἵλοντό ποτε Μυτιληναῖοι Πιττακὸν πρὸς τοὺς φυγάδας ὧν προειστήκεσαν Ἀντιμενίδης καὶ Ἀλκαῖος ὁ ποιητής. δηλοῖ δʼ Ἀλκαῖος ὅτι τύραννον εἵλοντο τὸν Πιττακὸν ἔν τινι τῶν σκολιῶν μελῶν· ἐπιτιμᾷ γὰρ ὅτι τὸν κακοπάτριδα Πίττακον πόλιος τᾶς ἀχόλω καὶ βαρυδαίμονος ἐστάσαντο τύραννον μέγʼ ἐπαινέοντες ἀόλλεες.

+ +
+

αὗται μὲν οὖν εἰσί τε καὶ ἦσαν διὰ μὲν τὸ δεσποτικαὶ εἶναι τυραννικαί, διὰ δὲ τὸ αἱρεταὶ καὶ ἑκόντων βασιλικαί· τέταρτον δʼ εἶδος μοναρχίας βασιλικῆς αἱ κατὰ τοὺς ἡρωικοὺς χρόνους ἑκούσιαί τε καὶ πάτριαι γιγνόμεναι κατὰ νόμον. διὰ γὰρ τὸ τοὺς πρώτους γενέσθαι τοῦ πλήθους εὐεργέτας κατὰ τέχνας ἢ πόλεμον, ἢ διὰ τὸ συναγαγεῖν ἢ πορίσαι χώραν, ἐγίγνοντο βασιλεῖς ἑκόντων καὶ τοῖς παραλαμβάνουσι πάτριοι. κύριοι δʼ ἦσαν τῆς τε κατὰ πόλεμον ἡγεμονίας καὶ τῶν θυσιῶν, ὅσαι μὴ ἱερατικαί, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τὰς δίκας ἔκρινον. τοῦτο δʼ ἐποίουν οἱ μὲν οὐκ ὀμνύοντες οἱ δʼ ὀμνύοντες· ὁ δʼ ὅρκος ἦν τοῦ σκήπτρου ἐπανάτασις. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων χρόνων καὶ τὰ κατὰ πόλιν καὶ τὰ ἔνδημα καὶ τὰ ὑπερόρια συνεχῶς ἦρχον· ὕστερον δὲ τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν παριέντων τῶν βασιλέων, τὰ δὲ τῶν ὄχλων παραιρουμένων, ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσιν αἱ θυσίαι κατελείφθησαν τοῖς βασιλεῦσι μόνον, ὅπου δʼ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν εἶναι βασιλείαν, ἐν τοῖς ὑπερορίοις τῶν πολεμικῶν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν μόνον εἶχον.

+

βασιλείας μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα, τέτταρα τὸν ἀριθμόν, μία μὲν ἡ περὶ τοὺς ἡρωικοὺς χρόνους (αὕτη δʼ ἦν ἑκόντων μέν, ἐπὶ τισὶ δʼ ὡρισμένοις· στρατηγός τε γὰρ ἦν καὶ δικαστὴς ὁ βασιλεύς, καὶ τῶν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς κύριος), δευτέρα δʼ ἡ βαρβαρική (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἐκ γένους ἀρχὴ δεσποτικὴ κατὰ νόμον), τρίτη δὲ ἣν αἰσυμνητείαν προσαγορεύουσιν (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν αἱρετὴ τυραννίς), τετάρτη δʼ ἡ Λακωνικὴ τούτων (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ὡς εἰπεῖν ἁπλῶς στρατηγία κατὰ γένος ἀίδιος). αὗται μὲν οὖν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων· πέμπτον δʼ εἶδος βασιλείας, ὅταν ᾖ πάντων κύριος εἷς ὤν, ὥσπερ ἕκαστον ἔθνος καὶ πόλις ἑκάστη τῶν κοινῶν, τεταγμένη κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομικήν. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ οἰκονομικὴ βασιλεία τις οἰκίας ἐστίν, οὕτως ἡ παμβασιλεία πόλεως καὶ ἔθνους ἑνὸς ἢ πλειόνων οἰκονομία.

+

Σχεδὸν δὴ δύο ἐστὶν ὡς εἰπεῖν εἴδη βασιλείας περὶ ὧν σκεπτέον, αὕτη τε καὶ ἡ Λακωνική· τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων αἱ πολλαὶ μεταξὺ τούτων εἰσίν· ἐλαττόνων μὲν γὰρ κύριοι τῆς παμβασιλείας, πλειόνων δʼ εἰσὶ τῆς Λακωνικῆς. ὥστε τὸ σκέμμα σχεδὸν περὶ δυοῖν ἐστιν, ἓν μὲν πότερον συμφέρει ταῖς πόλεσι στρατηγὸν ἀίδιον εἶναι, καὶ τοῦτον ἢ κατὰ γένος ἢ κατὰ μέρος,

+ +
+

ἢ οὐ συμφέρει, ἓν δὲ πότερον ἕνα συμφέρει κύριον εἶναι πάντων, ἢ οὐ συμφέρει. τὸ μὲν οὖν περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης στρατηγίας ἐπισκοπεῖν νόμων ἔχει μᾶλλον εἶδος ἢ πολιτείας (ἐν ἁπάσαις γὰρ ἐνδέχεται γίγνεσθαι τοῦτο ταῖς πολιτείαις), ὥστʼ ἀφείσθω τὴν πρώτην· ὁ δὲ λοιπὸς τρόπος τῆς βασιλείας πολιτείας εἶδός ἐστιν, ὥστε περὶ τούτου δεῖ θεωρῆσαι καὶ τὰς ἀπορίας ἐπιδραμεῖν τὰς ἐνούσας. ἀρχὴ δʼ ἐστὶ τῆς ζητήσεως αὕτη, πότερον συμφέρει μᾶλλον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου ἀνδρὸς ἄρχεσθαι ἢ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρίστων νόμων.

+

δοκοῦσι δὴ τοῖς νομίζουσι συμφέρειν βασιλεύεσθαι τὸ καθόλου μόνον οἱ νόμοι λέγειν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς τὰ προσπίπτοντα ἐπιτάττειν, ὥστʼ ἐν ὁποιᾳοῦν τέχνῃ τὸ κατὰ γράμματʼ ἄρχειν ἠλίθιον (καὶ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ μετὰ τὴν τετρήμερον κινεῖν ἔξεστι τοῖς ἰατροῖς, ἐὰν δὲ πρότερον, ἐπὶ τῷ αὑτοῦ κινδύνῳ). φανερὸν τοίνυν ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ κατὰ γράμματα καὶ νόμους ἀρίστη πολιτεία, διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν. ἀλλὰ μὴν κἀκεῖνον δεῖ ὑπάρχειν τὸν λόγον, τὸν καθόλου, τοῖς ἄρχουσιν. κρεῖττον δʼ ᾧ μὴ πρόσεστι τὸ παθητικὸν ὅλως ἢ ᾧ συμφυές· τῷ μὲν οὖν νόμῳ τοῦτο οὐχ ὑπάρχει, ψυχὴν δʼ ἀνθρωπίνην ἀνάγκη τοῦτʼ ἔχειν πᾶσαν. ἀλλʼ ἴσως ἂν φαίη τις ὡς ἀντὶ τούτου βουλεύσεται περὶ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστα κάλλιον. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἀνάγκη νομοθέτην αὐτὸν εἶναι, δῆλον, καὶ κεῖσθαι νόμους, ἀλλὰ μὴ κυρίους ᾗ παρεκβαίνουσιν, ἐπεὶ περὶ τῶν γʼ ἄλλων εἶναι δεῖ κυρίους· ὅσα δὲ μὴ δυνατὸν τὸν νόμον κρίνειν ἢ ὅλως ἢ εὖ, πότερον ἕνα τὸν ἄριστον δεῖ ἄρχειν ἢ πάντας; καὶ γὰρ νῦν συνιόντες δικάζουσι καὶ βουλεύονται καὶ κρίνουσιν, αὗται δʼ αἱ κρίσεις εἰσὶ πᾶσαι περὶ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστον. καθʼ ἕνα μὲν οὖν συμβαλλόμενος ὁστισοῦν ἴσως χείρων· ἀλλʼ ἐστὶν ἡ πόλις ἐκ πολλῶν, ὥσπερ δʼ ἑστίασις συμφορητὸς καλλίων μιᾶς καὶ ἁπλῆς· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ κρίνει ἄμεινον ὄχλος πολλὰ ἢ εἷς ὁστισοῦν.

+

ἔτι μᾶλλον ἀδιάφθορον τὸ πολύ—καθάπερ ὕδωρ τὸ πλεῖον, οὕτω καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ὀλίγων ἀδιαφθορώτερον· τοῦ δʼ ἑνὸς ὑπʼ ὀργῆς κρατηθέντος ἤ τινος ἑτέρου πάθους τοιούτου ἀναγκαῖον διεφθάρθαι τὴν κρίσιν, ἐκεῖ δʼ ἔργον ἅμα πάντας ὀργισθῆναι καὶ ἁμαρτεῖν. ἔστω δὲ τὸ πλῆθος οἱ ἐλεύθεροι, μηδὲν παρὰ τὸν νόμον πράττοντες ἀλλʼ ἢ περὶ ὧν ἐκλείπειν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτόν. εἰ δὲ δὴ τοῦτο μὴ ῥᾴδιον ἐν πολλοῖς, ἀλλʼ εἰ πλείους εἶεν ἀγαθοὶ καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ πολῖται, πότερον ὁ εἷς ἀδιαφθορώτερος ἄρχων, ἢ μᾶλλον οἱ πλείους μὲν τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἀγαθοὶ δὲ πάντες;

+ +

ἢ δῆλον ὡς οἱ πλείους; ἀλλʼ οἱ μὲν στασιάσουσιν ὁ δὲ εἷς ἀστασίαστος. ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοῦτʼ ἀντιθετέον ἴσως ὅτι σπουδαῖοι τὴν ψυχήν, ὥσπερ κἀκεῖνος ὁ εἷς. εἰ δὴ τὴν μὲν τῶν πλειόνων ἀρχὴν ἀγαθῶν δʼ ἀνδρῶν πάντων ἀριστοκρατίαν θετέον, τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἑνὸς βασιλείαν, αἱρετώτερον ἂν εἴη ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀριστοκρατία βασιλείας, καὶ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ χωρὶς δυνάμεως οὔσης τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἂν ᾖ λαβεῖν πλείους ὁμοίους. καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ ἴσως ἐβασιλεύοντο πρότερον, ὅτι σπάνιον ἦν εὑρεῖν ἄνδρας πολὺ διαφέροντας κατʼ ἀρετήν, ἄλλως τε καὶ τότε μικρὰς οἰκοῦντας πόλεις. ἔτι δʼ ἀπʼ εὐεργεσίας καθίστασαν τοὺς βασιλεῖς, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἔργον τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν. ἐπεὶ δὲ συνέβαινε γίγνεσθαι πολλοὺς ὁμοίους πρὸς ἀρετήν, οὐκέτι ὑπέμενον ἀλλʼ ἐζήτουν κοινόν τι καὶ πολιτείαν καθίστασαν. ἐπεὶ δὲ χείρους γιγνόμενοι ἐχρηματίζοντο ἀπὸ τῶν κοινῶν, ἐντεῦθέν ποθεν εὔλογον γενέσθαι τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας· ἔντιμον γὰρ ἐποίησαν τὸν πλοῦτον. ἐκ δὲ τούτων πρῶτον εἰς τυραννίδας μετέβαλλον, ἐκ δὲ τῶν τυραννίδων εἰς δημοκρατίαν· αἰεὶ γὰρ εἰς ἐλάττους ἄγοντες διʼ αἰσχροκέρδειαν ἰσχυρότερον τὸ πλῆθος κατέστησαν, ὥστʼ ἐπιθέσθαι καὶ γενέσθαι δημοκρατίας. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ μείζους εἶναι συμβέβηκε τὰς πόλεις, ἴσως οὐδὲ ῥᾴδιον ἔτι γίγνεσθαι πολιτείαν ἑτέραν παρὰ δημοκρατίαν.

+

εἰ δὲ δή τις ἄριστον θείη τὸ βασιλεύεσθαι ταῖς πόλεσιν, πῶς ἕξει τὰ περὶ τῶν τέκνων; πότερον καὶ τὸ γένος δεῖ βασιλεύειν; ἀλλὰ γιγνομένων ὁποῖοί τινες ἔτυχον, βλαβερόν. ἀλλʼ οὐ παραδώσει κύριος ὢν τοῖς τέκνοις. ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἔτι τοῦτο ῥᾴδιον πιστεῦσαι· χαλεπὸν γάρ, καὶ μείζονος ἀρετῆς ἢ κατʼ ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν. ἔχει δʼ ἀπορίαν καὶ περὶ τῆς δυνάμεως, πότερον ἔχειν δεῖ τὸν μέλλοντα βασιλεύειν ἰσχύν τινα περὶ αὑτόν, ᾗ δυνήσεται βιάζεσθαι τοὺς μὴ βουλομένους πειθαρχεῖν, ἢ πῶς ἐνδέχεται τὴν ἀρχὴν διοικεῖν; εἰ γὰρ καὶ κατὰ νόμον εἴη κύριος, μηδὲν πράττων κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ βούλησιν παρὰ τὸν νόμον, ὅμως ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ δύναμιν ᾗ φυλάξει τοὺς νόμους. τάχα μὲν οὖν τὰ περὶ τὸν βασιλέα τὸν τοιοῦτον οὐ χαλεπὸν διορίσαι· δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν μὲν ἔχειν ἰσχύν, εἶναι δὲ τοσαύτην τὴν ἰσχὺν ὥστε ἑκάστου μὲν καὶ ἑνὸς καὶ συμπλειόνων κρείττω τοῦ δὲ πλήθους ἥττω, καθάπερ οἵ τʼ ἀρχαῖοι τὰς φυλακὰς ἐδίδοσαν, ὅτε καθισταῖέν τινα τῆς πόλεως ὃν ἐκάλουν αἰσυμνήτην ἢ τύραννον, καὶ Διονυσίῳ τις, ὅτʼ ᾔτει τοὺς φύλακας, συνεβούλευε τοῖς Συρακουσίοις διδόναι τοσούτους τοὺς φύλακας.

+ +
+

περὶ δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ βούλησιν πάντα πράττοντος ὅ τε λόγος ἐφέστηκε νῦν καὶ ποιητέον τὴν σκέψιν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ νόμον λεγόμενος βασιλεὺς οὐκ ἔστιν εἶδος, καθάπερ εἴπομεν, πολιτείας (ἐν πάσαις γὰρ ὑπάρχειν ἐνδέχεται στρατηγίαν ἀίδιον, οἷον ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ καὶ ἀριστοκρατίᾳ, καὶ πολλοὶ ποιοῦσιν ἕνα κύριον τῆς διοικήσεως· τοιαύτη γὰρ ἀρχή τις ἔστι καὶ περὶ Ἐπίδαμνον, καὶ περὶ Ὀποῦντα δὲ κατά τι μέρος ἔλαττον)· περὶ δὲ τῆς παμβασιλείας καλουμένης (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶ καθʼ ἣν ἄρχει πάντων κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βούλησιν ὁ βασιλεύς) δοκεῖ δέ τισιν οὐδὲ κατὰ φύσιν εἶναι τὸ κύριον ἕνα πάντων εἶναι τῶν πολιτῶν, ὅπου συνέστηκεν ἐξ ὁμοίων ἡ πόλις· τοῖς γὰρ ὁμοίοις φύσει τὸ αὐτὸ δίκαιον ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀξίαν κατὰ φύσιν εἶναι, ὥστʼ εἴπερ καὶ τὸ ἴσην ἔχειν τοὺς ἀνίσους τροφὴν ἢ ἐσθῆτα βλαβερὸν τοῖς σώμασιν, οὕτως ἔχειν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς τιμάς· ὁμοίως τοίνυν καὶ τὸ ἄνισον τοὺς ἴσους· διόπερ οὐδένα μᾶλλον ἄρχειν ἢ ἄρχεσθαι δίκαιον, καὶ τὸ ἀνὰ μέρος τοίνυν ὡσαύτως. τοῦτο δʼ ἤδη νόμος· ἡ γὰρ τάξις νόμος. τὸν ἄρα νόμον ἄρχειν αἱρετώτερον μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν πολιτῶν ἕνα τινά, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ λόγον τοῦτον, κἂν εἴ τινας ἄρχειν βέλτιον, τούτους καταστατέον νομοφύλακας καὶ ὑπηρέτας τοῖς νόμοις· ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ εἶναί τινας ἀρχάς, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἕνα τοῦτον εἶναί φασι δίκαιον, ὁμοίων γε ὄντων πάντων. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅσα γε μὴ δοκεῖ δύνασθαι διορίζειν ὁ νόμος, οὐδʼ ἄνθρωπος ἂν δύναιτο γνωρίζειν. ἀλλʼ ἐπίτηδες παιδεύσας ὁ νόμος ἐφίστησι τὰ λοιπὰ τῇ δικαιοτάτῃ γνώμῃ κρίνειν καὶ διοικεῖν τοὺς ἄρχοντας. ἔτι δʼ ἐπανορθοῦσθαι δίδωσιν ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ πειρωμένοις ἄμεινον εἶναι τῶν κειμένων. ὁ μὲν οὖν τὸν νόμον κελεύων ἄρχειν δοκεῖ κελεύειν ἄρχειν τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν νοῦν μόνους, ὁ δʼ ἄνθρωπον κελεύων προστίθησι καὶ θηρίον· ἥ τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμία τοιοῦτον, καὶ ὁ θυμὸς ἄρχοντας διαστρέφει καὶ τοὺς ἀρίστους ἄνδρας. διόπερ ἄνευ ὀρέξεως νοῦς ὁ νόμος ἐστίν. τὸ δὲ τῶν τεχνῶν εἶναι δοκεῖ παράδειγμα ψεῦδος, ὅτι τὸ κατὰ γράμματα ἰατρεύεσθαι φαῦλον, ἀλλὰ αἱρετώτερον χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἔχουσι τὰς τέχνας. οἱ μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν διὰ φιλίαν παρὰ τὸν λόγον ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ἄρνυνται τὸν μισθὸν τοὺς κάμνοντας ὑγιάσαντες· οἱ δʼ ἐν ταῖς πολιτικαῖς ἀρχαῖς πολλὰ πρὸς ἐπήρειαν καὶ χάριν εἰώθασι πράττειν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοὺς ἰατροὺς ὅταν ὑποπτεύωσι πιστευθέντας τοῖς ἐχθροῖς διαφθείρειν διὰ κέρδος, τότε τὴν ἐκ τῶν γραμμάτων θεραπείαν ζητήσαιεν ἂν μᾶλλον.

+ +
+

ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰσάγονταί γʼ ἐφʼ ἑαυτοὺς οἱ ἰατροὶ κάμνοντες ἄλλους ἰατροὺς καὶ οἱ παιδοτρίβαι γυμναζόμενοι παιδοτρίβας, ὡς οὐ δυνάμενοι κρίνειν τὸ ἀληθὲς διὰ τὸ κρίνειν περί τε οἰκείων καὶ ἐν πάθει ὄντες. ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι τὸ δίκαιον ζητοῦντες τὸ μέσον ζητοῦσιν· ὁ γὰρ νόμος τὸ μέσον. ἔτι κυριώτεροι καὶ περὶ κυριωτέρων τῶν κατὰ γράμματα νόμων οἱ κατὰ τὰ ἔθη εἰσίν, ὥστʼ εἰ τῶν κατὰ γράμματα ἄνθρωπος ἄρχων ἀσφαλέστερος, ἀλλʼ οὐ τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἔθος.

+

ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ ῥᾴδιον ἐφορᾶν πολλὰ τὸν ἕνα· δεήσει ἄρα πλείονας εἶναι τοὺς ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ καθισταμένους ἄρχοντας, ὥστε τί διαφέρει τοῦτο ἐξ ἀρχῆς εὐθὺς ὑπάρχειν ἢ τὸν ἕνα καταστῆσαι τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον; ἔτι, ὃ καὶ πρότερον εἰρημένον ἐστίν, εἴπερ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ σπουδαῖος, διότι βελτίων, ἄρχειν δίκαιος, τοῦ γε ἑνὸς οἱ δύο ἀγαθοὶ βελτίους· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ σύν τε δύʼ ἐρχομένω Hom. Il. 10.224 καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος τοιοῦτοι δέκα μοι συμφράδμονες. Hom. Il. 2.372 εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ νῦν περὶ ἐνίων αἱ ἀρχαὶ κύριαι κρίνειν, ὥσπερ ὁ δικαστής, περὶ ὧν ὁ νόμος ἀδυνατεῖ διορίζειν, ἐπεὶ περὶ ὧν γε δυνατός, οὐδεὶς ἀμφισβητεῖ περὶ τούτων ὡς οὐκ ἂν ἄριστα ὁ νόμος ἄρξειε καὶ κρίνειεν. ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ τὰ μὲν ἐνδέχεται περιληφθῆναι τοῖς νόμοις τὰ δὲ ἀδύνατα, ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἃ ποιεῖ διαπορεῖν καὶ ζητεῖν πότερον τὸν ἄριστον νόμον ἄρχειν αἱρετώτερον ἢ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ἄριστον· περὶ ὧν γὰρ βουλεύονται νομοθετῆσαι τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἐστίν. οὐ τοίνυν τοῦτό γʼ ἀντιλέγουσιν, ὡς οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἄνθρωπον εἶναι τὸν κρινοῦντα περὶ τῶν τοιούτων, ἀλλʼ ὅτι οὐχ ἕνα μόνον ἀλλὰ πολλούς.

+

κρίνει γὰρ ἕκαστος ἄρχων πεπαιδευμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καλῶς, ἄτοπον τʼ ἴσως ἂν εἶναι δόξειεν εἰ βέλτιον ἴδοι τις δυοῖν ὄμμασι καὶ δυσὶν ἀκοαῖς κρίνων καὶ πράττων δυσὶ ποσὶ καὶ χερσίν, ἢ πολλοὶ πολλοῖς· ἐπεὶ καὶ νῦν ὀφθαλμοὺς πολλοὺς οἱ μόναρχοι ποιοῦσιν αὑτῶν καὶ ὦτα καὶ χεῖρας καὶ πόδας· τοὺς γὰρ τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ αὑτοῖς φίλους ποιοῦνται συνάρχους. μὴ φίλοι μὲν οὖν ὄντες οὐ ποιήσουσι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μονάρχου προαίρεσιν· εἰ δὲ φίλοι κἀκείνου καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ὅ γε φίλος ἴσος καὶ ὅμοιος, ὥστʼ εἰ τούτους οἴεται δεῖν ἄρχειν, τοὺς ἴσους καὶ ὁμοίους ἄρχειν οἴεται δεῖν ὁμοίως. ἃ μὲν οὖν οἱ διαμφισβητοῦντες πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν λέγουσι, σχεδὸν ταῦτʼ ἐστίν.

+

ἀλλʼ ἴσως ταῦτʼ ἐπὶ μὲν τινῶν ἔχει τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, ἐπὶ δὲ τινῶν οὐχ οὕτως. ἔστι γάρ τι φύσει δεσποτικὸν καὶ ἄλλο βασιλευτικὸν καὶ ἄλλο πολιτικὸν καὶ δίκαιον καὶ συμφέρον ἄλλο ἄλλοις· τυραννικὸν δʼ οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ φύσιν, οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν ὅσαι παρεκβάσεις εἰσί· ταῦτα γὰρ γίνεται παρὰ φύσιν.

+ +
+

ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων γε φανερὸν ὡς ἐν μὲν τοῖς ὁμοίοις καὶ ἴσοις οὔτε συμφέρον ἐστὶν οὔτε δίκαιον ἕνα κύριον εἶναι πάντων, οὔτε μὴ νόμων ὄντων, ἀλλʼ ὡς αὐτὸν ὄντα νόμον, οὔτε νόμων ὄντων, οὔτε ἀγαθὸν ἀγαθῶν οὔτε μὴ ἀγαθῶν μὴ ἀγαθόν, οὐδʼ ἂν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀμείνων ᾖ, εἰ μὴ τρόπον τινά. τίς δʼ ὁ τρόπος, λεκτέον· εἴρηται δέ πως ἤδη καὶ πρότερον.

+

πρῶτον δὲ διοριστέον τί τὸ βασιλευτὸν καὶ τί τὸ ἀριστοκρατικὸν καὶ τί τὸ πολιτικόν. βασιλευτὸν μὲν οὖν τὸ τοιοῦτόν ἐστι πλῆθος ὃ πέφυκε φέρειν γένος ὑπερέχον κατʼ ἀρετὴν πρὸς ἡγεμονίαν πολιτικήν, ἀριστοκρατικὸν δὲ ὃ πέφυκε φέρειν πλῆθος ἄρχεσθαι δυνάμενον τὴν τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀρχὴν ὑπὸ τῶν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἡγεμονικῶν πρὸς πολιτικὴν ἀρχήν, πολιτικὸν δὲ ἐν ᾧ πέφυκεν ἐγγίνεσθαι πλῆθος πολεμικὸν δυνάμενον ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν κατὰ νόμον τὸν κατʼ ἀξίαν διανέμοντα τοῖς εὐπόροις τὰς ἀρχάς. ὅταν οὖν ἢ γένος ὅλον ἢ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕνα τινὰ συμβῇ διαφέροντα γενέσθαι κατʼ ἀρετὴν τοσοῦτον ὥσθʼ ὑπερέχειν τὴν ἐκείνου τῆς τῶν ἄλλων πάντων, τότε δίκαιον τὸ γένος εἶναι τοῦτο βασιλικὸν καὶ κύριον πάντων, καὶ βασιλέα τὸν ἕνα τοῦτον. καθάπερ γὰρ εἴρηται πρότερον, οὐ μόνον οὕτως ἔχει κατὰ τὸ δίκαιον ὃ προφέρειν εἰώθασιν οἱ τὰς πολιτείας καθιστάντες, οἵ τε τὰς ἀριστοκρατικὰς καὶ οἱ τὰς ὀλιγαρχικὰς καὶ πάλιν οἱ τὰς δημοκρατικάς (πάντες γὰρ καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν ἀξιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ ὑπεροχὴν οὐ τὴν αὐτήν), ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ πρότερον λεχθέν. οὔτε γὰρ κτείνειν ἢ φυγαδεύειν οὐδʼ ὀστρακίζειν δή που τὸν τοιοῦτον πρέπον ἐστίν, οὔτʼ ἀξιοῦν ἄρχεσθαι κατὰ μέρος· οὐ γὰρ πέφυκε τὸ μέρος ὑπερέχειν τοῦ παντός, τῷ δὲ τὴν τηλικαύτην ὑπερβολὴν ἔχοντι τοῦτο συμβέβηκεν. ὥστε λείπεται μόνον τὸ πείθεσθαι τῷ τοιούτῳ καὶ κύριον εἶναι μὴ κατὰ μέρος τοῦτον ἀλλʼ ἁπλῶς. περὶ μὲν οὖν βασιλείας, τίνας ἔχει διαφοράς, καὶ πότερον οὐ συμφέρει ταῖς πόλεσιν ἢ συμφέρει, καὶ τίσι, καὶ πῶς, διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ τρεῖς φαμεν εἶναι τὰς ὀρθὰς πολιτείας, τούτων δʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἀρίστην εἶναι τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρίστων οἰκονομουμένην, τοιαύτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἐν ᾗ συμβέβηκεν ἢ ἕνα τινὰ συμπάντων ἢ γένος ὅλον ἢ πλῆθος ὑπερέχον εἶναι κατʼ ἀρετήν, τῶν μὲν ἄρχεσθαι δυναμένων τῶν δʼ ἄρχειν πρὸς τὴν αἱρετωτάτην ζωήν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς πρώτοις ἐδείχθη λόγοις ὅτι τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναγκαῖον ἀνδρὸς ἀρετὴν εἶναι καὶ πολίτου τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἀρίστης, φανερὸν ὅτι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀνήρ τε γίνεται σπουδαῖος καὶ πόλιν συστήσειεν ἄν τις ἀριστοκρατουμένην ἢ βασιλευομένην,

+ +
+

ὥστʼ ἔσται καὶ παιδεία καὶ ἔθη ταὐτὰ σχεδὸν τὰ ποιοῦντα σπουδαῖον ἄνδρα καὶ τὰ ποιοῦντα πολιτικὸν καὶ βασιλικόν. διωρισμένων δὲ τούτων περὶ τῆς πολιτείας ἤδη πειρατέον λέγειν τῆς ἀρίστης, τίνα πέφυκε γίγνεσθαι τρόπον καὶ καθίστασθαι πῶς. ἀνάγκη δὴ τὸν μέλλοντα περὶ αὐτῆς ποιήσασθαι τὴν προσήκουσαν σκέψιν.

+ +
+
+

ἐν ἁπάσαις ταῖς τέχναις καὶ ταῖς ἐπιστήμαις ταῖς μὴ κατὰ μόριον γινομέναις, ἀλλὰ περὶ γένος ἕν τι τελείαις οὔσαις, μιᾶς ἐστι θεωρῆσαι τὸ περὶ ἕκαστον γένος ἁρμόττον, οἷον ἄσκησις σώματι ποία τε ποίῳ συμφέρει, καὶ τίς ἀρίστη (τῷ γὰρ κάλλιστα πεφυκότι καὶ κεχορηγημένῳ τὴν ἀρίστην ἀναγκαῖον ἁρμόττειν), καὶ τίς τοῖς πλείστοις μία πᾶσιν (καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο τῆς γυμναστικῆς ἔργον ἐστίν), ἔτι δʼ ἐάν τις μὴ τῆς ἱκνουμένης ἐπιθυμῇ μήθʼ ἕξεως μήτʼ ἐπιστήμης τῶν περὶ τὴν ἀγωνίαν, μηδὲν ἧττον τοῦ παιδοτρίβου καὶ τοῦ γυμναστικοῦ παρασκευάσαι γε καὶ ταύτην ἐστὶ τὴν δύναμιν. ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦτο καὶ περὶ ἰατρικὴν καὶ περὶ ναυπηγίαν καὶ ἐσθῆτα καὶ περὶ πᾶσαν ἄλλην τέχνην ὁρῶμεν συμβαῖνον. ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πολιτείαν τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἐπιστήμης τὴν ἀρίστην θεωρῆσαι τίς ἐστι καὶ ποία τις ἂν οὖσα μάλιστʼ εἴη κατʼ εὐχὴν μηδενὸς ἐμποδίζοντος τῶν ἐκτός, καὶ τίς τίσιν ἁρμόττουσα (πολλοῖς γὰρ τῆς ἀρίστης τυχεῖν ἴσως ἀδύνατον, ὥστε τὴν κρατίστην τε ἁπλῶς καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἀρίστην οὐ δεῖ λεληθέναι τὸν ἀγαθὸν νομοθέτην καὶ τὸν ὡς ἀληθῶς πολιτικόν), ἔτι δὲ τρίτην τὴν ἐξ ὑποθέσεως (δεῖ γὰρ καὶ τὴν δοθεῖσαν δύνασθαι θεωρεῖν, ἐξ ἀρχῆς τε πῶς ἂν γένοιτο, καὶ γενομένη τίνα τρόπον ἂν σῴζοιτο πλεῖστον χρόνον· λέγω δὲ οἷον εἴ τινι πόλει συμβέβηκε μήτε τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτεύεσθαι πολιτείαν, ἀχορήγητον δὲ εἶναι καὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων, μήτε τὴν ἐνδεχομένην ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, ἀλλά τινα φαυλοτέραν), παρὰ πάντα δὲ ταῦτα τὴν μάλιστα πάσαις ταῖς πόλεσιν ἁρμόττουσαν δεῖ γνωρίζειν, ὥσθʼ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀποφαινομένων περὶ πολιτείας, καὶ εἰ τἆλλα λέγουσι καλῶς, τῶν γε χρησίμων διαμαρτάνουσιν. οὐ γὰρ μόνον τὴν ἀρίστην δεῖ θεωρεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν δυνατήν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν ῥᾴω καὶ κοινοτέραν ἁπάσαις· νῦν δʼ οἱ μὲν τὴν ἀκροτάτην καὶ δεομένην πολλῆς χορηγίας ζητοῦσι μόνον, οἱ δὲ μᾶλλον κοινήν τινα λέγοντες, τὰς ὑπαρχούσας ἀναιροῦντες πολιτείας, τὴν Λακωνικὴν ἤ τινα ἄλλην ἐπαινοῦσι·

+ +
+

χρὴ δὲ τοιαύτην εἰσηγεῖσθαι τάξιν ἧς ῥᾳδίως ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων καὶ πεισθήσονται καὶ δυνήσονται κοινωνεῖν, ὡς ἔστιν οὐκ ἔλαττον ἔργον τὸ ἐπανορθῶσαι πολιτείαν ἢ κατασκευάζειν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ μεταμανθάνειν ἢ μανθάνειν ἐξ ἀρχῆς· διὸ πρὸς τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ ταῖς ὑπαρχούσαις πολιτείαις δεῖ δύνασθαι βοηθεῖν τὸν πολιτικόν, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη καὶ πρότερον. τοῦτο δὲ ἀδύνατον ἀγνοοῦντα πόσα πολιτείας ἔστιν εἴδη. νῦν δὲ μίαν δημοκρατίαν οἴονταί τινες εἶναι καὶ μίαν ὀλιγαρχίαν· οὐκ ἔστι δὲ τοῦτʼ ἀληθές. ὥστε δεῖ τὰς διαφορὰς μὴ λανθάνειν τὰς τῶν πολιτειῶν, πόσαι, καὶ συντίθενται ποσαχῶς. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τῆς αὐτῆς φρονήσεως ταύτης καὶ νόμους τοὺς ἀρίστους ἰδεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἑκάστῃ τῶν πολιτειῶν ἁρμόττοντας. πρὸς γὰρ τὰς πολιτείας τοὺς νόμους δεῖ τίθεσθαι καὶ τίθενται πάντες, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὰς πολιτείας πρὸς τοὺς νόμους. πολιτεία μὲν γάρ ἐστι τάξις ταῖς πόλεσιν ἡ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, τίνα τρόπον νενέμηνται, καὶ τί τὸ κύριον τῆς πολιτείας καὶ τί τὸ τέλος ἑκάστης τῆς κοινωνίας ἐστίν· νόμοι δʼ οἱ κεχωρισμένοι τῶν δηλούντων τὴν πολιτείαν, καθʼ οὓς δεῖ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἄρχειν καὶ φυλάττειν τοὺς παραβαίνοντας αὐτούς. ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι τὰς διαφορὰς ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τὸν ὁρισμὸν ἔχειν τῆς πολιτείας ἑκάστης καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῶν νόμων θέσεις· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε τοὺς αὐτοὺς νόμους συμφέρειν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις οὐδὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις πάσαις, εἴπερ δὴ πλείους καὶ μὴ μία δημοκρατία μηδὲ ὀλιγαρχία μόνον ἔστιν.

+

ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μεθόδῳ περὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν διειλόμεθα τρεῖς μὲν τὰς ὀρθὰς πολιτείας, βασιλείαν ἀριστοκρατίαν πολιτείαν, τρεῖς δὲ τὰς τούτων παρεκβάσεις, τυραννίδα μὲν βασιλείας ὀλιγαρχίαν δὲ ἀριστοκρατίας δημοκρατίαν δὲ πολιτείας, καὶ περὶ μὲν ἀριστοκρατίας καὶ βασιλείας εἴρηται (τὸ γὰρ περὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας θεωρῆσαι ταὐτὸ καὶ περὶ τούτων ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν τῶν ὀνομάτων· βούλεται γὰρ ἑκατέρα κατʼ ἀρετὴν συνεστάναι κεχορηγημένην), ἔτι δὲ τί διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων ἀριστοκρατία καὶ βασιλεία, καὶ πότε δεῖ βασιλείαν νομίζειν, διώρισται πρότερον, λοιπὸν περὶ πολιτείας διελθεῖν τῆς τῷ κοινῷ προσαγορευομένης ὀνόματι, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν, ὀλιγαρχίας τε καὶ δημοκρατίας καὶ τυραννίδος. φανερὸν μὲν οὖν καὶ τούτων τῶν παρεκβάσεων τίς χειρίστη καὶ δευτέρα τίς. ἀνάγκη γὰρ τὴν μὲν τῆς πρώτης καὶ θειοτάτης παρέκβασιν εἶναι χειρίστην, τὴν δὲ βασιλείαν ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τοὔνομα μόνον ἔχειν οὐκ οὖσαν,

+ +
+

ἢ διὰ πολλὴν ὑπεροχὴν εἶναι τὴν τοῦ βασιλεύοντος· ὥστε τὴν τυραννίδα χειρίστην οὖσαν πλεῖστον ἀπέχειν πολιτείας, δεύτερον δὲ τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν (ἡ γὰρ ἀριστοκρατία διέστηκεν ἀπὸ ταύτης πολὺ τῆς πολιτείας), μετριωτάτην δὲ τὴν δημοκρατίαν. ἤδη μὲν οὖν τις ἀπεφήνατο καὶ τῶν πρότερον οὕτως, οὐ μὴν εἰς ταὐτὸ βλέψας ἡμῖν. ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ ἔκρινε πασῶν μὲν οὐσῶν ἐπιεικῶν, οἷον ὀλιγαρχίας τε χρηστῆς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, χειρίστην δημοκρατίαν, φαύλων δὲ ἀρίστην· ἡμεῖς δὲ ὅλως ταύτας ἐξημαρτημένας εἶναί φαμεν, καὶ βελτίω μὲν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἄλλην ἄλλης οὐ καλῶς ἔχειν λέγειν, ἧττον δὲ φαύλην. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῆς τοιαύτης κρίσεως ἀφείσθω τὰ νῦν· ἡμῖν δὲ πρῶτον μὲν διαιρετέον πόσαι διαφοραὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν, εἴπερ ἔστιν εἴδη πλείονα τῆς τε δημοκρατίας καὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας, ἔπειτα τίς κοινοτάτη καὶ τίς αἱρετωτάτη μετὰ τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν, κἂν εἴ τις ἄλλη τετύχηκεν ἀριστοκρατικὴ καὶ συνεστῶσα καλῶς, ἀλλʼ οὐ ταῖς πλείσταις ἁρμόττουσα πόλεσι, τίς ἐστιν, ἔπειτα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τίς τίσιν αἱρετή (τάχα γὰρ τοῖς μὲν ἀναγκαία δημοκρατία μᾶλλον ὀλιγαρχίας, τοῖς δʼ αὕτη μᾶλλον ἐκείνης), μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τίνα τρόπον δεῖ καθιστάναι τὸν βουλόμενον ταύτας τὰς πολιτείας, λέγω δὲ δημοκρατίας τε καθʼ ἕκαστον εἶδος καὶ πάλιν ὀλιγαρχίας· τέλος δέ, πάντων τούτων ὅταν ποιησώμεθα συντόμως τὴν ἐνδεχομένην μνείαν, πειρατέον ἐπελθεῖν τίνες φθοραὶ καὶ τίνες σωτηρίαι τῶν πολιτειῶν καὶ κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς ἑκάστης, καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας ταῦτα μάλιστα γίνεσθαι πέφυκεν.

+

τοῦ μὲν οὖν εἶναι πλείους πολιτείας αἴτιον ὅτι πάσης ἔστι μέρη πλείω πόλεως τὸν ἀριθμόν. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἐξ οἰκιῶν συγκειμένας πάσας ὁρῶμεν τὰς πόλεις, ἔπειτα πάλιν τούτου τοῦ πλήθους τοὺς μὲν εὐπόρους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοὺς δʼ ἀπόρους τοὺς δὲ μέσους, καὶ τῶν εὐπόρων δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀπόρων τὸ μὲν ὁπλιτικὸν τὸ δὲ ἄνοπλον. καὶ τὸν μὲν γεωργικὸν δῆμον ὁρῶμεν ὄντα, τὸν δʼ ἀγοραῖον, τὸν δὲ βάναυσον. καὶ τῶν γνωρίμων εἰσὶ διαφοραὶ καὶ κατὰ τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τὰ μεγέθη τῆς οὐσίας, οἷον ἱπποτροφίας (τοῦτο γὰρ οὐ ῥᾴδιον μὴ πλουτοῦντας ποιεῖν· διόπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων χρόνων ὅσαις πόλεσιν ἐν τοῖς ἵπποις ἡ δύναμις ἦν, ὀλιγαρχίαι παρὰ τούτοις ἦσαν· ἐχρῶντο δὲ πρὸς τοὺς πολέμους ἵπποις πρὸς τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας, οἷον Ἐρετριεῖς καὶ Χαλκιδεῖς καὶ Μάγνητες οἱ ἐπὶ Μαιάνδρῳ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολλοὶ περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν)· ἔτι πρὸς ταῖς κατὰ πλοῦτον διαφοραῖς ἐστιν ἡ μὲν κατὰ γένος ἡ δὲ κατʼ ἀρετήν,

+ +
+

κἂν εἴ τι δὴ τοιοῦτον ἕτερον εἴρηται πόλεως εἶναι μέρος ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὴν ἀριστοκρατίαν· ἐκεῖ γὰρ διείλομεν ἐκ πόσων μερῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐστὶ πᾶσα πόλις· τούτων γὰρ τῶν μερῶν ὁτὲ μὲν πάντα μετέχει τῆς πολιτείας ὁτὲ δʼ ἐλάττω ὁτὲ δὲ πλείω. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι πλείους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πολιτείας, εἴδει διαφερούσας ἀλλήλων· καὶ γὰρ ταῦτʼ εἴδει διαφέρει τὰ μέρη σφῶν αὐτῶν. πολιτεία μὲν γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἀρχῶν τάξις ἐστί, ταύτας δὲ διανέμονται πάντες ἢ κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τῶν μετεχόντων ἢ κατά τινʼ αὐτῶν ἰσότητα κοινήν, λέγω δʼ οἷον τῶν ἀπόρων ἢ τῶν εὐπόρων ἢ κοινήν τινʼ ἀμφοῖν. ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα πολιτείας εἶναι τοσαύτας ὅσαι περ τάξεις κατὰ τὰς ὑπεροχάς εἰσι καὶ κατὰ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν μορίων.

+

μάλιστα δὲ δοκοῦσιν εἶναι δύο, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν πνευμάτων λέγεται τὰ μὲν βόρεια τὰ δὲ νότια, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα τούτων παρεκβάσεις, οὕτω καὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν δύο, δῆμος καὶ ὀλιγαρχία. τὴν γὰρ ἀριστοκρατίαν τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας εἶδος τιθέασιν ὡς οὖσαν ὀλιγαρχίαν τινά, καὶ τὴν καλουμένην πολιτείαν δημοκρατίαν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς πνεύμασι τὸν μὲν ζέφυρον τοῦ βορέου, τοῦ δὲ νότου τὸν εὖρον. ὁμοίως δʼ ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰς ἁρμονίας, ὥς φασί τινες· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ τίθενται εἴδη δύο, τὴν δωριστὶ καὶ τὴν φρυγιστί, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα συντάγματα τὰ μὲν Δώρια τὰ δὲ Φρύγια καλοῦσιν. μάλιστα μὲν οὖν εἰώθασιν οὕτως ὑπολαμβάνειν περὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν· ἀληθέστερον δὲ καὶ βέλτιον ὡς ἡμεῖς διείλομεν, δυοῖν ἢ μιᾶς οὔσης τῆς καλῶς συνεστηκυίας τὰς ἄλλας εἶναι παρεκβάσεις, τὰς μὲν τῆς εὖ κεκραμένης ἁρμονίασ? τὰς δὲ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας, ὀλιγαρχικὰς μὲν τὰς συντονωτέρας καὶ δεσποτικωτέρας, τὰς δʼ ἀνειμένας καὶ μαλακὰς δημοτικάς.

+

οὐ δεῖ δὲ τιθέναι δημοκρατίαν, καθάπερ εἰώθασί τινες νῦν, ἁπλῶς οὕτως, ὅπου κύριον τὸ πλῆθος (καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις καὶ πανταχοῦ τὸ πλέον μέρος κύριον), οὐδʼ ὀλιγαρχίαν, ὅπου κύριοι ὀλίγοι τῆς πολιτείας. εἰ γὰρ εἴησαν οἱ πάντες χίλιοι καὶ τριακόσιοι, καὶ τούτων οἱ χίλιοι πλούσιοι, καὶ μὴ μεταδιδοῖεν ἀρχῆς τοῖς τριακοσίοις καὶ πένησιν ἐλευθέροις οὖσι καὶ τἆλλα ὁμοίοις, οὐθεὶς ἂν φαίη δημοκρατεῖσθαι τούτους· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰ πένητες ὀλίγοι μὲν εἶεν, κρείττους δὲ τῶν εὐπόρων πλειόνων ὄντων, οὐδεὶς ἂν ὀλιγαρχίαν προσαγορεύσειεν οὐδὲ τὴν τοιαύτην, εἰ τοῖς ἄλλοις οὖσι πλουσίοις μὴ μετείη τῶν τιμῶν.

+ +
+

μᾶλλον τοίνυν λεκτέον ὅτι δῆμος μέν ἐστιν ὅταν οἱ ἐλεύθεροι κύριοι ὦσιν, ὀλιγαρχία δʼ ὅταν οἱ πλούσιοι, ἀλλὰ συμβαίνει τοὺς μὲν πολλοὺς εἶναι τοὺς δʼ ὀλίγους· ἐλεύθεροι μὲν γὰρ πολλοί, πλούσιοι δʼ ὀλίγοι. καὶ γὰρ ἂν εἰ κατὰ μέγεθος διενέμοντο τὰς ἀρχάς, ὥσπερ ἐν Αἰθιοπίᾳ φασί τινες, ἢ κατὰ κάλλος, ὀλιγαρχία ἦν ἄν· ὀλίγον γὰρ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὸ τῶν καλῶν καὶ τὸ τῶν μεγάλων. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τούτοις μόνον ἱκανῶς ἔχει διωρίσθαι τὰς πολιτείας ταύτας· ἀλλʼ ἐπεὶ πλείονα μόρια καὶ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας εἰσίν, ἔτι διαληπτέον ὡς οὔτʼ ἂν οἱ ἐλεύθεροι ὀλίγοι ὄντες πλειόνων καὶ μὴ ἐλευθέρων ἄρχωσι, δῆμος, οἷον ἐν Ἀπολλωνίᾳ τῇ ἐν τῷ Ἰονίῳ καὶ ἐν Θήρᾳ (ἐν τούτων γὰρ ἑκατέρᾳ τῶν πόλεων ἐν ταῖς τιμαῖς ἦσαν οἱ διαφέροντες κατʼ εὐγένειαν καὶ πρῶτοι κατασχόντες τὰς ἀποικίας, ὀλίγοι ὄντες, πολλῶν), οὔτε ἂν οἱ πλούσιοι διὰ τὸ κατὰ πλῆθος ὑπερέχειν, δῆμος, οἷον ἐν Κολοφῶνι τὸ παλαιόν (ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἐκέκτηντο μακρὰν οὐσίαν οἱ πλείους πρὶν γενέσθαι τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Λυδούς), ἀλλʼ ἔστι δημοκρατία μὲν ὅταν οἱ ἐλεύθεροι καὶ ἄποροι πλείους ὄντες κύριοι τῆς ἀρχῆς ὦσιν, ὀλιγαρχία δʼ ὅταν οἱ πλούσιοι καὶ εὐγενέστεροι ὀλίγοι ὄντες.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν πολιτεῖαι πλείους, καὶ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν, εἴρηται· διότι δὲ πλείους τῶν εἰρημένων, καὶ τίνες καὶ διὰ τί, λέγωμεν ἀρχὴν λαβόντες τὴν εἰρημένην πρότερον. ὁμολογοῦμεν γὰρ οὐχ ἓν μέρος ἀλλὰ πλείω πᾶσαν ἔχειν πόλιν. ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ ζῴου προῃρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιωρίζομεν ἅπερ ἀναγκαῖον πᾶν ἔχειν ζῷον (οἷον ἔνιά τε τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐργαστικὸν καὶ δεκτικόν, οἷον στόμα καὶ κοιλίαν, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, οἷς κινεῖται μορίοις ἕκαστον αὐτῶν)· εἰ δὲ τοσαῦτα εἴη μόνον, τούτων δʼ εἶεν διαφοραί (λέγω δʼ οἷον στόματός τινα πλείω γένη καὶ κοιλίας καὶ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν κινητικῶν μορίων), ὁ τῆς συζεύξεως τῆς τούτων ἀριθμὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ποιήσει πλείω γένη ζῴων (οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ταὐτὸν ζῷον ἔχειν πλείους στόματος διαφοράς, ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδʼ ὤτων), ὥσθʼ ὅταν ληφθῶσι τούτων πάντες οἱ ἐνδεχόμενοι συνδυασμοί, ποιήσουσιν εἴδη ζῴου, καὶ τοσαῦτʼ εἴδη τοῦ ζῴου ὅσαι περ αἱ συζεύξεις τῶν ἀναγκαίων μορίων εἰσίν—τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πολιτειῶν. καὶ γὰρ αἱ πόλεις οὐκ ἐξ ἑνὸς ἀλλʼ ἐκ πολλῶν σύγκεινται μερῶν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις. ἓν μὲν οὖν ἐστι τὸ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν πλῆθος, οἱ καλούμενοι γεωργοί,

+ +
+

δεύτερον δὲ τὸ καλούμενον βάναυσον (ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο τὸ περὶ τὰς τέχνας ὧν ἄνευ πόλιν ἀδύνατον οἰκεῖσθαι· τούτων δὲ τῶν τεχνῶν τὰς μὲν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὑπάρχειν δεῖ, τὰς δὲ εἰς τρυφὴν ἢ τὸ καλῶς ζῆν), τρίτον δὲ τὸ ἀγοραῖον (λέγω δʼ ἀγοραῖον τὸ περὶ τὰς πράσεις καὶ τὰς ὠνὰς καὶ τὰς ἐμπορίας καὶ καπηλείας διατρῖβον), τέταρτον δὲ τὸ θητικόν, πέμπτον δὲ γένος τὸ προπολεμῆσον, ὃ τούτων οὐθὲν ἧττόν ἐστιν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν, εἰ μέλλουσι μὴ δουλεύσειν τοῖς ἐπιοῦσιν. μὴ γὰρ ἓν τῶν ἀδυνάτων ᾖ πόλιν ἄξιον εἶναι καλεῖν τὴν φύσει δούλην· αὐτάρκης γὰρ ἡ πόλις, τὸ δὲ δοῦλον οὐκ αὔταρκες. διόπερ ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ κομψῶς τοῦτο, οὐχ ἱκανῶς δὲ εἴρηται. φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Σωκράτης ἐκ τεττάρων τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων πόλιν συγκεῖσθαι, λέγει δὲ τούτους ὑφάντην καὶ γεωργὸν καὶ σκυτοτόμον καὶ οἰκοδόμον· πάλιν δὲ προστίθησιν, ὡς οὐκ αὐτάρκων τούτων, χαλκέα καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις βοσκήμασιν, ἔτι δʼ ἔμπορόν τε καὶ κάπηλον· καὶ ταῦτα πάντα γίνεται πλήρωμα τῆς πρώτης πόλεως, ὡς τῶν ἀναγκαίων τε χάριν πᾶσαν πόλιν συνεστηκυῖαν, ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῦ καλοῦ μᾶλλον, ἴσον τε δεομένην σκυτέων τε καὶ γεωργῶν. τὸ δὲ προπολεμοῦν οὐ πρότερον ἀποδίδωσι μέρος πρὶν ἢ τῆς χώρας αὐξομένης καὶ τῆς τῶν πλησίον ἁπτομένης εἰς πόλεμον καταστῶσιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἐν τοῖς τέτταρσι καὶ τοῖς ὁποσοισοῦν κοινωνοῖς ἀναγκαῖον εἶναί τινα τὸν ἀποδώσοντα καὶ κρινοῦντα τὸ δίκαιον. εἴπερ οὖν καὶ ψυχὴν ἄν τις θείη ζῴου μόριον μᾶλλον ἢ σῶμα, καὶ πόλεων τὰ τοιαῦτα μᾶλλον θετέον τῶν εἰς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν χρῆσιν συντεινόντων, τὸ πολεμικὸν καὶ τὸ μετέχον δικαιοσύνης δικαστικῆς, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὸ βουλευόμενον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ συνέσεως πολιτικῆς ἔργον. καὶ ταῦτʼ εἴτε κεχωρισμένως ὑπάρχει τισὶν εἴτε τοῖς αὐτοῖς, οὐθὲν διαφέρει πρὸς τὸν λόγον· καὶ γὰρ ὁπλιτεύειν καὶ γεωργεῖν συμβαίνει τοῖς αὐτοῖς πολλάκις. ὥστε εἴπερ καὶ ταῦτα καὶ ἐκεῖνα θετέα μόρια τῆς πόλεως, φανερὸν ὅτι τό γε ὁπλιτικὸν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι μόριον τῆς πόλεως.

+

ἕβδομον δὲ τὸ ταῖς οὐσίαις λειτουργοῦν, ὃ καλοῦμεν εὐπόρους. ὄγδοον δὲ τὸ δημιουργικὸν καὶ τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς λειτουργοῦν, εἴπερ ἄνευ ἀρχόντων ἀδύνατον εἶναι πόλιν. ἀναγκαῖον οὖν εἶναί τινας τοὺς δυναμένους ἄρχειν καὶ λειτουργοῦντας ἢ συνεχῶς ἢ κατὰ μέρος τῇ πόλει ταύτην τὴν λειτουργίαν. λοιπὰ δὲ περὶ ὧν τυγχάνομεν διωρικότες ἀρτίως, τὸ βουλευόμενον καὶ τὸ κρῖνον περὶ τῶν δικαίων τοῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσιν. εἴπερ οὖν ταῦτα δεῖ γινέσθαι ταῖς πόλεσι, καὶ καλῶς γενέσθαι καὶ δικαίως,

+ +
+

ἀναγκαῖον καὶ μετέχοντας εἶναί τινας ἀρετῆς τῆς τῶν πολιτικῶν. τὰς μὲν οὖν ἄλλας δυνάμεις τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχειν ἐνδέχεσθαι δοκεῖ πολλοῖς, οἷον τοὺς αὐτοὺς εἶναι τοὺς προπολεμοῦντας καὶ γεωργοῦντας καὶ τεχνίτας, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς βουλευομένους τε καὶ κρίνοντας· ἀντιποιοῦνται δὲ καὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς πάντες, καὶ τὰς πλείστας ἀρχὰς ἄρχειν οἴονται δύνασθαι· ἀλλὰ πένεσθαι καὶ πλουτεῖν τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἀδύνατον. διὸ ταῦτα μέρη μάλιστα εἶναι δοκεῖ πόλεως, οἱ εὔποροι καὶ οἱ ἄποροι. ἔτι δὲ διὰ τὸ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τοὺς μὲν ὀλίγους εἶναι τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς ταῦτα ἐναντία μέρη φαίνεται τῶν τῆς πόλεως μορίων. ὥστε καὶ τὰς πολιτείας κατὰ τὰς ὑπεροχὰς τούτων καθιστᾶσι, καὶ δύο πολιτεῖαι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, δημοκρατία καὶ ὀλιγαρχία.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν εἰσι πολιτεῖαι πλείους, καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας, εἴρηται πρότερον· ὅτι δὲ ἔστι καὶ δημοκρατίας εἴδη πλείω καὶ ὀλιγαρχίας, λέγωμεν. φανερὸν δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων. εἴδη γὰρ πλείω τοῦ τε δήμου καὶ τῶν λεγομένων γνωρίμων ἔστιν, οἷον δήμου μὲν εἴδη ἓν μὲν οἱ γεωργοί, ἕτερον δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς τέχνας, ἄλλο δὲ τὸ ἀγοραῖον τὸ περὶ ὠνὴν καὶ πρᾶσιν διατρῖβον, ἄλλο δὲ τὸ περὶ τὴν θάλατταν, καὶ τούτου τὸ μὲν πολεμικὸν τὸ δὲ χρηματιστικὸν τὸ δὲ πορθμευτικὸν τὸ δʼ ἁλιευτικόν (πολλαχοῦ γὰρ ἕκαστα τούτων πολύοχλα, οἷον ἁλιεῖς μὲν ἐν Τάραντι καὶ Βυζαντίῳ, τριηρικὸν δὲ Ἀθήνησιν, ἐμπορικὸν δὲ ἐν Αἰγίνῃ καὶ Χίῳ, πορθμευτικὸν δʼ ἐν Τενέδῳ), πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὸ χερνητικὸν καὶ τὸ μικρὰν ἔχον οὐσίαν ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι σχολάζειν, ἔτι τὸ μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων πολιτῶν ἐλεύθερον, κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον πλήθους εἶδος· τῶν δὲ γνωρίμων πλοῦτος εὐγένεια ἀρετὴ παιδεία καὶ τὰ τούτοις λεγόμενα κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν διαφοράν.

+

δημοκρατία μὲν οὖν ἐστι πρώτη μὲν ἡ λεγομένη μάλιστα κατὰ τὸ ἴσον. ἴσον γάρ φησιν ὁ νόμος ὁ τῆς τοιαύτης δημοκρατίας τὸ μηδὲν μᾶλλον ὑπερέχειν τοὺς ἀπόρους ἢ τοὺς εὐπόρους, μηδὲ κυρίους εἶναι ὁποτερουσοῦν, ἀλλʼ ὁμοίους ἀμφοτέρους. εἴπερ γὰρ ἐλευθερία μάλιστʼ ἔστιν ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ, καθάπερ ὑπολαμβάνουσί τινες, καὶ ἰσότης, οὕτως ἂν εἴη μάλιστα, κοινωνούτων ἁπάντων μάλιστα τῆς πολιτείας ὁμοίως. ἐπεὶ δὲ πλείων ὁ δῆμος, κύριον δὲ τὸ δόξαν τοῖς πλείοσιν, ἀνάγκη δημοκρατίαν εἶναι ταύτην. ἓν μὲν οὖν εἶδος δημοκρατίας τοῦτο, τὸ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀπὸ τιμημάτων εἴναι, βραχέων δὲ τούτων ὄντων· δεῖ δὲ τῷ κτωμένῳ ἐξουσίαν εἶναι μετέχειν καὶ τὸν ἀποβάλλοντα μὴ μετέχειν·

+ +
+

ἕτερον εἶδος δημοκρατίας τὸ μετέχειν ἅπαντας τοὺς πολίτας ὅσοι ἀνυπεύθυνοι, ἄρχειν δὲ τὸν νόμον· ἕτερον δὲ εἶδος δημοκρατίας τὸ παντὶ μετεῖναι τῶν ἀρχῶν, ἐὰν μόνον ᾖ πολίτης, ἄρχειν δὲ τὸν νόμον· ἕτερον δὲ εἶδος δημοκρατίας τἆλλα μὲν εἶναι ταὐτά, κύριον δʼ εἶναι τὸ πλῆθος καὶ μὴ τὸν νόμον. τοῦτο δὲ γίνεται ὅταν τὰ ψηφίσματα κύρια ᾖ ἀλλὰ μὴ ὁ νόμος· συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο διὰ τοὺς δημαγωγούς. ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς κατὰ νόμον δημοκρατουμέναις οὐ γίνεται δημαγωγός, ἀλλʼ οἱ βέλτιστοι τῶν πολιτῶν εἰσιν ἐν προεδρίᾳ· ὅπου δʼ οἱ νόμοι μή εἰσι κύριοι, ἐνταῦθα γίνονται δημαγωγοί. μόναρχος γὰρ ὁ δῆμος γίνεται, σύνθετος εἷς ἐκ πολλῶν· οἱ γὰρ πολλοὶ κύριοί εἰσιν οὐχ ὡς ἕκαστος ἀλλὰ πάντες. Ὅμηρος δὲ ποίαν λέγει οὐκ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι πολυκοιρανίην, πότερον ταύτην ἢ ὅταν πλείους ὦσιν οἱ ἄρχοντες ὡς ἕκαστος, ἄδηλον. ὁ δʼ οὖν τοιοῦτος δῆμος, ἅτε μόναρχος ὤν, ζητεῖ μοναρχεῖν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἄρχεσθαι ὑπὸ νόμου, καὶ γίνεται δεσποτικός, ὥστε οἱ κόλακες ἔντιμοι, καὶ ἔστιν ὁ τοιοῦτος δῆμος ἀνάλογον τῶν μοναρχιῶν τῇ τυραννίδι. διότι καὶ τὸ ἦθος τὸ αὐτό, καὶ ἄμφω δεσποτικὰ τῶν βελτιόνων, καὶ τὰ ψηφίσματα ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ τὰ ἐπιτάγματα, καὶ ὁ δημαγωγὸς καὶ ὁ κόλαξ οἱ αὐτοὶ καὶ ἀνάλογον. καὶ μάλιστα δʼ ἑκάτεροι παρʼ ἑκατέροις ἰσχύουσιν, οἱ μὲν κόλακες παρὰ τοῖς τυράννοις, οἱ δὲ δημαγωγοὶ παρὰ τοῖς δήμοις τοῖς τοιούτοις. αἴτιοι δέ εἰσι τοῦ εἶναι τὰ ψηφίσματα κύρια ἀλλὰ μὴ τοὺς νόμους οὗτοι, πάντα ἀνάγοντες εἰς τὸν δῆμον· συμβαίνει γὰρ αὐτοῖς γίνεσθαι μεγάλοις διὰ τὸ τὸν μὲν δῆμον πάντων εἶναι κύριον, τῆς δὲ τοῦ δήμου δόξης τούτους· πείθεται γὰρ τὸ πλῆθος τούτοις. ἔτι δʼ οἱ ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἐγκαλοῦντες τὸν δῆμόν φασι δεῖν κρίνειν, ὁ δὲ ἀσμένως δέχεται τὴν πρόκλησιν· ὥστε καταλύονται πᾶσαι αἱ ἀρχαί. εὐλόγως δὲ ἂν δόξειεν ἐπιτιμᾶν ὁ φάσκων τὴν τοιαύτην εἶναι δημοκρατίαν οὐ πολιτείαν. ὅπου γὰρ μὴ νόμοι ἄρχουσιν, οὐκ ἔστι πολιτεία. δεῖ γὰρ τὸν μὲν νόμον ἄρχειν πάντων τῶν δὲ καθʼ ἕκαστα τὰς ἀρχάς, καὶ ταύτην πολιτείαν κρίνειν. ὥστʼ εἴπερ ἐστὶ δημοκρατία μία τῶν πολιτειῶν, φανερὸν ὡς ἡ τοιαύτη κατάστασις, ἐν ᾗ ψηφίσμασι πάντα διοικεῖται, οὐδὲ δημοκρατία κυρίως· οὐθὲν γὰρ ἐνδέχεται ψήφισμα εἶναι καθόλου. τὰ μὲν οὖν τῆς δημοκρατίας εἴδη διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

+

ὀλιγαρχίας δὲ εἴδη ἓν μὲν τὸ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς τηλικούτων ὥστε τοὺς ἀπόρους μὴ μετέχειν, πλείους ὄντας, ἐξεῖναι δὲ τῷ κτωμένῳ μετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας,

+ +
+

ἄλλο δέ, ὅταν ἀπὸ τιμημάτων μακρῶν ὦσιν αἱ ἀρχαὶ καὶ αἱρῶνται αὐτοὶ τοὺς ἐλλείποντας (ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐκ πάντων τούτων τοῦτο ποιῶσι, δοκεῖ τοῦτʼ εἶναι μᾶλλον ἀριστοκρατικόν, ἐὰν δὲ ἐκ τινῶν ἀφωρισμένων, ὀλιγαρχικόν)· ἕτερον δʼ εἶδος ὀλιγαρχίας, ὅταν παῖς ἀντὶ πατρὸς εἰσίῃ, τέταρτον δʼ, ὅταν ὑπάρχῃ τε τὸ νῦν λεχθὲν καὶ ἄρχῃ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἀλλʼ οἱ ἄρχοντες. καὶ ἔστιν ἀντίστροφος αὕτη ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις ὥσπερ ἡ τυραννὶς ἐν ταῖς μοναρχίαις, καὶ περὶ ἧς τελευταίας εἴπαμεν δημοκρατίας ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις· καὶ καλοῦσι δὴ τὴν τοιαύτην ὀλιγαρχίαν δυναστείαν.

+

ὀλιγαρχίας μὲν οὖν εἴδη τοσαῦτα καὶ δημοκρατίας· οὐ δεῖ δὲ λανθάνειν ὅτι πολλαχοῦ συμβέβηκεν ὥστε τὴν μὲν πολιτείαν τὴν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους μὴ δημοτικὴν εἶναι, διὰ δὲ τὸ ἔθος καὶ τὴν ἀγωγὴν πολιτεύεσθαι δημοτικῶς, ὁμοίως δὲ πάλιν παρʼ ἄλλοις τὴν μὲν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους εἶναι πολιτείαν δημοτικωτέραν, τῇ δʼ ἀγωγῇ καὶ τοῖς ἔθεσιν ὀλιγαρχεῖσθαι μᾶλλον. συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο μάλιστα μετὰ τὰς μεταβολὰς τῶν πολιτειῶν· οὐ γὰρ εὐθὺς μεταβαίνουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαπῶσι τὰ πρῶτα μικρὰ πλεονεκτοῦντες παρʼ ἀλλήλων, ὥσθʼ οἱ μὲν νόμοι διαμένουσιν οἱ προϋπάρχοντες, κρατοῦσι δʼ οἱ μεταβαλόντες τὴν πολιτείαν.

+

ὅτι δʼ ἔστι τοσαῦτα εἴδη δημοκρατίας καὶ ὀλιγαρχίας, ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν εἰρημένων φανερόν ἐστιν. ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἢ πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα μέρη τοῦ δήμου κοινωνεῖν τῆς πολιτείας, ἢ τὰ μὲν τὰ δὲ μή. ὅταν μὲν οὖν τὸ γεωργικὸν καὶ τὸ κεκτημένον μετρίαν οὐσίαν κύριον ᾖ τῆς πολιτείας, πολιτεύονται κατὰ νόμους (ἔχουσι γὰρ ἐργαζόμενοι ζῆν, οὐ δύνανται δὲ σχολάζειν, ὥστε τὸν νόμον ἐπιστήσαντες ἐκκλησιάζουσι τὰς ἀναγκαίας ἐκκλησίας), τοῖς δὲ ἄλλοις μετέχειν ἔξεστιν ὅταν κτήσωνται τὸ τίμημα τὸ διωρισμένον ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων· διὸ πᾶσι τοῖς κτησαμένοις ἔξεστι μετέχειν· ὅλως μὲν γὰρ τὸ μὲν μὴ ἐξεῖναι πᾶσιν ὀλιγαρχικόν, τὸ δὲ δὴ ἐξεῖναι σχολάζειν ἀδύνατον μὴ προσόδων οὐσῶν. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν εἶδος ἓν δημοκρατίας διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας· ἕτερον δὲ εἶδος διὰ τὴν ἐχομένην διαίρεσιν· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ πᾶσιν ἐξεῖναι τοῖς ἀνυπευθύνοις κατὰ τὸ γένος, μετέχειν μέντοι δυναμένους σχολάζειν· διόπερ ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ δημοκρατίᾳ οἱ νόμοι ἄρχουσι, διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι πρόσοδον. τρίτον δʼ εἶδος τὸ πᾶσιν ἐξεῖναι, ὅσοι ἂν ἐλεύθεροι ὦσι, μετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας, μὴ μέντοι μετέχειν διὰ τὴν προειρημένην αἰτίαν, ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ ἄρχειν τὸν νόμον.

+ +
+

τέταρτον δὲ εἶδος δημοκρατίας ἡ τελευταία τοῖς χρόνοις ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι γεγενημένη. διὰ γὰρ τὸ μείζους γεγονέναι πολὺ τὰς πόλεις τῶν ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς καὶ προσόδων ὑπάρχειν εὐπορίας, μετέχουσι μὲν πάντες τῆς πολιτείας διὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ πλήθους, κοινωνοῦσι δὲ καὶ πολιτεύονται διὰ τὸ δύνασθαι σχολάζειν καὶ τοὺς ἀπόρους, λαμβάνοντας μισθόν. καὶ μάλιστα δὲ σχολάζει τὸ τοιοῦτον πλῆθος· οὐ γὰρ ἐμποδίζει αὐτοὺς οὐθὲν ἡ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπιμέλεια, τοὺς δὲ πλουσίους ἐμποδίζει, ὥστε πολλάκις οὐ κοινωνοῦσι τῆς ἐκκλησίας οὐδὲ τοῦ δικάζειν. διὸ γίνεται τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων πλῆθος κύριον τῆς πολιτείας, ἀλλʼ οὐχ οἱ νόμοι.

+

τὰ μὲν οὖν τῆς δημοκρατίας εἴδη τοσαῦτα καὶ τοιαῦτα διὰ ταύτας τὰς ἀνάγκας ἐστίν, τάδε δὲ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας· ὅταν μὲν πλείους ἔχωσιν οὐσίαν, ἐλάττω δὲ καὶ μὴ πολλὴν λίαν, τὸ τῆς πρώτης ὀλιγαρχίας εἶδός ἐστιν· ποιοῦσι γὰρ ἐξουσίαν μετέχειν τῷ κτωμένῳ, καὶ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος εἶναι τῶν μετεχόντων τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἀνάγκη μὴ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀλλὰ τὸν νόμον εἶναι κύριον (ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν πλεῖον ἀπέχωσι τῆς μοναρχίας, καὶ μήτε τοσαύτην ἔχωσιν οὐσίαν ὥστε σχολάζειν ἀμελοῦντες μήθʼ οὕτως ὀλίγην ὥστε τρέφεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως, ἀνάγκη τὸν νόμον ἀξιοῦν αὐτοῖς ἄρχειν, ἀλλὰ μὴ αὐτούς)· ἐὰν δὲ δὴ ἐλάττους ὦσιν οἱ τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντες ἢ οἱ τὸ πρότερον, πλείω δέ, τὸ τῆς δευτέρας ὀλιγαρχίας γίνεται εἶδος· μᾶλλον γὰρ ἰσχύοντες πλεονεκτεῖν ἀξιοῦσιν, διὸ αὐτοὶ μὲν αἱροῦνται ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων τοὺς εἰς τὸ πολίτευμα βαδίζοντας, διὰ δὲ τὸ μήπω οὕτως ἰσχυροὶ εἶναι ὥστʼ ἄνευ νόμου ἄρχειν τὸν νόμον τίθενται τοιοῦτον. ἐὰν δʼ ἐπιτείνωσι τῷ ἐλάττονες ὄντες μείζονας οὐσίας ἔχειν, ἡ τρίτη ἐπίδοσις γίνεται τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας, τὸ διʼ αὑτῶν μὲν τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχειν, κατὰ νόμον δὲ τὸν κελεύοντα τῶν τελευτώντων διαδέχεσθαι τοὺς υἱεῖς. ὅταν δὲ ἤδη πολὺ ὑπερτείνωσι ταῖς οὐσίαις καὶ ταῖς πολυφιλίαις, ἐγγὺς ἡ τοιαύτη δυναστεία μοναρχίας ἐστίν, καὶ κύριοι γίνονται οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁ νόμος· καὶ τὸ τέταρτον εἶδος τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας τοῦτʼ ἐστίν, ἀντίστροφον τῷ τελευταίῳ τῆς δημοκρατίας.

+

ἔτι δʼ εἰσὶ δύο πολιτεῖαι παρὰ δημοκρατίαν τε καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν, ὧν τὴν μὲν ἑτέραν λέγουσί τε πάντες καὶ εἴρηται τῶν τεττάρων πολιτειῶν εἶδος ἕν (λέγουσι δὲ τέτταρας μοναρχίαν ὀλιγαρχίαν δημοκρατίαν, τέταρτον δὲ τὴν καλουμένην ἀριστοκρατίαν)· πέμπτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἣ προσαγορεύεται τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα πασῶν (πολιτείαν γὰρ καλοῦσιν), ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μὴ πολλάκις γίνεσθαι λανθάνει τοὺς πειρωμένους ἀριθμεῖν τὰ τῶν πολιτειῶν εἴδη, καὶ χρῶνται ταῖς τέτταρσι μόνον (ὥσπερ Πλάτων) ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις.

+ +
+

ἀριστοκρατίαν μὲν οὖν καλῶς ἔχει καλεῖν περὶ ἧς διήλθομεν ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις λόγοις (τὴν γὰρ ἐκ τῶν ἀρίστων ἁπλῶς κατʼ ἀρετὴν πολιτείαν καὶ μὴ πρὸς ὑπόθεσίν τινα ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν μόνην δίκαιον προσαγορεύειν ἀριστοκρατίαν· ἐν μόνῃ γὰρ ἁπλῶς ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ πολίτης ἀγαθός ἐστιν, οἱ δʼ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἀγαθοὶ πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν εἰσὶ τὴν αὑτῶν)· οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ εἰσί τινες αἳ πρός τε τὰς ὀλιγαρχουμένας ἔχουσι διαφορὰς καὶ καλοῦνται ἀριστοκρατίαι καὶ πρὸς τὴν καλουμένην πολιτείαν. ὅπου γὰρ μὴ μόνον πλουτίνδην ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀριστίνδην αἱροῦνται τὰς ἀρχάς, αὕτη ἡ πολιτεία διαφέρει τε ἀμφοῖν καὶ ἀριστοκρατικὴ καλεῖται. καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς μὴ ποιουμέναις κοινὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἀρετῆς εἰσὶν ὅμως τινὲς οἱ εὐδοκιμοῦντες καὶ δοκοῦντες εἶναι ἐπιεικεῖς. ὅπου οὖν ἡ πολιτεία βλέπει εἴς τε πλοῦτον καὶ ἀρετὴν καὶ δῆμον, οἷον ἐν Καρχηδόνι, αὕτη ἀριστοκρατική ἐστιν, καὶ ἐν αἷς εἰς τὰ δύο μόνον, οἷον ἡ Λακεδαιμονίων, εἴς τε ἀρετὴν καὶ δῆμον, καὶ ἔστι μίξις τῶν δύο τούτων, δημοκρατίας τε καὶ ἀρετῆς. ἀριστοκρατίας μὲν οὖν παρὰ τὴν πρώτην τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ταῦτα δύο εἴδη, καὶ τρίτον ὅσαι τῆς καλουμένης πολιτείας ῥέπουσι πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν μᾶλλον.

+

λοιπὸν δʼ ἐστὶν ἡμῖν περί τε τῆς ὀνομαζομένης πολιτείας εἰπεῖν καὶ περὶ τυραννίδος. ἐτάξαμεν δʼ οὕτως οὐκ οὖσαν οὔτε ταύτην παρέκβασιν οὔτε τὰς ἄρτι ῥηθείσας ἀριστοκρατίας, ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς πᾶσαι διημαρτήκασι τῆς ὀρθοτάτης πολιτείας, ἔπειτα καταριθμοῦνται μετὰ τούτων εἰσί τʼ αὐτῶν αὗται παρεκβάσεις ἅσπερ ἐν τοῖς κατʼ ἀρχὴν εἴπομεν. τελευταῖον δὲ περὶ τυραννίδος εὔλογόν ἐστι ποιήσασθαι μνείαν διὰ τὸ πασῶν ἥκιστα ταύτην εἶναι πολιτείαν, ἡμῖν δὲ τὴν μέθοδον εἶναι περὶ πολιτείας. διʼ ἣν μὲν οὖν αἰτίαν τέτακται τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, εἴρηται· νῦν δὲ δεικτέον ἡμῖν περὶ πολιτείας. φανερωτέρα γὰρ ἡ δύναμις αὐτῆς διωρισμένων τῶν περὶ ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δημοκρατίας. ἔστι γὰρ ἡ πολιτεία ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν μίξις ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δημοκρατίας. εἰώθασι δὲ καλεῖν τὰς μὲν ἀποκλινούσας ὡς πρὸς τὴν δημοκρατίαν πολιτείας, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν μᾶλλον ἀριστοκρατίας διὰ τὸ μᾶλλον ἀκολουθεῖν παιδείαν καὶ εὐγένειαν τοῖς εὐπορωτέροις. ἔτι δὲ δοκοῦσιν ἔχειν οἱ εὔποροι ὧν ἕνεκεν οἱ ἀδικοῦντες ἀδικοῦσιν· ὅθεν καὶ καλοὺς κἀγαθοὺς καὶ γνωρίμους τούτους προσαγορεύουσιν. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἡ ἀριστοκρατία βούλεται τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἀπονέμειν τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν πολιτῶν, καὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας εἶναί φασιν ἐκ τῶν καλῶν κἀγαθῶν μᾶλλον.

+ +
+

δοκεῖ δʼ εἶναι τῶν ἀδυνάτων τὸ εὐνομεῖσθαι τὴν μὴ ἀριστοκρατουμένην πόλιν ἀλλὰ πονηροκρατουμένην, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἀριστοκρατεῖσθαι τὴν μὴ εὐνομουμένην. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ εὐνομία τὸ εὖ κεῖσθαι τοὺς νόμους, μὴ πείθεσθαι δέ. διὸ μίαν μὲν εὐνομίαν ὑποληπτέον εἶναι τὸ πείθεσθαι τοῖς κειμένοις νόμοις, ἑτέραν δὲ τὸ καλῶς κεῖσθαι τοὺς νόμους οἷς ἐμμένουσιν (ἔστι γὰρ πείθεσθαι καὶ κακῶς κειμένοις). τοῦτο δὲ ἐνδέχεται διχῶς· ἢ γὰρ τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν ἐνδεχομένων αὐτοῖς, ἢ τοῖς ἁπλῶς ἀρίστοις.

+

δοκεῖ δὲ ἀριστοκρατία μὲν εἶναι μάλιστα τὸ τὰς τιμὰς νενεμῆσθαι κατʼ ἀρετήν (ἀριστοκρατίας μὲν γὰρ ὅρος ἀρετή, ὀλιγαρχίας δὲ πλοῦτος, δήμου δʼ ἐλευθερία)· τὸ δʼ ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τοῖς πλείοσιν, ἐν πάσαις ὑπάρχει· καὶ γὰρ ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ καὶ ἐν ἀριστοκρατίᾳ καὶ ἐν δήμοις, ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τῷ πλείονι μέρει τῶν μετεχόντων τῆς πολιτείας, τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ κύριον. ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς πλείσταις πόλεσι τοῦτο τῆς πολιτείας εἶδος καλεῖται· μόνον γὰρ ἡ μίξις στοχάζεται τῶν εὐπόρων καὶ τῶν ἀπόρων, πλούτου καὶ ἐλευθερίας· (σχεδὸν γὰρ παρὰ τοῖς πλείστοις οἱ εὔποροι τῶν καλῶν κἀγαθῶν δοκοῦσι κατέχειν χώραν)· ἐπεὶ δὲ τρία ἐστὶ τὰ ἀμφισβητοῦντα τῆς ἰσότητος τῆς πολιτείας, ἐλευθερία πλοῦτος ἀρετή (τὸ γὰρ τέταρτον, ὃ καλοῦσιν εὐγένειαν, ἀκολουθεῖ τοῖς δυσίν· ἡ γὰρ εὐγένειά ἐστιν ἀρχαῖος πλοῦτος καὶ ἀρετή), φανερὸν ὅτι τὴν μὲν τοῖν δυοῖν μίξιν, τῶν εὐπόρων καὶ τῶν ἀπόρων, πολιτείαν λεκτέον, τὴν δὲ τῶν τριῶν ἀριστοκρατίαν μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων παρὰ τὴν ἀληθινὴν καὶ πρώτην. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἔστι καὶ ἕτερα πολιτείας εἴδη παρὰ μοναρχίαν τε καὶ δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν, εἴρηται, καὶ ποῖα ταῦτα, καὶ τί διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων αἵ τʼ ἀριστοκρατίαι καὶ αἱ πολιτεῖαι τῆς ἀριστοκρατίας· καὶ ὅτι οὐ πόρρω αὗται ἀλλήλων, φανερόν.

+

τίνα δὲ τρόπον γίνεται παρὰ δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν ἡ καλουμένη πολιτεία, καὶ πῶς αὐτὴν δεῖ καθιστάναι, λέγωμεν ἐφεξῆς τοῖς εἰρημένοις. ἅμα δὲ δῆλον ἔσται καὶ οἷς ὁρίζονται τὴν δημοκρατίαν καὶ τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν· ληπτέον γὰρ τὴν τούτων διαίρεσιν, εἶτα ἐκ τούτων ἀφʼ ἑκατέρας ὥσπερ σύμβολον λαμβάνοντας συνθετέον. εἰσὶ δὲ ὅροι τρεῖς τῆς συνθέσεως καὶ μίξεως. ἢ γὰρ ἀμφότερα ληπτέον ἃ ἑκάτεροι νομοθετοῦσιν, οἷον περὶ τοῦ δικάζειν (ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις τοῖς εὐπόροις ζημίαν τάττουσιν ἂν μὴ δικάζωσι, τοῖς δʼ ἀπόροις οὐδένα μισθόν, ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις τοῖς μὲν ἀπόροις μισθόν, τοῖς δʼ εὐπόροις οὐδεμίαν ζημίαν· κοινὸν δὲ καὶ μέσον τούτων ἀμφότερα ταῦτα, διὸ καὶ πολιτικόν, μέμεικται γὰρ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν)·

+ +
+

εἷς μὲν οὖν οὗτος τοῦ συνδυασμοῦ τρόπος, ἕτερος δὲ τὸ τὸ μέσον λαμβάνειν ὧν ἑκάτεροι τάττουσιν, οἷον ἐκκλησιάζειν οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τιμήματος οὐθενὸς ἢ μικροῦ πάμπαν, οἱ δʼ ἀπὸ μακροῦ τιμήματος, κοινὸν δέ γε οὐδέτερον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μέσον ἑκατέρου τίμημα τούτων. τρίτον δʼ ἐκ δυοῖν ταγμάτοιν, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ὀλιγαρχικοῦ νόμου τὰ δʼ ἐκ τοῦ δημοκρατικοῦ. λέγω δʼ οἷον δοκεῖ δημοκρατικὸν μὲν εἶναι τὸ κληρωτὰς εἶναι τὰς ἀρχάς, τὸ δʼ αἱρετὰς ὀλιγαρχικόν, καὶ δημοκρατικὸν μὲν τὸ μὴ ἀπὸ τιμήματος, ὀλιγαρχικὸν δὲ τὸ ἀπὸ τιμήματος· ἀριστοκρατικὸν τοίνυν καὶ πολιτικὸν τὸ ἐξ ἑκατέρας ἑκάτερον λαβεῖν, ἐκ μὲν τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας τὸ αἱρετὰς ποιεῖν τὰς ἀρχάς, ἐκ δὲ τῆς δημοκρατίας τὸ μὴ ἀπὸ τιμήματος.

+

ὁ μὲν οὖν τρόπος τῆς μίξεως οὗτος· τοῦ δʼ εὖ μεμεῖχθαι δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν ὅρος, ὅταν ἐνδέχηται λέγειν τὴν αὐτὴν πολιτείαν δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τοῦτο πάσχουσιν οἱ λέγοντες διὰ τὸ μεμεῖχθαι καλῶς· πέπονθε δὲ τοῦτο καὶ τὸ μέσον, ἐμφαίνεται γὰρ ἑκάτερον ἐν αὐτῷ τῶν ἄκρων· ὅπερ συμβαίνει περὶ τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείαν. πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐγχειροῦσι λέγειν ὡς δημοκρατίας οὔσης διὰ τὸ δημοκρατικὰ πολλὰ τὴν τάξιν ἔχειν, οἷον πρῶτον τὸ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν τῶν παίδων (ὁμοίως γὰρ οἱ τῶν πλουσίων τρέφονται τοῖς τῶν πενήτων, καὶ παιδεύονται τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ὃν ἂν δύναιντο καὶ τῶν πενήτων οἱ παῖδες), ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐχομένης ἡλικίας, καὶ ὅταν ἄνδρες γένωνται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον (οὐθὲν γὰρ διάδηλος ὁ πλούσιος καὶ ὁ πένης οὕτω) τὰ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ταὐτὰ πᾶσιν ἐν τοῖς συσσιτίοις, καὶ τὴν ἐσθῆτα οἱ πλούσιοι τοιαύτην οἵαν ἄν τις παρασκευάσαι δύναιτο καὶ τῶν πενήτων ὁστισοῦν· ἔτι τὸ δύο τὰς μεγίστας ἀρχὰς τὴν μὲν αἱρεῖσθαι τὸν δῆμον, τῆς δὲ μετέχειν (τοὺς μὲν γὰρ γέροντας αἱροῦνται, τῆς δʼ ἐφορείας μετέχουσιν)· οἱ δʼ ὀλιχαρχίαν διὰ τὸ πολλὰ ἔχειν ὀλιγαρχικά, οἷον τὸ πάσας αἱρετὰς εἶναι καὶ μηδεμίαν κληρωτήν, καὶ ὀλίγους εἶναι κυρίους θανάτου καὶ φυγῆς, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα πολλά. δεῖ δʼ ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τῇ μεμειγμένῃ καλῶς ἀμφότερα δοκεῖν εἶναι καὶ μηδέτερον, καὶ σῴζεσθαι διʼ αὑτῆς καὶ μὴ ἔξωθεν, καὶ διʼ αὑτῆς μὴ τῷ πλείους ἔξωθεν εἶναι τοὺς βουλομένους (εἴη γὰρ ἂν καὶ πονηρᾷ πολιτείᾳ τοῦθʼ ὑπάρχον’ ἀλλὰ τῷ μηδʼ ἂν βούλεσθαι πολιτείαν ἑτέραν μηθὲν τῶν τῆς πόλεως μορίων ὅλως. τίνα μὲν οὖν τρόπον δεῖ καθιστάναι πολιτείαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς ὀνομαζομένας ἀριστοκρατίας, νῦν εἴρηται.

+ +
+

περὶ δὲ τυραννίδος ἦν ἡμῖν λοιπὸν εἰπεῖν, οὐχ ὡς ἐνούσης πολυλογίας περὶ αὐτήν, ἀλλʼ ὅπως λάβῃ τῆς μεθόδου τὸ μέρος, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ταύτην τίθεμεν τῶν πολιτειῶν τι μέρος. περὶ μὲν οὖν βασιλείας διωρίσαμεν ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις λόγοις, ἐν οἷς περὶ τῆς μάλιστα λεγομένης βασιλείας ἐποιούμεθα τὴν σκέψιν, πότερον ἀσύμφορος ἢ συμφέρει ταῖς πόλεσιν, καὶ τίνα καὶ πόθεν δεῖ καθιστάναι, καὶ πῶς· τυραννίδος δʼ εἴδη δύο μὲν διείλομεν ἐν οἷς περὶ βασιλείας ἐπεσκοποῦμεν, διὰ τὸ τὴν δύναμιν ἐπαλλάττειν πως αὐτῶν καὶ πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν, διὰ τὸ κατὰ νόμον εἶναι ἀμφοτέρας ταύτας τὰς ἀρχάς (ἔν τε γὰρ τῶν βαρβάρων τισὶν αἱροῦνται αὐτοκράτορας μονάρχους, καὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Ἕλλησιν ἐγίγνοντό τινες μόναρχοι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, οὓς ἐκάλουν αἰσυμνήτας), ἔχουσι δέ τινας πρὸς ἀλλήλας αὗται διαφοράς, ἦσαν δὲ διὰ μὲν τὸ κατὰ νόμον βασιλικαὶ καὶ διὰ τὸ μοναρχεῖν ἑκόντων, τυραννικαὶ δὲ διὰ τὸ δεσποτικῶς ἄρχειν καὶ κατὰ τὴν αὑτῶν γνώμην· τρίτον δὲ εἶδος τυραννίδος, ἥπερ μάλιστʼ εἶναι δοκεῖ τυραννίς, ἀντίστροφος οὖσα τῇ παμβασιλείᾳ. τοιαύτην δʼ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τυραννίδα τὴν μοναρχίαν ἥτις ἀνυπεύθυνος ἄρχει τῶν ὁμοίων καὶ βελτιόνων πάντων πρὸς τὸ σφέτερον αὐτῆς συμφέρον, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρὸς τὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων. διόπερ ἀκούσιος· οὐθεὶς γὰρ ἑκὼν ὑπομένει τῶν ἐλευθέρων τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρχήν. τυραννίδος μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτα διὰ τὰς εἰρημένας αἰτίας.

+

τίς δʼ ἀρίστη πολιτεία καὶ τίς ἄριστος βίος ταῖς πλείσταις πόλεσι καὶ τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, μήτε πρὸς ἀρετὴν συγκρίνουσι τὴν ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἰδιώτας, μήτε πρὸς παιδείαν ἣ φύσεως δεῖται καὶ χορηγίας τυχηρᾶς, μήτε πρὸς πολιτείαν τὴν κατʼ εὐχὴν γινομένην, ἀλλὰ βίον τε τὸν τοῖς πλείστοις κοινωνῆσαι δυνατὸν καὶ πολιτείαν ἧς τὰς πλείστας πόλεις ἐνδέχεται μετασχεῖν; καὶ γὰρ ἃς καλοῦσιν ἀριστοκρατίας, περὶ ὧν νῦν εἴπομεν, τὰ μὲν ἐξωτέρω πίπτουσι ταῖς πλείσταις τῶν πόλεων, τὰ δὲ γειτνιῶσι τῇ καλουμένῃ πολιτείᾳ (διὸ περὶ ἀμφοῖν ὡς μιᾶς λεκτέον). ἡ δὲ δὴ κρίσις περὶ ἁπάντων τούτων ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν στοιχείων ἐστίν. εἰ γὰρ καλῶς ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς εἴρηται τὸ τὸν εὐδαίμονα βίον εἶναι τὸν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀνεμπόδιστον, μεσότητα δὲ τὴν ἀρετήν, τὸν μέσον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι βίον βέλτιστον, τὸ τῆς ἑκάστοις ἐνδεχομένης τυχεῖν μεσότητος· τοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς τούτους ὅρους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ πόλεως ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας καὶ πολιτείας· ἡ γὰρ πολιτεία βίος τίς ἐστι πόλεως.

+ +
+

ἐν ἁπάσαις δὴ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἔστι τρία μέρη τῆς πόλεως, οἱ μὲν εὔποροι σφόδρα, οἱ δὲ ἄποροι σφόδρα, οἱ δὲ τρίτοι οἱ μέσοι τούτων. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ὁμολογεῖται τὸ μέτριον ἄριστον καὶ τὸ μέσον, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ τῶν εὐτυχημάτων ἡ κτῆσις ἡ μέση βελτίστη πάντων. ῥᾴστη γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ πειθαρχεῖν, ὑπέρκαλον δὲ ἢ ὑπερίσχυρον ἢ ὑπερευγενῆ ἢ ὑπερπλούσιον ὄντα, ἢ τἀναντία τούτοις, ὑπέρπτωχον ἢ ὑπερασθενῆ ἢ σφόδρα ἄτιμον, χαλεπὸν τῷ λόγῳ ἀκολουθεῖν· γίγνονται γὰρ οἱ μὲν ὑβρισταὶ καὶ μεγαλοπόνηροι μᾶλλον, οἱ δὲ κακοῦργοι καὶ μικροπόνηροι λίαν, τῶν δʼ ἀδικημάτων τὰ μὲν γίγνεται διʼ ὕβριν τὰ δὲ διὰ κακουργίαν. ἔτι δὲ ἥκισθʼ οὗτοι φυγαρχοῦσι καὶ σπουδαρχοῦσιν, ταῦτα δʼ ἀμφότερα βλαβερὰ ταῖς πόλεσιν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οἱ μὲν ἐν ὑπεροχαῖς εὐτυχημάτων ὄντες, ἰσχύος καὶ πλούτου καὶ φίλων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων, ἄρχεσθαι οὔτε βούλονται οὔτε ἐπίστανται (καὶ τοῦτʼ εὐθὺς οἴκοθεν ὑπάρχει παισὶν οὖσιν· διὰ γὰρ τὴν τρυφὴν οὐδʼ ἐν τοῖς διδασκαλείοις ἄρχεσθαι σύνηθες αὐτοῖς), οἱ δὲ καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ἐν ἐνδείᾳ τούτων ταπεινοὶ λίαν. ὥσθʼ οἱ μὲν ἄρχειν οὐκ ἐπίστανται, ἀλλʼ ἄρχεσθαι δουλικὴν ἀρχήν, οἱ δʼ ἄρχεσθαι μὲν οὐδεμίαν ἀρχήν, ἄρχειν δὲ δεσποτικὴν ἀρχήν. γίνεται οὖν δούλων καὶ δεσποτῶν πόλις, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐλευθέρων, καὶ τῶν μὲν φθονούντων τῶν δὲ καταφρονούντων· ἃ πλεῖστον ἀπέχει φιλίας καὶ κοινωνίας πολιτικῆς· ἡ γὰρ κοινωνία φιλικόν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁδοῦ βούλονται κοινωνεῖν τοῖς ἐχθροῖς. βούλεται δέ γε ἡ πόλις ἐξ ἴσων εἶναι καὶ ὁμοίων ὅτι μάλιστα, τοῦτο δʼ ὑπάρχει μάλιστα τοῖς μέσοις. ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἄριστα πολιτεύεσθαι ταύτην τὴν πόλιν ἐστὶν ἐξ ὧν φαμὲν φύσει τὴν σύστασιν εἶναι τῆς πόλεως. καὶ σῴζονται δʼ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οὗτοι μάλιστα τῶν πολιτῶν. οὔτε γὰρ αὐτοὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, ὥσπερ οἱ πένητες, ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, οὔτε τῆς τούτων ἕτεροι, καθάπερ τῆς τῶν πλουσίων οἱ πένητες ἐπιθυμοῦσιν· καὶ διὰ τὸ μήτʼ ἐπιβουλεύεσθαι μήτʼ ἐπιβουλεύειν ἀκινδύνως διάγουσιν. διὰ τοῦτο καλῶς ηὔξατο Φωκυλίδης πολλὰ μέσοισιν ἄριστα· μέσος θέλω ἐν πόλει εἶναι.

+

δῆλον ἄρα ὅτι καὶ ἡ κοινωνία ἡ πολιτικὴ ἀρίστη ἡ διὰ τῶν μέσων, καὶ τὰς τοιαύτας ἐνδέχεται εὖ πολιτεύεσθαι πόλεις ἐν αἷς δὴ πολὺ τὸ μέσον καὶ κρεῖττον, μάλιστα μὲν ἀμφοῖν, εἰ δὲ μή, θατέρου μέρους· προστιθέμενον γὰρ ποιεῖ ῥοπὴν καὶ κωλύει γίνεσθαι τὰς ἐναντίας ὑπερβολάς. διόπερ εὐτυχία μεγίστη τοὺς πολιτευομένους οὐσίαν ἔχειν μέσην καὶ ἱκανήν,

+ +
+

ὡς ὅπου οἱ μὲν πολλὰ σφόδρα κέκτηνται οἱ δὲ μηθέν, ἢ δῆμος ἔσχατος γίγνεται ἢ ὀλιγαρχία ἄκρατος, ἢ τυραννὶς διʼ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς ὑπερβολάς· καὶ γὰρ ἐκ δημοκρατίας τῆς νεανικωτάτης καὶ ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας γίγνεται τυραννίς, ἐκ δὲ τῶν μέσων καὶ τῶν σύνεγγυς πολὺ ἧττον. τὴν δʼ αἰτίαν ὕστερον ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὰς μεταβολὰς τῶν πολιτειῶν ἐροῦμεν. ὅτι δʼ ἡ μέση βελτίστη, φανερόν· μόνη γὰρ ἀστασίαστος· ὅπου γὰρ πολὺ τὸ διὰ μέσου, ἥκιστα στάσεις καὶ διαστάσεις γίγνονται τῶν πολιτῶν. καὶ αἱ μεγάλαι πόλεις ἀστασιαστότεραι διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν, ὅτι πολὺ τὸ μέσον· ἐν δὲ ταῖς μικραῖς ῥᾴδιόν τε διαλαβεῖν εἰς δύο πάντας, ὥστε μηθὲν καταλιπεῖν μέσον, καὶ πάντες σχεδὸν ἄποροι ἢ εὔποροί εἰσι. καὶ αἱ δημοκρατίαι δὲ ἀσφαλέστεραι τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν εἰσι καὶ πολυχρονιώτεραι διὰ τοὺς μέσους (πλείους τε γάρ εἰσι καὶ μᾶλλον μετέχουσι τῶν τιμῶν ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἢ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις), ἐπεὶ ὅταν ἄνευ τούτων τῷ πλήθει ὑπερτείνωσιν οἱ ἄποροι, κακοπραγία γίνεται καὶ ἀπόλλυνται ταχέως. σημεῖον δὲ δεῖ νομίζειν καὶ τὸ τοὺς βελτίστους νομοθέτας εἶναι τῶν μέσων πολιτῶν· Σόλων τε γὰρ ἦν τούτων (δηλοῖ δʼ ἐκ τῆς ποιήσεως) καὶ Λυκοῦργος (οὐ γὰρ ἦν βασιλεύς) καὶ Χαρώνδας καὶ σχεδὸν οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἄλλων.

+

φανερὸν δʼ ἐκ τούτων καὶ διότι αἱ πλεῖσται πολιτεῖαι αἱ μὲν δημοκρατικαί εἰσιν αἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχικαί. διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐν ταύταις πολλάκις ὀλίγον εἶναι τὸ μέσον, αἰεὶ ὁπότεροι ἂν ὑπερέχωσιν, εἴθʼ οἱ τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντες εἴθʼ ὁ δῆμος, οἱ τὸ μέσον ἐκβαίνοντες καθʼ αὑτοὺς ἄγουσι τὴν πολιτείαν, ὥστε ἢ δῆμος γίγνεται ἢ ὀλιγαρχία. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις διὰ τὸ στάσεις γίγνεσθαι καὶ μάχας πρὸς ἀλλήλους τῷ δήμῳ καὶ τοῖς εὐπόροις, ὁποτέροις ἂν μᾶλλον συμβῇ κρατῆσαι τῶν ἐναντίων, οὐ καθιστᾶσι κοινὴν πολιτείαν οὐδʼ ἴσην, ἀλλὰ τῆς νίκης ἆθλον τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τῆς πολιτείας λαμβάνουσιν, καὶ οἱ μὲν δημοκρατίαν οἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίαν ποιοῦσιν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐν ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων τῆς Ἑλλάδος πρὸς τὴν παρʼ αὑτοῖς ἑκάτεροι πολιτείαν ἀποβλέποντες οἱ μὲν δημοκρατίας ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι καθίστασαν οἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίας, οὐ πρὸς τὸ τῶν πόλεων συμφέρον σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ σφέτερον αὐτῶν, ὥστε διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας ἢ μηδέποτε τὴν μέσην γίνεσθαι πολιτείαν ἢ ὀλιγάκις καὶ παρʼ ὀλίγοις· εἷς γὰρ ἀνὴρ συνεπείσθη μόνος τῶν πρότερον ἐφʼ ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων ταύτην ἀποδοῦναι τὴν τάξιν, ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἔθος καθέστηκε μηδὲ βούλεσθαι τὸ ἴσον,

+ +
+

ἀλλʼ ἢ ἄρχειν ζητεῖν ἢ κρατουμένους ὑπομένειν. τίς μὲν οὖν ἀρίστη πολιτεία, καὶ διὰ τίνʼ αἰτίαν, ἐκ τούτων φανερόν· τῶν δʼ ἄλλων πολιτειῶν, ἐπειδὴ πλείους δημοκρατίας καὶ πλείους ὀλιγαρχίας φαμὲν εἶναι, ποίαν πρώτην θετέον καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν τρόπον ἐχομένην τῷ τὴν μὲν εἶναι βελτίω τὴν δὲ χείρω, διωρισμένης τῆς ἀρίστης οὐ χαλεπὸν ἰδεῖν. ἀεὶ γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι βελτίω τὴν ἐγγύτατα ταύτης, χείρω δὲ τὴν ἀφεστηκυῖαν τοῦ μέσου πλεῖον, ἂν μὴ πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν κρίνῃ τις. λέγω δὲ τὸ πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν, ὅτι πολλάκις, οὔσης ἄλλης πολιτείας αἱρετωτέρας, ἐνίοις οὐδὲν κωλύει συμφέρειν ἑτέραν μᾶλλον εἶναι πολιτείαν.

+

τίς δὲ πολιτεία τίσι καὶ ποία συμφέρει ποίοις, ἐχόμενόν ἐστι τῶν εἰρημένων διελθεῖν. ληπτέον δὴ πρῶτον περὶ πασῶν καθόλου ταὐτόν· δεῖ γὰρ κρεῖττον εἶναι τὸ βουλόμενον μέρος τῆς πόλεως τοῦ μὴ βουλομένου μένειν τὴν πολιτείαν. ἔστι δὲ πᾶσα πόλις ἔκ τε τοῦ ποιοῦ καὶ ποσοῦ. λέγω δὲ ποιὸν μὲν ἐλευθερίαν πλοῦτον παιδείαν εὐγένειαν, ποσὸν δὲ τὴν τοῦ πλήθους ὑπεροχήν. ἐνδέχεται δὲ τὸ μὲν ποιὸν ὑπάρχειν ἑτέρῳ μέρει τῆς πόλεως, ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκε μερῶν ἡ πόλις, ἄλλῳ δὲ μέρει τὸ ποσόν, οἷον πλείους τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἶναι τῶν γενναίων τοὺς ἀγεννεῖς ἢ τῶν πλουσίων τοὺς ἀπόρους, μὴ μέντοι τοσοῦτον ὑπερέχειν τῷ ποσῷ ὅσον λείπεται τῷ ποιῷ. διὸ ταῦτα πρὸς ἄλληλα συγκριτέον. ὅπου μὲν οὖν ὑπερέχει τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων πλῆθος τὴν εἰρημένην ἀναλογίαν, ἐνταῦθα πέφυκεν εἶναι δημοκρατίαν, καὶ ἕκαστον εἶδος δημοκρατίας κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ δήμου ἑκάστου, οἷον ἐὰν μὲν τὸ τῶν γεωργῶν ὑπερτείνῃ πλῆθος, τὴν πρώτην δημοκρατίαν, ἐὰν δὲ τὸ τῶν βαναύσων καὶ μισθαρνούντων, τὴν τελευταίαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τὰς μεταξὺ τούτων· ὅπου δὲ τὸ τῶν εὐπόρων καὶ γνωρίμων μᾶλλον ὑπερτείνει τῷ ποιῷ ἢ λείπεται τῷ ποσῷ, ἐνταῦθα ὀλιγαρχίαν, καὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἕκαστον εἶδος κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ ὀλιγαρχικοῦ πλήθους.

+

δεῖ δʼ ἀεὶ τὸν νομοθέτην ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ προσλαμβάνειν τοὺς μέσους· ἄν τε γὰρ ὀλιγαρχικοὺς τοὺς νόμους τιθῇ, στοχάζεσθαι χρὴ τῶν μέσων, ἐάν τε δημοκρατικούς, προσάγεσθαι τοῖς νόμοις τούτους. ὅπου δὲ τὸ τῶν μέσων ὑπερτείνει πλῆθος ἢ συναμφοτέρων τῶν ἄκρων ἢ καὶ θατέρου μόνον, ἐνταῦθʼ ἐνδέχεται πολιτείαν εἶναι μόνιμον.

+ +
+

οὐθὲν γὰρ φοβερὸν μή ποτε συμφωνήσωσιν οἱ πλούσιοι τοῖς πένησιν ἐπὶ τούτους· οὐδέποτε γὰρ ἅτεροι βουλήσονται δουλεύειν τοῖς ἑτέροις, κοινοτέραν δʼ, ἂν ζητῶσιν, οὐδεμίαν εὑρήσουσιν ἄλλην ταύτης. ἐν μέρει γὰρ ἄρχειν οὐκ ἂν ὑπομείνειαν διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· πανταχοῦ δὲ πιστότατος ὁ διαιτητής, διαιτητὴς δʼ ὁ μέσος. ὅσῳ δʼ ἂν ἄμεινον ἡ πολιτεία μειχθῇ, τοσούτῳ μονιμωτέρα. διαμαρτάνουσι δὲ πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν τὰς ἀριστοκρατικὰς βουλομένων ποιεῖν πολιτείας, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ πλεῖον νέμειν τοῖς εὐπόροις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ παρακρούεσθαι τὸν δῆμον. ἀνάγκη γὰρ χρόνῳ ποτὲ ἐκ τῶν ψευδῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀληθὲς συμβῆναι κακόν· αἱ γὰρ πλεονεξίαι τῶν πλουσίων ἀπολλύασι μᾶλλον τὴν πολιτείαν ἢ αἱ τοῦ δήμου.

+

ἔστι δʼ ὅσα προφάσεως χάριν ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις σοφίζονται πρὸς τὸν δῆμον πέντε τὸν ἀριθμόν, περὶ ἐκκλησίαν, περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, περὶ δικαστήρια, περὶ ὅπλισιν, περὶ γυμνασίαν· περὶ ἐκκλησίαν μὲν τὸ ἐξεῖναι ἐκκλησιάζειν πᾶσι, ζημίαν δὲ ἐπικεῖσθαι τοῖς εὐπόροις ἐὰν μὴ ἐκκλησιάζωσιν, ἢ μόνοις ἢ μείζω πολλῷ, περὶ δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς τὸ τοῖς μὲν ἔχουσι τίμημα μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἐξόμνυσθαι, τοῖς δʼ ἀπόροις ἐξεῖναι, καὶ περὶ τὰ δικαστήρια τοῖς μὲν εὐπόροις εἶναι ζημίαν ἂν μὴ δικάζωσι, τοῖς δʼ ἀπόροις ἄδειαν, ἢ τοῖς μὲν μεγάλην τοῖς δὲ μικράν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς Χαρώνδου νόμοις. ἐνιαχοῦ δʼ ἔξεστι μὲν πᾶσιν ἀπογραψαμένοις ἐκκλησιάζειν καὶ δικάζειν, ἐὰν δὲ ἀπογραψάμενοι μήτʼ ἐκκλησιάζωσι μήτε δικάζωσιν, ἐπίκεινται μεγάλαι ζημίαι τούτοις, ἵνα διὰ μὲν τὴν ζημίαν φεύγωσι τὸ ἀπογράφεσθαι, διὰ δὲ τὸ μὴ ἀπογράφεσθαι μὴ δικάζωσι μηδʼ ἐκκλησιάζωσιν. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ τοῦ ὅπλα κεκτῆσθαι καὶ τοῦ γυμνάζεσθαι νομοθετοῦσιν. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἀπόροις ἔξεστι μὴ κεκτῆσθαι, τοῖς δʼ εὐπόροις ἐπιζήμιον μὴ κεκτημένοις, κἂν μὴ γυμνάζωνται, τοῖς μὲν οὐδεμία ζημία, τοῖς δʼ εὐπόροις ἐπιζήμιον, ὅπως οἱ μὲν διὰ τὴν ζημίαν μετέχωσιν, οἱ δὲ διὰ τὸ μὴ φοβεῖσθαι μὴ μετέχωσιν. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὀλιγαρχικὰ σοφίσματα τῆς νομοθεσίας· ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις πρὸς ταῦτʼ ἀντισοφίζονται. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἀπόροις μισθὸν πορίζουσιν ἐκκλησιάζουσι καὶ δικάζουσιν, τοῖς δʼ εὐπόροις οὐδεμίαν τάττουσι ζημίαν. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι εἴ τις βούλεται μιγνύναι δικαίως, δεῖ τὰ παρʼ ἑκατέροις συνάγειν καὶ τοῖς μὲν μισθὸν πορίζειν τοῖς δὲ ζημίαν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν κοινωνοῖεν ἅπαντες, ἐκείνως δʼ ἡ πολιτεία γίγνεται τῶν ἑτέρων μόνον.

+ +
+

δεῖ δὲ τὴν πολιτείαν εἶναι μὲν ἐκ τῶν τὰ ὅπλα ἐχόντων μόνον· τοῦ δὲ τιμήματος τὸ πλῆθος ἁπλῶς μὲν ὁρισαμένους οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν τοσοῦτον δεῖν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλὰ σκεψαμένους τὸ ποῖον ἐπιβάλλει μακρότατον ὥστε τοὺς μετέχοντας τῆς πολιτείας εἶναι πλείους τῶν μὴ μετεχόντων, τοῦτο τάττειν. ἐθέλουσι γὰρ οἱ πένητες καὶ μὴ μετέχοντες τῶν τιμῶν ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν, ἐὰν μήτε ὑβρίζῃ τις αὐτοὺς μήτε ἀφαιρῆται μηθὲν τῆς οὐσίας. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο οὐ ῥᾴδιον· οὐ γὰρ ἀεὶ συμβαίνει χαρίεντας εἶναι τοὺς μετέχοντας τοῦ πολιτεύματος. καὶ εἰώθασι δέ, ὅταν πόλεμος ᾖ, ὀκνεῖν, ἂν μὴ λαμβάνωσι τροφήν, ἄποροι δὲ ὦσιν· ἐὰν δὲ πορίζῃ τις τροφήν, βούλονται πολεμεῖν.

+

ἔστι δὲ ἡ πολιτεία παρʼ ἐνίοις οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν ὁπλιτευόντων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὡπλιτευκότων· ἐν Μαλιεῦσι δὲ ἡ μὲν πολιτεία ἦν ἐκ τούτων, τὰς δὲ ἀρχὰς ᾑροῦντο ἐκ τῶν στρατευομένων. καὶ ἡ πρώτη δὲ πολιτεία ἐν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐγένετο μετὰ τὰς βασιλείας ἐκ τῶν πολεμούντων, ἡ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐκ τῶν ἱππέων (τὴν γὰρ ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἐν τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν ὁ πόλεμος εἶχεν· ἄνευ μὲν γὰρ συντάξεως ἄχρηστον τὸ ὁπλιτικόν, αἱ δὲ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἐμπειρίαι καὶ τάξεις ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις οὐχ ὑπῆρχον, ὥστʼ ἐν τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν εἶναι τὴν ἰσχύν), αὐξανομένων δὲ τῶν πόλεων καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἰσχυσάντων μᾶλλον πλείους μετεῖχον τῆς πολιτείας· διόπερ ἃς νῦν καλοῦμεν πολιτείας, οἱ πρότερον ἐκάλουν δημοκρατίας· ἦσαν δὲ αἱ ἀρχαῖαι πολιτεῖαι εὐλόγως ὀλιγαρχικαὶ καὶ βασιλικαί. διʼ ὀλιγανθρωπίαν γὰρ οὐκ εἶχον πολὺ τὸ μέσον, ὥστʼ ὀλίγοι τε ὄντες τὸ πλῆθος καὶ κατὰ τὴν σύνταξιν φαῦλοι ὑπέμενον τὸ ἄρχεσθαι. διὰ τίνα μὲν οὖν εἰσιν αἰτίαν αἱ πολιτεῖαι πλείους, καὶ διὰ τί παρὰ τὰς λεγομένας ἕτεραι (δημοκρατία τε γὰρ οὐ μία τὸν ἀριθμόν ἐστι, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίως), ἔτι δὲ τίνες αἱ διαφοραὶ καὶ διὰ τίνα αἰτίαν συμβαίνει, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τίς ἀρίστη τῶν πολιτειῶν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον εἰπεῖν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ποία ποίοις ἁρμόττει τῶν πολιτειῶν, εἴρηται.

+

πάλιν δὲ καὶ κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς περὶ ἑκάστης λέγωμεν περὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς, λαβόντες ἀρχὴν τὴν προσήκουσαν αὐτῶν. ἔστι δὴ τρία μόρια τῶν πολιτειῶν πασῶν, περὶ ὧν δεῖ θεωρεῖν τὸν σπουδαῖον νομοθέτην ἑκάστῃ τὸ συμφέρον· ὧν ἐχόντων καλῶς ἀνάγκη τὴν πολιτείαν ἔχειν καλῶς, καὶ τὰς πολιτείας ἀλλήλων διαφέρειν ἐν τῷ διαφέρειν ἕκαστον τούτων. ἔστι δὲ τῶν τριῶν τούτων ἓν μὲν τί τὸ βουλευόμενον περὶ τῶν κοινῶν,

+ +
+

δεύτερον δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τίνας δεῖ καὶ τίνων εἶναι κυρίας, καὶ ποίαν τινὰ δεῖ γίνεσθαι τὴν αἵρεσιν αὐτῶν, τρίτον δέ τί τὸ δικάζον. κύριον δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ βουλευόμενον περὶ πολέμου καὶ εἰρήνης, καὶ συμμαχίας καὶ διαλύσεως, καὶ περὶ νόμων, καὶ περὶ θανάτου καὶ φυγῆς καὶ δημεύσεως, καὶ περὶ ἀρχῶν αἱρέσεως καὶ τῶν εὐθυνῶν. ἀναγκαῖον δʼ ἤτοι πᾶσι τοῖς πολίταις ἀποδίδοσθαι πάσας ταύτας τὰς κρίσεις ἢ τισὶ πάσας (οἷον ἀρχῇ τινὶ μιᾷ ἢ πλείοσιν, ἢ ἑτέραις ἑτέρας) ἢ τινὰς μὲν αὐτῶν πᾶσι τινὰς δὲ τισίν.

+

τὸ μὲν οὖν πάντας καὶ περὶ ἁπάντων δημοτικόν· τὴν τοιαύτην γὰρ ἰσότητα ζητεῖ ὁ δῆμος. εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ τρόποι τοῦ πάντας πλείους, εἷς μὲν τὸ κατὰ μέρος ἀλλὰ μὴ πάντας ἀθρόους (ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τῇ Τηλεκλέους ἐστὶ τοῦ Μιλησίου· καὶ ἐν ἄλλαις δὲ πολιτείαις βουλεύονται αἱ συναρχίαι συνιοῦσαι, εἰς δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς βαδίζουσι πάντες κατὰ μέρος ἐκ τῶν φυλῶν καὶ τῶν μορίων τῶν ἐλαχίστων παντελῶς, ἕως ἂν διεξέλθῃ διὰ πάντων), συνιέναι δὲ μόνον περί τε νόμων θέσεως καὶ τῶν περὶ τῆς πολιτείας, καὶ τὰ παραγγελλόμενα ἀκουσομένους ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων· ἄλλος δὲ τρόπος τὸ πάντας ἀθρόους, συνιέναι δὲ μόνον πρός τε τὰς ἀρχαιρεσίας αἱρησομένους καὶ πρὸς τὰς νομοθεσίας καὶ περὶ πολέμου καὶ εἰρήνης καὶ πρὸς εὐθύνας, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα τὰς ἀρχὰς βουλεύεσθαι τὰς ἐφʼ ἑκάστοις τεταγμένας, αἱρετὰς οὔσας ἐξ ἁπάντων ἢ κληρωτάς· ἄλλος δὲ τρόπος τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς εὐθύνας ἀπαντᾶν τοὺς πολίτας, καὶ περὶ πολέμου βουλευσομένους καὶ συμμαχίας, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα τὰς ἀρχὰς διοικεῖν αἱρετὰς οὔσας, ὅσας ἐνδέχεται, τοιαῦται δʼ εἰσὶν ὅσας ἄρχειν ἀναγκαῖον τοὺς ἐπισταμένους· τέταρτος δὲ τρόπος τὸ πάντας περὶ πάντων βουλεύεσθαι συνιόντας, τὰς δʼ ἀρχὰς περὶ μηθενὸς κρίνειν ἀλλὰ μόνον προανακρίνειν, ὅνπερ ἡ τελευταία δημοκρατία νῦν διοικεῖται τρόπον, ἣν ἀνάλογόν φαμεν εἶναι ὀλιγαρχίᾳ τε δυναστευτικῇ καὶ μοναρχίᾳ τυραννικῇ. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οἱ τρόποι δημοκρατικοὶ πάντες, τὸ δὲ τινὰς περὶ πάντων ὀλιγαρχικόν. ἔχει δὲ καὶ τοῦτο διαφορὰς πλείους. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων μετριωτέρων αἱρετοί τε ὦσι καὶ πλείους διὰ τὴν μετριότητα τοῦ τιμήματος, καὶ περὶ ὧν ὁ νόμος ἀπαγορεύει μὴ κινῶσιν ἀλλʼ ἀκολουθῶσι, καὶ ἐξῇ κτωμένῳ τὸ τίμημα μετέχειν, ὀλιγαρχία μὲν πολιτικὴ δέ ἐστιν ἡ τοιαύτη διὰ τὸ μετριάζειν· ὅταν δὲ μὴ πάντες τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι μετέχωσιν ἀλλʼ πρόκριτοι,

+ +
+

κατὰ νόμον δʼ ἄρχωσιν ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον, ὀλιγαρχικόν· ὅταν δὲ καὶ αἱρῶνται αὐτοὶ αὑτοὺς οἱ κύριοι τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι, καὶ ὅταν παῖς ἀντὶ πατρὸς εἰσίῃ καὶ κύριοι τῶν νόμων ὦσιν, ὀλιγαρχικὴν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὴν τάξιν ταύτην. ὅταν δὲ τινῶν τινές, οἷον πολέμου μὲν καὶ εἰρήνης καὶ εὐθυνῶν πάντες, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ἄρχοντες, καὶ οὗτοι αἱρετοί, μὴ κληρωτοί, ἀριστοκρατία ἡ πολιτεία. ἐὰν δʼ ἐνίων μὲν αἱρετοὶ ἐνίων δὲ κληρωτοί, καὶ κληρωτοὶ ἢ ἁπλῶς ἢ ἐκ προκρίτων, ἢ κοινῇ αἱρετοὶ καὶ κληρωτοί, τὰ μὲν πολιτείας ἀριστοκρατικῆς ἐστι τούτων, τὰ δὲ πολιτείας αὐτῆς.

+

διῄρηται μὲν οὖν τὸ βουλευόμενον πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, καὶ διοικεῖ ἑκάστη πολιτεία κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον διορισμόν· συμφέρει δὲ δημοκρατίᾳ τῇ μάλιστʼ εἶναι δοκούσῃ δημοκρατίᾳ νῦν (λέγω δὲ τοιαύτην ἐν ᾗ κύριος ὁ δῆμος καὶ τῶν νόμων ἐστίν) πρὸς τὸ βουλεύεσθαι βέλτιον τὸ αὐτὸ ποιεῖν ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶν δικαστηρίων ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις (τάττουσι γὰρ ζημίαν τούτοις οὓς βούλονται δικάζειν, ἵνα δικάζωσιν, οἱ δὲ δημοτικοὶ μισθὸν τοῖς ἀπόροις), τοῦτο δὴ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἐκκλησίας ποιεῖν (βουλεύσονται γὰρ βέλτιον κοινῇ βουλευόμενοι πάντες, ὁ μὲν δῆμος μετὰ τῶν γνωρίμων, οὗτοι δὲ μετὰ τοῦ πλήθους), συμφέρει δὲ καὶ τὸ αἱρετοὺς εἶναι τοὺς βουλευομένους, ἢ κληρωτοὺς ἴσους ἐκ τῶν μορίων, συμφέρει δέ, κἂν ὑπερβάλλωσι πολὺ κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος οἱ δημοτικοὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν ἢ μὴ πᾶσι διδόναι μισθόν, ἀλλʼ ὅσοι σύμμετροι πρὸς τὸ τῶν γνωρίμων πλῆθος, ἢ ἀποκληροῦν τοὺς πλείους· ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις ἢ προσαιρεῖσθαί τινας ἐκ τοῦ πλήθους, ἢ κατασκευάσαντας ἀρχεῖον οἷον ἐν ἐνίαις πολιτείαις ἐστὶν οὓς καλοῦσι προβούλους καὶ νομοφύλακας, περὶ τούτων χρηματίζειν περὶ ὧν ἂν οὗτοι προβουλεύσωσιν (οὕτω γὰρ μεθέξει ὁ δῆμος τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι, καὶ λύειν οὐθὲν δυνήσεται τῶν περὶ τὴν πολιτείαν), ἔτι ἢ ταὐτὰ ψηφίζεσθαι τὸν δῆμον ἢ μηθὲν ἐναντίον τοῖς εἰσφερομένοις, ἢ τῆς συμβουλῆς μὲν μεταδιδόναι πᾶσι, βουλεύεσθαι δὲ τοὺς ἄρχοντας. καὶ τὸ ἀντικείμενον δὲ τοῦ ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις γιγνομένου δεῖ ποιεῖν. ἀποψηφιζόμενον μὲν γὰρ κύριον δεῖ ποιεῖν τὸ πλῆθος, καταψηφιζόμενον δὲ μὴ κύριον, ἀλλʼ ἐπαναγέσθω πάλιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας. ἐν γὰρ ταῖς πολιτείαις ἀνεστραμμένως ποιοῦσιν· οἱ γὰρ ὀλίγοι ἀποψηφισάμενοι μὲν κύριοι, καταψηφισάμενοι δὲ οὐ κύριοι, ἀλλʼ ἐπανάγεται εἰς τοὺς πλείους αἰεί.

+ +
+

περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ βουλευομένου καὶ τοῦ κυρίου δεῖ τῆς πολιτείας τοῦτον διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον.

+

ἐχομένη δὲ τούτων ἐστὶν ἡ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς διαίρεσις. ἔχει γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μόριον τῆς πολιτείας πολλὰς διαφοράς, πόσαι τε ἀρχαί, καὶ κύριαι τίνων, καὶ περὶ χρόνου, πόσος ἑκάστης ἀρχῆς (οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἑξαμήνους, οἱ δὲ διʼ ἐλάττονος, οἱ δʼ ἐνιαυσίας, οἱ δὲ πολυχρονιωτέρας ποιοῦσι τὰς ἀρχάς), καὶ πότερον εἶναι δεῖ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀιδίους ἢ πολυχρονίους ἢ μηδέτερον ἀλλὰ πλεονάκις τοὺς αὐτούς, ἢ μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν δὶς ἀλλʼ ἅπαξ μόνον, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τὴν κατάστασιν τῶν ἀρχῶν, ἐκ τίνων δεῖ γίνεσθαι καὶ ὑπὸ τίνων καὶ πῶς. περὶ πάντων γὰρ τούτων δεῖ δύνασθαι διελεῖν κατὰ πόσους ἐνδέχεται γενέσθαι τρόπους, κἄπειτα προσαρμόσαι ποίαις ποῖοι πολιτείαις συμφέρουσιν. ἔστι δὲ οὐδὲ τοῦτο διορίσαι ῥᾴδιον, ποίας δεῖ καλεῖν ἀρχάς· πολλῶν γὰρ ἐπιστατῶν ἡ πολιτικὴ κοινωνία δεῖται, διόπερ οὐ πάντας οὔτε τοὺς αἱρετοὺς οὔτε τοὺς κληρωτοὺς ἄρχοντας θετέον, οἷον τοὺς ἱερεῖς πρῶτον (τοῦτο γὰρ ἕτερόν τι παρὰ τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρχὰς θετέον)· ἔτι δὲ καὶ χορηγοὶ καὶ κήρυκες δʼ αἱροῦνται καὶ πρεσβευταί. εἰσὶ δὲ αἱ μὲν πολιτικαὶ τῶν ἐπιμελειῶν, ἢ πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν πρός τινα πρᾶξιν, οἷον στρατηγὸς στρατευομένων, ἢ κατὰ μέρος, οἷον ὁ γυναικονόμος ἢ παιδονόμος· αἱ δʼ οἰκονομικαί (πολλάκις γὰρ αἱροῦνται σιτομέτρας)· αἱ δʼ ὑπηρετικαὶ καὶ πρὸς ἅς, ἂν εὐπορῶσι, τάττουσι δούλους. μάλιστα δʼ ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν ἀρχὰς λεκτέον ταύτας ὅσαις ἀποδέδοται βουλεύσασθαί τε περὶ τινῶν καὶ κρῖναι καὶ ἐπιτάξαι, καὶ μάλιστα τοῦτο· τὸ γὰρ ἐπιτάττειν ἀρχικώτερόν ἐστιν. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα διαφέρει πρὸς μὲν τὰς χρήσεις οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν (οὐ γάρ πω κρίσις γέγονεν ἀμφισβητούντων περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος), ἔχει δέ τινʼ ἄλλην διανοητικὴν πραγματείαν.

+

ποῖαι δʼ ἀρχαὶ καὶ πόσαι ἀναγκαῖαι εἰ ἔσται πόλις, καὶ ποῖαι ἀναγκαῖαι μὲν οὔ, χρήσιμοι δὲ πρὸς σπουδαίαν πολιτείαν, μᾶλλον ἄν τις ἀπορήσειε πρὸς ἅπασάν τε δὴ πολιτείαν καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰς μικρὰς πόλεις. ἐν μὲν γὰρ δὴ ταῖς μεγάλαις ἐνδέχεταί τε καὶ δεῖ μίαν τετάχθαι πρὸς ἓν ἔργον (πολλούς τε γὰρ εἰς τὰ ἀρχεῖα ἐνδέχεται βαδίζειν διὰ τὸ πολλοὺς εἶναι τοὺς πολίτας, ὥστε τὰς μὲν διαλείπειν πολὺν χρόνον τὰς δʼ ἅπαξ ἄρχειν, καὶ βέλτιον ἕκαστον ἔργον τυγχάνει τῆς ἐπιμελείας μονοπραγματούσης ἢ πολυπραγματούσης)·

+ +
+

ἐν δὲ ταῖς μικραῖς ἀνάγκη συνάγειν εἰς ὀλίγους πολλὰς ἀρχάς (διὰ γὰρ ὀλιγανθρωπίαν οὐ ῥᾴδιόν ἐστι πολλοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς εἶναι· τίνες γὰρ οἱ τούτοις ἔσονται διαδεξόμενοι πάλιν;). δέονται δʼ ἐνίοτε τῶν αὐτῶν ἀρχῶν καὶ νόμων αἱ μικραὶ ταῖς μεγάλαις· πλὴν αἱ μὲν δέονται πολλάκις τῶν αὐτῶν, ταῖς δʼ ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ τοῦτο συμβαίνει, διόπερ οὐθὲν κωλύει πολλὰς ἐπιμελείας ἅμα προστάττειν (οὐ γὰρ ἐμποδιοῦσιν ἀλλήλαις), καὶ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγανθρωπίαν ἀναγκαῖον τὰ ἀρχεῖα οἷον ὀβελισκολύχνια ποιεῖν. ἐὰν οὖν ἔχωμεν λέγειν πόσας ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν πάσῃ πόλει, καὶ πόσας οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον μὲν δεῖ δʼ ὑπάρχειν, ῥᾷον ἄν τις εἰδὼς ταῦτα συνίδοι ποίας ἁρμόττει συνάγειν ἀρχὰς εἰς μίαν ἀρχήν. ἁρμόττει δὲ καὶ τοῦτο μὴ λεληθέναι, ποίων δεῖ κατὰ τόπον ἀρχεῖα πολλὰ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι καὶ ποίων πανταχοῦ μίαν ἀρχὴν εἶναι κυρίαν, οἷον εὐκοσμίας πότερον ἐν ἀγορᾷ μὲν ἀγορανόμον, ἄλλον δὲ κατʼ ἄλλον τόπον, ἢ πανταχοῦ τὸν αὐτόν· καὶ πότερον κατὰ τὸ πρᾶγμα δεῖ διαιρεῖν ἢ κατὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, λέγω δʼ οἷον ἕνα τῆς εὐκοσμίας, ἢ παίδων ἄλλον καὶ γυναικῶν· καὶ κατὰ τὰς πολιτείας δέ, πότερον διαφέρει καθʼ ἑκάστην καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀρχῶν γένος ἢ οὐθέν, οἷον ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ καὶ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ καὶ ἀριστοκρατίᾳ καὶ μοναρχίᾳ πότερον αἱ αὐταὶ μέν εἰσιν ἀρχαὶ κύριαι, οὐκ ἐξ ἴσων δʼ οὐδʼ ἐξ ὁμοίων, ἀλλʼ ἑτέρων ἐν ἑτέραις, οἷον ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀριστοκρατίαις ἐκ πεπαιδευμένων, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις ἐκ τῶν πλουσίων, ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἐκ τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἢ τυγχάνουσι μέν τινες οὖσαι καὶ κατʼ αὐτὰς τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἀρχῶν, ἔστι δʼ ὅπου συμφέρουσιν αἱ αὐταὶ καὶ ὅπου διαφέρουσαι (ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ ἁρμόττει μεγάλας ἔνθα δʼ εἶναι μικρὰς τὰς αὐτάς).

+

οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἴδιαί τινες εἰσίν, οἷον ἡ τῶν προβούλων· αὕτη γὰρ οὐ δημοκρατική. βουλὴ δὲ δημοτικόν· δεῖ μὲν γὰρ εἶναί τι τοιοῦτον ᾧ ἐπιμελὲς ἔσται τοῦ δήμου προβουλεύειν, ὅπως ἀσχολῶν ἔσται, τοῦτο δʼ, ἐὰν ὀλίγοι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὦσιν, ὀλιγαρχικόν· τοὺς δὲ προβούλους ὀλίγους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸ πλῆθος, ὥστʼ ὀλιγαρχικόν. ἀλλʼ ὅπου ἄμφω αὗται αἱ ἀρχαί, οἱ πρόβουλοι καθεστᾶσιν ἐπὶ τοῖς βουλευταῖς· ὁ μὲν γὰρ βουλευτὴς δημοτικόν, ὁ δὲ πρόβουλος ὀλιγαρχικόν. καταλύεται δὲ καὶ τῆς βουλῆς ἡ δύναμις ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις δημοκρατίαις ἐν αἷς αὐτὸς συνιὼν ὁ δῆμος χρηματίζει περὶ πάντων.

+ +
+

τοῦτο δὲ συμβαίνειν εἴωθεν ὅταν εὐπορία τις ᾖ μισθοῦ τοῖς ἐκκλησιάζουσιν· σχολάζοντες γὰρ συλλέγονταί τε πολλάκις καὶ ἅπαντα αὐτοὶ κρίνουσιν. παιδονόμος δὲ καὶ γυναικονόμος, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος ἄρχων κύριός ἐστι τοιαύτης ἐπιμελείας, ἀριστοκρατικόν, δημοκρατικὸν δʼ οὔ (πῶς γὰρ οἷόν τε κωλύειν ἐξιέναι τὰς τῶν ἀπόρων;), οὐδʼ ὀλιγαρχικόν (τρυφῶσι γὰρ αἱ τῶν ὀλιγαρχούντων).

+

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον εἰρήσθω νῦν, περὶ δὲ τὰς τῶν ἀρχῶν καταστάσεις πειρατέον ἐξ ἀρχῆς διελθεῖν. εἰσὶ δʼ αἱ διαφοραὶ ἐν τρισὶν ὅροις, ὧν συντιθεμένων ἀναγκαῖον πάντας εἰλῆφθαι τοὺς τρόπους. ἔστι δὲ τῶν τριῶν τούτων ἓν μὲν τίνες οἱ καθιστάντες τὰς ἀρχάς, δεύτερον δὲ ἐκ τίνων, λοιπὸν δὲ τίνα τρόπον. ἑκάστου δὲ τῶν τριῶν τούτων διαφοραὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν. ἢ γὰρ πάντες οἱ πολῖται καθιστᾶσιν ἢ τινές, καὶ ἢ ἐκ πάντων ἢ ἐκ τινῶν ἀφωρισμένων (οἷον ἢ τιμήματι ἢ γένει ἢ ἀρετῇ ἤ τινι τοιούτῳ ἄλλῳ, ὥσπερ ἐν Μεγάροις ἐκ τῶν συγκατελθόντων καὶ συμμαχεσαμένων πρὸς τὸν δῆμον)· καὶ ταῦτα ἢ αἱρέσει ἢ κλήρῳ (πάλιν ταῦτα συνδυαζόμενα, λέγω δὲ τὰς μὲν τινὲς τὰς δὲ πάντες, καὶ τὰς μὲν ἐκ πάντων τὰς δʼ ἐκ τινῶν, καὶ τὰς μὲν αἱρέσει τὰς δὲ κλήρῳ).

+

τούτων δʼ ἑκάστης ἔσονται τῆς διαφορᾶς τρόποι τέσσαρες. ἢ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει, ἢ πάντες ἐκ πάντων κλήρῳ—καί ἢ ἐξ ἁπάντων, ἢ ὡς ἀνὰ μέρος, οἷον κατὰ φυλὰς καὶ δήμους καὶ φατρίας, ἕως ἂν διέλθῃ διὰ πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν, ἢ ἀεὶ ἐξ ἁπάντων, —ἢ καὶ τὰ μὲν οὕτως τὰ δὲ ἐκείνως· πάλιν εἰ τινὲς οἱ καθιστάντες, ἢ ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει ἢ ἐκ πάντων κλήρῳ, ἢ ἐκ τινῶν αἱρέσει ἢ ἐκ τινῶν κλήρῳ, ἢ τὰ μὲν οὕτως τὰ δὲ ἐκείνως, λέγω δὲ τὰ μὲν ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει τὰ δὲ κληρῷ καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐκ τινῶν αἱρέσει τὰ δὲ κληρῷ· ὥστε δώδεκα οἱ τρόποι γίνονται χωρὶς τῶν δύο συνδυασμῶν. τούτων δʼ αἱ μὲν τρεῖς καταστάσεις δημοτικαί, τὸ πάντας ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει ἢ κλήρῳ γίνεσθαι ἢ ἀμφοῖν, τὰς μὲν κλήρῳ τὰς δʼ αἱρέσει τῶν ἀρχῶν· τὸ δὲ μὴ πάντας ἅμα μὲν καθιστάναι, ἐξ ἁπάντων δʼ ἢ ἐκ τινῶν ἢ κλήρῳ ἢ αἱρέσει ἢ ἀμφοῖν, ἢ τὰς μὲν ἐκ πάντων τὰς δʼ ἐκ τινῶν ἀμφοῖν (τὸ δὲ ἀμφοῖν λέγω τὰς μὲν κλήρῳ τὰς δʼ αἱρέσει) πολιτικόν, καὶ τὸ τινὰς ἐκ πάντων ἢ αἱρέσει καθιστάναι ἢ κλήρῳ ἢ ἀμφοῖν (τὰς μὲν κλήρῳ τὰς δʼ αἱρέσει) ὀλιγαρχικόν· ὀλιγαρχικώτερον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν. τὸ δὲ τὰς μὲν ἐκ πάντων τὰς δʼ ἐκ τινῶν πολιτικὸν ἀριστοκρατικῶς,

+ +
+

ἢ τὰς μὲν αἱρέσει τὰς δὲ κληρῷ, τὸ δὲ τινὰς ἐκ τινῶν αἱρέσει ὀλιγαρχικὸν καὶ τὸ τινὰς ἐκ τινῶν κλήρῳ (μὴ γινομένου δʼ, ὁμοίως), καὶ τὸ τινὰς ἐκ τινῶν ἀμφοῖν. τὸ δὲ τινὰς ἐξ ἁπάντων τό τε ἐκ τινῶν αἱρέσει πάντας ἀριστοκρατικόν. οἱ μὲν οὖν τρόποι τῶν περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τοσοῦτοι τὸν ἀριθμόν εἰσι, καὶ διῄρηνται κατὰ τὰς πολιτείας οὕτως· τίνα δὲ τίσι συμφέρει καὶ πῶς δεῖ γίνεσθαι τὰς καταστάσεις, ἅμα ταῖς δυνάμεσι τῶν ἀρχῶν καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν ἔσται φανερόν. λέγω δὲ δύναμιν ἀρχῆς οἷον τὴν κυρίαν τῶν προσόδων καὶ τὴν κυρίαν τῆς φυλακῆς· ἄλλο γὰρ εἶδος δυνάμεως οἷον στρατηγίας καὶ τῆς τῶν περὶ τὴν ἀγορὰν συμβολαίων κυρίας.

+

λοιπὸν δὲ τῶν τριῶν τὸ δικαστικὸν εἰπεῖν. ληπτέον δὲ καὶ τούτων τοὺς τρόπους κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπόθεσιν. ἔστι δὲ διαφορὰ τῶν δικαστηρίων ἐν τρισὶν ὅροις, ἐξ ὧν τε καὶ περὶ ὧν καὶ πῶς. λέγω δὲ ἐξ ὧν μέν, πότερον ἐκ πάντων ἢ ἐκ τινῶν· περὶ ὧν δέ, πόσα εἴδη δικαστηρίων· τὸ δὲ πῶς, πότερον κλήρῳ ἢ αἱρέσει. πρῶτον οὖν διαιρείσθω πόσα εἴδη δικαστηρίων. ἔστι δὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὀκτώ, ἓν μὲν εὐθυντικόν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴ τίς τι τῶν κοινῶν ἀδικεῖ, ἕτερον ὅσα εἰς τὴν πολιτείαν φέρει, τέταρτον καὶ ἄρχουσι καὶ ἰδιώταις ὅσα περὶ ζημιώσεων ἀμφισβητοῦσιν, πέμπτον τὸ περὶ τῶν ἰδίων συναλλαγμάτων καὶ ἐχόντων μέγεθος, καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα τό τε φονικὸν καὶ τὸ ξενικόν (φονικοῦ μὲν οὖν εἴδη, ἄν τʼ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς δικασταῖς ἄν τʼ ἐν ἄλλοις, περί τε τῶν ἐκ προνοίας καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀκουσίων, καὶ ὅσα ὁμολογεῖται μέν, ἀμφισβητεῖται δὲ περὶ τοῦ δικαίου, τέταρτον δὲ ὅσα τοῖς φεύγουσι φόνου ἐπὶ καθόδῳ ἐπιφέρεται, οἷον Ἀθήνησι λέγεται καὶ τὸ ἐν Φρεαττοῖ δικαστήριον· συμβαίνει δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐν τῷ παντὶ χρόνῳ ὀλίγα καὶ ἐν ταῖς μεγάλαις πόλεσιν· τοῦ δὲ ξενικοῦ ἓν μὲν ξένοις πρὸς ξένους, ἄλλο δὲ ξένοις πρὸς ἀστούς), ἔτι δὲ παρὰ πάντα ταῦτα περὶ τῶν μικρῶν συναλλαγμάτων, ὅσα δραχμιαῖα καὶ πεντάδραχμα καὶ μικρῷ πλείονος. δεῖ μὲν γὰρ καὶ περὶ τούτων γίνεσθαι κρίσιν, οὐκ ἐμπίπτει δὲ εἰς δικαστῶν πλῆθος.

+

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἀφείσθω καὶ τῶν φονικῶν καὶ τῶν ξενικῶν, περὶ δὲ τῶν πολιτικῶν λέγωμεν, περὶ ὧν μὴ γινομένων καλῶς διαστάσεις γίνονται καὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν αἱ κινήσεις. ἀνάγκη δʼ ἤτοι πάντας περὶ πάντων κρίνειν τῶν διῃρημένων αἱρέσει ἢ κλήρῳ, ἢ πάντας περὶ πάντων τὰ μὲν κλήρῳ τὰ δʼ αἱρέσει, ἢ περὶ ἐνίων τῶν αὐτῶν τοὺς μὲν κλήρῳ τοὺς δʼ αἱρετούς.

+ +
+

οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οἱ τρόποι τέτταρες τὸν ἀριθμόν· τοσοῦτοι δʼ ἕτεροι καὶ οἱ κατὰ μέρος. πάλιν γὰρ ἐκ τινῶν καὶ οἱ δικάζοντες περὶ πάντων αἱρέσει, ἢ ἐκ τινῶν περὶ πάντων κλήρῳ, ἢ τὰ μὲν κλήρῳ τὰ δὲ αἱρέσει, ἢ ἔνια δικαστήρια περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐκ κληρωτῶν καὶ αἱρετῶν. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ ἐλέχθησαν, οἱ τρόποι ἀντίστροφοι τοῖς εἰρημένοις· ἔτι δὲ τὰ αὐτὰ συνδυαζόμενα, λέγω δʼ οἷον τὰ μὲν ἐκ πάντων τὰ δʼ ἐκ τινῶν τὰ δʼ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν (οἷον εἰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ δικαστηρίου εἶεν οἱ μὲν ἐκ πάντων οἱ δʼ ἐκ τινῶν), καὶ ἢ κλήρῳ ἢ αἱρέσει ἢ ἀμφοῖν. ὅσους μὲν οὖν ἐνδέχεται τρόπους εἶναι τὰ δικαστήρια, εἴρηται· τούτων δὲ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα δημοτικά, ὅσα ἐκ πάντων περὶ πάντων, τὰ δὲ δεύτερα ὀλιγαρχικά, ὅσα ἐκ τινῶν περὶ πάντων, τὰ δὲ τρίτα ἀριστοκρατικὰ καὶ πολιτικά, ὅσα τὰ μὲν ἐκ πάντων τὰ δʼ ἐκ τινῶν.

+ +
+
+

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἄλλων ὧν προειλόμεθα σχεδὸν εἴρηται περὶ πάντων· ἐκ τίνων δὲ μεταβάλλουσιν αἱ πολιτεῖαι καὶ πόσων καὶ ποίων, καὶ τίνες ἑκάστης πολιτείας φθοραί, καὶ ἐκ ποίων εἰς ποίας μάλιστα μεθίστανται, ἔτι δὲ σωτηρίαι τίνες καὶ κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς ἑκάστης εἰσίν, ἔτι δὲ διὰ τίνων ἂν μάλιστα σῴζοιτο τῶν πολιτειῶν ἑκάστη, σκεπτέον ἐφεξῆς τοῖς εἰρημένοις.

+

δεῖ δὲ πρῶτον ὑπολαβεῖν τὴν ἀρχήν, ὅτι πολλαὶ γεγένηνται πολιτεῖαι πάντων μὲν ὁμολογούντων τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ κατʼ ἀναλογίαν ἴσον, τούτου δʼ ἁμαρτανόντων, ὥσπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον. δῆμος μὲν γὰρ ἐγένετο ἐκ τοῦ ἴσους ὁτιοῦν ὄντας οἴεσθαι ἁπλῶς ἴσους εἶναι (ὅτι γὰρ ἐλεύθεροι πάντες ὁμοίως, ἁπλῶς ἴσοι εἶναι νομίζουσιν), ὀλιγαρχία δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνίσους ἕν τι ὄντας ὅλως εἶναι ἀνίσους ὑπολαμβάνειν (κατʼ οὐσίαν γὰρ ἄνισοι ὄντες ἁπλῶς ἄνισοι ὑπολαμβάνουσιν εἶναι). εἶτα οἱ μὲν ὡς ἴσοι ὄντες πάντων τῶν ἴσων ἀξιοῦσι μετέχειν· οἱ δʼ ὡς ἄνισοι ὄντες πλεονεκτεῖν ζητοῦσιν, τὸ γὰρ πλεῖον ἄνισον. ἔχουσι μὲν οὖν τι πᾶσαι δίκαιον, ἡμαρτημέναι δʼ ἁπλῶς εἰσιν. καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν, ὅταν μὴ κατὰ τὴν ὑπόληψιν ἣν ἑκάτεροι τυγχάνουσιν ἔχοντες μετέχωσι τῆς πολιτείας, στασιάζουσιν. πάντων δὲ δικαιότατα μὲν ἂν στασιάζοιεν, ἥκιστα δὲ τοῦτο πράττουσιν, οἱ κατʼ ἀρετὴν διαφέροντες·

+ +
+

μάλιστα γὰρ εὔλογον ἀνίσους ἁπλῶς εἶναι τούτους μόνον. εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ κατὰ γένος ὑπερέχοντες οὐκ ἀξιοῦσι τῶν ἴσων αὑτοὺς διὰ τὴν ἀνισότητα ταύτην· εὐγενεῖς γὰρ εἶναι δοκοῦσιν οἷς ὑπάρχει προγόνων ἀρετὴ καὶ πλοῦτος.

+

ἀρχαὶ μὲν οὖν ὡς εἰπεῖν αὗται καὶ πηγαὶ τῶν στάσεών εἰσιν, ὅθεν στασιάζουσιν· διὸ καὶ αἱ μεταβολαὶ γίνονται διχῶς· ὁτὲ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν, ὅπως ἐκ τῆς καθεστηκυίας ἄλλην μεταστήσωσιν, οἷον ἐκ δημοκρατίας ὀλιγαρχίαν ἢ δημοκρατίαν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας, ἢ πολιτείαν καὶ ἀριστοκρατίαν ἐκ τούτων, ἢ ταύτας ἐξ ἐκείνων, ὁτὲ δʼ οὐ πρὸς τὴν καθεστηκυῖαν πολιτείαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν κατάστασιν προαιροῦνται τὴν αὐτήν, διʼ αὑτῶν δʼ εἶναι βούλονται ταύτην, οἷον τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἢ τὴν μοναρχίαν· ἔτι περὶ τοῦ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον, οἷον ἢ ὀλιγαρχίαν οὖσαν εἰς τὸ μᾶλλον ὀλιγαρχεῖσθαι ἢ εἰς τὸ ἧττον, ἢ δημοκρατίαν οὖσαν εἰς τὸ μᾶλλον δημοκρατεῖσθαι ἢ εἰς τὸ ἧττον, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν πολιτειῶν, ἢ ἵνα ἐπιταθῶσιν ἢ ἀνεθῶσιν· ἔτι πρὸς τὸ μέρος τι κινῆσαι τῆς πολιτείας, οἷον ἀρχήν τινα καταστῆσαι ἢ ἀνελεῖν, ὥσπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονί φασι Λύσανδρόν τινες ἐπιχειρῆσαι καταλῦσαι τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ Παυσανίαν τὸν βασιλέα τὴν ἐφορείαν, καὶ ἐν Ἐπιδάμνῳ δὲ μετέβαλεν ἡ πολιτεία κατὰ μόριον (ἀντὶ γὰρ τῶν φυλάρχων βουλὴν ἐποίησαν, εἰς δὲ τὴν ἡλιαίαν ἐπάναγκές ἐστιν ἔτι τῶν ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι βαδίζειν τὰς ἀρχάς, ὅταν ἐπιψηφίζηται ἀρχή τις, ὀλιγαρχικὸν δὲ καὶ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ εἷς ἦν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ ταύτῃ). πανταχοῦ γὰρ διὰ τὸ ἄνισον ἡ στάσις, οὐ μὴ τοῖς ἀνίσοις ὑπάρχει ἀνάλογον (ἀΐδιος γὰρ βασιλεία ἄνισος, ἐὰν ᾖ ἐν ἴσοις)· ὅλως γὰρ τὸ ἴσον ζητοῦντες στασιάζουσιν. ἔστι δὲ διττὸν τὸ ἴσον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀριθμῷ τὸ δὲ κατʼ ἀξίαν ἐστίν. λέγω δὲ ἀριθμῷ μὲν τὸ πλήθει ἢ μεγέθει ταὐτὸ καὶ ἴσον, κατʼ ἀξίαν δὲ τὸ τῷ λόγῳ, οἷον ὑπερέχει κατʼ ἀριθμὸν μὲν ἴσῳ τὰ τρία τοῖν δυοῖν καὶ ταῦτα τοῦ ἑνός, λόγῳ δὲ τὰ τέτταρα τοῖν δυοῖν καὶ ταῦτα τοῦ ἑνός· ἴσον γὰρ μέρος τὰ δύο τῶν τεττάρων καὶ τὸ ἓν τοῖν δυοῖν· ἄμφω γὰρ ἡμίση. ὁμολογοῦντες δὲ τὸ ἁπλῶς εἶναι δίκαιον τὸ κατʼ ἀξίαν, διαφέρονται, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη πρότερον, οἱ μὲν ὅτι, ἐὰν κατὰ τὶ ἴσοι ὦσιν, ὅλως ἴσοι νομίζουσιν εἶναι, οἱ δʼ ὅτι, ἐὰν κατὰ τὶ ἄνισοι, πάντων ἀνίσων ἀξιοῦσιν ἑαυτούς. διὸ καὶ μάλιστα δύο γίνονται πολιτεῖαι, δῆμος καὶ ὀλιγαρχία· εὐγένεια γὰρ καὶ ἀρετὴ ἐν ὀλίγοις,

+ +
+

ταῦτα δʼ ἐν πλείοσιν· εὐγενεῖς γὰρ καὶ ἀγαθοὶ οὐδαμοῦ ἑκατόν, εὔποροι δὲ πολλαχοῦ. τὸ δὲ ἁπλῶς πάντῃ καθʼ ἑκατέραν τετάχθαι τὴν ἰσότητα φαῦλον. φανερὸν δʼ ἐκ τοῦ συμβαίνοντος· οὐδεμία γὰρ μόνιμος ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων πολιτειῶν. τούτου δʼ αἴτιον ὅτι ἀδύνατον ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἡμαρτημένου μὴ ἀπαντᾶν εἰς τὸ τέλος κακόν τι. διὸ δεῖ τὰ μὲν ἀριθμητικῇ ἰσότητι χρῆσθαι, τὰ δὲ τῇ κατʼ ἀξίαν.

+

ὅμως δὲ ἀσφαλεστέρα καὶ ἀστασίαστος μᾶλλον ἡ δημοκρατία τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας. ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις ἐγγίνονται δύο, ἥ τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους στάσις καὶ ἔτι ἡ πρὸς τὸν δῆμον, ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἡ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν μόνον, αὐτῷ δὲ πρὸς αὑτόν, ὅ τι καὶ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ἐγγίνεται τῷ δήμῳ στάσις· ἔτι δὲ ἡ ἐκ τῶν μέσων πολιτεία ἐγγυτέρω τοῦ δήμου ἢ ἡ τῶν ὀλίγων· ἥπερ ἐστὶν ἀσφαλεστάτη τῶν τοιούτων πολιτειῶν.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ σκοποῦμεν ἐκ τίνων αἵ τε στάσεις γίνονται καὶ αἱ μεταβολαὶ περὶ τὰς πολιτείας, ληπτέον καθόλου πρῶτον τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς αἰτίας αὐτῶν. εἰσὶ δὴ σχεδὸν ὡς εἰπεῖν τρεῖς τὸν ἀριθμόν, ἃς διοριστέον καθʼ αὑτὰς τύπῳ πρῶτον. δεῖ γὰρ λαβεῖν πῶς τε ἔχοντες στασιάζουσι καὶ τίνων ἕνεκεν, καὶ τρίτον τίνες ἀρχαὶ γίνονται τῶν πολιτικῶν ταραχῶν καὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους στάσεων. τοῦ μὲν οὖν αὐτοὺς ἔχειν πως πρὸς τὴν μεταβολὴν αἰτίαν καθόλου μάλιστα θετέον περὶ ἧς ἤδη τυγχάνομεν εἰρηκότες. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἰσότητος ἐφιέμενοι στασιάζουσιν ἂν νομίζωσιν ἔλαττον ἔχειν ὄντες ἴσοι τοῖς πλεονεκτοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ τῆς ἀνισότητος καὶ τῆς ὑπεροχῆς ἂν ὑπολαμβάνωσιν ὄντες ἄνισοι μὴ πλέον ἔχειν ἀλλʼ ἴσον ἢ ἔλαττον (τούτων δʼ ἔστι μὲν ὀρέγεσθαι δικαίως, ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἀδίκως)· ἐλάττους τε γὰρ ὄντες ὅπως ἴσοι ὦσι στασιάζουσι, καὶ ἴσοι ὄντες ὅπως μείζους. πῶς μὲν οὖν ἔχοντες στασιάζουσιν, εἴρηται· περὶ ὧν δὲ στασιάζουσιν ἐστὶ κέρδος καὶ τιμὴ καὶ τἀναντία τούτοις. καὶ γὰρ ἀτιμίαν φεύγοντες καὶ ζημίαν, ἢ ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἢ τῶν φίλων, στασιάζουσιν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν. αἱ δʼ αἰτίαι καὶ ἀρχαὶ τῶν κινήσεων, ὅθεν αὐτοί τε διατίθενται τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον καὶ περὶ τῶν λεχθέντων, ἔστι μὲν ὡς τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἑπτὰ τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι, ἔστι δʼ ὡς πλείους. ὧν δύο μέν ἐστι ταὐτὰ τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡσαύτως· διὰ κέρδος γὰρ καὶ διὰ τιμὴν καὶ παροξύνονται πρὸς ἀλλήλους οὐχ ἵνα κτήσωνται σφίσιν αὐτοῖς, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον,

+ +
+

ἀλλʼ ἑτέρους ὁρῶντες τοὺς μὲν δικαίως τοὺς δʼ ἀδίκως πλεονεκτοῦντας τούτων· ἔτι διὰ ὕβριν, διὰ φόβον, διὰ ὑπεροχήν, διὰ καταφρόνησιν, διὰ αὔξησιν τὴν παρὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον· ἔτι δὲ ἄλλον τρόπον διʼ ἐριθείαν, διʼ ὀλιγωρίαν, διὰ μικρότητα, διὰ ἀνομοιότητα. Τούτων δὲ ὕβρις μὲν καὶ κέρδος τίνα ἔχουσι δύναμιν καὶ πῶς αἴτια, σχεδόν ἐστι φανερόν· ὑβριζόντων τε γὰρ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ πλεονεκτούντων στασιάζουσι καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας τὰς διδούσας τὴν ἐξουσίαν· ἡ δὲ πλεονεξία γίνεται ὁτὲ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ὁτὲ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν κοινῶν. —δῆλον δὲ καὶ ἡ τιμή, καὶ τί δύναται καὶ πῶς αἰτία στάσεως· καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀτιμαζόμενοι καὶ ἄλλους ὁρῶντες τιμωμένους στασιάζουσιν· ταῦτα δὲ ἀδίκως μὲν γίνεται ὅταν παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ἢ τιμῶνταί τινες ἢ ἀτιμάζωνται, δικαίως δὲ ὅταν κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν. —διʼ ὑπεροχὴν δέ, ὅταν τις ᾖ τῇ δυνάμει μείζων (ἢ εἷς ἢ πλείους) ἢ κατὰ τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ πολιτεύματος· γίνεσθαι γὰρ εἴωθεν ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων μοναρχία ἢ δυναστεία· διὸ ἐνιαχοῦ εἰώθασιν ὀστρακίζειν, οἷον ἐν Ἄργει καὶ Ἀθήνησιν· καίτοι βέλτιον ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁρᾶν ὅπως μὴ ἐνέσονται τοσοῦτον ὑπερέχοντες, ἢ ἐάσαντας γενέσθαι ἰᾶσθαι ὕστερον. —διὰ δὲ φόβον στασιάζουσιν οἵ τε ἠδικηκότες, δεδιότες μὴ δῶσι δίκην, καὶ οἱ μέλλοντες ἀδικεῖσθαι, βουλόμενοι φθάσαι πρὶν ἀδικηθῆναι, ὥσπερ ἐν Ῥόδῳ συνέστησαν οἱ γνώριμοι ἐπὶ τὸν δῆμον διὰ τὰς ἐπιφερομένας δίκας. —διὰ καταφρόνησιν δὲ καὶ στασιάζουσι καὶ ἐπιτίθενται, οἷον ἔν τε ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις, ὅταν πλείους ὦσιν οἱ μὴ μετέχοντες τῆς πολιτείας (κρείττους γὰρ οἴονται εἶναι), καὶ ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις οἱ εὔποροι καταφρονήσαντες τῆς ἀταξίας καὶ ἀναρχίας, οἷον καὶ ἐν Θήβαις μετὰ τὴν ἐν Οἰνοφύτοις μάχην κακῶς πολιτευομένων ἡ δημοκρατία διεφθάρη, καὶ ἡ Μεγαρέων διʼ ἀταξίαν καὶ ἀναρχίαν ἡττηθέντων, καὶ ἐν Συρακούσαις πρὸ τῆς Γέλωνος τυραννίδος, καὶ ἐν Ῥόδῳ ὁ δῆμος πρὸ τῆς ἐπαναστάσεως.

+

γίνονται δὲ καὶ διʼ αὔξησιν τὴν παρὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον μεταβολαὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν. ὥσπερ γὰρ σῶμα ἐκ μερῶν σύγκειται καὶ δεῖ αὐξάνεσθαι ἀνάλογον ἵνα μένῃ ἡ συμμετρία, εἰ δὲ μή, φθείρεται, ὅταν ὁ μὲν ποὺς τεττάρων πηχῶν ᾖ τὸ δʼ ἄλλο σῶμα δυοῖν σπιθαμαῖν, ἐνίοτε δὲ κἂν εἰς ἄλλου ζῴου μεταβάλοι μορφήν, εἰ μὴ μόνον κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν αὐξάνοιτο παρὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον, οὕτω καὶ πόλις σύγκειται ἐκ μερῶν,

+ +
+

ὧν πολλάκις λανθάνει τι αὐξανόμενον, οἷον τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων πλῆθος ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις καὶ πολιτείαις. συμβαίνει δʼ ἐνίοτε τοῦτο καὶ διὰ τύχας, οἷον ἐν Τάραντι ἡττηθέντων καὶ ἀπολομένων πολλῶν γνωρίμων ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰαπύγων μικρὸν ὕστερον τῶν Μηδικῶν δημοκρατία ἐγένετο ἐκ πολιτείας, καὶ ἐν Ἄργει τῶν ἐν τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἀπολομένων ὑπὸ Κλεομένους τοῦ Λάκωνος ἠναγκάσθησαν παραδέξασθαι τῶν περιοίκων τινάς, καὶ ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀτυχούντων πεζῇ οἱ γνώριμοι ἐλάττους ἐγένοντο διὰ τὸ ἐκ καταλόγου στρατεύεσθαι ὑπὸ τὸν Λακωνικὸν πόλεμον. συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις, ἧττον δέ· πλειόνων γὰρ τῶν εὐπόρων γινομένων ἢ τῶν οὐσιῶν αὐξανομένων μεταβάλλουσιν εἰς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δυναστείας. —μεταβάλλουσι δʼ αἱ πολιτεῖαι καὶ ἄνευ στάσεως διά τε τὰς ἐριθείας, ὥσπερ ἐν Ἡραίᾳ (ἐξ αἱρετῶν γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐποίησαν κληρωτάς, ὅτι ᾑροῦντο τοὺς ἐριθευομένους), καὶ διʼ ὀλιγωρίαν, ὅταν ἐάσωσιν εἰς τὰς ἀρχὰς τὰς κυρίας παριέναι τοὺς μὴ τῇ πολιτείᾳ φίλους, ὥσπερ ἐν Ὠρεῷ κατελύθη ἡ ὀλιγαρχία τῶν ἀρχόντων γενομένου Ἡρακλεοδώρου, ὃς ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας πολιτείαν καὶ δημοκρατίαν κατεσκεύασεν. —ἔτι διὰ τὸ παρὰ μικρόν. λέγω δὲ παρὰ μικρόν, ὅτι πολλάκις λανθάνει μεγάλη γινομένη μετάβασις τῶν νομίμων, ὅταν παρορῶσι τὸ μικρόν, ὥσπερ ἐν Ἀμβρακίᾳ μικρὸν ἦν τὸ τίμημα, τέλος δʼ ἀπʼ οὐθενὸς ἦρχον, ὡς ἔγγιον ἢ μηθὲν διαφέρον τοῦ μηθὲν τὸ μικρόν.

+

στασιωτικὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὁμόφυλον, ἕως ἂν συμπνεύσῃ· ὥσπερ γὰρ οὐδʼ ἐκ τοῦ τυχόντος πλήθους πόλις γίγνεται, οὕτως οὐδʼ ἐν τῷ τυχόντι χρόνῳ· διὸ ὅσοι ἤδη συνοίκους ἐδέξαντο ἢ ἐποίκους, οἱ πλεῖστοι διεστασίασαν· οἷον Τροιζηνίοις Ἀχαιοὶ συνῴκησαν Σύβαριν, εἶτα πλείους οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ γενόμενοι ἐξέβαλον τοὺς Τροιζηνίους, ὅθεν τὸ ἄγος συνέβη τοῖς Συβαρίταις· καὶ ἐν Θουρίοις Συβαρῖται τοῖς συνοικήσασιν (πλεονεκτεῖν γὰρ ἀξιοῦντες ὡς σφετέρας τῆς χώρας ἐξέπεσον)· καὶ Βυζαντίοις οἱ ἔποικοι ἐπιβουλεύοντες φωραθέντες ἐξέπεσον διὰ μάχης· καὶ Ἀντισσαῖοι τοὺς Χίων φυγάδας εἰσδεξάμενοι διὰ μάχης ἐξέβαλον· Ζαγκλαῖοι δὲ Σαμίους ὑποδεξάμενοι ἐξέπεσον αὐτοί· καὶ Ἀπολλωνιᾶται οἱ ἐν τῷ Εὐξείνῳ πόντῳ ἐποίκους ἐπαγαγόμενοι ἐστασίασαν·

+ +
+

καὶ Συρακούσιοι μετὰ τὰ τυραννικὰ τοὺς ξένους καὶ τοὺς μισθοφόρους πολίτας ποιησάμενοι ἐστασίασαν καὶ εἰς μάχην ἦλθον· καὶ Ἀμφιπολῖται δεξάμενοι Χαλκιδέων ἐποίκους ἐξέπεσον ὑπὸ τούτων οἱ πλεῖστοι αὐτῶν. στασιάζουσι δʼ ἐν μὲν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις οἱ πολλοὶ ὡς ἀδικούμενοι, ὅτι οὐ μετέχουσι τῶν ἴσων, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, ἴσοι ὄντες, ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις οἱ γνώριμοι, ὅτι μετέχουσι τῶν ἴσων οὐκ ἴσοι ὄντες. στασιάζουσι δὲ ἐνίοτε αἱ πόλεις καὶ διὰ τοὺς τόπους, ὅταν μὴ εὐφυῶς ἔχῃ ἡ χώρα πρὸς τὸ μίαν εἶναι πόλιν, οἷον ἐν Κλαζομεναῖς οἱ ἐπὶ Χύτρῳ πρὸς τοὺς ἐν νήσῳ, καὶ Κολοφώνιοι καὶ Νοτιεῖς· καὶ Ἀθήνησιν οὐχ ὁμοίως εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον δημοτικοὶ οἱ τὸν Πειραιᾶ οἰκοῦντες τῶν τὸ ἄστυ. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις αἱ διαβάσεις τῶν ὀχετῶν, καὶ τῶν πάνυ σμικρῶν, διασπῶσι τὰς φάλαγγας, οὕτως ἔοικε πᾶσα διαφορὰ ποιεῖν διάστασιν. μεγίστη μὲν οὖν ἴσως διάστασις ἀρετὴ καὶ μοχθηρία, εἶτα πλοῦτος καὶ πενία, καὶ οὕτως δὴ ἑτέρα ἑτέρας μᾶλλον, ὧν μία καὶ ἡ εἰρημένη ἐστί.

+

Γίγνονται μὲν οὖν αἱ στάσεις οὐ περὶ μικρῶν ἀλλʼ ἐκ μικρῶν, στασιάζουσι δὲ περὶ μεγάλων. μάλιστα δὲ καὶ αἱ μικραὶ ἰσχύουσιν, ὅταν ἐν τοῖς κυρίοις γένωνται, οἷον συνέβη καὶ ἐν Συρακούσαις ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις χρόνοις. μετέβαλε γὰρ ἡ πολιτεία ἐκ δύο νεανίσκων στασιασάντων τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ὄντων, περὶ ἐρωτικὴν αἰτίαν. θατέρου γὰρ ἀποδημοῦντος ἅτερος ὤν τὸν ἐρώμενον αὐτοῦ ὑπεποιήσατο, πάλιν δʼ ἐκεῖνος τούτῳ χαλεπήνας τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἀνέπεισεν ὡς αὑτὸν ἐλθεῖν· ὅθεν προσλαμβάνοντες τοὺς ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι διεστασίασαν πάντας. διόπερ ἀρχομένων εὐλαβεῖσθαι δεῖ τῶν τοιούτων, καὶ διαλύειν τὰς τῶν ἡγεμόνων καὶ δυναμένων στάσεις· ἐν ἀρχῇ γὰρ γίνεται τὸ ἁμάρτημα, ἡ δʼ ἀρχὴ λέγεται ἥμισυ εἶναι παντός, ὥστε καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ μικρὸν ἁμάρτημα ἀνάλογόν ἐστι πρὸς τὰ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις μέρεσιν. ὅλως δὲ αἱ τῶν γνωρίμων στάσεις συναπολαύειν ποιοῦσι καὶ τὴν ὅλην πόλιν, οἷον ἐν Ἑστιαίᾳ συνέβη μετὰ τὰ Μηδικά, δύο ἀδελφῶν περὶ τῆς πατρῴας νομῆς διενεχθέντων· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀπορώτερος, ὡς οὐκ ἀποφαίνοντος τὴν οὐσίαν οὐδὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν ὃν εὗρεν ὁ πατήρ, προσηγάγετο τοὺς δημοτικούς, ὁ δʼ ἕτερος ἔχων οὐσίαν πολλὴν τοὺς εὐπόρους. καὶ ἐν Δελφοῖς ἐκ κηδείας γενομένης διαφορᾶς ἀρχὴ πασῶν ἐγένετο τῶν στάσεων τῶν ὕστερον·

+ +
+

ὁ μὲν γὰρ οἰωνισάμενός τι σύμπτωμα, ὡς ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν νύμφην, οὐ λαβὼν ἀπῆλθεν, οἱ δʼ ὡς ὑβρισθέντες ἐνέβαλον τῶν ἱερῶν χρημάτων θύοντος, κἄπειτα ὡς ἱερόσυλον ἀπέκτειναν. καὶ περὶ Μυτιλήνην δὲ ἐξ ἐπικλήρων στάσεως γενομένης πολλῶν ἐγένετο ἀρχὴ κακῶν καὶ τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους, ἐν ᾧ Πάχης ἔλαβε τὴν πόλιν αὐτῶν· Τιμοφάνους γὰρ τῶν εὐπόρων τινὸς καταλιπόντος δύο θυγατέρας, ὁ περιωσθεὶς καὶ οὐ λαβὼν τοῖς υἱέσιν αὑτοῦ Δέξανδρος ἦρξε τῆς στάσεως καὶ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους παρώξυνε, πρόξενος ὢν τῆς πόλεως. καὶ ἐν Φωκεῦσιν ἐξ ἐπικλήρου στάσεως γενομένης περὶ Μνασέαν τὸν Μνάσωνος πατέρα καὶ Εὐθυκράτη τὸν Ὀνομάρχου, ἡ στάσις αὕτη ἀρχὴ τοῦ ἱεροῦ πολέμου κατέστη τοῖς Φωκεῦσιν. μετέβαλε δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἐπιδάμνῳ ἡ πολιτεία ἐκ γαμικῶν· ὑπομνηστευσάμενος γάρ τις θυγατέρα, ὡς ἐζημίωσεν αὐτὸν ὁ τοῦ ὑπομνηστευθέντος πατήρ, γενόμενος τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἅτερος συμπαρέλαβε τοὺς ἐκτὸς τῆς πολιτείας ὡς ἐπηρεασθείς.

+

μεταβάλλουσι δὲ καὶ εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν καὶ εἰς δῆμον καὶ εἰς πολιτείαν ἐκ τοῦ εὐδοκιμῆσαί τι ἢ αὐξηθῆναι ἢ ἀρχεῖον ἢ μόριον τῆς πόλεως, οἷον ἡ ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ βουλὴ εὐδοκιμήσασα ἐν τοῖς Μηδικοῖς ἔδοξε συντονωτέραν ποιῆσαι τὴν πολιτείαν, καὶ πάλιν ὁ ναυτικὸς ὄχλος γενόμενος αἴτιος τῆς περὶ Σαλαμῖνα νίκης καὶ διὰ ταύτης τῆς ἡγεμονίας διὰ τὴν κατὰ θάλατταν δύναμιν τὴν δημοκρατίαν ἰσχυροτέραν ἐποίησεν, καὶ ἐν Ἄργει οἱ γνώριμοι εὐδοκιμήσαντες περὶ τὴν ἐν Μαντινείᾳ μάχην τὴν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους ἐπεχείρησαν καταλύειν τὸν δῆμον, καὶ ἐν Συρακούσαις ὁ δῆμος αἴτιος γενόμενος τῆς νίκης τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους ἐκ πολιτείας εἰς δημοκρατίαν μετέβαλεν, καὶ ἐν Χαλκίδι Φόξον τὸν τύραννον μετὰ τῶν γνωρίμων ὁ δῆμος ἀνελὼν εὐθὺς εἴχετο τῆς πολιτείας, καὶ ἐν Ἀμβρακίᾳ πάλιν ὡσαύτως Περίανδρον συνεκβαλὼν τοῖς ἐπιθεμένοις ὁ δῆμος τὸν τύραννον εἰς ἑαυτὸν περιέστησε τὴν πολιτείαν. καὶ ὅλως δὴ δεῖ τοῦτο μὴ λανθάνειν, ὡς οἱ δυνάμεως αἴτιοι γενόμενοι, καὶ ἰδιῶται καὶ ἀρχαὶ καὶ φυλαὶ καὶ ὅλως μέρος καὶ ὁποινοῦν πλῆθος, στάσιν κινοῦσιν· ἢ γὰρ οἱ τούτοις φθονοῦντες τιμωμένοις ἄρχουσι τῆς στάσεως, ἢ οὗτοι διὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν οὐ θέλουσι μένειν ἐπὶ τῶν ἴσων. κινοῦνται δʼ αἱ πολιτεῖαι καὶ ὅταν τἀναντία εἶναι δοκοῦντα μέρη τῆς πόλεως ἰσάζῃ ἀλλήλοις,

+ +
+

οἷον οἱ πλούσιοι καὶ ὁ δῆμος, μέσον δʼ ᾖ μηθὲν ἢ μικρὸν πάμπαν· ἂν γὰρ πολὺ ὑπερέχῃ ὁποτερονοῦν τῶν μερῶν, πρὸς τὸ φανερῶς κρεῖττον τὸ λοιπὸν οὐ θέλει κινδυνεύειν. διὸ καὶ οἱ κατʼ ἀρετὴν διαφέροντες οὐ ποιοῦσι στάσιν ὡς εἰπεῖν· ὀλίγοι γὰρ γίγνονται πρὸς πολλούς. καθόλου μὲν οὖν περὶ πάσας τὰς πολιτείας αἱ ἀρχαὶ καὶ αἰτίαι τῶν στάσεων καὶ τῶν μεταβολῶν τοῦτον ἔχουσι τὸν τρόπον· κινοῦσι δὲ τὰς πολιτείας ὁτὲ μὲν διὰ βίας ὁτὲ δὲ διʼ ἀπάτης, διὰ βίας μὲν ἢ εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἢ ὕστερον ἀναγκάζοντες. καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἀπάτη διττή. ὁτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἐξαπατήσαντες τὸ πρῶτον ἑκόντων μεταβάλλουσι τὴν πολιτείαν, εἶθʼ ὕστερον βίᾳ κατέχουσιν ἀκόντων, οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν Τετρακοσίων τὸν δῆμον ἐξηπάτησαν φάσκοντες τὸν βασιλέα χρήματα παρέξειν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους, ψευσάμενοι δὲ κατέχειν ἐπειρῶντο τὴν πολιτείαν· ὁτὲ δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τε πείσαντες καὶ ὕστερον πάλιν πεισθέντων ἑκόντων ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν. ἁπλῶς μὲν οὖν περὶ πάσας τὰς πολιτείας ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων συμβέβηκε γίνεσθαι τὰς μεταβολάς.

+

καθʼ ἕκαστον δʼ εἶδος πολιτείας ἐκ τούτων μερίζοντας τὰ συμβαίνοντα δεῖ θεωρεῖν. αἱ μὲν οὖν δημοκρατίαι μάλιστα μεταβάλλουσι διὰ τὴν τῶν δημαγωγῶν ἀσέλγειαν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἰδίᾳ συκοφαντοῦντες τοὺς τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντας συστρέφουσιν αὐτούς (συνάγει γὰρ καὶ τοὺς ἐχθίστους ὁ κοινὸς φόβος), τὰ δὲ κοινῇ τὸ πλῆθος ἐπάγοντες. καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἄν τις ἴδοι γιγνόμενον οὕτω. καὶ γὰρ ἐν Κῷ ἡ δημοκρατία μετέβαλε πονηρῶν ἐγγενομένων δημαγωγῶν (οἱ γὰρ γνώριμοι συνέστησαν)· καὶ ἐν Ῥόδῳ· μισθοφοράν τε γὰρ οἱ δημαγωγοὶ ἐπόριζον, καὶ ἐκώλυον ἀποδιδόναι τὰ ὀφειλόμενα τοῖς τριηράρχοις, οἱ δὲ διὰ τὰς ἐπιφερομένας δίκας ἠναγκάσθησαν συστάντες καταλῦσαι τὸν δῆμον. κατελύθη δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ ὁ δῆμος μετὰ τὸν ἀποικισμὸν εὐθὺς διὰ τοὺς δημαγωγούς· ἀδικούμενοι γὰρ ὑπʼ αὐτῶν οἱ γνώριμοι ἐξέπιπτον, ἔπειτα ἀθροισθέντες οἱ ἐκπίπτοντες καὶ κατελθόντες κατέλυσαν τὸν δῆμον. παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐν Μεγάροις κατελύθη δημοκρατία· οἱ γὰρ δημαγωγοί, ἵνα χρήματα ἔχωσι δημεύειν, ἐξέβαλον πολλοὺς τῶν γνωρίμων, ἕως πολλοὺς ἐποίησαν τοὺς φεύγοντας, οἱ δὲ κατιόντες ἐνίκησαν μαχόμενοι τὸν δῆμον καὶ κατέστησαν τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν.

+ +
+

συνέβη δὲ ταὐτὸν καὶ περὶ Κύμην ἐπὶ τῆς δημοκρατίας ἣν κατέλυσε Θρασύμαχος. σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἄν τις ἴδοι θεωρῶν τὰς μεταβολὰς τοῦτον ἐχούσας τὸν τρόπον. ὁτὲ μὲν γάρ, ἵνα χαρίζωνται, ἀδικοῦντες τοὺς γνωρίμους συνιστᾶσιν, ἢ τὰς οὐσίας ἀναδάστους ποιοῦντες ἢ τὰς προσόδους ταῖς λειτουργίαις, ὁτὲ δὲ διαβάλλοντες, ἵνʼ ἔχωσι δημεύειν τὰ κτήματα τῶν πλουσίων.

+

ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀρχαίων, ὅτε γένοιτο ὁ αὐτὸς δημαγωγὸς καὶ στρατηγός, εἰς τυραννίδα μετέβαλλον· σχεδὸν γὰρ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀρχαίων τυράννων ἐκ δημαγωγῶν γεγόνασιν. αἴτιον δὲ τοῦ τότε μὲν γίγνεσθαι νῦν δὲ μή, ὅτι τότε μὲν οἱ δημαγωγοὶ ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν στρατηγούντων (οὐ γάρ πω δεινοὶ ἦσαν λέγειν), νῦν δὲ τῆς ῥητορικῆς ηὐξημένης οἱ δυνάμενοι λέγειν δημαγωγοῦσι μέν, διʼ ἀπειρίαν δὲ τῶν πολεμικῶν οὐκ ἐπιτίθενται, πλὴν εἴ που βραχύ τι γέγονε τοιοῦτον. ἐγίγνοντο δὲ τυραννίδες πρότερον μᾶλλον ἢ νῦν καὶ διὰ τὸ μεγάλας ἀρχὰς ἐγχειρίζεσθαί τισιν, ὥσπερ ἐν Μιλήτῳ ἐκ τῆς πρυτανείας (πολλῶν γὰρ ἦν καὶ μεγάλων κύριος ὁ πρύτανις). ἔτι δὲ διὰ τὸ μὴ μεγάλας εἶναι τότε τὰς πόλεις, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγρῶν οἰκεῖν τὸν δῆμον ἄσχολον ὄντα πρὸς τοῖς ἔργοις, οἱ προστάται τοῦ δήμου, ὅτε πολεμικοὶ γένοιντο, τυραννίδι ἐπετίθεντο. πάντες δὲ τοῦτο ἔδρων ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου πιστευθέντες, ἡ δὲ πίστις ἦν ἡ ἀπέχθεια ἡ πρὸς τοὺς πλουσίους, οἷον Ἀθήνησί τε Πεισίστρατος στασιάσας πρὸς τοὺς πεδιακούς, καὶ Θεαγένης ἐν Μεγάροις τῶν εὐπόρων τὰ κτήνη ἀποσφάξας, λαβὼν παρὰ τὸν ποταμὸν ἐπινέμοντας, καὶ Διονύσιος κατηγορῶν Δαφναίου καὶ τῶν πλουσίων ἠξιώθη τῆς τυραννίδος, διὰ τὴν ἔχθραν πιστευθεὶς ὡς δημοτικὸς ὤν. μεταβάλλουσι δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς πατρίας δημοκρατίας εἰς τὴν νεωτάτην· ὅπου γὰρ αἱρεταὶ μὲν αἱ ἀρχαί, μὴ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων δέ, αἱρεῖται δὲ ὁ δῆμος, δημαγωγοῦντες οἱ σπουδαρχιῶντες εἰς τοῦτο καθιστᾶσιν ὥστε κύριον εἶναι τὸν δῆμον καὶ τῶν νόμων. ἄκος δὲ τοῦ μὴ γίγνεσθαι ἢ τοῦ γίγνεσθαι ἧττον τὸ τὰς φυλὰς φέρειν τοὺς ἄρχοντας, ἀλλὰ μὴ πάντα τὸν δῆμον. τῶν μὲν οὖν δημοκρατιῶν αἱ μεταβολαὶ γίγνονται πᾶσαι σχεδὸν διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας.

+

αἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίαι μεταβάλλουσι διὰ δύο μάλιστα τρόπους τοὺς φανερωτάτους, ἕνα μὲν ἐὰν ἀδικῶσι τὸ πλῆθος· πᾶς γὰρ ἱκανὸς γίνεται προστάτης, μάλιστα δʼ ὅταν ἐξ αὐτῆς συμβῇ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας γίνεσθαι τὸν ἡγεμόνα, καθάπερ ἐν Νάξῳ Λύγδαμις, ὃς καὶ ἐτυράννησεν ὕστερον τῶν Ναξίων.

+ +
+

ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐξ ἄλλων ἀρχὴ στάσεως διαφοράς. ὁτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν εὐπόρων, οὐ τῶν ὄντων δʼ ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς, γίγνεται κατάλυσις, ὅταν ὀλίγοι σφόδρα ὦσιν οἱ ἐν ταῖς τιμαῖς, οἷον ἐν Μασσαλίᾳ καὶ ἐν Ἴστρῳ καὶ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ καὶ ἐν ἄλλαις πόλεσι συμβέβηκεν· οἱ γὰρ μὴ μετέχοντες τῶν ἀρχῶν ἐκίνουν, ἕως μετέλαβον οἱ πρεσβύτεροι πρότερον τῶν ἀδελφῶν, ὕστερον δʼ οἱ νεώτεροι πάλιν· οὐ γὰρ ἄρχουσιν ἐνιαχοῦ μὲν ἅμα πατήρ τε καὶ υἱός, ἐνιαχοῦ δὲ ὁ πρεσβύτερος καὶ ὁ νεώτερος ἀδελφός· καὶ ἔνθα μὲν πολιτικωτέρα ἐγένετο ἡ ὀλιγαρχία, ἐν Ἴστρῳ δʼ εἰς δῆμον ἀπετελεύτησεν, ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ δʼ ἐξ ἐλαττόνων εἰς ἑξακοσίους ἦλθεν· μετέβαλε δὲ καὶ ἐν Κνίδῳ ἡ ὀλιγαρχία στασιασάντων τῶν γνωρίμων αὐτῶν πρὸς αὑτοὺς διὰ τὸ ὀλίγους μετέχειν καί, καθάπερ εἴρηται, εἰ πατήρ, υἱὸν μὴ μετέχειν, μηδʼ εἰ πλείους ἀδελφοί, ἀλλʼ ἢ τὸν πρεσβύτατον· ἐπιλαβόμενος γὰρ στασιαζόντων ὁ δῆμος, καὶ λαβὼν προστάτην ἐκ τῶν γνωρίμων, ἐπιθέμενος ἐκράτησεν, ἀσθενὲς γὰρ τὸ στασιάζον· καὶ ἐν Ἐρυθραῖς δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν Βασιλιδῶν ὀλιγαρχίας ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις χρόνοις, καίπερ καλῶς ἐπιμελομένων τῶν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ, ὅμως διὰ τὸ ὑπʼ ὀλίγων ἄρχεσθαι ἀγανακτῶν ὁ δῆμος μετέβαλε τὴν πολιτείαν.

+

κινοῦνται δʼ αἱ ὀλιγαρχίαι ἐξ αὑτῶν καὶ διὰ φιλονεικίαν δημαγωγούντων (ἡ δημαγωγία δὲ διττή, ἡ μὲν ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὀλίγοις—ἐγγίγνεται γὰρ δημαγωγὸς κἂν πάνυ ὀλίγοι ὦσιν, οἷον ἐν τοῖς Τριάκοντα Ἀθήνησιν οἱ περὶ Χαρικλέα ἴσχυσαν τοὺς Τριάκοντα δημαγωγοῦντες, καὶ ἐν τοῖς Τετρακοσίοις οἱ περὶ Φρύνιχον τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον— ἡ δʼ ὅταν τὸν ὄχλον δημαγωγῶσιν οἱ ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ ὄντες, οἷον ἐν Λαρίσῃ οἱ πολιτοφύλακες διὰ τὸ αἱρεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς τὸν ὄχλον ἐδημαγώγουν, καὶ ἐν ὅσαις ὀλιγαρχίαις οὐχ οὗτοι αἱροῦνται τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐξ ὧν οἱ ἄρχοντές εἰσιν, ἀλλʼ αἱ μὲν ἀρχαὶ ἐκ τιμημάτων μεγάλων εἰσὶν ἢ ἑταιριῶν, αἱροῦνται δʼ οἱ ὁπλῖται ἢ ὁ δῆμος, ὅπερ ἐν Ἀβύδῳ συνέβαινεν, καὶ ὅπου τὰ δικαστήρια μὴ ἐκ τοῦ πολιτεύματός ἐστι—δημαγωγοῦντες γὰρ πρὸς τὰς κρίσεις μεταβάλλουσι τὴν πολιτείαν, ὅπερ καὶ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ ἐγένετο τῇ ἐν τῷ Πόντῳ—ἔτι δʼ ὅταν ἔνιοι εἰς ἐλάττους ἕλκωσι τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν· οἱ γὰρ τὸ ἴσον ζητοῦντες ἀναγκάζονται βοηθὸν ἐπαγαγέσθαι τὸν δῆμον). γίνονται δὲ μεταβολαὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ ὅταν ἀναλώσωσι τὰ ἴδια ζῶντες ἀσελγῶς· καὶ γὰρ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καινοτομεῖν ζητοῦσι, καὶ ἢ τυραννίδι ἐπιτίθενται αὐτοὶ ἢ κατασκευάζουσιν ἕτερον

+ +
+

(ὥσπερ Ἱππαρῖνος Διονύσιον ἐν Συρακούσαις, καὶ ἐν Ἀμφιπόλει ᾧ ὄνομα ἦν Κλεότιμος τοὺς ἐποίκους τοὺς Χαλκιδέων ἤγαγε, καὶ ἐλθόντων διεστασίασεν αὐτοὺς πρὸς τοὺς εὐπόρους, καὶ ἐν Αἰγίνῃ ὁ τὴν πρᾶξιν τὴν πρὸς Χάρητα πράξας ἐνεχείρησε μεταβαλεῖν τὴν πολιτείαν διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν)· ὁτὲ μὲν οὖν ἐπιχειροῦσί τι κινεῖν, ὁτὲ δὲ κλέπτουσι τὰ κοινά, ὅθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς στασιάζουσιν ἢ οὗτοι ἢ οἱ πρὸς τούτους μαχόμενοι κλέπτοντας, ὅπερ ἐν Ἀπολλωνίᾳ συνέβη τῇ ἐν τῷ Πόντῳ. ὁμονοοῦσα δὲ ὀλιγαρχία οὐκ εὐδιάφθορος ἐξ αὑτῆς. σημεῖον δὲ ἡ ἐν Φαρσάλῳ πολιτεία· ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ ὀλίγοι ὄντες πολλῶν κύριοί εἰσι διὰ τὸ χρῆσθαι σφίσιν αὐτοῖς καλῶς.

+

καταλύονται δὲ καὶ ὅταν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ ἑτέραν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἐμποιῶσιν. τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν ὅταν τοῦ παντὸς πολιτεύματος ὀλίγου ὄντος τῶν μεγίστων ἀρχῶν μὴ μετέχωσιν οἱ ὀλίγοι πάντες, ὅπερ ἐν Ἤλιδι συνέβη ποτέ· τῆς πολιτείας γὰρ διʼ ὀλίγων οὔσης τῶν γερόντων ὀλίγοι πάμπαν ἐγίνοντο διὰ τὸ ἀιδίους εἶναι ἐνενήκοντα ὄντας, τὴν δʼ αἵρεσιν δυναστευτικὴν εἶναι καὶ ὁμοίαν τῇ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι γερόντων. γίγνεται δὲ μεταβολὴ τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν καὶ ἐν πολέμῳ καὶ ἐν εἰρήνῃ, ἐν μὲν πολέμῳ διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ἀπιστίαν στρατιώταις ἀναγκαζομένων χρῆσθαι (ᾧ γὰρ ἂν ἐγχειρίσωσιν, οὗτος πολλάκις γίνεται τύραννος, ὥσπερ ἐν Κορίνθῳ Τιμοφάνης· ἂν δὲ πλείους, οὗτοι αὑτοῖς περιποιοῦνται δυναστείαν· ὁτὲ δὲ ταῦτα δεδιότες μεταδιδόασι τῷ πλήθει τῆς πολιτείας διὰ τὸ ἀναγκάζεσθαι τῷ δήμῳ χρῆσθαι)· ἐν δὲ τῇ εἰρήνῃ διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐγχειρίζουσι τὴν φυλακὴν στρατιώταις καὶ ἄρχοντι μεσιδίῳ, ὃς ἐνίοτε γίνεται κύριος ἀμφοτέρων, ὅπερ συνέβη ἐν Λαρίσῃ ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν Ἀλευαδῶν ἀρχῆς τῶν περὶ Σῖμον, καὶ ἐν Ἀβύδῳ ἐπὶ τῶν ἑταιριῶν ὧν ἦν μία ἡ Ἰφιάδου.

+

γίνονται δὲ στάσεις καὶ ἐκ τοῦ περιωθεῖσθαι ἑτέρους ὑφʼ ἑτέρων τῶν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ αὐτῶν καὶ καταστασιάζεσθαι κατὰ γάμους ἢ δίκας, οἷον ἐκ γαμικῆς μὲν αἰτίας αἱ εἰρημέναι πρότερον (καὶ τὴν ἐν Ἐρετρίᾳ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίαν τὴν τῶν ἱππέων Διαγόρας κατέλυσεν ἀδικηθεὶς περὶ γάμον), ἐκ δὲ δικαστηρίου κρίσεως ἡ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ στάσις ἐγένετο καὶ ἡ ἐν Θήβαις, ἐπʼ αἰτίᾳ μοιχείας δικαίως μὲν στασιαστικῶς δὲ ποιησαμένων τὴν κόλασιν τῶν μὲν ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ κατʼ Εὐρυτίωνος, τῶν δʼ ἐν Θήβαις κατʼ Ἀρχίου

+ +
+

(ἐφιλονείκησαν γὰρ αὐτοὺς οἱ ἐχθροὶ ὥστε δεθῆναι ἐν ἀγορᾷ ἐν τῷ κύφωνι). πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ ἄγαν δεσποτικὰς εἶναι τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τινῶν δυσχερανάντων κατελύθησαν, ὥσπερ ἡ ἐν Κνίδῳ καὶ ἡ ἐν Χίῳ ὀλιγαρχία. γίγνονται δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ συμπτώματος μεταβολαὶ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πολιτείας καὶ τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν ἐν ὅσαις ἀπὸ τιμήματος βουλεύουσι καὶ δικάζουσι καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀρχὰς ἄρχουσιν. πολλάκις γὰρ τὸ ταχθὲν πρῶτον τίμημα πρὸς τοὺς παρόντας καιρούς, ὥστε μετέχειν ἐν μὲν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ ὀλίγους ἐν δὲ τῇ πολιτείᾳ τοὺς μέσους, εὐετηρίας γιγνομένης διʼ εἰρήνην ἢ διʼ ἄλλην τινʼ εὐτυχίαν συμβαίνει πολλαπλασίου γίγνεσθαι τιμήματος ἀξίας τὰς αὐτὰς κτήσεις, ὥστε πάντας πάντων μετέχειν, ὁτὲ μὲν ἐκ προσαγωγῆς καὶ κατὰ μικρὸν γινομένης τῆς μεταβολῆς καὶ λανθανούσης, ὁτὲ δὲ καὶ θᾶττον. αἱ μὲν οὖν ὀλιγαρχίαι μεταβάλλουσι καὶ στασιάζουσι διὰ τοιαύτας αἰτίας (ὅλως δὲ καὶ αἱ δημοκρατίαι καὶ αἱ ὀλιγαρχίαι ἐξίστανται ἐνίοτε οὐκ εἰς τὰς ἐναντίας πολιτείας ἀλλʼ εἰς τὰς ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει, οἷον ἐκ τῶν ἐννόμων δημοκρατιῶν καὶ ὀλιγαρχιῶν εἰς τὰς κυρίους καὶ ἐκ τούτων εἰς ἐκείνας).

+

ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἀριστοκρατίαις γίνονται αἱ στάσεις αἱ μὲν διὰ τὸ ὀλίγους τῶν τιμῶν μετέχειν, ὅπερ εἴρηται κινεῖν καὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας, διὰ τὸ καὶ τὴν ἀριστοκρατίαν ὀλιγαρχίαν εἶναί πως (ἐν ἀμφοτέραις γὰρ ὀλίγοι οἱ ἄρχοντες, οὐ μέντοι διὰ ταὐτὸν ὀλίγοι)· ἐπεὶ δοκεῖ γε διὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἡ ἀριστοκρατία ὀλιγαρχία εἶναι. μάλιστα δὲ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν ἀναγκαῖον ὅταν ᾖ τι πλῆθος τῶν πεφρονηματισμένων ὡς ὁμοίων κατʼ ἀρετήν, οἷον ἐν Λακεδαίμονι οἱ λεγόμενοι Παρθενίαι (ἑκ τῶν ὁμοίων γὰρ ἦσαν), οὓς φωράσαντες ἐπιβουλεύσαντας ἀπέστειλαν Τάραντος οἰκιστάς, ἢ ὅταν τινὲς ἀτιμάζωνται μεγάλοι ὄντες καὶ μηθενὸς ἥττους κατʼ ἀρετὴν ὑπό τινων ἐντιμοτέρων, οἷον Λύσανδρος ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων, ἢ ὅταν ἀνδρώδης τις ὢν μὴ μετέχῃ τῶν τιμῶν, οἷον Κινάδων ὁ τὴν ἐπʼ Ἀγησιλάου συστήσας ἐπίθεσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς Σπαρτιάτας· ἔτι ὅταν οἱ μὲν ἀπορῶσι λίαν οἱ δʼ εὐπορῶσιν (καὶ μάλιστα ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις τοῦτο γίνεται· συνέβη δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ὑπὸ τὸν Μεσηνιακὸν πόλεμον· δῆλον δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς Τυρταίου ποιήσεως τῆς καλουμένης Εὐνομίας·

+ +
+

θλιβόμενοι γάρ τινες διὰ τὸν πόλεμον ἠξίουν ἀνάδαστον ποιεῖν τὴν χώραν)· ἔτι ἐάν τις μέγας ᾖ καὶ δυνάμενος ἔτι μείζων εἶναι, ἵνα μοναρχῇ, ὥσπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι δοκεῖ Παυσανίας ὁ στρατηγήσας κατὰ τὸν Μηδικὸν πόλεμον, καὶ ἐν Καρχηδόνι Ἄννων.

+

λύονται δὲ μάλιστα αἵ τε πολιτεῖαι καὶ αἱ ἀριστοκρατίαι διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ πολιτείᾳ τοῦ δικαίου παρέκβασιν. ἀρχὴ γὰρ τὸ μὴ μεμεῖχθαι καλῶς ἐν μὲν τῇ πολιτείᾳ δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἀριστοκρατίᾳ ταῦτά τε καὶ τὴν ἀρετήν, μάλιστα δὲ τὰ δύο· λέγω δὲ τὰ δύο δῆμον καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν. ταῦτα γὰρ αἱ πολιτεῖαί τε πειρῶνται μιγνύναι καὶ αἱ πολλαὶ τῶν καλουμένων ἀριστοκρατιῶν. διαφέρουσι γὰρ τῶν ὀνομαζομένων πολιτειῶν αἱ ἀριστοκρατίαι τούτῳ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ εἰσὶν αἱ μὲν ἧττον αἱ δὲ μᾶλλον μόνιμοι αὐτῶν· τὰς γὰρ ἀποκλινούσας μᾶλλον πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἀριστοκρατίας καλοῦσιν, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος πολιτείας· διόπερ ἀσφαλέστεραι αἱ τοιαῦται τῶν ἑτέρων εἰσίν· κρεῖττόν τε γὰρ τὸ πλεῖον, καὶ μᾶλλον ἀγαπῶσιν ἴσον ἔχοντες, οἱ δʼ ἐν ταῖς εὐπορίαις, ἂν ἡ πολιτεία διδῷ τὴν ὑπεροχήν, ὑβρίζειν ζητοῦσι καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν. ὅλως δʼ ἐφʼ ὁπότερον ἂν ἐγκλίνῃ ἡ πολιτεία, ἐπὶ τοῦτο μεθίσταται ἑκατέρων τὸ σφέτερον αὐξανόντων, οἷον ἡ μὲν πολιτεία εἰς δῆμον, ἀριστοκρατία δʼ εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν· ἢ εἰς τἀναντία, οἷον ἡ μὲν ἀριστοκρατία εἰς δῆμον (ὡς ἀδικούμενοι γὰρ περισπῶσιν εἰς τοὐναντίον οἱ ἀπορώτεροι), αἱ δὲ πολιτεῖαι εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν (μόνον γὰρ μόνιμον τὸ κατʼ ἀξίαν ἴσον καὶ τὸ ἔχειν τὰ αὑτῶν)· συνέβη δὲ τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν Θουρίοις. διὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ ἀπὸ πλείονος τιμήματος εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς εἰς ἔλαττον μετέβη καὶ εἰς ἀρχεῖα πλείω, διὰ δὲ τὸ τὴν χώραν ὅλην τοὺς γνωρίμους συγκτήσασθαι παρὰ τὸν νόμον (ἡ γὰρ πολιτεία ὀλιγαρχικωτέρα ἦν, ὥστε ἐδύναντο πλεονεκτεῖν) ὁ δὲ δῆμος γυμνασθεὶς ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῶν φρουρῶν ἐγένετο κρείττων, ἕως ἀφεῖσαν τῆς χώρας ὅσοι πλείω ἦσαν ἔχοντες.

+

ἔτι διὰ τὸ πάσας τὰς ἀριστοκρατικὰς πολιτείας ὀλιγαρχικὰς εἶναι μᾶλλον πλεονεκτοῦσιν οἱ γνώριμοι, οἷον καὶ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι εἰς ὀλίγους αἱ οὐσίαι ἔρχονται· καὶ ἔξεστι ποιεῖν ὅ τι ἂν θέλωσι τοῖς γνωρίμοις μᾶλλον, καὶ κηδεύειν ὅτῳ θέλουσιν, διὸ καὶ ἡ Λοκρῶν πόλις ἀπώλετο ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Διονύσιον κηδείας, ὃ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ οὐκ ἂν ἐγένετο, οὐδʼ ἂν ἐν ἀριστοκρατίᾳ εὖ μεμειγμένῃ.

+ +
+

μάλιστα δὲ λανθάνουσιν αἱ ἀριστοκρατίαι μεταβάλλουσαι τῷ λύεσθαι κατὰ μικρόν, ὅπερ εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς πρότερον καθόλου κατὰ πασῶν τῶν πολιτειῶν, ὅτι αἴτιον τῶν μεταβολῶν καὶ τὸ μικρόν ἐστιν· ὅταν γάρ τι προῶνται τῶν πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν, μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἄλλο μικρῷ μεῖζον εὐχερέστερον κινοῦσιν, ἕως ἂν πάντα κινήσωσι τὸν κόσμον. συνέβη δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Θουρίων πολιτείας. νόμου γὰρ ὄντος διὰ πέντε ἐτῶν στρατηγεῖν, γενόμενοί τινες πολεμικοὶ τῶν νεωτέρων καὶ παρὰ τῷ πλήθει τῶν φρουρῶν εὐδοκιμοῦντες, καταφρονήσαντες τῶν ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ νομίζοντες ῥᾳδίως κατασχήσειν, τοῦτον τὸν νόμον λύειν ἐπεχείρησαν πρῶτον, ὥστʼ ἐξεῖναι τοὺς αὐτοὺς συνεχῶς στρατηγεῖν, ὁρῶντες τὸν δῆμον αὐτοὺς χειροτονήσοντα προθύμως. οἱ δʼ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τεταγμένοι τῶν ἀρχόντων, οἱ καλούμενοι σύμβουλοι, ὁρμήσαντες τὸ πρῶτον ἐναντιοῦσθαι συνεπείσθησαν, ὑπολαμβάνοντες τοῦτον κινήσαντας τὸν νόμον ἐάσειν τὴν ἄλλην πολιτείαν, ὕστερον δὲ βουλόμενοι κωλύειν ἄλλων κινουμένων οὐκέτι πλέον ἐποίουν οὐθέν, ἀλλὰ μετέβαλεν ἡ τάξις πᾶσα τῆς πολιτείας εἰς δυναστείαν τῶν ἐπιχειρησάντων νεωτερίζειν.

+

πᾶσαι δʼ αἱ πολιτεῖαι λύονται ὁτὲ μὲν ἐξ αὑτῶν ὁτὲ δʼ ἔξωθεν, ὅταν ἐναντία πολιτεία ᾖ ἢ πλησίον ἢ πόρρω μὲν ἔχουσα δὲ δύναμιν. ὅπερ συνέβαινεν ἐπʼ Ἀθηναίων καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων· οἱ μὲν γὰρ Ἀθηναῖοι πανταχοῦ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας, οἱ δὲ Λάκωνες τοὺς δήμους κατέλυον. ὅθεν μὲν οὖν αἱ μεταβολαὶ γίγνονται τῶν πολιτειῶν καὶ αἱ στάσεις, εἴρηται σχεδόν.

+

περὶ δὲ σωτηρίας καὶ κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς ἑκάστης πολιτείας ἐχόμενόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν δῆλον ὅτι, εἴπερ ἔχομεν διʼ ὧν φθείρονται αἱ πολιτεῖαι, ἔχομεν καὶ διʼ ὧν σῴζονται· τῶν γὰρ ἐναντίων τἀναντία ποιητικά, φθορὰ δὲ σωτηρίᾳ ἐναντίον. ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς εὖ κεκραμέναις πολιτείαις, εἰπερ ἄλλο τι δεῖ τηρεῖν ὅπως μηθὲν παρανομῶσι, καὶ μάλιστα τὸ μικρὸν φυλάττειν· λανθάνει γὰρ παραδυομένη ἡ παρανομία, ὥσπερ τὰς οὐσίας τὸ μικρὸν δαπάνημα ἀναιρεῖ πολλάκις γινόμενον. λανθάνει γὰρ ἡ δαπάνη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀθρόα γίγνεσθαι· παραλογίζεται γὰρ ἡ διάνοια ὑπʼ αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ ὁ σοφιστικὸς λόγος εἰ ἕκαστον μικρόν, καὶ πάντα· τοῦτο δʼ ἔστι μὲν ὥς, ἔστι δʼ ὡς οὔ· τὸ γὰρ ὅλον καὶ τὰ πάντα οὐ μικρόν, ἀλλὰ σύγκειται ἐκ μικρῶν.

+

μίαν μὲν οὖν φυλακὴν ταύτην πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι· ἔπειτα μὴ πιστεύειν τοῖς σοφίσματος χάριν πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος συγκειμένοις,

+ +
+

ἐξελέγχεται γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν ἔργων (ποῖα δὲ λέγομεν τῶν πολιτειῶν σοφίσματα, πρότερον εἴρηται). ἔτι δʼ ὁρᾶν ὅτι ἔνιαι μένουσιν οὐ μόνον ἀριστοκρατίαι ἀλλὰ καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαι οὐ διὰ τὸ ἀσφαλεῖς εἶναι τὰς πολιτείας, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ εὖ χρῆσθαι τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς γινομένους καὶ τοῖς ἔξω τῆς πολιτείας καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι, τοὺς μὲν μὴ μετέχοντας τῷ μὴ ἀδικεῖν καὶ τῷ τοὺς ἡγεμονικοὺς αὐτῶν εἰσάγειν εἰς τὴν πολιτείαν καὶ τοὺς μὲν φιλοτίμους μὴ ἀδικεῖν εἰς ἀτιμίαν τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς εἰς κέρδος, πρὸς αὑτοὺς δὲ καὶ τοὺς μετέχοντας τῷ χρῆσθαι ἀλλήλοις δημοτικῶς. ὃ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ πλήθους ζητοῦσιν οἱ δημοτικοί, τὸ ἴσον, τοῦτʼ ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοίων οὐ μόνον δίκαιον ἀλλὰ καὶ συμφέρον ἐστίν. διὸ ἐὰν πλείους ὦσιν ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι, πολλὰ συμφέρει τῶν δημοτικῶν νομοθετημάτων, οἷον τὸ ἑξαμήνους τὰς ἀρχὰς εἶναι, ἵνα πάντες οἱ ὅμοιοι μετέχωσιν· ἔστι γὰρ ὥσπερ δῆμος ἤδη οἱ ὅμοιοι (διὸ καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐγγίγνονται δημαγωγοὶ πολλάκις, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον), ἔπειθʼ ἧττον εἰς δυναστείας ἐμπίπτουσιν αἱ ὀλιγαρχίαι καὶ ἀριστοκρατίαι (οὐ γὰρ ὁμοίως ῥᾴδιον κακουργῆσαι ὀλίγον χρόνον ἄρχοντας καὶ πολύν, ἐπεὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις καὶ δημοκρατίαις γίγνονται τυραννίδες· ἢ γὰρ οἱ μέγιστοι ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ ἐπιτίθενται τυραννίδι, ἔνθα μὲν οἱ δημαγωγοὶ ἔνθα δʼ οἱ δυνάσται, ἢ οἱ τὰς μεγίστας ἔχοντες ἀρχάς, ὅταν πολὺν χρόνον ἄρχωσιν).

+

σῴζονται δʼ αἱ πολιτεῖαι οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ πόρρω εἶναι τῶν διαφθειρόντων, ἀλλʼ ἐνίοτε καὶ διὰ τὸ ἐγγύς· φοβούμενοι γὰρ διὰ χειρῶν ἔχουσι μᾶλλον τὴν πολιτείαν. ὥστε δεῖ τοὺς τῆς πολιτείας φροντίζοντας φόβους παρασκευάζειν, ἵνα φυλάττωσι καὶ μὴ καταλύωσιν ὥσπερ νυκτερινὴν φυλακὴν τὴν τῆς πολιτείας τήρησιν, καὶ τὸ πόρρω ἐγγὺς ποιεῖν. ἔτι τὰς τῶν γνωρίμων φιλονεικίας καὶ στάσεις καὶ διὰ τῶν νόμων πειρᾶσθαι δεῖ φυλάττειν, καὶ τοὺς ἔξω τῆς φιλονεικίας ὄντας πρὶν παρειληφέναι καὶ αὐτούς, ὡς τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ γινόμενον κακὸν γνῶναι οὐ τοῦ τυχόντος ἀλλὰ πολιτικοῦ ἀνδρός. πρὸς δὲ τὴν διὰ τὰ τιμήματα γιγνομένην μεταβολὴν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ πολιτείας, ὅταν συμβαίνῃ τοῦτο μενόντων μὲν τῶν αὐτῶν τιμημάτων εὐπορίας δὲ νομίσματος γιγνομένης, συμφέρει τοῦ τιμήματος ἐπισκοπεῖν τοῦ κοινοῦ τὸ πλῆθος πρὸς τὸ παρελθόν, ἐν ὅσαις μὲν πόλεσι τιμῶνται κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν, κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον,

+ +
+

ἐν δὲ ταῖς μείζοσι διὰ τριετηρίδος ἢ πενταετηρίδος, κἂν ᾖ πολλαπλάσιον ἢ πολλοστημόριον τοῦ πρότερον, ἐν ᾧ αἱ τιμήσεις κατέστησαν τῆς πολιτείας, νόμον εἶναι καὶ τὰ τιμήματα ἐπιτείνειν ἢ ἀνιέναι, ἐὰν μὲν ὑπερβάλλῃ, ἐπιτείνοντας κατὰ τὴν πολλαπλασίωσιν, ἐὰν δʼ ἐλλείπῃ, ἀνιέντας καὶ ἐλάττω ποιοῦντας τὴν τίμησιν. ἐν γὰρ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις καὶ ταῖς πολιτείαις, μὴ ποιούντων οὕτως μὲν ἔνθα μὲν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἔνθα δὲ δυναστείαν γίνεσθαι συμβαίνει, ἐκείνως δὲ ἐκ μὲν πολιτείας δημοκρατίαν, ἐκ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίας πολιτείαν ἢ δῆμον.

+

κοινὸν δὲ καὶ ἐν δήμῳ καὶ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ καὶ ἐν μοναρχίᾳ καὶ πάσῃ πολιτείᾳ μήτʼ αὐξάνειν λίαν μηθένα παρὰ τὴν συμμετρίαν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον πειρᾶσθαι μικρὰς καὶ πολυχρονίους διδόναι τιμὰς ἢ ταχὺ μεγάλας (διαφθείρονται γάρ, καὶ φέρειν οὐ παντὸς ἀνδρὸς εὐτυχίαν), εἰ δὲ μή, μή τοί γʼ ἀθρόας δόντας ἀφαιρεῖσθαι πάλιν ἀθρόας, ἀλλʼ ἐκ προσαγωγῆς· καὶ μάλιστα μὲν πειρᾶσθαι τοῖς νόμοις οὕτω ῥυθμίζειν ὥστε μηδένα ἐγγίγνεσθαι πολὺ ὑπερέχοντα δυνάμει μήτε φίλων μήτε χρημάτων, εἰ δὲ μή, ἀποδημητικὰς ποιεῖσθαι τὰς παραστάσεις αὐτῶν. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ διὰ τοὺς ἰδίους βίους νεωτερίζουσιν, δεῖ ἐμποιεῖν ἀρχήν τινα τὴν ἐποψομένην τοὺς ζῶντας ἀσυμφόρως πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν, ἐν μὲν δημοκρατίᾳ πρὸς τὴν δημοκρατίαν, ἐν δὲ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν ἑκάστῃ· καὶ τὸ εὐημεροῦν δὲ τῆς πόλεως ἀνὰ μέρος φυλάττεσθαι διὰ τὰς αὐτὰς αἰτίας· τούτου δʼ ἄκος τὸ αἰεὶ τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις μορίοις ἐγχειρίζειν τὰς πράξεις καὶ τὰς ἀρχάς (λέγω δʼ ἀντικεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς τῷ πλήθει, καὶ τοὺς ἀπόρους τοῖς εὐπόροις), καὶ τὸ πειρᾶσθαι ἢ συμμιγνύναι τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων πλῆθος καὶ τὸ τῶν εὐπόρων ἢ τὸ μέσον αὔξειν (τοῦτο γὰρ διαλύει τὰς διὰ τὴν ἀνισότητα στάσεις). μέγιστον δὲ ἐν πάσῃ πολιτείᾳ τὸ καὶ τοῖς νόμοις καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ οἰκονομίᾳ οὕτω τετάχθαι ὥστε μὴ εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς κερδαίνειν.

+

τοῦτο δὲ μάλιστα ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχικαῖς δεῖ τηρεῖν. οὐ γὰρ οὕτως ἀγανακτοῦσιν εἰργόμενοι τοῦ ἄρχειν οἱ πολλοί, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαίρουσιν ἐάν τις ἐᾷ πρὸς τοῖς ἰδίοις σχολάζειν, ὥστʼ ἐὰν οἴωνται τὰ κοινὰ κλέπτειν τοὺς ἄρχοντας, τότε γʼ ἀμφότερα λυπεῖ, τό τε τῶν τιμῶν μὴ μετέχειν καὶ τὸ τῶν κερδῶν· μοναχῶς δὲ καὶ ἐνδέχεται ἅμα εἶναι δημοκρατίαν καὶ ἀριστοκρατίαν, εἰ τοῦτο κατασκευάσειέ τις.

+ +
+

ἐνδέχοιτο γὰρ ἂν καὶ τοὺς γνωρίμους καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ἔχειν ἃ βούλονται ἀμφοτέρους. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐξεῖναι πᾶσιν ἄρχειν δημοκρατικόν, τὸ δὲ τοὺς γνωρίμους εἶναι ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἀριστοκρατικόν, τοῦτο δʼ ἔσται ὅταν μὴ ᾖ κερδαίνειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχῶν· οἱ γὰρ ἄποροι οὐ βουλήσονται ἄρχειν τῷ μηδὲν κερδαίνειν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοῖς ἰδίοις εἶναι μᾶλλον, οἱ δὲ εὔποροι δυνήσονται διὰ τὸ μηδενὸς προσδεῖσθαι τῶν κοινῶν· ὥστε συμβήσεται τοῖς μὲν ἀπόροις γίγνεσθαι εὐπόροις διὰ τὸ διατρίβειν πρὸς τοῖς ἔργοις, τοῖς δὲ γνωρίμοις μὴ ἄρχεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν τυχόντων. τοῦ μὲν οὖν μὴ κλέπτεσθαι τὰ κοινὰ ἡ παράδοσις γιγνέσθω τῶν χρημάτων παρόντων πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν, καὶ ἀντίγραφα κατὰ φατρίας καὶ λόχους καὶ φυλὰς τιθέσθωσαν· τοῦ δὲ ἀκερδῶς ἄρχειν τιμὰς εἶναι δεῖ νενομοθετημένας τοῖς εὐδοκιμοῦσιν. δεῖ δʼ ἐν μὲν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις τῶν εὐπόρων φείδεσθαι, μὴ μόνον τῷ τὰς κτήσεις μὴ ποιεῖν ἀναδάστους, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τοὺς καρπούς, ὃ ἐν ἐνίαις τῶν πολιτειῶν λανθάνει γιγνόμενον, βέλτιον δὲ καὶ βουλομένους κωλύειν λειτουργεῖν τὰς δαπανηρὰς μὲν μὴ χρησίμους δὲ λειτουργίας, οἷον χορηγίας καὶ λαμπαδαρχίας καὶ ὅσαι ἄλλαι τοιαῦται· ἐν δʼ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ τῶν ἀπόρων ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι πολλήν, καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀφʼ ὧν λήμματα ἔστι τούτοις ἀπονέμειν, κἄν τις ὑβρίσῃ τῶν εὐπόρων εἰς τούτους, μείζω τὰ ἐπιτίμια εἶναι ἢ ἂν σφῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰς κληρονομίας μὴ κατὰ δόσιν εἶναι ἀλλὰ κατὰ γένος, μηδὲ πλειόνων ἢ μιᾶς τὸν αὐτὸν κληρονομεῖν. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ὁμαλώτεραι αἱ οὐσίαι εἶεν καὶ τῶν ἀπόρων εἰς εὐπορίαν ἂν καθίσταιντο πλείους. συμφέρει δὲ καὶ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ καὶ ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ τῶν ἄλλων ἢ ἰσότητα ἢ προεδρίαν νέμειν τοῖς ἧττον κοινωνοῦσι τῆς πολιτείας, ἐν μὲν δήμῳ τοῖς εὐπόροις, ἐν δʼ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ τοῖς ἀπόροις, πλὴν ὅσαι ἀρχαὶ κύριαι τῆς πολιτείας, ταύτας δὲ τοῖς ἐκ τῆς πολιτείας ἐγχειρίζειν μόνοις ἢ πλείοσιν.

+

τρία δέ τινα χρὴ ἔχειν τοὺς μέλλοντας ἄρξειν τὰς κυρίας ἀρχάς, πρῶτον μὲν φιλίαν πρὸς τὴν καθεστῶσαν πολιτείαν, ἔπειτα δύναμιν μεγίστην τῶν ἔργων τῆς ἀρχῆς, τρίτον δʼ ἀρετὴν καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐν ἑκάστῃ πολιτείᾳ τὴν πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν (εἰ γὰρ μὴ ταὐτὸν τὸ δίκαιον κατὰ πάσας τὰς πολιτείας, ἀνάγκη καὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης εἶναι διαφοράς). ἔχει δʼ ἀπορίαν, ὅταν μὴ συμβαίνῃ ταῦτα πάντα περὶ τὸν αὐτόν, πῶς χρὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν αἵρεσιν·

+ +
+

οἷον εἰ στρατηγικὸς μέν τις εἴη, πονηρὸς δὲ καὶ μὴ τῇ πολιτείᾳ φίλος, ὁ δὲ δίκαιος καὶ φίλος, πῶς δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν αἵρεσιν; ἔοικε δὲ δεῖν βλέπειν εἰς δύο, τίνος πλεῖον μετέχουσι πάντες καὶ τίνος ἔλαττον· διὸ ἐν στρατηγίᾳ μὲν εἰς τὴν ἐμπειρίαν μᾶλλον τῆς ἀρετῆς (ἔλαττον γὰρ στρατηγίας μετέχουσι, τῆς δʼ ἐπιεικείας πλεῖον), ἐν δὲ φυλακῇ καὶ ταμιείᾳ τἀναντία (πλείονος γὰρ ἀρετῆς δεῖται ἢ ὅσην οἱ πολλοὶ ἔχουσιν, ἡ δὲ ἐπιστήμη κοινὴ πᾶσιν).

+

ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις, ἂν δύναμις ὑπάρχῃ καὶ τῆς πολιτείας φιλία, τί δεῖ τῆς ἀρετῆς; ποιήσει γὰρ τὰ συμφέροντα καὶ τὰ δύο. ἢ ὅτι ἐνδέχεται τοὺς τὰ δύο ταῦτα ἔχοντας ἀκρατεῖς εἶναι, ὥστε καθάπερ καὶ αὑτοῖς οὐχ ὑπηρετοῦσιν εἰδότες καὶ φιλοῦντες αὑτούς, οὕτω καὶ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν οὐθὲν κωλύει ἔχειν ἐνίους; ἁπλῶς δέ, ὅσα ἐν τοῖς νόμοις ὡς συμφέροντα λέγομεν ταῖς πολιτείαις, ἅπαντα ταῦτα σῴζει τὰς πολιτείας, καὶ τὸ πολλάκις εἰρημένον μέγιστον στοιχεῖον, τὸ τηρεῖν ὅπως κρεῖττον ἔσται τὸ βουλόμενον τὴν πολιτείαν πλῆθος τοῦ μὴ βουλομένου. παρὰ πάντα δὲ ταῦτα δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν, ὃ νῦν λανθάνει τὰς παρεκβεβηκυίας πολιτείας, τὸ μέσον· πολλὰ γὰρ τῶν δοκούντων δημοτικῶν λύει τὰς δημοκρατίας καὶ τῶν ὀλιγαρχικῶν τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας. οἱ δʼ οἰόμενοι ταύτην εἶναι μίαν ἀρετὴν ἕλκουσιν εἰς τὴν ὑπερβολήν, ἀγνοοῦντες ὅτι, καθάπερ ῥὶς ἔστι παρεκβεβηκυῖα μὲν τὴν εὐθύτητα τὴν καλλίστην πρὸς τὸ γρυπὸν ἢ τὸ σιμόν, ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἔτι καλὴ καὶ χάριν ἔχουσα πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ ἐὰν ἐπιτείνῃ τις ἔτι μᾶλλον εἰς τὴν ὑπερβολήν, πρῶτον μὲν ἀποβαλεῖ τὴν μετριότητα τοῦ μορίου, τέλος δʼ οὕτως ὥστε μηδὲ ῥῖνα ποιήσει φαίνεσθαι διὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν καὶ τὴν ἔλλειψιν τῶν ἐναντίων, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων μορίων, συμβαίνει δὴ τοῦτο καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας πολιτείας. καὶ γὰρ ὀλιγαρχίαν καὶ δημοκρατίαν ἔστιν ὥστʼ ἔχειν ἱκανῶς, καίπερ ἐξεστηκυίας τῆς βελτίστης τάξεως· ἐὰν δέ τις ἐπιτείνῃ μᾶλλον ἑκατέραν αὐτῶν, πρῶτον μὲν χείρω ποιήσει τὴν πολιτείαν, τέλος δʼ οὐδὲ πολιτείαν. διὸ δεῖ τοῦτο μὴ ἀγνοεῖν τὸν νομοθέτην καὶ τὸν πολιτικόν, ποῖα σῴζει τῶν δημοτικῶν καὶ ποῖα φθείρει τὴν δημοκρατίαν, καὶ ποῖα τῶν ὀλιγαρχικῶν τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν. οὐδετέραν μὲν γὰρ ἐνδέχεται αὐτῶν εἶναι καὶ διαμένειν ἄνευ τῶν εὐπόρων καὶ τοῦ πλήθους, ἀλλʼ ὅταν ὁμαλότης γένηται τῆς οὐσίας ἄλλην ἀνάγκη εἶναι ταύτην τὴν πολιτείαν,

+ +
+

ὥστε φθείροντες τοῖς καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν νόμοις φθείρουσι τὰς πολιτείας.

+

ἁμαρτάνουσι δὲ καὶ ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις, ἐν μὲν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις οἱ δημαγωγοί, ὅπου τὸ πλῆθος κύριον τῶν νόμων· δύο γὰρ ποιοῦσιν ἀεὶ τὴν πόλιν, μαχόμενοι τοῖς εὐπόροις, δεῖ δὲ τοὐναντίον αἰεὶ δοκεῖν λέγειν ὑπὲρ εὐπόρων, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου τοὺς ὀλιγαρχικούς, καὶ τοὺς ὅρκους ἐναντίους ἢ νῦν ὀμνύναι τοὺς ὀλιγαρχικούς· νῦν μὲν γὰρ ἐν ἐνίαις ὀμνύουσι καὶ τῷ δήμῳ κακόνους ἔσομαι καὶ βουλεύσω ὅ τι ἂν ἔχω κακόν, χρὴ δὲ καὶ ὑπολαμβάνειν καὶ ὑποκρίνεσθαι τοὐναντίον, ἐπισημαινομένους ἐν τοῖς ὅρκοις ὅτι οὐκ ἀδικήσω τὸν δῆμον.

+

μέγιστον δὲ πάντων τῶν εἰρημένων πρὸς τὸ διαμένειν τὰς πολιτείας, οὗ νῦν ὀλιγωροῦσι πάντες, τὸ παιδεύεσθαι πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας. ὄφελος γὰρ οὐθὲν τῶν ὠφελιμωτάτων νόμων καὶ συνδεδοξασμένων ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν πολιτευομένων, εἰ μὴ ἔσονται εἰθισμένοι καὶ πεπαιδευμένοι ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ, εἰ μὲν οἱ νόμοι δημοτικοί, δημοτικῶς, εἰ δʼ ὀλιγαρχικοί, ὀλιγαρχικῶς. εἴπερ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐφʼ ἑνὸς ἀκρασία, ἔστι καὶ ἐπὶ πόλεως. ἔστι δὲ τὸ πεπαιδεῦσθαι πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν οὐ τοῦτο, τὸ ποιεῖν οἷς χαίρουσιν οἱ ὀλιγαρχοῦντες ἢ οἱ δημοκρατίαν βουλόμενοι, ἀλλʼ οἷς δυνήσονται οἱ μὲν ὀλιγαρχεῖν οἱ δὲ δημοκρατεῖσθαι. νῦν δʼ ἐν μὲν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις οἱ τῶν ἀρχόντων υἱοὶ τρυφῶσιν, οἱ δὲ τῶν ἀπόρων γίγνονται γεγυμνασμένοι καὶ πεπονηκότες, ὥστε καὶ βούλονται μᾶλλον καὶ δύνανται νεωτερίζειν· ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ταῖς μάλιστα εἶναι δοκούσαις δημοκρατικαῖς τοὐναντίον τοῦ συμφέροντος καθέστηκεν, αἴτιον δὲ τούτου ὅτι κακῶς ὁρίζονται τὸ ἐλεύθερον. δύο γάρ ἐστιν οἷς ἡ δημοκρατία δοκεῖ ὡρίσθαι, τῷ τὸ πλεῖον εἶναι κύριον καὶ τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ δίκαιον ἴσον δοκεῖ εἶναι, ἴσον δʼ ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τῷ πλήθει, τοῦτʼ εἶναι κύριον, ἐλεύθερον δὲ καὶ ἴσον τὸ ὅ τι ἂν βούληταί τις ποιεῖν· ὥστε ζῇ ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις δημοκρατίαις ἕκαστος ὡς βούλεται, καὶ εἰς ὃ χρῄζων, ὡς φησὶν Εὐριπίδης· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ φαῦλον· οὐ γὰρ δεῖ οἴεσθαι δουλείαν εἶναι τὸ ζῆν πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν, ἀλλὰ σωτηρίαν. ἐξ ὧν μὲν οὖν αἱ πολιτεῖαι μεταβάλλουσι καὶ φθείρονται, καὶ διὰ τίνων σῴζονται καὶ διαμένουσιν, ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν τοσαῦτά ἐστιν.

+

λείπεται δʼ ἐπελθεῖν καὶ περὶ μοναρχίας, ἐξ ὧν τε φθείρεται καὶ διʼ ὧν σῴζεσθαι πέφυκεν.

+ +
+

σχεδὸν δὲ παραπλήσια τοῖς εἰρημένοις περὶ τὰς πολιτείας ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ συμβαίνοντα περὶ τὰς βασιλείας καὶ τὰς τυραννίδας. ἡ μὲν γὰρ βασιλεία κατὰ τὴν ἀριστοκρατίαν ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ τυραννὶς ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας τῆς ὑστάτης σύγκειται καὶ δημοκρατίας· διὸ δὴ καὶ βλαβερωτάτη τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ἐστίν, ἅτε ἐκ δυοῖν συγκειμένη κακῶν καὶ τὰς παρεκβάσεις καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἔχουσα τὰς παρʼ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν πολιτειῶν. ὑπάρχει δʼ ἡ γένεσις εὐθὺς ἐξ ἐναντίων ἑκατέρᾳ τῶν μοναρχιῶν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ βασιλεία πρὸς βοήθειαν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ δήμου τοῖς ἐπιεικέσι γέγονεν, καὶ καθίσταται βασιλεὺς ἐκ τῶν ἐπιεικῶν καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν ἀρετῆς ἢ πράξεων τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς, ἢ καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν τοιούτου γένους, ὁ δὲ τύραννος ἐκ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τοῦ πλήθους ἐπὶ τοὺς γνωρίμους, ὅπως ὁ δῆμος ἀδικῆται μηδὲν ὑπʼ αὐτῶν. φανερὸν δʼ ἐκ τῶν συμβεβηκότων. σχεδὸν γὰρ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν τυράννων γεγόνασιν ἐκ δημαγωγῶν ὡς εἰπεῖν, πιστευθέντες ἐκ τοῦ διαβάλλειν τοὺς γνωρίμους. αἱ μὲν γὰρ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον κατέστησαν τῶν τυραννίδων, ἤδη τῶν πόλεων ηὐξημένων, αἱ δὲ πρὸ τούτων ἐκ τε τῶν βασιλέων παρεκβαινόντων τὰ πάτρια καὶ δεσποτικωτέρας ἀρχῆς ὀρεγομένων, αἱ δὲ ἐκ τῶν αἱρετῶν ἐπὶ τὰς κυρίας ἀρχάς (τὸ γὰρ ἀρχαῖον οἱ δῆμοι καθίστασαν πολυχρονίους τὰς δημιουργίας καὶ τὰς θεωρίας), αἱ δʼ ἐκ τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν, αἱρουμένων ἕνα τινὰ κύριον ἐπὶ τὰς μεγίστας ἀρχάς. πᾶσι γὰρ ὑπῆρχε τοῖς τρόποις τούτοις τὸ κατεργάζεσθαι ῥᾳδίως, εἰ μόνον βουληθεῖεν, διὰ τὸ δύναμιν προϋπάρχειν τοῖς μὲν βασιλικῆς ἀρχῆς τοῖς δὲ τὴν τῆς τιμῆς· οἷον Φείδων μὲν περὶ Ἄργος καὶ ἕτεροι τύραννοι κατέστησαν βασιλείας ὑπαρχούσης, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἰωνίαν καὶ Φάλαρις ἐκ τῶν τιμῶν, Παναίτιος δʼ ἐν Λεοντίνοις καὶ Κύψελος ἐν Κορίνθῳ καὶ Πεισίστρατος Ἀθήνησι καὶ Διονύσιος ἐν Συρακούσαις καὶ ἕτεροι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐκ δημαγωγίας. καθάπερ οὖν εἴπομεν, ἡ βασιλεία τέτακται κατὰ τὴν ἀριστοκρατίαν. κατʼ ἀξίαν γάρ ἐστιν, ἢ κατʼ ἰδίαν ἀρετὴν ἢ κατὰ γένος, ἢ κατʼ εὐεργεσίας, ἢ κατὰ ταῦτά τε καὶ δύναμιν. ἅπαντες γὰρ εὐεργετήσαντες ἢ δυνάμενοι τὰς πόλεις ἢ τὰ ἔθνη εὐεργετεῖν ἐτύγχανον τῆς τιμῆς ταύτης, οἱ μὲν κατὰ πόλεμον κωλύσαντες δουλεύειν, ὥσπερ Κόδρος, οἱ δʼ ἐλευθερώσαντες, ὥσπερ Κῦρος, ἢ κτίσαντες ἢ κτησάμενοι χώραν, ὥσπερ οἱ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεῖς καὶ Μακεδόνων καὶ Μολοττῶν. βούλεται δʼ ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶναι φύλαξ,

+ +
+

ὅπως οἱ μὲν κεκτημένοι τὰς οὐσίας μηθὲν ἄδικον πάσχωσιν, ὁ δὲ δῆμος μὴ ὑβρίζηται μηθέν· ἡ δὲ τυραννίς, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις, πρὸς οὐδὲν ἀποβλέπει κοινόν, εἰ μὴ τῆς ἰδίας ὠφελείας χάριν. ἔστι δὲ σκοπὸς τυραννικὸς μὲν τὸ ἡδύ, βασιλικὸς δὲ τὸ καλόν. διὸ καὶ τῶν πλεονεκτημάτων τὰ μὲν χρήματα τυραννικὰ, τὰ δʼ εἰς τιμὴν βασιλικὰ μᾶλλον· καὶ φυλακὴ βασιλικὴ μὲν πολιτική, τυραννικὴ δὲ διὰ ξένων.

+

ὅτι δʼ ἡ τυραννὶς ἔχει κακὰ καὶ τὰ τῆς δημοκρατίας καὶ τὰ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας, φανερόν· ἐκ μὲν ὀλιγαρχίας τὸ τὸ τέλος εἶναι πλοῦτον (οὕτω γὰρ καὶ διαμένειν ἀναγκαῖον μόνως τήν τε φυλακὴν καὶ τὴν τρυφήν), καὶ τὸ τῷ πλήθει μηδὲν πιστεύειν (διὸ καὶ τὴν παραίρεσιν ποιοῦνται τῶν ὅπλων), καὶ τὸ κακοῦν τὸν ὄχλον καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἄστεως ἀπελαύνειν καὶ διοικίζειν ἀμφοτέρων κοινόν, καὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ τῆς τυραννίδος· ἐκ δημοκρατίας δὲ τὸ πολεμεῖν τοῖς γνωρίμοις καὶ διαφθείρειν λάθρᾳ καὶ φανερῶς καὶ φυγαδεύειν ὡς ἀντιτέχνους καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐμποδίους. ἐκ γὰρ τούτων συμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι καὶ τὰς ἐπιβουλάς, τῶν μὲν ἄρχειν αὐτῶν βουλομένων, τῶν δὲ μὴ δουλεύειν. ὅθεν καὶ τὸ Περιάνδρου πρὸς Θρασύβουλον συμβούλευμά ἐστιν, ἡ τῶν ὑπερεχόντων σταχύων κόλουσις, ὡς δέον αἰεὶ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας τῶν πολιτῶν ἀναιρεῖν. καθάπερ οὖν σχεδὸν ἐλέχθη, τὰς αὐτὰς ἀρχὰς δεῖ νομίζειν περί τε τὰς πολιτείας εἶναι τῶν μεταβολῶν καὶ περὶ τὰς μοναρχίας· διά τε γὰρ ἀδικίαν καὶ διὰ φόβον καὶ διὰ καταφρόνησιν ἐπιτίθενται πολλοὶ τῶν ἀρχομένων ταῖς μοναρχίαις, τῆς δὲ ἀδικίας μάλιστα διʼ ὕβριν, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν ἰδίων στέρησιν.

+

ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὰ τέλη ταὐτά, καθάπερ κἀκεῖ, καὶ περὶ τὰς τυραννίδας καὶ τὰς βασιλείας· μέγεθος γὰρ ὑπάρχει πλούτου καὶ τιμῆς τοῖς μονάρχοις, ὧν ἐφίενται πάντες. τῶν δʼ ἐπιθέσεων αἱ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα γίγνονται τῶν ἀρχόντων, αἱ δʼ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν. αἱ μὲν οὖν διʼ ὕβριν ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα. τῆς δʼ ὕβρεως οὔσης πολυμεροῦς, ἕκαστον αὐτῶν αἴτιον γίγνεται τῆς ὀργῆς· τῶν δʼ ὀργιζομένων σχεδὸν οἱ πλεῖστοι τιμωρίας χάριν ἐπιτίθενται, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὑπεροχῆς. οἷον ἡ μὲν τῶν Πεισιστρατιδῶν διὰ τὸ προπηλακίσαι μὲν τὴν Ἁρμοδίου ἀδελφὴν ἐπηρεάσαι δʼ Ἁρμόδιον (ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἁρμόδιος διὰ τὴν ἀδελφήν, ὁ δὲ Ἀριστογείτων διὰ τὸν Ἁρμόδιον), ἐπεβούλευσαν δὲ καὶ Περιάνδρῳ τῷ ἐν Ἀμβρακίᾳ τυράννῳ διὰ τὸ συμπίνοντα μετὰ τῶν παιδικῶν ἐρωτῆσαι αὐτὸν εἰ ἤδη ἐξ αὐτοῦ κύει·

+ +
+

ἡ δὲ Φιλίππου ὑπὸ Παυσανίου διὰ τὸ ἐᾶσαι ὑβρισθῆναι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ Ἄτταλον, καὶ ἡ Ἀμύντου τοῦ μικροῦ ὑπὸ Δέρδα διὰ τὸ καυχήσασθαι εἰς τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡ τοῦ εὐνούχου Εὐαγόρᾳ τῷ Κυπρίῳ· διὰ γὰρ τὸ τὴν γυναῖκα παρελέσθαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπέκτεινεν ὡς ὑβρισμένος. πολλαὶ δʼ ἐπιθέσεις γεγένηνται καὶ διὰ τὸ εἰς τὸ σῶμα αἰσχῦναι τῶν μονάρχων τινάς. οἷον καὶ ἡ Κραταίου εἰς Ἀρχέλαον· αἰεὶ γὰρ βαρέως εἶχε πρὸς τὴν ὁμιλίαν, ὥστε ἱκανὴ καὶ ἐλάττων ἂν ἐγένετο πρόφασις—ἢ διότι τῶν θυγατέρων οὐδεμίαν ἔδωκεν ὁμολογήσας αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν προτέραν, κατεχόμενος ὑπὸ πολέμου πρὸς Σίρραν καὶ Ἀρράβαιον, ἔδωκε τῷ βασιλεῖ τῷ τῆς Ἐλιμείας, τὴν δὲ νεωτέραν τῷ υἱεῖ Ἀμύντᾳ, οἰόμενος οὕτως ἂν ἐκεῖνον ἥκιστα διαφέρεσθαι καὶ τὸν ἐκ τῆς Κλεοπάτρας· ἀλλὰ τῆς γε ἀλλοτριότητος ὑπῆρχεν ἀρχὴ τὸ βαρέως φέρειν πρὸς τὴν ἀφροδισιαστικὴν χάριν. συνεπέθετο δὲ καὶ Ἑλλανοκράτης ὁ Λαρισαῖος διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν· ὡς γὰρ χρώμενος αὐτοῦ τῇ ἡλικίᾳ οὐ κατῆγεν ὑποσχόμενος, διʼ ὕβριν καὶ οὐ διʼ ἐρωτικὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ᾤετο εἶναι τὴν γεγενημένην ὁμιλίαν. Πύθων δὲ καὶ Ἡρακλείδης οἱ Αἴνιοι Κότυν διέφθειραν τῷ πατρὶ τιμωροῦντες, Ἀδάμας δʼ ἀπέστη Κότυος διὰ τὸ ἐκτμηθῆναι παῖς ὢν ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ, ὡς ὑβρισμένος.

+

πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ εἰς τὸ σῶμα αἰκισθῆναι πληγαῖς ὀργισθέντες οἱ μὲν διέφθειραν, οἱ δʼ ἐνεχείρησαν ὡς ὑβρισθέντες, καὶ τῶν περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ βασιλικὰς δυναστείας. οἷον ἐν Μυτιλήνῃ τοὺς Πενθιλίδας Μεγακλῆς περιιόντας καὶ τύπτοντας ταῖς κορύναις ἐπιθέμενος μετὰ τῶν φίλων ἀνεῖλεν, καὶ ὕστερον Σμέρδης Πενθίλον πληγὰς λαβὼν καὶ παρὰ τῆς γυναικὸς ἐξελκυσθεὶς διέφθειρεν. καὶ τῆς Ἀρχελάου δʼ ἐπιθέσεως Δεκάμνιχος ἡγεμὼν ἐγένετο, παροξύνων τοὺς ἐπιθεμένους πρῶτος· αἴτιον δὲ τῆς ὀργῆς ὅτι αὐτὸν ἐξέδωκε μαστιγῶσαι Εὐριπίδῃ τῷ ποιητῇ· ὁ δʼ Εὐριπίδης ἐχαλέπαινεν εἰπόντος τι αὐτοῦ εἰς δυσωδίαν τοῦ στόματος. καὶ ἄλλοι δὲ πολλοὶ διὰ τοιαύτας αἰτίας οἱ μὲν ἀνῃρέθησαν οἱ δʼ ἐπεβουλεύθησαν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ διὰ φόβον· ἓν γάρ τι τοῦτο τῶν αἰτίων ἦν, ὥσπερ καὶ περὶ τὰς πολιτείας καὶ περὶ τὰς μοναρχίας· οἷον Ξέρξην Ἀρταπάνης φοβούμενος τὴν διαβολὴν τὴν περὶ Δαρεῖον, ὅτι ἐκρέμασεν οὐ κελεύσαντος Ξέρξου, ἀλλʼ οἰόμενος συγγνώσεσθαι ὡς ἀμνημονοῦντα διὰ τὸ δειπνεῖν. αἱ δὲ διὰ καταφρόνησιν,

+ +
+

ὥσπερ Σαρδανάπαλλον ἰδών τις ξαίνοντα μετὰ τῶν γυναικῶν (εἰ ἀληθῆ ταῦτα οἱ μυθολογοῦντες λέγουσιν· εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐπʼ ἐκείνου, ἀλλʼ ἐπʼ ἄλλου γε ἂν γένοιτο τοῦτο ἀληθές), καὶ Διονυσίῳ τῷ ὑστέρῳ Δίων ἐπέθετο διὰ τὸ καταφρονεῖν, ὁρῶν τούς τε πολίτας οὕτως ἔχοντας καὶ αὐτὸν ἀεὶ μεθύοντα. καὶ τῶν φίλων δέ τινες ἐπιτίθενται διὰ καταφρόνησιν· διὰ γὰρ τὸ πιστεύεσθαι καταφρονοῦσιν ὡς λήσοντες. καὶ οἱ οἰόμενοι δύνασθαι κατασχεῖν τὴν ἀρχὴν τρόπον τινὰ διὰ τὸ καταφρονεῖν ἐπιτίθενται· ὡς δυνάμενοι γὰρ καὶ καταφρονοῦντες τοῦ κινδύνου διὰ τὴν δύναμιν ἐπιχειροῦσι ῥᾳδίως, ὥσπερ οἱ στρατηγοῦντες τοῖς μονάρχοις, οἷον Κῦρος Ἀστυάγει καὶ τοῦ βίου καταφρονῶν καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως διὰ τὸ τὴν μὲν δύναμιν ἐξηργηκέναι αὐτὸν δὲ τρυφᾶν, καὶ Σεύθης ὁ Θρᾷξ Ἀμαδόκῳ στρατηγὸς ὤν. οἱ δὲ καὶ διὰ πλείω τούτων ἐπιτίθενται, οἷον καὶ καταφρονοῦντες καὶ διὰ κέρδος, ὥσπερ Ἀριοβαρζάνῃ Μιθριδάτης μάλιστα δὲ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν ἐγχειροῦσιν οἱ τὴν φύσιν μὲν θρασεῖς, τιμὴν δʼ ἔχοντες πολεμικὴν παρὰ τοῖς μονάρχοις· ἀνδρεία γὰρ δύναμιν ἔχουσα θράσος ἐστίν, διʼ ἃς ἀμφοτέρας, ὡς ῥᾳδίως κρατήσοντες, ποιοῦνται τὰς ἐπιθέσεις.

+

τῶν δὲ διὰ φιλοτιμίαν ἐπιτιθεμένων ἕτερος τρόπος ἔστι τῆς αἰτίας παρὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους πρότερον. οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἔνιοι τοῖς τυράννοις ἐπιχειροῦσιν ὁρῶντες κέρδη τε μεγάλα καὶ τιμὰς μεγάλας οὔσας αὐτοῖς, οὕτω καὶ τῶν διὰ φιλοτιμίαν ἐπιτιθεμένων ἕκαστος προαιρεῖται κινδυνεύειν· ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν διὰ τὴν εἰρημένην αἰτίαν, οὗτοι δʼ ὥσπερ κἂν ἄλλης τινὸς γενομένης πράξεως περιττῆς καὶ διʼ ἣν ὀνομαστοὶ γίγνονται καὶ γνώριμοι τοῖς ἄλλοις, οὕτω καὶ τοῖς μονάρχοις ἐγχειροῦσιν, οὐ κτήσασθαι βουλόμενοι μοναρχίαν ἀλλὰ δόξαν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ ἐλάχιστοί γε τὸν ἀριθμόν εἰσιν οἱ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν ὁρμῶντες· ὑποκεῖσθαι γὰρ δεῖ τὸ τοῦ σωθῆναι μηδὲν φροντίζειν, ἂν μὴ μέλλῃ κατασχήσειν τὴν πρᾶξιν. οἷς ἀκολουθεῖν μὲν δεῖ τὴν Δίωνος ὑπόληψιν, οὐ ῥᾴδιον δʼ αὐτὴν ἐγγενέσθαι πολλοῖς· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ μετʼ ὀλίγων ἐστράτευσεν ἐπὶ Διονύσιον οὕτως ἔχειν φάσκων ὡς ὅποι περ ἂν δύνηται προελθεῖν, ἱκανὸν αὑτῷ τοσοῦτον μετασχεῖν τῆς πράξεως, οἷον εἰ μικρὸν ἐπιβάντα τῆς γῆς εὐθὺς συμβαίη τελευτῆσαι τοῦτον καλῶς ἔχειν αὑτῷ τὸν θάνατον.

+

φθείρεται δὲ τυραννὶς ἕνα μὲν τρόπον, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάστη πολιτειῶν, ἔξωθεν,

+ +
+

ἐὰν ἐναντία τις ᾖ πολιτεία κρείττων (τὸ μὲν γὰρ βούλεσθαι δῆλον ὡς ὑπάρξει διὰ τὴν ἐναντιότητα τῆς προαιρέσεως· ἃ δὲ βούλονται, δυνάμενοι πράττουσι πάντες), ἐναντίαι δʼ αἱ πολιτεῖαι, δῆμος μὲν τυραννίδι καθʼ Ἡσίοδον ὡς κεραμεὺς κεραμεῖ (καὶ γὰρ ἡ δημοκρατία ἡ τελευταία τυραννίς ἐστιν), βασιλεία δὲ καὶ ἀριστοκρατία διὰ τὴν ἐναντιότητα τῆς πολιτείας (διὸ Λακεδαιμόνιοι πλείστας κατέλυσαν τυραννίδας καὶ Συρακούσιοι κατὰ τὸν χρόνον ὃν ἐπολιτεύοντο καλῶς)· ἕνα δʼ ἐξ αὑτῆς, ὅταν οἱ μετέχοντες στασιάζωσιν, ὥσπερ ἡ τῶν περὶ Γέλωνα καὶ νῦν ἡ τῶν περὶ Διονύσιον, ἡ μὲν Γέλωνος Θρασυβούλου τοῦ Ἱέρωνος ἀδελφοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Γέλωνος δημαγωγοῦντος καὶ πρὸς ἡδονὰς ὁρμῶντος, ἵνʼ αὐτὸς ἄρχῃ, τῶν δὲ οἰκείων συστησάντων ἵνα μὴ ἡ τυραννὶς ὅλως καταλυθῇ ἀλλὰ Θρασύβουλος, οἱ δὲ συστάντες αὐτῶν, ὡς καιρὸν ἔχοντες, ἐξέβαλον ἅπαντας αὐτούς· Διονύσιον δὲ Δίων στρατεύσας, κηδεστὴς ὢν καὶ προσλαβὼν τὸν δῆμον, ἐκεῖνον ἐκβαλὼν διεφθάρη. δύο δὲ οὐσῶν αἰτιῶν διʼ ἃς μάλιστʼ ἐπιτίθενται ταῖς τυραννίσι, μίσους καὶ καταφρονήσεως, θάτερον μὲν ἀεὶ τούτων ὑπάρχει τοῖς τυράννοις, τὸ μῖσος, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ καταφρονεῖσθαι πολλαὶ γίνονται τῶν καταλύσεων. σημεῖον δέ· τῶν μὲν γὰρ κτησαμένων οἱ πλεῖστοι καὶ διεφύλαξαν τὰς ἀρχάς, οἱ δὲ παραλαβόντες εὐθὺς ὡς εἰπεῖν ἀπολλύασι πάντες. ἀπολαυστικῶς γὰρ ζῶντες εὐκαταφρόνητοί τε γίνονται καὶ πολλοὺς καιροὺς παραδιδόασι τοῖς ἐπιτιθεμένοις. μόριον δέ τι τοῦ μίσους καὶ τὴν ὀργὴν δεῖ τιθέναι· τρόπον γάρ τινα τῶν αὐτῶν αἰτία γίνεται πράξεων. πολλάκις δὲ καὶ πρακτικώτερον τοῦ μίσους· συντονώτερον γὰρ ἐπιτίθενται διὰ τὸ μὴ χρῆσθαι λογισμῷ τὸ πάθος (μάλιστα δὲ συμβαίνει τοῖς θυμοῖς ἀκολουθεῖν διὰ τὴν ὕβριν, διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ἥ τε τῶν Πεισιστρατιδῶν κατελύθη τυραννὶς καὶ πολλαὶ τῶν ἄλλων), ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὸ μῖσος· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὀργὴ μετὰ λύπης πάρεστιν, ὥστε οὐ ῥᾴδιον λογίζεσθαι, ἡ δʼ ἔχθρα ἄνευ λύπης.

+

ὡς δὲ ἐν κεφαλαίοις εἰπεῖν, ὅσας αἰτίας εἰρήκαμεν τῆς τε ὀλιγαρχίας τῆς ἀκράτου καὶ τελευταίας καὶ τῆς δημοκρατίας τῆς ἐσχάτης, τοσαύτας καὶ τῆς τυραννίδος θετέον· καὶ γὰρ αὗται τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι διαιρεταὶ τυραννίδες. βασιλεία δʼ ὑπὸ μὲν τῶν ἔξωθεν ἥκιστα φθείρεται, διὸ καὶ πολυχρόνιός ἐστιν· ἐξ αὐτῆς δʼ αἱ πλεῖσται φθοραὶ συμβαίνουσιν. φθείρεται δὲ κατὰ δύο τρόπους,

+ +
+

ἕνα μὲν στασιασάντων τῶν μετεχόντων τῆς βασιλείας, ἄλλον δὲ τρόπον τυραννικώτερον πειρωμένων διοικεῖν, ὅταν εἶναι κύριοι πλειόνων ἀξιῶσι καὶ παρὰ τὸν νόμον. οὐ γίγνονται δʼ ἔτι βασιλεῖαι νῦν, ἀλλʼ ἄν περ γίγνωνται, μοναρχίαι, τυραννίδες μᾶλλον, διὰ τὸ τὴν βασιλείαν ἑκούσιον μὲν ἀρχὴν εἶναι, μειζόνων δὲ κυρίαν, πολλοὺς δʼ εἶναι τοὺς ὁμοίους, καὶ μηδένα διαφέροντα τοσοῦτον ὥστε ἀπαρτίζειν πρὸς τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς ἀρχῆς. ὥστε διὰ μὲν τοῦτο ἑκόντες οὐχ ὑπομένουσιν· ἂν δὲ διʼ ἀπάτης ἄρξῃ τις ἢ βίας, ἤδη δοκεῖ τοῦτο εἶναι τυραννίς. ἐν δὲ ταῖς κατὰ γένος βασιλείαις τιθέναι δεῖ τῆς φθορᾶς αἰτίαν πρὸς ταῖς εἰρημέναις καὶ τὸ γίνεσθαι πολλοὺς εὐκαταφρονήτους, καὶ τὸ δύναμιν μὴ κεκτημένους τυραννικὴν ἀλλὰ βασιλικὴν τιμὴν ὑβρίζειν· ῥᾳδία γὰρ ἐγίνετο ἡ κατάλυσις· μὴ βουλομένων γὰρ εὐθὺς οὐκ ἔσται βασιλεύς, ἀλλὰ τύραννος καὶ μὴ βουλομένων. φθείρονται μὲν οὖν αἱ μοναρχίαι διὰ ταύτας καὶ τοιαύτας ἑτέρας αἰτίας.

+

σῴζονται δὲ δῆλον ὡς ἁπλῶς μὲν εἰπεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων, ὡς δὲ καθʼ ἕκαστον τῷ τὰς μὲν βασιλείας ἄγειν ἐπὶ τὸ μετριώτερον. ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν ἐλαττόνων ὦσι κύριοι, πλείω χρόνον ἀναγκαῖον μένειν πᾶσαν τὴν ἀρχήν· αὐτοί τε γὰρ ἧττον γίγνονται δεσποτικοὶ καὶ τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἴσοι μᾶλλον, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων φθονοῦνται ἧττον. διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ περὶ Μολοττοὺς πολὺν χρόνον βασιλεία διέμεινεν, καὶ ἡ Λακεδαιμονίων διὰ τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τε εἰς δύο μέρη διαιρεθῆναι τὴν ἀρχήν, καὶ πάλιν Θεοπόμπου μετριάσαντος τοῖς τε ἄλλοις καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐφόρων ἀρχὴν ἐπικαταστήσαντος· τῆς γὰρ δυνάμεως ἀφελὼν ηὔξησε τῷ χρόνῳ τὴν βασιλείαν, ὥστε τρόπον τινὰ ἐποίησεν οὐκ ἐλάττονʼ ἀλλὰ μείζονʼ αὐτήν. ὅπερ καὶ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα ἀποκρίνασθαί φασιν αὐτόν, εἰποῦσαν εἰ μηδὲν αἰσχύνεται τὴν βασιλείαν ἐλάττω παραδιδοὺς τοῖς υἱέσιν ἢ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς παρέλαβεν· οὐ δῆτα φάναι· παραδίδωμι γὰρ πολυχρονιωτέραν.

+

αἱ δὲ τυραννίδες σῴζονται κατὰ δύο τρόπους τοὺς ἐναντιωτάτους, ὧν ἅτερός ἐστιν ὁ παραδεδομένος καὶ καθʼ ὃν διοικοῦσιν οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν τυράννων τὴν ἀρχήν. τούτων δὲ τὰ πολλά φασι καταστῆσαι Περίανδρον τὸν Κορίνθιον· πολλὰ δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῆς Περσῶν ἀρχῆς ἔστι τοιαῦτα λαβεῖν. ἔστι δὲ τά τε πάλαι λεχθέντα πρὸς σωτηρίαν, ὡς οἷόν τε, τῆς τυραννίδος, τὸ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας κολούειν καὶ τοὺς φρονηματίας ἀναιρεῖν, καὶ μήτε συσσίτια ἐᾶν μήτε ἑταιρίαν μήτε παιδείαν μήτε ἄλλο μηθὲν τοιοῦτον,

+ +
+

ἀλλὰ πάντα φυλάττειν ὅθεν εἴωθε γίγνεσθαι δύο, φρόνημά τε καὶ πίστις, καὶ μήτε σχολὰς μήτε ἄλλους συλλόγους ἐπιτρέπειν γίγνεσθαι σχολαστικούς, καὶ πάντα ποιεῖν ἐξ ὧν ὅτι μάλιστα ἀγνῶτες ἀλλήλοις ἔσονται πάντες (ἡ γὰρ γνῶσις πίστιν ποιεῖ μᾶλλον πρὸς ἀλλήλους)· καὶ τὸ τοὺς ἐπιδημοῦντας αἰεὶ φανεροὺς εἶναι καὶ διατρίβειν περὶ θύρας (οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἥκιστα λανθάνοιεν τί πράττουσι, καὶ φρονεῖν ἂν ἐθίζοιντο μικρὸν αἰεὶ δουλεύοντες)· καὶ τἆλλα ὅσα τοιαῦτα Περσικὰ καὶ βάρβαρα τυραννικά ἐστιν (πάντα γὰρ ταὐτὸν δύναται)· καὶ τὸ μὴ λανθάνειν πειρᾶσθαι ὅσα τυγχάνει τις λέγων ἢ πράττων τῶν ἀρχομένων, ἀλλʼ εἶναι κατασκόπους, οἷον περὶ Συρακούσας αἱ ποταγωγίδες καλούμεναι, καὶ οὓς ὠτακουστὰς ἐξέπεμπεν Ἱέρων, ὅπου τις εἴη συνουσία καὶ σύλλογος (παρρησιάζονταί τε γὰρ ἧττον, φοβούμενοι τοὺς τοιούτους, κἂν παρρησιάζωνται, λανθάνουσιν ἧττον)· καὶ τὸ διαβάλλειν ἀλλήλοις καὶ συγκρούειν καὶ φίλους φίλοις καὶ τὸν δῆμον τοῖς γνωρίμοις καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους ἑαυτοῖς. καὶ τὸ πένητας ποιεῖν τοὺς ἀρχομένους τυραννικόν, ὅπως μήτε φυλακὴ τρέφηται καὶ πρὸς τῷ καθʼ ἡμέραν ὄντες ἄσχολοι ὦσιν ἐπιβουλεύειν. παράδειγμα δὲ τούτου αἵ τε πυραμίδες αἱ περὶ Αἴγυπτον καὶ τὰ ἀναθήματα τῶν Κυψελιδῶν καὶ τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου ἡ οἰκοδόμησις ὑπὸ τῶν Πεισιστρατιδῶν, καὶ τῶν περὶ Σάμον ἔργα Πολυκράτεια (πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα δύναται ταὐτόν, ἀσχολίαν καὶ πενίαν τῶν ἀρχομένων)· καὶ ἡ εἰσφορὰ τῶν τελῶν, οἷον ἐν Συρακούσαις (ἐν πέντε γὰρ ἔτεσιν ἐπὶ Διονυσίου τὴν οὐσίαν ἅπασαν εἰσενηνοχέναι συνέβαινεν). ἔστι δὲ καὶ πολεμοποιὸς ὁ τύραννος, ὅπως δὴ ἄσχολοί τε ὦσι καὶ ἡγεμόνος ἐν χρείᾳ διατελῶσιν ὄντες. καὶ ἡ μὲν βασιλεία σῴζεται διὰ τῶν φίλων, τυραννικὸν δὲ τὸ μάλιστʼ ἀπιστεῖν τοῖς φίλοις, ὡς βουλομένων μὲν πάντων δυναμένων δὲ μάλιστα τούτων.

+

καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν δημοκρατίαν δὲ γιγνόμενα τὴν τελευταίαν τυραννικὰ πάντα, γυναικοκρατία τε περὶ τὰς οἰκίας, ἵνʼ ἐξαγγέλλωσι κατὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν, καὶ δούλων ἄνεσις διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν· οὔτε γὰρ ἐπιβουλεύουσιν οἱ δοῦλοι καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς τυράννοις, εὐημεροῦντάς τε ἀναγκαῖον εὔνους εἶναι καὶ ταῖς τυραννίσι καὶ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις· καὶ γὰρ ὁ δῆμος εἶναι βούλεται μόναρχος. διὸ καὶ ὁ κόλαξ παρʼ ἀμφοτέροις ἔντιμος, παρὰ μὲν τοῖς δήμοις ὁ δημαγωγός (ἔστι γὰρ ὁ δημαγωγὸς τοῦ δήμου κόλαξ), παρὰ δὲ τοῖς τυράννοις οἱ ταπεινῶς ὁμιλοῦντες, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἔργον κολακείας.

+ +
+

καὶ γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο πονηρόφιλον ἡ τυραννίς· κολακευόμενοι γὰρ χαίρουσιν, τοῦτο δʼ οὐδʼ ἂν εἷς ποιήσειε φρόνημα ἔχων ἐλεύθερον, ἀλλὰ φιλοῦσιν οἱ ἐπιεικεῖς, ἢ οὐ κολακεύουσιν. καὶ χρήσιμοι οἱ πονηροὶ εἰς τὰ πονηρά· ἥλῳ γὰρ ὁ ἧλος, ὥσπερ ἡ παροιμία. καὶ τὸ μηδενὶ χαίρειν σεμνῷ μηδʼ ἐλευθέρῳ τυραννικόν (αὑτὸν γὰρ εἶναι μόνον ἀξιοῖ τοιοῦτον ὁ τύραννος, ὁ δʼ ἀντισεμνυνόμενος καὶ ἐλευθεριάζων ἀφαιρεῖται τὴν ὑπεροχὴν καὶ τὸ δεσποτικὸν τῆς τυραννίδος· μισοῦσιν οὖν ὥσπερ καταλύοντας τὴν ἀρχήν)· καὶ τὸ χρῆσθαι συσσίτοις καὶ συνημερευταῖς ξενικοῖς μᾶλλον ἢ πολιτικοῖς τυραννικόν, ὡς τοὺς μὲν πολεμίους τοὺς δʼ οὐκ ἀντιποιουμένους—ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τυραννικὰ μὲν καὶ σωτήρια τῆς ἀρχῆς, οὐθὲν δʼ ἐλλείπει μοχθηρίας. ἔστι δʼ ὡς εἰπεῖν πάντα ταῦτα περιειλημμένα τρισὶν εἴδεσιν. στοχάζεται γὰρ ἡ τυραννὶς τριῶν, ἑνὸς μὲν τοῦ μικρὰ φρονεῖν τοὺς ἀρχομένους (οὐθενὶ γὰρ ἂν μικρόψυχος ἐπιβουλεύσειεν), δευτέρου δὲ τοῦ διαπιστεῖν ἀλλήλοις (οὐ καταλύεται γὰρ πρότερον τυραννὶς πρὶν ἢ πιστεύσωσί τινες ἑαυτοῖς· διὸ καὶ τοῖς ἐπιεικέσι πολεμοῦσιν ὡς βλαβεροῖς πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀξιοῦν ἄρχεσθαι δεσποτικῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ πιστοὺς καὶ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις εἶναι καὶ μὴ καταγορεύειν μήτε ἑαυτῶν μήτε τῶν ἄλλων)· τρίτον δʼ ἀδυναμία τῶν πραγμάτων (οὐθεὶς γὰρ ἐπιχειρεῖ τοῖς ἀδυνάτοις, ὥστε οὐδὲ τυραννίδα καταλύειν μὴ δυνάμεως ὑπαρχούσης). εἰς οὓς μὲν οὖν ὅρους ἀνάγεται τὰ βουλεύματα τῶν τυράννων, οὗτοι τρεῖς τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες· πάντα γὰρ ἀναγάγοι τις ἂν τὰ τυραννικὰ πρὸς ταύτας τὰς ὑποθέσεις, τὰ μὲν ὅπως μὴ πιστεύωσιν ἀλλήλοις, τὰ δʼ ὅπως μὴ δύνωνται, τὰ δʼ ὅπως μικρὸν φρονῶσιν.

+

ὁ μὲν οὖν εἷς τρόπος διʼ οὗ γίγνεται σωτηρία ταῖς τυραννίσι τοιοῦτός ἐστιν· ὁ δʼ ἕτερος σχεδὸν ἐξ ἐναντίας ἔχει τοῖς εἰρημένοις τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. ἔστι δὲ λαβεῖν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς φθορᾶς τῆς τῶν βασιλειῶν. ὥσπερ γὰρ τῆς βασιλείας εἷς τρόπος τῆς φθορᾶς τὸ ποιεῖν τὴν ἀρχὴν τυραννικωτέραν, οὕτω τῆς τυραννίδος σωτηρία τὸ ποιεῖν αὐτὴν βασιλικωτέραν, ἓν φυλάττοντα μόνον, τὴν δύναμιν, ὅπως ἄρχῃ μὴ μόνον βουλομένων ἀλλὰ καὶ μὴ βουλομένων. προϊέμενος γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο προΐεται καὶ τὸ τυραννεῖν. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ὥσπερ ὑπόθεσιν δεῖ μένειν, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα τὰ μὲν ποιεῖν τὰ δὲ δοκεῖν ὑποκρινόμενον τὸ βασιλικὸν καλῶς. πρῶτον μὲν τοῦ δοκεῖν φροντίζειν τῶν κοινῶν,

+ +
+

μήτε δαπανῶντα εἰς δωρεὰς τοιαύτας ἐφʼ αἷς τὰ πλήθη χαλεπαίνουσιν, ὅταν ἀπʼ αὐτῶν μὲν λαμβάνωσιν ἐργαζομένων καὶ πονούντων γλίσχρως, διδῶσι δʼ ἑταίραις καὶ ξένοις καὶ τεχνίταις ἀφθόνως, λόγον τε ἀποδιδόντα τῶν λαμβανομένων καὶ δαπανωμένων, ὅπερ ἤδη πεποιήκασί τινες τῶν τυράννων (οὕτω γὰρ ἄν τις διοικῶν οἰκονόμος ἀλλʼ οὐ τύραννος εἶναι δόξειεν· οὐ δεῖ δὲ φοβεῖσθαι μή ποτε ἀπορήσῃ χρημάτων κύριος ὢν τῆς πόλεως· ἀλλὰ τοῖς γʼ ἐκτοπίζουσι τυράννοις ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας καὶ συμφέρει τοῦτο μᾶλλον ἢ καταλιπεῖν ἀθροίσαντας· ἧττον γὰρ ἂν οἱ φυλάττοντες ἐπιτιθεῖντο τοῖς πράγμασιν, εἰσὶ δὲ φοβερώτεροι τῶν τυράννων τοῖς ἀποδημοῦσιν οἱ φυλάττοντες τῶν πολιτῶν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ συναποδημοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ ὑπομένουσιν)· ἔπειτα τὰς εἰσφορὰς καὶ τὰς λειτουργίας δεῖ φαίνεσθαι τῆς τε οἰκονομίας ἕνεκα συνάγοντα, κἄν ποτε δεηθῇ χρῆσθαι πρὸς τοὺς πολεμικοὺς καιρούς, ὅλως τε αὑτὸν παρασκευάζειν φύλακα καὶ ταμίαν ὡς κοινῶν ἀλλὰ μὴ ὡς ἰδίων· καὶ φαίνεσθαι μὴ χαλεπὸν ἀλλὰ σεμνόν, ἔτι δὲ τοιοῦτον ὥστε μὴ φοβεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον αἰδεῖσθαι· τούτου μέντοι τυγχάνειν οὐ ῥᾴδιον ὄντα εὐκαταφρόνητον, διὸ δεῖ κἂν μὴ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιῆται ἀλλὰ τῆς πολεμικῆς, καὶ δόξαν ἐμποιεῖν περὶ αὑτοῦ τοιαύτην· ἔτι δὲ μὴ μόνον αὐτὸν φαίνεσθαι μηδένα τῶν ἀρχομένων ὑβρίζοντα, μήτε νέον μήτε νέαν, ἀλλὰ μηδʼ ἄλλον μηδένα τῶν περὶ αὐτόν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς οἰκείας ἔχειν γυναῖκας πρὸς τὰς ἄλλας, ὡς καὶ διὰ γυναικῶν ὕβρεις πολλαὶ τυραννίδες ἀπολώλασιν· περί τε τὰς ἀπολαύσεις τὰς σωματικὰς τοὐναντίον ποιεῖν ἢ νῦν τινες τῶν τυράννων ποιοῦσιν (οὐ γὰρ μόνον εὐθὺς ἕωθεν τοῦτο δρῶσιν, καὶ συνεχῶς πολλὰς ἡμέρας, ἀλλὰ καὶ φαίνεσθαι τοῖς ἄλλοις βούλονται τοῦτο πράττοντες, ἵνʼ ὡς εὐδαίμονας καὶ μακαρίους θαυμάσωσιν), ἀλλὰ μάλιστα μὲν μετριάζειν τοῖς τοιούτοις, εἰ δὲ μή, τό γε φαίνεσθαι τοῖς ἄλλοις διαφεύγειν (οὔτε γὰρ εὐεπίθετος οὔτʼ εὐκαταφρόνητος ὁ νήφων, ἀλλʼ ὁ μεθύων, οὐδʼ ὁ ἄγρυπνος, ἀλλʼ ὁ καθεύδων)· τοὐναντίον τε ποιητέον τῶν πάλαι λεχθέντων σχεδὸν πάντων (κατασκευάζειν γὰρ δεῖ καὶ κοσμεῖν τὴν πόλιν ὡς ἐπίτροπον ὄντα καὶ μὴ τύραννον)· ἔτι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς φαίνεσθαι ἀεὶ σπουδάζοντα διαφερόντως (ἧττόν τε γὰρ φοβοῦνται τὸ παθεῖν τι παράνομον ὑπὸ τῶν τοιούτων,

+ +
+

ἐὰν δεισιδαίμονα νομίζωσιν εἶναι τὸν ἄρχοντα καὶ φροντίζειν τῶν θεῶν, καὶ ἐπιβουλεύουσιν ἧττον ὡς συμμάχους ἔχοντι καὶ τοὺς θεούς), δεῖ δὲ ἄνευ ἀβελτερίας φαίνεσθαι τοιοῦτον· τούς τε ἀγαθοὺς περί τι γιγνομένους τιμᾶν οὕτως ὥστε μὴ νομίζειν ἄν ποτε τιμηθῆναι μᾶλλον ὑπὸ τῶν πολιτῶν αὐτονόμων ὄντων, καὶ τὰς μὲν τοιαύτας τιμὰς ἀπονέμειν αὐτόν, τὰς δὲ κολάσεις διʼ ἑτέρων ἀρχόντων καὶ δικαστηρίων. κοινὴ δὲ φυλακὴ πάσης μοναρχίας τὸ μηθένα ποιεῖν ἕνα μέγαν, ἀλλʼ εἴπερ, πλείους (τηρήσουσι γὰρ ἀλλήλους), ἐὰν δʼ ἄρα τινὰ δέῃ ποιῆσαι μέγαν, μή τοι τό γε ἦθος θρασύν (ἐπιθετικώτατον γὰρ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἦθος περὶ πάσας τὰς πράξεις), κἂν τῆς δυνάμεώς τινα δοκῇ παραλύειν, ἐκ προσαγωγῆς τοῦτο δρᾶν καὶ μὴ πᾶσαν ἀθρόαν ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὴν ἐξουσίαν. ἔτι δὲ πάσης μὲν ὕβρεως εἴργεσθαι, παρὰ πάσας δὲ δυεῖν, τῆς τε εἰς τὰ σώματα κολάσεως καὶ τῆς εἰς τὴν ἡλικίαν. μάλιστα δὲ ταύτην ποιητέον τὴν εὐλάβειαν περὶ τοὺς φιλοτίμους· τὴν μὲν γὰρ εἰς τὰ χρήματα ὀλιγωρίαν οἱ φιλοχρήματοι φέρουσι βαρέως, τὴν δʼ εἰς ἀτιμίαν οἵ τε φιλότιμοι καὶ οἱ ἐπιεικεῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. διόπερ ἢ μὴ χρῆσθαι δεῖ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ἢ τὰς μὲν κολάσεις πατρικῶς φαίνεσθαι ποιούμενον καὶ μὴ διʼ ὀλιγωρίαν, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἡλικίαν ὁμιλίας διʼ ἐρωτικὰς αἰτίας ἀλλὰ μὴ διʼ ἐξουσίαν, ὅλως δὲ τὰς δοκούσας ἀτιμίας ἐξωνεῖσθαι μείζοσι τιμαῖς. τῶν δʼ ἐπιχειρούντων ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος διαφθορὰν οὗτοι φοβερώτατοι καὶ δέονται πλείστης φυλακῆς ὅσοι μὴ προαιροῦνται περιποιεῖσθαι τὸ ζῆν διαφθείραντες. διὸ μάλιστα εὐλαβεῖσθαι δεῖ τοὺς ὑβρίζεσθαι νομίζοντας ἢ αὑτοὺς ἢ ὧν κηδόμενοι τυγχάνουσιν· ἀφειδῶς γὰρ ἑαυτῶν ἔχουσιν οἱ διὰ θυμὸν ἐπιχειροῦντες, καθάπερ καὶ Ἡράκλειτος εἶπε, χαλεπὸν φάσκων εἶναι θυμῷ μάχεσθαι, ψυχῆς γὰρ ὠνεῖσθαι.

+

ἐπεὶ δʼ αἱ πόλεις ἐκ δύο συνεστήκασι μορίων, ἔκ τε τῶν ἀπόρων ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν εὐπόρων, μάλιστα μὲν ἀμφοτέρους ὑπολαμβάνειν δεῖ σῴζεσθαι διὰ τὴν ἀρχήν, καὶ τοὺς ἑτέρους ὑπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων ἀδικεῖσθαι μηδέν, ὁπότεροι δʼ ἂν ὦσι κρείττους, τούτους ἰδίους μάλιστα ποιεῖσθαι τῆς ἀρχῆς, ὡς, ἂν ὑπάρξῃ τοῦτο τοῖς πράγμασιν, οὔτε δούλων ἐλευθέρωσιν ἀνάγκη ποιεῖσθαι τὸν τύραννον οὔτε ὅπλων παραίρεσιν· ἱκανὸν γὰρ θάτερον μέρος πρὸς τῇ δυνάμει προστιθέμενον ὥστε κρείττους εἶναι τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων. περίεργον δὲ τὸ λέγειν καθʼ ἕκαστον τῶν τοιούτων· ὁ γὰρ σκοπὸς φανερός,

+ +
+

ὅτι δεῖ μὴ τυραννικὸν ἀλλʼ οἰκονόμον καὶ βασιλικὸν εἶναι φαίνεσθαι τοῖς ἀρχομένοις καὶ μὴ σφετεριστὴν ἀλλʼ ἐπίτροπον, καὶ τὰς μετριότητας τοῦ βίου διώκειν, μὴ τὰς ὑπερβολάς, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς μὲν γνωρίμους καθομιλεῖν, τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς δημαγωγεῖν. ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἀναγκαῖον οὐ μόνον τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι καλλίω καὶ ζηλωτοτέραν τῷ βελτιόνων ἄρχειν καὶ μὴ τεταπεινωμένων μηδὲ μισούμενον καὶ φοβούμενον διατελεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι πολυχρονιωτέραν, ἔτι δʼ αὐτὸν διακεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸ ἦθος ἤτοι καλῶς πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἢ ἡμίχρηστον ὄντα, καὶ μὴ πονηρὸν ἀλλʼ ἡμιπόνηρον.

+

καίτοι πασῶν ὀλιγοχρονιώταται τῶν πολιτειῶν εἰσιν ὀλιγαρχία καὶ τυραννίς. πλεῖστον γὰρ ἐγένετο χρόνον ἡ περὶ Σικυῶνα τυραννίς, ἡ τῶν Ὀρθαγόρου παίδων καὶ αὐτοῦ Ὀρθαγόρου· ἔτη δʼ αὕτη διέμεινεν ἑκατόν. τούτου δʼ αἴτιον ὅτι τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ἐχρῶντο μετρίως καὶ πολλὰ τοῖς νόμοις ἐδούλευον, καὶ διὰ τὸ πολεμικὸς γενέσθαι Κλεισθένης οὐκ ἦν εὐκαταφρόνητος, καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ταῖς ἐπιμελείαις ἐδημαγώγουν. λέγεται γοῦν Κλεισθένης τὸν ἀποκρίναντα τῆς νίκης αὐτὸν ὡς ἐστεφάνωσεν· ἔνιοι δʼ εἰκόνα φασὶν εἶναι τοῦ κρίναντος οὕτως τὸν ἀνδριάντα τὸν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καθήμενον. φασὶ δὲ καὶ Πεισίστρατον ὑπομεῖναί ποτε προσκληθέντα δίκην εἰς Ἄρειον πάγον. δευτέρα δὲ ἡ περὶ Κόρινθον ἡ τῶν Κυψελιδῶν· καὶ γὰρ αὕτη διετέλεσεν ἔτη τρία καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ ἓξ μῆνας· Κύψελος μὲν γὰρ ἐτυράννησεν ἔτη τριάκοντα, Περίανδρος δὲ τετταράκοντα καὶ τέτταρα, Ψαμμίτιχος δʼ ὁ Γορδίου τρία ἔτη. τὰ δʼ αἴτια ταὐτὰ καὶ ταύτης· ὁ μὲν γὰρ Κύψελος δημαγωγὸς ἦν καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν διετέλεσεν ἀδορυφόρητος, Περίανδρος δʼ ἐγένετο μὲν τυραννικός, ἀλλὰ πολεμικός. τρίτη δʼ ἡ τῶν Πεισιστρατιδῶν Ἀθήνησιν. οὐκ ἐγένετο δὲ συνεχής· δὶς γὰρ ἔφυγε Πεισίστρατος τυραννῶν· ὥστʼ ἐν ἔτεσι τριάκοντα καὶ τρισὶν ἑπτακαίδεκα ἔτη τούτων ἐτυράννησεν, ὀκτωκαίδεκα δὲ οἱ παῖδες, ὥστε τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο ἔτη τριάκοντα καὶ πέντε. τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ἡ περὶ Ἱέρωνα καὶ Γέλωνα περὶ Συρακούσας. ἔτη δʼ οὐδʼ αὕτη πολλὰ διέμεινεν, ἀλλὰ τὰ σύμπαντα δυεῖν δέοντα εἴκοσι· Γέλων μὲν γὰρ ἑπτὰ τυραννήσας τῷ ὀγδόῳ τὸν βίον ἐτελεύτησεν, δέκα δʼ Ἱέρων, Θρασύβουλος δὲ τῷ ἑνδεκάτῳ μηνὶ ἐξέπεσεν. αἱ δὲ πολλαὶ τῶν τυραννίδων ὀλιγοχρόνιαι πᾶσαι γεγόνασι παντελῶς.

+

τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὰς πολιτείας καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς μοναρχίας, ἐξ ὧν τε φθείρονται καὶ πάλιν σῴζονται, σχεδὸν εἴρηται περὶ πάντων.

+ +
+

ἐν δὲ τῇ Πολιτείᾳ λέγεται μὲν περὶ τῶν μεταβολῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωκράτους, οὐ μέντοι λέγεται καλῶς. τῆς τε γὰρ ἀρίστης πολιτείας καὶ πρώτης οὔσης οὐ λέγει τὴν μεταβολὴν ἰδίως. φησὶ γὰρ αἴτιον εἶναι τὸ μὴ μένειν μηθὲν ἀλλʼ ἔν τινι περιόδῳ μεταβάλλειν, ἀρχὴν δʼ εἶναι τούτων ὧν ἐπίτριτος πυθμὴν πεμπάδι συζυγεὶς δύο ἁρμονίας παρέχεται, λέγων ὅταν ὁ τοῦ διαγράμματος ἀριθμὸς τούτου γένηται στερεός, ὡς τῆς φύσεώς ποτε φυούσης φαύλους καὶ κρείττους τῆς παιδείας, τοῦτο μὲν οὖν αὐτὸ λέγων ἴσως οὐ κακῶς (ἐνδέχεται γὰρ εἶναί τινας οὓς παιδευθῆναι καὶ γενέσθαι σπουδαίους ἄνδρας ἀδύνατον), ἀλλʼ αὕτη τί ἂν ἴδιος εἴη μεταβολὴ τῆς ὑπʼ ἐκείνου λεγομένης ἀρίστης πολιτείας μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν ἄλλων πασῶν καὶ τῶν γιγνομένων πάντων; καὶ διά γε τοῦ χρόνου, διʼ ὃν λέγει πάντα μεταβάλλειν, καὶ τὰ μὴ ἅμα ἀρξάμενα γίγνεσθαι ἅμα μεταβάλλει, οἷον εἰ τῇ προτέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγένετο τῆς τροπῆς, ἅμα ἄρα μεταβάλλει; πρὸς δὲ τούτοις διὰ τίνʼ αἰτίαν ἐκ ταύτης εἰς τὴν Λακωνικὴν μεταβάλλει; πλεονάκις γὰρ εἰς τὴν ἐναντίαν μεταβάλλουσι πᾶσαι αἱ πολιτεῖαι ἢ τὴν σύνεγγυς. ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων μεταβολῶν. ἐκ γὰρ τῆς Λακωνικῆς, φησί, μεταβάλλει εἰς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν, ἐκ δὲ ταύτης εἰς δημοκρατίαν, εἰς τυραννίδα δὲ ἐκ δημοκρατίας. καίτοι καὶ ἀνάπαλιν μεταβάλλουσιν, οἷον ἐκ δήμου εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν, καὶ μᾶλλον ἢ εἰς μοναρχίαν.

+

ἔτι δὲ τυραννίδος οὐ λέγει οὔτʼ εἰ ἔσται μεταβολὴ οὔτʼ εἰ μὴ ἔσται, οὔτʼ εἰ ἔσται διὰ τίνʼ αἰτίαν καὶ εἰς ποίαν πολιτείαν, τούτου δʼ αἴτιον ὅτι οὐ ῥᾳδίως ἂν εἶχε λέγειν· ἀόριστον γάρ, ἐπεὶ κατʼ ἐκεῖνον δεῖ εἰς τὴν πρώτην καὶ τὴν ἀρίστην· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἐγίγνετο συνεχὲς καὶ κύκλος. ἀλλὰ μεταβάλλει καὶ εἰς τυραννίδα τυραννίς, ὥσπερ ἡ Σικυῶνος ἐκ τῆς Μύρωνος εἰς τὴν Κλεισθένους, καὶ εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν, ὥσπερ ἡ ἐν Χαλκίδι ἡ Ἀντιλέοντος, καὶ εἰς δημοκρατίαν, ὥσπερ ἡ τῶν Γέλωνος ἐν Συρακούσαις, καὶ εἰς ἀριστοκρατίαν, ὥσπερ ἡ Χαρίλλου ἐν Λακεδαίμονι, καὶ ἐν Καρχηδόνι. καὶ εἰς τυραννίδα μεταβάλλει ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας, ὥσπερ ἐν Σικελίᾳ σχεδὸν αἱ πλεῖσται τῶν ἀρχαίων, ἐν Λεοντίνοις εἰς τὴν Παναιτίου τυραννίδα καὶ ἐν Γέλᾳ εἰς τὴν Κλεάνδρου καὶ ἐν Ῥηγίῳ εἰς τὴν Ἀναξιλάου καὶ ἐν ἄλλαις πολλαῖς πόλεσιν ὡσαύτως. ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ οἴεσθαι εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν διὰ τοῦτο μεταβάλλειν ὅτι φιλοχρήματοι καὶ χρηματισταὶ οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς,

+ +
+

ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὅτι οἱ πολὺ ὑπερέχοντες ταῖς οὐσίαις οὐ δίκαιον οἴονται εἶναι ἴσον μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως τοὺς κεκτημένους μηθὲν τοῖς κεκτημένοις· ἐν πολλαῖς τε ὀλιγαρχίαις οὐκ ἔξεστι χρηματίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ νόμοι εἰσὶν οἱ κωλύοντες, ἐν Καρχηδόνι δὲ δημοκρατουμένῃ χρηματίζονται καὶ οὔπω μεταβεβλήκασιν.

+

ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ φάναι δύο πόλεις εἶναι τὴν ὀλιγαρχικήν, πλουσίων καὶ πενήτων. τί γὰρ αὕτη μᾶλλον τῆς Λακωνικῆς πέπονθεν ἢ ὁποιασοῦν ἄλλης, οὗ μὴ πάντες κέκτηνται ἴσα ἢ μὴ πάντες ὁμοίως εἰσὶν ἀγαθοὶ ἄνδρες; οὐδενὸς δὲ πενεστέρου γενομένου ἢ πρότερον οὐδὲν ἧττον μεταβάλλουσιν εἰς δῆμον ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας, ἂν γένωνται πλείους οἱ ἄποροι, καὶ ἐκ δήμου εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν, ἐὰν κρεῖττον ᾖ τοῦ πλήθους τὸ εὔπορον καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀμελῶσιν οἱ δὲ προσέχωσι τὸν νοῦν. πολλῶν τε οὐσῶν αἰτιῶν διʼ ὧν γίγνονται αἱ μεταβολαί, οὐ λέγει ἀλλʼ ἢ μίαν, ὅτι ἀσωτευόμενοι κατατοκιζόμενοι γίγνονται πένητες, ὡς ἐξ ἀρχῆς πλουσίων ὄντων πάντων ἢ τῶν πλείστων. τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ ψεῦδος· ἀλλʼ ὅταν μὲν τῶν ἡγεμόνων τινὲς ἀπολέσωσι τὰς οὐσίας, καινοτομοῦσιν, ὅταν δὲ τῶν ἄλλων, οὐθὲν γίγνεται δεινόν, καὶ μεταβάλλουσιν οὐθὲν μᾶλλον οὐδὲ τότε εἰς δῆμον ἢ εἰς ἄλλην πολιτείαν. ἔτι δὲ κἂν τιμῶν μὴ μετέχωσιν, κἂν ἀδικῶνται ἠ ὑβρίζωνται, στασιάζουσι καὶ μεταβάλλουσι τὰς πολιτείας, κἂν μὴ καταδαπανήσωσι τὴν οὐσίαν, διὰ τὸ ἐξεῖναι ὅ τι ἂν βούλωνται ποιεῖν· οὗ αἰτίαν τὴν ἄγαν ἐλευθερίαν εἶναί φησιν. πλειόνων δʼ οὐσῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν καὶ δημοκρατιῶν, ὡς μιᾶς οὔσης ἑκατέρας λέγει τὰς μεταβολὰς ὁ Σωκράτης.

+ +
+ +
+

πόσαι μὲν οὖν διαφοραὶ καὶ τίνες τοῦ τε βουλευτικοῦ καὶ κυρίου τῆς πολιτείας καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τάξεως καὶ περὶ δικαστηρίων, καὶ ποία πρὸς ποίαν συντέτακται πολιτείαν, ἔτι δὲ περὶ φθορᾶς τε καὶ σωτηρίας τῶν πολιτειῶν, ἐκ ποίων τε γίνεται καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας, εἴρηται πρότερον· ἐπεὶ δὲ τετύχηκεν εἴδη πλείω δημοκρατίας ὄντα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίως πολιτειῶν, ἅμα τε περὶ ἐκείνων εἴ τι λοιπόν, οὐ χεῖρον ἐπισκέψασθαι, καὶ τὸν οἰκεῖον καὶ τὸν συμφέροντα τρόπον ἀποδοῦναι πρὸς ἑκάστην. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν τῶν εἰρημένων ἐπισκεπτέον πάντων τῶν τρόπων·

+ +
+

ταῦτα γὰρ συνδυαζόμενα ποιεῖ τὰς πολιτείας ἐπαλλάττειν, ὥστε ἀριστοκρατίας τε ὀλιγαρχικὰς εἶναι καὶ πολιτείας δημοκρατικωτέρας. λέγω δὲ τοὺς συνδυασμοὺς οὓς δεῖ μὲν ἐπισκοπεῖν, οὐκ ἐσκεμμένοι δʼ εἰσὶ νῦν, οἷον ἂν τὸ μὲν βουλευόμενον καὶ τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχαιρεσίας ὀλιγαρχικῶς ᾖ συντεταγμένον, τὰ δὲ περὶ τὰ δικαστήρια ἀριστοκρατικῶς, ἢ ταῦτα μὲν καὶ τὸ περὶ τὸ βουλευόμενον ὀλιγαρχικῶς, ἀριστοκρατικῶς δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχαιρεσίας, ἢ κατʼ ἄλλον τινὰ τρόπον μὴ πάντα συντεθῇ τὰ τῆς πολιτείας οἰκεῖα.

+

ποία μὲν οὖν δημοκρατία πρὸς ποίαν ἁρμόττει πόλιν, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ποία τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν ποίῳ πλήθει, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν δὲ πολιτειῶν τίς συμφέρει τίσιν, εἴρηται πρότερον· ὅμως δʼ ἐπεὶ δεῖ γενέσθαι δῆλον μὴ μόνον ποία τούτων τῶν πολιτειῶν ἀρίστη ταῖς πόλεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πῶς δεῖ κατασκευάζειν καὶ ταύτας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας, ἐπέλθωμεν συντόμως. καὶ πρῶτον περὶ δημοκρατίας εἴπωμεν· ἅμα γὰρ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀντικειμένης πολιτείας φανερόν, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἣν καλοῦσί τινες ὀλιγαρχίαν. ληπτέον δὲ πρὸς ταύτην τὴν μέθοδον πάντα τὰ δημοτικὰ καὶ τὰ δοκοῦντα ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἀκολουθεῖν· ἐκ γὰρ τούτων συντιθεμένων τὰ τῆς δημοκρατίας εἴδη γίνεσθαι συμβαίνει, καὶ πλείους δημοκρατίας μιᾶς εἶναι καὶ διαφόρους. δύο γάρ εἰσιν αἰτίαι διʼ ἅσπερ αἱ δημοκρατίαι πλείους εἰσί, πρῶτον μὲν ἡ λεχθεῖσα πρότερον, ὅτι διάφοροι οἱ δῆμοι (γίνεται γὰρ τὸ μὲν γεωργικὸν πλῆθος, τὸ δὲ βάναυσον καὶ θητικόν· ὧν τοῦ πρώτου τῷ δευτέρῳ προσλαμβανομένου, καὶ τοῦ τρίτου πάλιν τοῖς ἀμφοτέροις, οὐ μόνον διαφέρει τῷ βελτίω καὶ χείρω γίνεσθαι τὴν δημοκρατίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ μὴ τὴν αὐτήν), δευτέρα δὲ περὶ ἧς νῦν λέγομεν. τὰ γὰρ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἀκολουθοῦντα καὶ δοκοῦντʼ εἶναι τῆς πολιτείας οἰκεῖα ταύτης ποιεῖ συντιθέμενα τὰς δημοκρατίας ἑτέρας· τῇ μὲν γὰρ ἐλάττω, τῇ δʼ ἀκολουθήσει πλείονα, τῇ δʼ ἅπαντα ταῦτα. χρήσιμον δʼ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν γνωρίζειν πρός τε τὸ κατασκευάζειν ἣν ἄν τις αὐτῶν τύχῃ βουλόμενος, καὶ πρὸς τὰς διορθώσεις. ζητοῦσι μὲν γὰρ οἱ τὰς πολιτείας καθιστάντες ἅπαντα τὰ οἰκεῖα συναγαγεῖν πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, ἁμαρτάνουσι δὲ τοῦτο ποιοῦντες, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὰς φθορὰς καὶ τὰς σωτηρίας τῶν πολιτειῶν εἴρηται πρότερον. νυνὶ δὲ τὰ ἀξιώματα καὶ τὰ ἤθη καὶ ὧν ἐφίενται λέγωμεν.

+

ὑπόθεσις μὲν οὖν τῆς δημοκρατικῆς πολιτείας ἐλευθερία (τοῦτο γὰρ λέγειν εἰώθασιν, ὡς ἐν μόνῃ τῇ πολιτείᾳ ταύτῃ μετέχοντας ἐλευθερίας·

+ +
+

τούτου γὰρ στοχάζεσθαί φασι πᾶσαν δημοκρατίαν)· ἐλευθερίας δὲ ἓν μὲν τὸ ἐν μέρει ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν. καὶ γὰρ τὸ δίκαιον τὸ δημοτικὸν τὸ ἴσον ἔχειν ἐστὶ κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀλλὰ μὴ κατʼ ἀξίαν, τούτου δʼ ὄντος τοῦ δικαίου τὸ πλῆθος ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι κύριον, καὶ ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τοῖς πλείοσι, τοῦτʼ εἶναι τέλος καὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον· φασὶ γὰρ δεῖν ἴσον ἔχειν ἕκαστον τῶν πολιτῶν· ὥστε ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις συμβαίνει κυριωτέρους εἶναι τοὺς ἀπόρους τῶν εὐπόρων· πλείους γάρ εἰσι, κύριον δὲ τὸ τοῖς πλείοσι δόξαν. ἓν μὲν οὖν τῆς ἐλευθερίας σημεῖον τοῦτο, ὃν τίθενται πάντες οἱ δημοτικοὶ τῆς πολιτείας ὅρον· ἓν δὲ τὸ ζῆν ὡς βούλεταί τις. τοῦτο γὰρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἔργον εἶναί φασιν, εἴπερ τοῦ δουλεύοντος τὸ ζῆν μὴ ὡς βούλεται. τῆς μὲν οὖν δημοκρατίας ὅρος οὗτος δεύτερος· ἐντεῦθεν δʼ ἐλήλυθε τὸ μὴ ἄρχεσθαι, μάλιστα μὲν ὑπὸ μηθενός, εἰ δὲ μή, κατὰ μέρος, καὶ συμβάλλεται ταύτῃ πρὸς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τὴν κατὰ τὸ ἴσον.

+

τούτων δʼ ὑποκειμένων καὶ τοιαύτης οὔσης τῆς ἀρχῆς τὰ τοιαῦτα δημοτικά· τὸ αἱρεῖσθαι τὰς ἀρχὰς πάντας ἐκ πάντων, τὸ ἄρχειν πάντας μὲν ἑκάστου ἕκαστον δʼ ἐν μέρει πάντων, τὸ κληρωτὰς εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς ἢ πάσας ἢ ὅσαι μὴ ἐμπειρίας δέονται καὶ τέχνης, τὸ μὴ ἀπὸ τιμήματος μηθενὸς εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς ἢ ὅτι μικροτάτου, τὸ μὴ δὶς τὸν αὐτὸν ἄρχειν μηδεμίαν ἢ ὀλιγάκις ἢ ὀλίγας ἔξω τῶν κατὰ πόλεμον, τὸ ὀλιγοχρονίους εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς ἢ πάσας ἢ ὅσας ἐνδέχεται, τὸ δικάζειν πάντας καὶ ἐκ πάντων, καὶ περὶ πάντων, ἢ περὶ τῶν πλείστων καὶ τῶν μεγίστων καὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων, οἷον περὶ εὐθυνῶν καὶ πολιτείας καὶ τῶν ἰδίων συναλλαγμάτων, τὸ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν κυρίαν εἶναι πάντων ἢ τῶν μεγίστων, ἀρχὴν δὲ μηδεμίαν μηθενὸς ἢ ὅτι ὀλιγίστων, ἢ τῶν μεγίστων βουλὴν κυρίαν (τῶν δʼ ἀρχῶν δημοτικώτατον βουλή, ὅπου μὴ μισθοῦ εὐπορία πᾶσιν· ἐνταῦθα γὰρ ἀφαιροῦνται καὶ ταύτης τῆς ἀρχῆς τὴν δύναμιν· εἰς αὑτὸν γὰρ ἀνάγει τὰς κρίσεις πάσας ὁ δῆμος εὐπορῶν μισθοῦ, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον ἐν τῇ μεθόδῳ τῇ πρὸ ταύτης), ἔπειτα τὸ μισθοφορεῖν μάλιστα μὲν πάντας, ἐκκλησίαν δικαστήρια ἀρχάς, εἰ δὲ μή, τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰ δικαστήρια καὶ τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὰς ἐκκλησίας τὰς κυρίας, ἢ τῶν ἀρχῶν ἃς ἀνάγκη συσσιτεῖν μετʼ ἀλλήλων. ἔτι ἐπειδὴ ὀλιγαρχία καὶ γένει καὶ πλούτῳ καὶ παιδείᾳ ὁρίζεται, τὰ δημοτικὰ δοκεῖ τἀναντία τούτων εἶναι, ἀγένεια πενία βαναυσία· ἔτι δὲ τῶν ἀρχῶν τὸ μηδεμίαν ἀίδιον εἶναι,

+ +
+

ἐὰν δέ τις καταλειφθῇ ἐξ ἀρχαίας μεταβολῆς, τό γε περιαιρεῖσθαι τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῆς καὶ ἐξ αἱρετῶν κληρωτοὺς ποιεῖν. τὰ μὲν οὖν κοινὰ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ταῦτʼ ἐστί· συμβαίνει δʼ ἐκ τοῦ δικαίου τοῦ ὁμολογουμένου εἶναι δημοκρατικοῦ (τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ ἴσον ἔχειν ἅπαντας κατʼ ἀριθμόν) ἡ μάλιστʼ εἶναι δοκοῦσα δημοκρατία καὶ δῆμος. ἴσον γὰρ τὸ μηθὲν μᾶλλον ἄρχειν τοὺς ἀπόρους ἢ τοὺς εὐπόρους, μηδὲ κυρίους εἶναι μόνους ἀλλὰ πάντας ἐξ ἴσου κατʼ ἀριθμόν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ὑπάρχειν νομίζοιεν τήν τʼ ἰσότητα τῇ πολιτείᾳ καὶ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν.

+

τὸ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο ἀπορεῖται πῶς ἕξουσι τὸ ἴσον, πότερον δεῖ τὰ τιμήματα διελεῖν χιλίοις τὰ τῶν πεντακοσίων καὶ τοὺς χιλίους ἴσον δύνασθαι τοῖς πεντακοσίοις, ἢ οὐχ οὕτω δεῖ τιθέναι τὴν κατὰ τοῦτο ἰσότητα, ἀλλὰ διελεῖν μὲν οὕτως, ἔπειτα ἐκ τῶν πεντακοσίων ἴσους λαβόντα καὶ ἐκ τῶν χιλίων, τούτους κυρίους εἶναι τῶν αἱρέσεων καὶ τῶν δικαστηρίων. πότερον οὖν αὕτη ἡ πολιτεία δικαιοτάτη κατὰ τὸ δημοτικὸν δίκαιον, ἢ μᾶλλον ἡ κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος; φασὶ γὰρ οἱ δημοτικοὶ τοῦτο δίκαιον ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τοῖς πλείοσιν, οἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχικοὶ ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τῇ πλείονι οὐσίᾳ· κατὰ πλῆθος γὰρ οὐσίας φασὶ κρίνεσθαι δεῖν. ἔχει δʼ ἀμφότερα ἀνισότητα καὶ ἀδικίαν· εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὅ τι ἂν οἱ ὀλίγοι, τυραννίς (καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν εἷς ἔχῃ πλείω τῶν ἄλλων εὐπόρων, κατὰ τὸ ὀλιγαρχικὸν δίκαιον ἄρχειν δίκαιος μόνος), εἰ δʼ ὅ τι ἂν οἱ πλείους κατʼ ἀριθμόν, ἀδικήσουσι δημεύοντες τὰ τῶν πλουσίων καὶ ἐλαττόνων, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον.

+

τίς ἂν οὖν εἴη ἰσότης ἣν ὁμολογήσουσιν ἀμφότεροι, σκεπτέον ἐξ ὧν ὁρίζονται δικαίων ἀμφότεροι. λέγουσι γὰρ ὡς ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τοῖς πλείοσι τῶν πολιτῶν, τοῦτʼ εἶναι δεῖ κύριον· ἔστω δὴ τοῦτο, μὴ μέντοι πάντως, ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ δύο μέρη τετύχηκεν ἐξ ὧν ἡ πόλις, πλούσιοι καὶ πένητες, ὅ τι ἂν ἀμφοτέροις δόξῃ ἢ τοῖς πλείοσι, τοῦτο κύριον ἔστω, ἐὰν δὲ τἀναντία δόξῃ, ὅ τι ἂν οἱ πλείους καὶ ὧν τὸ τίμημα πλεῖον· οἷον, εἰ οἱ μὲν δέκα οἱ δὲ εἴκοσιν, ἔδοξε δὲ τῶν μὲν πλουσίων τοῖς ἓξ τῶν δʼ ἀπορωτέρων τοῖς πεντεκαίδεκα, προσγεγένηνται τοῖς μὲν πένησι τέτταρες τῶν πλουσίων, τοῖς δὲ πλουσίοις πέντε τῶν πενήτων· ὁποτέρων οὖν τὸ τίμημα ὑπερτείνει συναριθμουμένων ἀμφοτέρων ἑκατέροις, τοῦτο κύριον. ἐὰν δὲ ἴσοι συμπέσωσι, κοινὴν εἶναι ταύτην νομιστέον ἀπορίαν ὥσπερ νῦν ἐὰν δίχα ἡ ἐκκλησία γένηται ἢ τὸ δικαστήριον·

+ +
+

ἢ γὰρ ἀποκληρωτέον ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον ποιητέον. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τοῦ ἴσου καὶ τοῦ δικαίου, κἂν ᾖ πάνυ χαλεπὸν εὑρεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν περὶ αὐτῶν, ὅμως ῥᾷον τυχεῖν ἢ συμπεῖσαι τοὺς δυναμένους πλεονεκτεῖν· ἀεὶ γὰρ ζητοῦσι τὸ ἴσον καὶ τὸ δίκαιον οἱ ἥττους, οἱ δὲ κρατοῦντες οὐδὲν φροντίζουσιν.

+

δημοκρατιῶν δʼ οὐσῶν τεττάρων βελτίστη μὲν ἡ πρώτη τάξει, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων ἐλέχθη λόγοις· ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἀρχαιοτάτη πασῶν αὕτη. λέγω δὲ πρώτην ὥσπερ ἄν τις διέλοι τοὺς δήμους. βέλτιστος γὰρ δῆμος ὁ γεωργικός ἐστιν, ὥστε καὶ ποιεῖν ἐνδέχεται δημοκρατίαν ὅπου ζῇ τὸ πλῆθος ἀπὸ γεωργίας ἢ νομῆς. διὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ μὴ πολλὴν οὐσίαν ἔχειν ἄσχολος, ὥστε μὴ πολλάκις ἐκκλησιάζειν διὰ δὲ τὸ ἔχειν τἀναγκαῖα πρὸς τοῖς ἔργοις διατρίβουσι καὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων οὐκ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ἥδιον αὐτοῖς τὸ ἐργάζεσθαι τοῦ πολιτεύεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν, ὅπου ἂν μὴ ᾖ λήμματα μεγάλα ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχῶν. οἱ γὰρ πολλοὶ μᾶλλον ὀρέγονται τοῦ κέρδους ἢ τῆς τιμῆς. σημεῖον δέ· καὶ γὰρ τὰς ἀρχαίας τυραννίδας ὑπέμενον καὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας ὑπομένουσιν, ἐάν τις αὐτοὺς ἐργάζεσθαι μὴ κωλύῃ μηδʼ ἀφαιρῆται μηθέν· ταχέως γὰρ οἱ μὲν πλουτοῦσιν αὐτῶν οἱ δʼ οὐκ ἀποροῦσιν. ἔτι δὲ τὸ κυρίους εἶναι τοῦ ἑλέσθαι καὶ εὐθύνειν ἀναπληροῖ τὴν ἔνδειαν, εἴ τι φιλοτιμίας ἔχουσιν, ἐπεὶ παρʼ ἐνίοις δήμοις, κἂν μὴ μετέχωσι τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν ἀρχῶν ἀλλά τινες αἱρετοὶ κατὰ μέρος ἐκ πάντων, ὥσπερ ἐν Μαντινείᾳ, τοῦ δὲ βουλεύεσθαι κύριοι ὦσιν, ἱκανῶς ἔχει τοῖς πολλοῖς· καὶ δεῖ νομίζειν καὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναι σχῆμά τι δημοκρατίας, ὥσπερ ἐν Μαντινείᾳ ποτʼ ἦν. διὸ δὴ καὶ συμφέρον ἐστὶ τῇ πρότερον ῥηθείσῃ δημοκρατίᾳ καὶ ὑπάρχειν εἴωθεν, αἱρεῖσθαι μὲν τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ εὐθύνειν καὶ δικάζειν πάντας, ἄρχειν δὲ τὰς μεγίστας αἱρετοὺς καὶ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων, τὰς μείζους ἀπὸ μειζόνων, ἢ καὶ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων μὲν μηδεμίαν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δυναμένους. ἀνάγκη δὲ πολιτευομένους οὕτω πολιτεύεσθαί καλῶς (αἱ τε γὰρ ἀρχαὶ ἀεὶ διὰ τῶν βελτίστων ἔσονται, τοῦ δήμου βουλομένου καὶ τοῖς ἐπιεικέσιν οὐ φθονοῦντος), καὶ τοῖς ἐπιεικέσι καὶ γνωρίμοις ἀρκοῦσαν εἶναι ταύτην τὴν τάξιν· ἄρξονται γὰρ οὐχ ὑπʼ ἄλλων χειρόνων, καὶ ἄρξουσι δικαίως διὰ τὸ τῶν εὐθυνῶν εἶναι κυρίους ἑτέρους. τὸ γὰρ ἐπανακρέμασθαι, καὶ μὴ πᾶν ἐξεῖναι ποιεῖν ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ, συμφέρον ἐστίν· ἡ γὰρ ἐξουσία τοῦ πράττειν ὅ τι ἂν ἐθέλῃ τις οὐ δύναται φυλάττειν τὸ ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φαῦλον.

+ +
+

ὥστε ἀναγκαῖον συμβαίνειν ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὠφελιμώτατον ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις, ἄρχειν τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς ἀναμαρτήτους ὄντας, μηδὲν ἐλαττουμένου τοῦ πλήθους.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν αὕτη τῶν δημοκρατιῶν ἀρίστη, φανερόν, καὶ διὰ τίνʼ αἰτίαν, ὅτι διὰ τὸ ποιόν τινα εἶναι τὸν δῆμον· πρὸς δὲ τὸ κατασκευάζειν γεωργὸν τὸν δῆμον τῶν τε νόμων τινὲς τῶν παρὰ πολλοῖς κειμένων τὸ ἀρχαῖον χρήσιμοι πάντως, ἢ τὸ ὅλως μὴ ἐξεῖναι κεκτῆσθαι πλείω γῆν μέτρου τινὸς ἢ ἀπό τινος τόπου πρὸς τὸ ἄστυ καὶ τὴν πόλιν (ἦν δὲ τό γε ἀρχαῖον ἐν πολλαῖς πόλεσι νενομοθετημένον μηδὲ πωλεῖν ἐξεῖναι τοὺς πρώτους κλήρους· ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὃν λέγουσιν Ὀξύλου νόμον εἶναι τοιοῦτόν τι δυνάμενος, τὸ μὴ δανείζειν εἴς τι μέρος τῆς ὑπαρχούσης ἑκάστῳ γῆς), νῦν δὲ δεῖ διορθοῦν καὶ τῷ Ἀφυταίων νόμῳ, πρὸς γὰρ ὃ λέγομέν ἐστι χρήσιμος· ἐκεῖνοι γάρ, καίπερ ὄντες πολλοὶ κεκτημένοι δὲ γῆν ὀλίγην, ὅμως πάντες γεωργοῦσιν· τιμῶνται γὰρ οὐχ ὅλας τὰς κτήσεις, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τηλικαῦτα μόρια διαιροῦντες ὥστʼ ἔχειν ὑπερβάλλειν ταῖς τιμήσεσι καὶ τοὺς πένητας.

+

μετὰ δὲ τὸ γεωργικὸν πλῆθος βέλτιστος δῆμός ἐστιν ὅπου νομεῖς εἰσι καὶ ζῶσιν ἀπὸ βοσκημάτων· πολλὰ γὰρ ἔχει τῇ γεωργίᾳ παραπλησίως, καὶ τὰ πρὸς τὰς πολεμικὰς πράξεις μάλισθʼ οὗτοι γεγυμνασμένοι τὰς ἕξεις καὶ χρήσιμοι τὰ σώματα καὶ δυνάμενοι θυραυλεῖν. τὰ δʼ ἄλλα πλήθη πάντα σχεδόν, ἐξ ὧν αἱ λοιπαὶ δημοκρατίαι συνεστᾶσι, πολλῷ φαυλότερα τούτων· ὁ γὰρ βίος φαῦλος, καὶ οὐθὲν ἔργον μετʼ ἀρετῆς ὧν μεταχειρίζεται τὸ πλῆθος τό τε τῶν βαναύσων καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀγοραίων ἀνθρώπων καὶ τὸ θητικόν, ἔτι δὲ διὰ τὸ περὶ τὴν ἀγορὰν καὶ τὸ ἄστυ κυλίεσθαι πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον γένος ὡς εἰπεῖν ῥᾳδίως ἐκκλησιάζει· οἱ δὲ γεωργοῦντες διὰ τὸ διεσπάρθαι κατὰ τὴν χώραν οὔτʼ ἀπαντῶσιν οὔθʼ ὁμοίως δέονται τῆς συνόδου ταύτης. ὅπου δὲ καὶ συμβαίνει τὴν χώραν τὴν θέσιν ἔχειν τοιαύτην ὥστε τὴν χώραν πολὺ τῆς πόλεως ἀπηρτῆσθαι, ῥᾴδιον καὶ δημοκρατίαν ποιεῖσθαι χρηστὴν καὶ πολιτείαν· ἀναγκάζεται γὰρ τὸ πλῆθος ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγρῶν ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ἀποικίας, ὥστε δεῖ, κἂν ἀγοραῖος ὄχλος ᾖ, μὴ ποιεῖν ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἐκκλησίας ἄνευ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν χώραν πλήθους. πῶς μὲν οὖν δεῖ κατασκευάζειν τὴν βελτίστην καὶ πρώτην δημοκρατίαν, εἴρηται· φανερὸν δὲ καὶ πῶς τὰς ἄλλας. ἑπομένως γὰρ δεῖ παρεκβαίνειν καὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἀεὶ πλῆθος χωρίζειν.

+ +
+

τὴν δὲ τελευταίαν, διὰ τὸ πάντας κοινωνεῖν, οὔτε πάσης ἐστὶ πόλεως φέρειν, οὔτε ῥᾴδιον διαμένειν μὴ τοῖς νόμοις καὶ τοῖς ἔθεσιν εὖ συγκειμένην (ἃ δὲ φθείρειν συμβαίνει καὶ ταύτην καὶ τὰς ἄλλας πολιτείας, εἴρηται πρότερον τὰ πλεῖστα σχεδόν). πρὸς δὲ τὸ καθιστάναι ταύτην τὴν δημοκρατίαν καὶ τὸν δῆμον ποιεῖν ἰσχυρὸν εἰώθασιν οἱ προεστῶτες προσλαμβάνειν ὡς πλείστους καὶ ποιεῖν πολίτας μὴ μόνον τοὺς γνησίους ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς νόθους καὶ τοὺς ἐξ ὁποτερουοῦν πολίτου, λέγω δὲ οἷον πατρὸς ἢ μητρός· ἅπαν γὰρ οἰκεῖον τοῦτο τῷ τοιούτῳ δήμῳ μᾶλλον. εἰώθασι μὲν οὖν οἱ δημαγωγοὶ κατασκευάζειν οὕτω, δεῖ μέντοι προσλαμβάνειν μέχρι ἂν ὑπερτείνῃ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν γνωρίμων καὶ τῶν μέσων, καὶ τούτου μὴ πέρα προβαίνειν· ὑπερβάλλοντες γὰρ ἀτακτοτέραν τε ποιοῦσι τὴν πολιτείαν, καὶ τοὺς γνωρίμους πρὸς τὸ χαλεπῶς ὑπομένειν τὴν δημοκρατίαν παροξύνουσι μᾶλλον, ὅπερ συνέβη τῆς στάσεως αἴτιον γενέσθαι περὶ Κυρήνην· ὀλίγον μὲν γὰρ πονηρὸν παρορᾶται, πολὺ δὲ γινόμενον ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς μᾶλλόν ἐστιν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα κατασκευάσματα χρήσιμα πρὸς τὴν δημοκρατίαν τὴν τοιαύτην, οἷς Κλεισθένης τε Ἀθήνησιν ἐχρήσατο βουλόμενος αὐξῆσαι τὴν δημοκρατίαν, καὶ περὶ Κυρήνην οἱ τὸν δῆμον καθιστάντες. φυλαί τε γὰρ ἕτεραι ποιητέαι πλείους καὶ φατρίαι, καὶ τὰ τῶν ἰδίων ἱερῶν συνακτέον εἰς ὀλίγα καὶ κοινά, καὶ πάντα σοφιστέον ὅπως ἂν ὅτι μάλιστα ἀναμειχθῶσι πάντες ἀλλήλοις, αἱ δὲ συνήθειαι διαζευχθῶσιν αἱ πρότερον. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ τυραννικὰ κατασκευάσματα δημοτικὰ δοκεῖ πάντα, λέγω δʼ οἷον ἀναρχία τε δούλων (αὕτη δʼ ἂν εἴη μέχρι του συμφέρουσα) καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ παίδων, καὶ τὸ ζῆν ὅπως τις βούλεται παρορᾶν· πολὺ γὰρ ἔσται τὸ τῇ τοιαύτῃ πολιτείᾳ βοηθοῦν· ἥδιον γὰρ τοῖς πολλοῖς τὸ ζῆν ἀτάκτως ἢ τὸ σωφρόνως.

+

ἔστι δὲ ἔργον τοῦ νομοθέτου καὶ τῶν βουλομένων συνιστάναι τινὰ τοιαύτην πολιτείαν οὐ τὸ καταστῆσαι μέγιστον ἔργον οὐδὲ μόνον, ἀλλʼ ὅπως σῴζηται μᾶλλον· μίαν γὰρ ἢ δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἡμέρας οὐ χαλεπὸν μεῖναι πολιτευομένους ὁπωσοῦν. διὸ δεῖ, περὶ ὧν τεθεώρηται πρότερον, τίνες σωτηρίαι καὶ φθοραὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν, ἐκ τούτων πειρᾶσθαι κατασκευάζειν τὴν ἀσφάλειαν, εὐλαβουμένους μὲν τὰ φθείροντα, τιθεμένους δὲ τοιούτους νόμους, καὶ τοὺς ἀγράφους καὶ τοὺς γεγραμμένους,

+ +
+

οἳ περιλήψονται μάλιστα τὰ σῴζοντα τὰς πολιτείας, καὶ μὴ νομίζειν τοῦτʼ εἶναι δημοτικὸν μηδʼ ὀλιγαρχικὸν ὃ ποιήσει τὴν πόλιν ὅτι μάλιστα δημοκρατεῖσθαι ἢ ὀλιγαρχεῖσθαι, ἀλλʼ ὃ πλεῖστον χρόνον. οἱ δὲ νῦν δημαγωγοὶ χαριζόμενοι τοῖς δήμοις πολλὰ δημεύουσι διὰ τῶν δικαστηρίων. διὸ δεῖ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀντιπράττειν τοὺς κηδομένους τῆς πολιτείας, νομοθετοῦντας μηδὲν εἶναι δημόσιον τῶν καταδικαζομένων καὶ φερόμενον πρὸς τὸ κοινόν, ἀλλʼ ἱερόν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀδικοῦντες οὐθὲν ἧττον εὐλαβεῖς ἔσονται (ζημιώσονται γὰρ ὁμοίως), ὁ δʼ ὄχλος ἧττον καταψηφιεῖται τῶν κρινομένων, λήψεσθαι μηδὲν μέλλων. ἔτι δὲ τὰς γινομένας δημοσίας δίκας ὡς ὀλιγίστας αἰεὶ ποιεῖν, μεγάλοις ἐπιτιμίοις τοὺς εἰκῇ γραφομένους κωλύοντας· οὐ γὰρ τοὺς δημοτικοὺς ἀλλὰ τοὺς γνωρίμους εἰώθασιν εἰσάγειν, δεῖ δὲ καὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πολιτείᾳ πάντας μάλιστα μὲν εὔνους εἶναι τοὺς πολίτας, εἰ δὲ μή, μή τοί γε ὡς πολεμίους νομίζειν τοὺς κυρίους.

+

ἐπεὶ δʼ αἱ τελευταῖαι δημοκρατίαι πολυάνθρωποί τέ εἰσι καὶ χαλεπὸν ἐκκλησιάζειν ἀμίσθους, τοῦτο δʼ ὅπου πρόσοδοι μὴ τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι πολέμιον τοῖς γνωρίμοις (ἁπό τε γὰρ εἰσφορᾶς καὶ δημεύσεως ἀναγκαῖον γίνεσθαι καὶ δικαστηρίων φαύλων, ἃ πολλὰς ἤδη δημοκρατίας ἀνέτρεψεν), ὅπου μὲν οὖν πρόσοδοι μὴ τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι, δεῖ ποιεῖν ὀλίγας ἐκκλησίας, καὶ δικαστήρια πολλῶν μὲν ὀλίγας δʼ ἡμέρας (τοῦτο γὰρ φέρει μὲν καὶ πρὸς τὸ μὴ φοβεῖσθαι τοὺς πλουσίους τὰς δαπάνας κἂν οἱ μὲν εὔποροι μὴ λαμβάνωσι δικαστικόν, οἱ δʼ ἄποροι, φέρει δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὸ κρίνεσθαι τὰς δίκας πολὺ βέλτιον· οἱ γὰρ εὔποροι πολλὰς μὲν ἡμέρας οὐκ ἐθέλουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ἀπεῖναι, βραχὺν δὲ χρόνον ἐθέλουσιν), ὅπου δʼ εἰσὶ πρόσοδοι, μὴ ποιεῖν ὃ νῦν οἱ δημαγωγοὶ ποιοῦσιν (τὰ γὰρ περιόντα νέμουσιν· λαμβάνουσι δὲ ἅμα καὶ πάλιν δέονται τῶν αὐτῶν· ὁ τετρημένος γάρ ἐστι πίθος ἡ τοιαύτη βοήθεια τοῖς ἀπόροις). ἀλλὰ δεῖ τὸν ἀληθινῶς δημοτικὸν ὁρᾶν ὅπως τὸ πλῆθος μὴ λίαν ἄπορον ᾖ· τοῦτο γὰρ αἴτιον τοῦ μοχθηρὰν εἶναι τὴν δημοκρατίαν. τεχναστέον οὖν ὅπως ἂν εὐπορία γένοιτο χρόνιος. ἐπεὶ δὲ συμφέρει τοῦτο καὶ τοῖς εὐπόροις, τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν προσόδων γινόμενα συναθροίζοντας ἀθρόα χρὴ διανέμειν τοῖς ἀπόροις, μάλιστα μὲν εἴ τις δύναται τοσοῦτον ἀθροίζων ὅσον εἰς γηδίου κτῆσιν, εἰ δὲ μή, πρὸς ἀφορμὴν ἐμπορίας καὶ γεωργίας,

+ +
+

καί, εἰ μὴ πᾶσι δυνατόν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ φυλὰς ἤ τι μέρος ἕτερον ἐν μέρει διανέμειν, ἐν δὲ τούτῳ πρὸς τὰς ἀναγκαίας συνόδους τοὺς εὐπόρους εἰσφέρειν τὸν μισθόν, ἀφειμένους τῶν ματαίων λειτουργιῶν. τοιοῦτον δέ τινα τρόπον Καρχηδόνιοι πολιτευόμενοι φίλον κέκτηνται τὸν δῆμον· ἀεὶ γάρ τινας ἐκπέμποντες τοῦ δήμου πρὸς τὰς περιοικίδας ποιοῦσιν εὐπόρους. χαριέντων δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ νοῦν ἐχόντων γνωρίμων καὶ διαλαμβάνοντας τοὺς ἀπόρους ἀφορμὰς διδόντας τρέπειν ἐπʼ ἐργασίας. καλῶς δʼ ἔχει μιμεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ Ταραντίνων. ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ κοινὰ ποιοῦντες τὰ κτήματα τοῖς ἀπόροις ἐπὶ τὴν χρῆσιν εὔνουν παρασκευάζουσι τὸ πλῆθος· ἔτι δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς πάσας ἐποίησαν διττάς, τὰς μὲν αἱρετὰς τὰς δὲ κληρωτάς, τὰς μὲν κληρωτὰς ὅπως ὁ δῆμος αὐτῶν μετέχῃ, τὰς δʼ αἱρετὰς ἵνα πολιτεύωνται βέλτιον. ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἀρχῆς μερίζοντας τοὺς μὲν κληρωτοὺς τοὺς δʼ αἱρετούς. πῶς μὲν οὖν δεῖ τὰς δημοκρατίας κατασκευάζειν, εἴρηται.

+

σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ περὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας πῶς δεῖ φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων. ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων γὰρ δεῖ συνάγειν ἑκάστην ὀλιγαρχίαν, πρὸς τὴν ἐναντίαν δημοκρατίαν ἀναλογιζόμενον, τὴν μὲν εὔκρατον μάλιστα τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν καὶ πρώτην— αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ σύνεγγυς τῇ καλουμένῃ πολιτείᾳ, ἐν ᾗ δεῖ τὰ τιμήματα διαιρεῖν, τὰ μὲν ἐλάττω τὰ δὲ μείζω ποιοῦντας, ἐλάττω μὲν ἀφʼ ὧν τῶν ἀναγκαίων μεθέξουσιν ἀρχῶν, μείζω δʼ ἀφʼ ὧν τῶν κυριωτέρων· τῷ τε κτωμένῳ τὸ τίμημα μετέχειν ἐξεῖναι τῆς πολιτείας, τοσούτου εἰσαγομένου τοῦ δήμου πλήθους διὰ τοῦ τιμήματος μεθʼ οὗ κρείττονες ἔσονται τῶν μὴ μετεχόντων· ἀεὶ δὲ δεῖ παραλαμβάνειν ἐκ τοῦ βελτίονος δήμου τοὺς κοινωνούς. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐχομένην ὀλιγαρχίαν ἐπιτείνοντας δεῖ μικρὸν κατασκευάζειν. τῇ δʼ ἀντικειμένῃ τῇ τελευταίᾳ δημοκρατίᾳ, τῇ δυναστικωτάτῃ καὶ τυραννικωτάτῃ τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν, ὅσῳ περ χειρίστη, τοσούτῳ δεῖ πλείονος φυλακῆς. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ μὲν εὖ σώματα διακείμενα πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ πλοῖα τὰ πρὸς ναυτιλίαν καλῶς ἔχοντα τοῖς πλωτῆρσιν ἐπιδέχεται πλείους ἁμαρτίας ὥστε μὴ φθείρεσθαι διʼ αὐτάς, τὰ δὲ νοσερῶς ἔχοντα τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τὰ τῶν πλοίων ἐκλελυμένα καὶ πλωτήρων τετυχηκότα φαύλων οὐδὲ τὰς μικρὰς δύναται φέρειν ἁμαρτίας, οὕτω καὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν αἱ χείρισται πλείστης δέονται φυλακῆς.

+ +
+

τὰς μὲν οὖν δημοκρατίας ὅλως ἡ πολυανθρωπία σῴζει (τοῦτο γὰρ ἀντίκειται πρὸς τὸ δίκαιον τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν)· τὴν δʼ ὀλιγαρχίαν δῆλον ὅτι τοὐναντίον ἀπὸ τῆς εὐταξίας δεῖ τυγχάνειν τῆς σωτηρίας.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ τέτταρα μὲν ἔστι μέρη μάλιστα τοῦ πλήθους, γεωργικὸν βαναυσικὸν ἀγοραῖον θητικόν, τέτταρα δὲ τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς πόλεμον, ἱππικὸν ὁπλιτικὸν ψιλὸν ναυτικόν, ὅπου μὲν συμβέβηκε τὴν χώραν εἶναι ἱππάσιμον, ἐνταῦθα μὲν εὐφυῶς ἔχει κατασκευάζειν τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἰσχυράν (ἡ γὰρ σωτηρία τοῖς οἰκοῦσι διὰ ταύτης ἐστὶ τῆς δυνάμεως, αἱ δʼ ἱπποτροφίαι τῶν μακρὰς οὐσίας κεκτημένων εἰσίν), ὅπου δʼ ὁπλῖτιν, τὴν ἐχομένην ὀλιγαρχίαν (τὸ γὰρ ὁπλιτικὸν τῶν εὐπόρων ἐστὶ μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν ἀπόρων), ἡ δὲ ψιλὴ δύναμις καὶ ναυτικὴ δημοκρατικὴ πάμπαν. νῦν μὲν οὖν ὅπου τοιοῦτον πολὺ πλῆθος ἔστιν, ὅταν διαστῶσι, πολλάκις ἀγωνίζονται χεῖρον· δεῖ δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο φάρμακον παρὰ τῶν πολεμικῶν λαμβάνειν στρατηγῶν, οἳ συνδυάζουσι πρὸς τὴν ἱππικὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ὁπλιτικὴν τὴν ἁρμόττουσαν τῶν ψιλῶν. ταύτῃ δʼ ἐπικρατοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς διαστάσεσιν οἱ δῆμοι τῶν εὐπόρων· ψιλοὶ γὰρ ὄντες πρὸς ἱππικὴν καὶ ὁπλιτικὴν ἀγωνίζονται ῥᾳδίως.

+

τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐκ τούτων καθιστάναι ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν ἐφʼ ἑαυτούς ἐστι καθιστάναι, δεῖ δὲ διῃρημένης τῆς ἡλικίας, καὶ τῶν μὲν ὄντων πρεσβυτέρων τῶν δὲ νέων, ἔτι μὲν ὄντας νέους τοὺς αὐτῶν υἱεῖς διδάσκεσθαι τὰς κούφας καὶ τὰς ψιλὰς ἐργασίας, ἐκκεκριμένους δὲ ἐκ παίδων ἀθλητὰς εἶναι αὐτοὺς τῶν ἔργων· τὴν δὲ μετάδοσιν γίνεσθαι τῷ πλήθει τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἤτοι καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, τοῖς τὸ τίμημα κτωμένοις, ἢ καθάπερ Θηβαίοις, ἀποσχομένοις χρόνον τινὰ τῶν βαναύσων ἔργων, ἢ καθάπερ ἐν Μασσαλίᾳ κρίσιν ποιουμένους τῶν ἀξίων τῶν ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι καὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ταῖς κυριωτάταις, ἃς δεῖ τοὺς ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ κατέχειν, δεῖ προσκεῖσθαι λειτουργίας, ἵνʼ ἑκὼν ὁ δῆμος μὴ μετέχῃ καὶ συγγνώμην ἔχῃ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ὡς μισθὸν πολὺν διδοῦσι τῆς ἀρχῆς. ἁρμόττει δὲ θυσίας τε εἰσιόντας ποιεῖσθαι μεγαλοπρεπεῖς καὶ κατασκευάζειν τι τῶν κοινῶν, ἵνα τῶν περὶ τὰς ἑστιάσεις μετέχων ὁ δῆμος καὶ τὴν πόλιν ὁρῶν κοσμουμένην τὰ μὲν ἀναθήμασι τὰ δὲ οἰκοδομήμασιν ἄσμενος ὁρᾷ μένουσαν τὴν πολιτείαν· συμβήσεται δὲ καὶ τοῖς γνωρίμοις εἶναι μνημεῖα τῆς δαπάνης. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο νῦν οἱ περὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας οὐ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον· τὰ λήμματα γὰρ ζητοῦσιν οὐχ ἧττον ἢ τὴν τιμήν. διόπερ εὖ ἔχει λέγειν ταύτας εἶναι δημοκρατίας μικράς.

+ +
+

πῶς μὲν οὖν χρὴ καθιστάναι τὰς δημοκρατίας καὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας, διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

+

ἀκόλουθον δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐστὶ τὸ διῃρῆσθαι καλῶς τὰ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, πόσαι καὶ τίνες καὶ τίνων, καθάπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον. τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαίων ἀρχῶν χωρὶς ἀδύνατον εἶναι πόλιν, τῶν δὲ πρὸς εὐταξίαν καὶ κόσμον ἀδύνατον οἰκεῖσθαι καλῶς. ἔτι δʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν μὲν ταῖς μικραῖς ἐλάττους εἶναι τὰς ἀρχάς, ἐν δὲ ταῖς μεγάλαις πλείους, ὥσπερ τυγχάνει πρότερον εἰρημένον· ποίας οὖν ἁρμόττει συνάγειν καὶ ποίας χωρίζειν, δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν. πρώτη μὲν οὖν ἐπιμέλεια τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἡ περὶ τὴν ἀγοράν, ἐφʼ ᾗ δεῖ τινα ἀρχὴν εἶναι τὴν ἐφορῶσαν περί τε τὰ συμβόλαια καὶ τὴν εὐκοσμίαν· σχεδὸν γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον πάσαις ταῖς πόλεσι τὰ μὲν ὠνεῖσθαι τὰ δὲ πωλεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλλήλων ἀναγκαίαν χρείαν, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ὑπογυιότατον πρὸς αὐτάρκειαν, διʼ ἣν δοκοῦσιν εἰς μίαν πολιτείαν συνελθεῖν. ἑτέρα δὲ ἐπιμέλεια ταύτης ἐχομένη καὶ σύνεγγυς ἡ τῶν περὶ τὸ ἄστυ δημοσίων καὶ ἰδίων, ὅπως εὐκοσμία ᾖ, καὶ τῶν πιπτόντων οἰκοδομημάτων καὶ ὁδῶν σωτηρία καὶ διόρθωσις, καὶ τῶν ὁρίων τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὅπως ἀνεγκλήτως ἔχωσιν, καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ἄλλα τῆς ἐπιμελείας ὁμοιότροπα. καλοῦσι δʼ ἀστυνομίαν οἱ πλεῖστοι τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρχήν, ἔχει δὲ μόρια πλείω τὸν ἀριθμόν, ὧν ἑτέρους ἐφʼ ἕτερα καθιστᾶσιν ἐν ταῖς πολυανθρωποτέραις πόλεσιν, οἷον τειχοποιοὺς καὶ κρηνῶν ἐπιμελητὰς καὶ λιμένων φύλακας. ἄλλη δʼ ἀναγκαία τε καὶ παραπλησία ταύτῃ· περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν μὲν γάρ, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὴν χώραν ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ ἄστεως· καλοῦσι δὲ τοὺς ἄρχοντας τούτους οἱ μὲν ἀγρονόμους οἱ δʼ ὑλωρούς. αὗται μὲν οὖν ἐπιμέλειαί εἰσι τούτων τρεῖς, ἄλλη δʼ ἀρχὴ πρὸς ἣν αἱ πρόσοδοι τῶν κοινῶν ἀναφέρονται, παρʼ ὧν φυλαττόντων μερίζονται πρὸς ἑκάστην διοίκησιν· καλοῦσι δʼ ἀποδέκτας τούτους καὶ ταμίας. ἑτέρα δʼ ἀρχὴ πρὸς ἣν ἀναγράφεσθαι δεῖ τά τε ἴδια συμβόλαια καὶ τὰς κρίσεις τὰς ἐκ τῶν δικαστηρίων· παρὰ δὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς τούτοις καὶ τὰς γραφὰς τῶν δικῶν γίνεσθαι δεῖ καὶ τὰς εἰσαγωγάς. ἐνιαχοῦ μὲν οὖν μερίζουσι καὶ ταύτην εἰς πλείους, ἔστι δʼ οὗ μία κυρία τούτων πάντων· καλοῦνται δὲ ἱερομνήμονες καὶ ἐπιστάται καὶ μνήμονες καὶ τούτοις ἄλλα ὀνόματα σύνεγγυς.

+

μετὰ δὲ ταύτην ἐχομένη μὲν ἀναγκαιοτάτη δὲ σχεδὸν καὶ χαλεπωτάτη τῶν ἀρχῶν ἐστιν ἡ περὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν καταδικασθέντων καὶ τῶν προτιθεμένων κατὰ τὰς ἐγγραφὰς καὶ περὶ τὰς φυλακὰς τῶν σωμάτων.

+ +
+

χαλεπὴ μὲν οὖν ἐστι διὰ τὸ πολλὴν ἔχειν ἀπέχθειαν, ὥστε ὅπου μὴ μεγάλα ἔστι κερδαίνειν, οὔτʼ ἄρχειν ὑπομένουσιν αὐτὴν οὔθʼ ὑπομείναντες ἐθέλουσι πράττειν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους· ἀναγκαία δʼ ἐστίν, ὅτι οὐδὲν ὄφελος γίνεσθαι μὲν δίκας περὶ τῶν δικαίων, ταύτας δὲ μὴ λαμβάνειν τέλος, ὥστʼ εἰ μὴ γιγνομένων κοινωνεῖν ἀδύνατον ἀλλήλοις, καὶ πράξεων μὴ γιγνομένων. διὸ βέλτιον μὴ μίαν εἶναι ταύτην τὴν ἀρχήν, ἀλλʼ ἄλλους ἐξ ἄλλων δικαστηρίων, καὶ περὶ τὰς προθέσεις τῶν ἀναγεγραμμένων ὡσαύτως πειρᾶσθαι διαιρεῖν, ἔτι δʼ ἔνια πράττεσθαι καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τάς τε ἄλλας καὶ τὰς τῶν ἔνων μᾶλλον τὰς νέας, καὶ τὰς τῶν ἐνεστώτων ἑτέρας καταδικασάσης ἑτέραν εἶναι τὴν πραττομένην, οἷον ἀστυνόμους τὰς παρὰ τῶν ἀγορανόμων, τὰς δὲ παρὰ τούτων ἑτέρους. ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν ἐλάττων ἀπέχθεια ἐνῇ τοῖς πραττομένοις, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον λήψονται τέλος αἱ πράξεις· τὸ μὲν οὖν τοὺς αὐτοὺς εἶναι τοὺς καταδικάσαντας καὶ πραττομένους ἀπέχθειαν ἔχει διπλῆν, τὸ δὲ περὶ πάντων τοὺς αὐτοὺς πολεμίους πᾶσιν ποιεῖ. πολλαχοῦ δὲ δὴ διῄρηται καὶ ἡ φυλάττουσα πρὸς τὴν πραττομένην, οἷον Ἀθήνησιν ἡ τῶν Ἕνδεκα καλουμένων. διὸ βέλτιον καὶ ταύτην χωρίζειν, καὶ τὸ σόφισμα ζητεῖν καὶ περὶ ταύτην. ἀναγκαία μὲν γάρ ἐστιν οὐχ ἧττον τῆς εἰρημένης, συμβαίνει δὲ τοὺς μὲν ἐπιεικεῖς φεύγειν μάλιστα ταύτην τὴν ἀρχήν, τοὺς δὲ μοχθηροὺς οὐκ ἀσφαλὲς ποιεῖν κυρίους· αὐτοὶ γὰρ δέονται φυλακῆς μᾶλλον ἄλλων ἢ φυλάττειν ἄλλους δύνανται. διὸ δεῖ μὴ μίαν ἀποτεταγμένην ἀρχὴν εἶναι πρὸς αὐτούς, μηδὲ συνεχῶς τὴν αὐτήν, ἀλλὰ τῶν τε νέων, ὅπου τις ἐφήβων ἢ φρουρῶν ἔστι τάξις, καὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν δεῖ κατὰ μέρη ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἑτέρους.

+

ταύτας μὲν οὖν τὰς ἀρχὰς ὡς ἀναγκαιοτάτας θετέον εἶναι πρώτας, μετὰ δὲ ταύτας τὰς ἀναγκαίας μὲν οὐθὲν ἧττον, ἐν σχήματι δὲ μείζονι τεταγμένας· καὶ γὰρ ἐμπειρίας καὶ πίστεως δέονται πολλῆς. τοιαῦται δʼ εἶεν ἂν αἵ τε περὶ τὴν φυλακὴν τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ὅσαι τάττονται πρὸς τὰς πολεμικὰς χρείας. δεῖ δὲ καὶ ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ ἐν πολέμῳ πυλῶν τε καὶ τειχῶν φυλακῆς ὁμοίως ἐπιμελητὰς εἶναι καὶ ἐξετάσεως καὶ συντάξεως τῶν πολιτῶν. ἔνθα μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις ἀρχαὶ πλείους εἰσίν, ἔνθα δʼ ἐλάττους, οἷον ἐν ταῖς μικραῖς πόλεσι μία περὶ πάντων. καλοῦσι δὲ στρατηγοὺς καὶ πολεμάρχους τοὺς τοιούτους.

+ +
+

ἔτι δὲ κἂν ὦσιν ἱππεῖς ἢ ψιλοὶ ἢ τοξόται ἢ ναυτικόν, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων ἑκάστων ἐνίοτε καθίσταται ἀρχή, αἳ καλοῦνται ναυαρχίαι καὶ ἱππαρχίαι καὶ ταξιαρχίαι, καὶ κατὰ μέρος δὲ αἱ ὑπὸ ταύτας τριηραρχίαι καὶ λοχαγίαι καὶ φυλαρχίαι καὶ ὅσα τούτων μόρια. τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἕν τι τούτου ἐστὶν εἶδος, ἐπιμελείας πολεμικῶν.

+

περὶ μὲν οὖν ταύτην τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχει τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· ἐπεὶ δὲ ἔνιαι τῶν ἀρχῶν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πᾶσαι, διαχειρίζουσι πολλὰ τῶν κοινῶν, ἀναγκαῖον ἑτέραν εἶναι τὴν ληψομένην λογισμὸν καὶ προσευθυνοῦσαν, αὐτὴν μηθὲν διαχειρίζουσαν ἕτερον· καλοῦσι δὲ τούτους οἱ μὲν εὐθύνους οἱ δὲ λογιστὰς οἱ δʼ ἐξεταστὰς οἱ δὲ συνηγόρους. παρὰ πάσας δὲ ταύτας τὰς ἀρχὰς ἡ μάλιστα κυρία πάντων ἐστίν· ἡ γὰρ αὐτὴ πολλάκις ἔχει τὸ τέλος καὶ τὴν εἰσφοράν, ἢ προκάθηται τοῦ πλήθους, ὅπου κύριός ἐστιν ὁ δῆμος· δεῖ γὰρ εἶναι τὸ συνάγον τὸ κύριον κύριον τῆς πολιτείας. καλεῖται δὲ ἔνθα μὲν πρόβουλοι διὰ τὸ προβουλεύειν, ὅπου δὲ πλῆθός ἐστι, βουλὴ μᾶλλον. αἱ μὲν οὖν πολιτικαὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν σχεδὸν τοσαῦταί τινές εἰσιν· ἄλλο δʼ εἶδος ἐπιμελείας ἡ περὶ τοὺς θεούς, οἷον ἱερεῖς τε καὶ ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν περὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τοῦ σῴζεσθαί τε τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ ἀνορθοῦσθαι τὰ πίπτοντα τῶν οἰκοδομημάτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσα τέτακται πρὸς τοὺς θεούς. συμβαίνει δὲ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ταύτην ἐνιαχοῦ μὲν εἶναι μίαν, οἷον ἐν ταῖς μικραῖς πόλεσιν, ἐνιαχοῦ δὲ πολλὰς καὶ κεχωρισμένας τῆς ἱερωσύνης, οἷον ἱεροποιοὺς καὶ ναοφύλακας καὶ ταμίας τῶν ἱερῶν χρημάτων. ἐχομένη δὲ ταύτης ἡ πρὸς τὰς θυσίας ἀφωρισμένη τὰς κοινὰς πάσας, ὅσας μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ νόμος, ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ τῆς κοινῆς ἑστίας ἔχουσι τὴν τιμήν· καλοῦσι δʼ οἱ μὲν ἄρχοντας τούτους οἱ δὲ βασιλεῖς οἱ δὲ πρυτάνεις.

+

αἱ μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαῖαι ἐπιμέλειαί εἰσι περὶ τούτων, ὡς εἰπεῖν συγκεφαλαιωσαμένους, περί τε τὰ δαιμόνια καὶ τὰ πολεμικὰ καὶ περὶ τὰς προσόδους καὶ τὰ ἀναλισκόμενα, καὶ περὶ ἀγορὰν καὶ περὶ τὸ ἄστυ καὶ λιμένας καὶ τὴν χώραν, ἔτι περὶ τὰ δικαστήρια, καὶ συναλλαγμάτων ἀναγραφὰς καὶ πράξεις καὶ φυλακὰς καὶ ἐπὶ λογισμούς τε καὶ ἐξετάσεις καὶ προσευθύνας τῶν ἀρχόντων, καὶ τέλος αἳ περὶ τὸ βουλευόμενόν εἰσι περὶ τῶν κοινῶν· ἴδιαι δὲ ταῖς σχολαστικωτέραις καὶ μᾶλλον εὐημερούσαις πόλεσιν, ἔτι δὲ φροντιζούσαις εὐκοσμίας, γυναικονομία νομοφυλακία παιδονομία γυμνασιαρχία,

+ +
+

πρὸς δὲ τούτοις περὶ ἀγῶνας ἐπιμέλεια γυμνικοὺς καὶ Διονυσιακούς, κἂν εἴ τινας ἑτέρας συμβαίνει τοιαύτας γίνεσθαι θεωρίας. τούτων δʼ ἔνιαι φανερῶς εἰσιν οὐ δημοτικαὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν, οἷον γυναικονομία καὶ παιδονομία· τοῖς γὰρ ἀπόροις ἀνάγκη χρῆσθαι καὶ γυναιξὶ καὶ παισὶν ὥσπερ ἀκολούθοις διὰ τὴν ἀδουλίαν. τριῶν δʼ οὐσῶν ἀρχῶν καθʼ ἃς αἱροῦνταί τινες ἀρχὰς τὰς κυρίους, νομοφυλάκων προβούλων βουλῆς, οἱ μὲν νομοφύλακες ἀριστοκρατικόν, ὀλιγαρχικὸν δʼ οἱ πρόβουλοι, βουλὴ δὲ δημοτικόν. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἀρχῶν, ὡς ἐν τύπῳ, σχεδὸν εἴρηται περὶ πασῶν.

+ +
+ +
+

περὶ δὲ πολιτείας ἀρίστης τὸν μέλλοντα ποιήσασθαι τὴν προσήκουσαν ζήτησιν ἀνάγκη διορίσασθαι πρῶτον τίς αἱρετώτατος βίος. ἀδήλου γὰρ ὄντος τούτου καὶ τὴν ἀρίστην ἀναγκαῖον ἄδηλον εἶναι πολιτείαν· ἄριστα γὰρ πράττειν προσήκει τοὺς ἄριστα πολιτευομένους ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτοῖς, ἐὰν μή τι γίγνηται παράλογον. διὸ δεῖ πρῶτον ὁμολογεῖσθαι τίς ὁ πᾶσιν ὡς εἰπεῖν αἱρετώτατος βίος, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο πότερον κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς ὁ αὐτὸς ἢ ἕτερος. νομίσαντας οὖν ἱκανῶς πολλὰ λέγεσθαι καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς λόγοις περὶ τῆς ἀρίστης ζωῆς, καὶ νῦν χρηστέον αὐτοῖς. ὡς ἀληθῶς γὰρ πρός γε μίαν διαίρεσιν οὐδεὶς ἀμφισβητήσειεν ἂν ὡς οὐ, τριῶν οὐσῶν μερίδων, τῶν τε ἐκτὸς καὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι καὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, πάντα ταῦτα ὑπάρχειν τοῖς μακαρίοις χρή. οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἂν φαίη μακάριον τὸν μηθὲν μόριον ἔχοντα ἀνδρείας μηδὲ σωφροσύνης μηδὲ δικαιοσύνης μηδὲ φρονήσεως, ἀλλὰ δεδιότα μὲν τὰς παραπετομένας μυίας, ἀπεχόμενον δὲ μηθενός, ἂν ἐπιθυμήσῃ τοῦ φαγεῖν ἢ πιεῖν, τῶν ἐσχάτων, ἕνεκα δὲ τεταρτημορίου διαφθείροντα τοὺς φιλτάτους φίλους, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν διάνοιαν οὕτως ἄφρονα καὶ διεψευσμένον ὥσπερ τι παιδίον ἢ μαινόμενον. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν λεγόμενα ὥσπερ πάντες ἂν συγχωρήσειαν, διαφέρονται δʼ ἐν τῷ ποσῷ καὶ ταῖς ὑπεροχαῖς. τῆς μὲν γὰρ ἀρετῆς ἔχειν ἱκανὸν εἶναι νομίζουσιν ὁποσονοῦν, πλούτου δὲ καὶ χρημάτων καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης καὶ πάντων τῶν τοιούτων εἰς ἄπειρον ζητοῦσι τὴν ὑπερβολήν. ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐροῦμεν ὅτι ῥᾴδιον μὲν περὶ τούτων καὶ διὰ τῶν ἔργων λαμβάνειν τὴν πίστιν, ὁρῶντας ὅτι κτῶνται καὶ φυλάττουσιν οὐ τὰς ἀρετὰς τοῖς ἐκτὸς ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνα ταύταις,

+ +
+

καὶ τὸ ζῆν εὐδαιμόνως, εἴτʼ ἐν τῷ χαίρειν ἐστὶν εἴτʼ ἐν ἀρετῇ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἴτʼ ἐν ἀμφοῖν, ὅτι μᾶλλον ὑπάρχει τοῖς τὸ ἦθος μὲν καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν κεκοσμημένοις εἰς ὑπερβολήν, περὶ δὲ τὴν ἔξω κτῆσιν τῶν ἀγαθῶν μετριάζουσιν, ἢ τοῖς ἐκεῖνα μὲν κεκτημένοις πλείω τῶν χρησίμων, ἐν δὲ τούτοις ἐλλείπουσιν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον σκοπουμένοις εὐσύνοπτόν ἐστιν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐκτὸς ἔχει πέρας, ὥσπερ ὄργανόν τι, (πᾶν τε τὸ χρήσιμον εἴς τι), ὧν τὴν ὑπερβολὴν ἢ βλάπτειν ἀναγκαῖον ἢ μηθὲν ὄφελος εἶναι τοῖς ἔχουσιν, τῶν δὲ περὶ ψυχὴν ἕκαστον ἀγαθῶν, ὅσῳ περ ἂν ὑπερβάλλῃ, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον χρήσιμον εἶναι, εἰ δεῖ καὶ τούτοις ἐπιλέγειν μὴ μόνον τὸ καλὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ χρήσιμον. ὅλως τε δῆλον ὡς ἀκολουθεῖν φήσομεν τὴν διάθεσιν τὴν ἀρίστην ἑκάστου πράγματος πρὸς ἄλληλα κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἥνπερ εἴληχε ταῦτα ὧν φαμεν αὐτὰς εἶναι διαθέσεις ταύτας. ὥστʼ εἴπερ ἐστὶν ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τῆς κτήσεως καὶ τοῦ σώματος τιμιώτερον καὶ ἁπλῶς καὶ ἡμῖν, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν διάθεσιν τὴν ἀρίστην ἑκάστου ἀνάλογον τούτων ἔχειν. ἔτι δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς ἕνεκεν ταῦτα πέφυκεν αἱρετὰ καὶ δεῖ πάντας αἱρεῖσθαι τοὺς εὖ φρονοῦντας, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐκείνων ἕνεκεν τὴν ψυχήν.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἑκάστῳ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας ἐπιβάλλει τοσοῦτον ὅσον περ ἀρετῆς καὶ φρονήσεως καὶ τοῦ πράττειν κατὰ ταύτας, ἔστω συνωμολογημένον ἡμῖν, μάρτυρι τῷ θεῷ χρωμένοις, ὃς εὐδαίμων μέν ἐστι καὶ μακάριος, διʼ οὐθὲν δὲ τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀλλὰ διʼ αὑτὸν αὐτὸς καὶ τῷ ποιός τις εἶναι τὴν φύσιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὴν εὐτυχίαν τῆς εὐδαιμονίας διὰ ταῦτʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἑτέραν εἶναι (τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἐκτὸς ἀγαθῶν τῆς ψυχῆς αἴτιον ταὐτόματον καὶ ἡ τύχη, δίκαιος δʼ οὐδεὶς οὐδὲ σώφρων ἀπὸ τύχης οὐδὲ διὰ τὴν τύχην ἐστίν)· ἐχόμενον δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν λόγων δεόμενον καὶ πόλιν εὐδαίμονα τὴν ἀρίστην εἶναι καὶ πράττουσαν καλῶς. ἀδύνατον δὲ καλῶς πράττειν τοῖς μὴ τὰ καλὰ πράττουσιν· οὐθὲν δὲ καλὸν ἔργον οὔτʼ ἀνδρὸς οὔτε πόλεως χωρὶς ἀρετῆς καὶ φρονήσεως· ἀνδρεία δὲ πόλεως καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ φρόνησις τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει δύναμιν καὶ μορφὴν ὧν μετασχὼν ἕκαστος τῶν ἀνθρώπων λέγεται δίκαιος καὶ φρόνιμος καὶ σώφρων. ἀλλὰ γὰρ ταῦτα μὲν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἔστω πεφροιμιασμένα τῷ λόγῳ· οὔτε γὰρ μὴ θιγγάνειν αὐτῶν δυνατόν, οὔτε πάντας τοὺς οἰκείους ἐπεξελθεῖν ἐνδέχεται λόγους, ἑτέρας γάρ ἐστιν ἔργον σχολῆς ταῦτα· νῦν δὲ ὑποκείσθω τοσοῦτον, ὅτι βίος μὲν ἄριστος, καὶ χωρὶς ἑκάστῳ καὶ κοινῇ ταῖς πόλεσιν,

+ +
+

ὁ μετʼ ἀρετῆς κεχορηγημένης ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὥστε μετέχειν τῶν κατʼ ἀρετὴν πράξεων, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀμφισβητοῦντας, ἐάσαντας ἐπὶ τῆς νῦν μεθόδου, διασκεπτέον ὕστερον, εἴ τις τοῖς εἰρημένοις τυγχάνει μὴ πειθόμενος.

+

πότερον δὲ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι φατέον ἑνός τε ἑκάστου τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πόλεως ἢ μὴ τὴν αὐτήν, λοιπόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν. φανερὸν δὲ καὶ τοῦτο. πάντες γὰρ ἂν ὁμολογήσειαν εἶναι τὴν αὐτήν. ὅσοι γὰρ ἐν πλούτῳ τὸ ζῆν εὖ τίθενται ἐφʼ ἑνός, οὗτοι καὶ τὴν πόλιν ὅλην, ἐὰν ᾖ πλουσία, μακαρίζουσιν· ὅσοι τε τὸν τυραννικὸν βίον μάλιστα τιμῶσιν, οὗτοι καὶ πόλιν τὴν πλείστων ἄρχουσαν εὐδαιμονεστάτην ἂν εἶναι φαῖεν· εἴ τέ τις τὸν ἕνα διʼ ἀρετὴν ἀποδέχεται, καὶ πόλιν εὐδαιμονεστέραν φήσει τὴν σπουδαιοτέραν. ἀλλὰ ταῦτʼ ἤδη δύο ἐστὶν ἃ δεῖται σκέψεως, ἓν μὲν πότερος αἱρετώτερος βίος, ὁ διὰ τοῦ συμπολιτεύεσθαι καὶ κοινωνεῖν πόλεως ἢ μᾶλλον ὁ ξενικὸς καὶ τῆς πολιτικῆς κοινωνίας ἀπολελυμένος, ἔτι δὲ τίνα πολιτείαν θετέον καὶ ποίαν διάθεσιν πόλεως ἀρίστην, εἴτε πᾶσιν ὄντος αἱρετοῦ τοῦ κοινωνεῖν πόλεως εἴτε καὶ τισὶ μὲν μὴ τοῖς δὲ πλείστοις. ἐπεὶ δὲ τῆς πολιτικῆς διανοίας καὶ θεωρίας τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἔργον, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸ περὶ ἕκαστον αἱρετόν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ταύτην προῃρήμεθα νῦν τὴν σκέψιν, ἐκεῖνο μὲν πάρεργον ἂν εἴη, τοῦτο δὲ ἔργον τῆς μεθόδου ταύτης. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πολιτείαν ἀρίστην ταύτην τὴν τάξιν καθʼ ἣν κἂν ὁστισοῦν ἄριστα πράττοι καὶ ζῴη μακαρίως, φανερόν ἐστιν· ἀμφισβητεῖται δὲ παρʼ αὐτῶν τῶν ὁμολογούντων τὸν μετʼ ἀρετῆς εἶναι βίον αἱρετώτατον πότερον ὁ πολιτικὸς καὶ πρακτικὸς βίος αἱρετὸς ἢ μᾶλλον ὁ πάντων τῶν ἐκτὸς ἀπολελυμένος, οἷον θεωρητικός τις, ὃν μόνον τινές φασιν εἶναι φιλόσοφον. σχεδὸν γὰρ τούτους τοὺς δύο βίους τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ φιλοτιμότατοι πρὸς ἀρετὴν φαίνονται προαιρούμενοι, καὶ τῶν προτέρων καὶ τῶν νῦν· λέγω δὲ δύο τόν τε πολιτικὸν καὶ τὸν φιλόσοφον. διαφέρει δὲ οὐ μικρὸν ποτέρως ἔχει τὸ ἀληθές· ἀνάγκη γὰρ τόν γε εὖ φρονοῦντα πρὸς τὸν βελτίω σκοπὸν συντάττεσθαι, καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἕκαστον καὶ κοινῇ τὴν πολιτείαν. νομίζουσι δʼ οἱ μὲν τὸ τῶν πέλας ἄρχειν δεσποτικῶς μὲν γιγνόμενον μετʼ ἀδικίας τινὸς εἶναι τῆς μεγίστης, πολιτικῶς δὲ τὸ μὲν ἄδικον οὐκ ἔχειν, ἐμπόδιον δὲ ἔχειν τῇ περὶ αὐτὸν εὐημερίᾳ· τούτων δʼ ὥσπερ ἐξ ἐναντίας ἕτεροι τυγχάνουσι δοξάζοντες· μόνον γὰρ ἀνδρὸς τὸν πρακτικὸν εἶναι βίον καὶ πολιτικόν, ἐφʼ ἑκάστης γὰρ ἀρετῆς οὐκ εἶναι πράξεις μᾶλλον τοῖς ἰδιώταις ἢ τοῖς τὰ κοινὰ πράττουσι καὶ πολιτευομένοις.

+ +
+

οἱ μὲν οὖν οὕτως ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, οἱ δὲ τὸν δεσποτικὸν καὶ τυραννικὸν τρόπον τῆς πολιτείας εἶναι μόνον εὐδαίμονά φασιν. παρʼ ἐνίοις δὲ καὶ τῆς πολιτείας οὗτος ὅρος καὶ τῶν νόμων ὅπως δεσπόζωσι τῶν πέλας. διὸ καὶ τῶν πλείστων νομίμων χύδην ὡς εἰπεῖν κειμένων παρὰ τοῖς πλείστοις, ὅμως εἴ πού τι πρὸς ἓν οἱ νόμοι βλέπουσι, τοῦ κρατεῖν στοχάζονται πάντες, ὥσπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι καὶ Κρήτῃ πρὸς τοὺς πολέμους συντέτακται σχεδὸν ἥ τε παιδεία καὶ τὸ τῶν νόμων πλῆθος· ἔτι δʼ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι πᾶσι τοῖς δυναμένοις πλεονεκτεῖν ἡ τοιαύτη τετίμηται δύναμις, οἷον ἐν Σκύθαις καὶ Πέρσαις καὶ Θρᾳξὶ καὶ Κελτοῖς. ἐν ἐνίοις γὰρ καὶ νόμοι τινές εἰσι παροξύνοντες πρὸς τὴν ἀρετὴν ταύτην, καθάπερ ἐν Καρχηδόνι φασὶ τὸν ἐκ τῶν κρίκων κόσμον λαμβάνειν ὅσας ἂν στρατεύσωνται στρατείας· ἦν δέ ποτε καὶ περὶ Μακεδονίαν νόμος τὸν μηθένα ἀπεκταγκότα πολέμιον ἄνδρα περιεζῶσθαι τὴν φορβειάν· ἐν δὲ Σκύθαις οὐκ ἐξῆν πίνειν ἐν ἑορτῇ τινι σκύφον περιφερόμενον τῷ μηθένα ἀπεκταγκότι πολέμιον· ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἴβηρσιν, ἔθνει πολεμικῷ, τοσούτους τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὀβελίσκους καταπηγνύουσι περὶ τὸν τάφον ὅσους ἂν διαφθείρῃ τῶν πολεμίων· καὶ ἕτερα δὴ παρʼ ἑτέροις ἔστι τοιαῦτα πολλά, τὰ μὲν νόμοις κατειλημμένα τὰ δὲ ἔθεσιν.

+

καίτοι δόξειεν ἂν ἄγαν ἄτοπον ἴσως εἶναι τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐπισκοπεῖν, εἰ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἔργον τοῦ πολιτικοῦ, τὸ δύνασθαι θεωρεῖν ὅπως ἄρχῃ καὶ δεσπόζῃ τῶν πλησίον, καὶ βουλομένων καὶ μὴ βουλομένων. πῶς γὰρ ἂν εἴη τοῦτο πολιτικὸν ἢ νομοθετικόν, ὅ γε μηδὲ νόμιμόν ἐστιν; οὐ νόμιμον δὲ τὸ μὴ μόνον δικαίως ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδίκως ἄρχειν, κρατεῖν δʼ ἔστι καὶ μὴ δικαίως. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπιστήμαις τοῦτο ὁρῶμεν· οὔτε γὰρ τοῦ ἰατροῦ οὔτε τοῦ κυβερνήτου ἔργον ἐστὶ τὸ ἢ πεῖσαι ἢ βιάσασθαι τοῦ μὲν τοὺς θεραπευομένους τοῦ δὲ τοὺς πλωτῆρας. ἀλλʼ ἐοίκασιν οἱ πολλοὶ τὴν δεσποτικὴν πολιτικὴν οἴεσθαι εἶναι, καὶ ὅπερ αὑτοῖς ἕκαστοι οὔ φασιν εἶναι δίκαιον οὐδὲ συμφέρον, τοῦτʼ οὐκ αἰσχύνονται πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἀσκοῦντες· αὐτοὶ μὲν γὰρ παρʼ αὑτοῖς τὸ δικαίως ἄρχειν ζητοῦσι, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους οὐδὲν μέλει τῶν δικαίων. ἄτοπον δὲ εἰ μὴ φύσει τὸ μὲν δεσποστόν ἐστι τὸ δὲ οὐ δεσποστόν, ὥστε εἴπερ ἔχει τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, οὐ δεῖ πάντων πειρᾶσθαι δεσπόζειν, ἀλλὰ τῶν δεσποστῶν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ θηρεύειν ἐπὶ θοίνην ἢ θυσίαν ἀνθρώπους, ἀλλὰ τὸ πρὸς τοῦτο θηρευτόν· ἔστι δὲ θηρευτὸν ὃ ἂν ἄγριον ᾖ ἐδεστὸν ζῷον. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴη γʼ ἂν καὶ καθʼ ἑαυτὴν μία πόλις εὐδαίμων,

+ +
+

ἣ πολιτεύεται δηλονότι καλῶς, εἴπερ ἐνδέχεται πόλιν οἰκεῖσθαί που καθʼ ἑαυτὴν νόμοις χρωμένην σπουδαίοις, ἧς τῆς πολιτείας ἡ σύνταξις οὐ πρὸς πόλεμον οὐδὲ πρὸς τὸ κρατεῖν ἔσται τῶν πολεμίων· μηθὲν γὰρ ὑπαρχέτω τοιοῦτον. δῆλον ἄρα ὅτι πάσας τὰς πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον ἐπιμελείας καλὰς μὲν θετέον, οὐχ ὡς τέλος δὲ πάντων ἀκρότατον, ἀλλʼ ἐκείνου χάριν ταύτας. τοῦ δὲ νομοθέτου τοῦ σπουδαίου ἐστὶ τὸ θεάσασθαι πόλιν καὶ γένος ἀνθρώπων καὶ πᾶσαν ἄλλην κοινωνίαν, ζωῆς ἀγαθῆς πῶς μεθέξουσι καὶ τῆς ἐνδεχομένης αὐτοῖς εὐδαιμονίας. διοίσει μέντοι τῶν ταττομένων ἔνια νομίμων· καὶ τοῦτο τῆς νομοθετικῆς ἐστιν ἰδεῖν, ἐάν τινες ὑπάρχωσι γειτνιῶντες, ποῖα πρὸς ποίους ἀσκητέον ἢ πῶς τοῖς καθήκουσι πρὸς ἑκάστους χρηστέον. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν κἂν ὕστερον τύχοι τῆς προσηκούσης σκέψεως, πρὸς τί τέλος δεῖ τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν συντείνειν·

+

πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ὁμολογοῦντας μὲν τὸν μετʼ ἀρετῆς εἶναι βίον αἱρετώτατον, διαφερομένους δὲ περὶ τῆς χρήσεως αὐτοῦ, λεκτέον ἡμῖν πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους αὐτούς (οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀποδοκιμάζουσι τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρχάς, νομίζοντες τὸν τοῦ ἐλευθέρου βίον ἕτερόν τινα εἶναι τοῦ πολιτικοῦ καὶ πάντων αἱρετώτατον, οἱ δὲ τοῦτον ἄριστον· ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὸν μηθὲν πράττοντα πράττειν εὖ, τὴν δʼ εὐπραγίαν καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν εἶναι ταὐτόν) ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἀμφότεροι λέγουσιν ὀρθῶς τὰ δὲ οὐκ ὀρθῶς, οἱ μὲν ὅτι ὁ τοῦ ἐλευθέρου βίος τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ ἀμείνων. τοῦτο γὰρ ἀληθές· οὐθὲν γὰρ τό γε δούλῳ ᾗ δοῦλος χρῆσθαι σεμνόν· ἡ γὰρ ἐπίταξις ἡ περὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων οὐδενὸς μετέχει τῶν καλῶν. τὸ μέντοι νομίζειν πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν εἶναι δεσποτείαν οὐκ ὀρθόν· οὐ γὰρ ἔλαττον διέστηκεν ἡ τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀρχὴ τῆς τῶν δούλων ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ φύσει ἐλεύθερον τοῦ φύσει δούλου. διώρισται δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν ἱκανῶς ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις λόγοις. τὸ δὲ μᾶλλον ἐπαινεῖν τὸ ἀπρακτεῖν τοῦ πράττειν οὐκ ἀληθές· ἡ γὰρ εὐδαιμονία πρᾶξίς ἐστιν, ἔτι δὲ πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν τέλος ἔχουσιν αἱ τῶν δικαίων καὶ σωφρόνων πράξεις.

+

καίτοι τάχʼ ἂν ὑπολάβοι τις τούτων οὕτω διωρισμένων ὅτι τὸ κύριον εἶναι πάντων ἄριστον· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν πλείστων καὶ καλλίστων κύριος εἴη πράξεων. ὥστε οὐ δεῖν τὸν δυνάμενον ἄρχειν παριέναι τῷ πλησίον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀφαιρεῖσθαι, καὶ μήτε πατέρα παίδων μήτε παῖδας πατρὸς μήθʼ ὅλως φίλον φίλου μηθένα ὑπόλογον ποιεῖσθαι μηδὲ πρὸς τοῦτο φροντίζειν· τὸ γὰρ ἄριστον αἱρετώτατον, τὸ δʼ εὖ πράττειν ἄριστον. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ἀληθῶς ἴσως λέγουσιν,

+ +
+

εἴπερ ὑπάρξει τοῖς ἀποστεροῦσι καὶ βιαζομένοις τὸ τῶν ὄντων αἱρετώτατον· ἀλλʼ ἴσως οὐχ οἷόν τε ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλʼ ὑποτίθενται τοῦτο ψεῦδος. οὐ γὰρ ἔτι καλὰς τὰς πράξεις ἐνδέχεται εἶναι τῷ μὴ διαφέροντι τοσοῦτον ὅσον ἀνὴρ γυναικὸς ἢ πατὴρ τέκνων ἢ δεσπότης δούλων· ὥστε ὁ παραβαίνων οὐθὲν ἂν τηλικοῦτον κατορθώσειεν ὕστερον ὅσον ἤδη παρεκβέβηκε τῆς ἀρετῆς. τοῖς γὰρ ὁμοίοις τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ δίκαιον ἐν τῷ ἐν μέρει, τοῦτο γὰρ ἴσον καὶ ὅμοιον· τὸ δὲ μὴ ἴσον τοῖς ἴσοις καὶ τὸ μὴ ὅμοιον τοῖς ὁμοίοις παρὰ φύσιν, οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν παρὰ φύσιν καλόν. διὸ κἂν ἄλλος τις ᾖ κρείττων κατʼ ἀρετὴν καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν πρακτικὴν τῶν ἀρίστων, τούτῳ καλὸν ἀκολουθεῖν καὶ τούτῳ πείθεσθαι δίκαιον. δεῖ δʼ οὐ μόνον ἀρετὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ δύναμιν ὑπάρχειν, καθʼ ἣν ἔσται πρακτικός. ἀλλʼ εἰ ταῦτα λέγεται καλῶς καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν εὐπραγίαν θετέον, καὶ κοινῇ πάσης πόλεως ἂν εἴη καὶ καθʼ ἕκαστον ἄριστος βίος ὁ πρακτικός. ἀλλὰ τὸν πρακτικὸν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πρὸς ἑτέρους, καθάπερ οἴονταί τινες, οὐδὲ τὰς διανοίας εἶναι μόνας ταύτας πρακτικάς, τὰς τῶν ἀποβαινόντων χάριν γιγνομένας ἐκ τοῦ πράττειν, ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον τὰς αὐτοτελεῖς καὶ τὰς αὑτῶν ἕνεκεν θεωρίας καὶ διανοήσεις· ἡ γὰρ εὐπραξία τέλος, ὥστε καὶ πρᾶξίς τις. μάλιστα δὲ καὶ πράττειν λέγομεν κυρίως καὶ τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν πράξεων τοὺς ταῖς διανοίαις ἀρχιτέκτονας. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ἀπρακτεῖν ἀναγκαῖον τὰς καθʼ αὑτὰς πόλεις ἱδρυμένας καὶ ζῆν οὕτω προῃρημένας· ἐνδέχεται γὰρ κατὰ μέρη καὶ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν· πολλαὶ γὰρ κοινωνίαι πρὸς ἄλληλα τοῖς μέρεσι τῆς πόλεώς εἰσιν. ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦτο ὑπάρχει καὶ καθʼ ἑνὸς ὁτουοῦν τῶν ἀνθρώπων· σχολῇ γὰρ ἂν ὁ θεὸς εἶχε καλῶς καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος, οἷς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξωτερικαὶ πράξεις παρὰ τὰς οἰκείας τὰς αὐτῶν. ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὸν αὐτὸν βίον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸν ἄριστον ἑκάστῳ τε τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ κοινῇ ταῖς πόλεσι καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, φανερόν ἐστιν.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ πεφροιμίασται τὰ νῦν εἰρημένα περὶ αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας πολιτείας ἡμῖν τεθεώρηται πρότερον, ἀρχὴ τῶν λοιπῶν εἰπεῖν πρῶτον ποίας τινὰς δεῖ τὰς ὑποθέσεις εἶναι περὶ τῆς μελλούσης κατʼ εὐχὴν συνεστάναι πόλεως. οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε πολιτείαν γενέσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην ἄνευ συμμέτρου χορηγίας. διὸ δεῖ πολλὰ προϋποτεθεῖσθαι καθάπερ εὐχομένους, εἶναι μέντοι μηθὲν τούτων ἀδύνατον· λέγω δὲ οἷον περί τε πλήθους πολιτῶν καὶ χώρας. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις δημιουργοῖς, οἷον ὑφάντῃ καὶ ναυπηγῷ,

+ +
+

δεῖ τὴν ὕλην ὑπάρχειν ἐπιτηδείαν οὖσαν πρὸς τὴν ἐργασίαν (ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν αὕτη τυγχάνῃ παρεσκευασμένη βέλτιον, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον ὑπὸ τῆς τέχνης εἶναι κάλλιον), οὕτω καὶ τῷ πολιτικῷ καὶ τῷ νομοθέτῃ δεῖ τὴν οἰκείαν ὕλην ὑπάρχειν ἐπιτηδείως ἔχουσαν.

+

ἔστι δὲ πολιτικῆς χορηγίας πρῶτον τό τε πλῆθος τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πόσους τε καὶ ποίους τινὰς ὑπάρχειν δεῖ φύσει, καὶ κατὰ τὴν χώραν ὡσαύτως, πόσην τε εἶναι καὶ ποίαν τινὰ ταύτην. οἴονται μὲν οὖν οἱ πλεῖστοι προσήκειν μεγάλην εἶναι τὴν εὐδαίμονα πόλιν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἀληθές, ἀγνοοῦσι ποία μεγάλη καὶ ποία μικρὰ πόλις. κατʼ ἀριθμοῦ γὰρ πλῆθος τῶν ἐνοικούντων κρίνουσι τὴν μεγάλην, δεῖ δὲ μᾶλλον μὴ εἰς τὸ πλῆθος εἰς δὲ δύναμιν ἀποβλέπειν. ἔστι γάρ τι καὶ πόλεως ἔργον, ὥστε τὴν δυναμένην τοῦτο μάλιστʼ ἀποτελεῖν, ταύτην οἰητέον εἶναι μεγίστην, οἷον Ἱπποκράτην οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀλλʼ ἰατρὸν εἶναι μείζω φήσειεν ἄν τις τοῦ διαφέροντος κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ σώματος. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ κἂν εἰ δεῖ κρίνειν πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος ἀποβλέποντας, οὐ κατὰ τὸ τυχὸν πλῆθος τοῦτο ποιητέον (ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἴσως ὑπάρχειν καὶ δούλων ἀριθμὸν πολλῶν καὶ μετοίκων καὶ ξένων), ἀλλʼ ὅσοι πόλεώς εἰσι μέρος καὶ ἐξ ὧν συνίσταται πόλις οἰκείων μορίων· ἡ γὰρ τούτων ὑπεροχὴ τοῦ πλήθους μεγάλης πόλεως σημεῖον, ἐξ ἧς δὲ βάναυσοι μὲν ἐξέρχονται πολλοὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὁπλῖται δὲ ὀλίγοι, ταύτην ἀδύνατον εἶναι μεγάλην· οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὸν μεγάλη τε πόλις καὶ πολυάνθρωπος.

+

ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τοῦτό γε ἐκ τῶν ἔργων φανερόν, ὅτι χαλεπόν, ἴσως δʼ ἀδύνατον, εὐνομεῖσθαι τὴν λίαν πολυάνθρωπον· τῶν γοῦν δοκουσῶν πολιτεύεσθαι καλῶς οὐδεμίαν ὁρῶμεν οὖσαν ἀνειμένην πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος. τοῦτο δὲ δῆλον καὶ διὰ τῆς τῶν λόγων πίστεως. ὅ τε γὰρ νόμος τάξις τίς ἐστι, καὶ τὴν εὐνομίαν ἀναγκαῖον εὐταξίαν εἶναι, ὁ δὲ λίαν ὑπερβάλλων ἀριθμὸς οὐ δύναται μετέχειν τάξεως· θείας γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο δυνάμεως ἔργον, ἥτις καὶ τόδε συνέχει τὸ πᾶν. διὸ καὶ πόλιν ἧς μετὰ μεγέθους ὁ λεχθεὶς ὅρος ὑπάρχει, ταύτην εἶναι καλλίστην ἀναγκαῖον· ἐπεὶ τό γε καλὸν ἐν πλήθει καὶ μεγέθει εἴωθε γίνεσθαι, ἀλλʼ ἔστι τι καὶ πόλεως μεγέθους μέτρον, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων, ζῴων φυτῶν ὀργάνων· καὶ γὰρ τούτων ἕκαστον οὔτε λίαν μικρὸν οὔτε κατὰ μέγεθος ὑπερβάλλον ἕξει τὴν αὑτοῦ δύναμιν, ἀλλʼ ὁτὲ μὲν ὅλως ἐστερημένον ἔσται τῆς φύσεως ὁτὲ δὲ φαύλως ἔχον, οἷον πλοῖον σπιθαμιαῖον μὲν οὐκ ἔσται πλοῖον ὅλως, οὐδὲ δυοῖν σταδίοιν,

+ +
+

εἰς δὲ τὶ μέγεθος ἐλθὸν ὁτὲ μὲν διὰ σμικρότητα φαύλην ποιήσει τὴν ναυτιλίαν, ὁτὲ δὲ διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολήν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πόλις ἡ μὲν ἐξ ὀλίγων λίαν οὐκ αὐτάρκης (ἡ δὲ πόλις αὔταρκες), ἡ δὲ ἐκ πολλῶν ἄγαν ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις αὐτάρκης ὥσπερ δʼ ἔθνος, ἀλλʼ οὐ πόλις· πολιτείαν γὰρ οὐ ῥᾴδιον ὑπάρχειν· τίς γὰρ στρατηγὸς ἔσται τοῦ λίαν ὑπερβάλλοντος πλήθους, ἢ τίς κῆρυξ μὴ Στεντόρειος; διὸ πρώτην μὲν εἶναι πόλιν ἀναγκαῖον τὴν ἐκ τοσούτου πλήθους ὃ πρῶτον πλῆθος αὔταρκες πρὸς τὸ εὖ ζῆν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν· ἐνδέχεται δὲ καὶ τὴν ταύτης ὑπερβάλλουσαν κατὰ πλῆθος εἶναι μείζω πόλιν, ἀλλὰ τοῦτʼ οὐκ ἔστιν, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, ἀόριστον. τίς δʼ ἐστὶν ὁ τῆς ὑπερβολῆς ὅρος, ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἰδεῖν ῥᾴδιον. εἰσὶ γὰρ αἱ πράξεις τῆς πόλεως τῶν μὲν ἀρχόντων τῶν δʼ ἀρχομένων, ἄρχοντος δʼ ἐπίταξις καὶ κρίσις ἔργον· πρὸς δὲ τὸ κρίνειν περὶ τῶν δικαίων καὶ πρὸς τὸ τὰς ἀρχὰς διανέμειν κατʼ ἀξίαν ἀναγκαῖον γνωρίζειν ἀλλήλους, ποῖοί τινές εἰσι, τοὺς πολίτας, ὡς ὅπου τοῦτο μὴ συμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι, φαύλως ἀνάγκη γίγνεσθαι τὰ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς κρίσεις. περὶ ἀμφότερα γὰρ οὐ δίκαιον αὐτοσχεδιάζειν, ὅπερ ἐν τῇ πολυανθρωπίᾳ τῇ λίαν ὑπάρχει φανερῶς. ἔτι δὲ ξένοις καὶ μετοίκοις ῥᾴδιον μεταλαμβάνειν τῆς πολιτείας· οὐ γὰρ χαλεπὸν τὸ λανθάνειν διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ πλήθους. δῆλον τοίνυν ὡς οὗτός ἐστι πόλεως ὅρος ἄριστος, ἡ μεγίστη τοῦ πλήθους ὑπερβολὴ πρὸς αὐτάρκειαν ζωῆς εὐσύνοπτος. περὶ μὲν οὖν μεγέθους πόλεως διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

+

παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς χώρας ἔχει. περὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ ποίαν τινά, δῆλον ὅτι τὴν αὐταρκεστάτην πᾶς τις ἂν ἐπαινέσειεν (τοιαύτην δʼ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὴν παντοφόρον· τὸ γὰρ πάντα ὑπάρχειν καὶ δεῖσθαι μηθενὸς αὔταρκες)· πλήθει δὲ καὶ μεγέθει τοσαύτην ὥστε δύνασθαι τοὺς οἰκοῦντας ζῆν σχολάζοντας ἐλευθερίως ἅμα καὶ σωφρόνως. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν ὅρον εἰ καλῶς ἢ μὴ καλῶς λέγομεν, ὕστερον ἐπισκεπτέον ἀκριβέστερον, ὅταν ὅλως περὶ κτήσεως καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν εὐπορίας συμβαίνῃ ποιεῖσθαι μνείαν, πῶς δεῖ καὶ τίνα τρόπον ἔχειν πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν αὐτῆς· πολλαὶ γὰρ περὶ τὴν σκέψιν ταύτην εἰσὶν ἀμφισβητήσεις διὰ τοὺς ἕλκοντας ἐφʼ ἑκατέραν τοῦ βίου τὴν ὑπερβολήν, τοὺς μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν γλισχρότητα τοὺς δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν τρυφήν. τὸ δʼ εἶδος τῆς χώρας οὐ χαλεπὸν εἰπεῖν (δεῖ δʼ ἔνια πείθεσθαι καὶ τοῖς περὶ τὴν στρατηγίαν ἐμπείροις), ὅτι χρὴ μὲν τοῖς πολεμίοις εἶναι δυσέμβολον αὐτοῖς δʼ εὐέξοδον.

+ +
+

ἔτι δʼ ὥσπερ τὸ πλῆθος τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εὐσύνοπτον ἔφαμεν εἶναι δεῖν, οὕτω καὶ τὴν χώραν· τὸ δʼ εὐσύνοπτον τὸ εὐβοήθητον εἶναι τὴν χώραν ἐστίν. τῆς δὲ πόλεως τὴν θέσιν εἰ χρὴ ποιεῖν κατʼ εὐχήν, πρός τε τὴν θάλατταν προσήκει κεῖσθαι καλῶς πρός τε τὴν χώραν. εἷς μὲν οὖν ὁ λεχθεὶς ὅρος (δεῖ γὰρ πρὸς τὰς ἐκβοηθείας κοινὴν εἶναι τῶν τόπων ἁπάντων)· ὁ δὲ λοιπὸς πρὸς τὰς τῶν γινομένων καρπῶν παραπομπάς, ἔτι δὲ τῆς περὶ ξύλα ὕλης, κἂν εἴ τινα ἄλλην ἐργασίαν ἡ χώρα τυγχάνοι κεκτημένη τοιαύτην εὐπαρακόμιστον.

+

περὶ δὲ τῆς πρὸς τὴν θάλατταν κοινωνίας, πότερον ὠφέλιμος ταῖς εὐνομουμέναις πόλεσιν ἢ βλαβερά, πολλὰ τυγχάνουσιν ἀμφισβητοῦντες· τό τε γὰρ ἐπιξενοῦσθαί τινας ἐν ἄλλοις τεθραμμένους νόμοις ἀσύμφορον εἶναί φασι πρὸς τὴν εὐνομίαν, καὶ τὴν πολυανθρωπίαν· γίνεσθαι μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ χρῆσθαι τῇ θαλάττῃ διαπέμποντας καὶ δεχομένους ἐμπόρων πλῆθος, ὑπεναντίαν δʼ εἶναι πρὸς τὸ πολιτεύεσθαι καλῶς. ὅτι μὲν οὖν, εἰ ταῦτα μὴ συμβαίνει, βέλτιον καὶ πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν καὶ πρὸς εὐπορίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων μετέχειν τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν χώραν τῆς θαλάττης, οὐκ ἄδηλον. καὶ γὰρ πρὸς τὸ ῥᾷον φέρειν τοὺς πολέμους εὐβοηθήτους εἶναι δεῖ κατʼ ἀμφότερα τοὺς σωθησομένους, καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν, καὶ πρὸς τὸ βλάψαι τοὺς ἐπιτιθεμένους, εἰ μὴ κατʼ ἄμφω δυνατόν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ θάτερον ὑπάρξει μᾶλλον ἀμφοτέρων μετέχουσιν. ὅσα τʼ ἂν μὴ τυγχάνῃ παρʼ αὑτοῖς ὄντα, δέξασθαι ταῦτα, καὶ τὰ πλεονάζοντα τῶν γιγνομένων ἐκπέμψασθαι τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐστίν. αὑτῇ γὰρ ἐμπορικήν, ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῖς ἄλλοις, δεῖ εἶναι τὴν πόλιν· οἱ δὲ παρέχοντες σφᾶς αὐτοὺς πᾶσιν ἀγορὰν προσόδου χάριν ταῦτα πράττουσιν· ἣν δὲ μὴ δεῖ πόλιν τοιαύτης μετέχειν πλεονεξίας, οὐδʼ ἐμπόριον δεῖ κεκτῆσθαι τοιοῦτον. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ νῦν ὁρῶμεν πολλαῖς ὑπάρχοντα καὶ χώραις καὶ πόλεσιν ἐπίνεια καὶ λιμένας εὐφυῶς κείμενα πρὸς τὴν πόλιν, ὥστε μήτε τὸ αὐτὸ νέμειν ἄστυ μήτε πόρρω λίαν, ἀλλὰ κρατεῖσθαι τείχεσι καὶ τοιούτοις ἄλλοις ἐρύμασι, φανερὸν ὡς εἰ μὲν ἀγαθόν τι συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι διὰ τῆς κοινωνίας αὐτῶν, ὑπάρξει τῇ πόλει τοῦτο τὸ ἀγαθόν, εἰ δέ τι βλαβερόν, φυλάξασθαι ῥᾴδιον τοῖς νόμοις φράζοντας καὶ διορίζοντας τίνας οὐ δεῖ καὶ τίνας ἐπιμίσγεσθαι δεῖ πρὸς ἀλλήλους.

+

περὶ δὲ τῆς ναυτικῆς δυνάμεως, ὅτι μὲν βέλτιστον ὑπάρχειν μέχρι τινὸς πλήθους, οὐκ ἄδηλον

+ +
+

(oὐ γὰρ μόνον αὑτοῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πλησίον τισὶ δεῖ καὶ φοβεροὺς εἶναι καὶ δύνασθαι βοηθεῖν, ὥσπερ κατὰ γῆν, καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν)· περὶ δὲ πλήθους ἤδη καὶ μεγέθους τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης πρὸς τὸν βίον ἀποσκεπτέον τῆς πόλεως. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πολιτικὸν ζήσεται βίον, ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν ὑπάρχειν πρὸς τὰς πράξεις σύμμετρον. τὴν δὲ πολυανθρωπίαν τὴν γιγνομένην περὶ τὸν ναυτικὸν ὄχλον οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν ταῖς πόλεσιν· οὐθὲν γὰρ αὐτοὺς μέρος εἶναι δεῖ τῆς πόλεως. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιβατικὸν ἐλεύθερον καὶ τῶν πεζευόντων ἐστίν, ὃ κύριόν ἐστι καὶ κρατεῖ τῆς ναυτιλίας· πλήθους δὲ ὑπάρχοντος περιοίκων καὶ τῶν τὴν χώραν γεωργούντων, ἀφθονίαν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ ναυτῶν. ὁρῶμεν δὲ τοῦτο καὶ νῦν ὑπάρχον τισίν, οἷον τῇ πόλει τῶν Ἡρακλεωτῶν· πολλὰς γὰρ ἐκπληροῦσι τριήρεις, κεκτημένοι τῷ μεγέθει πόλιν ἑτέρων ἐμμελεστέραν.

+

περὶ μὲν οὖν χώρας καὶ λιμένων τῶν πόλεων καὶ θαλάττης καὶ περὶ τῆς ναυτικῆς δυνάμεως ἔστω διωρισμένα τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· περὶ δὲ τοῦ πολιτικοῦ πλήθους, τίνα μὲν ὅρον ὑπάρχειν χρή, πρότερον εἴπομεν, ποίους δέ τινας τὴν φύσιν εἶναι δεῖ, νῦν λέγωμεν.

+

σχεδὸν δὴ κατανοήσειεν ἄν τις τοῦτό γε, βλέψας ἐπί τε τὰς πόλεις τὰς εὐδοκιμούσας τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην, ὡς διείληπται τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ψυχροῖς τόποις ἔθνη καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν Εὐρώπην θυμοῦ μέν ἐστι πλήρη, διανοίας δὲ ἐνδεέστερα καὶ τέχνης, διόπερ ἐλεύθερα μὲν διατελεῖ μᾶλλον, ἀπολίτευτα δὲ καὶ τῶν πλησίον ἄρχειν οὐ δυνάμενα· τὰ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν διανοητικὰ μὲν καὶ τεχνικὰ τὴν ψυχήν, ἄθυμα δέ, διόπερ ἀρχόμενα καὶ δουλεύοντα διατελεῖ· τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων γένος, ὥσπερ μεσεύει κατὰ τοὺς τόπους, οὕτως ἀμφοῖν μετέχει. καὶ γὰρ ἔνθυμον καὶ διανοητικόν ἐστιν· διόπερ ἐλεύθερόν τε διατελεῖ καὶ βέλτιστα πολιτευόμενον καὶ δυνάμενον ἄρχειν πάντων, μιᾶς τυγχάνον πολιτείας. τὴν αὐτὴν δʼ ἔχει διαφορὰν καὶ τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔθνη πρὸς ἄλληλα· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἔχει τὴν φύσιν μονόκωλον, τὰ δὲ εὖ κέκραται πρὸς ἀμφοτέρας τὰς δυνάμεις ταύτας. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι δεῖ διανοητικούς τε εἶναι καὶ θυμοειδεῖς τὴν φύσιν τοὺς μέλλοντας εὐαγώγους ἔσεσθαι τῷ νομοθέτῃ πρὸς τὴν ἀρετήν. ὅπερ γάρ φασί τινες δεῖν ὑπάρχειν τοῖς φύλαξι, τὸ φιλητικοὺς μὲν εἶναι τῶν γνωρίμων πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀγνῶτας ἀγρίους, ὁ θυμός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν τὸ φιλητικόν· αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς δύναμις ᾗ φιλοῦμεν.

+ +
+

σημεῖον δέ· πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς συνήθεις καὶ φίλους ὁ θυμὸς αἴρεται μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγνῶτας, ὀλιγωρεῖσθαι νομίσας. διὸ καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος προσηκόντως τοῖς φίλοις ἐγκαλῶν διαλέγεται πρὸς τὸν θυμόν· σὺ γὰρ δὴ παρὰ φίλων ἀπάγχεαι.

+

καὶ τὸ ἄρχον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐλεύθερον ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης ὑπάρχει πᾶσιν· ἀρχικὸν γὰρ καὶ ἀήττητον ὁ θυμός. οὐ καλῶς δʼ ἔχει λέγειν χαλεποὺς εἶναι πρὸς τοὺς ἀγνῶτας· πρὸς οὐθένα γὰρ εἶναι χρὴ τοιοῦτον, οὐδέ εἰσιν οἱ μεγαλόψυχοι τὴν φύσιν ἄγριοι, πλὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας. τοῦτο δὲ μᾶλλον ἔτι πρὸς τοὺς συνήθεις πάσχουσιν, ὅπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, ἂν ἀδικεῖσθαι νομίσωσιν. καὶ τοῦτο συμβαίνει κατὰ λόγον· παρʼ οἷς γὰρ ὀφείλεσθαι τὴν εὐεργεσίαν ὑπολαμβάνουσι, πρὸς τῷ βλάβει καὶ ταύτης ἀποστερεῖσθαι νομίζουσιν· ὅθεν εἴρηται χαλεποὶ πόλεμοι γὰρ ἀδελφῶν Eur. fr. 965 καὶ οἵ τοι πέρᾳ στέρξαντες, οἵδε καὶ πέρᾳ μισοῦσιν. Αnon. fr. 78 (Nauck)

+

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν πολιτευομένων, πόσους τε ὑπάρχειν δεῖ καὶ ποίους τινὰς τὴν φύσιν, ἔτι δὲ τὴν χώραν πόσην τέ τινα καὶ ποίαν τινά, διώρισται σχεδόν (οὐ γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀκρίβειαν δεῖ ζητεῖν διά τε τῶν λόγων καὶ τῶν γιγνομένων διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως).

+

ἐπεὶ δʼ ὥσπερ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ φύσιν συνεστώτων οὐ ταῦτά ἐστι μόρια τῆς ὅλης συστάσεως ὧν ἄνευ τὸ ὅλον οὐκ ἂν εἴη, δῆλον ὡς οὐδὲ πόλεως μέρη θετέον ὅσα ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν, οὐδʼ ἄλλης κοινωνίας οὐδεμιᾶς ἐξ ἧς ἕν τι τὸ γένος (ἓν γάρ τι καὶ κοινὸν εἶναι δεῖ καὶ ταὐτὸ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς, ἄν τε ἴσον ἄν τε ἄνισον μεταλαμβάνωσιν)· οἷον εἴτε τροφὴ τοῦτό ἐστιν εἴτε χώρας πλῆθος εἴτʼ ἄλλο τι τῶν τοιούτων ἐστίν. ὅταν δʼ ᾖ τὸ μὲν τούτου ἕνεκεν τὸ δʼ οὗ ἕνεκεν, οὐθέν ἔν γε τούτοις κοινὸν ἀλλʼ ἢ τῷ μὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ δὲ λαβεῖν· λέγω δʼ οἷον ὀργάνῳ τε παντὶ πρὸς τὸ γιγνόμενον ἔργον καὶ τοῖς δημιουργοῖς· οἰκίᾳ γὰρ πρὸς οἰκοδόμον οὐθέν ἐστιν ὃ γίγνεται κοινόν, ἀλλʼ ἔστι τῆς οἰκίας χάριν ἡ τῶν οἰκοδόμων τέχνη. διὸ κτήσεως μὲν δεῖ ταῖς πόλεσιν, οὐδὲν δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ κτῆσις μέρος τῆς πόλεως· πολλὰ δʼ ἔμψυχα μέρη τῆς κτήσεώς ἐστιν· ἡ δὲ πόλις κοινωνία τίς ἐστι τῶν ὁμοίων, ἕνεκεν δὲ ζωῆς τῆς ἐνδεχομένης ἀρίστης. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐστὶν εὐδαιμονία τὸ ἄριστον, αὕτη δὲ ἀρετῆς ἐνέργεια καὶ χρῆσίς τις τέλειος, συμβέβηκε δὲ οὕτως ὥστε τοὺς μὲν ἐνδέχεσθαι μετέχειν αὐτῆς τοὺς δὲ μικρὸν ἢ μηδέν, δῆλον ὡς τοῦτʼ αἴτιον τοῦ γίγνεσθαι πόλεως εἴδη καὶ διαφορὰς καὶ πολιτείας πλείους·

+ +
+

ἄλλον γὰρ τρόπον καὶ διʼ ἄλλων ἕκαστοι τοῦτο θηρεύοντες τούς τε βίους ἑτέρους ποιοῦνται καὶ τὰς πολιτείας. ἐπισκεπτέον δὲ καὶ πόσα ταυτί ἐστιν ὧν ἄνευ πόλις οὐκ ἂν εἴη· καὶ γὰρ ἃ λέγομεν εἶναι μέρη πόλεως ἐν τούτοις ἂν εἴη, διὸ ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν. ληπτέον τοίνυν τῶν ἔργων τὸν ἀριθμόν· ἐκ τούτων γὰρ ἔσται δῆλον. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ὑπάρχειν δεῖ τροφήν, ἔπειτα τέχνας (πολλῶν γὰρ ὀργάνων δεῖται τὸ ζῆν), τρίτον δὲ ὅπλα (τοὺς γὰρ κοινωνοῦντας ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ἐν αὑτοῖς ἔχειν ὅπλα πρός τε τὴν ἀρχήν, τῶν ἀπειθούντων χάριν, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξωθεν ἀδικεῖν ἐπιχειροῦντας), ἔτι χρημάτων τινὰ εὐπορίαν, ὅπως ἔχωσι καὶ πρὸς τὰς καθʼ αὑτοὺς χρείας καὶ πρὸς τὰς πολεμικάς, πέμπτον δὲ καὶ πρῶτον τὴν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἐπιμέλειαν, ἣν καλοῦσιν ἱερατείαν, ἕκτον δὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ πάντων ἀναγκαιότατον κρίσιν περὶ τῶν συμφερόντων καὶ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἔργα ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν ὧν δεῖται πᾶσα πόλις ὡς εἰπεῖν (ἡ γὰρ πόλις πλῆθός ἐστιν οὐ τὸ τυχὸν ἀλλὰ πρὸς ζωὴν αὔταρκες, ὥς φαμεν, ἐὰν δέ τι τυγχάνῃ τούτων ἐκλεῖπον, ἀδύνατον ἁπλῶς αὐτάρκη τὴν κοινωνίαν εἶναι ταύτην)· ἀνάγκη τοίνυν κατὰ τὰς ἐργασίας ταύτας συνεστάναι πόλιν· δεῖ ἄρα γεωργῶν τʼ εἶναι πλῆθος, οἳ παρασκευάσουσι τὴν τροφήν, καὶ τεχνίτας, καὶ τὸ μάχιμον, καὶ τὸ εὔπορον, καὶ ἱερεῖς, καὶ κριτὰς τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ συμφερόντων.

+

διωρισμένων δὲ τούτων λοιπὸν σκέψασθαι πότερον πᾶσι κοινωνητέον πάντων τούτων (ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἅπαντας εἶναι καὶ γεωργοὺς καὶ τεχνίτας καὶ τοὺς βουλευομένους καὶ δικάζοντας), ἢ καθʼ ἕκαστον ἔργον τῶν εἰρημένων ἄλλους ὑποθετέον, ἢ τὰ μὲν ἴδια τὰ δὲ κοινὰ τούτων ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστίν. οὐκ ἐν πάσῃ δὲ ταὐτὸ πολιτείᾳ. καθάπερ γὰρ εἴπομεν, ἐνδέχεται καὶ πάντας κοινωνεῖν πάντων καὶ μὴ πάντας πάντων ἀλλὰ τινὰς τινῶν. ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ ποιεῖ τὰς πολιτείας ἑτέρας· ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις μετέχουσι πάντες πάντων, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις τοὐναντίον. ἐπεὶ δὲ τυγχάνομεν σκοποῦντες περὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶ καθʼ ἣν ἡ πόλις ἂν εἴη μάλιστʼ εὐδαίμων, τὴν δʼ εὐδαιμονίαν ὅτι χωρὶς ἀρετῆς ἀδύνατον ὑπάρχειν εἴρηται πρότερον, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων ὡς ἐν τῇ κάλλιστα πολιτευομένῃ πόλει καὶ τῇ κεκτημένῃ δικαίους ἄνδρας ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, οὔτε βάναυσον βίον οὔτʼ ἀγοραῖον δεῖ ζῆν τοὺς πολίτας (ἀγεννὴς γὰρ ὁ τοιοῦτος βίος καὶ πρὸς ἀρετὴν ὑπεναντίος), οὐδὲ δὴ γεωργοὺς εἶναι τοὺς μέλλοντας ἔσεσθαι

+ +
+

(δεῖ γὰρ σχολῆς καὶ πρὸς τὴν γένεσιν τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ πρὸς τὰς πράξεις τὰς πολιτικάς).

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ πολεμικὸν καὶ τὸ βουλευόμενον περὶ τῶν συμφερόντων καὶ κρῖνον περὶ τῶν δικαίων ἐνυπάρχει καὶ μέρη φαίνεται τῆς πόλεως μάλιστα ὄντα, πότερον ἕτερα καὶ ταῦτα θετέον ἢ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀποδοτέον ἄμφω; φανερὸν δὲ καὶ τοῦτο, διότι τρόπον μέν τινα τοῖς αὐτοῖς τρόπον δέ τινα καὶ ἑτέροις. ᾗ μὲν γὰρ ἑτέρας ἀκμῆς ἑκάτερον τῶν ἔργων, καὶ τὸ μὲν δεῖται φρονήσεως τὸ δὲ δυνάμεως, ἑτέροις· ᾗ δὲ τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἐστὶ τοὺς δυναμένους βιάζεσθαι καὶ κωλύειν, τούτους ὑπομένειν ἀρχομένους ἀεί, ταύτῃ δὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς. οἱ γὰρ τῶν ὅπλων κύριοι καὶ τοῦ μένειν ἢ μὴ μένειν κύριοι τὴν πολιτείαν. λείπεται τοίνυν τοῖς αὐτοῖς μὲν ἀμφοτέροις ἀποδιδόναι τὴν πολιτείαν ταύτην, μὴ ἅμα δέ, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ πέφυκεν ἡ μὲν δύναμις ἐν νεωτέροις, ἡ δὲ φρόνησις ἐν πρεσβυτέροις εἶναὶ, ἔοικεν οὕτως ἀμφοῖν νενεμῆσθαι συμφέρειν καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστιν· ἔχει γὰρ αὕτη ἡ διαίρεσις τὸ κατʼ ἀξίαν. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰς κτήσεις δεῖ εἶναι περὶ τούτους. ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ εὐπορίαν ὑπάρχειν τοῖς πολίταις, πολῖται δὲ οὗτοι. τὸ γὰρ βάναυσον οὐ μετέχει τῆς πόλεως, οὐδʼ ἄλλο οὐθὲν γένος ὃ μὴ τῆς ἀρετῆς δημιουργόν ἐστιν. τοῦτο δὲ δῆλον ἐκ τῆς ὑποθέσεως· τὸ μὲν γὰρ εὐδαιμονεῖν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν μετὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς, εὐδαίμονα δὲ πόλιν οὐκ εἰς μέρος τι βλέψαντας δεῖ λέγειν αὐτῆς, ἀλλʼ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πολίτας. φανερὸν δὲ καὶ ὅτι δεῖ τὰς κτήσεις εἶναι τούτων, εἴπερ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοὺς γεωργοὺς δούλους ἢ βαρβάρους περιοίκους. λοιπὸν δʼ ἐκ τῶν καταριθμηθέντων τὸ τῶν ἱερέων γένος. φανερὰ δὲ καὶ ἡ τούτων τάξις. οὔτε γὰρ γεωργὸν οὔτε βάναυσον ἱερέα καταστατέον (ὑπὸ γὰρ τῶν πολιτῶν πρέπει τιμᾶσθαι τοὺς θεούς)· ἐπεὶ δὲ διῄρηται τὸ πολιτικὸν εἰς δύο μέρη, τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ τό τε ὁπλιτικὸν καὶ τὸ βουλευτικόν, πρέπει δὲ τήν τε θεραπείαν ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν ἔχειν περὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς διὰ τὸν χρόνον ἀπειρηκότας, τούτοις ἂν εἴη τὰς περὶ αὐτοὺς ἱερωσύνας ἀποδοτέον.

+

ὧν μὲν τοίνυν ἄνευ πόλις οὐ συνίσταται καὶ ὅσα μέρη πόλεως, εἴρηται (γεωργοὺς μὲν γὰρ καὶ τεχνίτας καὶ πᾶν τὸ θητικὸν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν ταῖς πόλεσιν, μέρη δὲ τῆς πόλεως τό τε ὁπλιτικὸν καὶ βουλευτικόν), καὶ κεχώρισται δὴ τούτων ἕκαστον, τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ τὸ δὲ κατὰ μέρος.

+

ἔοικε δὲ οὐ νῦν οὐδὲ νεωστὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναι γνώριμον τοῖς περὶ πολιτείας φιλοσοφοῦσιν, ὅτι δεῖ διῃρῆσθαι χωρὶς κατὰ γένη τὴν πόλιν καὶ τό τε μάχιμον ἕτερον εἶναι καὶ τὸ γεωργοῦν.

+ +
+

ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τε γὰρ ἔχει τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ἔτι καὶ νῦν, τά τε περὶ τὴν Κρήτην, τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ Αἴγυπτον Σεσώστριος, ὥς φασιν, οὕτω νομοθετήσαντος, Μίνω δὲ τὰ περὶ Κρήτην. ἀρχαία δὲ ἔοικεν εἶναι καὶ τῶν συσσιτίων ἡ τάξις, τὰ μὲν περὶ Κρήτην γενόμενα περὶ τὴν Μίνω βασιλείαν, τὰ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν πολλῷ παλαιότερα τούτων. φασὶ γὰρ οἱ λόγιοι τῶν ἐκεῖ κατοικούντων Ἰταλόν τινα γενέσθαι βασιλέα τῆς Οἰνωτρίας, ἀφʼ οὗ τό τε ὄνομα μεταβαλόντας Ἰταλοὺς ἀντʼ Οἰνωτρῶν κληθῆναι καὶ τὴν ἀκτὴν ταύτην τῆς Εὐρώπης Ἰταλίαν τοὔνομα λαβεῖν, ὅση τετύχηκεν ἐντὸς οὖσα τοῦ κόλπου τοῦ Σκυλλητικοῦ καὶ τοῦ Λαμητικοῦ· ἀπέχει δὲ ταῦτα ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων ὁδὸν ἡμισείας ἡμέρας. τοῦτον δὴ λέγουσι τὸν Ἰταλὸν νομάδας τοὺς Οἰνωτροὺς ὄντας ποιῆσαι γεωργούς, καὶ νόμους ἄλλους τε αὐτοῖς θέσθαι καὶ τὰ συσσίτια καταστῆσαι πρῶτον· διὸ καὶ νῦν ἔτι τῶν ἀπʼ ἐκείνου τινὲς χρῶνται τοῖς συσσιτίοις καὶ τῶν νόμων ἐνίοις. ᾤκουν δὲ τὸ μὲν πρὸς τὴν Τυρρηνίαν Ὀπικοὶ καὶ πρότερον καὶ νῦν καλούμενοι τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν Αὔσονες, τὸ δὲ πρὸς τὴν Ἰαπυγίαν καὶ τὸν Ἰόνιον Χῶνες, τὴν καλουμένην Σύρτιν· ἦσαν δὲ καὶ οἱ Χῶνες Οἰνωτροὶ τὸ γένος. ἡ μὲν οὖν τῶν συσσιτίων τάξις ἐντεῦθεν γέγονε πρῶτον, ὁ δὲ χωρισμὸς ὁ κατὰ γένος τοῦ πολιτικοῦ πλήθους ἐξ Αἰγύπτου· πολὺ γὰρ ὑπερτείνει τοῖς χρόνοις τὴν Μίνω βασιλείαν ἡ Σεσώστριος. σχεδὸν μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα δεῖ νομίζειν εὑρῆσθαι πολλάκις ἐν τῷ πολλῷ χρόνῳ, μᾶλλον δʼ ἀπειράκις. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαῖα τὴν χρείαν διδάσκειν εἰκὸς αὐτήν, τὰ δʼ εἰς εὐσχημοσύνην καὶ περιουσίαν ὑπαρχόντων ἤδη τούτων εὔλογον λαμβάνειν τὴν αὔξησιν· ὥστε καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς πολιτείας οἴεσθαι δεῖ τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχειν τρόπον. ὅτι δὲ πάντα ἀρχαῖα, σημεῖον τὰ περὶ Αἴγυπτόν ἐστιν· οὗτοι γὰρ ἀρχαιότατοι μὲν δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, νόμων δὲ τετυχήκασιν ἀεὶ καὶ τάξεως πολιτικῆς. διὸ δεῖ τοῖς μὲν εὑρημένοις ἱκανῶς χρῆσθαι, τὰ δὲ παραλελειμμένα πειρᾶσθαι ζητεῖν.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν δεῖ τὴν χώραν εἶναι τῶν ὅπλα κεκτημένων καὶ τῶν τῆς πολιτείας μετεχόντων, εἴρηται πρότερον, καὶ διότι τοὺς γεωργοῦντας αὐτῶν ἑτέρους εἶναι δεῖ, καὶ πόσην τινὰ χρὴ καὶ ποίαν εἶναι τὴν χώραν· περὶ δὲ τῆς διανομῆς καὶ τῶν γεωργούντων, τίνας καὶ ποίους εἶναι χρή, λεκτέον πρῶτον, ἐπειδὴ οὔτε κοινήν φαμεν εἶναι δεῖν τὴν κτῆσιν ὥσπερ τινὲς εἰρήκασιν,

+ +
+

ἀλλὰ τῇ χρήσει φιλικῶς γινομένῃ κοινήν, οὔτʼ ἀπορεῖν οὐθένα τῶν πολιτῶν τροφῆς. περὶ συσσιτίων τε συνδοκεῖ πᾶσι χρήσιμον εἶναι ταῖς εὖ κατεσκευασμέναις πόλεσιν ὑπάρχειν· διʼ ἣν δʼ αἰτίαν συνδοκεῖ καὶ ἡμῖν, ὕστερον ἐροῦμεν. δεῖ δὲ τούτων κοινωνεῖν πάντας τοὺς πολίτας, οὐ ῥᾴδιον δὲ τοὺς ἀπόρους ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων τε εἰσφέρειν τὸ συντεταγμένον καὶ διοικεῖν τὴν ἄλλην οἰκίαν. ἔτι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς δαπανήματα κοινὰ πάσης τῆς πόλεώς ἐστιν. ἀναγκαῖον τοίνυν εἰς δύο μέρη διῃρῆσθαι τὴν χώραν, καὶ τὴν μὲν εἶναι κοινὴν τὴν δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, καὶ τούτων ἑκατέραν διῃρῆσθαι δίχα πάλιν, τῆς μὲν κοινῆς τὸ μὲν ἕτερον μέρος εἰς τὰς πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς λειτουργίας τὸ δὲ ἕτερον εἰς τὴν τῶν συσσιτίων δαπάνην, τῆς δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν τὸ ἕτερον μέρος τὸ πρὸς τὰς ἐσχατιάς, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον πρὸς πόλιν, ἵνα δύο κλήρων ἑκάστῳ νεμηθέντων ἀμφοτέρων τῶν τόπων πάντες μετέχωσιν. τό τε γὰρ ἴσον οὕτως ἔχει καὶ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ πρὸς τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας πολέμους ὁμονοητικώτερον. ὅπου γὰρ μὴ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, οἱ μὲν ὀλιγωροῦσι τῆς πρὸς τοὺς ὁμόρους ἔχθρας, οἱ δὲ λίαν φροντίζουσι καὶ παρὰ τὸ καλόν. διὸ παρʼ ἐνίοις νόμος ἐστὶ τοὺς γειτνιῶντας τοῖς ὁμόροις μὴ συμμετέχειν βουλῆς τῶν πρὸς αὐτοὺς πολέμων, ὡς διὰ τὸ ἴδιον οὐκ ἂν δυναμένους βουλεύσασθαι καλῶς. τὴν μὲν οὖν χώραν ἀνάγκη διῃρῆσθαι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον διὰ τὰς προειρημένας αἰτίας· τοὺς δὲ γεωργήσοντας μάλιστα μέν, εἰ δεῖ κατʼ εὐχήν, δούλους εἶναι, μήτε ὁμοφύλων πάντων μήτε θυμοειδῶν (οὕτω γὰρ ἂν πρός τε τὴν ἐργασίαν εἶεν χρήσιμοι καὶ πρὸς τὸ μηδὲν νεωτερίζειν ἀσφαλεῖς), δεύτερον δὲ βαρβάρους περιοίκους παραπλησίους τοῖς εἰρημένοις τὴν φύσιν, τούτων δὲ τοὺς μὲν ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις εἶναι ἰδίους τῶν κεκτημένων τὰς οὐσίας, τοὺς δʼ ἐπὶ τῇ κοινῇ γῇ κοινούς. τίνα δὲ δεῖ τρόπον χρῆσθαι δούλοις, καὶ διότι βέλτιον πᾶσι τοῖς δούλοις ἆθλον προκεῖσθαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, ὕστερον ἐροῦμεν.

+

τὴν δὲ πόλιν ὅτι μὲν δεῖ κοινὴν εἶναι τῆς ἠπείρου τε καὶ τῆς θαλάττης καὶ τῆς χώρας ἁπάσης ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐνδεχομένων, εἴρηται πρότερον· αὐτῆς δὲ προσάντη τὴν θέσιν εὔχεσθαι δεῖ κατατυγχάνειν πρὸς τέτταρα βλέποντας, πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἀναγκαῖον πρὸς ὑγίειαν (αἵ τε γὰρ πρὸς ἕω τὴν ἔγκλισιν ἔχουσαι καὶ πρὸς τὰ πνεύματα τὰ πνέοντα ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς ὑγιεινότεραι, δεύτερον δʼ αἱ κατὰ βορέαν· εὐχείμεροι γὰρ αὗται μᾶλλον)·

+ +
+

τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν πρὸς τὸ τὰς πολιτικὰς πράξεις καὶ πολεμικὰς καλῶς ἔχει. πρὸς μὲν οὖν τὰς πολεμικὰς αὐτοῖς μὲν εὐέξοδον εἶναι χρή, τοῖς δʼ ἐναντίοις δυσπρόσοδον καὶ δυσπερίληπτον, ὑδάτων τε καὶ ναμάτων μάλιστα μὲν ὑπάρχειν πλῆθος οἰκεῖον, εἰ δὲ μή, τοῦτό γε εὕρηται διὰ τοῦ κατασκευάζειν ὑποδοχὰς ὀμβρίοις ὕδασιν ἀφθόνους καὶ μεγάλας, ὥστε μηδέποτε ὑπολείπειν εἰργομένους τῆς χώρας διὰ πόλεμον· ἐπεὶ δὲ δεῖ περὶ ὑγιείας φροντίζειν τῶν ἐνοικούντων, τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ κεῖσθαι τὸν τόπον ἔν τε τοιούτῳ καὶ πρὸς τοιοῦτον καλῶς, δεύτερον δὲ ὕδασιν ὑγιεινοῖς χρῆσθαι, καὶ τούτου τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἔχειν μὴ παρέργως. οἷς γὰρ πλείστοις χρώμεθα πρὸς τὸ σῶμα καὶ πλειστάκις, ταῦτα πλεῖστον συμβάλλεται πρὸς τὴν ὑγίειαν· ἡ δὲ τῶν ὑδάτων καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος δύναμις τοιαύτην ἔχει τὴν φύσιν. διόπερ ἐν ταῖς εὖ φρονούσαις δεῖ διωρίσθαι πόλεσιν, ἐὰν μὴ πάνθʼ ὅμοια μηδʼ ἀφθονία τοιούτων ᾖ ναμάτων, χωρὶς τά τε εἰς τροφὴν ὕδατα καὶ τὰ πρὸς τὴν ἄλλην χρείαν.

+

περὶ δὲ τόπων ἐρυμνῶν οὐ πάσαις ὁμοίως ἔχει τὸ συμφέρον ταῖς πολιτείαις· οἷον ἀκρόπολις ὀλιγαρχικὸν καὶ μοναρχικόν, δημοκρατικὸν δʼ ὁμαλότης, ἀριστοκρατικὸν δὲ οὐδέτερον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἰσχυροὶ τόποι πλείους. ἡ δὲ τῶν ἰδίων οἰκήσεων διάθεσις ἡδίων μὲν νομίζεται καὶ χρησιμωτέρα πρὸς τὰς ἄλλας πράξεις, ἂν εὔτομος ᾖ καὶ κατὰ τὸν νεώτερον καὶ τὸν Ἱπποδάμειον τρόπον, πρὸς δὲ τὰς πολεμικὰς ἀσφαλείας τοὐναντίον ὡς εἶχον κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαῖον χρόνον· δυσείσοδος γὰρ ἐκείνη τοῖς ξενικοῖς καὶ δυσεξερεύνητος τοῖς ἐπιτιθεμένοις. διὸ δεῖ τούτων ἀμφοτέρων μετέχειν (ἐνδέχεται γάρ, ἄν τις οὕτως κατασκευάζῃ καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς γεωργοῖς ἃς καλοῦσί τινες τῶν ἀμπέλων συστάδας), καὶ τὴν μὲν ὅλην μὴ ποιεῖν πόλιν εὔτομον, κατὰ μέρη δὲ καὶ τόπους· οὕτω γὰρ καὶ πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν καὶ πρὸς κόσμον ἕξει καλῶς.

+

περὶ δὲ τειχῶν, οἱ μὴ φάσκοντες δεῖν ἔχειν τὰς τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀντιποιουμένας πόλεις λίαν ἀρχαίως ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, καὶ ταῦθʼ ὁρῶντες ἐλεγχομένας ἔργῳ τὰς ἐκείνως καλλωπισαμένας. ἔστι δὲ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ὁμοίους καὶ μὴ πολὺ τῷ πλήθει διαφέροντας οὐ καλὸν τὸ πειρᾶσθαι σῴζεσθαι διὰ τῆς τῶν τειχῶν ἐρυμνότητος· ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ συμβαίνειν ἐνδέχεται πλείω τὴν ὑπεροχὴν γίγνεσθαι τῶν ἐπιόντων τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης τῆς ἐν τοῖς ὀλίγοις ἀρετῆς, εἰ δεῖ σῴζεσθαι καὶ μὴ πάσχειν κακῶς μηδὲ ὑβρίζεσθαι, τὴν ἀσφαλεστάτην ἐρυμνότητα τῶν τειχῶν οἰητέον εἶναι πολεμικωτάτην,

+ +
+

ἄλλως τε καὶ νῦν εὑρημένων τῶν περὶ τὰ βέλη καὶ τὰς μηχανὰς εἰς ἀκρίβειαν πρὸς τὰς πολιορκίας. ὅμοιον γὰρ τὸ τείχη μὴ περιβάλλειν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀξιοῦν καὶ τὸ τὴν χώραν εὐέμβολον ζητεῖν καὶ περιαιρεῖν τοὺς ὀρεινοὺς τόπους, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ταῖς οἰκήσεσι ταῖς ἰδίαις μὴ περιβάλλειν τοίχους ὡς ἀνάνδρων ἐσομένων τῶν κατοικούντων. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τοῦτό γε δεῖ λανθάνειν, ὅτι τοῖς μὲν περιβεβλημένοις τείχη περὶ τὴν πόλιν ἔξεστιν ἀμφοτέρως χρῆσθαι ταῖς πόλεσιν, καὶ ὡς ἐχούσαις τείχη καὶ ὡς μὴ ἐχούσαις, τοῖς δὲ μὴ κεκτημένοις οὐκ ἔξεστιν. εἰ δὴ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, οὐχ ὅτι τείχη μόνον περιβλητέον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων ἐπιμελητέον, ὅπως καὶ πρὸς κόσμον ἔχῃ τῇ πόλει πρεπόντως καὶ πρὸς τὰς πολεμικὰς χρείας, τάς τε ἄλλας καὶ τὰς νῦν ἐπεξευρημένας. ὥσπερ γὰρ τοῖς ἐπιτιθεμένοις ἐπιμελές ἐστι διʼ ὧν τρόπων πλεονεκτήσουσιν, οὕτω τὰ μὲν εὕρηται τὰ δὲ δεῖ ζητεῖν καὶ φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ τοὺς φυλαττομένους· ἀρχὴν γὰρ οὐδʼ ἐπιχειροῦσιν ἐπιτίθεσθαι τοῖς εὖ παρεσκευασμένοις.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ δεῖ τὸ μὲν πλῆθος τῶν πολιτῶν ἐν συσσιτίοις κατανενεμῆσθαι, τὰ δὲ τείχη διειλῆφθαι φυλακτηρίοις καὶ πύργοις κατὰ τόπους ἐπικαίρους, δῆλον ὡς ταῦτα προκαλεῖται παρασκευάζειν ἔνια τῶν συσσιτίων ἐν τούτοις τοῖς φυλακτηρίοις. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν δὴ τοῦτον ἄν τις διακοσμήσειε τὸν τρόπον· τὰς δὲ τοῖς θείοις ἀποδεδομένας οἰκήσεις καὶ τὰ κυριώτατα τῶν ἀρχείων συσσίτια ἁρμόττει τόπον ἐπιτήδειόν τε ἔχειν καὶ τὸν αὐτόν, ὅσα μὴ τῶν ἱερῶν ὁ νόμος ἀφορίζει χωρὶς ἤ τι μαντεῖον ἄλλο πυθόχρηστον. εἴη δʼ ἂν τοιοῦτος ὁ τόπος ὅστις ἐπιφάνειάν τε ἔχει πρὸς τὴν τῆς θέσεως ἀρετὴν ἱκανῶς καὶ πρὸς τὰ γειτνιῶντα μέρη τῆς πόλεως ἐρυμνοτέρως. πρέπει δʼ ὑπὸ μὲν τοῦτον τὸν τόπον τοιαύτης ἀγορᾶς εἶναι κατασκευὴν οἵαν καὶ περὶ Θετταλίαν νομίζουσιν ἣν ἐλευθέραν καλοῦσιν, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἣν δεῖ καθαρὰν εἶναι τῶν ὠνίων πάντων, καὶ μήτε βάναυσον μήτε γεωργὸν μήτʼ ἄλλον μηδένα τοιοῦτον παραβάλλειν μὴ καλούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων. εἴη δʼ ἂν εὔχαρις ὁ τόπος, εἰ καὶ τὰ γυμνάσια τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἔχοι τὴν τάξιν ἐνταῦθα· πρέπει γὰρ διῃρῆσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἡλικίας καὶ τοῦτον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ παρὰ μὲν τοῖς νεωτέροις ἄρχοντάς τινας διατρίβειν, τοὺς δὲ πρεσβυτέρους παρὰ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν· ἡ γὰρ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς τῶν ἀρχόντων παρουσία μάλιστα ἐμποιεῖ τὴν ἀληθινὴν αἰδῶ καὶ τὸν τῶν ἐλευθέρων φόβον.

+ +
+

τὴν δὲ τῶν ὠνίων ἀγορὰν ἑτέραν τε δεῖ ταύτης εἶναι καὶ χωρίς, ἔχουσαν τόπον εὐσυνάγωγον τοῖς τε ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάττης πεμπομένοις καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας πᾶσιν.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ προεστὸς διαιρεῖται τῆς πόλεως εἰς ἱερεῖς καὶ εἰς ἄρχοντας, πρέπει καὶ τῶν ἱερέων συσσίτια περὶ τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκοδομημάτων ἔχειν τὴν τάξιν. τῶν δʼ ἀρχείων ὅσα περὶ τὰ συμβόλαια ποιεῖται τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν, περί τε γραφὰς δικῶν καὶ τὰς κλήσεις καὶ τὴν ἄλλην τὴν τοιαύτην διοίκησιν, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τὴν ἀγορανομίαν καὶ τὴν καλουμένην ἀστυνομίαν, πρὸς ἀγορᾷ μὲν δεῖ καὶ συνόδῳ τινὶ κοινῇ κατεσκευάσθαι, τοιοῦτος δʼ ὁ περὶ τὴν ἀναγκαίαν ἀγοράν ἐστι τόπος· ἐνσχολάζειν μὲν γὰρ τὴν ἄνω τίθεμεν, ταύτην δὲ πρὸς τὰς ἀναγκαίας πράξεις. μεμιμῆσθαι δὲ χρὴ τὴν εἰρημένην τάξιν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν χώραν· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν οὓς καλοῦσιν οἱ μὲν ὑλωροὺς οἱ δὲ ἀγρονόμους καὶ φυλακτήρια καὶ συσσίτια πρὸς φυλακὴν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν, ἔτι δὲ ἱερὰ κατὰ τὴν χώραν εἶναι νενεμημένα, τὰ μὲν θεοῖς τὰ δὲ ἥρωσιν. ἀλλὰ τὸ διατρίβειν νῦν ἀκριβολογουμένους καὶ λέγοντας περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἀργόν ἐστιν· οὐ γὰρ χαλεπόν ἐστι τὰ τοιαῦτα νοῆσαι, ἀλλὰ ποιῆσαι μᾶλλον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ λέγειν εὐχῆς ἔργον ἐστί, τὸ δὲ συμβῆναι τύχης. διὸ περὶ μὲν τῶν τοιούτων τό γε ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἀφείσθω τὰ νῦν.

+

περὶ δὲ τῆς πολιτείας αὐτῆς, ἐκ τίνων καὶ ποίων δεῖ συνεστάναι τὴν μέλλουσαν ἔσεσθαι πόλιν μακαρίαν καὶ πολιτεύσεσθαι καλῶς, λεκτέον. ἐπεὶ δὲ δύʼ ἐστὶν ἐν οἷς γίγνεται τὸ εὖ πᾶσι, τούτοιν δʼ ἐστὶν ἓν μὲν ἐν τῷ τὸν σκοπὸν κεῖσθαι καὶ τὸ τέλος τῶν πράξεων ὀρθῶς, ἓν δὲ τὰς πρὸς τὸ τέλος φερούσας πράξεις εὑρίσκειν (ἐνδέχεται γὰρ ταῦτα καὶ διαφωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις καὶ συμφωνεῖν· ἐνίοτε γὰρ ὁ μὲν σκοπὸς ἔκκειται καλῶς, ἐν δὲ τῷ πράττειν τοῦ τυχεῖν αὐτοῦ διαμαρτάνουσιν, ὁτὲ δὲ τῶν μὲν πρὸς τὸ τέλος πάντων ἐπιτυγχάνουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ τέλος ἔθεντο φαῦλον, ὁτὲ δὲ ἑκατέρου διαμαρτάνουσιν, οἷον περὶ ἰατρικήν· οὔτε γὰρ ποῖόν τι δεῖ τὸ ὑγιαῖνον εἶναι σῶμα κρίνουσιν ἐνίοτε καλῶς, οὔτε πρὸς τὸν ὑποκείμενον αὐτοῖς ὅρον τυγχάνουσι τῶν ποιητικῶν· δεῖ δʼ ἐν ταῖς τέχναις καὶ ἐπιστήμαις ταῦτα ἀμφότερα κρατεῖσθαι, τὸ τέλος καὶ τὰς εἰς τὸ τέλος πράξεις), ὅτι μὲν οὖν τοῦ τε εὖ ζῆν καὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας ἐφίενται πάντες, φανερόν, ἀλλὰ τούτων τοῖς μὲν ἐξουσία τυγχάνει τοῖς δὲ οὔ, διά τινα τύχην ἢ φύσιν

+ +
+

(δεῖται γὰρ καὶ χορηγίας τινὸς τὸ ζῆν καλῶς, τούτου δὲ ἐλάττονος μὲν τοῖς ἄμεινον διακειμένοις, πλείονος δὲ τοῖς χεῖρον), οἱ δʼ εὐθὺς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ζητοῦσι τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν, ἐξουσίας ὑπαρχούσης. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ προκείμενόν ἐστι τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ἰδεῖν, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶ καθʼ ἣν ἄριστʼ ἂν πολιτεύοιτο πόλις, ἄριστα δʼ ἂν πολιτεύοιτο καθʼ ἣν εὐδαιμονεῖν μάλιστα ἐνδέχεται τὴν πόλιν, δῆλον ὅτι τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν δεῖ, τί ἐστι, μὴ λανθάνειν.

+

φαμὲν δὲ (καὶ διωρίσμεθα ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς, εἴ τι τῶν λόγων ἐκείνων ὄφελος) ἐνέργειαν εἶναι καὶ χρῆσιν ἀρετῆς τελείαν, καὶ ταύτην οὐκ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως ἀλλʼ ἁπλῶς. λέγω δʼ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως τἀναγκαῖα, τὸ δʼ ἁπλῶς τὸ καλῶς· οἷον τὰ περὶ τὰς δικαίας πράξεις, αἱ δίκαιαι τιμωρίαι καὶ κολάσεις ἀπʼ ἀρετῆς μέν εἰσιν, ἀναγκαῖαι δέ, καὶ τὸ καλῶς ἀναγκαίως ἔχουσιν (αἱρετώτερον μὲν γὰρ μηδενὸς δεῖσθαι τῶν τοιούτων μήτε τὸν ἄνδρα μήτε τὴν πόλιν), αἱ δʼ ἐπὶ τὰς τιμὰς καὶ τὰς εὐπορίας ἁπλῶς εἰσι κάλλισται πράξεις. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἕτερον κακοῦ τινὸς ἀναίρεσίς ἐστιν, αἱ τοιαῦται δὲ πράξεις τοὐναντίον· κατασκευαὶ γὰρ ἀγαθῶν εἰσι καὶ γεννήσεις. χρήσαιτο δʼ ἂν ὁ σπουδαῖος ἀνὴρ καὶ πενίᾳ καὶ νόσῳ καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τύχαις ταῖς φαύλαις καλῶς· ἀλλὰ τὸ μακάριον ἐν τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἐστίν (καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο διώρισται κατὰ τοὺς ἠθικοὺς λόγους, ὅτι τοιοῦτός ἐστιν ὁ σπουδαῖος, ᾧ διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀγαθά ἐστι τὰ ἁπλῶς ἀγαθά, δῆλον δʼ ὅτι καὶ τὰς χρήσεις ἀναγκαῖον σπουδαίας καὶ καλὰς εἶναι ταύτας ἁπλῶς)· διὸ καὶ νομίζουσιν ἄνθρωποι τῆς εὐδαιμονίας αἴτια τὰ ἐκτὸς εἶναι τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ὥσπερ εἰ τοῦ κιθαρίζειν λαμπρὸν καὶ καλῶς αἰτιῷντο τὴν λύραν μᾶλλον τῆς τέχνης.

+

ἀναγκαῖον τοίνυν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων τὰ μὲν ὑπάρχειν, τὰ δὲ παρασκευάσαι τὸν νομοθέτην. διὸ κατατυχεῖν εὐχόμεθα τῇ τῆς πόλεως συστάσει ὧν ἡ τύχη κυρία (κυρίαν γὰρ ὑπάρχειν τίθεμεν)· τὸ δὲ σπουδαίαν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν οὐκέτι τύχης ἔργον ἀλλʼ ἐπιστήμης καὶ προαιρέσεως. ἀλλὰ μὴν σπουδαία γε πόλις ἐστὶ τῷ τοὺς πολίτας τοὺς μετέχοντας τῆς πολιτείας εἶναι σπουδαίους· ἡμῖν δὲ πάντες οἱ πολῖται μετέχουσι τῆς πολιτείας. τοῦτʼ ἄρα σκεπτέον, πῶς ἀνὴρ γίνεται σπουδαῖος. καὶ γὰρ εἰ πάντας ἐνδέχεται σπουδαίους εἶναι, μὴ καθʼ ἕκαστον δὲ τῶν πολιτῶν, οὕτως αἱρετώτερον· ἀκολουθεῖ γὰρ τῷ καθʼ ἕκαστον καὶ τὸ πάντας. ἀλλὰ μὴν ἀγαθοί γε καὶ σπουδαῖοι γίγνονται διὰ τριῶν. τὰ τρία δὲ ταῦτά ἐστι φύσις ἔθος λόγος. καὶ γὰρ φῦναι δεῖ πρῶτον, οἷον ἄνθρωπον ἀλλὰ μὴ τῶν ἄλλων τι ζῴων· εἶτα καὶ ποιόν τινα τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ψυχήν. ἔνια δὲ οὐθὲν ὄφελος φῦναι·

+ +
+

τὰ γὰρ ἔθη μεταβαλεῖν ποιεῖ· ἔνια γὰρ εἶσι, διὰ τῆς φύσεως ἐπαμφοτερίζοντα, διὰ τῶν ἐθῶν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον καὶ τὸ βέλτιον. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα τῶν ζῴων μάλιστα μὲν τῇ φύσει ζῇ, μικρὰ δʼ ἔνια καὶ τοῖς ἔθεσιν, ἄνθρωπος δὲ καὶ λόγῳ· μόνος γὰρ ἔχει λόγον· ὥστε δεῖ ταῦτα συμφωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις. πολλὰ γὰρ παρὰ τοὺς ἐθισμοὺς καὶ τὴν φύσιν πράττουσι διὰ τὸν λόγον, ἐὰν πεισθῶσιν ἄλλως ἔχειν βέλτιον. τὴν μὲν τοίνυν φύσιν οἵους εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς μέλλοντας εὐχειρώτους ἔσεσθαι τῷ νομοθέτῃ, διωρίσμεθα πρότερον· τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἔργον ἤδη παιδείας. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐθιζόμενοι μανθάνουσι τὰ δʼ ἀκούοντες.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ πᾶσα πολιτικὴ κοινωνία συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἀρχόντων καὶ ἀρχομένων, τοῦτο δὴ σκεπτέον, εἰ ἑτέρους εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ τοὺς ἀρχομένους ἢ τοὺς αὐτοὺς διὰ βίου· δῆλον γὰρ ὡς ἀκολουθεῖν δεήσει καὶ τὴν παιδείαν κατὰ τὴν διαίρεσιν ταύτην. εἰ μὲν τοίνυν εἴησαν τοσοῦτον διαφέροντες ἅτεροι τῶν ἄλλων ὅσον τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἥρωας ἡγούμεθα τῶν ἀνθρώπων διαφέρειν, εὐθὺς πρῶτον κατὰ τὸ σῶμα πολλὴν ἔχοντες ὑπερβολήν, εἶτα κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν, ὥστε ἀναμφισβήτητον εἶναι καὶ φανερὰν τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῖς ἀρχομένοις τὴν τῶν ἀρχόντων, δῆλον ὅτι βέλτιον ἀεὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς τοὺς μὲν ἄρχειν τοὺς δʼ ἄρχεσθαι καθάπαξ· ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦτʼ οὐ ῥᾴδιον λαβεῖν οὐδʼ ἔστιν ὥσπερ ἐν Ἰνδοῖς φησι Σκύλαξ εἶναι τοὺς βασιλέας τοσοῦτον διαφέροντας τῶν ἀρχομένων, φανερὸν ὅτι διὰ πολλὰς αἰτίας ἀναγκαῖον πάντας ὁμοίως κοινωνεῖν τοῦ κατὰ μέρος ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι. τό τε γὰρ ἴσον ταὐτὸν τοῖς ὁμοίοις, καὶ χαλεπὸν μένειν τὴν πολιτείαν τὴν συνεστηκυῖαν παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον. μετὰ γὰρ τῶν ἀρχομένων ὑπάρχουσι νεωτερίζειν βουλόμενοι πάντες οἱ κατὰ τὴν χώραν, τοσούτους τε εἶναι τοὺς ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι τὸ πλῆθος ὥστʼ εἶναι κρείττους πάντων τούτων ἕν τι τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἐστίν. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι γε δεῖ τοὺς ἄρχοντας διαφέρειν τῶν ἀρχομένων, ἀναμφισβήτητον. πῶς οὖν ταῦτʼ ἔσται καὶ πῶς μεθέξουσι, δεῖ σκέψασθαι τὸν νομοθέτην. εἴρηται δὲ πρότερον περὶ αὐτοῦ. ἡ γὰρ φύσις δέδωκε τὴν διαίρεσιν ποιήσασα αὐτὸ τὸ γένει ταὐτὸ τὸ μὲν νεώτερον τὸ δὲ πρεσβύτερον, ὧν τοῖς μὲν ἄρχεσθαι πρέπει τοῖς δʼ ἄρχειν· ἀγανακτεῖ δὲ οὐδεὶς καθʼ ἡλικίαν ἀρχόμενος, οὐδὲ νομίζει εἶναι κρείττων, ἄλλως τε καὶ μέλλων ἀντιλαμβάνειν τοῦτον τὸν ἔρανον ὅταν τύχῃ τῆς ἱκνουμένης ἡλικίας.

+

ἔστι μὲν ἄρα ὡς τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι φατέον, ἔστι δὲ ὡς ἑτέρους.

+ +
+

ὥστε καὶ τὴν παιδείαν ἔστιν ὡς τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναγκαῖον, ἔστιδʼ ὡς ἑτέραν εἶναι. τὸν τε γὰρ μέλλοντα καλῶς ἄρχειν ἀρχθῆναί φασι δεῖν πρῶτον. (ἔστι δὲ ἀρχή, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις εἴρηται λόγοις, ἡ μὲν τοῦ ἄρχοντος χάριν ἡ δὲ τοῦ ἀρχομένου. τούτων δὲ τὴν μὲν δεσποτικὴν εἶναί φαμεν, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἐλευθέρων. διαφέρει δʼ ἔνια τῶν ἐπιταττομένων οὐ τοῖς ἔργοις ἀλλὰ τῷ τίνος ἕνεκα. διὸ πολλὰ τῶν εἶναι δοκούντων διακονικῶν ἔργων καὶ τῶν νέων τοῖς ἐλευθέροις καλὸν διακονεῖν· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ μὴ καλὸν οὐχ οὕτω διαφέρουσιν αἱ πράξεις καθʼ αὑτὰς ὡς ἐν τῷ τέλει καὶ τῷ τίνος ἕνεκεν.) ἐπεὶ δὲ πολίτου καὶ ἄρχοντος τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρετὴν εἶναί φαμεν καὶ τοῦ ἀρίστου ἀνδρός, τὸν δʼ αὐτὸν ἀρχόμενόν τε δεῖν γίγνεσθαι πρότερον καὶ ἄρχοντα ὕστερον, τοῦτʼ ἂν εἴη τῷ νομοθέτῃ πραγματευτέον, ὅπως ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ γίγνωνται, καὶ διὰ τίνων ἐπιτηδευμάτων, καὶ τί τὸ τέλος τῆς ἀρίστης ζωῆς.

+

διῄρηται δὲ δύο μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἔχει λόγον καθʼ αὑτό, τὸ δʼ οὐκ ἔχει μὲν καθʼ αὑτὸ λόγῳ δʼ ὑπακούειν δυνάμενον· ὧν φαμεν τὰς ἀρετὰς εἶναι καθʼ ἃς ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς λέγεταί πως. τούτων δὲ ἐν ποτέρῳ μᾶλλον τὸ τέλος, τοῖς μὲν οὕτω διαιροῦσιν ὡς ἡμεῖς φαμεν οὐκ ἄδηλον πῶς λεκτέον. αἰεὶ γὰρ τὸ χεῖρον τοῦ βελτίονός ἐστιν ἕνεκεν, καὶ τοῦτο φανερὸν ὁμοίως ἔν τε τοῖς κατὰ τέχνην καὶ τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν· βέλτιον δὲ τὸ λόγον ἔχον. διῄρηταί τε διχῇ, καθʼ ὅνπερ εἰώθαμεν τρόπον διαιρεῖν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ πρακτικός ἐστι λόγος ὁ δὲ θεωρητικός. ὡσαύτως οὖν ἀνάγκη διῃρῆσθαι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος δηλονότι. καὶ τὰς πράξεις δʼ ἀνάλογον ἐροῦμεν ἔχειν, καὶ δεῖ τὰς τοῦ φύσει βελτίονος αἱρετωτέρας εἶναι τοῖς δυναμένοις τυγχάνειν ἢ πασῶν ἢ τοῖν δυοῖν· αἰεὶ γὰρ ἑκάστῳ τοῦθʼ αἱρετώτατον οὗ τυχεῖν ἔστιν ἀκροτάτου. διῄρηται δὲ καὶ πᾶς ὁ βίος εἰς ἀσχολίαν καὶ σχολὴν καὶ εἰς πόλεμον καὶ εἰρήνην, καὶ τῶν πρακτῶν τὰ μὲν εἰς τὰ ἀναγκαῖα καὶ χρήσιμα τὰ δὲ εἰς τὰ καλά. περὶ ὧν ἀνάγκη τὴν αὐτὴν αἵρεσιν εἶναι καὶ τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς μέρεσι καὶ ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτῶν, πόλεμον μὲν εἰρήνης χάριν, ἀσχολίαν δὲ σχολῆς, τὰ δʼ ἀναγκαῖα καὶ χρήσιμα τῶν καλῶν ἕνεκεν. πρὸς πάντα μὲν τοίνυν τῷ πολιτικῷ βλέποντι νομοθετητέον, καὶ κατὰ τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ κατὰ τὰς πράξεις αὐτῶν, μᾶλλον δὲ πρὸς τὰ βελτίω καὶ τὰ τέλη. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ τοὺς βίους καὶ τὰς τῶν πραγμάτων αἱρέσεις· δεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἀσχολεῖν δύνασθαι καὶ πολεμεῖν,

+ +
+

μᾶλλον δʼ εἰρήνην ἄγειν καὶ σχολάζειν, καὶ τἀναγκαῖα καὶ τὰ χρήσιμα δὲ πράττειν, τὰ δὲ καλὰ δεῖ μᾶλλον. ὥστε πρὸς τούτους τοὺς σκοποὺς καὶ παῖδας ἔτι ὄντας παιδευτέον καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἡλικίας, ὅσαι δέονται παιδείας.

+

οἱ δὲ νῦν ἄριστα δοκοῦντες πολιτεύεσθαι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, καὶ τῶν νομοθετῶν οἱ ταύτας καταστήσαντες τὰς πολιτείας, οὔτε πρὸς τὸ βέλτιστον τέλος φαίνονται συντάξαντες τὰ περὶ τὰς πολιτείας οὔτε πρὸς πάσας τὰς ἀρετὰς τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὴν παιδείαν, ἀλλὰ φορτικῶς ἀπέκλιναν πρὸς τὰς χρησίμους εἶναι δοκούσας καὶ πλεονεκτικωτέρας. παραπλησίως δὲ τούτοις καὶ τῶν ὕστερόν τινες γραψάντων ἀπεφήναντο τὴν αὐτὴν δόξαν· ἐπαινοῦντες γὰρ τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείαν ἄγανται τοῦ νομοθέτου τὸν σκοπόν, ὅτι πάντα πρὸς τὸ κρατεῖν καὶ πρὸς πόλεμον ἐνομοθέτησεν. ἃ καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἐστὶν εὐέλεγκτα καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις ἐξελήλεγκται νῦν. ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων ζηλοῦσι τὸ πολλῶν δεσπόζειν, ὅτι πολλὴ χορηγία γίγνεται τῶν εὐτυχημάτων, οὕτω καὶ Θίβρων ἀγάμενος φαίνεται τὸν τῶν Λακώνων νομοθέτην, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστος τῶν γραφόντων περὶ τῆς πολιτείας αὐτῶν, ὅτι διὰ τὸ γεγυμνάσθαι πρὸς τοὺς κινδύνους πολλῶν ἦρχον· καίτοι δῆλον ὡς ἐπειδὴ νῦν γε οὐκέτι ὑπάρχει τοῖς Λάκωσι τὸ ἄρχειν, οὐκ εὐδαίμονες, οὐδʼ ὁ νομοθέτης ἀγαθός. ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο γελοῖον, εἰ μένοντες ἐν τοῖς νόμοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ μηδενὸς ἐμποδίζοντος πρὸς τὸ χρῆσθαι τοῖς νόμοις, ἀποβεβλήκασι τὸ ζῆν καλῶς. οὐκ ὀρθῶς δʼ ὑπολαμβάνουσιν οὐδὲ περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἣν δεῖ τιμῶντα φαίνεσθαι τὸν νομοθέτην· τοῦ γὰρ δεσποτικῶς ἄρχειν ἡ τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀρχὴ καλλίων καὶ μᾶλλον μετʼ ἀρετῆς. ἔτι δὲ οὐ διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ τὴν πόλιν εὐδαίμονα νομίζειν καὶ τὸν νομοθέτην ἐπαινεῖν, ὅτι κρατεῖν ἤσκησεν ἐπὶ τὸ τῶν πέλας ἄρχειν· ταῦτα γὰρ μεγάλην ἔχει βλάβην. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν τῷ δυναμένῳ τοῦτο πειρατέον διώκειν, ὅπως δύνηται τῆς οἰκείας πόλεως ἄρχειν· ὅπερ ἐγκαλοῦσιν οἱ Λάκωνες Παυσανίᾳ τῷ βασιλεῖ, καίπερ ἔχοντι τηλικαύτην τιμήν.

+

οὔτε δὴ πολιτικὸς τῶν τοιούτων λόγων καὶ νόμων οὐθεὶς οὔτε ὠφέλιμος οὔτε ἀληθής ἐστιν. ταὐτὰ γὰρ ἄριστα καὶ ἰδίᾳ καὶ κοινῇ, τόν τε νομοθέτην ἐμποιεῖν δεῖ ταῦτα ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· τήν τε τῶν πολεμικῶν ἄσκησιν οὐ τούτου χάριν δεῖ μελετᾶν, ἵνα καταδουλώσωνται τοὺς ἀναξίους, ἀλλʼ ἵνα πρῶτον μὲν αὐτοὶ μὴ δουλεύσωσιν ἑτέροις, ἔπειτα ὅπως ζητῶσι τὴν ἡγεμονίαν τῆς ὠφελείας ἕνεκα τῶν ἀρχομένων,

+ +
+

ἀλλὰ μὴ πάντων δεσποτείας· τρίτον δὲ τὸ δεσπόζειν τῶν ἀξίων δουλεύειν. ὅτι δὲ δεῖ τὸν νομοθέτην μᾶλλον σπουδάζειν ὅπως καὶ τὴν περὶ τὰ πολεμικὰ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην νομοθεσίαν τοῦ σχολάζειν ἕνεκεν τάξῃ καὶ τῆς εἰρήνης, μαρτυρεῖ τὰ γιγνόμενα τοῖς λόγοις. αἱ γὰρ πλεῖσται τῶν τοιούτων πόλεων πολεμοῦσαι μὲν σῴζονται, κατακτησάμεναι δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπόλλυνται. τὴν γὰρ βαφὴν ἀνιᾶσιν, ὥσπερ ὁ σίδηρος, εἰρήνην ἄγοντες. αἴτιος δʼ ὁ νομοθέτης οὐ παιδεύσας δύνασθαι σχολάζειν.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ τέλος εἶναι φαίνεται καὶ κοινῇ καὶ ἰδίᾳ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὅρον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τῷ τε ἀρίστῳ ἀνδρὶ καὶ τῇ ἀρίστῃ πολιτείᾳ, φανερὸν ὅτι δεῖ τὰς εἰς τὴν σχολὴν ἀρετὰς ὑπάρχειν· τέλος γάρ, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις, εἰρήνη μὲν πολέμου σχολὴ δʼ ἀσχολίας. χρήσιμοι δὲ τῶν ἀρετῶν εἰσι πρὸς τὴν σχολὴν καὶ διαγωγὴν ὧν τε ἐν τῇ σχολῇ τὸ ἔργον καὶ ὧν ἐν τῇ ἀσχολίᾳ. δεῖ γὰρ πολλὰ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ὑπάρχειν ὅπως ἐξῇ σχολάζειν· διὸ σώφρονα τὴν πόλιν εἶναι προσήκει καὶ ἀνδρείαν καὶ καρτερικήν· κατὰ γὰρ τὴν παροιμίαν, οὐ σχολὴ δούλοις, οἱ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενοι κινδυνεύειν ἀνδρείως δοῦλοι τῶν ἐπιόντων εἰσίν. ἀνδρείας μὲν οὖν καὶ καρτερίας δεῖ πρὸς τὴν ἀσχολίαν, φιλοσοφίας δὲ πρὸς τὴν σχολήν, σωφροσύνης δὲ καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἐν ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς χρόνοις, καὶ μᾶλλον εἰρήνην ἄγουσι καὶ σχολάζουσιν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ πόλεμος ἀναγκάζει δικαίους εἶναι καὶ σωφρονεῖν, ἡ δὲ τῆς εὐτυχίας ἀπόλαυσις καὶ τὸ σχολάζειν μετʼ εἰρήνης ὑβριστὰς ποιεῖ μᾶλλον. πολλῆς οὖν δεῖ δικαιοσύνης καὶ πολλῆς σωφροσύνης τοὺς ἄριστα δοκοῦντας πράττειν καὶ πάντων τῶν μακαριζομένων ἀπολαύοντας, οἷον εἴ τινές εἰσιν, ὥσπερ οἱ ποιηταί φασιν, ἐν μακάρων νήσοις· μάλιστα γὰρ οὗτοι δεήσονται φιλοσοφίας καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης, ὅσῳ μᾶλλον σχολάζουσιν ἐν ἀφθονίᾳ τῶν τοιούτων ἀγαθῶν. διότι μὲν οὖν τὴν μέλλουσαν εὐδαιμονήσειν καὶ σπουδαίαν ἔσεσθαι πόλιν τούτων δεῖ τῶν ἀρετῶν μετέχειν, φανερόν. αἰσχροῦ γὰρ ὄντος μὴ δύνασθαι χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς, ἔτι μᾶλλον τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι ἐν τῷ σχολάζειν χρῆσθαι, ἀλλʼ ἀσχολοῦντας μὲν καὶ πολεμοῦντας φαίνεσθαι ἀγαθούς, εἰρήνην δʼ ἄγοντας καὶ σχολάζοντας ἀνδραποδώδεις. διὸ δεῖ μὴ καθάπερ ἡ Λακεδαιμονίων πόλις τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀσκεῖν.

+ +
+

ἐκεῖνοι μὲν γὰρ οὐ ταύτῃ διαφέρουσι τῶν ἄλλων, τῷ μὴ νομίζειν ταὐτὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις μέγιστα τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἀλλὰ τῷ γίνεσθαι ταῦτα μᾶλλον διὰ τινὸς ἀρετῆς· ἐπεὶ δὲ μείζω τε ἀγαθὰ ταῦτα καὶ τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν τὴν τούτων ἢ τὴν τῶν ἀρετῶν . καὶ ὅτι διʼ αὑτήν, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων· πῶς δὲ καὶ διὰ τίνων ἔσται, τοῦτο δὴ θεωρητέον.

+

τυγχάνομεν δὴ διῃρημένοι πρότερον ὅτι φύσεως καὶ ἔθους καὶ λόγου δεῖ. τούτων δὲ ποίους μέν τινας εἶναι χρὴ τὴν φύσιν, διώρισται πρότερον, λοιπὸν δὲ θεωρῆσαι πότερον παιδευτέοι τῷ λόγῳ πρότερον ἢ τοῖς ἔθεσιν. ταῦτα γὰρ δεῖ πρὸς ἄλληλα συμφωνεῖν συμφωνίαν τὴν ἀρίστην· ἐνδέχεται γὰρ διημαρτηκέναι τὸν λόγον τῆς βελτίστης ὑποθέσεως, καὶ διὰ τῶν ἐθῶν ὁμοίως ἦχθαι. φανερὸν δὴ τοῦτό γε πρῶτον μέν, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὡς ἡ γένεσις ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἐστι καὶ τὸ τέλος ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς ἄλλου τέλους, ὁ δὲ λόγος ἡμῖν καὶ ὁ νοῦς τῆς φύσεως τέλος, ὥστε πρὸς τούτους τὴν γένεσιν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐθῶν δεῖ παρασκευάζειν μελέτην· ἔπειτα ὥσπερ ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα δύʼ ἐστίν, οὕτω καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ὁρῶμεν δύο μέρη, τό τε ἄλογον καὶ τὸ λόγον ἔχον, καὶ τὰς ἕξεις τὰς τούτων δύο τὸν ἀριθμόν, ὧν τὸ μέν ἐστιν ὄρεξις τὸ δὲ νοῦς, ὥσπερ δὲ τὸ σῶμα πρότερον τῇ γενέσει τῆς ψυχῆς, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἄλογον τοῦ λόγον ἔχοντος. φανερὸν δὲ καὶ τοῦτο· θυμὸς γὰρ καὶ βούλησις, ἔτι δὲ ἐπιθυμία, καὶ γενομένοις εὐθὺς ὑπάρχει τοῖς παιδίοις, ὁ δὲ λογισμὸς καὶ ὁ νοῦς προϊοῦσιν ἐγγίγνεσθαι πέφυκεν. διὸ πρῶτον μὲν τοῦ σώματος τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι προτέραν ἢ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἔπειτα τὴν τῆς ὀρέξεως, ἕνεκα μέντοι τοῦ νοῦ τὴν τῆς ὀρέξεως, τὴν δὲ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ψυχῆς.

+

εἴπερ οὖν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς τὸν νομοθέτην ὁρᾶν δεῖ ὅπως βέλτιστα τὰ σώματα γένηται τῶν τρεφομένων, πρῶτον μὲν ἐπιμελητέον περὶ τὴν σύζευξιν, πότε καὶ ποίους τινὰς ὄντας χρὴ ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὴν γαμικὴν ὁμιλίαν. δεῖ δʼ ἀποβλέποντα νομοθετεῖν ταύτην τὴν κοινωνίαν πρὸς αὐτούς τε καὶ τὸν τοῦ ζῆν χρόνον, ἵνα συγκαταβαίνωσι ταῖς ἡλικίαις ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν καὶ μὴ διαφωνῶσιν αἱ δυνάμεις τοῦ μὲν ἔτι δυναμένου γεννᾶν τῆς δὲ μὴ δυναμένης, ἢ ταύτης μὲν τοῦ δʼ ἀνδρὸς μή (ταῦτα γὰρ ποιεῖ καὶ στάσεις πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ διαφοράς)· ἔπειτα καὶ πρὸς τὴν τῶν τέκνων διαδοχήν, δεῖ γὰρ οὔτε λίαν ὑπολείπεσθαι ταῖς ἡλικίαις τὰ τέκνα τῶν πατέρων (ἀνόνητος γὰρ τοῖς μὲν πρεσβυτέροις ἡ χάρις παρὰ τῶν τέκνων, ἡ δὲ παρὰ τῶν πατέρων βοήθεια τοῖς τέκνοις),

+ +
+

οὔτε λίαν πάρεγγυς εἶναι (πολλὴν γὰρ ἔχει δυσχέρειαν· ἥ τε γὰρ αἰδὼς ἧττον ὑπάρχει τοῖς τοιούτοις ὥσπερ ἡλικιώταις καὶ περὶ τὴν οἰκονομίαν ἐγκληματικὸν τὸ πάρεγγυς)· ἔτι δʼ, ὅθεν ἀρχόμενοι δεῦρο μετέβημεν, ὅπως τὰ σώματα τῶν γεννωμένων ὑπάρχῃ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ νομοθέτου βούλησιν.

+

σχεδὸν δὴ πάντα ταῦτα συμβαίνει κατὰ μίαν ἐπιμέλειαν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὥρισται τέλος τῆς γεννήσεως ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον εἰπεῖν ἀνδράσι μὲν ὁ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἐτῶν ἀριθμὸς ἔσχατος, πεντήκοντα δὲ γυναιξί, δεῖ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς συζεύξεως κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν εἰς τοὺς χρόνους καταβαίνειν τούτους. ἔστι δʼ ὁ τῶν νέων συνδυασμὸς φαῦλος πρὸς τὴν τεκνοποιίαν· ἐν γὰρ πᾶσι ζῴοις ἀτελῆ τὰ τῶν νέων ἔκγονα, καὶ θηλυτόκα μᾶλλον καὶ μικρὰ τὴν μορφήν, ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον ταὐτὸ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. τεκμήριον δέ· ἐν ὅσαις γὰρ τῶν πόλεων ἐπιχωριάζεται τὸ νέους συζευγνύναι καὶ νέας, ἀτελεῖς καὶ μικροὶ τὰ σώματά εἰσιν. ἔτι δὲ ἐν τοῖς τόκοις αἱ νέαι πονοῦσί τε μᾶλλον καὶ διαφθείρονται πλείους· διὸ καὶ τὸν χρησμὸν γενέσθαι τινές φασι διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν τοῖς Τροιζηνίοις, ὡς πολλῶν διαφθειρομένων διὰ τὸ γαμίσκεσθαι τὰς νεωτέρας, ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς τὴν τῶν καρπῶν κομιδήν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ πρὸς σωφροσύνην συμφέρει τὰς ἐκδόσεις ποιεῖσθαι πρεσβυτέραις· ἀκολαστότεραι γὰρ εἶναι δοκοῦσι νέαι χρησάμεναι ταῖς συνουσίαις. καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀρρένων δὲ σώματα βλάπτεσθαι δοκεῖ πρὸς τὴν αὔξησιν, ἐὰν ἔτι τοῦ σπέρματος αὐξανομένου ποιῶνται τὴν συνουσίαν· καὶ γὰρ τούτου τις ὡρισμένος χρόνος, ὃν οὐχ ὑπερβαίνει πληθύον ἔτι, ἢ μικρόν· διὸ τὰς μὲν ἁρμόττει περὶ τὴν τῶν ὀκτωκαίδεκα ἐτῶν ἡλικίαν συζευγνύναι, τοὺς δʼ ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα ἢ μικρόν πρότερον·ἐν τοσούτῳ γὰρ ἀκμάζουσί τε τοῖς σώμασιν ἡ σύζευξις ἔσται, καὶ πρὸς τὴν παῦλαν τῆς τεκνοποιίας συγκαταβήσεται τοῖς χρόνοις εὐκαίρως· ἔτι δὲ ἡ διαδοχὴ τῶν τέκνων τοῖς μὲν ἀρχομένοις ἔσται τῆς ἀκμῆς, ἐὰν γίγνηται κατὰ λόγον εὐθὺς ἡ γένεσις, τοῖς δὲ ἤδη καταλελυμένης τῆς ἡλικίας πρὸς τὸν τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἐτῶν ἀριθμόν.

+

περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ πότε δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν σύζευξιν εἴρηται, τοῖς δὲ περὶ τὴν ὥραν χρόνοις δεῖ χρῆσθαι οἷς οἱ πολλοὶ χρῶνται, καλῶς καὶ νῦν ὁρίσαντες χειμῶνος τὴν συναυλίαν ποιεῖσθαι ταύτην. δεῖ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὺς ἤδη θεωρεῖν πρὸς τὴν τεκνοποιίαν τά τε παρὰ τῶν ἰατρῶν λεγόμενα καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῶν φυσικῶν· οἵ τε γὰρ ἰατροὶ τοὺς καιροὺς τῶν σωμάτων ἱκανῶς λέγουσι,

+ +
+

καὶ περὶ τῶν πνευμάτων οἱ φυσικοί, τὰ βόρεια τῶν νοτίων ἐπαινοῦντες μᾶλλον. ποίων δέ τινων τῶν σωμάτων ὑπαρχόντων μάλιστʼ ἂν ὄφελος εἴη τοῖς γεννωμένοις, ἐπιστήσασι μὲν μᾶλλον λεκτέον ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῆς παιδονομίας, τύπῳ δὲ ἱκανὸν εἰπεῖν καὶ νῦν. οὔτε γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἀθλητῶν χρήσιμος ἕξις πρὸς πολιτικὴν εὐεξίαν οὐδὲ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ τεκνοποιίαν, οὔτε ἡ θεραπευτικὴ καὶ κακοπονητικὴ λίαν, ἀλλʼ ἡ μέση τούτων. πεπονημένην μὲν οὖν ἔχειν δεῖ τὴν ἕξιν, πεπονημένην δὲ πόνοις μὴ βιαίοις, μηδὲ πρὸς ἕνα μόνον, ὥσπερ ἡ τῶν ἀθλητῶν ἕξις, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἐλευθερίων πράξεις. ὁμοίως δὲ δεῖ ταῦτα ὑπάρχειν ἀνδράσι καὶ γυναιξίν.

+

χρὴ δὲ καὶ τὰς ἐγκύους ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῶν σωμάτων, μὴ ῥᾳθυμούσας μηδʼ ἀραιᾷ τροφῇ χρωμένας. τοῦτο δὲ ῥᾴδιον τῷ νομοθέτῃ ποιῆσαι προστάξαντι καθʼ ἡμέραν τινὰ ποιεῖσθαι πορείαν πρὸς θεῶν ἀποθεραπείαν τῶν εἰληχότων τὴν περὶ τῆς γενέσεως τιμήν. τὴν μέντοι διάνοιαν τοὐναντίον τῶν σωμάτων ῥᾳθυμοτέρως ἁρμόττει διάγειν· ἀπολαύοντα γὰρ φαίνεται τὰ γεννώμενα τῆς ἐχούσης ὥσπερ τὰ φυόμενα τῆς γῆς. περὶ δὲ ἀποθέσεως καὶ τροφῆς τῶν γιγνομένων ἔστω νόμος μηδὲν πεπηρωμένον τρέφειν, διὰ δὲ πλῆθος τέκνων ἡ τάξις τῶν ἐθῶν κωλύῃ μηθὲν ἀποτίθεσθαι τῶν γιγνομένων· ὁρισθῆναι δὲ δεῖ τῆς τεκνοποιίας τὸ πλῆθος, ἐὰν δέ τισι γίγνηται παρὰ ταῦτα συνδυασθέντων, πρὶν αἴσθησιν ἐγγενέσθαι καὶ ζωὴν ἐμποιεῖσθαι δεῖ τὴν ἄμβλωσιν· τὸ γὰρ ὅσιον καὶ τὸ μὴ διωρισμένον τῇ αἰσθήσει καὶ τῷ ζῆν ἔσται. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἡ μὲν ἀρχὴ τῆς ἡλικίας ἀνδρὶ καὶ γυναικὶ διώρισται, πότε ἄρχεσθαι χρὴ τῆς συζεύξεως, καὶ πόσον χρόνον λειτουργεῖν ἁρμόττει πρὸς τεκνοποιίαν ὡρίσθω. τὰ γὰρ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἔκγονα, καθάπερ τὰ τῶν νεωτέρων, ἀτελῆ γίγνεται καὶ τοῖς σώμασι καὶ ταῖς διανοίαις, τὰ δὲ τῶν γεγηρακότων ἀσθενῆ· διὸ κατὰ τὴν τῆς διανοίας ἀκμήν. αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις ἥνπερ τῶν ποιητῶν τινες εἰρήκασιν οἱ μετροῦντες ταῖς ἑβδομάσι τὴν ἡλικίαν, περὶ τὸν χρόνον τὸν τῶν πεντήκοντα ἐτῶν. ὥστε τέτταρσιν ἢ πέντε ἔτεσιν ὑπερβάλλοντα τὴν ἡλικίαν ταύτην ἀφεῖσθαι δεῖ τῆς εἰς τὸ φανερὸν γεννήσεως· τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ὑγιείας χάριν ἤ τινος ἄλλης τοιαύτης αἰτίας φαίνεσθαι δεῖ ποιουμένους τὴν ὁμιλίαν. περὶ δὲ τῆς πρὸς ἄλλην ἢ πρὸς ἄλλον, ἔστω μὲν ἁπλῶς μὴ καλὸν ἁπτόμενον φαίνεσθαι μηδαμῇ μηδαμῶς, ὅταν ᾖ καὶ προσαγορευθῇ πόσις·

+ +
+

περὶ δὲ τὸν χρόνον τὸν τῆς τεκνοποιίας ἐάν τις φαίνηται τοιοῦτόν τι δρῶν, ἀτιμίᾳ ζημιούσθω πρεπούσῃ πρὸς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν.

+

γενομένων δὲ τῶν τέκνων οἴεσθαι δεῖ μεγάλην εἶναι διαφορὰν πρὸς τὴν τῶν σωμάτων δύναμιν τὴν τροφήν, ὁποία τις ἂν ᾖ. φαίνεται δὲ διά τε τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἐπισκοποῦσι, καὶ διὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν οἷς ἐπιμελές ἐστιν ἄγειν εἰς τὴν πολεμικὴν ἕξιν, ἡ τοῦ γάλακτος πλήθουσα τροφὴ μάλιστʼ οἰκεία τοῖς σώμασιν, ἡ ἀοινοτέρα δὲ διὰ τὰ νοσήματα. ἔτι δὲ καὶ κινήσεις ὅσας ἐνδέχεται ποιεῖσθαι τηλικούτων συμφέρει. πρὸς δὲ τὸ μὴ διαστρέφεσθαι τὰ μέλη διʼ ἁπαλότητα χρῶνται καὶ νῦν ἔνια τῶν ἐθνῶν ὀργάνοις τισὶ μηχανικοῖς, ἃ τὸ σῶμα ποιεῖ τῶν τοιούτων ἀστραβές. συμφέρει δʼ εὐθὺς καὶ πρὸς τὰ ψύχη συνεθίζειν ἐκ μικρῶν παίδων· τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ πρὸς πολεμικὰς πράξεις εὐχρηστότατον. διὸ παρὰ πολλοῖς ἐστι τῶν βαρβάρων ἔθος τοῖς μὲν εἰς ποταμὸν ἀποβάπτειν τὰ γιγνόμενα ψυχρόν, τοῖς δὲ σκέπασμα μικρὸν ἀμπίσχειν, οἷον Κελτοῖς. πάντα γὰρ ὅσα δυνατὸν ἐθίζειν εὐθὺς ἀρχομένων βέλτιον ἐθίζειν μέν, ἐκ προσαγωγῆς δʼ ἐθίζειν· εὐφυὴς δʼ ἡ τῶν παίδων ἕξις διὰ θερμότητα πρὸς τὴν τῶν ψυχρῶν ἄσκησιν.

+

περὶ μὲν οὖν τὴν πρώτην συμφέρει ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν τοιαύτην τε καὶ τὴν ταύτῃ παραπλησίαν· τὴν δʼ ἐχομένην ταύτης ἡλικίαν μέχρι πέντε ἐτῶν, ἣν οὔτε πω πρὸς μάθησιν καλῶς ἔχει προσάγειν οὐδεμίαν οὔτε πρὸς ἀναγκαίους πόνους, ὅπως μὴ τὴν αὔξησιν ἐμποδίζωσιν, δεῖ τοσαύτης τυγχάνειν κινήσεως ὥστε διαφεύγειν τὴν ἀργίαν τῶν σωμάτων· ἣν χρὴ παρασκευάζειν καὶ διʼ ἄλλων πράξεων καὶ διὰ τῆς παιδιᾶς. δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰς παιδιὰς εἶναι μήτε ἀνελευθέρους μήτε ἐπιπόνους μήτε ἀνειμένας. καὶ περὶ λόγων δὲ καὶ μύθων, ποίους τινὰς ἀκούειν δεῖ τοὺς τηλικούτους, ἐπιμελὲς ἔστω τοῖς ἄρχουσιν οὓς καλοῦσι παιδονόμους. πάντα γὰρ δεῖ τὰ τοιαῦτα προοδοποιεῖν πρὸς τὰς ὕστερον διατριβάς· διὸ τὰς παιδιὰς εἶναι δεῖ τὰς πολλὰς μιμήσεις τῶν ὕστερον σπουδαζομένων. τὰς δὲ διατάσεις τῶν παίδων καὶ κλαυθμοὺς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἀπαγορεύουσιν οἱ κωλύοντες ἐν τοῖς νόμοις· συμφέρουσι γὰρ πρὸς αὔξησιν· γίγνεται γὰρ τρόπον τινὰ γυμνασία τοῖς σώμασιν· ἡ γὰρ τοῦ πνεύματος κάθεξις ποιεῖ τὴν ἰσχὺν τοῖς πονοῦσιν, ὃ συμβαίνει καὶ τοῖς παιδίοις διατεινομένοις.

+

ἐπισκεπτέον δὲ τοῖς παιδονόμοις τὴν τούτων διαγωγήν, τήν τʼ ἄλλην καὶ ὅπως ὅτι ἥκιστα μετὰ δούλων ἔσται. ταύτην γὰρ τὴν ἡλικίαν,

+ +

καὶ μέχρι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν, ἀναγκαῖον οἴκοι τὴν τροφὴν ἔχειν. εὔλογον οὖν ἀπολαύειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀκουσμάτων καὶ τῶν ὁραμάτων ἀνελευθερίαν καὶ τηλικούτους ὄντας. ὅλως μὲν οὖν αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως, ὥσπερ ἄλλο τι, δεῖ τὸν νομοθέτην ἐξορίζειν (ἐκ τοῦ γὰρ εὐχερῶς λέγειν ὁτιοῦν τῶν αἰσχρῶν γίνεται καὶ τὸ ποιεῖν σύνεγγυς)· μάλιστα μὲν οὖν ἐκ τῶν νέων, ὅπως μήτε λέγωσι μήτε ἀκούωσι μηδὲν τοιοῦτον· ἐὰν δέ τις φαίνηταί τι λέγων ἢ πράττων τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων, τὸν μὲν ἐλεύθερον μὲν μήπω δὲ κατακλίσεως ἠξιωμένον ἐν τοῖς συσσιτίοις ἀτιμίαις κολάζειν καὶ πληγαῖς, τὸν δὲ πρεσβύτερον τῆς ἡλικίας ταύτης ἀτιμίαις ἀνελευθέροις ἀνδραποδωδίας χάριν. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ λέγειν τι τῶν τοιούτων ἐξορίζομεν, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ τὸ θεωρεῖν ἢ γραφὰς ἢ λόγους ἀσχήμονας. ἐπιμελὲς μὲν οὖν ἔστω τοῖς ἄρχουσι μηθέν, μήτε ἄγαλμα μήτε γραφήν, εἶναι τοιούτων πράξεων μίμησιν, εἰ μὴ παρά τισι θεοῖς τοιούτοις οἷς καὶ τὸν τωθασμὸν ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ νόμος. πρὸς δὲ τούτους ἀφίησιν ὁ νόμος τοὺς τὴν ἡλικίαν ἔχοντας ἔτι τὴν ἱκνουμένην καὶ ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν καὶ τέκνων καὶ γυναικῶν τιμαλφεῖν τοὺς θεούς· τοὺς δὲ νεωτέρους οὔτʼ ἰάμβων οὔτε κωμῳδίας θεατὰς ἐατέον, πρὶν ἢ τὴν ἡλικίαν λάβωσιν ἐν ᾗ καὶ κατακλίσεως ὑπάρξει κοινωνεῖν ἤδη καὶ μέθης, καὶ τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων γιγνομένης βλάβης ἀπαθεῖς ἡ παιδεία ποιήσει πάντως.

+

νῦν μὲν οὖν ἐν παραδρομῇ τοῦτον πεποιήμεθα τὸν λόγον· ὕστερον δʼ ἐπιστήσαντας δεῖ διορίσαι μᾶλλον, εἴτε μὴ δεῖ πρῶτον εἴτε δεῖ διαπορήσαντας, καὶ πῶς δεῖ· κατὰ δὲ τὸν παρόντα καιρὸν ἐμνήσθημεν ὡς ἀναγκαῖον. ἴσως γὰρ οὐ κακῶς ἔλεγε τὸ τοιοῦτον Θεόδωρος ὁ τῆς τραγῳδίας ὑποκριτής· οὐθενὶ γὰρ πώποτε παρῆκεν ἑαυτοῦ προεισάγειν, οὐδὲ τῶν εὐτελῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς οἰκειουμένων τῶν θεατῶν ταῖς πρώταις ἀκοαῖς· συμβαίνει δὲ ταὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁμιλίας καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῶν πραγμάτων· πάντα γὰρ στέργομεν τὰ πρῶτα μᾶλλον. διὸ δεῖ τοῖς νέοις πάντα ποιεῖν ξένα τὰ φαῦλα, μάλιστα δʼ αὐτῶν ὅσα ἔχει ἢ μοχθηρίαν ἢ δυσμένειαν. διελθόντων δὲ τῶν πέντε ἐτῶν τὰ δύο μέχρι τῶν ἑπτὰ δεῖ θεωροὺς ἤδη γίγνεσθαι τῶν μαθήσεων ἃς δεήσει μανθάνειν αὐτούς. δύο δʼ εἰσὶν ἡλικίαι πρὸς ἃς ἀναγκαῖον διῃρῆσθαι τὴν παιδείαν, πρὸς τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ μέχρι ἥβης καὶ πάλιν μετὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀφʼ ἥβης μέχρι τῶν ἑνὸς καὶ εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν. οἱ γὰρ ταῖς ἑβδομάσι διαιροῦντες τὰς ἡλικίας ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ λέγουσιν οὐ κακῶς,

+ +
+

δεῖ δὲ τῇ διαιρέσει τῆς φύσεως ἐπακολουθεῖν· πᾶσα γὰρ τέχνη καὶ παιδεία τὸ προσλεῖπον βούλεται τῆς φύσεως ἀναπληροῦν. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν σκεπτέον εἰ ποιητέον τάξιν τινὰ περὶ τοὺς παῖδας, ἔπειτα πότερον συμφέρει κοινῇ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν αὐτῶν ἢ κατʼ ἴδιον τρόπον (ὃ γίγνεται καὶ νῦν ἐν ταῖς πλείσταις τῶν πόλεων), τρίτον δὲ ποίαν τινὰ δεῖ ταύτην εἶναι.

+ +
+
+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν τῷ νομοθέτῃ μάλιστα πραγματευτέον περὶ τὴν τῶν νέων παιδείαν, οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀμφισβητήσειε· καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οὐ γιγνόμενον τοῦτο βλάπτει τὰς πολιτείας· δεῖ γὰρ πρὸς ἑκάστην παιδεύεσθαι, τὸ γὰρ ἦθος τῆς πολιτείας ἑκάστης τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ φυλάττειν εἴωθε τὴν πολιτείαν καὶ καθίστησιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, οἷον τὸ μὲν δημοκρατικὸν δημοκρατίαν τὸ δʼ ὀλιγαρχικὸν ὀλιγαρχίαν· ἀεὶ δὲ τὸ βέλτιον ἦθος βελτίονος αἴτιον πολιτείας. ἔτι δὲ πρὸς πάσας δυνάμεις καὶ τέχνας ἔστιν ἃ δεῖ προπαιδεύεσθαι καὶ προεθίζεσθαι πρὸς τὰς ἑκάστων ἐργασίας, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῆς ἀρετῆς πράξεις· ἐπεὶ δʼ ἓν τὸ τέλος τῇ πόλει πάσῃ, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ τὴν παιδείαν μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πάντων, καὶ ταύτης τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν εἶναι κοινὴν καὶ μὴ κατʼ ἰδίαν, ὃν τρόπον νῦν ἕκαστος ἐπιμελεῖται τῶν αὑτοῦ τέκνων ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ μάθησιν ἰδίαν, ἣν ἂν δόξῃ, διδάσκων. δεῖ δὲ τῶν κοινῶν κοινὴν ποιεῖσθαι καὶ τὴν ἄσκησιν. ἅμα δὲ οὐδὲ χρὴ νομίζειν αὐτὸν αὑτοῦ τινα εἶναι τῶν πολιτῶν, ἀλλὰ πάντας τῆς πόλεως, μόριον γὰρ ἕκαστος τῆς πόλεως· ἡ δʼ ἐπιμέλεια πέφυκεν ἑκάστου μορίου βλέπειν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου ἐπιμέλειαν. ἐπαινέσειε δʼ ἄν τις κατὰ τοῦτο Λακεδαιμονίους· καὶ γὰρ πλείστην ποιοῦνται σπουδὴν περὶ τοὺς παῖδας καὶ κοινῇ ταύτην.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν νομοθετητέον περὶ παιδείας καὶ ταύτην κοινὴν ποιητέον, φανερόν· τίς δʼ ἔσται ἡ παιδεία καὶ πῶς χρὴ παιδεύεσθαι, δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν. νῦν γὰρ ἀμφισβητεῖται περὶ τῶν ἔργων. οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὰ πάντες ὑπολαμβάνουσι δεῖν μανθάνειν τοὺς νέους οὔτε πρὸς ἀρετὴν οὔτε πρὸς τὸν βίον τὸν ἄριστον, οὐδὲ φανερὸν πότερον πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν πρέπει μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἦθος· ἔκ τε τῆς ἐμποδὼν παιδείας ταραχώδης ἡ σκέψις καὶ δῆλον οὐδὲν πότερον ἀσκεῖν δεῖ τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς τὸν βίον ἢ τὰ τείνοντα πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἢ τὰ περιττά (πάντα γὰρ εἴληφε ταῦτα κριτάς τινας)·

+ +
+

περί τε τῶν πρὸς ἀρετὴν οὐθέν ἐστιν ὁμολογούμενον (καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἀρετὴν οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν εὐθὺς πάντες τιμῶσιν, ὥστʼ εὐλόγως διαφέρονται καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἄσκησιν αὐτῆς). ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δεῖ διδάσκεσθαι τῶν χρησίμων, οὐκ ἄδηλον· ὅτι δὲ οὐ πάντα, διῃρημένων τῶν τε ἐλευθερίων ἔργων καὶ τῶν ἀνελευθερίων φανερόν, καὶ ὅτι τῶν τοιούτων δεῖ μετέχειν ὅσα τῶν χρησίμων ποιήσει τὸν μετέχοντα μὴ βάναυσον. βάναυσον δʼ ἔργον εἶναι δεῖ τοῦτο νομίζειν καὶ τέχνην ταύτην καὶ μάθησιν, ὅσαι πρὸς τὰς χρήσεις καὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς τῆς ἀρετῆς ἄχρηστον ἀπεργάζονται τὸ σῶμα τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἢ τὴν ψυχὴν ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν. διὸ τάς τε τοιαύτας τέχνας ὅσαι τὸ σῶμα παρασκευάζουσι χεῖρον διακεῖσθαι βαναύσους καλοῦμεν, καὶ τὰς μισθαρνικὰς ἐργασίας· ἄσχολον γὰρ ποιοῦσι τὴν διάνοιαν καὶ ταπεινήν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐλευθερίων ἐπιστημῶν μέχρι μὲν τινὸς ἐνίων μετέχειν οὐκ ἀνελεύθερον, τὸ δὲ προσεδρεύειν λίαν πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν ἔνοχον ταῖς εἰρημέναις βλάβαις. ἔχει δὲ πολλὴν διαφορὰν καὶ τὸ τίνος ἕνεκεν πράττει τις ἢ μανθάνει· τὸ μὲν γὰρ αὑτοῦ χάριν ἢ φίλων ἢ διʼ ἀρετὴν οὐκ ἀνελεύθερον, ὁ δὲ ταὐτὸ τοῦτο πράττων διʼ ἄλλους πολλάκις θητικὸν καὶ δουλικὸν δόξειεν ἂν πράττειν.

+

αἱ μὲν οὖν καταβεβλημέναι νῦν μαθήσεις, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη πρότερον, ἐπαμφοτερίζουσιν· ἔστι δὲ τέτταρα σχεδὸν ἃ παιδεύειν εἰώθασι,

+

γράμματα καὶ γυμναστικὴν καὶ μουσικὴν καὶ τέταρτον ἔνιοι γραφικήν, τὴν μὲν γραμματικὴν καὶ γραφικὴν ὡς χρησίμους πρὸς τὸν βίον οὔσας καὶ πολυχρήστους, τὴν δὲ γυμναστικὴν ὡς συντείνουσαν πρὸς ἀνδρείαν· τὴν δὲ μουσικὴν ἤδη διαπορήσειεν ἄν τις. νῦν μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἡδονῆς χάριν οἱ πλεῖστοι μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς· οἱ δʼ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔταξαν ἐν παιδείᾳ διὰ τὸ τὴν φύσιν αὐτὴν ζητεῖν, ὅπερ πολλάκις εἴρηται, μὴ μόνον ἀσχολεῖν ὀρθῶς ἀλλὰ καὶ σχολάζειν δύνασθαι καλῶς. αὕτη γὰρ ἀρχὴ πάντων μία· καὶ πάλιν εἴπωμεν περὶ αὐτῆς. εἰ δʼ ἄμφω μὲν δεῖ, μᾶλλον δὲ αἱρετὸν τὸ σχολάζειν τῆς ἀσχολίας καὶ τέλος, ζητητέον ὅ τι δεῖ ποιοῦντας σχολάζειν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ παίζοντας· τέλος γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ βίου τὴν παιδιὰν ἡμῖν. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἀδύνατον, καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν ταῖς ἀσχολίαις χρηστέον ταῖς παιδιαῖς (ὁ γὰρ πονῶν δεῖται τῆς ἀναπαύσεως, ἡ δὲ παιδιὰ χάριν ἀναπαύσεώς ἐστιν· τὸ δʼ ἀσχολεῖν συμβαίνει μετὰ πόνου καὶ συντονίας), διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ παιδιὰς εἰσάγεσθαι καιροφυλακοῦντας τὴν χρῆσιν, ὡς προσάγοντας φαρμακείας χάριν. ἄνεσις γὰρ ἡ τοιαύτη κίνησις τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀνάπαυσις.

+ +
+

τὸ δὲ σχολάζειν ἔχειν αὐτὸ δοκεῖ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν καὶ τὸ ζῆν μακαρίως. τοῦτο δʼ οὐ τοῖς ἀσχολοῦσιν ὑπάρχει ἀλλὰ τοῖς σχολάζουσιν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀσχολῶν ἕνεκα τινος ἀσχολεῖ τέλους ὡς οὐχ ὑπάρχοντος, ἡ δʼ εὐδαιμονία τέλος ἐστίν, ἣν οὐ μετὰ λύπης ἀλλὰ μεθʼ ἡδονῆς οἴονται πάντες εἶναι. ταύτην μέντοι τὴν ἡδονὴν οὐκέτι τὴν αὐτὴν τιθέασιν, ἀλλὰ καθʼ ἑαυτοὺς ἕκαστος καὶ τὴν ἕξιν τὴν αὑτῶν, ὁ δʼ ἄριστος τὴν ἀρίστην καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν καλλίστων. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι δεῖ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ διαγωγῇ σχολὴν μανθάνειν ἄττα καὶ παιδεύεσθαι, καὶ ταῦτα μὲν τὰ παιδεύματα καὶ ταύτας τὰς μαθήσεις ἑαυτῶν εἶναι χάριν, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀσχολίαν ὡς ἀναγκαίας καὶ χάριν ἄλλων. διὸ καὶ τὴν μουσικὴν οἱ πρότερον εἰς παιδείαν ἔταξαν οὐχ ὡς ἀναγκαῖον (oὐδὲν γὰρ ἔχει τοιοῦτον), οὐδʼ ὡς χρήσιμον (ὥσπερ τὰ γράμματα πρὸς χρηματισμὸν καὶ πρὸς οἰκονομίαν καὶ πρὸς μάθησιν καὶ πρὸς πολιτικὰς πράξεις πολλάς, δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ γραφικὴ χρήσιμος εἶναι πρὸς τὸ κρίνειν τὰ τῶν τεχνιτῶν ἔργα κάλλιον), οὐδʼ αὖ καθάπερ ἡ γυμναστικὴ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ ἀλκήν (οὐδέτερον γὰρ τούτων ὁρῶμεν γιγνόμενον ἐκ τῆς μουσικῆς)· λείπεται τοίνυν πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ σχολῇ διαγωγήν, εἰς ὅπερ καὶ φαίνονται παράγοντες αὐτήν. ἣν γὰρ οἴονται διαγωγὴν εἶναι τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἐν ταύτῃ τάττουσιν. διόπερ Ὅμηρος οὕτως ἐποίησεν ἀλλʼ οἶον μέν ἐστι καλεῖν ἐπὶ δαῖτα θαλείην, καὶ οὕτω προειπὼν ἑτέρους τινὰς οἳ καλέουσιν ἀοιδόν φησίν, ὅ κεν τέρπῃσιν ἅπαντας. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησιν ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς ταύτην ἀρίστην εἶναι διαγωγήν, ὅταν εὐφραινομένων τῶν ἀνθρώπων δαιτυμόνες δʼ ἀνὰ δώματʼ ἀκουάζωνται ἀοιδοῦ ἥμενοι ἑξείης. Hom. Od. 9.5-6

+

ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἔστι παιδεία τις ἣν οὐχ ὡς χρησίμην παιδευτέον τοὺς υἱεῖς οὐδʼ ὡς ἀναγκαίαν ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐλευθέριον καὶ καλήν, φανερόν ἐστιν· πότερον δὲ μία τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἢ πλείους, καὶ τίνες αὗται καὶ πῶς, ὕστερον λεκτέον περὶ αὐτῶν. νῦν δὲ τοσοῦτον ἡμῖν εἶναι πρὸ ὁδοῦ γέγονεν, ὅτι καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἔχομέν τινα μαρτυρίαν ἐκ τῶν καταβεβλημένων παιδευμάτων· ἡ γὰρ μουσικὴ τοῦτο ποιεῖ δῆλον. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν χρησίμων ὅτι δεῖ τινα παιδεύεσθαι τοὺς παῖδας οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ χρήσιμον, οἷον τὴν τῶν γραμμάτων μάθησιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ πολλὰς ἐνδέχεσθαι γίγνεσθαι διʼ αὐτῶν μαθήσεις ἑτέρας, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν γραφικὴν οὐχ ἵνα ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις ὠνίοις μὴ διαμαρτάνωσιν ἀλλʼ ὦσιν ἀνεξαπάτητοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν σκευῶν ὠνήν τε καὶ πρᾶσιν,

+ +
+

μᾶλλον δʼ ὅτι ποιεῖ θεωρητικὸν τοῦ περὶ τὰ σώματα κάλλους. τὸ δὲ ζητεῖν πανταχοῦ τὸ χρήσιμον ἥκιστα ἁρμόττει τοῖς μεγαλοψύχοις καὶ τοῖς ἐλευθερίοις. ἐπεὶ δὲ φανερὸν πρότερον τοῖς ἔθεσιν ἢ τῷ λόγῳ παιδευτέον εἶναι, καὶ περὶ τὸ σῶμα πρότερον ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν, δῆλον ἐκ τούτων ὅτι παραδοτέον τοὺς παῖδας γυμναστικῇ καὶ παιδοτριβικῇ· τούτων γὰρ ἡ μὲν ποιάν τινα ποιεῖ τὴν ἕξιν τοῦ σώματος, ἡ δὲ τὰ ἔργα.

+

νῦν μὲν οὖν αἱ μάλιστα δοκοῦσαι τῶν πόλεων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῶν παίδων αἱ μὲν ἀθλητικὴν ἕξιν ἐμποιοῦσι, λωβώμεναι τά τε εἴδη καὶ τὴν αὔξησιν τῶν σωμάτων, οἱ δὲ Λάκωνες ταύτην μὲν οὐχ ἥμαρτον τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, θηριώδεις δʼ ἀπεργάζονται τοῖς πόνοις, ὡς τοῦτο πρὸς ἀνδρείαν μάλιστα συμφέρον. καίτοι, καθάπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις, οὔτε πρὸς μίαν οὔτε πρὸς μάλιστα ταύτην βλέποντα ποιητέον τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν· εἰ δὲ καὶ πρὸς ταύτην, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐξευρίσκουσιν. οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις οὔτε ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν ὁρῶμεν τὴν ἀνδρείαν ἀκολουθοῦσαν τοῖς ἀγριωτάτοις, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῖς ἡμερωτέροις καὶ λεοντώδεσιν ἤθεσιν. πολλὰ δʼ ἔστι τῶν ἐθνῶν ἃ πρὸς τὸ κτείνειν καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀνθρωποφαγίαν εὐχερῶς ἔχει, καθάπερ τῶν περὶ τὸν Πόντον Ἀχαιοί τε καὶ Ἡνίοχοι καὶ τῶν ἠπειρωτικῶν ἐθνῶν ἕτερα, τὰ μὲν ὁμοίως τούτοις τὰ δὲ μᾶλλον, ἃ λῃστρικὰ μέν ἐστιν, ἀνδρείας δʼ οὐ μετειλήφασιν. ἔτι δʼ αὐτοὺς τοὺς Λάκωνας ἴσμεν, ἕως μὲν αὐτοὶ προσήδρευον ταῖς φιλοπονίαις, ὑπερέχοντας τῶν ἄλλων, νῦν δὲ κἀν τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσι κἀν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς λειπομένους ἑτέρων· οὐ γὰρ τῷ τοὺς νέους γυμνάζειν τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον διέφερον, ἀλλὰ μόνον τῷ πρὸς μὴ ἀσκοῦντας ἀσκεῖν. ὥστε τὸ καλὸν ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸ θηριῶδες δεῖ πρωταγωνιστεῖν· οὐδὲ γὰρ λύκος οὐδʼ οὐδὲν τῶν ἄλλων θηρίων τι ἀγωνίσαιτο ἂν οὐθένα καλὸν κίνδυνον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός, οἱ δὲ λίαν εἰς ταῦτα ἀνέντες τοὺς παῖδας, καὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀπαιδαγωγήτους ποιήσαντες, βαναύσους κατεργάζονται κατά γε τὸ ἀληθές, πρὸς ἕν τε μόνον ἔργον τῆς πολιτικῆς χρησίμους ποιήσαντες, καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο χεῖρον, ὥς φησιν ὁ λόγος, ἑτέρων. δεῖ δὲ οὐκ ἐκ τῶν προτέρων ἔργων κρίνειν, ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῶν νῦν· ἀνταγωνιστὰς γὰρ τῆς παιδείας νῦν ἔχουσι, πρότερον δʼ οὐκ εἶχον.

+

ὅτι μὲν οὖν χρηστέον τῇ γυμναστικῇ, καὶ πῶς χρηστέον, ὁμολογούμενόν ἐστιν (μέχρι μὲν γὰρ ἥβης κουφότερα γυμνάσια προσοιστέον, τὴν βίαιον τροφὴν καὶ τοὺς πρὸς ἀνάγκην πόνους ἀπείργοντας, ἵνα μηθὲν ἐμπόδιον ᾖ πρὸς τὴν αὔξησιν·

+ +
+

σημεῖον γὰρ οὐ μικρὸν ὅτι δύνανται τοῦτο παρασκευάζειν, ἐν γὰρ τοῖς Ὀλυμπιονίκαις δύο τις ἂν ἢ τρεῖς εὕροι τοὺς αὐτοὺς νενικηκότας ἄνδρας τε καὶ παῖδας, διὰ τὸ νέους ἀσκοῦντας ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὴν δύναμιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀναγκαίων γυμνασίων· ὅταν δʼ ἀφʼ ἥβης ἔτη τρία πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις μαθήμασι γένωνται, τότε ἁρμόττει καὶ τοῖς πόνοις καὶ ταῖς ἀναγκοφαγίαις καταλαμβάνειν τὴν ἐχομένην ἡλικίαν· ἅμα γὰρ τῇ τε διανοίᾳ καὶ τῷ σώματι διαπονεῖν οὐ δεῖ, τοὐναντίον γὰρ ἑκάτερος ἀπεργάζεσθαι πέφυκε τῶν πόνων, ἐμποδίζων ὁ μὲν τοῦ σώματος πόνος τὴν διάνοιαν ὁ δὲ ταύτης τὸ σῶμα).

+

περὶ δὲ μουσικῆς ἔνια μὲν διηπορήκαμεν τῷ λόγῳ καὶ πρότερον, καλῶς δʼ ἔχει καὶ νῦν ἀναλαβόντας αὐτὰ προαγαγεῖν, ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐνδόσιμον γένηται τοῖς λόγοις οὓς ἄν τις εἴπειεν ἀποφαινόμενος περὶ αὐτῆς. οὔτε γὰρ τίνα ἔχει δύναμιν ῥᾴδιον περὶ αὐτῆς διελεῖν, οὔτε τίνος δεῖ χάριν μετέχειν αὐτῆς, πότερον παιδιᾶς ἕνεκα καὶ ἀναπαύσεως, καθάπερ ὕπνου καὶ μέθης (ταῦτα γὰρ καθʼ αὑτὰ μὲν οὐδὲ τῶν σπουδαίων, ἀλλʼ ἡδέα, καὶ ἀναπαύει μέριμναν, ὥς φησιν Εὐριπίδης· διὸ καὶ τάττουσιν αὐτὴν καὶ χρῶνται πᾶσι τούτοις ὁμοίως, ὕπνῳ καὶ μέθῃ καὶ μουσικῇ· τιθέασι δὲ καὶ τὴν ὄρχησιν ἐν τούτοις), ἢ μᾶλλον οἰητέον πρὸς ἀρετήν τι τείνειν τὴν μουσικήν, ὡς δυναμένην, καθάπερ ἡ γυμναστικὴ τὸ σῶμα ποιόν τι παρασκευάζει, καὶ τὴν μουσικὴν τὸ ἦθος ποιόν τι ποιεῖν, ἐθίζουσαν δύνασθαι χαίρειν ὀρθῶς, ἢ πρὸς διαγωγήν τι συμβάλλεται καὶ πρὸς φρόνησιν (καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο τρίτον θετέον τῶν εἰρημένων). ὅτι μὲν οὖν δεῖ τοὺς νέους μὴ παιδιᾶς ἕνεκα παιδεύειν, οὐκ ἄδηλον (οὐ γὰρ παίζουσι μανθάνοντες· μετὰ λύπης γὰρ ἡ μάθησις)· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ διαγωγήν γε παισὶν ἁρμόττει καὶ ταῖς ἡλικίαις ἀποδιδόναι ταῖς τοιαύταις (οὐθενὶ γὰρ ἀτελεῖ προσήκει τέλος). ἀλλʼ ἴσως ἂν δόξειεν ἡ τῶν παίδων σπουδὴ παιδιᾶς εἶναι χάριν ἀνδράσι γενομένοις καὶ τελειωθεῖσιν. ἀλλʼ εἰ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ τοιοῦτον, τίνος ἂν ἕνεκα δέοι μανθάνειν αὐτούς, ἀλλὰ μή, καθάπερ οἱ τῶν Περσῶν καὶ Μήδων βασιλεῖς, διʼ ἄλλων αὐτὸ ποιούντων μεταλαμβάνειν τῆς ἡδονῆς καὶ τῆς μαθήσεως; καὶ γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον βέλτιον ἀπεργάζεσθαι τοὺς αὐτὸ τοῦτο πεποιημένους ἔργον καὶ τέχνην τῶν τοσοῦτον χρόνον ἐπιμελουμένων ὅσον πρὸς μάθησιν μόνον. εἰ δὲ δεῖ τὰ τοιαῦτα διαπονεῖν αὐτούς, καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν τῶν ὄψων πραγματείαν αὐτοὺς ἂν δέοι παρασκευάζειν· ἀλλʼ ἄτοπον. τὴν δʼ αὐτὴν ἀπορίαν ἔχει καὶ εἰ δύναται τὰ ἤθη βελτίω ποιεῖν· ταῦτα γὰρ τί δεῖ μανθάνειν αὐτούς,

+ +
+

ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἑτέρων ἀκούοντας ὀρθῶς τε χαίρειν καὶ δύνασθαι κρίνειν, ὥσπερ οἱ Λάκωνες; ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ οὐ μανθάνοντες ὅμως δύνανται κρίνειν ὀρθῶς, ὥς φασι, τὰ χρηστὰ καὶ τὰ μὴ χρηστὰ τῶν μελῶν. ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς λόγος κἂν εἰ πρὸς εὐημερίαν καὶ διαγωγὴν ἐλευθέριον χρηστέον αὐτῇ· τί δεῖ μανθάνειν αὐτούς, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἑτέρων χρωμένων ἀπολαύειν; σκοπεῖν δʼ ἔξεστι τὴν ὑπόληψιν ἣν ἔχομεν περὶ τῶν θεῶν· οὐ γὰρ ὁ Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἀείδει καὶ κιθαρίζει τοῖς ποιηταῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ βαναύσους καλοῦμεν τοὺς τοιούτους καὶ τὸ πράττειν οὐκ ἀνδρὸς μὴ μεθύοντος ἢ παίζοντος.

+

ἀλλʼ ἴσως περὶ μὲν τούτων ὕστερον ἐπισκεπτέον· ἡ δὲ πρώτη ζήτησίς ἐστι πότερον οὐ θετέον εἰς παιδείαν τὴν μουσικὴν ἢ θετέον, καὶ τί δύναται τῶν διαπορηθέντων τριῶν, πότερον παιδείαν ἢ παιδιὰν ἢ διαγωγήν. εὐλόγως δʼ εἰς πάντα τάττεται καὶ φαίνεται μετέχειν. ἥ τε γὰρ παιδιὰ χάριν ἀναπαύσεώς ἐστι, τὴν δʼ ἀνάπαυσιν ἀναγκαῖον ἡδεῖαν εἶναι (τῆς γὰρ διὰ τῶν πόνων λύπης ἰατρεία τίς ἐστιν), καὶ τὴν διαγωγὴν ὁμολογουμένως δεῖ μὴ μόνον ἔχειν τὸ καλὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἡδονήν (τὸ γὰρ εὐδαιμονεῖν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τούτων ἐστίν)· τὴν δὲ μουσικὴν πάντες εἶναί φαμεν τῶν ἡδίστων, καὶ ψιλὴν οὖσαν καὶ μετὰ μελῳδίας (φησὶ γοῦν καὶ Μουσαῖος εἶναι βροτοῖς ἥδιστον ἀείδειν· διὸ καὶ εἰς τὰς συνουσίας καὶ διαγωγὰς εὐλόγως παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὴν ὡς δυναμένην εὐφραίνειν), ὥστε καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ἄν τις ὑπολάβοι παιδεύεσθαι δεῖν αὐτὴν τοὺς νεωτέρους. ὅσα γὰρ ἀβλαβῆ τῶν ἡδέων, οὐ μόνον ἁρμόττει πρὸς τὸ τέλος ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν· ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐν μὲν τῷ τέλει συμβαίνει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὀλιγάκις γίγνεσθαι, πολλάκις δὲ ἀναπαύονται καὶ χρῶνται ταῖς παιδιαῖς οὐχ ὅσον ἐπὶ πλέον ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡδονήν, χρήσιμον ἂν εἴη διαναπαύειν ἐν ταῖς ἀπὸ ταύτης ἡδοναῖς.

+

συμβέβηκε δὲ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ποιεῖσθαι τὰς παιδιὰς τέλος· ἔχει γὰρ ἴσως ἡδονήν τινα καὶ τὸ τέλος, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν, ζητοῦντες δὲ ταύτην λαμβάνουσιν ὡς ταύτην ἐκείνην, διὰ τὸ τῷ τέλει τῶν πράξεων ἔχειν ὁμοίωμά τι. τό τε γὰρ τέλος οὐθενὸς τῶν ἐσομένων χάριν αἱρετόν, καὶ αἱ τοιαῦται τῶν ἡδονῶν οὐθενός εἰσι τῶν ἐσομένων ἕνεκεν, ἀλλὰ τῶν γεγονότων, οἷον πόνων καὶ λύπης. διʼ ἣν μὲν οὖν αἰτίαν ζητοῦσι τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν γίγνεσθαι διὰ τούτων τῶν ἡδονῶν, ταύτην εἰκότως ἄν τις ὑπολάβοι τὴν αἰτίαν· περὶ δὲ τοῦ κοινωνεῖν τῆς μουσικῆς, ὅτι οὐ διὰ ταύτην μόνην, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ χρήσιμον εἶναι πρὸς τὰς ἀναπαύσεις, ὡς ἔοικεν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ ζητητέον μή ποτε τοῦτο μὲν συμβέβηκε,

+ +
+

τιμιωτέρα δʼ αὐτῆς ἡ φύσις ἐστὶν ἢ κατὰ τὴν εἰρημένην χρείαν, καὶ δεῖ μὴ μόνον τῆς κοινῆς ἡδονῆς μετέχειν ἀπʼ αὐτῆς, ἧς ἔχουσι πάντες αἴσθησιν (ἔχει γὰρ ἡ μουσική τινʼ ἡδονὴν φυσικήν, διὸ πάσαις ἡλικίαις καὶ πᾶσιν ἤθεσιν ἡ χρῆσις αὐτῆς ἐστι προσφιλής), ἀλλʼ ὁρᾶν εἴ πῃ καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἦθος συντείνει καὶ πρὸς τὴν ψυχήν. τοῦτο δʼ ἂν εἴη δῆλον, εἰ ποιοί τινες τὰ ἤθη γιγνόμεθα διʼ αὐτῆς. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι γιγνόμεθα ποιοί τινες, φανερὸν διὰ πολλῶν μὲν καὶ ἑτέρων, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν Ὀλύμπου μελῶν· ταῦτα γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως ποιεῖ τὰς ψυχὰς ἐνθουσιαστικάς, ὁ δʼ ἐνθουσιασμὸς τοῦ περὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἤθους πάθος ἐστίν. ἔτι δὲ ἀκροώμενοι τῶν μιμήσεων γίγνονται πάντες συμπαθεῖς, καὶ χωρὶς τῶν ῥυθμῶν καὶ τῶν μελῶν αὐτῶν.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ συμβέβηκεν εἶναι τὴν μουσικὴν τῶν ἡδέων, τὴν δʼ ἀρετὴν περὶ τὸ χαίρειν ὀρθῶς καὶ φιλεῖν καὶ μισεῖν, δεῖ δηλονότι μανθάνειν καὶ συνεθίζεσθαι μηθὲν οὕτως ὡς τὸ κρίνειν ὀρθῶς καὶ τὸ χαίρειν τοῖς ἐπιεικέσιν ἤθεσι καὶ ταῖς καλαῖς πράξεσιν· ἔστι δὲ ὁμοιώματα μάλιστα παρὰ τὰς ἀληθινὰς φύσεις ἐν τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς καὶ τοῖς μέλεσιν ὀργῆς καὶ πραότητος, ἔτι δʼ ἀνδρείας καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐναντίων τούτοις καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἠθικῶν (δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων· μεταβάλλομεν γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀκροώμενοι τοιούτων)· ὁ δʼ ἐν τοῖς ὁμοίοις ἐθισμὸς τοῦ λυπεῖσθαι καὶ χαίρειν ἐγγύς ἐστι τῷ πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχειν τρόπον (οἷον εἴ τις χαίρει τὴν εἰκόνα τινὸς θεώμενος μὴ διʼ ἄλλην αἰτίαν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν μορφὴν αὐτήν, ἀναγκαῖον τούτῳ καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου τὴν θεωρίαν, οὗ τὴν εἰκόνα θεωρεῖ, ἡδεῖαν εἶναι). συμβέβηκε δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἄλλοις μηδὲν ὑπάρχειν ὁμοίωμα τοῖς ἤθεσιν, οἷον ἐν τοῖς ἁπτοῖς καὶ τοῖς γευστοῖς, ἀλλʼ ἐν τοῖς ὁρατοῖς ἠρέμα (σχήματα γὰρ ἔστι τοιαῦτα, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ μικρόν, κοὐ πάντες τῆς τοιαύτης αἰσθήσεως κοινωνοῦσιν· ἔτι δὲ οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα ὁμοιώματα τῶν ἠθῶν, ἀλλὰ σημεῖα μᾶλλον τὰ γιγνόμενα σχήματα καὶ χρώματα τῶν ἠθῶν, καὶ ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἐπίσημα ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ ὅσον διαφέρει καὶ περὶ τὴν τούτων θεωρίαν, δεῖ μὴ τὰ Παύσωνος θεωρεῖν τοὺς νέους, ἀλλὰ τὰ Πολυγνώτου κἂν εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν γραφέων ἢ τῶν ἀγαλματοποιῶν ἐστιν ἠθικός), ἐν δὲ τοῖς μέλεσιν αὐτοῖς ἔστι μιμήματα τῶν ἠθῶν (καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ φανερόν· εὐθὺς γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν διέστηκε φύσις, ὥστε ἀκούοντας ἄλλως διατίθεσθαι καὶ μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχειν τρόπον πρὸς ἑκάστην αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς μὲν ἐνίας ὀδυρτικωτέρως καὶ συνεστηκότως μᾶλλον,

+ +
+

οἷον πρὸς τὴν μιξολυδιστὶ καλουμένην, πρὸς δὲ τὰς μαλακωτέρως τὴν διάνοιαν, οἷον πρὸς τὰς ἀνειμένας, μέσως δὲ καὶ καθεστηκότως μάλιστα πρὸς ἑτέραν, οἷον δοκεῖ ποιεῖν ἡ δωριστὶ μόνη τῶν ἁρμονιῶν, ἐνθουσιαστικοὺς δʼ ἡ φρυγιστί. ταῦτα γὰρ καλῶς λέγουσιν οἱ περὶ τὴν παιδείαν ταύτην πεφιλοσοφηκότες· λαμβάνουσι γὰρ τὰ μαρτύρια τῶν λόγων ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων). τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς ῥυθμούς (οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἦθος ἔχουσι στασιμώτερον οἱ δὲ κινητικόν, καὶ τούτων οἱ μὲν φορτικωτέρας ἔχουσι τὰς κινήσεις οἱ δὲ ἐλευθεριωτέρας). ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων φανερὸν ὅτι δύναται ποιόν τι τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἦθος ἡ μουσικὴ παρασκευάζειν, εἰ δὲ τοῦτο δύναται ποιεῖν, δῆλον ὅτι προσακτέον καὶ παιδευτέον ἐν αὐτῇ τοὺς νέους. ἔστι δὲ ἁρμόττουσα πρὸς τὴν φύσιν τὴν τηλικαύτην ἡ διδασκαλία τῆς μουσικῆς· οἱ μὲν γὰρ νέοι διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν ἀνήδυντον οὐθὲν ὑπομένουσιν ἑκόντες, ἡ δὲ μουσικὴ φύσει τῶν ἡδυσμένων ἐστίν. καί τις ἔοικε συγγένεια ταῖς ἁρμονίαις καὶ τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς εἶναι· διὸ πολλοί φασι τῶν σοφῶν οἱ μὲν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν, οἱ δʼ ἔχειν ἁρμονίαν.

+

πότερον δὲ δεῖ μανθάνειν αὐτοὺς ᾄδοντάς τε καὶ χειρουργοῦντας ἢ μή, καθάπερ ἠπορήθη πρότερον, νῦν λεκτέον οὐκ ἄδηλον δὴ ὅτι πολλὴν ἔχει διαφορὰν πρὸς τὸ γίγνεσθαι ποιούς τινας, ἐάν τις αὐτὸς κοινωνῇ τῶν ἔργων· ἓν γάρ τι τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἢ χαλεπῶν ἐστι μὴ κοινωνήσαντας τῶν ἔργων κριτὰς γενέσθαι σπουδαίους. ἅμα δὲ καὶ δεῖ τοὺς παῖδας ἔχειν τινὰ διατριβήν, καὶ τὴν Ἀρχύτου πλαταγὴν οἴεσθαι γενέσθαι καλῶς, ἣν διδόασι τοῖς παιδίοις, ὅπως χρώμενοι ταύτῃ μηδὲν καταγνύωσι τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν· οὐ γὰρ δύναται τὸ νέον ἡσυχάζειν. αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἐστι τοῖς νηπίοις ἁρμόττουσα τῶν παιδίων, ἡ δὲ παιδεία πλαταγὴ τοῖς μείζοσι τῶν νέων. ὅτι μὲν οὖν παιδευτέον τὴν μουσικὴν οὕτως ὥστε καὶ κοινωνεῖν τῶν ἔργων, φανερὸν ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων· τὸ δὲ πρέπον καὶ τὸ μὴ πρέπον ταῖς ἡλικίαις οὐ χαλεπὸν διορίσαι, καὶ λῦσαι πρὸς τοὺς φάσκοντας βάναυσον εἶναι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. πρῶτον μὲν γάρ, ἐπεὶ τοῦ κρίνειν χάριν μετέχειν δεῖ τῶν ἔργων, διὰ τοῦτο χρὴ νέους μὲν ὄντας χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἔργοις, πρεσβυτέρους δὲ γενομένους τῶν μὲν ἔργων ἀφεῖσθαι, δύνασθαι δὲ τὰ καλὰ κρίνειν καὶ χαίρειν ὀρθῶς διὰ τὴν μάθησιν τὴν γενομένην ἐν τῇ νεότητι· περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐπιτιμήσεως ἥν τινες ἐπιτιμῶσιν ὡς ποιούσης τῆς μουσικῆς βαναύσους, οὐ χαλεπὸν λῦσαι σκεψαμένους μέχρι τε πόσου τῶν ἔργων κοινωνητέον τοῖς πρὸς ἀρετὴν παιδευομένοις πολιτικήν,

+ +
+

καὶ ποίων μελῶν καὶ ποίων ῥυθμῶν κοινωνητέον, ἔτι δὲ ἐν ποίοις ὀργάνοις τὴν μάθησιν ποιητέον, καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο διαφέρειν εἰκός. ἐν τούτοις γὰρ ἡ λύσις ἐστὶ τῆς ἐπιτιμήσεως· οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει τρόπους τινὰς τῆς μουσικῆς ἀπεργάζεσθαι τὸ λεχθέν. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι δεῖ τὴν μάθησιν αὐτῆς μήτε ἐμποδίζειν πρὸς τὰς ὕστερον πράξεις, μήτε τὸ σῶμα ποιεῖν βάναυσον καὶ ἄχρηστον πρὸς τὰς πολεμικὰς καὶ πολιτικὰς ἀσκήσεις, πρὸς μὲν τὰς χρήσεις ἤδη πρὸς δὲ τὰς χρήσεις ὕστερον.

+

συμβαίνοι δʼ ἂν περὶ τὴν μάθησιν, εἰ μήτε τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας τοὺς τεχνικοὺς συντείνοντα διαπονοῖεν, μήτε τὰ θαυμάσια καὶ περιττὰ τῶν ἔργων, ἃ νῦν ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἀγώνων εἰς τὴν παιδείαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ μὴ τοιαῦτα μέχρι περ ἂν δύνωνται χαίρειν τοῖς καλοῖς μέλεσι καὶ ῥυθμοῖς, καὶ μὴ μόνον τῷ κοινῷ τῆς μουσικῆς, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἔνια ζῴων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ πλῆθος ἀνδραπόδων καὶ παιδίων. δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τούτων καὶ ποίοις ὀργάνοις χρηστέον. οὔτε γὰρ αὐλοὺς εἰς παιδείαν ἀκτέον οὔτʼ ἄλλο τι τεχνικὸν ὄργανον, οἷον κιθάραν κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον ἔστιν, ἀλλʼ ὅσα ποιήσει αὐτῶν ἀκροατὰς ἀγαθοὺς ἢ τῆς μουσικῆς παιδείας ἢ τῆς ἄλλης· ἔτι δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ αὐλὸς ἠθικὸν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὀργιαστικόν, ὥστε πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους αὐτῷ καιροὺς χρηστέον ἐν οἷς ἡ θεωρία κάθαρσιν μᾶλλον δύναται ἢ μάθησιν. προσθῶμεν δὲ ὅτι συμβέβηκεν ἐναντίον αὐτῷ πρὸς παιδείαν καὶ τὸ κωλύειν τῷ λόγῳ χρῆσθαι τὴν αὔλησιν. διὸ καλῶς ἀπεδοκίμασαν αὐτοῦ οἱ πρότερον τὴν χρῆσιν ἐκ τῶν νέων καὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων, καίπερ χρησάμενοι τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῷ. σχολαστικώτεροι γὰρ γιγνόμενοι διὰ τὰς εὐπορίας καὶ μεγαλοψυχότεροι πρὸς τὴν ἀρετήν, ἔτι τε πρότερον καὶ μετὰ τὰ Μηδικὰ φρονηματισθέντες ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, πάσης ἥπτοντο μαθήσεως, οὐδὲν διακρίνοντες ἀλλʼ ἐπιζητοῦντες. διὸ καὶ τὴν αὐλητικὴν ἤγαγον πρὸς τὰς μαθήσεις. καὶ γὰρ ἐν Λακεδαίμονί τις χορηγὸς αὐτὸς ηὔλησε τῷ χορῷ, καὶ περὶ Ἀθήνας οὕτως ἐπεχωρίασεν ὥστε σχεδὸν οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων μετεῖχον αὐτῆς· δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πίνακος ὃν ἀνέθηκε Θράσιππος Ἐκφαντίδῃ χορηγήσας. ὕστερον δʼ ἀπεδοκιμάσθη διὰ τῆς πείρας αὐτῆς, βέλτιον δυναμένων κρίνειν τὸ πρὸς ἀρετὴν καὶ τὸ μὴ πρὸς ἀρετὴν συντεῖνον· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πολλὰ τῶν ὀργάνων τῶν ἀρχαίων, οἷον πηκτίδες καὶ βάρβιτοι καὶ τὰ πρὸς ἡδονὴν συντείνοντα τοῖς ἀκούουσι τῶν χρωμένων, ἑπτάγωνα καὶ τρίγωνα καὶ σαμβῦκαι,

+ +
+

καὶ πάντα τὰ δεόμενα χειρουργικῆς ἐπιστήμης. εὐλόγως δʼ ἔχει καὶ τὸ περὶ τῶν αὐλῶν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων μεμυθολογημένον. φασὶ γὰρ δὴ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν εὑροῦσαν ἀποβαλεῖν τοὺς αὐλούς. οὐ κακῶς μὲν οὖν ἔχει φάναι καὶ διὰ τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην τοῦ προσώπου τοῦτο ποιῆσαι δυσχεράνασαν τὴν θεόν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εἰκὸς ὅτι πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν οὐθέν ἐστιν ἡ παιδεία τῆς αὐλήσεως, τῇ δὲ Ἀθηνᾷ τὴν ἐπιστήμην περιτίθεμεν καὶ τὴν τέχνην. ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν τε ὀργάνων καὶ τῆς ἐργασίας ἀποδοκιμάζομεν τὴν τεχνικὴν παιδείαν (τεχνικὴν δὲ τίθεμεν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας· ἐν ταύτῃ γὰρ ὁ πράττων οὐ τῆς αὑτοῦ μεταχειρίζεται χάριν ἀρετῆς, ἀλλὰ τῆς τῶν ἀκουόντων ἡδονῆς, καὶ ταύτης φορτικῆς, διόπερ οὐ τῶν ἐλευθέρων κρίνομεν εἶναι τὴν ἐργασίαν, ἀλλὰ θητικωτέραν· καὶ βαναύσους δὴ συμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι· πονηρὸς γὰρ ὁ σκοπὸς πρὸς ὃν ποιοῦνται τὸ τέλος· ὁ γὰρ θεατὴς φορτικὸς ὢν μεταβάλλειν εἴωθε τὴν μουσικήν, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας τοὺς πρὸς αὐτὸν μελετῶντας αὐτούς τε ποιούς τινας ποιεῖ καὶ τὰ σώματα διὰ τὰς κινήσεις),

+

σκεπτέον δή τι περί τε τὰς ἁρμονίας καὶ τοὺς ῥυθμούς, καὶ πρὸς παιδείαν πότερον πάσαις χρηστέον ταῖς ἁρμονίαις καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς ἢ διαιρετέον, ἔπειτα τοῖς πρὸς παιδείαν διαπονοῦσι πότερον τὸν αὐτὸν διορισμὸν θήσομεν ἢ τρίτον δεῖ τινα ἕτερον. ἐπεὶ δὴ τὴν μὲν μουσικὴν ὁρῶμεν διὰ μελοποιίας καὶ ῥυθμῶν οὖσαν, τούτων δʼ ἑκάτερον οὐ δεῖ λεληθέναι τίνα δύναμιν ἔχει πρὸς παιδείαν, καὶ πότερον προαιρετέον μᾶλλον τὴν εὐμελῆ μουσικὴν ἢ τὴν εὔρυθμον, νομίσαντες οὖν πολλὰ καλῶς λέγειν περὶ τούτων τῶν τε νῦν μουσικῶν ἐνίους καὶ τῶν ἐκ φιλοσοφίας ὅσοι τυγχάνουσιν ἐμπείρως ἔχοντες τῆς περὶ τὴν μουσικὴν παιδείας, τὴν μὲν καθʼ ἕκαστον ἀκριβολογίαν ἀποδώσομεν ζητεῖν τοῖς βουλομένοις παρʼ ἐκείνων, νῦν δὲ νομικῶς διέλωμεν, τοὺς τύπους μόνον εἰπόντες περὶ αὐτῶν.

+

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν διαίρεσιν ἀποδεχόμεθα τῶν μελῶν ὡς διαιροῦσί τινες τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ, τὰ μὲν ἠθικὰ τὰ δὲ πρακτικὰ τὰ δʼ ἐνθουσιαστικὰ τιθέντες, καὶ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν τὴν φύσιν τὴν πρὸς ἕκαστα τούτων οἰκείαν, ἄλλην πρὸς ἄλλο μέρος, τιθέασι, φαμὲν δʼ οὐ μιᾶς ἕνεκεν ὠφελείας τῇ μουσικῇ χρῆσθαι δεῖν ἀλλὰ καὶ πλειόνων χάριν (καὶ γὰρ παιδείας ἕνεκεν καὶ καθάρσεως—τί δὲ λέγομεν τὴν κάθαρσιν, νῦν μὲν ἁπλῶς, πάλιν δʼ ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς ἐροῦμεν σαφέστερον—τρίτον δὲ πρὸς διαγωγὴν πρὸς ἄνεσίν τε καὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς συντονίας ἀνάπαυσιν),

+ +
+

φανερὸν ὅτι χρηστέον μὲν πάσαις ταῖς ἁρμονίαις, οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον πάσαις χρηστέον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς μὲν τὴν παιδείαν ταῖς ἠθικωτάταις, πρὸς δὲ ἀκρόασιν ἑτέρων χειρουργούντων καὶ ταῖς πρακτικαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐνθουσιαστικαῖς. ὃ γὰρ περὶ ἐνίας συμβαίνει πάθος ψυχὰς ἰσχυρῶς, τοῦτο ἐν πάσαις ὑπάρχει, τῷ δὲ ἧττον διαφέρει καὶ τῷ μᾶλλον, οἷον ἔλεος καὶ φόβος, ἔτι δʼ ἐνθουσιασμός· καὶ γὰρ ὑπὸ ταύτης τῆς κινήσεως κατοκώχιμοί τινές εἰσιν, ἐκ τῶν δʼ ἱερῶν μελῶν ὁρῶμεν τούτους, ὅταν χρήσωνται τοῖς ἐξοργιάζουσι τὴν ψυχὴν μέλεσι, καθισταμένους ὥσπερ ἰατρείας τυχόντας καὶ καθάρσεως· ταὐτὸ δὴ τοῦτο ἀναγκαῖον πάσχειν καὶ τοὺς ἐλεήμονας καὶ τοὺς φοβητικοὺς καὶ τοὺς ὅλως παθητικούς, τοὺς ἄλλους καθʼ ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει τῶν τοιούτων ἑκάστῳ, καὶ πᾶσι γίγνεσθαί τινα κάθαρσιν καὶ κουφίζεσθαι μεθʼ ἡδονῆς. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ μέλη τὰ πρακτικὰ παρέχει χαρὰν ἀβλαβῆ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· διὸ ταῖς μὲν τοιαύταις ἁρμονίαις καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις μέλεσιν θετέον τοὺς τὴν θεατρικὴν μουσικὴν μεταχειριζομένους ἀγωνιστάς· ἐπεὶ δʼ ὁ θεατὴς διττός, ὁ μὲν ἐλεύθερος καὶ πεπαιδευμένος, ὁ δὲ φορτικὸς ἐκ βαναύσων καὶ θητῶν καὶ ἄλλων τοιούτων συγκείμενος, ἀποδοτέον ἀγῶνας καὶ θεωρίας καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις πρὸς ἀνάπαυσιν· εἰσὶ δὲ ὥσπερ αὐτῶν αἱ ψυχαὶ παρεστραμμέναι τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἕξεως—οὕτω καὶ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν παρεκβάσεις εἰσὶ καὶ τῶν μελῶν τὰ σύντονα καὶ παρακεχρωσμένα, ποιεῖ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἑκάστοις τὸ κατὰ φύσιν οἰκεῖον, διόπερ ἀποδοτέον ἐξουσίαν τοῖς ἀγωνιζομένοις πρὸς τὸν θεατὴν τὸν τοιοῦτον τοιούτῳ τινὶ χρῆσθαι τῷ γένει τῆς μουσικῆς. πρὸς δὲ παιδείαν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, τοῖς ἠθικοῖς τῶν μελῶν χρηστέον καὶ ταῖς ἁρμονίαις ταῖς τοιαύταις. τοιαύτη δʼ ἡ δωριστί, καθάπερ εἴπομεν πρότερον· δέχεσθαι δὲ δεῖ κἄν τινα ἄλλην ἡμῖν δοκιμάζωσιν οἱ κοινωνοὶ τῆς ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ διατριβῆς καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν μουσικὴν παιδείας. ὁ δʼ ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ Σωκράτης οὐ καλῶς τὴν φρυγιστὶ μόνην καταλείπει μετὰ τῆς δωριστί, καὶ ταῦτα ἀποδοκιμάσας τῶν ὀργάνων τὸν αὐλόν.

+ +
+

ἔχει γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν δύναμιν ἡ φρυγιστὶ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν ἥνπερ αὐλὸς ἐν τοῖς ὀργάνοις· ἄμφω γὰρ ὀργιαστικὰ καὶ παθητικά· δηλοῖ δʼ ἡ ποίησις. πᾶσα γὰρ βακχεία καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τοιαύτη κίνησις μάλιστα τῶν ὀργάνων ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς αὐλοῖς, τῶν δʼ ἁρμονιῶν ἐν τοῖς φρυγιστὶ μέλεσι λαμβάνει ταῦτα τὸ πρέπον. δηλοῖ δʼ ἡ ποίησις, οἷον ὁ διθύραμβος ὁμολογουμένως εἶναι δοκεῖ Φρύγιον. καὶ τούτου πολλὰ παραδείγματα λέγουσιν οἱ περὶ τὴν σύνεσιν ταύτην, ἄλλα τε καὶ ὅτι Φιλόξενος ἐγχειρήσας ἐν τῇ δωριστὶ ποιῆσαι διθύραμβον τοὺς Μύσους οὐχ οἷός τʼ ἦν, ἀλλʼ ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως αὐτῆς ἐξέπεσεν εἰς τὴν φρυγιστὶ τὴν προσήκουσαν ἁρμονίαν πάλιν. περὶ δὲ τῆς δωριστὶ πάντες ὁμολογοῦσιν ὡς στασιμωτάτης οὔσης καὶ μάλιστα ἦθος ἐχούσης ἀνδρεῖον. ἔτι δὲ ἐπεὶ τὸ μέσον μὲν τῶν ὑπερβολῶν ἐπαινοῦμεν καὶ χρῆναι διώκειν φαμέν, ἡ δὲ δωριστὶ ταύτην ἔχει τὴν φύσιν πρὸς τὰς ἄλλας ἁρμονίας, φανερὸν ὅτι τὰ Δώρια μέλη πρέπει παιδεύεσθαι μᾶλλον τοῖς νεωτέροις.

+

εἰσὶ δὲ δύο σκοποί, τό τε δυνατὸν καὶ τὸ πρέπον· καὶ γὰρ τὰ δυνατὰ δεῖ μεταχειρίζεσθαι μᾶλλον καὶ τὰ πρέποντα ἑκάστους. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ὡρισμένα ταῖς ἡλικίαις, οἷον τοῖς ἀπειρηκόσι διὰ χρόνον οὐ ῥᾴδιον ᾄδειν τὰς συντόνους ἁρμονίας, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἀνειμένας ἡ φύσις ὑποβάλλει τοῖς τηλικούτοις. διὸ καλῶς ἐπιτιμῶσι καὶ τοῦτο Σωκράτει τῶν περὶ τὴν μουσικήν τινες, ὅτι τὰς ἀνειμένας ἁρμονίας ἀποδοκιμάσειεν εἰς τὴν παιδίαν, ὡς μεθυστικὰς λαμβάνων αὐτάς, οὐ κατὰ τὴν τῆς μέθης δύναμιν, βακχευτικὸν γὰρ ἥ γε μέθη ποιεῖ μᾶλλον, ἀλλʼ ἀπειρηκυίας. ὥστε καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐσομένην ἡλικίαν, τὴν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, δεῖ καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἁρμονιῶν ἅπτεσθαι καὶ τῶν μελῶν τῶν τοιούτων, ἔτι δʼ εἴ τίς ἐστι τοιαύτη τῶν ἁρμονιῶν ἣ πρέπει τῇ τῶν παίδων ἡλικίᾳ διὰ τὸ δύνασθαι κόσμον τʼ ἔχειν ἅμα καὶ παιδείαν, οἷον ἡ λυδιστὶ φαίνεται πεπονθέναι μάλιστα τῶν ἁρμονιῶν. δῆλον οὖν ὅτι τούτους ὅρους τρεῖς ποιητέον εἰς τὴν παιδείαν, τό τε μέσον καὶ τὸ δυνατὸν καὶ τὸ πρέπον.

+ + + + From 6345138a772661e011b2561754b37cdbc92b291b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lcerrato Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 16:19:57 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] (grc_conversation) tlg0086 file removal #1399 --- .../tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.tracking.json | 14 - .../tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml | 932 ------------------ .../tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml | 396 -------- 3 files changed, 1342 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.tracking.json delete mode 100644 data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml delete mode 100644 data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.tracking.json b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.tracking.json deleted file mode 100644 index 2cc62f42e..000000000 --- a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.tracking.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,14 +0,0 @@ -{ - "epidoc_compliant": false, - "fully_unicode": true, - "git_repo": "canonical-greekLit", - "has_cts_metadata": true, - "has_cts_refsDecl": true, - "id": "1999.01.0058", - "last_editor": "", - "note": "", - "src": "texts/Classics/Aristotle/opensource/aristot.pol_eng.xml", - "status": "migrated", - "target": "canonical-greekLit/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml", - "valid_xml": true -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml deleted file mode 100644 index 1922e8cbd..000000000 --- a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng1.xml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,932 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -Politics - Aristotle - Harris Rackham - Perseus Project, Tufts University - Gregory Crane - - Prepared under the supervision of - Lisa Cerrato - William Merrill - Elli Mylonas - David Smith - - The Annenberg CPB/Project - - - - Trustees of Tufts University - Medford, MA - Perseus Digital Library Project - Perseus 2.0 - tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml - - Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License - - - - - - - Aristotle - Politics - Harris Rackham - - William Heinemann Ltd. - London - Harvard University Press - Cambridge, MA - 1944 - - - - - Loeb Classical Library - - HathiTrust - - - - - - - - - -

This pointer pattern extracts book and Bekker page.

- - -

This pointer pattern extracts book.

- - - - - - -Greek -English - - - - -EpiDoc and CTS conversion and general header review. -fixed Aristotle bibls -fixed repeated words (typo) 1254a -cleaned up bad place tags in a few texts and cleaned up the document format -more reorganizing of texts module by collection -began reorganizing texts module by collection. created separate work directory in texts module to keep hopper files separate from in progress files -fixed typo -fixed cvs log keyword -edited entity tags up to line 4264 CEH -fixed Pindar bibl error - zr -fixed bad bibls -fixed bibl errors - zr -added cvs log keyword -Corrected two typos in 1449a. -added cvs log keyword -Put Bekker line 1 milestone tags at the beginning of each section so that the incoming list creator would work. Changed RREFDECL. -Tagged in conformance with Prose.g dtd. -Text was scanned at St. Olaf Spring, 1992. - - - - - -
-
-
-

- - Every state is as we see a sort of partnership,The Greek word had not acquired a specially political connotation as the English word community has. and every partnership is formed with a view to some good (since all the actions of all mankind are done with a view to what they think to be good). It is therefore evident that, while all partnerships aim at some good the partnership that is the most supreme of all and includes all the others does so most of all, and aims at the most supreme of all goods; and this is the partnership entitled the state, the political association. Those then who think that the natures of the statesman, the royal ruler, the head of an estate οἰκονόμος denoting a higher grade than δεσπότης is unusual. For their ordinary use see 2.1 fin. and the master of a family are the same, are mistaken (they imagine that the difference between these various forms of authority is one of greater and smaller numbers, not a difference in the kind—that is, that the ruler over a few people is a master, over more the head of an estate, over more still a statesman or royal ruler, as if there were no difference between a large household and a small city; and also as to the statesman and the royal ruler, they think that one who governs as sole head is royal, and one who, while the government follows the principles of the science of royalty, takes turns to govern and be governed is a statesman; but these views are not true). And a proof that these people are mistaken will appear if we examine the question in accordance with our regular method of investigation. In every other matter it is necessary to analyze the composite whole down to its uncompounded elements (for these are the smallest parts of the whole); so too with the state, by examining the elements of which it is composed we shall better discern in relation to these different kinds of rulers what is the difference between them, and whether it is possible to obtain any scientific precision in regard to the various statements made above.

-

In this subject as in others the best method of investigation is to study things in the process of development from the beginning. The first coupling together of persons then to which necessity gives rise is that between those who are unable to exist without one another: for instance the union of female and male for the continuance of the species (and this not of deliberate purpose, but with man as with the other animals and with plants there is a natural instinct to desire to leave behind one another being of the same sort as oneself); and the union of natural ruler and natural subject for the sake of security (for he that can foresee with his mind is naturally ruler and naturally master, and he that can do these thingsA probable emendation gives that can carry out labor. with his body is subject and naturally a slave; so that master and slave have the same interest).

- -
-

Thus the female and the slave are by nature distinct (for nature makes nothing as the cutlers make the Delphic knife,Uncertain: possibly a dagger and a carving-knife in one. in a niggardly way, but one thing for one purpose; for so each tool will be turned out in the finest perfection, if it serves not many uses but one). Yet among barbarians the female and the slave have the same rank; and the cause of this is that barbarians have no class of natural rulers, but with them the conjugal partnership is a partnership of female slave and male slave. Hence the saying of the poets Eur. IA 1400.— ’Tis meet that Greeks should rule barbarians,— implying that barbarian and slave are the same in nature. From these two partnerships then is first composed the household, and Hesiod Hes. WD 405. was right when he wrote First and foremost a house and a wife and an ox for the ploughing— for the ox serves instead of a servant for the poor. The partnership therefore that comes about in the course of nature for everyday purposes is the house, the persons whom CharondasA law-giver of Catana in Sicily, 6th century B.C. or earlier. speaks of as meal-tub-fellows and the Cretan EpimenidesA poet and prophet invited to Athens 596 B.C. to purify it of plague. as manger-fellows.The variant reading ὁμοκάπνους, smoke-sharers, seems to mean hearth-fellows.

-

On the other hand the primary partnership made up of several households for the satisfaction of not mere daily needs is the village. The village according to the most natural account seems to be a colony fromPerhaps the Greek should be altered to give consists of colonies from. a household, formed of those whom some people speak of as fellow-sucklings, sons and sons’ sons.The words sons and sons’ sons are probably an interpolated note. It is owing to this that our cities were at first under royal sway and that foreign races are so still,because they were made up of parts that were under royal rule; for every household is under the royal rule of its eldest member, so that the colonies from the household were so too, because of the kinship of their members. And this is what Homer Hom. Od. 9.114 f. on the Cyclopes. means: And each one giveth law To sons and eke to spouses— for his Cyclopes live in scattered families; and that is the way in which people used to live in early times. Also this explains why all races speak of the gods as ruled by a king, because they themselves too are some of them actually now so ruled and in other cases used to be of old; and as men imagine the gods in human form, so also they suppose their manner of life to be like their own.

-

The partnership finally composed of several villages is the city-state; it has at last attained the limit of virtually complete self-sufficiency, and thus, while it comes into existence for the sake of life, it exists for the good life. Hence every city-state exists by nature, inasmuch as the first partnerships so exist; for the city-state is the end of the other partnerships, and nature is an end, since that which each thing is when its growth is completed we speak of as being the nature of each thing, for instance of a man, a horse, a household. Again, the object for which a thing exists, its end, is its chief good;

- -
-

and self-sufficiency is an end, and a chief good. From these things therefore it is clear that the city-state is a natural growth, and that man is by nature a political animal, and a man that is by nature and not merely by fortune citiless is either low in the scale of humanity or above it (like the clanless, lawless, hearthless man reviled by Homer, Hom. Il. 9.63; the passage goes on: ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνος | ὃς πολέμου ἔραται. for one by nature unsocial is also a lover of war) inasmuch as he is solitary, like an isolated piece at draughts. And why man is a political animal in a greater measure than any bee or any gregarious animal is clear. For nature, as we declare, does nothing without purpose; and man alone of the animals possesses speech. The mere voice, it is true, can indicate pain and pleasure, and therefore is possessed by the other animals as well (for their nature has been developed so far as to have sensations of what is painful and pleasant and to indicate those sensations to one another), but speech is designed to indicate the advantageous and the harmful, and therefore also the right and the wrong; for it is the special property of man in distinction from the other animals that he alone has perception of good and bad and right and wrong and the other moral qualities, and it is partnership in these things that makes a household and a city-state.

-

Thus also the city-state is prior in nature to the household and to each of us individually.For the whole must necessarily be prior to the part; since when the whole body is destroyed, foot or hand will not exist except in an equivocal sense, like the sense in which one speaks of a hand sculptured in stone as a hand; because a hand in those circumstances will be a hand spoiled, and all things are defined by their function and capacity, so that when they are no longer such as to perform their function they must not be said to be the same things, but to bear their names in an equivocal sense. It is clear therefore that the state is also prior by nature to the individual; for if each individual when separate is not self-sufficient, he must be related to the whole state as other parts are to their whole, while a man who is incapable of entering into partnership, or who is so self-sufficing that he has no need to do so, is no part of a state, so that he must be either a lower animal or a god.

-

Therefore the impulse to form a partnership of this kind is present in all men by nature; but the man who first united people in such a partnership was the greatest of benefactors. For as man is the best of the animals when perfected, so he is the worst of all when sundered from law and justice. For unrighteousness is most pernicious when possessed of weapons, and man is born possessing weapons for the use of wisdom and virtue, which it is possible to employ entirely for the opposite ends. Hence when devoid of virtue man is the most unholy and savage of animals, and the worst in regard to sexual indulgence and gluttony. Justice on the other hand is an element of the state; for judicial procedure, which means the decision of what is just, is the regulation of the political partnership.

- -
-

- And now that it is clear what are the component parts of the state, we have first of all to discuss household management; for every state is composed of households. Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of marriageThe Greek word properly denotes the marriage ceremony, not the married state. (there is no exact term denoting the relation uniting wife and husband), and thirdly the progenitive relationship (this too has not been designated by a special name). Let us then accept these three relationships that we have mentioned. There is also a department which some people consider the same as household management and others the most important part of it, and the true position of which we shall have to consider: I mean what is called the art of getting wealth.No English word covers all the associations of the Greek, which means dealing in χρήματα, things,—goods, property, money—and so business.

-

Let us begin by discussing the relation of master and slave, in order to observe the facts that have a bearing on practical utility, and also in the hope that we may be able to obtain something better than the notions at present entertained, with a view to a theoretic knowledge of the subject. For some thinkers hold the function of the master to be a definite science, and moreover think that household management, mastership, statesmanship and monarchy are the same thing,as we said at the beginning of the treatise; others however maintain that for one man to be another man’s master is contrary to nature, because it is only convention that makes the one a slave and the other a freeman and there is no difference between them by nature, and that therefore it is unjust, for it is based on force.

-

Since therefore property is a part of a household and the art of acquiring property a part of household management (for without the necessaries even life, as well as the good life,As well as the good life is probably an interpolation. is impossible), and since, just as for the particular arts it would be necessary for the proper tools to be forthcoming if their work is to be accomplished, so also the manager of a household must have his tools, and of tools some are lifeless and others living (for example, for a helmsman the rudder is a lifeless tool and the look-out man a live tool—for an assistant in the arts belongs to the class of tools), so also an article of property is a tool for the purpose of life, and property generally is a collection of tools, and a slave is a live article of property. And every assistant is as it were a tool that serves for several tools; for if every tool could perform its own work when ordered, or by seeing what to do in advance, like the statues of Daedalus in the story,This legendary sculptor first represented the eyes as open and the limbs as in motion, so his statues had to be chained to prevent them from running away (Plat. Meno 97d). or the tripods of Hephaestus which the poet says enter self-moved the company divine, Hom. Il. 18.369 —if thus shuttles wove and quills played harps of themselves, master-craftsmen would have no need of assistants and masters no need of slaves.

- -
-

Now the tools mentioned are instruments of production, whereas an article of property is an instrument of actioni.e. with it we do not make something but do something (e.g. wear a dress, lie in a bed).; for from a shuttle we get something else beside the mere use of the shuttle, but from a garment or a bed we get only their use. And also inasmuch as there is a difference in kind between production and action, and both need tools, it follows that those tools also must possess the same difference. But life is doing things, not making things; hence the slave is an assistant in the class of instruments of action.

-

And the term article of property is used in the same way as the term part: a thing that is a part is not only a part of another thing but absolutely belongs to another thing, and so also does an article of property. Hence whereas the master is merely the slave’s master and does not belong to the slave, the slave is not merely the slave of the master but wholly belongs to the master.

-

These considerations therefore make clear the nature of the slave and his essential quality: one who is a human being belonging by nature not to himself but to another is by nature a slave, and a person is a human being belonging to another if being a man he is an article of property, and an article of property is an instrument for action separable from its owner. But we must next consider whether or not anyone exists who is by nature of this character, and whether it is advantageous and just for anyone to be a slave, or whether on the contrary all slavery is against nature. And it is not difficult either to discern the answer by theory or to learn it empirically. Authority and subordination are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient; in some cases things are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or to be ruled. And there are many varieties both of rulers and of subjects (and the higher the type of the subjects, the loftier is the nature of the authority exercised over them, for example to control a human being is a higher thing than to tame a wild beast; for the higher the type of the parties to the performance of a function, the higher is the function, and when one party rules and another is ruled, there is a function performed between them)— because in every composite thing, where a plurality of parts, whether continuous or discrete, is combined to make a single common whole, there is always found a ruling and a subject factor, and this characteristic of living things is present in them as an outcome of the whole of nature, since even in things that do not partake of life there is a ruling principle, as in the case of a musical scale.Each mode (Dorian, the modern minor scale, Phrygian and Lydian, two forms of major) was ruled by its key-note. However, this matter perhaps belongs to an investigation lying somewhat outside our subject. But in the first place an animal consists of soul and body, of which the former is by nature the ruling and the latter the subject factor. And to discover what is natural we must study it preferably in things that are in a natural state, and not in specimens that are degenerate. Hence in studying man we must consider a man that is in the best possible condition in regard to both body and soul, and in him the principle stated will clearly appear,—

- -
-

since in those that are bad or in a bad condition it might be thought that the body often rules the soul because of its vicious and unnatural condition. But to resume—it is in a living creature, as we say, that it is first possible to discern the rule both of master and of statesman the soul rules the body with the sway of a master, the intelligence rules the appetites with that of a statesman or a king and in these examples it is manifest that it is natural and expedient for the body to be governed by the soul and for the emotional part to be governed by the intellect, the part possessing reason, whereas for the two parties to be on an equal footing or in the contrary positions is harmful in all cases. Again, the same holds good between man and the other animals: tame animals are superior in their nature to wild animals, yet for all the former it is advantageous to be ruled by man, since this gives them security. Again, as between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject. And the same must also necessarily apply in the case of mankind as a whole; therefore all men that differ as widely as the soul does from the body and the human being from the lower animal （and this is the condition of those whose function is the use of the body and from whom this is the best that is forthcoming） these are by nature slaves, for whom to be governed by this kind of authority is advantageous, inasmuch as it is advantageous to the subject things already mentioned. For he is by nature a slave who is capable of belonging to another （and that is why he does so belong）, and who participates in reason so far as to apprehend it but not to possess it; for the animals other than man are subservient not to reason, by apprehending it, but to feelings. And also the usefulness of slaves diverges little from that of animals; bodily service for the necessities of life is forthcoming from both, from slaves and from domestic animals alike. The intention of nature therefore is to make the bodies also of freemen and of slaves different—the latter strong for necessary service, the former erect and unserviceable for such occupations, but serviceable for a life of citizenship （and that again divides into the employments of war and those of peace）; but as a matter of fact often the very opposite comes about—some persons have the bodies of free men and others the souls; since this is certainly clear, that if persons were born as distinguished only in body as are the statues of the gods, everyone would say that those who were inferior deserved to be these men’s slaves. And if this is true in the case of the body, there is far juster reason for this rule being laid down in the case of the soul; but beauty of soul is not so easy to see as beauty of body.

- -
-

It is manifest therefore that there are cases of people of whom some are freemen and the others slaves by nature, and for these slavery is an institution both expedient and just.

-

But at the same time it is not difficult to see that those who assert the opposite are also right in a manner. The fact is that the terms slavery and slave are ambiguous; for there is also such a thing as a slave or a man that is in slavery by law, for the law is a sort of agreement under which the things conquered in war are said to belong to their conquerors. Now this conventional right is arraigned by many jurists just as a statesman is impeached for proposing an unconstitutional measure; they say that it is monstrous if the person powerful enough to use force, and superior in power, is to have the victim of his force as his slave and subject; and even among the learned some hold this view, though others hold the other. But the reason of this dispute and what makes the theories overlap is the fact that in a certain manner virtue when it obtains resources has in fact very great power to use force, and the stronger party always possesses superiority in something that is good,The difficulty turns on the ambiguity of ἀρετή, (a) moral goodness, virtue, (b) goodness of any kind, e.g. strength. so that it is thought that force cannot be devoid of goodness, but that the dispute is merely about the justice of the matter (for it is due to the one party holding that the justification of authority is good-will, while the other identifies justice with the mere rule of the stronger); because obviously if these theories be separated apart,the other theories have no force or plausibility at all, implying that the superior in goodness has no claim to rule and be master. But some persons, simply clinging, as they think, to principle of justice (for the law is a principle of justice), assert that the enslavement of prisoners of war is just; yet at the same time they deny the assertion, for there is the possibility that wars may be unjust in their origin and one would by no means admit that a man that does not deserve slavery can be really a slave—otherwise we shall have the result that persons reputed of the highest nobility are slaves and the descendants of slaves if they happen to be taken prisoners of war and sold. Therefore they do not mean to assert that Greeks themselves if taken prisoners are slaves, but that barbarians are. Yet when they say this, they are merely seeking for the principles of natural slavery of which we spoke at the outset; for they are compelled to say that there exist certain persons who are essentially slaves everywhere and certain others who are so nowhere. And the same applies also about nobility: our nobles consider themselves noble not only in their own country but everywhere, but they think that barbarian noblemen are only noble in their own country—which implies that there are two kinds of nobility and of freedom, one absolute and the other relative, as Helen says in TheodectesA tragic poet, a friend of Aristotle.: But who would dare to call me menial, The scion of a twofold stock divine? Yet in so speaking they make nothing but virtue and vice the distinction between slave and free, the noble and the base-born;

- -
-

for they assume that just as from a man springs a man and from brutes a brute, so also from good parents comes a good son but as a matter of fact nature frequently while intending to do this is unable to bring it about.

-

It is clear therefore that there is some reason for this dispute, and that in some instances it is not the case that one set are slaves and the other freemen by nature; and also that in some instances such a distinction does exist, when slavery for the one and mastership for the other are advantageous and just, and it is proper for the one party to be governed and for the other to govern by the form of government for which they are by nature fitted, and therefore by the exercise of mastership, while to govern badly is to govern disadvantageously for both parties (for the same thing is advantageous for a part and for the whole body or the whole soul, and the slave is a part of the master—he is, as it were, a part of the body, alive but yet separated from it; hence there is a certain community of interest and friendship between slave and master in cases when they have been qualified by nature for those positions, although when they do not hold them in that way but by law and by constraint of force the opposite is the case).

-

And even from these considerations it is clear that the authority of a master over slaves is not the same as the authority of a magistrate in a republic, nor are all forms of government the same, as some assert. Republican government controls men who are by nature free, the master’s authority men who are by nature slaves; and the government of a household is monarchy (since every house is governed by a single ruler),whereas statesmanship is the government of men free and equal. The term master therefore denotes the possession not of a certain branch of knowledge but of a certain character, and similarly also the terms slave and freeman. Yet there might be a science of mastership and a slave’s science—the latter being the sort of knowledge that used to be imparted by the professor at Syracuse (for there used to be a man there who for a fee gave lessons to servants in their ordinary duties); and indeed there might be more advanced scientific study of such matters, for instance a science of cookery and the other such kinds of domestic service—for different servants have different functions, some more honorable and some more menial, and as the proverb says, Slave before slave and master before master.Probably from a comedy of Aristotle’s contemporary Philemon. The slave’s sciences then are all the various branches of domestic work; the master’s science is the science of employing slaves—for the master’s function consists not in acquiring slaves but in employing them. This science however is one of no particular importance or dignity: the master must know how to direct the tasks which the slave must know how to execute. Therefore all people rich enough to be able to avoid personal trouble have a steward who takes this office, while they themselves engage in politics or philosophy. The science of acquiring slaves is different both from their ownership and their direction—that is, the just acquiring of slaves, which is akin to the art of war or that of the chase. Let this then stand as our definition of slave and master.

- -
-

But let us follow our normal method and investigate generally the nature of all kinds of property and the art of getting wealth, inasmuch as we saw the slave to be one division of property. In the first place therefore one might raise the question whether the art of getting wealth is the same as that of household management, or a part of it, or subsidiary to it; and if subsidiary, whether it is so in the sense in which the art of making shuttles is subsidiary to the art of weaving or in that in which the art of casting bronze is subsidiary to the making of statues (for the two are not subsidiary in the same way, but shuttle-making supplies tools whereas bronze-founding supplies material—and by material I mean the substance out of which certain work is produced, for example fleeces are material for a weaver and bronze for a statuary).

-

Now it is clear that wealth-getting is not the same art as household management, for the function of the former is to provide and that of the latter to use—for what will be the art that will use the contents of the house if not the art of household management? but whether wealth-getting is a part of the art of household management, or a different sort of science, is open to debate. For if it is the function of the getter of wealth to study the source from which money and property are to be procured, . . .Some words seem to have fallen out in the Greek. But property and riches comprise many divisions; hence first of all is husbandry a division of the household art, or is it a different kind of science? and so in general of the superintendence and acquisition of articles of food.

-

But furthermore, there are many sorts of food,owing to which both animals and men have many modes of life; for it is impossible to live without food, so that the differences of food have made the lives of animals different. Among wild animals some are nomadic and others solitary, according to whichever habit is advantageous for their supply of food, because some of them are carnivorous, others graminivorous, and others eat all kinds of food; so that nature has differentiated their modes of life to suit their facilities and their predilection for those articles of food. And as different kinds of animals by nature relish different sorts of food, and not each kind the same, even within the classes of carnivorous and graminivorous animals their modes of life differ from one another. And similarly in the human race also, for there are wide differences of life among mankind. The idlest men are nomads (for to procure food from domesticated animals involves no toil or industry, but as it is necessary for the herds to move from place to place because of the pastures, the people themselves are forced to follow along with them, as though they were farming a live farm). Other men live from hunting, and different people from different kinds of hunting, for instance some from brigandage,Perhaps slave-raiding, cf. 3.9, the appropriation of the live tools that are a part of nature’s supplies; but Thuc. 1.5 speaks of brigandage and piracy as common in earlier times, and as still deemed respectable professions in Northern Greece. others from fishing—these are those that dwell on the banks of lakes, marshes and rivers or of a sea suitable for fishing,—and others live on wild birds and animals. But the largest class of men live from the land and the fruits of cultivation. This then virtually completes the list of the various modes of life, those at least that have their industry sprung from themselves and do not procure their food by barter and trade—

- -
-

the lives of the herdsman, the brigand, the fisherman, the hunter, the husband-man. Others also live pleasantly by combining some of these pursuits, supplementing the more deficient life where it happens to fall short in regard to being self-sufficing: for instance, some combine a pastoral life and brigandage, others husbandry and hunting, and similarly with the others—they pass their time in such a combination of pursuits as their need compels. Property of this sort then seems to be bestowed by nature herself upon all, as immediately upon their first coming into existence, so also when they have reached maturity. For even at the original coming into existence of the young some kinds of animals bring forth with them at birth enough sustenance to suffice until the offspring can provide for itself, for example all the species that bear their young in the form of larvae or in eggs. The viviparous species have sustenance for their offspring inside themselves for a certain period, the substance called milk. So that clearly we must suppose that nature also provides for them in a similar way when grown up, and that plants exist for the sake of animals and the other animals for the good of man, the domestic species both for his service and for his food, and if not all at all events most of the wild ones for the sake of his food and of his supplies of other kinds, in order thatthey may furnish him both with clothing and with other appliances. If therefore nature makes nothing without purpose or in vain, it follows that nature has made all the animals for the sake of men. Hence even the art of war will by nature be in a manner an art of acquisition (for the art of hunting is a part of it) that is properly employed both against wild animals and against such of mankind as though designed by nature for subjection refuse to submit to it, inasmuch as this warfare is by nature just.

-

One kind of acquisition therefore in the order of nature is a part of the household art,Rassow would transpose the clause (with a slight alteration) to give of the household art, that is, the acquisition of those goods capable of accumulation that are necessary for life and useful for the community of city and household, a supply of which must be forthcoming or else the art must procure it to be forthcoming. in accordance with which either there must be forthcoming or else that art must procure to be forthcoming a supply of those goods, capable of accumulation, which are necessary for life and useful for the community of city or household. And it is of these goods that riches in the true sense at all events seem to consist. For the amount of such property sufficient in itself for a good life is not unlimited, as Solon Solon 13.71. says that it is in the verse But of riches no bound has been fixed or revealed to men; for a limit has been fixed, as with the other arts, since no tool belonging to any art is without a limit whether in number or in size, and riches are a collection of tools for the householder and the statesman. Therefore that there is a certain art of acquisition belonging in the order of nature to householders and to statesmen, and for what reason this is so, is clear.

-

But there is another kind of acquisition that is specially called wealth-getting, and that is so called with justice and to this kind it is due that there is thought to be no limit to riches and property.

- -
-

Owing to its affinity to the art of acquisition of which we spoke, it is supposed by many people to be one and the same as that; and as a matter of fact, while it is not the same as the acquisition spoken of, it is not far removed from it. One of them is natural, the other is not natural, but carried on rather by means of a certain acquired skill or art. We may take our starting-point for its study from the following consideration: with every article of property there is a double way of using it; both uses are related to the article itself, but not related to it in the same manner—one is peculiar to the thing and the other is not peculiar to it. Take for example a shoe—there is its wear as a shoe and there is its use as an article of exchange; for both are ways of using a shoe, inasmuch as even he that barters a shoe for money or food with the customer that wants a shoe uses it as a shoe, though not for the use peculiar to a shoe, since shoes have not come into existence for the purpose of barter. And the same also holds good about the other articles of property; for all of them have an art of exchange related to them, which began in the first instance from the natural order of things, because men had more than enough of some things and less than enough of others. This consideration also shows that the art of trade is not by nature a part of the art of wealth-gettingPerhaps Aristotle wrote of the art of exchange: Bernays suggests μεταβλητικῆς for χρηματιστικῆς.; for the practice of barter was necessary only so far as to satisfy men’s own needs. In the primaryassociation therefore (I mean the household) there is no function for trade, but it only arises after the association has become more numerous. For the members of the primitive household used to share commodities that were all their own, whereas on the contrary a group divided into several households participated also in a number of commodities belonging to their neighbors, according to their needs for which they were forced to make their interchanges by way of barter, as also many barbarian tribes do still; for such tribes do not go beyond exchanging actual commodities for actual commodities, for example giving and taking wine for corn, and so with the various other things of the sort. - Exchange on these lines therefore is not contrary to nature, nor is it any branch of the art of wealth-getting, for it existed for the replenishment of natural self-sufficiency; yet out of it the art of business in due course arose. For when they had come to supply themselves more from abroad by importing things in which they were deficient and exporting those of which they had a surplus, the employment of money necessarily came to be devised. For the natural necessaries are not in every case readily portable; hence for the purpose of barter men made a mutual compact to give and accept some substance of such a sort as being itself a useful commodity was easy to handle in use for general life, iron for instance, silver and other metals, at the first stage defined merely by size and weight, but finally also by impressing on it a stamp in order that this might relieve them of having to measure it; for the stamp was put on as a token of the amount.

- -
-

So when currency had been now invented as an outcome of the necessary interchange of goods, there came into existence the other form of wealth-getting, trade, which at first no doubt went on in a simple form, but later became more highly organized as experience discovered the sources and methods of exchange that would cause most profit. Hence arises the idea that the art of wealth-getting deals specially with money, and that its function is to be able to discern from what source a large supply can be procured, as this art is supposed to be creative of riches and wealth; indeed riches are often assumed to consist of a quantity of money, because money is the thing with which the art of business and of trade deals. But at other times, on the contrary, it is thought that money is nonsense, and nothing by nature but entirely a convention, because when those who use it have changed the currency it is worth nothing, and because it is of no use for any of the necessary needs of life and a man well supplied with money may oftene.g. on a desert island. be destitute of the bare necessities of subsistence, yet it is anomalous that wealth should be of such a kind that a man may be well supplied with it and yet die of hunger, like the famous Midas in the legend, when owing to the insatiable covetousness of his prayer all the viands served up to him turned into gold. Hence people seek for a different definition of riches and the art of getting wealth, and rightly; for natural wealth-getting and natural riches are different:natural wealth-getting belongs to household management, whereas the other kind belongs to trade, producing goods not in every way but only by the method of exchanging goods. It is this art of wealth-getting that is thought to be concerned with money, for money is the first principle and limit of commerce. And these riches, that are derived from this art of wealth-getting, are truly unlimitedi.e. a trader cannot get too much of his goods, any more than a doctor can make his patient too healthy.; for just as the art of medicine is without limit in respect of health, and each of the arts is without limit in respect of its end (for they desire to produce that in the highest degree possible), whereas they are not without limit as regards the means to their end (for with all of them the end is a limit to the means), so also this wealth-getting has no limit in respect of its end, and its end is riches and the acquisition of goods in the commercial sense. But the household branch of wealth-getting has a limit, since the acquisition of commercial riches is not the function of household management. Hence from this point of view it appears necessary that there should be a limit to all riches, yet in actual fact we observe that the opposite takes place; for all men engaged in wealth-getting try to increase their money to an unlimited amount. The reason of this is the close affinity of the two branches of the art of business. Their common ground is that the thing that each makes use of is the same; they use the same property, although not in the same way—the one has another end in view, the aim of the other is the increase of the property. Consequently some people suppose that it is the function of household management to increase property, and they are continually under the idea that it is their duty to be either safeguarding their substance in money or increasing it to an unlimited amount. The cause of this state of mind is that their interests are set upon life but not upon the good life;

- -
-

as therefore the desire for life is unlimited, they also desire without limit the means productive of life. And even those who fix their aim on the good life seek the good life as measured by bodily enjoyments, so that inasmuch as this also seems to be found in the possession of property, all their energies are occupied in the business of getting wealth; and owing to this the second kind of the art of wealth-getting has arisen. For as their enjoyment is in excess, they try to discover the art that is productive of enjoyable excess; and if they cannot procure it by the art of wealth-getting, they try to do so by some other means, employing each of the faculties in an unnatural way. For it is not the function of courage to produce wealth, but to inspire daring; nor is it the function of the military art nor of the medical art, but it belongs to the former to bring victory and to the latter to cause health. Yet these people make all these faculties means for the business of providing wealth, in the belief that wealth is the end and that everything must be directed to the end.

-

We have therefore discussed both the unnecessary branch of wealth-getting, defining it and also explaining the cause why we require it, and the necessary branch, showing that this branch which has to do with food is different from the unnecessary branch and is by nature a part of household management, not being like that branch unlimited but having a limit.

-

And we can also see the answer to the question raised at the beginning,See 3.1. whetherthe art of wealth-getting belongs to the householder and the statesman, or whether on the contrary supplies ought to be provided already (for just as statesmanship does not create human beings but having received them from nature makes use of them, so also it is necessary for nature to bestow food by bestowing land or sea or something else), and the task of the householder is, starting with these supplies given, to dispose of them in the proper way. For it does not belong to the art of weaving to make fleeces, but to use them, and also to know what sort of fleece is good and suitable or bad and unsuitable. Otherwise the question might be raised, why the getting of wealth is a part of the household art whereas the art of medicine is not a part of it, although the members of the household ought to be healthy, just as they must be alive or fulfil any of the other essential conditions. But inasmuch as although in a way it does belong to the householder and the ruler to see even to health, yet in a way it does not belong to them but to the physician, so also with regard to wealth, although in a way it is the affair of the house-holder, in a way it is not, but is a matter for the subsidiary art. But best of all, as has been said before, this provision ought to be made in advance by nature. For it is the work of nature to supply nourishment for her offspring, since every creature has for nourishment the residue of the substance from which it springs.i.e. animals are made of earth and water and live on the products of earth and water. Hence the business of drawing provision from the fruits of the soil and from animals is natural to all.

-

But, as we said, this art is twofold, one branch being of the nature of trade while the other belongs to the household art; and the latter branch is necessary and in good esteem,

- -
-

but the branch connected with exchange is justly discredited (for it is not in accordance with nature, but involves men’s taking things from one another). As this is so, usury is most reasonably hated, because its gain comes from money itself and not from that for the sake of which money was invented. For money was brought into existence for the purpose of exchange, but interest increases the amount of the money itself (and this is the actual origin of the Greek word: offspring resembles parent, and interest is money born of money); consequently this form of the business of getting wealth is of all forms the most contrary to nature.

-

And since we have adequately defined the scientific side of the subject, we ought to discuss it from the point of view of practice; although, whereas the theory of such matters is a liberal study, the practical pursuit of them is narrowing. The practically useful branches of the art of wealth-getting are first, an expert knowledge of stock, what breeds are most profitable and in what localities and under what conditions, for instance what particular stock in horses or cattle or sheep, and similarly of the other animals also (for the farmer must be an expert as to which of these animals are most profitable compared with one another, and also as to what breeds are most profitable on what sorts of land, since different breeds flourish in different places); secondly, the subject of agriculture, and this again is divided into corn-growing and fruit-farming; also bee-keeping, and the breeding of the other creatures finned and featheredwhich can be used to furnish supplies. These then are the branches and primary parts of wealth-getting in the most proper sense. Of the kind that deals with exchange, the largest branch is commerce (which has three departments, ship-owning, transport and marketing: these departments differ from each other in the fact that some are safer and others carry larger profits); the second branch is money-lending, and the third labor for hire, one department of which is that of the mechanic βάναυσος(said to be from βαῦνος furnace, αὔω to dry), artisan (ranged with farmers, traders, and laborers, as forming the common people 1321a 6); it acquires the senses of cramped in body (1341a 7) and vulgar in taste (1337b 8). arts and the other that of unskilled laborers who are useful only for bodily service. And there is a third form of wealth-getting that lies between the latter and the one placed first, since it possesses mediate an element both of natural wealth-getting and of the sort that employs exchange; it deals with all the commodities that are obtained from the earth and from those fruitless but useful things that come from the earth—examples are the felling of timbera very probable variant gives the quarrying of stone. and all sorts of mining; and of mining itself there are many classes, since there are many sorts of metals obtained out of the earth. TheIn the mss. this sentence follows the next one. most scientific of these industries are those which involve the smallest element of chance, the most mechanic those in which the operatives undergo the greatest amount of bodily degradation, the most servile those in which the most uses are made of the body, and the most ignoble those in which there is the least requirement of virtue as an accessory. But while we have even now given a general description of these various branches, yet a detailed and particular account of them, though useful for the practice of the industries, would be illiberal as a subject of prolonged study. There are books on these subjects by certain authors,

- -
-

for example CharetidesOtherwise unknown. of Paros and ApollodorusAlso mentioned by Varro and Pliny. of Lemnos have written about both agriculture and fruit-farming, and similarly others also on other topics, so these subjects may be studied from these authors by anybody concerned to do so; but in addition a collection ought also to be madeThe author of the Second Book of the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica seems to have taken the hint. of the scattered accounts of methods that have brought success in business to certain individuals. All these methods are serviceable for those who value wealth-getting, for example the plan of ThalesThe founder of Greek philosophy and mathematics, and one of the Seven Sages, 6th-5th cent. B.C. of Miletus, which is a device for the business of getting wealth, but which, though it is attributed to him because of his wisdom, is really of universal application. Thales, so the story goes, because of his poverty was taunted with the uselessness of philosophy; but from his knowledge of astronomy he had observed while it was still winter that there was going to be a large crop of olives, so he raised a small sum of money and paid round deposits for the whole of the olive-presses in Miletus and Chios, which he hired at a low rent as nobody was running him up; and when the season arrived, there was a sudden demand for a number of presses at the same time, and by letting them out on what terms he liked he realized a large sum of money, so proving that it is easy for philosophers to be rich if they choose, but this is not what they care about. Thales then is reported to have thus displayed his wisdom, but asa matter of fact this device of taking an opportunity to secure a monopoly is a universal principle of business; hence even some states have recourse to this plan as a method of raising revenue when short of funds: they introduce a monopoly of marketable goods. There was a man in Sicily who used a sum of money deposited with him to buy up all the iron from the iron mines, and afterwards when the dealers came from the trading-centers he was the only seller, though he did not greatly raise the price, but all the same he made a profit of a hundred talentsThe talent was about 240 pounds. on his capital of fifty. When DionysiusDionysius the elder, tyrant of Syracuse 405-367 B.C. came to know of it he ordered the man to take his money with him but clear out of Syracuse on the spot,cf. Thucydides οἱ δ’ οὐκέτι ἔμειναν ἀλλὰ . . . since he was inventing means of profit detrimental to the tyrant’s own affairs. Yet really this device is the same as the discovery of Thales, for both men alike contrived to secure themselves a monopoly. An acquaintance with these devices is also serviceable for statesmen, for many states need financial aid and modes of revenue like those described, just as a household may, but in greater degree; hence some statesmen even devote their political activity exclusively to finance.

-

And since, as we saw,2 init. the science of household management has three divisions, one the relation of master to slave, of which we have spoken before,3 fin., 4. one the paternal relation, and the third the conjugalThe construction of the sentence is interrupted, and never completed.—for it is a part of the household science to rule over wife and children (over both as over freemen, yet not with the same mode of government,

- -
-

but over the wife to exercise republican government and over the children monarchical); for the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female (except in some cases where their union has been formed contrary to nature) and the older and fully developed person than the younger and immature. It is true that in most cases of republican government the ruler and the ruled interchange in turn (for they tend to be on in equal level in their nature and to have no difference at all), although nevertheless during the period when one is ruler and the other ruled they seek to have a distinction by means of insignia and titles and honors, just as Amasis made his speech about the foot-bath Hdt. 1.172. Amasis king of Egypt was despised by his subjects for his low birth, so he had a statue made out of a gold foot-bath and set it up for them to worship, afterwards explaining to them its lowly origin.; but the male stands in this relationship to the female continuously. The rule of the father over the children on the other hand is that of a king; for the male parent is the ruler in virtue both of affection and of seniority, which is characteristic of royal government (and therefore Homer Hom. Il. 1.544. finely designated Zeus by the words father of men and gods, as the king of them all). For though in nature the king must be superior, in race he should be the same as his subjects, and this is the position of the elder in relation to the younger and of the father in relation to the child.

-

It is clear then that household management takes more interest in the human members of the household than in its inanimate property, andin the excellence of these than in that of its property, which we style riches, and more in that of its free members than in that of slaves.

-

First of all then as to slaves the difficulty might be raised, does a slave possess any other excellence, besides his merits as a tool and a servant, more valuable than these, for instance temperance, have the courage, justice and any of the other moral virtues, or has he no excellence beside his bodily service? For either way there is difficulty; if slaves do possess moral virtue, wherein will they differ from freemen? or if they do not, this is strange, as they are human beings and participate in reason. And nearly the same is the question also raised about the woman and the child: have they too virtues, and ought a woman to be temperate, brave and just, and can a child be intemperate or temperate, or not? This point therefore requires general consideration in relation to natural ruler and subject: is virtue the same for ruler and ruled, or different? If it is proper for both to partake in nobility of character, how could it be proper for the one to rule and the other to be ruled unconditionally? we cannot say that the difference is to be one of degree, for ruling and being ruled differ in kind, and difference of degree is not a difference in kind at all. Whereas if on the contrary it is proper for the one to have moral nobility but not for the other, this is surprising. For if the ruler is not temperate and just, how will he rule well? And if the ruled, how will he obey well?

- -
-

If intemperate and cowardly he will not perform any of the duties of his position. It is evident therefore that both must possess virtue, but that there are differences in their virtue (as also there are differences between those who are by nature ruled).This clause seems to have been interpolated; one ms. has a marginal correction, by nature rulers and ruled. And of this we straightway find an indication in connection with the soul; for the soul by nature contains a part that rules and a part that is ruled, to which we assign different virtues, that is, the virtue of the rational and that of the irrational. It is clear then that the case is the same also with the other instances of ruler and ruled. Hence there are by nature various classes of rulers and ruled. For the free rules the slave, the male the female, and the man the child in a different way. And all possess the various parts of the soul, but possess them in different ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part at all, and the female has it, but without full authority, while the child has it, but in an undeveloped form. HenceIn the mss. this sentence follows the next one, We must suppose—function, and begins Hence the ruler must possess moral virtue. the ruler must possess intellectual virtue in completeness (for any work, taken absolutely, belongs to the master-craftsman, and rational principle is a master-craftsman); while each of the other parties must have that share of this virtue which is appropriate to them. We must suppose therefore that the same necessarily holds good of the moral virtues: all must partake of them, but not in the same way, but in such measure as is proper to each in relation to his own function. Hence it is manifest that all the persons mentioned have a moral virtue of their own, and that the temperance of a woman and that of a man are not the same, nor their courage and justice, as Socrates thought,Plat. Meno 74bff. but the one is the courage of command, and the other that of subordination, and the case is similar with the other virtues. And this is also clear when we examine the matter more in detail, for it is misleading to give a general definition of virtue, as some do, who say that virtue is being in good condition as regards the soul or acting uprightly or the like; those who enumerate the virtues of different persons separately, as Gorgias does,i.e. in Plato, Meno (see 7 above), where this sophist figures as a character in the dialogue; see also 3.1.9, note. are much more correct than those who define virtue in that way. Hence we must hold that all of these persons have their appropriate virtues, as the poet said of woman: Silence gives grace to woman Soph. Aj. 293 — though that is not the case likewise with a man. Also the child is not completely developed, so that manifestly his virtue also is not personal to himself, but relative to the fully developed being, that is, the person in authority over him. And similarly the slave’s virtue also is in relation to the master.

-

And we laid it down that the slave is serviceable for the mere necessaries of life, so that clearly he needs only a small amount of virtue, in fact just enough to prevent him from failing in his tasks owing to intemperance and cowardice. (But the question might be raised, supposing that what has just been said is true, will artisans also need to have virtue? for they frequently fall short in their tasks owing to intemperance. Or is their case entirely different? For the slave is a partner in his master’s life, but the artisan is more remote, and only so much of virtue falls to his share as of slaveryi.e. his excellences as an artisan are the qualities of a subordinate (his virtues as a human being, apart from his trade, are not considered).—

- -
-

for the mechanic artisan is under a sort of limited slavery, and whereas the slave is one of the natural classes, no shoemaker or other craftsman belongs to his trade by nature.) It is manifest therefore that the master ought to be the cause to the slave of the virtue proper to a slave, but not as possessing that art of mastership which teaches a slave his tasks. Hence those persons are mistaken who deprive the slave of reasoning and tell us to use command only; for admonition is more properly employed with slaves than with children.

-

But on these subjects let us conclude our decisions in this manner; while the question of the virtue severally belonging to man and woman and children and father, and of the right and wrong mode of conducting their mutual intercourse and the proper way of pursuing the good mode and avoiding the bad one, are matters that it will be necessary to follow up in the part of our treatise dealing with the various forms of constitution.As a matter of fact in Books 7, 8 dealing with the best constitution this subject is not reached. For since every household is part of a state, and these relationships are part of the household, and the excellence of the part must have regard to that of the whole, it is necessary that the education both of the children and of the women should be carried on with a regard to the form of the constitution, if it makes any difference as regards the goodness of the state for the children and the women to be good. And it must necessarily make a difference; for the women are a half of the free population, and the children grow up to be the partners in the government of the state. So that as these questions have been decided, and those that remain must be discussed elsewhere, let us relinquish the present subjects as completed, and make a fresh start in our discourse, and first let us consider those thinkers who have advanced views about the Ideal State.

- -
-
-

- And since we take for our special consideration the study of the form of political community that is the best of all the forms for a people able to pursue the most ideal mode of life, we must also examine the other constitutions actually employed by certain of the states said to be well governed, as well as any others propounded by certain thinkers and reputed to be of merit, in order that we may discern what there is in them that is right and expedient, and also in order that it may not be thought that to seek for something different from them springs entirely from a desire to display ingenuity, but that we may be thought to enter upon this inquiry because these forms of constitution that already exist are not satisfactory.

-

We must first adopt as a starting-point that which is the natural point of departure for this inquiry. There are three possible systems of property: either all the citizens must own everything in common, or they must own nothing in common, or some things must be common property and others not. To have nothing in common is clearly impossible for the state is essentially a form of community, and to begin with there is bound to be a common locality: a single city occupies a single site, and the single city belongs to its citizens in common.

- -
-

But is it better for a city that is to be well ordered to have community in everything which can possibly be made common property, or is it better to have some things in common and others not? For example, it is possible for the citizens to have children, wives and possessions in common with each other, as in Plato’s Republic, in which Socrates says that there must be community of children, women and possessions. Well then, which is preferable, the system that now obtains, or one conforming with the regulation described in the Republic On the following criticisms see Grote, Plato, 3, pp. 211-233.?

-

Now for all the citizens to have their wives in common involves a variety of difficulties; in particular,(1) 1.3-7; (2) 1.8-2.11; (3) 2.11-13; also (4) other objections 2.15-16. (1) the object which Socrates advances as the reason why this enactment should be made clearly does not follow from his arguments; also (2) as a means to the end which he asserts should be the fundamental object of the city, the scheme as actually set forth in the dialogue is not practicable; yet (3) how it is to be further worked out has been nowhere definitely stated. I refer to the ideal of the fullest possible unity of the entire state, which Socrates takes as his fundamental principle.

-

Yet it is clear that if the process of unification advances beyond a certain point, the city will not be a city at all for a state essentially consists of a multitude of persons, and if its unification is carried beyond a certain point, city will be reduced to family and family to individual,for we should pronounce the family to be a more complete unity than the city, and the single person than the family; so that even if any lawgiver were able to unify the state, he must not do so, for he will destroy it in the process. And not only does a city consist of a multitude of human beings, it consists of human beings differing in kind. A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state. For a city is not the same thing as a league; a league is of value by its quantity, even though it is art the same in kind (since the essential object of the league is military strength), just as a weight would be worth more if it weighed more, whereasIn the mss. of the Greek whereas—kind comes below after Arcadian. components which are to make up a unity must differ in kind (and it is by this characteristic that a city will also surpass a tribe of which the population is not scattered among villages but organized like the Arcadians). Hence reciprocal equalityAs the best state consists of different classes, its unity is secured by each citizen giving services to society and receiving in return benefits proportionate to his service. Probably τὸ ἴσον is an interpolation (though Newman explains it as the reciprocal rendering of an equal amount of dissimilar things): omitting τὸ ἴσον, we render reciprocity and not reciprocal equality; cf. Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1132b 33, In the interchange of services Justice in the form of Reciprocity is the bond that maintains the association: reciprocity, that is, on the basis of proportion, not on the basis of equality. is the preservative of states, as has been said before in the Ethics. For even among the free and equal this principle must necessarily obtain, since all cannot govern at once: they must hold office for a year at a time or by some other arrangement or period; and in this manner it does actually come about that all govern, just as all shoemakers would be also carpenters if the shoemakers and the carpenters kept on changing trades instead of the same persons being shoemakers and carpenters always. But since such permanence of function is better for the political community also, it is clear that it is better for the same persons to govern always, if possible; and among peoples where it is impossible because all the citizens are equal in their nature,

- -
-

yet at the same time it is only just, whether governing is a good thing or a bad, that all should partake in it, and for equals thus to submit to authority in turn imitates their being originally dissimilarThe best form of constitution is where there is a superior class that governs continuously—an aristocracy; so where there are no class-distinctions, the next best thing is for all the citizens to take turns in governing and being governed, those in office for the time being forming a sort of aristocracy. Richards’s alteration of the text gives to take turns to govern is an imitation of original inequality and class-distinction.; for some govern and others are governed by turn, as though becoming other persons; and also similarly when they hold office the holders of different offices are different persons. It is clear then from these considerations that it is not an outcome of nature for the state to be a unity in the manner in which certain persons say that it is, and that what has been said to be the greatest good in states really destroys states; yet surely a thing’s particular good acts as its preservative.—Another line of consideration also shows that to seek to unify the state excessively is not beneficial. In point of self-sufficiency the individual is surpassed by the family and the family by the state, and in principle a state is fully realized only when it comes to pass that the community of numbers is self-sufficing; if therefore the more self-sufficing a community is, the more desirable is its condition, then a less degree of unity is more desirable than a greater.

-

Again, even granting that it is best for the community to be as complete a unity as possible, complete unity does not seem to be proved by the formula if all the citizens say Mine and Not mine at the same time, which SocratesThe reference is to Plat. Rep. 462c. Unity is secured when everyone thinks that everything belongs equally to him and to everybody else, i.e. everything is common property. thinks to be a sign of thecity’s being completely one. All is an ambiguous term. If it means each severally, very likely this would more fully realize the state of things which Socrates wishes to produce (for in that case every citizen will call the same boy his son and also the same woman his wife, and will speak in the same way of property and indeed of each of the accessories of life) but ex hypothesi the citizens, having community of women and children, will not call them theirs in this sense, but will mean theirs collectively and not severally, and similarly they will call property theirs meaning the property of them all, not of each of them severally. We see then that the phrase all say is equivocal (in fact the words all, both, odd, even, owing to their ambiguity, occasion argumentative quibbling even in philosophical discussions); hence really for all to say the same thing is in one sense admirable, although impracticable, but in another sense is not at all a sign of concord. And furthermore, the proposal has another disadvantage. Property that is common to the greatest number of owners receives the least attention; men care most for their private possessions, and for what they own in common less, or only so far as it falls to their own individual share for in addition to the other reasons, they think less of it on the ground that someone else is thinking about it, just as in household service a large number of domestics sometimes give worse attendance than a smaller number. And it results in each citizen’s having a thousand sons, and these do not belong to them as individuals but any child is equally the son of anyone,

- -
-

so that all alike will regard them with indifference.

-

Again, each speaks of one of his fellow-citizens who is prospering or getting on badly as my son only in the sense of the fractional part which he forms of the whole number—that is, he says my son or so-and-so’s son, specifying as the father any individual of the thousand citizens or whatever the number be of which the state consists, and even this dubiously, for it is uncertain who has chanced to have had a son born to him and when born safely reared. Yet which is the better way to use the word mine—this way, each of two thousand or ten thousand people applying it to the same thing, or rather the way in which they say mine in the actual states now? for the same person is called my son by one man and my brother by another, and another calls him nephew, or by some other relationship, whether of blood or by affinity and marriage, the speaker’s own in the first place, or that of his relations; and in addition someone else calls him fellow-clansman or fellow-tribesman. For it is better for a boy to be one’s own private nephew than one’s son in the way described. - Moreover it would also be impossible to avoid men’s supposing certain persons to be their real brothers and sons and fathers and mothers; for they would be bound to form their belief about each other by the resemblances which occur between children and parents. This indeed is said by some of those who write of travels round the worldBooks of geography, founded on travellers’ reports—a famous one by Hecataeus, scoffed at by Hdt. 4.36. actually to occur;they say that some of the people of Upper Libya have their wives in common, yet the children born are divided among them according to their personal resemblances. And there are some females both of the human race and of the other animals, for instance horses and cattle, who have a strong natural tendency to produce off-spring resembling the male parents, as was the case with the mare at Pharsalus named Honest Lady.Or possibly Docile ( Jackson), cf. Xen. Hunt. 7.4.

-

Moreover it is not easy for those who institute this communism to guard against such objectionable occurrences as outrage, involuntary and in some cases voluntary homicide, fights, abusive language; all of which are violations of piety when committed against fathers, mothers and near relatives as if they were not relatives; but these are bound to occur more frequently when people do not know their relations than when they do, and also, when they do occur, if the offenders know their relationship it is possible for them to have the customary expiations performed, but for those who do not no expiation is possible. Also it is curious that a theorist who makes the sons common property only debars lovers from intercourse and does not prohibit love, nor the other familiarities, which between father and son or brother and brother are most unseemly, since even the fact of love between them is unseemly. And it is also strange that he deprives them of intercourse for no other reason except because the pleasure is too violent; and that he thinks it makes no difference that the parties are in the one case father or son and in the other case brothers of one another. And it seems that this community of wives and sons is more serviceable for the Farmer class than for the Guardians;

- -
-

for there will be less friendship among them if their children and women are in common, and unfriendliness in the subject classes is a good thing with a view to their being submissive to authority and not making revolution. But speaking generally such a law is bound to bring about the opposite state of things to that which rightly enacted laws ought properly to cause, and because of which Socrates thinks it necessary to make these regulations about the children and women. For we think that friendship is the greatest of blessings for the state, since it is the best safeguard against revolution, and the unity of the state, which Socrates praises most highly, both appears to be and is said by him to be the effect of friendship, just as we know that AristophanesThe comic poet, figuring as a character in Plato’s Symposium, see especially Plat. Sym. 192c ff.. in the discourses on love describes how the lovers owing to their extreme affection desire to grow together and both become one instead of being two. In such a union it would be inevitable that both would be spoiled, or at least one, and in the state friendship would inevitably become watery in consequence of such association, and the expressions my father and my son would quite go out. For just as putting a little sugar into a quantity of water makes the mixture imperceptible, so it also must come about that the mutual relationship based on these names must become imperceptible,since in the republic described by Plato there will be the least possible necessity for people to care for one another as father for sons or as son for father or as brother for brother. For there are two things that most cause men to care for and to love each other, the sense of ownership and the sense of preciousness; and neither motive can be present with the citizens of a state so constituted. Again, as to the transference of some of the children at birth from the Farmers and Artisans to the GuardiansThe three classes in Plato’s Republic. and of others from the Guardians to the Farmers and Artisans, there is much confusion as to how it is to be done; and the parents who give the children and the officials who transfer them are bound to know which they give to whom. And again, the things spoken of above are bound to occur even more with these transferred children, such as outrage, love-making and murder; for the children of the Guardians transferred to the other citizens will no longer speak of the Guardians as brothers and children and fathers and mothers, nor yet will those living among the Guardians so speak of the other classes, so as to be careful not to commit any such offence because of their relationship.

-

Such therefore may be our decision as to community of children and women.

-

In connection with this we have to consider the due regulation of property in a community that is to have the best political institutions: should property be owned in common or privately? This question might indeed be considered separately from the system laid down by law with regard to the children and the women:

- -

I mean, even if there be separate families as is now the case with all nations, is it better for both the ownership and the employment of property to be in common. . . ,Something has clearly been lost here, signifying or should there be some limited form of communism? for example, should the farms be separate property but the farm-produce be brought into the common stock for consumption (as is the practice with some non-Greek races); or on the contrary should the land be common and farmed in common, but the produce be divided for private use (and this form of communism also is said to prevail among some of the barbarians); or should both farms and produce be common property? Now if the tillers of the soil be of a different classi.e. a class of serfs, like the Helots at Sparta. there might be another and easier system, but if the citizens do the work for themselves, the regulations for the common ownership of property would give more causes for discontent; for if both in the enjoyment of the produce and in the work of production they prove not equal but unequal, complaints are bound to arise between those who enjoy or take much but work little and those who take less but work more. And in general to live together and share all our human affairs is difficult, and especially to share such things as these. And this is shown in the partnerships of fellow-travellers, for almost the greatest number of them quarrel because they come into collision with one another as a result of ordinary matters and trifles; and also we come into collision most with those of our servantswhom we employ most often for ordinary attendance. Community of property therefore involves these and other similar difficulties; and the present system, if further improved by good morals and by the regulation of correct legislation, would be greatly superior. For it will possess the merit of both systems, by which I mean the advantage of property being common and the advantage of its being private. For property ought to be common in a sense but private speaking absolutely. For the superintendence of properties being divided among the owners will not cause these mutual complaints, and will improve the more because each will apply himself to it as to private business of his own; while on the other hand virtue will be exercised to make friends’ goods common goods, as the proverbThe saying was ascribed to Pythgagoras. goes, for the purpose of use. Such a system exists even now in outline in some states, showing that it is not impracticable, and especially in the ones that are well-administered parts of it are realized already and parts might be realized; for individuals while owning their property privately put their own possessions at the service of their friends and make use of their friends’ possessions as common property; for instance in Sparta people use one another’s slaves as virtually their own, as well as horses and hounds, and also use the produce in the fields throughout the country if they need provisions on a journey. It is clear therefore that it is better for possessions to be privately owned, but to make them common property in use; and to train the citizens to this is the special task of the legislator. And moreover to feel that a thing is one’s private property makes an inexpressibly great difference for pleasure;

- -
-

for the universal feeling of love for oneself is surely not purposeless, but a natural instinct. Selfishness on the other hand is justly blamed; but this is not to love oneself but to love oneself more than one ought, just as covetousness means loving money to excess—since some love of self, money and so on is practically universal. Moreover, to bestow favors and assistance on friends or visitors or comrades is a great pleasure, and a condition of this is the private ownership of property.These advantages therefore do not come to those who carry the unification of the state too far; and in addition to this they manifestly do away with the practice of two virtues, temperance in relation to women (for it is a noble deed to refrain from one through temperance when she belongs to another) and liberality in relation to possessions (for one will not be able to display liberality nor perform a single liberal action, since the active exercise of liberality takes place in the use of possessions).

-

Such legislation therefore has an attractive appearance, and might be thought to be humane; for he who is told about it welcomes it with gladness, thinking that it will result in a marvellous friendliness of everybody towards everybody, especially when somebody denounces the evils at present existing in states as due to the fact thatwealth is not owned in common— I mean lawsuits between citizens about breach of contract, and trials for perjury, and the flattery of the rich.But the real cause of all these evils is not the absence of communism, but wickedness, since we see far more quarrels occurring among those who own or use property in common than among those who have their estates separate; but we notice that those who quarrel as a result of their partnerships are few when compared with the total number of private owners. And again it is just to state not only all the evils that men will lose by adopting communism, but also all the good things; and life in such circumstances is seen to be utterly impossible.

-

The cause of Socrates’ error must be deemed to be that his fundamental assumption was incorrect. It is certain that in a way both the household and the state should be a unit, but they should not be so in every way. For in one way the state as its unification proceeds will cease to be a state, and in another way, though it continues a state, yet by coming near to ceasing to be one it will be a worse state, just as if one turned a harmony into unison or a rhythm into a single foot. The proper thing is for the state, while being a multitude, to be made a partnership and a unity by means of education, as has been said before and it is strange that the very philosopher who intends to introduce a system of education and thinks that this will make the city morally good should fancy that he can regulate society by such measures as have been mentioned instead of by manners and culture and laws, just as the legislator introduced community of property in Sparta and Crete by the institution of public messes.

- -
-

And this very point also must not be ignored, that attention must be paid to length of time and to the long period of years, in which it would not have escaped notice if these measures were good ones; for nearly all of them have been discovered already, although some of them have not been collected together and others though brought to knowledge are not put into practice. And their value would become most manifest if one could see such a constitution in actual process of formation; for one will only be able to construct Plato’s state by introducing its partitions and dividing up the community into common messes and also into brotherhoods and tribes. So that in the upshot no other regulation will have been enacted except the exemption of the Guardians from the work of agriculture, which is a measure that even now the Spartans attempt to introduce.

-

Moreover, the working of the constitution as a whole in regard to the members of the state has also not been described by Socrates, nor is it easy to say what it will be. Yet the general mass of the citizens of the other classes make almost the bulk of the state, and about these no definite regulations are laid down, as to whether the Farmers also are to have their property in common or to hold it in private ownership, and also whether community of wives and children is to apply to them or not. For if the Farmers are to have the same complete communism, what will be the difference between them and the Guardian class? or what advantage will they gain by submitting to their government? or what consideration will induce them to submit tothe government, unless the Guardians adopt some clever device like that of the Cretans? These have conceded to their slaves all the same rights as they have themselves except that they are forbidden gymnastic exercises and the possession of arms. But if the family life and property of the Farmers are to be such as they are in other states, what sort of communism will there be? For there will inevitably be two states in one, and these antagonistic to one another. For Socrates makes the Guardians a sort of garrison, while the Farmers, Artisans and other classes are the citizens.Or (omitting τοὺς before τεχνίτας) For Socrates makes one set of men guardians, a sort of garrison, and another set farmers and artisans and citizens of the other sorts. But quarrels and lawsuits and all the other evils which according to Socrates exist in actual states will all be found among his citizens too. Yet he says that owing to their education they will not need many regulations such as city and market by-laws and the other regulations of that sort, although he assigns his education only to the Guardians. Again, he makes the Farmers the masters of the estates, for which they pay rent; but they are likely to be far more unmanageable and rebellious than the classes of helots, serfs and slaves in certain states today. However, whether this communism is to be compulsory for the Farmers in the same way as for the Guardians or whether it is not, has as a matter of fact not been definitely stated anywhere, nor is there any information about the connected questions, what are to be the political functions and the education of the lower classes, and the laws affecting them. But it is not easy to discover the answers to these questions, yet the character of the lower classes is of no small importance for the preservation of the community of the Guardians.

- -
-

But again, if Socrates intends to make the Farmers have their wives in common but their property private, who is to manage the household in the way in which the women’s husbands will carry on the work of the farms? And if the property and the wives of the Farmers are to be common A passage has been lost here.

-

It is also strange that Socrates employs the comparison of the lower animals to show that the women are to have the same occupations as the men, considering that animals have no households to manage. Also Socrates’ method of appointing the magistrates is not a safe one. For he makes the same persons hold office always; but this occasions rebellion even among people of no special distinction, much more so then among high-spirited and warlike men. But it is clear that he is compelled to make the same persons govern always, for the god-given admixture of gold in the soul is not bestowed on some at one time and others at another time, but is always in the same men, and Socrates says that at the moment of birth some men receive an admixture of gold and others of silver and those who are to be the Artisans and Farmers an admixture of copper and iron. And again, although he deprives the Guardians of happiness, he says that it is the duty of the law-giver to make the whole city happy. But it is not possible for the whole to be happy unless most or all of its parts, or some of them, possess happiness. For happiness is not a thing of the same sort as being an even number: that may belong to a whole but not to either of its parts, but happiness cannot belong to the whole and not to its parts. But yet, if the Guardians are not happy, what other class is? For clearly the Artisans and the general mass of the vulgar classes are not.

-

The Republic discussed by Socrates therefore possesses these difficulties and also others not smaller than these.

-

And almost the same holds good of the Laws also, which was written later, so that it will be advantageous to make some small examination of the constitution described in that book as well. For in the Republic Socrates has laid down details about very few matters—regulations about community of wives and children and about property, and the structure of the constitution (for the mass of the population is divided into two parts, one forming the Farmer class and the other the class that defends the state in war, and there is a third class drawn from these latter that forms the council and governs the state), but about the Farmers and the Artisans, whether they are excluded from government or have some part in it, and whether these classes also are to possess arms and to serve in war with the others or not, on these points Socrates has made no decision, but though he thinks that the women ought to serve in war with the Guardians and share the same education, the rest of the discourse he has filled up with external topics, and about the sort of education which it is proper for the Guardians to have.The last clause, and about—to have, has almost certainly been misplaced by a copyist, and should come near the beginning of the sentence, after about property.

- -
-

But though the Laws consists for the most part of a treatise on law, the author has said a little about the form of the constitution, and in a desire to make this more suitable for adoption by actual states he brings it round by degrees back to the other form, that of the Republic. For except community in wives and property, he assigns all his other regulations in the same form to both states, for he prescribes for both the same scheme of education, and a life detached from menial tasks, and similarly as regards common meals, except that in the state described in the Laws he says there are to be common meals for women also, and he makes the Republic consist of a class possessing arms that numbers a thousand, but the state of the Laws has five thousand.

-

Now it is true that all the discourses of Socrates possess brilliance, cleverness, originality and keenness of inquiry, but it is no doubt difficult to be right about everything: for instance with regard to the size of population just mentioned it must not be over-looked that a territory as large as that of Babylon will be needed for so many inhabitants, or some other country of unlimited extent, to support five thousand men in idleness and another swarm of women and servants around them many times as numerous. It is proper no doubt to assume ideal conditions, but not to go beyond all bounds of possibility. And it is said that in laying down the laws the legislator must have his attention fixed on two things,the territory and the population. But also it would be well to add that he must take into account the neighboring regions also, if the city is to live a life of politicsi.e. a life of intercourse with other states, cf. 1327b 5. Some mss. add not one of isolation; this looks like an explanatory note interpolated. (for it is necessary for it to use for war not only such arms as are serviceable within its own territory but also such as are serviceable against places outside it); and if one does not accept such a description whether for the life of the individual or for the common life of the state, yet it is none the less necessary for the citizens to be formidable to their enemies not only when they have entered the country but also when they have left it.Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give when they are away from it. Also the amount of property requires consideration: would it not perhaps be better to define it differently, by a clearer formula? The writer says that it ought to be sufficiently large for the citizens to live a temperate life—as if one were to say to live a good life; but really that phrase is too general, since it is possible to live temperately yet miserably. But a better definition would be to live temperately and liberally (for if the two are separated a liberal mode of life is liable to slip into luxury and a temperate one into a life of hardship), since surely these are the only desirable qualities relating to the use of wealth—for instance you cannot use wealth gently or bravely, but you can use it temperately and liberally, so that it follows that these are qualities that have to do with wealth. And it is also strange that although equalizing properties the writer does not regulate the number of the citizens, but leaves the birth-rate uncontrolled, on the assumption that it will be sufficiently levelled up to the same total owing to childless marriages, however many children are begotten,

- -
-

because this seems to take place in the states at present. But this ought to be regulated much more in the supposed case than it is now, for now nobody is destitute, because estates are divided among any number, but then, as division of estates will not be allowed, the extra children will necessarily have nothing, whether they are fewer in number or more. And one might think that restriction ought to be put on the birth-rate rather than on property, so as not to allow more than a certain number of children to be produced, and that in fixing their number consideration should be paid to the chances of its happening that some of the children born may die, and to the absence of children in the other marriages; but for the matter to be left alone, as it is in most states, is bound to lead to poverty among the citizens, and poverty produces sedition and crime. The Corinthian PhidonOtherwise unknown. in fact, one of the most ancient lawgivers, thought that the house-holds and the citizen population ought to remain at the same numbers, even though at the outset the estates of all were unequal in size; but in Plato’s Laws the opposite is the case.i.e. the estates are equal, and the number of households fixed, but not the number of citizens. However, we must say later what we think would be a better system in these matters; but another question omitted in the Laws is how the rulers will be different from the classes ruled; the writer prescribesthat the rulers are to stand in the same relation to the ruled as the warp of cloth stands to the woof by being made of different wool. Plat. Laws 734e ff. In weaving cloth the warp (the threads set up first) must be of strong wool, the woof (the threads woven across the warp) must be softer. And inasmuch as he allows a man’s total property to be increased up to five times its original value, for what reason should not an increase in his landed estate be allowed up to a certain point? Also it must be considered whether the proposed separation of homesteads is not inexpedient for household economy—for the writer allotted two homesteads separate from one another to each citizen; but it is difficult to manage two households.The object was to provide a separate establishment for a married son, Plat. Laws 776a. And the whole constitution is intended, it is true, to be neither a democracy nor an oligarchy, but of the form intermediate between them which is termed a republic, for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms. If therefore he introduces this constitution as the one most commonly existing of all forms of constitution in the actual states, he has perhaps made a good proposal, but if he introduces it as the next best to the first form of constitution, it is not a good proposal; for very likely one might approve the Spartan constitution more highly, or perhaps some other form nearer to an aristocracy. In fact some people assert that the best constitution must be a combination of all the forms of constitution, and therefore praise the constitution of Sparta (for some people say that it consists of oligarchy, monarchy and democracy, meaning that the kingship is monarchy and the rule of the ephors oligarchy, but that an element of democracy is introduced by the rule of the ephors because the ephors come from the common people; while others pronounce the ephorate a tyranny but find an element of democracy in the public mess-tables and in the other regulations of daily life).

- -
-

In Plato’s Laws on the other hand it is stated that the best constitution must consist of a combination of democracy and tyranny,Plato wrote monarchy, Plat. Laws 693d (cf. here 3.13). which one might refuse to count as constitutional governments at all, or else rank as the worst of all constitutions. A better theory therefore is put forward by those who intermingle a larger number of forms, for the constitution composed of a combination of a larger number of forms is better. In the next place, the constitution in the Laws proves as a matter of fact not to contain any element of monarchy at all, but its factors are taken from oligarchy and democracy, and for the most part it tends to incline towards oligarchy. This appears from the regulations for the appointment of the magistrates; for their selection by lot from a list previously elected by vote is a feature common to both oligarchy and democracy, but the compulsion put upon the richer citizens to attend the assembly and vote for magistrates or perform any other political function, while the others are allowed to do as they like, is oligarchical, as is the endeavor to secure that a majority of the magistrates shall be drawn from the wealthy and that the highest offices shall be filled from the highest of the classes assessed by wealth. But the writer also makes the election of the council oligarchical for everybody is compelled to elect, but from the first property-class, and then again an equal number from the second class, and then from the members of the third class, except that it was not to be compulsory for all to vote for those to be elected from the members of the third or the fourth class, and to elect from the fourth class was only compulsory for the members of the first and second classes; and afterwards from those thus selected he says that they are to appointan equal number from each class. Thus those who elect the members from the highest property classes will be more numerous and better,i.e. a better ellective body because representative of all classes. because some of the lower orders will abstain from votingi.e. from voting for the preliminary list from the third and fourth classes. as it is not compulsory. Accordingly that it is not proper to establish a constitution of this character from a blend of democracy and monarchy appears clearly from these considerations, and from what will be said later when our inquiry comes to deal with this class of constitution; also the provision for the election of the rulers from among candidates chosen at a preliminary election is dangerous, for if even a moderate number of people choose to combine into a party, the elections will always go according to their wish.

-

Such are the points as to the constitution in the Laws.

-

There are also certain other constitutional schemes, some drawn up by amateurs and others by philosophers and statesmen, but all of them are nearer to those which have been actually established and by which states are governed at present than are both of those which have been considered; for nobody else has introduced the innovation of community of children and women, nor that of public meals for the women, but they start rather with the necessary reforms. For some persons think that the right regulation of property is the most important; for the question of property, they say, is universally the cause of party strife. Therefore the Chalcedonian PhaleasOtherwise unknown. was the first who introduced this expedient;

- -
-

for he says that the citizens’ estates ought to be equal and he thought that this would not be difficult to secure at the outset for cities in process of foundation, while in those already settled, although it would be a more irksome task, nevertheless a levelling would most easily be effected by the rich giving dowries but not receiving them and the poor receiving but not giving them. Plato when writing the Laws thought that up to a certain point inequality ought to be allowed, but that no citizen should be permitted to acquire more land than would make his estate five times the size of the smallest, as has also been said before.

-

But those who bring in legislation of this sort must also not overlook this point, which is overlooked at present, that when regulating the amount of property legislators ought also to regulate the size of the family; for if the number of children becomes too large for the property, the law is quite sure to be broken, and apart from the breach of the law it is a bad thing that many citizens who were rich should become poor, for it is difficult for such men not to be advocates of a new order. That a level standard of property affects the community of the citizens in an important manner some men even in old times clearly have recognized; for example there is the legislation of Solon, and other states have a law prohibiting the acquisition of land to any amount that the individual may desire; and similarly there is legislation to prevent the sale of estates, as at Locri there is a lawthat a man shall not sell unless he can prove that manifest misfortune has befallen him and also there is legislation to preserve the old allotments, and the repeal of this restriction at Leucas made the Leucadian constitution excessively democratic, for it came about that the offices were no longer filled from the established property-qualifications. But it is possible that equality of estates may be maintained, but their size may be either too large and promote luxury, or too small, causing a penurious standard of living; it is clear therefore that it is not enough for the lawgiver to make the estates equal, but he must aim at securing a medium size. And again, even if one prescribed a moderate property for all, it would be of no avail, since it is more needful to level men’s desires than their properties, and this can only be done by an adequate system of education enforced by law. But perhaps Phaleas would say that he himself actually prescribes this, as he considers it fundamentally necessary for states to have equality in these two things, property and education. But the nature of the education needs to be defined: it is no use merely for it to be one and the same for all, for it is possible for all to have one and the same education but for this to be of such a nature as to make them desirous of getting more than their share of money or honor or both; moreoverProbably the Greek should be altered to give because instead of moreover. civil strife is caused not only by inequality of property but also by inequality of honors, though the two motives operate in opposite ways—the masses are discontented if possessions are unequally distributed,

- -
-

the upper classes if honors are equally distributed, bringing it about that Noble and base in equal honor stand. Hom. Il. 9.319 Nor do men do wrong for the sake of the bare necessities only, the sort of wrongdoing for which Phaleas thinks that equality of substance is a cure—preventing highway robbery by removing the motive of cold or hunger; men also do wrong to gain pleasure and to satisfy desire. For if they have a desire above the bare necessities of existence, they will transgress to cure this desire; and moreover not because of desire only, but in order that they may enjoy the pleasures that are not associated with pains. What remedy then is there for these three classes of offenders? For the first class, a modest competence and work; for the second, temperance; and as for the third sort, any people who desire pleasures that depend on themselves would require no cure for their desires save that which is derived from philosophy, for the other pleasures require the aid of fellow-creatures. Since clearly the greatest transgressions spring from a desire for superfluities, not for bare necessaries (for example, men do not become tyrants in order to avoid shivering with cold, and accordingly high honors are awarded to one who kills a tyrant, but not to one who kills a thief); so that the method of the constitution of Phaleas is efficacious only against the minor social disorders. Again, Phaleas desires to frame institutions for the most part which will lead to a right state of affairs in the internal relations of the citizens, but the legislator should also have regard to relations with the neighboring peoples and with all foreign nations.It is essential therefore for the constitution to be framed with a view to military strength, about which Phaleas has said nothing. And the same is true also about property; for the citizens should not only possess enough to meet their requirements in civic life, but also to encounter the perils that face them from outside; hence they should possess neither so large an amount of wealth that it will be coveted by their neighbors and by stronger states while its possessors will be unable to repel their assailants, nor yet so small an amount as not to be capable of sustaining a war even against equal and similar states. Phaleas, it is true, has laid down no rule at all, but the question must not be overlooked, what amount of wealth is advantageous. Perhaps therefore the best limit to prescribe is that it must not profit a stronger people to make war upon the state because of its excessive wealth, but only just as it might do even if the citizens had not got so much property. For example, when Autophradates was about to lay siege to Atarneus,A stronghold on the coast of Asia Minor acquired by Eubulus, a Bithynian banker, when the Persian empire was breaking up, middle 4th century B.C.; Autophradates was a Persian general. Eubulus bade him consider how long it would take him to capture the place, and then calculate what his expenditure would be for that period, for he himself was willing for the payment of a smaller sum than that to evacuate Atarneus at once; these words caused Autophradates to ponder and led him to abandon the siege. Now equality of property among the citizens is certainly one of the factors that contribute to the avoidance of party faction; it is not however a particularly important one. For the upper classes may resent it on the ground that their merits are not equal, owing to which we actually see them often attacking the government and rebelling;

- -
-

and also the baseness of human beings is a thing insatiable, and though at the first a dole of only two obolsTwopence-halfpenny for a seat in the theater at Athens paid for citizens by the State after the time of Pericles. is enough, yet when this has now become an established custom, they always want more, until they get to an unlimited amount; for appetite is in its nature unlimited, and the majority of mankind live for the satisfaction of appetite. The starting-point in such matters therefore, rather than levelling estates, is to train those that are respectable by nature so that they may not wish for excessive wealth, and to contrive that the base may not be able to do so, and this is secured if they are inferior in number and not unjustly treated. And also we cannot approve what Phaleas has said about equality of property, for he makes the citizens equal in respect of landed estate only, but wealth also consists in slaves and cattle and money, and there is an abundance of property in the shape of what is called furniture; we must therefore either seek to secure equality or some moderate regulation as regards all these things, or we must permit all forms of wealth. And it is clear from Phaleas’s legislation that he makes the citizen-population a small one, inasmuch as all the artisans are to be publicly owned slaves and are not to furnish any complement of the citizen-body. But if it is proper to have public slaves, the laborers employed upon the public works ought to be of that status (as is the case at Epidamnus and as Diophantus once tried to institute at Athens).

-

These remarks may serve fairly well to indicate such meritsand defects as may be contained in the constitution of Phaleas.

-

HippodamusA famous architect and town-planner (see 1330b 24) circa 475 B.C. son of Euryphon, a Milesian (who invented the division of cities into blocks and cut up Piraeus, and who also became somewhat eccentric in his general mode of life owing to a desire for distinction, so that some people thought that he lived too fussily, with a quantity of hairAt Sparta men wore their hair long, but at Athens this was the mark of a dandy. and expensive ornaments, and also a quantity of cheap yet warm clothes not only in winter but also in the summer periods, and who wished to be a man of learning in natural science generally), was the first man not engaged in politics who attempted to speak on the subject of the best form of constitution. His system was for a city with a population of ten thousand, divided into three classes; for he made one class of artisans, one of farmers, and the third the class that fought for the state in war and was the armed class. He divided the land into three parts, one sacred, one public and one private: sacred land to supply the customary offerings to the gods, common land to provide the warrior class with food, and private land to be owned by the farmers. He thought that there are only three divisions of the law, since the matters about which lawsuits take place are three in number—outrage, damage, homicide. He also proposed to establish one supreme court of justice, to which were to be carried up all the cases at law thought to have been decided wrongly, and this court he made to consist of certain selected elders.

- -
-

He held that the verdicts in the courts ought not to be given by ballot, but that each juryman should bring a tablet on which if he found a simple verdict of guilty he should write the penalty, and if simply not guilty leave a blank, but if he found the prisoner guilty on some counts but not on others he should state this; for the present state of the law he thought unsatisfactory, since it forces jurors to commit perjury by giving either the one verdict or the other. He proposed a law that those who discovered something of advantage to the state should receive honor, and that the children of those who died in war should have their maintenance from the state, in the belief that this had never yet been provided by law among other people—but as a matter of fact this law exists at present both at Athens and in others of the cities. The governing officials were all to be chosen by the assembly of the people, and this he made to consist of the three classes of the city; and the officials elected were to superintend the business of the community and the affairs of foreign residents and of orphans. These then are the greatest number and the most noteworthy of the provisions in the system of Hippodamus. But doubt might be raised first of all about the division of the general mass of the citizens. The artisans, the farmers and the military class all participate in the government, though the farmers have not got arms and the artisans neither arms nor land,which makes them almost the slaves of those who possess the arms. Therefore for them to share in all the offices is impossible (for it is inevitable that both military commanders and civic guards and in general the most important offices should be appointed from those that have the arms); but if they do not share in the government of the state, how is it possible for them to be friendly towards the constitution? But it may be said that the ruling class as possessing the arms is bound to be stronger than both classes. But this is not easy if they are not numerous and if this be the case, why should the other classes participate in the government and control the appointment of the rulers?As military posts must be filled by the military class, the civilians will feel excluded and be disaffected; and the military class may not be strong enough to control them. Better, then, not to give full citizenship to civilians. Again, what use are the farmers to the state? artisans there must necessarily be (for every state requires artisans), and they can make a living as in the other states from the practice of their craft; but as for the farmers, although it would have been reasonable for them to be a portion of the state if they provided the class possessing the arms with its food, as it is they have private land of their own and farm it for themselves. And again, if the common land from which those who fight for the state are to have their food is to be farmed by themselves, the military class would not be different from the agricultural, but the legislator intends it to be; while if the cultivators of the common land are to be a different set of people from both those who cultivate the private farms and the soldiers, this will be yet a forth section of the state, holding no part in it but quite estranged from the government. But yet if one is to make those who cultivate the private and the common land the same people, the amount of the produce from the farms which each man will cultivate will be scanty for two households,

- -
-

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 minaeThe mina, 100 drachmas, may be put at 4 pounds (gold). 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 jurorwho 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,

- -
-

as for example at Cyme there is a law relating to trials for murder, that if the prosecutor on the charge of murder produces a certain number of his own relatives as witnesses, the defendant is guilty of the murder. And in general all men really seek what is good, not what was customary with their forefathers; and it is probable that primitive mankind, whether sprung from the earthSo Hes. WD 108, Pind. N. 6.1. or the survivors of some destructive cataclysm,So Plat. Laws 676 ff., Plat. Tim. 22 ff. Aristotle believed that man had existed for ever, and that the world had experienced only local cataclysms. were just like ordinary foolish people, as indeed is actually said of the earth-born race, so that it is odd that we should abide by their notions. Moreover even written codes of law may with advantage not be left unaltered. For just as in the other arts as well, so with the structure of the state it is impossible that it should have been framed aright in all its details; for it must of necessity be couched in general terms, but our actions deal with particular things. These considerations therefore make it clear that it is proper for some laws sometimes to be altered. But if we consider the matter in another way, it would seem to be a thing that needs much caution. For when it is the case that the improvement would be small, but it is a bad thing to accustom men to repeal the laws lightly, it is clear that some mistakes both of the legislator and of the magistrate should be passed over; for the people will not be as much benefited by making an alteration as they will be harmed by becoming accustomed to distrust their rulers. Also, the example from the case of the arts is a mistake, as to change the practice of an art is a different thing from altering a law; for the law has no power to compel obedience beside the force of custom, and custom only grows up in long lapse of time, so that lightly to change from the existing laws to other new laws is to weaken the power of the law. Again, even if alteration of the laws is proper, are all the laws to be open to alteration, and in every form of constitution, or not? and is any chance person to be competent to introduce alterations or only certain people? for there is a great difference between these alternatives. Therefore let us abandon this inquiry for the present, since it belongs to other occasions.

-

On the subject of the constitution of Sparta and that of Crete, and virtually in regard to the other forms of constitution also, the questions that arise for consideration are two, one whether their legal structure has any feature that is admirable or the reverse in comparison with the best system, another whether it contains any provision that is really opposed to the fundamental principle and character of the constitution that the founders had in view.

-

Now it is a thing admitted that a state that is to be well governed must be provided with leisure from menial occupations; but how this is to be provided it is not easy to ascertain. The serf class in Thessaly repeatedly rose against its masters, and so did the Helots at Sparta, where they are like an enemy constantly sitting in wait for the disasters of the Spartiates. Nothing of the kind has hitherto occurred in Crete, the reason perhaps being that the neighboring cities,

- -
-

even when at war with one another, in no instance ally themselves with the rebels, because as they themselves also possess a serf class this would not be for their interest; whereas the Laconians were entirely surrounded by hostile neighbors, Argives, Messenians and Arcadians. For with the Thessalians too the serf risings originally began because they were still at war with their neighbors, the Achaeans, Perraebi and Magnesians. Also, apart from other drawbacks, the mere necessity of policing a serf class is an irksome burden—the problem of how intercourse with them is to be carried on: if allowed freedom they grow insolent and claim equal rights with their masters, and if made to live a hard life they plot against them and hate them. It is clear therefore that those whose helot-system works out in this way do not discover the best mode of treating the problem. Again, the freedom in regard to women is detrimental both in regard to the purpose of the constitution and in regard to the happiness of the state. For just as man and wife are part of a household, it is clear that the state also is divided nearly in half into its male and female population, so that in all constitutions in which the position of the women is badly regulated one half of the state must be deemed to have been neglected in framing the law. And this has taken place in the state under consideration,for the lawgiver wishing the whole city to be of strong character displays his intention clearly in relation to the men, but in the case of the women has entirely neglected the matter; for they live dissolutelyThe textual emendation giving live without restraint is probably correct. in respect of every sort of dissoluteness, and luxuriously. So that the inevitable result is that in a state thus constituted wealth is held in honor, especially if it is the case that the people are under the sway of their women, as most of the military and warlike races are, except the Celts and such other races as have openly held in honor passionate friendship between males. For it appears that the original teller of the legend had good reason for uniting Ares with Aphrodite, for all men of martial spirit appear to be attracted to the companionship either of male associates or of women. Hence this characteristic existed among the Spartans, and in the time of their empire many things were controlled by the women; yet what difference does it make whether the women rule or the rulers are ruled by the women? The result is the same. And although bravery is of service for none of the regular duties of life, but if at all, in war, even in this respect the Spartans’ women were most harmful; and they showed this at the time of the Theban invasion,Under Epaminondas, 369 B.C. for they rendered no useful service, as the women do in other states, while they caused more confusion than the enemy. It is true therefore that at the outset the freedom allowed to women at Sparta seems to have come about with good reason,

- -
-

for the Spartans used to be away in exile abroad for long periods on account of their military expeditions, both when fighting the war against the Argives and again during the war against the Arcadians and Messenians; but when they had turned to peaceful pursuits, although they handed over themselves to the lawgiver already prepared for obedience by military life (for this has many elements of virtue), as for the women it is said that Lycurgus did attempt to bring them under the laws, but since they resisted he gave it up. So the Spartan women are, it is true, responsible for what took place, and therefore manifestly for this mistake among the rest; although for our own part we are not considering the question who deserves excuse or does not, but what is the right or wrong mode of action. But, as was also said before, errors as regards the status of women seem not only to cause a certain unseemliness in the actual conduct of the state but to contribute in some degree to undue love of money. For next to the things just spoken of one might censure the Spartan institutions with respect to the unequal distribution of wealth. It has come about that some of the Spartans own too much property and some extremely little; owing to which the land has fallen into few hands, and this has also been badly regulated by the laws;for the lawgiver made it dishonorable to sell a family’s existing estate, and did so rightly, but he granted liberty to alienate land at will by gift or bequest; yet the result that has happened was bound to follow in the one case as well as in the other. And also nearly two-fifths of the whole area of the country is owned by women, because of the number of women who inherit estates and the practice of giving large dowries; yet it would have been better if dowries had been prohibited by law or limited to a small or moderate amount . . .A clause seems to have been lost: Also it would have been better to regulate by law the marriage of heiresses. But as it is he is allowed to give an heiress in marriage to whomever he likes; and if he dies without having made directions as to this by will, whoever he leaves as his executor bestows her upon whom he chooses. As a result of thisi.e. the consequent fall in the number of men rich enough to keep a horse or even to provide themselves with heavy arms. although the country is capable of supporting fifteen hundred cavalry and thirty thousand heavy-armed troopers, they numbered not even a thousand. And the defective nature of their system of land-tenure has been proved by the actual facts of history: the state did not succeed in enduring a single blow,The battle of Leuctra, 371 B.C. but perished owing to the smallness of its population. They have a tradition that in the earlier reigns they used to admit foreigners to their citizenship, with the result that dearth of population did not occur in those days, although they were at war for a long period; and it is stated that at one time the Spartiates numbered as many as ten thousand. However, whether this is true or not, it is better for a state’s male population to be kept up by measures to equalize property. The law in relation to parentage is also somewhat adverse to the correction of this evil.

- -
-

For the lawgiver desiring to make the Spartiates as numerous as possible holds out inducements to the citizens to have as many children as possible: for they have a law releasing the man who has been father of three sons from military service, and exempting the father of four from all taxes. Yet it is clear that if a number of sons are born and the land is correspondingly divided there will inevitably come to be many poor men.

-

Moreover the regulations for the EphorateThe five Ephors, elected for a year by the people, were the real rulers of Sparta. The two kings were hereditary; the senate of twenty-eight nobles advised them, and the Ephors presided at the Assembly of citizens over thirty years old, who voted on the measures of the Kings and Ephors but could not discuss them. The small fleet was commanded by a single admiral appointed for a year by the Ephors and not allowed to hold office twice. are also bad. For this office has absolute control over their most important affairs, but the Ephors are appointed from the entire people, so that quite poor men often happen to get into the office, who owing to their poverty used to bePerhaps the Greek should be altered to give are. easily bought. This was often manifested in earlier times, and also lately in the affairUnknown at Andros; for certain Ephors were corrupted with money and so far as lay in their power ruined the whole state. And because the office was too powerful, and equal to a tyranny, the kings also were compelled to cultivate popular favor, so that in this way too the constitution was jointly injured, for out of an aristocracy came to be evolved a democracy. Thus this office does, it is true, hold together the constitution—for the common people keep quiet because they have a share in the highest office of state, so that whether this is due to the lawgiver orhas come about by chance, the Ephorate is advantageous for the conduct of affairs; for if a constitution is to be preserved, all the sections of the state must wish it to exist and to continue on the same lines; so the kings are in this frame of mind owing to their own honorable rank, the nobility owing to the office of the Elders, which is a prize of virtue, and the common people because of the Ephorate, which is appointed from the whole population— but yet the Ephorate, though rightly open to all the citizens, ought not to be elected as it is now, for the method is too childish.There is no clear evidence what the method was. And further the Ephors have jurisdiction in lawsuits of high importance, although they are any chance people, so that it would be better if they did not decide cases on their own judgement but by written rules and according to the laws. Also the mode of life of the Ephors is not in conformity with the aim of the state, for it is itself too luxurious, whereas in the case of the other citizens the prescribed life goes too far in the direction of harshness, so that they are unable to endure it, and secretly desert the law and enjoy the pleasures of the body. Also their regulations for the office of the Elders are not good; it is true that if these were persons of a high class who had been adequately trained in manly valor, one might perhaps say that the institution was advantageous to the state, although their life-tenure of the judgeship in important trials is indeed a questionable feature (for there is old age of mind as well as of body);

- -
-

but as their education has been on such lines that even the lawgiver himself cannot trust in them as men of virtue, it is a dangerous institution. And it is known that those who have been admitted to this office take bribes and betray many of the public interests by favoritism; so that it would be better if they were not exempt from having to render an account of their office, but at present they are. And it might be held that the magistracy of the Ephors serves to hold all the offices to account; but this gives altogether too much to the Ephorate, and it is not the way in which, as we maintain, officials ought to be called to account. Again, the procedure in the election of the Elders as a mode of selection is not only childish, but it is wrong that one who is to be the holder of this honorable office should canvass for it, for the man worthy of the office ought to hold it whether he wants to or not. But as it is the lawgiver clearly does the same here as in the rest of the constitution: he makes the citizens ambitious and has used this for the election of the Elders, for nobody would ask for office if he were not ambitious; yet surely ambition and love of money are the motives that bring about almost the greatest part of the voluntary wrongdoing that takes place among mankind. As to monarchy, the question whether it is not or is an advantageous institution for states to possessmay be left to another discussion; but at all events it would be advantageous that kings should not be appointed as they are now, but chosen in each case with regard to their own life and conduct. But it is clear that even the lawgiver himself does not suppose that he can make the kings men of high character: at all events he distrusts them as not being persons of sufficient worth owing to which the Spartans used to send kings who were enemies as colleagues on embassies, and thought that the safety of the state depended on division between the kings. Also the regulations for the the public mess-tables called Phiditia have been badly laid down by their originator. The revenue for these ought to come rather from public funds, as in Crete; but among the Spartans everybody has to contribute, although some of them are very poor and unable to find money for this charge, so that the result is the opposite of what the lawgiver purposed. For he intends the organization of the common tables to be democratic, but when regulated by the law in this manner it works out as by no means democratic; for it is not easy for the very poor to participate, yet their ancestral regulation of the citizenship is that it is not to belong to one who is unable to pay this tax. The law about the Admirals has been criticized by some other writers also, and rightly criticized; for it acts as a cause of sedition, since in addition to the kings who are military commanders the office of Admiral stands almost as another kingship. Another criticism that may be made against the fundamental principle of the lawgiver is one that Plato has made in the Laws.

- -
-

The entire system of the laws is directed towards one part of virtue only, military valor, because this is serviceable for conquest. Owing to this they remained secure while at war, but began to decline when they had won an empire, because they did not know how to live a life of leisure, and had been trained in no other form of training more important than the art of war. And another error no less serious than that one is this: they think that the coveted prizes of life are won by valor more than by cowardice, and in this they are right, yet they imagine wrongly that these prizes are worth more than the valor that wins them. The public finance of Sparta is also badly regulated: when compelled to carry on wars on a large scale she has nothing in the state treasury, and the Spartiates pay war taxes badly because, as most of the land is owned by them, they do not scrutinize each other’s contributions. And the lawgiver has achieved the opposite result to what is advantageous—he has made the state poor and the individual citizen covetous.

-

So much for a discussion of the constitution of Sparta: for these are the main points in it for criticism.

-

The Cretan constitution approximates to that of Sparta, but though in a few points it is not worse framed, for the larger part it has a less perfect finish. For the Spartan constitution appears and indeed is actually statede.g. by Hdt 1.65. to have been copied in most of its provisions from the Cretan; and as a rule old things have been less fully elaborated than newer ones. For it is said that when Lycurgus relinquished his post as guardian of King CharilausPosthumous son of Lycurgus’s elder brother King Polydectes; cf.1316a 34. and went abroad, he subsequently passed most of his time in Crete because of the relationship between the Cretans and the Spartans; for the Lyctians Lyctus was an inland city in the east of Crete, not far from Cnossus. were colonists from Sparta, and the settlers that went out to the colony found the system of laws already existing among the previous inhabitants of the place; owing to which the neighboring villagers even now use these laws in the same manner, in the belief that MinosLegendary ruler of Crete, son of Zeus and Europa, and after death a judge in the lower world. first instituted this code of laws. And also the island appears to have been designed by nature and to be well situated to be under Greek rule, as it lies across the whole of the sea, round which almost all the Greeks are settled; for Crete is only a short distance from the Peloponnese in one direction, and from the part of Asia around Triopium and from Rhodes in the other. Owing to this Minos won the empire of the sea,See Thuc. 1.4, 8. The tradition of the wealth of Minos is supported by the recent excavations at Cnossus. and made some of the islands subject to him and settled colonies in others, but finally when making an attack on Sicily he ended his life there near Camicus.

-

The Cretan organization is on the same lines as that of Sparta. In Sparta the land is tilled by the Helots and in Crete by the serfs;

- -
-

and also both have public mess-tables, and in old days the Spartans called them not phiditia but men’s messes, as the Cretans do, which is a proof that they came from Crete. And so also did the system of government; for the Ephors have the same power as the magistrates called Cosmi in Crete, except that the Ephors are five in number and the Cosmi ten; and the Elders at Sparta are equal in number to the Elders whom the Cretans call the Council; and monarchy existed in former times, but then the Cretans abolished it, and the Cosmi hold the leadership in war; and all are members of the Assembly, though it has no powers except the function of confirming by vote the resolutions already formed by the Elders and the Cosmi.

-

Now the Cretan arrangements for the public mess-tables are better than the Spartan; for at Sparta each citizen pays a fixed poll-tax, failing which he is prevented by law from taking part in the government, as has been said before; but in Crete the system is more communal, for out of all the crops and cattle produced from the public lands, and the tributes paid by the serfs, one part is assigned for the worship of the gods and the maintenance of the public services,and the other for the public mess-tables, so that all the citizens are maintained from the common funds, women and children as well as men; and the lawgiver has devised many wise measures to secure the benefit of moderation at table, and the segregation of the women in order that they may not bear many children, for which purpose he instituted association with the male sex, as to which there will be another occasionThis promise is not fulfilled to consider whether it was a bad thing or a good one. That the regulations for the common mess-tables therefore are better in Crete than at Sparta is manifest; but the regulations for the Cosmi are even worse than those regarding the Ephors. For the evil attaching to the office of the Ephors belongs to the Cosmi also, as the post is filled by any chance persons, while the benefit conferred on the government by this office at Sparta is lacking in Crete. At Sparta, as the election is made from all the citizens, the common people sharing in the highest office desire the maintenance of the constitution, but in Crete they do not elect the Cosmi from all the citizens but from certain clans, and the Elders from those who have held the office of Cosmos, about which regulations the same comments might be made as about what takes place at Sparta: their freedom from being called to account and their tenure for life gives them greater rank than their merit deserves, and their administration of their office at their own discretion and not under the guidance of a written code is dangerous. And the fact that the common people quietly tolerate their exclusion is no proof that the arrangement is a sound one; for the Cosmi unlike the Ephors make no sort of profit, as they live in an island remote from any people to corrupt them.

- -
-

Also the remedy which they employ for this defecti.e. the defect of the undue restriction of the office. is a curious one, and less characteristic of a republic than of a dynastySee 1292b 10 n.: often the Cosmi are expelled by a conspiracy formed among some of their actual colleagues or the private citizens. Also the Cosmi are allowed to resign during their term of office. Now it would be preferable for all these expedients to be put in force by law rather than at the discretion of individuals, for that is a dangerous principle. And the worst expedient of all is that of the suspension of the office of Cosmi, which is often brought about by members of the powerful class who wish to escape being punished; this proves that the constitution has a republican element, although it is not actually a republic but rather a dynasty.See 1292b 10 n. And the nobles frequently form parties among the common people and among their friends and so bring about a suspension of government,The MSS. give bring about a monarchy. and form factions and engage in war with one another. Yet such a state of things is virtually the same as if for a period of time the state underwent an entire revolution, and the bonds of civil society were loosened.

-

And it is a precarious position for a state to be in, when those who wish to attack it also have the power to do so. But, as has been said, it is saved by its locality; for distance has had the same effect as alien-acts.Aliens required special permission to reside at Sparta, and the ephors had powers to expel them for undesirable conduct. A result of this is that with the Cretans the serf population stands firm, whereas the Helots often revolt; for the Cretanstake no part in foreign empire, and also the island has only lately been invaded by warfare from abroad, rendering manifest the weakness of the legal system there.

-

Let this suffice for our discussion of this form of constitution.

-

Carthage also appears to have a good constitution, with many outstanding features as compared with those of other nations, but most nearly resembling the Spartan in some points. For these three constitutions are in a way near to one another and are widely different from the others—the Cretan, the Spartan and, thirdly, that of Carthage. Many regulations at Carthage are good; and a proof of a well-regulated constitution is that the populace willingly remain faithful to the constitutional system, and that neither civil strife has arisen in any degree worth mentioning, nor yet a tyrant.

Points in which the Carthaginian constitution resembles the Spartan are the common mess-tables of its Comradeships corresponding to the Phiditia, and the magistracy of the Hundred and Four corresponding to the Ephors (except one point of superiority—the Ephors are drawn from any class, but the Carthaginians elect this magistracy by merit); the kings and the council of Elders correspond to the kings and Elders at Sparta, and it is another superior feature that the Carthaginian kings are not confined to the same family and that one of no particular distinction, and also that if any family distinguishes itself . . .Clauses seem to have been lost concluding the account of the appointment of the Kings and turning to the Elders and their selection on grounds of wealth. the Elders are to be chosen from these rather than by age; for as they are put in control of important matters, if they are men of no value they do great harm,

- -
-

and they have already injured the Spartan State.

-

Most of the points therefore in the Carthaginian system that would be criticized on the ground of their divergences happen to be common to all the constitutions of which we have spoken; but the features open to criticism as judged by the principle of an aristocracy or republic are some of them departures in the direction of democracy and others in the direction of oligarchy. The reference of some matters and not of others to the popular assembly rests with the kings in consultation with the Elders in case they agreei.e. agree to refer or not to refer unanimously, but failing that, these matters also lie with the peoplei.e. even when the Kings only or the Elders only desire reference, it takes place; and when the kings introduce business in the assembly, they do not merely let the people sit and listen to the decisions that have been taken by their rulers, but the people have the sovereign decision, and anybody who wishes may speak against the proposals introduced, a right that does not exist under the other constitutions. The appointment by co-optation of the Boards of Five which control many important matters, and the election by these boards of the supreme magistracy of the Hundred, and also their longer tenure of authority than that of any other officers (for they are in power after they have gone out of office and before they have actually entered upon it) are oligarchical features; their receiving no pay and not being chosen by lot and other similar regulations must be set down as aristocratic, and so must the fact that the members of the Boards are the judges in all lawsuits,instead of different suits being tried by different courts as at Sparta. But the Carthaginian system diverges from aristocracy in the direction of oligarchy most signally in respect of a certain idea that is shared by the mass of mankind; they think that the rulers should be chosen not only for their merit but also for their wealth, as it is not possible for a poor man to govern well or to have leisure for his duties. If therefore election by wealth is oligarchical and election by merit aristocratic, this will be a third system exhibited in the organization of the constitution of Carthage, for there elections are made with an eye to these two qualifications, and especially elections to the most important offices, those of the kings and of the generals. But it must be held that this divergence from aristocracy is an error on the part of a lawgiver; for one of the most important points to keep in view from the outset is that the best citizens may be able to have leisure and may not have to engage in any unseemly occupation, not only when in office but also when living in private life. And if it is necessary to look to the question of means for the sake of leisure, it is a bad thing that the greatest offices of state, the kingship and the generalship, should be for sale. For this law makes wealth more honored than worth, and renders the whole state avaricious; and whatever the holders of supreme power deem honorable, the opinion of the other citizens also is certain to follow them, and a state in which virtue is not held in the highest honor cannot be securely governed by an aristocracy.

- -
-

And it is probable that those who purchase office will learn by degrees to make a profit out of it, when they hold office for money spent; for it would be odd if a man of small means but respectable should want to make a profit but an inferior person when he has spent money to get elected should not want to. Hence the persons who should be in office are those most capable of holding office. And even if the lawgiver neglected to secure comfortable means for respectable people, it would at all events be better that he should provide for their leisure while in office.

-

And it might also be thought a bad thing for the same person to hold several offices, which is considered a distinction at Carthage. One man one job is the best rule for efficiency, and the lawgiver ought to see that this may be secured, and not appoint the same man to play the flute and make shoes. Hence except in a small city it is more statesmanlike for a larger number to share in the offices and more democratic, for it is fairer to all, as we said, and also functions are performed better and more quickly when separate than by the same people. This is clear in military and naval matters; for in both of these departments command and subordination penetrate throughout almost the whole body.i.e. everyone in command (except the commander-in-chief) has someone of higher rank over him.

-

But the constitution being oligarchical they best escape the dangers by being wealthy, as they constantly send out a portion of the common people toappointments in the cities; by this means they heal the social sore and make the constitution stable. However, this is the achievement of fortune, whereas freedom from civil strife ought to be secured by the lawgiver; but as it is, suppose some misfortune occurs and the multitude of the subject class revolts, there is no remedy provided by the laws to restore tranquillity.

-

This then is the character of the Spartan, Cretan and Carthaginian constitutions, which are justly famous.

-

Of those that have put forward views about politics, some have taken no part in any political activities whatever but have passed their whole life as private citizens; and something has been said about almost all the writers of this class about whom there is anything noteworthy. Some on the other hand have been lawgivers, either for their native cities or even for certain foreign peoples, after having themselves been actively engaged in government; and of these some have been framers of laws only, and others of a constitution also, for instance Solon and Lycurgus, who instituted both laws and constitutions. The Spartan constitution has been discussed. As for Solon, he is considered by some people to have been a good lawgiver, as having put an end to oligarchy when it was too unqualified and having liberated the people from slavery and restored the ancestral democracy with a skilful blending of the constitution: the Council on the Areopagus being an oligarchic element, the elective magistracies aristocratic and the law-courts democratic.

- -
-

And although really in regard to certain of these features, the Council and the election of magistrates, Solon seems merely to have abstained from destroying institutions that existed already, he does appear to have founded the democracy by constituting the jury-courts from all the citizens. For this he is actually blamed by some persons, as having dissolved the power of the other parts of the community by making the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful. For as the law-court grew strong, men courted favor with the people as with a tyrant, and so brought the constitution to the present democracy; and Ephialtes and Pericles docked the power of the Council on the Areopagus, while Pericles instituted payment for serving in the law-courts, and in this manner finally the successive leaders of the people led them on by growing stages to the present democracy. But this does not seem to have come about in accordance with the intention of Solon, but rather as a result of accident (for the common people having been the cause of the naval victories at the time of the Persian invasion became proud and adopted bad men as popular leaders when the respectable classes opposed their policy); inasmuch as Solon for his part appears to bestow only the minimum of power upon the people, the function of electing the magistrates and of calling them to account (for if even this were not under the control of the populace it would be a mere slave and a foreign enemy), whereas he appointed all the offices from the notable and the wealthy, the Five-hundred-bushel classand the Teamsters and a third property-class called the Knighthood; while the fourth class, the Thetes, were admitted to no office.For Solon’s classification of the citizens by the annual income of their estates see Aristot. Ath. Pol. 7.

-

Laws were givenPerhaps 664 B.C. by Zaleucus to the Epizephyrian Zephyrium, a promontory in S. Italy. Locrians and by CharondasSee 1252b 14. of Catana to his fellow-citizens and to the other Chalcidic citiesColonies from Chalcis in Euboea. on the coasts of Italy and Sicily. Some persons try to connect Zaleucus and Charondas together: they say that Onomacritus first arose as an able lawgiver, and that he was trained in Crete, being a Locrian and travelling there to practise the art of soothsaying, and Thales became his companion, and Lycurgus and Zaleucus were pupils of Thales, and Charondas of Zaleucus; but these stories give too little attention to the dates. Philolaus of Corinth also arose as lawgiver at Thebes. Philolaus belonged by birth to the Bacchiad family; he became the lover of Diocles the winnerIn 728 B.C. at Olympia, but when Diocles quitted the city because of his loathing for the passion of his mother Alcyone, he went away to Thebes, and there they both ended their life. Even now people still show their tombs, in full view of each other and one of them fully open to view in the direction of the Corinthian country but the other one not; for the story goes that they arranged to be buried in this manner, Diocles owing to his hatred for his misfortune securing that the land of Corinth might not be visible from his tomb, and Philolaus that it might be from his.

- -
-

It was due then to a reason of this nature that they went to live at Thebes; but Philolaus became the Thebans’ lawgiver in regard to various matters, among others the size of families,—the laws called by the Thebans laws of adoption; about this Philolaus enacted special legislation, in order that the number of the estates in land might be preserved. There is nothing special in the code of Charondas except the trials for false witness (for he was the first to introduce the procedure of denunciation), but in the accuracy of his laws he is a more finished workman even than the legislators of today. (Peculiar to PhaleasDealt with already in 4. is the measure for equalizing properties; to Plato,Above, 1-3 community of wives and children and of property, and the common meals for the women, and also the law about drunkenness, enacting that sober persons are to be masters of the drinking-bouts, and the regulation for military training to make men ambidextrous during drill, on the ground that it is a mistake to have one of the two hands useful but the other useless.) There are laws of Draco,Author of the first written code at Athens, 621 B.C. (though in Aristot. Ath. Pol. 4, his legislation is hardly mentioned; he appears there as the framer of the constitution). but he legislated for an existing constitution, and there is nothing peculiar in his laws that is worthy of mention, except their severity in imposing heavy punishment. PittacusOf Mitylene in Lesbos, one of the Seven Sages, dictator 589-579 B.C. also was a framer of laws, but not of a constitution; a special law of his is that if men commit any offence when drunk,they are to pay a larger fine than those who offend when sober; because since more men are insolent when drunk than when sober he had regard not to the view that drunken offenders are to be shown more mercy, but to expediency. AndrodamasOtherwise unknown. of Rhegium also became lawgiver to the Chalcidians in the direction of Thrace, Chalcidice, the peninsula in the N. Aegean, was colonized from Chalcis in Euboea. and to him belong the laws dealing with cases of murder and with heiresses; however one cannot mention any provision that is peculiar to him.

-

Let such be our examination of the constitutional schemes actually in force and of those that have been proposed by certain persons.

- -
-
-

For the student of government, and of nature and characteristics of the various forms of constitution, almost the first question to consider is in regard to the state: what exactly is the essential nature of a state? As it is, this is a matter of dispute: a public act is spoken of by some people as the action of the state, others speak of it as the action not of the state but of the oligarchy or the tyrant in powerSo we speak of an action planned and carried by the party in power as an Act of Parliament, and technically as an act of the sovereign.; and we see that the activity of the statesman and lawgiver is entirely concerned with a state as its object, and a constitution is a form of organization of the inhabitants of a state. But a state is a composite thing, in the same sense as any other of the things that are wholes but consist of many parts; it is therefore clear that we must first inquire into the nature of a citizen; for a state is a collection of citizens,

- -
-

so that we have to consider who is entitled to the name of citizen, and what the essential nature of a citizen is. For there is often a difference of opinion as to this: people do not all agree that the same person is a citizen; often somebody who would be a citizen in a democracy is not a citizen under an oligarchy. We need not here consider those who acquire the title of citizen in some exceptional manner, for example those who are citizens by adoption; and citizenship is not constituted by domicile in a certain place (for resident aliens and slaves share the domicile of citizens), nor are those citizens who participate in a common system of justice, conferring the right to defend an action and to bring one in the law-courts (for this right belongs also to the parties under a commercial treaty, as they too can sue and be sued at law,—or rather, in many places even the right of legal action is not shared completely by resident aliens, but they are obliged to produce a patron, so that they only share in a common legal procedure to an incomplete degree), but these are only citizens in the manner in which children who are as yet too young to have been enrolled in the list and old men who have been dischargedThis seems to imply that aged citizens were excused attendance at the assembly and law-courts, as well as military service must be pronounced to be citizens in a sense, yet not quite absolutely, but with the added qualification of under age in the case of the former and superannuated or some other similar term (it makes no difference, the meaning being clear) in that of the latter. For we seek to define a citizen in the absolute sense, and one possessing nodisqualification of this nature that requires a correcting term, since similar difficulties may also be raised, and solved, about citizens who have been disfranchised or exiled. A citizen pure and simple is defined by nothing else so much as by the right to participate in judicial functions and in office. But some offices of government are definitely limited in regard to time, so that some of them are not allowed to be held twice by the same person at all, or only after certain fixed intervals of time; other officials are without limit of tenure, for example the juryman and the member of the assembly. It might perhaps be said that such persons are not officials at all, and that the exercise of these functions does not constitute the holding of office;Or, amending the text, and yet that it is absurd to deny the title of citizen to those— and yet it is absurd to deny the title of official to those who have the greatest power in the state. But it need not make any difference, as it is only the question of a name, since there is no common name for a juryman and a member of the assembly that is properly applied to both. For the sake of distinction therefore let us call the combination of the two functions office without limitation. Accordingly we lay it down that those are citizens who participate in office in this manner.

-

Such more or less is the definition of citizen that would best fit with all of those to whom the name is applied. But it must not be forgotten that things in the case of which the things to which they are related differ in kind, one of them being primary, another one secondary and so on, either do not contain a common nature at all, as being what they are, or barely do so.The meaning of this abstract principle is most easily seen from its application here: if states are generically different from one another, membership of a state, citizenship, can hardly be a single thing, and come under a single definition. Now we see that constitutions differ from one another in kind, and that some are subsequent and others prior;

- -
-

for erroneous and divergent forms are necessarily subsequent to correct forms (in what sense we employ the terms divergent of constitutions will appear later). Hence the citizen corresponding to each form of constitution will also necessarily be different. Therefore the definition of a citizen that we have given applies especially to citizenship in a democracy; under other forms of government it may hold good, but will not necessarily do so. For in some states there is no body of common citizens, and they do not have the custom of a popular assembly but councils of specially convened members, and the office of trying law-suits goes by sections—for example at Sparta suits for breach of contract are tried by different ephors in different cases, while cases of homicide are tried by the ephors and doubtless other suits by some other magistrate. The same method is notThe negative is a conjectural insertion, cf. 1273a 20. followed at Carthage, where certain magistrates judge all the law-suits. But still, our definition of a citizen admits of correction. For under the other forms of constitution a member of the assembly and of a jury-court is not an official without restriction, but an official defined according to his office; either all of them or some among them are assigned deliberative and judicial duties either in all matters or in certain matters. What constitutes a citizen is therefore clear from these considerations: we now declare that one who has the right to participate in deliberative or judicial office is a citizen of the statein which he has that right, and a state is a collection of such persons sufficiently numerous, speaking broadly, to secure independence of life.

-

But in practice citizenship is limited to the child of citizens on both sides, not on one side only, that is, the child of a citizen father or of a citizen mother; and other people carry this requirement further back, for example to the second or the third preceding generation or further. But given this as a practical and hasty definition, some people raise the difficulty, How will that ancestor three or four generations back have been a citizen? GorgiasSicilian orator and nihilistic philosopher, visited Athens 427 B.C. of Leontini therefore, partly perhaps in genuine perplexity but partly in jest, said that just as the vessels made by mortar-makers were mortars, so the citizens made by the magistrates were Larisaeans, since some of the magistrates were actually larisa-makers. Larisa, a city in Thessaly, was famous for the manufacture of a kind of kettle called larisa. But it is really a simple matter; for if they possessed citizenship in the manner stated in our definition of a citizen, they were citizens—since it is clearly impossible to apply the qualification of descent from a citizen father or mother to the original colonizers or founders of a city.

-

But perhaps a question rather arises about those who were admitted to citizenship when a revolution had taken place, for instance such a creation of citizens as that carried outIn 509 B.C. at Athens by Cleisthenes after the expulsion of the tyrants, when he enrolled in his tribes many resident aliens who had been foreigners or slaves. The dispute as to these is not about the fact of their citizenship, but whether they received it wrongly or rightly. Yet even as to this one might raise the further question,

- -
-

whether, if a man is not rightly a citizen, he is a citizen at all, as wrongly means the same as not truly. But we sometimes see officials governing wrongly, as to whom we shall not deny that they do govern, but shall say that they do not do it rightly, and a citizen is defined by a certain function of government (a citizen, as we said, is one who shares in such and such an office); therefore it is clear that even persons wrongly admitted to citizenship are to be pronounced to be citizens, although the question whether they are so rightly or not rightly is connected with the question that was propounded before.The question, What is a state? 1274b 34. For some persons raise the question, When is an occurrence the act of the state and when is it not? for example, when the government has been altered from oligarchy or tyranny to democracy. In such circumstances some people claim that the new government should not discharge public debts, on the ground that the money was borrowed by the tyrant and not by the state, and should repudiate many other similar claims also, because some forms of government rest upon force and are not aimed at the welfare of the community. If therefore some democracies also are governed in that manner, the acts of the authorities in their case can only be said to be the acts of the state in the same sense as the public acts emanating from an oligarchy or a tyranny are said to be. Akin to this controversy seems to be the subject, What exactly is the principle on which we ought to pronounce a city to be the same city as it was before, or not the same but a different city? The most obvious mode of inquiring into this difficultydeals with place and people: the place and the people may have been divided, and some may have settled in one place, and some in another. In this form the question must be considered as easier of solution; for, as city has several meanings, the inquiry so put is in a way not difficult.i.e. πόλις means both (1) city (and also citadel) and (2) state, a collection of citizens; and if the citizens divide and settle in two different cities with different governments, they are clearly not the same state as before. But it may similarly be asked, Suppose a set of men inhabit the same place, in what circumstances are we to consider their city to be a single city? Its unity clearly does not depend on the walls, for it would be possible to throw a single wall round the Peloponnesus; and a case in point perhaps is Babylon, and any other city that has the circuit of a nation rather than of a city; for it is said that when Babylon was captured a considerable part of the city was not aware of it three days later. But the consideration of this difficulty will be serviceable for another occasion, as the student of politics must not ignore the question, What is the most advantageous size for a city, and should its population be of one race or of several? But are we to pronounce a city, where the same population inhabit the same place, to be the same city so long as the population are of the same race, in spite of the fact that all the time some are dying and others being born, just as it is our custom to say that a river or a spring is the same river or spring although one stream of water is always being added to it and another being withdrawn from it, or are we to say that though the people are the same people for the similar reason of continuity, yet the city is a different city?

- -
-

For inasmuch as a state is a kind of partnership, and is in fact a partnership of citizens in a government, when the form of the government has been altered and is different it would appear to follow that the state is no longer the same state, just as we say that a chorus which on one occasion acts a comedy and on another a tragedy is a different chorus although it is often composed of the same persons, and similarly with any other common whole or composite structure we say it is different if the form of its structure is different—for instance a musical tune consisting of the same notes we call a different tune if at one time it is played in the Dorian mode and at another in the Phrygian. Therefore if this is the case, it is clear that we must speak of a state as being the same state chiefly with regard to its constitution; and it is possible for it to be called by the same or by a different designation both when its inhabitants are the same and when they are entirely different persons. But whether a state is or is not bound in justice to discharge its engagements when it has changed to a different constitution, is another subject.

-

The next thing to consider after what has now been said is the question whether we are to hold that the goodness of a good man is the same as that of a good citizen, or not the same. However, if this point really is to receive investigation, we must first ascertain in some general outline what constitutes the excellence of a citizen.Now a citizen we pronounced to be one sort of partner in a community, as is a sailor. And although sailors differ from each other in function—one is an oarsman, another helmsman, another look-out man, and another has some other similar special designation—and so clearly the most exact definition of their excellence will be special to each, yet there will also be a common definition of excellence that will apply alike to all of them; for security in navigation is the business of them all, since each of the sailors aims at that. Similarly therefore with the citizens, although they are dissimilar from one another, their business is the security of their community, and this community is the constitution, so that the goodness of a citizen must necessarily be relative to the constitution of the state. If therefore there are various forms of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be one single goodness which is the perfect goodness of the good citizen; but when we speak of a good man we mean that he possesses one single goodness, perfect goodness. Hence it is manifestly possible to be a good citizen without possessing the goodness that constitutes a good man. Moreover it is also feasible to pursue the same topic by raising the question in another manner in relation to the best form of constitution. If it is impossiblePerhaps the Greek should be altered to give possible. If we emend the text with Bernays to εἰ γὰρ δύνατον ἐξ ἁπάντων σπουδαίων ὄντων εἶναι πόλιν, the sense is: assuming the possibility of a perfect state, with all its factors the best of their kind, this means that all the population will be good citizens, not that they will all be perfect specimens of the human race, because the state needs citizens of the working classes, etc., and these cannot in the nature of things be perfect human beings for a state to consist entirely of good men, and if it is necessary for each person to perform well the work of his position, and to do this springs from goodness, then because it is impossible for all the citizens to be alike,

- -
-

the goodness of a good citizen would not be one and the same as the goodness of a good man; for all ought to possess the goodness of the good citizen (that is a necessary condition of the state’s being the best possible), but it is impossible that all should possess the goodness of a good man, if it is not necessary that all the citizens in a good state should be good men. Again, since the state consists of unlike persons—just as an animal (to take this instance first) consists of soul and body, and a soul of reason and appetite, and a household of husband and wife and [ownership involves]These words in the Greek are probably an interpolation. a master and slave, in the same manner a state consists of all of these persons and also of others of different classes in addition to these,—it necessarily follows that the goodness of all the citizens is not one and the same, just as among dancers the skill of a head dancer is not the same as that of a subordinate leader. It is clear then from these considerations that the goodness of a good citizen and that of a good man are not the same in general; but will the goodness of a good citizen of a particular sort be the same as that of a good man? Now we say that a good ruler is virtuous and wise, and that a citizen taking part in politics must be wise. Also some people say that even the education of a ruler must be different, as indeed we see that the sons of kings are educated in horsemanship and military exercises, and Euripides saysFragment 16, from Aeolus. No subtleties for me, but what the state Requireth— implying that there is a special education for a ruler. And if the goodness of a good ruler is the same as the goodness of a good man, yet the person ruled is also a citizen, so that the goodness of a citizen in general will not be the same as that of a man, although that of a particular citizen will; for goodness as a ruler is not the same as goodness as a citizen, and no doubt this is the reason why JasonTyrant of Pherae in Thessaly, assassinated 370 B.C. said that when he was not tyrant he went hungry, meaning that he did not know the art of being a private person. Another point is that we praise the ability to rule and to be ruled, and it is doubtless held that the goodness of a citizen consists in ability both to rule and to be ruled well. If then we lay it down that the goodness of the good man is displayed in ruling, whereas that of the citizen is shown in both capacities, the two capacities cannot be equally laudable. Since therefore both views are sometimes accepted, and it is thought that the ruler and the subject do not have to learn the same arts but that the citizen must know both arts and share in both capacities, Some words seem to have been lost, conveying we must consider how this dual fitness can be acquired, or possibly considerably more. But the text at the beginning of the sentence is also corrupt. And it may be discerned from the following illustration: one form of authority is that of a master; by this we mean the exercise of authority in regard to the necessary work of the house, which it is not necessary for the master to know how to execute, but rather how to utilize; the other capacity, I mean the ability actually to serve in these menial tasks, is indeed a slave’s quality. But we distinguish several kinds of slave, as their employments are several. One department belongs to the handicraftsmen, who as their name implies are the persons that live by their hands,

- -
-

a class that includes the mechanic artisan. Hence in some states manual laborers were not admitted to office in old times, before the development of extreme democracy. The tasks of those who are under this form of authority therefore it is not proper for the good man or the man fit for citizenship or the good citizen to learn, except for his own private use occasionally (for then it ceases to be a case of the one party being master and the other slave). But there exists a form of authority by which a man rules over persons of the same race as himself, and free men (for that is how we describe political authority), and this the ruler should learn by being ruled, just as a man should command cavalry after having served as a trooper, command a regiment after having served in a regiment and been in command of a company and of a platoon. Hence there is much truth in the saying that it is impossible to become a good ruler without having been a subject. And although the goodness of a ruler and that of a subject are different, the good citizen must have the knowledge and the ability both to be ruled and to rule, and the merit of the good citizen consists in having a knowledge of the government of free men on both sides. And therefore both these virtues are characteristic of a good man, even if temperance and justice in a ruler are of a different kind from temperance and justice in a subject; for clearly a good man’s virtue, for example his justice, will not be one and the same when he is under government and when he is free, but it will be of different kinds,one fitting him to rule and one to be ruled, just as temperance and courage are different in a man and in a woman (for a man would be thought a coward if he were only as brave as a brave woman, and a woman a chatterer if she were only as modest as a good man; since even the household functions of a man and of a woman are different—his business is to get and hers to keep). And practical wisdom alone of the virtues is a virtue peculiar to a ruler; for the other virtues seem to be necessary alike for both subjects and rulers to possess, but wisdom assuredly is not a subject’s virtue, but only right opinion: the subject corresponds to the man who makes flutes and the ruler to the flute-player who uses them.

-

The question whether the goodness of a good man is the same as that of a good citizen or different, and how they are the same and how different, is clear from these considerations.

-

But one of the difficulties as to what constitutes a citizen is still left. Is it truly the case that a citizen is a person who has the right to share office in the government, or are the working classes also to be counted citizens? If these persons also are to be counted who have no share in offices, it is not possible for every citizen to possess the citizen’s virtue; for the true citizen is the man capable of governing.Or perhaps for the working-man is a citizen. οὗτος γὰρ πολίτης. The translation takes πολίτης as subject and οὗτος as predicate (meaning ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρετήν, possessing capacity to govern). But possibly the predicate is πολίτης and the subject οὗτος, which then stands for ὁ βάναυσος; if so, the whole sentence means that if the non-official classes are citizens, not all the citizens will possess civic virtue (which is capacity to govern), for the working-man will be a citizen (and he is not capable of governing). If on the other hand no one of the working people is a citizen, in what class are the various workers to be ranked? for they are neither resident aliens nor foreigners. Or shall we say that so far as that argument goes no inconsistency results?

- -
-

for slaves also are not in one of the classes mentioned, nor are freedmen. For it is true that not all the persons indispensable for the existence of a state are to be deemed citizens, since even the sons of citizens are not citizens in the same sense as the adults: the latter are citizens in the full sense, the former only by presumptionOr, with Casaubon’s probable correction of the Greek, only with a qualification.—they are citizens, but incomplete ones. In ancient times in fact the artisan class in some states consisted of slaves or aliens, owing to which the great mass of artisans are so even now; and the best-ordered state will not make an artisan a citizen. While if even the artisan is a citizen, then what we said to be the citizen’s virtue must not be said to belong to every citizen, nor merely be defined as the virtue of a free man, but will only belong to those who are released from menial occupations. Among menial occupations those who render such services to an individual are slaves, and those who do so for the community are artisans and hired laborers. The state of the case about them will be manifest from what follows when we consider it a little further[, for what has been said when made known itself makes it clear].The ill-expressed clause for what—clear seems almost certainly to be an interpolation. As there are several forms of constitution, it follows that there are several kinds of citizen, and especially of the citizen in a subject position; hence under one form of constitution citizenship will necessarily extend to the artisan and the hired laborer, while under other forms this is impossible, for instance in any constitution that is of the form entitled aristocratic and in whichthe honors are bestowed according to goodness and to merit, since a person living a life of manual toil or as a hired laborer cannot practise the pursuits in which goodness is exercised. In oligarchies on the other hand, though it is impossible for a hired laborer to be a citizen (since admission to office of various grades is based on high property-assessments), it is possible for an artisan; for even the general mass of the craftsmen are rich. At Thebes there was a law that no one who had not kept out of trade for the last ten years might be admitted to office. But under many constitutions the law draws recruits even from foreigners; for in some democracies the son of a citizen-mother is a citizen, and the same rule holds good as to base-born sons in many places. Nevertheless, inasmuch as such persons are adopted as citizens owing to a lack of citizens of legitimate birth (for legislation of this kind is resorted to because of under-population), when a state becomes well off for numbers it gradually divests itself first of the sons of a slave father or mother, then of those whose mothers only were citizens, and finally only allows citizenship to the children of citizens on both sides. These facts then show that there are various kinds of citizen, and that a citizen in the fullest sense means the man who shares in the honors of the state, as is implied in the verse of Homer Hom. Il. 9.648, Hom. Il. 16.59 : Like to some alien settler without honor,— since a native not admitted to a share in the public honors is like an alien domiciled in the land. But in some places this exclusion is disguised, for the purpose of deceiving those who are a part of the population.The MSS. give But where such exclusion is disguised, it (this concealment) is for the purpose of deceiving etc.

- -
-

The answer therefore to the question, Is the goodness that makes a good man to be deemed the same as that which makes a worthy citizen, or different? is now clear from what has been said in one form of state the good man and the good citizen are the same, but in another they are different, and also in the former case it is not every citizen but only the statesman, the man who controls or is competent to control, singly or with colleagues, the administration of the commonwealth, that is essentially also a good man.

-

And since these points have been determined, the next question to be considered is whether we are to lay it down that there is only one form of constitution or several, and if several, what they are and how many and what are the differences between them. Now a constitution is the ordering of a state in respect of its various magistracies, and especially the magistracy that is supreme over all matters. For the government is everywhere supreme over the state and the constitution is the government. I mean that in democratic states for example the people are supreme, but in oligarchies on the contrary the few are; and we say that they have a different constitution. And we shall use the same language about the other forms of government also.

-

We have therefore to determine first the fundamental points, what is the object for which a state exists and how many different kinds of system there are for governing mankind and for controlling the common life.

-

Now it has been said in our first discourses,1253a 1 ff. in which we determined the principles concerning household management and the control of slaves, that man is by nature a political animal;and so even when men have no need of assistance from each other they none the less desire to live together. At the same time they are also brought together by common interest, so far as each achieves a share of the good life. The good life then is the chief aim of society, both collectively for all its members and individually; but they also come together and maintain the political partnership for the sake of life merely, for doubtless there is some element of value contained even in the mere state of being alive, provided that there is not too great an excess on the side of the hardships of life, and it is clear that the mass of mankind cling to life at the cost of enduring much suffering, which shows that life contains some measure of well-being and of sweetness in its essential nature.

-

And again, the several recognized varieties of government can easily be defined; in fact we frequently discuss them in our external discourses.Mentioned at 1323a 22 (and also six times in other books); they are there appealed to for the tripartite classification of foods which in Aristot. Nic. Eth.1098b 12 is ascribed to current opinion of long standing and generally accepted by students of philosophy. The term may there predenote doctrines not peculiar to the Peripatetic school. The authority of a master over a slave, although in truth when both master and slave are designed by nature for their positions their interests are the same, nevertheless governs in the greater degree with a view to the interest of the master, but incidentally with a view to that of the slave, for if the slave deteriorates the position of the master cannot be saved from injury. Authority over children and wife [and over the whole household, which we call the art of household managementAristotle can hardly have written this clause, as it includes mastership over slaves.] is exercised either in the interest of those ruled or for some common interest of both parties,—essentially, in the interest of the ruled, as we see that the other arts also,

- -
-

like medicine and athletic training, are pursued in the interest of the persons upon whom they are practised, although incidentally they may also be in the interest of the practitioners themselves; for nothing prevents the trainer from being on occasions himself also one of the persons in training, just as the pilot is always a member of the crew; so although the trainer or pilot studies the good of those under his authority, when he himself also becomes one among them he incidentally shares the benefit, for the pilot is a sailor in the ship and the trainer can become one of the persons in training under his own direction. Hence in regard to the political offices also, when the state is constituted on the principle of equality and of similarity between the citizens, these claim to hold office by turn—in earlier times, under the natural system, claiming to do public services in turn, and for somebody in return to look after their own welfare just as previously they looked after his interest when in office themselves; but nowadays owing to the benefits to be got from public sources and from holding office people wish to be in office continuously, just as if it were the case that those in office although sickly people always enjoyed good health—in which case office would no doubt be much run after by invalids.

-

It is clear then that those constitutions that aim at the common advantage are in effect rightly framed in accordance with absolute justice, while those that aim at the rulers’ own advantage only are faulty, and are all of them deviations from the right constitutions; for they have an element of despotism, whereas a city is a partnership of free men.

-

These matters having been determined the next step is to consider how many forms of constitution there are and what they are; and first to study the right forms of constitution, since the deviations will also become manifest when these are defined.

-

But inasmuch as constitution means the same as government, and the government is the supreme power in the state, and this must be either a single ruler or a few or the mass of the citizens, in cases when the one or the few or the many govern with an eye to the common interest, these constitutions must necessarily be right ones, while those administered with an eye to the private interest of either the one or the few or the multitude are deviations. For either we must not say that those who are part of the state are citizens, or those who are part of the state must share in the advantage of membership. Our customary designation for a monarchy that aims at the common advantage is kingship; for a government of more than one yet only a few aristocracy （either because the best men rule or because they rule with a view to what is best for the state and for its members）; while when the multitude govern the state with a view to the common advantage, it is called by the name common to all the forms of constitution, constitutional government. (And this comes about reasonably, since although it is possible for one man or a few to excel in virtue, when the number is larger it becomes difficult for them to possess perfect excellence in respect of every form of virtue,

- -
-

but they can best excel in military valor, for this is found with numbers; and therefore with this form of constitution the class that fights for the state in war is the most powerful, and it is those who possess arms who are admitted to the government.) Deviations from the constitutions mentioned are tyranny corresponding to kingship, oligarchy to aristocracy, and democracy to constitutional government; for tyranny is monarchy ruling in the interest of the monarch, oligarchy government in the interest of the rich, democracy government in the interest of the poor, and none of these forms governs with regard to the profit of the community.

-

But it is necessary to say at a little greater length what each of these constitutions is; for the question involves certain difficulties, and it is the special mark of one who studies any subject philosophically, and not solely with regard to its practical aspect, that he does not overlook or omit any point, but brings to light the truth about each. Now tyranny, as has been said, is monarchy exerting despotic power over the political community; oligarchy is when the control of the government is in the hands of those that own the properties; democracy is when on the contrary it is in the hands of those that do not possess much property, but are poor.A first difficulty is with regard to the definition. If the majority of the citizens were wealthy and were in control of the state, yet when the multitude is in power it is a democracy, and similarly, to take the other case, if it were to occur somewhere that the poor were fewer than the rich but were stronger than they and accordingly were in control of the government, yet where a small number is in control it is said to be an oligarchy, then it would seem that our definition of the forms of constitution was not a good one.i.e. it would be absurd to term government by the people democracy if the people happened to be very rich, or government by a few oligarchy if the few were poor and the many whom they governed rich. And once again, if one assumed the combination of small numbers with wealth and of multitude with poverty, and named the constitutions thus—one in which the rich being few in number hold the offices, oligarchy: one in which the poor being many in number hold the offices, democracy,—this involves another difficulty. What names are we to give to the constitutions just described—the one in which there are more rich and the one in which the poor are the fewer, and these control their respective governments—if there exists no other form of constitution beside those mentioned? The argument therefore seems to make it clear that for few or many to have power is an accidental feature of oligarchies in the one case and democracies in the other, due to the fact that the rich are few and the poor are many everywhere (so that it is not really the case that the points mentioned constitute a specific difference), but that the real thing in which democracy and oligarchy differ from each other is poverty and wealth;

- -
-

and it necessarily follows that wherever the rulers owe their power to wealth, whether they be a minority or a majority, this is an oligarchy, and when the poor rule, it is a democracy, although it does accidentally happen, as we said, that where the rulers hold power by wealth they are few and where they hold power by poverty they are many, because few men are rich but all men possess freedom, and wealth and freedom are the grounds on which the two classes lay claim to the government.

-

And first we must ascertain what are stated to be the determining qualities of oligarchy and democracy, and what is the principle of justice under the one form of government and under the other. For all men lay hold on justice of some sort, but they only advance to a certain point, and do not express the principle of absolute justice in its entirety. For instance, it is thought that justice is equality, and so it is, though not for everybody but only for those who are equals; and it is thought that inequality is just, for so indeed it is, though not for everybody, but for those who are unequal; but these partisans strip away the qualification of the persons concerned, and judge badly. And the cause of this is that they are themselves concerned in the decision, and perhaps most men are bad judges when their own interests are in question. Hence inasmuch as just means just for certain persons, and it is divided in the same way in relation to the things to be distributed and the persons that receive them, as has been said before in the Ethics,Cf. Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1131a 14-24. the two parties agree as to what constitutes equality in the thing, but dispute as to what constitutes equality in the person,chiefly for the reason just now stated, because men are bad judges where they themselves are concerned, but also, inasmuch as both parties put forward a plea that is just up to a certain point, they think that what they say is absolutely just. For the one side think that if they are unequal in some respects, for instance in wealth, they are entirely unequal, and the other side think that if they are equal in some respects, for instance in freedom, they are entirely equal. But the most important thing they do not mention. If men formed the community and came together for the sake of wealth, their share in the state is proportionate to their share in the property, so that the argument of the champions of oligarchy would appear to be valid—namely that in a partnership with a capital of 100 minaeSee 1268b 14 n. it would not be just for the man who contributed one mina to have a share whether of the principal or of the profits accruing equal to the share of the man who supplied the whole of the remainder; but if on the other hand the state was formed not for the sake of life only but rather for the good life (for otherwise a collection of slaves or of lower animals would be a state, but as it is, it is not a state, because slavesSee 1260a 12, and Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1177a 8, but no one allows a slave any measure of happiness, any more than a life of his own. and animals have no share in well-being or in purposive life), and if its object is not military alliance for defence against injury by anybody, and it does not exist for the sake of trade and of business relationsThe sentence here breaks off; The inference that should have formed its conclusion is given in 5.15.—for if so, Etruscans and Carthaginians and all the people that have commercial relations with one another would be virtually citizens of a single state; at all events they have agreements about imports and covenants as to abstaining from dishonesty and treaties of alliance for mutual defence;

- -
-

but they do not have officials common to them all appointed to enforce these covenants, but different officials with either party, nor yet does either party take any concern as to the proper moral character of the other, nor attempt to secure that nobody in the states under the covenant shall be dishonest or in any way immoral, but only that they shall not commit any wrong against each other. All those on the other hand who are concerned about good government do take civic virtue and vice into their purview. Thus it is also clear that any state that is truly so called and is not a state merely in name must pay attention to virtue; for otherwise the community becomes merely an alliance, differing only in locality from the other alliances, those of allies that live apart. And the law is a covenant or, in the phrase of the sophist Lycophron,Probably a pupil of Gorgias, see 1275b 26 n. a guarantee of men’s just claims on one another, but it is not designed to make the citizens virtuous and just. And that this is how the matter stands is manifest. For if one were actually to bring the sites of two cities together into one, so that the city-walls of Megara and those of Corinth were contiguous, even so they would not be one city; nor would they if they enacted rights of intermarriage with each other, although intermarriage between citizens is one of the elements of community which are characteristic of states. And similarly even if certain people lived in separate places yet not so far apart as not to have intercourse, but had laws to prevent their wronging one anotherin their interchange of products— for instance, if one man were a carpenter, another a farmer, another a shoemaker and another something else of the kind,—and the whole population numbered ten thousand, but nevertheless they had no mutual dealings in anything else except such things as exchange of commodities and military alliance, even then this would still not be a state. What then exactly is the reason for this? for clearly it is not because their intercourse is from a distance since even if they came together for intercourse of this sort (each nevertheless using his individual house as a city) and for one another’s military aid against wrongful aggressors only, as under a defensive alliance, not even then would they seem to those who consider the matter carefully to constitute a state, if they associated on the same footing when they came together as they did when they were apart. It is manifest therefore that a state is not merely the sharing of a common locality for the purpose of preventing mutual injury and exchanging goods. These are necessary preconditions of a state’s existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life,

- -
-

which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.

-

It is therefore clear from what has been said that all those who dispute about the forms of constitution assert a part of the just principle.

-

But it is a matter of question what ought to be the sovereign power in the state. Clearly it must be either the multitude, or the rich, or the good, or the one man who is best of all, or a tyrant. But all of these arrangements appear to involve disagreeable consequences. For instance, if the poor take advantage of their greater numbers to divide up the property of the rich, is not this unjust? No, it may be said, for it was a resolution made by the supreme authority in just form. Then what must be pronounced to be the extreme of injustice? And again, when everybody is taken into account, suppose the majority share out among themselves the property of the minority, it is manifest that they are destroying the state; but assuredly virtue does not destroyits possessor, and justice is not destructive of the state, so that it is clear that this principle also cannot be just. Also it follows from it that all the actions done by a tyrant are just, for his use of force is based upon superior strength, as is the compulsion exerted by the multitude against the rich. But is it just that the minority and the rich should rule? Suppose therefore they also act in the same way and plunder and take away the property of the multitude, is this just? If it is, so also is the plunder of the rich by the multitude. It is clear therefore that all these things are bad and not just. But ought the good to rule, and be in control of all classes? If so, then it follows that all the other classes will be dishonored,The term is technical and means disfranchisement and loss of civic rights. if they are not honored by holding the offices of government; for we speak of offices as honors, and if the same persons are always in office the rest must necessarily be excluded from honor. But is it better for the most virtuous individual to be the ruler? But that is still more oligarchical, for the people excluded from honor will be more numerous. But perhaps some one would say that in any case it is a bad thing for a human being, having in his soul the passions that are the attributes of humanity, to be sovereign, and not the law. Suppose therefore that law is sovereign, but law of an oligarchic or democratic nature, what difference will it make as regards the difficulties that have been raised? for the results described before will come about just the same.

-

Most of these points therefore must be discussed on another occasion; but the view that it is more proper for the multitude to be sovereign than the few of greatest virtue might be thought to be explicable and to have some justification, and even to be the true view. For it is possible that the many, though not individually good men,

- -
-

yet when they come together may be better, not individually but collectively, than those who are so, just as public dinners to which many contribute are better than those supplied at one man’s cost; for where there are many, each individual, it may be argued, has some portion of virtue and wisdom, and when they have come together, just as the multitude becomes a single man with many feet and many hands and many senses, so also it becomes one personality as regards the moral and intellectual faculties. This is why the general public is a better judge of the works of music and those of the poets, because different men can judge a different part of the performance, and all of them all of it. But the superiority of good men over the mass of men individually, like that of handsome men, so it is said, over plain men and of the works of the painter’s art over the real objects, really consists in this, that a number of scattered good points have been collected together into one example; since if the features be taken separately, the eye of one real person is more beautiful than that of the man in the picture, and some other feature of somebody else. It is not indeed clear whether this collective superiority of the many compared with the few good men can possibly exist in regard to every democracy and every multitude, and perhaps it may be urged that it is manifestly impossible in the case of some—for the same argument would also apply to animals, yet what difference is there,practically, between some multitudes and animals?—but nothing prevents what has been said from being true about some particular multitude. One might therefore employ these considerations to solve not only the previously stated difficulty but also the related question, over what matters is the authority of the freemen, the mass of the citizens, to extend (using that expression to denote those who are not rich nor possessed of any distinguishing excellence at all)? For it is not safe for them to participate in the highest offices (for injustice and folly would inevitably cause them to act unjustly in some things and to make mistakes in others), but yet not to admit them and for them not to participate is an alarming situation, for when there are a number of persons without political honors and in poverty, the city then is bound to be full of enemies. It remains therefore for them to share the deliberative and judicial functions. For this reason Solon and certain other lawgivers appoint the common citizens toProbably words meaning these functions and to have fallen out. the election of the magistrates and the function of calling them to audit, although they do not allow them to hold office singly. For all when assembled together have sufficient discernment, and by mingling with the better class are of benefit to the state, just as impure food mixed with what is pure makes the whole more nourishing than the small amount of pure food alone; but separately the individual is immature in judgement. This arrangement of the constitution is however open to question in the first place on the ground that it might be held that the best man to judge which physician has given the right treatment is the man that is himself capable of treating and curing the patient of his present disease, and this is the man who is himself a physician;

- -
-

and that this is the case similarly with regard to the other arts and crafts. Hence just as a court of physicians must judge the work of a physician, so also all other practitioners ought to be called to account before their fellows. But physician means both the ordinary practitioner, and the master of the craft, and thirdly, the man who has studied medicine as part of his general education (for in almost all the arts there are some such students, and we assign the right of judgement just as much to cultivated amateurs as to experts). Further the same might be thought to hold good also of the election of officials, for to elect rightly is a task for experts—for example, it is for experts in the science of mensuration to elect a land-surveyor and for experts in navigation to choose a pilot; for even though in some occupations and arts some laymen also have a voice in appointments, yet they certainly do not have more voice than the experts. Hence according to this argument the masses should not be put in control over either the election of magistrates or their audit. But perhaps this statement is not entirely correct, both for the reason stated above,See 6.4. in case the populace is not of too slavish a character (for although each individual separately will be a worse judge than the experts, the whole of them assembled together will be better or at least as good judges), and also because about some things the man who made them would not be the only nor the best judge, in the case of professionals whose products come within the knowledge of laymen also:to judge a house, for instance, does not belong only to the man who built it, but in fact the man who uses the house (that is, the householder) will be an even better judge of it, and a steersman judges a rudder better than a carpenter, and the diner judges a banquet better than the cook.

-

This difficulty then might perhaps be thought to be satisfactorily solved in this way. But there is another connected with it: it is thought to be absurd that the base should be in control over more important matters than the respectable; but the audits and the elections of magistrates are a very important matter, yet in some constitutions, as has been said, they are assigned to the common people, for all such matters are under the control of the assembly, yet persons of a low property-assessment and of any age take part in the assembly and the council and sit on juries, whereas treasury officials, generals and the holders of the highest magistracies are drawn from among persons of large property. Now this difficulty also may be solved in a similar way; for perhaps these regulations also are sound, since it is not the individual juryman or councillor or member of the assembly in whom authority rests, but the court, the council and the people, while each of the individuals named (I mean the councillor, the members of assembly and the juryman) is a part of those bodies. Hence justly the multitude is sovereign in greater matters, for the popular assembly, the council and the jury-court are formed of a number of people, and also the assessed property of all these members collectively is more than that of the magistrates holding great offices individually or in small groups.

-

Let these points therefore be decided in this manner.

- -
-

But the difficulty first mentionedViz. that in whatever class sovereignty is vested, some hardships will result, 1281a 14 ff. proves nothing else so clearly as that it is proper for the laws when rightly laid down to be sovereign, while the ruler or rulers in office should have supreme powers over matters as to which the laws are quite unable to pronounce with precision because of the difficulty of making a general rule to cover all cases. We have not however yet ascertained at all what particular character a code of laws correctly laid down ought to possess, but the difficulty raised at the startSee 1281a 36. still remains;Probably this clause should stand after the next, though—constitution (which will be a parenthesis), and should run but 〈the difficulty is there〉 for necessarily—states. for necessarily the laws are good or bad, just or unjust, simultaneously with and similarly to the constitutions of states (though of course it is obvious that the laws are bound to be adapted to the constitution); yet if so, it is clear that the laws in conformity with the right constitutions must necessarily be just and those in conformity with the divergentThe usual rendering is perverted, but the Greek term is more neutral. forms of constitution unjust.

-

What follows is a summary of Aristot. Nic. Eth. 2.And inasmuch as in all the sciences and arts the End is a good, and the greatest good and good in the highest degree in the most authoritative of all, which is the political faculty, and the good in the political field, that is, the general advantage, is justice, it is therefore thought by all men that justice is some sort of equality, and up to a certain point at all events they agree with the philosophical discourses in whichconclusions have been reached about questions of ethicsSee also Aristot. Nic. Eth. 5.3.; for justice is a quality of a thing in relation to persons,Literally, the just is (a just) something and (something just) for somebody. and they hold that for persons that are equal the thing must be equal. But equality in what characteristics does this mean, and inequality in what? This must be made clear, since this too raises a difficulty, and calls for political philosophy. For perhaps someone might say that the offices of state ought to be distributed unequally according to superiority in every good quality, even if the candidates in all other respects did not differ at all but were exactly alike, because men that are differenti.e. different in some good quality. have different rights and merits. Yet if this is true, those who are superior in complexion or stature or any good quality will have an advantage in respect of political rights. But surely the error here is obvious, and it comes out clearly if we consider the other sciences and faculties. Among flute-players equally good at their art it is not proper to give an advantage in respect of the flutes to those of better birth, for they will not play any better, but it is the superior performers who ought to be given the superior instruments. And if our meaning is not yet plain, it will become still clearer when we have carried the matter further. Suppose someone is superior in playing the flute but much inferior in birth or in good looks, then, even granting that each of these things—birth and beauty—is a greater good than ability to play the flute, and even though they surpass flute-playing proportionately more than the best flute-player surpasses the others in flute-playing, even so the best flute-player ought to be given the outstandingly good flutes;

- -
-

for otherwise superiority both in wealth and in birth ought to contribute to the excellence of the performance, but they do not do so at all. Moreover on this theory every good thing would be commensurable with every other. For if to be of some particular height gave more claim, then height in general would be in competition with wealth and with free birth; therefore if A excels in height more than B does in virtue, and speaking generally size gives more superiority than virtue,Perhaps we should rewrite the Greek to give even though speaking generally virtue gives more superiority than size. all things would be commensurable for; if such-and-such an amount of one thing is better than such-and-such an amount of another, it is clear that such-and-such an amount of the one is equal to that amount of another. But since this is impossible, it is clear that in politics with good reason men do not claim a right to office on the ground of inequality of every kind—if one set of men are slow runners and another fast, this is no good ground for the one set having more and the other lessDoubtless the author meant the other way round, for the slow having less and the fast more political power. political power, but the latter’s superiority receives its honor in athletic contests; but the claim to office must necessarily be based on superiority in those things which go to the making of the state. Hence it is reasonable for the well-born, free and wealthy to lay claim to honor; for there must be free men and tax-payers, since a state consisting entirely of poor men would not be a state, any more than one consisting of slaves. But then, granting there is need of these, it is clear thatthere is also need of justice and civic virtue, for these are also indispensable in the administration of a state; except that wealth and freedom are indispensable for a state’s existence, whereas justice and civic virtue are indispensable for its good administration.

-

As a means therefore towards a state’s existence all or at all events some of these factors would seem to make a good claim, although as means to a good life education and virtue would make the most just claim, as has been said also before. On the other hand since those who are equal in one thing only ought not to have equality in all things nor those unequal as regards one thing inequality in all, it follows that all these forms of constitution must be deviations. Now it has been said before that all make a claim that is in a manner just, though not all a claim that is absolutely just; the rich claiming because they have a larger share of the land, and the land is common property, and also as being for the most part more faithful to their covenants; the free and well-born as being closely connected together (for the better-born are citizens to a greater degree than those of claims, low birth, and good birth is in every community held in honor at home), and also because it is probable that the children of better parents will be better, for good birth means goodness of breed; and we shall admit that virtue also makes an equally just claim, for we hold that justice is social virtue, which necessarily brings all the other virtues in its train; but moreover the majority have a just claim as compared with the minority, since they are stronger and richer and better if their superior numbers are taken in comparison with the others’ inferior numbers.

- -
-

Therefore supposing all were in one city, I mean, that is, the good and the wealthy and noble and also an additional mass of citizens, will there be a dispute, or will there not, as to who ought to govern? It is true that under each of the forms of constitution that have been mentioned the decision as to who ought to govern is undisputed (for the difference between them lies in their sovereign classes—one is distinguished by being governed by the rich men, one by being governed by the good men, and similarly each of the others); but nevertheless we are considering the question how we are to decide between these classes supposing that they all exist in the state at the same period.

-

- If then the possessors of virtue should be quite few in number, how is the decision to be made? ought we to consider their fewness in relation to the task, and whether they are able to administer the state, or sufficiently numerous to constitute a state? And there is some difficulty as regards all the rival claimants to political honors. Those who claim to rule because of their wealth might seem to have no justice in their proposal, and similarly also those who claim on the score of birth; for it is clear that if, to go a step further, a single individual is richer than all the others together, according to the same principle of justice it will obviously be right for this one man to rule over all, and similarly the man of outstanding nobility among the claimantson the score of freebirth. And this same thing will perhaps result in the case of aristocratic government based on virtue; for if there be some one man who is better than the other virtuous men in the state, by the same principle of justice that man must be sovereign. Accordingly if it is actually proper for the multitude to be sovereign because they are better than the few, then also, if one person or if more than one but fewer than the many are better than the rest, it would be proper for these rather than the multitude to be sovereign. All these considerations therefore seem to prove the incorrectness of all of the standards on which men claim that they themselves shall govern and everybody else be governed by them. For surely even against those who claim to be sovereign over the government on account of virtue, and similarly against those who claim on account of wealth, the multitudes might be able to advance a just plea; for it is quite possible that at some time the multitude may be collectively better and richer than the few, although not individually.

-

- Hence it is also possible to meet in this way the question which some persons investigate and put forward (for some raise the question whether the legislator desiring to lay down the rightest laws should legislate with a view to the advantage of the better people or that of the larger number) in cases when the situation mentionedAt the end of the last sentence, 7.12. occurs. And right must be taken in the sense of equally right, and this means right in regard to the interest of the whole state and in regard to the common welfare of the citizens; and a citizen is in general one who shares in governing and being governed,

- -
-

although he is different according to each form of constitution, but in relation to the best form a citizen is one who has the capacity and the will to be governed and to govern with a view to the life in accordance with virtue.

-

But if there is any one man so greatly distinguished in outstanding virtue, or more than one but not enough to be able to make up a complete state, so that the virtue of all the rest and their political ability is not comparable with that of the men mentioned, if they are several, or if one, with his alone, it is no longer proper to count these exceptional men a part of the state; for they will be treated unjustly if deemed worthy of equal status, being so widely unequal in virtue and in their political ability: since such a man will naturally be as a god among men. Hence it is clear that legislation also must necessarily be concerned with persons who are equal in birth and in ability, but there can be no law dealing with such men as those described, for they are themselves a law; indeed a man would be ridiculous if he tried to legislate for them, for probably they would say what in the story of AntisthenesPupil of Socrates and founder of the Cynic sect of philosophers. the lions said‘Where are your claws and teeth?’ when the hares made speeches in the assembly and demanded that all should have equality. This is why democratically governed states institute the system of ostracism, because of a reason of this nature; for these are the states considered to pursue equality most of all things,so that they used to ostracize men thought to be outstandingly powerful on account of wealth or popularity or some other form of political strength, and used to banish them out of the city for fixed periods of time. And there is a mythical story that the Argonauts left Heracles behind for a similar reason; for the ArgoCf. Apollod. 1.9.19 τῆς Ἀργοῦς φθεγξαμένης μὴ δύνασθαι πέρειν τὸ τούτου βάρος. Argo was a live creature, and Athena had built a talking timber into her cutwater. refused to carry him with the others because he was so much heavier than the sailors. Hence also those who blame tyranny and Periander’s advice to ThrasybulusPeriander was tyrant of Corinth circa 626-585 B.C.; Thrasybulus was tyrant of Miletus. Hdt. 5.92 tells the story with their parts reversed. must not be thought to be absolutely right in their censure (the story is that Periander made no reply to the herald sent to ask his advice, but levelled the corn-field by plucking off the ears that stood out above the rest; and consequently, although the herald did not know the reason for what was going on, when he carried back news of what had occurred, Thrasybulus understood that he was to destroy the outstanding citizens); for this policy is advantageous not only for tyrants, nor is it only tyrants that use it, but the same is the case with oligarchies and democracies as well; for ostracism has in a way the same effect as docking off the outstanding men by exile. And the same course is adopted in regard to cities and races by the holders of sovereign power, for example the Athenians so dealt with the Samians and Chians and LesbiansIn 440, 424 and 427 B.C. respectively (for no sooner did they get a strong hold of their empire than they humbled them in contravention of their covenants),

- -
-

and the king of the Persians frequently used to cut down the numbers of the Medes and Babylonians and the other races that had waxed proud because they had once been head of an empire. And the problem applies universally to all the forms of constitution, even the right forms; for while the divergent forms of government do this because their regard is fixed on their private advantage, nevertheless with the constitutions directed to the common good the same is the case. And this is also clear in the field of the other arts and sciences; a painter would not let his animal have its foot of disproportionately large size, even though it was an exceptionally beautiful foot, nor would a shipbuilder make the stern or some other part of a ship disproportionately big, nor yet will a trainer of choruses allow a man who sings louder and more beautifully than the whole band to be a member of it. Hence as far as this practice goes nothing prevents monarchs from being in harmony with the cities they rule, if they resort to it when their own personal rule is beneficial to the cities. Therefore in relation to acknowledged superiorities the argument for ostracism has a certain element of political justice. True, it is better for the lawgiver so to constitute the state at the outset that it does not need this medicine; but the next best course to steer, if occasion arises, is to endeavor to correctthe constitution by some such method of rectification. But this was not what happened with the states, for they were not looking at what was advantageous for their proper constitution, but their acts of ostracism were done in a revolutionary spirit. In the divergent forms of constitution therefore it is evident that ostracism is advantageous and just under the special constitution, though perhaps it is also evident that it is notPerhaps not should be struck out; but if it stands, the clause refers to 8.5 init.—in these cases ostracism is practiced only in the interest of those in power. just absolutely; but in the case of the best constitution there is much doubt as to what ought to be done, not as regards superiority in the other things of value, such as strength and wealth and popularity, but in the case of a person becoming exceptionally distinguished for virtue. It certainly would not be said that such a man must be banished and got out of the way; yet nevertheless no doubt men would not think that they ought to rule over such a man, for that would be the same as if they claimed to rule over Zeus, dividing up his spheres of government. It remains therefore, and this seems to be the natural course, for all to obey such a man gladly, so that men of this sort may be kings in the cities for all time.

-

And perhaps it is well after the subjects that have been discussed to pass over to consider royal government; for we pronounce this to be one of the correct constitutions. And it has to be considered whether it is advantageous for a city or a country that is to be well administered to be ruled by a king, or whether it is not so but some other constitution is more expedient, or whether royal rule is expedient for some states and not for others. But it is needful to decide first whether there is only one sort of kingship or whether it has several varieties.

- -
-

Now it is at all events easy to discern that kingship includes several kinds, and that the mode of government is not the same in all. For the kingship in the Spartan constitution, which is held to be a typical royalty of the kind guided by law, does not carry sovereignty in all matters, though when a king goes on a foreign expedition he is the leader in all matters relating to the war; and also matters relating to religion have been assigned to the kings. This kingship therefore is a sort of military command vested in generals with absolute powers and held for life; for the king has not authority to put a subject to death, except [in a certain reign]Inexplicable, and omitted in one of the earliest editions; possibly βασιλείᾳ is to be emended to ἐλάσειexcept on some march-out. as in ancient times kings on their military expeditions could kill an offender out of hand, as Homer proves, for Agamemnon endured being reviled in the assemblies but when they were on an expedition had authority to put a man to death: at all events he says But whomsoe’er I see far from the fray Shall have no hope to fly from dogs and vultures, For death is in my hands!Quoted from Hom. Il. 2.391, but the last line is not in our Homer. This then is one sort of kingship, a lifelong generalship, and some of the kingships of this kind are hereditary, others elective; and by its side there is another sort of monarchy, examples of which are kingships existing among some of the barbarians. The power possessed by all of these resembles that of tyrannies, but they govern according to law and are hereditary;for because the barbarians are more servile in their nature than the Greeks, and the Asiatics than the Europeans, they endure despotic rule without any resentment. These kingships therefore are for these reasons of a tyrannical nature, but they are secure because they are hereditary and rule by law. Also their bodyguard is of a royal and not a tyrannical type for the same reason; for kings are guarded by the citizens in arms, whereas tyrants have foreign guards, for kings rule in accordance with law and over willing subjects, but tyrants rule over unwilling subjects, owing to which kings take their guards from among the citizens but tyrants have them to guard against the citizens. These then are two kinds of monarchy; while another is that which existed among the ancient Greeks, the type of rulers called aesymnetae. This, to put it simply, is an elective tyranny, and it differs from the monarchy that exists among barbarians not in governing without the guidance of law but only in not being hereditary. Some holders of this type of monarchy ruled for life, others until certain fixed limits of time or until certain undertakings were ended, as for example the people of Mitylene once elected Pittacus to resist the exiles under the leadership of Antimenides and the poet Alcaeus. That they elected PittacusPittacus held the office 587-579 B.C. He was one of the Seven Sages. Antimenides and Alcaeus were brothers. as tyrant is proved by Alcaeus in one of his catches; for he rebukes the people because The base-born Pittacus they did set up As tyrant of the meek and luckless city, And all did greatly praise him.

- -
-

These monarchies therefore now and in the past are of the nature of tyrannies because they are autocratic, but of the nature of kingships because they are elective and rule over willing subjects. A fourth class of royal monarchy consists of the hereditary legal kingships over willing subjects in the heroic period. For because the first of the line had been benefactors of the multitude in the arts or in war, or through having drawn them together or provided them with land, these kings used to come to the throne with the consent of the subjects and hand it on to their successors by lineal descent. And they had supreme command in war and control over all sacrifices that were not in the hands of the priestly class, and in addition to these functions they were judges in law-suits; some gave judgement not on oath and some on oath—the oath was taken by holding up the sceptre.This ritual is mentioned in Hom. Il. 1.234, Hom. Il. 7.412, Hom. Il. 10.328. These kings then of ancient times used to govern continuously in matters within the city and in the country and across the frontiers; but later on when gradually the kings relinquished some of their powers and had others taken from them by the multitudes, in the cities in general only the sacrifices were left to the kings,The monarchy was reduced to a priesthood at Cyrene (Hdt. 4.161) and at Ephesus. while where anything that deserves the name of royalty survived the kings only had the command in military expeditions across the frontiers.

-

There are then these kinds of kingship, four in number: one belonging to the heroic times, which was exercised over willing subjects, but in certain limited fields, for the king was general and judge and master of religious ceremonies; second, the barbarian monarchy, which is an hereditary despotism governing in conformity with law; third, the rule of the functionary called an aesymnetes, which is an elective tyranny; and fourth among these is the Spartan kingship, which may be described simply as an hereditary generalship held for life. These kingships then differ from one another in this manner. But a fifth kind of kingship is when a single ruler is sovereign over all matters in the way in which each race and each city is sovereign over its common affairs; this monarchy ranges with the rule of a master over a household, for just as the master’s rule is a sort of monarchy in the home, so absolute monarchy is domestic mastership over a city, or over a race or several races.

-

There are therefore, we may say, virtually two kinds of kingship that have been examined, this one and the Spartan. For most of the others lie between these, since with them the king is sovereign over fewer things than under absolute monarchy, but over more than under the Spartan kingship. Hence our inquiry is virtually about two questions, one whether it is expedient or inexpedient for states to have a military commander holding office for life, and that either by descent or by class,Some MSS. give or by election.

- -
-

and one whether it is expedient or inexpedient for one man to be sovereign over everything. Now the study of a militarycommand of the kind mentioned has more the aspect of a legal than of a constitutional inquiry (for it is possible for this form of office to exist under all constitutions), so let it be dismissed at the first stageCf. 1289a 11 ff.; but the promise of a full discussion of law is not fulfilled; but the remaining mode of kingship is a kind of constitution, so that it is necessary to consider this one and to run over the difficulties that it involves.

-

And the starting-point of the inquiry is the question whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best men or by the best laws. Those of the opinion that it is advantageous to be governed by a king think that laws enunciate only general principles but do not give directions for dealing with circumstances as they arise; so that in an art of any kind it is foolish to govern procedure by written rules (and indeed in Egypt physicians have the right to alter their prescription after four days, although if one of them alters it before he does so at his own risk); it is clear therefore that government according to written rules, that is laws, is not the best, for the same reason. At the same time, however, rulers ought to be in possession of the general principle before mentioned as well. And a thing that does not contain the emotional element is generally superior to a thing in which it is innate; now the law does not possess this factor, but every human soulnecessarily has it. But perhaps someone might say that in compensation for this a single ruler will decide better about particular cases. Therefore it is clear that on the one hand the ruler must necessarily be a legislator, and that there must or be laws laid down, although these must not be sovereigni.e. unalterably binding, and not be set aside by special dispensation of the ruler when deemed to be unjust in some particular case. where they go astray—admittedly in all other cases they ought to be sovereign; but on the other hand in matters which it is impossible for the law either to decide at all or to decide well, ought the one best man to govern or all the citizens? As it is, the citizens assembled hear lawsuits and deliberate and give judgements, but these judgements are all on particular cases. Now no doubt any one of them individually is inferior compared with the best man, but a state consists of a number of individuals, and just as a banquet towhich many contribute dishes is finer than a single plain dinner, for this reason in many cases a crowd judges better than any single person. Also the multitude is more incorruptible—just as the larger stream of water is purer, so the mass of citizens is less corruptible than the few; and the individual’s judgement is bound to be corrupted when he is overcome by anger or some other such emotion, whereas in the other case it is a difficult thing for all the people to be roused to anger and go wrong together. But the multitude must consist of the freemen, doing nothing apart from the law except about matters as to which the law must of necessity be deficient. And if this is not indeed easy to ensure in the case of many men, yet if there were a majority of good men and good citizens, would an individual make a more incorruptible ruler or rather those who though the majority in number yet are all good?

- -
-

The majority, is it not obvious? But it will be said that they will split up into factions, whereas with a single ruler this cannot happen. But against this must perhaps be set the fact that they are as virtuous in soul as the single ruler. If then the rule of the majority when these are all good men is to be considered an aristocracy, and that of the one man kingship, aristocracy would be preferable for the states to kingship, whether the royal office be conjoined with military force or without it, if it be possible to get a larger number of men than one who are of similar quality. And it was perhaps only owing to this that kingships existed in earlier times, because it was rare to find men who greatly excelled in virtue, especially as in those days they dwelt in small cities. Moreover they used to appoint their kings on the ground of public service, and to perform this is a task for the good men. But as it began to come about that many men arose who were alike in respect of virtue, they would no longer submit to royalty, but sought for some form of commonwealth, and set up a republican constitution. And as men becoming baser began to make money out of the community, it is reasonable to suppose that some such cause as this occasioned the rise of oligarchies; for they brought wealth into honor. And from oligarchies they first changed to tyrannies, and from tyrannies to democracy; for by constantly bringing the government into fewer hands owing to a base love of gain, they made the multitude stronger,i.e. more men of ability and position went over to the opposition. so that it set upon the oligarchs, and democracies came into existence.But now that the states have come to be even greater than they were, perhaps it is not easy for yet another form of constitution beside democracy to come into existence. And even if one held that royal government is best for states, what is to be the position as regards the king’s children? is the sovereignty to be hereditary? But this will be disastrous if the king’s sons turn out to be like what some have been. It may be said that the king being sovereign will not in that case bequeath the throne to his children. But that is too much to be easy to believe: it would be difficult for a king to disinherit his sons, and an act of virtue above the level of human nature. And there is a difficulty also about the royal power: ought the man who is to reign as king to force to have an armed force about him, by means of which he willhave power to compel those who may be unwilling to obey, or if not, how is it possible for him to administer his office? For even if he were a law-abiding sovereign and never acted according to his own will against the law, nevertheless it would be essential for him to have power behind him whereby to safeguard the laws. Probably therefore it is not difficult to define the regulations for a king of this sort: he must have a force of his own, but the force must be only so large as to be stronger than a single individual or even several individuals banded together, but weaker than the multitude, on the principle on which the men of old times used to assign bodyguards whenever they appointed somebody as what they termed aesymnetes or tyrantOr tyrant looks like an incorrect note, see 1285b 25. of the state, and also, when DionysiusSee 1259a 39 n. asked for his guards, somebody advised him to give the same number of guards to the citizens of Syracuse.

- -
-

Our discussion has now reached the case of the king who acts in all matters according to his own will, and we must examine this type of royalty. For the so-called constitutional monarchy, as we said,See 10.3. is not a special kind of constitution (since it is possible for a life-long generalship to exist under all constitutions, for example under a democracy and an aristocracy, and many people make one man sovereign over the administration, for instance there is a government of this sort in Epidamnus, Durazzo, on the Adriatic. and also at OpusChief town of Locri, near the Straits of Euboea to a certain smaller extent); but we have now to discuss what is called Absolute Monarchy, which is the monarchy under which the king governs all men according to his own will. Some people think that it is entirely contrary to nature for one person to be sovereign over all the citizens where the state consists of men who are alike; for necessarily persons alike in nature must in accordance with nature have the same principle of justice and the same value, so that inasmuch as for persons who are unequal to have an equal amount of food or clothing is harmful for their bodies, the same is the case also in regard to honors; similarly therefore it is wrong for those who are equal to have inequality, owing to which it is just for no one person to govern or be governed more than another, and therefore for everybody to govern and be governed alike in turn. And this constitutes law for regulation is law. Therefore it is preferable for the law to rule rather than any one of the citizens,and according to this same principle, even if it be better for certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in subordination to them; for there must be some government, but it is clearly not just, men say, for one person to be governor when all the citizens are alike. It may be objected that any case which the law appears to be unable to define, a human being also would be unable to decide. But the law first specially educates the magistrates for the purpose and then commissions them to decide and administer the matters that it leaves over according to the best of their judgement,This formula came in the oath taken by the dicasts at Athens. and furthermore it allows them to introduce for themselves any amendment that experience leads them to think better than the established code. He therefore that recommends that the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason alone shall govern, but he that would have man govern adds a wild animal also; for appetite is like a wild animal, and also passion warps the rule even of the best men. Therefore the law is wisdom without desire. And there seems to be no truth in the analogy which argues from the artsi.e. the practical sciences, of which medicine is taken as an example. that it is a bad thing to doctor oneself by book, but preferable to employ the experts in the arts. For they never act contrary to principle from motives of friendship, but earn their fee when (for instance) they have cured their patients, whereas holders of political office usually do many things out of spite and to win favor; since when people suspect even the physicians of being in the confidence of their enemies and of trying to make away with them for gain, in that case they would sooner look up the treatment in the books.

- -
-

Yet certainly physicians themselves call in other physicians to treat them when they are ill, and gymnastic trainers put themselves under other trainers when they are doing exercises, believing that they are unable to judge truly because they are judging about their own cases and when they are under the influence of feeling. Hence it is clear that when men seek for what is just they seek for what is impartial; forPerhaps this should be and. the law is that which is impartial. Again, customary lawsi.e. the rules of duty and of manners that are customary but not embodied in legislation: cf. 1319b 40 the laws both written and unwritten. are more sovereign and deal with more sovereign matters than written laws, so that if a human ruler is less liable to error than written laws, yet he is not less liable to error than the laws of custom. But also it is certainly not easy for the single ruler to oversee a multitude of things; it will therefore be necessary for the officials appointed by him to be numerous; so that what difference does it make whether this has been the arrangement immediately from the outset or the single ruler appoints them in this manner? Again, a thing that has also been said before, if the virtuous man justly deserves to rule because he is better, yet two good men are better than one: for that is the meaning of the line Hom. Il. 10.224: The passage goes on καί τε πρὸ ὃ τοῦ ἐνόησεν ὅππως κέρδος ἔῃ, then one discerneth Before the other how advantage lieth. When two together go— and of the prayer of Agamemnon Hom. Il. 2.372. May ten such fellow-councillors be mine. And even now the magistrates, like the Athenian dicast, have power to judge certain cases about which the law is unable to give a clear declaration, since nobody disputes that in matters about which it can do so the law would be the best ruler and judge. But since, although some things can be covered by the laws,other things cannot, it is the latter that cause doubt and raise the question whether it is preferable for the best law to rule or the best man. For to lay down a law about things that are subjects for deliberation is an impossibility. Therefore men do not deny that it must be for a human being to judge about such matters, but they say that it ought not to be a single human being only but a number. For the individual official judges well when he has been instructed by the law, and it would doubtless seem curious if a person saw better when judging with two eyes and two organs of hearing and acting with two feet and hands than many persons with many, since even as it is monarchs make many eyes and ears and hands and feet their own, for they adopt persons that are friendly to their rule and to themselves as their fellow-rulers. Although therefore if these assistants are not friendly they will not act in conformity with the monarch’s policy, if they are friends of him and of his rule, well, a friend is one’s equal and like, so that if the monarch thinks that his friends ought to rule he thinks that people who are equal to and like himself ought to rule like himself.

-

This then more or less is the case advanced by those who argue against kingship.

-

But perhaps, although this is a true account of the matter in some cases, it does not apply in others. For there is such a thing as being naturally fitted to be controlled by a master, and in another case, to be governed by a king, and in another, for citizenship, and this is just and expedient; but there is no such thing as natural fitness for tyranny, nor for any other of the forms of government that are divergences, for these come about against nature.

- -
-

But merely from what has been said, it is clear that among people who are alike and equal it is neither expedient nor just for one to be sovereign over all—neither when there are no laws, but he himself is in the place of law, nor when there are laws, neither when both sovereign and subjects are good nor when both are bad, nor yet when the sovereign is superior in virtue, except in a certain manner. What this manner is must be stated; and in a way it has been stated already even before. But first we must define what constitutes fitness for royal government, what fitness for aristocracy, and what for a republic. A fit subject for royal government is a populace of such a sort as to be naturally capable of producing a family of outstanding excellence for political leadership; a community fit for aristocracy is one that naturally produces a populaceThe clause translated that—populace some editors excise as a superfluous insertion. capable of being governed under the form of government fit for free men by those who are fitted by virtue for taking the part of leaders in constitutional government; a republican community, one in which there naturally grows up a military populaceThey also excise in which-populace capable of being governed and of governing under a law that distributes the offices among the well-to-do in accordance with merit. When therefore it comes about that there is either a whole family or even some one individual that differs from the other citizens in virtue so greatly that his virtue exceeds that of all the others, then it is just for this family to be the royal family or this individual king, and sovereign over all matters. For, as has been said before,this holds good not only in accordance with the right that is usually brought forward by those who are founding aristocratic and oligarchic constitutions, and from the other side by those who are founding democratic ones (for they all make their claim on the ground of superiority, though not the same superiority), but it also holds good in accordance with the right spoken of before.i.e. the right of merit, 8.7. For it is not seemly to put to death or banish, nor yet obviously to ostracize, such a man, nor is it seemly to call upon him to take his turn as a subject; for it is not in the order of nature for the part to overtop the whole, but the man that is so exceptionally outstanding has come to overtop the whole community. Hence it only remains for the community to obey such a man, and for him to be sovereign not in turn but absolutely.

-

Let this be our answer to the questions as regards kingship, what are its varieties, and whether it is disadvantageous for states or advantageous, and for what states, and under what conditions.

-

And since we pronounce the right constitutions to be three, and of these the one governed by the best men must necessarily be the best, and such is the one in which it has come about either that some one man or a whole family or a group of men is superior in virtue to all the citizens together, the latter being able to be governed and the former to govern on the principles of the most desirable life, and since in the first part of the discourseBook 3.2, 3. it was proved that the virtue of a man and that of a citizen in the best state must of necessity be the same, it is evident that a man becomes good in the same way and by the same means as one might establish an aristocratically or monarchically governed state,Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give established a state governed in the best way by an aristocracy or a monarchy.

- -
-

so that it will be almost the same education and habits that make a man good and that make him capable as a citizen or a king.

-

These conclusions having been laid down, we must now endeavor to discuss the best form of constitution and to say in what way it is natural for it to come into existence and how it is natural for it to be organized.The concluding sentence, by whomever written, clearly leads on to the Book that is No. 7 in the MSS. and in this edition; and after it the MSS. add half the first sentence of that Book, slightly altered. Some editors therefore transfer Books 7 and 8 here and put Books 4, 5 and 6 after them; opinions vary as to the proper order of Books 4, 5. and 6 among themselves.

- -
-
-

Transposed as Book 6 by some editors; see Book 3 fin., note.In all the arts and the sciences that are not merely sectional but that in relation to some one class of subject are complete, it is the function of a single art or science to study what is suited to each class,Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give to each individual. for instance what sort of gymnastic exercise is beneficial for what sort of bodily frame, and what is the best sort (for the best must naturally suit the person of the finest natural endowment and equipment), and also what one exercise taken by all is the best for the largest number (for this is also a question for gymnastic science), and in addition, in case someone desires a habit of body and a knowledge of athletic exercises that are not the ones adapted to him, it is clearly just as much the task of the trainer and gymnastic master to produce this capacityi.e. a bodily bearing and athletic skill that are not the ones most suited to the pupil’s particular physique. also; and we notice this also happening similarly in regard to medicine, and shipbuilding, and the making of clothes, and every other craft. Hence it is clear that in the case of the constitution as well it is the business of the same science to study which is the best constitution and what character it must have to be the most ideal if no external circumstance stands in the way, and what constitution is adapted to what people (since for many it is doubtless impossible to attain the best one, so that the good lawgiver and the true statesman must be acquainted with both the form of constitution that is the highest absolutely and that which is best under assumed conditions), and also thirdly the form of constitution based on a certain supposition (for he must be also capable of considering both how some given constitution could be brought into existence originally and also in what way having been brought into existence it could be preserved for the longest time: I mean for example if it has befallen some state not only not to possess the best constitution and to be unprovided even with the things necessary for it, but also not to have the constitution that is practicable under the circumstances but an inferior one); and beside all these matters he must ascertain the form of constitution most suited to all states, since most of those who make pronouncements about the constitution, even if the rest of what they say is good, entirely miss the points of practical utility. For it is proper to considerThe fourfold classification given just before is repeated in rather loose terms in this sentence. not only what is the best constitution but also what is the one possible of achievement, and likewise also what is the one that is easier and more generally shared by all states. But as it is, some students inquire which is the highest form of all even though requiring much material equipment,The word originally denoted the duty of the wealthy citizen holding office of Choregus to supply dresses, etc., for the chorus and actors in a drama. while those who rather state some general form sweep aside the constitutions actually existing and praise that of Sparta or some other;

- -
-

but the proper course is to bring forward an organization of such a sort that men will easily be persuaded and be able in the existing circumstances to take part in it, since to reform a constitution is no less a task than to frame one from the beginning, just as to re-learn a science is just as hard as to learn it originally; in addition therefore to the things mentioned the student of politics must also be able to render aid to the constitutions that exist already, as was also said before.Book 3.5. But this is impossible if he does not know how many kinds of constitution there are; but at present some people think that there is only one kind of democracy and one kind of oligarchy, but this is not true. Hence he must take in view the different varieties of the constitutions, and know how many there are and how many are their combinations. And after this it needs this same discrimination also to discern the laws that are the best, and those that are suited to each of the forms of constitution. For the laws should be laid down, and all people lay them down, to suit the constitutions—the constitutions must not be made to suit the laws; for a constitution is the regulation of the offices of the state in regard to the mode of their distribution and to the question what is the sovereign power in the state and what is the object of each community, but laws are distinct from the principles of the constitution, and regulate how the magistrates are to govern and to guard against thosewho transgress them. So that clearly it is necessary to be in possession of the different varieties of each form of constitution, and the number of these, even for the purpose of legislation; for it is impossible for the same laws to be expedient for all oligarchies or democracies if there are really several kinds of them, and not one sort of democracy or oligarchy only.

-

And inasmuch as in our first inquiryBook 3.5. about the forms of the constitution we classified the right constitutions as three, kingship, aristocracy and constitutional government, and the deviations from these as three, tyranny from kingship, oligarchy from aristocracy and democracy from constitutional government, and about aristocracy and kingship we have spoken (for to study the best constitution is the same thing as to speak about the forms that bear those names, since each of them means a system based on the qualification of virtue equipped with means), and as also the question what constitutes the difference between aristocracy and kingship and when a royal government is to be adopted has been decided before, it remains to discuss the form of constitution designated by the namei.e. πολιτεία, polity, which denotes not only a constitution of any form, but also (like our term constitutional government) a particular form, viz., a republic, cf. Book 3.5.2. common to them all, and the other forms, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Now it is manifest also which of these deviationsThe three forms of constitution last mentioned. is the worst and which the second worst. For necessarily the deviation from the first and most divine must be the worst, Corruptio optimi pessima, a Socratic notion: the men of the best natural gifts, when educated, are the worst, Xen. Mem. 4.1.3. and kingship must of necessity either possess the name only, without really being kingship,

- -
-

or be based on the outstanding superiority of the man who is king; so that tyranny being the worst form must be the one farthest removed from constitutional government, and oligarchy must be the second farthest (for aristocracy is widely separated from that constitution), while democracy must be the most moderate. An account of their relative merits has indeed already been given also by one of the former writers, Plat. Stat. 302a ff. though not on the same principle as ours; for he inclined to judge that there were good varieties of all the forms, for instance a good sort of oligarchy and so on, and that democracy was the worst among these, but the best among the bad varieties, whereas we say that the deviations are wholly wrong, and that it is not right to speak of one form of oligarchy as better than another, but only as less bad. But let us for the present dismiss the question of a classification of this nature. Our business is first to distinguish how many different forms of the constitutions there are, assuming that there do exist several kinds of democracy and of oligarchy; next, which form is most general, and which most desirable after the best constitution, and also if there exists some other form that is aristocratic in nature and well constructed but not fitted to the largest number of cities, which this is; next, which of the other forms too is desirable for what people (since probably for some democracy is necessary more than oligarchy, and for others oligarchy more than democracy);and after this, in what way should one proceed who wishes to set up these constitutions, I mean the various forms of democracy and of oligarchy; and finally, when as far as possible we have concisely touched upon all these questions, we must endeavor to review what are the agencies that destroy and what are those that preserve constitutions generally and each variety of constitution in particular, and what are the causes by which it is most natural for these events to be brought about.

-

Now the reason of there being several forms of constitution is that every city has a considerable number of parts. For in the first place we see that all the cities are composed of households, and then again that of this multitude some must necessarily be rich and some poor and some between the two, and also of the rich and the poor the former class is heavy-armed and the latter without armor. And we see that one portion of the common people is agricultural, another engaged in trade and another mechanic. And the upper classes have distinctions also corresponding to their wealth and the amounts of their property (for example in a stud of horses—for it is not easy to rear horses without being rich, and this is why in ancient times there were oligarchies in all the states whose strength lay in their cavalry, and they used to use horses for their wars against their neighbors, as for instance did the Eretrians and Chalcidians and the people of Magnesia on the Maeander and many of the other Asiatic peoples). Moreover in addition to differences in wealth there is the difference of birth, and that in regard to virtue,

- -
-

and indeed any other similar distinction that in the discussion of aristocracy has been stated to constitute a part of the state (for there we distinguished how many necessary parts there are of which every state must consist); for sometimes all of these parts participate in the constitution and sometimes a smaller or a larger number ofthem. It is clear therefore that there must necessarily be several forms of constitution differing in kind from one another, inasmuch as these parts differ in kind among themselves. For a constitution means the arrangement of the magistracies, and this all people plan out either according to the power of those who share political rights, or according to some common equality between them, I mean for example between the poor or between the rich, or some equality common to them both.This clause looks like an interpolation. It follows therefore that there are as many forms of constitution as there are modes of arrangement according to the superiorities and the differences of the sections. But the forms mostly are thought to be two—just as in the case of the winds we speak of some as north and some as south and regard the rest as deviations from these,Aristotle refers to this view in Aristot. Meteor. 364a 19, saying that west winds are classed with north and east winds with south, because wind from the setting sun is cooler and from the rising sun warmer. He notes that north and south winds are the most frequent, Aristot. Meteor. 361a 6; this may have suggested the idea that they were the typical winds. so also of constitutions there are held to be two forms, democracy and oligarchy; for men reckon aristocracy as a kind of oligarchy because it is oligarchy of a sort, and what is called constitutional government as democracy, just as in the case of the winds they reckon the west wind as a kind of north wind and the east wind as a kind of south wind.And the case is similar with musical modes, as some people say: for there too they posit two kinds, the Dorian mode and the Phrygian, and call the other scales some of them Dorian and the others Phrygian. For the most part therefore they are accustomed to think in this way about the constitutions; but it is truer and better to class them as we did, and assuming that there are two well-constructed forms, or else one, to say that the others are deviations, some from the well-blended constitution and the others from the best one, the more tense and masterful constitutions being oligarchic and the relaxed and soft ones demotic.

-

But it is not right to define democracy, as some people are in the custom of doing now, merely as the constitution in which the multitude is sovereign (for even in oligarchies and everywhere the majority is sovereign) nor oligarchy as the constitution in which a few are sovereign over the government. For if the whole number were thirteen hundred, and a thousand of these were rich and did not give the three hundred poor a share in the government although they were free-born and like themselves in all other respects, no one would say that this people was governed democratically; and similarly also if there were few poor, but these more powerful than the rich who were more numerous, no one would call such a government a democracy either, if the other citizens being rich had no share in the honors.

- -
-

Rather therefore ought we to say that it is a democracy when the free are sovereign and an oligarchy when the rich are, but that it comes about that the sovereign class in a democracy is numerous and that in an oligarchy small because there are many men of free birth and few rich. For otherwise, suppose people assigned the offices by height, as some personse.g. Hdt. 3.20. say is done in Ethiopia, or by beauty, that would be an oligarchy, because both the handsome and the tall are few in number. Nevertheless it is not enough to define these constitutions even by wealth and free birth only; but inasmuch as there are more elements than one both in democracy and in oligarchy, we must add the further distinction that neither is it a democracy if the freei.e. those of citizen birth. being few govern the majority who are not of free birth, as for instance at Apollonia on the Ionian Gulf and at Thera (for in each of these cities the offices of honor were filled by the specially noble families who had been the first settlers of the colonies, and these were few out of many), nor is it a democracyPerhaps the Greek should be altered here to give an oligarchy. if the rich rule because they are in a majority, as in ancient times at Colophon (for there the majority of the population owned large property before the war against the Lydians took place), but it is a democracy when those who are free are in the majority and have sovereignty over the government, and an oligarchy when the rich and more well bornare few and sovereign.

-

It has then been stated that there are several forms of constitution, and what is the cause of this; but let us take the starting-point that was laid down beforeSee 3.1. and say that there are more forms than those mentioned, and what these forms are, and why they vary. For we agree that every state possesses not one part but several. Therefore just as, in case we intended to obtain a classification of animals, we should first define the properties necessarily belonging to every animal (for instance some of the sense organs, and the machinery for masticating and for receiving food, such as a mouth and a stomach, and in addition to these the locomotive organs of the various species), and if there were only so many necessary parts, but there were different varieties of these (I mean for instance certain various kinds of mouth and stomach and sensory organs, and also of the locomotive parts as well), the number of possible combinations of these variations will necessarily produce a variety of kinds of animals (for it is not possible for the same animal to have several different sorts of mouth, nor similarly of ears either), so that when all the possible combinations of these are taken they will all produce animal species, and there will be as many species of the animal as there are combinations of the necessary parts:—so in the same way also we shall classify the varieties of the constitutions that have been mentioned. For states also are composed not of one but of several parts, as has been said often. One of these parts therefore is the mass of persons concerned with food who are called farmers,

- -
-

and second is what is called the mechanic class (and this is the group engaged in the arts without which it is impossible for a city to be inhabited, and some of these arts are indispensably necessary, while others contribute to luxury or noble living), and third is a commercial class (by which I mean the class that is engaged in selling and buying and in wholesale and retail trade), and fourth is the class of manual laborers, and the fifth class is the one to defend the state in war, which is no less indispensable than the others if the people are not to become the slaves of those who come against them; for surely it is quite out of the question that it should be proper to give the name of state to a community that is by nature a slave, for a state is self-sufficient, but that which is a slave is not self-sufficient. Therefore the statement made in the Republic Plat. Rep. 369b-371e is witty but not adequate. For Socrates says that the most necessary elements of which a state is composed are four, and he specifies these as a weaver, a farmer, a shoemaker and a builder; and then again he adds, on the ground that these are not self-sufficient, a copper-smith and the people to look after the necessary live-stock, and in addition a merchant and a retail trader. These elements together constitute the full complement of his first city,i.e. the first sketch of the City-state, loc. cit. implying that every city is formed for the sake of the necessaries of life and not rather for the sake of what is noble, and that it has equal need of both shoemakers and farmers; but the warrior classhe does not assign to it until as the territory is increased and comes into contact with that of the neighbors they are brought into war. But yet even among the four partners or whatever their number be there must necessarily be somebody to assign justice and to judge their claims; inasmuch therefore as one would count the soul of an animal to be more a part of it than the body, so also the factors in states corresponding to the soul must be deemed to be parts of them more than those factors which contribute to necessary utility,—the former being the military class and the class that plays a part in judicial justice, and in addition to these the deliberative class, deliberation being a function of political intelligence. And it makes no difference to the argument whether these functions are held by special classes separately or by the same persons; for it often happens for the same men to be both soldiers and farmers. Hence inasmuch as both groupsThe first four classes and the fifth and sixth (the military and judicial). of classes must be counted parts of the state, it is clear that the heavy-armed soldiery at any rateLower grades of the forces may be excluded from citizenship, e.g. the rowers of the triremes (see below, 1376b 15). must be a part of the state. And a seventh class is the one that serves the community by means of its property, the class that we call the rich. And an eighth is the class of public servants, that is, those who serve in the magistracies, inasmuch as without rulers it is impossible for a city to exist; it is therefore necessary that there should be some men who are able to govern and who render this service to the state either continuously or in turn. And there remain the classes which we happen to have defined just before, the deliberative class and the one that judges the claims of litigants. If therefore it is proper for the states to have these functions performed, and well and justly performed,

- -
-

it is necessary for there also to be some men possessing virtue in the form of political excellence. Now as to the other capacities many people think that it is possible for them to be possessed in combination, for example, for the same men to be the soldiers that defend the state in war and the farmers that till the land and the artisans, and also the councillors and judges, and indeed all men claim to possess virtue and think themselves capable of filling most of the offices of state; but it is not possible for the same men to be poor and rich. Hence these seem to be in the fullest sense the parts of the state, the rich and the poor. And also the fact that the rich are usually few and the poor many makes these two among the parts of the state appear as opposite sections; so that the superior claimsCf. 3.11, 12 fin. of these classes are even made the guiding principles upon which constitutions are constructed, and it is thought that there are two forms of constitution, democracy and oligarchy.

-

That there are then several forms of constitution, and what are the reasons for this, has been stated before; let us now say that there are several varieties both of democracy and of oligarchy. And this is clear even from what has been said already. For there are several classes both of the people and of those called the notables; for instance classes of the people are, one the farmers, another the class dealing with the arts and crafts, another the commercial classoccupied in buying and selling and another the one occupied with the sea—and this is divided into the classes concerned with naval warfare, with trade, with ferrying passengers and with fishing (for each of these classes is extremely numerous in various places, for instance fishermen at Tarentum and Byzantium, navy men at Athens, the mercantile class at Aegina and Chios, and the ferryman-class at Tenedos), and in addition to these the hand-working class and the people possessing little substance so that they cannot live a life of leisure, also those that are not free men of citizen parentage on both sides, and any other similar class of common people; while among the notables wealth, birth, virtue, education, and the distinctions that are spoken of in the same group as these, form the classes.

-

The first kind of democracy therefore is the one which receives the name chiefly in respect of equality. For the law of this sort of democracy ascribes equality to the state of things in which the poor have no more prominence than the rich, and neither class is sovereign, but both are alike; for assuming that freedom is chiefly found in a democracy, as some persons suppose, and also equality, this would be so most fully when to the fullest extent all alike share equally in the government. And since the people are in the majority, and a resolution passed by a majority is paramount, this must necessarily be a democracy. This therefore is one kind of democracy, where the offices are held on property qualifications, but these low ones, although it is essential that the man who acquires the specified amount should have the right to hold office, and the man who loses it should not hold office.

- -
-

And another kind of democracy is for all the citizens that are not open to challengei.e. on the score of birth, cf. 5.4. to have a share in office, but for the law to rule; and another kind of democracy is for all to share in the offices on the mere qualification of being a citizen, but for the law to rule. Another kind of democracy is where all the other regulations are the same, but the multitude is sovereign and not the law; and this comes about when the decrees of the assembly over-ride the law. This state of things is brought about by the demagogues; for in the states under democratic government guided by law a demagogue does not arise, but the best classes of citizens are in the most prominent position; but where the laws are not sovereign, then demagogues arise; for the common people become a single composite monarch, since the many are sovereign not as individuals but collectively. Yet what kind of democracy Homer Hom. Il. 2.204 means by the words no blessing is the lordship of the many—whether he means this kind or when those who rule as individuals are more numerous, is not clear. However, a people of this sort, as being monarch, seeks to exercise monarchic rule through not being ruled by the law, and becomes despotic, so that flatterers are held in honor. And a democracy of this nature is comparable to the tyrannical form of monarchy, because their spirit is the same, and both exercise despotic control over the better classes, and the decrees voted by the assemblyare like the commands issued in a tyranny, and the demagogues and the flatterers are the same people or a corresponding class, and either set has the very strongest influence with the respective ruling power, the flatterers with the tyrants and the demagogues with democracies of this kind. And these men cause the resolutions of the assembly to be supreme and not the laws, by referring all things to the people; for they owe their rise to greatness to the fact that the people is sovereign over all things while they are sovereign over the opinion of the people, for the multitude believes them. Moreover those who bring charges against the magistrates say that the people ought to judge the suits, and the people receive the invitation gladly, so that all the magistracies are put down. And it would seem to be a reasonable criticism to say that such a democracy is not a constitution at all; for where the laws do not govern there is no constitution, as the law ought togovern all things while the magistrates control particulars, and we ought to judge this to be constitutional government; if then democracy really is one of the forms of constitution, it is manifest that an organization of this kind, in which all things are administered by resolutions of the assembly, is not even a democracy in the proper sense, for it is impossible for a voted resolution to be a universal rule.

-

Let this be our discussion of the different kinds of democracy.

-

Of the kinds of oligarchy, one is for the magistracies to be appointed from property-assessments so high that the poor who are the majority have no share in the government, but for the man who acquires the requisite amount of property to be allowed to take part in it;

- -
-

another is when the magistracies are filled from high assessments and the magistrates themselves elect to fill vacancies (so that if they do so from all the citizens of this assessment, this appears rather to be of the nature of an aristocracy, but if from a particular section of them, it is oligarchical); another variety of oligarchy is when son succeeds father in office; and a fourth kind is when the hereditary system just mentioned exists and also the magistrates govern and not the law. This among oligarchies is the form corresponding to tyranny among monarchies and to the form of democracy about which we spoke last among democracies, and indeed oligarchy of this sort has the special name of dynasty.Government controlled by a few powerful families. Cf. Thuc. 3.62.4, where the Thebans say, In those days our state was not governed by an oligarchy that granted equal justice to all, nor yet by a democracy; the power was in the hands of a small cabal ( δυναστεία ὀλίγων ἀνδρῶν), than which nothing is more opposed to law or to true political order, or more nearly resembles a tyranny (Jowett).

-

So many therefore are the kinds of oligarchy and of democracy; butit must not escape notice that in many places it has come about that although the constitution as framed by the laws is not democratic, yet owing to custom and the social system it is democratically administered, and similarly by a reverse process in other states although the legal constitution is more democratic, yet by means of the social system and customs it is carried on rather as an oligarchy. This occurs chiefly after alterations of the constitutions have taken place; for the people do not change over to the new system immediately but are content at the first stages to gain small advantages from the other party,so that the previously existing laws continue although power is in the hands of the party that is changing the constitution.

And that these various kinds of democracy and oligarchy exist ismanifest from the actual things that have been said. For necessarily either all the parts of the population that have been mentioned must have a share in the government, or some and not others. When therefore the farmer class and the class possessed of moderate property is sovereign over the government, they govern according to laws; for they have a livelihood if they work, but are not able to be at leisure, so that they put the law in control and hold the minimum of assemblies necessary; and the other persons have the right to take part when they have acquired the property-assessment fixed by the laws, so that to take part in the government is open to all who have got that amount of property; since for it not to be open to everybody on any terms at all is a characteristic of oligarchy, but then on the other hand it is impossible for it to be open to them to have leisure if there are no revenues.i.e. revenues from abroad; the poor can only attend often if paid for attendance, and this can only be financed if the state has income from tribute or foreign property. This then is one kind of democracy for these reasons. Another kind is due to the distinction that comes next: it is possible that all the citizens not liable to objection on the score of birth may have the right to take part in the assembly, but may actually take part only when they are able to be at leisure; hence in a democracy of this nature the laws govern because there is no revenue. A third kind is when all those who are free men have the right to take part in the government yet do not do so because of the aforesaid reason, so that it follows that in this form of democracy also the law governs.

- -
-

And a fourth kind of democracy is the one that has been the last in point of time to come into existence in the states. Because the states have become much greater than the original ones and possess large supplies of revenue, while all the citizens have a share in the government because of the superiorityCf. 1288a 20 ff. of the multitude, all actually take part in it and exercise their citizenship because even the poor are enabled to be at leisure by receiving pay. Indeed the multitude in this kind of state has a very great deal of leisure, for they are not hampered at all by the care of their private affairs, but the rich are, so that often they take no part in the assembly nor in judging lawsuits. Owing to this the multitude of the poor becomes sovereign over the government, instead of the laws. Such in number and in nature are the kinds of democracy that these causes necessarily bring into existence. To turn to the varieties and of oligarchy, when more men possess property, but less of it and not a very large amount, this is the first form of oligarchy; for they allow the man that acquires property the right to participate, and because there is a large number of persons participating in the government it necessarily follows that not the men but the law is sovereign (for the farther removed they are from monarchy, and as they have not so much property as to be idle and neglect it, nor yet so little as to be kept at the expense of the state,they are compelled to call upon the law to rule instead of ruling themselves). But then if the owners of the properties are fewer than those who owned them previously, and own more, the second form of oligarchy comes into being; for as they become stronger they claim to have a larger share, and therefore they themselves select those from among the rest of the citizens who go into the government, but as they are not yet strong enough to rule without law they make the law conform with this.i.e. they legalize the recruiting of the ruling class by co-optation; or the words may mean they make the law ruler. And if they carry matters further by becoming fewer and holding larger properties, there comes about the third advance in oligarchy, which consists in their keeping the offices in their own hands, but under a law enacting that they are to be hereditary. And when finally they attain very great pre-eminence by their wealth and their multitude of friends, a dynasty of this nature is near to monarchy, and men become supreme instead of the law; and this is the fourth kind of oligarchy, the counterpart of the last kind of democracy.

-

FurthermoreWe now pass from the varieties of Oligarchy and of Democracy to those of the other actually existing constitutions, Aristocracy so-called and Constitutional Government. there are two constitutions by the side of democracy and oligarchy, onei.e. aristocracy. of which is counted by everybody and has been referred to as one of the four forms of constitution (and the four meant are monarchy, oligarchy, democracy and fourth the form called aristocracy), but there is a fifth, entitled by the common name of them all (for it is called constitutional government), but as it does not often occur it is overlooked by those who try to enumerate the forms of constitution, and they use the four names only (as does Plato) in the list of constitutions.

- -
-

Now the name of aristocracy is indeed properly given to the constitution that we discussed in our first discoursesBook 3. 1279a 35 ff., 1286b 3 ff. (for it is right to apply the name aristocracy—government of the best—only to the constitution of which the citizens are best in virtue absolutely and not merely good men in relation to some arbitrary standard, for under it alone the same person is a good man and a good citizen absolutely, whereas those who are good under the other constitutions are good relatively to their own form of constitution); nevertheless there are also some constitutions that have differences both in comparison with oligarchically governed states and with what is termed constitutional government, inasmuch as in them they elect the officials not only by wealth but also by goodness; this form of constitution differs from both and is called aristocratic. For even in the states that do not pay any public attention to virtue there are nevertheless some men that are held in high esteem and are thought worthy of respect. Where then the constitution takes in view wealth and virtue as well as the common people, as for instance at Carthage, this is of the nature of an aristocracy; and so also are the states, in which the constitution, like that of Sparta, takes in view two of these things only, virtue and the common people, and there is a mingling of these two factors, democracy and virtue. These then are two kinds of aristocracy beside the first, which is the best constitution,and a third kind is those instances of what is called constitutional government that incline more in the direction of oligarchy.

-

It remains for us to speak about what is termed constitutional government and also about tyranny. Though neither the former nor the aristocracies spoken of just now are really deviations, we have classed them thus because in actual truth they have all fallen away from the most correct constitution, and consequently are counted with the deviation-forms, and those are deviations from them, as we said in our remarks at the beginning.See 1279b 4 ff. Actual aristocracies are a falling-off from the Aristocracy and Polity is a decline from Monarchy and Aristocracy; but they are not deviations in the technical sense. Tyranny is reasonably mentioned last because it is the least constitutional of all governments, whereas our investigation is about constitutional government.

-

Having then stated the reason for this mode of classification, we have now to set forth our view about constitutional government. For its meaning is clearer now that the characteristics of oligarchy and democracy have been defined; since constitutional government is, to put it simply, a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. But people customarily give the name of constitutional government only to those among such mixed constitutions that incline towards democracy, and entitle those that incline more towards oligarchy aristocracies, because education and good birth go more with the wealthier classes, and also the wealthy are thought to have already the things to get which wrongdoers commit wrong; owing to which people apply the terms gentry and notabilities to the rich. Since therefore aristocracy means the assignment of the highest place to the best of the citizens, oligarchies also are said to be drawn rather from the gentry.

- -
-

And it seems an impossibility for a city governed not by the aristocracy but by the base to have well-ordered government, and similarly also for a city that has not a well-ordered government to be governed aristocratically. But to have good laws enacted but not obey them does not constitute well-ordered government. Hence one form of good government must be understood to consist in the laws enacted being obeyed, and another form in the laws which the citizens keep being well enacted (for it is possible to obey badly enacted laws). And for laws to be well enacted is possible in two ways: they must either be the best laws possible for the given people or the best absolutely. But aristocracy in the fullest sense seems to consist in the distribution of the honors according to virtue; for virtue is the defining factor of aristocracy, as wealth is of oligarchy, and freedom of democracy (while the principle that a decision of the majority is supreme is found in them all: for in both oligarchy and aristocracy and democracies whatever the larger part of those who have a share in the government decides is supreme). In most statesi.e. in most states that are considered aristocracies. then the name of aristocracy is given to that form of constitutional government,i.e. the more oligarchical form, 1293b 36. for the combination aims only at the well-off and the poor, wealth and freedom (since in almost the largest number of states the rich seem to occupy the place of the gentry); butas there are three things that claim equal participationin the constitution, freedom, wealth and virtue (for the fourth, what is called nobility, accompanies the two latter—nobility means ancient wealth and virtue), it is manifest that the mixture of the two factors, the rich and the poor,Loosely put for wealth and free birth. ought to be termed constitutional government, while the mixture of the three factors deserves the name of aristocracy most of all the various forms of aristocracy beside the true and best form.

-

It has then been stated that other forms of constitution also exist besides monarchy, democracy and oligarchy, and what their characteristics are, and how the various sorts of aristocracy and of constitutional government differ from one another; and it is manifest that aristocracy and constitutional government are not widely apart from one another.

-

Next to what has been said let us state the way in which what is called constitutional government comes into existence by the side of democracy and oligarchy, and how it is proper to establish it. At the same time the defining characteristics of democracy and oligarchy will also be clear; for we must grasp the distinction between these and then make a combination out of them, taking, so to say, a contribution from each. And there are three principles determining this combination or mixture. Under one plan we must adopt both features from the legislative schemes of the two different constitutions: for example, in regard to the administration of justice, in oligarchies they institute a fine for the rich if they do not serve on juries but no pay for the poor for serving, while in democracies they assign pay for the poor but no fine for the rich, but a common and intermediate principle is to have both payment and fine, and therefore this is a mark of a constitutional government, since it is a mixture of elements from both oligarchy and democracy.

- -
-

This then is one mode of combining the two. Another is to take the middle course between the regulations of each: for example, democracies permit membership of the assembly on no property-qualification at all or a quite small one, oligarchies on a large property-qualification, but the combination clearly is to have neither principle, but one which lies in the middle between either of these two qualifications. In the third place is a combination of the two systems, taking some features from the oligarchical law and some from the democratic; I mean, for example, that it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected oligarchic, and democratic for them not to have a property-qualification, oligarchic to have one; therefore it is aristocratic and constitutional to take one feature from one form and the other from the other, from oligarchy that offices are to be elected, and from democracy that this is not to be on a property-qualification. This then is the mode of the mixture; and the mark of a good mixture of democracy and oligarchy is when it is possible to speak of the same constitution as a democracy and as an oligarchy; for manifestly this is so when it is said because they have been mixed well, and this is the case with the form that lies in the middle, for each of the two extreme forms can be seen in it. This is the case with the constitution of Sparta. For many peopleendeavor to describe it as being a democracy, because its system has many democratic features, for instance first of all its regulation for the rearing of boys, since the sons of the rich are brought up in the same way as those of the poor, and are educated in a manner in which the sons of the poor also could be educated, and they are also treated similarly at the next age, and in the same manner when they are grown up, for there is nothing that distinguishes the rich man from the poor man—thus the arrangements for food are the same for all at the common messes, and the rich wear clothes such as even any poor man could procure, and also because of the two greatest offices the common people elect to one and share in the other (they elect the Elders and share in the Ephorate); but others call it an oligarchy, because it has many oligarchical features, for instance that all the offices are elective and none appointed by lot and few persons have the power to sentence to death and exile, and a number of other such matters. But in a well-constructed mixed constitution both of the two factors, and neither of them,A conjectural emendation removes this mysterious epigram, giving and not one of the two (only). should seem to be present, and it should be kept safe by its own means and not by outside aid, and by its own means not because those who desire its security are more numerous outside itOr, if ἔξωθεν is an interpolation, not merely because those (citizens) who wish it to survive are more numerous (than those who do not). (for even a bad constitution might possess this quality), but because no section of the state whatever would even wish for another constitution.

-

The proper way therefore to establish a constitutional government, and similarly also the governments named aristocracies, has now been stated.

- -
-

It remained for us to speak of tyranny, not because there is much that can be said about it, but in order that it may receive its part in our inquiry, since we rank this also as one among the kinds of constitution. The nature of kingship we have defined in our first discourses,Book 3.9-12. in which we examined the question in relation to the constitution most commonly denoted by the term kingship, whether it is disadvantageous or an advantage to states, and what person ought to be set up as king, and from what source, and by what procedure; and in the passage in which we were considering kingship we distinguished two kinds of tyranny, because their power in a manner borders upon royalty, because both these forms of rule are in accordance with law (for among some of the barbarians they elect monarchic rulers with autocratic powers, and also in old times among the ancient Greeks some men used to become monarchs of this sort, the rulers called aesymnetae), but these two forms of tyranny have certain differences from one another, although they were on the one hand of the nature of royalty because they were in accordance with law and because they exercised monarchic rule over willing subjects, and on the other hand of the nature of a tyranny because they ruled despotically and according to their own judgement. But there is a third kind of tyranny which is thought to be tyranny in the fullest degree, being the counterpart of universal kingship; to this sort of tyranny must necessarily belong a monarchythat exercises irresponsible rule over subjects all of the same or of a higher class with a view to its own private interest and not in the interest of the persons ruled. Hence it is held against the will of the subjects, since no free man willingly endures such rule.

-

These then are the kinds of tyranny and such is their number, for the reasons stated.

-

But what is the best constitution and what is the best mode of life for most cities and most of mankind, if we do not judge by the standard of a virtue that is above the level of private citizens or of an education that needs natural gifts and means supplied by fortune, norby the standard of the ideal constitution, but of a mode of life able to be shared by most men and a constitution possible for most states to attain? For the constitutions called aristocracies, of which we spoke just now,See 1293b 7-21, cf. 1293b 36-1294a 25. in some cases fall somewhat out of the scope of most states, and in others approximate to what is called constitutional government, so that it is proper to speak of these two forms as if they were one. And indeed the decision in regard to all these questions is based on the same elementary principles. For if it has been rightly said in theEthics Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1101a 14. that the happy life is the life that is lived without impediment in accordance with virtue, and that virtue is a middle course, it necessarily follows that the middle course of life is the best—such a middle course as it is possible for each class of men to attain. And these same criteria must also necessarily apply to the goodness and badness of a state, and of a constitution—for a constitution is a certain mode of life of a state.

- -
-

In all states therefore there exist three divisions of the state, the very rich, the very poor, and thirdly those who are between the two. Since then it is admitted that what is moderate or in the middle is best, it is manifest that the middle amount of all of the good things of fortune is the best amount to possess. For this degree of wealth is the readiest to obey reason, whereas for a person who is exceedingly beautiful or strong or nobly born or rich, or the opposite—exceedingly poor or weak or of very mean station, it is difficult to follow the bidding of reason; for the former turn more to insolence and grand wickedness, and the latter overmuch to malice and petty wickedness, and the motive of all wrongdoing is either insolence or malice. And moreover the middle class are the least inclined to shun office and to covet office,The text is an emendation; some MSS. give to rule the tribe and to rule the council, but most have to love office and rule the council, apparently thinking that the verb translated rule the council meant wish office. and both these tendencies are injurious to states. And in addition to these points, those who have an excess of fortune’s goods, strength, wealth, friends and the like, are not willing to be governed and do not know how to be (and they have acquired this quality even in their boyhood from their homelife, which was so luxurious that they have not got used to submitting to authority even in school), while those who are excessively in need of these things are too humble. Hence the latter class do not know how to govern but know how to submit togovernment of a servile kind, while the former class do not know how to submit to any government, and only know how to govern in the manner of a master. The result is a state consisting of slaves and masters, not of free men, and of one class envious and another contemptuous of their fellows. This condition of affairs is very far removed from friendliness, and from political partnership—for friendliness is an element of partnership, since men are not willing to be partners with their enemies even on a journey. But surely the ideal of the state is to consist as much as possible of persons that are equal and alike, and this similarity is most found in the middle classes; therefore the middle-class state will necessarily be best constituted in respect of those elementsProbably Lambinus’s alteration of the Greek should be accepted, giving hence that state will necessarily be best governed which consists of those elements—. of which we say that the state is by nature composed. And also this class of citizens have the greatest security in the states; for they do not themselves covet other men’s goods as do the poor, nor do the other classes covet their substance as the poor covet that of the rich; and because they are neither plotted against nor plotting they live free from danger. Because of this it was a good prayer of PhocylidesA gnomic poet of Miletus, born 560 B.C.— In many things the middle have the best; Be mine a middle station. It is clear therefore also that the political community administered by the middle class is the best, and that it is possible for those states to be well governed that are of the kind in which the middle class is numerous, and preferably stronger than both the other two classes, or at all events than one of them, for by throwing in its weight it sways the balance and prevents the opposite extremesi.e. extreme democracy and very limited oligarchy. from coming into existence. Hence it is the greatest good fortune if the men that have political power possess a moderate and sufficient substance,

- -

- since where some own a very great deal of property and others none there comes about either an extreme democracy or an unmixed oligarchy, or a tyranny may result from both of the two extremes, for tyranny springs from both democracy and oligarchy of the most unbridled kind, but much less often from the middle forms of constitution and those near to them. The cause of this we will speak of later in our treatment of political revolutions. That the middle form of constitution is the best is evident; for it alone is free from faction, since where the middle class is numerous, factions and party divisions among the citizens are least likely to occur. And the great states are more free from faction for the same reason, because the middle class is numerous, whereas in the small states it is easy to divide the whole people into two parties leaving nothing in between, and also almost everybody is needy or wealthy. Also democracies are more secure and more long-lived than oligarchies owing to the citizens of the middle class (for they are more numerous and have a larger share of the honors in democracies than in oligarchies), since when the poor are in a majority without the middle class, adversity sets in and they are soon ruined. And it must be deemed a significant fact that the best lawgivers are from among the middle citizens; for Solon was of that class,as appears from his poetry, and so was Lycurgus (for he was not a king) and Charondas and almost the greatest number of the other lawgivers.

-

And these considerations also show the reason why the constitutions of most states are either democratic or oligarchical; owing to the middle class in these states being often a small one, the classes diverging from the middle status—whichever of the two, the owners of the estates or the people, from time to time has the upper hand—conduct the government on their own lines, so that it becomes either a democracy or an oligarchy. And in addition to this, because factions occur and fights between the people and the wealthy, whichever party happens to gain the upper hand over its opponents does not establish a common or equal government, but takes the superior share in the government as a prize of victory, and makes it a democracy in the one case and an oligarchy in the other. Moreover each of the two states that in the past held the leadership of Greece took as a pattern the form of government that existed among themselves and set up in the one case democracies and in the other oligarchies in the cities, not considering the interest of the cities but their own advantage. Hence owing to these causes the middle form of constitution either never comes into existence or seldom and in few places; for one manIt is quite uncertain who is meant, possibly Solon or Theramenes. only among the states that have formerly held the leadership was induced to grant this form of organization, and by this time it has become a fixed habit with the people of the separate cities also not even to desire equality,

- -
-

but either to seek to rule or to endure being under a master.

-

These considerations therefore make it clear which is the best constitution, and why it is the best; and now that the best has been defined, it is not difficult to see, among the other forms of constitution (inasmuch as we pronounce that there are various forms of democracy and various oligarchies), what kind is to be placed first, what second, and what next in this order, by reason of one being better and another worse. For at each stage the form nearest to the best one must necessarily be superior, and the form that is more remote from the middle must be inferior—unless one is judging relatively to given conditions: I make this reservation because it is quite possible that although one form of constitution is preferable it may often be more advantageous for certain people to have another form.

-

The next thing after what has been said is to discuss which constitution is advantageous for which people, and what sort of constitution for what sort of people. Now we must first grasp a general principle that applies equally to all sorts of constitution: it is essential that the part of the state that wishes the constitution to remain should be stronger than the part that does not wish it. But every state consists of both quality and quantity: by quality I mean freedom, wealth, education, good birth, and by quantity the superior numbers of the multitude. And it is possible that,while the quality of the state belongs to one among the parts of which the state consists and its quantity to another part—for example the low-born may be more numerous than the noble or the poor than the rich, yet the more numerous class may not exceed in quantity as much as they fall behind in quality. Hence these two factors have to be judged in comparison with one another.

-

Where therefore the multitude of the poor exceeds in the proportion stated,i.e. so as to outbalance their inferiority in quality. here it is natural for there to be democracy, and each kind of democracy in accordance with the superior number of the common people of each sort, for example if the number of the farming class exceeds, the first sort of democracy, but if that of the common laborers and wage-earners, the last sort, and similarly also with the other sorts that lie between these two; but where the class of the well-to-do and notable exceeds in quality more than it falls behind in quantity, here it is natural for there to be an oligarchy, and likewise the various kinds of oligarchy according to the degree of superiorityi.e. superiority in quality. of the oligarchical multitude.The word is loosely used of this small class. But the lawgiver in his constitution must always take in the middle class; if he is making the laws of anoligarchical character he must keep the middle class in view, and if democratic, he must legislate so as to bring them in. And where the number of the middle class exceeds both the extreme classes together, or even one of them only, here it is possible for a constitutional government to be lasting;

- -
-

for there is no fear of the rich ever coming to terms with the poor against this numerous middle class; for neither class will ever wish to be subject to the other, and if they look for another constitution fairer to both than this they will not find one, for they would not endure to take turns to govern because they distrust each other: everywhere it is the arbitrator that is most trusted, and the man in the middle is an arbitrator. And the better the constitution is mixed, the more permanent it is; and many even of those who want to establish aristocratic forms of constitution make a great mistake not only in giving too large a share to the well-to-do but also in cheating the people; for false benefits inevitably result ultimately in true evil, as the encroachments of the rich ruin the constitution more than those of the people.

-

The artifices employed in constitutions as a pretext in regard to the people are five in number, and are concerned with the assembly, the magistracies, the law-courts, the bearing of heavy arms, and gymnastic exercises; in relation to the assembly, the granting to all of the right to attend but the imposition of a fine for non-attendance on the well-to-do only, or a much larger fine on them than others; in relation to the magistracies, the denial to the owners of rated property of the right to swear off serving, while the poor have this right; in relation to the law-courts, the imposition of a fine on the well-to-do if they do not serve on a jury, but no penalty for the poor, or else a large fine for the one class and a small one for the others, as in the laws of Charondas. In some places all have the right to serve in the assembly and on juries after having their names put on a register, but large fines are imposed on those who after so registering fail to attend in either capacity, in order that the fine may cause them to avoid registration and that owing to their not registering they may not serve on juries or in the assembly. They also legislate in the same manner about owning heavy arms and engaging in gymnastic exercises: the poor are not allowed to possess arms, but the well-to-do are liable to a fine if they have not got them, and there is no fine for the former class if they abstain from gymnastics, but the well-to-do are liable to a fine, in order that the one class because of the fine may take part in them and the other because they have no penalty to fear may not. These artifices of legislation then are of an oligarchic nature; in democracies they introduce contrary devices in regard to these matters: they provide pay for the poor for serving in the assembly and on juries and impose no fine upon the well-to-do for abstaining. Hence it is manifest that if anybody wishes to make a just blend, he must bring together the regulations existing in each of the two forms of constitution, and provide pay for attendance and a fine for non-attendance; for thus all would participate, whereas in the other way the government comes to be in the hands of only one of the two classes.

- -
-

And although it is proper that the government should be drawn only from those who possess heavy armor, yet it is not possible to define the amount of the property-qualification absolutely and to say that they must possess so much, but only to consider what sort of amount is the highest that is compatible with making those who have a share in the constitution more numerous than those who have not, and to fix thatlimit. For those who are poor and have no share in the honors are willing to keep quiet if no one insults them or takes away any part of their substance; but this is not easy to secure, for it does not always happen that those who are in the governing class are gentlemen. Also people have a way of being reluctant to serve when there is a war if they do not get rations and are poor men but; if somebody provides food they want to fight. In some states the citizen-body consists not only of those who are serving as heavy-armed soldiers, but also of those who have so served; and at Malea the citizen-body consistedof these, while the magistrates were elected from those who were actually on service. And indeed the earliest form of constitution among the Greeks after the kingships consisted of those who were actually soldiers, the original form consisting of the cavalry （for war had its strength and its pre-eminence in cavalry, since without orderly formation heavy-armed infantry is useless, and the sciences and systems dealing with tactics did not exist among the men of old times, so that their strength lay in their cavalry）; but as the states grew and the wearers of heavy armor had become stronger, more persons came to have a part in the government. Hence what we now call constitutional governments the men of former times called democracies; but the constitutional governments of early days were naturally oligarchical and royal, for owing to the smallness of the populations their middle class was not numerous, so that because of their small numbers as well as in conformity with the structure of the state the middle class more readily endured being in a subject position.

-

It has then been said what is the reason of there being several forms of constitution, and why there are others besides those designated by name （for there is not one single democracy only, and similarly there are more than one of the other forms）, and also what are the differences between them and what is the reason why these differences occur, and in addition to these points, which is the best of the constitutions speaking generally, and of the other constitutions which sort is suited to which sort of people.

-

And again, let us speak about the points that come next, both generally and with reference to each constitution separately, taking their appropriate starting-point. All forms of constitution then have three factors in reference to which the good lawgiver has to consider what is expedient for each constitution; and if these factors are well-ordered the constitution must of necessity be well-ordered, and the superiority of one constitution over another necessarily consists in the superiority of each of these factors. Of these three factors one is, what is to be the body that deliberates about the common interests,

- -
-

second the one connected with the magistracies, that is, what there are to be and what matters they are to control, and what is to be the method of their election, and a third is, what is to be the judiciary.

-

The deliberative factor is sovereign about war and peace and the formation and dissolution of alliances, and about laws, and about sentences of death and exile and confiscation of property, and about the audits of magistrates. And necessarily either all these decisions must be assigned to all the citizens, or all to some of them (for instance to some one magistracy or to several), or different ones to different magistracies, or some of them to all the citizens and some to certain persons.

-

For all the citizens to be members of the deliberative body and to decide all these matters is a mark of a popular government, for the common people seek for equality of this nature. But there are several modes of such universal membership. One is for the citizens to serve in rotation and not all in a body (as is enacted in the constitution of the Milesian Telecles,Otherwise unknown and in other constitutions also the boards of magistrates deliberate in joint assemblies but all the citizens enter into the magistracies from the tribes or from the very smallest sections of the citizen-body in rotation until office has gone through the whole body), and for there to be joint assemblies only to consider legislation and reforms of the constitution and to hear the reports submitted by the magistrates. Another mode isfor all to assemble in a body, but only for the purpose of electing magistrates, enacting laws, considering the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace and holding the audit of magistrates, but for all other matters to be considered by the magistrates appointed to deal with each respectively and elected by suffrage or by lot from all the citizens. Another mode is for the citizens to meet about the magistracies and the audits and in order to deliberate about declaring war and concluding an alliance, but for all other matters to be dealt with by the magistrates, elected by suffrage in as many cases as circumstances allow,i.e. in an advanced democracy. and such magistracies are all those which must of necessity be filled by experts. A fourth mode is for all to meet in council about all matters, and for the magistracies to decide about nothing but only to make preliminary decisions; this is the mode in which democracy in its last form is administered at the present day—the form of democracy which we pronounce to correspond to dynastic oligarchy and to tyrannical monarchy. These modes then are all of them democratic. On the other hand for some persons to deliberate upon all matters is oligarchic. But this also has several variations. For when the members of the deliberative body are elected on comparatively moderate property-qualifications, and the eligible persons are comparatively numerous because of the moderateness of the qualification, and when they do not make changes in things in which the law forbids it but follow the law, and when anybody acquiring the property-qualification is allowed to become a member, a constitution of this sort is indeed an oligarchy, but one of the nature of constitutional government, because of its moderation. When on the other hand not everybody thus qualified participates in deliberation but only certain persons previously chosen by election,

- -
-

and these govern in accordance with law as in the former case, this is oligarchical; and also when the deliberative officials are elected by co-optation, and when the office is hereditary and has supreme control over the laws, this system is bound to be oligarchical. But when certain persons control certain matters, for instance when all the citizens control decisions as to war and peace and the audit of officials while everything else is controlled by magistrates and these are elected by vote, not by lot,The MSS. give or by lot. the constitution is an aristocracy; while if some matters are controlled by magistrates elected by vote and others by magistrates chosen by lot, and this either directly or from a list previously selected by vote, or if magistrates elected by vote and by lot sit in a joint body, some of these regulations are features of an aristocratic constitution and others of constitutional government itself.

-

We have then in this way distinguished the different kinds of deliberative body in relation to the forms of constitution, and each form of constitution carries on the administration in accordance with the distinction stated. But for a democracy of the form that at the present day is considered to be democracy in the fullest degree (and I mean one of the sort in which the people is sovereign even over the laws) it is advantageous for the improvement of its deliberative function for it to do the same as is done in oligarchies in the matter of the law-courts (for they enact a fine to compel the attendance on juries of those whom they want to attend, whereas democratic states institute payment for attendance for the benefit of the poor), and also to do this in respect of the assemblies(for they will deliberate better when all are deliberating jointly, the common people when with the notables and these when with the masses), and it is also advantageous for those who deliberate to be elected by vote or by lot equally from the different sections, and, if the men of the people far exceed the political class in number, it is advantageous either not to give pay to all but only to as many as are commensurate with the number of the notables, or to discard by lot those who exceed this number. In oligarchies on the other hand it is advantageous either to co-opt some persons from the multitude, or to institute an office like the one that exists in certain constitutional governments under the flame of Preliminary Councillors or Guardians of the Law,There were πρόβουλοι at Corinth as well as a βουλή and an ἐκκλησία; and νομοφύλακες at Sparta, Athens and elsewhere: at Athens they sat with the presidents of the βουλή and ἐκκλησία to check illegal procedure. and deal with the matters about which these officials have held a preliminary deliberation (for thus the common people will have a share in deliberation and will not have the power to abolish any part of the constitution), and then for the people by their vote either to confirm or at all events not to pass anything contrary to the resolutions brought before them, or to allow all to take part in debate but only the magistrates to frame resolutions; and in fact it is proper to do just the opposite of what takes place in constitutionally governed states; for the common people ought to be given power to vote the rejection of a measure, but not to vote its ratification, but it should be referred back to the magistrates. In constitutional governments the procedure is the reverse; the few are competent to vote the rejection of a resolution but are not competent to vote its ratification, this being always referred back to the most numerous body.

- -
-

Let us then decide in this manner about the deliberative body, which in fact is the sovereign power in the constitution.

-

- Connected with this subject is the determination in regard to the magistracies (for this part of the constitution also has many varieties), how many magistracies there are to be, and what are to be their powers, and what their various periods of tenure (for some people make their magistracies tenable for six months, others for less, others for a year and others for a longer period)—shall the magistracies be for life or for a long period, or if for a shorter term shall the same people be allowed to hold them several times or not the same man twice but once only? and also as to the appointment of magistrates, who shall be eligible, who the electors, and what the mode of election? For on all these points it is needful to be able to determine how many modes of procedure are possible, and then to settle what modes are expedient for what sorts of constitution. Nor is it easy to decide to what kinds of office the name of magistracy ought to be applied; for the political community requires a great many officials, owing to which it is not proper to reckon all of them magistrates, whether elected by vote or by lot,—for instance first the priests (for this office must be considered as something different from the political magistracies), and again there are leaders of choruses, and heralds, and persons are also elected as ambassadors. And of the offices exercising superintendence some are political, and are exercised either over the whole of the citizens in regard to some operation—for instance ageneral superintends them when serving as soldiers, or over a section—for instance the superintendent of women or of children; while others are economic (for states often elect officers to dole out cornDistributions of corn were made at times of scarcity, or when the state had received a present of corn.); and others are subordinate, and are the sort of services to which people when well off appoint slaves. But the title of magistracy, to put it simply, is chiefly to be applied to all those offices to which have been assigned the duties of deliberating about certain matters and of acting as judges and of issuing orders, and especially the last, for to give orders is most characteristic of authority. But this question is of virtually no practical importance (for no decision has yet been given, our discussion being merely about the name), although it does admit of some further inquiry of a speculative kind. On the other hand the questions what kinds and what number of magistracies are necessary to constitute a state at all, and what kinds although not necessary are advantageous for a good constitution, are questions that might preferablybe discussed, both indeed as regards every form of constitution and particularly in regard to the small states. For it is true that in the large states it is possible and proper for one magistracy to be assigned to one function (for the large number of the citizens makes it possible for many people to enter on an official career, so as to intermit their tenure of some offices for a long time and to hold others only once, and also every task is better attended to if the attention is directed to one thing only than if it is busy with many);

- -
-

but in the small states it is inevitable that many offices must be gathered into few hands (for owing to shortage of manpower it is not easy for many people to be in office, since who will take over the posts as their successors?). But sometimes small states require the same magistracies and laws as large ones except that the latter require the same persons to serve often, but in the former this only occurs after a long interval. Hence it is possible to assign several duties to one man at the same time (since they will not interfere with one another), and to meet the shortage of man-power it is necessary to make the magistracies like spit-lampholders.An implement (its exact shape does not appear to be known) used by soldiers on campaign, here mentioned as an illustration of one tool serving two purposes, cf. 1252b 1. If therefore we are able to say how many magistracies every state must necessarily possess and how many, though not absolutely necessary, it ought to possess, knowing these points one might more easily make a combination of those magistracies which are of a suitable nature to be combined into a single office. And it is suitable for the further question not to be overlooked, what kinds of matters ought to be attended to by a number of officials locally distributed and what ought to be under the authority of one magistrate for all localities, for example should good order be seen to in the market-place by a Controller of the Market and elsewhere by another official, or everywhere by the same one? and ought the offices to be divided according to the function or according to the persons concerned—I mean, for instance, should there be a single official in control of good order, or a different onefor children and for women? and also under the various constitutions does the nature of the magistracies vary in accordance with each or does it not vary at all—for example in democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy and monarchy are the magistracies the same in their powers, although they are not filled from equal ranks nor from similar classes but are different in different constitutions (for example in aristocracies drawn from the educated, in oligarchies from the wealthy, and in democracies from the free), or although some constitutions happen to be correspondent with the actual differences of their magistracies, yet in other cases are the same magistracies advantageous even where the constitutions differ (for in some places it is suitable for the same magistracies to have large functions and in other places small ones)? Not but what there are also some offices peculiar to special forms of constitution, for instance the office of Preliminary Councillors.See 1298b 29 n. This is undemocratic, although a Council is a popular body, for there is bound to be some body of this nature to have the duty of preparing measures for the popular assembly, in order that it may be able to attend to its business; but a preparatory committee, if small, is oligarchical, and Preliminary Councillors must necessarily be few in number, so that they are an oligarchical element. But where both of these magistracies exist, the Preliminary Councillors are in authority over the Councillors, since a councillor is a democratic official, but a preliminary councillor is an oligarchic one. Also the power of the Council is weakened in democracies of the sort in which the people in assembly deals with everything itself;

- -
-

and this usually happens when there is a plentiful supply of pay for those who attend the assembly, for being at leisure they meet frequently and decide all things themselves. But a Superintendent of Children and a Superintendent of Women, and any other magistrates that exercise a similar sort of supervision, are an aristocratic feature, and not democratic (for how is it possible to prevent the wives of the poor from going out of doorsOr possibly from going in processions: Solon made regulations ταῖς ἐξόδοις τῶν γυναικῶν καὶ τοῖς πένθεσι καὶ ταῖς ἑορταῖς(Plut. Sol. 21).?) nor yet oligarchic (for the wives of oligarchic rulers are luxurious). But let the discussion of these matters go no further at present, and let us attempt to go through from the beginning the question of the ways of appointing the magistrates. The varieties here depend on three determinants, the combinations of which must give all the possible modes. One of these three determining points is, who are the persons who appoint the magistrates? the second is, from whom? and last, in what manner? And of each of these three determinants there are three variations: either all the citizens appoint or some, and either from all or from a certain class (defined for instance by property-assessment or birth or virtue or some other such qualification, as at Megara only those were eligible who returned in a body from exile and fought together against the common people),It is quite uncertain when this event took place and whether it is the same as those referred to at 1302b 30 f. and l304b 34 ff. and the mode of appointment may be either by vote or by lot; again, these systems may be coupled together—I mean that some citizens may appoint to some offices but all to others, and to some offices all citizens may be eligible but to others only a certain class, and to some appointment may be by vote but to others by lot. And of each variation of these determinants there will be four modes: either all citizens may appoint from all by vote, or all from all by lot—and from all either section by section, for instance by tribes or demes or brotherhoods until the procedure has gone through all the citizens, or from the whole number every time,—or else partly in one way and partly in the other. Again, if the electors are some of the citizens, they must either appoint from all by vote, or from all by lot, or from some by vote, or from some by lot, or partly in one way and partly in the other—I mean partly by vote and partly by lot. Hence the modes prove to be twelve, apart from the two combinations. And among these, two ways of appointment are democratic—for all to appoint from all by vote, or by lot, or by both—some offices by lot and others by vote; but for not all to be the electors and for them to appoint simultaneously, and either from all or from some either by lot or by vote or by both, or some offices from all and others from some by both (by which I mean some by lot and others by vote) is constitutional. And for some to appoint from all, to some offices by vote and to others by lot or by bothPerhaps the Greek should be rewritten to give for some to appoint from all either by vote or by lot or by both. (to some by lot and to others by vote) is oligarchical; and it is even more oligarchical to appoint from both classes. But to appoint some offices from all and the others from a certain class is constitutional with an aristocratic bias;

- -
-

or to appoint some by vote and others by lot. And for a certain class to appoint from a certain class 〈by vote〉This insertion by Lambinus seems certain. is oligarchical, and so it is for a certain class to appoint from a certain class by lot (although not working out in the same way), and for a certain class to appoint from a certain class by both methods. And for a certain class to make a preliminary selection from the whole body and then for all to appoint from among certain persons (thus selected) is aristocratic.

-

So many in number therefore are the modes of appointing to the magistracies, and this is how the modes are classified according to the different constitutions; and what regulations are advantageous for what people and how the appointments ought to be conducted will be made clear at the same time as we consider what are the powers of the offices. By the power of an office I mean for instance the control of the revenues and the control of the guard; since a different sort of power belongs for example to a generalship and to the office that controls market contracts.

-

Of the three factors of a constitution it remains to speak of the judiciary, and of judicial bodies also we must consider the various modes, in accordance with the same plan. And a difference among judicial courts rests upon three determinants—constituents, sphere of action, and mode of appointment. As to their constituents I mean are the courts drawn from all the citizens or from a certain class? as to sphere of action, how many kinds of courts are there? and as to mode of appointment, are they appointed by lot or by vote? First then let us distinguish how many kinds of courts there are. They are eight in number, one a court of audit,another to deal with offenders against any public interest, another with matters that bear on the constitution, a fourth for both magistrates and private persons in disputes about penalties, fifth the court dealing with private contracts that are on an important scale, and beside these there is (6) the court that tries homicide, and (7) that which hears alien suits (of courts of homicide there are four kinds, whether the jury is the same or different—namely, for cases of deliberate homicide, of involuntary homicide, of homicide admitted but claimed to be justifiable, and fourth to deal with charges of homicide brought against men that have fled from the country for homicide, upon their return,i.e. men that had been allowed to flee the country when charged with accidental homicide, and on their return were accused of another homicide, a willful murder. such as at Athens for instance the Court at Phreatto is said to be, although such cases are of rare occurrence in the whole course of history, even in the great states and of the aliens’ court one branch hears suits of aliens against aliens and another of aliens against citizens); and also beside all of these there are (8) courts to try cases of petty contracts, involving sums of one drachma, five drachmas or a little more—for even these cases have to be tried, though they are not suitable for a numerous jury. But let us dismiss the subject of these petty suits, and the courts for homicide and those for aliens, and let us speak about political trials, which when not well conducted cause party divisions and revolutionary disturbances. And necessarily either all the judges of all the cases that have been classified will be appointed by vote, or by lot, or all in all cases partly by lot and partly by vote, or in some cases some judges will be appointed by lot and others by vote for the same case.

- -
-

These modes then are four in number, and the sectional modes also make as many others; for here again the judges for all cases may be drawn by vote from a certain class, or for all cases by lot from a certain class, or some courts may be appointed by lot and others by vote, or some courts may be composed of judges chosen by lot and by vote for the same cases. These then are the modes, as was said, corresponding to those mentioned. And there are also the same courts in combination—I mean for example some drawn from the whole body and some from a class and some from both, as for instance if the same court contained some members from the whole body and others from a class, and appointed either by lot or by vote or both. We have then stated all the modes in which it is possible for the courts to be composed; and of these the first set, drawn from all the citizens and dealing with all cases, are popular, the second, drawn from a certain class to deal with all cases, are oligarchic, and the third, drawn partly from all and partly from a certain class, are suited to an aristocracy and to a constitutional government.

- -
-
-

Book 5 is placed as Book 7 by some editors, as Book 8 by others, see Book 3 fin., note.Almost all the other subjects which we intended to treathave now been discussed. There must follow the consideration of the questions, what are the number and the nature of the causes that give rise to revolutions in constitutions, and what are the causes that destroy each form of constitution, and out of what forms into what forms do they usually change, and again what are the safeguards of constitutions in general and of each form in particular, and what are the means by which the safeguarding of each may best be put into effect.For this distinction between broad methods of guarding against revolution and the practical means by which those methods can be put into effect Newman compares 9.2 f., 10 f.; 4.2.5 fin., 6.1.1.

-

And we must first assume the starting-point, that many forms of constitution have come into existence with everybody agreeing as to what is just, that is proportionate equality, but failing to attain it (as has also been said before). Thus democracy arose from men’s thinking that if they are equal in any respect they are equal absolutely (for they suppose that because they are all alike free they are equal absolutely), oligarchy arose from their assuming that if they are unequal as regards some one thing they are unequal wholly (for being unequal in property they assume that they are unequal absolutely); and then the democrats claim as being equal to participate in all things in equal shares, while the oligarchs as being unequal seek to have a larger share, for a larger share is unequal. All these forms of constitution then have some element of justice, but from an absolute point of view they are erroneous; and owing to this cause, when each of the two parties has not got the share in the constitution which accords with the fundamental assumption that they happen to entertain, faction ensues. And of all men those who excel in virtue would most justifiably stir up faction, though they are least given to doing so;

- -
-

for they alone can with the fullest reason be deemed absolutely unequal. And there are some men who being superior in birth claim unequal rights because of this inequality; for persons who have ancestral virtue and wealth behind them are thought to be noble.

-

These then roughly speaking are the starting-points and sources of factions, which give rise to party strife (and revolutions due to this take place in two ways: sometimes they are in regard to the constitution, and aim at changing from the one established to another, for instance from democracy to oligarchy, or to democracy from oligarchy, or from these to constitutional government and aristocracy, or from those to these; but sometimes the revolution is not in regard to the established constitution, but its promoters desire the same form of government, for instance oligarchy or monarchy, but wish it to be in their own control. Again it may be a question of degree; for instance, when there is an oligarchy the object may be to change to a more oligarchical government or to a less, or when there is a democracy to a more or to a less democratic government, and similarly in the case of the remaining constitutions, the aim may be either to tighten them up or to relax them. Or again the aim may be to change a certain part of the constitution, for example to establish or abolish a certain magistracy, as according to some accounts Lysanderattempted to abolish the kingship at Sparta and the king Pausanias the ephorateSee 1307a 34 n.; and also at Epidamnus the constitution was altered in part, for they set up a council instead of the tribal rulers, and it is still compulsory for the magistrates alone of the class that has political power to come to the popular assembly when an appointment to a magistracy is put to the vote; and the single supreme magistrate was also an oligarchical feature in this constitution). For party strife is everywhere due to inequality, where classes that are unequal do not receive a share of power in proportion (for a lifelong monarchy is an unequal feature when it exists among equals); for generally the motive for factious strife is the desire for equality. But equality is of two kinds, numerical equality and equality according to worth—by numerically equal I mean that which is the same and equal in number or dimension, by equal according to worth that which is equal by proportionThis ethical arithmetic is helped out in Greek by the fact that, even without the qualification κατ’ ἀξίαν, ἴσος often means equal to desert, fair, just.; for instance numerically 3 exceeds 2 and 2 exceeds 1 by an equal amount, but by proportion 4 exceeds 2 and 2 exceeds 1 equally, since 2 and 1 are equal parts of 4 and 2, both being halves. But although men agree that the absolutely just is what is according to worth, they disagree (as was said beforeSee 1301a 27 ff. and note.) in that some think that if they are equal in something they are wholly equal, and others claim that if they are unequal in something they deserve an unequal share of all things. Owing to this two principal varieties of constitution come into existence, democracy and oligarchy; for noble birth and virtue are found in few men,

- -
-

but the qualifications specifiedThat is, numbers and wealth. in more: nowhere are there a hundred men nobly born and good, but there are rich menPerhaps the text should be emended to give there are many rich men and poor men in many places. in many places. But for the constitution to be framed absolutely and entirely according to either kind of equality is bad. And this is proved by experience, for not one of the constitutions formed on such lines is permanent. And the cause of this is that it is impossible for some evil not to occur ultimately from the first and initial error that has been made. Hence the proper course is to employ numerical equality in some things and equality according to worth in others. But nevertheless democracy is safer and more free from civil strife than oligarchy; for in oligarchies two kinds of strife spring up, faction between different members of the oligarchy and also faction between the oligarchs and the people, whereas in democracies only strife between the people and the oligarchical party occurs, but party strife between different sections of the people itself does not occur to any degree worth mentioning. And again the government formed of the middle classes is nearer to the people than to the few, and it is the safest of the kinds of constitution mentioned.

-

And since we are considering what circumstances give rise to party factions and revolutions in constitutions, we must first ascertain their origins and causes generally. They are, speaking roughly, three in number,Viz. the material, final and efficient causes of revolutions (Jowett). which we must first define in outline separately.For we must ascertain what state of affairs gives rise to party strife, and for what objects it is waged, and thirdly what are the origins of political disorders and internal party struggles.

-

Now the principal cause, speaking generally, of the citizens being themselves disposed in a certain manner towards revolution is the one about which we happen to have spoken already. Those that desire equality enter on party strife if they think that they have too little although they are the equals of those who have more, while those that desire inequality or superiority do so if they suppose that although they are unequal they have not got more but an equal amount or less (and these desires may be felt justly, and they may also be felt unjustly); for when inferior, people enter on strife in order that they may be equal, and when equal, in order that they may be greater. We have therefore said what are the states of feeling in which men engage in party strife.

-

The objects about which it is waged are gain and honor, and their opposites, for men carry on party faction in states in order to avoid dishonor and loss, either on their own behalf or on behalf of their friends.

-

And the causes and origins of the disturbances which occasion the actual states of feeling described and their direction to the objects mentioned, according to one account happen to be seven in number, though according to another they are more. Two of them are the same as those spoken of before although not operating in the same way: the motives of gain and honor also stir men up against each other not in order that they may get them for themselves, as has been said before,

- -
-

but because they see other men in some cases justly and in other cases unjustly getting a larger share of them. Other causes are insolence, fear, excessive predominance, contempt, disproportionate growth of power; and also other modes of causeThe four causes now mentioned are those alluded to just above (1302a 38) as an addition to the seven enumerated above, 1302a 38-b 5. are election intrigue, carelessness, pettiness, dissimilarity. Among these motives the power possessed by insolence and gain, and their mode of operation, is almost obvious; for when the men in office show insolence and greed, people rise in revolt against one another and against the constitutions that afford the opportunity for such conduct; and greed sometimes preys on private property and sometimes on common funds. It is clear also what is the power of honor and how it can cause party faction; for men form factions both when they are themselves dishonored and when they see others honored; and the distribution of honors is unjust when persons are either honored or dishonored against their deserts, just when it is according to desert. Excessive predominance causes faction, when some individual or body of men is greater and more powerful than is suitable to the state and the power of the government; for such are the conditions that usually result in the rise of a monarchy or dynasty. Owing to this in some places they have the custom of temporary banishment,Cf. 1284a 18. as at Argos and Athens; yet it would be better to provide from the outset that there may be no persons in the stateso greatly predominant, than first to allow them to come into existence and afterwards to apply a remedy. Fear is the motive of faction with those who have inflicted wrong and are afraid of being punished, and also with those who are in danger of suffering a wrong and wish to act in time before the wrong is inflicted, as the notables at Rhodes banded togetherPerhaps in 390 B.C., cf. 1302b 32 f. and 1304b 27 ff. against the people because of the law-suits that were being brought against them. Contempt is a cause of faction and of actual attacks, upon the government, for instance in oligarchies when those who have no share in the government are more numerous (for they think themselves the stronger party), and in democracies when the rich have begun to feel contempt for the disorder and anarchy that prevails, as for example at Thebes the democracy was destroyed owing to bad government after the battle of Oenophyta,Against Athens, 456 B.C. and that of the Megarians was destroyed when they had been defeated owing to disorder and anarchy,See 1300a 18 n. and at Syracuse before the tyranny 485 B.C. of Gelo, and at Rhodes See 1302b 23 n. the common people had fallen into contempt before the rising against them. Revolutions in the constitutions also take place on account of disproportionate growth; for just as the bodyIt is not clear whether what follows refers to a work of art (cf. 1284b 8) or is an exaggerated account of a disease; Galen describes one called σατυρίασις, in which the bones of the temple swell out like satyrs’ horns. is composed of parts, and needs to grow proportionately in order that its symmetry may remain, and if it does not it is spoiled, when the foot is four cubits long and the rest of the body two spans, and sometimes it might even change into the shape of another animal if it increased disproportionately not only in size but also in quality,i.e. if, for example, the foot became as hard as a hoof. so also a state is composed of parts,

- -
-

one of which often grows without its being noticed, as for example the number of the poor in democracies and constitutional states. And sometimes this is also brought about by accidental occurrences, as for instance at Tarentum when a great many notables were defeated and killed by the Iapygians a short time after the Persian wars a constitutional government was changed to a democracy, and at Argos when those in the seventh tribeThe word to be understood here may be φυλῇ, or possibly ἡμέρᾳ: the seventh day of the month was sacred to Apollo, especially at Sparta, and one account assigns Cleomenes’ victory to that day, in which case the casualties may well have been known afterwards as those who fell on the seventh. had been destroyed by the Spartan Cleomenes the citizens were compelled to admit some of the surrounding people, and at Athens when they suffered disasters by land the notables became fewer because at the time of the war against Sparta the army was drawn from a muster-roll.i.e. was made up of citizens and not of mercenaries. And this happens also in democracies, though to a smaller extent; for when the wealthy become more numerous or their properties increase, the governments change to oligarchies and dynasties.See 1292b 10 n. And revolutions in constitutions take place even without factious strife, owing to election intrigue, as at Heraea On the Alpheus, in Arcadia. (for they made their magistrates elected by lot instead of by vote for this reason, because the people used to elect those who canvassed); and also owing to carelessness, when people allow men that are not friends of the constitution to enter into the sovereign offices, as at OreusIn Euboea; its secession from Sparta to Athens, 377 B.C., was perhaps the occasion of this revolution. oligarchy was broken up when Heracleodorus became one of the magistrates, who in place of an oligarchyformed a constitutional government, or rather a democracy. Another cause is alteration by small stages; by this I mean that often a great change of institutions takes place unnoticed when people overlook a small alteration, as in Ambracia the property-qualification was small, and finally men hold office with none at all, as a little is near to nothing, or practically the same. Also difference of race is a cause of faction, until harmony of spirit is reached; for just as any chance multitude of people does not form a state, so a state is not formed in any chance period of time. Hence most of the states that have hitherto admitted joint settlers or additional settlersi.e. colonists not from the mother-city, admitted either at the foundation of the colony or later. have split into factions; for example Achaeans settled at Sybaris Sybaris, founded 720 B.C., became very wealthy. The Troezenian population when expelled were received at Croton, which made war on Sybaris and destroyed it 510 B.C. To what exactly τὸ ἄγος refers is unknown. jointly with Troezenians, and afterwards the Achaeans having become more numerous expelled the Troezenians, which was the Cause of the curse that fell on the Sybarites; and at Thurii Sybarites quarrelled with those who had settled there with them, for they claimed to have the larger share in the country as being their own, and were ejected; and at Byzantium the additional settlers were discovered plotting against the colonists and were expelled by force of arms; and the people of Antissa In Lesbos. after admitting the Chian exiles expelled them by arms; and the people of Zancle Later Messana, Messina. after admitting settlers from Samos were themselves expelled; and the people of Apollonia on the Euxine Sea after bringing in additional settlers fell into faction;

- -
-

and the Syracusans after the period of the tyrantsThrasybulus succeeded his brother Hiero as tyrant in 467 B.C. and fell within a year. conferred citizenship on their foreign troops and mercenaries and then faction set in and they came to battle; and the Amphipolitans having received settlers from Chalcis were most of them driven out by them.Cf. 1306a 2. The exact circumstances are unknown; Amphipolis was colonized from Athens 437 B.C.

-

(And in oligarchies civil strife is raised by the many, on the ground that they are treated unjustly because they are not admitted to an equal share although they are equal, as has been said before, but in democracies it begins with the notables, because they have an equal share although they are not equal.)This sentence is out of place here, and would fit in better if placed (as it is by Newman) above at 1301a 39, after στασιάζουσι, or (with other editors) 1301b 26.

-

Also states sometimes enter on faction for geographical reasons, when the nature of the country is not suited for there being a single city, as for example at ClazomenaeTopography uncertain: Clazomenae near Smyrna was partly on a small island, which Alexander joined to the mainland with a causeway. the people near Chytrum are in feud with the inhabitants of the island, and the Colophonians and the Notians Notium was the port of Colophon.; and at Athens the population is not uniformly democratic in spirit, but the inhabitants of Piraeus are more so than those of the city. For just as in wars the fording of watercourses, even quite small ones, causes the formations to lose contact, so every difference seems to cause division. Thus perhaps the greatest division is that between virtue and vice, next that between wealth and poverty, and so with other differences in varying degree, one of which is the one mentioned.i.e. difference of locality.

-

Factions arise therefore not about but out of small matters; but they are carried on about great matters. And even the small ones grow extremely violent when they spring up among men of the ruling class,as happened for example at Syracuse in ancient times. For the constitution underwent a revolution as a result of a quarrel that arosePerhaps under the oligarch of the Gamori, overthrown by the people and followed by Gelo’s tyranny, 485 B.C. between two young men, who belonged to the ruling class, about a love affair. While one of them was abroad the other who was his comrade won over the youth with whom he was in love, and the former in his anger against him retaliated by persuading his wife to come to him; owing to which they stirred up a party struggle among all the people in the state, enlisting them on their sides. On account of this it is necessary to guard against such affairs at their beginning, and to break up the factions of the leaders and powerful men; for the error occurs at the beginning, andthe beginning as the proverb says is half of the whole, so that even a small mistake at the beginning stands in the same ratioi.e. the ratio of being a half to the whole: a bad start does as much to harm as all the later mistakes put together. to mistakes at the other stages. And in general the faction quarrels of the notables involve the whole state in the consequences, as happened at HestiaeaAlso called Oreus, see 1303a 18. after the Persian wars, when two brothers quarrelled about the division of their patrimony; for the poorer of the two, on the ground that the other would not make a return of the estate and of the treasure that their father had found, got the common people on his side, and the other possessing much property was supported by therich. And at Delphi the beginning of all the factions that occurred afterwards was when a quarrel arose out of a marriage;

- -
-

the bridegroom interpreted some chance occurrence when he came to fetch the bride as a bad omen and went away without taking her, and her relatives thinking themselves insulted threw some articles of sacred property into the fire when he was performing a sacrifice and then put him to death as guilty of sacrilege. And also at Mitylene The revolt of Mitylene 428 B.C. is ascribed to purely political causes by Thuc. 3.1-30. a faction that arose out of some heiresses was the beginning of many misfortunes, and of the war with the Athenians in which Paches captured the city of Mitylene: a wealthy citizen named Timophanes left two daughters, and a man who was rejected in his suit to obtain them for his own sons, Doxander, started the faction and kept on stirring up the Athenians, whose consul he was at Mitylene. And among the Phocians when a faction arising out of an heiress sprang up in connection with Mnaseas the father of Mnason and Euthykrates the father of Onomarchus,i.e. the fathers of the two suitors for the heiress’s hand turned the quarrel into a faction fight. this faction proved to be the beginning for the Phocians of the Holy War. At Epidamnus also circumstances relating to a marriage gave rise to a revolution in the constitutionPerhaps the same event as that referred to 1301b 21.; somebody had betrothed his daughter, and the father of the man to whom he had betrothed her became a magistrate, and had to sentence him to a fine; the other thinking that he had been treated with insolence formed a party of the unenfranchised classes to assist him. And also revolutions to oligarchy and democracy and constitutional government arise from the growth in reputation or in power of some magistracy or some section of the state;as for example the Council on the Areopagus having risen in reputation during the Persian wars was believed to have made the constitution more rigid, and then again the naval multitude, having been the cause of the victory off Salamis and thereby of the leadership of Athens due to her power at sea, made the democracy stronger; and at Argos the notables having risen in repute in connection with the battle against the Spartans at Mantinea took in hand to put down the people; and at Syracuse the people having been the cause of the victory in the war against Athens made a revolution from constitutional government to democracy; and at Chalcis the people with the aid of the notables overthrew the tyrant PhoxusUnknown. and then immediately seized the government; and again at Ambracia similarly the people joined with the adversaries of the tyrant Periander in expelling him and then brought the government round to themselves. 580 B.C; cf. 1311a 39 ff. And indeed in general it must not escape notice that the persons who have caused a state to win power, whether private citizens or magistrates or tribes, or in general a section or group of any kind, stir up faction; for either those who envy these men for being honored begin the faction, or these men owing to their superiority are not willing to remain in a position of equality. And constitutions also undergo revolution when what are thought of as opposing sections of the state become equal to one another,

- -
-

for instance the rich and the people, and there is no middle class or only an extremely small one; for if either of the two sections becomes much the superior, the remainder is not willing to risk an encounter with its manifestly stronger opponent. Owing to this men who are exceptional in virtue generally speaking do not cause faction, because they find themselves few against many. Universally then in connection with all the forms of constitution the origins and causes of factions and revolutions are of this nature.

-

The means used to cause revolutions of constitutions are sometimes force and sometimes fraud. Force is employed either when the revolutionary leaders exert compulsion immediately from the start or later on—as indeed the mode of using fraud is also twofold: sometimes the revolutionaries after completely deceiving the people at the first stage alter the constitution with their consent, but then at a later stage retain their hold on it by force against the people’s will: for instance, at the time of the Four Hundred,The oligarchy at Athens 411 B.C., cf. 1305a 27. they deceived the people by saying that the Persian King would supply money for the war against the Spartans, and after telling them this falsehood endeavored to keep a hold upon the government; but in other cases they both persuade the people at the start and afterwards repeat the persuasion and govern them with their consent.

-

Speaking generally therefore in regard to all the forms of constitution, the causes that have been stated are those from which revolutions have occurred.

-

But in the light of these general rules we must consider the usual course of eventsas classified according to each different kind of constitution. In democracies the principal cause of revolutions is the insolence of the demagogues; for they cause the owners of property to band together, partly by malicious prosecutions of individuals among them (for common fear brings together even the greatest enemies), and partly by setting on the common people against them as a class. And one may see this taking place in this manner in many instances. In Cos the democracy was overthrownDate unknown. when evil demagogues had arisen there, for the notables banded themselves together; and also in Rhodes,See 1302b 23 n. for the demagogues used to provide pay for public services, and also to hinder the payment of money owedi.e. owed for repairs to the ships, and perhaps also for advances of pay to the crews. to the naval captains, and these because of the lawsuits that were brought against them were forced to make common cause and overthrow the people. And also at Heraclea Probably the Pontic Heraclea (cf. 1305b 5, 36, 1306a 37), founded middle of the 6th century B.C., not the Trachinian. the people were put down immediately after the foundation of the colony because of the people’s leaders; for the notables being unjustly treated by them used to be driven out, but later on those who were driven out collecting together effected their return and put down the people. And also the democracy at Megara was put down in a similar mannerSee 1300a 18 ff. n.; the people’s leaders in order to have money to distribute to the people went on expelling many of the notables, until they made the exiles a large body, and these came back and defeated the people in a battle and set up the oligarchy.

- -
-

And the same thing happened also at Cyme in the time of the democracy which Thrasymachus put downAn event otherwise unknown., and in the case of other states also examination would show that revolutions take place very much in this manner. Sometimes they make the notables combine by wronging them in order to curry favor, causing either their estates to be divided up or their revenues by imposing public services, and sometimes by so slandering them that they may have the property of the wealthy to confiscate. And in old times whenever the same man became both leader of the people and general, they used to change the constitution to a tyranny; for almost the largest number of the tyrants of early days have risen from being leaders of the people. And the reason why this used to happen then but does not do so now is because then the leaders of the people were drawn from those who held the office of general (for they were not yet skilled in oratory), but now when rhetoric has developed the able speakers are leaders of the people, but owing to their inexperience in military matters they are not put in control of these, except in so far as something of the kind has taken place to a small extent in some places. And tyrannies also used to occur in former times more than they do now because important offices were entrusted to certain men, as at Miletus a tyrannyPerhaps that of Thrasybulus (Hdt. 1.20), 612 B.C. arose out of the presidency (for the president had control of many important matters). And moreover, because the cities in those times were not large but the common people lived on their farmsbusily engaged in agriculture, the people’s champions when they became warlike used to aim at tyranny. And they all used to do this when they had acquired the confidence of the people, and their pledge of confidence was their enmity towards the rich, as at Athens Pisistratus made himself tyrant by raising up a party against the men of the plain, and Theagenes at Megara by slaughtering the cattle of the well-to-do which he captured grazing by the river, and DionysiusDionysius the elder, see 1259a 29 n. established a claim to become tyrant when he accused Daphnaeus and the rich, since his hostility to them caused him to be trusted as a true man of the people. And revolutions also take place from the ancestral form of democracy to one of the most modern kind; for where the magistracies are elective, but not on property-assessments, and the people elect, men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things to the point of the people’s being sovereign even over the laws. A remedy to prevent this or to reduce its extent is for the tribes to elect the magistrates, and not the people collectively.

-

These then are the causes through which almost all the revolutions in democracies take place.

-

Oligarchies undergo revolution principally through two ways that are the most obvious. One is if they treat the multitude unjustly; for anybody makes an adequate people’s champion, and especially so when their leader happens to come from the oligarchy itself, like Lygdamis at Naxos, who afterwards actually became tyrant of the Naxians.

- -
-

Faction originating with other people also has various ways of arising. Sometimes when the honors of office are shared by very few, dissolution originates from the wealthy themselves,The contrasted case, of dissolution of oligarchy arising from the people, should follow, but is omitted. but not those that are in office, as for example has occurred at Marseilles,Cf. 1321a 29 ff. at Istrus,Near the mouth of the Danube. at Heraclea,See 1304b 31 n. and in other states; for those who did not share in the magistracies raised disturbances until as a first stage the older brothers were admitted, and later the younger ones again (for in some places a father and a son may not hold office together, and in others an elder and a younger brother may not). At Marseilles the oligarchy became more constitutional, while at Istrus it ended in becoming democracy, and in Heraclea the government passed from a smaller number to six hundred. At Cnidus also there was a revolutionPerhaps not the same as the one mentioned at 1306b 3. of the oligarchy caused by a faction formed by the notables against one another, because few shared in the government, and the rule stated held, that if a father was a member a son could not be, nor if there were several brothers could any except the eldest; for the common people seized the opportunity of their quarrel and, taking a champion from among the notables, fell upon them and conquered them, for a party divided against itself is weak. Another case was at Erythrae,Just west of Smyrna. The family name implies a claim to royal ancestry. where at the time of the oligarchy of the Basilidae in ancient days, althoughthe persons in the government directed affairs well, nevertheless the common people were resentful because they were governed by a few, and brought about a revolution of the constitution.

-

On the other hand, oligarchies are overthrown from within themselves bothThis sentence is interrupted by a parenthesis and is resumed in 5.6, And revolution is oligarchy also—. when from motives of rivalry they play the demagogue (and this demagogy is of two sorts, one among the oligarchs themselves, for a demagogue can arise among them even when they are a very small body,—as for instance in the time of the Thirty at Athens, the party of Charicles rose to power by currying popularity with the Thirty, and in the time of the Four HundredSee 1304b 12 n. the party of Phrynichus rose in the same way,— - -the other when the members of the oligarchy curry popularity with the mob, as the Civic Guards at Larisa See 1275b 29 n. courted popularity with the mob because it elected them, and in all the oligarchies in which the magistracies are not elected by the class from which the magistrates come but are filled from high property-grades or from political clubs while the electors are the heavy-armed soldiers or the common people, as used to be the case at Abydos, and in places where the jury-courts are not made up from the governmenti.e. (apparently) where membership is not confined to the class eligible for the magistracies.—for there members of the oligarchy by courting popular favor with a view to their trials cause a revolution of the constitution, as took place at Heraclea on the EuxineSee 1304b 31 n.; and a further instance is when some men try to narrow down the oligarchy to a smaller number, for those who seek equality are forced to bring in the people as a helper.) And revolutions in oligarchy also take place when they squander their private means by riotous living; for also men of this sort seek to bring about a new state of affairs, and either aim at tyranny themselves or suborn somebody else

- -
-

(as Hipparinus put forward DionysiusSee 1259a 29 n. at Syracuse, and at Amphipolis See 1303b 2 n. a man named Cleotimus led the additional settlers that came from Chalcis and on their arrival stirred them up to sedition against the wealthy, and in Aegina the man who carried out the transactions with Chares attempted to cause a revolution in the constitution for a reason of this sorti.e. he had squandered his fortune in riotous living; this deal with the Athenian general may have been in 367 B.C.); so sometimes they attempt at once to introduce some reform, at other times they rob the public funds and in consequence either they or those who fight against them in their peculations stir up faction against the government, as happened at Apollonia on the Black Sea. On the other hand, harmonious oligarchy does not easily cause its own destruction; and an indication of this is the constitutional government at Pharsalus, for there the ruling class though few are masters of many meni.e. both of the lower classes and of the subject cities. because on good terms with one another. Also oligarchical governments break up when they create a second oligarchy within the oligarchy. This is when, although the whole citizen class is small, its few members are not all admitted to the greatest offices; this is what once occurred in Elis, for the government being in the hands of a few, very few men used to become members of the Elders,i.e. the small governing body. because these numbering ninety held office for life, and the mode of election was of a dynastic typei.e. like a dynasteia, favorable to the interest of a few very wealthy families; see 1292b 10 n. and resembled that of the Elders at Sparta.

-

Revolutionsof oligarchies occur both during war and in time of peace— during war since the oligarchs are forced by their distrust of the people to employ mercenary troops (for the man in whose hands they place them often becomes tyrant, as Timophanes did at Corinth, Corinth was at war with Argos circa 350 B.C. Timophanes was killed by his brother the famous Timoleon, in order to restore constitutional government. and if they put several men in command, these win for themselves dynastic power), and when through fear of this they give a share in the constitution to the multitude, the oligarchy falls because they are compelled to make use of the common people; during peace, on the other hand, because of their distrust of one another they place their protection in the hands of mercenary troops and a magistrate between the two parties, who sometimes becomes master of both, which happened at Larisa in the time of the government of the Aleuadae led by Simus,A probable emendation of the Greek gives happened at Larisa to Simus and his party at the time of the government of the Aleuadae. This family were hereditary rulers of Larisa (see also 1275b 29 ff. n., and 1305b 29 ff.) and at Abydos in the time of the political clubs of which that of Iphiades was one. And factions arise also in consequence of one set of the members of the oligarchy themselves being pushed aside by another set and being driven into party strife in regard to marriages or law-suits; examples of such disorders arising out of a cause related to marriage are the instances spoken of before, and also the oligarchy of the knights at Eretria was put downPossibly before the Persian wars. See 1289b 36 ff. The two following cases are unrecorded elsewhere. by Diagoras when he had been wronged in respect of a marriage, while the faction at Heraclea and that at Thebes arose out of a judgement of a law-court, when the people at Heraclea justly but factiously enforced the punishment against Eurytion on a charge of adultery and those at Thebes did so against Archias;

- -
-

for their personal enemies stirred up party feeling against them so as to get them bound in the pillory in the market-place. Also many governments have been put down by some of their members who had become resentful because the oligarchies were too despotic; this is how the oligarchies fell at Cnidus See 1305b 13 n. and at Chios. And revolutions also occur from an accident, both in what is called a constitutional government and in those oligarchies in which membership of the council and the law-courts and tenure of the other offices are based on a property-qualification. For often the qualification first having been fixed to suit the circumstances of the time, so that in an oligarchy a few may be members and in a constitutional government the middle classes, when peace or some other good fortune leads to a good harvest it comes about that the same properties become worth many times as large an assessment, so that all the citizens share in all the rights, the change sometimes taking place gradually and little by little and not being noticed, but at other times more quickly.

-

Such then are the causes that lead to revolutions and factions in oligarchies (and generally, both democracies and oligarchies are sometimes altered not into the opposite forms of constitution but into ones of the same class, for instancefrom legitimate democracies and oligarchies into autocratic ones and from the latter into the former).

-

In aristocracies factions arise in some cases because few men share in the honors (which has also been saidSee 1306a 13 ff. to be the cause of disturbances in oligarchies, because an aristocracy too is a sort of oligarchy, for in both those who govern are few—although the reason for this is not the same in both—since this does cause it to be thought that aristocracy is a form of oligarchy). And this is most bound to come about when there is a considerable number of people who are proud-spirited on the ground of being equals in virtue (for example the clan called the Maidens’ SonsSaid to be descended from irregular unions authorized in order to keep up population during the First Messenian War. They founded Taranto 708 B.C. at Sparta—for they were descended from the Equals—whom the Spartans detected in a conspiracy and sent away to colonize Tarentum); or when individuals although great men and inferior to nobody in virtue are treated dishonorably by certain men in higher honor (for example Lysander by the kingsKing Pausanias II. checked Lysander after his conquest of Athens in 403 B.C. and King Agesilaus thwarted him on the expedition into Asia Minor in 396.); or when a person of manly nature has no share in the honors (for example Cinadon,His conspiracy against the Ὅμοιοι in 398 B.C. was discovered and he was executed. who got together the attack upon the Spartans in the reign of Agesilaus). Faction in aristocracies also arises when some of the well-born are too poor and others too rich (which happens especially during wars, and this also occurred at Sparta at the time of the Messenian War—as appears from the poem of Tyrtaeus entitledLaw and Order;

- -
-

for some men being in distress because of the war put forward a claim to carry out a re-division of the land of the country). Also if a man is great and capable of being yet greater, he stirs up faction in order that he may be sole ruler (as Pausanias who commanded the army through the Persian war seems to have done at Sparta, and HannoPerhaps Hanno who fought in Sicily against the elder Dionysius circa 4OO B.C. at Carthage).

-

But the actual overthrow of both constitutional governments and aristocracies is mostly due to a departure from justice in the actual framework of the constitution. For what starts it in the case of a constitutional government is that it does not contain a good blend of democracy and oligarchy; and in the case of an aristocracy it is the lack of a good blend of those two elements and of virtue, but chiefly of the two elements (I mean popular government and oligarchy), for both constitutional governments and most of the constitutions that are called aristocracies aim at blending these. For thisi.e. their mode of blending oligarchy and democracy. is the point of distinction between aristocracies and what are called constitutional governments, and it is owing to this that some of themThe writer loosely speaks of aristocracies and polities as a single class, differing only in degree of concentration of power in the hands of the upper classes. are less and others more stable; for the constitutions inclining more towards oligarchy men call aristocracies and those inclining more to the side of the multitude constitutional governments, owing to which those of the latter sort are more secure than the others, for the greater number is the stronger, and also men are more content when they have an equal amount, whereas the owners of wealthy properties, if the constitution gives them the superior position,seek to behave insolently and to gain money. And speaking broadly, to whichever side the constitution leans, that is the side to which it shifts as either of the two parties increases its own side—a constitutional government shifts to democracy and an aristocracy to oligarchy, or to the opposite extremes, that is, aristocracy to democracy (for the poorer people feeling they are unjustly treated pull it round to the opposite) and constitutional governments to oligarchy (for the only lasting thing is equality in accordance with desert and the possession of what is their own). And the change mentionedi.e. from aristocracy to democracy. Possibly these events occurred after the defeat of Athens at Syracuse in 413 B.C., when the Athenian party at Thurii was banished (Lysias 835 D). The events in 8 were perhaps in the fourth century. came about at Thurii, for because the property-qualification for honors was too high, the constitution was altered to a lower property-qualification and to a larger number of official posts, but because the notables illegally bought up the whole of the land (for the constitution was too oligarchical, so that they were able to grasp at wealth) . . .Probably a clause meaning civil strife ensued has been lost. And the people having been trained in the war overpowered the guards, until those who were in the position of having too much land relinquished it.

-

Besides, as all aristocratic constitutions are inclined towards oligarchy, the notables grasp at wealth (for example at Sparta the estates are coming into a few hands); and the notables have more power to do what they like, and to form marriage connections with whom they like (which was the cause of the fall of the state of Locri, as a result of the marriage with Dionysius,See 1259a 28 n. He married in 397 B.C. the daughter of a Locrian citizen, who bore him the younger Dionysius. which would not have taken place in a democracy; nor in a well-blended aristocracy).

- -
-

And aristocracies are most liable to undergo revolution unobserved, through gradual relaxation, just as it has been said in what has gone before about all forms of constitution in general, that even a small change may cause a revolution. For when they give up one of the details of the constitution, afterwards they also make another slightly bigger change more readily, until they alter the whole system. This occurred for instance with the constitution of Thurii. There was a law that the office of general could be held at intervals of four years, but some of the younger men, becoming warlike and winning high repute with the mass of the guards, came to despise the men engaged in affairs, and thought that they would easily get control; so first they tried to repeal the law referred to, so as to enable the same persons to serve as generals continuously, as they saw that the people would vote for themselves with enthusiasm. And though the magistrates in charge of this matter, called the Councillors, at first made a movement to oppose them, they were won over, believing that after repealing this law they would allow the rest of the constitution to stand; but later, though they wished to prevent them when other laws were being repealed, they could no longer do anything more, but the whole system of the constitution was converted into a dynasty of the men who had initiated the innovations.

-

And constitutions of all formsare broken up some times from movements initiating from within themselves, but sometimes from outside, when there is an opposite form of constitution either near by or a long way off yet possessed of power. This used to happen in the days of the Athenians and the Spartans; the Athenians used to put down oligarchies everywhere and the Spartans democracies.

-

We have then approximately stated the causes that give rise to revolutions in the constitutions of states and to party factions.

-

The next thing to speak about is security both in general and for each form of constitution separately. First then it is clear that if we know the causes by which constitutions are destroyed we also know the causes by which they are preserved; for opposites create opposites, and destruction is the opposite of security. In well-blended constitutions therefore, if care must be taken to prevent men from committing any other breach of the law, most of all must a small breach be guarded against, for transgression of the law creeps in unnoticed, just as a small expenditure occurring often ruins men’s estates; for the expense is not noticed because it does not come all at once, for the mind is led astray by the repeated small outlays, just like the sophistic puzzle, if each is little, then all are alittle.This is the soritesfallacy; add to one stone another, and another, and another—when do they make a heap ( σωρός)? and take away stone after stone—when do they cease to be a heap? Horace’s ratio ruentis acerui (Hor. Ep. 2.47. This is true in one way but in another it is not; for the whole or total is not little, but made up of little parts. One thing therefore that we must guard against is this beginning; and the next point is that we must not put faith in the arguments strung together for the sake of tricking the multitude,

- -
-

for they are refuted by the facts (and what sort of constitutional sophistries we refer to hasbeen said before). And again we must observe that not only some aristocracies but also some oligarchies endure not because the constitutions are secure but because those who get in the offices treat both those outside the constitution and those in the government well, on the one hand by not treating those who are not members of it unjustly and by bringing their leading men into the constitution and not wronging the ambitious ones in the matter of dishonor or the multitude in the matter of gain, and on the other hand, in relation to themselves and those who are members, by treating one another in a democratic spirit. For that equality which men of democratic spirit seek for in the case of the multitude is not only just but also expedient in the case of their compeers. Hence if there are a greater number in the governing class, many of the legislative enactments of a democratic nature are advantageous, for example for the offices to be tenable for six months, to enable all the compeers to participate in them; for the compeers in this case are as it were the people (owing to which demagogues often arise even among them, as has been said already), and also oligarchies and aristocracies fall into dynasties less (for it is not so easy to do wrongs when in office for a short time as when in for a long time, since it is long tenure of office that causes tyrannies to spring up in oligarchies and democracies; for either those who are the greatest men in either sort of state aim at tyranny, in the one sort the demagogues and in the other the dynasts, or those who hold the greatest offices, when they are in office for along time). And constitutions are kept secure not only through being at a distance from destroyers but sometimes also through being near them,This modifies 1207a 31. for when they are afraid the citizens keep a closer hold on the government; hence those who take thought for the constitution must contrive causes of fear, in order that the citizens may keep guard and not relax their vigilance for the constitution like a watch in the night, and they must make the distant near. Again, they must also endeavor to guard against the quarrels and party struggles of the notables by means of legislation, and to keep out those who are outside the quarrel before they too have taken it over; since to discern a growing evil at the commencement is not any ordinary person’s work but needs a statesman. And to deal with the revolution from oligarchy and constitutional government that arises because of the property-qualifications, when this occurs while the rates of qualification remain the same but money is becoming plentiful, it is advantageous to examine the total amount of the rated value of the community as compared with the past amount, in states where the assessment is made yearly, over that period,

- -
-

and three years or five years ago in the larger states, and if the new total is many times larger or many times smaller than the former one at the time when the rates qualifying for citizenship were fixed, it is advantageous that there should be a law for the magistrates correspondingly to tighten up or to relax the rates, tightening them up in proportion to the ratio of increase if the new total rated value exceeds the old, and relaxing them and making the qualification lower if the new total falls below theold. For in oligarchies and constitutional states, when they do not do this, in the one casei.e. if the total valuation has decreased. the result is that in the latter an oligarchy comes into existence and in the former a dynasty, and in the other casei.e. if the total has increased. a constitutional government turns into a democracy and an oligarchy into a constitutional government or a government of the people. But it is a policy common to democracy and oligarchy [and to monarchy],Some MSS. and many editors omit these words. and every form of constitution not to raise up any man too much beyond due proportion, but rather to try to assign small honors and of long tenure or great ones quicklyThe text should probably be emended with a short tenure. (for officials grow corrupt, and not every man can bear good fortune), or if not, at all events not to bestow honors in clusters and take them away again in clusters, but by a gradual process; and best of all to try so to regulate people by the law that there may be nobody among them specially pre-eminent in power due to friends or wealth, or, failing this, to cause their periods out of office to be spent abroad.And since men also cause revolutions through their private lives, some magistracy must be set up to inspect those whose mode of living is unsuited to the constitution—unsuited to democracy in a democracy, to oligarchy in an oligarchy, and similarly for each of the other forms of constitution. And also sectional prosperity in the state must be guarded against for the same reasons; and the way to avert this is always to entrust business and office to the opposite sections (I mean that the respectable are opposite to the multitude and the poor to the wealthy), and to endeavor either to mingle together the multitude of the poor and that of the wealthy or to increase the middle class (for this dissolves party factions due to inequality). And in every form of constitution it is a very great thing for it to be so framed both by its laws and by its other institutions that it is impossible for the magistracies to make a profit. And this has most to be guarded against in oligarchies; for the many are not so much annoyed at being excluded from holding office (but in fact they are glad if somebody lets them have leisure to spend on their own affairs) as they are if they think that the magistrates are stealing the common funds, but then both things annoy them, exclusion from the honors of office and exclusion from its profits. And indeed the sole way in which a combination of democracy and aristocracy is possible is if someone could contrive this arrangementi.e. render it impossible to make money out of office;

- -
-

for it would then be possible for the notables and also the multitude both to have what they want; for it is the democratic principle for all to have the right to hold office and the aristocratic one for the offices to be filled by the notables, and this will be the case when it is impossible to make money from office; for the poor will not want to hold office because of making nothing out of it, but rather to attend to their own affairs, while the wealthy will be able to hold office because they have no need to add to their resources from the public funds; so that the result will be that the poor will become well-off through spending their time upon their work, and the notables will not be governed by any casual persons. Therefore to prevent peculation of the public property, let the transfer of the funds take place in the presence of all the citizens, and let copies of the lists be deposited for each brotherhood,Groups of citizens normally three to a tribe, supposed to be based on relationship. companyOriginally a military, later a civil classification. and tribe; and to get men to hold office without profit there must be honors assigned by law to officials of good repute. And in democracies it is necessary to be sparing of the wealthy not only by not causing properties to be divided up, but not incomes either (which under some constitutions takes place unnoticed), and it is better to prevent men from undertaking costly but useless public services like equipping choruses and torch-racesEquipping the chorus and actors for tragedies and comedies and providing for the ceremonial torch-races were public services borne by individuals at Athens. and all other similar services, even if they wish to; in an oligarchy on the other hand it is necessary to take much care of the poor, and to allot to them the offices of profit, and the penalty if one of the rich commits an outrage against them must be greater than if it is done by one of themselves,Or possibly than if he does it against one of his own class. and inheritance must not go by bequest but by family, and the same man must not inherit more than one estate, for so estates would be more on a level, and more of the poor would establish themselves as prosperous. And it is expedient both in a democracy and in an oligarchy to assign to those who have a smaller share in the government—in a democracy to the wealthy and in anoligarchy to the poor—either equality or precedence in all other things excepting the supreme offices of state; but these should be entrusted to those prescribed by the constitution exclusively, or to them for the most part.

-

There are some three qualities which those who are to hold the supreme magistracies ought to possess, first, loyalty to the established constitution, next, very great capacity to do the duties of the office, and third, virtue and justice—in each constitution the sort of justice suited to the constitution (for if the rules of justice are not the same under all constitutions, it follows that there must be differences in the nature of justice also). It is a difficult question how the choice ought to be made when it happens that all these qualities are not found in the same person;

- -
-

for instance, if one man is a good military commander but a bad man and no friend of the constitution, and the other is just and loyal, how should the choice be made? It seems that two things ought to be considered, what is the quality of which all men have a larger share, and what the one of which all have a smaller share? Therefore in the case of military command one must consider experience more than virtue, for men have a smaller share of military experience and a larger share of moral goodness; but in the case of a trusteeship or a stewardship the opposite, for these require more virtue than most men possess, but the knowledge required is common to all men. And somebody might raise the question, why is virtue needed if both capacity and loyalty to the constitution are forthcoming, as even these two qualities will do what is suitable? May not the answer be, because those who possess these two qualities may possibly lack self-control, so that just as they do not serve themselves well although they know how to and although they love themselves, so possibly in some cases they may behave in this way in regard to the community also? And broadly, whatever provisions in the laws we describe as advantageous to constitutions, these are all preservative of the constitutions, and so is the supreme elementary principle that has been often stated, that of taking precautions that the section desirous of the constitution shall be stronger in numbers than the section not desirous off it. And beside all these matters one thing must not be overlooked which at present is overlooked by the, deviation-formsSee 1279a 20. of constitution—the middle party; for many of the institutions thought to be popular destroy democracies, and many of those thought oligarchical destroy oligarchies. But the adherents of the deviation-form, thinking that this form is the only right thing, drag it to excess, not knowing that just as there can be a nose that although deviating from the most handsome straightness towards being hooked or snub nevertheless is still beautiful and agreeable to look at, yet all the same, if a sculptor carries it still further in the direction of excess, he will first lose the symmetry of the feature and finally will make it not even look like a nose at all, because of its excess and deficiency in the two opposite qualities (and the same is the ease also in regard to the other parts of the body), so this is what happens about constitutions likewise; for it is possible for an oligarchy and a democracy to be satisfactory although they have diverged from the best structure, but if one strains either of them further, first he will make the constitution worse, and finally he will make it not a constitution at all. Therefore the legislator and the statesman must not fail to know what sort of democratic institutions save and what destroy a democracy, and what sort of oligarchical institutions an oligarchy; for neither constitution can exist and endure without the well-to-do and the multitude, but when an even level of property comes about, the constitution resulting must of necessity be another one,

- -
-

so that when men destroy these classes by laws carried to excess they destroy the constitutions. And a mistake is made both in democracies and in oligarchies—in democracies by the demagogues, where the multitude is supreme over the laws; for they always divide the state into two by fighting with the well-to-do, but they ought on the contrary always to pretend to be speaking on behalf of men that are well-to-do, while in democracies the oligarchical statesmen ought to pretend to be speaking on behalf of the people, and the oligarchics ought to take oath in terms exactly opposite to those which they use now, for at present in some oligarchies they swear, And I will be hostile to the people and will plan whatever evil I can against them,The scoffing anapaestic cadence of this oath has been noted. In 411 B.C. the democratic reaction at Athens swore to be enemies of the Four Hundred and to hold no parley with them. but they ought to hold, and to act the part of holding, the opposite notion, declaring in their oaths, I will not wrong the people. But the greatest of all the means spoken of to secure the stability of constitutions is one that at present all people despise: it is a system of education suited to the constitutions. For there is no use in the most valuable laws, ratified by the unanimous judgement of the whole body of citizens, if these are not trained and educated in the constitution, popularly if the laws are popular, oligarchically if they are oligarchical; for there is such a thing as want of self-discipline in a state, as well as in an individual. But to have been educated to suit the constitution does not mean to do the things that give pleasure to the adherents of oligarchy or to the supportersof democracy, but the things that will enable the former to govern oligarchically and the latter to govern themselves democratically. But at present in the oligarchies the sons of the rulers are luxurious, and the sons of the badly-off become trained by exercise and labor, so that they are both more desirous of reform and more able to bring it about; - while in the democracies thought to be the most democratic the opposite of what is expedient has come about. And the cause of this is that they define liberty wrongly (for there are two things that are thought to be defining features of democracy, the sovereignty of the majority and liberty); for justice is supposed to be equality, and equality the sovereignty of what ever may have been decided by the multitude, and liberty doing just what one likes. Hence in democracies of this sort everybody lives as he likes, and unto what end he listeth, as EuripidesFragment 883, from an unknown play. says. But this is bad; for to live in conformity with the constitution ought not to be considered slavery but safety.

-

This therefore, speaking broadly, is a list of the things that cause the alteration and the destruction of constitutions, and of those that cause their security and continuance.

-

It remains to speak of monarchy, the causes that destroy it and the natural means of its preservation.

- -
-

And the things that happen about royal governments and tyrannies are almost similar to those that have been narrated about constitutional governments. For royal government corresponds with aristocracy, while tyranny is a combination of the last form of oligarchyCf. 1296a 3, 1312b 35. and of democracy; and for that very reason it is most harmful to its subjects, inasmuch as it is a combination of two bad things, and is liable to the deviations and errors that spring from both forms of constitution. And these two different sorts of monarchy have their origins from directly opposite sources; royalty has come into existence for the assistance of the distinguished against the people, and a king is appointed from those distinguished by superiority in virtue or the actions that spring from virtue, or by superiority in coming from a family of that character, while a tyrant is set up from among the people and the multitude to oppose the notables, in order that the people may suffer no injustice from them. And this is manifest from the facts of history. For almost the greatest number of tyrants have risen, it may be said, from being demagogues, having won the people’s confidence by slandering the notables. For some tyrannies were set up in this manner when the states had already grown great, but others that came before them arose from kings departing from the ancestral customs and aiming at a more despotic rule,and others from the men elected to fill the supreme magistracies (for in old times the peoples used to appoint the popular officialsHere δημιουργία means magistracy generally; δημιουργός was the title of a special officer in some Peloponnesian states. and the sacred embassiesOfficial missions to religious games and to oracles. for long terms of office), and others from oligarchies electing some one supreme official for the greatest magistracies. For in all these methods they had it in their powerto effect their purpose easily, if only they wished, because they already possessed the power of royal rule in the one set of cases and of their honorable office in the other, for example Phidon in Argos Perhaps circa 750 B.C. and others became tyrants when they possessed royal power already, while the Ionian tyrantse.g. Thrasybulus, tyrant of Miletus, 612 B.C. and PhalarisTyrant of Agrigentum 572 B.C. arose from offices of honor, and Panaetius at Leontini and Cypselus at Corinth and PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. at Athens and DionysiusSee 1259a 28 n. at Syracuse and others in the same manner from the position of demagogue. - -Therefore, as we said, royalty is ranged in correspondence with aristocracy, for it goes by merit, either by private virtue or by family or by services or by a combination of these things and ability. For in every instance this honor fell to men after they had conferred benefit or because they had the ability to confer benefit on their cities or their nations, some having prevented their enslavement in war, for instance Codrus,The usual tradition was that Codrus was already king when he saved Athens by sacrificing his life. others having set them free, for instance Cyrus,Cyrus liberated Persia from the Median empire 559 B.C. or having settled or acquired territory, for instance the kings of Sparta and Macedon and the Molossians.Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, conquered the Molossi and became their king. And a king wishes to be a guardian,

- -
-

to protect the owners of estates from suffering injustice and the people from suffering insult, but tyranny, as has repeatedly been said, pays regard to no common interest unless for the sake of its private benefit; and the aim of tyranny is what is pleasant, that of royalty what is noble. Hence even in their requisitions money is the aim of tyrants but rather marks of honor that of kings; and a king’s body-guard consists of citizens, a tyrant’s of foreign mercenaries. And it is manifest that tyranny has the evils of both democracy and oligarchy; it copies oligarchy in making wealth its object (for inevitably that is the only way in which the tyrant’s body-guard and his luxury can be kept up) and in putting no trust in the multitude (which is why they resort to the measure of stripping the people of arms, and why ill-treatment of the mob and its expulsion from the city and settlement in scattered places is common to both forms of government, both oligarchy and tyranny), while it copies democracy in making war on the notables and destroying them secretly and openly and banishing them as plotting against it and obstructive to its rule. For it is from them that counter-movements actually spring, some of them wishing themselves to rule, and others notto be slaves. Hence comes the advice of Periander to Thrasybulus,See 1284a 26 n. his docking of the prominent cornstalks, meaning that the prominent citizens must always be made away with.

-

Therefore, as was virtually stated,This has not been stated, but can be inferred from what precedes. the causes of revolutions in constitutional and in royal governments must be deemed to be the same; for subjects in many cases attack monarchies because of unjust treatment and fear and contempt, and among the forms of unjust treatment most of all because of insolence, and sometimes the cause is the seizure of private property. Also the objects aimed at by the revolutionaries in the case both of tyrannies and of royal governments are the same as in revolts against constitutional government; for monarchs possess great wealth and great honor, which are desired by all men. And in some cases the attack is aimed at the person of the rulers, in others at their office. Risings provoked by insolence are aimed against the person; and though insolence has many varieties, each of them gives rise to anger, and when men are angry they mostly attack for the sake of revenge, not of ambition. For example the attack on the Pisistratidae took place because they outraged Harmodius’s sister and treated Harmodius with contumely (for Harmodius attacked them because of his sister and Aristogiton because of Harmodius, and also the plot was laid against Periander the tyrant in Ambracia See 1304a 31 n. because when drinking with his favorite he asked him if he was yet with child by him),

- -
-

and the attack on Philip by PausaniasA Macedonian youth of family, who murdered Philip 336 B.C. Attalus was the uncle of Philip’s wife Cleopatra. was because he allowed him to be insulted by Attalus and his friends, and that on Amyntas the LittlePerhaps the adjective should be transferred to Derdas and expunged as an interpolated note. The persons referred to are uncertain. by Derdas because he mocked at his youth, and the attack of the eunuch on Evagoras of Cyprus was for revenge, for he murdered him as being insulted, because Evagoras’s son had taken away his wife. And many risings have also occurred because of shameful personal indignities committed by certain monarchs. One instance is the attack of Crataeas on ArchelausKing of Macedon 413-399 B.C. Euripides went to reside at his court 408 B.C. and died there 406 B.C. at the age of 75.; for he was always resentful of the association, so that even a smaller excuse became sufficient, or perhaps it was because he did not give him the hand of one of his daughters after agreeing to do so, but gave the elder to the king of Elimea when hard pressed in a war against Sirras and Arrabaeus, and the younger to his son Amyntas, thinking that thus Amyntas would be least likely to quarrel with his son by Cleopatra; but at all events Crataeas’s estrangement was primarily caused by resentment because of the love affair. And Hellanocrates of Larisa also joined in the attack for the same reason; for because while enjoying his favors Archelaus would not restore him to his home although he had promised to do so, he thought that the motive of the familiarity that had taken placehad been insolence and not passionate desire. And Pytho and Heraclides of Aenus made away with CotysKing of Thrace 382-358 B.C. to avenge their father, and Adamas revolted from Cotys because he had been mutilated by him when a boy, on the ground of the insult. And also many men when enraged by the indignity of corporal chastisement have avenged the insult by destroying or attempting to destroy its author, even when a magistrate or member of a royal dynasty. For example when the PenthilidaeThe ruling family in the early oligarchy there, claiming descent from Penthilus, an illegitimate son of Orestes. at Mitylene went about striking people with their staves Megacles with his friends set on them and made away with them, and afterwards Smerdis when he had been beaten and dragged out from his wife’s presence killed Penthilus. Also Decamnichus took a leading part in the attack upon Archelaus, being the first to stir on the attackers; and the cause of his anger was that he had handed him over to Euripides the poet to flog, Euripides being angry because he had made a remark about his breath smelling. And many others also for similar reasons have been made away with or plotted against. And similarly also from the motive of fear; for this was one of the causes we mentioned in the case of monarchies, as also in that of constitutional governments; for instance ArtapanesCaptain of Xerxes’ body-guard. killed Xerxes fearing the charge about Darius, because he had hanged him when Xerxes had ordered him not to but he had thought that he would forgive him because he would forget, as he had been at dinner. And other attacks on monarchs have been on account of contempt,

- -
-

as somebody killed SardanapallusLast king of the Assyrian empire at Nineveh. when he saw him combing his hair with his women (if this story told by the narrators of legends is true—and if it did not happen with Sardanapallus, it might quite well be true of somebody else), and Dion attacked the younger DionysiusTyrant of Syracuse 367-356 and 346-343 B.C., cf. 1312a 34 ff. because he despised him, when he saw the citizens despising him and the king himself always drunk. And contempt has led some even of the friends of monarchs to attack them, for they despise them for trusting them and think they will not be found out. And contempt is in a manner the motive of those who attack monarchs thinking that they are able to seize the government; for they make the attempt with a light heart, feeling that they have the power and because of their power despising the danger, as generals commanding the armies attack their monarchs; for instance Cyrus attacked AstyagesThe last king of Media, reigned 594-559 B.C. when he despised both his mode of life and his power, because his power had waned and he himself was living luxuriously, and the Thracian Seuthes attacked AmadocusBoth these Thracian kings became allies of Athens 390 B.C., but the event referred to may be later. when his general. Others again attack monarchs for more than one of these motives, for instance both because they despise them and for the sake of gain, as MithridatesPerhaps Mithridates II., who succeeded his father Ariobarzanes as satrap of Pontus 336 B.C. attacked Ariobarzanes.The following sentence may have been shifted by mistake from the end of 8.14 above. And it is men of bold nature and who hold a military office with monarchs who most often make the attempt for this reason; for courage possessing power is boldness,and they make their attacks thinking that with courage and power they will easily prevail. But with those whose attack is prompted by ambition the motive operates in a different way from those spoken of before; some men attack tyrantsbecause they see great profits and great honors belonging to them, but that is not the reason that in each case leads the persons who attack from motives of ambition to resolve on the venture; those others are led by the motive stated, but these attack monarchs from a wish to gain not monarchy but glory, just as they would wishto take part in doing any other uncommon deed that makes men famous and known to their fellows. Not but what those who make the venture from this motive are very few indeed in number, for underlying it there must be an utter disregard of safety, if regard for safety is not to check the enterprise; they must always have present in their minds the opinion of Dion, although it is not easy for many men to have it; Dion marched with a small force against Dionysius, saying that his feeling was that, whatever point he might be able to get to, it would be enough for him to have had that much share in the enterprise—for instance, if it should befall him to die as soon as he had just set foot in the country, that death would satisfy him.

-

And one way in which tyranny is destroyed, as is eachof the other forms of constitution also, is from without,

- -
-

if some state with an opposite constitution is stronger (for the wish to destroy it will clearly be present in such a neighbor because of the opposition of principle, and all men do what they wish if they have the power)—and the constitutions opposed to tyranny are, on the one hand democracy, which is opposed to it as (in Hesiod’s phrase Hes. WD 25 καὶ κεραμεὺς κεραμεῖ κοτέει καὶ τέκτονι τέκτων, two of a trade never agree.) potter to potter, because the final form of democracy is tyranny, and on the other hand royalty and aristocracy are opposed to tyranny because of the opposite nature of their constitutional structure (owing towhich the Spartans put down a very great many tyrannies, and so did the Syracusans at the period when they were governed well.) But one way is from within itself, when the partners in it fall into discord, as the tyranny of the family of GeloTyrant of Syracuse 485-478 B.C., succeeded by his brother Hiero who died 467. Gelo’s son is unknown. Cf. 1315b 35 ff. was destroyed, and in modern times 356 B.C., a good many years before this book was written. that of the family of DionysiusSee 1312a 4 n.—Gelo’s, when Thrasybulus the brother of Hiero paid court to the son of Gelo and urged him into indulgences in order that he himself might rule, and the son’s connections banded together a body of confederates in order that the tyranny might not be put down entirely but only Thrasybulus, but their confederates seizing the opportunity expelled them all; Dionysius was put down by Dion, his relative, who got the people on to his side and expelled him, but was afterwards killed. There are two causes that chiefly lead men to attack tyranny, hatred and contempt; the former, hatred,attaches to tyrants always, but it is their being despised that causes their downfall in many cases. A proof of this is that most of those that have won tyrannies have also kept their offices to the end, but those that have inherited them almost all lose them at once; for they live a life of indulgence, and so become despicable and also give many opportunities to their attackers. And also anger must be counted as an element in the hatred felt for them, for in a way it occasions the same actions. And often it is even more active than hatred, since angry men attack more vigorously because passion does not employ calculation (and insolence most frequently causes men to be led by their angry tempers, which was the cause of the fall of the tyranny of the Pisistratidae and many others), but hatred calculates more; for anger brings with it an element of pain, making calculation difficult, but enmity is not accompanied by pain. And to speak summarily, all the things that we have mentioned as causing the down fall of unmixed and extreme oligarchy and of the last form of democracy must be counted as destructive of tyranny as well, since extreme oligarchy and democracy are in reality dividedi.e. divided among several persons, put into commission. tyrannies. Royal government on the other hand is very seldom destroyed by external causes, so that it is long-lasting; but in most cases its destruction arises out of itself. And it is destroyed in two ways,

- -
-

one when those who participate in it quarrel, and another when the kings try to administer the government too tyrannically, claiming to exercise sovereignty in more things and contrary to the law. Royal governments do not occur any more now, but if ever monarchies do occur they are rather tyrannies, because royalty is government over willing subjects but with sovereignty over greater matters, but men of equal quality are numerous and no one is so outstanding as to fit the magnitude and dignity of the office; so that for this reason the subjects do not submit willingly, and if a man has made himself ruler by deception or force, then this is thought to be a tyranny. In cases of hereditary royalty we must also set down a cause of their destruction, in addition to those mentioned, the fact that hereditary kings often become despicable, and that although possessing not the power of a tyrant but the dignity of a king they commit insolent outrages; for the deposition of kings used to be easy, since a king will at once cease to be king if his subjects do not wish him to be, whereas a tyrant will still be tyrant even though his subjects do not wish it.

-

These causes then and others of the same nature are those that bring about the destruction of monarchies.

-

On the other hand it is clear that monarchies, speaking generally, are preserved in safety as a result of the opposite causes to those by which they are destroyed. But taking the different sorts of monarchy separately—royalties are preserved by bringing theminto a more moderate form; for the fewer powers the kings have, the longer time the office in its entirety must last, for they themselves become less despotic and more equal to their subjects in temper, and their subjects envy them less. For this was the cause of the long persistence of the Molossian royalty, and that of Sparta has continued because the office was from the beginning divided into two halves, and because it was again limited in various ways by Theopompus,King of Sparta circa 770-720 B.C. in particular by his instituting the office of the ephors to keep a check upon it; for by taking away some of the kings’ power he increased the permanence of the royal office, so that in a manner he did not make it less but greater. This indeed as the story goes is what he said in reply to his wife, when she asked if he felt no shame in bequeathing the royal power to his sons smaller than he had inherited it from his father: Indeed I do not, he is said to have answered, for Ihand it on more lasting.

-

Tyrannies on the other hand are preserved in two extremely opposite ways. One of these is the traditional way and the one in which most tyrants administer their office. Most of these ordinary safeguards of tyranny are said to have been instituted by PerianderSee 1284a 26 n. of Corinth, and also many such devices may be borrowed from the Persian empire. These are both the measures mentioned some time back to secure the safety of a tyranny as far as possible—the lopping off of outstanding men and the destruction of the proud,—and also the prohibition of common meals and club-fellowship and education and all other things of this nature,

- -
-

in fact the close watch upon all things that usually engender the two emotions of pride and confidence, and the prevention of the formation of study-circles and other conferences for debate,The phrases cover Plato’s gatherings in the Academy, Aristotle’s in the Peripatos of the Lyceum, and other meetings for the intellectual use of leisure in gymnasia, palaestrae and leschae. and the employment of every means that will make people as much as possible unknown to one another (for familiarity increases mutual confidence); and for the people in the city to be always visible and to hang about the palace-gates (for thus there would be least concealment about what they are doing, and they would get into a habit of being humble from always acting in a servile way); and all the other similar devices of Persian and barbarian tyranny (for all have the same effect); and to try not to be uninformed about any chance utterances or actions of any of the subjects, but to have spies like the women called provocatrices at Syracuse and the sharp-ears that used to be sent out by Hiero wherever there was any gathering or conference (for when men are afraid of spies of this sort they keep a check on their tongues, and if they do speak freely are less likely not to be found out); and to set men at variance with one another and cause quarrels between friend and friend and between the people and the notables and among the rich. And it is a device of tyranny to make the subjects poor, so that a guardApparently this means a citizen force side by side with the tyrant’s mercenaries; a variant gives in order that the (tyrant’s) guard may be kept. may not be kept, and also that the people being busy with their daily affairs may not have leisure to plot against their ruler. Instances of this are the pyramids in Egypt and the votive offerings of the Cypselids,Cypselus and his son Periander (1310b 29 n., 1284a 26 n.) dedicated a colossal statue of Zeus at Olympia and other monuments there and at Delphi. and the building of the temple of Olympian Zeus by the PisistratidaePisistratus is said to have begun the temple of Olympian Zeus at Athens, not finished till the time of Hadrian. and of the temples at Samos, works of PolycratesTyrant of Samos, d. 522 B.C. (for all these undertakings produce the same effect, constant occupation and poverty among the subject people); and the levying of taxes, as at Syracuse (for in the reign of DionysiusSee 1259a 28 n. the result of taxation used to be that in five years men had contributed the whole of their substance). Also the tyrant is a stirrer-up of war, with the deliberate purpose of keeping the people busy and also of making them constantly in need of a leader. Also whereas friends are a means of security to royalty, it is a mark of a tyrant to be extremely distrustful of his friends, on the ground that, while all have the wish, these chiefly have the power. Also the things that occur in connection with the final form of democracyCf. 1309b 27 ff. are all favorable to tyranny—dominance of women in the homes, in order that they may carry abroad reports against the men, and lack of discipline among the slaves, for the same reason; for slaves and women do not plot against tyrants, and also, if they prosper under tyrannies, must feel well-disposed to them, and to democracies as well (for the common people also wishes to be sole ruler). Hence also the flatterer is in honor with both—with democracies the demagogue (for the demagogue is a flatterer of the people), and with the tyrants those who associate with them humbly, which is the task of flattery.

- -
-

In fact owing to this tyranny is a friend of the base; for tyrants enjoy being flattered, but nobody would ever flatter them if he possessed a free spirit—men of character love their ruler, or at all events do not flatter him. And the base are useful for base business, for nail is driven out by nail, as the proverb goes.The proverb ἡλῷ ἧλος ἐκκρούεται usually meant driving out something by a thing of the same kind (‘set a thief to catch a thief’), not as here the execution of evil designs by appropriate agents. And it is a mark of a tyrant to dislike anyone that is proud or free-spirited; for the tyrant claims for himself alone the right to bear that character, and the man who meets his pride with pride and shows a free spirit robs tyranny of its superiority and position of mastery; tyrants therefore hate the proud as undermining their authority. And it is a mark of a tyrant to have men of foreign extraction rather than citizens as guests at table and companions, feeling that citizens are hostile but strangers make no claim against him.i.e. do not claim honors as against their patron, claim to be his equals. These and similar habits are characteristic of tyrants and preservative of their office, but they lack no element of baseness. And broadly speaking, they are all included under three heads; for tyranny aims at three things, one to keep its subjects humble (for a humble-spirited man would not plot against anybody), second to have them continually distrust one another (for a tyranny is not destroyed until some men come to trust each other, owing to which tyrants also make war on the respectable, as detrimentalto their rule not only because of their refusal to submit to despotic rule, but also because they are faithful to one another and to the other citizens, and do not inform against one another nor against the others); and the third is lack of power for political action (since nobody attempts impossibilities, so that nobody tries to put down a tyranny if he has not power behind him). - - These then in fact are the three aims to which the wishes of tyrants are directed; for all the measures taken by tyrants one might class under these principles—some are designed to prevent mutual confidence among the subjects, others to curtail their power, and others to make them humble-spirited.

-

Such then is the nature of one method by which security is obtained for tyrannies. The other tries to operate in a manner almost the opposite of the devices mentioned. And it can be ascertained from considering the downfall of royal governments. For just as one mode of destroying royalty is to make its government more tyrannical, so a mode of securing tyranny is to make it more regal, protecting one thing only, its power, in order that the ruler may govern not only with the consent of the subjects but even without it; for if he gives up this, he also gives up his position as tyrant. But while this must stand as a fundamental principle, all the other measures he may either adopt or pretend to adopt by cleverly acting the royal part. The first step is to be careful of the public funds,

- -
-

not squandering presents such as the multitudes resent, when tyrants take money from the people themselves while they toil and labor in penury and lavish it on mistresses and foreigners and craftsmen, and also rendering account of receipts and expenditure, as some tyrants have done already （for this careful management would make a ruler seem a steward of the state and not a tyrant, and he need not be afraid of ever being at a loss for funds while he is master of the state; on the contrary, for those tyrants who go abroad on foreign campaigns this is actually more expedient than to leave their money there collected into one sum, for there is less fear of those guarding it making an attempt on power; since for tyrants campaigning abroad the keepers of the treasury are more to be feared than the citizens, for the citizens go abroad with him but the others stay at home）. Secondly he must be seen to collect his taxes and benevolences for purposes of administration and to meet his occasional requirements for military emergencies, and generally must pose as guardian and steward as it were of a public fund and not a private estate. And his bearing must not be harsh but dignified, and also such as to inspire not fear but rather respect in those who encounter him, though this is not easy to achieve if he is a contemptible personality; so that even if he neglects the other virtues he is bound to cultivate military valor, and to make himself a reputation as a soldier. And further more not only must he himself be known not to outrage any of his subjects, either boy or girl, but so also must everybody about him, and also their wives must similarly show respect towards the other women, since even the insolences of women have caused the fall of many tyrannies. And in regard to bodily enjoyments he must do the opposite of what some tyrants do now (for they not only begin their debaucheries at daybreak and carry them on for many days at a time, but also wish to be seen doing so by the public, in order that people may admire them as fortunate and happy(, but best of all he must be moderate in such matters, or if not, he must at all events avoid displaying his indulgences to his fellows (for not the sober man but the drunkard is easy to attack and to despise, not the wakeful man but the sleeper). And he must do the opposite of almost all the things mentioned some time back, for he must lay out and adorn the city as if he were a trustee and not a tyrant. And further he must be seen always to be exceptionally zealous as regards religious observances (for people are less afraid of suffering any illegal treatment from men of this sort,

- -
-

if they think that their ruler has religious scruples and pays regard to the gods, and also they plot against him less, thinking that he has even the gods as allies), though he should not display a foolish religiosity. And he must pay such honor to those who display merit in any matter that they may think that they could never be more honored by the citizens if they were in dependent; and honors of this kind he should bestow in person, but inflict his punishments by the agency of other magistrates and law-courts. And it is a protection common to every sort of monarchy to make no one man great, but if necessary to exalt several (for they will keep watch on one another), and if after all the ruler has to elevate an individual, at all events not take a man of bold spirit (for such a character is most enterprising in all undertakings); and if he thinks fit to remove somebody from his power, to do this by gradual stages and not take away the whole of his authority at once. And again he should carefully avoid all forms of outrage, and two beyond all, violent bodily punishments and outrage of the young. And this caution must especially be exercised in relation to the ambitious, for while to be slighted in regard to property annoys the lovers of wealth, slights that involve dishonor are what men of honorable ambition and high character resent.Hence the tyrant should either not consort with men of this kind, or appear to inflict his punishments paternally and not because of contempt, and to indulge in the society of the young for reasons of passion, not because he has the power, and in general he should buy off what are thought to be dishonors by greater honors. And among those who make attempts upon the life of a ruler the most formidable and those against whom the greatest precaution is needed are those that are ready to sacrifice their lives if they can destroy him. Hence the greatest care must be taken to guard against those who think that insolent outrage is being done either to themselves or to those who happen to be under their care; for men attacking under the influence of anger are reckless of themselves, as HeraclitusThe natural philosopher of Ephesus, fl. circa 513 B.C., known as ὁ σκοτεινός for his epigrammatic obscurity. also observed when he said that anger was hard to combat because it would buy revenge with a life. And since states consist of two parts, the poor people and the rich, the most important thing is for both to think that they owe their safety to the government and for it to prevent either from being wronged by the other, but whichever class is the stronger, this must be made to be entirely on the side of the government, as, if this support for the tyrant’s interests is secured, there is no need for him to institute a liberation of slaves or a disarming of the citizens, for one of the two parts of the state added to his power will be enough to make him and them stronger than their attackers. But to discuss each of such matters separately is superfluous; for the thing to aim at is clear,

- -
-

that it is necessary to appear to the subjects to be not a tyrannical ruler but a steward and a royal governor, and not an appropriator of wealth but a trustee, and to pursue the moderate things of life and not its extravagances, and also to make the notables one’s comrades and the many one’s followers. For the result of these methods must be that not only the tyrant’s rule will be more honorable and more enviable because he will rule nobler subjects and not men that have been humiliated, and will not be continually hated and feared, but also that his rule will endure longer, and moreover that he himself in his personal character will be nobly disposed towards virtue, or at all events half-virtuous, and not base but only half-base.

-

Nevertheless oligarchy and tyrannyOligarchy is not mentioned in what follows, and the context deals with the forms of monarchy. Tyranny is included among the constitutions at 1312a 40, but not elsewhere in this Book. Some editors bracket ll. 19-29 as spurious or out of place. are less lasting than any of the constitutional governments. For the longest-lived was the tyranny at Sicyon, that of the sonsi.e. descendants; Cleisthenes was his grandson. of Orthagoras and of Orthagoras himself, and this lasted a hundred years.From 670 B.C. The cause of this was that they treated their subjects moderately and in many matters were subservient to the laws, and Cleisthenes because he was a warlike man was not easily despised, and in most things they kept the lead of the people by looking after their interests. At all events it is said that Cleisthenes placed a wreath on the judge who awarded the victory away from him, and some say that the statueof a seated figure in the market-place is a statue of the man who gave this judgement. And they say that PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. also once submitted to a summons for trial before the Areopagus. And the second longest is the tyranny at Corinth, that of the Cypselids,From 655 B.C. for even this lasted seventy-three and a half years, as Cypselus was tyrant for thirty years, Periander for forty-four,The Greek may be corrected to forty and a half to give the stated total. and Psammetichus son of Gordias for three years. And the reasons for the permanence of this tyranny also are the same: Cypselus was a leader of the people and continuously throughout his period of office dispensed with a bodyguard; and although Periander became tyrannical, yet he was warlike. The third longest tyranny is that of the Pisistratidae at Athens, but it was not continuous; for while PisistratusSee 1305a 23 n. was tyrant he twice fled into exile, so that in a period of thirty-three years he was tyrant for seventeen years out of the total, and his sons for eighteen years, so that the whole duration of their rule was thirty-five years. Among the remaining tyrannies is the one connected with Hiero and GeloSee 1312b 12 n. at Syracuse, but even this did not last many years, but only eighteen in all, for Gelo after being tyrant for seven years ended his life in the eighth, and Hiero ruled ten years, but Thrasybulus was expelled after ten months. And the usual tyrannies have all of them been of quite short duration.

-

The causes therefore of the destruction of constitutional governments and of monarchies and those again of their preservation have almost all of them been discussed.

- -
-

The subject of revolutions is discussed by Socrates in the Republic,Plato, Republic, Bks. 8, 9 init.; the mathematical formula for the change from Aristocracy to Timocracy quoted here occurs at Plat. Rep. 546c—see Adam’s note there. but is not discussed well. For his account of revolution in the constitution that is the best one and the first does not apply to it particularly. He says that the cause is that nothing is permanent but everything changes in a certain cycle, and that change has its origin in those numbers whose basic ratio 4 : 3 linked with the number 5 gives two harmonies,—meaning whenever the number of this figure becomes cubed,—in the belief that nature sometimes engenders men that are evil, and too strong for education to influence—speaking perhaps not ill as far as this particular dictum goes (for it is possible that there are some persons incapable of being educated and becoming men of noble character), but why should this process of revolution belong to the constitution which Socrates speaks of as the best, more than to all the other forms of constitution, and to all men that come into existence? and why merely by the operation of time, which he says is the cause of change in all things, do even things that did not begin to exist simultaneously change simultaneously? for instance, if a thing came into existence the day before the completion of the cycle, why does it yet change simultaneously with everything else? And in addition to these points, what is the reason why the republic changes from the constitution mentioned into the Spartan formTimocracy, Plat. Rep. 545a. ? For all constitutions more often change into the opposite form than into theone near them. And the same remark applies to the other revolutions as well. For from the Spartan constitution the state changes, he says, to oligarchy, and from this to democracy, and from democracy to tyranny. Yet revolutions also occur the other way about, for example from democracy to oligarchy, and more often so than from democracy to monarchy. Again as to tyranny he does not say whether it will undergo revolution or not, nor, if it will, what will be the cause of it, and into what sort of constitution it will change; and the reason for this is that he would not have found it easy to say, for it is irregular; since according to him tyranny ought to change into the first and best constitution, for so the process would be continuous and a circle, but as a matter of fact tyranny also changes into tyranny, as the constitution of Sicyon See 1315b 13 n. passed from the tyranny of Myron to that of Cleisthenes, and into oligarchy, as did that of AntileonUnknown, cf. 1304a 29 n. at Chalcis, and into democracy, as that of the family of GeloSee 1302b 33 n. at Syracuse, and into aristocracy, as that of CharilausSee 1271b 26 n. at Sparta [and as at Carthage].This clause seems an interpolation; cf. b 6. And constitutions change from oligarchy to tyranny, asdid almost the greatest number of the ancient oligarchies in Sicily, at Leontini to the tyranny of Panaetius,See 1310b 29 n. at Gelo to that of Cleander, at Rhegium to that of Anaxilaus,Unknown. Reggio is related to Sicily as Dover is to France. and in many other cities similarly. And it is also a strange idea that revolutions into oligarchy take place because the occupants of the offices are lovers of money and engaged in money-making,

- -
-

but not because owners of much more than the average amount of property think it unjust for those who do not own any property to have an equal share in the state with those who do; and in many oligarchies those in office are not allowed to engage in business, but there are laws preventing it, whereas in Carthage, which has a democratic government,Apparently this clause also is an interpolation, or democratic is a copyist’s mistake for oligarchic or timocratic, see 1272b 24 ff. the magistrates go in for business, and they have not yet had a revolution. - - And it is also a strange remark Plat. Rep. 551d that the oligarchical state is two states, one of rich men and one of poor men. For what has happened to this state rather than to the Spartan or any other sort of state where all do not own an equal amount of wealth or where all are not equally good men? and when nobody has become poorer than he was before, none the less revolution takes place from oligarchy to democracy if the men of no property become more numerous, and from democracy to oligarchy if the wealthy class is stronger than the multitude and the latter neglect politics but the former give their mind to them. And although there are many causes through which revolutions in oligarchies occur, he mentions only one—that of men becoming poor through riotous living, by paying away their money in interest on loans—as if at the start all men or most men were rich. - - But this is not true, but although when some of the leaders have lost their properties they stir up innovations, when men of the other classes are ruined nothing strange happens;and even when such a revolution does occur it is no more likely to end in a democracy than in another form of constitution. And furthermore men also form factions and cause revolutions in the constitution if they are not allowed a share of honors, and if they are unjustly or insolently treated, even if they have not run through all their property . . .Some words appear to be lost here; what follows refers to democracy, cf. Plat. Rep. 587b. because of being allowed to do whatever they like; the cause of which he states to be excessive liberty. And although there are several forms of oligarchy and of democracy, Socrates speaks of the revolutions that occur in them as though there were only one form of each.

- -
-
-

Book 7 in some editions, Book 8 in others.We have already discussedBook 4, 1297b 35 ff. how many and what are the varieties of the deliberative body or sovereign power in the state, and of the system of magistracies and of law-courts, and which variety is adapted to which form of constitution, and alsoBook 5. the destruction of constitutions and their preservation, from what sort of people they originate and what are their causes. But as a matter of fact since there have come into existence several kinds of democracy and similarly of the other forms of constitution, it will be well at the same time to consider1318b—1319a 6. any point that remains about these varieties, and also determine the mode of organization appropriate and advantageous for each. - And further we must also investigateThese topics do not occur in the extant work. the combinations of all the modes of organizing the actual departments of state that have been mentioned,i.e. the deliberative, executive and judicial, see 1297b 41 ff.

- -
-

for these modes when coupled together make the constitutions overlap, so as to produce oligarchical aristocracies and republics inclining towards democracy. I refer to the combinations which ought to be investigated but have not at present been studied, for example if the deliberative body and the system of electing magistrates are organized oligarchically but the regulations as to the law-courts aristocratically, or these and the structure of the deliberative body oligarchically and the election of magistracy aristocratically, or if in some other manner not all the parts of the constitution are appropriately combined

-

Now it has been stated before1296b 13—1297a 13. what kind of democracy is suited to what kind of state, and similarly which of the kinds of oligarchy is suited to what kind of populace, and also which of the remaining constitutions is advantageous for which people; but nevertheless since it must not only be made clear which variety of these constitutions is best for states, but also how both these best varieties and the other forms must be established, let us briefly pursue the subject. And first let us speak about democracy; for at the same time the facts will also become clear about the opposite form of constitution, that is, the constitution which some people call oligarchy.Rule of the few, i.e. the few rich, but the name is not exact, for in aristocracy also the rulers are few.

-

And for this inquiry we must take into view all the features that are popular and that are thoughtto go with democracies; for it comes about from combinations of these that the kinds of democracy are formed, and that there are different democracies and more than one sort. In fact there are two causes for there being several kinds of democracy, first the one stated before, the fact that the populations are different (for we find one multitude engaged in agriculture and another consisting of handicraftsmen and day-laborers, and when the first of these is added to the second and again the third to both of them it not only makes a difference in that the quality of the democracy becomes better or worse but also by its becoming different in kind); and the second cause is the one about which we now speak. For the institutions that go with democracies and seem to be appropriate to this form of constitution make the democracies different by their combinations; for one form of democracy will be accompanied by fewer, another by more, and another by all of them. And it is serviceable to ascertain each of them both for the purpose of instituting whichever of these kinds of democracy one happens to wish and for the purpose of amending existing ones. For people setting up constitutions seek to collect together all the features appropriate to their fundamental principle, but in so doing they make a mistake, as has been said before in the passage dealing with the causes of the destruction and the preservation of constitutions. And now let us state the postulates, the ethical characters and the aims of the various forms of democracy.

-

Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty—that is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty,

- -
-

for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.This clause is obscure: perhaps it is an interpolation. And these principles having been laid down and this being the nature of democratic government, the following institutions are democratic in character: election of officials by all from all; government of each by all,and of all by each in turn; election by lot either to all magistracies or to all that do not need experience and skill; no property-qualification for office, or only a very low one; no office to be held twice, or more than a few times, by the same person, or few offices except the military ones; short tenure either of all offices or of as many as possible; judicial functions to be exercised by all citizens, that is by persons selected from all, and on all matters, or on most and the greatest and most important, for instance the audit of official accounts, constitutional questions, private contracts; the assembly to be sovereign over all matters, but no official over any or only over extremely few; or else a council to be sovereign over the most important matters (and a council is the most democratic of magistracies in states where there is not a plentiful supply of pay for everybody—for where there is, they deprive even this office of its power, since the people draws all the trials to itself when it has plenty of pay, as has been said before in the treatise preceding this oneBook 4, 1299b 38 ff. (Books 4. and 5. are regarded as forming one treatise).); also payment for public duties, preferably in all branches, assembly, law-courts, magistracies, or if not, for the magistracies, the law-courts, council and sovereign assemblies, or for those magistracies which are boundi.e. owing to the nature of their duties, and by general custom. to have common mess tables. Also inasmuch as oligarchy is defined by birth, wealth and education, the popular qualifications are thought to be the opposite of these, low birth, poverty, vulgarity. And in respect of the magistracies it is democratic to have none tenable for life,

- -
-

and if any life-office has been left after an ancient revolution, at all events to deprive it of its power and to substitute election by lot for election by vote.

-

TheseThe rest of the chapter is most obscure, and its authenticity is questioned. then are the features common to democracies. But what is thought to be the extreme form of democracy and of popular government comes about as a result of the principle of justice that is admitted to be democratic, and this is for all to have equality according to number. For it is equality for the poor to have no larger share of power than the rich, and not for the poor alone to be supreme but for all to govern equally; for in this way they would feel that the constitution possessed both equality and liberty. But the question follows, how will they have equality? are the property-assessments of five hundred citizens to be divided among a thousand and the thousand to have equal power to the five hundredi.e. two groups of voters, with equal total wealth and total voting-power, but one group twice as numerous as the other, so that a man in the rich group has two votes and one in the poor group one, the former being on the average twice as rich as the latter.? or is equality on this principlei.e. equality in proportion to number. not to be arranged in this manner, but the division into classes to be on this system, but then an equal number to be taken from the five hundred and from the thousand and these to control the elections and the law-courts? Is this then the justest form of constitution in accordance with popular justice, or is it rather one that goes by counting heads?i.e. one man one vote. For democrats say that justice is whatever seems good to the larger number,but advocates of oligarchy think that it is whatever seems good to the owners of the larger amount of property, for they say that the decision ought to go by amount of property. But both views involve inequality and injustice; for if the will of the few is to prevail, this means a tyranny, since if one man owns more than the other rich men,i.e. apparently, more than the property of all the others put together. according to the oligarchic principle of justice it is just for him to rule alone; whereas if the will of the numerical majority is to prevail, they will do injustice by confiscating the property of the rich minority, as has been said before.1281a 14. What form of equality therefore would be one on which both parties will agree must be considered in the light of the principles of justice as defined by both sets. For they say that whatever seems good to the majority of the citizens ought to be sovereign. Let us then accept this principle, yet not wholly without qualification, but inasmuch as fortune has brought into existence two component parts of the state, rich and poor, let any resolution passed by both classes, or by a majority of each, be sovereign, but if the two classes carry opposite resolutions, let the decision of the majority, in the sense of the group whose total property assessment is the larger, prevail: for instance, if there are ten rich citizens and twenty poor ones, and opposite votes have been cast by six of the rich on one side and by fifteen of the less wealthy on the other, four of the rich have sided with the poor and five of the poor with the rich; then the side that has the larger total property when the assessments of both classes on either side are added together carries the voting.If the rich citizens are on the average twice as wealthy as the poor (1.11), and therefore a rich man has two votes to a poor man’s one, when 6 rich and 5 poor vote one way, and 15 poor and 4 rich the other, the division is 17 to 23, and the view of the latter party, which is carried, represents a larger total of wealth but a larger proportion of poor men. But if the totals fall out exactly equal, this is to be deemed an impasse common to both sides, as it is at present if the assembly or law-court is exactly divided;

- -
-

either a decision must be made by casting lots or some other such device must be adopted. But on questions of equality and justice, even though it is very difficult to discover the truth about them, nevertheless it is easier to hit upon it than to persuade people that have the power to get an advantage to agree to it; equality and justice are always sought by the weaker party, but those that have the upper hand pay no attention to them.

-

There being four kinds of democracy, the best is the one that stands first in structure, as was said in the discourses preceding theseCf. 4, 1291b 30-41, 1292b 25-33.; it is also the oldest of them all, but by first I mean first as it were in a classification of the kinds of common people. The best common people are the agricultural population, so that it is possible to introduce democracy as well as other forms of constitution where the multitude lives by agriculture or by pasturing cattle. For owing to their not having much property they are busy, so that they cannot often meet in the assembly, while owing to their havingThe MSS. give not having, but editors do not explain how in that case people would avoid starvation. the necessaries of life they pass their time attending to their farm work and do not covet their neighbors’ goods, but find more pleasure in working than in taking part in politics and holding office, where the profits to be made from the offices are not large; for the mass of mankind are more covetous of gain than of honor. And this is indicated by the fact that men endured the tyrannies of former times, and endure oligarchies, if a ruler does not preventthem from working orrob them; for then some of them soon get rich and the others free from want. And also, if they have any ambition, to have control over electing magistrates and calling them to account makes up for the lack of office, since in some democracies even if the people have no part in electing the magistrates but these are elected by a special committee selected in turn out of the whole number, as at Mantinea, yet if they have the power of deliberating on policy, the multitude are satisfied. (And this too must be counted as one form of democracy, on the lines on which it once existed at Mantinea.) Indeed it is for this reason that it is advantageous for the form of democracy spoken of before, and is a customary institution in it, for all the citizens to elect the magistrates and call them to account, and to try law-suits, but for the holders of the greatest magistracies to be elected and to have property-qualifications, the higher offices being elected from the higher property-grades, or else for no office to be elected on a property-qualification, but for officials to be chosen on the ground of capacity. And a state governed in this way is bound to be governed well (for the offices will always be administered by the best men with the consent of the people and without their being jealous of the upper classes), and this arrangement is certain to be satisfactory for the upper classes and notables, for they will not be under the government of others inferior to themselves, and they will govern justly because a different class will be in control of the audits— since it is expedient to be in a state of suspense and not to be able to do everything exactly as seems good to one, for liberty to do whatever one likes cannot guard against the evil that is in every man’s character.

- -
-

Hence there necessarily results the condition of affairs that is the most advantageous in the government of states—for the upper classes to govern without doing wrong, the common people not being deprived of any rights. It is manifest therefore that this is the best of the forms of democracy, and why this is so—namely, because in it the common people are of a certain kind.

-

For the purpose of making the people an agricultural community, not only were some of the laws that were enacted in many states in early times entirely serviceable, prohibiting the ownership of more than a certain amount of land under any conditions or else of more than a certain amount lying between a certain place and the citadel or city (and in early times at all events in many states there was even legislation prohibiting the sale of the original allotments; and there is a law said to be due to OxylusLeader of the Heraclidae in their invasion of the Peloponnese, and afterwards king of Elis. with some similar provision, forbidding loans secured on a certain portion of a man’s existing estate), but at the present day it would also be well to introduce reform by means of the law of the Aphytaeans, as it is serviceable for the purpose of which we are speaking; the citizens of AphytisAphytis was on the Isthmus of Pallene in Macedonia. although numerous and possessing a small territory nevertheless are all engaged in agriculture, for they are assessed not on the whole of their estates, but on divisions of them so small that even the poor can exceed the required minimum in their assessments.No satisfactory explanation seems to have been suggested of whatthis means.

-

After the agricultural communitythe best kind of democracy is where the people are herdsmen and get their living from cattle; for this life has many points of resemblance to agriculture, and as regards military duties pastoral people are in a very well trained condition and serviceable in body and capable of living in the open. But almost all the other classes of populace, of which the remaining kinds of democracy are composed, are very inferior to these, for their mode of life is mean, and there is no element of virtue in any of the occupations in which the multitude of artisans and market-people and the wage-earning class take part, and also owing to their loitering about the market-place and the city almost all people of this class find it easy to attend the assembly; whereas the farmers owing to their being scattered over the country do not attend, and have not an equal desire for this opportunity of meeting. Andwhere it also happens that the lie of the land is such that the country is widely separated from the city, it is easy to establish a good democracy and also a good constitutional government, for the multitude is forced to live at a distance on the farms; and so, even if there is a crowd that frequents the market-place, it is best in democracies not to hold assemblies without the multitude scattered over the country.i.e. in a largely agricultural democracy, even though there may be a considerable idle population, which would attend frequent assemblies, it is best to hold them infrequently, so as to secure the attendance of the farmers.

-

It has then been stated how the best and first kind of democracy is to be organized, and it is clear how we ought to organize the other kinds also. For they must diverge in a corresponding order, and at each stage we must admit the next inferior class.

- -
-

The last kind of democracy, because all the population share in the government, it is not within the power of every state to endure, and it is not easy for it to persist if it is not well constituted in its laws and customs (but the things that result in destroying both this state and the other forms of constitution have been nearly all of them spoken of beforeIn Book 5.). With a view to setting up this kind of democracy and making the people powerful their leaders usually acquire as many supporters as possible and admit to citizenship not only the legitimate children of citizens but also the base-born and those of citizen-birth on one side, I mean those whose father or mother is a citizen; for all this element is specially congenial to a to democracy of this sort. Popular leaders therefore regularly introduce such institutions; they ought however only to go on adding citizens up to the point where the multitude outnumbers the notables and the middle class and not to go beyond that point; for if they exceed it they make the government more disorderly, and also provoke the notables further in the direction of being reluctant to endure the democracy, which actually took place and caused the revolution at Cyrene In N. Africa. Diodorus (Diod. 14.34) describes a revolution there in 401 B.C., when five hundred of the rich were put to death and others fled, but after a battle a compromise was arranged.; for a small base element is overlooked, but when it grows numerous it is more in evidence. A democracy of this kind will also find useful such institutions as were employed by CleisthenesSee 1275b 36 n. at Athens when he wished to increase the power of the democracy, and by the party setting up the democracy at Cyrene; different tribes and brotherhoods must be created outnumbering the old ones, and the celebrations of private religious rites must be grouped together into a small number of public celebrations, and every device must be employed to make all the people as much as possible intermingled with one another, and to break up the previously existing groups of associates. Moreover the characteristics of a tyranny also are all thought to be democratic, I mean for instance licence among slaves, which may really be advantageous for the popular party up to a point, and among women and children, and indulgence to live as one likes; a constitution of this sort will have a large number of supporters, as disorderly living is pleasanter to the mass of mankind than sober living.

-

But it is not the greatest or only task of the legislator or of those who desire to construct a constitution of this kind merely to set it up, but rather to ensure its preservation; for it is not difficult for any form of constitution to last for one or two or three days. We must therefore employ the results obtained in the inquiries that we have made alreadyBook 5. into the causes of the preservation and the destruction of constitutions, and attempt in the light of those results to establish the safety of the state, carefully avoiding the things that cause destruction, and enacting such laws both written and unwritten

- -
-

as shall best compass the results preservative of constitutions, and not think that a measure is democratic or oligarchic which will cause the state to be democratically or oligarchically governed in the greatest degree, but which will cause it to be so governed for the longest time. But the demagogues of today to court the favor of the peoples often use the law-courts to bring about confiscations of property. Hence those who are caring for the safety of the constitution must counteract this by enacting that nothing belonging to persons condemned at law shall be confiscated and liable to be carried to the public treasury, but that their property shall be consecrated to the service of religion; for male-factors will be no less on their guard, as they will be punished just the same, while the mob will less often vote guilty against men on trial when it is not going to get anything out of it. Also they must always make the public trials that occur as few as possible, checking those who bring indictments at random by big penalties; for they do not usually indict men of the people but notables, whereas even with this form of constitution it is desirable for all the citizens if possible to be friendly to the state, or failing that, at all events not to think of their rulers as enemies. And inasmuch as the ultimate forms of democracy tend to have large populations and it is difficult for their citizens to sit in the assembly without pay, and this in a state where there do not happen to be revenues is inimical to the notables (for pay has to be obtained from a property-tax and confiscation, and from corruption of the law-courts, which has caused the overthrow of many democracies before now),—where therefore there happen to be no revenues, few meetings of the assembly must be held, and the law-courts must consist of many members but only sit a few days (for this not only contributes to the rich not being in fear of the cost of the system even if the well-off do not take the pay and only the poor do, but also leads to far greater efficiency in the trial of law-suits, for the well-to-do, though not wishing to be away from their private affairs for many days, are willing to leave them for a short time), while where there are revenues men must not do what the popular leaders do now (for they usethe surplus for doles, and people no sooner get them than they want the same doles again, because this way of helping the poor is the legendary jar with a hole in itThe fifty daughters of Danaus were married to their cousins, and all but one murdered their husbands on the bridal night, and were punished in Hades by having to pour water into the jar described.), but the truly democratic statesman must study how the multitude may be saved from extreme poverty; for this is what causes democracy to be corrupt. Measures must therefore be contrived that may bring about lasting prosperity. And since this is advantageous also for the well-to-do, the proper course is to collect all the proceeds of the revenues into a fund and distribute this in lump sums to the needy, best of all, if one can, in sums large enough for acquiring a small estate, or, failing this, to serve as capital for trade or husbandry,

- -
-

and if this is not possible for all, at all events to distribute the money by tribes or some other division of the population in turn, while in the meantime the well-to-do must contribute pay for attendance at the necessary assemblies, beingthemselves excused from useless public services. By following some such policy as this the Carthaginians have won the friendship of the common people; for they constantly send out some of the people to the surrounding territories and so make them well-off. And if the notables are men of good feeling and sense they may also divide the needy among them in groups and supply them with capital to start them in businesses. It is also a good plan to imitate the policyCf. 1263a 35. of the Tarentines. They get the goodwill of the multitude by making property communal for the purpose of use by the needyThis seems to mean that the land was in private ownership, but that there was some system of poor-relief, to provide for the destitute out of the produce.; also they have divided the whole number of their magistracies into two classes, one elected by vote and the other filled by lot,—the latter to ensure that the people may have a share in them, and the former to improve the conduct of public affairs. And it is also possible to effect this by dividing the holders of the same magistracy into two groups, one appointed by lot and the other by vote.

-

We have then said how democracies should be organized.

-

It is also fairly clear from these considerations how oligarchies ought to be organized. We must infer them from their opposites, reasoning out each form of oligarchywith reference to the form of democracy opposite to it, starting with the most well-blended and first form of oligarchyIn contrast with the first and best form of democracy, 2 init.—and this is the one near to what is called a constitutional government, and for it the property-qualifications must be divided into one group of smaller properties and another of larger ones, smaller properties qualifying their owners for the indispensable offices and larger ones for the more important; and a person owning the qualifying property must be allowed to take a share in the government,—introducing by the assessment a large enough number of the common people to secure that with them the governing class will have a majority over those excluded; and persons to share in the government must constantly be brought in from the better class of the common people. - And the next form of oligarchy also must be constructed in a similar way with a slight tightening up of the qualification. But the form of oligarchy that stands opposite to the last form of democracy, the most autocratic and tyrannical of the oligarchies, in as far as it is the worst requires a correspondingly great amount of safe-guarding. For just as human bodies in a good state of health and ships well equipped with their crews for a voyage admit of more mistakes without being destroyed thereby, but bodies of a morbid habit and vessels strained in their timbers and manned with bad crews cannot endure even the smallest mistakes, so also the worst constitutions need the most safe-guarding.

- -
-

Democracies therefore generally speaking are kept safe by the largeness of the citizen-body, for this is the antithesis of justice according to desert; but oligarchy on the contrary must manifestly obtain its security by means of good organization.

-

And since the mass of the population falls principally into four divisions, the farming class, artisans, retail traders and hired laborers, and military forces are of four classes, cavalry, heavy infantry, light infantry and marines, in places where the country happens to be suitable for horsemanship, there natural conditions favor the establishment of an oligarchy that will be powerful (for the security of the inhabitants depends on the strength of this element, and keeping studs of horses is the pursuit of those who own extensive estates); and where the ground is suitable for heavy infantry, conditions favor the next form of oligarchy (for heavy infantry is a service for the well-to-do rather than the poor); but light infantry and naval forces are an entirely democratic element. As things are therefore, where there is a large multitude of this class, when party strife occurs the oligarchs often get the worst of the struggle; and a remedy for this must be adopted from military commanders, who combine with their cavalry and heavy infantry forces a contingent of light infantry. And this is the wayi.e. by superior mobility. in which the common people get the better over the well-to-do in outbreaks of party strife:being unencumbered they fight easily against cavalry and heavy infantry. Therefore to establish this force out of this class is to establish it against itself, but the right plan is for the men of military age to be separated into a division of older and one of younger men, and to have their own sons while still young trained in the exercises of light and unarmed troops, and for youths selected from among the boys to be themselves trained in active operations. And the bestowal of a share in the government upon the multitude should either go on the lines stated before,4.1, 1320b 25 ff. and be made to those who acquire the property-qualification, or as at Thebes, to people after they have abstained for a time from mechanic industries, or as at Marseilles, by making a selection among members of the governing classes and those outside it of persons who deserveIf the text is corrected it seems to mean that the list was revised from time to time and some old names taken off and new ones put on. inclusion. And furthermore the most supreme offices also, which must be retained by those within the constitution, must have expensive duties attached to them, in order that the common people may be willing to be excluded from them, and may feel no resentment against the ruling class, because it pays a high price for office. And it fits in with this that they should offer splendid sacrifices and build up some public monument on entering upon office, so that the common people sharing in the festivities and seeing the city decorated both with votive offerings and with building may be glad to see the constitution enduring; and an additional result will be that the notables will have memorials of their outlay. But at present the members of oligarchies do not adopt this course but the opposite, for they seek the gains of office just as much as the honor; hence these oligarchies are well described as miniature democracies.The phrase suggests that in democracy public duties are cheifly undertaken for their emoluments.

- -
-

Let this then be a description of the proper way to organize the various forms of democracy and of oligarchy.

-

As a consequence of what has been said there follow satisfactory conclusions to the questions concerning magistracies—how many and what they should be and to whom they should belong, as has also been said before.Book 4 ,1297b 35 ff., 1299a 3 ff. For without the indispensableCf. 4.1. magistracies a state cannot exist, while without those that contribute to good order and seemliness it cannot be well governed. And furthermore the magistracies are bound to be fewer in the small states and more numerous in the large ones, as in fact has been said beforeBook 4, 1299b 30 ff.; it must therefore be kept in view what kinds of magistracies it is desirable to combine and what kinds to keep separate. First among the indispensable services is the superintendence of the market, over which there must be an official to superintend contracts and good order; since it is a necessity for almost all states that people shall sell some things and buy others according to one another’s necessary requirements, and this is the readiest means of securing self-sufficiency, which seems to be the reason for men’s having united into a single state. Another superintendency connected very closely with this one is the curatorship of public and private properties in the city,to secure good order and the preservation and rectification of falling buildings and roads, and of the bounds between different persons’ estates, so that disputes may not arise about them, and all the other duties of superintendence similar to these. An office of this nature is in most states entitled that of City-controller, but it has several departments, each of which is filled by separate officials in the states with larger populations, for instance Curators of Walls, Superintendents of Wells, Harbors-guardians. And another office also is indispensable and closely akin to these, for it controls the same matters but deals with the country and there regions outside the city; and these magistrates are called in some places Land-controllers and in others Custodians of Forests. These then are three departments of control over these matters, while another office is that to which the revenues of the public funds are paid in, the officials who guard them and by whom they are divided out to the several administrative departments; these magistrates are called Receivers and Stewards. Another magistracy is the one that has to receive a written return of private contracts and of the verdicts of the law-courts; and with these same officials the registration of legal proceedings and their institution have also to take place. In some states this office also is divided into several, but there are places where one magistracy controls all these matters; and these officials are called Sacred Recorders, Superintendents, Recorders, and other names akin to these. And after these is the office connectedwith it but perhaps the most indispensable and most difficult of all, the one concerned with the execution of judgement upon persons cast in suits and those posted as defaulters according to the lists, and with the custody of prisoners.

- -
-

This is an irksome office because it involves great unpopularity, so that where it is not possible to make a great deal of profit out of it men will not undertake it, or when they have undertaken it are reluctant to carry out its functions according to the laws; but it is necessary, because there is no use in trials being held about men’s rights when the verdicts are not put into execution, so that if when no legal trial of disputes takes place social intercourse is impossible, so also is it when judgements are not executed. Hence it is better for this magistracy not to be a single office but to consist of several persons drawn from different courts, and it is desirable similarly to try to divide up the functions connected with the posting up of people registered as public debtors, and further also in some cases for the sentences to be executed by magistrates, especially by the newly elected ones preferably in suits tried by the outgoing ones, and in those tried by men actually in office for the magistrate executing the sentence to be different from the one that passed it, for instance the City-controllers to execute the judgements passed on from the Market-controllers and other magistrates those passed on by the City-controllers. For the less odium involved for those who execute the judgements, the more adequately the judgements will be carried out; so for the same magistrates to have imposed the sentence and to execute it involves a twofold odium, and for the same ones to execute it in all cases makes them the enemies of everybody. And in many places also the office of keeping custody of prisoners, forexample at Athens the office of the magistrates known as the ElevenThis example looks like a mistaken note interpolated in the text. The Eleven had both functions.,is separate from the magistracy that executes sentences. It is better therefore to keep this also separate, and to attempt the same device with regard to this as well. For though it is no less necessary than the office of which I spoke, yet in practice respectable people avoid it most of all offices, while it is not safe to put it into the hands of the base, for they themselves need others to guard them instead of being able to keep guard over others. Hence there must not be one magistracy specially assigned to the custody of prisoners nor must the same magistracy perform this duty continuously, but it should be performed by the young, in places where there is a regiment of cadetsAt Athens and elsewhere young citizens from eighteen to twenty were enrolled in training corps for military instruction; these served as police and home troops. or guards, and by the magistrates, in successive sections.

-

These magistracies therefore must be counted first as supremely necessary, and next to them must be put those that are not less necessary but are ranked on a higher grade of dignity, because they require much experience and trustworthiness; in this class would come the magistracies concerned with guarding the city and those assigned to military requirements. And both in peace and in war it is equally necessary for there to be magistrates to superintend the guarding of gates and walls and the inspection and drill of the citizen troops. In some places therefore there are more magistracies assigned to all these duties, and in others fewer—for instance in the small states there is one to deal with all of them. And the officers of this sort are entitled Generals or War-lords.

- -
-

And moreover if there are also cavalry or light infantry or archers or a navy, sometimes a magistracy is appointed to have charge of each of these arms also, and they carry the titles of Admiral, Cavalry-commander and Taxiarch, and also the divisional commissions subordinate to these of Captains of Triremes, Company-commanders and Captains of Tribes, and all the subdivisions of these commands. But the whole of this sort of officers constituted a single class, that of military command. This then is how the matter stands in regard to this office; but inasmuch as some of the magistracies, if not all, handle large sums of public money, there must be another office to receive an account and subject it to audit, which must itself handle no other business; and these officials are called Auditors by some people, Accountants by others, Examiners by others and Advocates by others. And by the side of all these offices is the one that is most supreme over all matters, for often the same magistracy has the execution of business that controls its introduction, or presides over the general assembly in places where the people are supreme; for the magistracy that convenes the sovereign assembly is bound to be the sovereign power in the state. It is styled in some places the Preliminary Council because it considers business in advance, but where there is a democracyCf. 1323a 9 below. Apparently πλῆθός ἐστι stands for τὸ πλῆθος κύριόν ἐστι, but editors quote no parallel. it is more usually called a Council. This more or less completes the number of the offices of a political nature; but another kind of superintendence is that concerned with divine worship; in this class are priests and superintendents of mattersconnected with the temples, the preservation of existing buildings and the restoration of those that are ruinous, and the other duties relating to the gods. In practice this superintendence in some places forms a single office, for instance in the small cities, but in others it belongs to a number of officials who are not members of the priesthood, for example Sacrificial Officers and Temple-guardians and Stewards of Sacred Funds. And connected with this is the office devoted to the management of all the public festivals which the law does not assign to the priests but the officials in charge of which derive their honor from the common sacrificial hearth, and these officials are called in some places Archons, in others Kings and in others Presidents. To sum up therefore, the necessary offices of superintendence deal with the following matters : institutions of religion, military institutions, revenue and expenditure, control of the market, citadel, harbors and country, also the arrangements of the law-courts, registration of contracts, collection of fines, custodyof prisoners, supervision of accounts and inspections, and the auditing of officials, and lastly the offices connected with the body that deliberates about public affairs. On the other hand, peculiar to the states that have more leisure and prosperity, and also pay attention to public decorum, are the offices of Superintendent of Women, Guardian of the Laws, Superintendent of Children, Controller of Physical Training,

- -
-

and in addition to these the superintendence of athletic and Dionysiac contests and of any similar displays that happen to be held. Some of these offices are obviously not of a popular character, for instance that of Superintendent of Women and of Children; for the poor having no slaves are forced to employ their women and children as servants. There are three offices which in some states supervise the election of the chief magistrates—Guardians of the Laws, Preliminary Councillors and Council; of these the Guardians of the Laws are an aristocratic institution, the Preliminary Councillors oligarchic, and a Council democratic.

-

We have now therefore spoken in outline about almost all the offices of state.

- -
-
-

- - Book 4 in some editions.The student who is going to make a suitable investigation of the best form of constitution must necessarily decide first of all what is the most desirable mode of life. For while this is uncertain it is also bound to be uncertain what is the best constitution, since it is to be expected that the people that have the best form of government available under their given conditions will fare the best, exceptional circumstances apart. Hence we must firstagree what life is most desirable for almost all men, and after that whether the same life is most desirable both for the community and for the individual, or a different one. Believing therefore in the adequacy of much of what is said even in extraneous discoursesCf. 3.6. It is debated whether the phrase refers to Aristotle’s own popular writings, or to those of other philosophers, or to discussions of the subject in ordinary intercourse. on the subject of the best life, let us make use of these pronouncements now. For as regards at all events one classification of things good, putting them in three groups, external goods, goods of the soul and goods of the body, assuredly nobody would deny that the ideally happy are bound to possess all three. For nobody would call a man ideally happy that has not got a particle of courage nor of temperance nor of justice nor of wisdom, but is afraid of the flies that flutter by him, cannot refrain from any of the most outrageous actions in order to gratify a desire to eat or to drink, ruins his dearest friends for the sake of a farthing, and similarly in matters of the intellect also is as senseless and mistaken as any child or lunatic. But although these are propositions which when uttered everybody would agree to, yet men differ about amount and degrees of value. They think it is enough to possess however small a quantity of virtue, but of wealth, riches, power, glory and everything of that kind they seek a larger and larger amount without limit. We on the other hand shall tell them that it is easy to arrive at conviction on these matters in the light of the actual facts, when one sees that men do not acquire and preserve the virtues by means of these external goods, but external goods by means of the virtues,

- -
-

and that whether the life of happiness consists for man in enjoyment or in virtue or in both, it is found in larger measure with those who are of surpassingly high cultivation in character and intellect but only moderate as regards the external acquisition of goods, than with those who own more than they can use of the latter but are deficient in the former. Not but what the truth is also easily seen if we consider the matter in the light of reason. For external goods have a limit, as has any instrument (and everything useful is useful for something), so an excessive amount of them must necessarily do harm, or do no good, to its possessor; whereas with any of the goods of the soul, the more abundant it is, the more useful it must be—if even to goods of the soul not only the term noble but also the term useful can be properly applied. And broadly, it is clear that we shall declare that the best condition of each particular thing, comparing things with one another, corresponds in point of superiority to the distance that subsists between the things of which we declare these conditions themselves to be conditions.e.g. the finest man excels the finest monkey to the degree in which the species man excels the species monkey. Hence inasmuch as our soul is a more valuable thing both absolutely and relatively to ourselves than either our property or our body, the best conditions of these things must necessarily stand in the same relation to one another as the things themselves do. Moreover it is for the sake of the soul that these goods are in their nature desirable, and that all wise men mustchoose them, not the soul for the sake of those other things. Let us then take it as agreed between us that to each man there falls just so large a measure of happiness as he achieves of virtue and wisdom and of virtuous and wise action: in evidence of this we have the case of God, who is happy and blessed, but is so on account of no external goods, but on account of himself, and by being of a certain quality in his nature; since it is also for this reason that prosperity is necessarily different from happiness—for the cause of goods external to the soul is the spontaneous and fortune,Aristotle taught that some events are the result of the undesigned interaction of two lines of causation in nature’s design; he denoted this (1) in general, by the automatic or self-acting (represented in Latin by sponte, spontaneous), (2) as concerning man, by fortune. but nobody is just or temperate as a result of or owing to the action of fortune. And connected is a truth requiring the same arguments to prove it, that it is also the best state, and the one that does well,The common play on the ambiguity of do well, meaning either prosper or act rightly. that is happy. But to do well is impossible save for those who do good actions, and there is no good action either of a man or of a state without virtue and wisdom; and courage, justice and wisdom belonging to a state have the same meaning and form as have those virtues whose possession bestows the titles of just and wise and temperate on an individual human being.

-

These remarks however must suffice by way of preface to our discourse: for neither is it possible to abstain from touching on these subjects altogether, nor is it feasible to follow out all the arguments that are germane to them, for that is the business of another course of study. For the present let us take it as established that the best life, whether separately for an individual or collectively for states,

- -
-

is the life conjoined with virtue furnished with sufficient means for taking part in virtuous actions Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1099a 32, Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1179a 4 ff. ; while objections to this position we must pass over in the course of the present inquiry, and reserve them for future consideration, if anyone be found to disagree with what has been said.

-

Onthe other hand it remains to say whether the happiness of a state is to be pronounced the same as that of each individual man, or whether it is different. Here too the answer is clear: everybody would agree that it is the same; for all those who base the good life upon wealth in the case of the individual, also assign felicity to the state as a whole if it is wealthy; and all who value the life of the tyrant highest, would also say that the state which rules the widest empire is the happiest; and if any body accepts the individual as happy on account of virtue, he will also say that the state which is the better morally is the happier.

But there now arise these two questions that require consideration: first, which mode of life is the more desirable, the life of active citizenship and participation in politics, or rather the life of an alien and that of detachment from the political partnership; next, what constitution and what organization of a state is to be deemed the best,—either on the assumption that to take an active part in the state is desirable for everybody, or that it is undesirable for some men although desirable for most. But as it isthe latter question that is the business of political study and speculation, and not the question of what is desirable for the individual, and as it is the investigation of politics that we have now taken up, the former question would be a side issue, and the latter is the business of political inquiry.

-

Now it is clear that the best constitution is the system under which anybody whatsoever would be best off and would live in felicity; but the question is raised even on the part of those who agree that the life accompanied by virtue is the most desirable, whether the life of citizenship and activity is desirable or rather a life released from all external affairs, for example some form of contemplative life, which is said by some to be the only life that is philosophic.Perhaps the Greek should be altered to give which alone is said to be desirable by some philosophers. For it is manifest that these are the two modes of life principally chosen by the men most ambitious of excelling in virtue, both in past times and at the present day—I mean the life of politics and the life of philosophy. And it makes no little difference which way the truth lies; for assuredly the wise are bound to arrange their affairs in the direction of the better goal—and this applies to the state collectively as well as to the individual human being. Some persons think that empire over one’s neighbors, if despotically exercised, involves a definite injustice of the greatest kind, and if constitutionally, although it carries no injustice, yet is a hindrance to the ruler’s own well-being; but others hold almost the opposite view to these—they think that the life of action and citizenship is the only life fit for a man, since with each of the virtues its exercise in actions is just as possible for men engaged in public affairs and in politics as for those who live a private life.

- -
-

Some people then hold the former view, while others declare that the despotic and tyrannical form of constitution alone achieves happiness; and in some states it is also the distinctive aim of the constitution and the laws to enable them to exercise despotic rule over their neighbors. Hence even though with most peoples most of the legal ordinances have been laid down virtually at random, nevertheless if there are places where the laws aim at one definite object, that object is in all cases power, as in Sparta and Crete both the system of education and the mass of the laws are framed in the main with a view to war; and also among all the non-Hellenic nations that are strong enough to expand at the expense of others, military strength has been held in honor, for example, among the Scythians, Persians, Thracians and Celts. Indeed among some peoples there are even certain laws stimulating military valor; for instance at Carthage, we are told, warriors receive the decoration of armlets of the same number as the campaigns on which they have served; and at one time there was also a law in Macedonia that a man who had never killed an enemy must wear his halter instead of a belt. Among Scythian tribes at a certain festival a cup was carried round from which a man that had not killed an enemy was not allowed to drink. Among the Iberians, a warlike race, they fix small spitsOr perhaps pointed stones. in the earth round a man’s grave corresponding in number to the enemies he has killed. So with other races there are many other practices of a similar kind, some established by law and others by custom.

-

Nevertheless those who wish to examine the matter closely might perhaps think it exceedingly strange that it should be the business of a statesman to be able to devise means of holding empire and mastery over the neighboring peoples whether they desire it or not. How can that be worthy of a statesman or lawgiver which is not even lawful? and government is not lawful when it is carried on not only justly but also unjustly—and superior strength may be unjustly exercised. Moreover we do not see this in the other sciences either: it is no part of a physician’s or ship-captain’s business to use either persuasion or compulsion upon the patients in the one case and the crewOr perhaps the passengers. in the other. Yet most peoples seem to think that despotic rule is statesmanship, and are not ashamed to practise towards others treatment which they declare to be unjust and detrimental for themselves; for in their own internal affairs they demand just government, yet in their relations with other peoples they pay no attention to justice. Yet it is strange if there is not a natural distinction between peoples suited to be despotically ruled and those not suited; so that if this is so, it is not proper to attempt to exercise despotic government over all people, but only over those suited for it, just as it is not right to hunt human beings for food or sacrifice, but only the game suitable for this purpose, that is, such wild creatures as are good to eat. And moreover it is possible even for a single state in isolation to be happy,

- -
-

that is one that is well governed, in as much as it is conceivable that a state might be carried on somewhere in isolation, enjoying good laws, and in such a state the system of the constitution will not be framed for the purpose of war or of overpowering its enemies—for we are to suppose everything to do with war to be excluded. It is evident therefore that while all military pursuits are to be deemed honorable, they are not so as being the ultimate end of all things but as means to that end. And it is the business of the good lawgiver to study how a state, a race of men or any other community is to partake of the good life and the happiness possible for them. Some however of the regulations laid down will vary; and in case there exist any neighbor peoples, it is the business of the legislative art to consider what sort of exercises should be practised in relation to what sort of neighbors or how the state is to adopt the regulations that are suitable in relation to each.

-

But this question of the proper end for the best constitutions to aim at may receive its due consideration later.See 13, 14.

-

We turn to those who, while agreeing that the life of virtue is the most desirable, differ about the way in which that life should be pursued. Some disapprove of holding office in the state, thinking that the life of the free manis different from the life of politics and is the most desirable of any; whereas others think the political life the best life, for they argue that it is impossible for the man who does nothing to do well, and doing well and happiness are the same thing.On the ambiguous use of do well see 1323b 32 n. To these two parties we must reply that both are partly right and partly wrong. The former are right in saying that the life of the free man is better than the life of mastership, for this is true—there is nothing specially dignified in employing a slave, as a slave, for giving orders about menial duties has in it nothing of nobility; yet to think that all government is exercising the authority of a master is a mistake, for there is as wide a difference between ruling free men and ruling slaves as there is between the natural freeman and the natural slave themselves. But these things have been adequately decided in the first discourses.i.e. Book 1. But to praise inaction more highly than action is an error, for happiness is an activity, and further the actions of the just and temperate have in them the realization of much that is noble. Yet on the strength of these decisions somebody might perhaps suppose that the highest good is to be the master of the world, since thus one would have the power to compass the greatest number and the noblest kind of actions, and therefore it is not the duty of the man that is capable of ruling to surrender office to his neighbor, but rather to take it from him, and no account must be taken by father of sons nor by sons of father nor in general by one friend of another, and no heed must be paid to them in comparison with this; for the best thing is the most to be desired, and to do well is the best thing. Now this statement is perhaps true

- -
-

if it is the case that the most desirable of existing things will belong to men that use robbery and violence. But perhaps it cannot belong to them, and this is a false assumption. For a man’s acts can no longer be noble if he does not excel as greatly as a man excels a woman or a father his children or a master his slaves, so that one who transgresses cannot afterwards achieve anything sufficient to rectify the lapse from virtue that he had already committed; because for equals the noble and just consists in their taking turns, since this is equal and alike, but for those that are equal to have an unequal share and those that are alike an unlike share is contrary to nature, and nothing contrary to nature is noble. Hence in case there is another person who is our superior in virtue and in practical capacity for the highest functions, him it is noble to follow and him it is just to obey; though he must possess not only virtue but also capacity that will render him capable of action. But if these things are well said, and if happiness is to be defined as well-doing, the active life is the best life both for the whole state collectively and for each man individually. But the active life is not necessarily active in relation to other men, as some people think, nor are only those processes of thought active that are pursued for the sake of the objects that result from action, but far morethose speculations and thoughts that have their end in themselves and are pursued for their own sake; for the end is to do well, and therefore is a certain form of action.Cf. 1323b 32 n., 1325a 21. And even with actions done in relation to external objects we predicate action in the full sense chiefly of the master-craftsmen who direct the action by their thoughts. Moreover with cities also, those that occupy an isolated situation and pursue a policy of isolation are not necessarily inactive; for state activities also can be sectional, since the sections of the state have many common relations with one another. And this is also possible similarly in the case of any individual human being; for otherwise God and the whole universe could hardly be well circumstanced, since they have no external activities by the side of their own private activities.

-

It is therefore manifest that the same life must be the best both for each human being individually and for states and mankind collectively.

-

And as we have prepared the way by this prefatory discussion of the subject, and have previously studied all the other forms of constitution,This seems to refer to Books 4-6. the starting-point for the remainder of our subject is first to specify the nature of the conditions that are necessary in the case of the state that is to be constituted in the ideally best manner. For the best constitution cannot be realized without suitable equipment.Cf. 1288b 39 n. We must therefore posit as granted in advance a number of as it were ideal conditions, although none of these must be actually impossible. I mean for instance in reference to number of citizens and territory. - All other craftsmen, for example a weaver or a shipwright,

- -
-

have to be supplied with their material in a condition suitable for their trade, for the better this material has been prepared, the finer is bound to be the product of their craft; so also the statesman and the lawgiver ought to be furnished with their proper material in a suitable condition. Under the head of material equipment for the state there first come the questions as to a supply of population—what precisely ought to be its number and what its natural character? and similarly in regard to the territory, what is to be its particular size and nature? Most people imagine that the prosperous state must be a great state; but granted the truth of this, they fail to realize in what quality the greatness or smallness of a state consists: they judge a great state by the numerical magnitude of the population, but really the more proper thing to look at is not numbers but efficiency. For a state like other things has a certain function to perform, so that it is the state most capable of performing this function that is to be deemed the greatest, just as one would pronounce Hippocrates to be greater, not as a human being but as a physician, than somebody who surpassed him in bodily size. All the same, even if it be right to judge the state by the test of its multitude, this ought not to be done with regard to the multitude of any and every class (for states are doubtless bound to contain a large number of slavesand resident aliens and foreigners), but the test should be the number of those who are a part of the state—the special parts of which a state consists. It is superiority in the number of these that indicates a great state; a state that sends forth to war a large number of the baser sort and a small number of heavy-armed soldiers cannot possibly be a great state—for a great state is not the same thing as a state with a large population. But certainly experience also shows that it is difficult and perhaps impossible for a state with too large a population to have good legal government. At all events we see that none of the states reputed to be well governed is without some restriction in regard to numbers. The evidence of theory proves the same point. Law is a form of order, and good law must necessarily mean good order; but an excessively large number cannot participate in order: to give it order would surely be a task for divine power, which holds even this universe together.In the MSS. this clause follows the next. Hence that state also must necessarily be the most beautiful with whose magnitude is combined the above-mentioned limiting principle; for certainly beauty is usually found in number and magnitude, but there is a due measure of magnitude for a city-state as there also is for all other things—animals, plants, tools; each of these if too small or excessively large will not possess its own proper efficiency, but in some cases will have entirely lost its true nature and in others will be in a defective condition: for instance, a ship a span long will not be a ship at all, nor will a ship a quarter of a mile long, and even when it reaches a certain size,

- -
-

in some cases smallness and in others excessive largeness will make it sail badly. Similarly a state consisting of too few people will not be self-sufficing (which is an essential quality of a state), and one consisting of too many, though self-sufficing in the mere necessaries, will be so in the way in which a nationi.e. presumably an Ethnos in the usual sense, a community composed of villages loosely bound together by relationship and trade, and united for defence, but not for political life; not an Ethnos of associated cities. is, and not as a state, since it will not be easy for it to possess constitutional government—for who will command its over-swollen multitude in war? or who will serve as its herald, unless he have the lungs of a Stentor? It follows that the lowest limit for the existence of a state is when it consists of a population that reaches the minimum number that is self-sufficient for the purpose of living the good life after the manner of a political community. It is possible also for one that exceeds this one in number to be a greater state, but, as we said, this possibility of increase is not without limit, and what the limit of the state’s expansion is can easily be seen from practical considerations. The activities of the state are those of the rulers and those of the persons ruled, and the work of a ruler is to direct the administration and to judge law-suits; but in order to decide questions of justice and in order to distribute the offices according to merit it is necessary for the citizens to know each other’s personal characters, since where this does not happen to be the case the business of electing officials and trying law-suits is bound to go badly; haphazard decision is unjust in both matters, and thismust obviously prevail in an excessively numerous community. Also in such a community it is easy for foreigners and resident aliens to usurp the rights of citizenship, for the excessive number of the population makes it not difficult to escape detection. It is clear therefore that the best limiting principle for a state is the largest expansion of the population, with a view to self-sufficiency that can well be taken in at one view.

-

Such may be our conclusion on the question of the size of the state.

-

Very much the same holds good about its territory. As to the question what particular kind of land it ought to have, it is clear that everybody would command that which is most self-sufficing (and such is necessarily that which bears every sort of produce, for self-sufficiency means having a supply of everything and lacking nothing). In extent and magnitude the land ought to be of a size that will enable the inhabitants to live a life of liberal and at the same time temperate leisure. Whether this limiting principle is rightly or wrongly stated must be considered more precisely later on,This promise is not fulfilled in the work as it has come down to us. when we come to raise the general subject of property and the ownership of wealth,—how and in what way it ought to be related to the employment of wealthThe distinction seems to be between owning (or perhaps getting) wealth and using it; but a probable emendation of the Greek gives how we ought to stand in relation to its employment.; about this question there are many controversies, owing to those that draw us towards either extreme of life, the one school towards parsimony and the other towards luxury. The proper configuration of the country it is not difficult to state (though there are some points on which the advice of military experts also must be taken): on the one hand it should be difficult for enemies to invade and easy for the people themselves to march out from,

- -
-

and in addition, on the other hand, the same thing holds good of the territory that we said about the size of the population—it must be well able to be taken in at one view, and that means being a country easy for military defence. As to the site of the city, if it is to be ideally placed, it is proper for it to be well situated with regard both to the sea and to the country. One defining principle is that mentioned aboveAt the beginning of 5.2.—the city must be in communication with all parts of the territory for the purpose of sending out military assistance; and the remaining principle is that it must be easily accessible for the conveyance to it of the agricultural produce, and also of timber-wood and any other such material that the country happens to possess.

-

As to communication with the sea it is in fact much debated whether it is advantageous to well-ordered states or harmful. It is maintained that the visits of persons brought up under other institutions are detrimental to law and order, and so also is a swollen population, which grows out of sending out abroad and receiving in a number of traders, but is unfavorable to good government. Now it is not difficult to see that, if these consequences are avoided, it is advantageous in respect of both security and the supply of necessary commoditiesthat the city and the country should have access to the sea. With a view to enduring wars more easily people that are to be secure must be capable of defensive operations on both elements, land and sea, and with a view to striking at assailants, even if it be not possible on both elements, yet to do so on one or the other will be more in the power of people that have access to both. And the importation of commodities that they do not happen to have in their own country and the export of their surplus products are things indispensable; for the state ought to engage in commerce for its own interest, but not for the interest of the foreigner. People that throw open their market to the world do so for the sake of revenue, but a state that is not to take part in that sort of profit-making need not possess a great commercial port. But since even now we see many countries and cities possessing sea-ports and harbors conveniently situated with regard to the city, so as not to form part of the same townPerhaps the Greek should be altered to give part of the town itself. and yet not to be too far off, but commanded by walls and other defence-works of the kind, it is manifest that if any advantage does result through the communication of city with port the state will possess this advantage, and if there is any harmful result it is easy to guard against it by means of laws stating and regulating what persons are not and what persons are to have intercourse with one another. On the question of naval forces, there is no doubt that to possess them up to a certain strength is most desirable

- -
-

(for a state ought to be formidable, and also capable of the defence of not only its own people but also some of its neighbors, by sea as well as by land); but when we come to the question of the number and size of this force, we have to consider the state’s manner of life if it is to live a life of leadership and affairs,i.e. relations with other states—a broader term than hegemony, leadership of an alliance. it must possess maritime as well as other forces commensurate with its activities. On the other hand it is not necessary for states to include the teeming population that grows up in connection with common sailors, as there is no need for these to be citizens; for the marines are free men and are a part of the infantry, and it is they who have command and control the crew; and if there exists a mass of villagers and tillers of the soil, there is bound to be no lack of sailors too. In fact we see this state of thing existing even now in some places, for instance in the city of Heraclea; the Heracleotes man a large fleet of triremes, although they possess a city of but moderate size as compared with others.

-

Let such then be our conclusions about the territories and harbors of cities, and the sea, and about naval forces.

About the citizen population, we said before what is its proper limit of numbers. Let us now speakof what ought to be the citizens’ natural character. Now this one might almost discern by looking at the famous cities of Greece and by observing how the whole inhabited world is divided up among the nations.4. fin. The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill, so that they continue comparatively free, but lacking in political organization and capacity to rule their neighbors. The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit, so that they are in continuous subjection and slavery. But the Greek race participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, for it is both spirited and intelligent; hence it continues to be free and to have very good political institutions, and to be capable of ruling all mankind if it attains constitutional unity. The same diversity also exists among the Greek races compared with one another: some have a one-sided nature, others are happily blended in regard to both these capacities.i.e. intelligence and high spirit, capacity for self-government and capacity for empire. It is clear therefore that people that are to be easily guided to virtue by the lawgiver must be both intellectual and spirited in their nature. For as to what is said by certain persons about the character that should belong to their GuardiansThe ruling class in Plato’s Ideal State,Plat. Rep. 375c.—they should be affectionate to their friends but fierce towards strangers—it is spirit that causes affectionateness, for spirit is the capacity of the soul whereby we love.

- -
-

A sign of this is that spirit is more roused against associates and friends than against strangers, when it thinks itself slighted. Therefore ArchilochusArchilochus of Paros (one of the earliest lyric poets, fl. 600 B.C., the inventor of the iambic meter, which he used for lampoons), fr. 61 Bergk, 676 Diehl, 67 Edmonds,Elegy and Iambus, 2. 133. for instance, when reproaching his friends, appropriately apostrophizes his spirit: For ’tis thy friends that make thee choke with rage. Moreover it is from this faculty that power to command and love of freedom are in all cases derived; for spirit is a commanding and indomitable element. But it is a mistake to describe the Guardians as cruel towards strangers; it is not right to be cruel towards anybody, and men of great-souled nature are not fierce except towards wrongdoers, and their anger is stillfiercer against their companions if they think that these are wronging them, as has been said before. And this is reasonable, because they think that in addition to the harm done them they are also being defrauded of a benefit by persons whom they believe to owe them one. Hence the sayings For brothers’ wars are cruel, Eur. frag. 965. and They that too deeply loved too deeply hate. Nauck frag. 78

-

We have now approximately decided what are the proper numbers and the natural qualities of those who exercise the right of citizens, and the proper extent and nature of the territory (for we must notseek to attain the same exactness by means of theoretical discussions as is obtained by means of the facts that come to us through sense-perceptions).

-

But since, just as with all other natural organisms those things that are indispensable for the existence of the whole are not partsi.e. they are not all of themparts: the parts of a thing are among the indispensable conditions of its existence, but there are others also. of the whole organization, it is also clear that not all the things that are necessary for states to possess are to be counted as parts of a state (any more than this is so with any other association that forms something one in kind, for there must be something that is one and common and the same for the partners, whether the shares that they take be equal or unequal: for example this common property may be food or an area of land or something else of the same sort—The sentence is unfinished. but when of two related things one is a means and the other an end, in their case there is nothing in common except for the one to act and the other to receive the action. I mean for instance the relation between any instrument or artificer and the work that they produce: between a house and a builder there is nothing that is produced in common, but the builder’s craft exists for the sake of the house. Hence although states need property, the property is no part of the state. And there are many living things that fall under the head of property.Possibly the words from the beginning of 7.2 But when to this point should be transferred below to 7.3 mid. after different constitutions. And the state is one form of partnership of similar people, and its object is the best life that is possible. And since the greatest good is happiness, and this is some perfect activity or employment of virtue, and since it has so come about that it is possible for some men to participate in it, but for others only to a small extent or not at all, it is clear that this is the cause for there arising different kinds and varieties of state and several forms of constitution;

- -
-

for as each set of people pursues participation in happiness in a different manner and by different means they make for themselves different modes of life and different constitutions. And we must also further consider how many there are of these things referred to that are indispensable for the existence of a state; for among them will be the things which we pronounce to be parts of a state, owing to which their presence is essential. We must therefore consider the list of occupations that a state requires : for from these it will appear what the indispensable classes are. First then a state must have a supply of food; secondly, handicrafts (since life needs many tools); third, arms (since the members of the association must necessarily possess arms both to use among themselves and for purposes of government, in cases of insubordination, and to employ against those who try to molest them from without); also a certain abundance of money, in order that they may have enough both for their internal needs and for requirements of war; fifth, a primary need, the service of religion, termed a priesthood; and sixth in number and most necessary of all, a provision for deciding questions of interests and of rights between the citizens. These then are the occupations that virtually every state requires (for the state is not any chance multitude of people but one self-sufficient for the needs of life, as we say,Cf. Books 2.1.7, 3.1.8, 5.2.10. and if any of these industries happens to be wanting, it is impossible for that association to be absolutely self-sufficient). It is necessary therefore for the state to be organizedon the lines of these functions; consequently it must possess a number of farmers who will provide the food, and craftsmen, and the military class, and the wealthy, and priests and judges to decide questions of necessityPerhaps the text should be altered to give matters of justice. and of interests.

-

These matters having been settled, it remains to consider whether everybody is to take part in all of these functions (for it is possible for the whole of the people to be at once farmers and craftsmen and the councillors and judges), or whether we are to assume different classes corresponding to each of the functions mentioned, or whether some of them must necessarily be specialized and others combined. But it will not be the same in every form of constitution; for, as we said,Cf. Book 4.4 and 14. it is possible either for all the people to take part in all the functions or for not all to take part in all but for certain people to have certain functions. In fact these different distributions of functions are the cause of the difference between constitutions: democracies are states in which all the people participate in all the functions, oligarchies where the contrary is the case. But at present we are studying the best constitution, and this is the constitution under which the state would be most happy, and it has been stated before1.5. that happiness cannot be forthcoming without virtue; it is therefore clear from these considerations that in the most nobly constituted state, and the one that possesses men that are absolutely just, not merely just relatively to the principle that is the basis of the constitution, the citizens must not live a mechanic or a mercantile life (for such a life is ignoble and inimical to virtue), nor yet must those who are to be citizens in the best state be tillers of the soil

- -
-

(for leisure is needed both for the development of virtue and for active participation in politics). And since the state also contains the military class and the class that deliberates about matters of policy and judges questions of justice, and these are manifestly in a special sense parts of the state, are these classes also to be set down as distinct or are both functions to be assigned to the same persons? But here also the answer is clear, because in a certain sense they should be assigned to the same persons, but in a certain sense to different ones. Inasmuch as each of these two functions belongs to a different prime of life, and one requires wisdom, the other strength, they are to be assigned to different people; but inasmuch as it is a thing impossible that when a set of men are able to employ force and to resist control, these should submit always to be ruled, from this point of view both functions must be assigned to the same people; for those who have the power of arms have the power to decide whether the constitution shall stand or fall. The only course left them is to assign this constitutional function to both sets of men without distinction,Or, amending this curious Greek, for the constitution to assign both these functions to the same people. yet not simultaneously, but, as in the natural order of things strength is found in the younger men and wisdom in the elder, it seems to be expedient and just for their functions to be allotted to both in this way, for this mode of division possesses conformity with merit. Moreover the ownership of properties also must be centered round these classes, for the citizens must necessarily possess plentiful means, and these are the citizens. For theartisan class has no share in the state, nor has any other class that is not an artificer of virtue.A Platonic phrase, Plat. Rep. 500d. And this is clear from our basic principle; for in conjunction with virtue happiness is bound to be forthcoming, but we should pronounce a state happy having regard not to a particular section of it but to all its citizens. And it is also manifest that the properties must belong to these classes, inasmuch asAs this is a new point, perhaps we should transpose inasmuch as ( εἴπερ) and that ( ὅτι) in the line above. it is necessary for the tillers of the soil to be slaves, or serfs of alien race. There remains of the list enumerated the class of priests; and the position of this class also is manifest. Priests must be appointed neither from the tillers of the soil nor from the artisans, for it is seemly that the gods should be worshipped by citizens; and since the citizen body is divided into two parts, the military class and the councillor class, and as it is seemly that those who have relinquished these duties owing to age should render to the gods their due worship and should spend their retirement in their service, it is to these that the priestly offices should be assigned.

-

We have therefore stated the things indispensable for the constitution of a state, and the things that are parts of a state: tillers of the soil, craftsmen and the laboring class generally are a necessary appurtenance of states, but the military and deliberative classes are parts of the state; and moreover each of these divisions is separate from the others, either permanently or by turn.i.e. the appurtenances are permanently separate form the army and the deliberative, which are the parts, and which are separate from each other only by turn, i.e. a citizen passes on from one to the other.

-

And that it is proper for the state to be divided up into castes and for the military class to be distinct from that of the tillers of the soil does not seem to be a discovery of political philosophers of today or one made recently.Perhaps to be read as denying the originality of Plato’sRepublic.

- -
-

In Egypt this arrangement still exists even now, as also in Crete; it is said to have been established in Egypt by the legislation of Sesostris and in Crete by thatof Minos. Common meals also seem to be an ancient institution, those in Crete having begun in the reign of Minos, while those in Italy are much older than these. According to the historians one of the settlers there, a certain Italus, became king of Oenotria, and from him they took the name of Italians instead of that of Oenotrians, and the name of Italy was given to all that promontoryi.e. the south-west peninsula or toe of Italy. of Europe lying between the Gulfs of Scylletium and of Lametus,i.e. the Gulfs of Squillace and Eufemia. which are half a day’s journey apart. It was this Italus then who according to tradition converted the Oenotrians from a pastoral life to one of agriculture and gave them various ordinances, being the first to institute their system of common meals; hence the common meals and some of his laws are still observed by certain of his successors even today. The settlers in the direction of TyrrheniaThe modern Tuscany, i.e. the people of Lucania, Campania and Latium. were Opicans, who today as in former times bear the surname ofAusonians; the region towards IapygiaThe south-east promontory or heel of Italy. and the Ionian Gulf, called Syrtis, was inhabited by the Chones, who also were Oenotrians by race. It is from this country that the system of common meals has its origin, while the division of the citizen-body by hereditary caste came from Egypt, for the reign of Sesostris long antedates that of Minos. We may almost take it therefore that all other political devices also have been discovered repeatedly, or rather an infinite number of times over, in the lapse of ages; for the discoveries of a necessary kind are probably taught by need itself, and when the necessaries have been provided it is reasonable that things contributing to refinement and luxury should find their development; so that we must assume that this is the way with political institutions also. The antiquity of all of them is indicated by the history of Egypt; for the Egyptians are reputed to be the oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system. Hence we should use the results of previous discovery when adequate, while endeavoring to investigate matters hitherto passed over.

-

It has been stated before that the land ought to be owned by those who possess arms and those who share the rights of the constitution, and why the cultivators ought to be a different caste from these, and what is the proper extent and conformation of the country. We have now to discuss first the allotment of the land, and the proper class and character of its cultivators; since we advocate not common ownership of land, as some have done,

- -
-

but community in it brought about in a friendly way by the use of it,This vague phrase (based on the proverb κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων, friends’ goods are common property) seems to denote some sort of customary communism in the cultivation of the land and enjoyment of the produce, combined with private ownership of the freehold. and we hold that no citizen should be ill supplied with means of subsistence. As to common meals, all agree that this is an institution advantageous for well-organized states to possess; our own reasons for sharing this view we will state later.This promise is not fulfilled. But the common meals must be shared by all the citizens, and it is not easy for the poor to contribute their assessed share from their private means and also to maintain their household as well. And moreover the expenses connected with religion are the common concern of the whole state. It is necessary therefore for the land to be divided into two parts, of which one must be common and the other the private property of individuals; and each of these two divisions must again be divided in two. Of the common land one portion should be assigned to the services of religion, and the other to defray the cost of the common meals; of the land in private ownership one part should be the district near the frontiers, and another the district near the city, in order that two plots may be assigned to each citizen and all may have a share in both districts. This arrangement satisfies equity and justice, and also conduces to greater unanimity in facing border warfare. Where this system is not followed, one set of people are reckless about quarrelling with the neighboring states,and the other set are too cautious and neglect considerations of honor. Hence some people have a law that the citizens whose land is near the frontier are not to take part in deliberation as to wars against neighboring states, on the ground that private interest would prevent them from being able to take counsel wisely. The land must therefore be divided up in this manner because of the reasons aforesaid.

-

Those who are to cultivate the soil should best of all, if the ideal system is to be stated, be slaves, not drawn from people all of one tribe nor of a spirited character (for thus they would be both serviceable for their work and safe to abstain from insurrection), but as a second best they should be alien serfs of a similar nature. Of these laborers those in private employment must be among the private possessions of the owners of the estates, and those working on the common land common property. How slaves should be employed, and why it is advantageous that all slaves should have their freedom set before them as a reward, we will say later.This promise is not fulfilled.

-

It has been said before that the city should so far as circumstances permit be in communication alike with the mainland, the sea and the whole of its territory. The site of the city itself we must pray that fortune may place on sloping ground, having regard to four considerationsApparently (1) fresh air, (2) water supply, (3) administration, (4) military requirements.: first, as a thing essential, the consideration of health (for cities whose site slopes east or towards the breezes that blow from the sunrise are more healthy, and in the second degree those that face away from the north wind,Literally, in the direction in which the north wind blows. for these are milder in winter);

- -
-

and among the remaining considerations, a sloping site is favorable both for political and for military purposes. For military purposes therefore the site should be easy of exit for the citizens themselves, and difficult for the adversary to approach and to blockade, and it must possess if possible a plentiful natural supply of pools and springs, but failing this, a mode has been invented of supplying water by means of constructing an abundance of large reservoirs for rain-water, so that a supply may never fail the citizens when they are debarred from their territory by war. And since we have to consider the health of the inhabitants, and this depends upon the place being well situated both on healthy ground and with a healthy aspect, and secondly upon using wholesome water-supplies, the following matter also must be attended to as of primary importance. Those things which we use for the body in the largest quantity, and most frequently, contribute most to health; and the influence of the water-supply and of the air is of this nature. Hence in wise cities if all the sources of water are not equally pure and there is not an abundance of suitable springs, the water-supplies for drinking must be kept separate from those for other requirements. As to fortified positions, what is expedient is not the same for all forms of constitution alike; for example, a citadel-hill is suitable for oligarchy and monarchy,and a level site for democracy; neither is favorable to an aristocracy, but rather several strong positions. The arrangement of the private dwellings is thought to be more agreeable and more convenient for general purposes if they are laid out in straight streets, after the modern fashion, that is, the one introduced by HippodamusSee Book 2.5.; but it is more suitable for security in war if it is on the contrary plan, as cities used to be in ancient times; for that arrangement is difficult for foreign troopsi.e. an enemy’s mercenaries; but the MSS. give difficult for foreign troops to make sorties from [i.e. presumably to find their way out when once they have got in, cf. Thuc. 2.4.2] and for attackers to find their way about in. to enter and to find their way about in when attacking. Hence it is well to combine the advantages of both plans (for this is possible if the houses arelaid out in the way which among the farmers some people call on the slantThe Roman quincunx, each plant of one row being in line with the gap between two plants of the next row, thus: in the case of vines), and not to lay out the whole city in straight streets, but only certain parts and districts, for in this way it will combine security with beauty.

-

As regards walls, those who aver that cities which pretend to valor should not have them hold too old-fashioned a view—and that though they see that the cities that indulge in that form of vanity are refuted by experience. It is true that against an evenly matched foe and one little superior in numbers it is not honorable to try to secure oneself bythe strength of one’s fortifications; but as it does and may happen that the superior numbers of the attackers may be too much for the human valor of a small force, if the city is to survive and not to suffer disaster or insult, the securest fortification of walls must be deemed to be the most warlike,

- -
-

particularly in view of the inventions that have now been made in the direction of precision with missiles and artillery for sieges. To claim not to encompass cities with walls is like desiringPerhaps a word should be added to the Greek giving desiring to make the country easy to invade, and to strip it—. the country to be easy to invade and stripping it of hilly regions, and similarly not surrounding even private dwellings with house-walls on the ground that the inhabitants will be cowardly. Another point moreover that must not be forgotten is that those who have walls round the city can use their cities in both ways, both as walled cities and as open ones, whereas cities not possessing walls cannot be used in both ways. If then this is so, not only must walls be put round a city, but also attention must be paid to them in order that they may be suitable both in regard to the adornment of the city and in respect of military requirements, especially the new devices recently invented. For just as the attackers of a city are concerned to study the means by which they can gain the advantage, so also for the defenders some devices have already been invented and others they must discover and think out; for people do not even start attempting to attack those who are well prepared.

-

And since the multitude of citizens must be distributedin separate messes, and the city walls must be divided up by guard-posts and towers in suitable places, it is clear that these facts themselves call for some of the messes to be organized at these guard-posts. These things then might be arranged in this manner.

-

But it is fitting that the dwellings assigned to the gods and the most important of the official messes should have a suitable site, and the same for all, excepting those temples which are assigned a special place apart by the law or else by some utterance of the Pythian oracle. And the site would be suitable if it is one that is sufficiently conspicuous in regard to the excellence of its position, and also of superior strength in regard to the adjacentparts of the city. It is convenient that below this site should be laid out an agora of the kind customary in Thessalywhich they call a free agora, that is, one which has to be kept clear of all merchandise and into which no artisan or farmer or any other such person may intrude unless summoned by the magistrates. It would give amenity to the site if the gymnasia of the older men were also situated here—for it is proper to have this institution also divided according to ages,Or for in this noble practice different ages should be separated (Jowett). and for certain magistrates to pass their time among the youths while the older men spend theirs with the magistrates; for the presence of the magistrates before men’s eyes most engenders true respect and a freeman’s awe.

- -
-

The agora for merchandise must be different from the free agora, and in another place; it must have a site convenient for the collection there of all the goods sent from the seaport and from the country. And as the divisions of the state’s populace includePerhaps the Greek should be altered to τὸ προεστός, as the governing class is divided into. priests and magistrates, it is suitable that the priests’ mess-rooms also should have their position round that of the sacred buildings. And all the magistracies that superintend contracts, and the registration of actions at law, summonses and other such matters of administration, and also those that deal with the control of the markets and with what is termed policing the city, should have buildings adjacent to an agora or some public place of resort, and such a place is the neighborhood of the business agora, for we assign the upper agora as the place in which to spend leisure, and this one for necessary business.

-

The arrangements in the country also should copy the plan described; there too the magistrates called in some states Wardens of the Woods and in others Land-superintendents must have their guard-posts and mess-rooms for patrol duty, and also temples must be distributed over the country, some dedicated to gods and some to heroes. But to linger at this point over the detailed statement and discussion of questions of this kind is waste of time.The difficulty with such things is not so much in the matter of theory but in that of practice; to lay down principles is a work of aspiration, but their realization is the task of fortune. Hence we will relinquish for the present the further consideration of matters of this sort.

-

We must now discuss the constitution itself, and ask what and of what character should be the components of the state that is to have felicity and good government. There are two things in which the welfare of all men consists: one of these is the correct establishment of the aim and end of their actions, the other the ascertainment of the actions leading to that end. (For the end proposed and the means adopted may be inconsistent with one another, as also they may be consistent; sometimes the aim has been correctly proposed, but people fail to achieve it in action, sometimes they achieve all the means successfully but the end that they posited was a bad one, and sometimes they err as to both—for instance, in medicine practitioners are sometimes both wrong in their judgement of what qualities a healthy body ought to possess and unsuccessful in hitting on effective means to produce the distinctive aim that they have set before them; whereas in the arts and sciences both these things have to be secured, the end and the practical means to the end.) Now it is clear that all men aim at the good life and at happiness, but though some possess the power to attain these things, some do not, owing to some factor of fortune or of nature

- -
-

(fortune because the good life needs also a certain equipment of means, and although it needs less of this for men of better natural disposition it needs more for those of worse); while others, although they have the power, go wrong at the start in their search for happiness.i.e. they misconceive the nature of happiness and select the wrong thing to aim at. But the object before us is to discern the best constitution, and this is the one under which a state will be best governed, and a state will be best governed under the constitution under which it has the most opportunity for happiness; it is therefore clear that we must know whathappiness is. The view that we maintain (and this is the definition that we laid down in theEthics, Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1098a 16 and Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1176b 4 if those discourses are of any value) is that happiness is the complete activity and employment of virtue, and this not conditionally but absolutely. When I say conditionally I refer to things necessary, by absolutely I mean nobly: for instance, to take the case of just actions, just acts of vengeance and of punishment spring it is true from virtue, but are necessary, and have the quality of nobility only in a limited manner (since it would be preferable that neither individual nor state should have any need of such things), whereas actions aiming at honors and resourcesA conjectural emendation gives distinctions. are the noblest actions absolutely; for the former class of acts consist in the removalThis is a conjectural emendation; the MSS. give the adoption. of something evil, but actions of the latter kind are the opposite—they are the foundation and the generation of things good. The virtuous man will use even poverty, disease, andthe other forms of bad fortune in a noble manner, but felicity consists in their opposites (for it is a definition established by our ethical discourses Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1113a 15 ff. that the virtuous man is the man of such a character that because of his virtue things absolutely good are good to him, and it is therefore clear that his employment of these goods must also be virtuous and noble absolutely); and hence men actually suppose that external goods are the cause of happiness, just as if they were to assign the cause of a brilliantly fine performance on the harp to the instrument rather than to the skill of the player. It follows therefore from what has been said that some goods must be forthcoming to start with and others must be provided by the legislator. Hence we pray that the organization of the state may be successful in securing those goods which are in the control of fortune (for that fortune does control externalgoods we take as axiomatic); but when we come to the state’s being virtuous, to secure this is not the function of fortune but of science and policy. But then the virtue of the state is of course caused by the citizens who share in its government being virtuous; and in our state all the citizens share in the government. The point we have to consider therefore is, how does a man become virtuous? For even if it be possible for the citizens to be virtuous collectively without being so individually, the latter is preferable, since for each individual to be virtuous entails as a consequence the collective virtue of all. But there are admittedly three things by which men are made good and virtuous, and these three things are nature, habit and reason. For to start with, one must be born with the nature of a human being and not of some other animal; and secondly, one must be born of a certain quality of body and of soul. But there are some qualities that it is of no use to be born with,

- -
-

for our habits make us alter them: some qualities in fact are made by nature liable to be modified by the habits in either direction, for the worse or for the better. Now the other animals live chiefly by nature, though some in small degrees are guided by habits too; but man lives by reason also, for he alone of animals possesses reason; so that in him these three things must be in harmony with one another; for men often act contrary to their acquired habits and to their nature because of their reason, if they are convinced that some other course of action is preferable.

-

Now we have alreadyIn 4. defined the proper natural character of those who are to be amenable to the hand of the legislator; what now remains is the task of education, for men learn some things by practice, others by precept.

-

But since every political community is composed of rulers and subjects, we must therefore consider whether the rulers and the subjects ought to change, or to remain the same through life; for it is clear that their education also will have to be made to correspond with this distribution of functions. If then it were the case that the one class differed from the other as widely as we believe the gods and heroes to differ from mankind, having first a great superiority in regard to the body and then in regard to the soul, so that the pre-eminence of the rulers was indisputable and manifest to the subjects, it is clear that it would be better for the same persons always to be rulers and subjects once for all; but as this is not easy to secure, and as we do not find anything corresponding to the great difference that Scylax states to exist between kings and subjects in India, it is clear that for many reasons it is necessary for all to share alike in ruling and being ruled in turn. For equality means for persons who are alike identity of status, and also it is difficultThe emendation suggested by Richards gives For equality and identity (of status) are just for persons who are alike, and it is difficult, etc. for a constitution to endure that is framed in contravention of justice. For all the people throughout the country are ranged on the side of the subject class in wishing for a revolution, and it is a thing inconceivable that those in the government should be sufficiently numerous to over power all of these together. But yet on the other hand that the rulers ought to be superior to the subjects cannot be disputed; therefore the lawgiver must consider how this is to be secured, and how they are to participate in the government. And this has been already8.3, 1329a 4 ff. discussed. Nature has given the distinction by making the group that is itself the same in race partly younger and partly older, of which two sets it is appropriate to the one to be governed and for the other to govern; and no one chafes or thinks himself better than his rulers when he is governed on the ground of age, especially as he is going to get back what he has thus contributed to the common stock when he reaches the proper age. - In a sense therefore we must say that the rulers and ruled are the same, and in a sense different.

- -
-

Hence their education also is bound to be in one way the same and in another different. For he who is to be a good ruler must have first been ruled, as the saying isThe sentence here breaks off into a long parenthesis, after which it is not resumed. (and government, as has been said in the first discourses,Book 3.6.6-12, 1278b 30 ff. is of two sorts, one carried on for the sake of the ruler and the other for the sake of the subject; of these the former is what we call the rule of a master,the latter is the government of free men . . .One sentence or more has been lost here. But some of the commands given differ not in nature of the services commanded but in their object. Hence a number of what are thought to be menial services can be honorably performed even by freemen in youth; since in regard to honor and dishonor actions do not differ so much in themselves as in their end and object). But since we say that the goodness of a citizenPerhaps the Greek should be altered to give of the best citizen. and ruler are the same as that of the best man, and that the same person ought to become a subject first and a ruler afterwards, it will be important for the legislator to study how and by what courses of training good men are to be produced, and what is the end of the best life.

-

The soul is divided into two parts, of which one is in itself possessed of reason, while the other is not rational in itselfbut capable of obeying reason. To these parts in our view belong those virtues in accordance with which a man is pronounced to be good in some way. But in which of thesetwo parts the end of man rather resides, those who define the parts of the soul in accordance with our view will have no doubt as to how they should decide. The worse always exists as a means to the better, and this is manifest alike in the products of art and in those of nature; but the rational part of the soul is better than the irrational. And the rational part is subdivided into two, according to our usual scheme of division; for reason is of two kinds, practical and theoretic, so that obviously the rational part of the soul must also be subdivided accordingly. A corresponding classification we shall also pronounce to hold among its activities: the activities of the part of the soul that is by nature superior must be preferable for those persons who are capable of attaining either all the soul’s activities or twoi.e. the two lower ones, the three being the activities of the theoretic reason, of the practical reason, and of the passions that although irrational are amenable to reason. out of the three; since that thing is always most desirable for each person which is the highest to which it is possible for him to attain. Also life as a whole is divided into business and leisure, and war and peace, and our actions are aimed some of them at things necessary and useful, others at things noble. In these matters the same principle of preference that applies to the parts of the soul must apply also to the activities of those parts: war must be for the sake of peace, business for the sake of leisure, things necessary and useful for the purpose of things noble. The statesman therefore must legislate with all these considerations in view, both in respect of the parts of the soul and of their activities, and aiming more particularly at the greater goods and the ends. And the same principle applies in regard to modes of life and choices of conduct: a man should be capable of engaging in business and war,

- -
-

but still more capable of living in peace and leisure; and he should do what is necessary and useful, but still more should he do what is noble. These then are the aims that ought to be kept in view in the education of the citizens both while still children and at the later ages that require education. But the Greek peoples reputed at the present day to have the best constitutions, and the lawgivers that established them, manifestly did not frame their constitutional systems with reference to the best end, nor construct their laws and their scheme of education with a view to all the virtues, but they swerved aside in a vulgar manner towards those excellences that are supposed to be useful and more conducive to gain. And following the same lines as they, some later writers also have pronounced the same opinion: in praising the Spartan constitution they express admiration for the aim of its founder on the ground that he framed the whole of his legislation with a view to conquest and to war. These views are easy to refute on theoretical grounds and also have now been refuted by the facts of history. For just as most of mankind covet being master of many servantsOr possibly, covet a wide empire. because this produces a manifold supply of fortune’s goods, so ThibronUnknown. and all the other writers about the Spartan constitutionshow admiration for the lawgiver of the Spartans because owing to their having been trained to meet dangers they governed a wide empire. Yet it clearly follows that since as a matter of fact at the present day the Spartans no longer possess an empire, they are not happy, and their lawgiver was not a good one. And it is ridiculous that although they have kept to his laws, and although nothing hinders their observing the laws, they have lost the noble life. Also writers have a wrong conception of the power for which the lawgiver should display esteem; to govern freemen is nobler and more conjoined with virtue than to rule despotically. And again it is not a proper ground for deeming a state happy and for praising its lawgiver, that it has practised conquest with a view to rulingA probable emendation gives that he has trained it with a view to ruling. over its neighbors. This principle is most disastrous; it follows from it that an individual citizen who has the capacity ought to endeavor to attain the power to hold sway over his own city; but this is just what the Spartans charge as a reproach against their king Pausanias, although he attained such high honor. No principle therefore and no law of this nature is either statesmanlike or profitable, nor is it true; the same ideals are the best both for individuals and for communities, and the lawgiver should endeavor to implant them in the souls of mankind. The proper object of practising military training is not in order that men may enslave those who do not deserve slavery, but in order that first they may themselves avoid becoming enslaved to others; then so that they may seek suzerainty for the benefit of the subject people,

- -
-

but not for the sake of world-wide despotism; and thirdly to hold despotic power over those who deserve to be slaves. Experience supports the testimony of theory, that it is the duty of the lawgiver rather to study how he may frame his legislation both with regard to warfare and in other departments for the object of leisure and of peace. Most military states remain safe while at war but perish when they have won their empire; in peace-time they lose their keen temper, like iron.i.e. an iron blade when not used loses keenness and has to be re-tempered. The lawgiver is to blame, because he did not educate them to be able to employ leisure.

-

And since it appears that men have the same end collectively and individually, and since the same distinctive aim must necessarily belong both to the best man and to the best government, it is clear that the virtues relating to leisure are essentiali.e. to the state as well as to the individual.; since, as has been said repeatedly, peace is the end of war, leisure of business. But the virtues useful for leisure and for its employment are not only those that operate during leisure but also those that operate in business; for many of the necessaries must needs be forthcoming to give us opportunity for leisure. Therefore it is proper for the state to be temperate,brave and enduring; since, as the proverb goes, there is no leisure for slaves, but people unable to face danger bravely are the slaves of their assailants. Therefore courage and fortitude are needed for business, love of wisdom for leisure, temperance and justice for both seasons, and more especially when men are at peace and have leisure; for war compels men to be just and temperate, whereas the enjoyment of prosperity and peaceful leisure tend to make them insolent. Therefore much justice and much temperance are needed by those who are deemed very prosperous and who enjoy all the things counted as blessings, like the persons, if such there be, as the poets say, Hes. WD 170 ff. that dwell in the Islands of the Blest; these will most need wisdom, temperance and justice, the more they are at leisure and have an abundance of such blessings. It is clear therefore why a state that is to be happy and righteous must share in these virtues; for if it is disgraceful to be unable to use our good things, it is still more disgraceful to be unable to use them in time of leisure, and although showing ourselves good men when engaged in business and war, in times of peace and leisure to seem no better than slaves. Therefore we must not cultivate virtue after the manner of the state of Sparta.

- -
-

The superiority of the Spartans over other races does not lie in their holding a different opinion from others as to what things are the greatest goods, but rather in their believing that these are obtained by means of one particular virtue; yet because they both deem these things and their enjoyment to be greater goods than the enjoyment of the virtues The end of this sentence and the beginning of the next appear to have been lost.

-

and that it is to be practised for its own sake is manifest from these considerations; but it must now be considered how and by what means this will come about. Now we have indeed previously decided that it requires nature and habit and reason, and among these, what particular quality of nature men ought to possess has been defined previously; but it remains to consider whether men ought to be educated first by means of the reason or by the habits. For between reason and habit the most perfect harmony ought to exist, as it is possible both for the reason to have missed the highest principle and for men to have been as wrongly trained through the habits. This therefore at all events is clear in the first place, in the case of men as of other creatures, that their engendering starts from a beginning, and that the end starts from a certain beginning that is another end,A conjectural addition to the text gives the end to which a certain beginning leads is itself the beginning of another end. The active use of the reason is the end (i.e. the completion and the purpose) of the birth and growth of the human animal. and that reason and intelligence are for us the end of our natural development, so that it is with a view to these ends that our engendering and the training of our habits must be regulated. And secondly, as soul and body are two, so we observe that the soul also has two parts, the irrational part and the part possessing reason, and that the states which they experience are two in number,the one being desire and the other intelligence; and as the body is prior in its development to the soul, so the irrational part of the soul is prior to the rational. And this also is obvious, because passion and will, and also appetite,These three emotions are subdivisions of desire above. exist in children even as soon as they are born, but it is the nature of reasoning and intelligence to arise in them as they grow older. Therefore in the first place it is necessary for the training of the body to precede that of the mind, and secondly for the training of the appetite to precede that of the intelligence; but the training of the appetite must be for the sake of the intellect, and that of the body for the sake of the soul.

-

Inasmuch therefore as it is the duty of the lawgiver to consider from the start how the children reared are to obtain the best bodily frames, he must first pay attention to the union of the sexes, and settle when and in what condition a couple should practise matrimonial intercourse. In legislating for this partnership he must pay regard partly to the persons themselves and to their span of life, so that they may arrive together at the same period in their ages, and their powers may not be at discord through the man being still capable of parentage and the wife incapable, or the wife capable and the man not (for this causes differences and actual discord between them), and also he must consider as well the succession of the children, for the children must neither be too far removed in their ages from the fathers (since elderly fathers get no good from their children’s return of their favors, nor do the children from the help they get from the fathers),

- -
-

nor must they be too near them (for this involves much unpleasantness, since in such families there is less respect felt between them, as between companions of the same age, and also the nearness of age leads to friction in household affairs); and in addition, to return to the point from which we began this digression, measures must be taken to ensure that the children produced may have bodily frames suited to the wish of the lawgiver. These results then are almost all attained by one mode of regulation. For since the period of parentage terminates, speaking generally, with men at the age of seventy at the outside, and with women at fifty, the commencement of their union should correspond in respect of age with these times. But the mating of the young is bad for child-bearing; for in all animal species the offspring of the young are more imperfect and likely to produce female children,Some editors write θηλύτοκα and interpret more likely to be born females. ( θηλυτόκα, likely to bear females, is applied to the young parents themselves in Aristot. Hist. An. 766b 29.) and small in figure, so that the same thing must necessarily occur in the human race also. And a proof of this is that in all the states where it is the local custom to mate young men and young women, the people are deformed and small of body. And again young women labor more, and more of them die in childbirth; indeed according to some accounts such was the reason why the oracle Μὴ τέμνε νέαν ἄλοκα (‘cut not a new furrow’) schol. was givento the people of Troezen, because many were dying owing to its being their custom for the women to marry young, and it did not refer to the harvest. And again it also contributes tochastity for the bestowal of women in marriage to be made when they are older, for it is thought that they are more licentious when they have had intercourse in youth. Also the males are thought to be arrested in bodily growth if they have intercourse while the seed is still growing, for this also has a fixed period after passing which it is no longer plentiful. Therefore it is fitting for the women to be married at about the age of eighteen and the men at thirty-seven or a little beforeThe word before is a conjectural insertion.—for that will give long enough for the union to take place with their bodily vigor at its prime, and for it to arrive with a convenient coincidence of dates at the time when procreation ceases. Moreover the succession of the children to the estates, if their birth duly occurs soon after the parents marry, will take place when they are beginning their prime, and when the parents’ period of vigor has now come to a close, towards the age of seventy. The proper age therefore for union has been discussed; as to the proper times in respect of the season we may accept what is customary with most people, who have rightly decided even as it is to practise marital cohabitation in winter. And people should also study for themselves, when their time comes, the teachings of physicians and natural philosophers on the subject of the procreation of children; the suitable bodily seasons are adequately discussed by the physicians,

- -
-

and the question of weather by the natural philosophers, who say that north winds are more favorable than south. The particular kind of bodily constitution in the parents that will be most beneficial for the offspring must be dwelt on more in detail in our discussion of the management of childrenThis was never written, or has been lost.; it is sufficient to speak of it in outline now. The athlete’s habit of body is not serviceable for bodily fitness as required by a citizen, nor for health and parentage, nor yet is a habit that is too valetudinarian and unfit for labor, but the condition that lies between them. The bodily habit therefore should have been trained by exercise, but not by exercises that are violent, and not for one form of labor only, as is the athlete’s habit of body, but for the pursuits of free men. And these arrangements must be provided alike for men and women. And pregnant women also must take care of their bodies, not avoiding exercise nor adopting a low diet; this it is easy for the lawgiver to secure by ordering them to make a journey daily for the due worship of the deities whose office is the control of childbirth. As regards the mind, however, on the contrary it suits them to pass the time more indolently than as regards their bodies; for children before birth are evidently affected by the mother just as growing plants are by the earth. As to exposing orrearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive. And since the beginning of the fit age for a man and for a woman, at which they are to begin their union, has been defined, let it also be decided for how long a time it is suitable for them to serve the state in the matter of producing children. For the offspring of too elderly parents, as those of too young ones, are born imperfect both in body and mind, and the children of those that have arrived at old age are weaklings. Therefore the period must be limited to correspond with the mental prime; and this in the case of most men is the age stated by some of the poets, who measure men’s age by periods of seven years, Solon fr. 27 —it is about the age of fifty. Therefore persons exceeding this age by four or five years must be discharged from the duty of producing children for the community, and for the rest of their lives if they have intercourse it must be manifestly for the sake of health or for some other similar reason. As to intercourse with another woman or man, in general it must be dishonorable for them to be known to take any part in it in any circumstances whatsoever as long as they are husband and wife and bear those names,

- -
-

but any who may be discovered doing anything of the sort during their period of parentage must be punished with a loss of privilege suited to the offence.

-

When the children have been born, the particular mode of rearing adopted must be deemed an important determining influence in regard to their power of body. It appears from examining the other animals, and is also shown by the foreign races that make it their aim to keep up the military habit of body, that a diet giving an abundance of milk is mostsuited to the bodies of children, and one that allows rather little wine because of the diseases that it causes. Moreover it is advantageous to subject them to as many movements as are practicable with children of that age. To prevent the limbs from being distorted owing to softness, some races even now employ certain mechanical appliances that keep the bodies of infants from being twisted. And it is also advantageous to accustom them at once from early childhood to cold, for this is most useful both for health and with a view to military service. Hence among many non-Greek races it is customary in the case of some peoples to wash the children at birth by dipping them in a cold river, and with others, for instance the Celts, to give them scanty covering. For it is better to inure them at the very start to everything possible, but to inure them gradually;and the bodily habit of children is naturally well fitted by warmth to be trained to bear cold. In the earliest period of life then it is expedient to employ this or a similar method of nursing; and the next period to this, up to the age of five, which it is not well to direct as yet to any study nor to compulsory labors, in order that they may not hinder the growth, should nevertheless be allowed enough movement to avoid bodily inactivity; and this exercise should be obtained by means of various pursuits, particularly play. But even the games must not be unfit for freemen, nor laborious, nor undisciplined. Also the question of the kind of tales and stories that should be told to children of this age must be attended to by the officials called Children’s Tutors. For all such amusements should prepare the way for their later pursuits; hence most children’s games should be imitations of the serious occupations of later life. The legislators in theLaws Plat. Laws 792a. Plato merely says that a child’s crying shows it to be annoyed, and that it ought to have as little pain as possible or else it will grow up morose. forbid allowing children to have paroxysms of crying, but this prohibition is a mistake; violent crying contributes to growth, for it serves in a way as exercise for the body, since holding the breath is the strength giving factor in hard labor, and this takes place also with children when they stretch themselves in crying. The Tutors must supervise the children’s pastimes, and in particular must see that they associate as little as possible with slaves. For children of this age,

- -
-

and up to seven years old, must necessarily be reared at home; so it is reasonable to suppose that even at this age they may acquire a taint of illiberality from what they hear and see. The lawgiver ought therefore to banish indecent talk, as much as anything else, out of the state altogether (for light talk about anything disgraceful soon passes into action)—so most of all from among the young, so that they may not say nor hear anything of the sort; and anybody found saying or doing any of the things prohibited, if he is of free station but not yet promoted to reclining at the public meals, must be punished with marks of dishonor and with beating, and an older offender must be punished with marks of dishonor degrading to a free man, because of his slavish behavior. And since we banish any talk of this kind, clearly we must also banish the seeing of either pictures or representations that are indecent. The officials must therefore be careful that there may be no sculpture or painting that represents indecent actions, except in the temples of a certain class of gods to whom the law allows even scurrility; but in regard to theseThe MS. text gives and in addition to these; and the word still may be an interpolation. the law permits men still of suitable age to worship the gods both on their own behalf and on behalf of the children and women. But the younger ones must not be allowed in the audience at lampoonsIambic verses, often abusive and indecent, recited at festivals of Dionysus. and at comedy, before they reach the age at which they will now have the right to recline at table in company and to drink deeply, and at which their education will render all of them immune to the harmful effects of such things. For the present therefore we have merely mentioned these matters in passing, but later we must stop to settle them more definitely, first discussing fully whether legislation prohibiting the attendance of the young is desirable or not, and how such prohibition should be put in force; but on the present occasion we have touched on the question only in the manner necessary. For perhaps the tragic actor TheodorusA great Athenian performer of Sophocles; he took the part of Antigone. used to put the matter not badly: he had never once allowed anybody to produce his partLoosely put for to appear on the stage. before him, not even one of the poor actors, as he said that audiences are attracted by what they hear first; and this happens alike in regard to our dealings with people and to our dealings with things—all that comes first we like better. On this account we ought to make all base things unfamiliar to the young, and especially those that involve either depravity or malignity.

-

But when the five years from two to seven have passed, the children must now become spectators at the lessonsi.e. in gymnastics and music. which they will themselves have to learn. And there are two ages corresponding to which education should be divided—there must be a break after the period from seven to puberty, and again after that from puberty to twenty-one. For those who divide the ages by periods of seven years are generally speaking not wrong,The MSS. give not right.

- -
-

and it is proper to follow the division of nature, for all art and education aim at filling up nature's deficiencies. First therefore we must consider whether some regulation in regard to the boys ought to be instituted, next whether it is advantageous for their supervision to be conducted on a public footing or in a private manner as is done at present in most states, and thirdly of what particular nature this supervision ought to be.

-
- -
-
-

Book 5 in some editions.Now nobody would dispute that the education of the young requires the special attention of the lawgiver. Indeed the neglect of this in states is injurious to their constitutions; for education ought to be adapted to the particular form of constitution, since the particular character belonging to each constitution both guards the constitution generally and originally establishes it—for instance the democratic spirit promotes democracy and the oligarchic spirit oligarchy; and the best spirit always causes a better constitution. Moreover in regard to all the faculties and crafts certain forms of preliminary educationand training in their various operations are necessarys o that manifestly this is also requisite in regard to the actions of virtue. And inasmuch as the end for the whole state is one, it is manifest that education also must necessarily be one and the same for all and that the superintendence of this must be public, and not on private lines, in the way in which at present each man superintends the education of his own children, teaching them privately, and whatever special branch of knowledge he thinks fit. But matters of public interest ought to be under public supervision; at the same time we ought not to think that any of the citizens belongs to himself, but that all belong to the state, for each is a part of the state, and it is natural for the superintendence of the several parts to have regard to the superintendence of the whole. And one might praise the Spartans in respect of this, for they pay the greatest attention to the training of their children, and conduct it on a public system.

-

It is clear then that there should be legislation about education and that it should be conducted on a public system. But consideration must be given to the question, what constitutes education and what is the proper way to be educated. At present there are differences of opinion as to the proper tasks to be set; for all peoples do not agree as to the things that the young ought to learn, either with a view to virtue or with a view to the best life, nor is it clear whether their studies should be regulated more with regard to intellect or with regard to character. And confusing questions arise out of the education that actually prevails, and it is not at all clear whether the pupils should practise pursuits that are practically morally edifying, or higher accomplishments—for all these views have won the support of some judges;

- -
-

and nothing is agreed as regards the exercise conducive to virtue, for, to start with, all men do not honor the same virtue, so that they naturally hold different opinions in regard to training in virtue.

-

It is therefore not difficult to see that the young must be taught those useful arts that are indispensably necessary; but it is clear that they should not be taught all the useful arts, those pursuits that are liberal being kept distinct from those that are illiberal, and that they must participate in such among the useful arts as will not render the person who participates in them vulgar. A task and also an art or a science must be deemed vulgar if it renders the body or soul or mind of free men useless for the employments and actions of virtue. Hence we entitle vulgar all such arts as deteriorate the condition of the body, and also the industries that earn wages; for they make the mind preoccupied and degraded. And even with the liberal sciences, although it is notilliberal to take part in some of them up to a point, to devote oneself to them too assiduously and carefully is liable to have the injurious results specified. Also it makes much difference what object one has in view in a pursuit or study; if one follows it for the sake of oneself or one’s friends, or on moral grounds, it is not illiberal,but the man who follows the same pursuit because of other people would often appear to be acting in a menial and servile manner.

-

The branches of study at present established fall into both classes, as was said before.1.4. There are perhaps fourcustomary subjects of education, reading and writing, gymnastics, music, and fourth, with some people, drawing; reading and writing and drawing being taught as being useful for the purposes of life and very serviceable, and gymnastics as contributing to manly courage; but as to music, here one might raise a question. For at present most people take part in it for the sake of pleasure; but those, who originally included it in education did so because, as has often been said, nature itself seeks to be able not only to engage rightly in business but also to occupy leisure nobly; for—to speak about it yet againCf. Book 7, 1334a 2-10.—this is the first principle of all things. For if although both business and leisure are necessary, yet leisure is more desirable and more fully an end than business, we must inquire what is the proper occupation of leisure. For assuredly it should not be employed in play, since it would follow that play is our end in life. But if this is impossible, and sports should rather be employed in our times of business (for a man who is at work needs rest, and rest is the object of play, while business is accompanied by toil and exertion), it follows that in introducing sports we must watch the right opportunity for their employment, since we are applying them to serve as medicine; for the activity of play is a relaxation of the soul, and serves as recreation because of its pleasantness.

- -
-

But leisure seems itself to contain pleasure and happiness and felicity of life. And this is not possessed by the busy but by the leisured; for the busy man busies himself for the sake of some end as not being in his possession, but happiness is an end achieved, which all men think is accompanied by pleasure and not by pain. But all men do not go on to define this pleasure in the same way, but according to their various natures and to their own characters, and the pleasure with which the best man thinks that happiness is conjoined is the best pleasure and the one arising from the noblest sources. So that it is clear that some subjects must be learnt and acquired merely with a view to the pleasure in their pursuit, and that these studies and these branches of learning are ends in themselves, while the forms of learning related to business are studied as necessary and as means to other things. Hence our predecessors included music in education not as a necessity (for there is nothing necessary about it), nor as useful (in the way in which reading and writing are useful for business and for household management and for acquiring learning and for many pursuits of civil life, while drawing also seems to be useful in making us better judges of the works of artists), nor yet again as we pursue gymnastics, for the sake of health and strength (for we do not see either of these things produced as a result of music); it remains therefore that it is useful as a pastime in leisure, which is evidently the purpose for which people actually introduce it, for they rank it as a form of pastime that they think proper for free men. For this reason Homer wrote thus: But him alone ’Tis meet to summon to the festal banquetThis line is not in our Odyssey, but apparently followed Hom. Od.17.383. The passage runs (382 ff.): τίς γὰρ δὴ ξεῖνον καλεῖ ἄλλοθεν αὐτὸς ἐπελθὼν ἄλλον γ’, εἰ μὴ τῶν οἳ δημιοεργοὶ ἔασι, μάντιν ἢ ἰητῆρα κακῶν ἢ τέκτονα δούρων, ἢ καὶ θέσπιν ἀοιδόν, ὅ κεν τέρπῃσιν ἀείδων; ; and after these words he speaks of certain others Who call the bard that he may gladden all.The fourth line quoted corresponds to this, but not exactly. And also in other verses Odysseus says that this is the best pastime, when, as men are enjoying good cheer, The banqueters, seated in order due Throughout the hall, may hear a minstrel sing. Hom. Od. 9.5-6.

-

- It is clear therefore that there is a form of education in which boys should be trained not because it is useful or necessary but as being liberal and noble; though whether there is one such subject of education or several, and what these are and how they are to be pursued, must be discussed later,This promise is not fulfilled. but as it is we have made this much progress on the way, that we have some testimony even from the ancients, derived from the courses of education which they founded—for the point is proved by music. And it is also clear that some of the useful subjects as well ought to be studied by the young not only because of their utility, like the study of reading and writing, but also because they may lead on to many other branches of knowledge; and similarly they should study drawing not in order that they may not go wrong in their private purchases and may avoid being cheated in buying and selling furniture,

- -
-

but rather because this study makes a man observant of bodily beauty; and to seek for utility everywhere is entirely unsuited to men that are great-souled and free. And since it is plain that education by habit must come before education by reason, and training of the body before training of the mind, it is clear from these considerations that the boys must be handed over to the care of the wrestling-master and the trainer; for the latter imparts a certain quality to the habit of the body and the former to its actions.

-

Now at the present time some of the states reputed to pay the greatest attention to children produce in them an athletic habiti.e. premature and disproportionate muscular development, directed to some particular competition. Cf. 1288b 12 ff. to the detriment of their bodily form and growth, while the Spartans although they have avoided this error yet make their boys animal in nature by their laborious exercises, in the belief that this is most contributory to manly courage. Yet, as has often been said, it is not right to regulate education with a view to one virtue only, or to this one most of all; indeed they do not even investigate the question whether this virtue is to be had in view at all. For neither in the lower animals nor in the case of foreign races do we see that courage goes with the wildest, but rather with the gentler and lion-like temperaments. Aristot. Hist. An. 629b 8 (the lion is gentle except when hungry); Plat. Soph. 231a (the dog the gentlest of animals). And there are manyforeign races inclined to murder and cannibalism, for example among the tribes of the Black Sea the Achaeans and Heniochi, and others of the mainland races, some in the same degree as those named and some more, which although piratical have got no share of manly courage. And again we know that even the Spartans, although so long as they persisted by themselves in their laborious exercises they surpassed all other peoples, now fall behind others both in gymnastic and in military contests; for they used not to excel because they exercised their young men in this fashion but only because they trained and their adversaries did not. Consequently honor and not animal ferocity should play the first part; for it is not a wolf nor one of the other wild animals that will venture upon any noble hazard, but rather a good man. But those who let boys pursue these hard exercises too much and turn them out untrained in necessary things in real truth render them vulgar, making them available for statesmanship to use for one task only, and even for this task training them worse than others do, as our argument proves. AndThis sentence would come better at the end of 3.4. we must not judge them from their former achievements but from the facts of today; for they have rivals in their education now, but they used to have none before.

-

It is therefore agreed that we should employ gymnastic training, and how we should employ it. For until pubertywe should apply lighter exercises, forbidding hard diet and severe exertions, in order that nothing may hinder the growth;

- -
-

for there is no small proof that too severe training can produce this result in the fact that in the list of Olympic victors one would only find two or three persons who have won both as men and as boys, because when people go into training in youththe severe exercises rob them of their strength. But when they have spent three years after puberty upon their other studies, then it is suitable to occupy the next period of life with laborious exercises and strict training dieti.e. compulsion to eat very large rations of prescribed food—the Greek way of training.; for it is wrong to work hard with the mind and the body at the same time; for it is the nature of the two different sorts of exertion to produce opposite effects, bodily toil impeding the development of the mind and mental toil that of the body.

-

About music on the other hand we have previously raised some questions in the course of our argument, but it is well to take them up again and carry them further now, in order that this may give the key so to speak for the principles which one might advance in pronouncing about it. For it is not easy to say precisely what potency it possesses, nor yet for the sake of what object one should participate in it—whether for amusement and relaxation, as one indulges in sleep and deep drinking (for these in themselves are not serious pursuits but merely pleasant, and relax our care, as Euripides says Eur. Ba. 378 (Bromios) ὃς τάδ’ ἔχει, θιασεύειν τε χόροις μετά τ’ αὐλῶν γελᾶσαι ἀναπαῦσαί τε μερίμνας ; owing to which people actually class music with them andemploy all of these things, sleep, deep drinking and music, in the same way, and they also place dancing in the same class); - - or whether we ought rather to think that music tends in some degree to virtue (music being capable of producing a certain quality of character just as gymnastics are capable of producing a certain quality of body, music accustoming men to be able to rejoice rightly); or that it contributes something to intellectual entertainmentThe term διαγωγή, pastime, is idiomatically used of the pursuits of cultured leisure—serious conversation, music, the drama. and culture (for this must be set down as a third alternative among those mentioned). Now it is not difficult to see that one must not make amusement the object of the education of the young; for amusement does not go with learning—learning is a painful process. Nor yet moreover is it suitable to assign intellectual entertainment to boys and to the young; for a thing that is an end does not belong to anything that is imperfect. - - But perhaps it might be thought that the serious pursuits of boys are for the sake of amusement when they have grown up to be men. But, if something of this sort is the case, why should the young need to learn this accomplishment themselves, and not, like the Persian and Median kings, participate in the pleasure and the education of music by means of others performing it? for those who have made music a business and profession must necessarily perform better than those who practise only long enough to learn. But if it is proper for them to labor at accomplishments of this sort, then it would also be right for them to prepare the dishes of an elaborate cuisine; but this is absurd. - - And the same difficulty also arises as to the question whether learning music can improve their characters; for why should they learn to perform edifying music themselves,

- -
-

instead of learning to enjoy it rightly and be able to judge it when they hear others performing, as the Spartans do? for the Spartans although they do not learn to perform can nevertheless judge good and bad music correctly, so it is said. And the same argument applies also if music is to be employed for refined enjoyment and entertainment; why need people learn to perform themselves instead of enjoying music played by others? - -And we may consider the conception that we have about the gods: Zeus does not sing and harp to the poets himself. But professional musicians we speak of as vulgar people, and indeed we think it not manly to perform music, except when drunk or for fun.

-

But perhaps these points will have to be considered afterwards; our first inquiry is whether music ought not or ought to be included in education, and what is its efficacy among the three uses of it that have been discussed—does it serve for education or amusement or entertainment? It is reasonable to reckon it under all of these heads, and it appears to participate in them all. Amusement is for the sake of relaxation, and relaxation must necessarily be pleasant, for it is a way of curing the pain due to laborious work; also entertainment ought admittedly to be not only honorable but also pleasant, for happiness is derived from both honor and pleasure;but we all pronounce music to be one of the pleasantest things, whether instrumental or instrumental and vocal music together (at least MusaeusA semi-legendary bard, to whom a number of oracular verses that were current were attributed. says, Song is man’s sweetest joy, and that is why people with good reason introduce it at parties and entertainments, for its exhilarating effect), so that for this reason also one might suppose that the younger men ought to be educated in music. For all harmless pleasures are not only suitable for the ultimate object but also for relaxation; and as it but rarely happens for men to reach their ultimate object, whereas they often relax and pursue amusement not so much with some ulterior object but because of the pleasure of it, it would be serviceable to let them relax at intervals in the pleasures derived from music. But it has come about that men make amusements an end; for the end also perhaps contains a certain pleasure, but not any ordinary pleasure, and seeking this they take the other as being this because it has a certain resemblance to the achievement of the end of their undertakings. For the end is desirable not for the sake of anything that will result from it, and also pleasures of the sort under consideration are not desirable for the sake of some future result, but because of things that have happened already, for instance labor and pain. One might then perhaps assume this to be the reason which causes men to seek to procure happiness by means of those pleasures; but in the case of taking part in music, this isnot because of this reason only, but also because performing music is useful, as it seems, for relaxation. But nevertheless we must examine whether it is not the case that, although this has come about,

- -
-

yet the nature of music is more honorable than corresponds with the employment of it mentioned, and it is proper not only to participate in the common pleasure that springs from it, which is perceptible to everybody (for the pleasure contained in music is of a natural kind, owing to which the use of it is dear to those of all ages and characters), but to see if its influence reachesalso in a manner to the character and to the soul. And this would clearly be the case if we are affected in our characters in a certain manner by it. But it is clear that we are affected in a certain manner, both by many other kinds of music and not least by the melodies of OlympusA Phrygian composer of the seventh century B.C.; for these admittedly make our souls enthusiastic, and enthusiasm is an affection of the character of the soul. And moreover everybody when listening to imitationsMusic dramatically expressing various states of emotion. is thrown into a corresponding state of feeling, even apart from the rhythms and tunes themselves.A probable correction of the Greek gives by the rhythms and tunes themselves, even apart from the words. And since it is the case that music is one of the things that give pleasure, and that virtue has to do with feeling delight and love and hatred rightly, there is obviously nothing that it is more needful to learn and become habituated to than to judge correctly and to delight in virtuous characters and noble actions; but rhythms and melodies contain representations of angerand mildness, and also of courage and temperance and all their opposites and the other moral qualities, that most closely correspond to the true natures of these qualities (and this is clear from the facts of what occurs—when we listen to such representations we change in our soul); and habituation in feeling pain and delight at representations of reality is close to feeling them towards actual reality (for example, if a man delights in beholding the statue of somebody for no other reason than because of its actual form, the actual sight of the person whose statue he beholds must also of necessity give him pleasure); and it is the case that whereas the other objects of sensation contain no representation of character, for example the objects of touch and taste (though the objects of sight do so slightly, for there are forms that represent character, but only to a small extent, and notNot is a conjectural insertion. all men participate in visual perception of such qualities; also visual works of art are not representations of character but rather the forms and colors produced are mere indications of character, and these indications are only bodily sensations during the emotions; not but what in so far as there is a difference even in regard to the observation of these indications,i.e. these visual impressions do vary to some extent in moral effect. the young must not look at the works of Pauson but those of Polygnotus,Pauson is a painter otherwise little known. Polygnotus decorated the Stoa Poikile and other famous public buildings at Athens, in the middle of the 5th century B.C. Polygnotus represented men as better than they really were, Pauson as worse (Aristot. Poet. 1448a 5). and of any other moral painter or sculptor), pieces of music on the contrary do actually contain in them selves imitations of character; and this is manifest, for even in the nature of the mere melodies there are differences, so that people when hearing them are affected differently and have not the same feelings in regard to each of them, but listen to some in a more mournful and restrained state,

- -
-

for instance the mode called Mixolydian, and to others in a softer state of mind, but in a midway state and with the greatest composure to another, as the Dorian mode alone of tunes seems to act, while the Phrygian makes men enthusiastic; for these things are well stated by those who have studied this form of education, as they derive the evidence for their theories from the actual facts of experience. And the same holds good about the rhythms also, for some have a more stable and others a more emotional character, and of the latter some are more vulgar in their emotional effects and others more liberal. From these considerations therefore it is plain that music has the power of producing a certain effect on the moral character of the soul, and if it has the power to do this, it is clear that the young must be directed to music and must be educated in it. Also education in music is well adapted to the youthful nature; for the young owing to their youth cannot endure any thing not sweetened by pleasure, and music is by nature a thing that has a pleasant sweetness. And we seem to have a certain affinity with tunes and rhythms; owing to which many wise men say either that the soul is a harmony or that it has harmony.The former doctrine is Pythagorean, the latter is stated by Plat. Phaedo 93.

-

We ought now to decide the question raised earlier, whether theyoung ought to learn music by singing and playing themselves or not. It is not difficult to see that it makes a great difference in the process of acquiring a certain quality whether one takes a part in the actions that impart it oneself; for it is a thing that is impossible, or difficult, to become a good judge of performances if one has not taken part in them. At the same time also boys must have some occupation, and one must think Archytas’s rattleArchytas a Pythagorean philosopher, mathematician, statesman, and general of Tarentum, contemporary with Plato. He was interested in mechanics; but one tradition ascribes the toy in question to a carpenter of the same name. a good invention, which people give to children in order that while occupied with this they may not break any of the furniture; for young things cannot keep still. Whereas then a rattle is a suitable occupation for infant children, education serves as a rattle for young people when older. Such considerations therefore prove that children should be trained in music so as actually to take part in its performance; and it is not difficult to distinguish what is suitable and unsuitable for various ages, and to refute those who assert that the practice of music is vulgar. For first, inasmuch as it is necessary to take part in the performances for the sake of judging them, it is therefore proper for the pupils when young actually to engage in the performances, though when they get older they should be released from performing, but be able to judge what is beautiful and enjoy it rightly because of the study in which they engaged in their youth. Then as to the objection raised by some people that music makes peoplevulgar, it is not difficult to solve it by considering how far pupils who are being educated with a view to civic virtue should take part in the actual performance of music,

- -
-

and in what times and what rhythms they should take part, and also what kinds of instruments should be used in their studies, as this naturally makes a difference. For the solution of the objection depends upon these points, as it is quite possible that some modes of music do produce the result mentioned. It is manifest therefore that the study of music must not place a hindrance in the way of subsequent activities, nor vulgarize the bodily frame and make it useless for the exercises of the soldier and the citizen, either for their practical pursuit now or for their scientific study later on.It is difficult not to think that either the nouns or the adverbs in the Greek have been erroneously transposed, and that we should translate either for learning them now or for practising them later on. And this would come about in respect of their study if the pupils did not go on toiling at the exercises that aim at professional competitions, nor the wonderful and elaborate performances which have now entered into the competitions and have passed from the competitions into education, but also only practised exercises not of that sort until they are able to enjoy beautiful tunes and rhythms, and not merely the charm common to all music, which even some lower animals enjoy, as well as a multitude of slaves and children. And it is also clear from these considerations what sort of instruments they should use. Flutes must not be introduced into education, nor any other professional instrument, such as the harp or any other of that sort, butsuch instruments as will make them attentive pupils either at their musical training or in their other lessons. Moreover the flute is not a moralizing but rather an exciting influence, so that it ought to be used for occasions of the kind at which attendance has the effect of purification rather than instruction.See 1341a 33 ff. And let us add that the flute happens to possess the additional property telling against its use in education that playing it prevents the employment of speech. Hence former ages rightly rejected its use by the young and the free, although at first they had employed it. For as they came to have more leisure because of their wealth and grew more high-spirited and valorous, both at a still earlier date and because after the Persian Wars they were filled with pride as a result of their achievements, they began to engage in all branches of learning, making no distinction but pursuing research further. Because of this they even included flute-playing among their studies; for in Sparta a certain chorus-leader played the flute to his chorus himself,A wealthy citizen who undertook the duty of equipping and training a chorus for a religious celebration (especially the production of a drama at Athens) usually had an assistant of lower station to supply the instrumental music. The office of choregus is not elsewhere referred to as existing at Sparta. and at Athens it became so fashionable that almost the majority of freemen went in for flute-playing, as is shown by the tablet erected by Thrasippus after having provided the chorus for Ecphantides.Ecphantides was one of the earliest comic poets; Thrasippus is not elsewhere recorded. Who the flute-player was is unknown. But later on it came to be disapproved of as a result of actual experience, when men were more capable of judging what music conduced to virtue and what did not; and similarly also many of the old instruments were disapproved of, like the pectis and the barbitosThese were old-fashioned forms of the lyre. and the instruments designed to give pleasure to those who hear people playing them,A possible emendation of the Greek gives those who listen to their modulations. the septangle, the triangle and the sambyc,Three different stringed instruments, the last having four strings stretched in a triangular frame.

- -
-

and all the instruments that require manual skill. And indeed there is a reasonable foundation for the story that was told by the ancients about the flute. The tale goes that Athena found a flute and threw it away. Now it is not a bad point in the story that the goddess did this out of annoyance because of the ugly distortion of her features; but as a matter of fact it is more likely that it was because education in flute-playing has no effect on the intelligence, whereas we attribute science and art to Athena.

-

And since we reject professional education in the instruments and in performanceThe Greek should probably be altered to give reject, some instruments and professional education in performance. (and we count performance in competitions as professional, for the performer does not take part in it for his own improvement, but for his hearers’ pleasure, and that a vulgar pleasure, owing to which we do not consider performing to be proper for free men, but somewhat menial; and indeed performers do become vulgar, since the object at which they aim is a low one, as vulgarity in the audience usually influences the music, so that it imparts to the artists who practise it with a view to suit the audience a special kind of personality, and also of bodily frame because of the movements required)— we must therefore give some consideration to tunes and rhythms,and to the question whether for educational purposes we must employ all the tunes and all the rhythms or make distinctions; and next, whether for those who are working at music for education we shall lay down the same regulation, or ought we to establish some other third one (inasmuch as we see that the factors in music are melody and rhythm, and it is important to notice what influence each of these has upon education), and whether we are to prefer music with a good melody or music with a good rhythm. Now we consider that much is well said on these matters by some of the musicians of the present day and by some of those engaged in philosophy who happen to be experienced in musical education, and we will abandon the precise discussion as to each of these matters for any who wish it to seek it from those teachers, while for the present let us lay down general principles, merely stating the outlines of the subjects. And since we accept the classification of melodies made by some philosophers, as ethical melodies, melodies of action, and passionate melodies,i.e. representative of character, of action and of emotion. distributing the various harmonies among these classes as being in nature akin to one or the other, and as we say that music ought to be employed not for the purpose of one benefit that it confers but on account of several (for it serves the purpose both of education and of purgation—the term purgation we use for the present without explanation, but we will return to discuss the meaning that we give to it more explicitly in our treatise on poetryIn Aristot. Poet. 6 tragedy is said to purge the emotion of pity and fear by giving them an outlet; the reference here is probably to the lost Second Book of Poetics.—and thirdly it serves for amusement, serving to relax our tension and to give rest from it),

- -
-

it is clear that we should employ all the harmonies, yet not employ them all in the same way, but use the most ethical ones for education, and the active and passionate kinds for listening to when others are performing (for any experience that occurs violently in some souls is found in all, though with different degrees of intensity—for example pity and fear, and also religious excitement; for some persons are very liable to this form of emotion, and under the influence of sacred music we see these people, when they use tunes that violently arouse the soul, being thrown into a state as if they had received medicinal treatment and taken a purge; the same experience then must come also to the compassionate and the timid and the other emotional people generally in such degree as befalls each individual of these classes, and all must undergo a purgation and a pleasant feeling of relief; and similarly also the purgative melodies afford harmless delight to people). Therefore those who go in for theatrical music must be set to compete in harmonies and melodies of this kind (and since the audience is of two classes, one freemen and educated people, and the otherthe vulgar class composed of mechanics and laborers and other such persons, the latter sort also must be assigned competitions and shows for relaxation; and just as their souls are warped from the natural state, so those harmonies and melodies that are highly strung and irregular in colorationSaid to mean divergent from the regular scale in having smaller intervals. are deviations, but people of each sort receive pleasure from what is naturally suited to them, owing to which the competitors before an audience of this sort must be allowed to employ some such kind of music as this); but for education, as has been said,1342a 2. the ethical class of melodies and of harmonies must be employed. And of that nature is the Dorian mode, as we said before1343b 3 ff.; but we must also accept any other mode that those who take part in the pursuit of philosophy and in musical education may recommend to us. Socrates in the Republic Plat. Rep. 399a does not do well in allowing only the Phrygian mode along with the Dorian, and that when he has rejected the flute among instruments;

- -
-

for the Phrygian mode has the same effect among harmonies as the flute among instruments—both are violently exciting and emotional. This is shown by poetry; for all Bacchiac versification and all movement of that sortOr perhaps βακχεία and κίνησις denote bodily movement accompanying the song; or they may denote the emotional frenzy expressed and stimulated by it. The dithyramb was a form of poetry of this class, originally celebrating the birth of Dionysus. Philoxenus, one of the most famous dithyrambic poets, 435-380 B.C., lived at Athens, and later at the court of Dionysius of Syracuse. belongs particularly to the flute among the instruments, and these meters find their suitable accompaniment in tunes in the Phrygian mode among the harmonies: for example the dithyramb is admittedly held to be a Phrygian meter, and the experts on this subject adduce many instances to prove this, particularly the fact that Philoxenus when he attempted to compose a dithyramb, The Mysians, in the Dorian mode was unable to do so, but merely by the force of nature fell back again into the suitable harmony, the Phrygian. And all agree that the Dorian mode is more sedate and of a specially manly character. Moreover since we praise and say that we ought to pursue the mean between extremes, and the Dorian mode has this nature in relation to the other harmonies, it is clear that it suits the younger pupils to be educated rather in the Dorian melodies. But there are two objects to aim at, the possible as well as the suitable; for we are bound rather to attempt the things that are possible and those that are suitable for the particular class of people concerned;and in these matters also there are dividing lines drawn by the ages—for instance, those whose powers have waned through lapse of time cannot easily sing the highly strung harmonies, but to persons of that age nature suggests the relaxed harmonies. Therefore some musical experts also rightly criticize Socrates Plat. Rep. 338e because he disapproved of the relaxed harmonies for amusement, taking them to have the character of intoxication, not in the sense of the effect of strong drink, for that clearly has more the result of making men frenzied revellers, but as failing in power. Hence even with a view to the period of life that is to follow, that of the comparatively old, it is proper to engage in the harmonies and melodies of this kind too, and also any kind of harmony that is suited to the age of boyhood because it is capable of being at once decorous and educative, which seems to be the nature of the Lydian mode most of all the harmonies. It is clear therefore that we should lay down these three canons to guide education, moderation, possibility and suitability.

- - - diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml deleted file mode 100644 index b8cb61a5c..000000000 --- a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,396 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - - Πολιτικά - Aristotle - William David Ross - Perseus Project, Tufts University - Gregory Crane - - Prepared under the supervision of - Lisa Cerrato - William Merrill - Elli Mylonas - David Smith - - The Annenberg CPB/Project - - - - Trustees of Tufts University - Medford, MA - Perseus Digital Library Project - Perseus 2.0 - tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml - - Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License - - - - - - - Aristotelis Politica - Aristotle - William David Ross - - Clarendon Press - Oxford - 1957 - - - - Oxford Classical Texts - - SLUB - - - - - -

Note that some inconsistencies with this edition and this text were found. A different print source edition may have been used.

 - - - -

This pointer pattern extracts book and section.

- - -

This pointer pattern extracts book.

- - - - - - - Greek - English - - - - - EpiDoc and CTS conversion and general header review. - small fixes - more refinements making these files SDL compatible - QUOTE tags added; DEL tags added; ADD tags added; GAP entities added - cleaned up bad place tags in a few texts and cleaned up the document format - more reorganizing of texts module by collection - began reorganizing texts module by collection. created separate work directory in texts module to keep hopper files separate from in progress files - added cvs log keyword - Tagged in conformance with Prose.g dtd. - Text was scanned at St. Olaf Spring, 1992. - - - - - -
-
-

ἐπειδὴ πᾶσαν πόλιν ὁρῶμεν κοινωνίαν τινὰ οὖσαν καὶ πᾶσαν κοινωνίαν ἀγαθοῦ τινος ἕνεκεν συνεστηκυῖαν (τοῦ γὰρ εἶναι δοκοῦντος ἀγαθοῦ χάριν πάντα πράττουσι πάντες), δῆλον ὡς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγαθοῦ τινος στοχάζονται, μάλιστα δὲ καὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου πάντων ἡ πασῶν κυριωτάτη καὶ πάσας περιέχουσα τὰς ἄλλας. αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ καλουμένη πόλις καὶ ἡ κοινωνία ἡ πολιτική. ὅσοι μὲν οὖν οἴονται πολιτικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν καὶ οἰκονομικὸν καὶ δεσποτικὸν εἶναι τὸν αὐτὸν οὐ καλῶς λέγουσιν (πλήθει γὰρ καὶ ὀλιγότητι νομίζουσι διαφέρειν ἀλλʼ οὐκ εἴδει τούτων ἕκαστον, οἷον ἂν μὲν ὀλίγων, δεσπότην, ἂν δὲ πλειόνων, οἰκονόμον, ἂν δʼ ἔτι πλειόνων, πολιτικὸν ἢ βασιλικόν, ὡς οὐδὲν διαφέρουσαν μεγάλην οἰκίαν ἢ μικρὰν πόλιν· καὶ πολιτικὸν δὲ καὶ βασιλικόν, ὅταν μὲν αὐτὸς ἐφεστήκῃ, βασιλικόν, ὅταν δὲ κατὰ τοὺς λόγους τῆς ἐπιστήμης τῆς τοιαύτης κατὰ μέρος ἄρχων καὶ ἀρχόμενος, πολιτικόν· ταῦτα δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθῆ)· δῆλον δʼ ἔσται τὸ λεγόμενον ἐπισκοποῦσι κατὰ τὴν ὑφηγημένην μέθοδον. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις τὸ σύνθετον μέχρι τῶν ἀσυνθέτων ἀνάγκη διαιρεῖν (ταῦτα γὰρ ἐλάχιστα μόρια τοῦ παντός), οὕτω καὶ πόλιν ἐξ ὧν σύγκειται σκοποῦντες ὀψόμεθα καὶ περὶ τούτων μᾶλλον, τί τε διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων καὶ εἴ τι τεχνικὸν ἐνδέχεται λαβεῖν περὶ ἕκαστον τῶν ῥηθέντων.

- -

εἰ δή τις ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ πράγματα φυόμενα βλέψειεν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις, καὶ ἐν τούτοις κάλλιστʼ ἂν οὕτω θεωρήσειεν. ἀνάγκη δὴ πρῶτον συνδυάζεσθαι τοὺς ἄνευ ἀλλήλων μὴ δυναμένους εἶναι, οἷον θῆλυ μὲν καὶ ἄρρεν τῆς γενέσεως ἕνεκεν (καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐκ προαιρέσεως, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις καὶ φυτοῖς φυσικὸν τὸ ἐφίεσθαι, οἷον αὐτό, τοιοῦτον καταλιπεῖν ἕτερον), ἄρχον δὲ καὶ ἀρχόμενον φύσει, διὰ τὴν σωτηρίαν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ δυνάμενον τῇ διανοίᾳ προορᾶν ἄρχον φύσει καὶ δεσπόζον φύσει, τὸ δὲ δυνάμενον τῷ σώματι ταῦτα πονεῖν ἀρχόμενον καὶ φύσει δοῦλον· διὸ δεσπότῃ καὶ δούλῳ ταὐτὸ συμφέρει. φύσει μὲν οὖν διώρισται τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ δοῦλον (οὐθὲν γὰρ ἡ φύσις ποιεῖ τοιοῦτον οἷον οἱ χαλκοτύποι τὴν Δελφικὴν μάχαιραν, πενιχρῶς, ἀλλʼ ἓν πρὸς ἕν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἀποτελοῖτο κάλλιστα τῶν ὀργάνων ἕκαστον, μὴ πολλοῖς ἔργοις ἀλλʼ ἑνὶ δουλεῦον)· ἐν δὲ τοῖς βαρβάροις τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ δοῦλον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει τάξιν. αἴτιον δʼ ὅτι τὸ φύσει ἄρχον οὐκ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ γίνεται ἡ κοινωνία αὐτῶν δούλης καὶ δούλου. διό φασιν οἱ ποιηταὶ βαρβάρων δʼ Ἕλληνας ἄρχειν εἰκός, Eur. IA 1400 ὡς ταὐτὸ φύσει βάρβαρον καὶ δοῦλον ὄν. ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων τῶν δύο κοινωνιῶν οἰκία πρώτη, καὶ ὀρθῶς Ἡσίοδος εἶπε ποιήσας οἶκον μὲν πρώτιστα γυναῖκά τε βοῦν τʼ ἀροτῆρα· Hes. WD 405 ὁ γὰρ βοῦς ἀντʼ οἰκέτου τοῖς πένησίν ἐστιν. ἡ μὲν οὖν εἰς πᾶσαν ἡμέραν συνεστηκυῖα κοινωνία κατὰ φύσιν οἶκός ἐστιν, οὓς Χαρώνδας μὲν καλεῖ ὁμοσιπύους, Ἐπιμενίδης δὲ ὁ Κρὴς ὁμοκάπους· ἡ δʼ ἐκ πλειόνων οἰκιῶν κοινωνία πρώτη χρήσεως ἕνεκεν μὴ ἐφημέρου κώμη. μάλιστα δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἔοικεν ἡ κώμη ἀποικία οἰκίας εἶναι, οὓς καλοῦσί τινες ὁμογάλακτας, παῖδάς τε καὶ παίδων παῖδας. διὸ καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἐβασιλεύοντο αἱ πόλεις, καὶ νῦν ἔτι τὰ ἔθνη· ἐκ βασιλευομένων γὰρ συνῆλθον· πᾶσα γὰρ οἰκία βασιλεύεται ὑπὸ τοῦ πρεσβυτάτου, ὥστε καὶ αἱ ἀποικίαι, διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν. καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ὃ λέγει Ὅμηρος θεμιστεύει δὲ ἕκαστος παίδων ἠδʼ ἀλόχων. Hom. Od. 9.114 σποράδες γάρ· καὶ οὕτω τὸ ἀρχαῖον ᾤκουν. καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς δὲ διὰ τοῦτο πάντες φασὶ βασιλεύεσθαι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ μὲν ἔτι καὶ νῦν οἱ δὲ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐβασιλεύοντο, ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη ἑαυτοῖς ἀφομοιοῦσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς βίους τῶν θεῶν.

-

ἡ δʼ ἐκ πλειόνων κωμῶν κοινωνία τέλειος πόλις, ἤδη πάσης ἔχουσα πέρας τῆς αὐταρκείας ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, γινομένη μὲν τοῦ ζῆν ἕνεκεν, οὖσα δὲ τοῦ εὖ ζῆν. διὸ πᾶσα πόλις φύσει ἔστιν, εἴπερ καὶ αἱ πρῶται κοινωνίαι. τέλος γὰρ αὕτη ἐκείνων, ἡ δὲ φύσις τέλος ἐστίν· οἷον γὰρ ἕκαστόν ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθείσης, ταύτην φαμὲν τὴν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου ἵππου οἰκίας. ἔτι τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα καὶ τὸ τέλος βέλτιστον· ἡ δʼ αὐτάρκεια καὶ τέλος καὶ βέλτιστον. ἐκ τούτων οὖν φανερὸν ὅτι τῶν φύσει ἡ πόλις ἐστί, καὶ ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον, καὶ ὁ ἄπολις διὰ φύσιν καὶ οὐ διὰ τύχην ἤτοι φαῦλός ἐστιν, ἢ κρείττων ἢ ἄνθρωπος· ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ ὑφʼ Ὁμήρου λοιδορηθεὶς ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιος· Hom. Il. 9.63 ἅμα γὰρ φύσει τοιοῦτος καὶ πολέμου ἐπιθυμητής, ἅτε περ ἄζυξ ὢν ὥσπερ ἐν πεττοῖς. διότι δὲ πολιτικὸν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ζῷον πάσης μελίττης καὶ παντὸς ἀγελαίου ζῴου μᾶλλον, δῆλον. οὐθὲν γάρ, ὡς φαμέν, μάτην ἡ φύσις ποιεῖ· λόγον δὲ μόνον ἄνθρωπος ἔχει τῶν ζῴων· ἡ μὲν οὖν φωνὴ τοῦ λυπηροῦ καὶ ἡδέος ἐστὶ σημεῖον, διὸ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑπάρχει ζῴοις (μέχρι γὰρ τούτου ἡ φύσις αὐτῶν ἐλήλυθε, τοῦ ἔχειν αἴσθησιν λυπηροῦ καὶ ἡδέος καὶ ταῦτα σημαίνειν ἀλλήλοις), ὁ δὲ λόγος ἐπὶ τῷ δηλοῦν ἐστι τὸ συμφέρον καὶ τὸ βλαβερόν, ὥστε καὶ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ ἄδικον· τοῦτο γὰρ πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἴδιον, τὸ μόνον ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ καὶ δικαίου καὶ ἀδίκου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἴσθησιν ἔχειν· ἡ δὲ τούτων κοινωνία ποιεῖ οἰκίαν καὶ πόλιν. καὶ πρότερον δὲ τῇ φύσει πόλις ἢ οἰκία καὶ ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἐστιν. τὸ γὰρ ὅλον πρότερον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ μέρους· ἀναιρουμένου γὰρ τοῦ ὅλου οὐκ ἔσται ποὺς οὐδὲ χείρ, εἰ μὴ ὁμωνύμως, ὥσπερ εἴ τις λέγοι τὴν λιθίνην (διαφθαρεῖσα γὰρ ἔσται τοιαύτη), πάντα δὲ τῷ ἔργῳ ὥρισται καὶ τῇ δυνάμει, ὥστε μηκέτι τοιαῦτα ὄντα οὐ λεκτέον τὰ αὐτὰ εἶναι ἀλλʼ ὁμώνυμα. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἡ πόλις καὶ φύσει πρότερον ἢ ἕκαστος, δῆλον· εἰ γὰρ μὴ αὐτάρκης ἕκαστος χωρισθείς, ὁμοίως τοῖς ἄλλοις μέρεσιν ἕξει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, ὁ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενος κοινωνεῖν ἢ μηδὲν δεόμενος διʼ αὐτάρκειαν οὐθὲν μέρος πόλεως, ὥστε ἢ θηρίον ἢ θεός.

-

φύσει μὲν οὖν ἡ ὁρμὴ ἐν πᾶσιν ἐπὶ τὴν τοιαύτην κοινωνίαν· ὁ δὲ πρῶτος συστήσας μεγίστων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιος. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τελεωθὲν βέλτιστον τῶν ζῴων ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ χωρισθεὶς νόμου καὶ δίκης χείριστον πάντων. χαλεπωτάτη γὰρ ἀδικία ἔχουσα ὅπλα· ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ὅπλα ἔχων φύεται φρονήσει καὶ ἀρετῇ, οἷς ἐπὶ τἀναντία ἔστι χρῆσθαι μάλιστα. διὸ ἀνοσιώτατον καὶ ἀγριώτατον ἄνευ ἀρετῆς, καὶ πρὸς ἀφροδίσια καὶ ἐδωδὴν χείριστον. ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη πολιτικόν· ἡ γὰρ δίκη πολιτικῆς κοινωνίας τάξις ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη τοῦ δικαίου κρίσις.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ φανερὸν ἐξ ὧν μορίων ἡ πόλις συνέστηκεν, ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον περὶ οἰκονομίας εἰπεῖν· πᾶσα γὰρ σύγκειται πόλις ἐξ οἰκιῶν. οἰκονομίας δὲ μέρη ἐξ ὧν πάλιν οἰκία συνέστηκεν· οἰκία δὲ τέλειος ἐκ δούλων καὶ ἐλευθέρων. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐν τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις πρῶτον ἕκαστον ζητητέον, πρῶτα δὲ καὶ ἐλάχιστα μέρη οἰκίας δεσπότης καὶ δοῦλος, καὶ πόσις καὶ ἄλοχος, καὶ πατὴρ καὶ τέκνα, περὶ τριῶν ἂν τούτων σκεπτέον εἴη τί ἕκαστον καὶ ποῖον δεῖ εἶναι. ταῦτα δʼ ἐστὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ γαμική (ἀνώνυμον γὰρ ἡ γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρὸς σύζευξις) καὶ τρίτον τεκνοποιητική (καὶ γὰρ αὕτη οὐκ ὠνόμασται ἰδίῳ ὀνόματι). ἔστωσαν δὴ αὗται τρεῖς ἃς εἴπομεν. ἔστι δέ τι μέρος ὃ δοκεῖ τοῖς μὲν εἶναι οἰκονομία, τοῖς δὲ μέγιστον μέρος αὐτῆς· ὅπως δʼ ἔχει, θεωρητέον· λέγω δὲ περὶ τῆς καλουμένης χρηματιστικῆς. πρῶτον δὲ περὶ δεσπότου καὶ δούλου εἴπωμεν, ἵνα τά τε πρὸς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν χρείαν ἴδωμεν, κἂν εἴ τι πρὸς τὸ εἰδέναι περὶ αὐτῶν δυναίμεθα λαβεῖν βέλτιον τῶν νῦν ὑπολαμβανομένων. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ ἐπιστήμη τέ τις εἶναι ἡ δεσποτεία, καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ οἰκονομία καὶ δεσποτεία καὶ πολιτικὴ καὶ βασιλική, καθάπερ εἴπομεν ἀρχόμενοι· τοῖς δὲ παρὰ φύσιν τὸ δεσπόζειν (νόμῳ γὰρ τὸν μὲν δοῦλον εἶναι τὸν δʼ ἐλεύθερον, φύσει δʼ οὐθὲν διαφέρειν)· διόπερ οὐδὲ δίκαιον· βίαιον γάρ.

-

ἐπεὶ οὖν ἡ κτῆσις μέρος τῆς οἰκίας ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ κτητικὴ μέρος τῆς οἰκονομίας (ἄνευ γὰρ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀδύνατον καὶ ζῆν καὶ εὖ ζῆν), ὥσπερ δὲ ταῖς ὡρισμέναις τέχναις ἀναγκαῖον ἂν εἴη ὑπάρχειν τὰ οἰκεῖα ὄργανα, εἰ μέλλει ἀποτελεσθήσεσθαι τὸ ἔργον, οὕτω καὶ τῷ οἰκονομικῷ. τῶν δʼ ὀργάνων τὰ μὲν ἄψυχα τὰ δὲ ἔμψυχα (οἷον τῷ κυβερνήτῃ ὁ μὲν οἴαξ ἄψυχον ὁ δὲ πρῳρεὺς ἔμψυχον· ὁ γὰρ ὑπηρέτης ἐν ὀργάνου εἴδει ταῖς τέχναις ἐστίν)· οὕτω καὶ τὸ κτῆμα ὄργανον πρὸς ζωήν ἐστι, καὶ ἡ κτῆσις πλῆθος ὀργάνων ἐστί, καὶ ὁ δοῦλος κτῆμά τι ἔμψυχον, καὶ ὥσπερ ὄργανον πρὸ ὀργάνων πᾶς ὑπηρέτης. εἰ γὰρ ἠδύνατο ἕκαστον τῶν ὀργάνων κελευσθὲν ἢ προαισθανόμενον ἀποτελεῖν τὸ αὑτοῦ ἔργον, καὶ ὥσπερ τὰ Δαιδάλου φασὶν ἢ τοὺς τοῦ Ἡφαίστου τρίποδας, οὕς φησιν ὁ ποιητὴς αὐτομάτους θεῖον δύεσθαι ἀγῶνα, οὕτως αἱ κερκίδες ἐκέρκιζον αὐταὶ καὶ τὰ πλῆκτρα ἐκιθάριζεν, οὐδὲν ἂν ἔδει οὔτε τοῖς ἀρχιτέκτοσιν ὑπηρετῶν οὔτε τοῖς δεσπόταις δούλων. τὰ μὲν οὖν λεγόμενα ὄργανα ποιητικὰ ὄργανά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ κτῆμα πρακτικόν· ἀπὸ μὲν γὰρ τῆς κερκίδος ἕτερόν τι γίνεται παρὰ τὴν χρῆσιν αὐτῆς, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ἐσθῆτος καὶ τῆς κλίνης ἡ χρῆσις μόνον. ἔτι δʼ ἐπεὶ διαφέρει ἡ ποίησις εἴδει καὶ ἡ πρᾶξις, καὶ δέονται ἀμφότεραι ὀργάνων, ἀνάγκη καὶ ταῦτα τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν διαφοράν. ὁ δὲ βίος πρᾶξις, οὐ ποίησις, ἐστιν· διὸ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος ὑπηρέτης τῶν πρὸς τὴν πρᾶξιν. τὸ δὲ κτῆμα λέγεται ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ μόριον. τό γὰρ μόριον οὐ μόνον ἄλλου ἐστὶ μόριον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἁπλῶς ἄλλου· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ κτῆμα. διὸ ὁ μὲν δεσπότης τοῦ δούλου δεσπότης μόνον, ἐκείνου δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν· ὁ δὲ δοῦλος οὐ μόνον δεσπότου δοῦλός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅλως ἐκείνου.

-

τίς μὲν οὖν ἡ φύσις τοῦ δούλου καὶ τίς ἡ δύναμις, ἐκ τούτων δῆλον· ὁ γὰρ μὴ αὑτοῦ φύσει ἀλλʼ ἄλλου ἄνθρωπος ὤν, οὗτος φύσει δοῦλός ἐστιν, ἄλλου δʼ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἂν κτῆμα ᾖ ἄνθρωπος ὤν, κτῆμα δὲ ὄργανον πρακτικὸν καὶ χωριστόν.

-

πότερον δʼ ἔστι τις φύσει τοιοῦτος ἢ οὔ, καὶ πότερον βέλτιον καὶ δίκαιόν τινι δουλεύειν ἢ οὔ, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα δουλεία παρὰ φύσιν ἐστί, μετὰ ταῦτα σκεπτέον. οὐ χαλεπὸν δὲ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ θεωρῆσαι καὶ ἐκ τῶν γινομένων καταμαθεῖν. τὸ γὰρ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι οὐ μόνον τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν συμφερόντων ἐστί, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ γενετῆς ἔνια διέστηκε τὰ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄρχεσθαι τὰ δʼ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄρχειν. καὶ εἴδη πολλὰ καὶ ἀρχόντων καὶ ἀρχομένων ἔστιν (καὶ ἀεὶ βελτίων ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ τῶν βελτιόνων ἀρχομένων, οἷον ἀνθρώπου ἢ θηρίου· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτελούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν βελτιόνων βέλτιον ἔργον· ὅπου δὲ τὸ μὲν ἄρχει τὸ δʼ ἄρχεται, ἔστι τι τούτων ἔργον)· ὅσα γὰρ ἐκ πλειόνων συνέστηκε καὶ γίνεται ἕν τι κοινόν, εἴτε ἐκ συνεχῶν εἴτε ἐκ διῃρημένων, ἐν ἅπασιν ἐμφαίνεται τὸ ἄρχον καὶ τὸ ἀρχόμενον, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς ἁπάσης φύσεως ἐνυπάρχει τοῖς ἐμψύχοις· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς μὴ μετέχουσι ζωῆς ἔστι τις ἀρχή, οἷον ἁρμονίας. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἴσως ἐξωτερικωτέρας ἐστὶ σκέψεως· τὸ δὲ ζῷον πρῶτον συνέστηκεν ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἄρχον ἐστὶ φύσει τὸ δʼ ἀρχόμενον. δεῖ δὲ σκοπεῖν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν ἔχουσι μᾶλλον τὸ φύσει, καὶ μὴ ἐν τοῖς διεφθαρμένοις· διὸ καὶ τὸν βέλτιστα διακείμενον καὶ κατὰ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ ψυχὴν ἄνθρωπον θεωρητέον, ἐν ᾧ τοῦτο δῆλον· τῶν γὰρ μοχθηρῶν ἢ μοχθηρῶς ἐχόντων δόξειεν ἂν ἄρχειν πολλάκις τὸ σῶμα τῆς ψυχῆς διὰ τὸ φαύλως καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ἔχειν.

-

ἔστι δʼ οὖν, ὥσπερ λέγομεν, πρῶτον ἐν ζῴῳ θεωρῆσαι καὶ δεσποτικὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ πολιτικήν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ψυχὴ τοῦ σώματος ἄρχει δεσποτικὴν ἀρχήν, ὁ δὲ νοῦς τῆς ὀρέξεως πολιτικὴν ἢ βασιλικήν· ἐν οἷς φανερόν ἐστιν ὅτι κατὰ φύσιν καὶ συμφέρον τὸ ἄρχεσθαι τῷ σώματι ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ τῷ παθητικῷ μορίῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τοῦ μορίου τοῦ λόγον ἔχοντος, τὸ δʼ ἐξ ἴσου ἢ ἀνάπαλιν βλαβερὸν πᾶσιν. πάλιν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις ὡσαύτως· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἥμερα τῶν ἀγρίων βελτίω τὴν φύσιν, τούτοις δὲ πᾶσι βέλτιον ἄρχεσθαι ὑπʼ ἀνθρώπου· τυγχάνει γὰρ σωτηρίας οὕτως. ἔτι δὲ τὸ ἄρρεν πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ φύσει τὸ μὲν κρεῖττον τὸ δὲ χεῖρον, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἄρχον τὸ δʼ ἀρχόμενον. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. ὅσοι μὲν οὖν τοσοῦτον διεστᾶσιν ὅσον ψυχὴ σώματος καὶ ἄνθρωπος θηρίου (διάκεινται δὲ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ὅσων ἐστὶν ἔργον ἡ τοῦ σώματος χρῆσις, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστʼ ἀπʼ αὐτῶν βέλτιστον), οὗτοι μέν εἰσι φύσει δοῦλοι, οἷς βέλτιόν ἐστιν ἄρχεσθαι ταύτην τὴν ἀρχήν, εἴπερ καὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις. ἔστι γὰρ φύσει δοῦλος ὁ δυνάμενος ἄλλου εἶναι (διὸ καὶ ἄλλου ἐστίν), καὶ ὁ κοινωνῶν λόγου τοσοῦτον ὅσον αἰσθάνεσθαι ἀλλὰ μὴ ἔχειν. τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα ζῷα οὐ λόγῳ αἰσθανόμενα ἀλλὰ παθήμασιν ὑπηρετεῖ. καὶ ἡ χρεία δὲ παραλλάττει μικρόν· ἡ γὰρ πρὸς τἀναγκαῖα τῷ σώματι βοήθεια γίνεται παρʼ ἀμφοῖν, παρά τε τῶν δούλων καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἡμέρων ζῴων. βούλεται μὲν οὖν ἡ φύσις καὶ τὰ σώματα διαφέροντα ποιεῖν τὰ τῶν ἐλευθέρων καὶ τῶν δούλων, τὰ μὲν ἰσχυρὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν χρῆσιν, τὰ δʼ ὀρθὰ καὶ ἄχρηστα πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ἐργασίας, ἀλλὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς πολιτικὸν βίον (οὗτος δὲ καὶ γίνεται διῃρημένος εἴς τε τὴν πολεμικὴν χρείαν καὶ τὴν εἰρηνικήν), συμβαίνει δὲ πολλάκις καὶ τοὐναντίον, τοὺς μὲν τὰ σώματα ἔχειν ἐλευθέρων τοὺς δὲ τὰς ψυχάς· ἐπεὶ τοῦτό γε φανερόν, ὡς εἰ τοσοῦτον γένοιντο διάφοροι τὸ σῶμα μόνον ὅσον αἱ τῶν θεῶν εἰκόνες, τοὺς ὑπολειπομένους πάντες φαῖεν ἂν ἀξίους εἶναι τούτοις δουλεύειν. εἰ δʼ ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματος τοῦτʼ ἀληθές, πολὺ δικαιότερον ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦτο διωρίσθαι· ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁμοίως ῥᾴδιον ἰδεῖν τό τε τῆς ψυχῆς κάλλος καὶ τὸ τοῦ σώματος. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν εἰσὶ φύσει τινὲς οἱ μὲν ἐλεύθεροι οἱ δὲ δοῦλοι, φανερόν, οἷς καὶ συμφέρει τὸ δουλεύειν καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστιν.

-

ὅτι δὲ καὶ οἱ τἀναντία φάσκοντες τρόπον τινὰ λέγουσιν ὀρθῶς, οὐ χαλεπὸν ἰδεῖν. διχῶς γὰρ λέγεται τὸ δουλεύειν καὶ ὁ δοῦλος. ἔστι γάρ τις καὶ κατὰ νόμον δοῦλος καὶ δουλεύων· ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὁμολογία τίς ἐστιν ἐν ᾧ τὰ κατὰ πόλεμον κρατούμενα τῶν κρατούντων εἶναί φασιν. τοῦτο δὴ τὸ δίκαιον πολλοὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις ὥσπερ ῥήτορα γράφονται παρανόμων, ὡς δεινὸν ὂν εἰ τοῦ βιάσασθαι δυναμένου καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν κρείττονος ἔσται δοῦλον καὶ ἀρχόμενον τὸ βιασθέν. καὶ τοῖς μὲν οὕτως δοκεῖ τοῖς δʼ ἐκείνως, καὶ τῶν σοφῶν. αἴτιον δὲ ταύτης τῆς ἀμφισβητήσεως, καὶ ὃ ποιεῖ τοὺς λόγους ἐπαλλάττειν, ὅτι τρόπον τινὰ ἀρετὴ τυγχάνουσα χορηγίας καὶ βιάζεσθαι δύναται μάλιστα, καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ τὸ κρατοῦν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ἀγαθοῦ τινος, ὥστε δοκεῖν μὴ ἄνευ ἀρετῆς εἶναι τὴν βίαν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ δικαίου μόνον εἶναι τὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν (διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο τοῖς μὲν ἄνοια δοκεῖν τὸ δίκαιον εἶναι, τοῖς δʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δίκαιον, τὸ τὸν κρείττονα ἄρχειν)· ἐπεὶ διαστάντων γε χωρὶς τούτων τῶν λόγων οὔτε ἰσχυρὸν οὐθὲν ἔχουσιν οὔτε πιθανὸν ἅτεροι λόγοι, ὡς οὐ δεῖ τὸ βέλτιον κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἄρχειν καὶ δεσπόζειν. ὅλως δʼ ἀντεχόμενοί τινες, ὡς οἴονται, δικαίου τινός (ὁ γὰρ νόμος δίκαιόν τι) τὴν κατὰ πόλεμον δουλείαν τιθέασι δικαίαν, ἅμα δʼ οὔ φασιν· τήν τε γὰρ ἀρχὴν ἐνδέχεται μὴ δικαίαν εἶναι τῶν πολέμων, καὶ τὸν ἀνάξιον δουλεύειν οὐδαμῶς ἂν φαίη τις δοῦλον εἶναι· εἰ δὲ μή, συμβήσεται τοὺς εὐγενεστάτους εἶναι δοκοῦντας δούλους εἶναι καὶ ἐκ δούλων, ἐὰν συμβῇ πραθῆναι ληφθέντας. διόπερ αὐτοὺς οὐ βούλονται λέγειν δούλους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς βαρβάρους. καίτοι ὅταν τοῦτο λέγωσιν, οὐθὲν ἄλλο ζητοῦσιν ἢ τὸ φύσει δοῦλον ὅπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἴπομεν· ἀνάγκη γὰρ εἶναί τινας φάναι τοὺς μὲν πανταχοῦ δούλους τοὺς δʼ οὐδαμοῦ. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ εὐγενείας· αὑτοὺς μὲν γὰρ οὐ μόνον παρʼ αὑτοῖς εὐγενεῖς ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ νομίζουσιν, τοὺς δὲ βαρβάρους οἴκοι μόνον, ὡς ὄν τι τὸ μὲν ἁπλῶς εὐγενὲς καὶ ἐλεύθερον τὸ δʼ οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ Θεοδέκτου Ἑλένη φησὶ θείων δʼ ἀπʼ ἀμφοῖν ἔκγονον ῥιζωμάτων τίς ἂν προσειπεῖν ἀξιώσειεν λάτριν; ὅταν δὲ τοῦτο λέγωσιν, οὐθενὶ ἀλλʼ ἢ ἀρετῇ καὶ κακίᾳ διορίζουσι τὸ δοῦλον καὶ ἐλεύθερον, καὶ τοὺς εὐγενεῖς καὶ τοὺς δυσγενεῖς. ἀξιοῦσι γάρ, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ θηρίων γίνεσθαι θηρίον, οὕτω καὶ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν ἀγαθόν. ἡ δὲ φύσις βούλεται μὲν τοῦτο ποιεῖν πολλάκις, οὐ μέντοι δύναται.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἔχει τινὰ λόγον ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, καὶ οὐκ εἰσί τινες οἱ μὲν φύσει δοῦλοι οἱ δʼ ἐλεύθεροι, δῆλον, καὶ ὅτι ἔν τισι διώρισται τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὧν συμφέρει τῷ μὲν τὸ δουλεύειν τῷ δὲ τὸ δεσπόζειν καὶ δίκαιον, καὶ δεῖ τὸ μὲν ἄρχεσθαι τὸ δʼ ἄρχειν ἣν πεφύκασιν ἀρχὴν ἄρχειν, ὥστε καὶ δεσπόζειν, τὸ δὲ κακῶς ἀσυμφόρως ἐστὶν ἀμφοῖν (τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ συμφέρει τῷ μέρει καὶ τῷ ὅλῳ, καὶ σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ, ὁ δὲ δοῦλος μέρος τι τοῦ δεσπότου, οἷον ἔμψυχόν τι τοῦ σώματος κεχωρισμένον δὲ μέρος· διὸ καὶ συμφέρον ἐστί τι καὶ φιλία δούλῳ καὶ δεσπότῃ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τοῖς φύσει τούτων ἠξιωμένοις, τοῖς δὲ μὴ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ νόμον καὶ βιασθεῖσι, τοὐναντίον).

-

φανερὸν δὲ καὶ ἐκ τούτων ὅτι οὐ ταὐτόν ἐστι δεσποτεία καὶ πολιτική, οὐδὲ πᾶσαι ἀλλήλαις αἱ ἀρχαί, ὥσπερ τινές φασιν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐλευθέρων φύσει ἡ δὲ δούλων ἐστίν, καὶ ἡ μὲν οἰκονομικὴ μοναρχία (μοναρχεῖται γὰρ πᾶς οἶκος), ἡ δὲ πολιτικὴ ἐλευθέρων καὶ ἴσων ἀρχή. ὁ μὲν οὖν δεσπότης οὐ λέγεται κατʼ ἐπιστήμην, ἀλλὰ τῷ τοιόσδʼ εἶναι, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος καὶ ὁ ἐλεύθερος. ἐπιστήμη δʼ ἂν εἴη καὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ δουλική, δουλικὴ μὲν οἵαν περ ὁ ἐν Συρακούσαις ἐπαίδευεν· ἐκεῖ γὰρ λαμβάνων τις μισθὸν ἐδίδασκε τὰ ἐγκύκλια διακονήματα τοὺς παῖδας· εἴη δʼ ἂν καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖον τῶν τοιούτων μάθησις, οἷον ὀψοποιικὴ καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα γένη τῆς διακονίας. ἔστι γὰρ ἕτερα ἑτέρων τὰ μὲν ἐντιμότερα ἔργα τὰ δʼ ἀναγκαιότερα, καὶ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν δοῦλος πρὸ δούλου, δεσπότης πρὸ δεσπότου. αἱ μὲν οὖν τοιαῦται πᾶσαι δουλικαὶ ἐπιστῆμαί εἰσι· δεσποτικὴ δʼ ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶν ἡ χρηστικὴ δούλων. ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης οὐκ ἐν τῷ κτᾶσθαι τοὺς δούλους, ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ χρῆσθαι δούλοις. ἔστι δʼ αὕτη ἡ ἐπιστήμη οὐδὲν μέγα ἔχουσα οὐδὲ σεμνόν· ἃ γὰρ τὸν δοῦλον ἐπίστασθαι δεῖ ποιεῖν, ἐκεῖνον δεῖ ταῦτα ἐπίστασθαι ἐπιτάττειν. διὸ ὅσοις ἐξουσία μὴ αὐτοὺς κακοπαθεῖν, ἐπίτροπός τις λαμβάνει ταύτην τὴν τιμήν, αὐτοὶ δὲ πολιτεύονται ἢ φιλοσοφοῦσιν. ἡ δὲ κτητικὴ ἑτέρα ἀμφοτέρων τούτων, οἷον ἡ δικαία, πολεμική τις οὖσα ἢ θηρευτική. περὶ μὲν οὖν δούλου καὶ δεσπότου τοῦτον διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον.

-

ὅλως δὲ περὶ πάσης κτήσεως καὶ χρηματιστικῆς θεωρήσωμεν κατὰ τὸν ὑφηγημένον τρόπον, ἐπείπερ καὶ ὁ δοῦλος τῆς κτήσεως μέρος τι ἦν. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις πότερον ἡ χρηματιστικὴ ἡ αὐτὴ τῇ οἰκονομικῇ ἐστιν ἢ μέρος τι, ἢ ὑπηρετική, καὶ εἰ ὑπηρετική, πότερον ὡς ἡ κερκιδοποιικὴ τῇ ὑφαντικῇ ἢ ὡς ἡ χαλκουργικὴ τῇ ἀνδριαντοποιίᾳ (οὐ γὰρ ὡσαύτως ὑπηρετοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν ὄργανα παρέχει, ἡ δὲ τὴν ὕλην· λέγω δὲ ὕλην τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἐξ οὗ τι ἀποτελεῖται ἔργον, οἷον ὑφάντῃ μὲν ἔρια ἀνδριαντοποιῷ δὲ χαλκόν). ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ ἡ οἰκονομικὴ τῇ χρηματιστικῇ, δῆλον (τῆς μὲν γὰρ τὸ πορίσασθαι, τῆς δὲ τὸ χρήσασθαι· τίς γὰρ ἔσται ἡ χρησομένη τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν παρὰ τὴν οἰκονομικήν;)· πότερον δὲ μέρος αὐτῆς ἐστί τι ἢ ἕτερον εἶδος, ἔχει διαμφισβήτησιν· εἰ γάρ ἐστι τοῦ χρηματιστικοῦ θεωρῆσαι πόθεν χρήματα καὶ κτῆσις ἔσται, ἥ δὲ κτῆσις πολλὰ περιείληφε μέρη καὶ ὁ πλοῦτος, ὥστε πρῶτον ἡ γεωργικὴ πότερον μέρος τι τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἢ ἕτερόν τι γένος, καὶ καθόλου ἡ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ἐπιμέλεια καὶ κτῆσις; ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴδη γε πολλὰ τροφῆς, διὸ καὶ βίοι πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν ζῴων καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ζῆν ἄνευ τροφῆς, ὥστε αἱ διαφοραὶ τῆς τροφῆς τοὺς βίους πεποιήκασι διαφέροντας τῶν ζῴων. τῶν τε γὰρ θηρίων τὰ μὲν ἀγελαῖα τὰ δὲ σποραδικά ἐστιν, ὁποτέρως συμφέρει πρὸς τὴν τροφὴν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὸ τὰ μὲν ζῳοφάγα τὰ δὲ καρποφάγα τὰ δὲ παμφάγα αὐτῶν εἶναι, ὥστε πρὸς τὰς ῥᾳστώνας καὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τὴν τούτων ἡ φύσις τοὺς βίους αὐτῶν διώρισεν, ἐπεὶ δʼ οὐ ταὐτὸ ἑκάστῳ ἡδὺ κατὰ φύσιν ἀλλὰ ἕτερα ἑτέροις, καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν ζῳοφάγων καὶ τῶν καρποφάγων οἱ βίοι πρὸς ἄλληλα διεστᾶσιν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. πολὺ γὰρ διαφέρουσιν οἱ τούτων βίοι. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀργότατοι νομάδες εἰσίν (ἡ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡμέρων τροφὴ ζῴων ἄνευ πόνου γίνεται σχολάζουσιν· ἀναγκαίου δʼ ὄντος μεταβάλλειν τοῖς κτήνεσι διὰ τὰς νομὰς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀναγκάζονται συνακολουθεῖν, ὥσπερ γεωργίαν ζῶσαν γεωργοῦντες)· οἱ δʼ ἀπὸ θήρας ζῶσι, καὶ θήρας ἕτεροι ἑτέρας, οἷον οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ λῃστείας, οἱ δʼ ἀφʼ ἁλιείας, ὅσοι λίμνας καὶ ἕλη καὶ ποταμοὺς ἢ θάλατταν τοιαύτην προσοικοῦσιν, οἱ δʼ ἀπʼ ὀρνίθων ἢ θηρίων ἀγρίων· τὸ δὲ πλεῖστον γένος τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ζῇ καὶ τῶν ἡμέρων καρπῶν.

-

οἱ μὲν οὖν βίοι τοσοῦτοι σχεδόν εἰσιν, ὅσοι γε αὐτόφυτον ἔχουσι τὴν ἐργασίαν καὶ μὴ διʼ ἀλλαγῆς καὶ καπηλείας πορίζονται τὴν τροφήν, νομαδικὸς λῃστρικὸς ἁλιευτικὸς θηρευτικὸς γεωργικός. οἱ δὲ καὶ μιγνύντες ἐκ τούτων ἡδέως ζῶσι, προσαναπληροῦντες τὸν ἐνδεέστερον βίον, ᾗ τυγχάνει ἐλλείπων πρὸς τὸ αὐτάρκης εἶναι, οἷον οἱ μὲν νομαδικὸν ἅμα καὶ λῃστρικόν, οἱ δὲ γεωργικὸν καὶ θηρευτικόν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοὺς ἄλλους· ὡς ἂν ἡ χρεία συναναγκάζῃ, τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον διάγουσιν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοιαύτη κτῆσις ὑπʼ αὐτῆς φαίνεται τῆς φύσεως διδομένη πᾶσιν, ὥσπερ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν εὐθύς, οὕτω καὶ τελειωθεῖσιν. καὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς γένεσιν τὰ μὲν συνεκτίκτει τῶν ζῴων τοσαύτην τροφὴν ὥσθʼ ἱκανὴν εἶναι μέχρις οὗ ἂν δύνηται αὐτὸ αὑτῷ πορίζειν τὸ γεννηθέν, οἷον ὅσα σκωληκοτοκεῖ ἢ ᾠοτοκεῖ· ὅσα δὲ ζῳοτοκεῖ, τοῖς γεννωμένοις ἔχει τροφὴν ἐν αὑτοῖς μέχρι τινός, τὴν τοῦ καλουμένου γάλακτος φύσιν. ὥστε ὁμοίως δῆλον ὅτι καὶ γενομένοις οἰητέον τά τε φυτὰ τῶν ζῴων ἕνεκεν εἶναι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα τῶν ἀνθρώπων χάριν, τὰ μὲν ἥμερα καὶ διὰ τὴν χρῆσιν καὶ διὰ τὴν τροφήν, τῶν δʼ ἀγρίων, εἰ μὴ πάντα, ἀλλὰ τά γε πλεῖστα τῆς τροφῆς καὶ ἄλλης βοηθείας ἕνεκεν, ἵνα καὶ ἐσθὴς καὶ ἄλλα ὄργανα γίνηται ἐξ αὐτῶν. εἰ οὖν ἡ φύσις μηθὲν μήτε ἀτελὲς ποιεῖ μήτε μάτην, ἀναγκαῖον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἕνεκεν αὐτὰ πάντα πεποιηκέναι τὴν φύσιν. διὸ καὶ ἡ πολεμικὴ φύσει κτητική πως ἔσται (ἡ γὰρ θηρευτικὴ μέρος αὐτῆς), ᾗ δεῖ χρῆσθαι πρός τε τὰ θηρία καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅσοι πεφυκότες ἄρχεσθαι μὴ θέλουσιν, ὡς φύσει δίκαιον τοῦτον ὄντα τὸν πόλεμον.

-

ἓν μὲν οὖν εἶδος κτητικῆς κατὰ φύσιν τῆς οἰκονομικῆς μέρος ἐστίν, καθὸ δεῖ ἤτοι ὑπάρχειν ἢ πορίζειν αὐτὴν ὅπως ὑπάρχῃ ὧν ἔστι θησαυρισμὸς χρημάτων πρὸς ζωὴν ἀναγκαίων, καὶ χρησίμων εἰς κοινωνίαν πόλεως ἢ οἰκίας. καὶ ἔοικεν ὅ γʼ ἀληθινὸς πλοῦτος ἐκ τούτων εἶναι. ἡ γὰρ τῆς τοιαύτης κτήσεως αὐτάρκεια πρὸς ἀγαθὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἄπειρός ἐστιν, ὥσπερ Σόλων φησὶ ποιήσας πλούτου δʼ οὐθὲν τέρμα πεφασμένον ἀνδράσι κεῖται. Solon 13.71 κεῖται γὰρ ὥσπερ καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τέχναις· οὐδὲν γὰρ ὄργανον ἄπειρον οὐδεμιᾶς ἐστι τέχνης οὔτε πλήθει οὔτε μεγέθει, ὁ δὲ πλοῦτος ὀργάνων πλῆθός ἐστιν οἰκονομικῶν καὶ πολιτικῶν. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἔστι τις κτητικὴ κατὰ φύσιν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις καὶ τοῖς πολιτικοῖς, καὶ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν, δῆλον.

-

ἔστι δὲ γένος ἄλλο κτητικῆς, ἣν μάλιστα καλοῦσι, καὶ δίκαιον αὐτὸ καλεῖν, χρηματιστικήν, διʼ ἣν οὐδὲν δοκεῖ πέρας εἶναι πλούτου καὶ κτήσεως· ἣν ὡς μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν τῇ λεχθείσῃ πολλοὶ νομίζουσι διὰ τὴν γειτνίασιν· ἔστι δʼ οὔτε ἡ αὐτὴ τῇ εἰρημένῃ οὔτε πόρρω ἐκείνης. ἔστι δʼ ἡ μὲν φύσει ἡ δʼ οὐ φύσει αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ διʼ ἐμπειρίας τινὸς καὶ τέχνης γίνεται μᾶλλον. λάβωμεν δὲ περὶ αὐτῆς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐντεῦθεν. ἑκάστου γὰρ κτήματος διττὴ ἡ χρῆσίς ἐστιν, ἀμφότεραι δὲ καθʼ αὑτὸ μὲν ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁμοίως καθʼ αὑτό, ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν οἰκεία ἡ δʼ οὐκ οἰκεία τοῦ πράγματος, οἷον ὑποδήματος ἥ τε ὑπόδεσις καὶ ἡ μεταβλητική. ἀμφότεραι γὰρ ὑποδήματος χρήσεις· καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἀλλαττόμενος τῷ δεομένῳ ὑποδήματος ἀντὶ νομίσματος ἢ τροφῆς χρῆται τῷ ὑποδήματι ᾗ ὑπόδημα, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν οἰκείαν χρῆσιν· οὐ γὰρ ἀλλαγῆς ἕνεκεν γέγονε. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων κτημάτων. ἔστι γὰρ ἡ μεταβλητικὴ πάντων, ἀρξαμένη τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν, τῷ τὰ μὲν πλείω τὰ δὲ ἐλάττω τῶν ἱκανῶν ἔχειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους (ᾗ καὶ δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι φύσει τῆς χρηματιστικῆς ἡ καπηλική· ὅσον γὰρ ἱκανὸν αὐτοῖς, ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀλλαγήν). ἐν μὲν οὖν τῇ πρώτῃ κοινωνίᾳ (τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν οἰκία) φανερὸν ὅτι οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔργον αὐτῆς, ἀλλʼ ἤδη πλειόνων τῆς κοινωνίας οὔσης. οἱ μὲν γὰρ τῶν αὑτῶν ἐκοινώνουν πάντων, οἱ δὲ κεχωρισμένοι πολλῶν πάλιν καὶ ἑτέρων, ὧν κατὰ τὰς δεήσεις ἀναγκαῖον ποιεῖσθαι τὰς μεταδόσεις, καθάπερ ἔτι πολλὰ ποιεῖ καὶ τῶν βαρβαρικῶν ἐθνῶν, κατὰ τὴν ἀλλαγήν. αὐτὰ γὰρ τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς αὑτὰ καταλλάττονται, ἐπὶ πλέον δʼ οὐθέν, οἷον οἶνον πρὸς σῖτον διδόντες καὶ λαμβάνοντες, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων ἕκαστον. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοιαύτη μεταβλητικὴ οὔτε παρὰ φύσιν οὔτε χρηματιστικῆς ἐστιν εἶδος οὐδέν (εἰς ἀναπλήρωσιν γὰρ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν αὐταρκείας ἦν)· ἐκ μέντοι ταύτης ἐγένετʼ ἐκείνη κατὰ λόγον. ξενικωτέρας γὰρ γενομένης τῆς βοηθείας τῷ εἰσάγεσθαι ὧν ἐνδεεῖς ἦσαν καὶ ἐκπέμπειν ὧν ἐπλεόναζον, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἡ τοῦ νομίσματος ἐπορίσθη χρῆσις. οὐ γὰρ εὐβάστακτον ἕκαστον τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἀναγκαίων· διὸ πρὸς τὰς ἀλλαγὰς τοιοῦτόν τι συνέθεντο πρὸς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς διδόναι καὶ λαμβάνειν, ὃ τῶν χρησίμων αὐτὸ ὂν εἶχε τὴν χρείαν εὐμεταχείριστον πρὸς τὸ ζῆν, οἷον σίδηρος καὶ ἄργυρος κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἁπλῶς ὁρισθὲν μεγέθει καὶ σταθμῷ, τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον καὶ χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβαλλόντων, ἵνα ἀπολύσῃ τῆς μετρήσεως αὑτούς· ὁ γὰρ χαρακτὴρ ἐτέθη τοῦ ποσοῦ σημεῖον.

-

πορισθέντος οὖν ἤδη νομίσματος ἐκ τῆς ἀναγκαίας ἀλλαγῆς θάτερον εἶδος τῆς χρηματιστικῆς ἐγένετο, τὸ καπηλικόν, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἁπλῶς ἴσως γινόμενον, εἶτα διʼ ἐμπειρίας ἤδη τεχνικώτερον, πόθεν καὶ πῶς μεταβαλλόμενον πλεῖστον ποιήσει κέρδος. διὸ δοκεῖ ἡ χρηματιστικὴ μάλιστα περὶ τὸ νόμισμα εἶναι, καὶ ἔργον αὐτῆς τὸ δύνασθαι θεωρῆσαι πόθεν ἔσται πλῆθος, ποιητικὴ γὰρ εἶναι πλούτου καὶ χρημάτων. καὶ γὰρ τὸν πλοῦτον πολλάκις τιθέασι νομίσματος πλῆθος, διὰ τὸ περὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναι τὴν χρηματιστικὴν καὶ τὴν καπηλικήν. ὁτὲ δὲ πάλιν λῆρος εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ νόμισμα καὶ νόμος παντάπασι, φύσει δʼ οὐθέν, ὅτι μεταθεμένων τε τῶν χρωμένων οὐθενὸς ἄξιον οὐδὲ χρήσιμον πρὸς οὐδὲν τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐστί, καὶ νομίσματος πλουτῶν πολλάκις ἀπορήσει τῆς ἀναγκαίας τροφῆς· καίτοι ἄτοπον τοιοῦτον εἶναι πλοῦτον οὗ εὐπορῶν λιμῷ ἀπολεῖται, καθάπερ καὶ τὸν Μίδαν ἐκεῖνον μυθολογοῦσι διὰ τὴν ἀπληστίαν τῆς εὐχῆς πάντων αὐτῷ γιγνομένων τῶν παρατιθεμένων χρυσῶν. διὸ ζητοῦσιν ἕτερόν τι τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τὴν χρηματιστικήν, ὀρθῶς ζητοῦντες. ἔστι γὰρ ἑτέρα ἡ χρηματιστικὴ καὶ ὁ πλοῦτος ὁ κατὰ φύσιν, καὶ αὕτη μὲν οἰκονομική, ἡ δὲ καπηλική, ποιητικὴ πλούτου οὐ πάντως ἀλλὰ διὰ χρημάτων μεταβολῆς. καὶ δοκεῖ περὶ τὸ νόμισμα αὕτη εἶναι· τὸ γὰρ νόμισμα στοιχεῖον καὶ πέρας τῆς ἀλλαγῆς ἐστιν. καὶ ἄπειρος δὴ οὗτος ὁ πλοῦτος, ὁ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς χρηματιστικῆς. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἰατρικὴ τοῦ ὑγιαίνειν εἰς ἄπειρόν ἐστι, καὶ ἑκάστη τῶν τεχνῶν τοῦ τέλους εἰς ἄπειρον (ὅτι μάλιστα γὰρ ἐκεῖνο βούλονται ποιεῖν), τῶν δὲ πρὸς τὸ τέλος οὐκ εἰς ἄπειρον (πέρας γὰρ τὸ τέλος πάσαις), οὕτω καὶ ταύτης τῆς χρηματιστικῆς οὐκ ἔστι τοῦ τέλους πέρας, τέλος δὲ ὁ τοιοῦτος πλοῦτος καὶ χρημάτων κτῆσις. τῆς δʼ οἰκονομικῆς χρηματιστικῆς ἔστι πέρας· οὐ γὰρ τοῦτο τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἔργον. διὸ τῇ μὲν φαίνεται ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι παντὸς πλούτου πέρας, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν γινομένων ὁρῶμεν συμβαῖνον τοὐναντίον· πάντες γὰρ εἰς ἄπειρον αὔξουσιν οἱ χρηματιζόμενοι τὸ νόμισμα. αἴτιον δὲ τὸ σύνεγγυς αὐτῶν. ἐπαλλάττει γὰρ ἡ χρῆσις τοῦ αὐτοῦ οὖσα ἑκατέρας τῆς χρηματιστικῆς. τῆς γὰρ αὐτῆς ἐστι κτήσεως χρῆσις, ἀλλʼ οὐ κατὰ ταὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν ἕτερον τέλος, τῆς δʼ ἡ αὔξησις. ὥστε δοκεῖ τισι τοῦτʼ εἶναι τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἔργον, καὶ διατελοῦσιν ἢ σῴζειν οἰόμενοι δεῖν ἢ αὔξειν τὴν τοῦ νομίσματος οὐσίαν εἰς ἄπειρον. αἴτιον δὲ ταύτης τῆς διαθέσεως τὸ σπουδάζειν περὶ τὸ ζῆν, ἀλλὰ μὴ τὸ εὖ ζῆν· εἰς ἄπειρον οὖν ἐκείνης τῆς ἐπιθυμίας οὔσης, καὶ τῶν ποιητικῶν ἀπείρων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν. ὅσοι δὲ καὶ τοῦ εὖ ζῆν ἐπιβάλλονται τὸ πρὸς τὰς ἀπολαύσεις τὰς σωματικὰς ζητοῦσιν, ὥστʼ ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐν τῇ κτήσει φαίνεται ὑπάρχειν, πᾶσα ἡ διατριβὴ περὶ τὸν χρηματισμόν ἐστι, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον εἶδος τῆς χρηματιστικῆς διὰ τοῦτʼ ἐλήλυθεν. ἐν ὑπερβολῇ γὰρ οὔσης τῆς ἀπολαύσεως, τὴν τῆς ἀπολαυστικῆς ὑπερβολῆς ποιητικὴν ζητοῦσιν· κἂν μὴ διὰ τῆς χρηματιστικῆς δύνωνται πορίζειν, διʼ ἄλλης αἰτίας τοῦτο πειρῶνται, ἑκάστῃ χρώμενοι τῶν δυνάμεων οὐ κατὰ φύσιν. ἀνδρείας γὰρ οὐ χρήματα ποιεῖν ἐστιν ἀλλὰ θάρσος, οὐδὲ στρατηγικῆς καὶ ἰατρικῆς, ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν νίκην τῆς δʼ ὑγίειαν. οἱ δὲ πάσας ποιοῦσι χρηματιστικάς, ὡς τοῦτο τέλος ὄν, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τέλος ἅπαντα δέον ἀπαντᾶν.

-

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τε μὴ ἀναγκαίας χρηματιστικῆς, καὶ τίς, καὶ διʼ αἰτίαν τίνα ἐν χρείᾳ ἐσμὲν αὐτῆς, εἴρηται, καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀναγκαίας, ὅτι ἑτέρα μὲν αὐτῆς οἰκονομικὴ δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἡ περὶ τὴν τροφήν, οὐχ ὥσπερ αὕτη ἄπειρος ἀλλʼ ἔχουσα ὅρον.

-

δῆλον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀπορούμενον ἐξ ἀρχῆς, πότερον τοῦ οἰκονομικοῦ καὶ πολιτικοῦ ἐστιν ἡ χρηματιστικὴ ἢ οὔ, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τοῦτο μὲν ὑπάρχειν (ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ ἀνθρώπους οὐ ποιεῖ ἡ πολιτική, ἀλλὰ λαβοῦσα παρὰ τῆς φύσεως χρῆται αὐτοῖς, οὕτω καὶ τροφὴν τὴν φύσιν δεῖ παραδοῦναι γῆν ἢ θάλατταν ἢ ἄλλο τι), ἐκ δὲ τούτων, ὡς δεῖ ταῦτα διαθεῖναι προσήκει τὸν οἰκονόμον. οὐ γὰρ τῆς ὑφαντικῆς ἔρια ποιῆσαι, ἀλλὰ χρήσασθαι αὐτοῖς, καὶ γνῶναι δὲ τὸ ποῖον χρηστὸν καὶ ἐπιτήδειον, ἢ φαῦλον καὶ ἀνεπιτήδειον. καὶ γὰρ ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις διὰ τί ἡ μὲν χρηματιστικὴ μόριον τῆς οἰκονομίας, ἡ δʼ ἰατρικὴ οὐ μόριον· καίτοι δεῖ ὑγιαίνειν τοὺς κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν, ὥσπερ ζῆν ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν ἀναγκαίων. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἔστι μὲν ὡς τοῦ οἰκονόμου καὶ τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ περὶ ὑγιείας ἰδεῖν, ἔστι δʼ ὡς οὔ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἰατροῦ, οὕτω καὶ περὶ τῶν χρημάτων ἔστι μὲν ὡς τοῦ οἰκονόμου, ἔστι δʼ ὡς οὔ, ἀλλὰ τῆς ὑπηρετικῆς· μάλιστα δέ, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, δεῖ φύσει τοῦτο ὑπάρχειν. φύσεως γάρ ἐστιν ἔργον τροφὴν τῷ γεννηθέντι παρέχειν· παντὶ γάρ, ἐξ οὗ γίνεται, τροφὴ τὸ λειπόμενόν ἐστι. διὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἐστὶν ἡ χρηματιστικὴ πᾶσιν ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τῶν ζῴων. διπλῆς δʼ οὔσης αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, καὶ τῆς μὲν καπηλικῆς τῆς δʼ οἰκονομικῆς, καὶ ταύτης μὲν ἀναγκαίας καὶ ἐπαινουμένης, τῆς δὲ μεταβλητικῆς ψεγομένης δικαίως (οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἀλλʼ ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων ἐστίν), εὐλογώτατα μισεῖται ἡ ὀβολοστατικὴ διὰ τὸ ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ τοῦ νομίσματος εἶναι τὴν κτῆσιν καὶ οὐκ ἐφʼ ὅπερ ἐπορίσθη. μεταβολῆς γὰρ ἐγένετο χάριν, ὁ δὲ τόκος αὐτὸ ποιεῖ πλέον (ὅθεν καὶ τοὔνομα τοῦτʼ εἴληφεν· ὅμοια γὰρ τὰ τικτόμενα τοῖς γεννῶσιν αὐτά ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ τόκος γίνεται νόμισμα ἐκ νομίσματος)· ὥστε καὶ μάλιστα παρὰ φύσιν οὗτος τῶν χρηματισμῶν ἐστιν.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ πρὸς τὴν γνῶσιν διωρίκαμεν ἱκανῶς, τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν δεῖ διελθεῖν. πάντα δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα τὴν μὲν θεωρίαν ἐλευθέραν ἔχει, τὴν δʼ ἐμπειρίαν ἀναγκαίαν. ἔστι δὲ χρηματιστικῆς μέρη χρήσιμα· τὸ περὶ τὰ κτήματα ἔμπειρον εἶναι, ποῖα λυσιτελέστατα καὶ ποῦ καὶ πῶς, οἷον ἵππων κτῆσις ποία τις ἢ βοῶν ἢ προβάτων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων (δεῖ γὰρ ἔμπειρον εἶναι πρὸς ἄλληλά τε τούτων τίνα λυσιτελέστατα, καὶ ποῖα ἐν ποίοις τόποις· ἄλλα γὰρ ἐν ἄλλαις εὐθηνεῖ χώραις), εἶτα περὶ γεωργίας, καὶ ταύτης ἤδη ψιλῆς τε καὶ πεφυτευμένης, καὶ μελιττουργίας, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων τῶν πλωτῶν ἢ πτηνῶν, ἀφʼ ὅσων ἔστι τυγχάνειν βοηθείας. τῆς μὲν οὖν οἰκειοτάτης χρηματιστικῆς ταῦτα μόρια καὶ πρῶτα· τῆς δὲ μεταβλητικῆς μέγιστον μὲν ἐμπορία (καὶ ταύτης μέρη τρία, ναυκληρία φορτηγία παράστασις· διαφέρει δὲ τούτων ἕτερα ἑτέρων τῷ τὰ μὲν ἀσφαλέστερα εἶναι, τὰ δὲ πλείω πορίζειν τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν), δεύτερον δὲ τοκισμός, τρίτον δὲ μισθαρνία (ταύτης δʼ ἡ μὲν τῶν βαναύσων τεχνῶν, ἡ δὲ τῶν ἀτέχνων καὶ τῷ σώματι μόνῳ χρησίμων)· τρίτον δὲ εἶδος χρηματιστικῆς μεταξὺ ταύτης καὶ τῆς πρώτης (ἔχει γὰρ καὶ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν τι μέρος καὶ τῆς μεταβλητικῆς), ὅσα ἀπὸ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς γιγνομένων, ἀκάρπων μὲν χρησίμων δέ, οἷον ὑλοτομία τε καὶ πᾶσα μεταλλευτική. αὕτη δὲ πολλὰ ἤδη περιείληφε γένη· πολλὰ γὰρ εἴδη τῶν ἐκ γῆς μεταλλευομένων ἔστιν. εἰσὶ δὲ τεχνικώταται μὲν τῶν ἐργασιῶν ὅπου ἐλάχιστον τῆς τύχης, βαναυσόταται δʼ ἐν αἷς τὰσώματα λωβῶνται μάλιστα, δουλικώταται δὲ ὅπου τοῦ σώματος πλεῖσται χρήσεις, ἀγεννέσταται δὲ ὅπου ἐλάχιστον προσδεῖ ἀρετῆς. περὶ ἑκάστου δὲ τούτων καθόλου μὲν εἴρηται καὶ νῦν, τὸ δὲ κατὰ μέρος ἀκριβολογεῖσθαι χρήσιμον μὲν πρὸς τὰς ἐργασίας, φορτικὸν δὲ τὸ ἐνδιατρίβειν.

-

ἐπεὶ δʼ ἔστιν ἐνίοις γεγραμμένα περὶ τούτων, οἷον Χαρητίδῃ τῷ Παρίῳ καὶ Ἀπολλοδώρῳ τῷ Λημνίῳ περὶ γεωργίας καὶ ψιλῆς καὶ πεφυτευμένης, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἄλλοις περὶ ἄλλων, ταῦτα μὲν ἐκ τούτων θεωρείτω ὅτῳ ἐπιμελές· ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα σποράδην, διʼ ὧν ἐπιτετυχήκασιν ἔνιοι χρηματιζόμενοι, δεῖ συλλέγειν. πάντα γὰρ ὠφέλιμα ταῦτʼ ἐστὶ τοῖς τιμῶσι τὴν χρηματιστικήν, οἷον καὶ τὸ Θάλεω τοῦ Μιλησίου· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι κατανόημά τι χρηματιστικόν, ἀλλʼ ἐκείνῳ μὲν διὰ τὴν σοφίαν προσάπτουσι, τυγχάνει δὲ καθόλου τι ὄν. ὀνειδιζόντων γὰρ αὐτῷ διὰ τὴν πενίαν ὡς ἀνωφελοῦς τῆς φιλοσοφίας οὔσης, κατανοήσαντά φασιν αὐτὸν ἐλαιῶν φορὰν ἐσομένην ἐκ τῆς ἀστρολογίας, ἔτι χειμῶνος ὄντος εὐπορήσαντα χρημάτων ὀλίγων ἀρραβῶνας διαδοῦναι τῶν ἐλαιουργίων τῶν τʼ ἐν Μιλήτῳ καὶ Χίῳ πάντων, ὀλίγου μισθωσάμενον ἅτʼ οὐθενὸς ἐπιβάλλοντος· ἐπειδὴ δʼ ὁ καιρὸς ἧκε, πολλῶν ζητουμένων ἅμα καὶ ἐξαίφνης, ἐκμισθοῦντα ὃν τρόπον ἠβούλετο, πολλὰ χρήματα συλλέξαντα ἐπιδεῖξαι ὅτι ῥᾴδιόν ἐστι πλουτεῖν τοῖς φιλοσόφοις, ἂν βούλωνται, ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ περὶ ὃ σπουδάζουσιν. Θαλῆς μὲν οὖν λέγεται τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐπίδειξιν ποιήσασθαι τῆς σοφίας· ἔστι δʼ, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, καθόλου τὸ τοιοῦτον χρηματιστικόν, ἐάν τις δύνηται μονοπωλίαν αὑτῷ κατασκευάζειν. διὸ καὶ τῶν πόλεων ἔνιαι τοῦτον ποιοῦνται τὸν πόρον, ὅταν ἀπορῶσι χρημάτων· μονοπωλίαν γὰρ τῶν ὠνίων ποιοῦσιν. ἐν Σικελίᾳ δέ τις τεθέντος παρʼ αὐτῷ νομίσματος συνεπρίατο πάντα τὸν σίδηρον ἐκ τῶν σιδηρείων, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὡς ἀφίκοντο ἐκ τῶν ἐμπορίων οἱ ἔμποροι, ἐπώλει μόνος, οὐ πολλὴν ποιήσας ὑπερβολὴν τῆς τιμῆς· ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἐπὶ τοῖς πεντήκοντα ταλάντοις ἐπέλαβεν ἑκατόν. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν Διονύσιος αἰσθόμενος τὰ μὲν χρήματα ἐκέλευσεν ἐκκομίσασθαι, μὴ μέντοι γε ἔτι μένειν ἐν Συρακούσαις, ὡς πόρους εὑρίσκοντα τοῖς αὑτοῦ πράγμασιν ἀσυμφόρους· τὸ μέντοι ὅραμα Θάλεω καὶ τοῦτο ταὐτόν ἐστιν· ἀμφότεροι γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς ἐτέχνασαν γενέσθαι μονοπωλίαν. χρήσιμον δὲ γνωρίζειν ταῦτα καὶ τοῖς πολιτικοῖς. πολλαῖς γὰρ πόλεσι δεῖ χρηματισμοῦ καὶ τοιούτων πόρων, ὥσπερ οἰκίᾳ, μᾶλλον δέ· διόπερ τινὲς καὶ πολιτεύονται τῶν πολιτευομένων ταῦτα μόνον.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ τρία μέρη τῆς οἰκονομικῆς ἦν, ἓν μὲν δεσποτική, περὶ ἧς εἴρηται πρότερον, ἓν δὲ πατρική, τρίτον δὲ γαμική (καὶ γὰρ γυναικὸς ἄρχει καὶ τέκνων, ὡς ἐλευθέρων μὲν ἀμφοῖν, οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἀλλὰ γυναικὸς μὲν πολιτικῶς τέκνων δὲ βασιλικῶς· τό τε γὰρ ἄρρεν φύσει τοῦ θήλεος ἡγεμονικώτερον, εἰ μή που συνέστηκε παρὰ φύσιν, καὶ τὸ πρεσβύτερον καὶ τέλειον τοῦ νεωτέρου καὶ ἀτελοῦς)—ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς πολιτικαῖς ἀρχαῖς ταῖς πλείσταις μεταβάλλει τὸ ἄρχον καὶ τὸ ἀρχόμενον (ἐξ ἴσου γὰρ εἶναι βούλεται τὴν φύσιν καὶ διαφέρειν μηδέν), ὅμως δέ, ὅταν τὸ μὲν ἄρχῃ τὸ δʼ ἄρχηται, ζητεῖ διαφορὰν εἶναι καὶ σχήμασι καὶ λόγοις καὶ τιμαῖς, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἄμασις εἶπε τὸν περὶ τοῦ ποδανιπτῆρος λόγον· τὸ δʼ ἄρρεν ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον. ἡ δὲ τῶν τέκνων ἀρχὴ βασιλική· τὸ γὰρ γεννῆσαν καὶ κατὰ φιλίαν ἄρχον καὶ κατὰ πρεσβείαν ἐστίν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ βασιλικῆς εἶδος ἀρχῆς. διὸ καλῶς Ὅμηρος τὸν Δία προσηγόρευσεν εἰπὼν πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε Hom. Il. 1.544 τὸν βασιλέα τούτων ἁπάντων. φύσει γὰρ τὸν βασιλέα διαφέρειν μὲν δεῖ, τῷ γένει δʼ εἶναι τὸν αὐτόν· ὅπερ πέπονθε τὸ πρεσβύτερον πρὸς τὸ νεώτερον καὶ ὁ γεννήσας πρὸς τὸ τέκνον.

-

φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι πλείων ἡ σπουδὴ τῆς οἰκονομίας περὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἢ περὶ τὴν τῶν ἀψύχων κτῆσιν, καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τούτων ἢ περὶ τὴν τῆς κτήσεως, ὃν καλοῦμεν πλοῦτον, καὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων μᾶλλον ἢ δούλων. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν περὶ δούλων ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις, πότερον ἔστιν ἀρετή τις δούλου παρὰ τὰς ὀργανικὰς καὶ διακονικὰς ἄλλη τιμιωτέρα τούτων, οἷον σωφροσύνη καὶ ἀνδρεία καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶτῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων ἕξεων, ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία παρὰ τὰς σωματικὰς ὑπηρεσίας (ἔχει γὰρ ἀπορίαν ἀμφοτέρως· εἴτε γὰρ ἔστιν, τί διοίσουσι τῶν ἐλευθέρων; εἴτε μὴ ἔστιν, ὄντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ λόγου κοινωνούντων ἄτοπον). σχεδὸν δὲ ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ ζητούμενον καὶ περὶ γυναικὸς καὶ παιδός, πότερα καὶ τούτων εἰσὶν ἀρεταί, καὶ δεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα εἶναι σώφρονα καὶ ἀνδρείαν καὶ δικαίαν, καὶ παῖς ἔστι καὶ ἀκόλαστος καὶ σώφρων, ἢ οὔ; καθόλου δὴ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἐπισκεπτέον περὶ ἀρχομένου φύσει καὶ ἄρχοντος, πότερον ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἢ ἑτέρα. εἰ μὲν γὰρ δεῖ ἀμφοτέρους μετέχειν καλοκαγαθίας, διὰ τί τὸν μὲν ἄρχειν δέοι ἂν τὸν δὲ ἄρχεσθαι καθάπαξ; οὐδὲ γὰρ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον οἷόν τε διαφέρειν· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν εἴδει διαφέρει, τὸ δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον οὐδέν. εἰ δὲ τὸν μὲν δεῖ τὸν δὲ μή, θαυμαστόν. εἴτε γὰρ ὁ ἄρχων μὴ ἔσται σώφρων καὶ δίκαιος, πῶς ἄρξει καλῶς; εἴθʼ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, πῶς ἀρχθήσεται καλῶς; ἀκόλαστος γὰρ ὢν καὶ δειλὸς οὐδὲν ποιήσει τῶν προσηκόντων. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι ἀνάγκη μὲν μετέχειν ἀμφοτέρους ἀρετῆς, ταύτης δʼ εἶναι διαφοράς, (ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν φύσει ἀρχομένων). καὶ τοῦτο εὐθὺς ὑφήγηται τὰ περὶ τὴν ψυχήν· ἐν ταύτῃ γάρ ἐστι φύσει τὸ μὲν ἄρχον τὸ δʼ ἀρχόμενον, ὧν ἑτέραν φαμὲν εἶναι ἀρετήν, οἷον τοῦ λόγον ἔχοντος καὶ τοῦ ἀλόγου. δῆλον τοίνυν ὅτι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἔχει καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ὥστε φύσει πλείω τὰ ἄρχοντα καὶ ἀρχόμενα. ἄλλον γὰρ τρόπον τὸ ἐλεύθερον τοῦ δούλου ἄρχει καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν τοῦ θήλεος καὶ ἀνὴρ παιδός, καὶ πᾶσιν ἐνυπάρχει μὲν τὰ μόρια τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλʼ ἐνυπάρχει διαφερόντως. ὁ μὲν γὰρ δοῦλος ὅλως οὐκ ἔχει τὸ βουλευτικόν, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ ἔχει μέν, ἀλλʼ ἄκυρον, ὁ δὲ παῖς ἔχει μέν, ἀλλʼ ἀτελές.διὸ τὸν μὲν ἄρχοντα τελέαν ἔχειν δεῖ τὴν διανοητικὴν ἀρετήν (τὸ γὰρ ἔργον ἐστὶν ἁπλῶς τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος, ὁ δὲ λόγος ἀρχιτέκτων), τῶν δʼ ἄλλων ἕκαστον ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει αὐτοῖς. ὁμοίως τοίνυν ἀναγκαίως ἔχειν καὶ περὶ τὰς ἠθικὰς ἀρετὰς ὑποληπτέον, δεῖν μὲν μετέχειν πάντας, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸν αὐτὸντρόπον, ἀλλʼ ὅσον ἑκάστῳ πρὸς τὸ αὑτοῦ ἔργον. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι ἔστιν ἠθικὴ ἀρετὴ τῶν εἰρημένων πάντων, καὶ οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ σωφροσύνη γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρός, οὐδʼ ἀνδρεία καὶ δικαιοσύνη, καθάπερ ᾤετο Σωκράτης, ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν ἀρχικὴ ἀνδρεία ἡ δʼ ὑπηρετική, ὁμοίως δʼ ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας.

-

δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο καὶ κατὰ μέρος μᾶλλον ἐπισκοποῦσιν· καθόλου γὰρ οἱ λέγοντες ἐξαπατῶσιν ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι τὸ εὖ ἔχειν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀρετή, ἢ τὸ ὀρθοπραγεῖν, ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων· πολὺ γὰρ ἄμεινον λέγουσιν οἱ ἐξαριθμοῦντες τὰς ἀρετάς, ὥσπερ Γοργίας, τῶν οὕτως ὁριζομένων. διὸ δεῖ, ὥσπερ ὁ ποιητὴς εἴρηκε περὶ γυναικός, οὕτω νομίζειν ἔχειν περὶ πάντων· γυναικὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει, Soph. Aj. 293 ἀλλʼ ἀνδρὶ οὐκέτι τοῦτο. ἐπεὶ δʼ ὁ παῖς ἀτελής, δῆλον ὅτι τούτου μὲν καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ οὐκ αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὑτόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ τέλος καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ δούλου πρὸς δεσπότην. ἔθεμεν δὲ πρὸς τἀναγκαῖα χρήσιμον εἶναι τὸν δοῦλον, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἀρετῆς δεῖται μικρᾶς, καὶ τοσαύτης ὅπως μήτε διʼ ἀκολασίαν μήτε διὰ δειλίαν ἐλλείψῃ τῶν ἔργων. ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις, τὸ νῦν εἰρημένον εἰ ἀληθές, ἆρα καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας δεήσει ἔχειν ἀρετήν· πολλάκις γὰρ διʼ ἀκολασίαν ἐλλείπουσι τῶν ἔργων. ἢ διαφέρει τοῦτο πλεῖστον; ὁ μὲν γὰρ δοῦλος κοινωνὸς ζωῆς, ὁ δὲ πορρώτερον, καὶ τοσοῦτον ἐπιβάλλει ἀρετῆς ὅσον περ καὶ δουλείας· ὁ γὰρ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἀφωρισμένην τινὰ ἔχει δουλείαν, καὶ ὁ μὲν δοῦλος τῶν φύσει, σκυτοτόμος δʼ οὐθείς, οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων τεχνιτῶν. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρετῆς αἴτιον εἶναι δεῖ τῷ δούλῳ τὸν δεσπότην, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν διδασκαλικὴν ἔχοντα τῶν ἔργων δεσποτικήν. διὸ λέγουσιν οὐ καλῶς οἱ λόγου τοὺς δούλους ἀποστεροῦντες καὶ φάσκοντες ἐπιτάξει χρῆσθαι μόνον· νουθετητέον γὰρ μᾶλλον τοὺς δούλους ἢ τοὺς παῖδας.

-

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· περὶ δʼ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός, καὶ τέκνων καὶ πατρός, τῆς τε περὶ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἀρετῆς καὶ τῆς πρὸς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ὁμιλίας, τί τὸ καλῶς καὶ μὴ καλῶς ἐστι, καὶ πῶς δεῖ τὸ μὲν εὖ διώκειν τὸ δὲ κακῶς φεύγειν, ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὰς πολιτείας ἀναγκαῖον ἐπελθεῖν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ οἰκία μὲν πᾶσα μέρος πόλεως, ταῦτα δʼ οἰκίας, τὴν δὲ τοῦ μέρους πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου δεῖ βλέπειν ἀρετήν, ἀναγκαῖον πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν βλέποντας παιδεύειν καὶ τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας, εἴπερ τι διαφέρει πρὸς τὸ τὴν πόλιν εἶναι σπουδαίαν καὶ τὸ τοὺς παῖδας εἶναι σπουδαίους καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας σπουδαίας. ἀναγκαῖον δὲ διαφέρειν· αἱ μὲν γὰρ γυναῖκες ἥμισυ μέρος τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἐκ δὲ τῶν παίδων οἱ κοινωνοὶ γίνονται τῆς πολιτείας. ὥστʼ, ἐπεὶ περὶ μὲν τούτων διώρισται, περὶ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν ἄλλοις λεκτέον, ἀφέντες ὡς τέλος ἔχοντας τοὺς νῦν λόγους, ἄλλην ἀρχὴν ποιησάμενοι λέγωμεν, καὶ πρῶτον ἐπισκεψώμεθα περὶ τῶν ἀποφηναμένων περὶ τῆς πολιτείας τῆς ἀρίστης.

- -
-

ἐπεὶ δὲ προαιρούμεθα θεωρῆσαι περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς πολιτικῆς, τίς κρατίστη πασῶν τοῖς δυναμένοις ζῆν ὅτι μάλιστα κατʼ εὐχήν, δεῖ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἐπισκέψασθαι πολιτείας, αἷς τε χρῶνταί τινες τῶν πόλεων τῶν εὐνομεῖσθαι λεγομένων, κἂν εἴ τινες ἕτεραι τυγχάνουσιν ὑπὸ τινῶν εἰρημέναι καὶ δοκοῦσαι καλῶς ἔχειν, ἵνα τό τʼ ὀρθῶς ἔχον ὀφθῇ καὶ τὸ χρήσιμον, ἔτι δὲ τὸ ζητεῖν τι παρʼ αὐτὰς ἕτερον μὴ δοκῇ πάντως εἶναι σοφίζεσθαι βουλομένων, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μὴ καλῶς ἔχειν ταύτας τὰς νῦν ὑπαρχούσας, διὰ τοῦτο ταύτην δοκῶμεν ἐπιβαλέσθαι τὴν μέθοδον. ἀρχὴν δὲ πρῶτον ποιητέον ἥπερ πέφυκεν ἀρχὴ ταύτης τῆς σκέψεως. ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἤτοι πάντας πάντων κοινωνεῖν τοὺς πολίτας, ἢ μηδενός, ἢ τινῶν μὲν τινῶν δὲ μή. τὸ μὲν οὖν μηδενὸς κοινωνεῖν φανερὸν ὡς ἀδύνατον (ἡ γὰρ πολιτεία κοινωνία τίς ἐστι, καὶ πρῶτον ἀνάγκη τοῦ τόπου κοινωνεῖν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ τόπος εἷς ὁ τῆς μιᾶς πόλεως, οἱ δὲ πολῖται κοινωνοὶ τῆς μιᾶς πόλεως)· ἀλλὰ πότερον ὅσων ἐνδέχεται κοινωνῆσαι, πάντων βέλτιον κοινωνεῖν τὴν μέλλουσαν οἰκήσεσθαι πόλιν καλῶς, ἢ τινῶν μὲν τινῶν δʼ οὒ βέλτιον; ἐνδέχεται γὰρ καὶ τέκνων καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ κτημάτων κοινωνεῖν τοὺς πολίτας ἀλλήλοις, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ τῇ Πλάτωνος· ἐκεῖ γὰρ ὁ Σωκράτης φησὶ δεῖν κοινὰ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας εἶναι καὶ τὰς κτήσεις. τοῦτο δὴ πότερον ὡς νῦν οὕτω βέλτιον ἔχειν, ἢ κατὰ τὸν ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ γεγραμμένον νόμον;

- -

ἔχει δὴ δυσχερείας ἄλλας τε πολλὰς τὸ πάντων εἶναι τὰς γυναῖκας κοινάς, καὶ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν φησὶ δεῖν νενομοθετῆσθαι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ὁ Σωκράτης, οὐ φαίνεται συμβαῖνον ἐκ τῶν λόγων. ἔτι δὲ πρός, τὸ τέλος ὅ φησι τῇ πόλει δεῖν ὑπάρχειν, ὡς μὲν εἴρηται νῦν, ἀδύνατον, πῶς δὲ δεῖ διελεῖν, οὐδὲν διώρισται. λέγω δὲ τὸ μίαν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν ὡς ἄριστον ὂν ὅτι μάλιστα πᾶσαν· λαμβάνει γὰρ ταύτην τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ὁ Σωκράτης. καίτοι φανερόν ἐστιν ὡς προϊοῦσα καὶ γινομένη μία μᾶλλον οὐδὲ πόλις ἔσται· πλῆθος γάρ τι τὴν φύσιν ἐστὶν ἡ πόλις, γινομένη τε μία μᾶλλον οἰκία μὲν ἐκ πόλεως ἄνθρωπος δʼ ἐξ οἰκίας ἔσται· μᾶλλον γὰρ μίαν τὴν οἰκίαν τῆς πόλεως φαίημεν ἄν, καὶ τὸν ἕνα τῆς οἰκίας· ὥστʼ εἰ καὶ δυνατός τις εἴη τοῦτο δρᾶν, οὐ ποιητέον· ἀναιρήσει γὰρ τὴν πόλιν.

-

οὐ μόνον δʼ ἐκ πλειόνων ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶν ἡ πόλις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ εἴδει διαφερόντων. οὐ γὰρ γίνεται πόλις ἐξ ὁμοίων. ἕτερον γὰρ συμμαχία καὶ πόλις· τὸ μὲν γὰρ τῷ ποσῷ χρήσιμον, κἂν ᾖ τὸ αὐτὸ τῷ εἴδει (βοηθείας γὰρ χάριν ἡ συμμαχία πέφυκεν), ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ σταθμὸς πλεῖον ἑλκύσειε, ἐξ ὧν δὲ δεῖ ἓν γενέσθαι εἴδει διαφέρειν (διοίσει δὲ τῷ τοιούτῳ καὶ πόλις ἔθνους, ὅταν μὴ κατὰ κώμας ὦσι κεχωρισμένοι τὸ πλῆθος, ἀλλʼ οἷον Ἀρκάδες). διόπερ τὸ ἴσον τὸ ἀντιπεπονθὸς σῴζει τὰς πόλεις, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς εἴρηται πρότερον· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐλευθέροις καὶ ἴσοις ἀνάγκη τοῦτʼ εἶναι· ἅμα γὰρ οὐχ οἷόν τε πάντας ἄρχειν, ἀλλʼ ἢ κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ἢ κατά τινα ἄλλην τάξιν ἢ χρόνου. καὶ συμβαίνει δὴ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ὥστε πάντας ἄρχειν, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ μετέβαλλον οἱ σκυτεῖς καὶ οἱ τέκτονες καὶ μὴ ἀεὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ σκυτοτόμοι καὶ τέκτονες ἦσαν. ἐπεὶ δὲ βέλτιον οὕτως ἔχει καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τὴν πολιτικήν, δῆλον ὡς τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἀεὶ βέλτιον ἄρχειν, εἰ δυνατόν, ἐν οἷς δὲ μὴ δυνατὸν διὰ τὸ τὴν φύσιν ἴσους εἶναι πάντας, ἅμα δὲ καὶ δίκαιον, εἴτʼ ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον τὸ ἄρχειν. πάντας αὐτοῦ μετέχειν, τοῦτό γε μιμεῖται τὸ ἐν μέρει τοὺς ἴσους εἴκειν τό ἀνομοίους εἶναι ἔξω ἀρχῆς· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄρχουσιν οἱ δʼ ἄρχονται κατὰ μέρος ὥσπερ ἂν ἄλλοι γενόμενοι. τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ἀρχόντων ἕτεροι ἑτέρας ἄρχουσιν ἀρχάς. φανερὸν τοίνυν ἐκ τούτων ὡς οὔτε πέφυκε μίαν οὕτως εἶναι τὴν πόλιν ὥσπερ λέγουσί τινες, καὶ τὸ λεχθὲν ὡς μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ὅτι τὰς πόλεις ἀναιρεῖ· καίτοι τό γε ἑκάστου ἀγαθὸν σῴζει ἕκαστον. ἔστι δὲ καὶ κατʼ ἄλλον τρόπον φανερὸν ὅτι τὸ λίαν ἑνοῦν ζητεῖν τὴν πόλιν οὐκ ἔστιν ἄμεινον. οἰκία μὲν γὰρ αὐταρκέστερον ἑνός, πόλις δʼ οἰκίας, καὶ βούλεταί γʼ ἤδη τότε εἶναι πόλις ὅταν αὐτάρκη συμβαίνῃ τὴν κοινωνίαν εἶναι τοῦ πλήθους· εἴπερ οὖν αἱρετώτερον τὸ αὐταρκέστερον, καὶ τὸ ἧττον ἓν τοῦ μᾶλλον αἱρετώτερον.

-

ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ εἰ τοῦτο ἄριστόν ἐστι, τὸ μίαν ὅτι μάλιστʼ εἶναι τὴν κοινωνίαν, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀποδείκνυσθαι φαίνεται κατὰ τὸν λόγον, ἐὰν πάντες ἅμα λέγωσι τὸ ἐμὸν καὶ τὸ μὴ ἐμόν· τοῦτο γὰρ οἴεται ὁ Σωκράτης σημεῖον εἶναι τοῦ τὴν πόλιν τελέως εἶναι μίαν. τὸ γὰρ πάντες διττόν. εἰ μὲν οὖν ὡς ἕκαστος, τάχʼ ἂν εἴη μᾶλλον ὃ βούλεται ποιεῖν ὁ Σωκράτης (ἕκαστος γὰρ υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ φήσει τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ γυναῖκα δὴ τὴν αὐτήν, καὶ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ περὶ ἑκάστου δὴ τῶν συμβαινόντων ὡσαύτως)· νῦν δʼ οὐχ οὕτως φήσουσιν οἱ κοιναῖς χρώμενοι ταῖς γυναιξὶ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις, ἀλλὰ πάντες μέν, οὐχ ὡς ἕκαστος δʼ αὐτῶν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν πάντες μέν, οὐχ ὡς ἕκαστος δʼ αὐτῶν. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν παραλογισμός τίς ἐστι τὸ λέγειν πάντας, φανερόν (τὸ γὰρ πάντες καὶ ἀμφότεροι, καὶ περιττὰ καὶ ἄρτια, διὰ τὸ διττὸν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἐριστικοὺς ποιεῖ συλλογισμούς· διό ἐστι τὸ πάντας τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν ὡδὶ μὲν καλὸν ἀλλʼ οὐ δυνατόν, ὡδὶ δʼ οὐδὲν ὁμονοητικόν)· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἑτέραν ἔχει βλάβην τὸ λεγόμενον. ἥκιστα γὰρ ἐπιμελείας τυγχάνει τὸ πλείστων κοινόν· τῶν γὰρ ἰδίων μάλιστα φροντίζουσιν, τῶν δὲ κοινῶν ἧττον, ἢ ὅσον ἑκάστῳ ἐπιβάλλει· πρὸς γὰρ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὡς ἑτέρου φροντίζοντος ὀλιγωροῦσι μᾶλλον, ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς οἰκετικαῖς διακονίαις οἱ πολλοὶ θεράποντες ἐνίοτε χεῖρον ὑπηρετοῦσι τῶν ἐλαττόνων. γίνονται δʼ ἑκάστῳ χίλιοι τῶν πολιτῶν υἱοί, καὶ οὗτοι οὐχ ὡς ἑκάστου, ἀλλὰ τοῦ τυχόντος ὁ τυχὼν ὁμοίως ἐστὶν υἱός· ὥστε πάντες ὁμοίως ὀλιγωρήσουσιν.

- -

ἔτι οὕτως ἕκαστος ἐμὸς λέγει τὸν εὖ πράττοντα τῶν πολιτῶν ἢ κακῶς, ὁπόστος τυγχάνει τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὤν, οἷον ἐμὸς ἢ τοῦ δεῖνος, τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον λέγων καθʼ ἕκαστον τῶν χιλίων, ἢ ὅσων ἡ πόλις ἐστί, καὶ τοῦτο διστάζων· ἄδηλον γὰρ ᾧ συνέβη γενέσθαι τέκνον καὶ σωθῆναι γενόμενον. καίτοι πότερον οὕτω κρεῖττον τὸ ἐμὸν λέγειν ἕκαστον, τὸ αὐτὸ ἐμὸν προσαγορεύοντα δισχιλίων καὶ μυρίων, ἢ μᾶλλον ὡς νῦν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι τὸ ἐμὸν λέγουσιν; ὁ μὲν γὰρ υἱὸν αὑτοῦ ὁ δὲ ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ προσαγορεύει τὸν αὐτόν, ὁ δʼ ἀνεψιόν, ἢ κατʼ ἄλλην τινὰ συγγένειαν ἢ πρὸς αἵματος ἢ κατʼ οἰκειότητα καὶ κηδείαν αὑτοῦ πρῶτον ἢ τῶν αὑτοῦ, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἕτερος φράτορα φυλέτην. κρεῖττον γὰρ ἴδιον ἀνεψιὸν εἶναι ἢ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον υἱόν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ διαφυγεῖν δυνατὸν τὸ μή τινας ὑπολαμβάνειν ἑαυτῶν ἀδελφούς τε καὶ παῖδας καὶ πατέρας καὶ μητέρας· κατὰ γὰρ τὰς ὁμοιότητας αἳ γίνονται τοῖς τέκνοις πρὸς τοὺς γεννήσαντας ἀναγκαῖον λαμβάνειν περὶ ἀλλήλων τὰς πίστεις. ὅπερ φασὶ καὶ συμβαίνειν τινὲς τῶν τὰς τῆς γῆς περιόδους πραγματευομένων· εἶναι γάρ τισι τῶν ἄνω Λιβύων κοινὰς τὰς γυναῖκας, τὰ μέντοι γινόμενα τέκνα διαιρεῖσθαι κατὰ τὰς ὁμοιότητας. εἰσὶ δέ τινες καὶ γυναῖκες καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων, οἷον ἵπποι καὶ βόες, αἳ σφόδρα πεφύκασιν ὅμοια ἀποδιδόναι τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν, ὥσπερ ἡ ἐν Φαρσάλῳ κληθεῖσα Δικαία ἵππος.

- -

ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰς τοιαύτας δυσχερείας οὐ ῥᾴδιον εὐλαβηθῆναι τοῖς ταύτην κατασκευάζουσι τὴν κοινωνίαν, οἷον αἰκίας καὶ φόνους ἀκουσίους τοὺς δὲ ἑκουσίους, καὶ μάχας καὶ λοιδορίας· ὧν οὐδὲν ὅσιόν ἐστι γίνεσθαι πρὸς πατέρας καὶ μητέρας καὶ τοὺς μὴ πόρρω τῆς συγγενείας ὄντας, ὥσπερ πρὸς τοὺς ἄπωθεν· ἃ καὶ πλεῖον συμβαίνειν ἀναγκαῖον ἀγνοούντων ἢ γνωριζόντων, καὶ γενομένων τῶν μὲν γνωριζομένων ἐνδέχεται τὰς νομιζομένας γίνεσθαι λύσεις, τῶν δὲ μή, οὐδεμίαν. ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ κοινοὺς ποιήσαντα τοὺς υἱοὺς τὸ συνεῖναι μόνον ἀφελεῖν τῶν ἐρώντων, τὸ δʼ ἐρᾶν μὴ κωλῦσαι, μηδὲ τὰς χρήσεις τὰς ἄλλας ἃς πατρὶ πρὸς υἱὸν εἶναι πάντων ἐστὶν ἀπρεπέστατον καὶ ἀδελφῷ πρὸς ἀδελφόν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἐρᾶν μόνον. ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ τὴν συνουσίαν ἀφελεῖν διʼ ἄλλην μὲν αἰτίαν μηδεμίαν, ὡς λίαν δὲ ἰσχυρᾶς τῆς ἡδονῆς γινομένης, ὅτι δʼ ὁ μὲν πατὴρ ἢ υἱός, οἱ δʼ ἀδελφοὶ ἀλλήλων, μηδὲν οἴεσθαι διαφέρειν.

-

ἔοικε δὲ μᾶλλον τοῖς γεωργοῖς εἶναι χρήσιμον τὸ κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τοὺς παῖδας ἢ τοῖς φύλαξιν· ἧττον γὰρ ἔσται φιλία κοινῶν ὄντων τῶν τέκνων καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν, δεῖ δὲ τοιούτους εἶναι τοὺς ἀρχομένους πρὸς τὸ πειθαρχεῖν καὶ μὴ νεωτερίζειν. ὅλως δὲ συμβαίνειν ἀνάγκη τοὐναντίον διὰ τὸν τοιοῦτον νόμον ὧν προσήκει τοὺς ὀρθῶς κειμένους νόμους αἰτίους γίνεσθαι, καὶ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ὁ Σωκράτης οὕτως οἴεται δεῖν τάττειν τὰ περὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας. φιλίαν τε γὰρ οἰόμεθα μέγιστον εἶναι τῶν ἀγαθῶν ταῖς πόλεσιν (οὕτως γὰρ ἂν ἥκιστα στασιάζοιεν), καὶ τὸ μίαν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν ἐπαινεῖ μάλισθʼ ὁ Σωκράτης, ὃ καὶ δοκεῖ κἀκεῖνος εἶναί φησι τῆς φιλίας ἔργον, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἐρωτικοῖς λόγοις ἴσμεν λέγοντα τὸν Ἀριστοφάνην ὡς τῶν ἐρώντων διὰ τὸ σφόδρα φιλεῖν ἐπιθυμούντων συμφῦναι καὶ γενέσθαι ἐκ δύο ὄντων ἀμφοτέρους ἕνα· ἐνταῦθα μὲν οὖν ἀνάγκη ἀμφοτέρους ἐφθάρθαι ἢ τὸν ἕνα, ἐν δὲ τῇ πόλει τὴν φιλίαν ἀναγκαῖον ὑδαρῆ γίνεσθαι διὰ τὴν κοινωνίαν τὴν τοιαύτην, καὶ ἥκιστα λέγειν τὸν ἐμὸν ἢ υἱὸν πατέρα ἢ πατέρα υἱόν. ὥσπερ γὰρ μικρὸν γλυκὺ εἰς πολὺ ὕδωρ μειχθὲν ἀναίσθητον ποιεῖ τὴν κρᾶσιν, οὕτω συμβαίνει καὶ τὴν οἰκειότητα τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων, διαφροντίζειν ἥκιστα ἀναγκαῖον ὂν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τῇ τοιαύτῃ ἢ πατέρα ὡς υἱῶν ἢ υἱὸν ὡς πατρός, ἢ ὡς ἀδελφοὺς ἀλλήλων. δύο γάρ ἐστιν ἃ μάλιστα ποιεῖ κήδεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ φιλεῖν, τό τε ἴδιον καὶ τὸ ἀγαπητόν· ὧν οὐδέτερον οἷόν τε ὑπάρχειν τοῖς οὕτω πολιτευομένοις. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ περὶ τοῦ μεταφέρειν τὰ γινόμενα τέκνα, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν γεωργῶν καὶ τεχνιτῶν εἰς τοὺς φύλακας, τὰ δʼ ἐκ τούτων εἰς ἐκείνους, πολλὴν ἔχει ταραχὴν τίνα ἔσται τρόπον· καὶ γινώσκειν ἀναγκαῖον τοὺς διδόντας καὶ μεταφέροντας τίσι τίνας διδόασιν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ πάλαι λεχθέντα μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τούτων ἀναγκαῖον συμβαίνειν, οἷον αἰκίας ἔρωτας φόνους· οὐ γὰρ ἔτι προσαγορεύσουσιν ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τέκνα καὶ πατέρας καὶ μητέρας οἵ τε εἰς τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας δοθέντες τοὺς φύλακας καὶ πάλιν οἱ παρὰ τοῖς φύλαξιν τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας, ὥστʼ εὐλαβεῖσθαι τῶν τοιούτων τι πράττειν διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν.

-

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς περὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας κοινωνίας διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

- -

ἐχόμενον δὲ τούτων ἐστὶν ἐπισκέψασθαι περὶ τῆς κτήσεως, τίνα τρόπον δεῖ κατασκευάζεσθαι τοῖς μέλλουσι πολιτεύεσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν, πότερον κοινὴν ἢ μὴ κοινὴν εἶναι τὴν κτῆσιν. τοῦτο δʼ ἄν τις καὶ χωρὶς σκέψαιτο ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας νενομοθετημένων, λέγω δὲ τὰ περὶ τὴν κτῆσιν πότερον κἂν ᾖ ἐκεῖνα χωρίς, καθʼ ὃν νῦν τρόπον ἔχει πᾶσι, τάς γε κτήσεις κοινὰς εἶναι βέλτιον καὶ τὰς χρήσεις, οἷον τὰ μὲν γήπεδα χωρίς, τοὺς δὲ καρποὺς εἰς τὸ κοινὸν φέροντας ἀναλίσκειν (ὅπερ ἔνια ποιεῖ τῶν ἐθνῶν), ἢ τοὐναντίον τὴν μὲν γῆν κοινὴν εἶναι καὶ γεωργεῖν κοινῇ, τοὺς δὲ καρποὺς διαιρεῖσθαι πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας χρήσεις (λέγονται δέ τινες καὶ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον κοινωνεῖν τῶν βαρβάρων), ἢ καὶ τὰ γήπεδα καὶ τοὺς καρποὺς κοινούς. ἑτέρων μὲν οὖν ὄντων τῶν γεωργούντων ἄλλος ἂν εἴη τρόπος καὶ ῥᾴων, αὐτῶν δʼ αὑτοῖς διαπονούντων τὰ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις πλείους ἂν παρέχοι δυσκολίας. καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ἀπολαύσεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις μὴ γινομένων ἴσων ἀλλʼ ἀνίσων ἀναγκαῖον ἐγκλήματα γίνεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς ἀπολαύοντας μὲν ἢ λαμβάνοντας πολλά, ὀλίγα δὲ πονοῦντας, τοῖς ἐλάττω μὲν λαμβάνουσι, πλείω δὲ πονοῦσιν. ὅλως δὲ τὸ συζῆν καὶ κοινωνεῖν τῶν ἀνθρωπικῶν πάντων χαλεπόν, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν τοιούτων. δηλοῦσι δʼ αἱ τῶν συναποδήμων κοινωνίαι· σχεδὸν γὰρ οἱ πλεῖστοι διαφέρονται ἐκ τῶν ἐν ποσὶ καὶ ἐκ μικρῶν προσκρούοντες ἀλλήλοις. ἔτι δὲ τῶν θεραπόντων τούτοις μάλιστα προσκρούομεν οἷς πλεῖστα προσχρώμεθα πρὸς τὰς διακονίας τὰς ἐγκυκλίους.

-

τὸ μὲν οὖν κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς κτήσεις ταύτας τε καὶ ἄλλας τοιαύτας ἔχει δυσχερείας, ὃν δὲ νῦν τρόπον ἔχει καὶ ἐπικοσμηθὲν ἔθεσι καὶ τάξει νόμων ὀρθῶν, οὐ μικρὸν ἂν διενέγκαι. ἕξει γὰρ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἀγαθόν· λέγω δὲ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τὸ ἐκ τοῦ κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς κτήσεις καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίας. δεῖ γὰρ πὼς μὲν εἶναι κοινάς, ὅλως δʼ ἰδίας. αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιμέλειαι διῃρημέναι τὰ ἐγκλήματα πρὸς ἀλλήλους οὐ ποιήσουσιν, μᾶλλον δʼ ἐπιδώσουσιν ὡς πρὸς ἴδιον ἑκάστου προσεδρεύοντος· διʼ ἀρετὴν δʼ ἔσται πρὸς τὸ χρῆσθαι, κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν, κοινὰ τὰ φίλων. ἔστι δὲ καὶ νῦν τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ἐν ἐνίαις πόλεσιν οὕτως ὑπογεγραμμένον, ὡς οὐκ ὂν ἀδύνατον, καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ταῖς καλῶς οἰκουμέναις τὰ μὲν ἔστι τὰ δὲ γένοιτʼ ἄν· ἰδίαν γὰρ ἕκαστος τὴν κτῆσιν ἔχων τὰ μὲν χρήσιμα ποιεῖ τοῖς φίλοις, τοῖς δὲ χρῆται κοινοῖς, οἷον καὶ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι τοῖς τε δούλοις χρῶνται τοῖς ἀλλήλων ὡς εἰπεῖν ἰδίοις, ἔτι δʼ ἵπποις καὶ κυσίν, κἂν δεηθῶσιν ἐφοδίων ἐν τοῖς ἀγροῖς κατὰ τὴν χώραν. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι βέλτιον εἶναι μὲν ἰδίας τὰς κτήσεις, τῇ δὲ χρήσει ποιεῖν κοινάς· ὅπως δὲ γίνωνται τοιοῦτοι, τοῦ νομοθέτου τοῦτʼ ἔργον ἴδιόν ἐστιν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἀμύθητον ὅσον διαφέρει τὸ νομίζειν ἴδιόν τι. μὴ γὰρ οὐ μάτην τὴν πρὸς αὑτὸν αὐτὸς ἔχει φιλίαν ἕκαστος, ἀλλʼ ἔστι τοῦτο φυσικόν. τὸ δὲ φίλαυτον εἶναι ψέγεται δικαίως· οὐκ ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο τὸ φιλεῖν ἑαυτόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μᾶλλον ἢ δεῖ φιλεῖν, καθάπερ καὶ τὸ φιλοχρήματον, ἐπεὶ φιλοῦσί γε πάντες ὡς εἰπεῖν ἕκαστον τῶν τοιούτων. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ χαρίσασθαι καὶ βοηθῆσαι φίλοις ἢ ξένοις ἢ ἑταίροις ἥδιστον· ὃ γίνεται τῆς κτήσεως ἰδίας οὔσης. ταῦτά τε δὴ οὐ συμβαίνει τοῖς λίαν ἓν ποιοῦσι τὴν πόλιν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἀναιροῦσιν ἔργα δυοῖν ἀρεταῖν φανερῶς, σωφροσύνης μὲν τὸ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας (ἕργον γὰρ καλὸν ἀλλοτρίας οὔσης ἀπέχεσθαι διὰ σωφροσύνην), ἐλευθεριότητος δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις· οὔτε γὰρ ἔσται φανερὸς ἐλευθέριος ὤν, οὔτε πράξει πρᾶξιν ἐλευθέριον οὐδεμίαν· ἐν τῇ γὰρ χρήσει τῶν κτημάτων τὸ τῆς ἐλευθεριότητος ἔργον ἐστίν.

-

εὐπρόσωπος μὲν οὖν ἡ τοιαύτη νομοθεσία καὶ φιλάνθρωπος ἂν εἶναι δόξειεν· ὁ γὰρ ἀκροώμενος ἄσμενος ἀποδέχεται, νομίζων ἔσεσθαι φιλίαν τινὰ θαυμαστὴν πᾶσι πρὸς ἅπαντας, ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅταν κατηγορῇ τις τῶν νῦν ὑπαρχόντων ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις κακῶν ὡς γινομένων διὰ τὸ μὴ κοινὴν εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν, λέγω δὲ δίκας τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ συμβολαίων καὶ ψευδομαρτυριῶν κρίσεις καὶ πλουσίων κολακείας· ὧν οὐδὲν γίνεται διὰ τὴν ἀκοινωνησίαν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν μοχθηρίαν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοὺς κοινὰ κεκτημένους καὶ κοινωνοῦντας πολλῷ διαφερομένους μᾶλλον ὁρῶμεν ἢ τοὺς χωρὶς τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντας· ἀλλὰ θεωροῦμεν ὀλίγους τοὺς ἐκ τῶν κοινωνιῶν διαφερομένους, πρὸς πολλοὺς συμβάλλοντες τοὺς κεκτημένους ἰδίᾳ τὰς κτήσεις. ἔτι δὲ δίκαιοιν μὴ μόνον λέγειν ὅσων στερήσονται κακῶν κοινωνήσαντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅσων ἀγαθῶν· φαίνεται δʼ εἶναι πάμπαν ἀδύνατος ὁ βίος.

-

αἴτιον δὲ τῷ Σωκράτει τῆς παρακρούσεως χρὴ νομίζειν τὴν ὑπόθεσιν οὐκ οὖσαν ὀρθήν. δεῖ μὲν γὰρ εἶναί πως μίαν καὶ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ τὴν πόλιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντως. ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ὡς οὐκ ἔσται προϊοῦσα πόλις, ἔστι δʼ ὡς ἔσται μέν, ἐγγὺς δʼ οὖσα τοῦ μὴ πόλις εἶναι χείρων πόλις, ὥσπερ κἂν εἴ τις τὴν συμφωνίαν ποιήσειεν ὁμοφωνίαν ἢ τὸν ῥυθμὸν βάσιν μίαν. ἀλλὰ δεῖ πλῆθος ὄν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, διὰ τὴν παιδείαν κοινὴν καὶ μίαν ποιεῖν· καὶ τόν γε μέλλοντα παιδείαν εἰσάγειν καὶ νομίζοντα διὰ ταύτης ἔσεσθαι τὴν πόλιν σπουδαίαν ἄτοπον τοῖς τοιούτοις οἴεσθαι διορθοῦν, ἀλλὰ μὴ τοῖς ἔθεσι καὶ τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ καὶ τοῖς νόμοις, ὥσπερ τὰ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις ἐν Λακεδαίμονι καὶ Κρήτῃ τοῖς συσσιτίοις ὁ νομοθέτης ἐκοίνωσε. δεῖ δὲ μηδὲ τοῦτο αὐτὸ ἀγνοεῖν, ὅτι χρὴ προσέχειν τῷ πολλῷ χρόνῳ καὶ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν, ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἂν ἔλαθεν, εἰ ταῦτα καλῶς εἶχεν· πάντα γὰρ σχεδὸν εὕρηται μέν, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν οὐ συνῆκται, τοῖς δʼ οὐ χρῶνται γινώσκοντες. μάλιστα δʼ ἂν γένοιτο φανερὸν εἴ τις τοῖς ἔργοις ἴδοι τὴν τοιαύτην πολιτείαν κατασκευαζομένην· οὐ γὰρ δυνήσεται μὴ μερίζων αὐτὰ καὶ χωρίζων ποιῆσαι τὴν πόλιν, τὰ μὲν εἰς συσσίτια τὰ δὲ εἰς φατρίας καὶ φυλάς. ὥστε οὐδὲν ἄλλο συμβήσεται νενομοθετημένον πλὴν μὴ γεωργεῖν τοὺς φύλακας· ὅπερ καὶ νῦν Λακεδαιμόνιοι ποιεῖν ἐπιχειροῦσιν.

-

οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ ὁ τρόπος τῆς ὅλης πολιτείας τίς ἔσται τοῖς κοινωνοῦσιν, οὔτʼ εἴρηκεν ὁ Σωκράτης οὔτε ῥᾴδιον εἰπεῖν. καίτοι σχεδὸν τό γε πλῆθος τῆς πόλεως τὸ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτῶν γίνεται πλῆθος, περὶ ὧν οὐδὲν διώρισται, πότερον καὶ τοῖς γεωργοῖς κοινὰς εἶναι δεῖ τὰς κτήσεις ἢ καὶ καθʼ ἕκαστον ἰδίας, ἔτι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας ἰδίους ἢ κοινούς. εἰ μὲν γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον κοινὰ πάντα πάντων, τί διοίσουσιν οὗτοι ἐκείνων τῶν φυλάκων; ἢ τί πλεῖον αὐτοῖς ὑπομένουσι τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτῶν, ἢ τί μαθόντες ὑπομενοῦσι τὴν ἀρχήν, ἐὰν μή τι σοφίζωνται τοιοῦτον οἷον Κρῆτες; ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ τἆλλα ταὐτὰ τοῖς δούλοις ἐφέντες μόνον ἀπειρήκασι τὰ γυμνάσια καὶ τὴν τῶν ὅπλων κτῆσιν. εἰ δέ, καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσι, καὶ παρʼ ἐκείνοις ἔσται τὰ τοιαῦτα, τίς ὁ τρόπος ἔσται τῆς κοινωνίας; ἐν μιᾷ γὰρ πόλει δύο πόλεις ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι, καὶ ταύτας ὑπεναντίας ἀλλήλαις. ποιεῖ γὰρ τοὺς μὲν φύλακας οἷον φρουρούς, τοὺς δὲ γεωργοὺς καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας· ἐγκλήματα δὲ καὶ δίκαι, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα ταῖς πόλεσιν ὑπάρχειν φησὶ κακά, πάνθʼ ὑπάρξει καὶ τούτοις. καίτοι λέγει ὁ Σωκράτης ὡς οὐ πολλῶν δεήσονται νομίμων διὰ τὴν παιδείαν, οἷον ἀστυνομικῶν καὶ ἀγορανομικῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων, ἀποδιδοὺς μόνον τὴν παιδείαν τοῖς φύλαξιν. ἔτι δὲ κυρίους ποιεῖ τῶν κτημάτων τοὺς γεωργοὺς τοὺς ἀποφορὰν φέροντας· ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον εἰκὸς εἶναι χαλεποὺς καὶ φρονημάτων πλήρεις, ἢ τὰς παρʼ ἐνίοις εἱλωτείας τε καὶ πενεστείας καὶ δουλείας. ἀλλὰ γὰρ εἴτʼ ἀναγκαῖα ταῦθʼ ὁμοίως εἴτε μή, νῦν γε οὐδὲν διώρισται. καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐχομένων τίς ἡ τούτων τε πολιτεία καὶ παιδεία καὶ νόμοι τίνες. ἔστι δʼ οὔθʼ εὑρεῖν ῥᾴδιον, οὔτε τὸ διαφέρον μικρὸν, τὸ ποιούς τινας εἶναιτούτους πρὸς τὸ σῴζεσθαι τὴν τῶν φυλάκων κοινωνίαν. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ γε τὰς μὲν γυναῖκας ποιήσει κοινὰς τὰς δὲ κτήσεις ἰδίας, τίς οἰκονομήσει ὥσπερ τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγρῶν οἱ ἄνδρες αὐτῶν—κἂν εἰ κοιναὶ αἱ κτήσεις καὶ αἱ τῶν γεωργῶν γυναῖκες; ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῶν θηρίων ποιεῖσθαι τὴν παραβολήν, ὅτι δεῖ τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπιτηδεύειν τὰς γυναῖκας τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, οἷς οἰκονομίας οὐδὲν μέτεστιν.

-

ἐπισφαλὲς δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ὡς καθίστησιν ὁ Σωκράτης. ἀεὶ γὰρ ποιεῖ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄρχοντας· τοῦτο δὲ στάσεως αἴτιον γίνεται καὶ παρὰ τοῖς μηδὲν ἀξίωμα κεκτημένοις, ἦ που δῆθεν παρά γε θυμοειδέσι καὶ πολεμικοῖς ἀνδράσιν. ὅτι δʼ ἀναγκαῖον αὐτῷ ποιεῖν τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄρχοντας, φανερόν· οὐ γὰρ ὁτὲ μὲν ἄλλοις ὁτὲ δὲ ἄλλοις μέμεικται ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὁ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ χρυσός, ἀλλʼ ἀεὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς. φησὶ δὲ τοῖς μὲν εὐθὺς γινομένοις μεῖξαι χρυσόν, τοῖς δʼ ἄργυρον, χαλκὸν δὲ καὶ σίδηρον τοῖς τεχνίταις μέλλουσιν ἔσεσθαι καὶ γεωργοῖς. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν ἀφαιρούμενος τῶν φυλάκων, ὅλην φησὶ δεῖν εὐδαίμονα ποιεῖν τὴν πόλιν τὸν νομοθέτην. ἀδύνατον δὲ εὐδαιμονεῖν ὅλην, μὴ τῶν πλείστων ἢ μὴ πάντων μερῶν ἢ τινῶν ἐχόντων τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν. οὐ γὰρ τῶν αὐτῶν τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν ὧνπερ τὸ ἄρτιον· τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ ἐνδέχεται τῷ ὅλῳ ὑπάρχειν, τῶν δὲ μερῶν μηδετέρῳ, τὸ δὲ εὐδαιμονεῖν ἀδύνατον. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ οἱ φύλακες μὴ εὐδαίμονες, τίνες ἕτεροι; οὐ γὰρ δὴ οἵ γε τεχνῖται καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τὸ τῶν βαναύσων. ἡ μὲν οὖν πολιτεία περὶ ἧς ὁ Σωκράτης εἴρηκεν ταύτας τε τὰς ἀπορίας ἔχει καὶ τούτων οὐκ ἐλάττους ἑτέρας.

-

σχεδὸν δὲ παραπλησίως καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς Νόμους ἔχει τοὺς ὕστερον γραφέντας, διὸ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐνταῦθα πολιτείας ἐπισκέψασθαι μικρὰ βέλτιον. καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ περὶ ὀλίγων πάμπαν διώρικεν ὁ Σωκράτης, περί τε γυναικῶν καὶ τέκνων κοινωνίας, πῶς ἔχειν δεῖ, καὶ περὶ κτήσεως, καὶ τῆς πολιτείας τὴν τάξιν (διαιρεῖται γὰρ εἰς δύο μέρη τὸ πλῆθος τῶν οἰκούντων, τὸ μὲν εἰς τοὺς γεωργούς, τὸ δὲ εἰς τὸ προπολεμοῦν μέρος· τρίτον δʼ ἐκ τούτων τὸ βουλευόμενον καὶ κύριον τῆς πόλεως), περὶ δὲ τῶν γεωργῶν καὶ τῶν τεχνιτῶν, πότερον οὐδεμιᾶς μεθέξουσιν ἤ τινος ἀρχῆς, καὶ πότερον ὅπλα δεῖ κεκτῆσθαι καὶ τούτους καὶ συμπολεμεῖν ἢ μή, περὶ τούτων οὐδὲν διώρικεν ὁ Σωκράτης, ἀλλὰ τὰς μὲν γυναῖκας οἴεται δεῖν συμπολεμεῖν καὶ παιδείας μετέχειν τῆς αὐτῆς τοῖς φύλαξιν, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα τοῖς ἔξωθεν πεπλήρωκε τὸν λόγον καὶ περὶ τῆς παιδείας, ποίαν τινὰ δεῖ γίνεσθαι τῶν φυλάκων. τῶν δὲ Νόμων τὸ μὲν πλεῖστον μέρος νόμοι τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες, ὀλίγα δὲ περὶ τῆς πολιτείας εἴρηκεν, καὶ ταύτην βουλόμενος κοινοτέραν ποιεῖν ταῖς πόλεσι κατὰ μικρὸν περιάγει πάλιν πρὸς τὴν ἑτέραν πολιτείαν. ἔξω γὰρ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν κοινωνίας καὶ τῆς κτήσεως, τὰ ἄλλα ταὐτὰ ἀποδίδωσιν ἀμφοτέραις ταῖς πολιτείαις· καὶ γὰρ παιδείαν τὴν αὐτήν, καὶ τὸ τῶν ἔργων τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀπεχομένους ζῆν, καὶ περὶ συσσιτίων ὡσαύτως· πλὴν ἐν ταύτῃ φησὶ δεῖν εἶναι συσσίτια καὶ γυναικῶν, καὶ τὴν μὲν χιλίων τῶν ὅπλα κεκτημένων, ταύτην δὲ πεντακισχιλίων.

-

τὸ μὲν οὖν περιττὸν ἔχουσι πάντες οἱ τοῦ Σωκράτους λόγοι καὶ τὸ κομψὸν καὶ τὸ καινοτόμον καὶ τὸ ζητητικόν, καλῶς δὲ πάντα ἴσως χαλεπόν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ νῦν εἰρημένον πλῆθος δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν ὅτι χώρας δεήσει τοῖς τοσούτοις Βαβυλωνίας ἤ τινος ἄλλης ἀπεράντου τὸ πλῆθος, ἐξ ἧς ἀργοὶ πεντακισχίλιοι θρέψονται, καὶ περὶ τούτους γυναικῶν καὶ θεραπόντων ἕτερος ὄχλος πολλαπλάσιος. δεῖ μὲν οὖν ὑποτίθεσθαι κατʼ εὐχήν, μηδὲν μέντοι ἀδύνατον. λέγεται δʼ ὡς δεῖ τὸν νομοθέτην πρὸς δύο βλέποντα τιθέναι τοὺς νόμους, πρός τε τὴν χώραν καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. ἔτι δὲ καλῶς ἔχει προσθεῖναι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς γειτνιῶντας τόπους, πρῶτον μὲν εἰ δεῖ τὴν πόλιν ζῆν βίον πολιτικόν (οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν αὐτὴν τοιούτοις χρῆσθαι πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον ὅπλοις ἃ χρήσιμα κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν χώραν ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω τόπους)· εἰ δέ τις μὴ τοιοῦτον ἀποδέχεται βίον, μήτε τὸν ἴδιον μήτε τὸν κοινὸν τῆς πόλεως, ὅμως οὐδὲν ἧττον δεῖ φοβεροὺς εἶναι τοῖς πολεμίοις, μὴ μόνον ἐλθοῦσιν εἰς τὴν χώραν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπελθοῦσιν.

-

καὶ τὸ πλῆθος δὲ τῆς κτήσεως ὁρᾶν δεῖ, μή ποτε βέλτιον ἑτέρως διορίσαι τῷ σαφῶς μᾶλλον. τοσαύτην γὰρ εἶναί φησι δεῖν ὥστε ζῆν σωφρόνως, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις εἶπεν ὥστε ζῆν εὖ. τοῦτο δʼ ἄρʼ ἐστι καθόλου μᾶλλον, ἐπειδὴ ἔστι σωφρόνως μὲν ταλαιπώρως δὲ ζῆν, ἀλλὰ βελτίων ὅρος τὸ σωφρόνως καὶ ἐλευθερίως (χωρὶς γὰρ ἑκατέρῳ τῷ μὲν τὸ τρυφᾶν ἀκολουθήσει, τῷ δὲ τὸ ἐπιπόνως), ἐπεὶ μόναι γʼ εἰσὶν ἕξεις αἱρεταὶ περὶ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας χρῆσιν αὗται, οἷον οὐσίᾳ πράως μὲν ἢ ἀνδρείως χρῆσθαι οὐκ ἔστιν, σωφρόνως δὲ καὶ ἐλευθερίως ἔστιν, ὥστε καὶ τὰς ἕξεις ἀναγκαῖον περὶ αὐτὴν εἶναι ταύτας. ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ τὰς κτήσεις ἰσάζοντα τὸ περὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πολιτῶν μὴ κατασκευάζειν, ἀλλʼ ἀφεῖναι τὴν τεκνοποιίαν ἀόριστον ὡς ἱκανῶς ἀνομαλισθησομένην εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ πλῆθος διὰ τὰς ἀτεκνίας ὁσωνοῦν γεννωμένων, ὅτι δοκεῖ τοῦτο καὶ νῦν συμβαίνειν περὶ τὰς πόλεις. δεῖ δὲ τοῦτʼ οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀκριβῶς ἔχειν περὶ τὰς πόλεις τότε καὶ νῦν· νῦν μὲν γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἀπορεῖ, διὰ τὸ μερίζεσθαι τὰς οὐσίας εἰς ὁποσονοῦν πλῆθος, τότε δὲ ἀδιαιρέτων οὐσῶν ἀνάγκη τοὺς παράζυγας μηδὲν ἔχειν, ἐάν τʼ ἐλάττους ὦσι τὸ πλῆθος ἐάν τε πλείους. μᾶλλον δὲ δεῖν ὑπολάβοι τις ἂν ὡρίσθαι τῆς οὐσίας τὴν τεκνοποιίαν, ὥστε ἀριθμοῦ τινὸς μὴ πλείονα γεννᾶν, τοῦτο δὲ τιθέναι τὸ πλῆθος ἀποβλέποντα πρὸς τὰς τύχας, ἂν συμβαίνῃ τελευτᾶν τινας τῶν γεννηθέντων, καὶ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ἀτεκνίαν. τὸ δʼ ἀφεῖσθαι, καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς πλείσταις πόλεσι, πενίας ἀναγκαῖον αἴτιον γίνεσθαι τοῖς πολίταις, ἡ δὲ πενία στάσιν ἐμποιεῖ καὶ κακουργίαν. Φείδων μὲν οὖν ὁ Κορίνθιος, ὢν νομοθέτης τῶν ἀρχαιοτάτων, τοὺς οἴκους ἴσους ᾠήθη δεῖν διαμένειν καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πολιτῶν, καὶ εἰ τὸ πρῶτον τοὺς κλήρους ἀνίσους εἶχον πάντες κατὰ μέγεθος· ἐν δὲ τοῖς νόμοις τούτοις τοὐναντίον ἐστίν. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων πῶς οἰόμεθα βέλτιον ἂν ἔχειν, λεκτέον ὕστερον· ἐλλέλειπται δʼ ἐν τοῖς νόμοις τούτοις καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας πῶς ἔσονται διαφέροντες τῶν ἀρχομένων. φησὶ γὰρ δεῖν, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἑτέρου τὸ στημόνιον ἐρίου γίνεται τῆς κρόκης, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἔχειν πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχομένους. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν πᾶσαν οὐσίαν ἐφίησι γίνεσθαι μείζονα μέχρι πενταπλασίας, διὰ τί τοῦτʼ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μέχρι τινός; καὶ τὴν τῶν οἰκοπέδων δὲ διαίρεσιν δεῖ σκοπεῖν, μή ποτʼ οὐ συμφέρει πρὸς οἰκονομίαν· δύο γὰρ οἰκόπεδα ἑκάστῳ ἔνειμε διελὼν χωρίς, χαλεπὸν δὲ οἰκίας δύο οἰκεῖν.

- -

ἡ δὲ σύνταξις ὅλη βούλεται μὲν εἶναι μήτε δημοκρατία μήτε ὀλιγαρχία, μέση δὲ τούτων, ἣν καλοῦσι πολιτείαν· ἐκ γὰρ τῶν ὁπλιτευόντων ἐστίν. εἰ μὲν οὖν ὡς κοινοτάτην ταύτην κατασκευάζει ταῖς πόλεσι τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν, καλῶς εἴρηκεν ἴσως· εἰ δʼ ὡς ἀρίστην μετὰ τὴν πρώτην πολιτείαν, οὐ καλῶς. τάχα γὰρ τὴν τῶν Λακώνων ἄν τις ἐπαινέσειε μᾶλλον, ἢ κἂν ἄλλην τινὰ ἀριστοκρατικωτέραν. ἔνιοι μὲν οὖν λέγουσιν ὡς δεῖ τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ἐξ ἁπασῶν εἶναι τῶν πολιτειῶν μεμειγμένην, διὸ καὶ τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ἐπαινοῦσιν (εἶναι γὰρ αὐτὴν οἱ μὲν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ μοναρχίας καὶ δημοκρατίας φασίν, λέγοντες τὴν μὲν βασιλείαν μοναρχίαν, τὴν δὲ τῶν γερόντων ἀρχὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν, δημοκρατεῖσθαι δὲ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἐφόρων ἀρχὴν διὰ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ δήμου εἶναι τοὺς ἐφόρους· οἱ δὲ τὴν μὲν ἐφορείαν εἶναι τυραννίδα, δημοκρατεῖσθαι δὲ κατά τε τὰ συσσίτια καὶ τὸν ἄλλον βίον τὸν καθʼ ἡμέραν)· ἐν δὲ τοῖς νόμοις εἴρηται τούτοις ὡς δέον συγκεῖσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ἐκ δημοκρατίας καὶ τυραννίδος, ἃς ἢ τὸ παράπαν οὐκ ἄν τις θείη πολιτείας ἢ χειρίστας πασῶν. βέλτιον οὖν λέγουσιν οἱ πλείους μιγνύντες· ἡ γὰρ ἐκ πλειόνων συγκειμένη πολιτεία βελτίων. ἔπειτʼ οὐδʼ ἔχουσα φαίνεται μοναρχικὸν οὐδέν, ἀλλʼ ὀλιγαρχικὰ καὶ δημοκρατικά· μᾶλλον δʼ ἐγκλίνειν βούλεται πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν. δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀρχόντων καταστάσεως· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ αἱρετῶν κληρωτοὺς κοινὸν ἀμφοῖν, τὸ δὲ τοῖς μὲν εὐπορωτέροις ἐπάναγκες ἐκκλησιάζειν εἶναι καὶ φέρειν ἄρχοντας ἤ τι ποιεῖν ἄλλο τῶν πολιτικῶν, τοὺς δʼ ἀφεῖσθαι, τοῦτο δʼ ὀλιγαρχικόν, καὶ τὸ πειρᾶσθαι πλείους ἐκ τῶν εὐπόρων εἶναι τοὺς ἄρχοντας, καὶ τὰς μεγίστας ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων τιμημάτων. ὀλιγαρχικὴν δὲ ποιεῖ καὶ τὴν τῆς βουλῆς αἵρεσιν. αἱροῦνται μὲν γὰρ πάντες ἐπάναγκες, ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου τιμήματος, εἶτα πάλιν ἴσους ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου· εἶτʼ ἐκ τῶν τρίτων, πλὴν οὐ πᾶσιν ἐπάναγκες ἦν τοῖς ἐκ τῶν τρίτων ἢ τετάρτων, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τετάρτου μόνοις ἐπάναγκες τοῖς πρώτοις καὶ τοῖς δευτέροις· εἶτʼ ἐκ τούτων ἴσον ἀφʼ ἑκάστου τιμήματος ἀποδεῖξαί φησι δεῖν ἀριθμόν. ἔσονται δὴ πλείους οἱ ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων τιμημάτων καὶ βελτίους διὰ τὸ ἐνίους μὴ αἱρεῖσθαι τῶν δημοτικῶν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπάναγκες. ὡς μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐκ δημοκρατίας καὶ μοναρχίας δεῖ συνιστάναι τὴν τοιαύτην πολιτείαν, ἐκ τούτων φανερὸν καὶ τῶν ὕστερον ῥηθησομένων, ὅταν ἐπιβάλλῃ περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης πολιτείας ἡ σκέψις· ἔχει δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τῶν ἀρχόντων τὸ ἐξ αἱρετῶν αἱρετοὺς ἐπικίνδυνον. εἰ γάρ τινες συστῆναι θέλουσι καὶ μέτριοι τὸ πλῆθος, αἰεὶ κατὰ τὴν τούτων αἱρεθήσονται βούλησιν. τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὴν πολιτείαν τὴν ἐν τοῖς Νόμοις τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον.

-

εἰσὶ δέ τινες πολιτεῖαι καὶ ἄλλαι, αἱ μὲν ἰδιωτῶν αἱ δὲ φιλοσόφων καὶ πολιτικῶν, πᾶσαι δὲ τῶν καθεστηκυιῶν καὶ καθʼ ἃς πολιτεύονται νῦν ἐγγύτερόν εἰσι τούτων ἀμφοτέρων. οὐδεὶς γὰρ οὔτε τὴν περὶ τὰ τέκνα κοινότητα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἄλλος κεκαινοτόμηκεν, οὔτε περὶ τὰ συσσίτια τῶν γυναικῶν, ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἄρχονται μᾶλλον. δοκεῖ γάρ τισι τὸ περὶ τὰς οὐσίας εἶναι μέγιστον τετάχθαι καλῶς· περὶ γὰρ τούτων ποιεῖσθαί φασι τὰς στάσεις πάντας. διὸ Φαλέας ὁ Χαλκηδόνιος τοῦτʼ εἰσήνεγκε πρῶτος· φησὶ γὰρ δεῖν ἴσας εἶναι τὰς κτήσεις τῶν πολιτῶν. τοῦτο δὲ κατοικιζομέναις μὲν εὐθὺς οὐ χαλεπὸν ᾤετο ποιεῖν, τὰς δʼ ἤδη κατοικουμένας ἐργωδέστερον μέν, ὅμως δὲ τάχιστʼ ἂν ὁμαλισθῆναι τῷ τὰς προῖκας τοὺς μὲν πλουσίους διδόναι μὲν λαμβάνειν δὲ μή, τοὺς δὲ πένητας μὴ διδόναι μὲν λαμβάνειν δέ. Πλάτων δὲ τοὺς Νόμους γράφων μέχρι μέν τινος ᾤετο δεῖν ἐᾶν, πλεῖον δὲ τοῦ πενταπλασίαν εἶναι τῆς ἐλαχίστης μηδενὶ τῶν πολιτῶν ἐξουσίαν εἶναι κτήσασθαι, καθάπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον. δεῖ δὲ μηδὲ τοῦτο λανθάνειν τοὺς οὕτω νομοθετοῦντας, ὃ λανθάνει νῦν, ὅτι τὸ τῆς οὐσίας τάττοντας πλῆθος προσήκει καὶ τῶν τέκνων τὸ πλῆθος τάττειν· ἐὰν γὰρ ὑπεραίρῃ τῆς οὐσίας τὸ μέγεθος ὁ τῶν τέκνων ἀριθμός, ἀνάγκη τόν γε νόμον λύεσθαι, καὶ χωρὶς τῆς λύσεως φαῦλον τὸ πολλοὺς ἐκ πλουσίων γίνεσθαι πένητας· ἔργον γὰρ μὴ νεωτεροποιοὺς εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους. διότι μὲν οὖν ἔχει τινὰ δύναμιν εἰς τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν ἡ τῆς οὐσίας ὁμαλότης, καὶ τῶν πάλαι τινὲς φαίνονται διεγνωκότες, οἷον καὶ Σόλων ἐνομοθέτησεν, καὶ παρʼ ἄλλοις ἔστι νόμος ὃς κωλύει κτᾶσθαι γῆν ὁπόσην ἂν βούληταί τις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν πωλεῖν οἱ νόμοι κωλύουσιν, ὥσπερ ἐν Λοκροῖς νόμος ἐστὶ μὴ πωλεῖν ἐὰν μὴ φανερὰν ἀτυχίαν δείξῃ συμβεβηκυῖαν, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς παλαιοὺς κλήρους διασῴζειν (τοῦτο δὲ λυθὲν καὶ περὶ Λευκάδα δημοτικὴν ἐποίησε λίαν τὴν πολιτείαν αὐτῶν· οὐ γὰρ ἔτι συνέβαινεν ἀπὸ τῶν ὡρισμένων τιμημάτων εἰς τὰς ἀρχὰς βαδίζειν)· ἀλλʼ ἔστι τὴν ἰσότητα μὲν ὑπάρχειν τῆς οὐσίας, ταύτην δʼ ἢ λίαν εἶναι πολλήν, ὥστε τρυφᾶν, ἢ λίαν ὀλίγην, ὥστε ζῆν γλίσχρως. δῆλον οὖν ὡς οὐχ ἱκανὸν τὸ τὰς οὐσίας ἴσας ποιῆσαι τὸν νομοθέτην, ἀλλὰ τοῦ μέσου στοχαστέον. ἔτι δʼ εἴ τις καὶ τὴν μετρίαν τάξειεν οὐσίαν πᾶσιν, οὐδὲν ὄφελος· μᾶλλον γὰρ δεῖ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ὁμαλίζειν ἢ τὰς οὐσίας, τοῦτο δʼ οὐκ ἔστι μὴ παιδευομένοις ἱκανῶς ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων. ἀλλʼ ἴσως ἂν εἴπειεν ὁ Φαλέας ὅτι ταῦτα τυγχάνει λέγων αὐτός· οἴεται γὰρ δυοῖν τούτοιν ἰσότητα δεῖν ὑπάρχειν ταῖς πόλεσιν, κτήσεως καὶ παιδείας. ἀλλὰ τήν τε παιδείαν ἥτις ἔσται δεῖ λέγειν, καὶ τὸ μίαν εἶναι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐδὲν ὄφελος· ἔστι γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν μὲν εἶναι καὶ μίαν, ἀλλὰ ταύτην εἶναι τοιαύτην ἐξ ἧς ἔσονται προαιρετικοὶ τοῦ πλεονεκτεῖν ἢ χρημάτων ἢ τιμῆς ἢ συναμφοτέρων.

-

ἔτι στασιάζουσιν οὐ μόνον διὰ τὴν ἀνισότητα τῆς κτήσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν τιμῶν, τοὐναντίον δὲ περὶ ἑκάτερον· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὶ διὰ τὸ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις ἄνισον, οἱ δὲ χαρίεντες περὶ τῶν τιμῶν, ἐὰν ἴσαι· ὅθεν καὶ ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ ἠμὲν κακὸς ἠδὲ καὶ ἐσθλός. Hom. Il. 9.319 οὐ μόνον δʼ οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τἀναγκαῖα ἀδικοῦσιν, ὧν ἄκος εἶναι νομίζει τὴν ἰσότητα τῆς οὐσίας, ὥστε μὴ λωποδυτεῖν διὰ τὸ ῥιγοῦν ἢ πεινῆν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅπως χαίρωσι καὶ μὴ ἐπιθυμῶσιν· ἐὰν γὰρ μείζω ἔχωσιν ἐπιθυμίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων, διὰ τὴν ταύτης ἰατρείαν ἀδικήσουσιν· οὐ τοίνυν διὰ ταύτην μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἂν ἐπιθυμοῖεν ἵνα χαίρωσι ταῖς ἄνευ λυπῶν ἡδοναῖς. τί οὖν ἄκος τῶν τριῶν τούτων; τοῖς μὲν οὐσία βραχεῖα καὶ ἐργασία, τοῖς δὲ σωφροσύνη· τρίτον δʼ, εἴ τινες βούλοιντο διʼ αὑτῶν χαίρειν, οὐκ ἂν ἐπιζητοῖεν εἰ μὴ παρὰ φιλοσοφίας ἄκος. αἱ γὰρ ἄλλαι ἀνθρώπων δέονται· ἐπεὶ ἀδικουσί γε τὰ μέγιστα διὰ τὰς ὑπερβολάς, ἀλλʼ οὐ διὰ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα (οἷον τυραννοῦσιν οὐχ ἵνα μὴ ῥιγῶσιν· διὸ καὶ αἱ τιμαὶ μεγάλαι, ἂν ἀποκτείνῃ τις οὐ κλέπτην ἀλλὰ τύραννον)· ὥστε πρὸς τὰς μικρὰς ἀδικίας βοηθητικὸς μόνον ὁ τρόπος τῆς Φαλέου πολιτείας. ἔτι τὰ πολλὰ βούλεται κατασκευάζειν ἐξ ὧν τὰ πρὸς αὑτοὺς πολιτεύσονται καλῶς, δεῖ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς γειτνιῶντας καὶ τοὺς ἔξωθεν πάντας. ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα τὴν πολιτείαν συντετάχθαι πρὸς τὴν πολεμικὴν ἰσχύν, περὶ ἧς ἐκεῖνος οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς κτήσεως. δεῖ γὰρ οὐ μόνον πρὸς τὰς πολιτικὰς χρήσεις ἱκανὴν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξωθεν κινδύνους· διόπερ οὔτε τοσοῦτον δεῖ πλῆθος ὑπάρχειν ὅσου οἱ πλησίον καὶ κρείττους ἐπιθυμήσουσιν, οἱ δὲ ἔχοντες ἀμύνειν οὐ δυνήσονται τοὺς ἐπιόντας, οὔθʼ οὕτως ὀλίγην ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι πόλεμον ὑπενεγκεῖν μηδὲ τῶν ἴσων καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων. ἐκεῖνος μὲν οὖν οὐδὲν διώρικεν, δεῖ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ λανθάνειν, ὅ τι συμφέρει πλῆθος οὐσίας. ἴσως οὖν ἄριστος ὅρος τὸ μὴ λυσιτελεῖν τοῖς κρείττοσι διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν πολεμεῖν, ἀλλʼ οὕτως ὡς ἂν καὶ μὴ ἐχόντων τοσαύτην οὐσίαν. οἷον Εὔβουλος Αὐτοφραδάτου μέλλοντος Ἀταρνέα πολιορκεῖν ἐκέλευσεν αὐτόν, σκεψάμενον ἐν πόσῳ χρόνῳ λήψεται τὸ χωρίον, λογίσασθαι τοῦ χρόνου τούτου τὴν δαπάνην· ἐθέλειν γὰρ ἔλαττον τούτου λαβὼν ἐκλιπεῖν ἤδη τὸν Ἀταρνέα· ταῦτα δʼ εἰπὼν ἐποίησε τὸν Αὐτοφραδάτην σύννουν γενόμενον παύσασθαι τῆς πολιορκίας.

-

ἔστι μὲν οὖν τι τῶν συμφερόντων τὸ τὰς οὐσίας ἴσας εἶναι τοῖς πολίταις πρὸς τὸ μὴ στασιάζειν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, οὐ μὴν μέγα οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν. καὶ γὰρ ἂν οἱ χαρίεντες ἀγανακτοῖεν ὡς οὐκ ἴσων ὄντες ἄξιοι, διὸ καὶ φαίνονται πολλάκις ἐπιτιθέμενοι καὶ στασιάζοντες· ἔτι δʼ ἡ πονηρία τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄπληστον, καὶ τὸ πρῶτον μὲν ἱκανὸν διωβελία μόνον, ὅταν δʼ ἤδη τοῦτʼ ᾖ πάτριον, ἀεὶ δέονται τοῦ πλείονος, ἕως εἰς ἄπειρον ἔλθωσιν. ἄπειρος γὰρ ἡ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας φύσις, ἧς πρὸς τὴν ἀναπλήρωσιν οἱ πολλοὶ ζῶσιν. τῶν οὖν τοιούτων ἀρχή, μᾶλλον τοῦ τὰς οὐσίας ὁμαλίζειν, τὸ τοὺς μὲν ἐπιεικεῖς τῇ φύσει τοιούτους παρασκευάζειν ὥστε μὴ βούλεσθαι πλεονεκτεῖν, τοὺς δὲ φαύλους ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστίν, ἂν ἥττους τε ὦσι καὶ μὴ ἀδικῶνται. οὐ καλῶς δὲ οὐδὲ τὴν ἰσότητα τῆς οὐσίας εἴρηκεν. περὶ γὰρ τὴν τῆς γῆς κτῆσιν ἰσάζει μόνον, ἔστι δὲ καὶ δούλων καὶ βοσκημάτων πλοῦτος καὶ νομίσματος, καὶ κατασκευὴ πολλὴ τῶν καλουμένων ἐπίπλων· ἢ πάντων οὖν τούτων ἰσότητα ζητητέον ἢ τάξιν τινὰ μετρίαν, ἢ πάντα ἐατέον. φαίνεται δʼ ἐκ τῆς νομοθεσίας κατασκευάζων τὴν πόλιν μικράν, εἴ γʼ οἱ τεχνῖται πάντες δημόσιοι ἔσονται καὶ μὴ πλήρωμά τι παρέξονται τῆς πόλεως. ἀλλʼ εἴπερ δεῖ δημοσίους εἶναι τοὺς τὰ κοινὰ ἐργαζομένους, δεῖ (καθάπερ ἐν Ἐπιδάμνῳ τε καὶ ὡς Διόφαντός ποτε κατεσκεύαζεν Ἀθήνησι) τοῦτον ἔχειν τὸν τρόπον. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Φαλέου πολιτείας σχεδὸν ἐκ τούτων ἄν τις θεωρήσειεν, εἴ τι τυγχάνει καλῶς εἰρηκὼς ἢ μὴ καλῶς.

-

Ἱππόδαμος δὲ Εὐρυφῶντος Μιλήσιος (ὃς καὶ τὴν τῶν πόλεων διαίρεσιν εὗρε καὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ κατέτεμεν, γενόμενος καὶ περὶ τὸν ἄλλον βίον περιττότερος διὰ φιλοτιμίαν οὕτως ὥστε δοκεῖν ἐνίοις ζῆν περιεργότερον τριχῶν τε πλήθει καὶ κόσμῳ πολυτελεῖ, ἔτι δὲ ἐσθῆτος εὐτελοῦς μὲν ἀλεεινῆς δέ, οὐκ ἐν τῷ χειμῶνι μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοὺς θερινοὺς χρόνους, λόγιος δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν ὅλην φύσιν εἶναι βουλόμενος) πρῶτος τῶν μὴ πολιτευομένων ἐνεχείρησέ τι περὶ πολιτείας εἰπεῖν τῆς ἀρίστης. κατεσκεύαζε δὲ τὴν πόλιν τῷ πλήθει μὲν μυρίανδρον, εἰς τρία δὲ μέρη διῃρημένην· ἐποίει γὰρ ἓν μὲν μέρος τεχνίτας, ἓν δὲ γεωργούς, τρίτον δὲ τὸ προπολεμοῦν καὶ τὰ ὅπλα ἔχον. διῄρει δʼ εἰς τρία μέρη τὴν χώραν, τὴν μὲν ἱερὰν τὴν δὲ δημοσίαν τὴν δʼ ἰδίαν· ὅθεν μὲν τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιήσουσι πρὸς τοὺς θεούς, ἱεράν, ἀφʼ ὧν δʼ οἱ προπολεμοῦντες βιώσονται, κοινήν, τὴν δὲ τῶν γεωργῶν ἰδίαν. ᾤετο δʼ εἴδη καὶ τῶν νόμων εἶναι τρία μόνον· περὶ ὧν γὰρ αἱ δίκαι γίνονται, τρία ταῦτʼ εἶναι τὸν ἀριθμόν, ὕβριν βλάβην θάνατον. ἐνομοθέτει δὲ καὶ δικαστήριον ἓν τὸ κύριον, εἰς ὃ πάσας ἀνάγεσθαι δεῖν τὰς μὴ καλῶς κεκρίσθαι δοκούσας δίκας· τοῦτο δὲ κατεσκεύαζεν ἐκ τινῶν γερόντων αἱρετῶν. τὰς δὲ κρίσεις ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις οὐ διὰ ψηφοφορίας ᾤετο γίγνεσθαι δεῖν, ἀλλὰ φέρειν ἕκαστον πινάκιον, ἐν ᾧ γράφειν, εἰ καταδικάζοι ἁπλῶς, τὴν δίκην, εἰ δʼ ἀπολύοι ἁπλῶς, κενόν, εἰ δὲ τὸ μὲν τὸ δὲ μή, τοῦτο διορίζειν. νῦν γὰρ οὐκ ᾤετο νενομοθετῆσθαι καλῶς· ἀναγκάζειν γὰρ ἐπιορκεῖν ἢ ταῦτα ἢ ταῦτα δικάζοντας. ἔτι δὲ νόμον ἐτίθει περὶ τῶν εὑρισκόντων τι τῇ πόλει συμφέρον, ὅπως τυγχάνωσι τιμῆς, καὶ τοῖς παισὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τελευτώντων ἐκ δημοσίου γίνεσθαι τὴν τροφήν, ὡς οὔπω τοῦτο παρʼ ἄλλοις νενομοθετημένον (ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἀθήναις οὗτος ὁ νόμος νῦν καὶ ἐν ἑτέραις τῶν πόλεων)· τοὺς δʼ ἄρχοντας αἱρετοὺς ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου εἶναι πάντας. δῆμον δʼ ἐποίει τὰ τρία μέρη τῆς πόλεως· τοὺς δʼ αἱρεθέντας ἐπιμελεῖσθαι κοινῶν καὶ ξενικῶν καὶ ὀρφανικῶν.

-

τὰ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστα καὶ τὰ μάλιστα ἀξιόλογα τῆς Ἱπποδάμου τάξεως ταῦτʼ ἐστίν· ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις πρῶτον μὲν τὴν διαίρεσιν τοῦ πλήθους τῶν πολιτῶν. οἵ τε γὰρ τεχνῖται καὶ οἱ γεωργοὶ καὶ οἱ τὰ ὅπλα ἔχοντες κοινωνοῦσι τῆς πολιτείας πάντες, οἱ μὲν γεωργοὶ οὐκ ἔχοντες ὅπλα, οἱ δὲ τεχνῖται οὔτε γῆν οὔτε ὅπλα, ὥστε γίνονται σχεδὸν δοῦλοι τῶν τὰ ὅπλα κεκτημένων. μετέχειν μὲν οὖν πασῶν τῶν τιμῶν ἀδύνατον (ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἐκ τῶν τὰ ὅπλα ἐχόντων καθίστασθαι καὶ στρατηγοὺς καὶ πολιτοφύλακας καὶ τὰς κυριωτάτας ἀρχὰς ὡς εἰπεῖν)· μὴ μετέχοντας δὲ τῆς πολιτείας πῶς οἷόν τε φιλικῶς ἔχειν πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν; ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ κρείττους εἶναι τοὺς τὰ ὅπλα γε κεκτημένους ἀμφοτέρων τῶν μερῶν. τοῦτο δʼ οὐ ῥᾴδιον μὴ πολλοὺς ὄντας· εἰ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἔσται, τί δεῖ τοὺς ἄλλους μετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας καὶ κυρίους εἶναι τῆς τῶν ἀρχόντων καταστάσεως; ἔτι οἱ γεωργοὶ τί χρήσιμοι τῇ πόλει; τεχνίτας μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι (πᾶσα γὰρ δεῖται πόλις τεχνιτῶν), καὶ δύνανται διαγίγνεσθαι καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσιν ἀπὸ τῆς τέχνης· οἱ δὲ γεωργοὶ πορίζοντες μὲν τοῖς τὰ ὅπλα κεκτημένοις τὴν τροφὴν εὐλόγως ἂν ἦσάν τι τῆς πόλεως μέρος, νῦν δʼ ἰδίαν ἔχουσιν καὶ ταύτην ἰδίᾳ γεωργήσουσιν. ἔτι δὲ τὴν κοινήν, ἀφʼ ἧς οἱ προπολεμοῦντες ἕξουσι τὴν τροφήν, εἰ μὲν αὐτοὶ γεωργήσουσιν, οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὸ μάχιμον ἕτερον καὶ τὸ γεωργοῦν, βούλεται δʼ ὁ νομοθέτης· εἰ δʼ ἕτεροί τινες ἔσονται τῶν τε τὰ ἴδια γεωργούντων καὶ τῶν μαχίμων, τέταρτον αὖ μόριον ἔσται τοῦτο τῆς πόλεως, οὐδενὸς μετέχον, ἀλλὰ ἀλλότριον τῆς πολιτείας· ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ τις τοὺς αὐτοὺς θήσει τούς τε τὴν ἰδίαν καὶ τοὺς τὴν κοινὴν γεωργοῦντας, τό τε πλῆθος ἄπορον ἔσται τῶν καρπῶν ἐξ ὧν ἕκαστος γεωργήσει δύο οἰκίαις, καὶ τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐκ εὐθὺς ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν κλήρων αὑτοῖς τε τὴν τροφὴν λήψονται καὶ τοῖς μαχίμοις παρέξουσιν; ταῦτα δὴ πάντα πολλὴν ἔχει ταραχήν. οὐ καλῶς δʼ οὐδʼ ὁ περὶ τῆς κρίσεως ἔχει νόμος, τὸ κρίνειν ἀξιοῦν διαιροῦντα, τῆς δίκης ἁπλῶς γεγραμμένης, καὶ γίνεσθαι τὸν δικαστὴν διαιτητήν. τοῦτο δὲ ἐν μὲν τῇ διαίτῃ καὶ πλείοσιν ἐνδέχεται (κοινολογοῦνται γὰρ ἀλλήλοις περὶ τῆς κρίσεως), ἐν δὲ τοῖς δικαστηρίοις οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὐναντίον τούτου τῶν νομοθετῶν οἱ πολλοὶ παρασκευάζουσιν ὅπως οἱ δικασταὶ μὴ κοινολογῶνται πρὸς ἀλλήλους. ἔπειτα πῶς οὐκ ἔσται ταραχώδης ἡ κρίσις, ὅταν ὀφείλειν μὲν ὁ δικαστὴς οἴηται, μὴ τοσοῦτον δʼ ὅσον ὁ δικαζόμενος; ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἴκοσι μνᾶς, ὁ δὲ δικαστὴς κρινεῖ δέκα μνᾶς (ἢ ὁ μὲν πλέον ὁ δʼ ἔλασσον), ἄλλος δὲ πέντε, ὁ δὲ τέτταρας, καὶ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν τρόπον δῆλον ὅτι μεριοῦσιν· οἱ δὲ πάντα καταδικάσουσιν, οἱ δʼ οὐδέν. τίς οὖν ὁ τρόπος ἔσται τῆς διαλογῆς τῶν ψήφων; ἔτι δʼ οὐδὲν ἐπιορκεῖν ἀναγκάζει τὸν ἁπλῶς ἀποδικάσαντα ἢ καταδικάσαντα, εἴπερ ἁπλῶς τὸ ἔγκλημα γέγραπται, δικαίως· οὐ γὰρ μηδὲν ὀφείλειν ὁ ἀποδικάσας κρίνει, ἀλλὰ τὰς εἴκοσι μνᾶς· ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνος ἤδη ἐπιορκεῖ, ὁ καταδικάσας, μὴ νομίζων ὀφείλειν τὰς εἴκοσι μνᾶς.

-

περὶ δὲ τοῦ τοῖς εὑρίσκουσί τι τῇ πόλει συμφέρον ὡς δεῖ γίνεσθαί τινα τιμήν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἀσφαλὲς τὸ νομοθετεῖν, ἀλλʼ εὐόφθαλμον ἀκοῦσαι μόνον· ἔχει γὰρ συκοφαντίας καὶ κινήσεις, ἂν τύχῃ, πολιτείας. ἐμπίπτει δʼ εἰς ἄλλο πρόβλημα καὶ σκέψιν ἑτέραν· ἀποροῦσι γάρ τινες πότερον βλαβερὸν ἢ συμφέρον ταῖς πόλεσι τὸ κινεῖν τοὺς πατρίους νόμους, ἂν ᾖ τις ἄλλος βελτίων. διόπερ οὐ ῥᾴδιον τῷ λεχθέντι ταχὺ συγχωρεῖν, εἴπερ μὴ συμφέρει κινεῖν, ἐνδέχεται δʼ εἰσηγεῖσθαί τινας νόμων λύσιν ἢ πολιτείας ὡς κοινὸν ἀγαθόν. ἐπεὶ δὲ πεποιήμεθα μνείαν, ἔτι μικρὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ διαστείλασθαι βέλτιον. ἔχει γάρ, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, ἀπορίαν, καὶ δόξειεν ἂν βέλτιον εἶναι τὸ κινεῖν. ἐπὶ γοῦν τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιστημῶν τοῦτο συνενήνοχεν, οἷον ἰατρικὴ κινηθεῖσα παρὰ τὰ πάτρια καὶ γυμναστικὴ καὶ ὅλως αἱ τέχναι πᾶσαι καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις, ὥστʼ ἐπεὶ μίαν τούτων θετέον καὶ τὴν πολιτικήν, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ περὶ ταύτην ἀναγκαῖον ὁμοίως ἔχειν. σημεῖον δʼ ἂν γεγονέναι φαίη τις ἐπʼ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων· τοὺς γὰρ ἀρχαίους νόμους λίαν ἁπλοῦς εἶναι καὶ βαρβαρικούς. ἐσιδηροφοροῦντό τε γὰρ οἱ Ἕλληνες, καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἐωνοῦντο παρʼ ἀλλήλων, ὅσα τε λοιπὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐστί που νομίμων εὐήθη πάμπαν ἐστίν, οἷον ἐν Κύμῃ περὶ τὰ φονικὰ νόμος ἔστιν, ἂν πλῆθός τι παράσχηται μαρτύρων ὁ διώκων τὸν φόνον τῶν αὑτοῦ συγγενῶν, ἔνοχον εἶναι τῷ φόνῳ τὸν φεύγοντα. ζητοῦσι δʼ ὅλως οὐ τὸ πάτριον ἀλλὰ τἀγαθὸν πάντες· εἰκός τε τοὺς πρώτους, εἴτε γηγενεῖς ἦσαν εἴτʼ ἐκ φθορᾶς τινος ἐσώθησαν, ὁμοίους εἶναι καὶ τοὺς τυχόντας καὶ τοὺς ἀνοήτους, ὥσπερ καὶ λέγεται κατὰ τῶν γηγενῶν, ὥστε ἄτοπον τὸ μένειν ἐν τοῖς τούτων δόγμασιν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οὐδὲ τοὺς γεγραμμένους ἐᾶν ἀκινήτους βέλτιον. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας, καὶ τὴν πολιτικὴν τάξιν ἀδύνατον ἀκριβῶς πάντα γραφῆναι· καθόλου γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον γράφειν, αἱ δὲ πράξεις περὶ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστόν εἰσιν.

-

ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων φανερὸν ὅτι κινητέοι καὶ τινὲς καὶ ποτὲ τῶν νόμων εἰσίν· ἄλλον δὲ τρόπον ἐπισκοποῦσιν εὐλαβείας ἂν δόξειεν εἶναι πολλῆς. ὅταν γὰρ ᾖ τὸ μὲν βέλτιον μικρόν, τὸ δʼ ἐθίζειν εὐχερῶς λύειν τοὺς νόμους φαῦλον, φανερὸν ὡς ἐατέον ἐνίας ἁμαρτίας καὶ τῶν νομοθετῶν καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων· οὐ γὰρ τοσοῦτον ὠφελήσεται κινήσας ὅσον βλαβήσεται τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἀπειθεῖν ἐθισθείς. ψεῦδος δὲ καὶ τὸ παράδειγμα τὸ περὶ τῶν τεχνῶν· οὐ γὰρ ὅμοιον τὸ κινεῖν τέχνην καὶ νόμον· ὁ γὰρ νόμος ἰσχὺν οὐδεμίαν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ πείθεσθαι παρὰ τὸ ἔθος, τοῦτο δʼ οὐ γίνεται εἰ μὴ διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος, ὥστε τὸ ῥᾳδίως μεταβάλλειν ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων νόμων εἰς ἑτέρους νόμους καινοὺς ἀσθενῆ ποιεῖν ἐστι τὴν τοῦ νόμου δύναμιν. ἔτι δʼ εἰ καὶ κινητέοι, πότερον πάντες καὶ ἐν πάσῃ πολιτείᾳ, ἢ οὔ; καὶ πότερον τῷ τυχόντι ἢ τισίν; ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχει μεγάλην διαφοράν. διὸ νῦν μὲν ἀφῶμεν ταύτην τὴν σκέψιν· ἄλλων γάρ ἐστι καιρῶν.

-

περὶ δὲ τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείας καὶ τῆς Κρητικῆς, σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν, δύο εἰσὶν αἱ σκέψεις, μία μὲν εἴ τι καλῶς ἢ μὴ καλῶς πρὸς τὴν ἀρίστην νενομοθέτηται τάξιν, ἑτέρα δʼ εἴ τι πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν καὶ τὸν τρόπον ὑπεναντίως τῆς προκειμένης αὐτοῖς πολιτείας. ὅτι μὲν οὖν δεῖ τῇ μελλούσῃ καλῶς πολιτεύεσθαι τὴν τῶν ἀναγκαίων ὑπάρχειν σχολήν, ὁμολογούμενόν ἐστιν· τίνα δὲ τρόπον ὑπάρχειν, οὐ ῥᾴδιον λαβεῖν. ἥ τε γὰρ Θετταλῶν πενεστεία πολλάκις ἐπέθετο τοῖς Θετταλοῖς, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τοῖς Λάκωσιν οἱ εἵλωτες (ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐφεδρεύοντες τοῖς ἀτυχήμασι διατελοῦσιν)· περὶ δὲ τοὺς Κρῆτας οὐδέν πω τοιοῦτον συμβέβηκεν. αἴτιον δʼ ἴσως τὸ τὰς γειτνιώσας πόλεις, καίπερ πολεμούσας ἀλλήλαις, μηδεμίαν εἶναι σύμμαχον τοῖς ἀφισταμένοις διὰ τὸ μὴ συμφέρειν ταῖς καὶ αὐταῖς κεκτημέναις περιοίκους, τοῖς δὲ Λάκωσιν οἱ γειτνιῶντες ἐχθροὶ πάντες ἦσαν, Ἀργεῖοι καὶ Μεσήνιοι καὶ Ἀρκάδες· ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῖς Θετταλοῖς κατʼ ἀρχὰς ἀφίσταντο διὰ τὸ πολεμεῖν ἔτι τοῖς προσχώροις, Ἀχαιοῖς καὶ Περραιβοῖς καὶ Μάγνησιν. ἔοικε δὲ καὶ εἰ μηδὲν ἕτερον, ἀλλὰ τό γε τῆς ἐπιμελείας ἐργῶδες εἶναι, τίνα δεῖ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁμιλῆσαι τρόπον· ἀνιέμενοί τε γὰρ ὑβρίζουσι καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀξιοῦσιν ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς κυρίοις, καὶ κακοπαθῶς ζῶντες ἐπιβουλεύουσι καὶ μισοῦσιν. δῆλον οὖν ὡς οὐκ ἐξευρίσκουσι τὸν βέλτιστον τρόπον οἷς τοῦτο συμβαίνει περὶ τὴν εἱλωτείαν.

-

ἔτι δʼ ἡ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἄνεσις καὶ πρὸς τὴν προαίρεσιν τῆς πολιτείας βλαβερὰ καὶ πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν πόλεως. ὥσπερ γὰρ οἰκίας μέρος ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνή, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πόλιν ἐγγὺς τοῦ δίχα διῃρῆσθαι δεῖ νομίζειν εἴς τε τὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν πλῆθος καὶ τὸ τῶν γυναικῶν, ὥστʼ ἐν ὅσαις πολιτείαις φαύλως ἔχει τὸ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας, τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς πόλεως εἶναι δεῖ νομίζειν ἀνομοθέτητον. ὅπερ ἐκεῖ συμβέβηκεν· ὅλην γὰρ τὴν πόλιν ὁ νομοθέτης εἶναι βουλόμενος καρτερικήν, κατὰ μὲν τοὺς ἄνδρας φανερός ἐστι τοιοῦτος ὤν, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν γυναικῶν ἐξημέληκεν· ζῶσι γὰρ ἀκολάστως πρὸς ἅπασαν ἀκολασίαν καὶ τρυφερῶς. ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ πολιτείᾳ τιμᾶσθαι τὸν πλοῦτον, ἄλλως τε κἂν τύχωσι γυναικοκρατούμενοι, καθάπερ τὰ πολλὰ τῶν στρατιωτικῶν καὶ πολεμικῶν γενῶν, ἔξω Κελτῶν ἢ κἂν εἴ τινες ἕτεροι φανερῶς τετιμήκασι τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἄρρενας συνουσίαν. ἔοικε γὰρ ὁ μυθολογήσας πρῶτος οὐκ ἀλόγως συζεῦξαι τὸν Ἄρην πρὸς τὴν Ἀφροδίτην· ἢ γὰρ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀρρένων ὁμιλίαν ἢ πρὸς τὴν τῶν γυναικῶν φαίνονται κατοκώχιμοι πάντες οἱ τοιοῦτοι. διὸ παρὰ τοῖς Λάκωσι τοῦθʼ ὑπῆρχεν, καὶ πολλὰ διῳκεῖτο ὑπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτῶν. καίτοι τί διαφέρει γυναῖκας ἄρχειν ἢ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ὑπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν ἄρχεσθαι; ταὐτὸ γὰρ συμβαίνει. χρησίμου δʼ οὔσης τῆς θρασύτητος πρὸς οὐδὲν τῶν ἐγκυκλίων, ἀλλʼ εἴπερ, πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον, βλαβερώταται καὶ πρὸς ταῦθʼ αἱ τῶν Λακώνων ἦσαν. ἐδήλωσαν δʼ ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν Θηβαίων ἐμβολῆς· χρήσιμοι μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἦσαν, ὥσπερ ἐν ἑτέραις πόλεσιν, θόρυβον δὲ παρεῖχον πλείω τῶν πολεμίων. ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν οὖν ἔοικε συμβεβηκέναι τοῖς Λάκωσιν εὐλόγως ἡ τῶν γυναικῶν ἄνεσις. ἔξω γὰρ τῆς οἰκείας διὰ τὰς στρατείας ἀπεξενοῦντο πολὺν χρόνον, πολεμοῦντες τόν τε πρὸς Ἀργείους πόλεμον καὶ πάλιν τὸν πρὸς Ἀρκάδας καὶ Μεσηνίους· σχολάσαντες δὲ αὑτοὺς μὲν παρεῖχον τῷ νομοθέτῃ προωδοπεποιημένους διὰ τὸν στρατιωτικὸν βίον (πολλὰ γὰρ ἔχει μέρη τῆς ἀρετῆς), τὰς δὲ γυναῖκάς φασι μὲν ἄγειν ἐπιχειρῆσαι τὸν Λυκοῦργον ὑπὸ τοὺς νόμους, ὡς δʼ ἀντέκρουον, ἀποστῆναι πάλιν. αἰτίαι μὲν οὖν εἰσιν αὗται τῶν γενομένων, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ταύτης τῆς ἁμαρτίας· ἀλλʼ ἡμεῖς οὐ τοῦτο σκοποῦμεν, τίνι δεῖ συγγνώμην ἔχειν ἢ μὴ ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ ὀρθῶς καὶ μὴ ὀρθῶς. τὰ δὲ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἔχοντα μὴ καλῶς ἔοικεν, ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη καὶ πρότερον, οὐ μόνον ἀπρέπειάν τινα ποιεῖν τῆς πολιτείας αὐτῆς καθʼ αὑτήν, ἀλλὰ συμβάλλεσθαί τι πρὸς τὴν φιλοχρηματίαν. μετὰ γὰρ τὰ νῦν ῥηθέντα τοῖς περὶ τὴν ἀνωμαλίαν τῆς κτήσεως ἐπιτιμήσειεν ἄν τις. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν συμβέβηκε κεκτῆσθαι πολλὴν λίαν οὐσίαν, τοῖς δὲ πάμπαν μικράν· διόπερ εἰς ὀλίγους ἧκεν ἡ χώρα. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν νόμων τέτακται φαύλως· ὠνεῖσθαι μὲν γάρ, ἢ πωλεῖν τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν, ἐποίησεν οὐ καλόν, ὀρθῶς ποιήσας, διδόναι δὲ καὶ καταλείπειν ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκε τοῖς βουλομένοις· καίτοι ταὐτὸ συμβαίνειν ἀναγκαῖον ἐκείνως τε καὶ οὕτως. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν σχεδὸν τῆς πάσης χώρας τῶν πέντε μερῶν τὰ δύο, τῶν τʼ ἐπικλήρων πολλῶν γινομένων, καὶ διὰ τὸ προῖκας διδόναι μεγάλας. καίτοι βέλτιον ἦν μηδεμίαν ἢ ὀλίγην ἢ καὶ μετρίαν τετάχθαι. νῦν δʼ ἔξεστι δοῦναί τε τὴν ἐπίκληρον ὅτῳ ἂν βούληται, κἂν ἀποθάνῃ μὴ διαθέμενος, ὃν ἂν καταλίπῃ κληρονόμον, οὗτος ᾧ ἂν θέλῃ δίδωσιν. τοιγαροῦν δυναμένης τῆς χώρας χιλίους ἱππεῖς τρέφειν καὶ πεντακοσίους, καὶ ὁπλίτας τρισμυρίους, οὐδὲ χίλιοι τὸ πλῆθος ἦσαν. γέγονε δὲ διὰ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν δῆλον ὅτι φαύλως αὐτοῖς εἶχε τὰ περὶ τὴν τάξιν ταύτην· μίαν γὰρ πληγὴν οὐχ ὑπήνεγκεν ἡ πόλις, ἀλλʼ ἀπώλετο διὰ τὴν ὀλιγανθρωπίαν. λέγουσι δʼ ὡς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν προτέρων βασιλέων μετεδίδοσαν τῆς πολιτείας, ὥστʼ οὐ γίνεσθαι τότε ὀλιγανθρωπίαν, πολεμούντων πολὺν χρόνον, καί φασιν εἶναί ποτε τοῖς Σπαρτιάταις καὶ μυρίους· οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ, εἴτʼ ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ ταῦτα εἴτε μή, βέλτιον τὸ διὰ τῆς κτήσεως ὡμαλισμένης πληθύειν ἀνδρῶν τὴν πόλιν. ὑπεναντίος δὲ καὶ ὁ περὶ τὴν τεκνοποιίαν νόμος πρὸς ταύτην τὴν διόρθωσιν. βουλόμενος γὰρ ὁ νομοθέτης ὡς πλείστους εἶναι τοὺς Σπαρτιάτας, προάγεται τοὺς πολίτας ὅτι πλείστους ποιεῖσθαι παῖδας· ἔστι γὰρ αὐτοῖς νόμος τὸν μὲν γεννήσαντα τρεῖς υἱοὺς ἄφρουρον εἶναι, τὸν δὲ τέτταρας ἀτελῆ πάντων. καίτοι φανερὸν ὅτι πολλῶν γινομένων, τῆς δὲ χώρας οὕτω διῃρημένης, ἀναγκαῖον πολλοὺς γίνεσθαι πένητας.

-

ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν ἐφορείαν ἔχει φαύλως. ἡ γὰρ ἀρχὴ κυρία μὲν αὐτὴ τῶν μεγίστων αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, γίνονται δʼ ἐκ τοῦ δήμου παντός, ὥστε πολλάκις ἐμπίπτουσιν ἄνθρωποι σφόδρα πένητες εἰς τὸ ἀρχεῖον, οἳ διὰ τὴν ἀπορίαν ὤνιοι ἦσαν. ἐδήλωσαν δὲ πολλάκις μὲν καὶ πρότερον, καὶ νῦν δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἀνδρίοις· διαφθαρέντες γὰρ ἀργυρίῳ τινές, ὅσον ἐφʼ ἑαυτοῖς, ὅλην τὴν πόλιν ἀπώλεσαν, καὶ διὰ τὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι λίαν μεγάλην καὶ ἰσοτύραννον δημαγωγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἠναγκάζοντο καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς, ὥστε καὶ ταύτῃ συνεπιβλάπτεσθαι τὴν πολιτείαν· δημοκρατία γὰρ ἐξ ἀριστοκρατίας συνέβαινεν. συνέχει μὲν οὖν τὴν πολιτείαν τὸ ἀρχεῖον τοῦτο—ἡσυχάζει γὰρ ὁ δῆμος διὰ τὸ μετέχειν τῆς μεγίστης ἀρχῆς, ὥστʼ εἴτε διὰ τὸν νομοθέτην εἴτε διὰ τύχην τοῦτο συμπέπτωκεν, συμφερόντως ἔχει τοῖς πράγμασιν· δεῖ γὰρ τὴν πολιτείαν τὴν μέλλουσαν σῴζεσθαι πάντα βούλεσθαι τὰ μέρη τῆς πόλεως εἶναι καὶ διαμένειν κατὰ ταὐτά· οἱ μὲν οὖν βασιλεῖς διὰ τὴν αὑτῶν τιμὴν οὕτως ἔχουσιν, οἱ δὲ καλοὶ κἀγαθοὶ διὰ τὴν γερουσίαν (ἆθλον γὰρ ἡ ἀρχὴ αὕτη τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐστιν), ὁ δὲ δῆμος διὰ τὴν ἐφορείαν (καθίσταται γὰρ ἐξ ἁπάντων)—ἀλλʼ αἱρετὴν ἔδει τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι ταύτην ἐξ ἁπάντων μέν, μὴ τὸν τρόπον δὲ τοῦτον ὃν νῦν (παιδαριώδης γάρ ἐστι λίαν). ἔτι δὲ καὶ κρίσεών εἰσι μεγάλων κύριοι, ὄντες οἱ τυχόντες, διόπερ οὐκ αὐτογνώμονας βέλτιον κρίνειν ἀλλὰ κατὰ γράμματα καὶ τοὺς νόμους. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ δίαιτα τῶν ἐφόρων οὐχ ὁμολογουμένη τῷ βουλήματι τῆς πόλεως· αὐτὴ μὲν γὰρ ἀνειμένη λίαν ἐστίν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις μᾶλλον ὑπερβάλλει ἐπὶ τὸ σκληρόν, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι καρτερεῖν ἀλλὰ λάθρᾳ τὸν νόμον ἀποδιδράσκοντας ἀπολαύειν τῶν σωματικῶν ἡδονῶν.

-

ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν τῶν γερόντων ἀρχὴν οὐ καλῶς αὐτοῖς. ἐπιεικῶν μὲν γὰρ ὄντων καὶ πεπαιδευμένων ἱκανῶς πρὸς ἀνδραγαθίαν τάχʼ ἂν εἴπειέ τις συμφέρειν τῇ πόλει, καίτοι τό γε διὰ βίου κυρίους εἶναι κρίσεων μεγάλων ἀμφισβητήσιμον (ἕστι γάρ, ὥσπερ καὶ σώματος, καὶ διανοίας γῆρας)· τὸν τρόπον δὲ τοῦτον πεπαιδευμένων ὥστε καὶ τὸν νομοθέτην αὐτὸν ἀπιστεῖν ὡς οὐκ ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν, οὐκ ἀσφαλές. φαίνονται δὲ καὶ καταδωροδοκούμενοι καὶ καταχαριζόμενοι πολλὰ τῶν κοινῶν οἱ κεκοινωνηκότες τῆς ἀρχῆς ταύτης. διόπερ βέλτιον αὐτοὺς μὴ ἀνευθύνους εἶναι· νῦν δʼ εἰσίν. δόξειε δʼ ἂν ἡ τῶν ἐφόρων ἀρχὴ πάσας εὐθύνειν τὰς ἀρχάς· τοῦτο δὲ τῇ ἐφορείᾳ μέγα λίαν τὸ δῶρον, καὶ τὸν τρόπον οὐ τοῦτον λέγομεν διδόναι δεῖν τὰς εὐθύνας. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν ἣν ποιοῦνται τῶν γερόντων κατά τε τὴν κρίσιν ἐστὶ παιδαριώδης, καὶ τὸ αὐτὸν αἰτεῖσθαι τὸν ἀξιωθησόμενον τῆς ἀρχῆς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἔχει· δεῖ γὰρ καὶ βουλόμενον καὶ μὴ βουλόμενον ἄρχειν τὸν ἄξιον τῆς ἀρχῆς. νῦν δʼ ὅπερ καὶ περὶ τὴν ἄλλην πολιτείαν ὁ νομοθέτης φαίνεται ποιῶν· φιλοτίμους γὰρ κατασκευάζων τοὺς πολίτας τούτῳ κέχρηται πρὸς τὴν αἵρεσιν τῶν γερόντων· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἂν ἄρχειν αἰτήσαιτο μὴ φιλότιμος ὤν. καίτοι τῶν γʼ ἀδικημάτων τῶν γʼ ἑκουσίων τὰ πλεῖστα συμβαίνει σχεδὸν διὰ φιλοτιμίαν καὶ διὰ φιλοχρηματίαν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.

-

περὶ δὲ βασιλείας, εἰ μὲν βέλτιόν ἐστιν ὑπάρχειν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἢ μὴ βέλτιον, ἄλλος ἔστω λόγος· ἀλλὰ μὴν βέλτιόν γε μὴ καθάπερ νῦν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν αὑτοῦ βίον ἕκαστον κρίνεσθαι τῶν βασιλέων. ὅτι δʼ ὁ νομοθέτης οὐδʼ αὐτὸς οἴεται δύνασθαι ποιεῖν καλοὺς κἀγαθούς, δῆλον· ἀπιστεῖ γοῦν ὡς οὐκ οὖσιν ἱκανῶς ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν· διόπερ ἐξέπεμπον συμπρεσβευτὰς τοὺς ἐχθρούς, καὶ σωτηρίαν ἐνόμιζον τῇ πόλει εἶναι τὸ στασιάζειν τοὺς βασιλεῖς. οὐ καλῶς δʼ οὐδὲ περὶ τὰ συσσίτια τὰ καλούμενα φιδίτια νενομοθέτηται τῷ καταστήσαντι πρῶτον. ἔδει γὰρ ἀπὸ κοινοῦ μᾶλλον εἶναι τὴν σύνοδον, καθάπερ ἐν Κρήτῃ· παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Λάκωσιν ἕκαστον δεῖ φέρειν, καὶ σφόδρα πενήτων ἐνίων ὄντων καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἀνάλωμα οὐ δυναμένων δαπανᾶν, ὥστε συμβαίνει τοὐναντίον τῷ νομοθέτῃ τῆς προαιρέσεως. βούλεται μὲν γὰρ δημοκρατικὸν εἶναι τὸ κατασκεύασμα τῶν συσσιτίων, γίνεται δʼ ἥκιστα δημοκρατικὸν οὕτω νενομοθετημένον. μετέχειν μὲν γὰρ οὐ ῥᾴδιον τοῖς λίαν πένησιν, ὅρος δὲ τῆς πολιτείας οὗτός ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ὁ πάτριος, τὸν μὴ δυνάμενον τοῦτο τὸ τέλος φέρειν μὴ μετέχειν αὐτῆς· τῷ δὲ περὶ τοὺς ναυάρχους νόμῳ καὶ ἕτεροί τινες ἐπιτετιμήκασιν, ὀρθῶς ἐπιτιμῶντες. στάσεως γὰρ γίνεται αἴτιος· ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, οὖσι στρατηγοῖς ἀιδίοις, ἡ ναυαρχία σχεδὸν ἑτέρα βασιλεία καθέστηκεν. καὶ ὡδὶ δὲ τῇ ὑποθέσει τοῦ νομοθέτου ἐπιτιμήσειεν ἄν τις, ὅπερ καὶ Πλάτων ἐν τοῖς Νόμοις ἐπιτετίμηκεν· πρὸς γὰρ μέρος ἀρετῆς ἡ πᾶσα σύνταξις τῶν νόμων ἐστί, τὴν πολεμικήν· αὕτη γὰρ χρησίμη πρὸς τὸ κρατεῖν. τοιγαροῦν ἐσῴζοντο μὲν πολεμοῦντες, ἀπώλλυντο δὲ ἄρξαντες διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπίστασθαι σχολάζειν μηδὲ ἠσκηκέναι μηδεμίαν ἄσκησιν ἑτέραν κυριωτέραν τῆς πολεμικῆς. τούτου δὲ ἁμάρτημα οὐκ ἔλαττον· νομίζουσι μὲν γὰρ γίνεσθαι τἀγαθὰ τὰ περιμάχητα διʼ ἀρετῆς μᾶλλον ἢ κακίας, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν καλῶς, ὅτι μέντοι ταῦτα κρείττω τῆς ἀρετῆς ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, οὐ καλῶς. φαύλως δʼ ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰ κοινὰ χρήματα τοῖς Σπαρτιάταις. οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τῷ κοινῷ τῆς πόλεως ἔστιν οὐδὲν πολέμους μεγάλους ἀναγκαζομένοις πολεμεῖν, εἰσφέρουσί τε κακῶς· διὰ γὰρ τὸ τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν εἶναι τὴν πλείστην γῆν οὐκ ἐξετάζουσιν ἀλλήλων τὰς εἰσφοράς. ἀποβέβηκέ τε τοὐναντίον τῷ νομοθέτῃ τοῦ συμφέροντος· τὴν μὲν γὰρ πόλιν πεποίηκεν ἀχρήματον, τοὺς δʼ ἰδιώτας φιλοχρημάτους. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείας ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον εἰρήσθω· ταῦτα γάρ ἐστιν ἃ μάλιστʼ ἄν τις ἐπιτιμήσειεν.

-

ἡ δὲ Κρητικὴ πολιτεία πάρεγγυς μέν ἐστι ταύτης, ἔχει δὲ μικρὰ μὲν οὐ χεῖρον, τὸ δὲ πλεῖον ἧττον γλαφυρῶς. καὶ γὰρ ἔοικε καὶ λέγεταί γε τὰ πλεῖστα μεμιμῆσθαι τὴν Κρητικὴν πολιτείαν ἡ τῶν Λακώνων· τὰ δὲ πλεῖστα τῶν ἀρχαίων ἧττον διήρθρωται τῶν νεωτέρων. φασὶ γὰρ τὸν Λυκοῦργον, ὅτε τὴν ἐπιτροπείαν τὴν Χαριλάου τοῦ βασιλέως καταλιπὼν ἀπεδήμησεν, τότε τὸν πλεῖστον διατρῖψαι χρόνον περὶ Κρήτην διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν· ἄποικοι γὰρ οἱ Λύκτιοι τῶν Λακώνων ἦσαν, κατέλαβον δʼ οἱ πρὸς τὴν ἀποικίαν ἐλθόντες τὴν τάξιν τῶν νόμων ὑπάρχουσαν ἐν τοῖς τότε κατοικοῦσιν. διὸ καὶ νῦν οἱ περίοικοι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον χρῶνται αὐτοῖς, ὡς κατασκευάσαντος Μίνω πρώτου τὴν τάξιν τῶν νόμων. δοκεῖ δʼ ἡ νῆσος καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν πεφυκέναι καὶ κεῖσθαι καλῶς· πάσῃ γὰρ ἐπίκειται τῇ θαλάττῃ, σχεδὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἱδρυμένων περὶ τὴν θάλατταν πάντων· ἀπέχει γὰρ τῇ μὲν τῆς Πελοποννήσου μικρόν, τῇ δὲ τῆς Ἀσίας τοῦ περὶ Τριόπιον τόπου καὶ Ῥόδου. διὸ καὶ τὴν τῆς θαλάττης ἀρχὴν κατέσχεν ὁ Μίνως, καὶ τὰς νήσους τὰς μὲν ἐχειρώσατο τὰς δʼ ᾤκισεν, τέλος δὲ ἐπιθέμενος τῇ Σικελίᾳ τὸν βίον ἐτελεύτησεν ἐκεῖ περὶ Καμικόν.

-

ἔχει δʼ ἀνάλογον ἡ Κρητικὴ τάξις πρὸς τὴν Λακωνικήν. γεωργοῦσί τε γὰρ τοῖς μὲν οἱ εἵλωτες τοῖς δὲ Κρησὶν οἱ περίοικοι,καὶ συσσίτια παρʼ ἀμφοτέροις ἔστιν, καὶ τό γε ἀρχαῖον ἐκάλουν οἱ Λάκωνες οὐ φιδίτια ἀλλὰ ἀνδρεῖα, καθάπερ οἱ Κρῆτες, ᾗ καὶ δῆλον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἐλήλυθεν. ἔτι δὲ τῆς πολιτείας ἡ τάξις. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἔφοροι τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσι δύναμιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ Κρήτῃ καλουμένοις κόσμοις, πλὴν οἱ μὲν ἔφοροι πέντε τὸν ἀριθμὸν οἱ δὲ κόσμοι δέκα εἰσίν· οἱ δὲ γέροντες τοῖς γέρουσιν, οὓς καλοῦσιν οἱ Κρῆτες βουλήν, ἴσοι· βασιλεία δὲ πρότερον μὲν ἦν, εἶτα κατέλυσαν οἱ Κρῆτες, καὶ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν οἱ κόσμοι τὴν κατὰ πόλεμον ἔχουσιν· ἐκκλησίας δὲ μετέχουσι πάντες, κυρία δʼ οὐδενός ἐστιν ἀλλʼ ἢ συνεπιψηφίσαι τὰ δόξαντα τοῖς γέρουσι καὶ τοῖς κόσμοις.

-

τὰ μὲν οὖν τῶν συσσιτίων ἔχει βέλτιον τοῖς Κρησὶν ἢ τοῖς Λάκωσιν. ἐν μὲν γὰρ Λακεδαίμονι κατὰ κεφαλὴν ἕκαστος εἰσφέρει τὸ τεταγμένον, εἰ δὲ μή, μετέχειν νόμος κωλύει τῆς πολιτείας, καθάπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον, ἐν δὲ Κρήτῃ κοινοτέρως· ἀπὸ πάντων γὰρ τῶν γινομένων καρπῶν τε καὶ βοσκημάτων δημοσίων, καὶ ἐκ τῶν φόρων οὓς φέρουσιν οἱ περίοικοι, τέτακται μέρος τὸ μὲν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ τὰς κοινὰς λειτουργίας, τὸ δὲ τοῖς συσσιτίοις, ὥστʼ ἐκ κοινοῦ τρέφεσθαι πάντας, καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας καὶ ἄνδρας· πρὸς δὲ τὴν ὀλιγοσιτίαν ὡς ὠφέλιμον πολλὰ πεφιλοσόφηκεν ὁ νομοθέτης, καὶ πρὸς τὴν διάζευξιν τῶν γυναικῶν, ἵνα μὴ πολυτεκνῶσι, τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἄρρενας ποιήσας ὁμιλίαν, περὶ ἧς εἰ φαύλως ἢ μὴ φαύλως, ἕτερος ἔσται τοῦ διασκέψασθαι καιρός. ὅτι δὴ τὰ περὶ τὰ συσσίτια βέλτιον τέτακται τοῖς Κρησὶν ἢ τοῖς Λάκωσι, φανερόν· τὰ δὲ περὶ τοὺς κόσμους ἔτι χεῖρον τῶν ἐφόρων. ὃ μὲν γὰρ ἔχει κακὸν τὸ τῶν ἐφόρων ἀρχεῖον, ὑπάρχει καὶ τούτοις (γίνονται γὰρ οἱ τυχόντες), ὃ δʼ ἐκεῖ συμφέρει πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν, ἐνταῦθʼ οὐκ ἔστιν. ἐκεῖ μὲν γάρ, διὰ τὸ τὴν αἵρεσιν ἐκ πάντων εἶναι, μετέχων ὁ δῆμος τῆς μεγίστης ἀρχῆς βούλεται μένειν τὴν πολιτείαν· ἐνταῦθα δʼ οὐκ ἐξ ἁπάντων αἱροῦνται τοὺς κόσμους ἀλλʼ ἐκ τινῶν γενῶν, καὶ τοὺς γέροντας ἐκ τῶν κεκοσμηκότων, περὶ ὧν τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄν τις εἴπειε λόγους καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι γινομένων· τὸ γὰρ ἀνυπεύθυνον καὶ τὸ διὰ βίου μεῖζόν ἐστι γέρας τῆς ἀξίας αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὸ μὴ κατὰ γράμματα ἄρχειν ἀλλʼ αὐτογνώμονας ἐπισφαλές. τὸ δʼ ἡσυχάζειν μὴ μετέχοντα τὸν δῆμον οὐδὲν σημεῖον τοῦ τετάχθαι καλῶς. οὐδὲν γὰρ λήμματος ἔστι τοῖς κόσμοις ὥσπερ τοῖς ἐφόροις, πόρρω γʼ ἀποικοῦσιν ἐν νήσῳ τῶν διαφθερούντων.

-

ἣν δὲ ποιοῦνται τῆς ἁμαρτίας ταύτης ἰατρείαν, ἄτοπος καὶ οὐ πολιτικὴ ἀλλὰ δυναστευτική. πολλάκις γὰρ ἐκβάλλουσι συστάντες τινὲς τοὺς κόσμους ἢ τῶν συναρχόντων αὐτῶν ἢ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν· ἔξεστι δὲ καὶ μεταξὺ τοῖς κόσμοις ἀπειπεῖν τὴν ἀρχήν. ταῦτα δὴ πάντα βέλτιον γίνεσθαι κατὰ νόμον ἢ κατʼ ἀνθρώπων βούλησιν· οὐ γὰρ ἀσφαλὴς ὁ κανών. πάντων δὲ φαυλότατον τὸ τῆς ἀκοσμίας τῶν δυνατῶν, ἣν καθιστᾶσι πολλάκις οἳ ἂν μὴ δίκας βούλωνται δοῦναι τῶν δυνατῶν· ᾗ καὶ δῆλον ὡς ἔχει τι πολιτείας ἡ τάξις, ἀλλʼ οὐ πολιτεία ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ δυναστεία μᾶλλον. εἰώθασι δὲ διαλαμβάνοντες τὸν δῆμον καὶ τοὺς φίλους ἀναρχίαν ποιεῖν καὶ στασιάζειν καὶ μάχεσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους· καίτοι τί διαφέρει τὸ τοιοῦτον ἢ διά τινος χρόνου μηκέτι πόλιν εἶναι τὴν τοιαύτην, ἀλλὰ λύεσθαι τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν; ἔστι δʼ ἐπικίνδυνος οὕτως ἔχουσα πόλις, τῶν βουλομένων ἐπιτίθεσθαι καὶ δυναμένων. ἀλλά, καθάπερ εἴρηται, σῴζεται διὰ τὸν τόπον· ξενηλασίας γὰρ τὸ πόρρω πεποίηκεν. διὸ καὶ τὸ τῶν περιοίκων μένει τοῖς Κρησίν, οἱ δʼ εἵλωτες ἀφίστανται πολλάκις. οὔτε γὰρ ἐξωτερικῆς ἀρχῆς κοινωνοῦσιν οἱ Κρῆτες, νεωστί τε πόλεμος ξενικὸς διαβέβηκεν εἰς τὴν νῆσον, ὃς πεποίηκε φανερὰν τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῶν ἐκεῖ νόμων. περὶ μὲν οὖν ταύτης εἰρήσθω τοσαῦθʼ ἡμῖν τῆς πολιτείας.

-

πολιτεύεσθαι δὲ δοκοῦσι καὶ Καρχηδόνιοι καλῶς καὶ πολλὰ περιττῶς πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους, μάλιστα δʼ ἔνια παραπλησίως τοῖς Λάκωσιν. αὗται γὰρ αἱ τρεῖς πολιτεῖαι ἀλλήλαις τε σύνεγγύς πώς εἰσι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολὺ διαφέρουσιν, ἥ τε Κρητικὴ καὶ ἡ Λακωνικὴ καὶ τρίτη τούτων ἡ τῶν Καρχηδονίων. καὶ πολλὰ τῶν τεταγμένων ἔχει παρʼ αὐτοῖς καλῶς· σημεῖον δὲ πολιτείας συντεταγμένης τὸ τὸν δῆμον ἑκουσίον διαμένειν ἐν τῇ τάξει τῆς πολιτείας, καὶ μήτε στάσιν, ὅ τι καὶ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν, γεγενῆσθαι μήτε τύραννον. ἔχει δὲ παραπλήσια τῇ Λακωνικῇ πολιτείᾳ τὰ μὲν συσσίτια τῶν ἑταιριῶν τοῖς φιδιτίοις, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἑκατὸν καὶ τεττάρων ἀρχὴν τοῖς ἐφόροις (πλὴν ὃ οὐ χεῖρον· οἱ μὲν ἐκ τῶν τυχόντων εἰσί, ταύτην δʼ αἱροῦνται τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀριστίνδην), τοὺς δὲ βασιλεῖς καὶ τὴν γερουσίαν ἀνάλογον τοῖς ἐκεῖ βασιλεῦσι καὶ γέρουσιν· καὶ βέλτιον δὲ τοὺς βασιλεῖς μήτε καθʼ αὑτὸ εἶναι γένος μήτε τοῦτο τὸ τυχόν, εἰ δέ τι διαφέρει, ἐκ τούτων αἱρετοὺς μᾶλλον ἢ καθʼ ἡλικίαν. μεγάλων γὰρ κύριοι καθεστῶτες, ἂν εὐτελεῖς ὦσι μεγάλα βλάπτουσι, καὶ ἔβλαψαν ἤδη τὴν πόλιν τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων.

-

τὰ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστα τῶν ἐπιτιμηθέντων ἂν διὰ τὰς παρεκβάσεις κοινὰ τυγχάνει πάσαις ὄντα ταῖς εἰρημέναις πολιτείαις· τῶν δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τῆς ἀριστοκρατίας καὶ τῆς πολιτείας τὰ μὲν εἰς δῆμον ἐκκλίνει μᾶλλον, τὰ δʼ εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν. τοῦ μὲν γὰρ τὰ μὲν προσάγειν τὰ δὲ μὴ προσάγειν πρὸς τὸν δῆμον οἱ βασιλεῖς κύριοι μετὰ τῶν γερόντων, ἂν ὁμογνωμονῶσι πάντες, εἰ δὲ μή, καὶ τούτων ὁ δῆμος. ἃ δʼ ἂν εἰσφέρωσιν οὗτοι, οὐ διακοῦσαι μόνον ἀποδιδόασι τῷ δήμῳ τὰ δόξαντα τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, ἀλλὰ κύριοι κρίνειν εἰσὶ καὶ τῷ βουλομένῳ τοῖς εἰσφερομένοις ἀντειπεῖν ἔξεστιν, ὅπερ ἐν ταῖς ἑτέραις πολιτείαις οὐκ ἔστιν. τὸ δὲ τὰς πενταρχίας κυρίας οὔσας πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων ὑφʼ αὑτῶν αἱρετὰς εἶναι, καὶ τὴν τῶν ἑκατὸν ταύτας αἱρεῖσθαι, τὴν μεγίστην ἀρχήν, ἔτι δὲ ταύτας πλείονα ἄρχειν χρόνον τῶν ἄλλων (καὶ γὰρ ἐξεληλυθότες ἄρχουσι καὶ μέλλοντες) ὀλιγαρχικόν, τὸ δὲ ἀμίσθους καὶ μὴ κληρωτὰς ἀριστοκρατικὸν θετέον, καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον, καὶ τὸ τὰς δίκας ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχείων δικάζεσθαι πάσας (καὶ μὴ ἄλλας ὑπʼ ἄλλων, καθάπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι). παρεκβαίνει δὲ τῆς ἀριστοκρατίας ἡ τάξις τῶν Καρχηδονίων μάλιστα πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν κατά τινα διάνοιαν ἣ συνδοκεῖ τοῖς πολλοῖς· οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἀριστίνδην ἀλλὰ καὶ πλουτίνδην οἴονται δεῖν αἱρεῖσθαι τοὺς ἄρχοντας· ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὸν ἀποροῦντα καλῶς ἄρχειν καὶ σχολάζειν. εἴπερ οὖν τὸ μὲν αἱρεῖσθαι πλουτίνδην ὀλιγαρχικὸν τὸ δὲ κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀριστοκρατικόν, αὕτη τις ἂν εἴη τάξις τρίτη, καθʼ ἥνπερ συντέτακται καὶ τοῖς Καρχηδονίοις τὰ περὶ τὴν πολιτείαν· αἱροῦνται γὰρ εἰς δύο ταῦτα βλέποντες, καὶ μάλιστα τὰς μεγίστας, τούς τε βασιλεῖς καὶ τοὺς στρατηγούς.

-

δεῖ δὲ νομίζειν ἁμάρτημα νομοθέτου τὴν παρέκβασιν εἶναι τῆς ἀριστοκρατίας ταύτην. ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ τοῦθʼ ὁρᾶν ἐστι τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων, ὅπως οἱ βέλτιστοι δύνωνται σχολάζειν καὶ μηδὲν ἀσχημονεῖν, μὴ μόνον ἄρχοντες ἀλλὰ μηδʼ ἰδιωτεύοντες. εἰ δὲ δεῖ βλέπειν καὶ πρὸς εὐπορίαν χάριν σχολῆς, φαῦλον τὸ τὰς μεγίστας ὠνητὰς εἶναι τῶν ἀρχῶν, τήν τε βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν στρατηγίαν. ἔντιμον γὰρ ὁ νόμος οὗτος ποιεῖ τὸν πλοῦτον μᾶλλον τῆς ἀρετῆς, καὶ τὴν πόλιν ὅλην φιλοχρήματον. ὅ τι δʼ ἂν ὑπολάβῃ τίμιον εἶναι τὸ κύριον, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν τῶν ἄλλων πολιτῶν δόξαν ἀκολουθεῖν τούτοις. ὅπου δὲ μὴ μάλιστα ἀρετὴ τιμᾶται, ταύτην οὐχ οἷόν τε βεβαίως ἀριστοκρατεῖσθαι τὴν πολιτείαν. ἐθίζεσθαι δʼ εὔλογον κερδαίνειν τοὺς ὠνουμένους, ὅταν δαπανήσαντες ἄρχωσιν· ἄτοπον γὰρ εἰ πένης μὲν ὢν ἐπιεικὴς δὲ βουλήσεται κερδαίνειν, φαυλότερος δʼ ὢν οὐ βουλήσεται δαπανήσας. διὸ δεῖ τοὺς δυναμένους ἄριστʼ ἀρχεῖν, τούτους ἄρχειν. βέλτιον δʼ, εἰ καὶ προεῖτο τὴν εὐπορίαν τῶν ἐπιεικῶν ὁ νομοθέτης, ἀλλὰ ἀρχόντων γε ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς σχολῆς. φαῦλον δʼ ἂν δόξειεν εἶναι καὶ τὸ πλείους ἀρχὰς τὸν αὐτὸν ἄρχειν· ὅπερ εὐδοκιμεῖ παρὰ τοῖς Καρχηδονίοις· ἓν γὰρ ὑφʼ ἑνὸς ἔργον ἄριστʼ ἀποτελεῖται. δεῖ δʼ ὅπως γίνηται τοῦθʼ ὁρᾶν τὸν νομοθέτην, καὶ μὴ προστάττειν τὸν αὐτὸν αὐλεῖν καὶ σκυτοτομεῖν. ὥσθʼ ὅπου μὴ μικρὰ ἡ πόλις, πολιτικώτερον πλείονας μετέχειν τῶν ἀρχῶν, καὶ δημοτικώτερον· κοινότερόν τε γὰρ καθάπερ εἴπομεν καὶ κάλλιον ἕκαστον ἀποτελεῖται τῶν αὐτῶν καὶ θᾶττον. δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῶν πολεμικῶν καὶ τῶν ναυτικῶν· ἐν τούτοις γὰρ ἀμφοτέροις διὰ πάντων ὡς εἰπεῖν διελήλυθε τὸ ἄρχειν καὶ τὸ ἄρχεσθαι. ὀλιγαρχικῆς δʼ οὔσης τῆς πολιτείας ἄριστα ἐκφεύγουσι τῷ πλουτεῖν αἰεί τι τοῦ δήμου μέρος, ἐκπέμποντες ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις. τούτῳ γὰρ ἰῶνται καὶ ποιοῦσι μόνιμον τὴν πολιτείαν. ἀλλὰ τουτί ἐστι τύχης ἔργον, δεῖ δὲ ἀστασιάστους εἶναι διὰ τὸν νομοθέτην. νῦν δέ, ἂν ἀτυχία γένηταί τις καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ἀποστῇ τῶν ἀρχομένων, οὐδὲν ἔστι φάρμακον διὰ τῶν νόμων τῆς ἡσυχίας. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείας καὶ Κρητικῆς καὶ τῆς Καρχηδονίων, αἵπερ δικαίως εὐδοκιμοῦσι, τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον.

-

τῶν δὲ ἀποφηναμένων τι περὶ πολιτείας ἔνιοι μὲν οὐκ ἐκοινώνησαν πράξεων πολιτικῶν οὐδʼ ὡντινωνοῦν, ἀλλὰ διετέλεσαν ἰδιωτεύοντες τὸν βίον, περὶ ὧν εἴ τι ἀξιόλογον, εἴρηται σχεδὸν περὶ πάντων, ἔνιοι δὲ νομοθέται γεγόνασιν, οἱ μὲν ταῖς οἰκείαις πόλεσιν οἱ δὲ καὶ τῶν ὀθνείων τισί, πολιτευθέντες αὐτοί· καὶ τούτων οἱ μὲν νόμων ἐγένοντο δημιουργοὶ μόνον, οἱ δὲ καὶ πολιτείας, οἷον καὶ Λυκοῦργος καὶ Σόλων· οὗτοι γὰρ καὶ νόμους καὶ πολιτείας κατέστησαν. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων εἴρηται, Σόλωνα δʼ ἔνιοι μὲν οἴονται νομοθέτην γενέσθαι σπουδαῖον· ὀλιγαρχίαν τε γὰρ καταλῦσαι λίαν ἄκρατον οὖσαν, καὶ δουλεύοντα τὸν δῆμον παῦσαι, καὶ δημοκρατίαν καταστῆσαι τὴν πάτριον, μείξαντα καλῶς τὴν πολιτείαν· εἶναι γὰρ τὴν μὲν ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ βουλὴν ὀλιγαρχικόν, τὸ δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς αἱρετὰς ἀριστοκρατικόν, τὰ δὲ δικαστήρια δημοτικόν. ἔοικε δὲ Σόλων ἐκεῖνα μὲν ὑπάρχοντα πρότερον οὐ καταλῦσαι, τήν τε βουλὴν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀρχῶν αἵρεσιν, τὸν δὲ δῆμον καταστῆσαι, τὰ δικαστήρια ποιήσας ἐκ πάντων. διὸ καὶ μέμφονταί τινες αὐτῷ· λῦσαι γὰρ θάτερα, κύριον ποιήσαντα τὸ δικαστήριον πάντων, κληρωτὸν ὄν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ τοῦτʼ ἴσχυσεν, ὥσπερ τυράννῳ τῷ δήμῳ χαριζόμενοι τὴν πολιτείαν εἰς τὴν νῦν δημοκρατίαν μετέστησαν· καὶ τὴν μὲν ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ βουλὴν Ἐφιάλτης ἐκόλουσε καὶ Περικλῆς, τὰ δὲ δικαστήρια μισθοφόρα κατέστησε Περικλῆς, καὶ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν τρόπον ἕκαστος τῶν δημαγωγῶν προήγαγεν αὔξων εἰς τὴν νῦν δημοκρατίαν. φαίνεται δʼ οὐ κατὰ τὴν Σόλωνος γενέσθαι τοῦτο προαίρεσιν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀπὸ συμπτώματος (τῆς ναυαρχίας γὰρ ἐν τοῖς Μηδικοῖς ὁ δῆμος αἴτιος γενόμενος ἐφρονηματίσθη καὶ δημαγωγοὺς ἔλαβε φαύλους ἀντιπολιτευομένων τῶν ἐπιεικῶν), ἐπεὶ Σόλων γε ἔοικε τὴν ἀναγκαιοτάτην ἀποδιδόναι τῷ δήμῳ δύναμιν, τὸ τὰς ἀρχὰς αἱρεῖσθαι καὶ εὐθύνειν (μηδὲ γὰρ τούτου κύριος ὢν ὁ δῆμος δοῦλος ἂν εἴη καὶ πολέμιος), τὰς δʼ ἀρχὰς ἐκ τῶν γνωρίμων καὶ τῶν εὐπόρων κατέστησε πάσας, ἐκ τῶν πεντακοσιομεδίμνων καὶ ζευγιτῶν καὶ τρίτου τέλους τῆς καλουμένης ἱππάδος· τὸ δὲ τέταρτον τὸ θητικόν, οἷς οὐδεμιᾶς ἀρχῆς μετῆν.

-

νομοθέται δʼ ἐγένοντο Ζάλευκός τε Λοκροῖς τοῖς ἐπιζεφυρίοις, καὶ Χαρώνδας ὁ Καταναῖος τοῖς αὑτοῦ πολίταις καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ταῖς Χαλκιδικαῖς πόλεσι ταῖς περὶ Ἰταλίαν καὶ Σικελίαν. πειρῶνται δέ τινες καὶ συνάγειν ὡς Ὀνομακρίτου μὲν γενομένου πρώτου δεινοῦ περὶ νομοθεσίαν, γυμνασθῆναι δʼ αὐτὸν ἐν Κρήτῃ, Λοκρὸν ὄντα καὶ ἐπιδημοῦντα, κατὰ τέχνην μαντικήν· τούτου δὲ γενέσθαι Θάλητα ἑταῖρον, Θάλητος δʼ ἀκροατὴν Λυκοῦργον καὶ Ζάλευκον, Ζαλεύκου δὲ Χαρώνδαν. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν λέγουσιν ἀσκεπτότερον τῶν χρόνων ἔχοντες. ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ Φιλόλαος ὁ Κορίνθιος νομοθέτης Θηβαίοις. ἦν δʼ ὁ Φιλόλαος τὸ μὲν γένος τῶν Βακχιαδῶν, ἐραστὴς δὲ γενόμενος Διοκλέους τοῦ νικήσαντος Ὀλυμπίασιν, ὡς ἐκεῖνος τὴν πόλιν ἔλιπε διαμισήσας τὸν ἔρωτα τὸν τῆς μητρὸς Ἀλκυόνης, ἀπῆλθεν εἰς Θήβας· κἀκεῖ τὸν βίον ἐτελεύτησαν ἀμφότεροι. καὶ νῦν ἔτι δεικνύουσι τοὺς τάφους αὐτῶν ἀλλήλοις μὲν εὐσυνόπτους ὄντας, πρὸς δὲ τὴν τῶν Κορινθίων χώραν τὸν μὲν σύνοπτον τὸν δʼ οὐ σύνοπτον· μυθολογοῦσι γὰρ αὐτοὺς οὕτω τάξασθαι τὴν ταφήν, τὸν μὲν Διοκλέα διὰ τὴν ἀπέχθειαν τοῦ πάθους, ὅπως μὴ ἄποπτος ἔσται ἡ Κορινθία ἀπὸ τοῦ χώματος, τὸν δὲ Φιλόλαον ὅπως ἄποπτος. ᾤκησαν μὲν οὖν διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν παρὰ τοῖς Θηβαίοις, νομοθέτης δʼ αὐτοῖς ἐγένετο Φιλόλαος περί τʼ ἄλλων τινῶν καὶ περὶ τῆς παιδοποιίας, οὓς καλοῦσιν ἐκεῖνοι νόμους θετικούς· καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἰδίως ὑπʼ ἐκείνου νενομοθετημένον, ὅπως ὁ ἀριθμὸς σῴζηται τῶν κλήρων. Χαρώνδου δʼ ἴδιον μὲν οὐδέν ἐστι πλὴν αἱ δίκαι τῶν ψευδομαρτυριῶν (πρῶτος γὰρ ἐποίησε τὴν ἐπίσκηψιν), τῇ δʼ ἀκριβείᾳ τῶν νόμων ἐστὶ γλαφυρώτερος καὶ τῶν νῦν νομοθετῶν.

-

Φαλέου δʼ ἴδιον ἡ τῶν οὐσιῶν ἀνομάλωσις, Πλάτωνος δʼ ἥ τε τῶν γυναικῶν καὶ παίδων καὶ τῆς οὐσίας κοινότης καὶ τὰ συσσίτια τῶν γυναικῶν, ἔτι δʼ ὁ περὶ τὴν μέθην νόμος, τὸ τοὺς νήφοντας συμποσιαρχεῖν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς ἄσκησιν ὅπως ἀμφιδέξιοι γίνωνται κατὰ τὴν μελέτην, ὡς δέον μὴ τὴν μὲν χρήσιμον εἶναι τοῖν χεροῖν τὴν δὲ ἄχρηστον. Δράκοντος δὲ νόμοι μὲν εἰσί, πολιτείᾳ δʼ ὑπαρχούσῃ τοὺς νόμους ἔθηκεν· ἴδιον δʼ ἐν τοῖς νόμοις οὐδὲν ἔστιν ὅ τι καὶ μνείας ἄξιον, πλὴν ἡ χαλεπότης διὰ τὸ τῆς ζημίας μέγεθος. ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ Πιττακὸς νόμων δημιουργὸς ἀλλʼ οὐ πολιτείας· νόμος δʼ ἴδιος αὐτοῦ τὸ τοὺς μεθύοντας, ἄν τι πταίσωσι, πλείω ζημίαν ἀποτίνειν τῶν νηφόντων· διὰ γὰρ τὸ πλείους ὑβρίζειν μεθύοντας ἢ νήφοντας οὐ πρὸς τὴν συγγνώμην ἀπέβλεψεν, ὅτι δεῖ μεθύουσιν ἔχειν μᾶλλον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον. ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ Ἀνδροδάμας Ῥηγῖνος νομοθέτης Χαλκιδεῦσι τοῖς ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης, οὗ τὰ περί τε τὰ φονικὰ καὶ τὰς ἐπικλήρους ἐστίν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ ἴδιόν γε οὐδὲν αὐτοῦ λέγειν ἔχοι τις ἄν. τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὰς πολιτείας, τάς τε κυρίας καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ τινῶν εἰρημένας, ἔστω τεθεωρημένα τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

- -
-

τῷ περὶ πολιτείας ἐπισκοποῦντι, καὶ τίς ἑκάστη καὶ ποία τις, σχεδὸν πρώτη σκέψις περὶ πόλεως ἰδεῖν, τί ποτέ ἐστιν ἡ πόλις. νῦν γὰρ ἀμφισβητοῦσιν, οἱ μὲν φάσκοντες τὴν πόλιν πεπραχέναι τὴν πρᾶξιν, οἱ δʼ οὐ τὴν πόλιν ἀλλὰ τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἢ τὸν τύραννον· τοῦ δὲ πολιτικοῦ καὶ τοῦ νομοθέτου πᾶσαν ὁρῶμεν τὴν πραγματείαν οὖσαν περὶ πόλιν, ἡ δὲ πολιτεία τῶν τὴν πόλιν οἰκούντων ἐστὶ τάξις τις. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἡ πόλις τῶν συγκειμένων, καθάπερ ἄλλο τι τῶν ὅλων μὲν συνεστώτων δʼ ἐκ πολλῶν μορίων, δῆλον ὅτι πρότερον ὁ πολίτης ζητητέος· ἡ γὰρ πόλις πολιτῶν τι πλῆθός ἐστιν. ὥστε τίνα χρὴ καλεῖν πολίτην καὶ τίς ὁ πολίτης ἐστὶ σκεπτέον. καὶ γὰρ ὁ πολίτης ἀμφισβητεῖται πολλάκις· οὐ γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογοῦσι πάντες εἶναι πολίτην· ἔστι γάρ ὅστις ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ πολίτης ὢν ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ πολλάκις οὐκ ἔστι πολίτης. τοὺς μὲν οὖν ἄλλως πως τυγχάνοντας ταύτης τῆς προσηγορίας, οἷον τοὺς ποιητοὺς πολίτας, ἀφετέον· ὁ δὲ πολίτης οὐ τῷ οἰκεῖν που πολίτης ἐστίν (καὶ γὰρ μέτοικοι καὶ δοῦλοι κοινωνοῦσι τῆς οἰκήσεως), οὐδʼ οἱ τῶν δικαίων μετέχοντες οὕτως ὥστε καὶ δίκην ὑπέχειν καὶ δικάζεσθαι (τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπάρχει καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ συμβόλων κοινωνοῦσιν καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα τούτοις ὑπάρχει· πολλαχοῦ μὲν οὖν οὐδὲ τούτων τελέως οἱ μέτοικοι μετέχουσιν, ἀλλὰ νέμειν ἀνάγκη προστάτην, ὥστε ἀτελῶς πως μετέχουσι τῆς τοιαύτης κοινωνίας), ἀλλὰ καθάπερ καὶ παῖδας τοὺς μήπω διʼ ἡλικίαν ἐγγεγραμμένους καὶ τοὺς γέροντας τοὺς ἀφειμένους φατέον εἶναι μέν πως πολίτας, οὐχ ἁπλῶς δὲ λίαν ἀλλὰ προστιθέντας τοὺς μὲν ἀτελεῖς τοὺς δὲ παρηκμακότας ἤ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον (οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει· δῆλον γὰρ τὸ λεγόμενον). ζητοῦμεν γὰρ τὸν ἁπλῶς πολίτην καὶ μηδὲν ἔχοντα τοιοῦτον ἔγκλημα διορθώσεως δεόμενον, ἐπεὶ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀτίμων καὶ φυγάδων ἔστι τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ διαπορεῖν καὶ λύειν. πολίτης δʼ ἁπλῶς οὐδενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁρίζεται μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ μετέχειν κρίσεως καὶ ἀρχῆς. τῶν δʼ ἀρχῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι διῃρημέναι κατὰ χρόνον, ὥστʼ ἐνίας μὲν ὅλως δὶς τὸν αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἄρχειν, ἢ διὰ τινῶν ὡρισμένων χρόνων· ὁ δʼ ἀόριστος, οἷον ὁ δικαστὴς καὶ ὁ ἐκκλησιαστής. τάχα μὲν οὖν ἂν φαίη τις οὐδʼ ἄρχοντας εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους, οὐδὲ μετέχειν διὰ ταῦτʼ ἀρχῆς· καίτοι γελοῖον τοὺς κυριωτάτους ἀποστερεῖν ἀρχῆς. ἀλλὰ διαφερέτω μηδέν· περὶ ὀνόματος γὰρ ὁ λόγος· ἀνώνυμον γὰρ τὸ κοινὸν ἐπὶ δικαστοῦ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστοῦ, τί δεῖ ταῦτʼ ἄμφω καλεῖν. ἔστω δὴ διορισμοῦ χάριν ἀόριστος ἀρχή. τίθεμεν δὴ πολίτας τοὺς οὕτω μετέχοντας.

-

ὁ μὲν οὖν μάλιστʼ ἂν ἐφαρμόσας πολίτης ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς λεγομένους πολίτας σχεδὸν τοιοῦτός ἐστιν· δεῖ δὲ μὴ λανθάνειν ὅτι τῶν πραγμάτων ἐν οἷς τὰ ὑποκείμενα διαφέρει τῷ εἴδει, καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτῶν ἐστι πρῶτον τὸ δὲ δεύτερον τὸ δʼ ἐχόμενον, ἢ τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲν ἔνεστιν, ᾗ τοιαῦτα, τὸ κοινόν, ἢ γλίσχρως. τὰς δὲ πολιτείας ὁρῶμεν εἴδει διαφερούσας ἀλλήλων, καὶ τὰς μὲν ὑστέρας τὰς δὲ προτέρας οὔσας· τὰς γὰρ ἡμαρτημένας καὶ παρεκβεβηκυίας ἀναγκαῖον ὑστέρας εἶναι τῶν ἀναμαρτήτων (τὰς δὲ παρεκβεβηκυίας πῶς λέγομεν, ὕστερον ἔσται φανερόν). ὥστε καὶ τὸν πολίτην ἕτερον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸν καθʼ ἑκάστην πολιτείαν. διόπερ ὁ λεχθεὶς ἐν μὲν δημοκρατίᾳ μάλιστʼ ἐστὶ πολίτης, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐνδέχεται μέν, οὐ μὴν ἀναγκαῖον. ἐν ἐνίαις γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι δῆμος, οὐδʼ ἐκκλησίαν νομίζουσιν ἀλλὰ συγκλήτους, καὶ τὰς δίκας δικάζουσι κατὰ μέρος, οἷον ἐν Λακεδαίμονι τὰς τῶν συμβολαίων δικάζει τῶν ἐφόρων ἄλλος ἄλλας, οἱ δὲ γέροντες τὰς φονικάς, ἑτέρα δʼ ἴσως ἀρχή τις ἑτέρας. οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ Καρχηδόνα· πάσας γὰρ ἀρχαί τινες κρίνουσι τὰς δίκας. ἀλλʼ ἔχει διόρθωσιν ὁ τοῦ πολίτου διορισμός. ἐν γὰρ ταῖς ἄλλαις πολιτείαις οὐχ ὁ ἀόριστος ἄρχων ἐκκλησιαστής ἐστι καὶ δικαστής, ἀλλὰ ὁ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὡρισμένος· τούτων γὰρ ἢ πᾶσιν ἢ τισὶν ἀποδέδοται τὸ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ δικάζειν ἢ περὶ πάντων ἢ περὶ τινῶν. τίς μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ὁ πολίτης, ἐκ τούτων φανερόν· ᾧ γὰρ ἐξουσία κοινωνεῖν ἀρχῆς βουλευτικῆς ἢ κριτικῆς, πολίτην ἤδη λέγομεν εἶναι ταύτης τῆς πόλεως, πόλιν δὲ τὸ τῶν τοιούτων πλῆθος ἱκανὸν πρὸς αὐτάρκειαν ζωῆς, ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν.

-

ὁρίζονται δὲ πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν πολίτην τὸν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων πολιτῶν καὶ μὴ θατέρου μόνον, οἷον πατρὸς ἢ μητρός, οἱ δὲ καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐπὶ πλέον ζητοῦσιν, οἷον ἐπὶ πάππους δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἢ πλείους. οὕτω δὲ ὁριζομένων πολιτικῶς καὶ ταχέως, ἀποροῦσί τινες τὸν τρίτον ἐκεῖνον ἢ τέταρτον, πῶς ἔσται πολίτης. Γοργίας μὲν οὖν ὁ Λεοντῖνος, τὰ μὲν ἴσως ἀπορῶν τὰ δʼ εἰρωνευόμενος, ἔφη, καθάπερ ὅλμους εἶναι τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν ὁλμοποιῶν πεποιημένους, οὕτω καὶ Λαρισαίους τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν δημιουργῶν πεποιημένους· εἶναι γάρ τινας λαρισοποιούς. ἔστι δʼ ἁπλοῦν. εἰ γὰρ μετεῖχον κατὰ τὸν ῥηθέντα διορισμὸν τῆς πολιτείας, ἦσαν πολῖται· καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ δυνατὸν ἐφαρμόττειν τὸ ἐκ πολίτου ἢ ἐκ πολίτιδος ἐπὶ τῶν πρώτων οἰκησάντων ἢ κτισάντων.

-

ἀλλʼ ἴσως ἐκεῖνο μᾶλλον ἔχει ἀπορίαν, ὅσοι μετέσχον μεταβολῆς γενομένης πολιτείας, οἷον Ἀθήνησιν ἐποίησε Κλεισθένης μετὰ τὴν τῶν τυράννων ἐκβολήν· πολλοὺς γὰρ ἐφυλέτευσε ξένους καὶ δούλους μετοίκους. τὸ δʼ ἀμφισβήτημα πρὸς τούτους ἐστὶν οὐ τίς πολίτης, ἀλλὰ πότερον ἀδίκως ἢ δικαίως. καίτοι κἂν τοῦτό τις ἔτι προσαπορήσειεν, ἆρʼ εἰ μὴ δικαίως πολίτης, οὐ πολίτης, ὡς ταὐτὸ δυναμένου τοῦ τʼ ἀδίκου καὶ τοῦ ψευδοῦς. ἐπεὶ δʼ ὁρῶμεν καὶ ἄρχοντάς τινας ἀδίκως, οὓς ἄρχειν μὲν φήσομεν ἀλλʼ οὐ δικαίως, ὁ δὲ πολίτης ἀρχῇ τινὶ διωρισμένος ἐστίν (ὁ γὰρ κοινωνῶν τῆς τοιᾶσδε ἀρχῆς πολίτης ἐστίν, ὡς ἔφαμεν), δῆλον ὅτι πολίτας μὲν εἶναι φατέον καὶ τούτους·

-

περὶ δὲ τοῦ δικαίως ἢ μὴ δικαίως συνάπτει πρὸς τὴν εἰρημένην πρότερον ἀμφισβήτησιν. ἀποροῦσι γάρ τινες πόθʼ ἡ πόλις ἔπραξε καὶ πότε οὐχ ἡ πόλις, οἷον ὅταν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας ἢ τυραννίδος γένηται δημοκρατία (τότε γὰρ οὔτε τὰ συμβόλαια ἔνιοι βούλονται διαλύειν, ὡς οὐ τῆς πόλεως ἀλλὰ τοῦ τυράννου λαβόντος, οὔτʼ ἄλλα πολλὰ τῶν τοιούτων, ὡς ἐνίας τῶν πολιτειῶν τῷ κρατεῖν οὔσας, ἀλλὰ οὐ διὰ τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον)· εἴπερ οὖν καὶ δημοκρατοῦνταί τινες κατὰ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, ὁμοίως τῆς πόλεως φατέον εἶναι ταύτης τὰς τῆς πολιτείας ταύτης πράξεις καὶ τὰς ἐκ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ τῆς τυραννίδος. ἔοικε δʼ οἰκεῖος ὁ λόγος εἶναι τῆς ἀπορίας ταύτης πως ποτὲ χρὴ λέγειν τὴν πόλιν εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν ἢ μὴ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀλλʼ ἑτέραν. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐπιπολαιοτάτη τῆς ἀπορίας ζήτησις περὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐστίν· ἐνδέχεται γὰρ διαζευχθῆναι τὸν τόπον καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἕτερον τοὺς δʼ ἕτερον οἰκῆσαι τόπον.

-

ταύτην μὲν οὖν πραοτέραν θετέον τὴν ἀπορίαν, πολλαχῶς γὰρ τῆς πόλεως λεγομένης, ἐστί πως εὐμάρεια τῆς τοιαύτης ζητήσεως· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν τὸν αὐτὸν κατοικούντων ἀνθρώπων πότε δεῖ νομίζειν μίαν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῖς τείχεσιν· εἴη γὰρ ἂν Πελοποννήσῳ περιβαλεῖν ἓν τεῖχος. τοιαύτη δʼ ἴσως ἐστὶ καὶ Βαβυλὼν καὶ πᾶσα ἥτις ἔχει περιγραφὴν μᾶλλον ἔθνους ἢ πόλεως· ἧς γέ φασιν ἑαλωκυίας τρίτην ἡμέραν οὐκ αἰσθέσθαι τι μέρος τῆς πόλεως.

-

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν ταύτης τῆς ἀπορίας εἰς ἄλλον καιρὸν χρήσιμος ἡ σκέψις (περὶ γὰρ μεγέθους τῆς πόλεως, τό τε πόσον καὶ πότερον ἔθνος ἓν ἢ πλείω συμφέρει, δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν τὸν πολιτικόν)· ἀλλὰ τῶν αὐτῶν κατοικούντων τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον, πότερον ἕως ἂν ᾖ τὸ γένος ταὐτὸ τῶν κατοικούντων, τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι φατέον πόλιν, καίπερ αἰεὶ τῶν μὲν φθειρομένων τῶν δὲ γινομένων, ὥσπερ καὶ ποταμοὺς εἰώθαμεν λέγειν τοὺς αὐτοὺς καὶ κρήνας τὰς αὐτάς, καίπερ αἰεὶ τοῦ μὲν ἐπιγινομένου νάματος τοῦ δʼ ὑπεξιόντος, ἢ τοὺς μὲν ἀνθρώπους φατέον εἶναι τοὺς αὐτοὺς διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν, τὴν δὲ πόλιν ἑτέραν; εἴπερ γάρ ἐστι κοινωνία τις ἡ πόλις, ἔστι δὲ κοινωνία πολιτῶν πολιτείας, γινομένης ἑτέρας τῷ εἴδει καὶ διαφερούσης τῆς πολιτείας ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι δόξειεν ἂν καὶ τὴν πόλιν εἶναι μὴ τὴν αὐτήν, ὥσπερ γε καὶ χορὸν ὁτὲ μὲν κωμικὸν ὁτὲ δὲ τραγικὸν ἕτερον εἶναί φαμεν, τῶν αὐτῶν πολλάκις ἀνθρώπων ὄντων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πᾶσαν ἄλλην κοινωνίαν καὶ σύνθεσιν ἑτέραν, ἂν εἶδος ἕτερον ᾖ τῆς συνθέσεως, οἷον ἁρμονίαν τῶν αὐτῶν φθόγγων ἑτέραν εἶναι λέγομεν, ἂν ὁτὲ μὲν ᾖ Δώριος ὁτὲ δὲ Φρύγιος. εἰ δὴ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, φανερὸν ὅτι μάλιστα λεκτέον τὴν αὐτὴν πόλιν εἰς τὴν πολιτείαν βλέποντας· ὄνομα δὲ καλεῖν ἕτερον ἢ ταὐτὸν ἔξεστι καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν κατοικούντων αὐτὴν καὶ πάμπαν ἑτέρων ἀνθρώπων. εἰ δὲ δίκαιον διαλύειν ἢ μὴ διαλύειν, ὅταν εἰς ἑτέραν μεταβάλῃ πολιτείαν ἡ πόλις, λόγος ἕτερος.

- -

τῶν δὲ νῦν εἰρημένων ἐχόμενόν ἐστιν ἐπισκέψασθαι πότερον τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρετὴν ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ καὶ πολίτου σπουδαίου θετέον, ἢ μὴ τὴν αὐτήν. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴ γε τοῦτο τυχεῖν δεῖ ζητήσεως, τὴν τοῦ πολίτου τύπῳ τινὶ πρῶτον ληπτέον. ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ πλωτὴρ εἷς τις τῶν κοινωνῶν ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ τὸν πολίτην φαμέν. τῶν δὲ πλωτήρων καίπερ ἀνομοίων ὄντων τὴν δύναμιν (ὁ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐρέτης, ὁ δὲ κυβερνήτης, ὁ δὲ πρῳρεύς, ὁ δʼ ἄλλην τινʼ ἔχων τοιαύτην ἐπωνυμίαν) δῆλον ὡς ὁ μὲν ἀκριβέστατος ἑκάστου λόγος ἴδιος ἔσται τῆς ἀρετῆς, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κοινός τις ἐφαρμόσει πᾶσιν. ἡ γὰρ σωτηρία τῆς ναυτιλίας ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτῶν πάντων· τούτου γὰρ ἕκαστος ὀρέγεται τῶν πλωτήρων. ὁμοίως τοίνυν καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν, καίπερ ἀνομοίων ὄντων, ἡ σωτηρία τῆς κοινωνίας ἔργον ἐστί, κοινωνία δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ πολιτεία· διὸ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ πολίτου πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν. εἴπερ οὖν ἔστι πλείω πολιτείας εἴδη, δῆλον ὡς οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τοῦ σπουδαίου πολίτου μίαν ἀρετὴν εἶναι, τὴν τελείαν· τὸν δʼ ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα φαμὲν κατὰ μίαν ἀρετὴν εἶναι τὴν τελείαν.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐνδέχεται πολίτην ὄντα σπουδαῖον μὴ κεκτῆσθαι τὴν ἀρετὴν καθʼ ἣν σπουδαῖος ἀνήρ, φανερόν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ κατʼ ἄλλον τρόπον ἔστι διαποροῦντας ἐπελθεῖν τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον περὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας. εἰ γὰρ ἀδύνατον ἐξ ἁπάντων σπουδαίων ὄντων εἶναι πόλιν, δεῖ γʼ ἕκαστον τὸ καθʼ αὑτὸν ἔργον εὖ ποιεῖν, τοῦτο δὲ ἀπʼ ἀρετῆς· ἐπειδὴ ἀδύνατον ὁμοίους εἶναι πάντας τοὺς πολίτας, οὐκ ἂν εἴη μία ἀρετὴ πολίτου καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ. τὴν μὲν γὰρ τοῦ σπουδαίου πολίτου δεῖ πᾶσιν ὑπάρχειν (οὕτω γὰρ ἀρίστην ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὴν πόλιν), τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀδύνατον, εἰ μὴ πάντας ἀναγκαῖον ἀγαθοὺς εἶναι τοὺς ἐν τῇ σπουδαίᾳ πόλει πολίτας. ἔτι ἐπεὶ ἐξ ἀνομοίων ἡ πόλις, ὥσπερ ζῷον εὐθὺς ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, καὶ ψυχὴ ἐκ λόγου καὶ ὀρέξεως, καὶ οἰκία ἐξ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός, καὶ κτῆσις ἐκ δεσπότου καὶ δούλου, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ πόλις ἐξ ἁπάντων τε τούτων καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἐξ ἄλλων ἀνομοίων συνέστηκεν εἰδῶν, ἀνάγκη μὴ μίαν εἶναι τὴν τῶν πολιτῶν πάντων ἀρετήν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τῶν χορευτῶν κορυφαίου καὶ παραστάτου.

-

διότι μὲν τοίνυν ἁπλῶς οὐχ ἡ αὐτή, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων· ἀλλʼ ἆρα ἔσται τινὸς ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ πολίτου τε σπουδαίου καὶ ἀνδρὸς σπουδαίου; φαμὲν δὴ τὸν ἄρχοντα τὸν σπουδαῖον ἀγαθὸν εἶναι καὶ φρόνιμον, τὸν δὲ πολίτην οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι φρόνιμον. καὶ τὴν παιδείαν δʼ εὐθὺς ἑτέραν εἶναι λέγουσί τινες ἄρχοντος, ὥσπερ καὶ φαίνονται οἱ τῶν βασιλέων υἱεῖς ἱππικὴν καὶ πολεμικὴν παιδευόμενοι, καὶ Εὐριπίδης φησὶ μή μοι τὰ κόμψʼ ἀλλʼ ὧν πόλει δεῖ, Eur. fr. 16 ὡς οὖσάν τινα ἄρχοντος παιδείαν. εἰ δὲ ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἄρχοντός τε ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ, πολίτης δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ ἁπλῶς ἂν εἴη πολίτου καὶ ἀνδρός, τινὸς μέντοι πολίτου· οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ ἄρχοντος καὶ πολίτου, καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ ἴσως Ἰάσων ἔφη πεινῆν ὅτε μὴ τυραννοῖ, ὡς οὐκ ἐπιστάμενος ἰδιώτης εἶναι.

-

ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐπαινεῖταί γε τὸ δύνασθαι ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι, καὶ πολίτου δοκεῖ που ἡ ἀρετὴ εἶναι τὸ δύνασθαι καὶ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι καλῶς. εἰ οὖν τὴν μὲν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀνδρὸς τίθεμεν ἀρχικήν, τὴν δὲ τοῦ πολίτου ἄμφω, οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἄμφω ἐπαινετὰ ὁμοίως. ἐπεὶ οὖν ποτε δοκεῖ ἀμφότερα, καὶ οὐ ταὐτὰ δεῖν τὸν ἄρχοντα μανθάνειν καὶ τὸν ἀρχόμενον, τὸν δὲ πολίτην ἀμφότερʼ ἐπίστασθαι καὶ μετέχειν ἀμφοῖν, τοὐντεῦθεν ἂν κατίδοι τις. ἔστι γὰρ ἀρχὴ δεσποτική· ταύτην δὲ τὴν περὶ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα λέγομεν, ἃ ποιεῖν ἐπίστασθαι τὸν ἄρχοντα οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀλλὰ χρῆσθαι μᾶλλον· θάτερον δὲ καὶ ἀνδραποδῶδες. λέγω δὲ θάτερον τὸ δύνασθαι καὶ ὑπηρετεῖν τὰς διακονικὰς πράξεις. δούλου δʼ εἴδη πλείω λέγομεν· αἱ γὰρ ἐργασίαι πλείους. ὧν ἓν μέρος κατέχουσιν οἱ χερνῆτες· οὗτοι δʼ εἰσίν, ὥσπερ σημαίνει καὶ τοὔνομʼ αὐτούς, οἱ ζῶντες ἀπὸ τῶν χειρῶν, ἐν οἷς ὁ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἐστίν. διὸ παρʼ ἐνίοις οὐ μετεῖχον οἱ δημιουργοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀρχῶν, πρὶν δῆμον γενέσθαι τὸν ἔσχατον. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἔργα τῶν ἀρχομένων οὕτως οὐ δεῖ τὸν ἀγαθὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πολιτικὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πολίτην τὸν ἀγαθὸν μανθάνειν, εἰ μή ποτε χρείας χάριν αὐτῷ πρὸς αὑτόν· οὐ γὰρ ἔτι συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι τὸν μὲν δεσπότην τὸν δὲ δοῦλον.

-

ἀλλʼ ἔστι τις ἀρχὴ καθʼ ἣν ἄρχει τῶν ὁμοίων τῷ γένει καὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων. ταύτην γὰρ λέγομεν εἶναι τὴν πολιτικὴν ἀρχήν, ἣν δεῖ τὸν ἄρχοντα ἀρχόμενον μαθεῖν, οἷον ἱππαρχεῖν ἱππαρχηθέντα, στρατηγεῖν στρατηγηθέντα καὶ ταξιαρχήσαντα καὶ λοχαγήσαντα. διὸ λέγεται καὶ τοῦτο καλῶς, ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν εὖ ἄρξαι μὴ ἀρχθέντα. τούτων δὲ ἀρετὴ μὲν ἑτέρα, δεῖ δὲ τὸν πολίτην τὸν ἀγαθὸν ἐπίστασθαι καὶ δύνασθαι καὶ ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν, καὶ αὕτη ἀρετὴ πολίτου, τὸ τὴν τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀρχὴν ἐπίστασθαι ἐπʼ ἀμφότερα. καὶ ἀνδρὸς δὴ ἀγαθοῦ ἄμφω, καὶ εἰ ἕτερον εἶδος σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἀρχικῆς. καὶ γὰρ ἀρχομένου μὲν ἐλευθέρου δὲ δῆλον ὅτι οὐ μία ἂν εἴη τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀρετή, οἷον δικαιοσύνη, ἀλλʼ εἴδη ἔχουσα καθʼ ἃ ἄρξει καὶ ἄρξεται, ὥσπερ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς ἑτέρα σωφροσύνη καὶ ἀνδρεία (δόξαι γὰρ ἂν εἶναι δειλὸς ἀνήρ, εἰ οὕτως ἀνδρεῖος εἴη ὥσπερ γυνὴ ἀνδρεία, καὶ γυνὴ λάλος, εἰ οὕτω κοσμία εἴη ὥσπερ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἀγαθός· ἐπεὶ καὶ οἰκονομία ἑτέρα ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ κτᾶσθαι τῆς δὲ φυλάττειν ἔργον ἐστίν). ἡ δὲ φρόνησις ἄρχοντος ἴδιος ἀρετὴ μόνη. τὰς γὰρ ἄλλας ἔοικεν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι κοινὰς καὶ τῶν ἀρχομένων καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἀρχομένου δέ γε οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρετὴ φρόνησις, ἀλλὰ δόξα ἀληθής· ὥσπερ αὐλοποιὸς γὰρ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, ὁ δʼ ἄρχων αὐλητὴς ὁ χρώμενος. πότερον μὲν οὖν ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ καὶ πολίτου σπουδαίου ἢ ἑτέρα, καὶ πῶς ἡ αὐτὴ καὶ πῶς ἑτέρα, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων.

-

περὶ δὲ τὸν πολίτην ἔτι λείπεταί τις τῶν ἀποριῶν. ὡς ἀληθῶς γὰρ πότερον πολίτης ἐστὶν ᾧ κοινωνεῖν ἔξεστιν ἀρχῆς, ἢ καὶ τοὺς βαναύσους πολίτας θετέον; εἰ μὲν οὖν καὶ τούτους θετέον οἷς μὴ μέτεστιν ἀρχῶν, οὐχ οἷόν τε παντὸς εἶναι πολίτου τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρετήν (οὗτος γὰρ πολίτης)· εἰ δὲ μηδεὶς τῶν τοιούτων πολίτης, ἐν τίνι μέρει θετέος ἕκαστος; οὐδὲ γὰρ μέτοικος οὐδὲ ξένος. ἢ διά γε τοῦτον τὸν λόγον οὐδὲν φήσομεν συμβαίνειν ἄτοπον; οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ δοῦλοι τῶν εἰρημένων οὐδέν, οὐδʼ οἱ ἀπελεύθεροι. τοῦτο γὰρ ἀληθές, ὡς οὐ πάντας θετέον πολίτας ὧν ἄνευ οὐκ ἂν εἴη πόλις, ἐπεὶ οὐδʼ οἱ παῖδες ὡσαύτως πολῖται καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀλλʼ οἱ μὲν ἁπλῶς οἱ δʼ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως· πολῖται μὲν γάρ εἰσιν, ἀλλʼ ἀτελεῖς. ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις χρόνοις παρʼ ἐνίοις ἦν δοῦλον τὸ βάναυσον ἢ ξενικόν, διόπερ οἱ πολλοὶ τοιοῦτοι καὶ νῦν· ἡ δὲ βελτίστη πόλις οὐ ποιήσει βάναυσον πολίτην. εἰ δὲ καὶ οὗτος πολίτης, ἀλλὰ πολίτου ἀρετὴν ἣν εἴπομεν λεκτέον οὐ παντός, οὐδʼ ἐλευθέρου μόνον, ἀλλʼ ὅσοι τῶν ἔργων εἰσὶν ἀφειμένοι τῶν ἀναγκαίων. τῶν δʼ ἀναγκαίων οἱ μὲν ἑνὶ λειτουργοῦντες τὰ τοιαῦτα δοῦλοι, οἱ δὲ κοινοὶ βάναυσοι καὶ θῆτες. φανερὸν δʼ ἐντεῦθεν μικρὸν ἐπισκεψαμένοις πῶς ἔχει περὶ αὐτῶν· αὐτὸ γὰρ φανὲν τὸ λεχθὲν ποιεῖ δῆλον. ἐπεὶ γὰρ πλείους εἰσὶν αἱ πολιτεῖαι, καὶ εἴδη πολίτου ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πλείω, καὶ μάλιστα τοῦ ἀρχομένου πολίτου, ὥστʼ ἐν μὲν τινὶ πολιτείᾳ τὸν βάναυσον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ τὸν θῆτα πολίτας, ἐν τισὶ δʼ ἀδύνατον, οἷον εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἣν καλοῦσιν ἀριστοκρατικὴν καὶ ἐν ᾗ κατʼ ἀρετὴν αἱ τιμαὶ δίδονται καὶ κατʼ ἀξίαν· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τʼ ἐπιτηδεῦσαι τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς ζῶντα βίον βάναυσον ἢ θητικόν. ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις θῆτα μὲν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται εἶναι πολίτην (ἀπὸ τιμημάτων γὰρ μακρῶν αἱ μεθέξεις τῶν ἀρχῶν), βάναυσον δὲ ἐνδέχεται· πλουτοῦσι γὰρ καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν τεχνιτῶν. ἐν Θήβαις δὲ νόμος ἦν τὸν διὰ δέκα ἐτῶν μὴ ἀπεσχημένον τῆς ἀγορᾶς μὴ μετέχειν ἀρχῆς. ἐν πολλαῖς δὲ πολιτείαις προσεφέλκει τινὰς καὶ τῶν ξένων ὁ νόμος· ὁ γὰρ ἐκ πολίτιδος ἔν τισι δημοκρατίαις πολίτης ἐστίν, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς νόθους παρὰ πολλοῖς. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ ἐπεὶ διʼ ἔνδειαν τῶν γνησίων πολιτῶν ποιοῦνται πολίτας τοὺς τοιούτους (διὰ γὰρ ὀλιγανθρωπίαν οὕτω χρῶνται τοῖς νόμοις), εὐποροῦντες δὴ ὄχλου κατὰ μικρὸν παραιροῦνται τοὺς ἐκ δούλου πρῶτον ἢ δούλης, εἶτα τοὺς ἀπὸ γυναικῶν, τέλος δὲ μόνον τοὺς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἀστῶν πολίτας ποιοῦσιν.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν εἴδη πλείω πολίτου, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων, καὶ ὅτι λέγεται μάλιστα πολίτης ὁ μετέχων τῶν τιμῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἐποίησεν ὡς εἴ τινʼ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην· Hom. Il. 9.648 Hom. Il. 16.59 ὥσπερ μέτοικος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ τῶν τιμῶν μὴ μετέχων. ἀλλʼ ἐστὶν ὅπου τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐπικεκρυμμένον ἐστίν, ἀπάτης χάριν τῶν συνοικούντων ἐστίν. πότερον μὲν οὖν ἑτέραν ἢ τὴν αὐτὴν θετέον, καθʼ ἣν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός ἐστι καὶ πολίτης σπουδαῖος, δῆλον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι τινὸς μὲν πόλεως ὁ αὐτὸς τινὸς δʼ ἕτερος, κἀκεῖνος οὐ πᾶς ἀλλʼ ὁ πολιτικὸς καὶ κύριος ἢ δυνάμενος εἶναι κύριος, ἢ καθʼ αὑτὸν ἢ μετʼ ἄλλων, τῆς τῶν κοινῶν ἐπιμελείας.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ ταῦτα διώρισται, τὸ μετὰ ταῦτα σκεπτέον, πότερον μίαν θετέον πολιτείαν ἢ πλείους, κἂν εἰ πλείους, τίνες καὶ πόσαι, καὶ διαφοραὶ τίνες αὐτῶν εἰσιν. ἔστι δὲ πολιτεία πόλεως τάξις τῶν τε ἄλλων ἀρχῶν καὶ μάλιστα τῆς κυρίας πάντων. κύριον μὲν γὰρ πανταχοῦ τὸ πολίτευμα τῆς πόλεως, πολίτευμα δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ πολιτεία. λέγω δʼ οἷον ἐν μὲν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις κύριος ὁ δῆμος, οἱ δʼ ὀλίγοι τοὐναντίον ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις, φαμὲν δὲ καὶ πολιτείαν ἑτέραν εἶναι τούτων. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τοῦτον ἐροῦμεν λόγον καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων. ὑποθετέον δὴ πρῶτον τίνος χάριν συνέστηκε πόλις, καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς εἴδη πόσα τῆς περὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς ζωῆς. εἴρηται δὴ κατὰ τοὺς πρώτους λόγους, ἐν οἷς περὶ οἰκονομίας διωρίσθη καὶ δεσποτείας, καὶ ὅτι φύσει μέν ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ζῷον πολιτικόν. διὸ καὶ μηδὲν δεόμενοι τῆς παρὰ ἀλλήλων βοηθείας οὐκ ἔλαττον ὀρέγονται τοῦ συζῆν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον συνάγει, καθʼ ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει μέρος ἑκάστῳ τοῦ ζῆν καλῶς. μάλιστα μὲν οὖν τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ τέλος, καὶ κοινῇ πᾶσι καὶ χωρίς· συνέρχονται δὲ καὶ τοῦ ζῆν ἕνεκεν αὐτοῦ καὶ συνέχουσι τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν, ἴσως γὰρ ἔνεστί τι τοῦ καλοῦ μόριον καὶ κατὰ τὸ ζῆν αὐτὸ μόνον· ἂν μὴ τοῖς χαλεποῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ὑπερβάλῃ λίαν, δῆλον δʼ ὡς καρτεροῦσι πολλὴν κακοπάθειαν οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γλιχόμενοι τοῦ ζῆν, ὡς ἐνούσης τινὸς εὐημερίας ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ γλυκύτητος φυσικῆς.

-

ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς γε τοὺς λεγομένους τρόπους ῥᾴδιον διελεῖν· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς λόγοις διοριζόμεθα περὶ αὐτῶν πολλάκις. ἡ μὲν γὰρ δεσποτεία, καίπερ ὄντος κατʼ ἀλήθειαν τῷ τε φύσει δούλῳ καὶ τῷ φύσει δεσπότῃ ταὐτοῦ συμφέροντος, ὅμως ἄρχει πρὸς τὸ τοῦ δεσπότου συμφέρον οὐδὲν ἧττον, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τοῦ δούλου κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεται φθειρομένου τοῦ δούλου σῴζεσθαι τὴν δεσποτείαν. ἡ δὲ τέκνων ἀρχὴ καὶ γυναικὸς καὶ τῆς οἰκίας πάσης, ἣν δὴ καλοῦμεν οἰκονομικήν ἤτοι τῶν ἀρχομένων χάριν ἐστὶν ἢ κοινοῦ τινὸς ἀμφοῖν, καθʼ αὑτὸ μὲν τῶν ἀρχομένων, ὥσπερ ὁρῶμεν καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας, οἷον ἰατρικὴν καὶ γυμναστικήν, κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς δὲ κἂν αὐτῶν εἶεν. οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει τὸν παιδοτρίβην ἕνα τῶν γυμναζομένων ἐνίοτʼ εἶναι καὶ αὐτόν, ὥσπερ ὁ κυβερνήτης εἷς ἐστιν ἀεὶ τῶν πλωτήρων· ὁ μὲν οὖν παιδοτρίβης ἢ κυβερνήτης σκοπεῖ τὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων ἀγαθόν, ὅταν δὲ τούτων εἷς γένηται καὶ αὐτός, κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς μετέχει τῆς ὠφελείας. ὁ μὲν γὰρ πλωτήρ, ὁ δὲ τῶν γυμναζομένων εἷς γίνεται, παιδοτρίβης ὤν. διὸ καὶ τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρχάς, ὅταν ᾖ κατʼ ἰσότητα τῶν πολιτῶν συνεστηκυῖα καὶ καθʼ ὁμοιότητα, κατὰ μέρος ἀξιοῦσιν ἄρχειν, πρότερον μέν, ᾗ πέφυκεν, ἀξιοῦντες ἐν μέρει λειτουργεῖν, καὶ σκοπεῖν τινα πάλιν τὸ αὑτοῦ ἀγαθόν, ὥσπερ πρότερον αὐτὸς ἄρχων ἐσκόπει τὸ ἐκείνου συμφέρον· νῦν δὲ διὰ τὰς ὠφελείας τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν κοινῶν καὶ τὰς ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς βούλονται συνεχῶς ἄρχειν, οἷον εἰ συνέβαινεν ὑγιαίνειν ἀεὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσι νοσακεροῖς οὖσιν. καὶ γὰρ ἂν οὕτως ἴσως ἐδίωκον τὰς ἀρχάς. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὡς ὅσαι μὲν πολιτεῖαι τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον σκοποῦσιν, αὗται μὲν ὀρθαὶ τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι κατὰ τὸ ἁπλῶς δίκαιον, ὅσαι δὲ τὸ σφέτερον μόνον τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἡμαρτημέναι πᾶσαι καὶ παρεκβάσεις τῶν ὀρθῶν πολιτειῶν· δεσποτικαὶ γάρ, ἡ δὲ πόλις κοινωνία τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἐστίν.

-

διωρισμένων δὲ τούτων ἐχόμενόν ἐστι τὰς πολιτείας ἐπισκέψασθαι, πόσαι τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ τίνες εἰσί, καὶ πρῶτον τὰς ὀρθὰς αὐτῶν· καὶ γὰρ αἱ παρεκβάσεις ἔσονται φανεραὶ τούτων διορισθεισῶν. ἐπεὶ δὲ πολιτεία μὲν καὶ πολίτευμα σημαίνει ταὐτόν, πολίτευμα δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ κύριον τῶν πόλεων, ἀνάγκη δʼ εἶναι κύριον ἢ ἕνα ἢ ὀλίγους ἢ τοὺς πολλούς, ὅταν μὲν ὁ εἷς ἢ οἱ ὀλίγοι ἢ οἱ πολλοὶ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν συμφέρον ἄρχωσι, ταύτας μὲν ὀρθὰς ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὰς πολιτείας, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὸ ἴδιον ἢ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἢ τῶν ὀλίγων ἢ τοῦ πλήθους παρεκβάσεις. ἢ γὰρ οὐ πολίτας φατέον εἶναι τοὺς μετέχοντας, ἢ δεῖ κοινωνεῖν τοῦ συμφέροντος. καλεῖν δʼ εἰώθαμεν τῶν μὲν μοναρχιῶν τὴν πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν ἀποβλέπουσαν συμφέρον βασιλείαν, τὴν δὲ τῶν ὀλίγων μὲν πλειόνων δʼ ἑνὸς ἀριστοκρατίαν (ἢ διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἀρίστους ἄρχειν, ἢ διὰ τὸ πρὸς τὸ ἄριστον τῇ πόλει καὶ τοῖς κοινωνοῦσιν αὐτῆς), ὅταν δὲ τὸ πλῆθος πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν πολιτεύηται συμφέρον, καλεῖται τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα πασῶν τῶν πολιτειῶν, πολιτεία. (συμβαίνει δʼ εὐλόγως· ἕνα μὲν γὰρ διαφέρειν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἢ ὀλίγους ἐνδέχεται, πλείους δʼ ἤδη χαλεπὸν ἠκριβῶσθαι πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀρετήν, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα τὴν πολεμικήν· αὕτη γὰρ ἐν πλήθει γίγνεται· διόπερ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν πολιτείαν κυριώτατον τὸ προπολεμοῦν καὶ μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς οἱ κεκτημένοι τὰ ὅπλα.) παρεκβάσεις δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων τυραννὶς μὲν βασιλείας, ὀλιγαρχία δὲ ἀριστοκρατίας, δημοκρατία δὲ πολιτείας. ἡ μὲν γὰρ τυραννίς ἐστι μοναρχία πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον τὸ τοῦ μοναρχοῦντος, ἡ δʼ ὀλιγαρχία πρὸς τὸ τῶν εὐπόρων, ἡ δὲ δημοκρατία πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων· πρὸς δὲ τὸ τῷ κοινῷ λυσιτελοῦν οὐδεμία αὐτῶν.

-

δεῖ δὲ μικρῷ διὰ μακροτέρων εἰπεῖν τίς ἑκάστη τούτων τῶν πολιτειῶν ἐστιν· καὶ γὰρ ἔχει τινὰς ἀπορίας, τῷ δὲ περὶ ἑκάστην μέθοδον φιλοσοφοῦντι καὶ μὴ μόνον ἀποβλέποντι πρὸς τὸ πράττειν οἰκεῖόν ἐστι τὸ μὴ παρορᾶν μηδέ τι καταλείπειν, ἀλλὰ δηλοῦν τὴν περὶ ἕκαστον ἀλήθειαν. ἔστι δὲ τυραννὶς μὲν μοναρχία, καθάπερ εἴρηται, δεσποτικὴ τῆς πολιτικῆς κοινωνίας, ὀλιγαρχία δʼ ὅταν ὦσι κύριοι τῆς πολιτείας οἱ τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντες, δημοκρατία δὲ τοὐναντίον ὅταν οἱ μὴ κεκτημένοι πλῆθος οὐσίας ἀλλʼ ἄποροι. πρώτη δʼ ἀπορία πρὸς τὸν διορισμόν ἐστιν. εἰ γὰρ εἶεν οἱ πλείους, ὄντες εὔποροι, κύριοι τῆς πόλεως, δημοκρατία δʼ ἐστὶν ὅταν ᾖ κύριον τὸ πλῆθος—ὁμοίως δὲ πάλιν κἂν εἴ που συμβαίνοι τοὺς ἀπόρους ἐλάττους μὲν εἶναι τῶν εὐπόρων, κρείττους δʼ ὄντας κυρίους εἶναι τῆς πολιτείας, ὅπου δʼ ὀλίγον κύριον πλῆθος, ὀλιγαρχίαν εἶναί φασιν—οὐκ ἂν καλῶς δόξειεν διωρίσθαι περὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν.

-

ἀλλὰ μὴν κἄν εἴ τις συνθεὶς τῇ μὲν εὐπορίᾳ τὴν ὀλιγότητα τῇ δʼ ἀπορίᾳ τὸ πλῆθος οὕτω προσαγορεύῃ τὰς πολιτείας, ὀλιγαρχίαν μὲν ἐν ᾗ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχουσιν οἱ εὔποροι, ὀλίγοι τὸ πλῆθος ὄντες, δημοκρατίαν δὲ ἐν ᾗ οἱ ἄποροι, πολλοὶ τὸ πλῆθος ὄντες, ἄλλην ἀπορίαν ἔχει. τίνας γὰρ ἐροῦμεν τὰς ἄρτι λεχθείσας πολιτείας, τὴν ἐν ᾗ πλείους οἱ εὔποροι καὶ τὴν ἐν ᾗ ἐλάττους οἱ ἄποροι, κύριοι δʼ ἑκάτεροι τῶν πολιτειῶν, εἴπερ μηδεμία ἄλλη πολιτεία παρὰ τὰς εἰρημένας ἔστιν; ἔοικε τοίνυν ὁ λόγος ποιεῖν δῆλον ὅτι τὸ μὲν ὀλίγους ἢ πολλοὺς εἶναι κυρίους συμβεβηκός ἐστιν, τὸ μὲν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις τὸ δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις, διὰ τὸ τοὺς μὲν εὐπόρους ὀλίγους, πολλοὺς δʼ εἶναι τοὺς ἀπόρους πανταχοῦ (διὸ καὶ οὐ συμβαίνει τὰς ῥηθείσας αἰτίας αἰτίας γίνεσθαι διαφορᾶς), ᾧ δὲ διαφέρουσιν ἥ τε δημοκρατία καὶ ἡ ὀλιγαρχία ἀλλήλων πενία καὶ πλοῦτός ἐστιν, καὶ ἀναγκαῖον μέν, ὅπου ἂν ἄρχωσι διὰ πλοῦτον, ἄν τʼ ἐλάττους ἄν τε πλείους, εἶναι ταύτην ὀλιγαρχίαν, ὅπου δʼ οἱ ἄποροι, δημοκρατίαν, ἀλλὰ συμβαίνει, καθάπερ εἴπομεν, τοὺς μὲν ὀλίγους εἶναι τοὺς δὲ πολλούς. εὐποροῦσι μὲν γὰρ ὀλίγοι, τῆς δὲ ἐλευθερίας μετέχουσι πάντες· διʼ ἃς αἰτίας ἀμφισβητοῦσιν ἀμφότεροι τῆς πολιτείας.

-

ληπτέον δὲ πρῶτον τίνας ὅρους λέγουσι τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δημοκρατίας, καὶ τί τὸ δίκαιον τό τε ὀλιγαρχικὸν καὶ δημοκρατικόν. πάντες γὰρ ἅπτονται δικαίου τινός, ἀλλὰ μέχρι τινὸς προέρχονται, καὶ λέγουσιν οὐ πᾶν τὸ κυρίως δίκαιον. οἷον δοκεῖ ἴσον τὸ δίκαιον εἶναι, καὶ ἔστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πᾶσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἴσοις· καὶ τὸ ἄνισον δοκεῖ δίκαιον εἶναι, καὶ γὰρ ἔστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πᾶσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀνίσοις· οἱ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἀφαιροῦσι, τὸ οἷς, καὶ κρίνουσι κακῶς. τὸ δʼ αἴτιον ὅτι περὶ αὑτῶν ἡ κρίσις· σχεδὸν δʼ οἱ πλεῖστοι φαῦλοι κριταὶ περὶ τῶν οἰκείων. ὥστʼ ἐπεὶ τὸ δίκαιον τισίν, καὶ διῄρηται τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπί τε τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ οἷς, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς, τὴν μὲν τοῦ πράγματος ἰσότητα ὁμολογοῦσι, τὴν δὲ οἷς ἀμφισβητοῦσι, μάλιστα μὲν διὰ τὸ λεχθὲν ἄρτι, διότι κρίνουσι τὰ περὶ αὑτοὺς κακῶς, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ λέγειν μέχρι τινὸς ἑκατέρους δίκαιόν τι νομίζουσι δίκαιον λέγειν ἁπλῶς. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἂν κατά τι ἄνισοι ὦσιν, οἷον χρήμασιν, ὅλως οἴονται ἄνισοι εἶναι, οἱ δʼ ἂν κατά τι ἴσοι, οἷον ἐλευθερίᾳ, ὅλως ἴσοι.

-

τὸ δὲ κυριώτατον οὐ λέγουσιν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν κτημάτων χάριν ἐκοινώνησαν καὶ συνῆλθον, τοσοῦτον μετέχουσι τῆς πόλεως ὅσον περ καὶ τῆς κτήσεως, ὥσθʼ ὁ τῶν ὀλιγαρχικῶν λόγος δόξειεν ἂν ἰσχύειν (οὐ γὰρ εἶναι δίκαιον ἴσον μετέχειν τῶν ἑκατὸν μνῶν τὸν εἰσενέγκαντα μίαν μνᾶν τῷ δόντι τὸ λοιπὸν πᾶν, οὔτε τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὔτε τῶν ἐπιγινομένων)· εἰ δὲ μήτε τοῦ ζῆν μόνον ἕνεκεν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῦ εὖ ζῆν (καὶ γὰρ ἂν δούλων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἦν πόλις· νῦν δʼ οὐκ ἔστι, διὰ τὸ μὴ μετέχειν εὐδαιμονίας μηδὲ τοῦ ζῆν κατὰ προαίρεσιν), μήτε συμμαχίας ἕνεκεν, ὅπως ὑπὸ μηδενὸς ἀδικῶνται, μήτε διὰ τὰς ἀλλαγὰς καὶ τὴν χρῆσιν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους—καὶ γὰρ ἂν Τυρρηνοὶ καὶ Καρχηδόνιοι, καὶ πάντες οἷς ἔστι σύμβολα πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὡς μιᾶς ἂν πολῖται πόλεως ἦσαν· εἰσὶ γοῦν αὐτοῖς συνθῆκαι περὶ τῶν εἰσαγωγίμων καὶ σύμβολα περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἀδικεῖν καὶ γραφαὶ περὶ συμμαχίας. ἀλλʼ οὔτʼ ἀρχαὶ πᾶσιν ἐπὶ τούτοις κοιναὶ καθεστᾶσιν, ἀλλʼ ἕτεραι παρʼ ἑκατέροις, οὔτε τοῦ ποίους τινὰς εἶναι δεῖ φροντίζουσιν ἅτεροι τοὺς ἑτέρους, οὐδʼ ὅπως μηδεὶς ἄδικος ἔσται τῶν ὑπὸ τὰς συνθήκας μηδὲ μοχθηρίαν ἕξει μηδεμίαν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ὅπως μηδὲν ἀδικήσουσιν ἀλλήλους. περὶ δʼ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας πολιτικῆς διασκοποῦσιν ὅσοι φροντίζουσιν εὐνομίας. ᾗ καὶ φανερὸν ὅτι δεῖ περὶ ἀρετῆς ἐπιμελὲς εἶναι τῇ γʼ ὡς ἀληθῶς ὀνομαζομένῃ πόλει, μὴ λόγου χάριν. γίγνεται γὰρ ἡ κοινωνία συμμαχία, τῶν ἄλλων τόπῳ διαφέρουσα μόνον, τῶν ἄπωθεν συμμάχων. καὶ ὁ νόμος συνθήκη καί, καθάπερ ἔφη Λυκόφρων ὁ σοφιστής, ἐγγυητὴς ἀλλήλοις τῶν δικαίων, ἀλλʼ οὐχ οἷος ποιεῖν ἀγαθοὺς καὶ δικαίους τοὺς πολίτας. ὅτι δὲ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, φανερόν. εἰ γάρ τις καὶ συναγάγοι τοὺς τόπους εἰς ἕν, ὥστε ἅπτεσθαι τὴν Μεγαρέων πόλιν καὶ Κορινθίων τοῖς τείχεσιν, ὅμως οὐ μία πόλις· οὐδʼ εἰ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐπιγαμίας ποιήσαιντο· καίτοι τοῦτο τῶν ἰδίων ταῖς πόλεσι κοινωνημάτων ἐστίν. ὁμοίως δʼ οὐδʼ εἴ τινες οἰκοῖεν χωρὶς μέν, μὴ μέντοι τοσοῦτον ἄπωθεν ὥστε μὴ κοινωνεῖν, ἀλλʼ εἴησαν αὐτοῖς νόμοι τοῦ μὴ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἀδικεῖν περὶ τὰς μεταδόσεις, οἷον εἰ ὁ μὲν εἴη τέκτων ὁ δὲ γεωργὸς ὁ δὲ σκυτοτόμος ὁ δʼ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον, καὶ τὸ πλῆθος εἶεν μύριοι, μὴ μέντοι κοινωνοῖεν ἄλλου μηδενὸς ἢ τῶν τοιούτων, οἷον ἀλλαγῆς καὶ συμμαχίας, οὐδʼ οὕτω πω πόλις.

-

διὰ τίνα δή ποτʼ αἰτίαν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ διὰ τὸ μὴ σύνεγγυς τῆς κοινωνίας. εἰ γὰρ καὶ συνέλθοιεν οὕτω κοινωνοῦντες (ἕκαστος μέντοι χρῷτο τῇ ἰδίᾳ οἰκίᾳ ὥσπερ πόλει) καὶ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ὡς ἐπιμαχίας οὔσης βοηθοῦντες ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας μόνον, οὐδʼ οὕτως ἂν εἶναι δόξειεν πόλις τοῖς ἀκριβῶς θεωροῦσιν, εἴπερ ὁμοίως ὁμιλοῖεν συνελθόντες καὶ χωρίς. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι ἡ πόλις οὐκ ἔστι κοινωνία τόπου, καὶ τοῦ μὴ ἀδικεῖν σφᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ τῆς μεταδόσεως χάριν· ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν, εἴπερ ἔσται πόλις, οὐ μὴν οὐδʼ ὑπαρχόντων τούτων ἁπάντων ἤδη πόλις, ἀλλʼ ἡ τοῦ εὖ ζῆν κοινωνία καὶ ταῖς οἰκίαις καὶ τοῖς γένεσι, ζωῆς τελείας χάριν καὶ αὐτάρκους. οὐκ ἔσται μέντοι τοῦτο μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ἕνα κατοικούντων τόπον καὶ χρωμένων ἐπιγαμίαις. διὸ κηδεῖαί τʼ ἐγένοντο κατὰ τὰς πόλεις καὶ φατρίαι καὶ θυσίαι καὶ διαγωγαὶ τοῦ συζῆν. τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον φιλίας ἔργον· ἡ γὰρ τοῦ συζῆν προαίρεσις φιλία. τέλος μὲν οὖν πόλεως τὸ εὖ ζῆν, ταῦτα δὲ τοῦ τέλους χάριν. πόλις δὲ ἡ γενῶν καὶ κωμῶν κοινωνία ζωῆς τελείας καὶ αὐτάρκους, τοῦτο δʼ ἐστίν, ὡς φαμέν, τὸ ζῆν εὐδαιμόνως καὶ καλῶς. τῶν καλῶν ἄρα πράξεων χάριν θετέον εἶναι τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῦ συζῆν. διόπερ ὅσοι συμβάλλονται πλεῖστον εἰς τὴν τοιαύτην κοινωνίαν, τούτοις τῆς πόλεως μέτεστι πλεῖον ἢ τοῖς κατὰ μὲν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ γένος ἴσοις ἢ μείζοσι κατὰ δὲ τὴν πολιτικὴν ἀρετὴν ἀνίσοις, ἢ τοῖς κατὰ πλοῦτον ὑπερέχουσι κατʼ ἀρετὴν δʼ ὑπερεχομένοις. ὅτι μὲν οὖν πάντες οἱ περὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν ἀμφισβητοῦντες μέρος τι τοῦ δικαίου λέγουσι, φανερὸν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων.

-

ἔχει δʼ ἀπορίαν τί δεῖ τὸ κύριον εἶναι τῆς πόλεως. ἢ γάρ τοι τὸ πλῆθος, ἢ τοὺς πλουσίους, ἢ τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς, ἢ τὸν βέλτιστον ἕνα πάντων, ἢ τύραννον. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα πάντα ἔχειν φαίνεται δυσκολίαν. τί γάρ; ἂν οἱ πένητες διὰ τὸ πλείους εἶναι διανέμωνται τὰ τῶν πλουσίων, τοῦτʼ οὐκ ἄδικόν ἐστιν; ἔδοξε γὰρ νὴ Δία τῷ κυρίῳ δικαίως. τὴν οὖν ἀδικίαν τί χρὴ λέγειν τὴν ἐσχάτην; πάλιν τε πάντων ληφθέντων, οἱ πλείους τὰ τῶν ἐλαττόνων ἂν διανέμωνται, φανερὸν ὅτι φθείρουσι τὴν πόλιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐχ ἥ γʼ ἀρετὴ φθείρει τὸ ἔχον αὐτήν, οὐδὲ τὸ δίκαιον πόλεως φθαρτικόν· ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὸν νόμον τοῦτον οὐχ οἷόν τʼ εἶναι δίκαιον. ἔτι καὶ τὰς πράξεις ὅσας ὁ τύραννος ἔπραξεν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πάσας δικαίας· βιάζεται γὰρ ὢν κρείττων, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τοὺς πλουσίους. ἀλλʼ ἆρα τοὺς ἐλάττους δίκαιον ἄρχειν καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους; ἂν οὖν κἀκεῖνοι ταῦτα ποιῶσι καὶ διαρπάζωσι καὶ ἀφαιρῶνται τὰ κτήματα τοῦ πλήθους, τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ δίκαιον· καὶ θάτερον ἄρα. ταῦτα μὲν τοίνυν ὅτι πάντα φαῦλα καὶ οὐ δίκαια, φανερόν· ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς ἄρχειν δεῖ καὶ κυρίους εἶναι πάντων; οὐκοῦν ἀνάγκη τοὺς ἄλλους ἀτίμους εἶναι πάντας, μὴ τιμωμένους ταῖς πολιτικαῖς ἀρχαῖς· τιμὰς γὰρ λέγομεν εἶναι τὰς ἀρχάς, ἀρχόντων δʼ αἰεὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοὺς ἄλλους ἀτίμους. ἀλλʼ ἕνα τὸν σπουδαιότατον ἄρχειν βέλτιον; ἀλλʼ ἔτι τοῦτο ὀλιγαρχικώτερον· οἱ γὰρ ἄτιμοι πλείους. ἀλλʼ ἴσως φαίη τις ἂν τὸ κύριον ὅλως ἄνθρωπον εἶναι ἀλλὰ μὴ νόμον φαῦλον, ἔχοντά γε τὰ συμβαίνοντα πάθη περὶ τὴν ψυχήν. ἂν οὖν ᾖ νόμος μὲν ὀλιγαρχικὸς δὲ ἢ δημοκρατικός, τί διοίσει περὶ τῶν ἠπορημένων; συμβήσεται γὰρ ὁμοίως τὰ λεχθέντα πρότερον.

-

Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἄλλων ἔστω τις ἕτερος λόγος· ὅτι δὲ δεῖ κύριον εἶναι μᾶλλον τὸ πλῆθος ἢ τοὺς ἀρίστους μὲν ὀλίγους δέ, δόξειεν ἂν λύεσθαι καί τινʼ ἔχειν ἀπορίαν, τάχα δὲ κἂν ἀλήθειαν. τοὺς γὰρ πολλούς, ὧν ἕκαστός ἐστιν οὐ σπουδαῖος ἀνήρ, ὅμως ἐνδέχεται συνελθόντας εἶναι βελτίους ἐκείνων, οὐχ ὡς ἕκαστον ἀλλʼ ὡς σύμπαντας, οἷον τὰ συμφορητὰ δεῖπνα τῶν ἐκ μιᾶς δαπάνης χορηγηθέντων· πολλῶν γὰρ ὄντων ἕκαστον μόριον ἔχειν ἀρετῆς καὶ φρονήσεως, καὶ γίνεσθαι συνελθόντας ὥσπερ ἕνα ἄνθρωπον τὸ πλῆθος, πολύποδα καὶ πολύχειρα καὶ πολλὰς ἔχοντʼ αἰσθήσεις, οὕτω καὶ περὶ τὰ ἤθη καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν. διὸ καὶ κρίνουσιν ἄμεινον οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ τὰ τῆς μουσικῆς ἔργα καὶ τὰ τῶν ποιητῶν· ἄλλοι γὰρ ἄλλο τι μόριον, πάντα δὲ πάντες. ἀλλὰ τούτῳ διαφέρουσιν οἱ σπουδαῖοι τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἑκάστου τῶν πολλῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν μὴ καλῶν τοὺς καλούς φασι, καὶ τὰ γεγραμμένα διὰ τέχνης τῶν ἀληθινῶν, τῷ συνῆχθαι τὰ διεσπαρμένα χωρὶς εἰς ἕν, ἐπεὶ κεχωρισμένων γε κάλλιον ἔχειν τοῦ γεγραμμένου τουδὶ μὲν τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἑτέρου δέ τινος ἕτερον μόριον.

-

εἰ μὲν οὖν περὶ πάντα δῆμον καὶ περὶ πᾶν πλῆθος ἐνδέχεται ταύτην εἶναι τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν πολλῶν πρὸς τοὺς ὀλίγους σπουδαίους, ἄδηλον, ἴσως δὲ νὴ Δία δῆλον ὅτι περὶ ἐνίων ἀδύνατον (ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς κἂν ἐπὶ τῶν θηρίων ἁρμόσειε λόγος· καίτοι τί διαφέρουσιν ἔνιοι τῶν θηρίων ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν;)· ἀλλὰ περὶ τὶ πλῆθος οὐδὲν εἶναι κωλύει τὸ λεχθὲν ἀληθές. διὸ καὶ τὴν πρότερον εἰρημένην ἀπορίαν λύσειεν ἄν τις διὰ τούτων καὶ τὴν ἐχομένην αὐτῆς, τίνων δεῖ κυρίους εἶναι τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πολιτῶν. τοιοῦτοι δʼ εἰσὶν ὅσοι μήτε πλούσιοι μήτε ἀξίωμα ἔχουσιν ἀρετῆς μηδὲ ἕν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ μετέχειν αὐτοὺς τῶν ἀρχῶν τῶν μεγίστων οὐκ ἀσφαλές (διά τε γὰρ ἀδικίαν καὶ διʼ ἀφροσύνην τὰ μὲν ἀδικεῖν ἀνάγκη τὰ δʼ ἁμαρτάνειν αὐτούς)· τὸ δὲ μὴ μεταδιδόναι μηδὲ μετέχειν φοβερόν (ὅταν γὰρ ἄτιμοι πολλοὶ καὶ πένητες ὑπάρχωσι, πολεμίων ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πλήρη τὴν πόλιν ταύτην). λείπεται δὴ τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ κρίνειν μετέχειν αὐτούς. διόπερ καὶ Σόλων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τινὲς νομοθετῶν τάττουσιν ἐπί τε τὰς ἀρχαιρεσίας καὶ τὰς εὐθύνας τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἄρχειν δὲ κατὰ μόνας οὐκ ἐῶσιν. πάντες μὲν γὰρ ἔχουσι συνελθόντες ἱκανὴν αἴσθησιν, καὶ μιγνύμενοι τοῖς βελτίοσι τὰς πόλεις ὠφελοῦσιν, καθάπερ ἡ μὴ καθαρὰ τροφὴ μετὰ τῆς καθαρᾶς τὴν πᾶσαν ποιεῖ χρησιμωτέραν τῆς ὀλίγης· χωρὶς δʼ ἕκαστος ἀτελὴς περὶ τὸ κρίνειν ἐστίν.

-

ἔχει δʼ ἡ τάξις αὕτη τῆς πολιτείας ἀπορίαν πρώτην μὲν ὅτι δόξειεν ἂν τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἶναι τὸ κρῖναι τίς ὀρθῶς ἰάτρευκεν, οὗπερ καὶ τὸ ἰατρεῦσαι καὶ ποιῆσαι ὑγιᾶ τὸν κάμνοντα τῆς νόσου τῆς παρούσης· οὗτος δʼ ἐστὶν ὁ ἰατρός. ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦτο καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἐμπειρίας καὶ τέχνας. ὥσπερ οὖν ἰατρὸν δεῖ διδόναι τὰς εὐθύνας ἐν ἰατροῖς, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐν τοῖς ὁμοίοις. ἰατρὸς δʼ ὅ τε δημιουργὰς καὶ ὁ ἀρχιτεκτονικὸς καὶ τρίτος ὁ πεπαιδευμένος περὶ τὴν τέχνην (εἰσὶ γάρ τινες τοιοῦτοι καὶ περὶ πάσας ὡς εἰπεῖν τὰς τέχνας)· ἀποδίδομεν δὲ τὸ κρίνειν οὐδὲν ἧττον τοῖς πεπαιδευμένοις ἢ τοῖς εἰδόσιν. ἔπειτα καὶ περὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τὸν αὐτὸν ἂν δόξειεν ἔχειν τρόπον. καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἑλέσθαι ὀρθῶς τῶν εἰδότων ἔργον ἐστίν, οἷον γεωμέτρην τε τῶν γεωμετρικῶν καὶ κυβερνήτην τῶν κυβερνητικῶν. εἰ γὰρ καὶ περὶ ἐνίων ἔργων καὶ τεχνῶν μετέχουσι καὶ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν τινες, ἀλλʼ οὔ τι τῶν εἰδότων γε μᾶλλον. ὥστε κατὰ μὲν τοῦτον τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὸ πλῆθος ποιητέον κύριον οὔτε τῶν ἀρχαιρεσιῶν οὔτε τῶν εὐθυνῶν. ἀλλʼ ἴσως οὐ πάντα ταῦτα λέγεται καλῶς διά τε τὸν πάλαι λόγον, ἂν ᾖ τὸ πλῆθος μὴ λίαν ἀνδραποδῶδες (ἔσται γὰρ ἕκαστος μὲν χείρων κριτὴς τῶν εἰδότων, ἅπαντες δὲ συνελθόντες ἢ βελτίους ἢ οὐ χείρους), καὶ ὅτι περὶ ἐνίων οὔτε μόνον ὁ ποιήσας οὔτʼ ἄριστʼ ἂν κρίνειεν, ὅσων τἆργα γινώσκουσι καὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες τὴν τέχνην, οἷον οἰκίαν οὐ μόνον ἐστὶ γνῶναι τοῦ ποιήσαντος, ἀλλὰ καὶ βέλτιον ὁ χρώμενος αὐτῇ κρινεῖ (χρῆται δʼ ὁ οἰκονόμος), καὶ πηδάλιον κυβερνήτης τέκτονος, καὶ θοίνην ὁ δαιτυμὼν ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁ μάγειρος.

-

ταύτην μὲν οὖν τὴν ἀπορίαν τάχα δόξειέ τις ἂν οὕτω λύειν ἱκανῶς· ἄλλη δʼ ἐστὶν ἐχομένη ταύτης. δοκεῖ γὰρ ἄτοπον εἶναι τὸ μειζόνων εἶναι κυρίους τοὺς φαύλους τῶν ἐπιεικῶν, αἱ δʼ εὔθυναι καὶ αἱ τῶν ἀρχῶν αἱρέσεις εἰσὶ μέγιστον· ἃς ἐν ἐνίαις πολιτείαις, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, τοῖς δήμοις ἀποδιδόασιν· ἡ γὰρ ἐκκλησία κυρία πάντων τῶν τοιούτων ἐστίν. καίτοι τῆς μὲν ἐκκλησίας μετέχουσι καὶ βουλεύουσι καὶ δικάζουσιν ἀπὸ μικρῶν τιμημάτων καὶ τῆς τυχούσης ἡλικίας, ταμιεύουσι δὲ καὶ στρατηγοῦσι καὶ τὰς μεγίστας ἀρχὰς ἄρχουσιν ἀπὸ μεγάλων. ὁμοίως δή τις ἂν λύσειε καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἀπορίαν. ἴσως γὰρ ἔχει καὶ ταῦτʼ ὀρθῶς. οὐ γὰρ ὁ δικαστὴς οὐδʼ ὁ βουλευτὴς οὐδʼ ὁ ἐκκλησιαστὴς ἄρχων ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ τὸ δικαστήριον καὶ ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος· τῶν δὲ ῥηθέντων ἕκαστος μόριόν ἐστι τούτων (λέγω δὲ μόριον τὸν βουλευτὴν καὶ τὸν ἐκκλησιαστὴν καὶ τὸν δικαστήν)· ὥστε δικαίως κύριον μειζόνων τὸ πλῆθος· ἐκ γὰρ πολλῶν ὁ δῆμος καὶ ἡ βουλὴ καὶ τὸ δικαστήριον. καὶ τὸ τίμημα δὲ πλεῖον τὸ πάντων τούτων ἢ τὸ τῶν καθʼ ἕνα καὶ κατʼ ὀλίγους μεγάλας ἀρχὰς ἀρχόντων. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν διωρίσθω τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· ἡ δὲ πρώτη λεχθεῖσα ἀπορία ποιεῖ φανερὸν οὐδὲν οὕτως ἕτερον ὡς ὅτι δεῖ τοὺς νόμους εἶναι κυρίους κειμένους ὀρθῶς, τὸν ἄρχοντα δέ, ἄν τε εἷς ἄν τε πλείους ὦσι, περὶ τούτων εἶναι κυρίους περὶ ὅσων ἐξαδυνατοῦσιν οἱ νόμοι λέγειν ἀκριβῶς διὰ τὸ μὴ ῥᾴδιον εἶναι καθόλου διορίσαι περὶ πάντων. ὁποίους μέντοι τινὰς εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς ὀρθῶς κειμένους νόμους, οὐδέν πω δῆλον, ἀλλʼ ἔτι μένει τὸ πάλαι διαπορηθέν. ἅμα γὰρ καὶ ὁμοίως ταῖς πολιτείαις ἀνάγκη καὶ τοὺς νόμους φαύλους ἢ σπουδαίους εἶναι, καὶ δικαίους ἢ ἀδίκους. πλὴν τοῦτό γε φανερόν, ὅτι δεῖ πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν κεῖσθαι τοὺς νόμους. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ τοῦτο, δῆλον ὅτι τοὺς μὲν κατὰ τὰς ὀρθὰς πολιτείας ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι δικαίους τοὺς δὲ κατὰ τὰς παρεκβεβηκυίας οὐ δικαίους.

-

ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐν πάσαις μὲν ταῖς ἐπιστήμαις καὶ τέχναις ἀγαθὸν τὸ τέλος, μέγιστον δὲ καὶ μάλιστα ἐν τῇ κυριωτάτῃ πασῶν, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ πολιτικὴ δύναμις, ἔστι δὲ τὸ πολιτικὸν ἀγαθὸν τὸ δίκαιον, τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον, δοκεῖ δὴ πᾶσιν ἴσον τι τὸ δίκαιον εἶναι, καὶ μέχρι γέ τινος ὁμολογοῦσι τοῖς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγοις, ἐν οἷς διώρισται περὶ τῶν ἠθικῶν (τὶ γὰρ καὶ τισὶ τὸ δίκαιον, καὶ δεῖν τοῖς ἴσοις ἴσον εἶναι φασιν), ποίων δὴ ἰσότης ἐστὶ καὶ ποίων ἀνισότης, δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν. ἔχει γὰρ τοῦτʼ ἀπορίαν καὶ φιλοσοφίαν πολιτικήν. ἴσως γὰρ ἂν φαίη τις κατὰ παντὸς ὑπεροχὴν ἀγαθοῦ δεῖν ἀνίσως νενεμῆσθαι τὰς ἀρχάς, εἰ πάντα τὰ λοιπὰ μηδὲν διαφέροιεν ἀλλʼ ὅμοιοι τυγχάνοιεν ὄντες· τοῖς γὰρ διαφέρουσιν ἕτερον εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ κατʼ ἀξίαν. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ τοῦτʼ ἀληθές, ἔσται καὶ κατὰ χρῶμα καὶ κατὰ μέγεθος καὶ καθʼ ὁτιοῦν τῶν ἀγαθῶν πλεονεξία τις τῶν πολιτικῶν δικαίων τοῖς ὑπερέχουσιν. ἢ τοῦτο ἐπιπόλαιον τὸ ψεῦδος; φανερὸν δʼ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιστημῶν καὶ δυνάμεων· τῶν γὰρ ὁμοίων αὐλητῶν τὴν τέχνην οὐ δοτέον πλεονεξίαν τῶν αὐλῶν τοῖς εὐγενεστέροις (οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐλήσουσι βέλτιον), δεῖ δὲ τῷ κατὰ τὸ ἔργον ὑπερέχοντι διδόναι καὶ τῶν ὀργάνων τὴν ὑπεροχήν. εἰ δὲ μήπω δῆλον τὸ λεγόμενον, ἔτι μᾶλλον αὐτὸ προαγαγοῦσιν ἔσται φανερόν. εἰ γὰρ εἴη τις ὑπερέχων μὲν κατὰ τὴν αὐλητικήν, πολὺ δʼ ἐλλείπων κατʼ εὐγένειαν ἢ κάλλος, εἰ καὶ μεῖζον ἕκαστον ἐκείνων ἀγαθόν ἐστι τῆς αὐλητικῆς (λέγω δὲ τήν τʼ εὐγένειαν καὶ τὸ κάλλος), καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν ὑπερέχουσι πλέον τῆς αὐλητικῆς ἢ ἐκεῖνος κατὰ τὴν αὐλητικήν, ὅμως τούτῳ δοτέον τοὺς διαφέροντας τῶν αὐλῶν. δεῖ γὰρ εἰς τὸ ἔργον συμβάλλεσθαι τὴν ὑπεροχὴν καὶ τοῦ πλούτου καὶ τῆς εὐγενείας, συμβάλλονται δʼ οὐδέν.

-

ἔτι κατά γε τοῦτον τὸν λόγον πᾶν ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πᾶν ἂν εἴη συμβλητόν. εἰ γὰρ μᾶλλον τὸ τὶ μέγεθος, καὶ ὅλως ἂν τὸ μέγεθος ἐνάμιλλον εἴη καὶ πρὸς πλοῦτον καὶ πρὸς ἐλευθερίαν· ὥστʼ εἰ πλεῖον ὁδὶ διαφέρει κατὰ μέγεθος ἢ ὁδὶ κατʼ ἀρετήν, καὶ πλεῖον ὑπερέχει ὅλως ἀρετὴ μεγέθους, εἴη ἂν συμβλητὰ πάντα. τοσόνδε γὰρ μέγεθος εἰ κρεῖττον τοσοῦδε, τοσόνδε δῆλον ὡς ἴσον. ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἀδύνατον, δῆλον ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν εὐλόγως οὐ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνισότητʼ ἀμφισβητοῦσι τῶν ἀρχῶν (εἰ γὰρ οἱ μὲν βραδεῖς οἱ δὲ ταχεῖς, οὐδὲν διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ τοὺς μὲν πλεῖον τοὺς δʼ ἔλαττον ἔχειν, ἀλλʼ ἐν τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσιν ἡ τούτων διαφορὰ λαμβάνει τὴν τιμήν)· ἀλλʼ ἐξ ὧν πόλις συνέστηκεν, ἐν τούτοις ἀναγκαῖον ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν. διόπερ εὐλόγως ἀντιποιοῦνται τῆς τιμῆς οἱ εὐγενεῖς καὶ ἐλεύθεροι καὶ πλούσιοι. δεῖ γὰρ ἐλευθέρους τʼ εἶναι καὶ τίμημα φέροντας, οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἴη πόλις ἐξ ἀπόρων πάντων, ὥσπερ οὐδʼ ἐκ δούλων· ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ δεῖ τούτων, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῆς πολιτικῆς ἀρετῆς, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνευ τούτων οἰκεῖσθαι πόλιν δυνατόν· πλὴν ἄνευ μὲν τῶν προτέρων ἀδύνατον εἶναι πόλιν, ἄνευ δὲ τούτων οἰκεῖσθαι καλῶς.

-

πρὸς μὲν οὖν τὸ πόλιν εἶναι δόξειεν ἂν ἢ πάντα ἢ ἔνιά γε τούτων ὀρθῶς ἀμφισβητεῖν, πρὸς μέντοι ζωὴν ἀγαθὴν ἡ παιδεία καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ μάλιστα δικαίως ἂν ἀμφισβητοίησαν, καθάπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον. ἐπεὶ δʼ οὔτε πάντων ἴσον ἔχειν δεῖ τοὺς ἴσους ἕν τι μόνον ὄντας, οὔτε ἄνισον τοὺς ἀνίσους καθʼ ἕν, ἀνάγκη πάσας εἶναι τὰς τοιαύτας πολιτείας περεκβάσεις. εἴρηται μὲν οὖν καὶ πρότερον ὅτι διαμφισβητοῦσι τρόπον τινὰ δικαίως πάντες, ἁπλῶς δʼ οὐ πάντες δικαίως· οἱ πλούσιοι μὲν ὅτι πλεῖον μέτεστι τῆς χώρας αὐτοῖς, ἡ δὲ χώρα κοινόν, ἔτι πρὸς τὰ συμβόλαια πιστοὶ μᾶλλον ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλέον· οἱ δὲ ἐλεύθεροι καὶ εὐγενεῖς ὡς ἐγγὺς ἀλλήλων (πολῖται γὰρ μᾶλλον οἱ γενναιότεροι τῶν ἀγεννῶν, ἡ δʼ εὐγένεια παρʼ ἑκάστοις οἴκοι τίμιος)· ἔτι διότι βελτίους εἰκὸς τοὺς ἐκ βελτιόνων, εὐγένεια γάρ ἐστιν ἀρετὴ γένους· ὁμοίως δὲ φήσομεν δικαίως καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀμφισβητεῖν, κοινωνικὴν γὰρ ἀρετὴν εἶναί φαμεν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ᾗ πάσας ἀναγκαῖον ἀκολουθεῖν τὰς ἄλλας· ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ οἱ πλείους πρὸς τοὺς ἐλάττους, καὶ γὰρ κρείττους καὶ πλουσιώτεροι καὶ βελτίους εἰσίν, ὡς λαμβανομένων τῶν πλειόνων πρὸς τοὺς ἐλάττους.

-

ἆρʼ οὖν εἰ πάντες εἶεν ἐν μιᾷ πόλει, λέγω δʼ οἷον οἵ τʼ ἀγαθοὶ καὶ οἱ πλούσιοι καὶ οἱ εὐγενεῖς, ἔτι δὲ πλῆθος ἄλλο τι πολιτικόν, πότερον ἀμφισβήτησις ἔσται τίνας ἄρχειν δεῖ, ἢ οὐκ ἔσται; καθʼ ἑκάστην μὲν οὖν πολιτείαν τῶν εἰρημένων ἀναμφισβήτητος ἡ κρίσις τίνας ἄρχειν δεῖ (τοῖς γὰρ κυρίοις διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων, οἷον ἡ μὲν τῷ διὰ πλουσίων ἡ δὲ τῷ διὰ τῶν σπουδαίων ἀνδρῶν εἶναι, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάστη τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον)· ἀλλʼ ὅμως σκοπῶμεν, ὅταν περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ταῦθʼ ὑπάρχῃ χρόνον, πῶς διοριστέον. εἰ δὴ τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἶεν ὀλίγοι πάμπαν οἱ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἔχοντες, τίνα δεῖ διελεῖν τρόπον; ἢ τὸ ὀλίγοι πρὸς τὸ ἔργον δεῖ σκοπεῖν, εἰ δυνατοὶ διοικεῖν τὴν πόλιν ἢ τοσοῦτοι τὸ πλῆθος ὥστʼ εἶναι πόλιν ἐξ αὐτῶν; ἔστι δὲ ἀπορία τις πρὸς ἅπαντας τοὺς διαμφισβητοῦντας περὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν τιμῶν. δόξαιεν γὰρ ἂν οὐδὲν λέγειν δίκαιον οἱ διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον ἀξιοῦντες ἄρχειν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ κατὰ γένος· δῆλον γὰρ ὡς εἴ τις πάλιν εἷς πλουσιώτερος ἁπάντων ἐστί, δηλονότι κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ δίκαιον τοῦτον ἄρχειν τὸν ἕνα ἁπάντων δεήσει, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸν εὐγενείᾳ διαφέροντα τῶν ἀμφισβητούντων διʼ ἐλευθερίαν. ταὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο ἴσως συμβήσεται καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀριστοκρατίας ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς· εἰ γάρ τις εἷς ἀμείνων ἀνὴρ εἴη τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι σπουδαίων ὄντων, τοῦτον εἶναι δεῖ κύριον κατὰ ταὐτὸ δίκαιον. οὐκοῦν εἰ καὶ τὸ πλῆθος εἶναί γε δεῖ κύριον διότι κρείττους εἰσὶ τῶν ὀλίγων, κἂν εἷς ἢ πλείους μὲν τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐλάττους δὲ τῶν πολλῶν κρείττους ὦσι τῶν ἄλλων, τούτους ἂν δέοι κυρίους εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ πλῆθος. πάντα δὴ ταῦτʼ ἔοικε φανερὸν ποιεῖν ὅτι τούτων τῶν ὅρων οὐδεὶς ὀρθός ἐστι καθʼ ὃν ἀξιοῦσιν αὐτοὶ μὲν ἄρχειν τοὺς δʼ ἄλλους ὑπὸ σφῶν ἄρχεσθαι πάντας. καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀξιοῦντας κυρίους εἶναι τοῦ πολιτεύματος, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τοὺς κατὰ πλοῦτον, ἔχοιεν ἂν λέγειν τὰ πλήθη λόγον τινὰ δίκαιον· οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει ποτὲ τὸ πλῆθος εἶναι βέλτιον· τῶν ὀλίγων καὶ πλουσιώτερον, οὐχ ὡς καθʼ ἕκαστον ἀλλʼ ὡς ἀθρόους. διὸ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀπορίαν ἣν ζητοῦσι καὶ προβάλλουσί τινες ἐνδέχεται τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἀπαντᾶν. ἀποροῦσι γάρ τινες πότερον τῷ νομοθέτῃ νομοθετητέον, βουλομένῳ τίθεσθαι τοὺς ὀρθοτάτους νόμους, πρὸς τὸ τῶν βελτιόνων συμφέρον ἢ πρὸς τὸ τῶν πλειόνων, ὅταν συμβαίνῃ τὸ λεχθέν· τὸ δʼ ὀρθὸν ληπτέον ἴσως· τὸ δʼ ἴσως ὀρθὸν πρὸς τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὅλης συμφέρον καὶ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τὸ τῶν πολιτῶν· πολίτης δὲ κοινῇ μὲν ὁ μετέχων τοῦ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαί ἐστι, καθʼ ἑκάστην δὲ πολιτείαν ἕτερος, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀρίστην ὁ δυνάμενος καὶ προαιρούμενος ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν πρὸς τὸν βίον τὸν κατʼ ἀρετήν.

-

εἰ δέ τις ἔστιν εἷς τοσοῦτον διαφέρων κατʼ ἀρετῆς ὑπερβολήν, ἢ πλείους μὲν ἑνὸς μὴ μέντοι δυνατοὶ πλήρωμα παρασχέσθαι πόλεως, ὥστε μὴ συμβλητὴν εἶναι τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετὴν πάντων μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν τὴν πολιτικὴν πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων, εἰ πλείους, εἰ δʼ εἷς, τὴν ἐκείνου μόνον, οὐκέτι θετέον τούτους μέρος πόλεως· ἀδικήσονται γὰρ ἀξιούμενοι τῶν ἴσων, ἄνισοι τοσοῦτον κατʼ ἀρετὴν ὄντες καὶ τὴν πολιτικὴν δύναμιν· ὥσπερ γὰρ θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποις εἰκὸς εἶναι τὸν τοιοῦτον. ὅθεν δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὴν νομοθεσίαν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι περὶ τοὺς ἴσους καὶ τῷ γένει καὶ τῇ δυνάμει, κατὰ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστι νόμος· αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσι νόμος. καὶ γὰρ γελοῖος ἂν εἴη νομοθετεῖν τις πειρώμενος κατʼ αὐτῶν. λέγοιεν γὰρ ἂν ἴσως ἅπερ Ἀντισθένης ἔφη τοὺς λέοντας δημηγορούντων τῶν δασυπόδων καὶ τὸ ἴσον ἀξιούντων πάντας ἔχειν. διὸ καὶ τίθενται τὸν ὀστρακισμὸν αἱ δημοκρατούμεναι πόλεις, διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν· αὗται γὰρ δὴ δοκοῦσι διώκειν τὴν ἰσότητα μάλιστα πάντων, ὥστε τοὺς δοκοῦντας ὑπερέχειν δυνάμει διὰ πλοῦτον ἢ πολυφιλίαν ἤ τινα ἄλλην πολιτικὴν ἰσχὺν ὠστράκιζον καὶ μεθίστασαν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως χρόνους ὡρισμένους. μυθολογεῖται δὲ καὶ τοὺς Ἀργοναύτας τὸν Ἡρακλέα καταλιπεῖν διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐθέλειν αὐτὸν ἄγειν τὴν Ἀργὼ μετὰ τῶν πλωτήρων τῶν ἄλλων, ὡς ὑπερβάλλοντα πολύ. διὸ καὶ τοὺς ψέγοντας τὴν τυραννίδα καὶ τὴν Περιάνδρου Θρασυβούλῳ συμβουλίαν οὐχ ἁπλῶς οἰητέον ὀρθῶς ἐπιτιμᾶν (φασὶ γὰρ τὸν Περίανδρον εἰπεῖν μὲν οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν πεμφθέντα κήρυκα περὶ τῆς συμβουλίας, ἀφαιροῦντα δὲ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας τῶν σταχύων ὁμαλῦναι τὴν ἄρουραν· ὅθεν ἀγνοοῦντος μὲν τοῦ κήρυκος τοῦ γιγνομένου τὴν αἰτίαν, ἀπαγγείλαντος δὲ τὸ συμπεσόν, συννοῆσαι τὸν Θρασύβουλον ὅτι δεῖ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας ἄνδρας ἀναιρεῖν). τοῦτο γὰρ οὐ μόνον συμφέρει τοῖς τυράννοις, οὐδὲ μόνον οἱ τύραννοι ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ὁμοίως ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ τὰς δημοκρατίας· ὁ γὰρ ὀστρακισμὸς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει δύναμιν τρόπον τινὰ τῷ κολούειν τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας καὶ φυγαδεύειν. τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ καὶ περὶ τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ποιοῦσιν οἱ κύριοι τῆς δυνάμεως, οἷον Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν περὶ Σαμίους καὶ Χίους καὶ Λεσβίους (ἐπεὶ γὰρ θᾶττον ἐγκρατῶς ἔσχον τὴν ἀρχήν, ἐταπείνωσαν αὐτοὺς παρὰ τὰς συνθήκας), ὁ δὲ Περσῶν βασιλεὺς Μήδους καὶ Βαβυλωνίους καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τοὺς πεφρονηματισμένους διὰ τὸ γενέσθαι ποτʼ ἐπʼ ἀρχῆς ἐπέκοπτε πολλάκις.

-

τὸ δὲ πρόβλημα καθόλου περὶ πάσας ἐστὶ τὰς πολιτείας, καὶ τὰς ὀρθάς· αἱ μὲν γὰρ παρεκβεβηκυῖαι πρὸς τὸ ἴδιον ἀποσκοποῦσαι τοῦτο δρῶσιν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ περὶ τὰς τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθὸν ἐπισκοπούσας τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχει τρόπον. δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τεχνῶν καὶ ἐπιστημῶν· οὔτε γὰρ γραφεὺς ἐάσειεν ἂν τὸν ὑπερβάλλοντα πόδα τῆς συμμετρίας ἔχειν τὸ ζῷον, οὐδʼ εἰ διαφέροι τὸ κάλλος, οὔτε ναυπηγὸς πρύμναν ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τι μορίων τῶν τῆς νεώς, οὐδὲ δὴ χοροδιδάσκαλος τὸν μεῖζον καὶ κάλλιον τοῦ παντὸς χοροῦ φθεγγόμενον ἐάσει συγχορεύειν. ὥστε διὰ τοῦτο μὲν οὐδὲν κωλύει τοὺς μονάρχους συμφωνεῖν ταῖς πόλεσιν, εἰ τῆς οἰκείας ἀρχῆς ὠφελίμου ταῖς πόλεσιν οὔσης τοῦτο δρῶσιν. διὸ κατὰ τὰς ὁμολογουμένας ὑπεροχὰς ἔχει τι δίκαιον πολιτικὸν ὁ λόγος ὁ περὶ τὸν ὀστρακισμόν. βέλτιον μὲν οὖν τὸν νομοθέτην ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὕτω συστῆσαι τὴν πολιτείαν ὥστε μὴ δεῖσθαι τοιαύτης ἰατρείας· δεύτερος δὲ πλοῦς, ἂν συμβῇ, πειρᾶσθαι τοιούτῳ τινὶ διορθώματι διορθοῦν. ὅπερ οὐκ ἐγίγνετο περὶ τὰς πόλεις· οὐ γὰρ ἔβλεπον πρὸς τὸ τῆς πολιτείας τῆς οἰκείας συμφέρον, ἀλλὰ στασιαστικῶς ἐχρῶντο τοῖς ὀστρακισμοῖς. ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς παρεκβεβηκυίαις πολιτείαις ὅτι μὲν ἰδίᾳ συμφέρει καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστι, φανερόν, ἴσως δὲ καὶ ὅτι οὐχ ἁπλῶς δίκαιον, καὶ τοῦτο φανερόν· ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας ἔχει πολλὴν ἀπορίαν, οὐ κατὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν τὴν ὑπεροχήν, οἷον ἰσχύος καὶ πλούτου καὶ πολυφιλίας, ἀλλὰ ἄν τις γένηται διαφέρων κατʼ ἀρετήν, τί χρὴ ποιεῖν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ φαῖεν ἂν δεῖν ἐκβάλλειν καὶ μεθιστάναι τὸν τοιοῦτον· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ἄρχειν γε τοῦ τοιούτου· παραπλήσιον γὰρ κἂν εἰ τοῦ Διὸς ἄρχειν ἀξιοῖεν, μερίζοντες τὰς ἀρχάς. λείπεται τοίνυν, ὅπερ ἔοικε πεφυκέναι, πείθεσθαι τῷ τοιούτῳ πάντας ἀσμένως, ὥστε βασιλέας εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους ἀιδίους ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν.

-

ἴσως δὲ καλῶς ἔχει μετὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους λόγους μεταβῆναι καὶ σκέψασθαι περὶ βασιλείας· φαμὲν γὰρ τῶν ὀρθῶν πολιτειῶν μίαν εἶναι ταύτην. σκεπτέον δὲ πότερον συμφέρει τῇ μελλούσῃ καλῶς οἰκήσεσθαι καὶ πόλει καὶ χώρᾳ βασιλεύεσθαι, ἢ οὔ, ἀλλʼ ἄλλη τις πολιτεία μᾶλλον, ἢ τισὶ μὲν συμφέρει τισὶ δʼ οὐ συμφέρει. δεῖ δὴ πρῶτον διελέσθαι πότερον ἕν τι γένος ἔστιν αὐτῆς ἢ πλείους ἔχει διαφοράς. ῥᾴδιον δὴ τοῦτό γε καταμαθεῖν, ὅτι πλείω τε γένη περιέχει καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ τρόπος ἐστὶν οὐχ εἷς πασῶν. ἡ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Λακωνικῇ πολιτείᾳ δοκεῖ μὲν εἶναι βασιλεία μάλιστα τῶν κατὰ νόμον, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ κυρία πάντων, ἀλλʼ ὅταν ἐξέλθῃ τὴν χώραν ἡγεμών ἐστι τῶν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον· ἔτι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ἀποδέδοται τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν. αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ βασιλεία οἷον στρατηγία τις αὐτοκρατόρων καὶ ἀίδιός ἐστιν· κτεῖναι γὰρ οὐ κύριος, εἰ μὴ ἔν τινι καιρῷ, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐν ταῖς πολεμικαῖς ἐξόδοις, ἐν χειρὸς νόμῳ. δηλοῖ δʼ Ὅμηρος· ὁ γὰρ Ἀγαμέμνων κακῶς μὲν ἀκούων ἠνείχετο ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἐξελθόντων δὲ καὶ κτεῖναι κύριος ἦν· λέγει γοῦν ὃν δέ κʼ ἐγὼν ἀπάνευθε μάχης . . , οὔ οἱ ἄρκιον ἐσσεῖται φυγέειν κύνας ἠδʼ οἰωνούς· πὰρ γὰρ ἐμοὶ θάνατος. Hom. Il. 2.391

-

ἓν μὲν οὖν τοῦτʼ εἶδος βασιλείας, στρατηγία διὰ βίου, τούτων δʼ αἱ μὲν κατὰ γένος εἰσὶν αἱ δʼ αἱρεταί· παρὰ ταύτην δʼ ἄλλο μοναρχίας εἶδος, οἷαι παρʼ ἐνίοις εἰσὶ βασιλεῖαι τῶν βαρβάρων. ἔχουσι δʼ αὗται τὴν δύναμιν πᾶσαι παραπλησίαν τυραννίσιν, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ κατὰ νόμον καὶ πάτριαι· διὰ γὰρ τὸ δουλικώτεροι εἶναι τὰ ἤθη φύσει οἱ μὲν βάρβαροι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν τῶν περὶ τὴν Εὐρώπην, ὑπομένουσι τὴν δεσποτικὴν ἀρχὴν οὐδὲν δυσχεραίνοντες. τυραννικαὶ μὲν οὖν διὰ τὸ τοιοῦτόν εἰσιν, ἀσφαλεῖς δὲ διὰ τὸ πάτριαι καὶ κατὰ νόμον εἶναι. καὶ ἡ φυλακὴ δὲ βασιλικὴ καὶ οὐ τυραννικὴ διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν. οἱ γὰρ πολῖται φυλάττουσιν ὅπλοις τοὺς βασιλεῖς, τοὺς δὲ τυράννους ξενικόν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ νόμον καὶ ἑκόντων οἱ δʼ ἀκόντων ἄρχουσιν, ὥσθʼ οἱ μὲν παρὰ τῶν πολιτῶν οἱ δʼ ἐπὶ τοὺς πολίτας ἔχουσι τὴν φυλακήν.

-

δύο μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα μοναρχίας, ἕτερον δʼ ὅπερ ἦν ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Ἕλλησιν, οὓς καλοῦσιν αἰσυμνήτας. ἔστι δὲ τοῦθʼ ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν αἱρετὴ τυραννίς, διαφέρουσα δὲ τῆς βαρβαρικῆς οὐ τῷ μὴ κατὰ νόμον ἀλλὰ τῷ μὴ πάτριος εἶναι μόνον. ἦρχον δʼ οἱ μὲν διὰ βίου τὴν ἀρχὴν ταύτην, οἱ δὲ μέχρι τινῶν ὡρισμένων χρόνων ἢ πράξεων, οἷον εἵλοντό ποτε Μυτιληναῖοι Πιττακὸν πρὸς τοὺς φυγάδας ὧν προειστήκεσαν Ἀντιμενίδης καὶ Ἀλκαῖος ὁ ποιητής. δηλοῖ δʼ Ἀλκαῖος ὅτι τύραννον εἵλοντο τὸν Πιττακὸν ἔν τινι τῶν σκολιῶν μελῶν· ἐπιτιμᾷ γὰρ ὅτι τὸν κακοπάτριδα Πίττακον πόλιος τᾶς ἀχόλω καὶ βαρυδαίμονος ἐστάσαντο τύραννον μέγʼ ἐπαινέοντες ἀόλλεες.

-

αὗται μὲν οὖν εἰσί τε καὶ ἦσαν διὰ μὲν τὸ δεσποτικαὶ εἶναι τυραννικαί, διὰ δὲ τὸ αἱρεταὶ καὶ ἑκόντων βασιλικαί· τέταρτον δʼ εἶδος μοναρχίας βασιλικῆς αἱ κατὰ τοὺς ἡρωικοὺς χρόνους ἑκούσιαί τε καὶ πάτριαι γιγνόμεναι κατὰ νόμον. διὰ γὰρ τὸ τοὺς πρώτους γενέσθαι τοῦ πλήθους εὐεργέτας κατὰ τέχνας ἢ πόλεμον, ἢ διὰ τὸ συναγαγεῖν ἢ πορίσαι χώραν, ἐγίγνοντο βασιλεῖς ἑκόντων καὶ τοῖς παραλαμβάνουσι πάτριοι. κύριοι δʼ ἦσαν τῆς τε κατὰ πόλεμον ἡγεμονίας καὶ τῶν θυσιῶν, ὅσαι μὴ ἱερατικαί, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις τὰς δίκας ἔκρινον. τοῦτο δʼ ἐποίουν οἱ μὲν οὐκ ὀμνύοντες οἱ δʼ ὀμνύοντες· ὁ δʼ ὅρκος ἦν τοῦ σκήπτρου ἐπανάτασις. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων χρόνων καὶ τὰ κατὰ πόλιν καὶ τὰ ἔνδημα καὶ τὰ ὑπερόρια συνεχῶς ἦρχον· ὕστερον δὲ τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν παριέντων τῶν βασιλέων, τὰ δὲ τῶν ὄχλων παραιρουμένων, ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσιν αἱ θυσίαι κατελείφθησαν τοῖς βασιλεῦσι μόνον, ὅπου δʼ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν εἶναι βασιλείαν, ἐν τοῖς ὑπερορίοις τῶν πολεμικῶν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν μόνον εἶχον.

-

βασιλείας μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα, τέτταρα τὸν ἀριθμόν, μία μὲν ἡ περὶ τοὺς ἡρωικοὺς χρόνους (αὕτη δʼ ἦν ἑκόντων μέν, ἐπὶ τισὶ δʼ ὡρισμένοις· στρατηγός τε γὰρ ἦν καὶ δικαστὴς ὁ βασιλεύς, καὶ τῶν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς κύριος), δευτέρα δʼ ἡ βαρβαρική (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἐκ γένους ἀρχὴ δεσποτικὴ κατὰ νόμον), τρίτη δὲ ἣν αἰσυμνητείαν προσαγορεύουσιν (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν αἱρετὴ τυραννίς), τετάρτη δʼ ἡ Λακωνικὴ τούτων (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ὡς εἰπεῖν ἁπλῶς στρατηγία κατὰ γένος ἀίδιος). αὗται μὲν οὖν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων· πέμπτον δʼ εἶδος βασιλείας, ὅταν ᾖ πάντων κύριος εἷς ὤν, ὥσπερ ἕκαστον ἔθνος καὶ πόλις ἑκάστη τῶν κοινῶν, τεταγμένη κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομικήν. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ οἰκονομικὴ βασιλεία τις οἰκίας ἐστίν, οὕτως ἡ παμβασιλεία πόλεως καὶ ἔθνους ἑνὸς ἢ πλειόνων οἰκονομία.

-

Σχεδὸν δὴ δύο ἐστὶν ὡς εἰπεῖν εἴδη βασιλείας περὶ ὧν σκεπτέον, αὕτη τε καὶ ἡ Λακωνική· τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων αἱ πολλαὶ μεταξὺ τούτων εἰσίν· ἐλαττόνων μὲν γὰρ κύριοι τῆς παμβασιλείας, πλειόνων δʼ εἰσὶ τῆς Λακωνικῆς. ὥστε τὸ σκέμμα σχεδὸν περὶ δυοῖν ἐστιν, ἓν μὲν πότερον συμφέρει ταῖς πόλεσι στρατηγὸν ἀίδιον εἶναι, καὶ τοῦτον ἢ κατὰ γένος ἢ κατὰ μέρος, ἢ οὐ συμφέρει, ἓν δὲ πότερον ἕνα συμφέρει κύριον εἶναι πάντων, ἢ οὐ συμφέρει. τὸ μὲν οὖν περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης στρατηγίας ἐπισκοπεῖν νόμων ἔχει μᾶλλον εἶδος ἢ πολιτείας (ἐν ἁπάσαις γὰρ ἐνδέχεται γίγνεσθαι τοῦτο ταῖς πολιτείαις), ὥστʼ ἀφείσθω τὴν πρώτην· ὁ δὲ λοιπὸς τρόπος τῆς βασιλείας πολιτείας εἶδός ἐστιν, ὥστε περὶ τούτου δεῖ θεωρῆσαι καὶ τὰς ἀπορίας ἐπιδραμεῖν τὰς ἐνούσας. ἀρχὴ δʼ ἐστὶ τῆς ζητήσεως αὕτη, πότερον συμφέρει μᾶλλον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου ἀνδρὸς ἄρχεσθαι ἢ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρίστων νόμων.

-

δοκοῦσι δὴ τοῖς νομίζουσι συμφέρειν βασιλεύεσθαι τὸ καθόλου μόνον οἱ νόμοι λέγειν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς τὰ προσπίπτοντα ἐπιτάττειν, ὥστʼ ἐν ὁποιᾳοῦν τέχνῃ τὸ κατὰ γράμματʼ ἄρχειν ἠλίθιον (καὶ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ μετὰ τὴν τετρήμερον κινεῖν ἔξεστι τοῖς ἰατροῖς, ἐὰν δὲ πρότερον, ἐπὶ τῷ αὑτοῦ κινδύνῳ). φανερὸν τοίνυν ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ κατὰ γράμματα καὶ νόμους ἀρίστη πολιτεία, διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν. ἀλλὰ μὴν κἀκεῖνον δεῖ ὑπάρχειν τὸν λόγον, τὸν καθόλου, τοῖς ἄρχουσιν. κρεῖττον δʼ ᾧ μὴ πρόσεστι τὸ παθητικὸν ὅλως ἢ ᾧ συμφυές· τῷ μὲν οὖν νόμῳ τοῦτο οὐχ ὑπάρχει, ψυχὴν δʼ ἀνθρωπίνην ἀνάγκη τοῦτʼ ἔχειν πᾶσαν. ἀλλʼ ἴσως ἂν φαίη τις ὡς ἀντὶ τούτου βουλεύσεται περὶ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστα κάλλιον. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἀνάγκη νομοθέτην αὐτὸν εἶναι, δῆλον, καὶ κεῖσθαι νόμους, ἀλλὰ μὴ κυρίους ᾗ παρεκβαίνουσιν, ἐπεὶ περὶ τῶν γʼ ἄλλων εἶναι δεῖ κυρίους· ὅσα δὲ μὴ δυνατὸν τὸν νόμον κρίνειν ἢ ὅλως ἢ εὖ, πότερον ἕνα τὸν ἄριστον δεῖ ἄρχειν ἢ πάντας; καὶ γὰρ νῦν συνιόντες δικάζουσι καὶ βουλεύονται καὶ κρίνουσιν, αὗται δʼ αἱ κρίσεις εἰσὶ πᾶσαι περὶ τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστον. καθʼ ἕνα μὲν οὖν συμβαλλόμενος ὁστισοῦν ἴσως χείρων· ἀλλʼ ἐστὶν ἡ πόλις ἐκ πολλῶν, ὥσπερ δʼ ἑστίασις συμφορητὸς καλλίων μιᾶς καὶ ἁπλῆς· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ κρίνει ἄμεινον ὄχλος πολλὰ ἢ εἷς ὁστισοῦν.

-

ἔτι μᾶλλον ἀδιάφθορον τὸ πολύ—καθάπερ ὕδωρ τὸ πλεῖον, οὕτω καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ὀλίγων ἀδιαφθορώτερον· τοῦ δʼ ἑνὸς ὑπʼ ὀργῆς κρατηθέντος ἤ τινος ἑτέρου πάθους τοιούτου ἀναγκαῖον διεφθάρθαι τὴν κρίσιν, ἐκεῖ δʼ ἔργον ἅμα πάντας ὀργισθῆναι καὶ ἁμαρτεῖν. ἔστω δὲ τὸ πλῆθος οἱ ἐλεύθεροι, μηδὲν παρὰ τὸν νόμον πράττοντες ἀλλʼ ἢ περὶ ὧν ἐκλείπειν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτόν. εἰ δὲ δὴ τοῦτο μὴ ῥᾴδιον ἐν πολλοῖς, ἀλλʼ εἰ πλείους εἶεν ἀγαθοὶ καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ πολῖται, πότερον ὁ εἷς ἀδιαφθορώτερος ἄρχων, ἢ μᾶλλον οἱ πλείους μὲν τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἀγαθοὶ δὲ πάντες; ἢ δῆλον ὡς οἱ πλείους; ἀλλʼ οἱ μὲν στασιάσουσιν ὁ δὲ εἷς ἀστασίαστος. ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοῦτʼ ἀντιθετέον ἴσως ὅτι σπουδαῖοι τὴν ψυχήν, ὥσπερ κἀκεῖνος ὁ εἷς. εἰ δὴ τὴν μὲν τῶν πλειόνων ἀρχὴν ἀγαθῶν δʼ ἀνδρῶν πάντων ἀριστοκρατίαν θετέον, τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἑνὸς βασιλείαν, αἱρετώτερον ἂν εἴη ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀριστοκρατία βασιλείας, καὶ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ χωρὶς δυνάμεως οὔσης τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἂν ᾖ λαβεῖν πλείους ὁμοίους. καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ ἴσως ἐβασιλεύοντο πρότερον, ὅτι σπάνιον ἦν εὑρεῖν ἄνδρας πολὺ διαφέροντας κατʼ ἀρετήν, ἄλλως τε καὶ τότε μικρὰς οἰκοῦντας πόλεις. ἔτι δʼ ἀπʼ εὐεργεσίας καθίστασαν τοὺς βασιλεῖς, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἔργον τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν. ἐπεὶ δὲ συνέβαινε γίγνεσθαι πολλοὺς ὁμοίους πρὸς ἀρετήν, οὐκέτι ὑπέμενον ἀλλʼ ἐζήτουν κοινόν τι καὶ πολιτείαν καθίστασαν. ἐπεὶ δὲ χείρους γιγνόμενοι ἐχρηματίζοντο ἀπὸ τῶν κοινῶν, ἐντεῦθέν ποθεν εὔλογον γενέσθαι τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας· ἔντιμον γὰρ ἐποίησαν τὸν πλοῦτον. ἐκ δὲ τούτων πρῶτον εἰς τυραννίδας μετέβαλλον, ἐκ δὲ τῶν τυραννίδων εἰς δημοκρατίαν· αἰεὶ γὰρ εἰς ἐλάττους ἄγοντες διʼ αἰσχροκέρδειαν ἰσχυρότερον τὸ πλῆθος κατέστησαν, ὥστʼ ἐπιθέσθαι καὶ γενέσθαι δημοκρατίας. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ μείζους εἶναι συμβέβηκε τὰς πόλεις, ἴσως οὐδὲ ῥᾴδιον ἔτι γίγνεσθαι πολιτείαν ἑτέραν παρὰ δημοκρατίαν.

-

εἰ δὲ δή τις ἄριστον θείη τὸ βασιλεύεσθαι ταῖς πόλεσιν, πῶς ἕξει τὰ περὶ τῶν τέκνων; πότερον καὶ τὸ γένος δεῖ βασιλεύειν; ἀλλὰ γιγνομένων ὁποῖοί τινες ἔτυχον, βλαβερόν. ἀλλʼ οὐ παραδώσει κύριος ὢν τοῖς τέκνοις. ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἔτι τοῦτο ῥᾴδιον πιστεῦσαι· χαλεπὸν γάρ, καὶ μείζονος ἀρετῆς ἢ κατʼ ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν. ἔχει δʼ ἀπορίαν καὶ περὶ τῆς δυνάμεως, πότερον ἔχειν δεῖ τὸν μέλλοντα βασιλεύειν ἰσχύν τινα περὶ αὑτόν, ᾗ δυνήσεται βιάζεσθαι τοὺς μὴ βουλομένους πειθαρχεῖν, ἢ πῶς ἐνδέχεται τὴν ἀρχὴν διοικεῖν; εἰ γὰρ καὶ κατὰ νόμον εἴη κύριος, μηδὲν πράττων κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ βούλησιν παρὰ τὸν νόμον, ὅμως ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ δύναμιν ᾗ φυλάξει τοὺς νόμους. τάχα μὲν οὖν τὰ περὶ τὸν βασιλέα τὸν τοιοῦτον οὐ χαλεπὸν διορίσαι· δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν μὲν ἔχειν ἰσχύν, εἶναι δὲ τοσαύτην τὴν ἰσχὺν ὥστε ἑκάστου μὲν καὶ ἑνὸς καὶ συμπλειόνων κρείττω τοῦ δὲ πλήθους ἥττω, καθάπερ οἵ τʼ ἀρχαῖοι τὰς φυλακὰς ἐδίδοσαν, ὅτε καθισταῖέν τινα τῆς πόλεως ὃν ἐκάλουν αἰσυμνήτην ἢ τύραννον, καὶ Διονυσίῳ τις, ὅτʼ ᾔτει τοὺς φύλακας, συνεβούλευε τοῖς Συρακουσίοις διδόναι τοσούτους τοὺς φύλακας.

-

περὶ δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ βούλησιν πάντα πράττοντος ὅ τε λόγος ἐφέστηκε νῦν καὶ ποιητέον τὴν σκέψιν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ νόμον λεγόμενος βασιλεὺς οὐκ ἔστιν εἶδος, καθάπερ εἴπομεν, πολιτείας (ἐν πάσαις γὰρ ὑπάρχειν ἐνδέχεται στρατηγίαν ἀίδιον, οἷον ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ καὶ ἀριστοκρατίᾳ, καὶ πολλοὶ ποιοῦσιν ἕνα κύριον τῆς διοικήσεως· τοιαύτη γὰρ ἀρχή τις ἔστι καὶ περὶ Ἐπίδαμνον, καὶ περὶ Ὀποῦντα δὲ κατά τι μέρος ἔλαττον)· περὶ δὲ τῆς παμβασιλείας καλουμένης (αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶ καθʼ ἣν ἄρχει πάντων κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βούλησιν ὁ βασιλεύς) δοκεῖ δέ τισιν οὐδὲ κατὰ φύσιν εἶναι τὸ κύριον ἕνα πάντων εἶναι τῶν πολιτῶν, ὅπου συνέστηκεν ἐξ ὁμοίων ἡ πόλις· τοῖς γὰρ ὁμοίοις φύσει τὸ αὐτὸ δίκαιον ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀξίαν κατὰ φύσιν εἶναι, ὥστʼ εἴπερ καὶ τὸ ἴσην ἔχειν τοὺς ἀνίσους τροφὴν ἢ ἐσθῆτα βλαβερὸν τοῖς σώμασιν, οὕτως ἔχειν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς τιμάς· ὁμοίως τοίνυν καὶ τὸ ἄνισον τοὺς ἴσους· διόπερ οὐδένα μᾶλλον ἄρχειν ἢ ἄρχεσθαι δίκαιον, καὶ τὸ ἀνὰ μέρος τοίνυν ὡσαύτως. τοῦτο δʼ ἤδη νόμος· ἡ γὰρ τάξις νόμος. τὸν ἄρα νόμον ἄρχειν αἱρετώτερον μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν πολιτῶν ἕνα τινά, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ λόγον τοῦτον, κἂν εἴ τινας ἄρχειν βέλτιον, τούτους καταστατέον νομοφύλακας καὶ ὑπηρέτας τοῖς νόμοις· ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ εἶναί τινας ἀρχάς, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἕνα τοῦτον εἶναί φασι δίκαιον, ὁμοίων γε ὄντων πάντων. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅσα γε μὴ δοκεῖ δύνασθαι διορίζειν ὁ νόμος, οὐδʼ ἄνθρωπος ἂν δύναιτο γνωρίζειν. ἀλλʼ ἐπίτηδες παιδεύσας ὁ νόμος ἐφίστησι τὰ λοιπὰ τῇ δικαιοτάτῃ γνώμῃ κρίνειν καὶ διοικεῖν τοὺς ἄρχοντας. ἔτι δʼ ἐπανορθοῦσθαι δίδωσιν ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ πειρωμένοις ἄμεινον εἶναι τῶν κειμένων. ὁ μὲν οὖν τὸν νόμον κελεύων ἄρχειν δοκεῖ κελεύειν ἄρχειν τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν νοῦν μόνους, ὁ δʼ ἄνθρωπον κελεύων προστίθησι καὶ θηρίον· ἥ τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμία τοιοῦτον, καὶ ὁ θυμὸς ἄρχοντας διαστρέφει καὶ τοὺς ἀρίστους ἄνδρας. διόπερ ἄνευ ὀρέξεως νοῦς ὁ νόμος ἐστίν. τὸ δὲ τῶν τεχνῶν εἶναι δοκεῖ παράδειγμα ψεῦδος, ὅτι τὸ κατὰ γράμματα ἰατρεύεσθαι φαῦλον, ἀλλὰ αἱρετώτερον χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἔχουσι τὰς τέχνας. οἱ μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν διὰ φιλίαν παρὰ τὸν λόγον ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ἄρνυνται τὸν μισθὸν τοὺς κάμνοντας ὑγιάσαντες· οἱ δʼ ἐν ταῖς πολιτικαῖς ἀρχαῖς πολλὰ πρὸς ἐπήρειαν καὶ χάριν εἰώθασι πράττειν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοὺς ἰατροὺς ὅταν ὑποπτεύωσι πιστευθέντας τοῖς ἐχθροῖς διαφθείρειν διὰ κέρδος, τότε τὴν ἐκ τῶν γραμμάτων θεραπείαν ζητήσαιεν ἂν μᾶλλον. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰσάγονταί γʼ ἐφʼ ἑαυτοὺς οἱ ἰατροὶ κάμνοντες ἄλλους ἰατροὺς καὶ οἱ παιδοτρίβαι γυμναζόμενοι παιδοτρίβας, ὡς οὐ δυνάμενοι κρίνειν τὸ ἀληθὲς διὰ τὸ κρίνειν περί τε οἰκείων καὶ ἐν πάθει ὄντες. ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι τὸ δίκαιον ζητοῦντες τὸ μέσον ζητοῦσιν· ὁ γὰρ νόμος τὸ μέσον. ἔτι κυριώτεροι καὶ περὶ κυριωτέρων τῶν κατὰ γράμματα νόμων οἱ κατὰ τὰ ἔθη εἰσίν, ὥστʼ εἰ τῶν κατὰ γράμματα ἄνθρωπος ἄρχων ἀσφαλέστερος, ἀλλʼ οὐ τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἔθος.

-

ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ ῥᾴδιον ἐφορᾶν πολλὰ τὸν ἕνα· δεήσει ἄρα πλείονας εἶναι τοὺς ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ καθισταμένους ἄρχοντας, ὥστε τί διαφέρει τοῦτο ἐξ ἀρχῆς εὐθὺς ὑπάρχειν ἢ τὸν ἕνα καταστῆσαι τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον; ἔτι, ὃ καὶ πρότερον εἰρημένον ἐστίν, εἴπερ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ σπουδαῖος, διότι βελτίων, ἄρχειν δίκαιος, τοῦ γε ἑνὸς οἱ δύο ἀγαθοὶ βελτίους· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ σύν τε δύʼ ἐρχομένω Hom. Il. 10.224 καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος τοιοῦτοι δέκα μοι συμφράδμονες. Hom. Il. 2.372 εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ νῦν περὶ ἐνίων αἱ ἀρχαὶ κύριαι κρίνειν, ὥσπερ ὁ δικαστής, περὶ ὧν ὁ νόμος ἀδυνατεῖ διορίζειν, ἐπεὶ περὶ ὧν γε δυνατός, οὐδεὶς ἀμφισβητεῖ περὶ τούτων ὡς οὐκ ἂν ἄριστα ὁ νόμος ἄρξειε καὶ κρίνειεν. ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ τὰ μὲν ἐνδέχεται περιληφθῆναι τοῖς νόμοις τὰ δὲ ἀδύνατα, ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἃ ποιεῖ διαπορεῖν καὶ ζητεῖν πότερον τὸν ἄριστον νόμον ἄρχειν αἱρετώτερον ἢ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ἄριστον· περὶ ὧν γὰρ βουλεύονται νομοθετῆσαι τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἐστίν. οὐ τοίνυν τοῦτό γʼ ἀντιλέγουσιν, ὡς οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἄνθρωπον εἶναι τὸν κρινοῦντα περὶ τῶν τοιούτων, ἀλλʼ ὅτι οὐχ ἕνα μόνον ἀλλὰ πολλούς.

-

κρίνει γὰρ ἕκαστος ἄρχων πεπαιδευμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καλῶς, ἄτοπον τʼ ἴσως ἂν εἶναι δόξειεν εἰ βέλτιον ἴδοι τις δυοῖν ὄμμασι καὶ δυσὶν ἀκοαῖς κρίνων καὶ πράττων δυσὶ ποσὶ καὶ χερσίν, ἢ πολλοὶ πολλοῖς· ἐπεὶ καὶ νῦν ὀφθαλμοὺς πολλοὺς οἱ μόναρχοι ποιοῦσιν αὑτῶν καὶ ὦτα καὶ χεῖρας καὶ πόδας· τοὺς γὰρ τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ αὑτοῖς φίλους ποιοῦνται συνάρχους. μὴ φίλοι μὲν οὖν ὄντες οὐ ποιήσουσι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μονάρχου προαίρεσιν· εἰ δὲ φίλοι κἀκείνου καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ὅ γε φίλος ἴσος καὶ ὅμοιος, ὥστʼ εἰ τούτους οἴεται δεῖν ἄρχειν, τοὺς ἴσους καὶ ὁμοίους ἄρχειν οἴεται δεῖν ὁμοίως. ἃ μὲν οὖν οἱ διαμφισβητοῦντες πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν λέγουσι, σχεδὸν ταῦτʼ ἐστίν.

-

ἀλλʼ ἴσως ταῦτʼ ἐπὶ μὲν τινῶν ἔχει τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, ἐπὶ δὲ τινῶν οὐχ οὕτως. ἔστι γάρ τι φύσει δεσποτικὸν καὶ ἄλλο βασιλευτικὸν καὶ ἄλλο πολιτικὸν καὶ δίκαιον καὶ συμφέρον ἄλλο ἄλλοις· τυραννικὸν δʼ οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ φύσιν, οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν ὅσαι παρεκβάσεις εἰσί· ταῦτα γὰρ γίνεται παρὰ φύσιν. ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων γε φανερὸν ὡς ἐν μὲν τοῖς ὁμοίοις καὶ ἴσοις οὔτε συμφέρον ἐστὶν οὔτε δίκαιον ἕνα κύριον εἶναι πάντων, οὔτε μὴ νόμων ὄντων, ἀλλʼ ὡς αὐτὸν ὄντα νόμον, οὔτε νόμων ὄντων, οὔτε ἀγαθὸν ἀγαθῶν οὔτε μὴ ἀγαθῶν μὴ ἀγαθόν, οὐδʼ ἂν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀμείνων ᾖ, εἰ μὴ τρόπον τινά. τίς δʼ ὁ τρόπος, λεκτέον· εἴρηται δέ πως ἤδη καὶ πρότερον.

-

πρῶτον δὲ διοριστέον τί τὸ βασιλευτὸν καὶ τί τὸ ἀριστοκρατικὸν καὶ τί τὸ πολιτικόν. βασιλευτὸν μὲν οὖν τὸ τοιοῦτόν ἐστι πλῆθος ὃ πέφυκε φέρειν γένος ὑπερέχον κατʼ ἀρετὴν πρὸς ἡγεμονίαν πολιτικήν, ἀριστοκρατικὸν δὲ ὃ πέφυκε φέρειν πλῆθος ἄρχεσθαι δυνάμενον τὴν τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀρχὴν ὑπὸ τῶν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἡγεμονικῶν πρὸς πολιτικὴν ἀρχήν, πολιτικὸν δὲ ἐν ᾧ πέφυκεν ἐγγίνεσθαι πλῆθος πολεμικὸν δυνάμενον ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν κατὰ νόμον τὸν κατʼ ἀξίαν διανέμοντα τοῖς εὐπόροις τὰς ἀρχάς. ὅταν οὖν ἢ γένος ὅλον ἢ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕνα τινὰ συμβῇ διαφέροντα γενέσθαι κατʼ ἀρετὴν τοσοῦτον ὥσθʼ ὑπερέχειν τὴν ἐκείνου τῆς τῶν ἄλλων πάντων, τότε δίκαιον τὸ γένος εἶναι τοῦτο βασιλικὸν καὶ κύριον πάντων, καὶ βασιλέα τὸν ἕνα τοῦτον. καθάπερ γὰρ εἴρηται πρότερον, οὐ μόνον οὕτως ἔχει κατὰ τὸ δίκαιον ὃ προφέρειν εἰώθασιν οἱ τὰς πολιτείας καθιστάντες, οἵ τε τὰς ἀριστοκρατικὰς καὶ οἱ τὰς ὀλιγαρχικὰς καὶ πάλιν οἱ τὰς δημοκρατικάς (πάντες γὰρ καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν ἀξιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ ὑπεροχὴν οὐ τὴν αὐτήν), ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ πρότερον λεχθέν. οὔτε γὰρ κτείνειν ἢ φυγαδεύειν οὐδʼ ὀστρακίζειν δή που τὸν τοιοῦτον πρέπον ἐστίν, οὔτʼ ἀξιοῦν ἄρχεσθαι κατὰ μέρος· οὐ γὰρ πέφυκε τὸ μέρος ὑπερέχειν τοῦ παντός, τῷ δὲ τὴν τηλικαύτην ὑπερβολὴν ἔχοντι τοῦτο συμβέβηκεν. ὥστε λείπεται μόνον τὸ πείθεσθαι τῷ τοιούτῳ καὶ κύριον εἶναι μὴ κατὰ μέρος τοῦτον ἀλλʼ ἁπλῶς. περὶ μὲν οὖν βασιλείας, τίνας ἔχει διαφοράς, καὶ πότερον οὐ συμφέρει ταῖς πόλεσιν ἢ συμφέρει, καὶ τίσι, καὶ πῶς, διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ τρεῖς φαμεν εἶναι τὰς ὀρθὰς πολιτείας, τούτων δʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἀρίστην εἶναι τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρίστων οἰκονομουμένην, τοιαύτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἐν ᾗ συμβέβηκεν ἢ ἕνα τινὰ συμπάντων ἢ γένος ὅλον ἢ πλῆθος ὑπερέχον εἶναι κατʼ ἀρετήν, τῶν μὲν ἄρχεσθαι δυναμένων τῶν δʼ ἄρχειν πρὸς τὴν αἱρετωτάτην ζωήν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς πρώτοις ἐδείχθη λόγοις ὅτι τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναγκαῖον ἀνδρὸς ἀρετὴν εἶναι καὶ πολίτου τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἀρίστης, φανερὸν ὅτι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀνήρ τε γίνεται σπουδαῖος καὶ πόλιν συστήσειεν ἄν τις ἀριστοκρατουμένην ἢ βασιλευομένην, ὥστʼ ἔσται καὶ παιδεία καὶ ἔθη ταὐτὰ σχεδὸν τὰ ποιοῦντα σπουδαῖον ἄνδρα καὶ τὰ ποιοῦντα πολιτικὸν καὶ βασιλικόν. διωρισμένων δὲ τούτων περὶ τῆς πολιτείας ἤδη πειρατέον λέγειν τῆς ἀρίστης, τίνα πέφυκε γίγνεσθαι τρόπον καὶ καθίστασθαι πῶς. ἀνάγκη δὴ τὸν μέλλοντα περὶ αὐτῆς ποιήσασθαι τὴν προσήκουσαν σκέψιν.

- -
-
-

ἐν ἁπάσαις ταῖς τέχναις καὶ ταῖς ἐπιστήμαις ταῖς μὴ κατὰ μόριον γινομέναις, ἀλλὰ περὶ γένος ἕν τι τελείαις οὔσαις, μιᾶς ἐστι θεωρῆσαι τὸ περὶ ἕκαστον γένος ἁρμόττον, οἷον ἄσκησις σώματι ποία τε ποίῳ συμφέρει, καὶ τίς ἀρίστη (τῷ γὰρ κάλλιστα πεφυκότι καὶ κεχορηγημένῳ τὴν ἀρίστην ἀναγκαῖον ἁρμόττειν), καὶ τίς τοῖς πλείστοις μία πᾶσιν (καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο τῆς γυμναστικῆς ἔργον ἐστίν), ἔτι δʼ ἐάν τις μὴ τῆς ἱκνουμένης ἐπιθυμῇ μήθʼ ἕξεως μήτʼ ἐπιστήμης τῶν περὶ τὴν ἀγωνίαν, μηδὲν ἧττον τοῦ παιδοτρίβου καὶ τοῦ γυμναστικοῦ παρασκευάσαι γε καὶ ταύτην ἐστὶ τὴν δύναμιν. ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦτο καὶ περὶ ἰατρικὴν καὶ περὶ ναυπηγίαν καὶ ἐσθῆτα καὶ περὶ πᾶσαν ἄλλην τέχνην ὁρῶμεν συμβαῖνον. ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πολιτείαν τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἐπιστήμης τὴν ἀρίστην θεωρῆσαι τίς ἐστι καὶ ποία τις ἂν οὖσα μάλιστʼ εἴη κατʼ εὐχὴν μηδενὸς ἐμποδίζοντος τῶν ἐκτός, καὶ τίς τίσιν ἁρμόττουσα (πολλοῖς γὰρ τῆς ἀρίστης τυχεῖν ἴσως ἀδύνατον, ὥστε τὴν κρατίστην τε ἁπλῶς καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἀρίστην οὐ δεῖ λεληθέναι τὸν ἀγαθὸν νομοθέτην καὶ τὸν ὡς ἀληθῶς πολιτικόν), ἔτι δὲ τρίτην τὴν ἐξ ὑποθέσεως (δεῖ γὰρ καὶ τὴν δοθεῖσαν δύνασθαι θεωρεῖν, ἐξ ἀρχῆς τε πῶς ἂν γένοιτο, καὶ γενομένη τίνα τρόπον ἂν σῴζοιτο πλεῖστον χρόνον· λέγω δὲ οἷον εἴ τινι πόλει συμβέβηκε μήτε τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτεύεσθαι πολιτείαν, ἀχορήγητον δὲ εἶναι καὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων, μήτε τὴν ἐνδεχομένην ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, ἀλλά τινα φαυλοτέραν), παρὰ πάντα δὲ ταῦτα τὴν μάλιστα πάσαις ταῖς πόλεσιν ἁρμόττουσαν δεῖ γνωρίζειν, ὥσθʼ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀποφαινομένων περὶ πολιτείας, καὶ εἰ τἆλλα λέγουσι καλῶς, τῶν γε χρησίμων διαμαρτάνουσιν. οὐ γὰρ μόνον τὴν ἀρίστην δεῖ θεωρεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν δυνατήν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν ῥᾴω καὶ κοινοτέραν ἁπάσαις· νῦν δʼ οἱ μὲν τὴν ἀκροτάτην καὶ δεομένην πολλῆς χορηγίας ζητοῦσι μόνον, οἱ δὲ μᾶλλον κοινήν τινα λέγοντες, τὰς ὑπαρχούσας ἀναιροῦντες πολιτείας, τὴν Λακωνικὴν ἤ τινα ἄλλην ἐπαινοῦσι· χρὴ δὲ τοιαύτην εἰσηγεῖσθαι τάξιν ἧς ῥᾳδίως ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων καὶ πεισθήσονται καὶ δυνήσονται κοινωνεῖν, ὡς ἔστιν οὐκ ἔλαττον ἔργον τὸ ἐπανορθῶσαι πολιτείαν ἢ κατασκευάζειν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ μεταμανθάνειν ἢ μανθάνειν ἐξ ἀρχῆς· διὸ πρὸς τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ ταῖς ὑπαρχούσαις πολιτείαις δεῖ δύνασθαι βοηθεῖν τὸν πολιτικόν, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη καὶ πρότερον. τοῦτο δὲ ἀδύνατον ἀγνοοῦντα πόσα πολιτείας ἔστιν εἴδη. νῦν δὲ μίαν δημοκρατίαν οἴονταί τινες εἶναι καὶ μίαν ὀλιγαρχίαν· οὐκ ἔστι δὲ τοῦτʼ ἀληθές. ὥστε δεῖ τὰς διαφορὰς μὴ λανθάνειν τὰς τῶν πολιτειῶν, πόσαι, καὶ συντίθενται ποσαχῶς. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τῆς αὐτῆς φρονήσεως ταύτης καὶ νόμους τοὺς ἀρίστους ἰδεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἑκάστῃ τῶν πολιτειῶν ἁρμόττοντας. πρὸς γὰρ τὰς πολιτείας τοὺς νόμους δεῖ τίθεσθαι καὶ τίθενται πάντες, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὰς πολιτείας πρὸς τοὺς νόμους. πολιτεία μὲν γάρ ἐστι τάξις ταῖς πόλεσιν ἡ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, τίνα τρόπον νενέμηνται, καὶ τί τὸ κύριον τῆς πολιτείας καὶ τί τὸ τέλος ἑκάστης τῆς κοινωνίας ἐστίν· νόμοι δʼ οἱ κεχωρισμένοι τῶν δηλούντων τὴν πολιτείαν, καθʼ οὓς δεῖ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἄρχειν καὶ φυλάττειν τοὺς παραβαίνοντας αὐτούς. ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι τὰς διαφορὰς ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τὸν ὁρισμὸν ἔχειν τῆς πολιτείας ἑκάστης καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῶν νόμων θέσεις· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε τοὺς αὐτοὺς νόμους συμφέρειν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις οὐδὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις πάσαις, εἴπερ δὴ πλείους καὶ μὴ μία δημοκρατία μηδὲ ὀλιγαρχία μόνον ἔστιν.

-

ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μεθόδῳ περὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν διειλόμεθα τρεῖς μὲν τὰς ὀρθὰς πολιτείας, βασιλείαν ἀριστοκρατίαν πολιτείαν, τρεῖς δὲ τὰς τούτων παρεκβάσεις, τυραννίδα μὲν βασιλείας ὀλιγαρχίαν δὲ ἀριστοκρατίας δημοκρατίαν δὲ πολιτείας, καὶ περὶ μὲν ἀριστοκρατίας καὶ βασιλείας εἴρηται (τὸ γὰρ περὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας θεωρῆσαι ταὐτὸ καὶ περὶ τούτων ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν τῶν ὀνομάτων· βούλεται γὰρ ἑκατέρα κατʼ ἀρετὴν συνεστάναι κεχορηγημένην), ἔτι δὲ τί διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων ἀριστοκρατία καὶ βασιλεία, καὶ πότε δεῖ βασιλείαν νομίζειν, διώρισται πρότερον, λοιπὸν περὶ πολιτείας διελθεῖν τῆς τῷ κοινῷ προσαγορευομένης ὀνόματι, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν, ὀλιγαρχίας τε καὶ δημοκρατίας καὶ τυραννίδος. φανερὸν μὲν οὖν καὶ τούτων τῶν παρεκβάσεων τίς χειρίστη καὶ δευτέρα τίς. ἀνάγκη γὰρ τὴν μὲν τῆς πρώτης καὶ θειοτάτης παρέκβασιν εἶναι χειρίστην, τὴν δὲ βασιλείαν ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τοὔνομα μόνον ἔχειν οὐκ οὖσαν, ἢ διὰ πολλὴν ὑπεροχὴν εἶναι τὴν τοῦ βασιλεύοντος· ὥστε τὴν τυραννίδα χειρίστην οὖσαν πλεῖστον ἀπέχειν πολιτείας, δεύτερον δὲ τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν (ἡ γὰρ ἀριστοκρατία διέστηκεν ἀπὸ ταύτης πολὺ τῆς πολιτείας), μετριωτάτην δὲ τὴν δημοκρατίαν. ἤδη μὲν οὖν τις ἀπεφήνατο καὶ τῶν πρότερον οὕτως, οὐ μὴν εἰς ταὐτὸ βλέψας ἡμῖν. ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ ἔκρινε πασῶν μὲν οὐσῶν ἐπιεικῶν, οἷον ὀλιγαρχίας τε χρηστῆς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, χειρίστην δημοκρατίαν, φαύλων δὲ ἀρίστην· ἡμεῖς δὲ ὅλως ταύτας ἐξημαρτημένας εἶναί φαμεν, καὶ βελτίω μὲν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἄλλην ἄλλης οὐ καλῶς ἔχειν λέγειν, ἧττον δὲ φαύλην. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῆς τοιαύτης κρίσεως ἀφείσθω τὰ νῦν· ἡμῖν δὲ πρῶτον μὲν διαιρετέον πόσαι διαφοραὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν, εἴπερ ἔστιν εἴδη πλείονα τῆς τε δημοκρατίας καὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας, ἔπειτα τίς κοινοτάτη καὶ τίς αἱρετωτάτη μετὰ τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν, κἂν εἴ τις ἄλλη τετύχηκεν ἀριστοκρατικὴ καὶ συνεστῶσα καλῶς, ἀλλʼ οὐ ταῖς πλείσταις ἁρμόττουσα πόλεσι, τίς ἐστιν, ἔπειτα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τίς τίσιν αἱρετή (τάχα γὰρ τοῖς μὲν ἀναγκαία δημοκρατία μᾶλλον ὀλιγαρχίας, τοῖς δʼ αὕτη μᾶλλον ἐκείνης), μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τίνα τρόπον δεῖ καθιστάναι τὸν βουλόμενον ταύτας τὰς πολιτείας, λέγω δὲ δημοκρατίας τε καθʼ ἕκαστον εἶδος καὶ πάλιν ὀλιγαρχίας· τέλος δέ, πάντων τούτων ὅταν ποιησώμεθα συντόμως τὴν ἐνδεχομένην μνείαν, πειρατέον ἐπελθεῖν τίνες φθοραὶ καὶ τίνες σωτηρίαι τῶν πολιτειῶν καὶ κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς ἑκάστης, καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας ταῦτα μάλιστα γίνεσθαι πέφυκεν.

-

τοῦ μὲν οὖν εἶναι πλείους πολιτείας αἴτιον ὅτι πάσης ἔστι μέρη πλείω πόλεως τὸν ἀριθμόν. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἐξ οἰκιῶν συγκειμένας πάσας ὁρῶμεν τὰς πόλεις, ἔπειτα πάλιν τούτου τοῦ πλήθους τοὺς μὲν εὐπόρους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοὺς δʼ ἀπόρους τοὺς δὲ μέσους, καὶ τῶν εὐπόρων δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀπόρων τὸ μὲν ὁπλιτικὸν τὸ δὲ ἄνοπλον. καὶ τὸν μὲν γεωργικὸν δῆμον ὁρῶμεν ὄντα, τὸν δʼ ἀγοραῖον, τὸν δὲ βάναυσον. καὶ τῶν γνωρίμων εἰσὶ διαφοραὶ καὶ κατὰ τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ τὰ μεγέθη τῆς οὐσίας, οἷον ἱπποτροφίας (τοῦτο γὰρ οὐ ῥᾴδιον μὴ πλουτοῦντας ποιεῖν· διόπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων χρόνων ὅσαις πόλεσιν ἐν τοῖς ἵπποις ἡ δύναμις ἦν, ὀλιγαρχίαι παρὰ τούτοις ἦσαν· ἐχρῶντο δὲ πρὸς τοὺς πολέμους ἵπποις πρὸς τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας, οἷον Ἐρετριεῖς καὶ Χαλκιδεῖς καὶ Μάγνητες οἱ ἐπὶ Μαιάνδρῳ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολλοὶ περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν)· ἔτι πρὸς ταῖς κατὰ πλοῦτον διαφοραῖς ἐστιν ἡ μὲν κατὰ γένος ἡ δὲ κατʼ ἀρετήν, κἂν εἴ τι δὴ τοιοῦτον ἕτερον εἴρηται πόλεως εἶναι μέρος ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὴν ἀριστοκρατίαν· ἐκεῖ γὰρ διείλομεν ἐκ πόσων μερῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐστὶ πᾶσα πόλις· τούτων γὰρ τῶν μερῶν ὁτὲ μὲν πάντα μετέχει τῆς πολιτείας ὁτὲ δʼ ἐλάττω ὁτὲ δὲ πλείω. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι πλείους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πολιτείας, εἴδει διαφερούσας ἀλλήλων· καὶ γὰρ ταῦτʼ εἴδει διαφέρει τὰ μέρη σφῶν αὐτῶν. πολιτεία μὲν γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἀρχῶν τάξις ἐστί, ταύτας δὲ διανέμονται πάντες ἢ κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τῶν μετεχόντων ἢ κατά τινʼ αὐτῶν ἰσότητα κοινήν, λέγω δʼ οἷον τῶν ἀπόρων ἢ τῶν εὐπόρων ἢ κοινήν τινʼ ἀμφοῖν. ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα πολιτείας εἶναι τοσαύτας ὅσαι περ τάξεις κατὰ τὰς ὑπεροχάς εἰσι καὶ κατὰ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν μορίων.

-

μάλιστα δὲ δοκοῦσιν εἶναι δύο, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν πνευμάτων λέγεται τὰ μὲν βόρεια τὰ δὲ νότια, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα τούτων παρεκβάσεις, οὕτω καὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν δύο, δῆμος καὶ ὀλιγαρχία. τὴν γὰρ ἀριστοκρατίαν τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας εἶδος τιθέασιν ὡς οὖσαν ὀλιγαρχίαν τινά, καὶ τὴν καλουμένην πολιτείαν δημοκρατίαν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς πνεύμασι τὸν μὲν ζέφυρον τοῦ βορέου, τοῦ δὲ νότου τὸν εὖρον. ὁμοίως δʼ ἔχει καὶ περὶ τὰς ἁρμονίας, ὥς φασί τινες· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ τίθενται εἴδη δύο, τὴν δωριστὶ καὶ τὴν φρυγιστί, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα συντάγματα τὰ μὲν Δώρια τὰ δὲ Φρύγια καλοῦσιν. μάλιστα μὲν οὖν εἰώθασιν οὕτως ὑπολαμβάνειν περὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν· ἀληθέστερον δὲ καὶ βέλτιον ὡς ἡμεῖς διείλομεν, δυοῖν ἢ μιᾶς οὔσης τῆς καλῶς συνεστηκυίας τὰς ἄλλας εἶναι παρεκβάσεις, τὰς μὲν τῆς εὖ κεκραμένης ἁρμονίασ? τὰς δὲ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας, ὀλιγαρχικὰς μὲν τὰς συντονωτέρας καὶ δεσποτικωτέρας, τὰς δʼ ἀνειμένας καὶ μαλακὰς δημοτικάς.

-

οὐ δεῖ δὲ τιθέναι δημοκρατίαν, καθάπερ εἰώθασί τινες νῦν, ἁπλῶς οὕτως, ὅπου κύριον τὸ πλῆθος (καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις καὶ πανταχοῦ τὸ πλέον μέρος κύριον), οὐδʼ ὀλιγαρχίαν, ὅπου κύριοι ὀλίγοι τῆς πολιτείας. εἰ γὰρ εἴησαν οἱ πάντες χίλιοι καὶ τριακόσιοι, καὶ τούτων οἱ χίλιοι πλούσιοι, καὶ μὴ μεταδιδοῖεν ἀρχῆς τοῖς τριακοσίοις καὶ πένησιν ἐλευθέροις οὖσι καὶ τἆλλα ὁμοίοις, οὐθεὶς ἂν φαίη δημοκρατεῖσθαι τούτους· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰ πένητες ὀλίγοι μὲν εἶεν, κρείττους δὲ τῶν εὐπόρων πλειόνων ὄντων, οὐδεὶς ἂν ὀλιγαρχίαν προσαγορεύσειεν οὐδὲ τὴν τοιαύτην, εἰ τοῖς ἄλλοις οὖσι πλουσίοις μὴ μετείη τῶν τιμῶν. μᾶλλον τοίνυν λεκτέον ὅτι δῆμος μέν ἐστιν ὅταν οἱ ἐλεύθεροι κύριοι ὦσιν, ὀλιγαρχία δʼ ὅταν οἱ πλούσιοι, ἀλλὰ συμβαίνει τοὺς μὲν πολλοὺς εἶναι τοὺς δʼ ὀλίγους· ἐλεύθεροι μὲν γὰρ πολλοί, πλούσιοι δʼ ὀλίγοι. καὶ γὰρ ἂν εἰ κατὰ μέγεθος διενέμοντο τὰς ἀρχάς, ὥσπερ ἐν Αἰθιοπίᾳ φασί τινες, ἢ κατὰ κάλλος, ὀλιγαρχία ἦν ἄν· ὀλίγον γὰρ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὸ τῶν καλῶν καὶ τὸ τῶν μεγάλων. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τούτοις μόνον ἱκανῶς ἔχει διωρίσθαι τὰς πολιτείας ταύτας· ἀλλʼ ἐπεὶ πλείονα μόρια καὶ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας εἰσίν, ἔτι διαληπτέον ὡς οὔτʼ ἂν οἱ ἐλεύθεροι ὀλίγοι ὄντες πλειόνων καὶ μὴ ἐλευθέρων ἄρχωσι, δῆμος, οἷον ἐν Ἀπολλωνίᾳ τῇ ἐν τῷ Ἰονίῳ καὶ ἐν Θήρᾳ (ἐν τούτων γὰρ ἑκατέρᾳ τῶν πόλεων ἐν ταῖς τιμαῖς ἦσαν οἱ διαφέροντες κατʼ εὐγένειαν καὶ πρῶτοι κατασχόντες τὰς ἀποικίας, ὀλίγοι ὄντες, πολλῶν), οὔτε ἂν οἱ πλούσιοι διὰ τὸ κατὰ πλῆθος ὑπερέχειν, δῆμος, οἷον ἐν Κολοφῶνι τὸ παλαιόν (ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἐκέκτηντο μακρὰν οὐσίαν οἱ πλείους πρὶν γενέσθαι τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Λυδούς), ἀλλʼ ἔστι δημοκρατία μὲν ὅταν οἱ ἐλεύθεροι καὶ ἄποροι πλείους ὄντες κύριοι τῆς ἀρχῆς ὦσιν, ὀλιγαρχία δʼ ὅταν οἱ πλούσιοι καὶ εὐγενέστεροι ὀλίγοι ὄντες.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν πολιτεῖαι πλείους, καὶ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν, εἴρηται· διότι δὲ πλείους τῶν εἰρημένων, καὶ τίνες καὶ διὰ τί, λέγωμεν ἀρχὴν λαβόντες τὴν εἰρημένην πρότερον. ὁμολογοῦμεν γὰρ οὐχ ἓν μέρος ἀλλὰ πλείω πᾶσαν ἔχειν πόλιν. ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ ζῴου προῃρούμεθα λαβεῖν εἴδη, πρῶτον ἂν ἀποδιωρίζομεν ἅπερ ἀναγκαῖον πᾶν ἔχειν ζῷον (οἷον ἔνιά τε τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐργαστικὸν καὶ δεκτικόν, οἷον στόμα καὶ κοιλίαν, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, οἷς κινεῖται μορίοις ἕκαστον αὐτῶν)· εἰ δὲ τοσαῦτα εἴη μόνον, τούτων δʼ εἶεν διαφοραί (λέγω δʼ οἷον στόματός τινα πλείω γένη καὶ κοιλίας καὶ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν κινητικῶν μορίων), ὁ τῆς συζεύξεως τῆς τούτων ἀριθμὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ποιήσει πλείω γένη ζῴων (οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ταὐτὸν ζῷον ἔχειν πλείους στόματος διαφοράς, ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδʼ ὤτων), ὥσθʼ ὅταν ληφθῶσι τούτων πάντες οἱ ἐνδεχόμενοι συνδυασμοί, ποιήσουσιν εἴδη ζῴου, καὶ τοσαῦτʼ εἴδη τοῦ ζῴου ὅσαι περ αἱ συζεύξεις τῶν ἀναγκαίων μορίων εἰσίν—τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πολιτειῶν. καὶ γὰρ αἱ πόλεις οὐκ ἐξ ἑνὸς ἀλλʼ ἐκ πολλῶν σύγκεινται μερῶν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις. ἓν μὲν οὖν ἐστι τὸ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν πλῆθος, οἱ καλούμενοι γεωργοί, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ καλούμενον βάναυσον (ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο τὸ περὶ τὰς τέχνας ὧν ἄνευ πόλιν ἀδύνατον οἰκεῖσθαι· τούτων δὲ τῶν τεχνῶν τὰς μὲν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὑπάρχειν δεῖ, τὰς δὲ εἰς τρυφὴν ἢ τὸ καλῶς ζῆν), τρίτον δὲ τὸ ἀγοραῖον (λέγω δʼ ἀγοραῖον τὸ περὶ τὰς πράσεις καὶ τὰς ὠνὰς καὶ τὰς ἐμπορίας καὶ καπηλείας διατρῖβον), τέταρτον δὲ τὸ θητικόν, πέμπτον δὲ γένος τὸ προπολεμῆσον, ὃ τούτων οὐθὲν ἧττόν ἐστιν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν, εἰ μέλλουσι μὴ δουλεύσειν τοῖς ἐπιοῦσιν. μὴ γὰρ ἓν τῶν ἀδυνάτων ᾖ πόλιν ἄξιον εἶναι καλεῖν τὴν φύσει δούλην· αὐτάρκης γὰρ ἡ πόλις, τὸ δὲ δοῦλον οὐκ αὔταρκες. διόπερ ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ κομψῶς τοῦτο, οὐχ ἱκανῶς δὲ εἴρηται. φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Σωκράτης ἐκ τεττάρων τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων πόλιν συγκεῖσθαι, λέγει δὲ τούτους ὑφάντην καὶ γεωργὸν καὶ σκυτοτόμον καὶ οἰκοδόμον· πάλιν δὲ προστίθησιν, ὡς οὐκ αὐτάρκων τούτων, χαλκέα καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις βοσκήμασιν, ἔτι δʼ ἔμπορόν τε καὶ κάπηλον· καὶ ταῦτα πάντα γίνεται πλήρωμα τῆς πρώτης πόλεως, ὡς τῶν ἀναγκαίων τε χάριν πᾶσαν πόλιν συνεστηκυῖαν, ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῦ καλοῦ μᾶλλον, ἴσον τε δεομένην σκυτέων τε καὶ γεωργῶν. τὸ δὲ προπολεμοῦν οὐ πρότερον ἀποδίδωσι μέρος πρὶν ἢ τῆς χώρας αὐξομένης καὶ τῆς τῶν πλησίον ἁπτομένης εἰς πόλεμον καταστῶσιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἐν τοῖς τέτταρσι καὶ τοῖς ὁποσοισοῦν κοινωνοῖς ἀναγκαῖον εἶναί τινα τὸν ἀποδώσοντα καὶ κρινοῦντα τὸ δίκαιον. εἴπερ οὖν καὶ ψυχὴν ἄν τις θείη ζῴου μόριον μᾶλλον ἢ σῶμα, καὶ πόλεων τὰ τοιαῦτα μᾶλλον θετέον τῶν εἰς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν χρῆσιν συντεινόντων, τὸ πολεμικὸν καὶ τὸ μετέχον δικαιοσύνης δικαστικῆς, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὸ βουλευόμενον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ συνέσεως πολιτικῆς ἔργον. καὶ ταῦτʼ εἴτε κεχωρισμένως ὑπάρχει τισὶν εἴτε τοῖς αὐτοῖς, οὐθὲν διαφέρει πρὸς τὸν λόγον· καὶ γὰρ ὁπλιτεύειν καὶ γεωργεῖν συμβαίνει τοῖς αὐτοῖς πολλάκις. ὥστε εἴπερ καὶ ταῦτα καὶ ἐκεῖνα θετέα μόρια τῆς πόλεως, φανερὸν ὅτι τό γε ὁπλιτικὸν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι μόριον τῆς πόλεως.

-

ἕβδομον δὲ τὸ ταῖς οὐσίαις λειτουργοῦν, ὃ καλοῦμεν εὐπόρους. ὄγδοον δὲ τὸ δημιουργικὸν καὶ τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς λειτουργοῦν, εἴπερ ἄνευ ἀρχόντων ἀδύνατον εἶναι πόλιν. ἀναγκαῖον οὖν εἶναί τινας τοὺς δυναμένους ἄρχειν καὶ λειτουργοῦντας ἢ συνεχῶς ἢ κατὰ μέρος τῇ πόλει ταύτην τὴν λειτουργίαν. λοιπὰ δὲ περὶ ὧν τυγχάνομεν διωρικότες ἀρτίως, τὸ βουλευόμενον καὶ τὸ κρῖνον περὶ τῶν δικαίων τοῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσιν. εἴπερ οὖν ταῦτα δεῖ γινέσθαι ταῖς πόλεσι, καὶ καλῶς γενέσθαι καὶ δικαίως, ἀναγκαῖον καὶ μετέχοντας εἶναί τινας ἀρετῆς τῆς τῶν πολιτικῶν. τὰς μὲν οὖν ἄλλας δυνάμεις τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχειν ἐνδέχεσθαι δοκεῖ πολλοῖς, οἷον τοὺς αὐτοὺς εἶναι τοὺς προπολεμοῦντας καὶ γεωργοῦντας καὶ τεχνίτας, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς βουλευομένους τε καὶ κρίνοντας· ἀντιποιοῦνται δὲ καὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς πάντες, καὶ τὰς πλείστας ἀρχὰς ἄρχειν οἴονται δύνασθαι· ἀλλὰ πένεσθαι καὶ πλουτεῖν τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἀδύνατον. διὸ ταῦτα μέρη μάλιστα εἶναι δοκεῖ πόλεως, οἱ εὔποροι καὶ οἱ ἄποροι. ἔτι δὲ διὰ τὸ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τοὺς μὲν ὀλίγους εἶναι τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς ταῦτα ἐναντία μέρη φαίνεται τῶν τῆς πόλεως μορίων. ὥστε καὶ τὰς πολιτείας κατὰ τὰς ὑπεροχὰς τούτων καθιστᾶσι, καὶ δύο πολιτεῖαι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, δημοκρατία καὶ ὀλιγαρχία.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν εἰσι πολιτεῖαι πλείους, καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας, εἴρηται πρότερον· ὅτι δὲ ἔστι καὶ δημοκρατίας εἴδη πλείω καὶ ὀλιγαρχίας, λέγωμεν. φανερὸν δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων. εἴδη γὰρ πλείω τοῦ τε δήμου καὶ τῶν λεγομένων γνωρίμων ἔστιν, οἷον δήμου μὲν εἴδη ἓν μὲν οἱ γεωργοί, ἕτερον δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς τέχνας, ἄλλο δὲ τὸ ἀγοραῖον τὸ περὶ ὠνὴν καὶ πρᾶσιν διατρῖβον, ἄλλο δὲ τὸ περὶ τὴν θάλατταν, καὶ τούτου τὸ μὲν πολεμικὸν τὸ δὲ χρηματιστικὸν τὸ δὲ πορθμευτικὸν τὸ δʼ ἁλιευτικόν (πολλαχοῦ γὰρ ἕκαστα τούτων πολύοχλα, οἷον ἁλιεῖς μὲν ἐν Τάραντι καὶ Βυζαντίῳ, τριηρικὸν δὲ Ἀθήνησιν, ἐμπορικὸν δὲ ἐν Αἰγίνῃ καὶ Χίῳ, πορθμευτικὸν δʼ ἐν Τενέδῳ), πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὸ χερνητικὸν καὶ τὸ μικρὰν ἔχον οὐσίαν ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι σχολάζειν, ἔτι τὸ μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων πολιτῶν ἐλεύθερον, κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον πλήθους εἶδος· τῶν δὲ γνωρίμων πλοῦτος εὐγένεια ἀρετὴ παιδεία καὶ τὰ τούτοις λεγόμενα κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν διαφοράν.

-

δημοκρατία μὲν οὖν ἐστι πρώτη μὲν ἡ λεγομένη μάλιστα κατὰ τὸ ἴσον. ἴσον γάρ φησιν ὁ νόμος ὁ τῆς τοιαύτης δημοκρατίας τὸ μηδὲν μᾶλλον ὑπερέχειν τοὺς ἀπόρους ἢ τοὺς εὐπόρους, μηδὲ κυρίους εἶναι ὁποτερουσοῦν, ἀλλʼ ὁμοίους ἀμφοτέρους. εἴπερ γὰρ ἐλευθερία μάλιστʼ ἔστιν ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ, καθάπερ ὑπολαμβάνουσί τινες, καὶ ἰσότης, οὕτως ἂν εἴη μάλιστα, κοινωνούτων ἁπάντων μάλιστα τῆς πολιτείας ὁμοίως. ἐπεὶ δὲ πλείων ὁ δῆμος, κύριον δὲ τὸ δόξαν τοῖς πλείοσιν, ἀνάγκη δημοκρατίαν εἶναι ταύτην. ἓν μὲν οὖν εἶδος δημοκρατίας τοῦτο, τὸ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀπὸ τιμημάτων εἴναι, βραχέων δὲ τούτων ὄντων· δεῖ δὲ τῷ κτωμένῳ ἐξουσίαν εἶναι μετέχειν καὶ τὸν ἀποβάλλοντα μὴ μετέχειν· ἕτερον εἶδος δημοκρατίας τὸ μετέχειν ἅπαντας τοὺς πολίτας ὅσοι ἀνυπεύθυνοι, ἄρχειν δὲ τὸν νόμον· ἕτερον δὲ εἶδος δημοκρατίας τὸ παντὶ μετεῖναι τῶν ἀρχῶν, ἐὰν μόνον ᾖ πολίτης, ἄρχειν δὲ τὸν νόμον· ἕτερον δὲ εἶδος δημοκρατίας τἆλλα μὲν εἶναι ταὐτά, κύριον δʼ εἶναι τὸ πλῆθος καὶ μὴ τὸν νόμον. τοῦτο δὲ γίνεται ὅταν τὰ ψηφίσματα κύρια ᾖ ἀλλὰ μὴ ὁ νόμος· συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο διὰ τοὺς δημαγωγούς. ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς κατὰ νόμον δημοκρατουμέναις οὐ γίνεται δημαγωγός, ἀλλʼ οἱ βέλτιστοι τῶν πολιτῶν εἰσιν ἐν προεδρίᾳ· ὅπου δʼ οἱ νόμοι μή εἰσι κύριοι, ἐνταῦθα γίνονται δημαγωγοί. μόναρχος γὰρ ὁ δῆμος γίνεται, σύνθετος εἷς ἐκ πολλῶν· οἱ γὰρ πολλοὶ κύριοί εἰσιν οὐχ ὡς ἕκαστος ἀλλὰ πάντες. Ὅμηρος δὲ ποίαν λέγει οὐκ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι πολυκοιρανίην, πότερον ταύτην ἢ ὅταν πλείους ὦσιν οἱ ἄρχοντες ὡς ἕκαστος, ἄδηλον. ὁ δʼ οὖν τοιοῦτος δῆμος, ἅτε μόναρχος ὤν, ζητεῖ μοναρχεῖν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἄρχεσθαι ὑπὸ νόμου, καὶ γίνεται δεσποτικός, ὥστε οἱ κόλακες ἔντιμοι, καὶ ἔστιν ὁ τοιοῦτος δῆμος ἀνάλογον τῶν μοναρχιῶν τῇ τυραννίδι. διότι καὶ τὸ ἦθος τὸ αὐτό, καὶ ἄμφω δεσποτικὰ τῶν βελτιόνων, καὶ τὰ ψηφίσματα ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ τὰ ἐπιτάγματα, καὶ ὁ δημαγωγὸς καὶ ὁ κόλαξ οἱ αὐτοὶ καὶ ἀνάλογον. καὶ μάλιστα δʼ ἑκάτεροι παρʼ ἑκατέροις ἰσχύουσιν, οἱ μὲν κόλακες παρὰ τοῖς τυράννοις, οἱ δὲ δημαγωγοὶ παρὰ τοῖς δήμοις τοῖς τοιούτοις. αἴτιοι δέ εἰσι τοῦ εἶναι τὰ ψηφίσματα κύρια ἀλλὰ μὴ τοὺς νόμους οὗτοι, πάντα ἀνάγοντες εἰς τὸν δῆμον· συμβαίνει γὰρ αὐτοῖς γίνεσθαι μεγάλοις διὰ τὸ τὸν μὲν δῆμον πάντων εἶναι κύριον, τῆς δὲ τοῦ δήμου δόξης τούτους· πείθεται γὰρ τὸ πλῆθος τούτοις. ἔτι δʼ οἱ ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἐγκαλοῦντες τὸν δῆμόν φασι δεῖν κρίνειν, ὁ δὲ ἀσμένως δέχεται τὴν πρόκλησιν· ὥστε καταλύονται πᾶσαι αἱ ἀρχαί. εὐλόγως δὲ ἂν δόξειεν ἐπιτιμᾶν ὁ φάσκων τὴν τοιαύτην εἶναι δημοκρατίαν οὐ πολιτείαν. ὅπου γὰρ μὴ νόμοι ἄρχουσιν, οὐκ ἔστι πολιτεία. δεῖ γὰρ τὸν μὲν νόμον ἄρχειν πάντων τῶν δὲ καθʼ ἕκαστα τὰς ἀρχάς, καὶ ταύτην πολιτείαν κρίνειν. ὥστʼ εἴπερ ἐστὶ δημοκρατία μία τῶν πολιτειῶν, φανερὸν ὡς ἡ τοιαύτη κατάστασις, ἐν ᾗ ψηφίσμασι πάντα διοικεῖται, οὐδὲ δημοκρατία κυρίως· οὐθὲν γὰρ ἐνδέχεται ψήφισμα εἶναι καθόλου. τὰ μὲν οὖν τῆς δημοκρατίας εἴδη διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

-

ὀλιγαρχίας δὲ εἴδη ἓν μὲν τὸ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς τηλικούτων ὥστε τοὺς ἀπόρους μὴ μετέχειν, πλείους ὄντας, ἐξεῖναι δὲ τῷ κτωμένῳ μετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας, ἄλλο δέ, ὅταν ἀπὸ τιμημάτων μακρῶν ὦσιν αἱ ἀρχαὶ καὶ αἱρῶνται αὐτοὶ τοὺς ἐλλείποντας (ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐκ πάντων τούτων τοῦτο ποιῶσι, δοκεῖ τοῦτʼ εἶναι μᾶλλον ἀριστοκρατικόν, ἐὰν δὲ ἐκ τινῶν ἀφωρισμένων, ὀλιγαρχικόν)· ἕτερον δʼ εἶδος ὀλιγαρχίας, ὅταν παῖς ἀντὶ πατρὸς εἰσίῃ, τέταρτον δʼ, ὅταν ὑπάρχῃ τε τὸ νῦν λεχθὲν καὶ ἄρχῃ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἀλλʼ οἱ ἄρχοντες. καὶ ἔστιν ἀντίστροφος αὕτη ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις ὥσπερ ἡ τυραννὶς ἐν ταῖς μοναρχίαις, καὶ περὶ ἧς τελευταίας εἴπαμεν δημοκρατίας ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις· καὶ καλοῦσι δὴ τὴν τοιαύτην ὀλιγαρχίαν δυναστείαν.

-

ὀλιγαρχίας μὲν οὖν εἴδη τοσαῦτα καὶ δημοκρατίας· οὐ δεῖ δὲ λανθάνειν ὅτι πολλαχοῦ συμβέβηκεν ὥστε τὴν μὲν πολιτείαν τὴν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους μὴ δημοτικὴν εἶναι, διὰ δὲ τὸ ἔθος καὶ τὴν ἀγωγὴν πολιτεύεσθαι δημοτικῶς, ὁμοίως δὲ πάλιν παρʼ ἄλλοις τὴν μὲν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους εἶναι πολιτείαν δημοτικωτέραν, τῇ δʼ ἀγωγῇ καὶ τοῖς ἔθεσιν ὀλιγαρχεῖσθαι μᾶλλον. συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο μάλιστα μετὰ τὰς μεταβολὰς τῶν πολιτειῶν· οὐ γὰρ εὐθὺς μεταβαίνουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαπῶσι τὰ πρῶτα μικρὰ πλεονεκτοῦντες παρʼ ἀλλήλων, ὥσθʼ οἱ μὲν νόμοι διαμένουσιν οἱ προϋπάρχοντες, κρατοῦσι δʼ οἱ μεταβαλόντες τὴν πολιτείαν.

-

ὅτι δʼ ἔστι τοσαῦτα εἴδη δημοκρατίας καὶ ὀλιγαρχίας, ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν εἰρημένων φανερόν ἐστιν. ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἢ πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα μέρη τοῦ δήμου κοινωνεῖν τῆς πολιτείας, ἢ τὰ μὲν τὰ δὲ μή. ὅταν μὲν οὖν τὸ γεωργικὸν καὶ τὸ κεκτημένον μετρίαν οὐσίαν κύριον ᾖ τῆς πολιτείας, πολιτεύονται κατὰ νόμους (ἔχουσι γὰρ ἐργαζόμενοι ζῆν, οὐ δύνανται δὲ σχολάζειν, ὥστε τὸν νόμον ἐπιστήσαντες ἐκκλησιάζουσι τὰς ἀναγκαίας ἐκκλησίας), τοῖς δὲ ἄλλοις μετέχειν ἔξεστιν ὅταν κτήσωνται τὸ τίμημα τὸ διωρισμένον ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων· διὸ πᾶσι τοῖς κτησαμένοις ἔξεστι μετέχειν· ὅλως μὲν γὰρ τὸ μὲν μὴ ἐξεῖναι πᾶσιν ὀλιγαρχικόν, τὸ δὲ δὴ ἐξεῖναι σχολάζειν ἀδύνατον μὴ προσόδων οὐσῶν. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν εἶδος ἓν δημοκρατίας διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας· ἕτερον δὲ εἶδος διὰ τὴν ἐχομένην διαίρεσιν· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ πᾶσιν ἐξεῖναι τοῖς ἀνυπευθύνοις κατὰ τὸ γένος, μετέχειν μέντοι δυναμένους σχολάζειν· διόπερ ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ δημοκρατίᾳ οἱ νόμοι ἄρχουσι, διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι πρόσοδον. τρίτον δʼ εἶδος τὸ πᾶσιν ἐξεῖναι, ὅσοι ἂν ἐλεύθεροι ὦσι, μετέχειν τῆς πολιτείας, μὴ μέντοι μετέχειν διὰ τὴν προειρημένην αἰτίαν, ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ ἄρχειν τὸν νόμον. τέταρτον δὲ εἶδος δημοκρατίας ἡ τελευταία τοῖς χρόνοις ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι γεγενημένη. διὰ γὰρ τὸ μείζους γεγονέναι πολὺ τὰς πόλεις τῶν ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς καὶ προσόδων ὑπάρχειν εὐπορίας, μετέχουσι μὲν πάντες τῆς πολιτείας διὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ πλήθους, κοινωνοῦσι δὲ καὶ πολιτεύονται διὰ τὸ δύνασθαι σχολάζειν καὶ τοὺς ἀπόρους, λαμβάνοντας μισθόν. καὶ μάλιστα δὲ σχολάζει τὸ τοιοῦτον πλῆθος· οὐ γὰρ ἐμποδίζει αὐτοὺς οὐθὲν ἡ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπιμέλεια, τοὺς δὲ πλουσίους ἐμποδίζει, ὥστε πολλάκις οὐ κοινωνοῦσι τῆς ἐκκλησίας οὐδὲ τοῦ δικάζειν. διὸ γίνεται τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων πλῆθος κύριον τῆς πολιτείας, ἀλλʼ οὐχ οἱ νόμοι.

-

τὰ μὲν οὖν τῆς δημοκρατίας εἴδη τοσαῦτα καὶ τοιαῦτα διὰ ταύτας τὰς ἀνάγκας ἐστίν, τάδε δὲ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας· ὅταν μὲν πλείους ἔχωσιν οὐσίαν, ἐλάττω δὲ καὶ μὴ πολλὴν λίαν, τὸ τῆς πρώτης ὀλιγαρχίας εἶδός ἐστιν· ποιοῦσι γὰρ ἐξουσίαν μετέχειν τῷ κτωμένῳ, καὶ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος εἶναι τῶν μετεχόντων τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἀνάγκη μὴ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀλλὰ τὸν νόμον εἶναι κύριον (ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν πλεῖον ἀπέχωσι τῆς μοναρχίας, καὶ μήτε τοσαύτην ἔχωσιν οὐσίαν ὥστε σχολάζειν ἀμελοῦντες μήθʼ οὕτως ὀλίγην ὥστε τρέφεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως, ἀνάγκη τὸν νόμον ἀξιοῦν αὐτοῖς ἄρχειν, ἀλλὰ μὴ αὐτούς)· ἐὰν δὲ δὴ ἐλάττους ὦσιν οἱ τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντες ἢ οἱ τὸ πρότερον, πλείω δέ, τὸ τῆς δευτέρας ὀλιγαρχίας γίνεται εἶδος· μᾶλλον γὰρ ἰσχύοντες πλεονεκτεῖν ἀξιοῦσιν, διὸ αὐτοὶ μὲν αἱροῦνται ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων τοὺς εἰς τὸ πολίτευμα βαδίζοντας, διὰ δὲ τὸ μήπω οὕτως ἰσχυροὶ εἶναι ὥστʼ ἄνευ νόμου ἄρχειν τὸν νόμον τίθενται τοιοῦτον. ἐὰν δʼ ἐπιτείνωσι τῷ ἐλάττονες ὄντες μείζονας οὐσίας ἔχειν, ἡ τρίτη ἐπίδοσις γίνεται τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας, τὸ διʼ αὑτῶν μὲν τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχειν, κατὰ νόμον δὲ τὸν κελεύοντα τῶν τελευτώντων διαδέχεσθαι τοὺς υἱεῖς. ὅταν δὲ ἤδη πολὺ ὑπερτείνωσι ταῖς οὐσίαις καὶ ταῖς πολυφιλίαις, ἐγγὺς ἡ τοιαύτη δυναστεία μοναρχίας ἐστίν, καὶ κύριοι γίνονται οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁ νόμος· καὶ τὸ τέταρτον εἶδος τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας τοῦτʼ ἐστίν, ἀντίστροφον τῷ τελευταίῳ τῆς δημοκρατίας.

-

ἔτι δʼ εἰσὶ δύο πολιτεῖαι παρὰ δημοκρατίαν τε καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν, ὧν τὴν μὲν ἑτέραν λέγουσί τε πάντες καὶ εἴρηται τῶν τεττάρων πολιτειῶν εἶδος ἕν (λέγουσι δὲ τέτταρας μοναρχίαν ὀλιγαρχίαν δημοκρατίαν, τέταρτον δὲ τὴν καλουμένην ἀριστοκρατίαν)· πέμπτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἣ προσαγορεύεται τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα πασῶν (πολιτείαν γὰρ καλοῦσιν), ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μὴ πολλάκις γίνεσθαι λανθάνει τοὺς πειρωμένους ἀριθμεῖν τὰ τῶν πολιτειῶν εἴδη, καὶ χρῶνται ταῖς τέτταρσι μόνον (ὥσπερ Πλάτων) ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις. ἀριστοκρατίαν μὲν οὖν καλῶς ἔχει καλεῖν περὶ ἧς διήλθομεν ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις λόγοις (τὴν γὰρ ἐκ τῶν ἀρίστων ἁπλῶς κατʼ ἀρετὴν πολιτείαν καὶ μὴ πρὸς ὑπόθεσίν τινα ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν μόνην δίκαιον προσαγορεύειν ἀριστοκρατίαν· ἐν μόνῃ γὰρ ἁπλῶς ὁ αὐτὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ πολίτης ἀγαθός ἐστιν, οἱ δʼ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἀγαθοὶ πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν εἰσὶ τὴν αὑτῶν)· οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ εἰσί τινες αἳ πρός τε τὰς ὀλιγαρχουμένας ἔχουσι διαφορὰς καὶ καλοῦνται ἀριστοκρατίαι καὶ πρὸς τὴν καλουμένην πολιτείαν. ὅπου γὰρ μὴ μόνον πλουτίνδην ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀριστίνδην αἱροῦνται τὰς ἀρχάς, αὕτη ἡ πολιτεία διαφέρει τε ἀμφοῖν καὶ ἀριστοκρατικὴ καλεῖται. καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς μὴ ποιουμέναις κοινὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἀρετῆς εἰσὶν ὅμως τινὲς οἱ εὐδοκιμοῦντες καὶ δοκοῦντες εἶναι ἐπιεικεῖς. ὅπου οὖν ἡ πολιτεία βλέπει εἴς τε πλοῦτον καὶ ἀρετὴν καὶ δῆμον, οἷον ἐν Καρχηδόνι, αὕτη ἀριστοκρατική ἐστιν, καὶ ἐν αἷς εἰς τὰ δύο μόνον, οἷον ἡ Λακεδαιμονίων, εἴς τε ἀρετὴν καὶ δῆμον, καὶ ἔστι μίξις τῶν δύο τούτων, δημοκρατίας τε καὶ ἀρετῆς. ἀριστοκρατίας μὲν οὖν παρὰ τὴν πρώτην τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ταῦτα δύο εἴδη, καὶ τρίτον ὅσαι τῆς καλουμένης πολιτείας ῥέπουσι πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν μᾶλλον.

-

λοιπὸν δʼ ἐστὶν ἡμῖν περί τε τῆς ὀνομαζομένης πολιτείας εἰπεῖν καὶ περὶ τυραννίδος. ἐτάξαμεν δʼ οὕτως οὐκ οὖσαν οὔτε ταύτην παρέκβασιν οὔτε τὰς ἄρτι ῥηθείσας ἀριστοκρατίας, ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς πᾶσαι διημαρτήκασι τῆς ὀρθοτάτης πολιτείας, ἔπειτα καταριθμοῦνται μετὰ τούτων εἰσί τʼ αὐτῶν αὗται παρεκβάσεις ἅσπερ ἐν τοῖς κατʼ ἀρχὴν εἴπομεν. τελευταῖον δὲ περὶ τυραννίδος εὔλογόν ἐστι ποιήσασθαι μνείαν διὰ τὸ πασῶν ἥκιστα ταύτην εἶναι πολιτείαν, ἡμῖν δὲ τὴν μέθοδον εἶναι περὶ πολιτείας. διʼ ἣν μὲν οὖν αἰτίαν τέτακται τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, εἴρηται· νῦν δὲ δεικτέον ἡμῖν περὶ πολιτείας. φανερωτέρα γὰρ ἡ δύναμις αὐτῆς διωρισμένων τῶν περὶ ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δημοκρατίας. ἔστι γὰρ ἡ πολιτεία ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν μίξις ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δημοκρατίας. εἰώθασι δὲ καλεῖν τὰς μὲν ἀποκλινούσας ὡς πρὸς τὴν δημοκρατίαν πολιτείας, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν μᾶλλον ἀριστοκρατίας διὰ τὸ μᾶλλον ἀκολουθεῖν παιδείαν καὶ εὐγένειαν τοῖς εὐπορωτέροις. ἔτι δὲ δοκοῦσιν ἔχειν οἱ εὔποροι ὧν ἕνεκεν οἱ ἀδικοῦντες ἀδικοῦσιν· ὅθεν καὶ καλοὺς κἀγαθοὺς καὶ γνωρίμους τούτους προσαγορεύουσιν. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἡ ἀριστοκρατία βούλεται τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἀπονέμειν τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν πολιτῶν, καὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας εἶναί φασιν ἐκ τῶν καλῶν κἀγαθῶν μᾶλλον. δοκεῖ δʼ εἶναι τῶν ἀδυνάτων τὸ εὐνομεῖσθαι τὴν μὴ ἀριστοκρατουμένην πόλιν ἀλλὰ πονηροκρατουμένην, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἀριστοκρατεῖσθαι τὴν μὴ εὐνομουμένην. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ εὐνομία τὸ εὖ κεῖσθαι τοὺς νόμους, μὴ πείθεσθαι δέ. διὸ μίαν μὲν εὐνομίαν ὑποληπτέον εἶναι τὸ πείθεσθαι τοῖς κειμένοις νόμοις, ἑτέραν δὲ τὸ καλῶς κεῖσθαι τοὺς νόμους οἷς ἐμμένουσιν (ἔστι γὰρ πείθεσθαι καὶ κακῶς κειμένοις). τοῦτο δὲ ἐνδέχεται διχῶς· ἢ γὰρ τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν ἐνδεχομένων αὐτοῖς, ἢ τοῖς ἁπλῶς ἀρίστοις.

-

δοκεῖ δὲ ἀριστοκρατία μὲν εἶναι μάλιστα τὸ τὰς τιμὰς νενεμῆσθαι κατʼ ἀρετήν (ἀριστοκρατίας μὲν γὰρ ὅρος ἀρετή, ὀλιγαρχίας δὲ πλοῦτος, δήμου δʼ ἐλευθερία)· τὸ δʼ ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τοῖς πλείοσιν, ἐν πάσαις ὑπάρχει· καὶ γὰρ ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ καὶ ἐν ἀριστοκρατίᾳ καὶ ἐν δήμοις, ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τῷ πλείονι μέρει τῶν μετεχόντων τῆς πολιτείας, τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ κύριον. ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς πλείσταις πόλεσι τοῦτο τῆς πολιτείας εἶδος καλεῖται· μόνον γὰρ ἡ μίξις στοχάζεται τῶν εὐπόρων καὶ τῶν ἀπόρων, πλούτου καὶ ἐλευθερίας· (σχεδὸν γὰρ παρὰ τοῖς πλείστοις οἱ εὔποροι τῶν καλῶν κἀγαθῶν δοκοῦσι κατέχειν χώραν)· ἐπεὶ δὲ τρία ἐστὶ τὰ ἀμφισβητοῦντα τῆς ἰσότητος τῆς πολιτείας, ἐλευθερία πλοῦτος ἀρετή (τὸ γὰρ τέταρτον, ὃ καλοῦσιν εὐγένειαν, ἀκολουθεῖ τοῖς δυσίν· ἡ γὰρ εὐγένειά ἐστιν ἀρχαῖος πλοῦτος καὶ ἀρετή), φανερὸν ὅτι τὴν μὲν τοῖν δυοῖν μίξιν, τῶν εὐπόρων καὶ τῶν ἀπόρων, πολιτείαν λεκτέον, τὴν δὲ τῶν τριῶν ἀριστοκρατίαν μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων παρὰ τὴν ἀληθινὴν καὶ πρώτην. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἔστι καὶ ἕτερα πολιτείας εἴδη παρὰ μοναρχίαν τε καὶ δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν, εἴρηται, καὶ ποῖα ταῦτα, καὶ τί διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων αἵ τʼ ἀριστοκρατίαι καὶ αἱ πολιτεῖαι τῆς ἀριστοκρατίας· καὶ ὅτι οὐ πόρρω αὗται ἀλλήλων, φανερόν.

-

τίνα δὲ τρόπον γίνεται παρὰ δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν ἡ καλουμένη πολιτεία, καὶ πῶς αὐτὴν δεῖ καθιστάναι, λέγωμεν ἐφεξῆς τοῖς εἰρημένοις. ἅμα δὲ δῆλον ἔσται καὶ οἷς ὁρίζονται τὴν δημοκρατίαν καὶ τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν· ληπτέον γὰρ τὴν τούτων διαίρεσιν, εἶτα ἐκ τούτων ἀφʼ ἑκατέρας ὥσπερ σύμβολον λαμβάνοντας συνθετέον. εἰσὶ δὲ ὅροι τρεῖς τῆς συνθέσεως καὶ μίξεως. ἢ γὰρ ἀμφότερα ληπτέον ἃ ἑκάτεροι νομοθετοῦσιν, οἷον περὶ τοῦ δικάζειν (ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις τοῖς εὐπόροις ζημίαν τάττουσιν ἂν μὴ δικάζωσι, τοῖς δʼ ἀπόροις οὐδένα μισθόν, ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις τοῖς μὲν ἀπόροις μισθόν, τοῖς δʼ εὐπόροις οὐδεμίαν ζημίαν· κοινὸν δὲ καὶ μέσον τούτων ἀμφότερα ταῦτα, διὸ καὶ πολιτικόν, μέμεικται γὰρ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν)· εἷς μὲν οὖν οὗτος τοῦ συνδυασμοῦ τρόπος, ἕτερος δὲ τὸ τὸ μέσον λαμβάνειν ὧν ἑκάτεροι τάττουσιν, οἷον ἐκκλησιάζειν οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τιμήματος οὐθενὸς ἢ μικροῦ πάμπαν, οἱ δʼ ἀπὸ μακροῦ τιμήματος, κοινὸν δέ γε οὐδέτερον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μέσον ἑκατέρου τίμημα τούτων. τρίτον δʼ ἐκ δυοῖν ταγμάτοιν, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ὀλιγαρχικοῦ νόμου τὰ δʼ ἐκ τοῦ δημοκρατικοῦ. λέγω δʼ οἷον δοκεῖ δημοκρατικὸν μὲν εἶναι τὸ κληρωτὰς εἶναι τὰς ἀρχάς, τὸ δʼ αἱρετὰς ὀλιγαρχικόν, καὶ δημοκρατικὸν μὲν τὸ μὴ ἀπὸ τιμήματος, ὀλιγαρχικὸν δὲ τὸ ἀπὸ τιμήματος· ἀριστοκρατικὸν τοίνυν καὶ πολιτικὸν τὸ ἐξ ἑκατέρας ἑκάτερον λαβεῖν, ἐκ μὲν τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας τὸ αἱρετὰς ποιεῖν τὰς ἀρχάς, ἐκ δὲ τῆς δημοκρατίας τὸ μὴ ἀπὸ τιμήματος.

-

ὁ μὲν οὖν τρόπος τῆς μίξεως οὗτος· τοῦ δʼ εὖ μεμεῖχθαι δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν ὅρος, ὅταν ἐνδέχηται λέγειν τὴν αὐτὴν πολιτείαν δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τοῦτο πάσχουσιν οἱ λέγοντες διὰ τὸ μεμεῖχθαι καλῶς· πέπονθε δὲ τοῦτο καὶ τὸ μέσον, ἐμφαίνεται γὰρ ἑκάτερον ἐν αὐτῷ τῶν ἄκρων· ὅπερ συμβαίνει περὶ τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείαν. πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐγχειροῦσι λέγειν ὡς δημοκρατίας οὔσης διὰ τὸ δημοκρατικὰ πολλὰ τὴν τάξιν ἔχειν, οἷον πρῶτον τὸ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν τῶν παίδων (ὁμοίως γὰρ οἱ τῶν πλουσίων τρέφονται τοῖς τῶν πενήτων, καὶ παιδεύονται τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ὃν ἂν δύναιντο καὶ τῶν πενήτων οἱ παῖδες), ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐχομένης ἡλικίας, καὶ ὅταν ἄνδρες γένωνται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον (οὐθὲν γὰρ διάδηλος ὁ πλούσιος καὶ ὁ πένης οὕτω) τὰ περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ταὐτὰ πᾶσιν ἐν τοῖς συσσιτίοις, καὶ τὴν ἐσθῆτα οἱ πλούσιοι τοιαύτην οἵαν ἄν τις παρασκευάσαι δύναιτο καὶ τῶν πενήτων ὁστισοῦν· ἔτι τὸ δύο τὰς μεγίστας ἀρχὰς τὴν μὲν αἱρεῖσθαι τὸν δῆμον, τῆς δὲ μετέχειν (τοὺς μὲν γὰρ γέροντας αἱροῦνται, τῆς δʼ ἐφορείας μετέχουσιν)· οἱ δʼ ὀλιχαρχίαν διὰ τὸ πολλὰ ἔχειν ὀλιγαρχικά, οἷον τὸ πάσας αἱρετὰς εἶναι καὶ μηδεμίαν κληρωτήν, καὶ ὀλίγους εἶναι κυρίους θανάτου καὶ φυγῆς, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα πολλά. δεῖ δʼ ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τῇ μεμειγμένῃ καλῶς ἀμφότερα δοκεῖν εἶναι καὶ μηδέτερον, καὶ σῴζεσθαι διʼ αὑτῆς καὶ μὴ ἔξωθεν, καὶ διʼ αὑτῆς μὴ τῷ πλείους ἔξωθεν εἶναι τοὺς βουλομένους (εἴη γὰρ ἂν καὶ πονηρᾷ πολιτείᾳ τοῦθʼ ὑπάρχον’ ἀλλὰ τῷ μηδʼ ἂν βούλεσθαι πολιτείαν ἑτέραν μηθὲν τῶν τῆς πόλεως μορίων ὅλως. τίνα μὲν οὖν τρόπον δεῖ καθιστάναι πολιτείαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς ὀνομαζομένας ἀριστοκρατίας, νῦν εἴρηται.

- -

περὶ δὲ τυραννίδος ἦν ἡμῖν λοιπὸν εἰπεῖν, οὐχ ὡς ἐνούσης πολυλογίας περὶ αὐτήν, ἀλλʼ ὅπως λάβῃ τῆς μεθόδου τὸ μέρος, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ταύτην τίθεμεν τῶν πολιτειῶν τι μέρος. περὶ μὲν οὖν βασιλείας διωρίσαμεν ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις λόγοις, ἐν οἷς περὶ τῆς μάλιστα λεγομένης βασιλείας ἐποιούμεθα τὴν σκέψιν, πότερον ἀσύμφορος ἢ συμφέρει ταῖς πόλεσιν, καὶ τίνα καὶ πόθεν δεῖ καθιστάναι, καὶ πῶς· τυραννίδος δʼ εἴδη δύο μὲν διείλομεν ἐν οἷς περὶ βασιλείας ἐπεσκοποῦμεν, διὰ τὸ τὴν δύναμιν ἐπαλλάττειν πως αὐτῶν καὶ πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν, διὰ τὸ κατὰ νόμον εἶναι ἀμφοτέρας ταύτας τὰς ἀρχάς (ἔν τε γὰρ τῶν βαρβάρων τισὶν αἱροῦνται αὐτοκράτορας μονάρχους, καὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Ἕλλησιν ἐγίγνοντό τινες μόναρχοι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, οὓς ἐκάλουν αἰσυμνήτας), ἔχουσι δέ τινας πρὸς ἀλλήλας αὗται διαφοράς, ἦσαν δὲ διὰ μὲν τὸ κατὰ νόμον βασιλικαὶ καὶ διὰ τὸ μοναρχεῖν ἑκόντων, τυραννικαὶ δὲ διὰ τὸ δεσποτικῶς ἄρχειν καὶ κατὰ τὴν αὑτῶν γνώμην· τρίτον δὲ εἶδος τυραννίδος, ἥπερ μάλιστʼ εἶναι δοκεῖ τυραννίς, ἀντίστροφος οὖσα τῇ παμβασιλείᾳ. τοιαύτην δʼ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τυραννίδα τὴν μοναρχίαν ἥτις ἀνυπεύθυνος ἄρχει τῶν ὁμοίων καὶ βελτιόνων πάντων πρὸς τὸ σφέτερον αὐτῆς συμφέρον, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρὸς τὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων. διόπερ ἀκούσιος· οὐθεὶς γὰρ ἑκὼν ὑπομένει τῶν ἐλευθέρων τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρχήν. τυραννίδος μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτα διὰ τὰς εἰρημένας αἰτίας.

-

τίς δʼ ἀρίστη πολιτεία καὶ τίς ἄριστος βίος ταῖς πλείσταις πόλεσι καὶ τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, μήτε πρὸς ἀρετὴν συγκρίνουσι τὴν ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἰδιώτας, μήτε πρὸς παιδείαν ἣ φύσεως δεῖται καὶ χορηγίας τυχηρᾶς, μήτε πρὸς πολιτείαν τὴν κατʼ εὐχὴν γινομένην, ἀλλὰ βίον τε τὸν τοῖς πλείστοις κοινωνῆσαι δυνατὸν καὶ πολιτείαν ἧς τὰς πλείστας πόλεις ἐνδέχεται μετασχεῖν; καὶ γὰρ ἃς καλοῦσιν ἀριστοκρατίας, περὶ ὧν νῦν εἴπομεν, τὰ μὲν ἐξωτέρω πίπτουσι ταῖς πλείσταις τῶν πόλεων, τὰ δὲ γειτνιῶσι τῇ καλουμένῃ πολιτείᾳ (διὸ περὶ ἀμφοῖν ὡς μιᾶς λεκτέον). ἡ δὲ δὴ κρίσις περὶ ἁπάντων τούτων ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν στοιχείων ἐστίν. εἰ γὰρ καλῶς ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς εἴρηται τὸ τὸν εὐδαίμονα βίον εἶναι τὸν κατʼ ἀρετὴν ἀνεμπόδιστον, μεσότητα δὲ τὴν ἀρετήν, τὸν μέσον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι βίον βέλτιστον, τὸ τῆς ἑκάστοις ἐνδεχομένης τυχεῖν μεσότητος· τοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς τούτους ὅρους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ πόλεως ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας καὶ πολιτείας· ἡ γὰρ πολιτεία βίος τίς ἐστι πόλεως.ἐν ἁπάσαις δὴ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἔστι τρία μέρη τῆς πόλεως, οἱ μὲν εὔποροι σφόδρα, οἱ δὲ ἄποροι σφόδρα, οἱ δὲ τρίτοι οἱ μέσοι τούτων. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ὁμολογεῖται τὸ μέτριον ἄριστον καὶ τὸ μέσον, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ τῶν εὐτυχημάτων ἡ κτῆσις ἡ μέση βελτίστη πάντων. ῥᾴστη γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ πειθαρχεῖν, ὑπέρκαλον δὲ ἢ ὑπερίσχυρον ἢ ὑπερευγενῆ ἢ ὑπερπλούσιον ὄντα, ἢ τἀναντία τούτοις, ὑπέρπτωχον ἢ ὑπερασθενῆ ἢ σφόδρα ἄτιμον, χαλεπὸν τῷ λόγῳ ἀκολουθεῖν· γίγνονται γὰρ οἱ μὲν ὑβρισταὶ καὶ μεγαλοπόνηροι μᾶλλον, οἱ δὲ κακοῦργοι καὶ μικροπόνηροι λίαν, τῶν δʼ ἀδικημάτων τὰ μὲν γίγνεται διʼ ὕβριν τὰ δὲ διὰ κακουργίαν. ἔτι δὲ ἥκισθʼ οὗτοι φυγαρχοῦσι καὶ σπουδαρχοῦσιν, ταῦτα δʼ ἀμφότερα βλαβερὰ ταῖς πόλεσιν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οἱ μὲν ἐν ὑπεροχαῖς εὐτυχημάτων ὄντες, ἰσχύος καὶ πλούτου καὶ φίλων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων, ἄρχεσθαι οὔτε βούλονται οὔτε ἐπίστανται (καὶ τοῦτʼ εὐθὺς οἴκοθεν ὑπάρχει παισὶν οὖσιν· διὰ γὰρ τὴν τρυφὴν οὐδʼ ἐν τοῖς διδασκαλείοις ἄρχεσθαι σύνηθες αὐτοῖς), οἱ δὲ καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ἐν ἐνδείᾳ τούτων ταπεινοὶ λίαν. ὥσθʼ οἱ μὲν ἄρχειν οὐκ ἐπίστανται, ἀλλʼ ἄρχεσθαι δουλικὴν ἀρχήν, οἱ δʼ ἄρχεσθαι μὲν οὐδεμίαν ἀρχήν, ἄρχειν δὲ δεσποτικὴν ἀρχήν. γίνεται οὖν δούλων καὶ δεσποτῶν πόλις, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐλευθέρων, καὶ τῶν μὲν φθονούντων τῶν δὲ καταφρονούντων· ἃ πλεῖστον ἀπέχει φιλίας καὶ κοινωνίας πολιτικῆς· ἡ γὰρ κοινωνία φιλικόν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁδοῦ βούλονται κοινωνεῖν τοῖς ἐχθροῖς. βούλεται δέ γε ἡ πόλις ἐξ ἴσων εἶναι καὶ ὁμοίων ὅτι μάλιστα, τοῦτο δʼ ὑπάρχει μάλιστα τοῖς μέσοις. ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἄριστα πολιτεύεσθαι ταύτην τὴν πόλιν ἐστὶν ἐξ ὧν φαμὲν φύσει τὴν σύστασιν εἶναι τῆς πόλεως. καὶ σῴζονται δʼ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οὗτοι μάλιστα τῶν πολιτῶν. οὔτε γὰρ αὐτοὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, ὥσπερ οἱ πένητες, ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, οὔτε τῆς τούτων ἕτεροι, καθάπερ τῆς τῶν πλουσίων οἱ πένητες ἐπιθυμοῦσιν· καὶ διὰ τὸ μήτʼ ἐπιβουλεύεσθαι μήτʼ ἐπιβουλεύειν ἀκινδύνως διάγουσιν. διὰ τοῦτο καλῶς ηὔξατο Φωκυλίδης πολλὰ μέσοισιν ἄριστα· μέσος θέλω ἐν πόλει εἶναι.

-

δῆλον ἄρα ὅτι καὶ ἡ κοινωνία ἡ πολιτικὴ ἀρίστη ἡ διὰ τῶν μέσων, καὶ τὰς τοιαύτας ἐνδέχεται εὖ πολιτεύεσθαι πόλεις ἐν αἷς δὴ πολὺ τὸ μέσον καὶ κρεῖττον, μάλιστα μὲν ἀμφοῖν, εἰ δὲ μή, θατέρου μέρους· προστιθέμενον γὰρ ποιεῖ ῥοπὴν καὶ κωλύει γίνεσθαι τὰς ἐναντίας ὑπερβολάς. διόπερ εὐτυχία μεγίστη τοὺς πολιτευομένους οὐσίαν ἔχειν μέσην καὶ ἱκανήν, ὡς ὅπου οἱ μὲν πολλὰ σφόδρα κέκτηνται οἱ δὲ μηθέν, ἢ δῆμος ἔσχατος γίγνεται ἢ ὀλιγαρχία ἄκρατος, ἢ τυραννὶς διʼ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς ὑπερβολάς· καὶ γὰρ ἐκ δημοκρατίας τῆς νεανικωτάτης καὶ ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας γίγνεται τυραννίς, ἐκ δὲ τῶν μέσων καὶ τῶν σύνεγγυς πολὺ ἧττον. τὴν δʼ αἰτίαν ὕστερον ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὰς μεταβολὰς τῶν πολιτειῶν ἐροῦμεν. ὅτι δʼ ἡ μέση βελτίστη, φανερόν· μόνη γὰρ ἀστασίαστος· ὅπου γὰρ πολὺ τὸ διὰ μέσου, ἥκιστα στάσεις καὶ διαστάσεις γίγνονται τῶν πολιτῶν. καὶ αἱ μεγάλαι πόλεις ἀστασιαστότεραι διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν, ὅτι πολὺ τὸ μέσον· ἐν δὲ ταῖς μικραῖς ῥᾴδιόν τε διαλαβεῖν εἰς δύο πάντας, ὥστε μηθὲν καταλιπεῖν μέσον, καὶ πάντες σχεδὸν ἄποροι ἢ εὔποροί εἰσι. καὶ αἱ δημοκρατίαι δὲ ἀσφαλέστεραι τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν εἰσι καὶ πολυχρονιώτεραι διὰ τοὺς μέσους (πλείους τε γάρ εἰσι καὶ μᾶλλον μετέχουσι τῶν τιμῶν ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἢ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις), ἐπεὶ ὅταν ἄνευ τούτων τῷ πλήθει ὑπερτείνωσιν οἱ ἄποροι, κακοπραγία γίνεται καὶ ἀπόλλυνται ταχέως. σημεῖον δὲ δεῖ νομίζειν καὶ τὸ τοὺς βελτίστους νομοθέτας εἶναι τῶν μέσων πολιτῶν· Σόλων τε γὰρ ἦν τούτων (δηλοῖ δʼ ἐκ τῆς ποιήσεως) καὶ Λυκοῦργος (οὐ γὰρ ἦν βασιλεύς) καὶ Χαρώνδας καὶ σχεδὸν οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἄλλων.

-

φανερὸν δʼ ἐκ τούτων καὶ διότι αἱ πλεῖσται πολιτεῖαι αἱ μὲν δημοκρατικαί εἰσιν αἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχικαί. διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐν ταύταις πολλάκις ὀλίγον εἶναι τὸ μέσον, αἰεὶ ὁπότεροι ἂν ὑπερέχωσιν, εἴθʼ οἱ τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντες εἴθʼ ὁ δῆμος, οἱ τὸ μέσον ἐκβαίνοντες καθʼ αὑτοὺς ἄγουσι τὴν πολιτείαν, ὥστε ἢ δῆμος γίγνεται ἢ ὀλιγαρχία. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις διὰ τὸ στάσεις γίγνεσθαι καὶ μάχας πρὸς ἀλλήλους τῷ δήμῳ καὶ τοῖς εὐπόροις, ὁποτέροις ἂν μᾶλλον συμβῇ κρατῆσαι τῶν ἐναντίων, οὐ καθιστᾶσι κοινὴν πολιτείαν οὐδʼ ἴσην, ἀλλὰ τῆς νίκης ἆθλον τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τῆς πολιτείας λαμβάνουσιν, καὶ οἱ μὲν δημοκρατίαν οἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίαν ποιοῦσιν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐν ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων τῆς Ἑλλάδος πρὸς τὴν παρʼ αὑτοῖς ἑκάτεροι πολιτείαν ἀποβλέποντες οἱ μὲν δημοκρατίας ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι καθίστασαν οἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίας, οὐ πρὸς τὸ τῶν πόλεων συμφέρον σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ σφέτερον αὐτῶν, ὥστε διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας ἢ μηδέποτε τὴν μέσην γίνεσθαι πολιτείαν ἢ ὀλιγάκις καὶ παρʼ ὀλίγοις· εἷς γὰρ ἀνὴρ συνεπείσθη μόνος τῶν πρότερον ἐφʼ ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων ταύτην ἀποδοῦναι τὴν τάξιν, ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἔθος καθέστηκε μηδὲ βούλεσθαι τὸ ἴσον, ἀλλʼ ἢ ἄρχειν ζητεῖν ἢ κρατουμένους ὑπομένειν. τίς μὲν οὖν ἀρίστη πολιτεία, καὶ διὰ τίνʼ αἰτίαν, ἐκ τούτων φανερόν· τῶν δʼ ἄλλων πολιτειῶν, ἐπειδὴ πλείους δημοκρατίας καὶ πλείους ὀλιγαρχίας φαμὲν εἶναι, ποίαν πρώτην θετέον καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τοῦτον δὴ τὸν τρόπον ἐχομένην τῷ τὴν μὲν εἶναι βελτίω τὴν δὲ χείρω, διωρισμένης τῆς ἀρίστης οὐ χαλεπὸν ἰδεῖν. ἀεὶ γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι βελτίω τὴν ἐγγύτατα ταύτης, χείρω δὲ τὴν ἀφεστηκυῖαν τοῦ μέσου πλεῖον, ἂν μὴ πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν κρίνῃ τις. λέγω δὲ τὸ πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν, ὅτι πολλάκις, οὔσης ἄλλης πολιτείας αἱρετωτέρας, ἐνίοις οὐδὲν κωλύει συμφέρειν ἑτέραν μᾶλλον εἶναι πολιτείαν.

-

τίς δὲ πολιτεία τίσι καὶ ποία συμφέρει ποίοις, ἐχόμενόν ἐστι τῶν εἰρημένων διελθεῖν. ληπτέον δὴ πρῶτον περὶ πασῶν καθόλου ταὐτόν· δεῖ γὰρ κρεῖττον εἶναι τὸ βουλόμενον μέρος τῆς πόλεως τοῦ μὴ βουλομένου μένειν τὴν πολιτείαν. ἔστι δὲ πᾶσα πόλις ἔκ τε τοῦ ποιοῦ καὶ ποσοῦ. λέγω δὲ ποιὸν μὲν ἐλευθερίαν πλοῦτον παιδείαν εὐγένειαν, ποσὸν δὲ τὴν τοῦ πλήθους ὑπεροχήν. ἐνδέχεται δὲ τὸ μὲν ποιὸν ὑπάρχειν ἑτέρῳ μέρει τῆς πόλεως, ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκε μερῶν ἡ πόλις, ἄλλῳ δὲ μέρει τὸ ποσόν, οἷον πλείους τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἶναι τῶν γενναίων τοὺς ἀγεννεῖς ἢ τῶν πλουσίων τοὺς ἀπόρους, μὴ μέντοι τοσοῦτον ὑπερέχειν τῷ ποσῷ ὅσον λείπεται τῷ ποιῷ. διὸ ταῦτα πρὸς ἄλληλα συγκριτέον. ὅπου μὲν οὖν ὑπερέχει τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων πλῆθος τὴν εἰρημένην ἀναλογίαν, ἐνταῦθα πέφυκεν εἶναι δημοκρατίαν, καὶ ἕκαστον εἶδος δημοκρατίας κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ δήμου ἑκάστου, οἷον ἐὰν μὲν τὸ τῶν γεωργῶν ὑπερτείνῃ πλῆθος, τὴν πρώτην δημοκρατίαν, ἐὰν δὲ τὸ τῶν βαναύσων καὶ μισθαρνούντων, τὴν τελευταίαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τὰς μεταξὺ τούτων· ὅπου δὲ τὸ τῶν εὐπόρων καὶ γνωρίμων μᾶλλον ὑπερτείνει τῷ ποιῷ ἢ λείπεται τῷ ποσῷ, ἐνταῦθα ὀλιγαρχίαν, καὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἕκαστον εἶδος κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ ὀλιγαρχικοῦ πλήθους.

-

δεῖ δʼ ἀεὶ τὸν νομοθέτην ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ προσλαμβάνειν τοὺς μέσους· ἄν τε γὰρ ὀλιγαρχικοὺς τοὺς νόμους τιθῇ, στοχάζεσθαι χρὴ τῶν μέσων, ἐάν τε δημοκρατικούς, προσάγεσθαι τοῖς νόμοις τούτους. ὅπου δὲ τὸ τῶν μέσων ὑπερτείνει πλῆθος ἢ συναμφοτέρων τῶν ἄκρων ἢ καὶ θατέρου μόνον, ἐνταῦθʼ ἐνδέχεται πολιτείαν εἶναι μόνιμον. οὐθὲν γὰρ φοβερὸν μή ποτε συμφωνήσωσιν οἱ πλούσιοι τοῖς πένησιν ἐπὶ τούτους· οὐδέποτε γὰρ ἅτεροι βουλήσονται δουλεύειν τοῖς ἑτέροις, κοινοτέραν δʼ, ἂν ζητῶσιν, οὐδεμίαν εὑρήσουσιν ἄλλην ταύτης. ἐν μέρει γὰρ ἄρχειν οὐκ ἂν ὑπομείνειαν διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· πανταχοῦ δὲ πιστότατος ὁ διαιτητής, διαιτητὴς δʼ ὁ μέσος. ὅσῳ δʼ ἂν ἄμεινον ἡ πολιτεία μειχθῇ, τοσούτῳ μονιμωτέρα. διαμαρτάνουσι δὲ πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν τὰς ἀριστοκρατικὰς βουλομένων ποιεῖν πολιτείας, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ πλεῖον νέμειν τοῖς εὐπόροις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ παρακρούεσθαι τὸν δῆμον. ἀνάγκη γὰρ χρόνῳ ποτὲ ἐκ τῶν ψευδῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀληθὲς συμβῆναι κακόν· αἱ γὰρ πλεονεξίαι τῶν πλουσίων ἀπολλύασι μᾶλλον τὴν πολιτείαν ἢ αἱ τοῦ δήμου.

-

ἔστι δʼ ὅσα προφάσεως χάριν ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις σοφίζονται πρὸς τὸν δῆμον πέντε τὸν ἀριθμόν, περὶ ἐκκλησίαν, περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, περὶ δικαστήρια, περὶ ὅπλισιν, περὶ γυμνασίαν· περὶ ἐκκλησίαν μὲν τὸ ἐξεῖναι ἐκκλησιάζειν πᾶσι, ζημίαν δὲ ἐπικεῖσθαι τοῖς εὐπόροις ἐὰν μὴ ἐκκλησιάζωσιν, ἢ μόνοις ἢ μείζω πολλῷ, περὶ δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς τὸ τοῖς μὲν ἔχουσι τίμημα μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἐξόμνυσθαι, τοῖς δʼ ἀπόροις ἐξεῖναι, καὶ περὶ τὰ δικαστήρια τοῖς μὲν εὐπόροις εἶναι ζημίαν ἂν μὴ δικάζωσι, τοῖς δʼ ἀπόροις ἄδειαν, ἢ τοῖς μὲν μεγάλην τοῖς δὲ μικράν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς Χαρώνδου νόμοις. ἐνιαχοῦ δʼ ἔξεστι μὲν πᾶσιν ἀπογραψαμένοις ἐκκλησιάζειν καὶ δικάζειν, ἐὰν δὲ ἀπογραψάμενοι μήτʼ ἐκκλησιάζωσι μήτε δικάζωσιν, ἐπίκεινται μεγάλαι ζημίαι τούτοις, ἵνα διὰ μὲν τὴν ζημίαν φεύγωσι τὸ ἀπογράφεσθαι, διὰ δὲ τὸ μὴ ἀπογράφεσθαι μὴ δικάζωσι μηδʼ ἐκκλησιάζωσιν. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ τοῦ ὅπλα κεκτῆσθαι καὶ τοῦ γυμνάζεσθαι νομοθετοῦσιν. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἀπόροις ἔξεστι μὴ κεκτῆσθαι, τοῖς δʼ εὐπόροις ἐπιζήμιον μὴ κεκτημένοις, κἂν μὴ γυμνάζωνται, τοῖς μὲν οὐδεμία ζημία, τοῖς δʼ εὐπόροις ἐπιζήμιον, ὅπως οἱ μὲν διὰ τὴν ζημίαν μετέχωσιν, οἱ δὲ διὰ τὸ μὴ φοβεῖσθαι μὴ μετέχωσιν. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὀλιγαρχικὰ σοφίσματα τῆς νομοθεσίας· ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις πρὸς ταῦτʼ ἀντισοφίζονται. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἀπόροις μισθὸν πορίζουσιν ἐκκλησιάζουσι καὶ δικάζουσιν, τοῖς δʼ εὐπόροις οὐδεμίαν τάττουσι ζημίαν. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι εἴ τις βούλεται μιγνύναι δικαίως, δεῖ τὰ παρʼ ἑκατέροις συνάγειν καὶ τοῖς μὲν μισθὸν πορίζειν τοῖς δὲ ζημίαν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν κοινωνοῖεν ἅπαντες, ἐκείνως δʼ ἡ πολιτεία γίγνεται τῶν ἑτέρων μόνον. δεῖ δὲ τὴν πολιτείαν εἶναι μὲν ἐκ τῶν τὰ ὅπλα ἐχόντων μόνον· τοῦ δὲ τιμήματος τὸ πλῆθος ἁπλῶς μὲν ὁρισαμένους οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν τοσοῦτον δεῖν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλὰ σκεψαμένους τὸ ποῖον ἐπιβάλλει μακρότατον ὥστε τοὺς μετέχοντας τῆς πολιτείας εἶναι πλείους τῶν μὴ μετεχόντων, τοῦτο τάττειν. ἐθέλουσι γὰρ οἱ πένητες καὶ μὴ μετέχοντες τῶν τιμῶν ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν, ἐὰν μήτε ὑβρίζῃ τις αὐτοὺς μήτε ἀφαιρῆται μηθὲν τῆς οὐσίας. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο οὐ ῥᾴδιον· οὐ γὰρ ἀεὶ συμβαίνει χαρίεντας εἶναι τοὺς μετέχοντας τοῦ πολιτεύματος. καὶ εἰώθασι δέ, ὅταν πόλεμος ᾖ, ὀκνεῖν, ἂν μὴ λαμβάνωσι τροφήν, ἄποροι δὲ ὦσιν· ἐὰν δὲ πορίζῃ τις τροφήν, βούλονται πολεμεῖν.

-

ἔστι δὲ ἡ πολιτεία παρʼ ἐνίοις οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν ὁπλιτευόντων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὡπλιτευκότων· ἐν Μαλιεῦσι δὲ ἡ μὲν πολιτεία ἦν ἐκ τούτων, τὰς δὲ ἀρχὰς ᾑροῦντο ἐκ τῶν στρατευομένων. καὶ ἡ πρώτη δὲ πολιτεία ἐν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐγένετο μετὰ τὰς βασιλείας ἐκ τῶν πολεμούντων, ἡ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐκ τῶν ἱππέων (τὴν γὰρ ἰσχὺν καὶ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἐν τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν ὁ πόλεμος εἶχεν· ἄνευ μὲν γὰρ συντάξεως ἄχρηστον τὸ ὁπλιτικόν, αἱ δὲ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἐμπειρίαι καὶ τάξεις ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις οὐχ ὑπῆρχον, ὥστʼ ἐν τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν εἶναι τὴν ἰσχύν), αὐξανομένων δὲ τῶν πόλεων καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἰσχυσάντων μᾶλλον πλείους μετεῖχον τῆς πολιτείας· διόπερ ἃς νῦν καλοῦμεν πολιτείας, οἱ πρότερον ἐκάλουν δημοκρατίας· ἦσαν δὲ αἱ ἀρχαῖαι πολιτεῖαι εὐλόγως ὀλιγαρχικαὶ καὶ βασιλικαί. διʼ ὀλιγανθρωπίαν γὰρ οὐκ εἶχον πολὺ τὸ μέσον, ὥστʼ ὀλίγοι τε ὄντες τὸ πλῆθος καὶ κατὰ τὴν σύνταξιν φαῦλοι ὑπέμενον τὸ ἄρχεσθαι. διὰ τίνα μὲν οὖν εἰσιν αἰτίαν αἱ πολιτεῖαι πλείους, καὶ διὰ τί παρὰ τὰς λεγομένας ἕτεραι (δημοκρατία τε γὰρ οὐ μία τὸν ἀριθμόν ἐστι, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίως), ἔτι δὲ τίνες αἱ διαφοραὶ καὶ διὰ τίνα αἰτίαν συμβαίνει, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τίς ἀρίστη τῶν πολιτειῶν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον εἰπεῖν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ποία ποίοις ἁρμόττει τῶν πολιτειῶν, εἴρηται.

-

πάλιν δὲ καὶ κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς περὶ ἑκάστης λέγωμεν περὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς, λαβόντες ἀρχὴν τὴν προσήκουσαν αὐτῶν. ἔστι δὴ τρία μόρια τῶν πολιτειῶν πασῶν, περὶ ὧν δεῖ θεωρεῖν τὸν σπουδαῖον νομοθέτην ἑκάστῃ τὸ συμφέρον· ὧν ἐχόντων καλῶς ἀνάγκη τὴν πολιτείαν ἔχειν καλῶς, καὶ τὰς πολιτείας ἀλλήλων διαφέρειν ἐν τῷ διαφέρειν ἕκαστον τούτων. ἔστι δὲ τῶν τριῶν τούτων ἓν μὲν τί τὸ βουλευόμενον περὶ τῶν κοινῶν, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τίνας δεῖ καὶ τίνων εἶναι κυρίας, καὶ ποίαν τινὰ δεῖ γίνεσθαι τὴν αἵρεσιν αὐτῶν, τρίτον δέ τί τὸ δικάζον. κύριον δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ βουλευόμενον περὶ πολέμου καὶ εἰρήνης, καὶ συμμαχίας καὶ διαλύσεως, καὶ περὶ νόμων, καὶ περὶ θανάτου καὶ φυγῆς καὶ δημεύσεως, καὶ περὶ ἀρχῶν αἱρέσεως καὶ τῶν εὐθυνῶν. ἀναγκαῖον δʼ ἤτοι πᾶσι τοῖς πολίταις ἀποδίδοσθαι πάσας ταύτας τὰς κρίσεις ἢ τισὶ πάσας (οἷον ἀρχῇ τινὶ μιᾷ ἢ πλείοσιν, ἢ ἑτέραις ἑτέρας) ἢ τινὰς μὲν αὐτῶν πᾶσι τινὰς δὲ τισίν.

-

τὸ μὲν οὖν πάντας καὶ περὶ ἁπάντων δημοτικόν· τὴν τοιαύτην γὰρ ἰσότητα ζητεῖ ὁ δῆμος. εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ τρόποι τοῦ πάντας πλείους, εἷς μὲν τὸ κατὰ μέρος ἀλλὰ μὴ πάντας ἀθρόους (ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τῇ Τηλεκλέους ἐστὶ τοῦ Μιλησίου· καὶ ἐν ἄλλαις δὲ πολιτείαις βουλεύονται αἱ συναρχίαι συνιοῦσαι, εἰς δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς βαδίζουσι πάντες κατὰ μέρος ἐκ τῶν φυλῶν καὶ τῶν μορίων τῶν ἐλαχίστων παντελῶς, ἕως ἂν διεξέλθῃ διὰ πάντων), συνιέναι δὲ μόνον περί τε νόμων θέσεως καὶ τῶν περὶ τῆς πολιτείας, καὶ τὰ παραγγελλόμενα ἀκουσομένους ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων· ἄλλος δὲ τρόπος τὸ πάντας ἀθρόους, συνιέναι δὲ μόνον πρός τε τὰς ἀρχαιρεσίας αἱρησομένους καὶ πρὸς τὰς νομοθεσίας καὶ περὶ πολέμου καὶ εἰρήνης καὶ πρὸς εὐθύνας, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα τὰς ἀρχὰς βουλεύεσθαι τὰς ἐφʼ ἑκάστοις τεταγμένας, αἱρετὰς οὔσας ἐξ ἁπάντων ἢ κληρωτάς· ἄλλος δὲ τρόπος τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς εὐθύνας ἀπαντᾶν τοὺς πολίτας, καὶ περὶ πολέμου βουλευσομένους καὶ συμμαχίας, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα τὰς ἀρχὰς διοικεῖν αἱρετὰς οὔσας, ὅσας ἐνδέχεται, τοιαῦται δʼ εἰσὶν ὅσας ἄρχειν ἀναγκαῖον τοὺς ἐπισταμένους· τέταρτος δὲ τρόπος τὸ πάντας περὶ πάντων βουλεύεσθαι συνιόντας, τὰς δʼ ἀρχὰς περὶ μηθενὸς κρίνειν ἀλλὰ μόνον προανακρίνειν, ὅνπερ ἡ τελευταία δημοκρατία νῦν διοικεῖται τρόπον, ἣν ἀνάλογόν φαμεν εἶναι ὀλιγαρχίᾳ τε δυναστευτικῇ καὶ μοναρχίᾳ τυραννικῇ. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οἱ τρόποι δημοκρατικοὶ πάντες, τὸ δὲ τινὰς περὶ πάντων ὀλιγαρχικόν. ἔχει δὲ καὶ τοῦτο διαφορὰς πλείους. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων μετριωτέρων αἱρετοί τε ὦσι καὶ πλείους διὰ τὴν μετριότητα τοῦ τιμήματος, καὶ περὶ ὧν ὁ νόμος ἀπαγορεύει μὴ κινῶσιν ἀλλʼ ἀκολουθῶσι, καὶ ἐξῇ κτωμένῳ τὸ τίμημα μετέχειν, ὀλιγαρχία μὲν πολιτικὴ δέ ἐστιν ἡ τοιαύτη διὰ τὸ μετριάζειν· ὅταν δὲ μὴ πάντες τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι μετέχωσιν ἀλλʼ πρόκριτοι, κατὰ νόμον δʼ ἄρχωσιν ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον, ὀλιγαρχικόν· ὅταν δὲ καὶ αἱρῶνται αὐτοὶ αὑτοὺς οἱ κύριοι τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι, καὶ ὅταν παῖς ἀντὶ πατρὸς εἰσίῃ καὶ κύριοι τῶν νόμων ὦσιν, ὀλιγαρχικὴν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὴν τάξιν ταύτην. ὅταν δὲ τινῶν τινές, οἷον πολέμου μὲν καὶ εἰρήνης καὶ εὐθυνῶν πάντες, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ἄρχοντες, καὶ οὗτοι αἱρετοί, μὴ κληρωτοί, ἀριστοκρατία ἡ πολιτεία. ἐὰν δʼ ἐνίων μὲν αἱρετοὶ ἐνίων δὲ κληρωτοί, καὶ κληρωτοὶ ἢ ἁπλῶς ἢ ἐκ προκρίτων, ἢ κοινῇ αἱρετοὶ καὶ κληρωτοί, τὰ μὲν πολιτείας ἀριστοκρατικῆς ἐστι τούτων, τὰ δὲ πολιτείας αὐτῆς.

-

διῄρηται μὲν οὖν τὸ βουλευόμενον πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, καὶ διοικεῖ ἑκάστη πολιτεία κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον διορισμόν· συμφέρει δὲ δημοκρατίᾳ τῇ μάλιστʼ εἶναι δοκούσῃ δημοκρατίᾳ νῦν (λέγω δὲ τοιαύτην ἐν ᾗ κύριος ὁ δῆμος καὶ τῶν νόμων ἐστίν) πρὸς τὸ βουλεύεσθαι βέλτιον τὸ αὐτὸ ποιεῖν ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶν δικαστηρίων ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις (τάττουσι γὰρ ζημίαν τούτοις οὓς βούλονται δικάζειν, ἵνα δικάζωσιν, οἱ δὲ δημοτικοὶ μισθὸν τοῖς ἀπόροις), τοῦτο δὴ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἐκκλησίας ποιεῖν (βουλεύσονται γὰρ βέλτιον κοινῇ βουλευόμενοι πάντες, ὁ μὲν δῆμος μετὰ τῶν γνωρίμων, οὗτοι δὲ μετὰ τοῦ πλήθους), συμφέρει δὲ καὶ τὸ αἱρετοὺς εἶναι τοὺς βουλευομένους, ἢ κληρωτοὺς ἴσους ἐκ τῶν μορίων, συμφέρει δέ, κἂν ὑπερβάλλωσι πολὺ κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος οἱ δημοτικοὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν ἢ μὴ πᾶσι διδόναι μισθόν, ἀλλʼ ὅσοι σύμμετροι πρὸς τὸ τῶν γνωρίμων πλῆθος, ἢ ἀποκληροῦν τοὺς πλείους· ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις ἢ προσαιρεῖσθαί τινας ἐκ τοῦ πλήθους, ἢ κατασκευάσαντας ἀρχεῖον οἷον ἐν ἐνίαις πολιτείαις ἐστὶν οὓς καλοῦσι προβούλους καὶ νομοφύλακας, περὶ τούτων χρηματίζειν περὶ ὧν ἂν οὗτοι προβουλεύσωσιν (οὕτω γὰρ μεθέξει ὁ δῆμος τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι, καὶ λύειν οὐθὲν δυνήσεται τῶν περὶ τὴν πολιτείαν), ἔτι ἢ ταὐτὰ ψηφίζεσθαι τὸν δῆμον ἢ μηθὲν ἐναντίον τοῖς εἰσφερομένοις, ἢ τῆς συμβουλῆς μὲν μεταδιδόναι πᾶσι, βουλεύεσθαι δὲ τοὺς ἄρχοντας. καὶ τὸ ἀντικείμενον δὲ τοῦ ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις γιγνομένου δεῖ ποιεῖν. ἀποψηφιζόμενον μὲν γὰρ κύριον δεῖ ποιεῖν τὸ πλῆθος, καταψηφιζόμενον δὲ μὴ κύριον, ἀλλʼ ἐπαναγέσθω πάλιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας. ἐν γὰρ ταῖς πολιτείαις ἀνεστραμμένως ποιοῦσιν· οἱ γὰρ ὀλίγοι ἀποψηφισάμενοι μὲν κύριοι, καταψηφισάμενοι δὲ οὐ κύριοι, ἀλλʼ ἐπανάγεται εἰς τοὺς πλείους αἰεί. περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ βουλευομένου καὶ τοῦ κυρίου δεῖ τῆς πολιτείας τοῦτον διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον.

-

ἐχομένη δὲ τούτων ἐστὶν ἡ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς διαίρεσις. ἔχει γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μόριον τῆς πολιτείας πολλὰς διαφοράς, πόσαι τε ἀρχαί, καὶ κύριαι τίνων, καὶ περὶ χρόνου, πόσος ἑκάστης ἀρχῆς (οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἑξαμήνους, οἱ δὲ διʼ ἐλάττονος, οἱ δʼ ἐνιαυσίας, οἱ δὲ πολυχρονιωτέρας ποιοῦσι τὰς ἀρχάς), καὶ πότερον εἶναι δεῖ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀιδίους ἢ πολυχρονίους ἢ μηδέτερον ἀλλὰ πλεονάκις τοὺς αὐτούς, ἢ μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν δὶς ἀλλʼ ἅπαξ μόνον, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τὴν κατάστασιν τῶν ἀρχῶν, ἐκ τίνων δεῖ γίνεσθαι καὶ ὑπὸ τίνων καὶ πῶς. περὶ πάντων γὰρ τούτων δεῖ δύνασθαι διελεῖν κατὰ πόσους ἐνδέχεται γενέσθαι τρόπους, κἄπειτα προσαρμόσαι ποίαις ποῖοι πολιτείαις συμφέρουσιν. ἔστι δὲ οὐδὲ τοῦτο διορίσαι ῥᾴδιον, ποίας δεῖ καλεῖν ἀρχάς· πολλῶν γὰρ ἐπιστατῶν ἡ πολιτικὴ κοινωνία δεῖται, διόπερ οὐ πάντας οὔτε τοὺς αἱρετοὺς οὔτε τοὺς κληρωτοὺς ἄρχοντας θετέον, οἷον τοὺς ἱερεῖς πρῶτον (τοῦτο γὰρ ἕτερόν τι παρὰ τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρχὰς θετέον)· ἔτι δὲ καὶ χορηγοὶ καὶ κήρυκες δʼ αἱροῦνται καὶ πρεσβευταί. εἰσὶ δὲ αἱ μὲν πολιτικαὶ τῶν ἐπιμελειῶν, ἢ πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν πρός τινα πρᾶξιν, οἷον στρατηγὸς στρατευομένων, ἢ κατὰ μέρος, οἷον ὁ γυναικονόμος ἢ παιδονόμος· αἱ δʼ οἰκονομικαί (πολλάκις γὰρ αἱροῦνται σιτομέτρας)· αἱ δʼ ὑπηρετικαὶ καὶ πρὸς ἅς, ἂν εὐπορῶσι, τάττουσι δούλους. μάλιστα δʼ ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν ἀρχὰς λεκτέον ταύτας ὅσαις ἀποδέδοται βουλεύσασθαί τε περὶ τινῶν καὶ κρῖναι καὶ ἐπιτάξαι, καὶ μάλιστα τοῦτο· τὸ γὰρ ἐπιτάττειν ἀρχικώτερόν ἐστιν. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα διαφέρει πρὸς μὲν τὰς χρήσεις οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν (οὐ γάρ πω κρίσις γέγονεν ἀμφισβητούντων περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος), ἔχει δέ τινʼ ἄλλην διανοητικὴν πραγματείαν.

-

ποῖαι δʼ ἀρχαὶ καὶ πόσαι ἀναγκαῖαι εἰ ἔσται πόλις, καὶ ποῖαι ἀναγκαῖαι μὲν οὔ, χρήσιμοι δὲ πρὸς σπουδαίαν πολιτείαν, μᾶλλον ἄν τις ἀπορήσειε πρὸς ἅπασάν τε δὴ πολιτείαν καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰς μικρὰς πόλεις. ἐν μὲν γὰρ δὴ ταῖς μεγάλαις ἐνδέχεταί τε καὶ δεῖ μίαν τετάχθαι πρὸς ἓν ἔργον (πολλούς τε γὰρ εἰς τὰ ἀρχεῖα ἐνδέχεται βαδίζειν διὰ τὸ πολλοὺς εἶναι τοὺς πολίτας, ὥστε τὰς μὲν διαλείπειν πολὺν χρόνον τὰς δʼ ἅπαξ ἄρχειν, καὶ βέλτιον ἕκαστον ἔργον τυγχάνει τῆς ἐπιμελείας μονοπραγματούσης ἢ πολυπραγματούσης)· ἐν δὲ ταῖς μικραῖς ἀνάγκη συνάγειν εἰς ὀλίγους πολλὰς ἀρχάς (διὰ γὰρ ὀλιγανθρωπίαν οὐ ῥᾴδιόν ἐστι πολλοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς εἶναι· τίνες γὰρ οἱ τούτοις ἔσονται διαδεξόμενοι πάλιν;). δέονται δʼ ἐνίοτε τῶν αὐτῶν ἀρχῶν καὶ νόμων αἱ μικραὶ ταῖς μεγάλαις· πλὴν αἱ μὲν δέονται πολλάκις τῶν αὐτῶν, ταῖς δʼ ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ τοῦτο συμβαίνει, διόπερ οὐθὲν κωλύει πολλὰς ἐπιμελείας ἅμα προστάττειν (οὐ γὰρ ἐμποδιοῦσιν ἀλλήλαις), καὶ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγανθρωπίαν ἀναγκαῖον τὰ ἀρχεῖα οἷον ὀβελισκολύχνια ποιεῖν. ἐὰν οὖν ἔχωμεν λέγειν πόσας ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν πάσῃ πόλει, καὶ πόσας οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον μὲν δεῖ δʼ ὑπάρχειν, ῥᾷον ἄν τις εἰδὼς ταῦτα συνίδοι ποίας ἁρμόττει συνάγειν ἀρχὰς εἰς μίαν ἀρχήν. ἁρμόττει δὲ καὶ τοῦτο μὴ λεληθέναι, ποίων δεῖ κατὰ τόπον ἀρχεῖα πολλὰ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι καὶ ποίων πανταχοῦ μίαν ἀρχὴν εἶναι κυρίαν, οἷον εὐκοσμίας πότερον ἐν ἀγορᾷ μὲν ἀγορανόμον, ἄλλον δὲ κατʼ ἄλλον τόπον, ἢ πανταχοῦ τὸν αὐτόν· καὶ πότερον κατὰ τὸ πρᾶγμα δεῖ διαιρεῖν ἢ κατὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, λέγω δʼ οἷον ἕνα τῆς εὐκοσμίας, ἢ παίδων ἄλλον καὶ γυναικῶν· καὶ κατὰ τὰς πολιτείας δέ, πότερον διαφέρει καθʼ ἑκάστην καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀρχῶν γένος ἢ οὐθέν, οἷον ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ καὶ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ καὶ ἀριστοκρατίᾳ καὶ μοναρχίᾳ πότερον αἱ αὐταὶ μέν εἰσιν ἀρχαὶ κύριαι, οὐκ ἐξ ἴσων δʼ οὐδʼ ἐξ ὁμοίων, ἀλλʼ ἑτέρων ἐν ἑτέραις, οἷον ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀριστοκρατίαις ἐκ πεπαιδευμένων, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις ἐκ τῶν πλουσίων, ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἐκ τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἢ τυγχάνουσι μέν τινες οὖσαι καὶ κατʼ αὐτὰς τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἀρχῶν, ἔστι δʼ ὅπου συμφέρουσιν αἱ αὐταὶ καὶ ὅπου διαφέρουσαι (ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ ἁρμόττει μεγάλας ἔνθα δʼ εἶναι μικρὰς τὰς αὐτάς).

-

οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἴδιαί τινες εἰσίν, οἷον ἡ τῶν προβούλων· αὕτη γὰρ οὐ δημοκρατική. βουλὴ δὲ δημοτικόν· δεῖ μὲν γὰρ εἶναί τι τοιοῦτον ᾧ ἐπιμελὲς ἔσται τοῦ δήμου προβουλεύειν, ὅπως ἀσχολῶν ἔσται, τοῦτο δʼ, ἐὰν ὀλίγοι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὦσιν, ὀλιγαρχικόν· τοὺς δὲ προβούλους ὀλίγους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸ πλῆθος, ὥστʼ ὀλιγαρχικόν. ἀλλʼ ὅπου ἄμφω αὗται αἱ ἀρχαί, οἱ πρόβουλοι καθεστᾶσιν ἐπὶ τοῖς βουλευταῖς· ὁ μὲν γὰρ βουλευτὴς δημοτικόν, ὁ δὲ πρόβουλος ὀλιγαρχικόν. καταλύεται δὲ καὶ τῆς βουλῆς ἡ δύναμις ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις δημοκρατίαις ἐν αἷς αὐτὸς συνιὼν ὁ δῆμος χρηματίζει περὶ πάντων. τοῦτο δὲ συμβαίνειν εἴωθεν ὅταν εὐπορία τις ᾖ μισθοῦ τοῖς ἐκκλησιάζουσιν· σχολάζοντες γὰρ συλλέγονταί τε πολλάκις καὶ ἅπαντα αὐτοὶ κρίνουσιν. παιδονόμος δὲ καὶ γυναικονόμος, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος ἄρχων κύριός ἐστι τοιαύτης ἐπιμελείας, ἀριστοκρατικόν, δημοκρατικὸν δʼ οὔ (πῶς γὰρ οἷόν τε κωλύειν ἐξιέναι τὰς τῶν ἀπόρων;), οὐδʼ ὀλιγαρχικόν (τρυφῶσι γὰρ αἱ τῶν ὀλιγαρχούντων).

-

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον εἰρήσθω νῦν, περὶ δὲ τὰς τῶν ἀρχῶν καταστάσεις πειρατέον ἐξ ἀρχῆς διελθεῖν. εἰσὶ δʼ αἱ διαφοραὶ ἐν τρισὶν ὅροις, ὧν συντιθεμένων ἀναγκαῖον πάντας εἰλῆφθαι τοὺς τρόπους. ἔστι δὲ τῶν τριῶν τούτων ἓν μὲν τίνες οἱ καθιστάντες τὰς ἀρχάς, δεύτερον δὲ ἐκ τίνων, λοιπὸν δὲ τίνα τρόπον. ἑκάστου δὲ τῶν τριῶν τούτων διαφοραὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν. ἢ γὰρ πάντες οἱ πολῖται καθιστᾶσιν ἢ τινές, καὶ ἢ ἐκ πάντων ἢ ἐκ τινῶν ἀφωρισμένων (οἷον ἢ τιμήματι ἢ γένει ἢ ἀρετῇ ἤ τινι τοιούτῳ ἄλλῳ, ὥσπερ ἐν Μεγάροις ἐκ τῶν συγκατελθόντων καὶ συμμαχεσαμένων πρὸς τὸν δῆμον)· καὶ ταῦτα ἢ αἱρέσει ἢ κλήρῳ (πάλιν ταῦτα συνδυαζόμενα, λέγω δὲ τὰς μὲν τινὲς τὰς δὲ πάντες, καὶ τὰς μὲν ἐκ πάντων τὰς δʼ ἐκ τινῶν, καὶ τὰς μὲν αἱρέσει τὰς δὲ κλήρῳ).

-

τούτων δʼ ἑκάστης ἔσονται τῆς διαφορᾶς τρόποι τέσσαρες. ἢ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει, ἢ πάντες ἐκ πάντων κλήρῳ—καί ἢ ἐξ ἁπάντων, ἢ ὡς ἀνὰ μέρος, οἷον κατὰ φυλὰς καὶ δήμους καὶ φατρίας, ἕως ἂν διέλθῃ διὰ πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν, ἢ ἀεὶ ἐξ ἁπάντων, —ἢ καὶ τὰ μὲν οὕτως τὰ δὲ ἐκείνως· πάλιν εἰ τινὲς οἱ καθιστάντες, ἢ ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει ἢ ἐκ πάντων κλήρῳ, ἢ ἐκ τινῶν αἱρέσει ἢ ἐκ τινῶν κλήρῳ, ἢ τὰ μὲν οὕτως τὰ δὲ ἐκείνως, λέγω δὲ τὰ μὲν ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει τὰ δὲ κληρῷ καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐκ τινῶν αἱρέσει τὰ δὲ κληρῷ· ὥστε δώδεκα οἱ τρόποι γίνονται χωρὶς τῶν δύο συνδυασμῶν. τούτων δʼ αἱ μὲν τρεῖς καταστάσεις δημοτικαί, τὸ πάντας ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει ἢ κλήρῳ γίνεσθαι ἢ ἀμφοῖν, τὰς μὲν κλήρῳ τὰς δʼ αἱρέσει τῶν ἀρχῶν· τὸ δὲ μὴ πάντας ἅμα μὲν καθιστάναι, ἐξ ἁπάντων δʼ ἢ ἐκ τινῶν ἢ κλήρῳ ἢ αἱρέσει ἢ ἀμφοῖν, ἢ τὰς μὲν ἐκ πάντων τὰς δʼ ἐκ τινῶν ἀμφοῖν (τὸ δὲ ἀμφοῖν λέγω τὰς μὲν κλήρῳ τὰς δʼ αἱρέσει) πολιτικόν, καὶ τὸ τινὰς ἐκ πάντων ἢ αἱρέσει καθιστάναι ἢ κλήρῳ ἢ ἀμφοῖν (τὰς μὲν κλήρῳ τὰς δʼ αἱρέσει) ὀλιγαρχικόν· ὀλιγαρχικώτερον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν. τὸ δὲ τὰς μὲν ἐκ πάντων τὰς δʼ ἐκ τινῶν πολιτικὸν ἀριστοκρατικῶς, ἢ τὰς μὲν αἱρέσει τὰς δὲ κληρῷ, τὸ δὲ τινὰς ἐκ τινῶν αἱρέσει ὀλιγαρχικὸν καὶ τὸ τινὰς ἐκ τινῶν κλήρῳ (μὴ γινομένου δʼ, ὁμοίως), καὶ τὸ τινὰς ἐκ τινῶν ἀμφοῖν. τὸ δὲ τινὰς ἐξ ἁπάντων τό τε ἐκ τινῶν αἱρέσει πάντας ἀριστοκρατικόν. οἱ μὲν οὖν τρόποι τῶν περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τοσοῦτοι τὸν ἀριθμόν εἰσι, καὶ διῄρηνται κατὰ τὰς πολιτείας οὕτως· τίνα δὲ τίσι συμφέρει καὶ πῶς δεῖ γίνεσθαι τὰς καταστάσεις, ἅμα ταῖς δυνάμεσι τῶν ἀρχῶν καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν ἔσται φανερόν. λέγω δὲ δύναμιν ἀρχῆς οἷον τὴν κυρίαν τῶν προσόδων καὶ τὴν κυρίαν τῆς φυλακῆς· ἄλλο γὰρ εἶδος δυνάμεως οἷον στρατηγίας καὶ τῆς τῶν περὶ τὴν ἀγορὰν συμβολαίων κυρίας.

-

λοιπὸν δὲ τῶν τριῶν τὸ δικαστικὸν εἰπεῖν. ληπτέον δὲ καὶ τούτων τοὺς τρόπους κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπόθεσιν. ἔστι δὲ διαφορὰ τῶν δικαστηρίων ἐν τρισὶν ὅροις, ἐξ ὧν τε καὶ περὶ ὧν καὶ πῶς. λέγω δὲ ἐξ ὧν μέν, πότερον ἐκ πάντων ἢ ἐκ τινῶν· περὶ ὧν δέ, πόσα εἴδη δικαστηρίων· τὸ δὲ πῶς, πότερον κλήρῳ ἢ αἱρέσει. πρῶτον οὖν διαιρείσθω πόσα εἴδη δικαστηρίων. ἔστι δὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὀκτώ, ἓν μὲν εὐθυντικόν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴ τίς τι τῶν κοινῶν ἀδικεῖ, ἕτερον ὅσα εἰς τὴν πολιτείαν φέρει, τέταρτον καὶ ἄρχουσι καὶ ἰδιώταις ὅσα περὶ ζημιώσεων ἀμφισβητοῦσιν, πέμπτον τὸ περὶ τῶν ἰδίων συναλλαγμάτων καὶ ἐχόντων μέγεθος, καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα τό τε φονικὸν καὶ τὸ ξενικόν (φονικοῦ μὲν οὖν εἴδη, ἄν τʼ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς δικασταῖς ἄν τʼ ἐν ἄλλοις, περί τε τῶν ἐκ προνοίας καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀκουσίων, καὶ ὅσα ὁμολογεῖται μέν, ἀμφισβητεῖται δὲ περὶ τοῦ δικαίου, τέταρτον δὲ ὅσα τοῖς φεύγουσι φόνου ἐπὶ καθόδῳ ἐπιφέρεται, οἷον Ἀθήνησι λέγεται καὶ τὸ ἐν Φρεαττοῖ δικαστήριον· συμβαίνει δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐν τῷ παντὶ χρόνῳ ὀλίγα καὶ ἐν ταῖς μεγάλαις πόλεσιν· τοῦ δὲ ξενικοῦ ἓν μὲν ξένοις πρὸς ξένους, ἄλλο δὲ ξένοις πρὸς ἀστούς), ἔτι δὲ παρὰ πάντα ταῦτα περὶ τῶν μικρῶν συναλλαγμάτων, ὅσα δραχμιαῖα καὶ πεντάδραχμα καὶ μικρῷ πλείονος. δεῖ μὲν γὰρ καὶ περὶ τούτων γίνεσθαι κρίσιν, οὐκ ἐμπίπτει δὲ εἰς δικαστῶν πλῆθος.

-

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἀφείσθω καὶ τῶν φονικῶν καὶ τῶν ξενικῶν, περὶ δὲ τῶν πολιτικῶν λέγωμεν, περὶ ὧν μὴ γινομένων καλῶς διαστάσεις γίνονται καὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν αἱ κινήσεις. ἀνάγκη δʼ ἤτοι πάντας περὶ πάντων κρίνειν τῶν διῃρημένων αἱρέσει ἢ κλήρῳ, ἢ πάντας περὶ πάντων τὰ μὲν κλήρῳ τὰ δʼ αἱρέσει, ἢ περὶ ἐνίων τῶν αὐτῶν τοὺς μὲν κλήρῳ τοὺς δʼ αἱρετούς. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οἱ τρόποι τέτταρες τὸν ἀριθμόν· τοσοῦτοι δʼ ἕτεροι καὶ οἱ κατὰ μέρος. πάλιν γὰρ ἐκ τινῶν καὶ οἱ δικάζοντες περὶ πάντων αἱρέσει, ἢ ἐκ τινῶν περὶ πάντων κλήρῳ, ἢ τὰ μὲν κλήρῳ τὰ δὲ αἱρέσει, ἢ ἔνια δικαστήρια περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐκ κληρωτῶν καὶ αἱρετῶν. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ ἐλέχθησαν, οἱ τρόποι ἀντίστροφοι τοῖς εἰρημένοις· ἔτι δὲ τὰ αὐτὰ συνδυαζόμενα, λέγω δʼ οἷον τὰ μὲν ἐκ πάντων τὰ δʼ ἐκ τινῶν τὰ δʼ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν (οἷον εἰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ δικαστηρίου εἶεν οἱ μὲν ἐκ πάντων οἱ δʼ ἐκ τινῶν), καὶ ἢ κλήρῳ ἢ αἱρέσει ἢ ἀμφοῖν. ὅσους μὲν οὖν ἐνδέχεται τρόπους εἶναι τὰ δικαστήρια, εἴρηται· τούτων δὲ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα δημοτικά, ὅσα ἐκ πάντων περὶ πάντων, τὰ δὲ δεύτερα ὀλιγαρχικά, ὅσα ἐκ τινῶν περὶ πάντων, τὰ δὲ τρίτα ἀριστοκρατικὰ καὶ πολιτικά, ὅσα τὰ μὲν ἐκ πάντων τὰ δʼ ἐκ τινῶν.

- -
-
-

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἄλλων ὧν προειλόμεθα σχεδὸν εἴρηται περὶ πάντων· ἐκ τίνων δὲ μεταβάλλουσιν αἱ πολιτεῖαι καὶ πόσων καὶ ποίων, καὶ τίνες ἑκάστης πολιτείας φθοραί, καὶ ἐκ ποίων εἰς ποίας μάλιστα μεθίστανται, ἔτι δὲ σωτηρίαι τίνες καὶ κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς ἑκάστης εἰσίν, ἔτι δὲ διὰ τίνων ἂν μάλιστα σῴζοιτο τῶν πολιτειῶν ἑκάστη, σκεπτέον ἐφεξῆς τοῖς εἰρημένοις.

-

δεῖ δὲ πρῶτον ὑπολαβεῖν τὴν ἀρχήν, ὅτι πολλαὶ γεγένηνται πολιτεῖαι πάντων μὲν ὁμολογούντων τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ κατʼ ἀναλογίαν ἴσον, τούτου δʼ ἁμαρτανόντων, ὥσπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον. δῆμος μὲν γὰρ ἐγένετο ἐκ τοῦ ἴσους ὁτιοῦν ὄντας οἴεσθαι ἁπλῶς ἴσους εἶναι (ὅτι γὰρ ἐλεύθεροι πάντες ὁμοίως, ἁπλῶς ἴσοι εἶναι νομίζουσιν), ὀλιγαρχία δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνίσους ἕν τι ὄντας ὅλως εἶναι ἀνίσους ὑπολαμβάνειν (κατʼ οὐσίαν γὰρ ἄνισοι ὄντες ἁπλῶς ἄνισοι ὑπολαμβάνουσιν εἶναι). εἶτα οἱ μὲν ὡς ἴσοι ὄντες πάντων τῶν ἴσων ἀξιοῦσι μετέχειν· οἱ δʼ ὡς ἄνισοι ὄντες πλεονεκτεῖν ζητοῦσιν, τὸ γὰρ πλεῖον ἄνισον. ἔχουσι μὲν οὖν τι πᾶσαι δίκαιον, ἡμαρτημέναι δʼ ἁπλῶς εἰσιν. καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν, ὅταν μὴ κατὰ τὴν ὑπόληψιν ἣν ἑκάτεροι τυγχάνουσιν ἔχοντες μετέχωσι τῆς πολιτείας, στασιάζουσιν. πάντων δὲ δικαιότατα μὲν ἂν στασιάζοιεν, ἥκιστα δὲ τοῦτο πράττουσιν, οἱ κατʼ ἀρετὴν διαφέροντες· μάλιστα γὰρ εὔλογον ἀνίσους ἁπλῶς εἶναι τούτους μόνον. εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ κατὰ γένος ὑπερέχοντες οὐκ ἀξιοῦσι τῶν ἴσων αὑτοὺς διὰ τὴν ἀνισότητα ταύτην· εὐγενεῖς γὰρ εἶναι δοκοῦσιν οἷς ὑπάρχει προγόνων ἀρετὴ καὶ πλοῦτος.

-

ἀρχαὶ μὲν οὖν ὡς εἰπεῖν αὗται καὶ πηγαὶ τῶν στάσεών εἰσιν, ὅθεν στασιάζουσιν· διὸ καὶ αἱ μεταβολαὶ γίνονται διχῶς· ὁτὲ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν, ὅπως ἐκ τῆς καθεστηκυίας ἄλλην μεταστήσωσιν, οἷον ἐκ δημοκρατίας ὀλιγαρχίαν ἢ δημοκρατίαν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας, ἢ πολιτείαν καὶ ἀριστοκρατίαν ἐκ τούτων, ἢ ταύτας ἐξ ἐκείνων, ὁτὲ δʼ οὐ πρὸς τὴν καθεστηκυῖαν πολιτείαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν κατάστασιν προαιροῦνται τὴν αὐτήν, διʼ αὑτῶν δʼ εἶναι βούλονται ταύτην, οἷον τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἢ τὴν μοναρχίαν· ἔτι περὶ τοῦ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον, οἷον ἢ ὀλιγαρχίαν οὖσαν εἰς τὸ μᾶλλον ὀλιγαρχεῖσθαι ἢ εἰς τὸ ἧττον, ἢ δημοκρατίαν οὖσαν εἰς τὸ μᾶλλον δημοκρατεῖσθαι ἢ εἰς τὸ ἧττον, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν πολιτειῶν, ἢ ἵνα ἐπιταθῶσιν ἢ ἀνεθῶσιν· ἔτι πρὸς τὸ μέρος τι κινῆσαι τῆς πολιτείας, οἷον ἀρχήν τινα καταστῆσαι ἢ ἀνελεῖν, ὥσπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονί φασι Λύσανδρόν τινες ἐπιχειρῆσαι καταλῦσαι τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ Παυσανίαν τὸν βασιλέα τὴν ἐφορείαν, καὶ ἐν Ἐπιδάμνῳ δὲ μετέβαλεν ἡ πολιτεία κατὰ μόριον (ἀντὶ γὰρ τῶν φυλάρχων βουλὴν ἐποίησαν, εἰς δὲ τὴν ἡλιαίαν ἐπάναγκές ἐστιν ἔτι τῶν ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι βαδίζειν τὰς ἀρχάς, ὅταν ἐπιψηφίζηται ἀρχή τις, ὀλιγαρχικὸν δὲ καὶ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ εἷς ἦν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ ταύτῃ). πανταχοῦ γὰρ διὰ τὸ ἄνισον ἡ στάσις, οὐ μὴ τοῖς ἀνίσοις ὑπάρχει ἀνάλογον (ἀΐδιος γὰρ βασιλεία ἄνισος, ἐὰν ᾖ ἐν ἴσοις)· ὅλως γὰρ τὸ ἴσον ζητοῦντες στασιάζουσιν. ἔστι δὲ διττὸν τὸ ἴσον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀριθμῷ τὸ δὲ κατʼ ἀξίαν ἐστίν. λέγω δὲ ἀριθμῷ μὲν τὸ πλήθει ἢ μεγέθει ταὐτὸ καὶ ἴσον, κατʼ ἀξίαν δὲ τὸ τῷ λόγῳ, οἷον ὑπερέχει κατʼ ἀριθμὸν μὲν ἴσῳ τὰ τρία τοῖν δυοῖν καὶ ταῦτα τοῦ ἑνός, λόγῳ δὲ τὰ τέτταρα τοῖν δυοῖν καὶ ταῦτα τοῦ ἑνός· ἴσον γὰρ μέρος τὰ δύο τῶν τεττάρων καὶ τὸ ἓν τοῖν δυοῖν· ἄμφω γὰρ ἡμίση. ὁμολογοῦντες δὲ τὸ ἁπλῶς εἶναι δίκαιον τὸ κατʼ ἀξίαν, διαφέρονται, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη πρότερον, οἱ μὲν ὅτι, ἐὰν κατὰ τὶ ἴσοι ὦσιν, ὅλως ἴσοι νομίζουσιν εἶναι, οἱ δʼ ὅτι, ἐὰν κατὰ τὶ ἄνισοι, πάντων ἀνίσων ἀξιοῦσιν ἑαυτούς. διὸ καὶ μάλιστα δύο γίνονται πολιτεῖαι, δῆμος καὶ ὀλιγαρχία· εὐγένεια γὰρ καὶ ἀρετὴ ἐν ὀλίγοις, ταῦτα δʼ ἐν πλείοσιν· εὐγενεῖς γὰρ καὶ ἀγαθοὶ οὐδαμοῦ ἑκατόν, εὔποροι δὲ πολλαχοῦ. τὸ δὲ ἁπλῶς πάντῃ καθʼ ἑκατέραν τετάχθαι τὴν ἰσότητα φαῦλον. φανερὸν δʼ ἐκ τοῦ συμβαίνοντος· οὐδεμία γὰρ μόνιμος ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων πολιτειῶν. τούτου δʼ αἴτιον ὅτι ἀδύνατον ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἡμαρτημένου μὴ ἀπαντᾶν εἰς τὸ τέλος κακόν τι. διὸ δεῖ τὰ μὲν ἀριθμητικῇ ἰσότητι χρῆσθαι, τὰ δὲ τῇ κατʼ ἀξίαν.

-

ὅμως δὲ ἀσφαλεστέρα καὶ ἀστασίαστος μᾶλλον ἡ δημοκρατία τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας. ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις ἐγγίνονται δύο, ἥ τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους στάσις καὶ ἔτι ἡ πρὸς τὸν δῆμον, ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἡ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν μόνον, αὐτῷ δὲ πρὸς αὑτόν, ὅ τι καὶ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ἐγγίνεται τῷ δήμῳ στάσις· ἔτι δὲ ἡ ἐκ τῶν μέσων πολιτεία ἐγγυτέρω τοῦ δήμου ἢ ἡ τῶν ὀλίγων· ἥπερ ἐστὶν ἀσφαλεστάτη τῶν τοιούτων πολιτειῶν.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ σκοποῦμεν ἐκ τίνων αἵ τε στάσεις γίνονται καὶ αἱ μεταβολαὶ περὶ τὰς πολιτείας, ληπτέον καθόλου πρῶτον τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς αἰτίας αὐτῶν. εἰσὶ δὴ σχεδὸν ὡς εἰπεῖν τρεῖς τὸν ἀριθμόν, ἃς διοριστέον καθʼ αὑτὰς τύπῳ πρῶτον. δεῖ γὰρ λαβεῖν πῶς τε ἔχοντες στασιάζουσι καὶ τίνων ἕνεκεν, καὶ τρίτον τίνες ἀρχαὶ γίνονται τῶν πολιτικῶν ταραχῶν καὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους στάσεων. τοῦ μὲν οὖν αὐτοὺς ἔχειν πως πρὸς τὴν μεταβολὴν αἰτίαν καθόλου μάλιστα θετέον περὶ ἧς ἤδη τυγχάνομεν εἰρηκότες. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἰσότητος ἐφιέμενοι στασιάζουσιν ἂν νομίζωσιν ἔλαττον ἔχειν ὄντες ἴσοι τοῖς πλεονεκτοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ τῆς ἀνισότητος καὶ τῆς ὑπεροχῆς ἂν ὑπολαμβάνωσιν ὄντες ἄνισοι μὴ πλέον ἔχειν ἀλλʼ ἴσον ἢ ἔλαττον (τούτων δʼ ἔστι μὲν ὀρέγεσθαι δικαίως, ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἀδίκως)· ἐλάττους τε γὰρ ὄντες ὅπως ἴσοι ὦσι στασιάζουσι, καὶ ἴσοι ὄντες ὅπως μείζους. πῶς μὲν οὖν ἔχοντες στασιάζουσιν, εἴρηται· περὶ ὧν δὲ στασιάζουσιν ἐστὶ κέρδος καὶ τιμὴ καὶ τἀναντία τούτοις. καὶ γὰρ ἀτιμίαν φεύγοντες καὶ ζημίαν, ἢ ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἢ τῶν φίλων, στασιάζουσιν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν. αἱ δʼ αἰτίαι καὶ ἀρχαὶ τῶν κινήσεων, ὅθεν αὐτοί τε διατίθενται τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον καὶ περὶ τῶν λεχθέντων, ἔστι μὲν ὡς τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἑπτὰ τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι, ἔστι δʼ ὡς πλείους. ὧν δύο μέν ἐστι ταὐτὰ τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡσαύτως· διὰ κέρδος γὰρ καὶ διὰ τιμὴν καὶ παροξύνονται πρὸς ἀλλήλους οὐχ ἵνα κτήσωνται σφίσιν αὐτοῖς, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, ἀλλʼ ἑτέρους ὁρῶντες τοὺς μὲν δικαίως τοὺς δʼ ἀδίκως πλεονεκτοῦντας τούτων· ἔτι διὰ ὕβριν, διὰ φόβον, διὰ ὑπεροχήν, διὰ καταφρόνησιν, διὰ αὔξησιν τὴν παρὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον· ἔτι δὲ ἄλλον τρόπον διʼ ἐριθείαν, διʼ ὀλιγωρίαν, διὰ μικρότητα, διὰ ἀνομοιότητα.

-

Τούτων δὲ ὕβρις μὲν καὶ κέρδος τίνα ἔχουσι δύναμιν καὶ πῶς αἴτια, σχεδόν ἐστι φανερόν· ὑβριζόντων τε γὰρ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ πλεονεκτούντων στασιάζουσι καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας τὰς διδούσας τὴν ἐξουσίαν· ἡ δὲ πλεονεξία γίνεται ὁτὲ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ὁτὲ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν κοινῶν. —δῆλον δὲ καὶ ἡ τιμή, καὶ τί δύναται καὶ πῶς αἰτία στάσεως· καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀτιμαζόμενοι καὶ ἄλλους ὁρῶντες τιμωμένους στασιάζουσιν· ταῦτα δὲ ἀδίκως μὲν γίνεται ὅταν παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ἢ τιμῶνταί τινες ἢ ἀτιμάζωνται, δικαίως δὲ ὅταν κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν. —διʼ ὑπεροχὴν δέ, ὅταν τις ᾖ τῇ δυνάμει μείζων (ἢ εἷς ἢ πλείους) ἢ κατὰ τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ πολιτεύματος· γίνεσθαι γὰρ εἴωθεν ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων μοναρχία ἢ δυναστεία· διὸ ἐνιαχοῦ εἰώθασιν ὀστρακίζειν, οἷον ἐν Ἄργει καὶ Ἀθήνησιν· καίτοι βέλτιον ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁρᾶν ὅπως μὴ ἐνέσονται τοσοῦτον ὑπερέχοντες, ἢ ἐάσαντας γενέσθαι ἰᾶσθαι ὕστερον. —διὰ δὲ φόβον στασιάζουσιν οἵ τε ἠδικηκότες, δεδιότες μὴ δῶσι δίκην, καὶ οἱ μέλλοντες ἀδικεῖσθαι, βουλόμενοι φθάσαι πρὶν ἀδικηθῆναι, ὥσπερ ἐν Ῥόδῳ συνέστησαν οἱ γνώριμοι ἐπὶ τὸν δῆμον διὰ τὰς ἐπιφερομένας δίκας. —διὰ καταφρόνησιν δὲ καὶ στασιάζουσι καὶ ἐπιτίθενται, οἷον ἔν τε ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις, ὅταν πλείους ὦσιν οἱ μὴ μετέχοντες τῆς πολιτείας (κρείττους γὰρ οἴονται εἶναι), καὶ ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις οἱ εὔποροι καταφρονήσαντες τῆς ἀταξίας καὶ ἀναρχίας, οἷον καὶ ἐν Θήβαις μετὰ τὴν ἐν Οἰνοφύτοις μάχην κακῶς πολιτευομένων ἡ δημοκρατία διεφθάρη, καὶ ἡ Μεγαρέων διʼ ἀταξίαν καὶ ἀναρχίαν ἡττηθέντων, καὶ ἐν Συρακούσαις πρὸ τῆς Γέλωνος τυραννίδος, καὶ ἐν Ῥόδῳ ὁ δῆμος πρὸ τῆς ἐπαναστάσεως.

-

γίνονται δὲ καὶ διʼ αὔξησιν τὴν παρὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον μεταβολαὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν. ὥσπερ γὰρ σῶμα ἐκ μερῶν σύγκειται καὶ δεῖ αὐξάνεσθαι ἀνάλογον ἵνα μένῃ ἡ συμμετρία, εἰ δὲ μή, φθείρεται, ὅταν ὁ μὲν ποὺς τεττάρων πηχῶν ᾖ τὸ δʼ ἄλλο σῶμα δυοῖν σπιθαμαῖν, ἐνίοτε δὲ κἂν εἰς ἄλλου ζῴου μεταβάλοι μορφήν, εἰ μὴ μόνον κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν αὐξάνοιτο παρὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον, οὕτω καὶ πόλις σύγκειται ἐκ μερῶν, ὧν πολλάκις λανθάνει τι αὐξανόμενον, οἷον τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων πλῆθος ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις καὶ πολιτείαις. συμβαίνει δʼ ἐνίοτε τοῦτο καὶ διὰ τύχας, οἷον ἐν Τάραντι ἡττηθέντων καὶ ἀπολομένων πολλῶν γνωρίμων ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰαπύγων μικρὸν ὕστερον τῶν Μηδικῶν δημοκρατία ἐγένετο ἐκ πολιτείας, καὶ ἐν Ἄργει τῶν ἐν τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἀπολομένων ὑπὸ Κλεομένους τοῦ Λάκωνος ἠναγκάσθησαν παραδέξασθαι τῶν περιοίκων τινάς, καὶ ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀτυχούντων πεζῇ οἱ γνώριμοι ἐλάττους ἐγένοντο διὰ τὸ ἐκ καταλόγου στρατεύεσθαι ὑπὸ τὸν Λακωνικὸν πόλεμον. συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις, ἧττον δέ· πλειόνων γὰρ τῶν εὐπόρων γινομένων ἢ τῶν οὐσιῶν αὐξανομένων μεταβάλλουσιν εἰς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δυναστείας. —μεταβάλλουσι δʼ αἱ πολιτεῖαι καὶ ἄνευ στάσεως διά τε τὰς ἐριθείας, ὥσπερ ἐν Ἡραίᾳ (ἐξ αἱρετῶν γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐποίησαν κληρωτάς, ὅτι ᾑροῦντο τοὺς ἐριθευομένους), καὶ διʼ ὀλιγωρίαν, ὅταν ἐάσωσιν εἰς τὰς ἀρχὰς τὰς κυρίας παριέναι τοὺς μὴ τῇ πολιτείᾳ φίλους, ὥσπερ ἐν Ὠρεῷ κατελύθη ἡ ὀλιγαρχία τῶν ἀρχόντων γενομένου Ἡρακλεοδώρου, ὃς ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας πολιτείαν καὶ δημοκρατίαν κατεσκεύασεν. —ἔτι διὰ τὸ παρὰ μικρόν. λέγω δὲ παρὰ μικρόν, ὅτι πολλάκις λανθάνει μεγάλη γινομένη μετάβασις τῶν νομίμων, ὅταν παρορῶσι τὸ μικρόν, ὥσπερ ἐν Ἀμβρακίᾳ μικρὸν ἦν τὸ τίμημα, τέλος δʼ ἀπʼ οὐθενὸς ἦρχον, ὡς ἔγγιον ἢ μηθὲν διαφέρον τοῦ μηθὲν τὸ μικρόν.

-

στασιωτικὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὁμόφυλον, ἕως ἂν συμπνεύσῃ· ὥσπερ γὰρ οὐδʼ ἐκ τοῦ τυχόντος πλήθους πόλις γίγνεται, οὕτως οὐδʼ ἐν τῷ τυχόντι χρόνῳ· διὸ ὅσοι ἤδη συνοίκους ἐδέξαντο ἢ ἐποίκους, οἱ πλεῖστοι διεστασίασαν· οἷον Τροιζηνίοις Ἀχαιοὶ συνῴκησαν Σύβαριν, εἶτα πλείους οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ γενόμενοι ἐξέβαλον τοὺς Τροιζηνίους, ὅθεν τὸ ἄγος συνέβη τοῖς Συβαρίταις· καὶ ἐν Θουρίοις Συβαρῖται τοῖς συνοικήσασιν (πλεονεκτεῖν γὰρ ἀξιοῦντες ὡς σφετέρας τῆς χώρας ἐξέπεσον)· καὶ Βυζαντίοις οἱ ἔποικοι ἐπιβουλεύοντες φωραθέντες ἐξέπεσον διὰ μάχης· καὶ Ἀντισσαῖοι τοὺς Χίων φυγάδας εἰσδεξάμενοι διὰ μάχης ἐξέβαλον· Ζαγκλαῖοι δὲ Σαμίους ὑποδεξάμενοι ἐξέπεσον αὐτοί· καὶ Ἀπολλωνιᾶται οἱ ἐν τῷ Εὐξείνῳ πόντῳ ἐποίκους ἐπαγαγόμενοι ἐστασίασαν· καὶ Συρακούσιοι μετὰ τὰ τυραννικὰ τοὺς ξένους καὶ τοὺς μισθοφόρους πολίτας ποιησάμενοι ἐστασίασαν καὶ εἰς μάχην ἦλθον· καὶ Ἀμφιπολῖται δεξάμενοι Χαλκιδέων ἐποίκους ἐξέπεσον ὑπὸ τούτων οἱ πλεῖστοι αὐτῶν. στασιάζουσι δʼ ἐν μὲν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις οἱ πολλοὶ ὡς ἀδικούμενοι, ὅτι οὐ μετέχουσι τῶν ἴσων, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, ἴσοι ὄντες, ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις οἱ γνώριμοι, ὅτι μετέχουσι τῶν ἴσων οὐκ ἴσοι ὄντες. στασιάζουσι δὲ ἐνίοτε αἱ πόλεις καὶ διὰ τοὺς τόπους, ὅταν μὴ εὐφυῶς ἔχῃ ἡ χώρα πρὸς τὸ μίαν εἶναι πόλιν, οἷον ἐν Κλαζομεναῖς οἱ ἐπὶ Χύτρῳ πρὸς τοὺς ἐν νήσῳ, καὶ Κολοφώνιοι καὶ Νοτιεῖς· καὶ Ἀθήνησιν οὐχ ὁμοίως εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον δημοτικοὶ οἱ τὸν Πειραιᾶ οἰκοῦντες τῶν τὸ ἄστυ. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις αἱ διαβάσεις τῶν ὀχετῶν, καὶ τῶν πάνυ σμικρῶν, διασπῶσι τὰς φάλαγγας, οὕτως ἔοικε πᾶσα διαφορὰ ποιεῖν διάστασιν. μεγίστη μὲν οὖν ἴσως διάστασις ἀρετὴ καὶ μοχθηρία, εἶτα πλοῦτος καὶ πενία, καὶ οὕτως δὴ ἑτέρα ἑτέρας μᾶλλον, ὧν μία καὶ ἡ εἰρημένη ἐστί.

-

Γίγνονται μὲν οὖν αἱ στάσεις οὐ περὶ μικρῶν ἀλλʼ ἐκ μικρῶν, στασιάζουσι δὲ περὶ μεγάλων. μάλιστα δὲ καὶ αἱ μικραὶ ἰσχύουσιν, ὅταν ἐν τοῖς κυρίοις γένωνται, οἷον συνέβη καὶ ἐν Συρακούσαις ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις χρόνοις. μετέβαλε γὰρ ἡ πολιτεία ἐκ δύο νεανίσκων στασιασάντων τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ὄντων, περὶ ἐρωτικὴν αἰτίαν. θατέρου γὰρ ἀποδημοῦντος ἅτερος ὤν τὸν ἐρώμενον αὐτοῦ ὑπεποιήσατο, πάλιν δʼ ἐκεῖνος τούτῳ χαλεπήνας τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἀνέπεισεν ὡς αὑτὸν ἐλθεῖν· ὅθεν προσλαμβάνοντες τοὺς ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι διεστασίασαν πάντας. διόπερ ἀρχομένων εὐλαβεῖσθαι δεῖ τῶν τοιούτων, καὶ διαλύειν τὰς τῶν ἡγεμόνων καὶ δυναμένων στάσεις· ἐν ἀρχῇ γὰρ γίνεται τὸ ἁμάρτημα, ἡ δʼ ἀρχὴ λέγεται ἥμισυ εἶναι παντός, ὥστε καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ μικρὸν ἁμάρτημα ἀνάλογόν ἐστι πρὸς τὰ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις μέρεσιν. ὅλως δὲ αἱ τῶν γνωρίμων στάσεις συναπολαύειν ποιοῦσι καὶ τὴν ὅλην πόλιν, οἷον ἐν Ἑστιαίᾳ συνέβη μετὰ τὰ Μηδικά, δύο ἀδελφῶν περὶ τῆς πατρῴας νομῆς διενεχθέντων· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀπορώτερος, ὡς οὐκ ἀποφαίνοντος τὴν οὐσίαν οὐδὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν ὃν εὗρεν ὁ πατήρ, προσηγάγετο τοὺς δημοτικούς, ὁ δʼ ἕτερος ἔχων οὐσίαν πολλὴν τοὺς εὐπόρους. καὶ ἐν Δελφοῖς ἐκ κηδείας γενομένης διαφορᾶς ἀρχὴ πασῶν ἐγένετο τῶν στάσεων τῶν ὕστερον· ὁ μὲν γὰρ οἰωνισάμενός τι σύμπτωμα, ὡς ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν νύμφην, οὐ λαβὼν ἀπῆλθεν, οἱ δʼ ὡς ὑβρισθέντες ἐνέβαλον τῶν ἱερῶν χρημάτων θύοντος, κἄπειτα ὡς ἱερόσυλον ἀπέκτειναν. καὶ περὶ Μυτιλήνην δὲ ἐξ ἐπικλήρων στάσεως γενομένης πολλῶν ἐγένετο ἀρχὴ κακῶν καὶ τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους, ἐν ᾧ Πάχης ἔλαβε τὴν πόλιν αὐτῶν· Τιμοφάνους γὰρ τῶν εὐπόρων τινὸς καταλιπόντος δύο θυγατέρας, ὁ περιωσθεὶς καὶ οὐ λαβὼν τοῖς υἱέσιν αὑτοῦ Δέξανδρος ἦρξε τῆς στάσεως καὶ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους παρώξυνε, πρόξενος ὢν τῆς πόλεως. καὶ ἐν Φωκεῦσιν ἐξ ἐπικλήρου στάσεως γενομένης περὶ Μνασέαν τὸν Μνάσωνος πατέρα καὶ Εὐθυκράτη τὸν Ὀνομάρχου, ἡ στάσις αὕτη ἀρχὴ τοῦ ἱεροῦ πολέμου κατέστη τοῖς Φωκεῦσιν. μετέβαλε δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἐπιδάμνῳ ἡ πολιτεία ἐκ γαμικῶν· ὑπομνηστευσάμενος γάρ τις θυγατέρα, ὡς ἐζημίωσεν αὐτὸν ὁ τοῦ ὑπομνηστευθέντος πατήρ, γενόμενος τῶν ἀρχόντων, ἅτερος συμπαρέλαβε τοὺς ἐκτὸς τῆς πολιτείας ὡς ἐπηρεασθείς.

-

μεταβάλλουσι δὲ καὶ εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν καὶ εἰς δῆμον καὶ εἰς πολιτείαν ἐκ τοῦ εὐδοκιμῆσαί τι ἢ αὐξηθῆναι ἢ ἀρχεῖον ἢ μόριον τῆς πόλεως, οἷον ἡ ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ βουλὴ εὐδοκιμήσασα ἐν τοῖς Μηδικοῖς ἔδοξε συντονωτέραν ποιῆσαι τὴν πολιτείαν, καὶ πάλιν ὁ ναυτικὸς ὄχλος γενόμενος αἴτιος τῆς περὶ Σαλαμῖνα νίκης καὶ διὰ ταύτης τῆς ἡγεμονίας διὰ τὴν κατὰ θάλατταν δύναμιν τὴν δημοκρατίαν ἰσχυροτέραν ἐποίησεν, καὶ ἐν Ἄργει οἱ γνώριμοι εὐδοκιμήσαντες περὶ τὴν ἐν Μαντινείᾳ μάχην τὴν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους ἐπεχείρησαν καταλύειν τὸν δῆμον, καὶ ἐν Συρακούσαις ὁ δῆμος αἴτιος γενόμενος τῆς νίκης τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους ἐκ πολιτείας εἰς δημοκρατίαν μετέβαλεν, καὶ ἐν Χαλκίδι Φόξον τὸν τύραννον μετὰ τῶν γνωρίμων ὁ δῆμος ἀνελὼν εὐθὺς εἴχετο τῆς πολιτείας, καὶ ἐν Ἀμβρακίᾳ πάλιν ὡσαύτως Περίανδρον συνεκβαλὼν τοῖς ἐπιθεμένοις ὁ δῆμος τὸν τύραννον εἰς ἑαυτὸν περιέστησε τὴν πολιτείαν. καὶ ὅλως δὴ δεῖ τοῦτο μὴ λανθάνειν, ὡς οἱ δυνάμεως αἴτιοι γενόμενοι, καὶ ἰδιῶται καὶ ἀρχαὶ καὶ φυλαὶ καὶ ὅλως μέρος καὶ ὁποινοῦν πλῆθος, στάσιν κινοῦσιν· ἢ γὰρ οἱ τούτοις φθονοῦντες τιμωμένοις ἄρχουσι τῆς στάσεως, ἢ οὗτοι διὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν οὐ θέλουσι μένειν ἐπὶ τῶν ἴσων. κινοῦνται δʼ αἱ πολιτεῖαι καὶ ὅταν τἀναντία εἶναι δοκοῦντα μέρη τῆς πόλεως ἰσάζῃ ἀλλήλοις, οἷον οἱ πλούσιοι καὶ ὁ δῆμος, μέσον δʼ ᾖ μηθὲν ἢ μικρὸν πάμπαν· ἂν γὰρ πολὺ ὑπερέχῃ ὁποτερονοῦν τῶν μερῶν, πρὸς τὸ φανερῶς κρεῖττον τὸ λοιπὸν οὐ θέλει κινδυνεύειν. διὸ καὶ οἱ κατʼ ἀρετὴν διαφέροντες οὐ ποιοῦσι στάσιν ὡς εἰπεῖν· ὀλίγοι γὰρ γίγνονται πρὸς πολλούς. καθόλου μὲν οὖν περὶ πάσας τὰς πολιτείας αἱ ἀρχαὶ καὶ αἰτίαι τῶν στάσεων καὶ τῶν μεταβολῶν τοῦτον ἔχουσι τὸν τρόπον· κινοῦσι δὲ τὰς πολιτείας ὁτὲ μὲν διὰ βίας ὁτὲ δὲ διʼ ἀπάτης, διὰ βίας μὲν ἢ εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἢ ὕστερον ἀναγκάζοντες. καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἀπάτη διττή. ὁτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἐξαπατήσαντες τὸ πρῶτον ἑκόντων μεταβάλλουσι τὴν πολιτείαν, εἶθʼ ὕστερον βίᾳ κατέχουσιν ἀκόντων, οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν Τετρακοσίων τὸν δῆμον ἐξηπάτησαν φάσκοντες τὸν βασιλέα χρήματα παρέξειν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους, ψευσάμενοι δὲ κατέχειν ἐπειρῶντο τὴν πολιτείαν· ὁτὲ δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τε πείσαντες καὶ ὕστερον πάλιν πεισθέντων ἑκόντων ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν. ἁπλῶς μὲν οὖν περὶ πάσας τὰς πολιτείας ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων συμβέβηκε γίνεσθαι τὰς μεταβολάς.

-

καθʼ ἕκαστον δʼ εἶδος πολιτείας ἐκ τούτων μερίζοντας τὰ συμβαίνοντα δεῖ θεωρεῖν. αἱ μὲν οὖν δημοκρατίαι μάλιστα μεταβάλλουσι διὰ τὴν τῶν δημαγωγῶν ἀσέλγειαν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἰδίᾳ συκοφαντοῦντες τοὺς τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντας συστρέφουσιν αὐτούς (συνάγει γὰρ καὶ τοὺς ἐχθίστους ὁ κοινὸς φόβος), τὰ δὲ κοινῇ τὸ πλῆθος ἐπάγοντες. καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἄν τις ἴδοι γιγνόμενον οὕτω. καὶ γὰρ ἐν Κῷ ἡ δημοκρατία μετέβαλε πονηρῶν ἐγγενομένων δημαγωγῶν (οἱ γὰρ γνώριμοι συνέστησαν)· καὶ ἐν Ῥόδῳ· μισθοφοράν τε γὰρ οἱ δημαγωγοὶ ἐπόριζον, καὶ ἐκώλυον ἀποδιδόναι τὰ ὀφειλόμενα τοῖς τριηράρχοις, οἱ δὲ διὰ τὰς ἐπιφερομένας δίκας ἠναγκάσθησαν συστάντες καταλῦσαι τὸν δῆμον. κατελύθη δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ ὁ δῆμος μετὰ τὸν ἀποικισμὸν εὐθὺς διὰ τοὺς δημαγωγούς· ἀδικούμενοι γὰρ ὑπʼ αὐτῶν οἱ γνώριμοι ἐξέπιπτον, ἔπειτα ἀθροισθέντες οἱ ἐκπίπτοντες καὶ κατελθόντες κατέλυσαν τὸν δῆμον. παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐν Μεγάροις κατελύθη δημοκρατία· οἱ γὰρ δημαγωγοί, ἵνα χρήματα ἔχωσι δημεύειν, ἐξέβαλον πολλοὺς τῶν γνωρίμων, ἕως πολλοὺς ἐποίησαν τοὺς φεύγοντας, οἱ δὲ κατιόντες ἐνίκησαν μαχόμενοι τὸν δῆμον καὶ κατέστησαν τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν. συνέβη δὲ ταὐτὸν καὶ περὶ Κύμην ἐπὶ τῆς δημοκρατίας ἣν κατέλυσε Θρασύμαχος. σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἄν τις ἴδοι θεωρῶν τὰς μεταβολὰς τοῦτον ἐχούσας τὸν τρόπον. ὁτὲ μὲν γάρ, ἵνα χαρίζωνται, ἀδικοῦντες τοὺς γνωρίμους συνιστᾶσιν, ἢ τὰς οὐσίας ἀναδάστους ποιοῦντες ἢ τὰς προσόδους ταῖς λειτουργίαις, ὁτὲ δὲ διαβάλλοντες, ἵνʼ ἔχωσι δημεύειν τὰ κτήματα τῶν πλουσίων.

-

ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀρχαίων, ὅτε γένοιτο ὁ αὐτὸς δημαγωγὸς καὶ στρατηγός, εἰς τυραννίδα μετέβαλλον· σχεδὸν γὰρ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀρχαίων τυράννων ἐκ δημαγωγῶν γεγόνασιν. αἴτιον δὲ τοῦ τότε μὲν γίγνεσθαι νῦν δὲ μή, ὅτι τότε μὲν οἱ δημαγωγοὶ ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν στρατηγούντων (οὐ γάρ πω δεινοὶ ἦσαν λέγειν), νῦν δὲ τῆς ῥητορικῆς ηὐξημένης οἱ δυνάμενοι λέγειν δημαγωγοῦσι μέν, διʼ ἀπειρίαν δὲ τῶν πολεμικῶν οὐκ ἐπιτίθενται, πλὴν εἴ που βραχύ τι γέγονε τοιοῦτον. ἐγίγνοντο δὲ τυραννίδες πρότερον μᾶλλον ἢ νῦν καὶ διὰ τὸ μεγάλας ἀρχὰς ἐγχειρίζεσθαί τισιν, ὥσπερ ἐν Μιλήτῳ ἐκ τῆς πρυτανείας (πολλῶν γὰρ ἦν καὶ μεγάλων κύριος ὁ πρύτανις). ἔτι δὲ διὰ τὸ μὴ μεγάλας εἶναι τότε τὰς πόλεις, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγρῶν οἰκεῖν τὸν δῆμον ἄσχολον ὄντα πρὸς τοῖς ἔργοις, οἱ προστάται τοῦ δήμου, ὅτε πολεμικοὶ γένοιντο, τυραννίδι ἐπετίθεντο. πάντες δὲ τοῦτο ἔδρων ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου πιστευθέντες, ἡ δὲ πίστις ἦν ἡ ἀπέχθεια ἡ πρὸς τοὺς πλουσίους, οἷον Ἀθήνησί τε Πεισίστρατος στασιάσας πρὸς τοὺς πεδιακούς, καὶ Θεαγένης ἐν Μεγάροις τῶν εὐπόρων τὰ κτήνη ἀποσφάξας, λαβὼν παρὰ τὸν ποταμὸν ἐπινέμοντας, καὶ Διονύσιος κατηγορῶν Δαφναίου καὶ τῶν πλουσίων ἠξιώθη τῆς τυραννίδος, διὰ τὴν ἔχθραν πιστευθεὶς ὡς δημοτικὸς ὤν. μεταβάλλουσι δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς πατρίας δημοκρατίας εἰς τὴν νεωτάτην· ὅπου γὰρ αἱρεταὶ μὲν αἱ ἀρχαί, μὴ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων δέ, αἱρεῖται δὲ ὁ δῆμος, δημαγωγοῦντες οἱ σπουδαρχιῶντες εἰς τοῦτο καθιστᾶσιν ὥστε κύριον εἶναι τὸν δῆμον καὶ τῶν νόμων. ἄκος δὲ τοῦ μὴ γίγνεσθαι ἢ τοῦ γίγνεσθαι ἧττον τὸ τὰς φυλὰς φέρειν τοὺς ἄρχοντας, ἀλλὰ μὴ πάντα τὸν δῆμον. τῶν μὲν οὖν δημοκρατιῶν αἱ μεταβολαὶ γίγνονται πᾶσαι σχεδὸν διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας.

-

αἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίαι μεταβάλλουσι διὰ δύο μάλιστα τρόπους τοὺς φανερωτάτους, ἕνα μὲν ἐὰν ἀδικῶσι τὸ πλῆθος· πᾶς γὰρ ἱκανὸς γίνεται προστάτης, μάλιστα δʼ ὅταν ἐξ αὐτῆς συμβῇ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας γίνεσθαι τὸν ἡγεμόνα, καθάπερ ἐν Νάξῳ Λύγδαμις, ὃς καὶ ἐτυράννησεν ὕστερον τῶν Ναξίων. ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐξ ἄλλων ἀρχὴ στάσεως διαφοράς. ὁτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν εὐπόρων, οὐ τῶν ὄντων δʼ ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς, γίγνεται κατάλυσις, ὅταν ὀλίγοι σφόδρα ὦσιν οἱ ἐν ταῖς τιμαῖς, οἷον ἐν Μασσαλίᾳ καὶ ἐν Ἴστρῳ καὶ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ καὶ ἐν ἄλλαις πόλεσι συμβέβηκεν· οἱ γὰρ μὴ μετέχοντες τῶν ἀρχῶν ἐκίνουν, ἕως μετέλαβον οἱ πρεσβύτεροι πρότερον τῶν ἀδελφῶν, ὕστερον δʼ οἱ νεώτεροι πάλιν· οὐ γὰρ ἄρχουσιν ἐνιαχοῦ μὲν ἅμα πατήρ τε καὶ υἱός, ἐνιαχοῦ δὲ ὁ πρεσβύτερος καὶ ὁ νεώτερος ἀδελφός· καὶ ἔνθα μὲν πολιτικωτέρα ἐγένετο ἡ ὀλιγαρχία, ἐν Ἴστρῳ δʼ εἰς δῆμον ἀπετελεύτησεν, ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ δʼ ἐξ ἐλαττόνων εἰς ἑξακοσίους ἦλθεν· μετέβαλε δὲ καὶ ἐν Κνίδῳ ἡ ὀλιγαρχία στασιασάντων τῶν γνωρίμων αὐτῶν πρὸς αὑτοὺς διὰ τὸ ὀλίγους μετέχειν καί, καθάπερ εἴρηται, εἰ πατήρ, υἱὸν μὴ μετέχειν, μηδʼ εἰ πλείους ἀδελφοί, ἀλλʼ ἢ τὸν πρεσβύτατον· ἐπιλαβόμενος γὰρ στασιαζόντων ὁ δῆμος, καὶ λαβὼν προστάτην ἐκ τῶν γνωρίμων, ἐπιθέμενος ἐκράτησεν, ἀσθενὲς γὰρ τὸ στασιάζον· καὶ ἐν Ἐρυθραῖς δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν Βασιλιδῶν ὀλιγαρχίας ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις χρόνοις, καίπερ καλῶς ἐπιμελομένων τῶν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ, ὅμως διὰ τὸ ὑπʼ ὀλίγων ἄρχεσθαι ἀγανακτῶν ὁ δῆμος μετέβαλε τὴν πολιτείαν.

-

κινοῦνται δʼ αἱ ὀλιγαρχίαι ἐξ αὑτῶν καὶ διὰ φιλονεικίαν δημαγωγούντων (ἡ δημαγωγία δὲ διττή, ἡ μὲν ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὀλίγοις—ἐγγίγνεται γὰρ δημαγωγὸς κἂν πάνυ ὀλίγοι ὦσιν, οἷον ἐν τοῖς Τριάκοντα Ἀθήνησιν οἱ περὶ Χαρικλέα ἴσχυσαν τοὺς Τριάκοντα δημαγωγοῦντες, καὶ ἐν τοῖς Τετρακοσίοις οἱ περὶ Φρύνιχον τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον— ἡ δʼ ὅταν τὸν ὄχλον δημαγωγῶσιν οἱ ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ ὄντες, οἷον ἐν Λαρίσῃ οἱ πολιτοφύλακες διὰ τὸ αἱρεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς τὸν ὄχλον ἐδημαγώγουν, καὶ ἐν ὅσαις ὀλιγαρχίαις οὐχ οὗτοι αἱροῦνται τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐξ ὧν οἱ ἄρχοντές εἰσιν, ἀλλʼ αἱ μὲν ἀρχαὶ ἐκ τιμημάτων μεγάλων εἰσὶν ἢ ἑταιριῶν, αἱροῦνται δʼ οἱ ὁπλῖται ἢ ὁ δῆμος, ὅπερ ἐν Ἀβύδῳ συνέβαινεν, καὶ ὅπου τὰ δικαστήρια μὴ ἐκ τοῦ πολιτεύματός ἐστι—δημαγωγοῦντες γὰρ πρὸς τὰς κρίσεις μεταβάλλουσι τὴν πολιτείαν, ὅπερ καὶ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ ἐγένετο τῇ ἐν τῷ Πόντῳ—ἔτι δʼ ὅταν ἔνιοι εἰς ἐλάττους ἕλκωσι τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν· οἱ γὰρ τὸ ἴσον ζητοῦντες ἀναγκάζονται βοηθὸν ἐπαγαγέσθαι τὸν δῆμον). γίνονται δὲ μεταβολαὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ ὅταν ἀναλώσωσι τὰ ἴδια ζῶντες ἀσελγῶς· καὶ γὰρ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καινοτομεῖν ζητοῦσι, καὶ ἢ τυραννίδι ἐπιτίθενται αὐτοὶ ἢ κατασκευάζουσιν ἕτερον (ὥσπερ Ἱππαρῖνος Διονύσιον ἐν Συρακούσαις, καὶ ἐν Ἀμφιπόλει ᾧ ὄνομα ἦν Κλεότιμος τοὺς ἐποίκους τοὺς Χαλκιδέων ἤγαγε, καὶ ἐλθόντων διεστασίασεν αὐτοὺς πρὸς τοὺς εὐπόρους, καὶ ἐν Αἰγίνῃ ὁ τὴν πρᾶξιν τὴν πρὸς Χάρητα πράξας ἐνεχείρησε μεταβαλεῖν τὴν πολιτείαν διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν)· ὁτὲ μὲν οὖν ἐπιχειροῦσί τι κινεῖν, ὁτὲ δὲ κλέπτουσι τὰ κοινά, ὅθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς στασιάζουσιν ἢ οὗτοι ἢ οἱ πρὸς τούτους μαχόμενοι κλέπτοντας, ὅπερ ἐν Ἀπολλωνίᾳ συνέβη τῇ ἐν τῷ Πόντῳ. ὁμονοοῦσα δὲ ὀλιγαρχία οὐκ εὐδιάφθορος ἐξ αὑτῆς. σημεῖον δὲ ἡ ἐν Φαρσάλῳ πολιτεία· ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ ὀλίγοι ὄντες πολλῶν κύριοί εἰσι διὰ τὸ χρῆσθαι σφίσιν αὐτοῖς καλῶς.

-

καταλύονται δὲ καὶ ὅταν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ ἑτέραν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἐμποιῶσιν. τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν ὅταν τοῦ παντὸς πολιτεύματος ὀλίγου ὄντος τῶν μεγίστων ἀρχῶν μὴ μετέχωσιν οἱ ὀλίγοι πάντες, ὅπερ ἐν Ἤλιδι συνέβη ποτέ· τῆς πολιτείας γὰρ διʼ ὀλίγων οὔσης τῶν γερόντων ὀλίγοι πάμπαν ἐγίνοντο διὰ τὸ ἀιδίους εἶναι ἐνενήκοντα ὄντας, τὴν δʼ αἵρεσιν δυναστευτικὴν εἶναι καὶ ὁμοίαν τῇ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι γερόντων. γίγνεται δὲ μεταβολὴ τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν καὶ ἐν πολέμῳ καὶ ἐν εἰρήνῃ, ἐν μὲν πολέμῳ διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ἀπιστίαν στρατιώταις ἀναγκαζομένων χρῆσθαι (ᾧ γὰρ ἂν ἐγχειρίσωσιν, οὗτος πολλάκις γίνεται τύραννος, ὥσπερ ἐν Κορίνθῳ Τιμοφάνης· ἂν δὲ πλείους, οὗτοι αὑτοῖς περιποιοῦνται δυναστείαν· ὁτὲ δὲ ταῦτα δεδιότες μεταδιδόασι τῷ πλήθει τῆς πολιτείας διὰ τὸ ἀναγκάζεσθαι τῷ δήμῳ χρῆσθαι)· ἐν δὲ τῇ εἰρήνῃ διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐγχειρίζουσι τὴν φυλακὴν στρατιώταις καὶ ἄρχοντι μεσιδίῳ, ὃς ἐνίοτε γίνεται κύριος ἀμφοτέρων, ὅπερ συνέβη ἐν Λαρίσῃ ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν Ἀλευαδῶν ἀρχῆς τῶν περὶ Σῖμον, καὶ ἐν Ἀβύδῳ ἐπὶ τῶν ἑταιριῶν ὧν ἦν μία ἡ Ἰφιάδου.

-

γίνονται δὲ στάσεις καὶ ἐκ τοῦ περιωθεῖσθαι ἑτέρους ὑφʼ ἑτέρων τῶν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ αὐτῶν καὶ καταστασιάζεσθαι κατὰ γάμους ἢ δίκας, οἷον ἐκ γαμικῆς μὲν αἰτίας αἱ εἰρημέναι πρότερον (καὶ τὴν ἐν Ἐρετρίᾳ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίαν τὴν τῶν ἱππέων Διαγόρας κατέλυσεν ἀδικηθεὶς περὶ γάμον), ἐκ δὲ δικαστηρίου κρίσεως ἡ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ στάσις ἐγένετο καὶ ἡ ἐν Θήβαις, ἐπʼ αἰτίᾳ μοιχείας δικαίως μὲν στασιαστικῶς δὲ ποιησαμένων τὴν κόλασιν τῶν μὲν ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ κατʼ Εὐρυτίωνος, τῶν δʼ ἐν Θήβαις κατʼ Ἀρχίου (ἐφιλονείκησαν γὰρ αὐτοὺς οἱ ἐχθροὶ ὥστε δεθῆναι ἐν ἀγορᾷ ἐν τῷ κύφωνι). πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ ἄγαν δεσποτικὰς εἶναι τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ τινῶν δυσχερανάντων κατελύθησαν, ὥσπερ ἡ ἐν Κνίδῳ καὶ ἡ ἐν Χίῳ ὀλιγαρχία. γίγνονται δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ συμπτώματος μεταβολαὶ καὶ τῆς καλουμένης πολιτείας καὶ τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν ἐν ὅσαις ἀπὸ τιμήματος βουλεύουσι καὶ δικάζουσι καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀρχὰς ἄρχουσιν. πολλάκις γὰρ τὸ ταχθὲν πρῶτον τίμημα πρὸς τοὺς παρόντας καιρούς, ὥστε μετέχειν ἐν μὲν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ ὀλίγους ἐν δὲ τῇ πολιτείᾳ τοὺς μέσους, εὐετηρίας γιγνομένης διʼ εἰρήνην ἢ διʼ ἄλλην τινʼ εὐτυχίαν συμβαίνει πολλαπλασίου γίγνεσθαι τιμήματος ἀξίας τὰς αὐτὰς κτήσεις, ὥστε πάντας πάντων μετέχειν, ὁτὲ μὲν ἐκ προσαγωγῆς καὶ κατὰ μικρὸν γινομένης τῆς μεταβολῆς καὶ λανθανούσης, ὁτὲ δὲ καὶ θᾶττον. αἱ μὲν οὖν ὀλιγαρχίαι μεταβάλλουσι καὶ στασιάζουσι διὰ τοιαύτας αἰτίας (ὅλως δὲ καὶ αἱ δημοκρατίαι καὶ αἱ ὀλιγαρχίαι ἐξίστανται ἐνίοτε οὐκ εἰς τὰς ἐναντίας πολιτείας ἀλλʼ εἰς τὰς ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει, οἷον ἐκ τῶν ἐννόμων δημοκρατιῶν καὶ ὀλιγαρχιῶν εἰς τὰς κυρίους καὶ ἐκ τούτων εἰς ἐκείνας).

-

ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἀριστοκρατίαις γίνονται αἱ στάσεις αἱ μὲν διὰ τὸ ὀλίγους τῶν τιμῶν μετέχειν, ὅπερ εἴρηται κινεῖν καὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας, διὰ τὸ καὶ τὴν ἀριστοκρατίαν ὀλιγαρχίαν εἶναί πως (ἐν ἀμφοτέραις γὰρ ὀλίγοι οἱ ἄρχοντες, οὐ μέντοι διὰ ταὐτὸν ὀλίγοι)· ἐπεὶ δοκεῖ γε διὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἡ ἀριστοκρατία ὀλιγαρχία εἶναι. μάλιστα δὲ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν ἀναγκαῖον ὅταν ᾖ τι πλῆθος τῶν πεφρονηματισμένων ὡς ὁμοίων κατʼ ἀρετήν, οἷον ἐν Λακεδαίμονι οἱ λεγόμενοι Παρθενίαι (ἑκ τῶν ὁμοίων γὰρ ἦσαν), οὓς φωράσαντες ἐπιβουλεύσαντας ἀπέστειλαν Τάραντος οἰκιστάς, ἢ ὅταν τινὲς ἀτιμάζωνται μεγάλοι ὄντες καὶ μηθενὸς ἥττους κατʼ ἀρετὴν ὑπό τινων ἐντιμοτέρων, οἷον Λύσανδρος ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων, ἢ ὅταν ἀνδρώδης τις ὢν μὴ μετέχῃ τῶν τιμῶν, οἷον Κινάδων ὁ τὴν ἐπʼ Ἀγησιλάου συστήσας ἐπίθεσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς Σπαρτιάτας· ἔτι ὅταν οἱ μὲν ἀπορῶσι λίαν οἱ δʼ εὐπορῶσιν (καὶ μάλιστα ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις τοῦτο γίνεται· συνέβη δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ὑπὸ τὸν Μεσηνιακὸν πόλεμον· δῆλον δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς Τυρταίου ποιήσεως τῆς καλουμένης Εὐνομίας· θλιβόμενοι γάρ τινες διὰ τὸν πόλεμον ἠξίουν ἀνάδαστον ποιεῖν τὴν χώραν)· ἔτι ἐάν τις μέγας ᾖ καὶ δυνάμενος ἔτι μείζων εἶναι, ἵνα μοναρχῇ, ὥσπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι δοκεῖ Παυσανίας ὁ στρατηγήσας κατὰ τὸν Μηδικὸν πόλεμον, καὶ ἐν Καρχηδόνι Ἄννων.

-

λύονται δὲ μάλιστα αἵ τε πολιτεῖαι καὶ αἱ ἀριστοκρατίαι διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ πολιτείᾳ τοῦ δικαίου παρέκβασιν. ἀρχὴ γὰρ τὸ μὴ μεμεῖχθαι καλῶς ἐν μὲν τῇ πολιτείᾳ δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἀριστοκρατίᾳ ταῦτά τε καὶ τὴν ἀρετήν, μάλιστα δὲ τὰ δύο· λέγω δὲ τὰ δύο δῆμον καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν. ταῦτα γὰρ αἱ πολιτεῖαί τε πειρῶνται μιγνύναι καὶ αἱ πολλαὶ τῶν καλουμένων ἀριστοκρατιῶν. διαφέρουσι γὰρ τῶν ὀνομαζομένων πολιτειῶν αἱ ἀριστοκρατίαι τούτῳ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ εἰσὶν αἱ μὲν ἧττον αἱ δὲ μᾶλλον μόνιμοι αὐτῶν· τὰς γὰρ ἀποκλινούσας μᾶλλον πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἀριστοκρατίας καλοῦσιν, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος πολιτείας· διόπερ ἀσφαλέστεραι αἱ τοιαῦται τῶν ἑτέρων εἰσίν· κρεῖττόν τε γὰρ τὸ πλεῖον, καὶ μᾶλλον ἀγαπῶσιν ἴσον ἔχοντες, οἱ δʼ ἐν ταῖς εὐπορίαις, ἂν ἡ πολιτεία διδῷ τὴν ὑπεροχήν, ὑβρίζειν ζητοῦσι καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν. ὅλως δʼ ἐφʼ ὁπότερον ἂν ἐγκλίνῃ ἡ πολιτεία, ἐπὶ τοῦτο μεθίσταται ἑκατέρων τὸ σφέτερον αὐξανόντων, οἷον ἡ μὲν πολιτεία εἰς δῆμον, ἀριστοκρατία δʼ εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν· ἢ εἰς τἀναντία, οἷον ἡ μὲν ἀριστοκρατία εἰς δῆμον (ὡς ἀδικούμενοι γὰρ περισπῶσιν εἰς τοὐναντίον οἱ ἀπορώτεροι), αἱ δὲ πολιτεῖαι εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν (μόνον γὰρ μόνιμον τὸ κατʼ ἀξίαν ἴσον καὶ τὸ ἔχειν τὰ αὑτῶν)· συνέβη δὲ τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν Θουρίοις. διὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ ἀπὸ πλείονος τιμήματος εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς εἰς ἔλαττον μετέβη καὶ εἰς ἀρχεῖα πλείω, διὰ δὲ τὸ τὴν χώραν ὅλην τοὺς γνωρίμους συγκτήσασθαι παρὰ τὸν νόμον (ἡ γὰρ πολιτεία ὀλιγαρχικωτέρα ἦν, ὥστε ἐδύναντο πλεονεκτεῖν) ὁ δὲ δῆμος γυμνασθεὶς ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῶν φρουρῶν ἐγένετο κρείττων, ἕως ἀφεῖσαν τῆς χώρας ὅσοι πλείω ἦσαν ἔχοντες.

-

ἔτι διὰ τὸ πάσας τὰς ἀριστοκρατικὰς πολιτείας ὀλιγαρχικὰς εἶναι μᾶλλον πλεονεκτοῦσιν οἱ γνώριμοι, οἷον καὶ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι εἰς ὀλίγους αἱ οὐσίαι ἔρχονται· καὶ ἔξεστι ποιεῖν ὅ τι ἂν θέλωσι τοῖς γνωρίμοις μᾶλλον, καὶ κηδεύειν ὅτῳ θέλουσιν, διὸ καὶ ἡ Λοκρῶν πόλις ἀπώλετο ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Διονύσιον κηδείας, ὃ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ οὐκ ἂν ἐγένετο, οὐδʼ ἂν ἐν ἀριστοκρατίᾳ εὖ μεμειγμένῃ. μάλιστα δὲ λανθάνουσιν αἱ ἀριστοκρατίαι μεταβάλλουσαι τῷ λύεσθαι κατὰ μικρόν, ὅπερ εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς πρότερον καθόλου κατὰ πασῶν τῶν πολιτειῶν, ὅτι αἴτιον τῶν μεταβολῶν καὶ τὸ μικρόν ἐστιν· ὅταν γάρ τι προῶνται τῶν πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν, μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἄλλο μικρῷ μεῖζον εὐχερέστερον κινοῦσιν, ἕως ἂν πάντα κινήσωσι τὸν κόσμον. συνέβη δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Θουρίων πολιτείας. νόμου γὰρ ὄντος διὰ πέντε ἐτῶν στρατηγεῖν, γενόμενοί τινες πολεμικοὶ τῶν νεωτέρων καὶ παρὰ τῷ πλήθει τῶν φρουρῶν εὐδοκιμοῦντες, καταφρονήσαντες τῶν ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ νομίζοντες ῥᾳδίως κατασχήσειν, τοῦτον τὸν νόμον λύειν ἐπεχείρησαν πρῶτον, ὥστʼ ἐξεῖναι τοὺς αὐτοὺς συνεχῶς στρατηγεῖν, ὁρῶντες τὸν δῆμον αὐτοὺς χειροτονήσοντα προθύμως. οἱ δʼ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τεταγμένοι τῶν ἀρχόντων, οἱ καλούμενοι σύμβουλοι, ὁρμήσαντες τὸ πρῶτον ἐναντιοῦσθαι συνεπείσθησαν, ὑπολαμβάνοντες τοῦτον κινήσαντας τὸν νόμον ἐάσειν τὴν ἄλλην πολιτείαν, ὕστερον δὲ βουλόμενοι κωλύειν ἄλλων κινουμένων οὐκέτι πλέον ἐποίουν οὐθέν, ἀλλὰ μετέβαλεν ἡ τάξις πᾶσα τῆς πολιτείας εἰς δυναστείαν τῶν ἐπιχειρησάντων νεωτερίζειν.

-

πᾶσαι δʼ αἱ πολιτεῖαι λύονται ὁτὲ μὲν ἐξ αὑτῶν ὁτὲ δʼ ἔξωθεν, ὅταν ἐναντία πολιτεία ᾖ ἢ πλησίον ἢ πόρρω μὲν ἔχουσα δὲ δύναμιν. ὅπερ συνέβαινεν ἐπʼ Ἀθηναίων καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων· οἱ μὲν γὰρ Ἀθηναῖοι πανταχοῦ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας, οἱ δὲ Λάκωνες τοὺς δήμους κατέλυον. ὅθεν μὲν οὖν αἱ μεταβολαὶ γίγνονται τῶν πολιτειῶν καὶ αἱ στάσεις, εἴρηται σχεδόν.

-

περὶ δὲ σωτηρίας καὶ κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς ἑκάστης πολιτείας ἐχόμενόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν δῆλον ὅτι, εἴπερ ἔχομεν διʼ ὧν φθείρονται αἱ πολιτεῖαι, ἔχομεν καὶ διʼ ὧν σῴζονται· τῶν γὰρ ἐναντίων τἀναντία ποιητικά, φθορὰ δὲ σωτηρίᾳ ἐναντίον. ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς εὖ κεκραμέναις πολιτείαις, εἰπερ ἄλλο τι δεῖ τηρεῖν ὅπως μηθὲν παρανομῶσι, καὶ μάλιστα τὸ μικρὸν φυλάττειν· λανθάνει γὰρ παραδυομένη ἡ παρανομία, ὥσπερ τὰς οὐσίας τὸ μικρὸν δαπάνημα ἀναιρεῖ πολλάκις γινόμενον. λανθάνει γὰρ ἡ δαπάνη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀθρόα γίγνεσθαι· παραλογίζεται γὰρ ἡ διάνοια ὑπʼ αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ ὁ σοφιστικὸς λόγος εἰ ἕκαστον μικρόν, καὶ πάντα· τοῦτο δʼ ἔστι μὲν ὥς, ἔστι δʼ ὡς οὔ· τὸ γὰρ ὅλον καὶ τὰ πάντα οὐ μικρόν, ἀλλὰ σύγκειται ἐκ μικρῶν.

-

μίαν μὲν οὖν φυλακὴν ταύτην πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι· ἔπειτα μὴ πιστεύειν τοῖς σοφίσματος χάριν πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος συγκειμένοις, ἐξελέγχεται γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν ἔργων (ποῖα δὲ λέγομεν τῶν πολιτειῶν σοφίσματα, πρότερον εἴρηται). ἔτι δʼ ὁρᾶν ὅτι ἔνιαι μένουσιν οὐ μόνον ἀριστοκρατίαι ἀλλὰ καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαι οὐ διὰ τὸ ἀσφαλεῖς εἶναι τὰς πολιτείας, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ εὖ χρῆσθαι τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς γινομένους καὶ τοῖς ἔξω τῆς πολιτείας καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι, τοὺς μὲν μὴ μετέχοντας τῷ μὴ ἀδικεῖν καὶ τῷ τοὺς ἡγεμονικοὺς αὐτῶν εἰσάγειν εἰς τὴν πολιτείαν καὶ τοὺς μὲν φιλοτίμους μὴ ἀδικεῖν εἰς ἀτιμίαν τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς εἰς κέρδος, πρὸς αὑτοὺς δὲ καὶ τοὺς μετέχοντας τῷ χρῆσθαι ἀλλήλοις δημοτικῶς. ὃ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ πλήθους ζητοῦσιν οἱ δημοτικοί, τὸ ἴσον, τοῦτʼ ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοίων οὐ μόνον δίκαιον ἀλλὰ καὶ συμφέρον ἐστίν. διὸ ἐὰν πλείους ὦσιν ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι, πολλὰ συμφέρει τῶν δημοτικῶν νομοθετημάτων, οἷον τὸ ἑξαμήνους τὰς ἀρχὰς εἶναι, ἵνα πάντες οἱ ὅμοιοι μετέχωσιν· ἔστι γὰρ ὥσπερ δῆμος ἤδη οἱ ὅμοιοι (διὸ καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐγγίγνονται δημαγωγοὶ πολλάκις, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον), ἔπειθʼ ἧττον εἰς δυναστείας ἐμπίπτουσιν αἱ ὀλιγαρχίαι καὶ ἀριστοκρατίαι (οὐ γὰρ ὁμοίως ῥᾴδιον κακουργῆσαι ὀλίγον χρόνον ἄρχοντας καὶ πολύν, ἐπεὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις καὶ δημοκρατίαις γίγνονται τυραννίδες· ἢ γὰρ οἱ μέγιστοι ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ ἐπιτίθενται τυραννίδι, ἔνθα μὲν οἱ δημαγωγοὶ ἔνθα δʼ οἱ δυνάσται, ἢ οἱ τὰς μεγίστας ἔχοντες ἀρχάς, ὅταν πολὺν χρόνον ἄρχωσιν).

-

σῴζονται δʼ αἱ πολιτεῖαι οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ πόρρω εἶναι τῶν διαφθειρόντων, ἀλλʼ ἐνίοτε καὶ διὰ τὸ ἐγγύς· φοβούμενοι γὰρ διὰ χειρῶν ἔχουσι μᾶλλον τὴν πολιτείαν. ὥστε δεῖ τοὺς τῆς πολιτείας φροντίζοντας φόβους παρασκευάζειν, ἵνα φυλάττωσι καὶ μὴ καταλύωσιν ὥσπερ νυκτερινὴν φυλακὴν τὴν τῆς πολιτείας τήρησιν, καὶ τὸ πόρρω ἐγγὺς ποιεῖν. ἔτι τὰς τῶν γνωρίμων φιλονεικίας καὶ στάσεις καὶ διὰ τῶν νόμων πειρᾶσθαι δεῖ φυλάττειν, καὶ τοὺς ἔξω τῆς φιλονεικίας ὄντας πρὶν παρειληφέναι καὶ αὐτούς, ὡς τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ γινόμενον κακὸν γνῶναι οὐ τοῦ τυχόντος ἀλλὰ πολιτικοῦ ἀνδρός. πρὸς δὲ τὴν διὰ τὰ τιμήματα γιγνομένην μεταβολὴν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ πολιτείας, ὅταν συμβαίνῃ τοῦτο μενόντων μὲν τῶν αὐτῶν τιμημάτων εὐπορίας δὲ νομίσματος γιγνομένης, συμφέρει τοῦ τιμήματος ἐπισκοπεῖν τοῦ κοινοῦ τὸ πλῆθος πρὸς τὸ παρελθόν, ἐν ὅσαις μὲν πόλεσι τιμῶνται κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν, κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον, ἐν δὲ ταῖς μείζοσι διὰ τριετηρίδος ἢ πενταετηρίδος, κἂν ᾖ πολλαπλάσιον ἢ πολλοστημόριον τοῦ πρότερον, ἐν ᾧ αἱ τιμήσεις κατέστησαν τῆς πολιτείας, νόμον εἶναι καὶ τὰ τιμήματα ἐπιτείνειν ἢ ἀνιέναι, ἐὰν μὲν ὑπερβάλλῃ, ἐπιτείνοντας κατὰ τὴν πολλαπλασίωσιν, ἐὰν δʼ ἐλλείπῃ, ἀνιέντας καὶ ἐλάττω ποιοῦντας τὴν τίμησιν. ἐν γὰρ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις καὶ ταῖς πολιτείαις, μὴ ποιούντων οὕτως μὲν ἔνθα μὲν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἔνθα δὲ δυναστείαν γίνεσθαι συμβαίνει, ἐκείνως δὲ ἐκ μὲν πολιτείας δημοκρατίαν, ἐκ δʼ ὀλιγαρχίας πολιτείαν ἢ δῆμον.

-

κοινὸν δὲ καὶ ἐν δήμῳ καὶ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ καὶ ἐν μοναρχίᾳ καὶ πάσῃ πολιτείᾳ μήτʼ αὐξάνειν λίαν μηθένα παρὰ τὴν συμμετρίαν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον πειρᾶσθαι μικρὰς καὶ πολυχρονίους διδόναι τιμὰς ἢ ταχὺ μεγάλας (διαφθείρονται γάρ, καὶ φέρειν οὐ παντὸς ἀνδρὸς εὐτυχίαν), εἰ δὲ μή, μή τοί γʼ ἀθρόας δόντας ἀφαιρεῖσθαι πάλιν ἀθρόας, ἀλλʼ ἐκ προσαγωγῆς· καὶ μάλιστα μὲν πειρᾶσθαι τοῖς νόμοις οὕτω ῥυθμίζειν ὥστε μηδένα ἐγγίγνεσθαι πολὺ ὑπερέχοντα δυνάμει μήτε φίλων μήτε χρημάτων, εἰ δὲ μή, ἀποδημητικὰς ποιεῖσθαι τὰς παραστάσεις αὐτῶν. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ διὰ τοὺς ἰδίους βίους νεωτερίζουσιν, δεῖ ἐμποιεῖν ἀρχήν τινα τὴν ἐποψομένην τοὺς ζῶντας ἀσυμφόρως πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν, ἐν μὲν δημοκρατίᾳ πρὸς τὴν δημοκρατίαν, ἐν δὲ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτειῶν ἑκάστῃ· καὶ τὸ εὐημεροῦν δὲ τῆς πόλεως ἀνὰ μέρος φυλάττεσθαι διὰ τὰς αὐτὰς αἰτίας· τούτου δʼ ἄκος τὸ αἰεὶ τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις μορίοις ἐγχειρίζειν τὰς πράξεις καὶ τὰς ἀρχάς (λέγω δʼ ἀντικεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς τῷ πλήθει, καὶ τοὺς ἀπόρους τοῖς εὐπόροις), καὶ τὸ πειρᾶσθαι ἢ συμμιγνύναι τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων πλῆθος καὶ τὸ τῶν εὐπόρων ἢ τὸ μέσον αὔξειν (τοῦτο γὰρ διαλύει τὰς διὰ τὴν ἀνισότητα στάσεις). μέγιστον δὲ ἐν πάσῃ πολιτείᾳ τὸ καὶ τοῖς νόμοις καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ οἰκονομίᾳ οὕτω τετάχθαι ὥστε μὴ εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς κερδαίνειν.

-

τοῦτο δὲ μάλιστα ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχικαῖς δεῖ τηρεῖν. οὐ γὰρ οὕτως ἀγανακτοῦσιν εἰργόμενοι τοῦ ἄρχειν οἱ πολλοί, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαίρουσιν ἐάν τις ἐᾷ πρὸς τοῖς ἰδίοις σχολάζειν, ὥστʼ ἐὰν οἴωνται τὰ κοινὰ κλέπτειν τοὺς ἄρχοντας, τότε γʼ ἀμφότερα λυπεῖ, τό τε τῶν τιμῶν μὴ μετέχειν καὶ τὸ τῶν κερδῶν· μοναχῶς δὲ καὶ ἐνδέχεται ἅμα εἶναι δημοκρατίαν καὶ ἀριστοκρατίαν, εἰ τοῦτο κατασκευάσειέ τις. ἐνδέχοιτο γὰρ ἂν καὶ τοὺς γνωρίμους καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ἔχειν ἃ βούλονται ἀμφοτέρους. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐξεῖναι πᾶσιν ἄρχειν δημοκρατικόν, τὸ δὲ τοὺς γνωρίμους εἶναι ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἀριστοκρατικόν, τοῦτο δʼ ἔσται ὅταν μὴ ᾖ κερδαίνειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχῶν· οἱ γὰρ ἄποροι οὐ βουλήσονται ἄρχειν τῷ μηδὲν κερδαίνειν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοῖς ἰδίοις εἶναι μᾶλλον, οἱ δὲ εὔποροι δυνήσονται διὰ τὸ μηδενὸς προσδεῖσθαι τῶν κοινῶν· ὥστε συμβήσεται τοῖς μὲν ἀπόροις γίγνεσθαι εὐπόροις διὰ τὸ διατρίβειν πρὸς τοῖς ἔργοις, τοῖς δὲ γνωρίμοις μὴ ἄρχεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν τυχόντων. τοῦ μὲν οὖν μὴ κλέπτεσθαι τὰ κοινὰ ἡ παράδοσις γιγνέσθω τῶν χρημάτων παρόντων πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν, καὶ ἀντίγραφα κατὰ φατρίας καὶ λόχους καὶ φυλὰς τιθέσθωσαν· τοῦ δὲ ἀκερδῶς ἄρχειν τιμὰς εἶναι δεῖ νενομοθετημένας τοῖς εὐδοκιμοῦσιν. δεῖ δʼ ἐν μὲν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις τῶν εὐπόρων φείδεσθαι, μὴ μόνον τῷ τὰς κτήσεις μὴ ποιεῖν ἀναδάστους, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τοὺς καρπούς, ὃ ἐν ἐνίαις τῶν πολιτειῶν λανθάνει γιγνόμενον, βέλτιον δὲ καὶ βουλομένους κωλύειν λειτουργεῖν τὰς δαπανηρὰς μὲν μὴ χρησίμους δὲ λειτουργίας, οἷον χορηγίας καὶ λαμπαδαρχίας καὶ ὅσαι ἄλλαι τοιαῦται· ἐν δʼ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ τῶν ἀπόρων ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι πολλήν, καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀφʼ ὧν λήμματα ἔστι τούτοις ἀπονέμειν, κἄν τις ὑβρίσῃ τῶν εὐπόρων εἰς τούτους, μείζω τὰ ἐπιτίμια εἶναι ἢ ἂν σφῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰς κληρονομίας μὴ κατὰ δόσιν εἶναι ἀλλὰ κατὰ γένος, μηδὲ πλειόνων ἢ μιᾶς τὸν αὐτὸν κληρονομεῖν. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ὁμαλώτεραι αἱ οὐσίαι εἶεν καὶ τῶν ἀπόρων εἰς εὐπορίαν ἂν καθίσταιντο πλείους. συμφέρει δὲ καὶ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ καὶ ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ τῶν ἄλλων ἢ ἰσότητα ἢ προεδρίαν νέμειν τοῖς ἧττον κοινωνοῦσι τῆς πολιτείας, ἐν μὲν δήμῳ τοῖς εὐπόροις, ἐν δʼ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ τοῖς ἀπόροις, πλὴν ὅσαι ἀρχαὶ κύριαι τῆς πολιτείας, ταύτας δὲ τοῖς ἐκ τῆς πολιτείας ἐγχειρίζειν μόνοις ἢ πλείοσιν.

-

τρία δέ τινα χρὴ ἔχειν τοὺς μέλλοντας ἄρξειν τὰς κυρίας ἀρχάς, πρῶτον μὲν φιλίαν πρὸς τὴν καθεστῶσαν πολιτείαν, ἔπειτα δύναμιν μεγίστην τῶν ἔργων τῆς ἀρχῆς, τρίτον δʼ ἀρετὴν καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐν ἑκάστῃ πολιτείᾳ τὴν πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν (εἰ γὰρ μὴ ταὐτὸν τὸ δίκαιον κατὰ πάσας τὰς πολιτείας, ἀνάγκη καὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης εἶναι διαφοράς). ἔχει δʼ ἀπορίαν, ὅταν μὴ συμβαίνῃ ταῦτα πάντα περὶ τὸν αὐτόν, πῶς χρὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν αἵρεσιν· οἷον εἰ στρατηγικὸς μέν τις εἴη, πονηρὸς δὲ καὶ μὴ τῇ πολιτείᾳ φίλος, ὁ δὲ δίκαιος καὶ φίλος, πῶς δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν αἵρεσιν; ἔοικε δὲ δεῖν βλέπειν εἰς δύο, τίνος πλεῖον μετέχουσι πάντες καὶ τίνος ἔλαττον· διὸ ἐν στρατηγίᾳ μὲν εἰς τὴν ἐμπειρίαν μᾶλλον τῆς ἀρετῆς (ἔλαττον γὰρ στρατηγίας μετέχουσι, τῆς δʼ ἐπιεικείας πλεῖον), ἐν δὲ φυλακῇ καὶ ταμιείᾳ τἀναντία (πλείονος γὰρ ἀρετῆς δεῖται ἢ ὅσην οἱ πολλοὶ ἔχουσιν, ἡ δὲ ἐπιστήμη κοινὴ πᾶσιν).

-

ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις, ἂν δύναμις ὑπάρχῃ καὶ τῆς πολιτείας φιλία, τί δεῖ τῆς ἀρετῆς; ποιήσει γὰρ τὰ συμφέροντα καὶ τὰ δύο. ἢ ὅτι ἐνδέχεται τοὺς τὰ δύο ταῦτα ἔχοντας ἀκρατεῖς εἶναι, ὥστε καθάπερ καὶ αὑτοῖς οὐχ ὑπηρετοῦσιν εἰδότες καὶ φιλοῦντες αὑτούς, οὕτω καὶ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν οὐθὲν κωλύει ἔχειν ἐνίους; ἁπλῶς δέ, ὅσα ἐν τοῖς νόμοις ὡς συμφέροντα λέγομεν ταῖς πολιτείαις, ἅπαντα ταῦτα σῴζει τὰς πολιτείας, καὶ τὸ πολλάκις εἰρημένον μέγιστον στοιχεῖον, τὸ τηρεῖν ὅπως κρεῖττον ἔσται τὸ βουλόμενον τὴν πολιτείαν πλῆθος τοῦ μὴ βουλομένου. παρὰ πάντα δὲ ταῦτα δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν, ὃ νῦν λανθάνει τὰς παρεκβεβηκυίας πολιτείας, τὸ μέσον· πολλὰ γὰρ τῶν δοκούντων δημοτικῶν λύει τὰς δημοκρατίας καὶ τῶν ὀλιγαρχικῶν τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας. οἱ δʼ οἰόμενοι ταύτην εἶναι μίαν ἀρετὴν ἕλκουσιν εἰς τὴν ὑπερβολήν, ἀγνοοῦντες ὅτι, καθάπερ ῥὶς ἔστι παρεκβεβηκυῖα μὲν τὴν εὐθύτητα τὴν καλλίστην πρὸς τὸ γρυπὸν ἢ τὸ σιμόν, ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἔτι καλὴ καὶ χάριν ἔχουσα πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ ἐὰν ἐπιτείνῃ τις ἔτι μᾶλλον εἰς τὴν ὑπερβολήν, πρῶτον μὲν ἀποβαλεῖ τὴν μετριότητα τοῦ μορίου, τέλος δʼ οὕτως ὥστε μηδὲ ῥῖνα ποιήσει φαίνεσθαι διὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν καὶ τὴν ἔλλειψιν τῶν ἐναντίων, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων μορίων, συμβαίνει δὴ τοῦτο καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας πολιτείας. καὶ γὰρ ὀλιγαρχίαν καὶ δημοκρατίαν ἔστιν ὥστʼ ἔχειν ἱκανῶς, καίπερ ἐξεστηκυίας τῆς βελτίστης τάξεως· ἐὰν δέ τις ἐπιτείνῃ μᾶλλον ἑκατέραν αὐτῶν, πρῶτον μὲν χείρω ποιήσει τὴν πολιτείαν, τέλος δʼ οὐδὲ πολιτείαν. διὸ δεῖ τοῦτο μὴ ἀγνοεῖν τὸν νομοθέτην καὶ τὸν πολιτικόν, ποῖα σῴζει τῶν δημοτικῶν καὶ ποῖα φθείρει τὴν δημοκρατίαν, καὶ ποῖα τῶν ὀλιγαρχικῶν τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν. οὐδετέραν μὲν γὰρ ἐνδέχεται αὐτῶν εἶναι καὶ διαμένειν ἄνευ τῶν εὐπόρων καὶ τοῦ πλήθους, ἀλλʼ ὅταν ὁμαλότης γένηται τῆς οὐσίας ἄλλην ἀνάγκη εἶναι ταύτην τὴν πολιτείαν, ὥστε φθείροντες τοῖς καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν νόμοις φθείρουσι τὰς πολιτείας.

-

ἁμαρτάνουσι δὲ καὶ ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις, ἐν μὲν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις οἱ δημαγωγοί, ὅπου τὸ πλῆθος κύριον τῶν νόμων· δύο γὰρ ποιοῦσιν ἀεὶ τὴν πόλιν, μαχόμενοι τοῖς εὐπόροις, δεῖ δὲ τοὐναντίον αἰεὶ δοκεῖν λέγειν ὑπὲρ εὐπόρων, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου τοὺς ὀλιγαρχικούς, καὶ τοὺς ὅρκους ἐναντίους ἢ νῦν ὀμνύναι τοὺς ὀλιγαρχικούς· νῦν μὲν γὰρ ἐν ἐνίαις ὀμνύουσι καὶ τῷ δήμῳ κακόνους ἔσομαι καὶ βουλεύσω ὅ τι ἂν ἔχω κακόν, χρὴ δὲ καὶ ὑπολαμβάνειν καὶ ὑποκρίνεσθαι τοὐναντίον, ἐπισημαινομένους ἐν τοῖς ὅρκοις ὅτι οὐκ ἀδικήσω τὸν δῆμον.

-

μέγιστον δὲ πάντων τῶν εἰρημένων πρὸς τὸ διαμένειν τὰς πολιτείας, οὗ νῦν ὀλιγωροῦσι πάντες, τὸ παιδεύεσθαι πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας. ὄφελος γὰρ οὐθὲν τῶν ὠφελιμωτάτων νόμων καὶ συνδεδοξασμένων ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν πολιτευομένων, εἰ μὴ ἔσονται εἰθισμένοι καὶ πεπαιδευμένοι ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ, εἰ μὲν οἱ νόμοι δημοτικοί, δημοτικῶς, εἰ δʼ ὀλιγαρχικοί, ὀλιγαρχικῶς. εἴπερ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐφʼ ἑνὸς ἀκρασία, ἔστι καὶ ἐπὶ πόλεως. ἔστι δὲ τὸ πεπαιδεῦσθαι πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν οὐ τοῦτο, τὸ ποιεῖν οἷς χαίρουσιν οἱ ὀλιγαρχοῦντες ἢ οἱ δημοκρατίαν βουλόμενοι, ἀλλʼ οἷς δυνήσονται οἱ μὲν ὀλιγαρχεῖν οἱ δὲ δημοκρατεῖσθαι. νῦν δʼ ἐν μὲν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις οἱ τῶν ἀρχόντων υἱοὶ τρυφῶσιν, οἱ δὲ τῶν ἀπόρων γίγνονται γεγυμνασμένοι καὶ πεπονηκότες, ὥστε καὶ βούλονται μᾶλλον καὶ δύνανται νεωτερίζειν· ἐν δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ταῖς μάλιστα εἶναι δοκούσαις δημοκρατικαῖς τοὐναντίον τοῦ συμφέροντος καθέστηκεν, αἴτιον δὲ τούτου ὅτι κακῶς ὁρίζονται τὸ ἐλεύθερον. δύο γάρ ἐστιν οἷς ἡ δημοκρατία δοκεῖ ὡρίσθαι, τῷ τὸ πλεῖον εἶναι κύριον καὶ τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ δίκαιον ἴσον δοκεῖ εἶναι, ἴσον δʼ ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τῷ πλήθει, τοῦτʼ εἶναι κύριον, ἐλεύθερον δὲ καὶ ἴσον τὸ ὅ τι ἂν βούληταί τις ποιεῖν· ὥστε ζῇ ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις δημοκρατίαις ἕκαστος ὡς βούλεται, καὶ εἰς ὃ χρῄζων, ὡς φησὶν Εὐριπίδης· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ φαῦλον· οὐ γὰρ δεῖ οἴεσθαι δουλείαν εἶναι τὸ ζῆν πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν, ἀλλὰ σωτηρίαν. ἐξ ὧν μὲν οὖν αἱ πολιτεῖαι μεταβάλλουσι καὶ φθείρονται, καὶ διὰ τίνων σῴζονται καὶ διαμένουσιν, ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν τοσαῦτά ἐστιν.

-

λείπεται δʼ ἐπελθεῖν καὶ περὶ μοναρχίας, ἐξ ὧν τε φθείρεται καὶ διʼ ὧν σῴζεσθαι πέφυκεν. σχεδὸν δὲ παραπλήσια τοῖς εἰρημένοις περὶ τὰς πολιτείας ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ συμβαίνοντα περὶ τὰς βασιλείας καὶ τὰς τυραννίδας. ἡ μὲν γὰρ βασιλεία κατὰ τὴν ἀριστοκρατίαν ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ τυραννὶς ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας τῆς ὑστάτης σύγκειται καὶ δημοκρατίας· διὸ δὴ καὶ βλαβερωτάτη τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ἐστίν, ἅτε ἐκ δυοῖν συγκειμένη κακῶν καὶ τὰς παρεκβάσεις καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἔχουσα τὰς παρʼ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν πολιτειῶν. ὑπάρχει δʼ ἡ γένεσις εὐθὺς ἐξ ἐναντίων ἑκατέρᾳ τῶν μοναρχιῶν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ βασιλεία πρὸς βοήθειαν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ δήμου τοῖς ἐπιεικέσι γέγονεν, καὶ καθίσταται βασιλεὺς ἐκ τῶν ἐπιεικῶν καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν ἀρετῆς ἢ πράξεων τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς, ἢ καθʼ ὑπεροχὴν τοιούτου γένους, ὁ δὲ τύραννος ἐκ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τοῦ πλήθους ἐπὶ τοὺς γνωρίμους, ὅπως ὁ δῆμος ἀδικῆται μηδὲν ὑπʼ αὐτῶν. φανερὸν δʼ ἐκ τῶν συμβεβηκότων. σχεδὸν γὰρ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν τυράννων γεγόνασιν ἐκ δημαγωγῶν ὡς εἰπεῖν, πιστευθέντες ἐκ τοῦ διαβάλλειν τοὺς γνωρίμους. αἱ μὲν γὰρ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον κατέστησαν τῶν τυραννίδων, ἤδη τῶν πόλεων ηὐξημένων, αἱ δὲ πρὸ τούτων ἐκ τε τῶν βασιλέων παρεκβαινόντων τὰ πάτρια καὶ δεσποτικωτέρας ἀρχῆς ὀρεγομένων, αἱ δὲ ἐκ τῶν αἱρετῶν ἐπὶ τὰς κυρίας ἀρχάς (τὸ γὰρ ἀρχαῖον οἱ δῆμοι καθίστασαν πολυχρονίους τὰς δημιουργίας καὶ τὰς θεωρίας), αἱ δʼ ἐκ τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν, αἱρουμένων ἕνα τινὰ κύριον ἐπὶ τὰς μεγίστας ἀρχάς. πᾶσι γὰρ ὑπῆρχε τοῖς τρόποις τούτοις τὸ κατεργάζεσθαι ῥᾳδίως, εἰ μόνον βουληθεῖεν, διὰ τὸ δύναμιν προϋπάρχειν τοῖς μὲν βασιλικῆς ἀρχῆς τοῖς δὲ τὴν τῆς τιμῆς· οἷον Φείδων μὲν περὶ Ἄργος καὶ ἕτεροι τύραννοι κατέστησαν βασιλείας ὑπαρχούσης, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἰωνίαν καὶ Φάλαρις ἐκ τῶν τιμῶν, Παναίτιος δʼ ἐν Λεοντίνοις καὶ Κύψελος ἐν Κορίνθῳ καὶ Πεισίστρατος Ἀθήνησι καὶ Διονύσιος ἐν Συρακούσαις καὶ ἕτεροι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐκ δημαγωγίας. καθάπερ οὖν εἴπομεν, ἡ βασιλεία τέτακται κατὰ τὴν ἀριστοκρατίαν. κατʼ ἀξίαν γάρ ἐστιν, ἢ κατʼ ἰδίαν ἀρετὴν ἢ κατὰ γένος, ἢ κατʼ εὐεργεσίας, ἢ κατὰ ταῦτά τε καὶ δύναμιν. ἅπαντες γὰρ εὐεργετήσαντες ἢ δυνάμενοι τὰς πόλεις ἢ τὰ ἔθνη εὐεργετεῖν ἐτύγχανον τῆς τιμῆς ταύτης, οἱ μὲν κατὰ πόλεμον κωλύσαντες δουλεύειν, ὥσπερ Κόδρος, οἱ δʼ ἐλευθερώσαντες, ὥσπερ Κῦρος, ἢ κτίσαντες ἢ κτησάμενοι χώραν, ὥσπερ οἱ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεῖς καὶ Μακεδόνων καὶ Μολοττῶν. βούλεται δʼ ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶναι φύλαξ, ὅπως οἱ μὲν κεκτημένοι τὰς οὐσίας μηθὲν ἄδικον πάσχωσιν, ὁ δὲ δῆμος μὴ ὑβρίζηται μηθέν· ἡ δὲ τυραννίς, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις, πρὸς οὐδὲν ἀποβλέπει κοινόν, εἰ μὴ τῆς ἰδίας ὠφελείας χάριν. ἔστι δὲ σκοπὸς τυραννικὸς μὲν τὸ ἡδύ, βασιλικὸς δὲ τὸ καλόν. διὸ καὶ τῶν πλεονεκτημάτων τὰ μὲν χρήματα τυραννικὰ, τὰ δʼ εἰς τιμὴν βασιλικὰ μᾶλλον· καὶ φυλακὴ βασιλικὴ μὲν πολιτική, τυραννικὴ δὲ διὰ ξένων.

-

ὅτι δʼ ἡ τυραννὶς ἔχει κακὰ καὶ τὰ τῆς δημοκρατίας καὶ τὰ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας, φανερόν· ἐκ μὲν ὀλιγαρχίας τὸ τὸ τέλος εἶναι πλοῦτον (οὕτω γὰρ καὶ διαμένειν ἀναγκαῖον μόνως τήν τε φυλακὴν καὶ τὴν τρυφήν), καὶ τὸ τῷ πλήθει μηδὲν πιστεύειν (διὸ καὶ τὴν παραίρεσιν ποιοῦνται τῶν ὅπλων), καὶ τὸ κακοῦν τὸν ὄχλον καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἄστεως ἀπελαύνειν καὶ διοικίζειν ἀμφοτέρων κοινόν, καὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ τῆς τυραννίδος· ἐκ δημοκρατίας δὲ τὸ πολεμεῖν τοῖς γνωρίμοις καὶ διαφθείρειν λάθρᾳ καὶ φανερῶς καὶ φυγαδεύειν ὡς ἀντιτέχνους καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐμποδίους. ἐκ γὰρ τούτων συμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι καὶ τὰς ἐπιβουλάς, τῶν μὲν ἄρχειν αὐτῶν βουλομένων, τῶν δὲ μὴ δουλεύειν. ὅθεν καὶ τὸ Περιάνδρου πρὸς Θρασύβουλον συμβούλευμά ἐστιν, ἡ τῶν ὑπερεχόντων σταχύων κόλουσις, ὡς δέον αἰεὶ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας τῶν πολιτῶν ἀναιρεῖν. καθάπερ οὖν σχεδὸν ἐλέχθη, τὰς αὐτὰς ἀρχὰς δεῖ νομίζειν περί τε τὰς πολιτείας εἶναι τῶν μεταβολῶν καὶ περὶ τὰς μοναρχίας· διά τε γὰρ ἀδικίαν καὶ διὰ φόβον καὶ διὰ καταφρόνησιν ἐπιτίθενται πολλοὶ τῶν ἀρχομένων ταῖς μοναρχίαις, τῆς δὲ ἀδικίας μάλιστα διʼ ὕβριν, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν ἰδίων στέρησιν.

-

ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὰ τέλη ταὐτά, καθάπερ κἀκεῖ, καὶ περὶ τὰς τυραννίδας καὶ τὰς βασιλείας· μέγεθος γὰρ ὑπάρχει πλούτου καὶ τιμῆς τοῖς μονάρχοις, ὧν ἐφίενται πάντες. τῶν δʼ ἐπιθέσεων αἱ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα γίγνονται τῶν ἀρχόντων, αἱ δʼ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν. αἱ μὲν οὖν διʼ ὕβριν ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα. τῆς δʼ ὕβρεως οὔσης πολυμεροῦς, ἕκαστον αὐτῶν αἴτιον γίγνεται τῆς ὀργῆς· τῶν δʼ ὀργιζομένων σχεδὸν οἱ πλεῖστοι τιμωρίας χάριν ἐπιτίθενται, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὑπεροχῆς. οἷον ἡ μὲν τῶν Πεισιστρατιδῶν διὰ τὸ προπηλακίσαι μὲν τὴν Ἁρμοδίου ἀδελφὴν ἐπηρεάσαι δʼ Ἁρμόδιον (ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἁρμόδιος διὰ τὴν ἀδελφήν, ὁ δὲ Ἀριστογείτων διὰ τὸν Ἁρμόδιον), ἐπεβούλευσαν δὲ καὶ Περιάνδρῳ τῷ ἐν Ἀμβρακίᾳ τυράννῳ διὰ τὸ συμπίνοντα μετὰ τῶν παιδικῶν ἐρωτῆσαι αὐτὸν εἰ ἤδη ἐξ αὐτοῦ κύει· ἡ δὲ Φιλίππου ὑπὸ Παυσανίου διὰ τὸ ἐᾶσαι ὑβρισθῆναι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ Ἄτταλον, καὶ ἡ Ἀμύντου τοῦ μικροῦ ὑπὸ Δέρδα διὰ τὸ καυχήσασθαι εἰς τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡ τοῦ εὐνούχου Εὐαγόρᾳ τῷ Κυπρίῳ· διὰ γὰρ τὸ τὴν γυναῖκα παρελέσθαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπέκτεινεν ὡς ὑβρισμένος. πολλαὶ δʼ ἐπιθέσεις γεγένηνται καὶ διὰ τὸ εἰς τὸ σῶμα αἰσχῦναι τῶν μονάρχων τινάς. οἷον καὶ ἡ Κραταίου εἰς Ἀρχέλαον· αἰεὶ γὰρ βαρέως εἶχε πρὸς τὴν ὁμιλίαν, ὥστε ἱκανὴ καὶ ἐλάττων ἂν ἐγένετο πρόφασις—ἢ διότι τῶν θυγατέρων οὐδεμίαν ἔδωκεν ὁμολογήσας αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν προτέραν, κατεχόμενος ὑπὸ πολέμου πρὸς Σίρραν καὶ Ἀρράβαιον, ἔδωκε τῷ βασιλεῖ τῷ τῆς Ἐλιμείας, τὴν δὲ νεωτέραν τῷ υἱεῖ Ἀμύντᾳ, οἰόμενος οὕτως ἂν ἐκεῖνον ἥκιστα διαφέρεσθαι καὶ τὸν ἐκ τῆς Κλεοπάτρας· ἀλλὰ τῆς γε ἀλλοτριότητος ὑπῆρχεν ἀρχὴ τὸ βαρέως φέρειν πρὸς τὴν ἀφροδισιαστικὴν χάριν. συνεπέθετο δὲ καὶ Ἑλλανοκράτης ὁ Λαρισαῖος διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν· ὡς γὰρ χρώμενος αὐτοῦ τῇ ἡλικίᾳ οὐ κατῆγεν ὑποσχόμενος, διʼ ὕβριν καὶ οὐ διʼ ἐρωτικὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ᾤετο εἶναι τὴν γεγενημένην ὁμιλίαν. Πύθων δὲ καὶ Ἡρακλείδης οἱ Αἴνιοι Κότυν διέφθειραν τῷ πατρὶ τιμωροῦντες, Ἀδάμας δʼ ἀπέστη Κότυος διὰ τὸ ἐκτμηθῆναι παῖς ὢν ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ, ὡς ὑβρισμένος.

-

πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ εἰς τὸ σῶμα αἰκισθῆναι πληγαῖς ὀργισθέντες οἱ μὲν διέφθειραν, οἱ δʼ ἐνεχείρησαν ὡς ὑβρισθέντες, καὶ τῶν περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ βασιλικὰς δυναστείας. οἷον ἐν Μυτιλήνῃ τοὺς Πενθιλίδας Μεγακλῆς περιιόντας καὶ τύπτοντας ταῖς κορύναις ἐπιθέμενος μετὰ τῶν φίλων ἀνεῖλεν, καὶ ὕστερον Σμέρδης Πενθίλον πληγὰς λαβὼν καὶ παρὰ τῆς γυναικὸς ἐξελκυσθεὶς διέφθειρεν. καὶ τῆς Ἀρχελάου δʼ ἐπιθέσεως Δεκάμνιχος ἡγεμὼν ἐγένετο, παροξύνων τοὺς ἐπιθεμένους πρῶτος· αἴτιον δὲ τῆς ὀργῆς ὅτι αὐτὸν ἐξέδωκε μαστιγῶσαι Εὐριπίδῃ τῷ ποιητῇ· ὁ δʼ Εὐριπίδης ἐχαλέπαινεν εἰπόντος τι αὐτοῦ εἰς δυσωδίαν τοῦ στόματος. καὶ ἄλλοι δὲ πολλοὶ διὰ τοιαύτας αἰτίας οἱ μὲν ἀνῃρέθησαν οἱ δʼ ἐπεβουλεύθησαν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ διὰ φόβον· ἓν γάρ τι τοῦτο τῶν αἰτίων ἦν, ὥσπερ καὶ περὶ τὰς πολιτείας καὶ περὶ τὰς μοναρχίας· οἷον Ξέρξην Ἀρταπάνης φοβούμενος τὴν διαβολὴν τὴν περὶ Δαρεῖον, ὅτι ἐκρέμασεν οὐ κελεύσαντος Ξέρξου, ἀλλʼ οἰόμενος συγγνώσεσθαι ὡς ἀμνημονοῦντα διὰ τὸ δειπνεῖν. αἱ δὲ διὰ καταφρόνησιν, ὥσπερ Σαρδανάπαλλον ἰδών τις ξαίνοντα μετὰ τῶν γυναικῶν (εἰ ἀληθῆ ταῦτα οἱ μυθολογοῦντες λέγουσιν· εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐπʼ ἐκείνου, ἀλλʼ ἐπʼ ἄλλου γε ἂν γένοιτο τοῦτο ἀληθές), καὶ Διονυσίῳ τῷ ὑστέρῳ Δίων ἐπέθετο διὰ τὸ καταφρονεῖν, ὁρῶν τούς τε πολίτας οὕτως ἔχοντας καὶ αὐτὸν ἀεὶ μεθύοντα. καὶ τῶν φίλων δέ τινες ἐπιτίθενται διὰ καταφρόνησιν· διὰ γὰρ τὸ πιστεύεσθαι καταφρονοῦσιν ὡς λήσοντες. καὶ οἱ οἰόμενοι δύνασθαι κατασχεῖν τὴν ἀρχὴν τρόπον τινὰ διὰ τὸ καταφρονεῖν ἐπιτίθενται· ὡς δυνάμενοι γὰρ καὶ καταφρονοῦντες τοῦ κινδύνου διὰ τὴν δύναμιν ἐπιχειροῦσι ῥᾳδίως, ὥσπερ οἱ στρατηγοῦντες τοῖς μονάρχοις, οἷον Κῦρος Ἀστυάγει καὶ τοῦ βίου καταφρονῶν καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως διὰ τὸ τὴν μὲν δύναμιν ἐξηργηκέναι αὐτὸν δὲ τρυφᾶν, καὶ Σεύθης ὁ Θρᾷξ Ἀμαδόκῳ στρατηγὸς ὤν. οἱ δὲ καὶ διὰ πλείω τούτων ἐπιτίθενται, οἷον καὶ καταφρονοῦντες καὶ διὰ κέρδος, ὥσπερ Ἀριοβαρζάνῃ Μιθριδάτης μάλιστα δὲ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν ἐγχειροῦσιν οἱ τὴν φύσιν μὲν θρασεῖς, τιμὴν δʼ ἔχοντες πολεμικὴν παρὰ τοῖς μονάρχοις· ἀνδρεία γὰρ δύναμιν ἔχουσα θράσος ἐστίν, διʼ ἃς ἀμφοτέρας, ὡς ῥᾳδίως κρατήσοντες, ποιοῦνται τὰς ἐπιθέσεις.

-

τῶν δὲ διὰ φιλοτιμίαν ἐπιτιθεμένων ἕτερος τρόπος ἔστι τῆς αἰτίας παρὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους πρότερον. οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἔνιοι τοῖς τυράννοις ἐπιχειροῦσιν ὁρῶντες κέρδη τε μεγάλα καὶ τιμὰς μεγάλας οὔσας αὐτοῖς, οὕτω καὶ τῶν διὰ φιλοτιμίαν ἐπιτιθεμένων ἕκαστος προαιρεῖται κινδυνεύειν· ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν διὰ τὴν εἰρημένην αἰτίαν, οὗτοι δʼ ὥσπερ κἂν ἄλλης τινὸς γενομένης πράξεως περιττῆς καὶ διʼ ἣν ὀνομαστοὶ γίγνονται καὶ γνώριμοι τοῖς ἄλλοις, οὕτω καὶ τοῖς μονάρχοις ἐγχειροῦσιν, οὐ κτήσασθαι βουλόμενοι μοναρχίαν ἀλλὰ δόξαν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ ἐλάχιστοί γε τὸν ἀριθμόν εἰσιν οἱ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν ὁρμῶντες· ὑποκεῖσθαι γὰρ δεῖ τὸ τοῦ σωθῆναι μηδὲν φροντίζειν, ἂν μὴ μέλλῃ κατασχήσειν τὴν πρᾶξιν. οἷς ἀκολουθεῖν μὲν δεῖ τὴν Δίωνος ὑπόληψιν, οὐ ῥᾴδιον δʼ αὐτὴν ἐγγενέσθαι πολλοῖς· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ μετʼ ὀλίγων ἐστράτευσεν ἐπὶ Διονύσιον οὕτως ἔχειν φάσκων ὡς ὅποι περ ἂν δύνηται προελθεῖν, ἱκανὸν αὑτῷ τοσοῦτον μετασχεῖν τῆς πράξεως, οἷον εἰ μικρὸν ἐπιβάντα τῆς γῆς εὐθὺς συμβαίη τελευτῆσαι τοῦτον καλῶς ἔχειν αὑτῷ τὸν θάνατον.

-

φθείρεται δὲ τυραννὶς ἕνα μὲν τρόπον, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάστη πολιτειῶν, ἔξωθεν, ἐὰν ἐναντία τις ᾖ πολιτεία κρείττων (τὸ μὲν γὰρ βούλεσθαι δῆλον ὡς ὑπάρξει διὰ τὴν ἐναντιότητα τῆς προαιρέσεως· ἃ δὲ βούλονται, δυνάμενοι πράττουσι πάντες), ἐναντίαι δʼ αἱ πολιτεῖαι, δῆμος μὲν τυραννίδι καθʼ Ἡσίοδον ὡς κεραμεὺς κεραμεῖ (καὶ γὰρ ἡ δημοκρατία ἡ τελευταία τυραννίς ἐστιν), βασιλεία δὲ καὶ ἀριστοκρατία διὰ τὴν ἐναντιότητα τῆς πολιτείας (διὸ Λακεδαιμόνιοι πλείστας κατέλυσαν τυραννίδας καὶ Συρακούσιοι κατὰ τὸν χρόνον ὃν ἐπολιτεύοντο καλῶς)· ἕνα δʼ ἐξ αὑτῆς, ὅταν οἱ μετέχοντες στασιάζωσιν, ὥσπερ ἡ τῶν περὶ Γέλωνα καὶ νῦν ἡ τῶν περὶ Διονύσιον, ἡ μὲν Γέλωνος Θρασυβούλου τοῦ Ἱέρωνος ἀδελφοῦ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Γέλωνος δημαγωγοῦντος καὶ πρὸς ἡδονὰς ὁρμῶντος, ἵνʼ αὐτὸς ἄρχῃ, τῶν δὲ οἰκείων συστησάντων ἵνα μὴ ἡ τυραννὶς ὅλως καταλυθῇ ἀλλὰ Θρασύβουλος, οἱ δὲ συστάντες αὐτῶν, ὡς καιρὸν ἔχοντες, ἐξέβαλον ἅπαντας αὐτούς· Διονύσιον δὲ Δίων στρατεύσας, κηδεστὴς ὢν καὶ προσλαβὼν τὸν δῆμον, ἐκεῖνον ἐκβαλὼν διεφθάρη. δύο δὲ οὐσῶν αἰτιῶν διʼ ἃς μάλιστʼ ἐπιτίθενται ταῖς τυραννίσι, μίσους καὶ καταφρονήσεως, θάτερον μὲν ἀεὶ τούτων ὑπάρχει τοῖς τυράννοις, τὸ μῖσος, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ καταφρονεῖσθαι πολλαὶ γίνονται τῶν καταλύσεων. σημεῖον δέ· τῶν μὲν γὰρ κτησαμένων οἱ πλεῖστοι καὶ διεφύλαξαν τὰς ἀρχάς, οἱ δὲ παραλαβόντες εὐθὺς ὡς εἰπεῖν ἀπολλύασι πάντες. ἀπολαυστικῶς γὰρ ζῶντες εὐκαταφρόνητοί τε γίνονται καὶ πολλοὺς καιροὺς παραδιδόασι τοῖς ἐπιτιθεμένοις. μόριον δέ τι τοῦ μίσους καὶ τὴν ὀργὴν δεῖ τιθέναι· τρόπον γάρ τινα τῶν αὐτῶν αἰτία γίνεται πράξεων. πολλάκις δὲ καὶ πρακτικώτερον τοῦ μίσους· συντονώτερον γὰρ ἐπιτίθενται διὰ τὸ μὴ χρῆσθαι λογισμῷ τὸ πάθος (μάλιστα δὲ συμβαίνει τοῖς θυμοῖς ἀκολουθεῖν διὰ τὴν ὕβριν, διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ἥ τε τῶν Πεισιστρατιδῶν κατελύθη τυραννὶς καὶ πολλαὶ τῶν ἄλλων), ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὸ μῖσος· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὀργὴ μετὰ λύπης πάρεστιν, ὥστε οὐ ῥᾴδιον λογίζεσθαι, ἡ δʼ ἔχθρα ἄνευ λύπης.

-

ὡς δὲ ἐν κεφαλαίοις εἰπεῖν, ὅσας αἰτίας εἰρήκαμεν τῆς τε ὀλιγαρχίας τῆς ἀκράτου καὶ τελευταίας καὶ τῆς δημοκρατίας τῆς ἐσχάτης, τοσαύτας καὶ τῆς τυραννίδος θετέον· καὶ γὰρ αὗται τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι διαιρεταὶ τυραννίδες. βασιλεία δʼ ὑπὸ μὲν τῶν ἔξωθεν ἥκιστα φθείρεται, διὸ καὶ πολυχρόνιός ἐστιν· ἐξ αὐτῆς δʼ αἱ πλεῖσται φθοραὶ συμβαίνουσιν. φθείρεται δὲ κατὰ δύο τρόπους, ἕνα μὲν στασιασάντων τῶν μετεχόντων τῆς βασιλείας, ἄλλον δὲ τρόπον τυραννικώτερον πειρωμένων διοικεῖν, ὅταν εἶναι κύριοι πλειόνων ἀξιῶσι καὶ παρὰ τὸν νόμον. οὐ γίγνονται δʼ ἔτι βασιλεῖαι νῦν, ἀλλʼ ἄν περ γίγνωνται, μοναρχίαι, τυραννίδες μᾶλλον, διὰ τὸ τὴν βασιλείαν ἑκούσιον μὲν ἀρχὴν εἶναι, μειζόνων δὲ κυρίαν, πολλοὺς δʼ εἶναι τοὺς ὁμοίους, καὶ μηδένα διαφέροντα τοσοῦτον ὥστε ἀπαρτίζειν πρὸς τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς ἀρχῆς. ὥστε διὰ μὲν τοῦτο ἑκόντες οὐχ ὑπομένουσιν· ἂν δὲ διʼ ἀπάτης ἄρξῃ τις ἢ βίας, ἤδη δοκεῖ τοῦτο εἶναι τυραννίς. ἐν δὲ ταῖς κατὰ γένος βασιλείαις τιθέναι δεῖ τῆς φθορᾶς αἰτίαν πρὸς ταῖς εἰρημέναις καὶ τὸ γίνεσθαι πολλοὺς εὐκαταφρονήτους, καὶ τὸ δύναμιν μὴ κεκτημένους τυραννικὴν ἀλλὰ βασιλικὴν τιμὴν ὑβρίζειν· ῥᾳδία γὰρ ἐγίνετο ἡ κατάλυσις· μὴ βουλομένων γὰρ εὐθὺς οὐκ ἔσται βασιλεύς, ἀλλὰ τύραννος καὶ μὴ βουλομένων. φθείρονται μὲν οὖν αἱ μοναρχίαι διὰ ταύτας καὶ τοιαύτας ἑτέρας αἰτίας.

-

σῴζονται δὲ δῆλον ὡς ἁπλῶς μὲν εἰπεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων, ὡς δὲ καθʼ ἕκαστον τῷ τὰς μὲν βασιλείας ἄγειν ἐπὶ τὸ μετριώτερον. ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν ἐλαττόνων ὦσι κύριοι, πλείω χρόνον ἀναγκαῖον μένειν πᾶσαν τὴν ἀρχήν· αὐτοί τε γὰρ ἧττον γίγνονται δεσποτικοὶ καὶ τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἴσοι μᾶλλον, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων φθονοῦνται ἧττον. διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ περὶ Μολοττοὺς πολὺν χρόνον βασιλεία διέμεινεν, καὶ ἡ Λακεδαιμονίων διὰ τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τε εἰς δύο μέρη διαιρεθῆναι τὴν ἀρχήν, καὶ πάλιν Θεοπόμπου μετριάσαντος τοῖς τε ἄλλοις καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐφόρων ἀρχὴν ἐπικαταστήσαντος· τῆς γὰρ δυνάμεως ἀφελὼν ηὔξησε τῷ χρόνῳ τὴν βασιλείαν, ὥστε τρόπον τινὰ ἐποίησεν οὐκ ἐλάττονʼ ἀλλὰ μείζονʼ αὐτήν. ὅπερ καὶ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα ἀποκρίνασθαί φασιν αὐτόν, εἰποῦσαν εἰ μηδὲν αἰσχύνεται τὴν βασιλείαν ἐλάττω παραδιδοὺς τοῖς υἱέσιν ἢ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς παρέλαβεν· οὐ δῆτα φάναι· παραδίδωμι γὰρ πολυχρονιωτέραν.

-

αἱ δὲ τυραννίδες σῴζονται κατὰ δύο τρόπους τοὺς ἐναντιωτάτους, ὧν ἅτερός ἐστιν ὁ παραδεδομένος καὶ καθʼ ὃν διοικοῦσιν οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν τυράννων τὴν ἀρχήν. τούτων δὲ τὰ πολλά φασι καταστῆσαι Περίανδρον τὸν Κορίνθιον· πολλὰ δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῆς Περσῶν ἀρχῆς ἔστι τοιαῦτα λαβεῖν. ἔστι δὲ τά τε πάλαι λεχθέντα πρὸς σωτηρίαν, ὡς οἷόν τε, τῆς τυραννίδος, τὸ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας κολούειν καὶ τοὺς φρονηματίας ἀναιρεῖν, καὶ μήτε συσσίτια ἐᾶν μήτε ἑταιρίαν μήτε παιδείαν μήτε ἄλλο μηθὲν τοιοῦτον, ἀλλὰ πάντα φυλάττειν ὅθεν εἴωθε γίγνεσθαι δύο, φρόνημά τε καὶ πίστις, καὶ μήτε σχολὰς μήτε ἄλλους συλλόγους ἐπιτρέπειν γίγνεσθαι σχολαστικούς, καὶ πάντα ποιεῖν ἐξ ὧν ὅτι μάλιστα ἀγνῶτες ἀλλήλοις ἔσονται πάντες (ἡ γὰρ γνῶσις πίστιν ποιεῖ μᾶλλον πρὸς ἀλλήλους)· καὶ τὸ τοὺς ἐπιδημοῦντας αἰεὶ φανεροὺς εἶναι καὶ διατρίβειν περὶ θύρας (οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἥκιστα λανθάνοιεν τί πράττουσι, καὶ φρονεῖν ἂν ἐθίζοιντο μικρὸν αἰεὶ δουλεύοντες)· καὶ τἆλλα ὅσα τοιαῦτα Περσικὰ καὶ βάρβαρα τυραννικά ἐστιν (πάντα γὰρ ταὐτὸν δύναται)· καὶ τὸ μὴ λανθάνειν πειρᾶσθαι ὅσα τυγχάνει τις λέγων ἢ πράττων τῶν ἀρχομένων, ἀλλʼ εἶναι κατασκόπους, οἷον περὶ Συρακούσας αἱ ποταγωγίδες καλούμεναι, καὶ οὓς ὠτακουστὰς ἐξέπεμπεν Ἱέρων, ὅπου τις εἴη συνουσία καὶ σύλλογος (παρρησιάζονταί τε γὰρ ἧττον, φοβούμενοι τοὺς τοιούτους, κἂν παρρησιάζωνται, λανθάνουσιν ἧττον)· καὶ τὸ διαβάλλειν ἀλλήλοις καὶ συγκρούειν καὶ φίλους φίλοις καὶ τὸν δῆμον τοῖς γνωρίμοις καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους ἑαυτοῖς. καὶ τὸ πένητας ποιεῖν τοὺς ἀρχομένους τυραννικόν, ὅπως μήτε φυλακὴ τρέφηται καὶ πρὸς τῷ καθʼ ἡμέραν ὄντες ἄσχολοι ὦσιν ἐπιβουλεύειν. παράδειγμα δὲ τούτου αἵ τε πυραμίδες αἱ περὶ Αἴγυπτον καὶ τὰ ἀναθήματα τῶν Κυψελιδῶν καὶ τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου ἡ οἰκοδόμησις ὑπὸ τῶν Πεισιστρατιδῶν, καὶ τῶν περὶ Σάμον ἔργα Πολυκράτεια (πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα δύναται ταὐτόν, ἀσχολίαν καὶ πενίαν τῶν ἀρχομένων)· καὶ ἡ εἰσφορὰ τῶν τελῶν, οἷον ἐν Συρακούσαις (ἐν πέντε γὰρ ἔτεσιν ἐπὶ Διονυσίου τὴν οὐσίαν ἅπασαν εἰσενηνοχέναι συνέβαινεν). ἔστι δὲ καὶ πολεμοποιὸς ὁ τύραννος, ὅπως δὴ ἄσχολοί τε ὦσι καὶ ἡγεμόνος ἐν χρείᾳ διατελῶσιν ὄντες. καὶ ἡ μὲν βασιλεία σῴζεται διὰ τῶν φίλων, τυραννικὸν δὲ τὸ μάλιστʼ ἀπιστεῖν τοῖς φίλοις, ὡς βουλομένων μὲν πάντων δυναμένων δὲ μάλιστα τούτων.

-

καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν δημοκρατίαν δὲ γιγνόμενα τὴν τελευταίαν τυραννικὰ πάντα, γυναικοκρατία τε περὶ τὰς οἰκίας, ἵνʼ ἐξαγγέλλωσι κατὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν, καὶ δούλων ἄνεσις διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν· οὔτε γὰρ ἐπιβουλεύουσιν οἱ δοῦλοι καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς τυράννοις, εὐημεροῦντάς τε ἀναγκαῖον εὔνους εἶναι καὶ ταῖς τυραννίσι καὶ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις· καὶ γὰρ ὁ δῆμος εἶναι βούλεται μόναρχος. διὸ καὶ ὁ κόλαξ παρʼ ἀμφοτέροις ἔντιμος, παρὰ μὲν τοῖς δήμοις ὁ δημαγωγός (ἔστι γὰρ ὁ δημαγωγὸς τοῦ δήμου κόλαξ), παρὰ δὲ τοῖς τυράννοις οἱ ταπεινῶς ὁμιλοῦντες, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἔργον κολακείας. καὶ γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο πονηρόφιλον ἡ τυραννίς· κολακευόμενοι γὰρ χαίρουσιν, τοῦτο δʼ οὐδʼ ἂν εἷς ποιήσειε φρόνημα ἔχων ἐλεύθερον, ἀλλὰ φιλοῦσιν οἱ ἐπιεικεῖς, ἢ οὐ κολακεύουσιν. καὶ χρήσιμοι οἱ πονηροὶ εἰς τὰ πονηρά· ἥλῳ γὰρ ὁ ἧλος, ὥσπερ ἡ παροιμία. καὶ τὸ μηδενὶ χαίρειν σεμνῷ μηδʼ ἐλευθέρῳ τυραννικόν (αὑτὸν γὰρ εἶναι μόνον ἀξιοῖ τοιοῦτον ὁ τύραννος, ὁ δʼ ἀντισεμνυνόμενος καὶ ἐλευθεριάζων ἀφαιρεῖται τὴν ὑπεροχὴν καὶ τὸ δεσποτικὸν τῆς τυραννίδος· μισοῦσιν οὖν ὥσπερ καταλύοντας τὴν ἀρχήν)· καὶ τὸ χρῆσθαι συσσίτοις καὶ συνημερευταῖς ξενικοῖς μᾶλλον ἢ πολιτικοῖς τυραννικόν, ὡς τοὺς μὲν πολεμίους τοὺς δʼ οὐκ ἀντιποιουμένους—ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τυραννικὰ μὲν καὶ σωτήρια τῆς ἀρχῆς, οὐθὲν δʼ ἐλλείπει μοχθηρίας. ἔστι δʼ ὡς εἰπεῖν πάντα ταῦτα περιειλημμένα τρισὶν εἴδεσιν. στοχάζεται γὰρ ἡ τυραννὶς τριῶν, ἑνὸς μὲν τοῦ μικρὰ φρονεῖν τοὺς ἀρχομένους (οὐθενὶ γὰρ ἂν μικρόψυχος ἐπιβουλεύσειεν), δευτέρου δὲ τοῦ διαπιστεῖν ἀλλήλοις (οὐ καταλύεται γὰρ πρότερον τυραννὶς πρὶν ἢ πιστεύσωσί τινες ἑαυτοῖς· διὸ καὶ τοῖς ἐπιεικέσι πολεμοῦσιν ὡς βλαβεροῖς πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀξιοῦν ἄρχεσθαι δεσποτικῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ πιστοὺς καὶ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις εἶναι καὶ μὴ καταγορεύειν μήτε ἑαυτῶν μήτε τῶν ἄλλων)· τρίτον δʼ ἀδυναμία τῶν πραγμάτων (οὐθεὶς γὰρ ἐπιχειρεῖ τοῖς ἀδυνάτοις, ὥστε οὐδὲ τυραννίδα καταλύειν μὴ δυνάμεως ὑπαρχούσης). εἰς οὓς μὲν οὖν ὅρους ἀνάγεται τὰ βουλεύματα τῶν τυράννων, οὗτοι τρεῖς τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες· πάντα γὰρ ἀναγάγοι τις ἂν τὰ τυραννικὰ πρὸς ταύτας τὰς ὑποθέσεις, τὰ μὲν ὅπως μὴ πιστεύωσιν ἀλλήλοις, τὰ δʼ ὅπως μὴ δύνωνται, τὰ δʼ ὅπως μικρὸν φρονῶσιν.

-

ὁ μὲν οὖν εἷς τρόπος διʼ οὗ γίγνεται σωτηρία ταῖς τυραννίσι τοιοῦτός ἐστιν· ὁ δʼ ἕτερος σχεδὸν ἐξ ἐναντίας ἔχει τοῖς εἰρημένοις τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. ἔστι δὲ λαβεῖν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς φθορᾶς τῆς τῶν βασιλειῶν. ὥσπερ γὰρ τῆς βασιλείας εἷς τρόπος τῆς φθορᾶς τὸ ποιεῖν τὴν ἀρχὴν τυραννικωτέραν, οὕτω τῆς τυραννίδος σωτηρία τὸ ποιεῖν αὐτὴν βασιλικωτέραν, ἓν φυλάττοντα μόνον, τὴν δύναμιν, ὅπως ἄρχῃ μὴ μόνον βουλομένων ἀλλὰ καὶ μὴ βουλομένων. προϊέμενος γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο προΐεται καὶ τὸ τυραννεῖν. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ὥσπερ ὑπόθεσιν δεῖ μένειν, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα τὰ μὲν ποιεῖν τὰ δὲ δοκεῖν ὑποκρινόμενον τὸ βασιλικὸν καλῶς. πρῶτον μὲν τοῦ δοκεῖν φροντίζειν τῶν κοινῶν, μήτε δαπανῶντα εἰς δωρεὰς τοιαύτας ἐφʼ αἷς τὰ πλήθη χαλεπαίνουσιν, ὅταν ἀπʼ αὐτῶν μὲν λαμβάνωσιν ἐργαζομένων καὶ πονούντων γλίσχρως, διδῶσι δʼ ἑταίραις καὶ ξένοις καὶ τεχνίταις ἀφθόνως, λόγον τε ἀποδιδόντα τῶν λαμβανομένων καὶ δαπανωμένων, ὅπερ ἤδη πεποιήκασί τινες τῶν τυράννων (οὕτω γὰρ ἄν τις διοικῶν οἰκονόμος ἀλλʼ οὐ τύραννος εἶναι δόξειεν· οὐ δεῖ δὲ φοβεῖσθαι μή ποτε ἀπορήσῃ χρημάτων κύριος ὢν τῆς πόλεως· ἀλλὰ τοῖς γʼ ἐκτοπίζουσι τυράννοις ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας καὶ συμφέρει τοῦτο μᾶλλον ἢ καταλιπεῖν ἀθροίσαντας· ἧττον γὰρ ἂν οἱ φυλάττοντες ἐπιτιθεῖντο τοῖς πράγμασιν, εἰσὶ δὲ φοβερώτεροι τῶν τυράννων τοῖς ἀποδημοῦσιν οἱ φυλάττοντες τῶν πολιτῶν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ συναποδημοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ ὑπομένουσιν)· ἔπειτα τὰς εἰσφορὰς καὶ τὰς λειτουργίας δεῖ φαίνεσθαι τῆς τε οἰκονομίας ἕνεκα συνάγοντα, κἄν ποτε δεηθῇ χρῆσθαι πρὸς τοὺς πολεμικοὺς καιρούς, ὅλως τε αὑτὸν παρασκευάζειν φύλακα καὶ ταμίαν ὡς κοινῶν ἀλλὰ μὴ ὡς ἰδίων· καὶ φαίνεσθαι μὴ χαλεπὸν ἀλλὰ σεμνόν, ἔτι δὲ τοιοῦτον ὥστε μὴ φοβεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον αἰδεῖσθαι· τούτου μέντοι τυγχάνειν οὐ ῥᾴδιον ὄντα εὐκαταφρόνητον, διὸ δεῖ κἂν μὴ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιῆται ἀλλὰ τῆς πολεμικῆς, καὶ δόξαν ἐμποιεῖν περὶ αὑτοῦ τοιαύτην· ἔτι δὲ μὴ μόνον αὐτὸν φαίνεσθαι μηδένα τῶν ἀρχομένων ὑβρίζοντα, μήτε νέον μήτε νέαν, ἀλλὰ μηδʼ ἄλλον μηδένα τῶν περὶ αὐτόν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς οἰκείας ἔχειν γυναῖκας πρὸς τὰς ἄλλας, ὡς καὶ διὰ γυναικῶν ὕβρεις πολλαὶ τυραννίδες ἀπολώλασιν· περί τε τὰς ἀπολαύσεις τὰς σωματικὰς τοὐναντίον ποιεῖν ἢ νῦν τινες τῶν τυράννων ποιοῦσιν (οὐ γὰρ μόνον εὐθὺς ἕωθεν τοῦτο δρῶσιν, καὶ συνεχῶς πολλὰς ἡμέρας, ἀλλὰ καὶ φαίνεσθαι τοῖς ἄλλοις βούλονται τοῦτο πράττοντες, ἵνʼ ὡς εὐδαίμονας καὶ μακαρίους θαυμάσωσιν), ἀλλὰ μάλιστα μὲν μετριάζειν τοῖς τοιούτοις, εἰ δὲ μή, τό γε φαίνεσθαι τοῖς ἄλλοις διαφεύγειν (οὔτε γὰρ εὐεπίθετος οὔτʼ εὐκαταφρόνητος ὁ νήφων, ἀλλʼ ὁ μεθύων, οὐδʼ ὁ ἄγρυπνος, ἀλλʼ ὁ καθεύδων)· τοὐναντίον τε ποιητέον τῶν πάλαι λεχθέντων σχεδὸν πάντων (κατασκευάζειν γὰρ δεῖ καὶ κοσμεῖν τὴν πόλιν ὡς ἐπίτροπον ὄντα καὶ μὴ τύραννον)· ἔτι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς φαίνεσθαι ἀεὶ σπουδάζοντα διαφερόντως (ἧττόν τε γὰρ φοβοῦνται τὸ παθεῖν τι παράνομον ὑπὸ τῶν τοιούτων, ἐὰν δεισιδαίμονα νομίζωσιν εἶναι τὸν ἄρχοντα καὶ φροντίζειν τῶν θεῶν, καὶ ἐπιβουλεύουσιν ἧττον ὡς συμμάχους ἔχοντι καὶ τοὺς θεούς), δεῖ δὲ ἄνευ ἀβελτερίας φαίνεσθαι τοιοῦτον· τούς τε ἀγαθοὺς περί τι γιγνομένους τιμᾶν οὕτως ὥστε μὴ νομίζειν ἄν ποτε τιμηθῆναι μᾶλλον ὑπὸ τῶν πολιτῶν αὐτονόμων ὄντων, καὶ τὰς μὲν τοιαύτας τιμὰς ἀπονέμειν αὐτόν, τὰς δὲ κολάσεις διʼ ἑτέρων ἀρχόντων καὶ δικαστηρίων. κοινὴ δὲ φυλακὴ πάσης μοναρχίας τὸ μηθένα ποιεῖν ἕνα μέγαν, ἀλλʼ εἴπερ, πλείους (τηρήσουσι γὰρ ἀλλήλους), ἐὰν δʼ ἄρα τινὰ δέῃ ποιῆσαι μέγαν, μή τοι τό γε ἦθος θρασύν (ἐπιθετικώτατον γὰρ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἦθος περὶ πάσας τὰς πράξεις), κἂν τῆς δυνάμεώς τινα δοκῇ παραλύειν, ἐκ προσαγωγῆς τοῦτο δρᾶν καὶ μὴ πᾶσαν ἀθρόαν ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὴν ἐξουσίαν. ἔτι δὲ πάσης μὲν ὕβρεως εἴργεσθαι, παρὰ πάσας δὲ δυεῖν, τῆς τε εἰς τὰ σώματα κολάσεως καὶ τῆς εἰς τὴν ἡλικίαν. μάλιστα δὲ ταύτην ποιητέον τὴν εὐλάβειαν περὶ τοὺς φιλοτίμους· τὴν μὲν γὰρ εἰς τὰ χρήματα ὀλιγωρίαν οἱ φιλοχρήματοι φέρουσι βαρέως, τὴν δʼ εἰς ἀτιμίαν οἵ τε φιλότιμοι καὶ οἱ ἐπιεικεῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. διόπερ ἢ μὴ χρῆσθαι δεῖ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ἢ τὰς μὲν κολάσεις πατρικῶς φαίνεσθαι ποιούμενον καὶ μὴ διʼ ὀλιγωρίαν, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἡλικίαν ὁμιλίας διʼ ἐρωτικὰς αἰτίας ἀλλὰ μὴ διʼ ἐξουσίαν, ὅλως δὲ τὰς δοκούσας ἀτιμίας ἐξωνεῖσθαι μείζοσι τιμαῖς. τῶν δʼ ἐπιχειρούντων ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος διαφθορὰν οὗτοι φοβερώτατοι καὶ δέονται πλείστης φυλακῆς ὅσοι μὴ προαιροῦνται περιποιεῖσθαι τὸ ζῆν διαφθείραντες. διὸ μάλιστα εὐλαβεῖσθαι δεῖ τοὺς ὑβρίζεσθαι νομίζοντας ἢ αὑτοὺς ἢ ὧν κηδόμενοι τυγχάνουσιν· ἀφειδῶς γὰρ ἑαυτῶν ἔχουσιν οἱ διὰ θυμὸν ἐπιχειροῦντες, καθάπερ καὶ Ἡράκλειτος εἶπε, χαλεπὸν φάσκων εἶναι θυμῷ μάχεσθαι, ψυχῆς γὰρ ὠνεῖσθαι.

-

ἐπεὶ δʼ αἱ πόλεις ἐκ δύο συνεστήκασι μορίων, ἔκ τε τῶν ἀπόρων ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν εὐπόρων, μάλιστα μὲν ἀμφοτέρους ὑπολαμβάνειν δεῖ σῴζεσθαι διὰ τὴν ἀρχήν, καὶ τοὺς ἑτέρους ὑπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων ἀδικεῖσθαι μηδέν, ὁπότεροι δʼ ἂν ὦσι κρείττους, τούτους ἰδίους μάλιστα ποιεῖσθαι τῆς ἀρχῆς, ὡς, ἂν ὑπάρξῃ τοῦτο τοῖς πράγμασιν, οὔτε δούλων ἐλευθέρωσιν ἀνάγκη ποιεῖσθαι τὸν τύραννον οὔτε ὅπλων παραίρεσιν· ἱκανὸν γὰρ θάτερον μέρος πρὸς τῇ δυνάμει προστιθέμενον ὥστε κρείττους εἶναι τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων. περίεργον δὲ τὸ λέγειν καθʼ ἕκαστον τῶν τοιούτων· ὁ γὰρ σκοπὸς φανερός, ὅτι δεῖ μὴ τυραννικὸν ἀλλʼ οἰκονόμον καὶ βασιλικὸν εἶναι φαίνεσθαι τοῖς ἀρχομένοις καὶ μὴ σφετεριστὴν ἀλλʼ ἐπίτροπον, καὶ τὰς μετριότητας τοῦ βίου διώκειν, μὴ τὰς ὑπερβολάς, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς μὲν γνωρίμους καθομιλεῖν, τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς δημαγωγεῖν. ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἀναγκαῖον οὐ μόνον τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι καλλίω καὶ ζηλωτοτέραν τῷ βελτιόνων ἄρχειν καὶ μὴ τεταπεινωμένων μηδὲ μισούμενον καὶ φοβούμενον διατελεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι πολυχρονιωτέραν, ἔτι δʼ αὐτὸν διακεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸ ἦθος ἤτοι καλῶς πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἢ ἡμίχρηστον ὄντα, καὶ μὴ πονηρὸν ἀλλʼ ἡμιπόνηρον.

-

καίτοι πασῶν ὀλιγοχρονιώταται τῶν πολιτειῶν εἰσιν ὀλιγαρχία καὶ τυραννίς. πλεῖστον γὰρ ἐγένετο χρόνον ἡ περὶ Σικυῶνα τυραννίς, ἡ τῶν Ὀρθαγόρου παίδων καὶ αὐτοῦ Ὀρθαγόρου· ἔτη δʼ αὕτη διέμεινεν ἑκατόν. τούτου δʼ αἴτιον ὅτι τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ἐχρῶντο μετρίως καὶ πολλὰ τοῖς νόμοις ἐδούλευον, καὶ διὰ τὸ πολεμικὸς γενέσθαι Κλεισθένης οὐκ ἦν εὐκαταφρόνητος, καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ταῖς ἐπιμελείαις ἐδημαγώγουν. λέγεται γοῦν Κλεισθένης τὸν ἀποκρίναντα τῆς νίκης αὐτὸν ὡς ἐστεφάνωσεν· ἔνιοι δʼ εἰκόνα φασὶν εἶναι τοῦ κρίναντος οὕτως τὸν ἀνδριάντα τὸν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καθήμενον. φασὶ δὲ καὶ Πεισίστρατον ὑπομεῖναί ποτε προσκληθέντα δίκην εἰς Ἄρειον πάγον. δευτέρα δὲ ἡ περὶ Κόρινθον ἡ τῶν Κυψελιδῶν· καὶ γὰρ αὕτη διετέλεσεν ἔτη τρία καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ ἓξ μῆνας· Κύψελος μὲν γὰρ ἐτυράννησεν ἔτη τριάκοντα, Περίανδρος δὲ τετταράκοντα καὶ τέτταρα, Ψαμμίτιχος δʼ ὁ Γορδίου τρία ἔτη. τὰ δʼ αἴτια ταὐτὰ καὶ ταύτης· ὁ μὲν γὰρ Κύψελος δημαγωγὸς ἦν καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν διετέλεσεν ἀδορυφόρητος, Περίανδρος δʼ ἐγένετο μὲν τυραννικός, ἀλλὰ πολεμικός. τρίτη δʼ ἡ τῶν Πεισιστρατιδῶν Ἀθήνησιν. οὐκ ἐγένετο δὲ συνεχής· δὶς γὰρ ἔφυγε Πεισίστρατος τυραννῶν· ὥστʼ ἐν ἔτεσι τριάκοντα καὶ τρισὶν ἑπτακαίδεκα ἔτη τούτων ἐτυράννησεν, ὀκτωκαίδεκα δὲ οἱ παῖδες, ὥστε τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο ἔτη τριάκοντα καὶ πέντε. τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ἡ περὶ Ἱέρωνα καὶ Γέλωνα περὶ Συρακούσας. ἔτη δʼ οὐδʼ αὕτη πολλὰ διέμεινεν, ἀλλὰ τὰ σύμπαντα δυεῖν δέοντα εἴκοσι· Γέλων μὲν γὰρ ἑπτὰ τυραννήσας τῷ ὀγδόῳ τὸν βίον ἐτελεύτησεν, δέκα δʼ Ἱέρων, Θρασύβουλος δὲ τῷ ἑνδεκάτῳ μηνὶ ἐξέπεσεν. αἱ δὲ πολλαὶ τῶν τυραννίδων ὀλιγοχρόνιαι πᾶσαι γεγόνασι παντελῶς.

-

τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὰς πολιτείας καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς μοναρχίας, ἐξ ὧν τε φθείρονται καὶ πάλιν σῴζονται, σχεδὸν εἴρηται περὶ πάντων. ἐν δὲ τῇ Πολιτείᾳ λέγεται μὲν περὶ τῶν μεταβολῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωκράτους, οὐ μέντοι λέγεται καλῶς. τῆς τε γὰρ ἀρίστης πολιτείας καὶ πρώτης οὔσης οὐ λέγει τὴν μεταβολὴν ἰδίως. φησὶ γὰρ αἴτιον εἶναι τὸ μὴ μένειν μηθὲν ἀλλʼ ἔν τινι περιόδῳ μεταβάλλειν, ἀρχὴν δʼ εἶναι τούτων ὧν ἐπίτριτος πυθμὴν πεμπάδι συζυγεὶς δύο ἁρμονίας παρέχεται, λέγων ὅταν ὁ τοῦ διαγράμματος ἀριθμὸς τούτου γένηται στερεός, ὡς τῆς φύσεώς ποτε φυούσης φαύλους καὶ κρείττους τῆς παιδείας, τοῦτο μὲν οὖν αὐτὸ λέγων ἴσως οὐ κακῶς (ἐνδέχεται γὰρ εἶναί τινας οὓς παιδευθῆναι καὶ γενέσθαι σπουδαίους ἄνδρας ἀδύνατον), ἀλλʼ αὕτη τί ἂν ἴδιος εἴη μεταβολὴ τῆς ὑπʼ ἐκείνου λεγομένης ἀρίστης πολιτείας μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν ἄλλων πασῶν καὶ τῶν γιγνομένων πάντων; καὶ διά γε τοῦ χρόνου, διʼ ὃν λέγει πάντα μεταβάλλειν, καὶ τὰ μὴ ἅμα ἀρξάμενα γίγνεσθαι ἅμα μεταβάλλει, οἷον εἰ τῇ προτέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγένετο τῆς τροπῆς, ἅμα ἄρα μεταβάλλει; πρὸς δὲ τούτοις διὰ τίνʼ αἰτίαν ἐκ ταύτης εἰς τὴν Λακωνικὴν μεταβάλλει; πλεονάκις γὰρ εἰς τὴν ἐναντίαν μεταβάλλουσι πᾶσαι αἱ πολιτεῖαι ἢ τὴν σύνεγγυς. ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων μεταβολῶν. ἐκ γὰρ τῆς Λακωνικῆς, φησί, μεταβάλλει εἰς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν, ἐκ δὲ ταύτης εἰς δημοκρατίαν, εἰς τυραννίδα δὲ ἐκ δημοκρατίας. καίτοι καὶ ἀνάπαλιν μεταβάλλουσιν, οἷον ἐκ δήμου εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν, καὶ μᾶλλον ἢ εἰς μοναρχίαν.

-

ἔτι δὲ τυραννίδος οὐ λέγει οὔτʼ εἰ ἔσται μεταβολὴ οὔτʼ εἰ μὴ ἔσται, οὔτʼ εἰ ἔσται διὰ τίνʼ αἰτίαν καὶ εἰς ποίαν πολιτείαν, τούτου δʼ αἴτιον ὅτι οὐ ῥᾳδίως ἂν εἶχε λέγειν· ἀόριστον γάρ, ἐπεὶ κατʼ ἐκεῖνον δεῖ εἰς τὴν πρώτην καὶ τὴν ἀρίστην· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἐγίγνετο συνεχὲς καὶ κύκλος. ἀλλὰ μεταβάλλει καὶ εἰς τυραννίδα τυραννίς, ὥσπερ ἡ Σικυῶνος ἐκ τῆς Μύρωνος εἰς τὴν Κλεισθένους, καὶ εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν, ὥσπερ ἡ ἐν Χαλκίδι ἡ Ἀντιλέοντος, καὶ εἰς δημοκρατίαν, ὥσπερ ἡ τῶν Γέλωνος ἐν Συρακούσαις, καὶ εἰς ἀριστοκρατίαν, ὥσπερ ἡ Χαρίλλου ἐν Λακεδαίμονι, καὶ ἐν Καρχηδόνι. καὶ εἰς τυραννίδα μεταβάλλει ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας, ὥσπερ ἐν Σικελίᾳ σχεδὸν αἱ πλεῖσται τῶν ἀρχαίων, ἐν Λεοντίνοις εἰς τὴν Παναιτίου τυραννίδα καὶ ἐν Γέλᾳ εἰς τὴν Κλεάνδρου καὶ ἐν Ῥηγίῳ εἰς τὴν Ἀναξιλάου καὶ ἐν ἄλλαις πολλαῖς πόλεσιν ὡσαύτως. ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ οἴεσθαι εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν διὰ τοῦτο μεταβάλλειν ὅτι φιλοχρήματοι καὶ χρηματισταὶ οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὅτι οἱ πολὺ ὑπερέχοντες ταῖς οὐσίαις οὐ δίκαιον οἴονται εἶναι ἴσον μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως τοὺς κεκτημένους μηθὲν τοῖς κεκτημένοις· ἐν πολλαῖς τε ὀλιγαρχίαις οὐκ ἔξεστι χρηματίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ νόμοι εἰσὶν οἱ κωλύοντες, ἐν Καρχηδόνι δὲ δημοκρατουμένῃ χρηματίζονται καὶ οὔπω μεταβεβλήκασιν.

-

ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ φάναι δύο πόλεις εἶναι τὴν ὀλιγαρχικήν, πλουσίων καὶ πενήτων. τί γὰρ αὕτη μᾶλλον τῆς Λακωνικῆς πέπονθεν ἢ ὁποιασοῦν ἄλλης, οὗ μὴ πάντες κέκτηνται ἴσα ἢ μὴ πάντες ὁμοίως εἰσὶν ἀγαθοὶ ἄνδρες; οὐδενὸς δὲ πενεστέρου γενομένου ἢ πρότερον οὐδὲν ἧττον μεταβάλλουσιν εἰς δῆμον ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας, ἂν γένωνται πλείους οἱ ἄποροι, καὶ ἐκ δήμου εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν, ἐὰν κρεῖττον ᾖ τοῦ πλήθους τὸ εὔπορον καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀμελῶσιν οἱ δὲ προσέχωσι τὸν νοῦν. πολλῶν τε οὐσῶν αἰτιῶν διʼ ὧν γίγνονται αἱ μεταβολαί, οὐ λέγει ἀλλʼ ἢ μίαν, ὅτι ἀσωτευόμενοι κατατοκιζόμενοι γίγνονται πένητες, ὡς ἐξ ἀρχῆς πλουσίων ὄντων πάντων ἢ τῶν πλείστων. τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ ψεῦδος· ἀλλʼ ὅταν μὲν τῶν ἡγεμόνων τινὲς ἀπολέσωσι τὰς οὐσίας, καινοτομοῦσιν, ὅταν δὲ τῶν ἄλλων, οὐθὲν γίγνεται δεινόν, καὶ μεταβάλλουσιν οὐθὲν μᾶλλον οὐδὲ τότε εἰς δῆμον ἢ εἰς ἄλλην πολιτείαν. ἔτι δὲ κἂν τιμῶν μὴ μετέχωσιν, κἂν ἀδικῶνται ἠ ὑβρίζωνται, στασιάζουσι καὶ μεταβάλλουσι τὰς πολιτείας, κἂν μὴ καταδαπανήσωσι τὴν οὐσίαν, διὰ τὸ ἐξεῖναι ὅ τι ἂν βούλωνται ποιεῖν· οὗ αἰτίαν τὴν ἄγαν ἐλευθερίαν εἶναί φησιν. πλειόνων δʼ οὐσῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν καὶ δημοκρατιῶν, ὡς μιᾶς οὔσης ἑκατέρας λέγει τὰς μεταβολὰς ὁ Σωκράτης.

- -
-

πόσαι μὲν οὖν διαφοραὶ καὶ τίνες τοῦ τε βουλευτικοῦ καὶ κυρίου τῆς πολιτείας καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τάξεως καὶ περὶ δικαστηρίων, καὶ ποία πρὸς ποίαν συντέτακται πολιτείαν, ἔτι δὲ περὶ φθορᾶς τε καὶ σωτηρίας τῶν πολιτειῶν, ἐκ ποίων τε γίνεται καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας, εἴρηται πρότερον· ἐπεὶ δὲ τετύχηκεν εἴδη πλείω δημοκρατίας ὄντα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίως πολιτειῶν, ἅμα τε περὶ ἐκείνων εἴ τι λοιπόν, οὐ χεῖρον ἐπισκέψασθαι, καὶ τὸν οἰκεῖον καὶ τὸν συμφέροντα τρόπον ἀποδοῦναι πρὸς ἑκάστην. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν τῶν εἰρημένων ἐπισκεπτέον πάντων τῶν τρόπων· ταῦτα γὰρ συνδυαζόμενα ποιεῖ τὰς πολιτείας ἐπαλλάττειν, ὥστε ἀριστοκρατίας τε ὀλιγαρχικὰς εἶναι καὶ πολιτείας δημοκρατικωτέρας. λέγω δὲ τοὺς συνδυασμοὺς οὓς δεῖ μὲν ἐπισκοπεῖν, οὐκ ἐσκεμμένοι δʼ εἰσὶ νῦν, οἷον ἂν τὸ μὲν βουλευόμενον καὶ τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχαιρεσίας ὀλιγαρχικῶς ᾖ συντεταγμένον, τὰ δὲ περὶ τὰ δικαστήρια ἀριστοκρατικῶς, ἢ ταῦτα μὲν καὶ τὸ περὶ τὸ βουλευόμενον ὀλιγαρχικῶς, ἀριστοκρατικῶς δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχαιρεσίας, ἢ κατʼ ἄλλον τινὰ τρόπον μὴ πάντα συντεθῇ τὰ τῆς πολιτείας οἰκεῖα.

-

ποία μὲν οὖν δημοκρατία πρὸς ποίαν ἁρμόττει πόλιν, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ποία τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν ποίῳ πλήθει, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν δὲ πολιτειῶν τίς συμφέρει τίσιν, εἴρηται πρότερον· ὅμως δʼ ἐπεὶ δεῖ γενέσθαι δῆλον μὴ μόνον ποία τούτων τῶν πολιτειῶν ἀρίστη ταῖς πόλεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πῶς δεῖ κατασκευάζειν καὶ ταύτας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας, ἐπέλθωμεν συντόμως. καὶ πρῶτον περὶ δημοκρατίας εἴπωμεν· ἅμα γὰρ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀντικειμένης πολιτείας φανερόν, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἣν καλοῦσί τινες ὀλιγαρχίαν. ληπτέον δὲ πρὸς ταύτην τὴν μέθοδον πάντα τὰ δημοτικὰ καὶ τὰ δοκοῦντα ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἀκολουθεῖν· ἐκ γὰρ τούτων συντιθεμένων τὰ τῆς δημοκρατίας εἴδη γίνεσθαι συμβαίνει, καὶ πλείους δημοκρατίας μιᾶς εἶναι καὶ διαφόρους. δύο γάρ εἰσιν αἰτίαι διʼ ἅσπερ αἱ δημοκρατίαι πλείους εἰσί, πρῶτον μὲν ἡ λεχθεῖσα πρότερον, ὅτι διάφοροι οἱ δῆμοι (γίνεται γὰρ τὸ μὲν γεωργικὸν πλῆθος, τὸ δὲ βάναυσον καὶ θητικόν· ὧν τοῦ πρώτου τῷ δευτέρῳ προσλαμβανομένου, καὶ τοῦ τρίτου πάλιν τοῖς ἀμφοτέροις, οὐ μόνον διαφέρει τῷ βελτίω καὶ χείρω γίνεσθαι τὴν δημοκρατίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ μὴ τὴν αὐτήν), δευτέρα δὲ περὶ ἧς νῦν λέγομεν. τὰ γὰρ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἀκολουθοῦντα καὶ δοκοῦντʼ εἶναι τῆς πολιτείας οἰκεῖα ταύτης ποιεῖ συντιθέμενα τὰς δημοκρατίας ἑτέρας· τῇ μὲν γὰρ ἐλάττω, τῇ δʼ ἀκολουθήσει πλείονα, τῇ δʼ ἅπαντα ταῦτα. χρήσιμον δʼ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν γνωρίζειν πρός τε τὸ κατασκευάζειν ἣν ἄν τις αὐτῶν τύχῃ βουλόμενος, καὶ πρὸς τὰς διορθώσεις. ζητοῦσι μὲν γὰρ οἱ τὰς πολιτείας καθιστάντες ἅπαντα τὰ οἰκεῖα συναγαγεῖν πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, ἁμαρτάνουσι δὲ τοῦτο ποιοῦντες, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὰς φθορὰς καὶ τὰς σωτηρίας τῶν πολιτειῶν εἴρηται πρότερον. νυνὶ δὲ τὰ ἀξιώματα καὶ τὰ ἤθη καὶ ὧν ἐφίενται λέγωμεν.

-

ὑπόθεσις μὲν οὖν τῆς δημοκρατικῆς πολιτείας ἐλευθερία (τοῦτο γὰρ λέγειν εἰώθασιν, ὡς ἐν μόνῃ τῇ πολιτείᾳ ταύτῃ μετέχοντας ἐλευθερίας· τούτου γὰρ στοχάζεσθαί φασι πᾶσαν δημοκρατίαν)· ἐλευθερίας δὲ ἓν μὲν τὸ ἐν μέρει ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν. καὶ γὰρ τὸ δίκαιον τὸ δημοτικὸν τὸ ἴσον ἔχειν ἐστὶ κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀλλὰ μὴ κατʼ ἀξίαν, τούτου δʼ ὄντος τοῦ δικαίου τὸ πλῆθος ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι κύριον, καὶ ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τοῖς πλείοσι, τοῦτʼ εἶναι τέλος καὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον· φασὶ γὰρ δεῖν ἴσον ἔχειν ἕκαστον τῶν πολιτῶν· ὥστε ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις συμβαίνει κυριωτέρους εἶναι τοὺς ἀπόρους τῶν εὐπόρων· πλείους γάρ εἰσι, κύριον δὲ τὸ τοῖς πλείοσι δόξαν. ἓν μὲν οὖν τῆς ἐλευθερίας σημεῖον τοῦτο, ὃν τίθενται πάντες οἱ δημοτικοὶ τῆς πολιτείας ὅρον· ἓν δὲ τὸ ζῆν ὡς βούλεταί τις. τοῦτο γὰρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἔργον εἶναί φασιν, εἴπερ τοῦ δουλεύοντος τὸ ζῆν μὴ ὡς βούλεται. τῆς μὲν οὖν δημοκρατίας ὅρος οὗτος δεύτερος· ἐντεῦθεν δʼ ἐλήλυθε τὸ μὴ ἄρχεσθαι, μάλιστα μὲν ὑπὸ μηθενός, εἰ δὲ μή, κατὰ μέρος, καὶ συμβάλλεται ταύτῃ πρὸς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τὴν κατὰ τὸ ἴσον.

-

τούτων δʼ ὑποκειμένων καὶ τοιαύτης οὔσης τῆς ἀρχῆς τὰ τοιαῦτα δημοτικά· τὸ αἱρεῖσθαι τὰς ἀρχὰς πάντας ἐκ πάντων, τὸ ἄρχειν πάντας μὲν ἑκάστου ἕκαστον δʼ ἐν μέρει πάντων, τὸ κληρωτὰς εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς ἢ πάσας ἢ ὅσαι μὴ ἐμπειρίας δέονται καὶ τέχνης, τὸ μὴ ἀπὸ τιμήματος μηθενὸς εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς ἢ ὅτι μικροτάτου, τὸ μὴ δὶς τὸν αὐτὸν ἄρχειν μηδεμίαν ἢ ὀλιγάκις ἢ ὀλίγας ἔξω τῶν κατὰ πόλεμον, τὸ ὀλιγοχρονίους εἶναι τὰς ἀρχὰς ἢ πάσας ἢ ὅσας ἐνδέχεται, τὸ δικάζειν πάντας καὶ ἐκ πάντων, καὶ περὶ πάντων, ἢ περὶ τῶν πλείστων καὶ τῶν μεγίστων καὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων, οἷον περὶ εὐθυνῶν καὶ πολιτείας καὶ τῶν ἰδίων συναλλαγμάτων, τὸ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν κυρίαν εἶναι πάντων ἢ τῶν μεγίστων, ἀρχὴν δὲ μηδεμίαν μηθενὸς ἢ ὅτι ὀλιγίστων, ἢ τῶν μεγίστων βουλὴν κυρίαν (τῶν δʼ ἀρχῶν δημοτικώτατον βουλή, ὅπου μὴ μισθοῦ εὐπορία πᾶσιν· ἐνταῦθα γὰρ ἀφαιροῦνται καὶ ταύτης τῆς ἀρχῆς τὴν δύναμιν· εἰς αὑτὸν γὰρ ἀνάγει τὰς κρίσεις πάσας ὁ δῆμος εὐπορῶν μισθοῦ, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον ἐν τῇ μεθόδῳ τῇ πρὸ ταύτης), ἔπειτα τὸ μισθοφορεῖν μάλιστα μὲν πάντας, ἐκκλησίαν δικαστήρια ἀρχάς, εἰ δὲ μή, τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰ δικαστήρια καὶ τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὰς ἐκκλησίας τὰς κυρίας, ἢ τῶν ἀρχῶν ἃς ἀνάγκη συσσιτεῖν μετʼ ἀλλήλων. ἔτι ἐπειδὴ ὀλιγαρχία καὶ γένει καὶ πλούτῳ καὶ παιδείᾳ ὁρίζεται, τὰ δημοτικὰ δοκεῖ τἀναντία τούτων εἶναι, ἀγένεια πενία βαναυσία· ἔτι δὲ τῶν ἀρχῶν τὸ μηδεμίαν ἀίδιον εἶναι, ἐὰν δέ τις καταλειφθῇ ἐξ ἀρχαίας μεταβολῆς, τό γε περιαιρεῖσθαι τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῆς καὶ ἐξ αἱρετῶν κληρωτοὺς ποιεῖν. τὰ μὲν οὖν κοινὰ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ταῦτʼ ἐστί· συμβαίνει δʼ ἐκ τοῦ δικαίου τοῦ ὁμολογουμένου εἶναι δημοκρατικοῦ (τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ ἴσον ἔχειν ἅπαντας κατʼ ἀριθμόν) ἡ μάλιστʼ εἶναι δοκοῦσα δημοκρατία καὶ δῆμος. ἴσον γὰρ τὸ μηθὲν μᾶλλον ἄρχειν τοὺς ἀπόρους ἢ τοὺς εὐπόρους, μηδὲ κυρίους εἶναι μόνους ἀλλὰ πάντας ἐξ ἴσου κατʼ ἀριθμόν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ὑπάρχειν νομίζοιεν τήν τʼ ἰσότητα τῇ πολιτείᾳ καὶ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν.

-

τὸ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο ἀπορεῖται πῶς ἕξουσι τὸ ἴσον, πότερον δεῖ τὰ τιμήματα διελεῖν χιλίοις τὰ τῶν πεντακοσίων καὶ τοὺς χιλίους ἴσον δύνασθαι τοῖς πεντακοσίοις, ἢ οὐχ οὕτω δεῖ τιθέναι τὴν κατὰ τοῦτο ἰσότητα, ἀλλὰ διελεῖν μὲν οὕτως, ἔπειτα ἐκ τῶν πεντακοσίων ἴσους λαβόντα καὶ ἐκ τῶν χιλίων, τούτους κυρίους εἶναι τῶν αἱρέσεων καὶ τῶν δικαστηρίων. πότερον οὖν αὕτη ἡ πολιτεία δικαιοτάτη κατὰ τὸ δημοτικὸν δίκαιον, ἢ μᾶλλον ἡ κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος; φασὶ γὰρ οἱ δημοτικοὶ τοῦτο δίκαιον ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τοῖς πλείοσιν, οἱ δʼ ὀλιγαρχικοὶ ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τῇ πλείονι οὐσίᾳ· κατὰ πλῆθος γὰρ οὐσίας φασὶ κρίνεσθαι δεῖν. ἔχει δʼ ἀμφότερα ἀνισότητα καὶ ἀδικίαν· εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὅ τι ἂν οἱ ὀλίγοι, τυραννίς (καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν εἷς ἔχῃ πλείω τῶν ἄλλων εὐπόρων, κατὰ τὸ ὀλιγαρχικὸν δίκαιον ἄρχειν δίκαιος μόνος), εἰ δʼ ὅ τι ἂν οἱ πλείους κατʼ ἀριθμόν, ἀδικήσουσι δημεύοντες τὰ τῶν πλουσίων καὶ ἐλαττόνων, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον.

-

τίς ἂν οὖν εἴη ἰσότης ἣν ὁμολογήσουσιν ἀμφότεροι, σκεπτέον ἐξ ὧν ὁρίζονται δικαίων ἀμφότεροι. λέγουσι γὰρ ὡς ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ τοῖς πλείοσι τῶν πολιτῶν, τοῦτʼ εἶναι δεῖ κύριον· ἔστω δὴ τοῦτο, μὴ μέντοι πάντως, ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ δύο μέρη τετύχηκεν ἐξ ὧν ἡ πόλις, πλούσιοι καὶ πένητες, ὅ τι ἂν ἀμφοτέροις δόξῃ ἢ τοῖς πλείοσι, τοῦτο κύριον ἔστω, ἐὰν δὲ τἀναντία δόξῃ, ὅ τι ἂν οἱ πλείους καὶ ὧν τὸ τίμημα πλεῖον· οἷον, εἰ οἱ μὲν δέκα οἱ δὲ εἴκοσιν, ἔδοξε δὲ τῶν μὲν πλουσίων τοῖς ἓξ τῶν δʼ ἀπορωτέρων τοῖς πεντεκαίδεκα, προσγεγένηνται τοῖς μὲν πένησι τέτταρες τῶν πλουσίων, τοῖς δὲ πλουσίοις πέντε τῶν πενήτων· ὁποτέρων οὖν τὸ τίμημα ὑπερτείνει συναριθμουμένων ἀμφοτέρων ἑκατέροις, τοῦτο κύριον. ἐὰν δὲ ἴσοι συμπέσωσι, κοινὴν εἶναι ταύτην νομιστέον ἀπορίαν ὥσπερ νῦν ἐὰν δίχα ἡ ἐκκλησία γένηται ἢ τὸ δικαστήριον· ἢ γὰρ ἀποκληρωτέον ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον ποιητέον. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τοῦ ἴσου καὶ τοῦ δικαίου, κἂν ᾖ πάνυ χαλεπὸν εὑρεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν περὶ αὐτῶν, ὅμως ῥᾷον τυχεῖν ἢ συμπεῖσαι τοὺς δυναμένους πλεονεκτεῖν· ἀεὶ γὰρ ζητοῦσι τὸ ἴσον καὶ τὸ δίκαιον οἱ ἥττους, οἱ δὲ κρατοῦντες οὐδὲν φροντίζουσιν.

-

δημοκρατιῶν δʼ οὐσῶν τεττάρων βελτίστη μὲν ἡ πρώτη τάξει, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων ἐλέχθη λόγοις· ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἀρχαιοτάτη πασῶν αὕτη. λέγω δὲ πρώτην ὥσπερ ἄν τις διέλοι τοὺς δήμους. βέλτιστος γὰρ δῆμος ὁ γεωργικός ἐστιν, ὥστε καὶ ποιεῖν ἐνδέχεται δημοκρατίαν ὅπου ζῇ τὸ πλῆθος ἀπὸ γεωργίας ἢ νομῆς. διὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ μὴ πολλὴν οὐσίαν ἔχειν ἄσχολος, ὥστε μὴ πολλάκις ἐκκλησιάζειν διὰ δὲ τὸ ἔχειν τἀναγκαῖα πρὸς τοῖς ἔργοις διατρίβουσι καὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων οὐκ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ἥδιον αὐτοῖς τὸ ἐργάζεσθαι τοῦ πολιτεύεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν, ὅπου ἂν μὴ ᾖ λήμματα μεγάλα ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχῶν. οἱ γὰρ πολλοὶ μᾶλλον ὀρέγονται τοῦ κέρδους ἢ τῆς τιμῆς. σημεῖον δέ· καὶ γὰρ τὰς ἀρχαίας τυραννίδας ὑπέμενον καὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας ὑπομένουσιν, ἐάν τις αὐτοὺς ἐργάζεσθαι μὴ κωλύῃ μηδʼ ἀφαιρῆται μηθέν· ταχέως γὰρ οἱ μὲν πλουτοῦσιν αὐτῶν οἱ δʼ οὐκ ἀποροῦσιν. ἔτι δὲ τὸ κυρίους εἶναι τοῦ ἑλέσθαι καὶ εὐθύνειν ἀναπληροῖ τὴν ἔνδειαν, εἴ τι φιλοτιμίας ἔχουσιν, ἐπεὶ παρʼ ἐνίοις δήμοις, κἂν μὴ μετέχωσι τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν ἀρχῶν ἀλλά τινες αἱρετοὶ κατὰ μέρος ἐκ πάντων, ὥσπερ ἐν Μαντινείᾳ, τοῦ δὲ βουλεύεσθαι κύριοι ὦσιν, ἱκανῶς ἔχει τοῖς πολλοῖς· καὶ δεῖ νομίζειν καὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναι σχῆμά τι δημοκρατίας, ὥσπερ ἐν Μαντινείᾳ ποτʼ ἦν. διὸ δὴ καὶ συμφέρον ἐστὶ τῇ πρότερον ῥηθείσῃ δημοκρατίᾳ καὶ ὑπάρχειν εἴωθεν, αἱρεῖσθαι μὲν τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ εὐθύνειν καὶ δικάζειν πάντας, ἄρχειν δὲ τὰς μεγίστας αἱρετοὺς καὶ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων, τὰς μείζους ἀπὸ μειζόνων, ἢ καὶ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων μὲν μηδεμίαν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δυναμένους. ἀνάγκη δὲ πολιτευομένους οὕτω πολιτεύεσθαί καλῶς (αἱ τε γὰρ ἀρχαὶ ἀεὶ διὰ τῶν βελτίστων ἔσονται, τοῦ δήμου βουλομένου καὶ τοῖς ἐπιεικέσιν οὐ φθονοῦντος), καὶ τοῖς ἐπιεικέσι καὶ γνωρίμοις ἀρκοῦσαν εἶναι ταύτην τὴν τάξιν· ἄρξονται γὰρ οὐχ ὑπʼ ἄλλων χειρόνων, καὶ ἄρξουσι δικαίως διὰ τὸ τῶν εὐθυνῶν εἶναι κυρίους ἑτέρους. τὸ γὰρ ἐπανακρέμασθαι, καὶ μὴ πᾶν ἐξεῖναι ποιεῖν ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ, συμφέρον ἐστίν· ἡ γὰρ ἐξουσία τοῦ πράττειν ὅ τι ἂν ἐθέλῃ τις οὐ δύναται φυλάττειν τὸ ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φαῦλον. ὥστε ἀναγκαῖον συμβαίνειν ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὠφελιμώτατον ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις, ἄρχειν τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς ἀναμαρτήτους ὄντας, μηδὲν ἐλαττουμένου τοῦ πλήθους.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν αὕτη τῶν δημοκρατιῶν ἀρίστη, φανερόν, καὶ διὰ τίνʼ αἰτίαν, ὅτι διὰ τὸ ποιόν τινα εἶναι τὸν δῆμον· πρὸς δὲ τὸ κατασκευάζειν γεωργὸν τὸν δῆμον τῶν τε νόμων τινὲς τῶν παρὰ πολλοῖς κειμένων τὸ ἀρχαῖον χρήσιμοι πάντως, ἢ τὸ ὅλως μὴ ἐξεῖναι κεκτῆσθαι πλείω γῆν μέτρου τινὸς ἢ ἀπό τινος τόπου πρὸς τὸ ἄστυ καὶ τὴν πόλιν (ἦν δὲ τό γε ἀρχαῖον ἐν πολλαῖς πόλεσι νενομοθετημένον μηδὲ πωλεῖν ἐξεῖναι τοὺς πρώτους κλήρους· ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὃν λέγουσιν Ὀξύλου νόμον εἶναι τοιοῦτόν τι δυνάμενος, τὸ μὴ δανείζειν εἴς τι μέρος τῆς ὑπαρχούσης ἑκάστῳ γῆς), νῦν δὲ δεῖ διορθοῦν καὶ τῷ Ἀφυταίων νόμῳ, πρὸς γὰρ ὃ λέγομέν ἐστι χρήσιμος· ἐκεῖνοι γάρ, καίπερ ὄντες πολλοὶ κεκτημένοι δὲ γῆν ὀλίγην, ὅμως πάντες γεωργοῦσιν· τιμῶνται γὰρ οὐχ ὅλας τὰς κτήσεις, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τηλικαῦτα μόρια διαιροῦντες ὥστʼ ἔχειν ὑπερβάλλειν ταῖς τιμήσεσι καὶ τοὺς πένητας.

-

μετὰ δὲ τὸ γεωργικὸν πλῆθος βέλτιστος δῆμός ἐστιν ὅπου νομεῖς εἰσι καὶ ζῶσιν ἀπὸ βοσκημάτων· πολλὰ γὰρ ἔχει τῇ γεωργίᾳ παραπλησίως, καὶ τὰ πρὸς τὰς πολεμικὰς πράξεις μάλισθʼ οὗτοι γεγυμνασμένοι τὰς ἕξεις καὶ χρήσιμοι τὰ σώματα καὶ δυνάμενοι θυραυλεῖν. τὰ δʼ ἄλλα πλήθη πάντα σχεδόν, ἐξ ὧν αἱ λοιπαὶ δημοκρατίαι συνεστᾶσι, πολλῷ φαυλότερα τούτων· ὁ γὰρ βίος φαῦλος, καὶ οὐθὲν ἔργον μετʼ ἀρετῆς ὧν μεταχειρίζεται τὸ πλῆθος τό τε τῶν βαναύσων καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀγοραίων ἀνθρώπων καὶ τὸ θητικόν, ἔτι δὲ διὰ τὸ περὶ τὴν ἀγορὰν καὶ τὸ ἄστυ κυλίεσθαι πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον γένος ὡς εἰπεῖν ῥᾳδίως ἐκκλησιάζει· οἱ δὲ γεωργοῦντες διὰ τὸ διεσπάρθαι κατὰ τὴν χώραν οὔτʼ ἀπαντῶσιν οὔθʼ ὁμοίως δέονται τῆς συνόδου ταύτης. ὅπου δὲ καὶ συμβαίνει τὴν χώραν τὴν θέσιν ἔχειν τοιαύτην ὥστε τὴν χώραν πολὺ τῆς πόλεως ἀπηρτῆσθαι, ῥᾴδιον καὶ δημοκρατίαν ποιεῖσθαι χρηστὴν καὶ πολιτείαν· ἀναγκάζεται γὰρ τὸ πλῆθος ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγρῶν ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ἀποικίας, ὥστε δεῖ, κἂν ἀγοραῖος ὄχλος ᾖ, μὴ ποιεῖν ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις ἐκκλησίας ἄνευ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν χώραν πλήθους. πῶς μὲν οὖν δεῖ κατασκευάζειν τὴν βελτίστην καὶ πρώτην δημοκρατίαν, εἴρηται· φανερὸν δὲ καὶ πῶς τὰς ἄλλας. ἑπομένως γὰρ δεῖ παρεκβαίνειν καὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἀεὶ πλῆθος χωρίζειν. τὴν δὲ τελευταίαν, διὰ τὸ πάντας κοινωνεῖν, οὔτε πάσης ἐστὶ πόλεως φέρειν, οὔτε ῥᾴδιον διαμένειν μὴ τοῖς νόμοις καὶ τοῖς ἔθεσιν εὖ συγκειμένην (ἃ δὲ φθείρειν συμβαίνει καὶ ταύτην καὶ τὰς ἄλλας πολιτείας, εἴρηται πρότερον τὰ πλεῖστα σχεδόν). πρὸς δὲ τὸ καθιστάναι ταύτην τὴν δημοκρατίαν καὶ τὸν δῆμον ποιεῖν ἰσχυρὸν εἰώθασιν οἱ προεστῶτες προσλαμβάνειν ὡς πλείστους καὶ ποιεῖν πολίτας μὴ μόνον τοὺς γνησίους ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς νόθους καὶ τοὺς ἐξ ὁποτερουοῦν πολίτου, λέγω δὲ οἷον πατρὸς ἢ μητρός· ἅπαν γὰρ οἰκεῖον τοῦτο τῷ τοιούτῳ δήμῳ μᾶλλον. εἰώθασι μὲν οὖν οἱ δημαγωγοὶ κατασκευάζειν οὕτω, δεῖ μέντοι προσλαμβάνειν μέχρι ἂν ὑπερτείνῃ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν γνωρίμων καὶ τῶν μέσων, καὶ τούτου μὴ πέρα προβαίνειν· ὑπερβάλλοντες γὰρ ἀτακτοτέραν τε ποιοῦσι τὴν πολιτείαν, καὶ τοὺς γνωρίμους πρὸς τὸ χαλεπῶς ὑπομένειν τὴν δημοκρατίαν παροξύνουσι μᾶλλον, ὅπερ συνέβη τῆς στάσεως αἴτιον γενέσθαι περὶ Κυρήνην· ὀλίγον μὲν γὰρ πονηρὸν παρορᾶται, πολὺ δὲ γινόμενον ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς μᾶλλόν ἐστιν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα κατασκευάσματα χρήσιμα πρὸς τὴν δημοκρατίαν τὴν τοιαύτην, οἷς Κλεισθένης τε Ἀθήνησιν ἐχρήσατο βουλόμενος αὐξῆσαι τὴν δημοκρατίαν, καὶ περὶ Κυρήνην οἱ τὸν δῆμον καθιστάντες. φυλαί τε γὰρ ἕτεραι ποιητέαι πλείους καὶ φατρίαι, καὶ τὰ τῶν ἰδίων ἱερῶν συνακτέον εἰς ὀλίγα καὶ κοινά, καὶ πάντα σοφιστέον ὅπως ἂν ὅτι μάλιστα ἀναμειχθῶσι πάντες ἀλλήλοις, αἱ δὲ συνήθειαι διαζευχθῶσιν αἱ πρότερον. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ τυραννικὰ κατασκευάσματα δημοτικὰ δοκεῖ πάντα, λέγω δʼ οἷον ἀναρχία τε δούλων (αὕτη δʼ ἂν εἴη μέχρι του συμφέρουσα) καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ παίδων, καὶ τὸ ζῆν ὅπως τις βούλεται παρορᾶν· πολὺ γὰρ ἔσται τὸ τῇ τοιαύτῃ πολιτείᾳ βοηθοῦν· ἥδιον γὰρ τοῖς πολλοῖς τὸ ζῆν ἀτάκτως ἢ τὸ σωφρόνως.

-

ἔστι δὲ ἔργον τοῦ νομοθέτου καὶ τῶν βουλομένων συνιστάναι τινὰ τοιαύτην πολιτείαν οὐ τὸ καταστῆσαι μέγιστον ἔργον οὐδὲ μόνον, ἀλλʼ ὅπως σῴζηται μᾶλλον· μίαν γὰρ ἢ δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἡμέρας οὐ χαλεπὸν μεῖναι πολιτευομένους ὁπωσοῦν. διὸ δεῖ, περὶ ὧν τεθεώρηται πρότερον, τίνες σωτηρίαι καὶ φθοραὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν, ἐκ τούτων πειρᾶσθαι κατασκευάζειν τὴν ἀσφάλειαν, εὐλαβουμένους μὲν τὰ φθείροντα, τιθεμένους δὲ τοιούτους νόμους, καὶ τοὺς ἀγράφους καὶ τοὺς γεγραμμένους, οἳ περιλήψονται μάλιστα τὰ σῴζοντα τὰς πολιτείας, καὶ μὴ νομίζειν τοῦτʼ εἶναι δημοτικὸν μηδʼ ὀλιγαρχικὸν ὃ ποιήσει τὴν πόλιν ὅτι μάλιστα δημοκρατεῖσθαι ἢ ὀλιγαρχεῖσθαι, ἀλλʼ ὃ πλεῖστον χρόνον. οἱ δὲ νῦν δημαγωγοὶ χαριζόμενοι τοῖς δήμοις πολλὰ δημεύουσι διὰ τῶν δικαστηρίων. διὸ δεῖ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀντιπράττειν τοὺς κηδομένους τῆς πολιτείας, νομοθετοῦντας μηδὲν εἶναι δημόσιον τῶν καταδικαζομένων καὶ φερόμενον πρὸς τὸ κοινόν, ἀλλʼ ἱερόν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀδικοῦντες οὐθὲν ἧττον εὐλαβεῖς ἔσονται (ζημιώσονται γὰρ ὁμοίως), ὁ δʼ ὄχλος ἧττον καταψηφιεῖται τῶν κρινομένων, λήψεσθαι μηδὲν μέλλων. ἔτι δὲ τὰς γινομένας δημοσίας δίκας ὡς ὀλιγίστας αἰεὶ ποιεῖν, μεγάλοις ἐπιτιμίοις τοὺς εἰκῇ γραφομένους κωλύοντας· οὐ γὰρ τοὺς δημοτικοὺς ἀλλὰ τοὺς γνωρίμους εἰώθασιν εἰσάγειν, δεῖ δὲ καὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πολιτείᾳ πάντας μάλιστα μὲν εὔνους εἶναι τοὺς πολίτας, εἰ δὲ μή, μή τοί γε ὡς πολεμίους νομίζειν τοὺς κυρίους.

-

ἐπεὶ δʼ αἱ τελευταῖαι δημοκρατίαι πολυάνθρωποί τέ εἰσι καὶ χαλεπὸν ἐκκλησιάζειν ἀμίσθους, τοῦτο δʼ ὅπου πρόσοδοι μὴ τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι πολέμιον τοῖς γνωρίμοις (ἁπό τε γὰρ εἰσφορᾶς καὶ δημεύσεως ἀναγκαῖον γίνεσθαι καὶ δικαστηρίων φαύλων, ἃ πολλὰς ἤδη δημοκρατίας ἀνέτρεψεν), ὅπου μὲν οὖν πρόσοδοι μὴ τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι, δεῖ ποιεῖν ὀλίγας ἐκκλησίας, καὶ δικαστήρια πολλῶν μὲν ὀλίγας δʼ ἡμέρας (τοῦτο γὰρ φέρει μὲν καὶ πρὸς τὸ μὴ φοβεῖσθαι τοὺς πλουσίους τὰς δαπάνας κἂν οἱ μὲν εὔποροι μὴ λαμβάνωσι δικαστικόν, οἱ δʼ ἄποροι, φέρει δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὸ κρίνεσθαι τὰς δίκας πολὺ βέλτιον· οἱ γὰρ εὔποροι πολλὰς μὲν ἡμέρας οὐκ ἐθέλουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ἀπεῖναι, βραχὺν δὲ χρόνον ἐθέλουσιν), ὅπου δʼ εἰσὶ πρόσοδοι, μὴ ποιεῖν ὃ νῦν οἱ δημαγωγοὶ ποιοῦσιν (τὰ γὰρ περιόντα νέμουσιν· λαμβάνουσι δὲ ἅμα καὶ πάλιν δέονται τῶν αὐτῶν· ὁ τετρημένος γάρ ἐστι πίθος ἡ τοιαύτη βοήθεια τοῖς ἀπόροις). ἀλλὰ δεῖ τὸν ἀληθινῶς δημοτικὸν ὁρᾶν ὅπως τὸ πλῆθος μὴ λίαν ἄπορον ᾖ· τοῦτο γὰρ αἴτιον τοῦ μοχθηρὰν εἶναι τὴν δημοκρατίαν. τεχναστέον οὖν ὅπως ἂν εὐπορία γένοιτο χρόνιος. ἐπεὶ δὲ συμφέρει τοῦτο καὶ τοῖς εὐπόροις, τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν προσόδων γινόμενα συναθροίζοντας ἀθρόα χρὴ διανέμειν τοῖς ἀπόροις, μάλιστα μὲν εἴ τις δύναται τοσοῦτον ἀθροίζων ὅσον εἰς γηδίου κτῆσιν, εἰ δὲ μή, πρὸς ἀφορμὴν ἐμπορίας καὶ γεωργίας, καί, εἰ μὴ πᾶσι δυνατόν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ φυλὰς ἤ τι μέρος ἕτερον ἐν μέρει διανέμειν, ἐν δὲ τούτῳ πρὸς τὰς ἀναγκαίας συνόδους τοὺς εὐπόρους εἰσφέρειν τὸν μισθόν, ἀφειμένους τῶν ματαίων λειτουργιῶν. τοιοῦτον δέ τινα τρόπον Καρχηδόνιοι πολιτευόμενοι φίλον κέκτηνται τὸν δῆμον· ἀεὶ γάρ τινας ἐκπέμποντες τοῦ δήμου πρὸς τὰς περιοικίδας ποιοῦσιν εὐπόρους. χαριέντων δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ νοῦν ἐχόντων γνωρίμων καὶ διαλαμβάνοντας τοὺς ἀπόρους ἀφορμὰς διδόντας τρέπειν ἐπʼ ἐργασίας. καλῶς δʼ ἔχει μιμεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ Ταραντίνων. ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ κοινὰ ποιοῦντες τὰ κτήματα τοῖς ἀπόροις ἐπὶ τὴν χρῆσιν εὔνουν παρασκευάζουσι τὸ πλῆθος· ἔτι δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς πάσας ἐποίησαν διττάς, τὰς μὲν αἱρετὰς τὰς δὲ κληρωτάς, τὰς μὲν κληρωτὰς ὅπως ὁ δῆμος αὐτῶν μετέχῃ, τὰς δʼ αἱρετὰς ἵνα πολιτεύωνται βέλτιον. ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἀρχῆς μερίζοντας τοὺς μὲν κληρωτοὺς τοὺς δʼ αἱρετούς. πῶς μὲν οὖν δεῖ τὰς δημοκρατίας κατασκευάζειν, εἴρηται.

-

σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ περὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας πῶς δεῖ φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων. ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων γὰρ δεῖ συνάγειν ἑκάστην ὀλιγαρχίαν, πρὸς τὴν ἐναντίαν δημοκρατίαν ἀναλογιζόμενον, τὴν μὲν εὔκρατον μάλιστα τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν καὶ πρώτην— αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ σύνεγγυς τῇ καλουμένῃ πολιτείᾳ, ἐν ᾗ δεῖ τὰ τιμήματα διαιρεῖν, τὰ μὲν ἐλάττω τὰ δὲ μείζω ποιοῦντας, ἐλάττω μὲν ἀφʼ ὧν τῶν ἀναγκαίων μεθέξουσιν ἀρχῶν, μείζω δʼ ἀφʼ ὧν τῶν κυριωτέρων· τῷ τε κτωμένῳ τὸ τίμημα μετέχειν ἐξεῖναι τῆς πολιτείας, τοσούτου εἰσαγομένου τοῦ δήμου πλήθους διὰ τοῦ τιμήματος μεθʼ οὗ κρείττονες ἔσονται τῶν μὴ μετεχόντων· ἀεὶ δὲ δεῖ παραλαμβάνειν ἐκ τοῦ βελτίονος δήμου τοὺς κοινωνούς. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐχομένην ὀλιγαρχίαν ἐπιτείνοντας δεῖ μικρὸν κατασκευάζειν. τῇ δʼ ἀντικειμένῃ τῇ τελευταίᾳ δημοκρατίᾳ, τῇ δυναστικωτάτῃ καὶ τυραννικωτάτῃ τῶν ὀλιγαρχιῶν, ὅσῳ περ χειρίστη, τοσούτῳ δεῖ πλείονος φυλακῆς. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ μὲν εὖ σώματα διακείμενα πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ πλοῖα τὰ πρὸς ναυτιλίαν καλῶς ἔχοντα τοῖς πλωτῆρσιν ἐπιδέχεται πλείους ἁμαρτίας ὥστε μὴ φθείρεσθαι διʼ αὐτάς, τὰ δὲ νοσερῶς ἔχοντα τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τὰ τῶν πλοίων ἐκλελυμένα καὶ πλωτήρων τετυχηκότα φαύλων οὐδὲ τὰς μικρὰς δύναται φέρειν ἁμαρτίας, οὕτω καὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν αἱ χείρισται πλείστης δέονται φυλακῆς. τὰς μὲν οὖν δημοκρατίας ὅλως ἡ πολυανθρωπία σῴζει (τοῦτο γὰρ ἀντίκειται πρὸς τὸ δίκαιον τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν)· τὴν δʼ ὀλιγαρχίαν δῆλον ὅτι τοὐναντίον ἀπὸ τῆς εὐταξίας δεῖ τυγχάνειν τῆς σωτηρίας.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ τέτταρα μὲν ἔστι μέρη μάλιστα τοῦ πλήθους, γεωργικὸν βαναυσικὸν ἀγοραῖον θητικόν, τέτταρα δὲ τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς πόλεμον, ἱππικὸν ὁπλιτικὸν ψιλὸν ναυτικόν, ὅπου μὲν συμβέβηκε τὴν χώραν εἶναι ἱππάσιμον, ἐνταῦθα μὲν εὐφυῶς ἔχει κατασκευάζειν τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἰσχυράν (ἡ γὰρ σωτηρία τοῖς οἰκοῦσι διὰ ταύτης ἐστὶ τῆς δυνάμεως, αἱ δʼ ἱπποτροφίαι τῶν μακρὰς οὐσίας κεκτημένων εἰσίν), ὅπου δʼ ὁπλῖτιν, τὴν ἐχομένην ὀλιγαρχίαν (τὸ γὰρ ὁπλιτικὸν τῶν εὐπόρων ἐστὶ μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν ἀπόρων), ἡ δὲ ψιλὴ δύναμις καὶ ναυτικὴ δημοκρατικὴ πάμπαν. νῦν μὲν οὖν ὅπου τοιοῦτον πολὺ πλῆθος ἔστιν, ὅταν διαστῶσι, πολλάκις ἀγωνίζονται χεῖρον· δεῖ δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο φάρμακον παρὰ τῶν πολεμικῶν λαμβάνειν στρατηγῶν, οἳ συνδυάζουσι πρὸς τὴν ἱππικὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ὁπλιτικὴν τὴν ἁρμόττουσαν τῶν ψιλῶν. ταύτῃ δʼ ἐπικρατοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς διαστάσεσιν οἱ δῆμοι τῶν εὐπόρων· ψιλοὶ γὰρ ὄντες πρὸς ἱππικὴν καὶ ὁπλιτικὴν ἀγωνίζονται ῥᾳδίως.

-

τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐκ τούτων καθιστάναι ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν ἐφʼ ἑαυτούς ἐστι καθιστάναι, δεῖ δὲ διῃρημένης τῆς ἡλικίας, καὶ τῶν μὲν ὄντων πρεσβυτέρων τῶν δὲ νέων, ἔτι μὲν ὄντας νέους τοὺς αὐτῶν υἱεῖς διδάσκεσθαι τὰς κούφας καὶ τὰς ψιλὰς ἐργασίας, ἐκκεκριμένους δὲ ἐκ παίδων ἀθλητὰς εἶναι αὐτοὺς τῶν ἔργων· τὴν δὲ μετάδοσιν γίνεσθαι τῷ πλήθει τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἤτοι καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, τοῖς τὸ τίμημα κτωμένοις, ἢ καθάπερ Θηβαίοις, ἀποσχομένοις χρόνον τινὰ τῶν βαναύσων ἔργων, ἢ καθάπερ ἐν Μασσαλίᾳ κρίσιν ποιουμένους τῶν ἀξίων τῶν ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι καὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ταῖς κυριωτάταις, ἃς δεῖ τοὺς ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ κατέχειν, δεῖ προσκεῖσθαι λειτουργίας, ἵνʼ ἑκὼν ὁ δῆμος μὴ μετέχῃ καὶ συγγνώμην ἔχῃ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ὡς μισθὸν πολὺν διδοῦσι τῆς ἀρχῆς. ἁρμόττει δὲ θυσίας τε εἰσιόντας ποιεῖσθαι μεγαλοπρεπεῖς καὶ κατασκευάζειν τι τῶν κοινῶν, ἵνα τῶν περὶ τὰς ἑστιάσεις μετέχων ὁ δῆμος καὶ τὴν πόλιν ὁρῶν κοσμουμένην τὰ μὲν ἀναθήμασι τὰ δὲ οἰκοδομήμασιν ἄσμενος ὁρᾷ μένουσαν τὴν πολιτείαν· συμβήσεται δὲ καὶ τοῖς γνωρίμοις εἶναι μνημεῖα τῆς δαπάνης. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο νῦν οἱ περὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας οὐ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον· τὰ λήμματα γὰρ ζητοῦσιν οὐχ ἧττον ἢ τὴν τιμήν. διόπερ εὖ ἔχει λέγειν ταύτας εἶναι δημοκρατίας μικράς. πῶς μὲν οὖν χρὴ καθιστάναι τὰς δημοκρατίας καὶ τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας, διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

-

ἀκόλουθον δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐστὶ τὸ διῃρῆσθαι καλῶς τὰ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, πόσαι καὶ τίνες καὶ τίνων, καθάπερ εἴρηται καὶ πρότερον. τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαίων ἀρχῶν χωρὶς ἀδύνατον εἶναι πόλιν, τῶν δὲ πρὸς εὐταξίαν καὶ κόσμον ἀδύνατον οἰκεῖσθαι καλῶς. ἔτι δʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν μὲν ταῖς μικραῖς ἐλάττους εἶναι τὰς ἀρχάς, ἐν δὲ ταῖς μεγάλαις πλείους, ὥσπερ τυγχάνει πρότερον εἰρημένον· ποίας οὖν ἁρμόττει συνάγειν καὶ ποίας χωρίζειν, δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν. πρώτη μὲν οὖν ἐπιμέλεια τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἡ περὶ τὴν ἀγοράν, ἐφʼ ᾗ δεῖ τινα ἀρχὴν εἶναι τὴν ἐφορῶσαν περί τε τὰ συμβόλαια καὶ τὴν εὐκοσμίαν· σχεδὸν γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον πάσαις ταῖς πόλεσι τὰ μὲν ὠνεῖσθαι τὰ δὲ πωλεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλλήλων ἀναγκαίαν χρείαν, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ὑπογυιότατον πρὸς αὐτάρκειαν, διʼ ἣν δοκοῦσιν εἰς μίαν πολιτείαν συνελθεῖν. ἑτέρα δὲ ἐπιμέλεια ταύτης ἐχομένη καὶ σύνεγγυς ἡ τῶν περὶ τὸ ἄστυ δημοσίων καὶ ἰδίων, ὅπως εὐκοσμία ᾖ, καὶ τῶν πιπτόντων οἰκοδομημάτων καὶ ὁδῶν σωτηρία καὶ διόρθωσις, καὶ τῶν ὁρίων τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὅπως ἀνεγκλήτως ἔχωσιν, καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ἄλλα τῆς ἐπιμελείας ὁμοιότροπα. καλοῦσι δʼ ἀστυνομίαν οἱ πλεῖστοι τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρχήν, ἔχει δὲ μόρια πλείω τὸν ἀριθμόν, ὧν ἑτέρους ἐφʼ ἕτερα καθιστᾶσιν ἐν ταῖς πολυανθρωποτέραις πόλεσιν, οἷον τειχοποιοὺς καὶ κρηνῶν ἐπιμελητὰς καὶ λιμένων φύλακας. ἄλλη δʼ ἀναγκαία τε καὶ παραπλησία ταύτῃ· περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν μὲν γάρ, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὴν χώραν ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ ἄστεως· καλοῦσι δὲ τοὺς ἄρχοντας τούτους οἱ μὲν ἀγρονόμους οἱ δʼ ὑλωρούς. αὗται μὲν οὖν ἐπιμέλειαί εἰσι τούτων τρεῖς, ἄλλη δʼ ἀρχὴ πρὸς ἣν αἱ πρόσοδοι τῶν κοινῶν ἀναφέρονται, παρʼ ὧν φυλαττόντων μερίζονται πρὸς ἑκάστην διοίκησιν· καλοῦσι δʼ ἀποδέκτας τούτους καὶ ταμίας. ἑτέρα δʼ ἀρχὴ πρὸς ἣν ἀναγράφεσθαι δεῖ τά τε ἴδια συμβόλαια καὶ τὰς κρίσεις τὰς ἐκ τῶν δικαστηρίων· παρὰ δὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς τούτοις καὶ τὰς γραφὰς τῶν δικῶν γίνεσθαι δεῖ καὶ τὰς εἰσαγωγάς. ἐνιαχοῦ μὲν οὖν μερίζουσι καὶ ταύτην εἰς πλείους, ἔστι δʼ οὗ μία κυρία τούτων πάντων· καλοῦνται δὲ ἱερομνήμονες καὶ ἐπιστάται καὶ μνήμονες καὶ τούτοις ἄλλα ὀνόματα σύνεγγυς.

-

μετὰ δὲ ταύτην ἐχομένη μὲν ἀναγκαιοτάτη δὲ σχεδὸν καὶ χαλεπωτάτη τῶν ἀρχῶν ἐστιν ἡ περὶ τὰς πράξεις τῶν καταδικασθέντων καὶ τῶν προτιθεμένων κατὰ τὰς ἐγγραφὰς καὶ περὶ τὰς φυλακὰς τῶν σωμάτων. χαλεπὴ μὲν οὖν ἐστι διὰ τὸ πολλὴν ἔχειν ἀπέχθειαν, ὥστε ὅπου μὴ μεγάλα ἔστι κερδαίνειν, οὔτʼ ἄρχειν ὑπομένουσιν αὐτὴν οὔθʼ ὑπομείναντες ἐθέλουσι πράττειν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους· ἀναγκαία δʼ ἐστίν, ὅτι οὐδὲν ὄφελος γίνεσθαι μὲν δίκας περὶ τῶν δικαίων, ταύτας δὲ μὴ λαμβάνειν τέλος, ὥστʼ εἰ μὴ γιγνομένων κοινωνεῖν ἀδύνατον ἀλλήλοις, καὶ πράξεων μὴ γιγνομένων. διὸ βέλτιον μὴ μίαν εἶναι ταύτην τὴν ἀρχήν, ἀλλʼ ἄλλους ἐξ ἄλλων δικαστηρίων, καὶ περὶ τὰς προθέσεις τῶν ἀναγεγραμμένων ὡσαύτως πειρᾶσθαι διαιρεῖν, ἔτι δʼ ἔνια πράττεσθαι καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τάς τε ἄλλας καὶ τὰς τῶν ἔνων μᾶλλον τὰς νέας, καὶ τὰς τῶν ἐνεστώτων ἑτέρας καταδικασάσης ἑτέραν εἶναι τὴν πραττομένην, οἷον ἀστυνόμους τὰς παρὰ τῶν ἀγορανόμων, τὰς δὲ παρὰ τούτων ἑτέρους. ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν ἐλάττων ἀπέχθεια ἐνῇ τοῖς πραττομένοις, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον λήψονται τέλος αἱ πράξεις· τὸ μὲν οὖν τοὺς αὐτοὺς εἶναι τοὺς καταδικάσαντας καὶ πραττομένους ἀπέχθειαν ἔχει διπλῆν, τὸ δὲ περὶ πάντων τοὺς αὐτοὺς πολεμίους πᾶσιν ποιεῖ. πολλαχοῦ δὲ δὴ διῄρηται καὶ ἡ φυλάττουσα πρὸς τὴν πραττομένην, οἷον Ἀθήνησιν ἡ τῶν Ἕνδεκα καλουμένων. διὸ βέλτιον καὶ ταύτην χωρίζειν, καὶ τὸ σόφισμα ζητεῖν καὶ περὶ ταύτην. ἀναγκαία μὲν γάρ ἐστιν οὐχ ἧττον τῆς εἰρημένης, συμβαίνει δὲ τοὺς μὲν ἐπιεικεῖς φεύγειν μάλιστα ταύτην τὴν ἀρχήν, τοὺς δὲ μοχθηροὺς οὐκ ἀσφαλὲς ποιεῖν κυρίους· αὐτοὶ γὰρ δέονται φυλακῆς μᾶλλον ἄλλων ἢ φυλάττειν ἄλλους δύνανται. διὸ δεῖ μὴ μίαν ἀποτεταγμένην ἀρχὴν εἶναι πρὸς αὐτούς, μηδὲ συνεχῶς τὴν αὐτήν, ἀλλὰ τῶν τε νέων, ὅπου τις ἐφήβων ἢ φρουρῶν ἔστι τάξις, καὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν δεῖ κατὰ μέρη ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἑτέρους.

-

ταύτας μὲν οὖν τὰς ἀρχὰς ὡς ἀναγκαιοτάτας θετέον εἶναι πρώτας, μετὰ δὲ ταύτας τὰς ἀναγκαίας μὲν οὐθὲν ἧττον, ἐν σχήματι δὲ μείζονι τεταγμένας· καὶ γὰρ ἐμπειρίας καὶ πίστεως δέονται πολλῆς. τοιαῦται δʼ εἶεν ἂν αἵ τε περὶ τὴν φυλακὴν τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ὅσαι τάττονται πρὸς τὰς πολεμικὰς χρείας. δεῖ δὲ καὶ ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ ἐν πολέμῳ πυλῶν τε καὶ τειχῶν φυλακῆς ὁμοίως ἐπιμελητὰς εἶναι καὶ ἐξετάσεως καὶ συντάξεως τῶν πολιτῶν. ἔνθα μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις ἀρχαὶ πλείους εἰσίν, ἔνθα δʼ ἐλάττους, οἷον ἐν ταῖς μικραῖς πόλεσι μία περὶ πάντων. καλοῦσι δὲ στρατηγοὺς καὶ πολεμάρχους τοὺς τοιούτους. ἔτι δὲ κἂν ὦσιν ἱππεῖς ἢ ψιλοὶ ἢ τοξόται ἢ ναυτικόν, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων ἑκάστων ἐνίοτε καθίσταται ἀρχή, αἳ καλοῦνται ναυαρχίαι καὶ ἱππαρχίαι καὶ ταξιαρχίαι, καὶ κατὰ μέρος δὲ αἱ ὑπὸ ταύτας τριηραρχίαι καὶ λοχαγίαι καὶ φυλαρχίαι καὶ ὅσα τούτων μόρια. τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἕν τι τούτου ἐστὶν εἶδος, ἐπιμελείας πολεμικῶν.

-

περὶ μὲν οὖν ταύτην τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχει τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· ἐπεὶ δὲ ἔνιαι τῶν ἀρχῶν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πᾶσαι, διαχειρίζουσι πολλὰ τῶν κοινῶν, ἀναγκαῖον ἑτέραν εἶναι τὴν ληψομένην λογισμὸν καὶ προσευθυνοῦσαν, αὐτὴν μηθὲν διαχειρίζουσαν ἕτερον· καλοῦσι δὲ τούτους οἱ μὲν εὐθύνους οἱ δὲ λογιστὰς οἱ δʼ ἐξεταστὰς οἱ δὲ συνηγόρους. παρὰ πάσας δὲ ταύτας τὰς ἀρχὰς ἡ μάλιστα κυρία πάντων ἐστίν· ἡ γὰρ αὐτὴ πολλάκις ἔχει τὸ τέλος καὶ τὴν εἰσφοράν, ἢ προκάθηται τοῦ πλήθους, ὅπου κύριός ἐστιν ὁ δῆμος· δεῖ γὰρ εἶναι τὸ συνάγον τὸ κύριον κύριον τῆς πολιτείας. καλεῖται δὲ ἔνθα μὲν πρόβουλοι διὰ τὸ προβουλεύειν, ὅπου δὲ πλῆθός ἐστι, βουλὴ μᾶλλον. αἱ μὲν οὖν πολιτικαὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν σχεδὸν τοσαῦταί τινές εἰσιν· ἄλλο δʼ εἶδος ἐπιμελείας ἡ περὶ τοὺς θεούς, οἷον ἱερεῖς τε καὶ ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν περὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τοῦ σῴζεσθαί τε τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ ἀνορθοῦσθαι τὰ πίπτοντα τῶν οἰκοδομημάτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσα τέτακται πρὸς τοὺς θεούς. συμβαίνει δὲ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ταύτην ἐνιαχοῦ μὲν εἶναι μίαν, οἷον ἐν ταῖς μικραῖς πόλεσιν, ἐνιαχοῦ δὲ πολλὰς καὶ κεχωρισμένας τῆς ἱερωσύνης, οἷον ἱεροποιοὺς καὶ ναοφύλακας καὶ ταμίας τῶν ἱερῶν χρημάτων. ἐχομένη δὲ ταύτης ἡ πρὸς τὰς θυσίας ἀφωρισμένη τὰς κοινὰς πάσας, ὅσας μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ νόμος, ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ τῆς κοινῆς ἑστίας ἔχουσι τὴν τιμήν· καλοῦσι δʼ οἱ μὲν ἄρχοντας τούτους οἱ δὲ βασιλεῖς οἱ δὲ πρυτάνεις.

-

αἱ μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαῖαι ἐπιμέλειαί εἰσι περὶ τούτων, ὡς εἰπεῖν συγκεφαλαιωσαμένους, περί τε τὰ δαιμόνια καὶ τὰ πολεμικὰ καὶ περὶ τὰς προσόδους καὶ τὰ ἀναλισκόμενα, καὶ περὶ ἀγορὰν καὶ περὶ τὸ ἄστυ καὶ λιμένας καὶ τὴν χώραν, ἔτι περὶ τὰ δικαστήρια, καὶ συναλλαγμάτων ἀναγραφὰς καὶ πράξεις καὶ φυλακὰς καὶ ἐπὶ λογισμούς τε καὶ ἐξετάσεις καὶ προσευθύνας τῶν ἀρχόντων, καὶ τέλος αἳ περὶ τὸ βουλευόμενόν εἰσι περὶ τῶν κοινῶν· ἴδιαι δὲ ταῖς σχολαστικωτέραις καὶ μᾶλλον εὐημερούσαις πόλεσιν, ἔτι δὲ φροντιζούσαις εὐκοσμίας, γυναικονομία νομοφυλακία παιδονομία γυμνασιαρχία, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις περὶ ἀγῶνας ἐπιμέλεια γυμνικοὺς καὶ Διονυσιακούς, κἂν εἴ τινας ἑτέρας συμβαίνει τοιαύτας γίνεσθαι θεωρίας. τούτων δʼ ἔνιαι φανερῶς εἰσιν οὐ δημοτικαὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν, οἷον γυναικονομία καὶ παιδονομία· τοῖς γὰρ ἀπόροις ἀνάγκη χρῆσθαι καὶ γυναιξὶ καὶ παισὶν ὥσπερ ἀκολούθοις διὰ τὴν ἀδουλίαν. τριῶν δʼ οὐσῶν ἀρχῶν καθʼ ἃς αἱροῦνταί τινες ἀρχὰς τὰς κυρίους, νομοφυλάκων προβούλων βουλῆς, οἱ μὲν νομοφύλακες ἀριστοκρατικόν, ὀλιγαρχικὸν δʼ οἱ πρόβουλοι, βουλὴ δὲ δημοτικόν. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἀρχῶν, ὡς ἐν τύπῳ, σχεδὸν εἴρηται περὶ πασῶν.

- -
-

περὶ δὲ πολιτείας ἀρίστης τὸν μέλλοντα ποιήσασθαι τὴν προσήκουσαν ζήτησιν ἀνάγκη διορίσασθαι πρῶτον τίς αἱρετώτατος βίος. ἀδήλου γὰρ ὄντος τούτου καὶ τὴν ἀρίστην ἀναγκαῖον ἄδηλον εἶναι πολιτείαν· ἄριστα γὰρ πράττειν προσήκει τοὺς ἄριστα πολιτευομένους ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτοῖς, ἐὰν μή τι γίγνηται παράλογον. διὸ δεῖ πρῶτον ὁμολογεῖσθαι τίς ὁ πᾶσιν ὡς εἰπεῖν αἱρετώτατος βίος, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο πότερον κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς ὁ αὐτὸς ἢ ἕτερος. νομίσαντας οὖν ἱκανῶς πολλὰ λέγεσθαι καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς λόγοις περὶ τῆς ἀρίστης ζωῆς, καὶ νῦν χρηστέον αὐτοῖς. ὡς ἀληθῶς γὰρ πρός γε μίαν διαίρεσιν οὐδεὶς ἀμφισβητήσειεν ἂν ὡς οὐ, τριῶν οὐσῶν μερίδων, τῶν τε ἐκτὸς καὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι καὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, πάντα ταῦτα ὑπάρχειν τοῖς μακαρίοις χρή. οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἂν φαίη μακάριον τὸν μηθὲν μόριον ἔχοντα ἀνδρείας μηδὲ σωφροσύνης μηδὲ δικαιοσύνης μηδὲ φρονήσεως, ἀλλὰ δεδιότα μὲν τὰς παραπετομένας μυίας, ἀπεχόμενον δὲ μηθενός, ἂν ἐπιθυμήσῃ τοῦ φαγεῖν ἢ πιεῖν, τῶν ἐσχάτων, ἕνεκα δὲ τεταρτημορίου διαφθείροντα τοὺς φιλτάτους φίλους, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν διάνοιαν οὕτως ἄφρονα καὶ διεψευσμένον ὥσπερ τι παιδίον ἢ μαινόμενον. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν λεγόμενα ὥσπερ πάντες ἂν συγχωρήσειαν, διαφέρονται δʼ ἐν τῷ ποσῷ καὶ ταῖς ὑπεροχαῖς. τῆς μὲν γὰρ ἀρετῆς ἔχειν ἱκανὸν εἶναι νομίζουσιν ὁποσονοῦν, πλούτου δὲ καὶ χρημάτων καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης καὶ πάντων τῶν τοιούτων εἰς ἄπειρον ζητοῦσι τὴν ὑπερβολήν. ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐροῦμεν ὅτι ῥᾴδιον μὲν περὶ τούτων καὶ διὰ τῶν ἔργων λαμβάνειν τὴν πίστιν, ὁρῶντας ὅτι κτῶνται καὶ φυλάττουσιν οὐ τὰς ἀρετὰς τοῖς ἐκτὸς ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνα ταύταις, καὶ τὸ ζῆν εὐδαιμόνως, εἴτʼ ἐν τῷ χαίρειν ἐστὶν εἴτʼ ἐν ἀρετῇ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἴτʼ ἐν ἀμφοῖν, ὅτι μᾶλλον ὑπάρχει τοῖς τὸ ἦθος μὲν καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν κεκοσμημένοις εἰς ὑπερβολήν, περὶ δὲ τὴν ἔξω κτῆσιν τῶν ἀγαθῶν μετριάζουσιν, ἢ τοῖς ἐκεῖνα μὲν κεκτημένοις πλείω τῶν χρησίμων, ἐν δὲ τούτοις ἐλλείπουσιν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον σκοπουμένοις εὐσύνοπτόν ἐστιν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐκτὸς ἔχει πέρας, ὥσπερ ὄργανόν τι, (πᾶν τε τὸ χρήσιμον εἴς τι), ὧν τὴν ὑπερβολὴν ἢ βλάπτειν ἀναγκαῖον ἢ μηθὲν ὄφελος εἶναι τοῖς ἔχουσιν, τῶν δὲ περὶ ψυχὴν ἕκαστον ἀγαθῶν, ὅσῳ περ ἂν ὑπερβάλλῃ, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον χρήσιμον εἶναι, εἰ δεῖ καὶ τούτοις ἐπιλέγειν μὴ μόνον τὸ καλὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ χρήσιμον. ὅλως τε δῆλον ὡς ἀκολουθεῖν φήσομεν τὴν διάθεσιν τὴν ἀρίστην ἑκάστου πράγματος πρὸς ἄλληλα κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἥνπερ εἴληχε ταῦτα ὧν φαμεν αὐτὰς εἶναι διαθέσεις ταύτας. ὥστʼ εἴπερ ἐστὶν ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τῆς κτήσεως καὶ τοῦ σώματος τιμιώτερον καὶ ἁπλῶς καὶ ἡμῖν, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν διάθεσιν τὴν ἀρίστην ἑκάστου ἀνάλογον τούτων ἔχειν. ἔτι δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς ἕνεκεν ταῦτα πέφυκεν αἱρετὰ καὶ δεῖ πάντας αἱρεῖσθαι τοὺς εὖ φρονοῦντας, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐκείνων ἕνεκεν τὴν ψυχήν.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἑκάστῳ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας ἐπιβάλλει τοσοῦτον ὅσον περ ἀρετῆς καὶ φρονήσεως καὶ τοῦ πράττειν κατὰ ταύτας, ἔστω συνωμολογημένον ἡμῖν, μάρτυρι τῷ θεῷ χρωμένοις, ὃς εὐδαίμων μέν ἐστι καὶ μακάριος, διʼ οὐθὲν δὲ τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀλλὰ διʼ αὑτὸν αὐτὸς καὶ τῷ ποιός τις εἶναι τὴν φύσιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὴν εὐτυχίαν τῆς εὐδαιμονίας διὰ ταῦτʼ ἀναγκαῖον ἑτέραν εἶναι (τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἐκτὸς ἀγαθῶν τῆς ψυχῆς αἴτιον ταὐτόματον καὶ ἡ τύχη, δίκαιος δʼ οὐδεὶς οὐδὲ σώφρων ἀπὸ τύχης οὐδὲ διὰ τὴν τύχην ἐστίν)· ἐχόμενον δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν αὐτῶν λόγων δεόμενον καὶ πόλιν εὐδαίμονα τὴν ἀρίστην εἶναι καὶ πράττουσαν καλῶς. ἀδύνατον δὲ καλῶς πράττειν τοῖς μὴ τὰ καλὰ πράττουσιν· οὐθὲν δὲ καλὸν ἔργον οὔτʼ ἀνδρὸς οὔτε πόλεως χωρὶς ἀρετῆς καὶ φρονήσεως· ἀνδρεία δὲ πόλεως καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ φρόνησις τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει δύναμιν καὶ μορφὴν ὧν μετασχὼν ἕκαστος τῶν ἀνθρώπων λέγεται δίκαιος καὶ φρόνιμος καὶ σώφρων. ἀλλὰ γὰρ ταῦτα μὲν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἔστω πεφροιμιασμένα τῷ λόγῳ· οὔτε γὰρ μὴ θιγγάνειν αὐτῶν δυνατόν, οὔτε πάντας τοὺς οἰκείους ἐπεξελθεῖν ἐνδέχεται λόγους, ἑτέρας γάρ ἐστιν ἔργον σχολῆς ταῦτα· νῦν δὲ ὑποκείσθω τοσοῦτον, ὅτι βίος μὲν ἄριστος, καὶ χωρὶς ἑκάστῳ καὶ κοινῇ ταῖς πόλεσιν, ὁ μετʼ ἀρετῆς κεχορηγημένης ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὥστε μετέχειν τῶν κατʼ ἀρετὴν πράξεων, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀμφισβητοῦντας, ἐάσαντας ἐπὶ τῆς νῦν μεθόδου, διασκεπτέον ὕστερον, εἴ τις τοῖς εἰρημένοις τυγχάνει μὴ πειθόμενος.

- -

πότερον δὲ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι φατέον ἑνός τε ἑκάστου τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πόλεως ἢ μὴ τὴν αὐτήν, λοιπόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν. φανερὸν δὲ καὶ τοῦτο. πάντες γὰρ ἂν ὁμολογήσειαν εἶναι τὴν αὐτήν. ὅσοι γὰρ ἐν πλούτῳ τὸ ζῆν εὖ τίθενται ἐφʼ ἑνός, οὗτοι καὶ τὴν πόλιν ὅλην, ἐὰν ᾖ πλουσία, μακαρίζουσιν· ὅσοι τε τὸν τυραννικὸν βίον μάλιστα τιμῶσιν, οὗτοι καὶ πόλιν τὴν πλείστων ἄρχουσαν εὐδαιμονεστάτην ἂν εἶναι φαῖεν· εἴ τέ τις τὸν ἕνα διʼ ἀρετὴν ἀποδέχεται, καὶ πόλιν εὐδαιμονεστέραν φήσει τὴν σπουδαιοτέραν. ἀλλὰ ταῦτʼ ἤδη δύο ἐστὶν ἃ δεῖται σκέψεως, ἓν μὲν πότερος αἱρετώτερος βίος, ὁ διὰ τοῦ συμπολιτεύεσθαι καὶ κοινωνεῖν πόλεως ἢ μᾶλλον ὁ ξενικὸς καὶ τῆς πολιτικῆς κοινωνίας ἀπολελυμένος, ἔτι δὲ τίνα πολιτείαν θετέον καὶ ποίαν διάθεσιν πόλεως ἀρίστην, εἴτε πᾶσιν ὄντος αἱρετοῦ τοῦ κοινωνεῖν πόλεως εἴτε καὶ τισὶ μὲν μὴ τοῖς δὲ πλείστοις. ἐπεὶ δὲ τῆς πολιτικῆς διανοίας καὶ θεωρίας τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἔργον, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸ περὶ ἕκαστον αἱρετόν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ταύτην προῃρήμεθα νῦν τὴν σκέψιν, ἐκεῖνο μὲν πάρεργον ἂν εἴη, τοῦτο δὲ ἔργον τῆς μεθόδου ταύτης. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πολιτείαν ἀρίστην ταύτην τὴν τάξιν καθʼ ἣν κἂν ὁστισοῦν ἄριστα πράττοι καὶ ζῴη μακαρίως, φανερόν ἐστιν· ἀμφισβητεῖται δὲ παρʼ αὐτῶν τῶν ὁμολογούντων τὸν μετʼ ἀρετῆς εἶναι βίον αἱρετώτατον πότερον ὁ πολιτικὸς καὶ πρακτικὸς βίος αἱρετὸς ἢ μᾶλλον ὁ πάντων τῶν ἐκτὸς ἀπολελυμένος, οἷον θεωρητικός τις, ὃν μόνον τινές φασιν εἶναι φιλόσοφον. σχεδὸν γὰρ τούτους τοὺς δύο βίους τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ φιλοτιμότατοι πρὸς ἀρετὴν φαίνονται προαιρούμενοι, καὶ τῶν προτέρων καὶ τῶν νῦν· λέγω δὲ δύο τόν τε πολιτικὸν καὶ τὸν φιλόσοφον. διαφέρει δὲ οὐ μικρὸν ποτέρως ἔχει τὸ ἀληθές· ἀνάγκη γὰρ τόν γε εὖ φρονοῦντα πρὸς τὸν βελτίω σκοπὸν συντάττεσθαι, καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἕκαστον καὶ κοινῇ τὴν πολιτείαν. νομίζουσι δʼ οἱ μὲν τὸ τῶν πέλας ἄρχειν δεσποτικῶς μὲν γιγνόμενον μετʼ ἀδικίας τινὸς εἶναι τῆς μεγίστης, πολιτικῶς δὲ τὸ μὲν ἄδικον οὐκ ἔχειν, ἐμπόδιον δὲ ἔχειν τῇ περὶ αὐτὸν εὐημερίᾳ· τούτων δʼ ὥσπερ ἐξ ἐναντίας ἕτεροι τυγχάνουσι δοξάζοντες· μόνον γὰρ ἀνδρὸς τὸν πρακτικὸν εἶναι βίον καὶ πολιτικόν, ἐφʼ ἑκάστης γὰρ ἀρετῆς οὐκ εἶναι πράξεις μᾶλλον τοῖς ἰδιώταις ἢ τοῖς τὰ κοινὰ πράττουσι καὶ πολιτευομένοις. οἱ μὲν οὖν οὕτως ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, οἱ δὲ τὸν δεσποτικὸν καὶ τυραννικὸν τρόπον τῆς πολιτείας εἶναι μόνον εὐδαίμονά φασιν. παρʼ ἐνίοις δὲ καὶ τῆς πολιτείας οὗτος ὅρος καὶ τῶν νόμων ὅπως δεσπόζωσι τῶν πέλας. διὸ καὶ τῶν πλείστων νομίμων χύδην ὡς εἰπεῖν κειμένων παρὰ τοῖς πλείστοις, ὅμως εἴ πού τι πρὸς ἓν οἱ νόμοι βλέπουσι, τοῦ κρατεῖν στοχάζονται πάντες, ὥσπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι καὶ Κρήτῃ πρὸς τοὺς πολέμους συντέτακται σχεδὸν ἥ τε παιδεία καὶ τὸ τῶν νόμων πλῆθος· ἔτι δʼ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι πᾶσι τοῖς δυναμένοις πλεονεκτεῖν ἡ τοιαύτη τετίμηται δύναμις, οἷον ἐν Σκύθαις καὶ Πέρσαις καὶ Θρᾳξὶ καὶ Κελτοῖς. ἐν ἐνίοις γὰρ καὶ νόμοι τινές εἰσι παροξύνοντες πρὸς τὴν ἀρετὴν ταύτην, καθάπερ ἐν Καρχηδόνι φασὶ τὸν ἐκ τῶν κρίκων κόσμον λαμβάνειν ὅσας ἂν στρατεύσωνται στρατείας· ἦν δέ ποτε καὶ περὶ Μακεδονίαν νόμος τὸν μηθένα ἀπεκταγκότα πολέμιον ἄνδρα περιεζῶσθαι τὴν φορβειάν· ἐν δὲ Σκύθαις οὐκ ἐξῆν πίνειν ἐν ἑορτῇ τινι σκύφον περιφερόμενον τῷ μηθένα ἀπεκταγκότι πολέμιον· ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἴβηρσιν, ἔθνει πολεμικῷ, τοσούτους τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὀβελίσκους καταπηγνύουσι περὶ τὸν τάφον ὅσους ἂν διαφθείρῃ τῶν πολεμίων· καὶ ἕτερα δὴ παρʼ ἑτέροις ἔστι τοιαῦτα πολλά, τὰ μὲν νόμοις κατειλημμένα τὰ δὲ ἔθεσιν.

-

καίτοι δόξειεν ἂν ἄγαν ἄτοπον ἴσως εἶναι τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐπισκοπεῖν, εἰ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἔργον τοῦ πολιτικοῦ, τὸ δύνασθαι θεωρεῖν ὅπως ἄρχῃ καὶ δεσπόζῃ τῶν πλησίον, καὶ βουλομένων καὶ μὴ βουλομένων. πῶς γὰρ ἂν εἴη τοῦτο πολιτικὸν ἢ νομοθετικόν, ὅ γε μηδὲ νόμιμόν ἐστιν; οὐ νόμιμον δὲ τὸ μὴ μόνον δικαίως ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδίκως ἄρχειν, κρατεῖν δʼ ἔστι καὶ μὴ δικαίως. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπιστήμαις τοῦτο ὁρῶμεν· οὔτε γὰρ τοῦ ἰατροῦ οὔτε τοῦ κυβερνήτου ἔργον ἐστὶ τὸ ἢ πεῖσαι ἢ βιάσασθαι τοῦ μὲν τοὺς θεραπευομένους τοῦ δὲ τοὺς πλωτῆρας. ἀλλʼ ἐοίκασιν οἱ πολλοὶ τὴν δεσποτικὴν πολιτικὴν οἴεσθαι εἶναι, καὶ ὅπερ αὑτοῖς ἕκαστοι οὔ φασιν εἶναι δίκαιον οὐδὲ συμφέρον, τοῦτʼ οὐκ αἰσχύνονται πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἀσκοῦντες· αὐτοὶ μὲν γὰρ παρʼ αὑτοῖς τὸ δικαίως ἄρχειν ζητοῦσι, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους οὐδὲν μέλει τῶν δικαίων. ἄτοπον δὲ εἰ μὴ φύσει τὸ μὲν δεσποστόν ἐστι τὸ δὲ οὐ δεσποστόν, ὥστε εἴπερ ἔχει τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον, οὐ δεῖ πάντων πειρᾶσθαι δεσπόζειν, ἀλλὰ τῶν δεσποστῶν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ θηρεύειν ἐπὶ θοίνην ἢ θυσίαν ἀνθρώπους, ἀλλὰ τὸ πρὸς τοῦτο θηρευτόν· ἔστι δὲ θηρευτὸν ὃ ἂν ἄγριον ᾖ ἐδεστὸν ζῷον. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴη γʼ ἂν καὶ καθʼ ἑαυτὴν μία πόλις εὐδαίμων, ἣ πολιτεύεται δηλονότι καλῶς, εἴπερ ἐνδέχεται πόλιν οἰκεῖσθαί που καθʼ ἑαυτὴν νόμοις χρωμένην σπουδαίοις, ἧς τῆς πολιτείας ἡ σύνταξις οὐ πρὸς πόλεμον οὐδὲ πρὸς τὸ κρατεῖν ἔσται τῶν πολεμίων· μηθὲν γὰρ ὑπαρχέτω τοιοῦτον. δῆλον ἄρα ὅτι πάσας τὰς πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον ἐπιμελείας καλὰς μὲν θετέον, οὐχ ὡς τέλος δὲ πάντων ἀκρότατον, ἀλλʼ ἐκείνου χάριν ταύτας. τοῦ δὲ νομοθέτου τοῦ σπουδαίου ἐστὶ τὸ θεάσασθαι πόλιν καὶ γένος ἀνθρώπων καὶ πᾶσαν ἄλλην κοινωνίαν, ζωῆς ἀγαθῆς πῶς μεθέξουσι καὶ τῆς ἐνδεχομένης αὐτοῖς εὐδαιμονίας. διοίσει μέντοι τῶν ταττομένων ἔνια νομίμων· καὶ τοῦτο τῆς νομοθετικῆς ἐστιν ἰδεῖν, ἐάν τινες ὑπάρχωσι γειτνιῶντες, ποῖα πρὸς ποίους ἀσκητέον ἢ πῶς τοῖς καθήκουσι πρὸς ἑκάστους χρηστέον. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν κἂν ὕστερον τύχοι τῆς προσηκούσης σκέψεως, πρὸς τί τέλος δεῖ τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν συντείνειν·

-

πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ὁμολογοῦντας μὲν τὸν μετʼ ἀρετῆς εἶναι βίον αἱρετώτατον, διαφερομένους δὲ περὶ τῆς χρήσεως αὐτοῦ, λεκτέον ἡμῖν πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους αὐτούς (οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀποδοκιμάζουσι τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρχάς, νομίζοντες τὸν τοῦ ἐλευθέρου βίον ἕτερόν τινα εἶναι τοῦ πολιτικοῦ καὶ πάντων αἱρετώτατον, οἱ δὲ τοῦτον ἄριστον· ἀδύνατον γὰρ τὸν μηθὲν πράττοντα πράττειν εὖ, τὴν δʼ εὐπραγίαν καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν εἶναι ταὐτόν) ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἀμφότεροι λέγουσιν ὀρθῶς τὰ δὲ οὐκ ὀρθῶς, οἱ μὲν ὅτι ὁ τοῦ ἐλευθέρου βίος τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ ἀμείνων. τοῦτο γὰρ ἀληθές· οὐθὲν γὰρ τό γε δούλῳ ᾗ δοῦλος χρῆσθαι σεμνόν· ἡ γὰρ ἐπίταξις ἡ περὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων οὐδενὸς μετέχει τῶν καλῶν. τὸ μέντοι νομίζειν πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν εἶναι δεσποτείαν οὐκ ὀρθόν· οὐ γὰρ ἔλαττον διέστηκεν ἡ τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀρχὴ τῆς τῶν δούλων ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ φύσει ἐλεύθερον τοῦ φύσει δούλου. διώρισται δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν ἱκανῶς ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις λόγοις. τὸ δὲ μᾶλλον ἐπαινεῖν τὸ ἀπρακτεῖν τοῦ πράττειν οὐκ ἀληθές· ἡ γὰρ εὐδαιμονία πρᾶξίς ἐστιν, ἔτι δὲ πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν τέλος ἔχουσιν αἱ τῶν δικαίων καὶ σωφρόνων πράξεις.

-

καίτοι τάχʼ ἂν ὑπολάβοι τις τούτων οὕτω διωρισμένων ὅτι τὸ κύριον εἶναι πάντων ἄριστον· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν πλείστων καὶ καλλίστων κύριος εἴη πράξεων. ὥστε οὐ δεῖν τὸν δυνάμενον ἄρχειν παριέναι τῷ πλησίον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀφαιρεῖσθαι, καὶ μήτε πατέρα παίδων μήτε παῖδας πατρὸς μήθʼ ὅλως φίλον φίλου μηθένα ὑπόλογον ποιεῖσθαι μηδὲ πρὸς τοῦτο φροντίζειν· τὸ γὰρ ἄριστον αἱρετώτατον, τὸ δʼ εὖ πράττειν ἄριστον. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ἀληθῶς ἴσως λέγουσιν, εἴπερ ὑπάρξει τοῖς ἀποστεροῦσι καὶ βιαζομένοις τὸ τῶν ὄντων αἱρετώτατον· ἀλλʼ ἴσως οὐχ οἷόν τε ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλʼ ὑποτίθενται τοῦτο ψεῦδος. οὐ γὰρ ἔτι καλὰς τὰς πράξεις ἐνδέχεται εἶναι τῷ μὴ διαφέροντι τοσοῦτον ὅσον ἀνὴρ γυναικὸς ἢ πατὴρ τέκνων ἢ δεσπότης δούλων· ὥστε ὁ παραβαίνων οὐθὲν ἂν τηλικοῦτον κατορθώσειεν ὕστερον ὅσον ἤδη παρεκβέβηκε τῆς ἀρετῆς. τοῖς γὰρ ὁμοίοις τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ δίκαιον ἐν τῷ ἐν μέρει, τοῦτο γὰρ ἴσον καὶ ὅμοιον· τὸ δὲ μὴ ἴσον τοῖς ἴσοις καὶ τὸ μὴ ὅμοιον τοῖς ὁμοίοις παρὰ φύσιν, οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν παρὰ φύσιν καλόν. διὸ κἂν ἄλλος τις ᾖ κρείττων κατʼ ἀρετὴν καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν πρακτικὴν τῶν ἀρίστων, τούτῳ καλὸν ἀκολουθεῖν καὶ τούτῳ πείθεσθαι δίκαιον. δεῖ δʼ οὐ μόνον ἀρετὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ δύναμιν ὑπάρχειν, καθʼ ἣν ἔσται πρακτικός. ἀλλʼ εἰ ταῦτα λέγεται καλῶς καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν εὐπραγίαν θετέον, καὶ κοινῇ πάσης πόλεως ἂν εἴη καὶ καθʼ ἕκαστον ἄριστος βίος ὁ πρακτικός. ἀλλὰ τὸν πρακτικὸν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πρὸς ἑτέρους, καθάπερ οἴονταί τινες, οὐδὲ τὰς διανοίας εἶναι μόνας ταύτας πρακτικάς, τὰς τῶν ἀποβαινόντων χάριν γιγνομένας ἐκ τοῦ πράττειν, ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον τὰς αὐτοτελεῖς καὶ τὰς αὑτῶν ἕνεκεν θεωρίας καὶ διανοήσεις· ἡ γὰρ εὐπραξία τέλος, ὥστε καὶ πρᾶξίς τις. μάλιστα δὲ καὶ πράττειν λέγομεν κυρίως καὶ τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν πράξεων τοὺς ταῖς διανοίαις ἀρχιτέκτονας. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ἀπρακτεῖν ἀναγκαῖον τὰς καθʼ αὑτὰς πόλεις ἱδρυμένας καὶ ζῆν οὕτω προῃρημένας· ἐνδέχεται γὰρ κατὰ μέρη καὶ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν· πολλαὶ γὰρ κοινωνίαι πρὸς ἄλληλα τοῖς μέρεσι τῆς πόλεώς εἰσιν. ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦτο ὑπάρχει καὶ καθʼ ἑνὸς ὁτουοῦν τῶν ἀνθρώπων· σχολῇ γὰρ ἂν ὁ θεὸς εἶχε καλῶς καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος, οἷς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξωτερικαὶ πράξεις παρὰ τὰς οἰκείας τὰς αὐτῶν. ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὸν αὐτὸν βίον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸν ἄριστον ἑκάστῳ τε τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ κοινῇ ταῖς πόλεσι καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, φανερόν ἐστιν.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ πεφροιμίασται τὰ νῦν εἰρημένα περὶ αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας πολιτείας ἡμῖν τεθεώρηται πρότερον, ἀρχὴ τῶν λοιπῶν εἰπεῖν πρῶτον ποίας τινὰς δεῖ τὰς ὑποθέσεις εἶναι περὶ τῆς μελλούσης κατʼ εὐχὴν συνεστάναι πόλεως. οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε πολιτείαν γενέσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην ἄνευ συμμέτρου χορηγίας. διὸ δεῖ πολλὰ προϋποτεθεῖσθαι καθάπερ εὐχομένους, εἶναι μέντοι μηθὲν τούτων ἀδύνατον· λέγω δὲ οἷον περί τε πλήθους πολιτῶν καὶ χώρας. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις δημιουργοῖς, οἷον ὑφάντῃ καὶ ναυπηγῷ, δεῖ τὴν ὕλην ὑπάρχειν ἐπιτηδείαν οὖσαν πρὸς τὴν ἐργασίαν (ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν αὕτη τυγχάνῃ παρεσκευασμένη βέλτιον, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον ὑπὸ τῆς τέχνης εἶναι κάλλιον), οὕτω καὶ τῷ πολιτικῷ καὶ τῷ νομοθέτῃ δεῖ τὴν οἰκείαν ὕλην ὑπάρχειν ἐπιτηδείως ἔχουσαν.

-

ἔστι δὲ πολιτικῆς χορηγίας πρῶτον τό τε πλῆθος τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πόσους τε καὶ ποίους τινὰς ὑπάρχειν δεῖ φύσει, καὶ κατὰ τὴν χώραν ὡσαύτως, πόσην τε εἶναι καὶ ποίαν τινὰ ταύτην. οἴονται μὲν οὖν οἱ πλεῖστοι προσήκειν μεγάλην εἶναι τὴν εὐδαίμονα πόλιν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἀληθές, ἀγνοοῦσι ποία μεγάλη καὶ ποία μικρὰ πόλις. κατʼ ἀριθμοῦ γὰρ πλῆθος τῶν ἐνοικούντων κρίνουσι τὴν μεγάλην, δεῖ δὲ μᾶλλον μὴ εἰς τὸ πλῆθος εἰς δὲ δύναμιν ἀποβλέπειν. ἔστι γάρ τι καὶ πόλεως ἔργον, ὥστε τὴν δυναμένην τοῦτο μάλιστʼ ἀποτελεῖν, ταύτην οἰητέον εἶναι μεγίστην, οἷον Ἱπποκράτην οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀλλʼ ἰατρὸν εἶναι μείζω φήσειεν ἄν τις τοῦ διαφέροντος κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ σώματος. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ κἂν εἰ δεῖ κρίνειν πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος ἀποβλέποντας, οὐ κατὰ τὸ τυχὸν πλῆθος τοῦτο ποιητέον (ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἴσως ὑπάρχειν καὶ δούλων ἀριθμὸν πολλῶν καὶ μετοίκων καὶ ξένων), ἀλλʼ ὅσοι πόλεώς εἰσι μέρος καὶ ἐξ ὧν συνίσταται πόλις οἰκείων μορίων· ἡ γὰρ τούτων ὑπεροχὴ τοῦ πλήθους μεγάλης πόλεως σημεῖον, ἐξ ἧς δὲ βάναυσοι μὲν ἐξέρχονται πολλοὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὁπλῖται δὲ ὀλίγοι, ταύτην ἀδύνατον εἶναι μεγάλην· οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὸν μεγάλη τε πόλις καὶ πολυάνθρωπος.

-

ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τοῦτό γε ἐκ τῶν ἔργων φανερόν, ὅτι χαλεπόν, ἴσως δʼ ἀδύνατον, εὐνομεῖσθαι τὴν λίαν πολυάνθρωπον· τῶν γοῦν δοκουσῶν πολιτεύεσθαι καλῶς οὐδεμίαν ὁρῶμεν οὖσαν ἀνειμένην πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος. τοῦτο δὲ δῆλον καὶ διὰ τῆς τῶν λόγων πίστεως. ὅ τε γὰρ νόμος τάξις τίς ἐστι, καὶ τὴν εὐνομίαν ἀναγκαῖον εὐταξίαν εἶναι, ὁ δὲ λίαν ὑπερβάλλων ἀριθμὸς οὐ δύναται μετέχειν τάξεως· θείας γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο δυνάμεως ἔργον, ἥτις καὶ τόδε συνέχει τὸ πᾶν. διὸ καὶ πόλιν ἧς μετὰ μεγέθους ὁ λεχθεὶς ὅρος ὑπάρχει, ταύτην εἶναι καλλίστην ἀναγκαῖον· ἐπεὶ τό γε καλὸν ἐν πλήθει καὶ μεγέθει εἴωθε γίνεσθαι, ἀλλʼ ἔστι τι καὶ πόλεως μεγέθους μέτρον, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων, ζῴων φυτῶν ὀργάνων· καὶ γὰρ τούτων ἕκαστον οὔτε λίαν μικρὸν οὔτε κατὰ μέγεθος ὑπερβάλλον ἕξει τὴν αὑτοῦ δύναμιν, ἀλλʼ ὁτὲ μὲν ὅλως ἐστερημένον ἔσται τῆς φύσεως ὁτὲ δὲ φαύλως ἔχον, οἷον πλοῖον σπιθαμιαῖον μὲν οὐκ ἔσται πλοῖον ὅλως, οὐδὲ δυοῖν σταδίοιν, εἰς δὲ τὶ μέγεθος ἐλθὸν ὁτὲ μὲν διὰ σμικρότητα φαύλην ποιήσει τὴν ναυτιλίαν, ὁτὲ δὲ διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολήν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πόλις ἡ μὲν ἐξ ὀλίγων λίαν οὐκ αὐτάρκης (ἡ δὲ πόλις αὔταρκες), ἡ δὲ ἐκ πολλῶν ἄγαν ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις αὐτάρκης ὥσπερ δʼ ἔθνος, ἀλλʼ οὐ πόλις· πολιτείαν γὰρ οὐ ῥᾴδιον ὑπάρχειν· τίς γὰρ στρατηγὸς ἔσται τοῦ λίαν ὑπερβάλλοντος πλήθους, ἢ τίς κῆρυξ μὴ Στεντόρειος; διὸ πρώτην μὲν εἶναι πόλιν ἀναγκαῖον τὴν ἐκ τοσούτου πλήθους ὃ πρῶτον πλῆθος αὔταρκες πρὸς τὸ εὖ ζῆν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν· ἐνδέχεται δὲ καὶ τὴν ταύτης ὑπερβάλλουσαν κατὰ πλῆθος εἶναι μείζω πόλιν, ἀλλὰ τοῦτʼ οὐκ ἔστιν, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, ἀόριστον. τίς δʼ ἐστὶν ὁ τῆς ὑπερβολῆς ὅρος, ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἰδεῖν ῥᾴδιον. εἰσὶ γὰρ αἱ πράξεις τῆς πόλεως τῶν μὲν ἀρχόντων τῶν δʼ ἀρχομένων, ἄρχοντος δʼ ἐπίταξις καὶ κρίσις ἔργον· πρὸς δὲ τὸ κρίνειν περὶ τῶν δικαίων καὶ πρὸς τὸ τὰς ἀρχὰς διανέμειν κατʼ ἀξίαν ἀναγκαῖον γνωρίζειν ἀλλήλους, ποῖοί τινές εἰσι, τοὺς πολίτας, ὡς ὅπου τοῦτο μὴ συμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι, φαύλως ἀνάγκη γίγνεσθαι τὰ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς κρίσεις. περὶ ἀμφότερα γὰρ οὐ δίκαιον αὐτοσχεδιάζειν, ὅπερ ἐν τῇ πολυανθρωπίᾳ τῇ λίαν ὑπάρχει φανερῶς. ἔτι δὲ ξένοις καὶ μετοίκοις ῥᾴδιον μεταλαμβάνειν τῆς πολιτείας· οὐ γὰρ χαλεπὸν τὸ λανθάνειν διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ πλήθους. δῆλον τοίνυν ὡς οὗτός ἐστι πόλεως ὅρος ἄριστος, ἡ μεγίστη τοῦ πλήθους ὑπερβολὴ πρὸς αὐτάρκειαν ζωῆς εὐσύνοπτος. περὶ μὲν οὖν μεγέθους πόλεως διωρίσθω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.

-

παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς χώρας ἔχει. περὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ ποίαν τινά, δῆλον ὅτι τὴν αὐταρκεστάτην πᾶς τις ἂν ἐπαινέσειεν (τοιαύτην δʼ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὴν παντοφόρον· τὸ γὰρ πάντα ὑπάρχειν καὶ δεῖσθαι μηθενὸς αὔταρκες)· πλήθει δὲ καὶ μεγέθει τοσαύτην ὥστε δύνασθαι τοὺς οἰκοῦντας ζῆν σχολάζοντας ἐλευθερίως ἅμα καὶ σωφρόνως. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν ὅρον εἰ καλῶς ἢ μὴ καλῶς λέγομεν, ὕστερον ἐπισκεπτέον ἀκριβέστερον, ὅταν ὅλως περὶ κτήσεως καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν εὐπορίας συμβαίνῃ ποιεῖσθαι μνείαν, πῶς δεῖ καὶ τίνα τρόπον ἔχειν πρὸς τὴν χρῆσιν αὐτῆς· πολλαὶ γὰρ περὶ τὴν σκέψιν ταύτην εἰσὶν ἀμφισβητήσεις διὰ τοὺς ἕλκοντας ἐφʼ ἑκατέραν τοῦ βίου τὴν ὑπερβολήν, τοὺς μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν γλισχρότητα τοὺς δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν τρυφήν. τὸ δʼ εἶδος τῆς χώρας οὐ χαλεπὸν εἰπεῖν (δεῖ δʼ ἔνια πείθεσθαι καὶ τοῖς περὶ τὴν στρατηγίαν ἐμπείροις), ὅτι χρὴ μὲν τοῖς πολεμίοις εἶναι δυσέμβολον αὐτοῖς δʼ εὐέξοδον. ἔτι δʼ ὥσπερ τὸ πλῆθος τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εὐσύνοπτον ἔφαμεν εἶναι δεῖν, οὕτω καὶ τὴν χώραν· τὸ δʼ εὐσύνοπτον τὸ εὐβοήθητον εἶναι τὴν χώραν ἐστίν. τῆς δὲ πόλεως τὴν θέσιν εἰ χρὴ ποιεῖν κατʼ εὐχήν, πρός τε τὴν θάλατταν προσήκει κεῖσθαι καλῶς πρός τε τὴν χώραν. εἷς μὲν οὖν ὁ λεχθεὶς ὅρος (δεῖ γὰρ πρὸς τὰς ἐκβοηθείας κοινὴν εἶναι τῶν τόπων ἁπάντων)· ὁ δὲ λοιπὸς πρὸς τὰς τῶν γινομένων καρπῶν παραπομπάς, ἔτι δὲ τῆς περὶ ξύλα ὕλης, κἂν εἴ τινα ἄλλην ἐργασίαν ἡ χώρα τυγχάνοι κεκτημένη τοιαύτην εὐπαρακόμιστον.

-

περὶ δὲ τῆς πρὸς τὴν θάλατταν κοινωνίας, πότερον ὠφέλιμος ταῖς εὐνομουμέναις πόλεσιν ἢ βλαβερά, πολλὰ τυγχάνουσιν ἀμφισβητοῦντες· τό τε γὰρ ἐπιξενοῦσθαί τινας ἐν ἄλλοις τεθραμμένους νόμοις ἀσύμφορον εἶναί φασι πρὸς τὴν εὐνομίαν, καὶ τὴν πολυανθρωπίαν· γίνεσθαι μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ χρῆσθαι τῇ θαλάττῃ διαπέμποντας καὶ δεχομένους ἐμπόρων πλῆθος, ὑπεναντίαν δʼ εἶναι πρὸς τὸ πολιτεύεσθαι καλῶς. ὅτι μὲν οὖν, εἰ ταῦτα μὴ συμβαίνει, βέλτιον καὶ πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν καὶ πρὸς εὐπορίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων μετέχειν τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν χώραν τῆς θαλάττης, οὐκ ἄδηλον. καὶ γὰρ πρὸς τὸ ῥᾷον φέρειν τοὺς πολέμους εὐβοηθήτους εἶναι δεῖ κατʼ ἀμφότερα τοὺς σωθησομένους, καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν, καὶ πρὸς τὸ βλάψαι τοὺς ἐπιτιθεμένους, εἰ μὴ κατʼ ἄμφω δυνατόν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ θάτερον ὑπάρξει μᾶλλον ἀμφοτέρων μετέχουσιν. ὅσα τʼ ἂν μὴ τυγχάνῃ παρʼ αὑτοῖς ὄντα, δέξασθαι ταῦτα, καὶ τὰ πλεονάζοντα τῶν γιγνομένων ἐκπέμψασθαι τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐστίν. αὑτῇ γὰρ ἐμπορικήν, ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῖς ἄλλοις, δεῖ εἶναι τὴν πόλιν· οἱ δὲ παρέχοντες σφᾶς αὐτοὺς πᾶσιν ἀγορὰν προσόδου χάριν ταῦτα πράττουσιν· ἣν δὲ μὴ δεῖ πόλιν τοιαύτης μετέχειν πλεονεξίας, οὐδʼ ἐμπόριον δεῖ κεκτῆσθαι τοιοῦτον. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ νῦν ὁρῶμεν πολλαῖς ὑπάρχοντα καὶ χώραις καὶ πόλεσιν ἐπίνεια καὶ λιμένας εὐφυῶς κείμενα πρὸς τὴν πόλιν, ὥστε μήτε τὸ αὐτὸ νέμειν ἄστυ μήτε πόρρω λίαν, ἀλλὰ κρατεῖσθαι τείχεσι καὶ τοιούτοις ἄλλοις ἐρύμασι, φανερὸν ὡς εἰ μὲν ἀγαθόν τι συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι διὰ τῆς κοινωνίας αὐτῶν, ὑπάρξει τῇ πόλει τοῦτο τὸ ἀγαθόν, εἰ δέ τι βλαβερόν, φυλάξασθαι ῥᾴδιον τοῖς νόμοις φράζοντας καὶ διορίζοντας τίνας οὐ δεῖ καὶ τίνας ἐπιμίσγεσθαι δεῖ πρὸς ἀλλήλους.

-

περὶ δὲ τῆς ναυτικῆς δυνάμεως, ὅτι μὲν βέλτιστον ὑπάρχειν μέχρι τινὸς πλήθους, οὐκ ἄδηλον (oὐ γὰρ μόνον αὑτοῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πλησίον τισὶ δεῖ καὶ φοβεροὺς εἶναι καὶ δύνασθαι βοηθεῖν, ὥσπερ κατὰ γῆν, καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν)· περὶ δὲ πλήθους ἤδη καὶ μεγέθους τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης πρὸς τὸν βίον ἀποσκεπτέον τῆς πόλεως. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πολιτικὸν ζήσεται βίον, ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν ὑπάρχειν πρὸς τὰς πράξεις σύμμετρον. τὴν δὲ πολυανθρωπίαν τὴν γιγνομένην περὶ τὸν ναυτικὸν ὄχλον οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν ταῖς πόλεσιν· οὐθὲν γὰρ αὐτοὺς μέρος εἶναι δεῖ τῆς πόλεως. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιβατικὸν ἐλεύθερον καὶ τῶν πεζευόντων ἐστίν, ὃ κύριόν ἐστι καὶ κρατεῖ τῆς ναυτιλίας· πλήθους δὲ ὑπάρχοντος περιοίκων καὶ τῶν τὴν χώραν γεωργούντων, ἀφθονίαν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι καὶ ναυτῶν. ὁρῶμεν δὲ τοῦτο καὶ νῦν ὑπάρχον τισίν, οἷον τῇ πόλει τῶν Ἡρακλεωτῶν· πολλὰς γὰρ ἐκπληροῦσι τριήρεις, κεκτημένοι τῷ μεγέθει πόλιν ἑτέρων ἐμμελεστέραν.

-

περὶ μὲν οὖν χώρας καὶ λιμένων τῶν πόλεων καὶ θαλάττης καὶ περὶ τῆς ναυτικῆς δυνάμεως ἔστω διωρισμένα τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· περὶ δὲ τοῦ πολιτικοῦ πλήθους, τίνα μὲν ὅρον ὑπάρχειν χρή, πρότερον εἴπομεν, ποίους δέ τινας τὴν φύσιν εἶναι δεῖ, νῦν λέγωμεν.

-

σχεδὸν δὴ κατανοήσειεν ἄν τις τοῦτό γε, βλέψας ἐπί τε τὰς πόλεις τὰς εὐδοκιμούσας τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην, ὡς διείληπται τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ψυχροῖς τόποις ἔθνη καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν Εὐρώπην θυμοῦ μέν ἐστι πλήρη, διανοίας δὲ ἐνδεέστερα καὶ τέχνης, διόπερ ἐλεύθερα μὲν διατελεῖ μᾶλλον, ἀπολίτευτα δὲ καὶ τῶν πλησίον ἄρχειν οὐ δυνάμενα· τὰ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν διανοητικὰ μὲν καὶ τεχνικὰ τὴν ψυχήν, ἄθυμα δέ, διόπερ ἀρχόμενα καὶ δουλεύοντα διατελεῖ· τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων γένος, ὥσπερ μεσεύει κατὰ τοὺς τόπους, οὕτως ἀμφοῖν μετέχει. καὶ γὰρ ἔνθυμον καὶ διανοητικόν ἐστιν· διόπερ ἐλεύθερόν τε διατελεῖ καὶ βέλτιστα πολιτευόμενον καὶ δυνάμενον ἄρχειν πάντων, μιᾶς τυγχάνον πολιτείας. τὴν αὐτὴν δʼ ἔχει διαφορὰν καὶ τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔθνη πρὸς ἄλληλα· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἔχει τὴν φύσιν μονόκωλον, τὰ δὲ εὖ κέκραται πρὸς ἀμφοτέρας τὰς δυνάμεις ταύτας. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι δεῖ διανοητικούς τε εἶναι καὶ θυμοειδεῖς τὴν φύσιν τοὺς μέλλοντας εὐαγώγους ἔσεσθαι τῷ νομοθέτῃ πρὸς τὴν ἀρετήν. ὅπερ γάρ φασί τινες δεῖν ὑπάρχειν τοῖς φύλαξι, τὸ φιλητικοὺς μὲν εἶναι τῶν γνωρίμων πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀγνῶτας ἀγρίους, ὁ θυμός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν τὸ φιλητικόν· αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς δύναμις ᾗ φιλοῦμεν. σημεῖον δέ· πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς συνήθεις καὶ φίλους ὁ θυμὸς αἴρεται μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγνῶτας, ὀλιγωρεῖσθαι νομίσας. διὸ καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος προσηκόντως τοῖς φίλοις ἐγκαλῶν διαλέγεται πρὸς τὸν θυμόν· σὺ γὰρ δὴ παρὰ φίλων ἀπάγχεαι.

-

καὶ τὸ ἄρχον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐλεύθερον ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης ὑπάρχει πᾶσιν· ἀρχικὸν γὰρ καὶ ἀήττητον ὁ θυμός. οὐ καλῶς δʼ ἔχει λέγειν χαλεποὺς εἶναι πρὸς τοὺς ἀγνῶτας· πρὸς οὐθένα γὰρ εἶναι χρὴ τοιοῦτον, οὐδέ εἰσιν οἱ μεγαλόψυχοι τὴν φύσιν ἄγριοι, πλὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας. τοῦτο δὲ μᾶλλον ἔτι πρὸς τοὺς συνήθεις πάσχουσιν, ὅπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, ἂν ἀδικεῖσθαι νομίσωσιν. καὶ τοῦτο συμβαίνει κατὰ λόγον· παρʼ οἷς γὰρ ὀφείλεσθαι τὴν εὐεργεσίαν ὑπολαμβάνουσι, πρὸς τῷ βλάβει καὶ ταύτης ἀποστερεῖσθαι νομίζουσιν· ὅθεν εἴρηται χαλεποὶ πόλεμοι γὰρ ἀδελφῶν Eur. fr. 965 καὶ οἵ τοι πέρᾳ στέρξαντες, οἵδε καὶ πέρᾳ μισοῦσιν. Αnon. fr. 78 (Nauck)

-

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν πολιτευομένων, πόσους τε ὑπάρχειν δεῖ καὶ ποίους τινὰς τὴν φύσιν, ἔτι δὲ τὴν χώραν πόσην τέ τινα καὶ ποίαν τινά, διώρισται σχεδόν (οὐ γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀκρίβειαν δεῖ ζητεῖν διά τε τῶν λόγων καὶ τῶν γιγνομένων διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως).

-

ἐπεὶ δʼ ὥσπερ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατὰ φύσιν συνεστώτων οὐ ταῦτά ἐστι μόρια τῆς ὅλης συστάσεως ὧν ἄνευ τὸ ὅλον οὐκ ἂν εἴη, δῆλον ὡς οὐδὲ πόλεως μέρη θετέον ὅσα ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν, οὐδʼ ἄλλης κοινωνίας οὐδεμιᾶς ἐξ ἧς ἕν τι τὸ γένος (ἓν γάρ τι καὶ κοινὸν εἶναι δεῖ καὶ ταὐτὸ τοῖς κοινωνοῖς, ἄν τε ἴσον ἄν τε ἄνισον μεταλαμβάνωσιν)· οἷον εἴτε τροφὴ τοῦτό ἐστιν εἴτε χώρας πλῆθος εἴτʼ ἄλλο τι τῶν τοιούτων ἐστίν. ὅταν δʼ ᾖ τὸ μὲν τούτου ἕνεκεν τὸ δʼ οὗ ἕνεκεν, οὐθέν ἔν γε τούτοις κοινὸν ἀλλʼ ἢ τῷ μὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ δὲ λαβεῖν· λέγω δʼ οἷον ὀργάνῳ τε παντὶ πρὸς τὸ γιγνόμενον ἔργον καὶ τοῖς δημιουργοῖς· οἰκίᾳ γὰρ πρὸς οἰκοδόμον οὐθέν ἐστιν ὃ γίγνεται κοινόν, ἀλλʼ ἔστι τῆς οἰκίας χάριν ἡ τῶν οἰκοδόμων τέχνη. διὸ κτήσεως μὲν δεῖ ταῖς πόλεσιν, οὐδὲν δʼ ἐστὶν ἡ κτῆσις μέρος τῆς πόλεως· πολλὰ δʼ ἔμψυχα μέρη τῆς κτήσεώς ἐστιν· ἡ δὲ πόλις κοινωνία τίς ἐστι τῶν ὁμοίων, ἕνεκεν δὲ ζωῆς τῆς ἐνδεχομένης ἀρίστης. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐστὶν εὐδαιμονία τὸ ἄριστον, αὕτη δὲ ἀρετῆς ἐνέργεια καὶ χρῆσίς τις τέλειος, συμβέβηκε δὲ οὕτως ὥστε τοὺς μὲν ἐνδέχεσθαι μετέχειν αὐτῆς τοὺς δὲ μικρὸν ἢ μηδέν, δῆλον ὡς τοῦτʼ αἴτιον τοῦ γίγνεσθαι πόλεως εἴδη καὶ διαφορὰς καὶ πολιτείας πλείους· ἄλλον γὰρ τρόπον καὶ διʼ ἄλλων ἕκαστοι τοῦτο θηρεύοντες τούς τε βίους ἑτέρους ποιοῦνται καὶ τὰς πολιτείας. ἐπισκεπτέον δὲ καὶ πόσα ταυτί ἐστιν ὧν ἄνευ πόλις οὐκ ἂν εἴη· καὶ γὰρ ἃ λέγομεν εἶναι μέρη πόλεως ἐν τούτοις ἂν εἴη, διὸ ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν. ληπτέον τοίνυν τῶν ἔργων τὸν ἀριθμόν· ἐκ τούτων γὰρ ἔσται δῆλον. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ὑπάρχειν δεῖ τροφήν, ἔπειτα τέχνας (πολλῶν γὰρ ὀργάνων δεῖται τὸ ζῆν), τρίτον δὲ ὅπλα (τοὺς γὰρ κοινωνοῦντας ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ἐν αὑτοῖς ἔχειν ὅπλα πρός τε τὴν ἀρχήν, τῶν ἀπειθούντων χάριν, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξωθεν ἀδικεῖν ἐπιχειροῦντας), ἔτι χρημάτων τινὰ εὐπορίαν, ὅπως ἔχωσι καὶ πρὸς τὰς καθʼ αὑτοὺς χρείας καὶ πρὸς τὰς πολεμικάς, πέμπτον δὲ καὶ πρῶτον τὴν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἐπιμέλειαν, ἣν καλοῦσιν ἱερατείαν, ἕκτον δὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ πάντων ἀναγκαιότατον κρίσιν περὶ τῶν συμφερόντων καὶ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἔργα ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν ὧν δεῖται πᾶσα πόλις ὡς εἰπεῖν (ἡ γὰρ πόλις πλῆθός ἐστιν οὐ τὸ τυχὸν ἀλλὰ πρὸς ζωὴν αὔταρκες, ὥς φαμεν, ἐὰν δέ τι τυγχάνῃ τούτων ἐκλεῖπον, ἀδύνατον ἁπλῶς αὐτάρκη τὴν κοινωνίαν εἶναι ταύτην)· ἀνάγκη τοίνυν κατὰ τὰς ἐργασίας ταύτας συνεστάναι πόλιν· δεῖ ἄρα γεωργῶν τʼ εἶναι πλῆθος, οἳ παρασκευάσουσι τὴν τροφήν, καὶ τεχνίτας, καὶ τὸ μάχιμον, καὶ τὸ εὔπορον, καὶ ἱερεῖς, καὶ κριτὰς τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ συμφερόντων.

-

διωρισμένων δὲ τούτων λοιπὸν σκέψασθαι πότερον πᾶσι κοινωνητέον πάντων τούτων (ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἅπαντας εἶναι καὶ γεωργοὺς καὶ τεχνίτας καὶ τοὺς βουλευομένους καὶ δικάζοντας), ἢ καθʼ ἕκαστον ἔργον τῶν εἰρημένων ἄλλους ὑποθετέον, ἢ τὰ μὲν ἴδια τὰ δὲ κοινὰ τούτων ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστίν. οὐκ ἐν πάσῃ δὲ ταὐτὸ πολιτείᾳ. καθάπερ γὰρ εἴπομεν, ἐνδέχεται καὶ πάντας κοινωνεῖν πάντων καὶ μὴ πάντας πάντων ἀλλὰ τινὰς τινῶν. ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ ποιεῖ τὰς πολιτείας ἑτέρας· ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις μετέχουσι πάντες πάντων, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις τοὐναντίον. ἐπεὶ δὲ τυγχάνομεν σκοποῦντες περὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶ καθʼ ἣν ἡ πόλις ἂν εἴη μάλιστʼ εὐδαίμων, τὴν δʼ εὐδαιμονίαν ὅτι χωρὶς ἀρετῆς ἀδύνατον ὑπάρχειν εἴρηται πρότερον, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων ὡς ἐν τῇ κάλλιστα πολιτευομένῃ πόλει καὶ τῇ κεκτημένῃ δικαίους ἄνδρας ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, οὔτε βάναυσον βίον οὔτʼ ἀγοραῖον δεῖ ζῆν τοὺς πολίτας (ἀγεννὴς γὰρ ὁ τοιοῦτος βίος καὶ πρὸς ἀρετὴν ὑπεναντίος), οὐδὲ δὴ γεωργοὺς εἶναι τοὺς μέλλοντας ἔσεσθαι (δεῖ γὰρ σχολῆς καὶ πρὸς τὴν γένεσιν τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ πρὸς τὰς πράξεις τὰς πολιτικάς).

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ πολεμικὸν καὶ τὸ βουλευόμενον περὶ τῶν συμφερόντων καὶ κρῖνον περὶ τῶν δικαίων ἐνυπάρχει καὶ μέρη φαίνεται τῆς πόλεως μάλιστα ὄντα, πότερον ἕτερα καὶ ταῦτα θετέον ἢ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀποδοτέον ἄμφω; φανερὸν δὲ καὶ τοῦτο, διότι τρόπον μέν τινα τοῖς αὐτοῖς τρόπον δέ τινα καὶ ἑτέροις. ᾗ μὲν γὰρ ἑτέρας ἀκμῆς ἑκάτερον τῶν ἔργων, καὶ τὸ μὲν δεῖται φρονήσεως τὸ δὲ δυνάμεως, ἑτέροις· ᾗ δὲ τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἐστὶ τοὺς δυναμένους βιάζεσθαι καὶ κωλύειν, τούτους ὑπομένειν ἀρχομένους ἀεί, ταύτῃ δὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς. οἱ γὰρ τῶν ὅπλων κύριοι καὶ τοῦ μένειν ἢ μὴ μένειν κύριοι τὴν πολιτείαν. λείπεται τοίνυν τοῖς αὐτοῖς μὲν ἀμφοτέροις ἀποδιδόναι τὴν πολιτείαν ταύτην, μὴ ἅμα δέ, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ πέφυκεν ἡ μὲν δύναμις ἐν νεωτέροις, ἡ δὲ φρόνησις ἐν πρεσβυτέροις εἶναὶ, ἔοικεν οὕτως ἀμφοῖν νενεμῆσθαι συμφέρειν καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστιν· ἔχει γὰρ αὕτη ἡ διαίρεσις τὸ κατʼ ἀξίαν. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰς κτήσεις δεῖ εἶναι περὶ τούτους. ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ εὐπορίαν ὑπάρχειν τοῖς πολίταις, πολῖται δὲ οὗτοι. τὸ γὰρ βάναυσον οὐ μετέχει τῆς πόλεως, οὐδʼ ἄλλο οὐθὲν γένος ὃ μὴ τῆς ἀρετῆς δημιουργόν ἐστιν. τοῦτο δὲ δῆλον ἐκ τῆς ὑποθέσεως· τὸ μὲν γὰρ εὐδαιμονεῖν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν μετὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς, εὐδαίμονα δὲ πόλιν οὐκ εἰς μέρος τι βλέψαντας δεῖ λέγειν αὐτῆς, ἀλλʼ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πολίτας. φανερὸν δὲ καὶ ὅτι δεῖ τὰς κτήσεις εἶναι τούτων, εἴπερ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοὺς γεωργοὺς δούλους ἢ βαρβάρους περιοίκους. λοιπὸν δʼ ἐκ τῶν καταριθμηθέντων τὸ τῶν ἱερέων γένος. φανερὰ δὲ καὶ ἡ τούτων τάξις. οὔτε γὰρ γεωργὸν οὔτε βάναυσον ἱερέα καταστατέον (ὑπὸ γὰρ τῶν πολιτῶν πρέπει τιμᾶσθαι τοὺς θεούς)· ἐπεὶ δὲ διῄρηται τὸ πολιτικὸν εἰς δύο μέρη, τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ τό τε ὁπλιτικὸν καὶ τὸ βουλευτικόν, πρέπει δὲ τήν τε θεραπείαν ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν ἔχειν περὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς διὰ τὸν χρόνον ἀπειρηκότας, τούτοις ἂν εἴη τὰς περὶ αὐτοὺς ἱερωσύνας ἀποδοτέον.

-

ὧν μὲν τοίνυν ἄνευ πόλις οὐ συνίσταται καὶ ὅσα μέρη πόλεως, εἴρηται (γεωργοὺς μὲν γὰρ καὶ τεχνίτας καὶ πᾶν τὸ θητικὸν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν ταῖς πόλεσιν, μέρη δὲ τῆς πόλεως τό τε ὁπλιτικὸν καὶ βουλευτικόν), καὶ κεχώρισται δὴ τούτων ἕκαστον, τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ τὸ δὲ κατὰ μέρος.

- -

ἔοικε δὲ οὐ νῦν οὐδὲ νεωστὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναι γνώριμον τοῖς περὶ πολιτείας φιλοσοφοῦσιν, ὅτι δεῖ διῃρῆσθαι χωρὶς κατὰ γένη τὴν πόλιν καὶ τό τε μάχιμον ἕτερον εἶναι καὶ τὸ γεωργοῦν. ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τε γὰρ ἔχει τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ἔτι καὶ νῦν, τά τε περὶ τὴν Κρήτην, τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ Αἴγυπτον Σεσώστριος, ὥς φασιν, οὕτω νομοθετήσαντος, Μίνω δὲ τὰ περὶ Κρήτην. ἀρχαία δὲ ἔοικεν εἶναι καὶ τῶν συσσιτίων ἡ τάξις, τὰ μὲν περὶ Κρήτην γενόμενα περὶ τὴν Μίνω βασιλείαν, τὰ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν πολλῷ παλαιότερα τούτων. φασὶ γὰρ οἱ λόγιοι τῶν ἐκεῖ κατοικούντων Ἰταλόν τινα γενέσθαι βασιλέα τῆς Οἰνωτρίας, ἀφʼ οὗ τό τε ὄνομα μεταβαλόντας Ἰταλοὺς ἀντʼ Οἰνωτρῶν κληθῆναι καὶ τὴν ἀκτὴν ταύτην τῆς Εὐρώπης Ἰταλίαν τοὔνομα λαβεῖν, ὅση τετύχηκεν ἐντὸς οὖσα τοῦ κόλπου τοῦ Σκυλλητικοῦ καὶ τοῦ Λαμητικοῦ· ἀπέχει δὲ ταῦτα ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων ὁδὸν ἡμισείας ἡμέρας. τοῦτον δὴ λέγουσι τὸν Ἰταλὸν νομάδας τοὺς Οἰνωτροὺς ὄντας ποιῆσαι γεωργούς, καὶ νόμους ἄλλους τε αὐτοῖς θέσθαι καὶ τὰ συσσίτια καταστῆσαι πρῶτον· διὸ καὶ νῦν ἔτι τῶν ἀπʼ ἐκείνου τινὲς χρῶνται τοῖς συσσιτίοις καὶ τῶν νόμων ἐνίοις. ᾤκουν δὲ τὸ μὲν πρὸς τὴν Τυρρηνίαν Ὀπικοὶ καὶ πρότερον καὶ νῦν καλούμενοι τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν Αὔσονες, τὸ δὲ πρὸς τὴν Ἰαπυγίαν καὶ τὸν Ἰόνιον Χῶνες, τὴν καλουμένην Σύρτιν· ἦσαν δὲ καὶ οἱ Χῶνες Οἰνωτροὶ τὸ γένος. ἡ μὲν οὖν τῶν συσσιτίων τάξις ἐντεῦθεν γέγονε πρῶτον, ὁ δὲ χωρισμὸς ὁ κατὰ γένος τοῦ πολιτικοῦ πλήθους ἐξ Αἰγύπτου· πολὺ γὰρ ὑπερτείνει τοῖς χρόνοις τὴν Μίνω βασιλείαν ἡ Σεσώστριος. σχεδὸν μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα δεῖ νομίζειν εὑρῆσθαι πολλάκις ἐν τῷ πολλῷ χρόνῳ, μᾶλλον δʼ ἀπειράκις. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀναγκαῖα τὴν χρείαν διδάσκειν εἰκὸς αὐτήν, τὰ δʼ εἰς εὐσχημοσύνην καὶ περιουσίαν ὑπαρχόντων ἤδη τούτων εὔλογον λαμβάνειν τὴν αὔξησιν· ὥστε καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς πολιτείας οἴεσθαι δεῖ τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχειν τρόπον. ὅτι δὲ πάντα ἀρχαῖα, σημεῖον τὰ περὶ Αἴγυπτόν ἐστιν· οὗτοι γὰρ ἀρχαιότατοι μὲν δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, νόμων δὲ τετυχήκασιν ἀεὶ καὶ τάξεως πολιτικῆς. διὸ δεῖ τοῖς μὲν εὑρημένοις ἱκανῶς χρῆσθαι, τὰ δὲ παραλελειμμένα πειρᾶσθαι ζητεῖν.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν δεῖ τὴν χώραν εἶναι τῶν ὅπλα κεκτημένων καὶ τῶν τῆς πολιτείας μετεχόντων, εἴρηται πρότερον, καὶ διότι τοὺς γεωργοῦντας αὐτῶν ἑτέρους εἶναι δεῖ, καὶ πόσην τινὰ χρὴ καὶ ποίαν εἶναι τὴν χώραν· περὶ δὲ τῆς διανομῆς καὶ τῶν γεωργούντων, τίνας καὶ ποίους εἶναι χρή, λεκτέον πρῶτον, ἐπειδὴ οὔτε κοινήν φαμεν εἶναι δεῖν τὴν κτῆσιν ὥσπερ τινὲς εἰρήκασιν, ἀλλὰ τῇ χρήσει φιλικῶς γινομένῃ κοινήν, οὔτʼ ἀπορεῖν οὐθένα τῶν πολιτῶν τροφῆς. περὶ συσσιτίων τε συνδοκεῖ πᾶσι χρήσιμον εἶναι ταῖς εὖ κατεσκευασμέναις πόλεσιν ὑπάρχειν· διʼ ἣν δʼ αἰτίαν συνδοκεῖ καὶ ἡμῖν, ὕστερον ἐροῦμεν. δεῖ δὲ τούτων κοινωνεῖν πάντας τοὺς πολίτας, οὐ ῥᾴδιον δὲ τοὺς ἀπόρους ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων τε εἰσφέρειν τὸ συντεταγμένον καὶ διοικεῖν τὴν ἄλλην οἰκίαν. ἔτι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς δαπανήματα κοινὰ πάσης τῆς πόλεώς ἐστιν. ἀναγκαῖον τοίνυν εἰς δύο μέρη διῃρῆσθαι τὴν χώραν, καὶ τὴν μὲν εἶναι κοινὴν τὴν δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, καὶ τούτων ἑκατέραν διῃρῆσθαι δίχα πάλιν, τῆς μὲν κοινῆς τὸ μὲν ἕτερον μέρος εἰς τὰς πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς λειτουργίας τὸ δὲ ἕτερον εἰς τὴν τῶν συσσιτίων δαπάνην, τῆς δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν τὸ ἕτερον μέρος τὸ πρὸς τὰς ἐσχατιάς, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον πρὸς πόλιν, ἵνα δύο κλήρων ἑκάστῳ νεμηθέντων ἀμφοτέρων τῶν τόπων πάντες μετέχωσιν. τό τε γὰρ ἴσον οὕτως ἔχει καὶ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ πρὸς τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας πολέμους ὁμονοητικώτερον. ὅπου γὰρ μὴ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, οἱ μὲν ὀλιγωροῦσι τῆς πρὸς τοὺς ὁμόρους ἔχθρας, οἱ δὲ λίαν φροντίζουσι καὶ παρὰ τὸ καλόν. διὸ παρʼ ἐνίοις νόμος ἐστὶ τοὺς γειτνιῶντας τοῖς ὁμόροις μὴ συμμετέχειν βουλῆς τῶν πρὸς αὐτοὺς πολέμων, ὡς διὰ τὸ ἴδιον οὐκ ἂν δυναμένους βουλεύσασθαι καλῶς. τὴν μὲν οὖν χώραν ἀνάγκη διῃρῆσθαι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον διὰ τὰς προειρημένας αἰτίας· τοὺς δὲ γεωργήσοντας μάλιστα μέν, εἰ δεῖ κατʼ εὐχήν, δούλους εἶναι, μήτε ὁμοφύλων πάντων μήτε θυμοειδῶν (οὕτω γὰρ ἂν πρός τε τὴν ἐργασίαν εἶεν χρήσιμοι καὶ πρὸς τὸ μηδὲν νεωτερίζειν ἀσφαλεῖς), δεύτερον δὲ βαρβάρους περιοίκους παραπλησίους τοῖς εἰρημένοις τὴν φύσιν, τούτων δὲ τοὺς μὲν ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις εἶναι ἰδίους τῶν κεκτημένων τὰς οὐσίας, τοὺς δʼ ἐπὶ τῇ κοινῇ γῇ κοινούς. τίνα δὲ δεῖ τρόπον χρῆσθαι δούλοις, καὶ διότι βέλτιον πᾶσι τοῖς δούλοις ἆθλον προκεῖσθαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, ὕστερον ἐροῦμεν.

-

τὴν δὲ πόλιν ὅτι μὲν δεῖ κοινὴν εἶναι τῆς ἠπείρου τε καὶ τῆς θαλάττης καὶ τῆς χώρας ἁπάσης ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐνδεχομένων, εἴρηται πρότερον· αὐτῆς δὲ προσάντη τὴν θέσιν εὔχεσθαι δεῖ κατατυγχάνειν πρὸς τέτταρα βλέποντας, πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἀναγκαῖον πρὸς ὑγίειαν (αἵ τε γὰρ πρὸς ἕω τὴν ἔγκλισιν ἔχουσαι καὶ πρὸς τὰ πνεύματα τὰ πνέοντα ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς ὑγιεινότεραι, δεύτερον δʼ αἱ κατὰ βορέαν· εὐχείμεροι γὰρ αὗται μᾶλλον)· τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν πρὸς τὸ τὰς πολιτικὰς πράξεις καὶ πολεμικὰς καλῶς ἔχει. πρὸς μὲν οὖν τὰς πολεμικὰς αὐτοῖς μὲν εὐέξοδον εἶναι χρή, τοῖς δʼ ἐναντίοις δυσπρόσοδον καὶ δυσπερίληπτον, ὑδάτων τε καὶ ναμάτων μάλιστα μὲν ὑπάρχειν πλῆθος οἰκεῖον, εἰ δὲ μή, τοῦτό γε εὕρηται διὰ τοῦ κατασκευάζειν ὑποδοχὰς ὀμβρίοις ὕδασιν ἀφθόνους καὶ μεγάλας, ὥστε μηδέποτε ὑπολείπειν εἰργομένους τῆς χώρας διὰ πόλεμον· ἐπεὶ δὲ δεῖ περὶ ὑγιείας φροντίζειν τῶν ἐνοικούντων, τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ κεῖσθαι τὸν τόπον ἔν τε τοιούτῳ καὶ πρὸς τοιοῦτον καλῶς, δεύτερον δὲ ὕδασιν ὑγιεινοῖς χρῆσθαι, καὶ τούτου τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἔχειν μὴ παρέργως. οἷς γὰρ πλείστοις χρώμεθα πρὸς τὸ σῶμα καὶ πλειστάκις, ταῦτα πλεῖστον συμβάλλεται πρὸς τὴν ὑγίειαν· ἡ δὲ τῶν ὑδάτων καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος δύναμις τοιαύτην ἔχει τὴν φύσιν. διόπερ ἐν ταῖς εὖ φρονούσαις δεῖ διωρίσθαι πόλεσιν, ἐὰν μὴ πάνθʼ ὅμοια μηδʼ ἀφθονία τοιούτων ᾖ ναμάτων, χωρὶς τά τε εἰς τροφὴν ὕδατα καὶ τὰ πρὸς τὴν ἄλλην χρείαν.

-

περὶ δὲ τόπων ἐρυμνῶν οὐ πάσαις ὁμοίως ἔχει τὸ συμφέρον ταῖς πολιτείαις· οἷον ἀκρόπολις ὀλιγαρχικὸν καὶ μοναρχικόν, δημοκρατικὸν δʼ ὁμαλότης, ἀριστοκρατικὸν δὲ οὐδέτερον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἰσχυροὶ τόποι πλείους. ἡ δὲ τῶν ἰδίων οἰκήσεων διάθεσις ἡδίων μὲν νομίζεται καὶ χρησιμωτέρα πρὸς τὰς ἄλλας πράξεις, ἂν εὔτομος ᾖ καὶ κατὰ τὸν νεώτερον καὶ τὸν Ἱπποδάμειον τρόπον, πρὸς δὲ τὰς πολεμικὰς ἀσφαλείας τοὐναντίον ὡς εἶχον κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαῖον χρόνον· δυσείσοδος γὰρ ἐκείνη τοῖς ξενικοῖς καὶ δυσεξερεύνητος τοῖς ἐπιτιθεμένοις. διὸ δεῖ τούτων ἀμφοτέρων μετέχειν (ἐνδέχεται γάρ, ἄν τις οὕτως κατασκευάζῃ καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς γεωργοῖς ἃς καλοῦσί τινες τῶν ἀμπέλων συστάδας), καὶ τὴν μὲν ὅλην μὴ ποιεῖν πόλιν εὔτομον, κατὰ μέρη δὲ καὶ τόπους· οὕτω γὰρ καὶ πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν καὶ πρὸς κόσμον ἕξει καλῶς.

-

περὶ δὲ τειχῶν, οἱ μὴ φάσκοντες δεῖν ἔχειν τὰς τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀντιποιουμένας πόλεις λίαν ἀρχαίως ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, καὶ ταῦθʼ ὁρῶντες ἐλεγχομένας ἔργῳ τὰς ἐκείνως καλλωπισαμένας. ἔστι δὲ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ὁμοίους καὶ μὴ πολὺ τῷ πλήθει διαφέροντας οὐ καλὸν τὸ πειρᾶσθαι σῴζεσθαι διὰ τῆς τῶν τειχῶν ἐρυμνότητος· ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ συμβαίνειν ἐνδέχεται πλείω τὴν ὑπεροχὴν γίγνεσθαι τῶν ἐπιόντων τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης τῆς ἐν τοῖς ὀλίγοις ἀρετῆς, εἰ δεῖ σῴζεσθαι καὶ μὴ πάσχειν κακῶς μηδὲ ὑβρίζεσθαι, τὴν ἀσφαλεστάτην ἐρυμνότητα τῶν τειχῶν οἰητέον εἶναι πολεμικωτάτην, ἄλλως τε καὶ νῦν εὑρημένων τῶν περὶ τὰ βέλη καὶ τὰς μηχανὰς εἰς ἀκρίβειαν πρὸς τὰς πολιορκίας. ὅμοιον γὰρ τὸ τείχη μὴ περιβάλλειν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀξιοῦν καὶ τὸ τὴν χώραν εὐέμβολον ζητεῖν καὶ περιαιρεῖν τοὺς ὀρεινοὺς τόπους, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ταῖς οἰκήσεσι ταῖς ἰδίαις μὴ περιβάλλειν τοίχους ὡς ἀνάνδρων ἐσομένων τῶν κατοικούντων. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τοῦτό γε δεῖ λανθάνειν, ὅτι τοῖς μὲν περιβεβλημένοις τείχη περὶ τὴν πόλιν ἔξεστιν ἀμφοτέρως χρῆσθαι ταῖς πόλεσιν, καὶ ὡς ἐχούσαις τείχη καὶ ὡς μὴ ἐχούσαις, τοῖς δὲ μὴ κεκτημένοις οὐκ ἔξεστιν. εἰ δὴ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, οὐχ ὅτι τείχη μόνον περιβλητέον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων ἐπιμελητέον, ὅπως καὶ πρὸς κόσμον ἔχῃ τῇ πόλει πρεπόντως καὶ πρὸς τὰς πολεμικὰς χρείας, τάς τε ἄλλας καὶ τὰς νῦν ἐπεξευρημένας. ὥσπερ γὰρ τοῖς ἐπιτιθεμένοις ἐπιμελές ἐστι διʼ ὧν τρόπων πλεονεκτήσουσιν, οὕτω τὰ μὲν εὕρηται τὰ δὲ δεῖ ζητεῖν καὶ φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ τοὺς φυλαττομένους· ἀρχὴν γὰρ οὐδʼ ἐπιχειροῦσιν ἐπιτίθεσθαι τοῖς εὖ παρεσκευασμένοις.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ δεῖ τὸ μὲν πλῆθος τῶν πολιτῶν ἐν συσσιτίοις κατανενεμῆσθαι, τὰ δὲ τείχη διειλῆφθαι φυλακτηρίοις καὶ πύργοις κατὰ τόπους ἐπικαίρους, δῆλον ὡς ταῦτα προκαλεῖται παρασκευάζειν ἔνια τῶν συσσιτίων ἐν τούτοις τοῖς φυλακτηρίοις. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν δὴ τοῦτον ἄν τις διακοσμήσειε τὸν τρόπον· τὰς δὲ τοῖς θείοις ἀποδεδομένας οἰκήσεις καὶ τὰ κυριώτατα τῶν ἀρχείων συσσίτια ἁρμόττει τόπον ἐπιτήδειόν τε ἔχειν καὶ τὸν αὐτόν, ὅσα μὴ τῶν ἱερῶν ὁ νόμος ἀφορίζει χωρὶς ἤ τι μαντεῖον ἄλλο πυθόχρηστον. εἴη δʼ ἂν τοιοῦτος ὁ τόπος ὅστις ἐπιφάνειάν τε ἔχει πρὸς τὴν τῆς θέσεως ἀρετὴν ἱκανῶς καὶ πρὸς τὰ γειτνιῶντα μέρη τῆς πόλεως ἐρυμνοτέρως. πρέπει δʼ ὑπὸ μὲν τοῦτον τὸν τόπον τοιαύτης ἀγορᾶς εἶναι κατασκευὴν οἵαν καὶ περὶ Θετταλίαν νομίζουσιν ἣν ἐλευθέραν καλοῦσιν, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἣν δεῖ καθαρὰν εἶναι τῶν ὠνίων πάντων, καὶ μήτε βάναυσον μήτε γεωργὸν μήτʼ ἄλλον μηδένα τοιοῦτον παραβάλλειν μὴ καλούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων. εἴη δʼ ἂν εὔχαρις ὁ τόπος, εἰ καὶ τὰ γυμνάσια τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἔχοι τὴν τάξιν ἐνταῦθα· πρέπει γὰρ διῃρῆσθαι κατὰ τὰς ἡλικίας καὶ τοῦτον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ παρὰ μὲν τοῖς νεωτέροις ἄρχοντάς τινας διατρίβειν, τοὺς δὲ πρεσβυτέρους παρὰ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν· ἡ γὰρ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς τῶν ἀρχόντων παρουσία μάλιστα ἐμποιεῖ τὴν ἀληθινὴν αἰδῶ καὶ τὸν τῶν ἐλευθέρων φόβον. τὴν δὲ τῶν ὠνίων ἀγορὰν ἑτέραν τε δεῖ ταύτης εἶναι καὶ χωρίς, ἔχουσαν τόπον εὐσυνάγωγον τοῖς τε ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάττης πεμπομένοις καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας πᾶσιν.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ προεστὸς διαιρεῖται τῆς πόλεως εἰς ἱερεῖς καὶ εἰς ἄρχοντας, πρέπει καὶ τῶν ἱερέων συσσίτια περὶ τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκοδομημάτων ἔχειν τὴν τάξιν. τῶν δʼ ἀρχείων ὅσα περὶ τὰ συμβόλαια ποιεῖται τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν, περί τε γραφὰς δικῶν καὶ τὰς κλήσεις καὶ τὴν ἄλλην τὴν τοιαύτην διοίκησιν, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τὴν ἀγορανομίαν καὶ τὴν καλουμένην ἀστυνομίαν, πρὸς ἀγορᾷ μὲν δεῖ καὶ συνόδῳ τινὶ κοινῇ κατεσκευάσθαι, τοιοῦτος δʼ ὁ περὶ τὴν ἀναγκαίαν ἀγοράν ἐστι τόπος· ἐνσχολάζειν μὲν γὰρ τὴν ἄνω τίθεμεν, ταύτην δὲ πρὸς τὰς ἀναγκαίας πράξεις. μεμιμῆσθαι δὲ χρὴ τὴν εἰρημένην τάξιν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν χώραν· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν οὓς καλοῦσιν οἱ μὲν ὑλωροὺς οἱ δὲ ἀγρονόμους καὶ φυλακτήρια καὶ συσσίτια πρὸς φυλακὴν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν, ἔτι δὲ ἱερὰ κατὰ τὴν χώραν εἶναι νενεμημένα, τὰ μὲν θεοῖς τὰ δὲ ἥρωσιν. ἀλλὰ τὸ διατρίβειν νῦν ἀκριβολογουμένους καὶ λέγοντας περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἀργόν ἐστιν· οὐ γὰρ χαλεπόν ἐστι τὰ τοιαῦτα νοῆσαι, ἀλλὰ ποιῆσαι μᾶλλον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ λέγειν εὐχῆς ἔργον ἐστί, τὸ δὲ συμβῆναι τύχης. διὸ περὶ μὲν τῶν τοιούτων τό γε ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἀφείσθω τὰ νῦν.

-

περὶ δὲ τῆς πολιτείας αὐτῆς, ἐκ τίνων καὶ ποίων δεῖ συνεστάναι τὴν μέλλουσαν ἔσεσθαι πόλιν μακαρίαν καὶ πολιτεύσεσθαι καλῶς, λεκτέον. ἐπεὶ δὲ δύʼ ἐστὶν ἐν οἷς γίγνεται τὸ εὖ πᾶσι, τούτοιν δʼ ἐστὶν ἓν μὲν ἐν τῷ τὸν σκοπὸν κεῖσθαι καὶ τὸ τέλος τῶν πράξεων ὀρθῶς, ἓν δὲ τὰς πρὸς τὸ τέλος φερούσας πράξεις εὑρίσκειν (ἐνδέχεται γὰρ ταῦτα καὶ διαφωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις καὶ συμφωνεῖν· ἐνίοτε γὰρ ὁ μὲν σκοπὸς ἔκκειται καλῶς, ἐν δὲ τῷ πράττειν τοῦ τυχεῖν αὐτοῦ διαμαρτάνουσιν, ὁτὲ δὲ τῶν μὲν πρὸς τὸ τέλος πάντων ἐπιτυγχάνουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ τέλος ἔθεντο φαῦλον, ὁτὲ δὲ ἑκατέρου διαμαρτάνουσιν, οἷον περὶ ἰατρικήν· οὔτε γὰρ ποῖόν τι δεῖ τὸ ὑγιαῖνον εἶναι σῶμα κρίνουσιν ἐνίοτε καλῶς, οὔτε πρὸς τὸν ὑποκείμενον αὐτοῖς ὅρον τυγχάνουσι τῶν ποιητικῶν· δεῖ δʼ ἐν ταῖς τέχναις καὶ ἐπιστήμαις ταῦτα ἀμφότερα κρατεῖσθαι, τὸ τέλος καὶ τὰς εἰς τὸ τέλος πράξεις), ὅτι μὲν οὖν τοῦ τε εὖ ζῆν καὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας ἐφίενται πάντες, φανερόν, ἀλλὰ τούτων τοῖς μὲν ἐξουσία τυγχάνει τοῖς δὲ οὔ, διά τινα τύχην ἢ φύσιν (δεῖται γὰρ καὶ χορηγίας τινὸς τὸ ζῆν καλῶς, τούτου δὲ ἐλάττονος μὲν τοῖς ἄμεινον διακειμένοις, πλείονος δὲ τοῖς χεῖρον), οἱ δʼ εὐθὺς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ζητοῦσι τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν, ἐξουσίας ὑπαρχούσης. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ προκείμενόν ἐστι τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ἰδεῖν, αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶ καθʼ ἣν ἄριστʼ ἂν πολιτεύοιτο πόλις, ἄριστα δʼ ἂν πολιτεύοιτο καθʼ ἣν εὐδαιμονεῖν μάλιστα ἐνδέχεται τὴν πόλιν, δῆλον ὅτι τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν δεῖ, τί ἐστι, μὴ λανθάνειν.

-

φαμὲν δὲ (καὶ διωρίσμεθα ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς, εἴ τι τῶν λόγων ἐκείνων ὄφελος) ἐνέργειαν εἶναι καὶ χρῆσιν ἀρετῆς τελείαν, καὶ ταύτην οὐκ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως ἀλλʼ ἁπλῶς. λέγω δʼ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως τἀναγκαῖα, τὸ δʼ ἁπλῶς τὸ καλῶς· οἷον τὰ περὶ τὰς δικαίας πράξεις, αἱ δίκαιαι τιμωρίαι καὶ κολάσεις ἀπʼ ἀρετῆς μέν εἰσιν, ἀναγκαῖαι δέ, καὶ τὸ καλῶς ἀναγκαίως ἔχουσιν (αἱρετώτερον μὲν γὰρ μηδενὸς δεῖσθαι τῶν τοιούτων μήτε τὸν ἄνδρα μήτε τὴν πόλιν), αἱ δʼ ἐπὶ τὰς τιμὰς καὶ τὰς εὐπορίας ἁπλῶς εἰσι κάλλισται πράξεις. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἕτερον κακοῦ τινὸς ἀναίρεσίς ἐστιν, αἱ τοιαῦται δὲ πράξεις τοὐναντίον· κατασκευαὶ γὰρ ἀγαθῶν εἰσι καὶ γεννήσεις. χρήσαιτο δʼ ἂν ὁ σπουδαῖος ἀνὴρ καὶ πενίᾳ καὶ νόσῳ καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τύχαις ταῖς φαύλαις καλῶς· ἀλλὰ τὸ μακάριον ἐν τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἐστίν (καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο διώρισται κατὰ τοὺς ἠθικοὺς λόγους, ὅτι τοιοῦτός ἐστιν ὁ σπουδαῖος, ᾧ διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀγαθά ἐστι τὰ ἁπλῶς ἀγαθά, δῆλον δʼ ὅτι καὶ τὰς χρήσεις ἀναγκαῖον σπουδαίας καὶ καλὰς εἶναι ταύτας ἁπλῶς)· διὸ καὶ νομίζουσιν ἄνθρωποι τῆς εὐδαιμονίας αἴτια τὰ ἐκτὸς εἶναι τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ὥσπερ εἰ τοῦ κιθαρίζειν λαμπρὸν καὶ καλῶς αἰτιῷντο τὴν λύραν μᾶλλον τῆς τέχνης.

-

ἀναγκαῖον τοίνυν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων τὰ μὲν ὑπάρχειν, τὰ δὲ παρασκευάσαι τὸν νομοθέτην. διὸ κατατυχεῖν εὐχόμεθα τῇ τῆς πόλεως συστάσει ὧν ἡ τύχη κυρία (κυρίαν γὰρ ὑπάρχειν τίθεμεν)· τὸ δὲ σπουδαίαν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν οὐκέτι τύχης ἔργον ἀλλʼ ἐπιστήμης καὶ προαιρέσεως. ἀλλὰ μὴν σπουδαία γε πόλις ἐστὶ τῷ τοὺς πολίτας τοὺς μετέχοντας τῆς πολιτείας εἶναι σπουδαίους· ἡμῖν δὲ πάντες οἱ πολῖται μετέχουσι τῆς πολιτείας. τοῦτʼ ἄρα σκεπτέον, πῶς ἀνὴρ γίνεται σπουδαῖος. καὶ γὰρ εἰ πάντας ἐνδέχεται σπουδαίους εἶναι, μὴ καθʼ ἕκαστον δὲ τῶν πολιτῶν, οὕτως αἱρετώτερον· ἀκολουθεῖ γὰρ τῷ καθʼ ἕκαστον καὶ τὸ πάντας. ἀλλὰ μὴν ἀγαθοί γε καὶ σπουδαῖοι γίγνονται διὰ τριῶν. τὰ τρία δὲ ταῦτά ἐστι φύσις ἔθος λόγος. καὶ γὰρ φῦναι δεῖ πρῶτον, οἷον ἄνθρωπον ἀλλὰ μὴ τῶν ἄλλων τι ζῴων· εἶτα καὶ ποιόν τινα τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ψυχήν. ἔνια δὲ οὐθὲν ὄφελος φῦναι· τὰ γὰρ ἔθη μεταβαλεῖν ποιεῖ· ἔνια γὰρ εἶσι, διὰ τῆς φύσεως ἐπαμφοτερίζοντα, διὰ τῶν ἐθῶν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον καὶ τὸ βέλτιον. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα τῶν ζῴων μάλιστα μὲν τῇ φύσει ζῇ, μικρὰ δʼ ἔνια καὶ τοῖς ἔθεσιν, ἄνθρωπος δὲ καὶ λόγῳ· μόνος γὰρ ἔχει λόγον· ὥστε δεῖ ταῦτα συμφωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις. πολλὰ γὰρ παρὰ τοὺς ἐθισμοὺς καὶ τὴν φύσιν πράττουσι διὰ τὸν λόγον, ἐὰν πεισθῶσιν ἄλλως ἔχειν βέλτιον. τὴν μὲν τοίνυν φύσιν οἵους εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς μέλλοντας εὐχειρώτους ἔσεσθαι τῷ νομοθέτῃ, διωρίσμεθα πρότερον· τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἔργον ἤδη παιδείας. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐθιζόμενοι μανθάνουσι τὰ δʼ ἀκούοντες.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ πᾶσα πολιτικὴ κοινωνία συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἀρχόντων καὶ ἀρχομένων, τοῦτο δὴ σκεπτέον, εἰ ἑτέρους εἶναι δεῖ τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ τοὺς ἀρχομένους ἢ τοὺς αὐτοὺς διὰ βίου· δῆλον γὰρ ὡς ἀκολουθεῖν δεήσει καὶ τὴν παιδείαν κατὰ τὴν διαίρεσιν ταύτην. εἰ μὲν τοίνυν εἴησαν τοσοῦτον διαφέροντες ἅτεροι τῶν ἄλλων ὅσον τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἥρωας ἡγούμεθα τῶν ἀνθρώπων διαφέρειν, εὐθὺς πρῶτον κατὰ τὸ σῶμα πολλὴν ἔχοντες ὑπερβολήν, εἶτα κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν, ὥστε ἀναμφισβήτητον εἶναι καὶ φανερὰν τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῖς ἀρχομένοις τὴν τῶν ἀρχόντων, δῆλον ὅτι βέλτιον ἀεὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς τοὺς μὲν ἄρχειν τοὺς δʼ ἄρχεσθαι καθάπαξ· ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦτʼ οὐ ῥᾴδιον λαβεῖν οὐδʼ ἔστιν ὥσπερ ἐν Ἰνδοῖς φησι Σκύλαξ εἶναι τοὺς βασιλέας τοσοῦτον διαφέροντας τῶν ἀρχομένων, φανερὸν ὅτι διὰ πολλὰς αἰτίας ἀναγκαῖον πάντας ὁμοίως κοινωνεῖν τοῦ κατὰ μέρος ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι. τό τε γὰρ ἴσον ταὐτὸν τοῖς ὁμοίοις, καὶ χαλεπὸν μένειν τὴν πολιτείαν τὴν συνεστηκυῖαν παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον. μετὰ γὰρ τῶν ἀρχομένων ὑπάρχουσι νεωτερίζειν βουλόμενοι πάντες οἱ κατὰ τὴν χώραν, τοσούτους τε εἶναι τοὺς ἐν τῷ πολιτεύματι τὸ πλῆθος ὥστʼ εἶναι κρείττους πάντων τούτων ἕν τι τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἐστίν. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι γε δεῖ τοὺς ἄρχοντας διαφέρειν τῶν ἀρχομένων, ἀναμφισβήτητον. πῶς οὖν ταῦτʼ ἔσται καὶ πῶς μεθέξουσι, δεῖ σκέψασθαι τὸν νομοθέτην. εἴρηται δὲ πρότερον περὶ αὐτοῦ. ἡ γὰρ φύσις δέδωκε τὴν διαίρεσιν ποιήσασα αὐτὸ τὸ γένει ταὐτὸ τὸ μὲν νεώτερον τὸ δὲ πρεσβύτερον, ὧν τοῖς μὲν ἄρχεσθαι πρέπει τοῖς δʼ ἄρχειν· ἀγανακτεῖ δὲ οὐδεὶς καθʼ ἡλικίαν ἀρχόμενος, οὐδὲ νομίζει εἶναι κρείττων, ἄλλως τε καὶ μέλλων ἀντιλαμβάνειν τοῦτον τὸν ἔρανον ὅταν τύχῃ τῆς ἱκνουμένης ἡλικίας.

-

ἔστι μὲν ἄρα ὡς τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι φατέον, ἔστι δὲ ὡς ἑτέρους. ὥστε καὶ τὴν παιδείαν ἔστιν ὡς τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναγκαῖον, ἔστιδʼ ὡς ἑτέραν εἶναι. τὸν τε γὰρ μέλλοντα καλῶς ἄρχειν ἀρχθῆναί φασι δεῖν πρῶτον. (ἔστι δὲ ἀρχή, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις εἴρηται λόγοις, ἡ μὲν τοῦ ἄρχοντος χάριν ἡ δὲ τοῦ ἀρχομένου. τούτων δὲ τὴν μὲν δεσποτικὴν εἶναί φαμεν, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἐλευθέρων. διαφέρει δʼ ἔνια τῶν ἐπιταττομένων οὐ τοῖς ἔργοις ἀλλὰ τῷ τίνος ἕνεκα. διὸ πολλὰ τῶν εἶναι δοκούντων διακονικῶν ἔργων καὶ τῶν νέων τοῖς ἐλευθέροις καλὸν διακονεῖν· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ μὴ καλὸν οὐχ οὕτω διαφέρουσιν αἱ πράξεις καθʼ αὑτὰς ὡς ἐν τῷ τέλει καὶ τῷ τίνος ἕνεκεν.) ἐπεὶ δὲ πολίτου καὶ ἄρχοντος τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρετὴν εἶναί φαμεν καὶ τοῦ ἀρίστου ἀνδρός, τὸν δʼ αὐτὸν ἀρχόμενόν τε δεῖν γίγνεσθαι πρότερον καὶ ἄρχοντα ὕστερον, τοῦτʼ ἂν εἴη τῷ νομοθέτῃ πραγματευτέον, ὅπως ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ γίγνωνται, καὶ διὰ τίνων ἐπιτηδευμάτων, καὶ τί τὸ τέλος τῆς ἀρίστης ζωῆς.

-

διῄρηται δὲ δύο μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἔχει λόγον καθʼ αὑτό, τὸ δʼ οὐκ ἔχει μὲν καθʼ αὑτὸ λόγῳ δʼ ὑπακούειν δυνάμενον· ὧν φαμεν τὰς ἀρετὰς εἶναι καθʼ ἃς ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς λέγεταί πως. τούτων δὲ ἐν ποτέρῳ μᾶλλον τὸ τέλος, τοῖς μὲν οὕτω διαιροῦσιν ὡς ἡμεῖς φαμεν οὐκ ἄδηλον πῶς λεκτέον. αἰεὶ γὰρ τὸ χεῖρον τοῦ βελτίονός ἐστιν ἕνεκεν, καὶ τοῦτο φανερὸν ὁμοίως ἔν τε τοῖς κατὰ τέχνην καὶ τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν· βέλτιον δὲ τὸ λόγον ἔχον. διῄρηταί τε διχῇ, καθʼ ὅνπερ εἰώθαμεν τρόπον διαιρεῖν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ πρακτικός ἐστι λόγος ὁ δὲ θεωρητικός. ὡσαύτως οὖν ἀνάγκη διῃρῆσθαι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος δηλονότι. καὶ τὰς πράξεις δʼ ἀνάλογον ἐροῦμεν ἔχειν, καὶ δεῖ τὰς τοῦ φύσει βελτίονος αἱρετωτέρας εἶναι τοῖς δυναμένοις τυγχάνειν ἢ πασῶν ἢ τοῖν δυοῖν· αἰεὶ γὰρ ἑκάστῳ τοῦθʼ αἱρετώτατον οὗ τυχεῖν ἔστιν ἀκροτάτου. διῄρηται δὲ καὶ πᾶς ὁ βίος εἰς ἀσχολίαν καὶ σχολὴν καὶ εἰς πόλεμον καὶ εἰρήνην, καὶ τῶν πρακτῶν τὰ μὲν εἰς τὰ ἀναγκαῖα καὶ χρήσιμα τὰ δὲ εἰς τὰ καλά. περὶ ὧν ἀνάγκη τὴν αὐτὴν αἵρεσιν εἶναι καὶ τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς μέρεσι καὶ ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτῶν, πόλεμον μὲν εἰρήνης χάριν, ἀσχολίαν δὲ σχολῆς, τὰ δʼ ἀναγκαῖα καὶ χρήσιμα τῶν καλῶν ἕνεκεν. πρὸς πάντα μὲν τοίνυν τῷ πολιτικῷ βλέποντι νομοθετητέον, καὶ κατὰ τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ κατὰ τὰς πράξεις αὐτῶν, μᾶλλον δὲ πρὸς τὰ βελτίω καὶ τὰ τέλη. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ τοὺς βίους καὶ τὰς τῶν πραγμάτων αἱρέσεις· δεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἀσχολεῖν δύνασθαι καὶ πολεμεῖν, μᾶλλον δʼ εἰρήνην ἄγειν καὶ σχολάζειν, καὶ τἀναγκαῖα καὶ τὰ χρήσιμα δὲ πράττειν, τὰ δὲ καλὰ δεῖ μᾶλλον. ὥστε πρὸς τούτους τοὺς σκοποὺς καὶ παῖδας ἔτι ὄντας παιδευτέον καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἡλικίας, ὅσαι δέονται παιδείας.

-

οἱ δὲ νῦν ἄριστα δοκοῦντες πολιτεύεσθαι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, καὶ τῶν νομοθετῶν οἱ ταύτας καταστήσαντες τὰς πολιτείας, οὔτε πρὸς τὸ βέλτιστον τέλος φαίνονται συντάξαντες τὰ περὶ τὰς πολιτείας οὔτε πρὸς πάσας τὰς ἀρετὰς τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὴν παιδείαν, ἀλλὰ φορτικῶς ἀπέκλιναν πρὸς τὰς χρησίμους εἶναι δοκούσας καὶ πλεονεκτικωτέρας. παραπλησίως δὲ τούτοις καὶ τῶν ὕστερόν τινες γραψάντων ἀπεφήναντο τὴν αὐτὴν δόξαν· ἐπαινοῦντες γὰρ τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείαν ἄγανται τοῦ νομοθέτου τὸν σκοπόν, ὅτι πάντα πρὸς τὸ κρατεῖν καὶ πρὸς πόλεμον ἐνομοθέτησεν. ἃ καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἐστὶν εὐέλεγκτα καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις ἐξελήλεγκται νῦν. ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων ζηλοῦσι τὸ πολλῶν δεσπόζειν, ὅτι πολλὴ χορηγία γίγνεται τῶν εὐτυχημάτων, οὕτω καὶ Θίβρων ἀγάμενος φαίνεται τὸν τῶν Λακώνων νομοθέτην, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστος τῶν γραφόντων περὶ τῆς πολιτείας αὐτῶν, ὅτι διὰ τὸ γεγυμνάσθαι πρὸς τοὺς κινδύνους πολλῶν ἦρχον· καίτοι δῆλον ὡς ἐπειδὴ νῦν γε οὐκέτι ὑπάρχει τοῖς Λάκωσι τὸ ἄρχειν, οὐκ εὐδαίμονες, οὐδʼ ὁ νομοθέτης ἀγαθός. ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο γελοῖον, εἰ μένοντες ἐν τοῖς νόμοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ μηδενὸς ἐμποδίζοντος πρὸς τὸ χρῆσθαι τοῖς νόμοις, ἀποβεβλήκασι τὸ ζῆν καλῶς. οὐκ ὀρθῶς δʼ ὑπολαμβάνουσιν οὐδὲ περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἣν δεῖ τιμῶντα φαίνεσθαι τὸν νομοθέτην· τοῦ γὰρ δεσποτικῶς ἄρχειν ἡ τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀρχὴ καλλίων καὶ μᾶλλον μετʼ ἀρετῆς. ἔτι δὲ οὐ διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ τὴν πόλιν εὐδαίμονα νομίζειν καὶ τὸν νομοθέτην ἐπαινεῖν, ὅτι κρατεῖν ἤσκησεν ἐπὶ τὸ τῶν πέλας ἄρχειν· ταῦτα γὰρ μεγάλην ἔχει βλάβην. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν τῷ δυναμένῳ τοῦτο πειρατέον διώκειν, ὅπως δύνηται τῆς οἰκείας πόλεως ἄρχειν· ὅπερ ἐγκαλοῦσιν οἱ Λάκωνες Παυσανίᾳ τῷ βασιλεῖ, καίπερ ἔχοντι τηλικαύτην τιμήν.

-

οὔτε δὴ πολιτικὸς τῶν τοιούτων λόγων καὶ νόμων οὐθεὶς οὔτε ὠφέλιμος οὔτε ἀληθής ἐστιν. ταὐτὰ γὰρ ἄριστα καὶ ἰδίᾳ καὶ κοινῇ, τόν τε νομοθέτην ἐμποιεῖν δεῖ ταῦτα ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· τήν τε τῶν πολεμικῶν ἄσκησιν οὐ τούτου χάριν δεῖ μελετᾶν, ἵνα καταδουλώσωνται τοὺς ἀναξίους, ἀλλʼ ἵνα πρῶτον μὲν αὐτοὶ μὴ δουλεύσωσιν ἑτέροις, ἔπειτα ὅπως ζητῶσι τὴν ἡγεμονίαν τῆς ὠφελείας ἕνεκα τῶν ἀρχομένων, ἀλλὰ μὴ πάντων δεσποτείας· τρίτον δὲ τὸ δεσπόζειν τῶν ἀξίων δουλεύειν. ὅτι δὲ δεῖ τὸν νομοθέτην μᾶλλον σπουδάζειν ὅπως καὶ τὴν περὶ τὰ πολεμικὰ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην νομοθεσίαν τοῦ σχολάζειν ἕνεκεν τάξῃ καὶ τῆς εἰρήνης, μαρτυρεῖ τὰ γιγνόμενα τοῖς λόγοις. αἱ γὰρ πλεῖσται τῶν τοιούτων πόλεων πολεμοῦσαι μὲν σῴζονται, κατακτησάμεναι δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπόλλυνται. τὴν γὰρ βαφὴν ἀνιᾶσιν, ὥσπερ ὁ σίδηρος, εἰρήνην ἄγοντες. αἴτιος δʼ ὁ νομοθέτης οὐ παιδεύσας δύνασθαι σχολάζειν.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ τέλος εἶναι φαίνεται καὶ κοινῇ καὶ ἰδίᾳ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὅρον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τῷ τε ἀρίστῳ ἀνδρὶ καὶ τῇ ἀρίστῃ πολιτείᾳ, φανερὸν ὅτι δεῖ τὰς εἰς τὴν σχολὴν ἀρετὰς ὑπάρχειν· τέλος γάρ, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις, εἰρήνη μὲν πολέμου σχολὴ δʼ ἀσχολίας. χρήσιμοι δὲ τῶν ἀρετῶν εἰσι πρὸς τὴν σχολὴν καὶ διαγωγὴν ὧν τε ἐν τῇ σχολῇ τὸ ἔργον καὶ ὧν ἐν τῇ ἀσχολίᾳ. δεῖ γὰρ πολλὰ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ὑπάρχειν ὅπως ἐξῇ σχολάζειν· διὸ σώφρονα τὴν πόλιν εἶναι προσήκει καὶ ἀνδρείαν καὶ καρτερικήν· κατὰ γὰρ τὴν παροιμίαν, οὐ σχολὴ δούλοις, οἱ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενοι κινδυνεύειν ἀνδρείως δοῦλοι τῶν ἐπιόντων εἰσίν. ἀνδρείας μὲν οὖν καὶ καρτερίας δεῖ πρὸς τὴν ἀσχολίαν, φιλοσοφίας δὲ πρὸς τὴν σχολήν, σωφροσύνης δὲ καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἐν ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς χρόνοις, καὶ μᾶλλον εἰρήνην ἄγουσι καὶ σχολάζουσιν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ πόλεμος ἀναγκάζει δικαίους εἶναι καὶ σωφρονεῖν, ἡ δὲ τῆς εὐτυχίας ἀπόλαυσις καὶ τὸ σχολάζειν μετʼ εἰρήνης ὑβριστὰς ποιεῖ μᾶλλον. πολλῆς οὖν δεῖ δικαιοσύνης καὶ πολλῆς σωφροσύνης τοὺς ἄριστα δοκοῦντας πράττειν καὶ πάντων τῶν μακαριζομένων ἀπολαύοντας, οἷον εἴ τινές εἰσιν, ὥσπερ οἱ ποιηταί φασιν, ἐν μακάρων νήσοις· μάλιστα γὰρ οὗτοι δεήσονται φιλοσοφίας καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης, ὅσῳ μᾶλλον σχολάζουσιν ἐν ἀφθονίᾳ τῶν τοιούτων ἀγαθῶν. διότι μὲν οὖν τὴν μέλλουσαν εὐδαιμονήσειν καὶ σπουδαίαν ἔσεσθαι πόλιν τούτων δεῖ τῶν ἀρετῶν μετέχειν, φανερόν. αἰσχροῦ γὰρ ὄντος μὴ δύνασθαι χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς, ἔτι μᾶλλον τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι ἐν τῷ σχολάζειν χρῆσθαι, ἀλλʼ ἀσχολοῦντας μὲν καὶ πολεμοῦντας φαίνεσθαι ἀγαθούς, εἰρήνην δʼ ἄγοντας καὶ σχολάζοντας ἀνδραποδώδεις. διὸ δεῖ μὴ καθάπερ ἡ Λακεδαιμονίων πόλις τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀσκεῖν. ἐκεῖνοι μὲν γὰρ οὐ ταύτῃ διαφέρουσι τῶν ἄλλων, τῷ μὴ νομίζειν ταὐτὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις μέγιστα τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἀλλὰ τῷ γίνεσθαι ταῦτα μᾶλλον διὰ τινὸς ἀρετῆς· ἐπεὶ δὲ μείζω τε ἀγαθὰ ταῦτα καὶ τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν τὴν τούτων ἢ τὴν τῶν ἀρετῶν . καὶ ὅτι διʼ αὑτήν, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων· πῶς δὲ καὶ διὰ τίνων ἔσται, τοῦτο δὴ θεωρητέον.

-

τυγχάνομεν δὴ διῃρημένοι πρότερον ὅτι φύσεως καὶ ἔθους καὶ λόγου δεῖ. τούτων δὲ ποίους μέν τινας εἶναι χρὴ τὴν φύσιν, διώρισται πρότερον, λοιπὸν δὲ θεωρῆσαι πότερον παιδευτέοι τῷ λόγῳ πρότερον ἢ τοῖς ἔθεσιν. ταῦτα γὰρ δεῖ πρὸς ἄλληλα συμφωνεῖν συμφωνίαν τὴν ἀρίστην· ἐνδέχεται γὰρ διημαρτηκέναι τὸν λόγον τῆς βελτίστης ὑποθέσεως, καὶ διὰ τῶν ἐθῶν ὁμοίως ἦχθαι. φανερὸν δὴ τοῦτό γε πρῶτον μέν, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὡς ἡ γένεσις ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἐστι καὶ τὸ τέλος ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς ἄλλου τέλους, ὁ δὲ λόγος ἡμῖν καὶ ὁ νοῦς τῆς φύσεως τέλος, ὥστε πρὸς τούτους τὴν γένεσιν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐθῶν δεῖ παρασκευάζειν μελέτην· ἔπειτα ὥσπερ ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα δύʼ ἐστίν, οὕτω καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ὁρῶμεν δύο μέρη, τό τε ἄλογον καὶ τὸ λόγον ἔχον, καὶ τὰς ἕξεις τὰς τούτων δύο τὸν ἀριθμόν, ὧν τὸ μέν ἐστιν ὄρεξις τὸ δὲ νοῦς, ὥσπερ δὲ τὸ σῶμα πρότερον τῇ γενέσει τῆς ψυχῆς, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἄλογον τοῦ λόγον ἔχοντος. φανερὸν δὲ καὶ τοῦτο· θυμὸς γὰρ καὶ βούλησις, ἔτι δὲ ἐπιθυμία, καὶ γενομένοις εὐθὺς ὑπάρχει τοῖς παιδίοις, ὁ δὲ λογισμὸς καὶ ὁ νοῦς προϊοῦσιν ἐγγίγνεσθαι πέφυκεν. διὸ πρῶτον μὲν τοῦ σώματος τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι προτέραν ἢ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἔπειτα τὴν τῆς ὀρέξεως, ἕνεκα μέντοι τοῦ νοῦ τὴν τῆς ὀρέξεως, τὴν δὲ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ψυχῆς.

-

εἴπερ οὖν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς τὸν νομοθέτην ὁρᾶν δεῖ ὅπως βέλτιστα τὰ σώματα γένηται τῶν τρεφομένων, πρῶτον μὲν ἐπιμελητέον περὶ τὴν σύζευξιν, πότε καὶ ποίους τινὰς ὄντας χρὴ ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὴν γαμικὴν ὁμιλίαν. δεῖ δʼ ἀποβλέποντα νομοθετεῖν ταύτην τὴν κοινωνίαν πρὸς αὐτούς τε καὶ τὸν τοῦ ζῆν χρόνον, ἵνα συγκαταβαίνωσι ταῖς ἡλικίαις ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν καὶ μὴ διαφωνῶσιν αἱ δυνάμεις τοῦ μὲν ἔτι δυναμένου γεννᾶν τῆς δὲ μὴ δυναμένης, ἢ ταύτης μὲν τοῦ δʼ ἀνδρὸς μή (ταῦτα γὰρ ποιεῖ καὶ στάσεις πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ διαφοράς)· ἔπειτα καὶ πρὸς τὴν τῶν τέκνων διαδοχήν, δεῖ γὰρ οὔτε λίαν ὑπολείπεσθαι ταῖς ἡλικίαις τὰ τέκνα τῶν πατέρων (ἀνόνητος γὰρ τοῖς μὲν πρεσβυτέροις ἡ χάρις παρὰ τῶν τέκνων, ἡ δὲ παρὰ τῶν πατέρων βοήθεια τοῖς τέκνοις), οὔτε λίαν πάρεγγυς εἶναι (πολλὴν γὰρ ἔχει δυσχέρειαν· ἥ τε γὰρ αἰδὼς ἧττον ὑπάρχει τοῖς τοιούτοις ὥσπερ ἡλικιώταις καὶ περὶ τὴν οἰκονομίαν ἐγκληματικὸν τὸ πάρεγγυς)· ἔτι δʼ, ὅθεν ἀρχόμενοι δεῦρο μετέβημεν, ὅπως τὰ σώματα τῶν γεννωμένων ὑπάρχῃ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ νομοθέτου βούλησιν.

-

σχεδὸν δὴ πάντα ταῦτα συμβαίνει κατὰ μίαν ἐπιμέλειαν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὥρισται τέλος τῆς γεννήσεως ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον εἰπεῖν ἀνδράσι μὲν ὁ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἐτῶν ἀριθμὸς ἔσχατος, πεντήκοντα δὲ γυναιξί, δεῖ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς συζεύξεως κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν εἰς τοὺς χρόνους καταβαίνειν τούτους. ἔστι δʼ ὁ τῶν νέων συνδυασμὸς φαῦλος πρὸς τὴν τεκνοποιίαν· ἐν γὰρ πᾶσι ζῴοις ἀτελῆ τὰ τῶν νέων ἔκγονα, καὶ θηλυτόκα μᾶλλον καὶ μικρὰ τὴν μορφήν, ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖον ταὐτὸ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. τεκμήριον δέ· ἐν ὅσαις γὰρ τῶν πόλεων ἐπιχωριάζεται τὸ νέους συζευγνύναι καὶ νέας, ἀτελεῖς καὶ μικροὶ τὰ σώματά εἰσιν. ἔτι δὲ ἐν τοῖς τόκοις αἱ νέαι πονοῦσί τε μᾶλλον καὶ διαφθείρονται πλείους· διὸ καὶ τὸν χρησμὸν γενέσθαι τινές φασι διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν τοῖς Τροιζηνίοις, ὡς πολλῶν διαφθειρομένων διὰ τὸ γαμίσκεσθαι τὰς νεωτέρας, ἀλλʼ οὐ πρὸς τὴν τῶν καρπῶν κομιδήν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ πρὸς σωφροσύνην συμφέρει τὰς ἐκδόσεις ποιεῖσθαι πρεσβυτέραις· ἀκολαστότεραι γὰρ εἶναι δοκοῦσι νέαι χρησάμεναι ταῖς συνουσίαις. καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀρρένων δὲ σώματα βλάπτεσθαι δοκεῖ πρὸς τὴν αὔξησιν, ἐὰν ἔτι τοῦ σπέρματος αὐξανομένου ποιῶνται τὴν συνουσίαν· καὶ γὰρ τούτου τις ὡρισμένος χρόνος, ὃν οὐχ ὑπερβαίνει πληθύον ἔτι, ἢ μικρόν· διὸ τὰς μὲν ἁρμόττει περὶ τὴν τῶν ὀκτωκαίδεκα ἐτῶν ἡλικίαν συζευγνύναι, τοὺς δʼ ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα ἢ μικρόν πρότερον·ἐν τοσούτῳ γὰρ ἀκμάζουσί τε τοῖς σώμασιν ἡ σύζευξις ἔσται, καὶ πρὸς τὴν παῦλαν τῆς τεκνοποιίας συγκαταβήσεται τοῖς χρόνοις εὐκαίρως· ἔτι δὲ ἡ διαδοχὴ τῶν τέκνων τοῖς μὲν ἀρχομένοις ἔσται τῆς ἀκμῆς, ἐὰν γίγνηται κατὰ λόγον εὐθὺς ἡ γένεσις, τοῖς δὲ ἤδη καταλελυμένης τῆς ἡλικίας πρὸς τὸν τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἐτῶν ἀριθμόν.

-

περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ πότε δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν σύζευξιν εἴρηται, τοῖς δὲ περὶ τὴν ὥραν χρόνοις δεῖ χρῆσθαι οἷς οἱ πολλοὶ χρῶνται, καλῶς καὶ νῦν ὁρίσαντες χειμῶνος τὴν συναυλίαν ποιεῖσθαι ταύτην. δεῖ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὺς ἤδη θεωρεῖν πρὸς τὴν τεκνοποιίαν τά τε παρὰ τῶν ἰατρῶν λεγόμενα καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῶν φυσικῶν· οἵ τε γὰρ ἰατροὶ τοὺς καιροὺς τῶν σωμάτων ἱκανῶς λέγουσι, καὶ περὶ τῶν πνευμάτων οἱ φυσικοί, τὰ βόρεια τῶν νοτίων ἐπαινοῦντες μᾶλλον. ποίων δέ τινων τῶν σωμάτων ὑπαρχόντων μάλιστʼ ἂν ὄφελος εἴη τοῖς γεννωμένοις, ἐπιστήσασι μὲν μᾶλλον λεκτέον ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῆς παιδονομίας, τύπῳ δὲ ἱκανὸν εἰπεῖν καὶ νῦν. οὔτε γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἀθλητῶν χρήσιμος ἕξις πρὸς πολιτικὴν εὐεξίαν οὐδὲ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ τεκνοποιίαν, οὔτε ἡ θεραπευτικὴ καὶ κακοπονητικὴ λίαν, ἀλλʼ ἡ μέση τούτων. πεπονημένην μὲν οὖν ἔχειν δεῖ τὴν ἕξιν, πεπονημένην δὲ πόνοις μὴ βιαίοις, μηδὲ πρὸς ἕνα μόνον, ὥσπερ ἡ τῶν ἀθλητῶν ἕξις, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἐλευθερίων πράξεις. ὁμοίως δὲ δεῖ ταῦτα ὑπάρχειν ἀνδράσι καὶ γυναιξίν.

-

χρὴ δὲ καὶ τὰς ἐγκύους ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῶν σωμάτων, μὴ ῥᾳθυμούσας μηδʼ ἀραιᾷ τροφῇ χρωμένας. τοῦτο δὲ ῥᾴδιον τῷ νομοθέτῃ ποιῆσαι προστάξαντι καθʼ ἡμέραν τινὰ ποιεῖσθαι πορείαν πρὸς θεῶν ἀποθεραπείαν τῶν εἰληχότων τὴν περὶ τῆς γενέσεως τιμήν. τὴν μέντοι διάνοιαν τοὐναντίον τῶν σωμάτων ῥᾳθυμοτέρως ἁρμόττει διάγειν· ἀπολαύοντα γὰρ φαίνεται τὰ γεννώμενα τῆς ἐχούσης ὥσπερ τὰ φυόμενα τῆς γῆς. περὶ δὲ ἀποθέσεως καὶ τροφῆς τῶν γιγνομένων ἔστω νόμος μηδὲν πεπηρωμένον τρέφειν, διὰ δὲ πλῆθος τέκνων ἡ τάξις τῶν ἐθῶν κωλύῃ μηθὲν ἀποτίθεσθαι τῶν γιγνομένων· ὁρισθῆναι δὲ δεῖ τῆς τεκνοποιίας τὸ πλῆθος, ἐὰν δέ τισι γίγνηται παρὰ ταῦτα συνδυασθέντων, πρὶν αἴσθησιν ἐγγενέσθαι καὶ ζωὴν ἐμποιεῖσθαι δεῖ τὴν ἄμβλωσιν· τὸ γὰρ ὅσιον καὶ τὸ μὴ διωρισμένον τῇ αἰσθήσει καὶ τῷ ζῆν ἔσται. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἡ μὲν ἀρχὴ τῆς ἡλικίας ἀνδρὶ καὶ γυναικὶ διώρισται, πότε ἄρχεσθαι χρὴ τῆς συζεύξεως, καὶ πόσον χρόνον λειτουργεῖν ἁρμόττει πρὸς τεκνοποιίαν ὡρίσθω. τὰ γὰρ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἔκγονα, καθάπερ τὰ τῶν νεωτέρων, ἀτελῆ γίγνεται καὶ τοῖς σώμασι καὶ ταῖς διανοίαις, τὰ δὲ τῶν γεγηρακότων ἀσθενῆ· διὸ κατὰ τὴν τῆς διανοίας ἀκμήν. αὕτη δʼ ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις ἥνπερ τῶν ποιητῶν τινες εἰρήκασιν οἱ μετροῦντες ταῖς ἑβδομάσι τὴν ἡλικίαν, περὶ τὸν χρόνον τὸν τῶν πεντήκοντα ἐτῶν. ὥστε τέτταρσιν ἢ πέντε ἔτεσιν ὑπερβάλλοντα τὴν ἡλικίαν ταύτην ἀφεῖσθαι δεῖ τῆς εἰς τὸ φανερὸν γεννήσεως· τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ὑγιείας χάριν ἤ τινος ἄλλης τοιαύτης αἰτίας φαίνεσθαι δεῖ ποιουμένους τὴν ὁμιλίαν. περὶ δὲ τῆς πρὸς ἄλλην ἢ πρὸς ἄλλον, ἔστω μὲν ἁπλῶς μὴ καλὸν ἁπτόμενον φαίνεσθαι μηδαμῇ μηδαμῶς, ὅταν ᾖ καὶ προσαγορευθῇ πόσις· περὶ δὲ τὸν χρόνον τὸν τῆς τεκνοποιίας ἐάν τις φαίνηται τοιοῦτόν τι δρῶν, ἀτιμίᾳ ζημιούσθω πρεπούσῃ πρὸς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν.

-

γενομένων δὲ τῶν τέκνων οἴεσθαι δεῖ μεγάλην εἶναι διαφορὰν πρὸς τὴν τῶν σωμάτων δύναμιν τὴν τροφήν, ὁποία τις ἂν ᾖ. φαίνεται δὲ διά τε τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἐπισκοποῦσι, καὶ διὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν οἷς ἐπιμελές ἐστιν ἄγειν εἰς τὴν πολεμικὴν ἕξιν, ἡ τοῦ γάλακτος πλήθουσα τροφὴ μάλιστʼ οἰκεία τοῖς σώμασιν, ἡ ἀοινοτέρα δὲ διὰ τὰ νοσήματα. ἔτι δὲ καὶ κινήσεις ὅσας ἐνδέχεται ποιεῖσθαι τηλικούτων συμφέρει. πρὸς δὲ τὸ μὴ διαστρέφεσθαι τὰ μέλη διʼ ἁπαλότητα χρῶνται καὶ νῦν ἔνια τῶν ἐθνῶν ὀργάνοις τισὶ μηχανικοῖς, ἃ τὸ σῶμα ποιεῖ τῶν τοιούτων ἀστραβές. συμφέρει δʼ εὐθὺς καὶ πρὸς τὰ ψύχη συνεθίζειν ἐκ μικρῶν παίδων· τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ πρὸς πολεμικὰς πράξεις εὐχρηστότατον. διὸ παρὰ πολλοῖς ἐστι τῶν βαρβάρων ἔθος τοῖς μὲν εἰς ποταμὸν ἀποβάπτειν τὰ γιγνόμενα ψυχρόν, τοῖς δὲ σκέπασμα μικρὸν ἀμπίσχειν, οἷον Κελτοῖς. πάντα γὰρ ὅσα δυνατὸν ἐθίζειν εὐθὺς ἀρχομένων βέλτιον ἐθίζειν μέν, ἐκ προσαγωγῆς δʼ ἐθίζειν· εὐφυὴς δʼ ἡ τῶν παίδων ἕξις διὰ θερμότητα πρὸς τὴν τῶν ψυχρῶν ἄσκησιν.

-

περὶ μὲν οὖν τὴν πρώτην συμφέρει ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν τοιαύτην τε καὶ τὴν ταύτῃ παραπλησίαν· τὴν δʼ ἐχομένην ταύτης ἡλικίαν μέχρι πέντε ἐτῶν, ἣν οὔτε πω πρὸς μάθησιν καλῶς ἔχει προσάγειν οὐδεμίαν οὔτε πρὸς ἀναγκαίους πόνους, ὅπως μὴ τὴν αὔξησιν ἐμποδίζωσιν, δεῖ τοσαύτης τυγχάνειν κινήσεως ὥστε διαφεύγειν τὴν ἀργίαν τῶν σωμάτων· ἣν χρὴ παρασκευάζειν καὶ διʼ ἄλλων πράξεων καὶ διὰ τῆς παιδιᾶς. δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰς παιδιὰς εἶναι μήτε ἀνελευθέρους μήτε ἐπιπόνους μήτε ἀνειμένας. καὶ περὶ λόγων δὲ καὶ μύθων, ποίους τινὰς ἀκούειν δεῖ τοὺς τηλικούτους, ἐπιμελὲς ἔστω τοῖς ἄρχουσιν οὓς καλοῦσι παιδονόμους. πάντα γὰρ δεῖ τὰ τοιαῦτα προοδοποιεῖν πρὸς τὰς ὕστερον διατριβάς· διὸ τὰς παιδιὰς εἶναι δεῖ τὰς πολλὰς μιμήσεις τῶν ὕστερον σπουδαζομένων. τὰς δὲ διατάσεις τῶν παίδων καὶ κλαυθμοὺς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἀπαγορεύουσιν οἱ κωλύοντες ἐν τοῖς νόμοις· συμφέρουσι γὰρ πρὸς αὔξησιν· γίγνεται γὰρ τρόπον τινὰ γυμνασία τοῖς σώμασιν· ἡ γὰρ τοῦ πνεύματος κάθεξις ποιεῖ τὴν ἰσχὺν τοῖς πονοῦσιν, ὃ συμβαίνει καὶ τοῖς παιδίοις διατεινομένοις.

-

ἐπισκεπτέον δὲ τοῖς παιδονόμοις τὴν τούτων διαγωγήν, τήν τʼ ἄλλην καὶ ὅπως ὅτι ἥκιστα μετὰ δούλων ἔσται. ταύτην γὰρ τὴν ἡλικίαν, καὶ μέχρι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν, ἀναγκαῖον οἴκοι τὴν τροφὴν ἔχειν. εὔλογον οὖν ἀπολαύειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀκουσμάτων καὶ τῶν ὁραμάτων ἀνελευθερίαν καὶ τηλικούτους ὄντας. ὅλως μὲν οὖν αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως, ὥσπερ ἄλλο τι, δεῖ τὸν νομοθέτην ἐξορίζειν (ἐκ τοῦ γὰρ εὐχερῶς λέγειν ὁτιοῦν τῶν αἰσχρῶν γίνεται καὶ τὸ ποιεῖν σύνεγγυς)· μάλιστα μὲν οὖν ἐκ τῶν νέων, ὅπως μήτε λέγωσι μήτε ἀκούωσι μηδὲν τοιοῦτον· ἐὰν δέ τις φαίνηταί τι λέγων ἢ πράττων τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων, τὸν μὲν ἐλεύθερον μὲν μήπω δὲ κατακλίσεως ἠξιωμένον ἐν τοῖς συσσιτίοις ἀτιμίαις κολάζειν καὶ πληγαῖς, τὸν δὲ πρεσβύτερον τῆς ἡλικίας ταύτης ἀτιμίαις ἀνελευθέροις ἀνδραποδωδίας χάριν. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ λέγειν τι τῶν τοιούτων ἐξορίζομεν, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ τὸ θεωρεῖν ἢ γραφὰς ἢ λόγους ἀσχήμονας. ἐπιμελὲς μὲν οὖν ἔστω τοῖς ἄρχουσι μηθέν, μήτε ἄγαλμα μήτε γραφήν, εἶναι τοιούτων πράξεων μίμησιν, εἰ μὴ παρά τισι θεοῖς τοιούτοις οἷς καὶ τὸν τωθασμὸν ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ νόμος. πρὸς δὲ τούτους ἀφίησιν ὁ νόμος τοὺς τὴν ἡλικίαν ἔχοντας ἔτι τὴν ἱκνουμένην καὶ ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν καὶ τέκνων καὶ γυναικῶν τιμαλφεῖν τοὺς θεούς· τοὺς δὲ νεωτέρους οὔτʼ ἰάμβων οὔτε κωμῳδίας θεατὰς ἐατέον, πρὶν ἢ τὴν ἡλικίαν λάβωσιν ἐν ᾗ καὶ κατακλίσεως ὑπάρξει κοινωνεῖν ἤδη καὶ μέθης, καὶ τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων γιγνομένης βλάβης ἀπαθεῖς ἡ παιδεία ποιήσει πάντως.

-

νῦν μὲν οὖν ἐν παραδρομῇ τοῦτον πεποιήμεθα τὸν λόγον· ὕστερον δʼ ἐπιστήσαντας δεῖ διορίσαι μᾶλλον, εἴτε μὴ δεῖ πρῶτον εἴτε δεῖ διαπορήσαντας, καὶ πῶς δεῖ· κατὰ δὲ τὸν παρόντα καιρὸν ἐμνήσθημεν ὡς ἀναγκαῖον. ἴσως γὰρ οὐ κακῶς ἔλεγε τὸ τοιοῦτον Θεόδωρος ὁ τῆς τραγῳδίας ὑποκριτής· οὐθενὶ γὰρ πώποτε παρῆκεν ἑαυτοῦ προεισάγειν, οὐδὲ τῶν εὐτελῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς οἰκειουμένων τῶν θεατῶν ταῖς πρώταις ἀκοαῖς· συμβαίνει δὲ ταὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁμιλίας καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῶν πραγμάτων· πάντα γὰρ στέργομεν τὰ πρῶτα μᾶλλον. διὸ δεῖ τοῖς νέοις πάντα ποιεῖν ξένα τὰ φαῦλα, μάλιστα δʼ αὐτῶν ὅσα ἔχει ἢ μοχθηρίαν ἢ δυσμένειαν. διελθόντων δὲ τῶν πέντε ἐτῶν τὰ δύο μέχρι τῶν ἑπτὰ δεῖ θεωροὺς ἤδη γίγνεσθαι τῶν μαθήσεων ἃς δεήσει μανθάνειν αὐτούς. δύο δʼ εἰσὶν ἡλικίαι πρὸς ἃς ἀναγκαῖον διῃρῆσθαι τὴν παιδείαν, πρὸς τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ μέχρι ἥβης καὶ πάλιν μετὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀφʼ ἥβης μέχρι τῶν ἑνὸς καὶ εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν. οἱ γὰρ ταῖς ἑβδομάσι διαιροῦντες τὰς ἡλικίας ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ λέγουσιν οὐ κακῶς, δεῖ δὲ τῇ διαιρέσει τῆς φύσεως ἐπακολουθεῖν· πᾶσα γὰρ τέχνη καὶ παιδεία τὸ προσλεῖπον βούλεται τῆς φύσεως ἀναπληροῦν. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν σκεπτέον εἰ ποιητέον τάξιν τινὰ περὶ τοὺς παῖδας, ἔπειτα πότερον συμφέρει κοινῇ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν αὐτῶν ἢ κατʼ ἴδιον τρόπον (ὃ γίγνεται καὶ νῦν ἐν ταῖς πλείσταις τῶν πόλεων), τρίτον δὲ ποίαν τινὰ δεῖ ταύτην εἶναι.

- -
-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν τῷ νομοθέτῃ μάλιστα πραγματευτέον περὶ τὴν τῶν νέων παιδείαν, οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀμφισβητήσειε· καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οὐ γιγνόμενον τοῦτο βλάπτει τὰς πολιτείας· δεῖ γὰρ πρὸς ἑκάστην παιδεύεσθαι, τὸ γὰρ ἦθος τῆς πολιτείας ἑκάστης τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ φυλάττειν εἴωθε τὴν πολιτείαν καὶ καθίστησιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, οἷον τὸ μὲν δημοκρατικὸν δημοκρατίαν τὸ δʼ ὀλιγαρχικὸν ὀλιγαρχίαν· ἀεὶ δὲ τὸ βέλτιον ἦθος βελτίονος αἴτιον πολιτείας. ἔτι δὲ πρὸς πάσας δυνάμεις καὶ τέχνας ἔστιν ἃ δεῖ προπαιδεύεσθαι καὶ προεθίζεσθαι πρὸς τὰς ἑκάστων ἐργασίας, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῆς ἀρετῆς πράξεις· ἐπεὶ δʼ ἓν τὸ τέλος τῇ πόλει πάσῃ, φανερὸν ὅτι καὶ τὴν παιδείαν μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πάντων, καὶ ταύτης τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν εἶναι κοινὴν καὶ μὴ κατʼ ἰδίαν, ὃν τρόπον νῦν ἕκαστος ἐπιμελεῖται τῶν αὑτοῦ τέκνων ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ μάθησιν ἰδίαν, ἣν ἂν δόξῃ, διδάσκων. δεῖ δὲ τῶν κοινῶν κοινὴν ποιεῖσθαι καὶ τὴν ἄσκησιν. ἅμα δὲ οὐδὲ χρὴ νομίζειν αὐτὸν αὑτοῦ τινα εἶναι τῶν πολιτῶν, ἀλλὰ πάντας τῆς πόλεως, μόριον γὰρ ἕκαστος τῆς πόλεως· ἡ δʼ ἐπιμέλεια πέφυκεν ἑκάστου μορίου βλέπειν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου ἐπιμέλειαν. ἐπαινέσειε δʼ ἄν τις κατὰ τοῦτο Λακεδαιμονίους· καὶ γὰρ πλείστην ποιοῦνται σπουδὴν περὶ τοὺς παῖδας καὶ κοινῇ ταύτην.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν νομοθετητέον περὶ παιδείας καὶ ταύτην κοινὴν ποιητέον, φανερόν· τίς δʼ ἔσται ἡ παιδεία καὶ πῶς χρὴ παιδεύεσθαι, δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν. νῦν γὰρ ἀμφισβητεῖται περὶ τῶν ἔργων. οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὰ πάντες ὑπολαμβάνουσι δεῖν μανθάνειν τοὺς νέους οὔτε πρὸς ἀρετὴν οὔτε πρὸς τὸν βίον τὸν ἄριστον, οὐδὲ φανερὸν πότερον πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν πρέπει μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἦθος· ἔκ τε τῆς ἐμποδὼν παιδείας ταραχώδης ἡ σκέψις καὶ δῆλον οὐδὲν πότερον ἀσκεῖν δεῖ τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς τὸν βίον ἢ τὰ τείνοντα πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἢ τὰ περιττά (πάντα γὰρ εἴληφε ταῦτα κριτάς τινας)· περί τε τῶν πρὸς ἀρετὴν οὐθέν ἐστιν ὁμολογούμενον (καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἀρετὴν οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν εὐθὺς πάντες τιμῶσιν, ὥστʼ εὐλόγως διαφέρονται καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἄσκησιν αὐτῆς). ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δεῖ διδάσκεσθαι τῶν χρησίμων, οὐκ ἄδηλον· ὅτι δὲ οὐ πάντα, διῃρημένων τῶν τε ἐλευθερίων ἔργων καὶ τῶν ἀνελευθερίων φανερόν, καὶ ὅτι τῶν τοιούτων δεῖ μετέχειν ὅσα τῶν χρησίμων ποιήσει τὸν μετέχοντα μὴ βάναυσον. βάναυσον δʼ ἔργον εἶναι δεῖ τοῦτο νομίζειν καὶ τέχνην ταύτην καὶ μάθησιν, ὅσαι πρὸς τὰς χρήσεις καὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς τῆς ἀρετῆς ἄχρηστον ἀπεργάζονται τὸ σῶμα τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἢ τὴν ψυχὴν ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν. διὸ τάς τε τοιαύτας τέχνας ὅσαι τὸ σῶμα παρασκευάζουσι χεῖρον διακεῖσθαι βαναύσους καλοῦμεν, καὶ τὰς μισθαρνικὰς ἐργασίας· ἄσχολον γὰρ ποιοῦσι τὴν διάνοιαν καὶ ταπεινήν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐλευθερίων ἐπιστημῶν μέχρι μὲν τινὸς ἐνίων μετέχειν οὐκ ἀνελεύθερον, τὸ δὲ προσεδρεύειν λίαν πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν ἔνοχον ταῖς εἰρημέναις βλάβαις. ἔχει δὲ πολλὴν διαφορὰν καὶ τὸ τίνος ἕνεκεν πράττει τις ἢ μανθάνει· τὸ μὲν γὰρ αὑτοῦ χάριν ἢ φίλων ἢ διʼ ἀρετὴν οὐκ ἀνελεύθερον, ὁ δὲ ταὐτὸ τοῦτο πράττων διʼ ἄλλους πολλάκις θητικὸν καὶ δουλικὸν δόξειεν ἂν πράττειν.

-

αἱ μὲν οὖν καταβεβλημέναι νῦν μαθήσεις, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη πρότερον, ἐπαμφοτερίζουσιν· ἔστι δὲ τέτταρα σχεδὸν ἃ παιδεύειν εἰώθασι,

-

γράμματα καὶ γυμναστικὴν καὶ μουσικὴν καὶ τέταρτον ἔνιοι γραφικήν, τὴν μὲν γραμματικὴν καὶ γραφικὴν ὡς χρησίμους πρὸς τὸν βίον οὔσας καὶ πολυχρήστους, τὴν δὲ γυμναστικὴν ὡς συντείνουσαν πρὸς ἀνδρείαν· τὴν δὲ μουσικὴν ἤδη διαπορήσειεν ἄν τις. νῦν μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἡδονῆς χάριν οἱ πλεῖστοι μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς· οἱ δʼ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔταξαν ἐν παιδείᾳ διὰ τὸ τὴν φύσιν αὐτὴν ζητεῖν, ὅπερ πολλάκις εἴρηται, μὴ μόνον ἀσχολεῖν ὀρθῶς ἀλλὰ καὶ σχολάζειν δύνασθαι καλῶς. αὕτη γὰρ ἀρχὴ πάντων μία· καὶ πάλιν εἴπωμεν περὶ αὐτῆς. εἰ δʼ ἄμφω μὲν δεῖ, μᾶλλον δὲ αἱρετὸν τὸ σχολάζειν τῆς ἀσχολίας καὶ τέλος, ζητητέον ὅ τι δεῖ ποιοῦντας σχολάζειν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ παίζοντας· τέλος γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τοῦ βίου τὴν παιδιὰν ἡμῖν. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἀδύνατον, καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν ταῖς ἀσχολίαις χρηστέον ταῖς παιδιαῖς (ὁ γὰρ πονῶν δεῖται τῆς ἀναπαύσεως, ἡ δὲ παιδιὰ χάριν ἀναπαύσεώς ἐστιν· τὸ δʼ ἀσχολεῖν συμβαίνει μετὰ πόνου καὶ συντονίας), διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ παιδιὰς εἰσάγεσθαι καιροφυλακοῦντας τὴν χρῆσιν, ὡς προσάγοντας φαρμακείας χάριν. ἄνεσις γὰρ ἡ τοιαύτη κίνησις τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀνάπαυσις. τὸ δὲ σχολάζειν ἔχειν αὐτὸ δοκεῖ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν καὶ τὸ ζῆν μακαρίως. τοῦτο δʼ οὐ τοῖς ἀσχολοῦσιν ὑπάρχει ἀλλὰ τοῖς σχολάζουσιν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀσχολῶν ἕνεκα τινος ἀσχολεῖ τέλους ὡς οὐχ ὑπάρχοντος, ἡ δʼ εὐδαιμονία τέλος ἐστίν, ἣν οὐ μετὰ λύπης ἀλλὰ μεθʼ ἡδονῆς οἴονται πάντες εἶναι. ταύτην μέντοι τὴν ἡδονὴν οὐκέτι τὴν αὐτὴν τιθέασιν, ἀλλὰ καθʼ ἑαυτοὺς ἕκαστος καὶ τὴν ἕξιν τὴν αὑτῶν, ὁ δʼ ἄριστος τὴν ἀρίστην καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν καλλίστων. ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι δεῖ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ διαγωγῇ σχολὴν μανθάνειν ἄττα καὶ παιδεύεσθαι, καὶ ταῦτα μὲν τὰ παιδεύματα καὶ ταύτας τὰς μαθήσεις ἑαυτῶν εἶναι χάριν, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀσχολίαν ὡς ἀναγκαίας καὶ χάριν ἄλλων. διὸ καὶ τὴν μουσικὴν οἱ πρότερον εἰς παιδείαν ἔταξαν οὐχ ὡς ἀναγκαῖον (oὐδὲν γὰρ ἔχει τοιοῦτον), οὐδʼ ὡς χρήσιμον (ὥσπερ τὰ γράμματα πρὸς χρηματισμὸν καὶ πρὸς οἰκονομίαν καὶ πρὸς μάθησιν καὶ πρὸς πολιτικὰς πράξεις πολλάς, δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ γραφικὴ χρήσιμος εἶναι πρὸς τὸ κρίνειν τὰ τῶν τεχνιτῶν ἔργα κάλλιον), οὐδʼ αὖ καθάπερ ἡ γυμναστικὴ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ ἀλκήν (οὐδέτερον γὰρ τούτων ὁρῶμεν γιγνόμενον ἐκ τῆς μουσικῆς)· λείπεται τοίνυν πρὸς τὴν ἐν τῇ σχολῇ διαγωγήν, εἰς ὅπερ καὶ φαίνονται παράγοντες αὐτήν. ἣν γὰρ οἴονται διαγωγὴν εἶναι τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἐν ταύτῃ τάττουσιν. διόπερ Ὅμηρος οὕτως ἐποίησεν ἀλλʼ οἶον μέν ἐστι καλεῖν ἐπὶ δαῖτα θαλείην, καὶ οὕτω προειπὼν ἑτέρους τινὰς οἳ καλέουσιν ἀοιδόν φησίν, ὅ κεν τέρπῃσιν ἅπαντας. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησιν ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς ταύτην ἀρίστην εἶναι διαγωγήν, ὅταν εὐφραινομένων τῶν ἀνθρώπων δαιτυμόνες δʼ ἀνὰ δώματʼ ἀκουάζωνται ἀοιδοῦ ἥμενοι ἑξείης. Hom. Od. 9.5-6

-

ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἔστι παιδεία τις ἣν οὐχ ὡς χρησίμην παιδευτέον τοὺς υἱεῖς οὐδʼ ὡς ἀναγκαίαν ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐλευθέριον καὶ καλήν, φανερόν ἐστιν· πότερον δὲ μία τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἢ πλείους, καὶ τίνες αὗται καὶ πῶς, ὕστερον λεκτέον περὶ αὐτῶν. νῦν δὲ τοσοῦτον ἡμῖν εἶναι πρὸ ὁδοῦ γέγονεν, ὅτι καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἔχομέν τινα μαρτυρίαν ἐκ τῶν καταβεβλημένων παιδευμάτων· ἡ γὰρ μουσικὴ τοῦτο ποιεῖ δῆλον. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν χρησίμων ὅτι δεῖ τινα παιδεύεσθαι τοὺς παῖδας οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ χρήσιμον, οἷον τὴν τῶν γραμμάτων μάθησιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ πολλὰς ἐνδέχεσθαι γίγνεσθαι διʼ αὐτῶν μαθήσεις ἑτέρας, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν γραφικὴν οὐχ ἵνα ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις ὠνίοις μὴ διαμαρτάνωσιν ἀλλʼ ὦσιν ἀνεξαπάτητοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν σκευῶν ὠνήν τε καὶ πρᾶσιν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον δʼ ὅτι ποιεῖ θεωρητικὸν τοῦ περὶ τὰ σώματα κάλλους. τὸ δὲ ζητεῖν πανταχοῦ τὸ χρήσιμον ἥκιστα ἁρμόττει τοῖς μεγαλοψύχοις καὶ τοῖς ἐλευθερίοις. ἐπεὶ δὲ φανερὸν πρότερον τοῖς ἔθεσιν ἢ τῷ λόγῳ παιδευτέον εἶναι, καὶ περὶ τὸ σῶμα πρότερον ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν, δῆλον ἐκ τούτων ὅτι παραδοτέον τοὺς παῖδας γυμναστικῇ καὶ παιδοτριβικῇ· τούτων γὰρ ἡ μὲν ποιάν τινα ποιεῖ τὴν ἕξιν τοῦ σώματος, ἡ δὲ τὰ ἔργα.

-

νῦν μὲν οὖν αἱ μάλιστα δοκοῦσαι τῶν πόλεων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῶν παίδων αἱ μὲν ἀθλητικὴν ἕξιν ἐμποιοῦσι, λωβώμεναι τά τε εἴδη καὶ τὴν αὔξησιν τῶν σωμάτων, οἱ δὲ Λάκωνες ταύτην μὲν οὐχ ἥμαρτον τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, θηριώδεις δʼ ἀπεργάζονται τοῖς πόνοις, ὡς τοῦτο πρὸς ἀνδρείαν μάλιστα συμφέρον. καίτοι, καθάπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις, οὔτε πρὸς μίαν οὔτε πρὸς μάλιστα ταύτην βλέποντα ποιητέον τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν· εἰ δὲ καὶ πρὸς ταύτην, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐξευρίσκουσιν. οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις οὔτε ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν ὁρῶμεν τὴν ἀνδρείαν ἀκολουθοῦσαν τοῖς ἀγριωτάτοις, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τοῖς ἡμερωτέροις καὶ λεοντώδεσιν ἤθεσιν. πολλὰ δʼ ἔστι τῶν ἐθνῶν ἃ πρὸς τὸ κτείνειν καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀνθρωποφαγίαν εὐχερῶς ἔχει, καθάπερ τῶν περὶ τὸν Πόντον Ἀχαιοί τε καὶ Ἡνίοχοι καὶ τῶν ἠπειρωτικῶν ἐθνῶν ἕτερα, τὰ μὲν ὁμοίως τούτοις τὰ δὲ μᾶλλον, ἃ λῃστρικὰ μέν ἐστιν, ἀνδρείας δʼ οὐ μετειλήφασιν. ἔτι δʼ αὐτοὺς τοὺς Λάκωνας ἴσμεν, ἕως μὲν αὐτοὶ προσήδρευον ταῖς φιλοπονίαις, ὑπερέχοντας τῶν ἄλλων, νῦν δὲ κἀν τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσι κἀν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς λειπομένους ἑτέρων· οὐ γὰρ τῷ τοὺς νέους γυμνάζειν τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον διέφερον, ἀλλὰ μόνον τῷ πρὸς μὴ ἀσκοῦντας ἀσκεῖν. ὥστε τὸ καλὸν ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸ θηριῶδες δεῖ πρωταγωνιστεῖν· οὐδὲ γὰρ λύκος οὐδʼ οὐδὲν τῶν ἄλλων θηρίων τι ἀγωνίσαιτο ἂν οὐθένα καλὸν κίνδυνον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός, οἱ δὲ λίαν εἰς ταῦτα ἀνέντες τοὺς παῖδας, καὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἀπαιδαγωγήτους ποιήσαντες, βαναύσους κατεργάζονται κατά γε τὸ ἀληθές, πρὸς ἕν τε μόνον ἔργον τῆς πολιτικῆς χρησίμους ποιήσαντες, καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο χεῖρον, ὥς φησιν ὁ λόγος, ἑτέρων. δεῖ δὲ οὐκ ἐκ τῶν προτέρων ἔργων κρίνειν, ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῶν νῦν· ἀνταγωνιστὰς γὰρ τῆς παιδείας νῦν ἔχουσι, πρότερον δʼ οὐκ εἶχον.

-

ὅτι μὲν οὖν χρηστέον τῇ γυμναστικῇ, καὶ πῶς χρηστέον, ὁμολογούμενόν ἐστιν (μέχρι μὲν γὰρ ἥβης κουφότερα γυμνάσια προσοιστέον, τὴν βίαιον τροφὴν καὶ τοὺς πρὸς ἀνάγκην πόνους ἀπείργοντας, ἵνα μηθὲν ἐμπόδιον ᾖ πρὸς τὴν αὔξησιν· σημεῖον γὰρ οὐ μικρὸν ὅτι δύνανται τοῦτο παρασκευάζειν, ἐν γὰρ τοῖς Ὀλυμπιονίκαις δύο τις ἂν ἢ τρεῖς εὕροι τοὺς αὐτοὺς νενικηκότας ἄνδρας τε καὶ παῖδας, διὰ τὸ νέους ἀσκοῦντας ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὴν δύναμιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀναγκαίων γυμνασίων· ὅταν δʼ ἀφʼ ἥβης ἔτη τρία πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις μαθήμασι γένωνται, τότε ἁρμόττει καὶ τοῖς πόνοις καὶ ταῖς ἀναγκοφαγίαις καταλαμβάνειν τὴν ἐχομένην ἡλικίαν· ἅμα γὰρ τῇ τε διανοίᾳ καὶ τῷ σώματι διαπονεῖν οὐ δεῖ, τοὐναντίον γὰρ ἑκάτερος ἀπεργάζεσθαι πέφυκε τῶν πόνων, ἐμποδίζων ὁ μὲν τοῦ σώματος πόνος τὴν διάνοιαν ὁ δὲ ταύτης τὸ σῶμα).

-

περὶ δὲ μουσικῆς ἔνια μὲν διηπορήκαμεν τῷ λόγῳ καὶ πρότερον, καλῶς δʼ ἔχει καὶ νῦν ἀναλαβόντας αὐτὰ προαγαγεῖν, ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐνδόσιμον γένηται τοῖς λόγοις οὓς ἄν τις εἴπειεν ἀποφαινόμενος περὶ αὐτῆς. οὔτε γὰρ τίνα ἔχει δύναμιν ῥᾴδιον περὶ αὐτῆς διελεῖν, οὔτε τίνος δεῖ χάριν μετέχειν αὐτῆς, πότερον παιδιᾶς ἕνεκα καὶ ἀναπαύσεως, καθάπερ ὕπνου καὶ μέθης (ταῦτα γὰρ καθʼ αὑτὰ μὲν οὐδὲ τῶν σπουδαίων, ἀλλʼ ἡδέα, καὶ ἀναπαύει μέριμναν, ὥς φησιν Εὐριπίδης· διὸ καὶ τάττουσιν αὐτὴν καὶ χρῶνται πᾶσι τούτοις ὁμοίως, ὕπνῳ καὶ μέθῃ καὶ μουσικῇ· τιθέασι δὲ καὶ τὴν ὄρχησιν ἐν τούτοις), ἢ μᾶλλον οἰητέον πρὸς ἀρετήν τι τείνειν τὴν μουσικήν, ὡς δυναμένην, καθάπερ ἡ γυμναστικὴ τὸ σῶμα ποιόν τι παρασκευάζει, καὶ τὴν μουσικὴν τὸ ἦθος ποιόν τι ποιεῖν, ἐθίζουσαν δύνασθαι χαίρειν ὀρθῶς, ἢ πρὸς διαγωγήν τι συμβάλλεται καὶ πρὸς φρόνησιν (καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο τρίτον θετέον τῶν εἰρημένων). ὅτι μὲν οὖν δεῖ τοὺς νέους μὴ παιδιᾶς ἕνεκα παιδεύειν, οὐκ ἄδηλον (οὐ γὰρ παίζουσι μανθάνοντες· μετὰ λύπης γὰρ ἡ μάθησις)· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ διαγωγήν γε παισὶν ἁρμόττει καὶ ταῖς ἡλικίαις ἀποδιδόναι ταῖς τοιαύταις (οὐθενὶ γὰρ ἀτελεῖ προσήκει τέλος). ἀλλʼ ἴσως ἂν δόξειεν ἡ τῶν παίδων σπουδὴ παιδιᾶς εἶναι χάριν ἀνδράσι γενομένοις καὶ τελειωθεῖσιν. ἀλλʼ εἰ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ τοιοῦτον, τίνος ἂν ἕνεκα δέοι μανθάνειν αὐτούς, ἀλλὰ μή, καθάπερ οἱ τῶν Περσῶν καὶ Μήδων βασιλεῖς, διʼ ἄλλων αὐτὸ ποιούντων μεταλαμβάνειν τῆς ἡδονῆς καὶ τῆς μαθήσεως; καὶ γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον βέλτιον ἀπεργάζεσθαι τοὺς αὐτὸ τοῦτο πεποιημένους ἔργον καὶ τέχνην τῶν τοσοῦτον χρόνον ἐπιμελουμένων ὅσον πρὸς μάθησιν μόνον. εἰ δὲ δεῖ τὰ τοιαῦτα διαπονεῖν αὐτούς, καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν τῶν ὄψων πραγματείαν αὐτοὺς ἂν δέοι παρασκευάζειν· ἀλλʼ ἄτοπον. τὴν δʼ αὐτὴν ἀπορίαν ἔχει καὶ εἰ δύναται τὰ ἤθη βελτίω ποιεῖν· ταῦτα γὰρ τί δεῖ μανθάνειν αὐτούς, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἑτέρων ἀκούοντας ὀρθῶς τε χαίρειν καὶ δύνασθαι κρίνειν, ὥσπερ οἱ Λάκωνες; ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ οὐ μανθάνοντες ὅμως δύνανται κρίνειν ὀρθῶς, ὥς φασι, τὰ χρηστὰ καὶ τὰ μὴ χρηστὰ τῶν μελῶν. ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς λόγος κἂν εἰ πρὸς εὐημερίαν καὶ διαγωγὴν ἐλευθέριον χρηστέον αὐτῇ· τί δεῖ μανθάνειν αὐτούς, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἑτέρων χρωμένων ἀπολαύειν; σκοπεῖν δʼ ἔξεστι τὴν ὑπόληψιν ἣν ἔχομεν περὶ τῶν θεῶν· οὐ γὰρ ὁ Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἀείδει καὶ κιθαρίζει τοῖς ποιηταῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ βαναύσους καλοῦμεν τοὺς τοιούτους καὶ τὸ πράττειν οὐκ ἀνδρὸς μὴ μεθύοντος ἢ παίζοντος.

-

ἀλλʼ ἴσως περὶ μὲν τούτων ὕστερον ἐπισκεπτέον· ἡ δὲ πρώτη ζήτησίς ἐστι πότερον οὐ θετέον εἰς παιδείαν τὴν μουσικὴν ἢ θετέον, καὶ τί δύναται τῶν διαπορηθέντων τριῶν, πότερον παιδείαν ἢ παιδιὰν ἢ διαγωγήν. εὐλόγως δʼ εἰς πάντα τάττεται καὶ φαίνεται μετέχειν. ἥ τε γὰρ παιδιὰ χάριν ἀναπαύσεώς ἐστι, τὴν δʼ ἀνάπαυσιν ἀναγκαῖον ἡδεῖαν εἶναι (τῆς γὰρ διὰ τῶν πόνων λύπης ἰατρεία τίς ἐστιν), καὶ τὴν διαγωγὴν ὁμολογουμένως δεῖ μὴ μόνον ἔχειν τὸ καλὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἡδονήν (τὸ γὰρ εὐδαιμονεῖν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τούτων ἐστίν)· τὴν δὲ μουσικὴν πάντες εἶναί φαμεν τῶν ἡδίστων, καὶ ψιλὴν οὖσαν καὶ μετὰ μελῳδίας (φησὶ γοῦν καὶ Μουσαῖος εἶναι βροτοῖς ἥδιστον ἀείδειν· διὸ καὶ εἰς τὰς συνουσίας καὶ διαγωγὰς εὐλόγως παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὴν ὡς δυναμένην εὐφραίνειν), ὥστε καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ἄν τις ὑπολάβοι παιδεύεσθαι δεῖν αὐτὴν τοὺς νεωτέρους. ὅσα γὰρ ἀβλαβῆ τῶν ἡδέων, οὐ μόνον ἁρμόττει πρὸς τὸ τέλος ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν· ἐπεὶ δʼ ἐν μὲν τῷ τέλει συμβαίνει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὀλιγάκις γίγνεσθαι, πολλάκις δὲ ἀναπαύονται καὶ χρῶνται ταῖς παιδιαῖς οὐχ ὅσον ἐπὶ πλέον ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡδονήν, χρήσιμον ἂν εἴη διαναπαύειν ἐν ταῖς ἀπὸ ταύτης ἡδοναῖς.

-

συμβέβηκε δὲ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ποιεῖσθαι τὰς παιδιὰς τέλος· ἔχει γὰρ ἴσως ἡδονήν τινα καὶ τὸ τέλος, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν, ζητοῦντες δὲ ταύτην λαμβάνουσιν ὡς ταύτην ἐκείνην, διὰ τὸ τῷ τέλει τῶν πράξεων ἔχειν ὁμοίωμά τι. τό τε γὰρ τέλος οὐθενὸς τῶν ἐσομένων χάριν αἱρετόν, καὶ αἱ τοιαῦται τῶν ἡδονῶν οὐθενός εἰσι τῶν ἐσομένων ἕνεκεν, ἀλλὰ τῶν γεγονότων, οἷον πόνων καὶ λύπης. διʼ ἣν μὲν οὖν αἰτίαν ζητοῦσι τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν γίγνεσθαι διὰ τούτων τῶν ἡδονῶν, ταύτην εἰκότως ἄν τις ὑπολάβοι τὴν αἰτίαν· περὶ δὲ τοῦ κοινωνεῖν τῆς μουσικῆς, ὅτι οὐ διὰ ταύτην μόνην, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ χρήσιμον εἶναι πρὸς τὰς ἀναπαύσεις, ὡς ἔοικεν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ ζητητέον μή ποτε τοῦτο μὲν συμβέβηκε, τιμιωτέρα δʼ αὐτῆς ἡ φύσις ἐστὶν ἢ κατὰ τὴν εἰρημένην χρείαν, καὶ δεῖ μὴ μόνον τῆς κοινῆς ἡδονῆς μετέχειν ἀπʼ αὐτῆς, ἧς ἔχουσι πάντες αἴσθησιν (ἔχει γὰρ ἡ μουσική τινʼ ἡδονὴν φυσικήν, διὸ πάσαις ἡλικίαις καὶ πᾶσιν ἤθεσιν ἡ χρῆσις αὐτῆς ἐστι προσφιλής), ἀλλʼ ὁρᾶν εἴ πῃ καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἦθος συντείνει καὶ πρὸς τὴν ψυχήν. τοῦτο δʼ ἂν εἴη δῆλον, εἰ ποιοί τινες τὰ ἤθη γιγνόμεθα διʼ αὐτῆς. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι γιγνόμεθα ποιοί τινες, φανερὸν διὰ πολλῶν μὲν καὶ ἑτέρων, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν Ὀλύμπου μελῶν· ταῦτα γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως ποιεῖ τὰς ψυχὰς ἐνθουσιαστικάς, ὁ δʼ ἐνθουσιασμὸς τοῦ περὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἤθους πάθος ἐστίν. ἔτι δὲ ἀκροώμενοι τῶν μιμήσεων γίγνονται πάντες συμπαθεῖς, καὶ χωρὶς τῶν ῥυθμῶν καὶ τῶν μελῶν αὐτῶν.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ συμβέβηκεν εἶναι τὴν μουσικὴν τῶν ἡδέων, τὴν δʼ ἀρετὴν περὶ τὸ χαίρειν ὀρθῶς καὶ φιλεῖν καὶ μισεῖν, δεῖ δηλονότι μανθάνειν καὶ συνεθίζεσθαι μηθὲν οὕτως ὡς τὸ κρίνειν ὀρθῶς καὶ τὸ χαίρειν τοῖς ἐπιεικέσιν ἤθεσι καὶ ταῖς καλαῖς πράξεσιν· ἔστι δὲ ὁμοιώματα μάλιστα παρὰ τὰς ἀληθινὰς φύσεις ἐν τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς καὶ τοῖς μέλεσιν ὀργῆς καὶ πραότητος, ἔτι δʼ ἀνδρείας καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐναντίων τούτοις καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἠθικῶν (δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων· μεταβάλλομεν γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀκροώμενοι τοιούτων)· ὁ δʼ ἐν τοῖς ὁμοίοις ἐθισμὸς τοῦ λυπεῖσθαι καὶ χαίρειν ἐγγύς ἐστι τῷ πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχειν τρόπον (οἷον εἴ τις χαίρει τὴν εἰκόνα τινὸς θεώμενος μὴ διʼ ἄλλην αἰτίαν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν μορφὴν αὐτήν, ἀναγκαῖον τούτῳ καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου τὴν θεωρίαν, οὗ τὴν εἰκόνα θεωρεῖ, ἡδεῖαν εἶναι). συμβέβηκε δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἄλλοις μηδὲν ὑπάρχειν ὁμοίωμα τοῖς ἤθεσιν, οἷον ἐν τοῖς ἁπτοῖς καὶ τοῖς γευστοῖς, ἀλλʼ ἐν τοῖς ὁρατοῖς ἠρέμα (σχήματα γὰρ ἔστι τοιαῦτα, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ μικρόν, κοὐ πάντες τῆς τοιαύτης αἰσθήσεως κοινωνοῦσιν· ἔτι δὲ οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα ὁμοιώματα τῶν ἠθῶν, ἀλλὰ σημεῖα μᾶλλον τὰ γιγνόμενα σχήματα καὶ χρώματα τῶν ἠθῶν, καὶ ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἐπίσημα ἐν τοῖς πάθεσιν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ ὅσον διαφέρει καὶ περὶ τὴν τούτων θεωρίαν, δεῖ μὴ τὰ Παύσωνος θεωρεῖν τοὺς νέους, ἀλλὰ τὰ Πολυγνώτου κἂν εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν γραφέων ἢ τῶν ἀγαλματοποιῶν ἐστιν ἠθικός), ἐν δὲ τοῖς μέλεσιν αὐτοῖς ἔστι μιμήματα τῶν ἠθῶν (καὶ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ φανερόν· εὐθὺς γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν διέστηκε φύσις, ὥστε ἀκούοντας ἄλλως διατίθεσθαι καὶ μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχειν τρόπον πρὸς ἑκάστην αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς μὲν ἐνίας ὀδυρτικωτέρως καὶ συνεστηκότως μᾶλλον, οἷον πρὸς τὴν μιξολυδιστὶ καλουμένην, πρὸς δὲ τὰς μαλακωτέρως τὴν διάνοιαν, οἷον πρὸς τὰς ἀνειμένας, μέσως δὲ καὶ καθεστηκότως μάλιστα πρὸς ἑτέραν, οἷον δοκεῖ ποιεῖν ἡ δωριστὶ μόνη τῶν ἁρμονιῶν, ἐνθουσιαστικοὺς δʼ ἡ φρυγιστί. ταῦτα γὰρ καλῶς λέγουσιν οἱ περὶ τὴν παιδείαν ταύτην πεφιλοσοφηκότες· λαμβάνουσι γὰρ τὰ μαρτύρια τῶν λόγων ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων). τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἔχει καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς ῥυθμούς (οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἦθος ἔχουσι στασιμώτερον οἱ δὲ κινητικόν, καὶ τούτων οἱ μὲν φορτικωτέρας ἔχουσι τὰς κινήσεις οἱ δὲ ἐλευθεριωτέρας). ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων φανερὸν ὅτι δύναται ποιόν τι τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἦθος ἡ μουσικὴ παρασκευάζειν, εἰ δὲ τοῦτο δύναται ποιεῖν, δῆλον ὅτι προσακτέον καὶ παιδευτέον ἐν αὐτῇ τοὺς νέους. ἔστι δὲ ἁρμόττουσα πρὸς τὴν φύσιν τὴν τηλικαύτην ἡ διδασκαλία τῆς μουσικῆς· οἱ μὲν γὰρ νέοι διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν ἀνήδυντον οὐθὲν ὑπομένουσιν ἑκόντες, ἡ δὲ μουσικὴ φύσει τῶν ἡδυσμένων ἐστίν. καί τις ἔοικε συγγένεια ταῖς ἁρμονίαις καὶ τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς εἶναι· διὸ πολλοί φασι τῶν σοφῶν οἱ μὲν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν, οἱ δʼ ἔχειν ἁρμονίαν.

-

πότερον δὲ δεῖ μανθάνειν αὐτοὺς ᾄδοντάς τε καὶ χειρουργοῦντας ἢ μή, καθάπερ ἠπορήθη πρότερον, νῦν λεκτέον οὐκ ἄδηλον δὴ ὅτι πολλὴν ἔχει διαφορὰν πρὸς τὸ γίγνεσθαι ποιούς τινας, ἐάν τις αὐτὸς κοινωνῇ τῶν ἔργων· ἓν γάρ τι τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἢ χαλεπῶν ἐστι μὴ κοινωνήσαντας τῶν ἔργων κριτὰς γενέσθαι σπουδαίους. ἅμα δὲ καὶ δεῖ τοὺς παῖδας ἔχειν τινὰ διατριβήν, καὶ τὴν Ἀρχύτου πλαταγὴν οἴεσθαι γενέσθαι καλῶς, ἣν διδόασι τοῖς παιδίοις, ὅπως χρώμενοι ταύτῃ μηδὲν καταγνύωσι τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν· οὐ γὰρ δύναται τὸ νέον ἡσυχάζειν. αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἐστι τοῖς νηπίοις ἁρμόττουσα τῶν παιδίων, ἡ δὲ παιδεία πλαταγὴ τοῖς μείζοσι τῶν νέων. ὅτι μὲν οὖν παιδευτέον τὴν μουσικὴν οὕτως ὥστε καὶ κοινωνεῖν τῶν ἔργων, φανερὸν ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων· τὸ δὲ πρέπον καὶ τὸ μὴ πρέπον ταῖς ἡλικίαις οὐ χαλεπὸν διορίσαι, καὶ λῦσαι πρὸς τοὺς φάσκοντας βάναυσον εἶναι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. πρῶτον μὲν γάρ, ἐπεὶ τοῦ κρίνειν χάριν μετέχειν δεῖ τῶν ἔργων, διὰ τοῦτο χρὴ νέους μὲν ὄντας χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἔργοις, πρεσβυτέρους δὲ γενομένους τῶν μὲν ἔργων ἀφεῖσθαι, δύνασθαι δὲ τὰ καλὰ κρίνειν καὶ χαίρειν ὀρθῶς διὰ τὴν μάθησιν τὴν γενομένην ἐν τῇ νεότητι· περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐπιτιμήσεως ἥν τινες ἐπιτιμῶσιν ὡς ποιούσης τῆς μουσικῆς βαναύσους, οὐ χαλεπὸν λῦσαι σκεψαμένους μέχρι τε πόσου τῶν ἔργων κοινωνητέον τοῖς πρὸς ἀρετὴν παιδευομένοις πολιτικήν, καὶ ποίων μελῶν καὶ ποίων ῥυθμῶν κοινωνητέον, ἔτι δὲ ἐν ποίοις ὀργάνοις τὴν μάθησιν ποιητέον, καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο διαφέρειν εἰκός. ἐν τούτοις γὰρ ἡ λύσις ἐστὶ τῆς ἐπιτιμήσεως· οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει τρόπους τινὰς τῆς μουσικῆς ἀπεργάζεσθαι τὸ λεχθέν. φανερὸν τοίνυν ὅτι δεῖ τὴν μάθησιν αὐτῆς μήτε ἐμποδίζειν πρὸς τὰς ὕστερον πράξεις, μήτε τὸ σῶμα ποιεῖν βάναυσον καὶ ἄχρηστον πρὸς τὰς πολεμικὰς καὶ πολιτικὰς ἀσκήσεις, πρὸς μὲν τὰς χρήσεις ἤδη πρὸς δὲ τὰς χρήσεις ὕστερον.

-

συμβαίνοι δʼ ἂν περὶ τὴν μάθησιν, εἰ μήτε τὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας τοὺς τεχνικοὺς συντείνοντα διαπονοῖεν, μήτε τὰ θαυμάσια καὶ περιττὰ τῶν ἔργων, ἃ νῦν ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἀγώνων εἰς τὴν παιδείαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ μὴ τοιαῦτα μέχρι περ ἂν δύνωνται χαίρειν τοῖς καλοῖς μέλεσι καὶ ῥυθμοῖς, καὶ μὴ μόνον τῷ κοινῷ τῆς μουσικῆς, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἔνια ζῴων, ἔτι δὲ καὶ πλῆθος ἀνδραπόδων καὶ παιδίων. δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τούτων καὶ ποίοις ὀργάνοις χρηστέον. οὔτε γὰρ αὐλοὺς εἰς παιδείαν ἀκτέον οὔτʼ ἄλλο τι τεχνικὸν ὄργανον, οἷον κιθάραν κἂν εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον ἔστιν, ἀλλʼ ὅσα ποιήσει αὐτῶν ἀκροατὰς ἀγαθοὺς ἢ τῆς μουσικῆς παιδείας ἢ τῆς ἄλλης· ἔτι δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ αὐλὸς ἠθικὸν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὀργιαστικόν, ὥστε πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους αὐτῷ καιροὺς χρηστέον ἐν οἷς ἡ θεωρία κάθαρσιν μᾶλλον δύναται ἢ μάθησιν. προσθῶμεν δὲ ὅτι συμβέβηκεν ἐναντίον αὐτῷ πρὸς παιδείαν καὶ τὸ κωλύειν τῷ λόγῳ χρῆσθαι τὴν αὔλησιν. διὸ καλῶς ἀπεδοκίμασαν αὐτοῦ οἱ πρότερον τὴν χρῆσιν ἐκ τῶν νέων καὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων, καίπερ χρησάμενοι τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῷ. σχολαστικώτεροι γὰρ γιγνόμενοι διὰ τὰς εὐπορίας καὶ μεγαλοψυχότεροι πρὸς τὴν ἀρετήν, ἔτι τε πρότερον καὶ μετὰ τὰ Μηδικὰ φρονηματισθέντες ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, πάσης ἥπτοντο μαθήσεως, οὐδὲν διακρίνοντες ἀλλʼ ἐπιζητοῦντες. διὸ καὶ τὴν αὐλητικὴν ἤγαγον πρὸς τὰς μαθήσεις. καὶ γὰρ ἐν Λακεδαίμονί τις χορηγὸς αὐτὸς ηὔλησε τῷ χορῷ, καὶ περὶ Ἀθήνας οὕτως ἐπεχωρίασεν ὥστε σχεδὸν οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων μετεῖχον αὐτῆς· δῆλον δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πίνακος ὃν ἀνέθηκε Θράσιππος Ἐκφαντίδῃ χορηγήσας. ὕστερον δʼ ἀπεδοκιμάσθη διὰ τῆς πείρας αὐτῆς, βέλτιον δυναμένων κρίνειν τὸ πρὸς ἀρετὴν καὶ τὸ μὴ πρὸς ἀρετὴν συντεῖνον· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πολλὰ τῶν ὀργάνων τῶν ἀρχαίων, οἷον πηκτίδες καὶ βάρβιτοι καὶ τὰ πρὸς ἡδονὴν συντείνοντα τοῖς ἀκούουσι τῶν χρωμένων, ἑπτάγωνα καὶ τρίγωνα καὶ σαμβῦκαι, καὶ πάντα τὰ δεόμενα χειρουργικῆς ἐπιστήμης. εὐλόγως δʼ ἔχει καὶ τὸ περὶ τῶν αὐλῶν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων μεμυθολογημένον. φασὶ γὰρ δὴ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν εὑροῦσαν ἀποβαλεῖν τοὺς αὐλούς. οὐ κακῶς μὲν οὖν ἔχει φάναι καὶ διὰ τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην τοῦ προσώπου τοῦτο ποιῆσαι δυσχεράνασαν τὴν θεόν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εἰκὸς ὅτι πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν οὐθέν ἐστιν ἡ παιδεία τῆς αὐλήσεως, τῇ δὲ Ἀθηνᾷ τὴν ἐπιστήμην περιτίθεμεν καὶ τὴν τέχνην. ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν τε ὀργάνων καὶ τῆς ἐργασίας ἀποδοκιμάζομεν τὴν τεχνικὴν παιδείαν (τεχνικὴν δὲ τίθεμεν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας· ἐν ταύτῃ γὰρ ὁ πράττων οὐ τῆς αὑτοῦ μεταχειρίζεται χάριν ἀρετῆς, ἀλλὰ τῆς τῶν ἀκουόντων ἡδονῆς, καὶ ταύτης φορτικῆς, διόπερ οὐ τῶν ἐλευθέρων κρίνομεν εἶναι τὴν ἐργασίαν, ἀλλὰ θητικωτέραν· καὶ βαναύσους δὴ συμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι· πονηρὸς γὰρ ὁ σκοπὸς πρὸς ὃν ποιοῦνται τὸ τέλος· ὁ γὰρ θεατὴς φορτικὸς ὢν μεταβάλλειν εἴωθε τὴν μουσικήν, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας τοὺς πρὸς αὐτὸν μελετῶντας αὐτούς τε ποιούς τινας ποιεῖ καὶ τὰ σώματα διὰ τὰς κινήσεις),

-

σκεπτέον δή τι περί τε τὰς ἁρμονίας καὶ τοὺς ῥυθμούς, καὶ πρὸς παιδείαν πότερον πάσαις χρηστέον ταῖς ἁρμονίαις καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς ἢ διαιρετέον, ἔπειτα τοῖς πρὸς παιδείαν διαπονοῦσι πότερον τὸν αὐτὸν διορισμὸν θήσομεν ἢ τρίτον δεῖ τινα ἕτερον. ἐπεὶ δὴ τὴν μὲν μουσικὴν ὁρῶμεν διὰ μελοποιίας καὶ ῥυθμῶν οὖσαν, τούτων δʼ ἑκάτερον οὐ δεῖ λεληθέναι τίνα δύναμιν ἔχει πρὸς παιδείαν, καὶ πότερον προαιρετέον μᾶλλον τὴν εὐμελῆ μουσικὴν ἢ τὴν εὔρυθμον, νομίσαντες οὖν πολλὰ καλῶς λέγειν περὶ τούτων τῶν τε νῦν μουσικῶν ἐνίους καὶ τῶν ἐκ φιλοσοφίας ὅσοι τυγχάνουσιν ἐμπείρως ἔχοντες τῆς περὶ τὴν μουσικὴν παιδείας, τὴν μὲν καθʼ ἕκαστον ἀκριβολογίαν ἀποδώσομεν ζητεῖν τοῖς βουλομένοις παρʼ ἐκείνων, νῦν δὲ νομικῶς διέλωμεν, τοὺς τύπους μόνον εἰπόντες περὶ αὐτῶν.

-

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν διαίρεσιν ἀποδεχόμεθα τῶν μελῶν ὡς διαιροῦσί τινες τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ, τὰ μὲν ἠθικὰ τὰ δὲ πρακτικὰ τὰ δʼ ἐνθουσιαστικὰ τιθέντες, καὶ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν τὴν φύσιν τὴν πρὸς ἕκαστα τούτων οἰκείαν, ἄλλην πρὸς ἄλλο μέρος, τιθέασι, φαμὲν δʼ οὐ μιᾶς ἕνεκεν ὠφελείας τῇ μουσικῇ χρῆσθαι δεῖν ἀλλὰ καὶ πλειόνων χάριν (καὶ γὰρ παιδείας ἕνεκεν καὶ καθάρσεως—τί δὲ λέγομεν τὴν κάθαρσιν, νῦν μὲν ἁπλῶς, πάλιν δʼ ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς ἐροῦμεν σαφέστερον—τρίτον δὲ πρὸς διαγωγὴν πρὸς ἄνεσίν τε καὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς συντονίας ἀνάπαυσιν), φανερὸν ὅτι χρηστέον μὲν πάσαις ταῖς ἁρμονίαις, οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον πάσαις χρηστέον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς μὲν τὴν παιδείαν ταῖς ἠθικωτάταις, πρὸς δὲ ἀκρόασιν ἑτέρων χειρουργούντων καὶ ταῖς πρακτικαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐνθουσιαστικαῖς. ὃ γὰρ περὶ ἐνίας συμβαίνει πάθος ψυχὰς ἰσχυρῶς, τοῦτο ἐν πάσαις ὑπάρχει, τῷ δὲ ἧττον διαφέρει καὶ τῷ μᾶλλον, οἷον ἔλεος καὶ φόβος, ἔτι δʼ ἐνθουσιασμός· καὶ γὰρ ὑπὸ ταύτης τῆς κινήσεως κατοκώχιμοί τινές εἰσιν, ἐκ τῶν δʼ ἱερῶν μελῶν ὁρῶμεν τούτους, ὅταν χρήσωνται τοῖς ἐξοργιάζουσι τὴν ψυχὴν μέλεσι, καθισταμένους ὥσπερ ἰατρείας τυχόντας καὶ καθάρσεως· ταὐτὸ δὴ τοῦτο ἀναγκαῖον πάσχειν καὶ τοὺς ἐλεήμονας καὶ τοὺς φοβητικοὺς καὶ τοὺς ὅλως παθητικούς, τοὺς ἄλλους καθʼ ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει τῶν τοιούτων ἑκάστῳ, καὶ πᾶσι γίγνεσθαί τινα κάθαρσιν καὶ κουφίζεσθαι μεθʼ ἡδονῆς. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ μέλη τὰ πρακτικὰ παρέχει χαρὰν ἀβλαβῆ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· διὸ ταῖς μὲν τοιαύταις ἁρμονίαις καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις μέλεσιν θετέον τοὺς τὴν θεατρικὴν μουσικὴν μεταχειριζομένους ἀγωνιστάς· ἐπεὶ δʼ ὁ θεατὴς διττός, ὁ μὲν ἐλεύθερος καὶ πεπαιδευμένος, ὁ δὲ φορτικὸς ἐκ βαναύσων καὶ θητῶν καὶ ἄλλων τοιούτων συγκείμενος, ἀποδοτέον ἀγῶνας καὶ θεωρίας καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις πρὸς ἀνάπαυσιν· εἰσὶ δὲ ὥσπερ αὐτῶν αἱ ψυχαὶ παρεστραμμέναι τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἕξεως—οὕτω καὶ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν παρεκβάσεις εἰσὶ καὶ τῶν μελῶν τὰ σύντονα καὶ παρακεχρωσμένα, ποιεῖ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἑκάστοις τὸ κατὰ φύσιν οἰκεῖον, διόπερ ἀποδοτέον ἐξουσίαν τοῖς ἀγωνιζομένοις πρὸς τὸν θεατὴν τὸν τοιοῦτον τοιούτῳ τινὶ χρῆσθαι τῷ γένει τῆς μουσικῆς. πρὸς δὲ παιδείαν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, τοῖς ἠθικοῖς τῶν μελῶν χρηστέον καὶ ταῖς ἁρμονίαις ταῖς τοιαύταις. τοιαύτη δʼ ἡ δωριστί, καθάπερ εἴπομεν πρότερον· δέχεσθαι δὲ δεῖ κἄν τινα ἄλλην ἡμῖν δοκιμάζωσιν οἱ κοινωνοὶ τῆς ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ διατριβῆς καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν μουσικὴν παιδείας. ὁ δʼ ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ Σωκράτης οὐ καλῶς τὴν φρυγιστὶ μόνην καταλείπει μετὰ τῆς δωριστί, καὶ ταῦτα ἀποδοκιμάσας τῶν ὀργάνων τὸν αὐλόν. ἔχει γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν δύναμιν ἡ φρυγιστὶ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν ἥνπερ αὐλὸς ἐν τοῖς ὀργάνοις· ἄμφω γὰρ ὀργιαστικὰ καὶ παθητικά· δηλοῖ δʼ ἡ ποίησις. πᾶσα γὰρ βακχεία καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τοιαύτη κίνησις μάλιστα τῶν ὀργάνων ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς αὐλοῖς, τῶν δʼ ἁρμονιῶν ἐν τοῖς φρυγιστὶ μέλεσι λαμβάνει ταῦτα τὸ πρέπον. δηλοῖ δʼ ἡ ποίησις, οἷον ὁ διθύραμβος ὁμολογουμένως εἶναι δοκεῖ Φρύγιον. καὶ τούτου πολλὰ παραδείγματα λέγουσιν οἱ περὶ τὴν σύνεσιν ταύτην, ἄλλα τε καὶ ὅτι Φιλόξενος ἐγχειρήσας ἐν τῇ δωριστὶ ποιῆσαι διθύραμβον τοὺς Μύσους οὐχ οἷός τʼ ἦν, ἀλλʼ ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως αὐτῆς ἐξέπεσεν εἰς τὴν φρυγιστὶ τὴν προσήκουσαν ἁρμονίαν πάλιν. περὶ δὲ τῆς δωριστὶ πάντες ὁμολογοῦσιν ὡς στασιμωτάτης οὔσης καὶ μάλιστα ἦθος ἐχούσης ἀνδρεῖον. ἔτι δὲ ἐπεὶ τὸ μέσον μὲν τῶν ὑπερβολῶν ἐπαινοῦμεν καὶ χρῆναι διώκειν φαμέν, ἡ δὲ δωριστὶ ταύτην ἔχει τὴν φύσιν πρὸς τὰς ἄλλας ἁρμονίας, φανερὸν ὅτι τὰ Δώρια μέλη πρέπει παιδεύεσθαι μᾶλλον τοῖς νεωτέροις.

-

εἰσὶ δὲ δύο σκοποί, τό τε δυνατὸν καὶ τὸ πρέπον· καὶ γὰρ τὰ δυνατὰ δεῖ μεταχειρίζεσθαι μᾶλλον καὶ τὰ πρέποντα ἑκάστους. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ὡρισμένα ταῖς ἡλικίαις, οἷον τοῖς ἀπειρηκόσι διὰ χρόνον οὐ ῥᾴδιον ᾄδειν τὰς συντόνους ἁρμονίας, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἀνειμένας ἡ φύσις ὑποβάλλει τοῖς τηλικούτοις. διὸ καλῶς ἐπιτιμῶσι καὶ τοῦτο Σωκράτει τῶν περὶ τὴν μουσικήν τινες, ὅτι τὰς ἀνειμένας ἁρμονίας ἀποδοκιμάσειεν εἰς τὴν παιδίαν, ὡς μεθυστικὰς λαμβάνων αὐτάς, οὐ κατὰ τὴν τῆς μέθης δύναμιν, βακχευτικὸν γὰρ ἥ γε μέθη ποιεῖ μᾶλλον, ἀλλʼ ἀπειρηκυίας. ὥστε καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐσομένην ἡλικίαν, τὴν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, δεῖ καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἁρμονιῶν ἅπτεσθαι καὶ τῶν μελῶν τῶν τοιούτων, ἔτι δʼ εἴ τίς ἐστι τοιαύτη τῶν ἁρμονιῶν ἣ πρέπει τῇ τῶν παίδων ἡλικίᾳ διὰ τὸ δύνασθαι κόσμον τʼ ἔχειν ἅμα καὶ παιδείαν, οἷον ἡ λυδιστὶ φαίνεται πεπονθέναι μάλιστα τῶν ἁρμονιῶν. δῆλον οὖν ὅτι τούτους ὅρους τρεῖς ποιητέον εἰς τὴν παιδείαν, τό τε μέσον καὶ τὸ δυνατὸν καὶ τὸ πρέπον.

- - - - From fb34383f7c695c99049fe90a44164b740dcea89c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lcerrato Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 16:20:48 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] (grc_conversation) tlg0086 file renaming #1399 --- ...6.tlg035.perseus-grc2b.xml => tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml} | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename data/tlg0086/tlg035/{tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2b.xml => tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml} (100%) diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2b.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml similarity index 100% rename from data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2b.xml rename to data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-grc2.xml From dc5409107a41afab37e3f038bd3f1d5a20b94f49 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lcerrato Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 17:08:59 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] (grc_conversation) tlg0086 further work #1399 --- .../tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.tracking.json | 14 - .../tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml | 538 ------------------ .../tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml | 2 +- 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 553 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.tracking.json delete mode 100644 data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.tracking.json b/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.tracking.json deleted file mode 100644 index f6c38d390..000000000 --- a/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.tracking.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,14 +0,0 @@ -{ - "epidoc_compliant": false, - "fully_unicode": true, - "git_repo": "canonical-greekLit", - "has_cts_metadata": false, - "has_cts_refsDecl": false, - "id": "1999.01.0056", - "last_editor": "", - "note": "", - "src": "texts/Classics/Aristotle/opensource/aristot.poet_eng.xml", - "status": "migrated", - "target": "canonical-greekLit/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml", - "valid_xml": false -} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml deleted file mode 100644 index e4977a92f..000000000 --- a/data/tlg0086/tlg034/tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng1.xml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,538 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - - Poetics - Aristotle - William Hamilton Fyfe - Perseus Project, Tufts University - Gregory Crane - - Prepared under the supervision of - Lisa Cerrato - William Merrill - Elli Mylonas - David Smith - - The Annenberg CPB/Project - - - - Trustees of Tufts University - Medford, MA - Perseus Digital Library Project - Perseus 2.0 - tlg0086.tlg034.perseus-eng2.xml - - Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License - - - - - - - Aristotle - Aristotle, The Poetics. "Longinus," On the sublime. Demetrius, On Style - William Hamilton Fyfe - - William Heinemann Ltd. - London - Harvard University Press - Cambridge, MA - 1939 - - - - - Loeb Classical Library - - HathiTrust - - - - - - - - - -

This pointer pattern extracts chapter and subchapter.

- - -

This pointer pattern extracts chapter.

- - - - - - - English - Greek - - - - - EpiDoc and CTS conversion and general header review. - fixed three typos based on user report - cleaned up bad place tags in a few texts and cleaned up the document format - more reorganizing of texts module by collection - began reorganizing texts module by collection. created separate work directory in texts module to keep hopper files separate from in progress files - fixed typo - fixed cvs log keyword - edited entity tags CEH - fixed bibl errors - zr - added cvs log keyword - Corrected two typos in 1449a. - Put Bekker line 1 milestone tags at the beginning of each section so that the incoming list creator would work. Changed RREFDECL. - Tagged in conformance with Prose.e dtd. - Text was scanned at St. Olaf Spring, 1992. - - - - - -
-
-

-LetThe text here printed is based on Vahlen’s third edition(Leipzig, 1885), and the chief deviations from it are noted at the foot of each page. The prime source of all existing texts of the Poetics is the eleventh century Paris manuscript, No. 1741, designated as Ac. To the manuscripts of the Renaissance few, except Dr. Margoliouth, now assign any independent value, but they contain useful suggestions for the correction of obvious errors and defects in Ac. These are here designated “copies.”V. stands for Vahlen’s third edition, and By. for the late Professor Ingram Bywater, who has earned the gratitude and admiration of all students of the Poetics by his services both to the text and to its interpretation. Then there is the Arabic transcript. Translated in the eleventh century from a Syriac translation made in the eighth century, it appears to make little sense, but sometimes gives dim visions of the readings of a manuscript three centuries older but not necessarily better than Ac, readings which confirm some of the improvements introduced into Renaissance texts. us here deal with Poetry, its essence and its several species, with the characteristic function of each species and the way in which plots must be constructed if the poem is to be a success; and also with the number and character of the constituent parts of a poem, and similarly with all other matters proper to this same inquiry; and let us, as nature directs, begin first with first principles.

-

Epic poetry, then, and the poetry of tragic drama, and, moreover, comedy and dithyrambic poetry, and most flute-playing and harp-playing, these, speaking generally, may all be said to be representations of life.The explanation of μίμησις, as Aristotle uses the word, demands a treatise; all that a footnote can say is this:—Life presents to the artist the phenomena of sense, which the artist re-presents in his own medium, giving coherence, designing a pattern. That this is true not only of drama and fiction but also of instrumental music (most flute-playing and harp-playing) was more obvious to a Greek than to us, since Greek instrumental music was more definitely imitative. The technical display of the virtuoso Plato describes as a beastly noise. Since μίμησις in this sense and μιμητής and the verb μιμεῖσθαι have a wider scope than any one English word, it is necessary to use more than one word in translation, e.g. μιμητής is what we call an artist; and for μίμησις where representation would be clumsy we may use the word art; the adjective must be imitative, since representative has other meanings.

-

But they differ one from another in three ways: either in using means generically differenti.e., means that can be divided into separate categories. or in representing different objects or in representing objects not in the same way but in a different manner.

-

For just as by the use both of color and form people represent many objects, making likenesses of them—some having a knowledge of art and some working empirically—and just as others use the human voice; so is it also in the arts which we have mentioned, they all make their representations in rhythm and language and tune, using these means either separately or in combination.

-

For tune and rhythm alone are employed in flute-playing and harp-playing and in any other arts which have a similar function, as, for example, pipe-playing.

-

Rhythm alone without tune is employed by dancers in their representations, for by means of rhythmical gestures they represent both character and experiences and actions.πάθη καὶ πράξεις cover the whole field of life, what men do (πράξεις) and what men experience (πάθη). Since πάθη means also emotions and that sense may be present here, but as a technical term in this treatise πάθος is a calamity or tragic incident, something that happens to the hero.

-

But the art which employs words either in bare prose or in metres, either in one kind of metre or combining several, happens up to the present day to have no name.

-

For we can find no common term to apply to the mimes of Sophron and XenarchusSophron and Xenarchus, said to he father and son, lived in Syracuse, the elder a contemporary of Euripides. They wrote mimes, i.e., simple and usually farcical sketches of familiar incidents, similar to the mimes of Herondas and the fifteenth Idyll of Theocritus, but in prose. There was a tradition that their mimes suggested to Plato the use of dialogue. and to the Socratic dialogues:

-

nor again supposing a poet were to make his representation in iambics or elegiacs or any other such metre—except that people attach the word poet(maker)to the name of the metre and speak of elegiac poets and of others as epic poets.

-

Thus they do not call them poets in virtue of their representation but apply the name indiscriminately in virtue of the metre.

-

For if people publish medical or scientific treatises in metre the custom is to call them poets. But Homer and EmpedoclesEmpedocles (floruit 445 B.C.) expressed his philosophical and religious teaching in hexameter verse, to which Aristotle elsewhere attributes genuine value as poetry, but it is here excluded from the ranks of poetry because the object is definitely. have nothing in common except the metre, so that it would be proper to call the one a poet and the other not a poet but a scientist.

-

Similarly if a man makes his representation by combining all the metres, as Chaeremon did when he wrote his rhapsody The Centaur, a medley of all the metres, he too should be given the name of poet.Chaeremon was a tragedian and rhapsodist. The Centaur was apparently an experiment which might be classed as either drama or epic. Cf. Aristot. Poet. 24.11. On this point the distinctions thus made may suffice.

-

There are certain arts which employ all the means which I have mentioned, such as rhythm and tune and metre—dithyrambic and nomic poetry,The traditional definition is that the Dithyramb was sung to a flute accompaniment by a chorus in honor of Dionysus; and that the Nome was a solo sung to a harp accompaniment in honor of Apollo, but it is not clear that Aristotle regarded the Dithyramb as restricted to the worship of Dionysus. Timotheus’s dithyramb mentioned in Aristot. Poet. 15.8 cannot have been Dionysiac. But there is good evidence to show that the dithyramb was primarily associated with Dionysus. for example, and tragedy too and comedy. The difference here is that some use all these at once, others use now one now another.

-

These differences then in the various arts I call the means of representation.

- -
-
-

Since living personsLiterally men doing or experiencing something. are the objects of representation, these must necessarily be either good men or inferior—thus only are characters normally distinguished, since ethical differences depend upon vice and virtue—that is to say either better than ourselves or worse or much what we are. It is the same with painters.

-

Polygnotus depicted men as better than they are and Pauson worse, while Dionysius made likenesses.Polygnotus’s portraits were in the grand style and yet expressive of character(cf. Aristot. Poet. 6.15): Aristophanes aIludes to a Pauson as a perfectly wicked caricaturist: Dionysius of Colophon earned the name of the man-painter because he always painted men and presumably made good likenesses.

-

Clearly each of the above mentioned arts will admit of these distinctions, and they will differ in representing objects which differ from each other in the way here described.

-

In painting too, and flute-playing and harp-playing, these diversities may certainly be found, and it is the same in prose and in unaccompanied verse.

-

For instance Homer’s people are better, Cleophon’s are like, while in Hegemon of Thasos, the first writer of parodies, and in Nicochares, the author of the Poltrooniad, they are worse.Cleophon wrote epics (i.e., hexameter poems), describing scenes of daily life in commonplace diction (cf. Aristot. Poet. 22.2): Hegemon wrote mock epics in the style of the surviving Battle of Frog and Mice: of Nicochares nothing is known, but his forte was evidently satire.

-

It is the same in dithyrambic and nomic poetry, for instance . . . a writer might draw characters like the Cyclops as drawn by Timotheus and Philoxenus.Both famous dithyramhic poets. There is evidence that Philoxenus treated Polyphemus in the vein of satire: Timotheus may have drawn a more dignified picture.

-

It is just in this respect that tragedy differs from comedy. The latter sets out to represent people as worse than they are to-day, the former as better.

- -
-

A third difference in these arts is the manner in which one may represent each of these objects.

-

For in representing the same objects by the same means it is possible to proceed either partly by narrative and partly by assuming a character other than your own—this is Homer’s method—or by remaining yourself without any such change, or else to represent the characters as carrying out the whole action themselves.

-

These, as we said above, are the three differences which form the several species of the art of representation, the means, the objects, and the manner.

-

It follows that in one respect Sophocles would be the same kind of artist as Homer, for both represent good men, and in another respect he would resemble Aristophanes, for they both represent men in action and doing things. And that according to some is the reason why they are called dramas, because they present people as doingDrama being derived from δρᾶν to do. things.

-

And for this reason the Dorians claim as their own both tragedy and comedy—comedy is claimed both by the Megarians here in Greece, who say that it originated in the days of their democracy, and by the Megarians in Sicily,The inhabitants of Megara Hyblaea. for it was from there the poet EpicharmusEpicharmus of Cos wrote in Sicily burlesques and mimes depicting scenes of daily life. He and Phormis were originators of comedy in that they sketched types instead of lampooning individuals (cf. Aristot. Poet. 5.5): of Chionides and Magnes we only know that they were early comedians, i.e., in the first half of the fifth century B.C. came, who was much earlier than Chionides and Magnes; and tragedy some of the Peloponnesians claim. Their evidence is the two names.

-

Their name, they say, for suburb villages is κῶμαι—the Athenians call them Demes—and comedians are so called not from κωμάζειν, to revel, but because they were turned out of the towns and went strolling round the villages( κῶμαι). Their word for action, they add, is δρᾶν, whereas the Athenian word is πράττειν. So much then for the differences, their number, and their nature.

- -
-

Speaking generally, poetry seems to owe its origin to two particular causes, both natural.

-

From childhood men have an instinct for representation, and in this respect, differs from the other animals that he is far more imitative and learns his first lessons by representing things. And then there is the enjoyment people always get from representations.

-

What happens in actual experience proves this, for we enjoy looking at accurate likenesses of things which are themselves painful to see, obscene beasts, for instance, and corpses.

-

The reason is this: Learning things gives great pleasure not only to philosophers but also in the same way to all other men, though they share this pleasure only to a small degree.

-

The reason why we enjoy seeing likenesses is that, as we look, we learn and infer what each is, for instance, that is so and so.

-

If we have never happened to see the original, our pleasure is not due to the representation as such but to the technique or the color or some other such cause.

-

We have, then, a natural instinct for representation and for tune and rhythmIt is not clear wheter the two general causes are (1) the instinct for imitation, (2) the natural enjoyment of mimicry by others; or whether these two are combined into one and the second cause is the instinct for tune and rhythm. Obviously this last is an essential cause of poetry.—for the metres are obviously sections of rhythmse.g., the rhythm of the blacksmith’s hammer or of a trotting horse is dactylic, but the hexameter is a section or slice of that rhythm; it is cut up into sixes.—and starting with these instincts men very gradually developed them until they produced poetry out of their improvisations.

-

Poetry then split into two kinds according to the poet’s nature. For the more serious poets represented fine doings and the doings of fine men, while those of a less exalted nature represented the actions of inferior men, at first writing satire just as the others at first wrote hymns and eulogies.

-

Before Homer we cannot indeed name any such poem, though there were probably many satirical poets,

-

but starting from Homer, there is, for instance, his MargitesA famous burlesque which Aristotle attributes to Homer. Other similar poems must mean other early burlesques not necessarily attributed to Homer. and other similar poems. For these the iambic metre was fittingly introduced and that is why it is still called iambic, because it was the metre in which they lampooned each other.Since the iambic came to be the metre of invective, the verb ἰαμβίζειν acquired the meaning to lampoon. There is probably implied a derivation from ἰάπτειν, to assail.

-

Of the ancients some wrote heroic verse and some iambic.

-

And just as Homer was a supreme poet in the serious style, since he alone made his representations not only good but also dramatic, so, too, he was the first to mark out the main lines of comedy, since he made his drama not out of personal satire but out of the laughable as such. His Margites indeed provides an analogy: as are the Iliad and Odyssey to our tragedies, so is the Margites to our comedies.

-

When tragedy and comedy came to light, poets were drawn by their natural bent towards one or the other. Some became writers of comedies instead of lampoons, the others produced tragedies instead of epics; the reason being that the former is in each case a higher kind of art and has greater value.

-

To consider whether tragedy is fully developed by now in all its various species or not, and to criticize it both in itself and in relation to the stage, that is another question.

-

At any rate it originated in improvisation—both tragedy itself and comedy. The one came from the preludeBefore the chorus began (or in pauses between their songs) the leader of the performance would improvise some appropriate tale or state the theme which they were to elaborate. Thus he was called ὁ ἐξάρχων or the starter, and became in time the first actor. to the dithyramb and the other from the prelude to the phallic songs which still survive as institutions in many cities.

-

Tragedy then gradually evolved as men developed each element that came to light and after going through many changes, it stopped when it had found its own natural form.

-

Thus it was Aeschylus who first raised the number of the actors from one to two. He also curtailed the chorus and gave the dialogue the leading part. Three actors and scene-painting Sophocles introduced.

-

Then as to magnitude.Being a development of the Satyr play,A Satyr play was an interlude performed by a troupe of actors dressed as the goat-like followers of Dionysus. Hence τραγῳδία, goat-song. Aristotle seems so clear about this that he does not trouble to give a full explanation. But we can see from this passage that the Satyr plays were short, jocose and in the trochaic metre which suited their dances, and that in Aristotle’s view tragedy was evolved from these. No example of a primitive Satyr play survives, but we can make inferences from the later, more sophisticated Cyclops of Euripides and the fragments of Sophocles’ <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἰχνευταί</foreign>, The Trackers. We cannot be certain that Aristotle’s theory is historically correct; the balance of evidence is against it. it was quite late before tragedy rose from short plots and comic diction to its full dignity, and that the iambic metre was used instead of the trochaic tetrameter.

-

At first they used the tetrameter because its poetry suited the Satyrs and was better for dancing, but when dialogue was introduced, Nature herself discovered the proper metre. The iambic is indeed the most conversational of the metres,

-

and the proof is that in talking to each other we most often use iambic lines but very rarely hexameters and only when we rise above the ordinary pitch of conversation.

-

Then there is the number of acts. The further embellishmentsMasks, costumes, etc. and the story of their introduction one by one we may take as told,

-

for it would probably be a long task to go through them in detail.

- -
-

Comedy, as we have said, is a representation of inferior people, not indeed in the full sense of the word bad, but the laughable is a species of the base or ugly.Ugly was to a Greek an equivalent of bad. The persons in Comedy are inferior (see chapter 2.), but have only one of the many qualities which make up Ugliness or Badness, viz. the quality of being ludicrous and therefore in some degree contemptible.

-

It consists in some blunder or ugliness that does not cause pain or disaster, an obvious example being the comic mask which is ugly and distorted but not painful.

-

The various stages of tragedy and the originators of each are well known, but comedy remains obscure because it was not at first treated seriously. Indeed it is only quite late in its historyProbably about 465 B.C. that the archon granted a chorus for a comic poet; before that they were volunteers.In the fifth century dramatists submitted their plays to the archon in charge of the festival at which they wished them to be performed. He selected the number required by the particular festival, and to the poets thus selected granted a chorus, i.e., provided a choregus who paid the expenses of the chorus. The earlier volunteers had themselves paid for and produced their plays.

-

Comedy had already taken certain forms before there is any mention of those who are called its poets. Who introduced masks or prologues, the number of actors, and so on, is not known.

-

Plot making [Epicharmus and Phormis]Epicharmus and Phormis, being both early Sicilian comedians, are appropriate here. Either part of a sentence is lost or an explanatory note has got into the text. originally came from Sicily,

-

and of the Athenian poets CratesFragments of his comedies survive, dating about the middle of the fifth century B.C. was the first to give up the lampooning form and to generalize his dialogue and plots.

-

Epic poetry agreed with tragedy only in so far as it was a metrical representation of heroic action, but inasmuch as it has a single metre and is narrative in that respect they are different.

-

And then as regards length, tragedy tends to fall within a single revolution of the sun or slightly to exceed that, whereas epic is unlimited in point of time;

-

and that is another difference, although originally the practice was the same in tragedy as in epic poetry.

-

The constituent parts are some of them the same and some peculiar to tragedy.

-

Consequently any one who knows about tragedy, good and bad, knows about epics too, since tragedy has all the elements of epic poetry, though the elements of tragedy are not all present in the epic.

- -
-

With the representation of life in hexameter versei.e., epic poetry. and with comedy we will deal later. We must now treat of tragedy after first gathering up the definition of its nature which results from what we have said already.

-

Tragedy is, then, a representation of an actionMargoliouth’s phrase a chapter of life, illuminates the meaning, since πρᾶξις includes what the hero does and what happens to him. (Cf. Aristot. Poet. 2.1 and note.) that is heroic and complete and of a certain magnitude—by means of language enriched with all kinds of ornament, each used separately in the different parts of the play: it represents men in action and does not use narrative, and through pity and fear it effects relief to these and similar emotions.The sense of the pity of it and fear lest such disasters might befall ourselves are not the only emotions which tragedy releases, but Aristotle specifies them as the most characteristic. For κάθαρσις, see Introduction.

-

By language enriched I mean that which has rhythm and tune, i.e., song,

-

and by the kinds separately I mean that some effects are produced by verse alone and some again by song.

-

Since the representation is performed by living persons, it follows at once that one essential part of a tragedy is the spectacular effect, and, besides that, song-making and diction. For these are the means of the representation.

-

By diction I mean here the metrical arrangement of the words; and song making I use in the full, obvious sense of the word.

-

And since tragedy represents action and is acted by living persons, who must of necessity have certain qualities of character and thought—for it is these which determine the quality of an action; indeed thought and character are the natural causes of any action and it is in virtue of these that all men succeed or fail—

-

it follows then that it is the plot which represents the action. By plot I mean here the arrangement of the incidents: character is that which determines the quality of the agents, and thought appears wherever in the dialogue they put forward an argument or deliver an opinion.

-

Necessarily then every tragedy has six constituent parts, and on these its quality depends. These are plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and song.

-

Two of these are the means of representation: one is the manner: three are the objects represented.The means are diction and music: the manner is spectacle: the objects represented are actions or experiences and the moral or intellectual qualities of the dramatis personae.

-

This list is exhaustive, and practically all the poets employ these elements, for every drama includes alike spectacle and character and plot and diction and song and thought.

-

The most important of these is the arrangement of the incidents,i.e., plot, as defined above. for tragedy is not a representation of men but of a piece of action, of life, of happiness and unhappiness, which come under the head of action, and the end aimed at is the representation not of qualities of character but of some action; and while character makes men what they are,it’s their actions and experiences that make them happy or the opposite.

-

They do not therefore act to represent character, but character-study is included for the sake of the action. It follows that the incidents and the plot are the end at which tragedy aims, and in everything the end aimed at is of prime importance.

-

Moreover, you could not have a tragedy without action, but you can have one with out character-study.

-

Indeed the tragedies of most modern poets are without this, and, speaking generally, there are many such writers, whose case is like that of Zeuxis compared with Polygnotus.Zeuxis’s portraits were ideal (cf. Aristot. Poet. 25.28). The latter was good at depicting character, but there is nothing of this in Zeuxis’s painting.

-

A further argument is that if a man writes a series of speeches full of character and excellent in point of diction and thought, he will not achieve the proper function of tragedy nearly so well as a tragedy which, while inferior in these qualities, has a plot or arrangement of incidents.

-

And furthermore, two of the most important elements in the emotional effect of tragedy, reversals and discoveries,See chapter 11. are parts of the plot.

-

And here is further proof: those who try to write tragedy are much sooner successful in language and character-study than in arranging the incidents. It is the same with almost all the earliest poets.

-

The plot then is the first principle and as it were the soul of tragedy: character comes second.

-

It is much the same also in painting; if a man smeared a canvas with the loveliest colors at random, it would not give as much pleasure as an outline in black and white.Selection and design are necessary for any work of representation.

-

And it is mainly because a play is a representation of action that it also for that reason represents people.

-

Third comes thought. This means the ability to say what is possible and appropriate. It comes in the dialogue and is the function of the statesman’s or the rhetorician’s art.Cf. chapter 6.

-

The old writers made their characters talk like statesmen,Or in the style of ordinary people, without obvious rhetorical artifice. the moderns like rhetoricians.

-

Character is that which reveals choiceπροαίρεσις is a technical term in Aristotle’s ethics, corresponding to our use of the term Will, the deliberate adoption of any course of conduct or line of action. It is a man’s will or choice in the sense that determines the goodness or badness of his character. If character is to be revealed in drama, a man must be shown in the exercise of his will, choosing between one line of conduct and another, and he must be placed in circumstances in wbich the choice is not obvious, i.e., circumstances in which everybody’s choice would not be the same. The choice of death rather than disbonourable wealth reveals character; the choice of a nectarine rather than a turnip does not., shows what sort of thing a man chooses or avoids in circumstances where the choice is not obvious, so those speeches convey no character in which there is nothing whatever which the speaker chooses or avoids.

-

Thought you find in speeches which contain an argument that something is or is not, or a general expression of opinion.

-

The fourth of the literary elements is the language. By this I mean, as we said above, the expression of meaning in words,This seems to be a mistaken reference to 6 above where diction is defined as the metrical arrangement of the words. In poetry they come to the same thing. and this is essentially the same in verse and in prose.

-

Of the other elements which enrichSee Aristot. Poet. 6.2. tragedy the most important is song-making.

-

Spectacle, while highly effective, is yet quite foreign to the art and has nothing to do with poetry. Indeed the effect of tragedy does not depend on its performance by actors, and, moreover,for achieving the spectacular effects the art of the costumier is more authoritative than that of the poet.

- -
-

After these definitions we must next discuss the proper arrangement of the incidents since this is the first and most important thing in tragedy.

-

We have laid it down that tragedy is a representation of an action that is whole and complete and of a certain magnitude, since a thing may be a whole and yet have no magnitude.

-

A whole is what has a beginning and middle and end.

-

A beginning is that which is not a necessary consequent of anything else but after which something else exists or happens as a natural result.

-

An end on the contrary is that which is inevitably or, as a rule, the natural result of something else but from which nothing else follows;

-

a middle follows something else and something follows from it.

-

Well constructed plots must not therefore begin and end at random, but must embody the formulae we have stated.

-

Moreover, in everything that is beautiful, whether it be a living creature or any organism composed of parts, these parts must not only be orderly arranged but must also have a certain magnitude of their own;

-

for beauty consists in magnitude and ordered arrangement. From which it follows that neither would a very small creature be beautiful—for our view of it is almost instantaneous and therefore confusedWith a very small object the duration of our vision is, as it were, so rapid that the parts are invisible; we, therefore, cannot appreciate their proportion and arrangement, in which beauty consists.—nor a very large one, since being unable to view it all at once, we lose the effect of a single whole; for instance, suppose a creature a thousand miles long.

-

As then creatures and other organic structures must have a certain magnitude and yet be easily taken in by the eye, so too with plots: they must have length but must be easily taken in by the memory.

-

The limit of length considered in relation to competitions and productionαἴσθησις is the play’s perception by an audience—how much an audience will stand. before an audience does not concern this treatise. Had it been the rule to produce a hundred tragedies, the performance would have been regulated by the water clock, as it is said they did once in other days.

-

But as for the natural limit of the action, the longer the better as far as magnitude goes, provided it can all be grasped at once. To give a simple definition: the magnitude which admits of a change from bad fortune to good or from good fortune to bad, in a sequence of events which follow one another either inevitably or according to probability, that is the proper limit.

- -
-

A plot does not have unity, as some people think, simply because it deals with a single hero. Many and indeed innumerable things happen to an individual, some of which do not go to make up any unity, and similarly an individual is concerned in many actions which do not combine into a single piece of action.

-

It seems therefore that all those poets are wrong who have written a Heracleid or Theseid or other such poems.Aristotle condemns them all, assuming—or perhaps assured by experience—that their sole claim to unity lay in the fact that all the stories in the poem had a common hero. They think that because Heracles was a single individual the plot must for that reason have unity.

-

But Homer, supreme also in all other respects, was apparently well aware of this truth either by instinct or from knowledge of his art. For in writing an Odyssey he did not put in all that ever happened to Odysseus, his being wounded on Parnassus, for instance, or his feigned madness when the host was gathered(these being events neither of which necessarily or probably led to the other), but he constructed his Odyssey round a single action in our sense of the phrase. And the Iliad the same.

-

As then in the other arts of representation a single representation means a representation of a single object, so too the plot being a representation of a piece of action must represent a single piece of action and the whole of it; and the component incidents must be so arranged that if one of them be transposed or removed, the unity of the whole is dislocated and destroyed. For if the presence or absence of a thing makes no visible difference, then it is not an integral part of the whole.

- -
-

What we have said already makes it further clear that a poet’s object is not to tell what actually happened but what could and would happen either probably or inevitably.

-

The difference between a historian and a poet is not that one writes in prose and the other in verse— indeed the writings of Herodotus could be put into verse and yet would still be a kind of history, whether written in metre or not. The real difference is this, that one tells what happened and the other what might happen.

-

For this reason poetry is something more scientific and serious than history, because poetry tends to give general truths while history gives particular facts.

-

By a general truth I mean the sort of thing that a certain type of man will do or say either probably or necessarily. That is what poetry aims at in giving names to the characters.The names indicate types. This is obvious, as he says, in Comedy and is also true of Greek Tragedy, which, although it deals with traditional heroes regarded as real people, yet keeps to a few stories in which each character has become a type. In Chapter 17. the dramatist is recommended to sketch first his outline plot, making it clear and coherent, before he puts in the names. A particular fact is what Alcibiades did or what was done to him.

-

In the case of comedy this has now become obvious, for comedians construct their plots out of probable incidents and then put in any names that occur to them. They do not, like the iambic satirists, write about individuals.Aristophanes of course did write about individuals. But Aristotle is thinking of the New Comedy, where the names of the characters were invented by the author and there was no reference to real people.

-

In tragedy, on the other hand, they keep to real names. The reason is that what is possible carries conviction. If a thing has not happened, we do not yet believe in its possibility, but what has happened is obviously possible. Had it been impossible, it would not have happened.

-

It is true that in some tragedies one or two of the names are familiar and the rest invented; indeed in some they are all invented, as for instance in Agathon’s Antheus,The name, apparently, of an imaginary hero. The word might be Ἄνθος, but The Flower is an unlikely title for a Greek tragedy. where both the incidents and the names are invented and yet it is none the less a favourite.

-

One need not therefore endeavor invariably to keep to the traditional stories with which our tragedies deal. Indeed it would be absurd to do that, seeing that the familiar themes are familiar only to a few and yet please all.The reason why Greek tragedy dealt only with a few familiar themes is to be found of course in its religious origin. It was the function of tragedy to interpret and embroider myths. Aristotle never gives this reason, but offers instead the unconvincing explanation that tragedians adhered to certain real stories to gain verisimilitude—and yet he has to admit that, since to many of the auditors these stories were unfamiliar and none the less attractive, dramatists might just as well invent new themes.

-

It is clear, then, from what we have said that the poet must be a maker not of verses but of stories, since he is a poet in virtue of his representation, and what he represents is action.

-

Even supposing he represents what has actually happened, he is none the less a poet, for there is nothing to prevent some actual occurrences being the sort of thing that would probably or inevitably happen, and it is in virtue of that that he is their maker.

-

Of simpleThis term is defined in the next chapter. It seems odd to use it before its meaning is explained. Perhaps we should read ἄλλων(Tyrwhitt) and translate of all plots. plots and actions the worst are those which are episodic. By this I mean a plot in which the episodes do not follow each other probably or inevitably.

-

Bad poets write such plays because they cannot help it, and good poets write them to please the actors. Writing as they do for competition, they often strain a plot beyond its capacity and are thus obliged to sacrifice continuity.Or logic. He means the chain of cause and effect, wherein each incident is the result of what has gone before. See the end of the next chapter.

-

But this is bad work, since tragedy represents not only a complete action but also incidents that cause fear and pity, and this happens most of all when the incidents are unexpected and yet one is a consequence of the other.The logic suffers from ellipse. Plays which fail to exhibit the sequence of cause and effect are condemned (1) because they lack the unity which befits tragedy, (2) because they miss that supreme effect of fear or pity produced by incidents which, though unexpected, are seen to be no mere accident but the inevitable result of what has gone before.

-

For in that way the incidents will cause more amazement than if they happened mechanically and accidentally, since the most amazing accidental occurrences are those which seem to have been providential, for instance when the statue of Mitys at Argos killed the man who caused Mitys’s death by falling on him at a festival. Such events do not seem to be mere accidents.

-

So such plots as these must necessarily be the best.

- -
-

Some plots are simple and some complex, as indeed the actions represented by the plots are obviously such.

-

By a simple action I mean one that is single and continuous in the sense of our definition above,In chapters 7 and 8. wherein the change of fortune occurs without reversal or discovery;

-

by a complex action I mean one wherein the change coincides with a discovery or reversal or both.

-

These should result from the actual structure of the plot in such a way that what has already happened makes the result inevitable or probable;for there is indeed a vast difference between what happens propter hoc and post hoc.

- -
-

A reversal is a change of the situation into the opposite, as described above,At the end of chapter 7. Vahlen and many other exponents of the Politics confine the meaning of “reversal” to the situation in which the hero’s action has consequences directly opposite to his intention and expectation. There is much to be said for this interpretation, which stresses the irony at the heart of all tragedy. But it is too narrow for Aristotle’s theory. All tragedy involves a change of fortune ( μετάβασις). In a “simple” plot this is gradual; in a “complex” plot it is catastrophic, a sudden revolution of fortune’s wheel. In some of the greatest tragedies, but not in all, this is the result of action designed to produce the opposite effect. this change being, moreover, as we are saying, probable or inevitable—

-

like the man in the Oedipus who came to cheer Oedipus and rid him of his anxiety about his mother by revealing his parentage and changed the whole situation.The messenger for Corinth announces the death of Polybus and Oedipus’s succession to the throne. Oedipus, feeling now safe from the prophecy that he would murder his father, still fears to return to Corinth, lest he should fulfil the other prophecy and marry his mother. The messenger seeks to reassure him by announcing that Polybus and Merope are not his parents. But the effect of this was to change the whole situation for Oedipus by revealing the truth that he a murdered his father, Laius, and married his mother, Jocasta. This reversal is the more effective because it is immediately coincident with the discovery of the truth. In the Lynceus, too, there is the man led off to execution and

-

Danaus following to kill him, and the result of what had already happened was that the latter was killed and the former escaped.Lynceus married Hypermnestra who disobeyed Danaus in not murdering him. Danaus trying by process of law to compass the death of their son Abas was killed himself. The dog it was that died.

-

A discovery, as the term itself implies, is a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing either friendship or hatred in those who are destined for good fortune or ill.

-

A discovery is most effective when it coincides with reversals, such as that involved by the discovery in the Oedipus.

-

There are also other forms of discovery, for what we have described may in a sense occur in relation to inanimate and trivial objects, or one may discover whether some one has done something or not.

-

But the discovery which is most essentially part of the plot and part of the action is of the kind described above, for such a discovery and reversal of fortune will involve either pity or fear, and it is actions such as these which, according to our hypothesis, tragedy represents; and, moreover, misfortune and good fortune are likely to turn upon such incidents.

-

Now since the discovery is somebody’s discovery, in some scenes one character only is discovered to another, the identity of the other being obvious; but sometimes each must discover the other. Thus Iphigeneia was discovered to Orestes through the sending of the letter, but a separate discovery was needed to make him known to Iphigeneia.Euripides’ Iphigeneia in Tauris—Orestes and Pylades arriving among the Tauri are by the custom of the country to be sacrificed to Artemis by her priestess, Iphigeneia. It is agreed that Pylades shall be spared to carry a letter from Iphigeneia to Orestes, whom she supposes to be in Argos. In order that Pylades may deliver the message, even if he should lose the letter, she reads it aloud. Orestes thus discovers who she is. He then reveals himself to her by declaring who he is and proving his identity by his memories of their home.

-

We see then that two elements of the plot, reversal and discovery, turn upon these incidents. A third element is a calamity. Of these three elements we have already described reversal and discovery.

-

A calamity is a destructive or painful occurrence, such as a death on the stage, acute suffering and wounding and so on.

- -
-

We have alreadyIn chapter 6. spoken of the constituent parts to be used as ingredients of tragedy. The separable members into which it is quantitatively divided are these: Prologue, Episode, Exode, Choral Song,

-

the last being divided into Parode and Stasimon.

-

These are common to all tragedies; songs sung by actors on the stage and commoi are peculiar to certain plays.

-

A prologue is the whole of that part of a tragedy which precedes the entrance of the chorus.

-

An episode is the whole of that part of a tragedy which falls between whole choral songs.

-

An exode is the whole of that part of a tragedy which is not followed by a song of the chorus.

-

A parode is the whole of the first utterance of the chorus.

-

A stasimon is a choral song without anapaests or trochaics.This does not apply to surviving Greek tragedies, but may be true of those of Aristotle’s time. The word Stasimon is applied to all choruses in a tragedy other than those sung during entry or exit. It is usually explained as meaning a stationary song, because it was sung after the chorus had taken up its station in the orchestra.

-

A commos is a song of lament shared by the chorus and the actors on the stage.

-

The constituent parts to be used as ingredients of tragedy have been described above; these are the separable members into which it is quantitatively divided.The whole of chapter 12. bears marks of belonging to the Poetics but seems out of place, since it interrupts the discussion of plot.

- -
-

Following upon what has been said above we should next state what ought to be aimed at and what avoided in the construction of a plot, and the means by which the object of tragedy may be achieved.

-

Since then the structure of the best tragedy should be not simple but complexSee chapter 10. and one that represents incidents arousing fear and pity—for that is peculiar to this form of art—it is obvious to begin with that one should not show worthy men passing from good fortune to bad. That does not arouse fear or pity but shocks our feelings.

-

Nor again wicked people passing from bad fortune to good. That is the most untragic of all, having none of the requisite qualities, since it does not satisfy our feelingsi.e., our preference for poetic justice. or arouse pity or fear.

-

Nor again the passing of a thoroughly bad man from good fortune to bad fortune. Such a structure might satisfy our feelings but it arouses neither pity nor fear, the one being for the man who does not deserve his misfortune and the other for the man who is like ourselves—pity for the undeserved misfortune, fear for the man like ourselves—so that the result will arouse neither pity nor fear.

-

There remains then the mean between these. This is the sort of man who is not pre-eminently virtous and just, and yet it is through no badness or villainy of his own that he falls into the fortune, but rather through some flaw in him,Whether Aristotle regards the “flaw” as intellectual or moral has been hotly discussed. It may cover both senses. The hero must not deserve his misfortune, but he must cause it by making a fatal mistake, an error of judgement, which may well involve some imperfection of character but not such as to make us regard him as “morally responsible” for the disasters although they are nevertheless the consequences of the flaw in him, and his wrong decision at a crisis is the inevitable outcome of his character(cf. Aristot. Poet. 6.24.). he being one of those who are in high station and good fortune, like Oedipus and Thyestes and the famous men of such families as those.

-

The successful plot must then have a singleἁπλοῦς elsewhere in the Poetics means simple as opposed to πεπλεγμένος, complex; here it is opposed to διπλοῦς, which describes a double denouement, involving happiness for some and disaster for others. and not, as some say, a double issue; and the change must be not to good fortune from bad but, on the contrary, from good to bad fortune, and it must not be due to villainy but to some great flaw in such a man as we have described, or of one who is better rather than worse.

-

This can be seen also in actual practice. For at first poets accepted any plots, but to-day the best tragedies are written about a few families—Alcmaeon for instance and Oedipus and Orestes and Meleager and Thyestes and Telephus and all the others whom it befell to suffer or inflict terrible disasters.

-

Judged then by the theory of the art, the bestThis is modified by 19 in the following chapter, where he finds an even better formula for the tragic effect. tragedy is of this construction.

-

Those critics are therefore wrong who charge Euripides with doing this in his tragedies, and say that many of his end in misfortune.

-

That is, as we have shown, correct. And there is very good evidence of this, for on the stage and in competitions such plays appear the most tragic of all, if they are successful, and even if Euripides is in other respects a bad manager,Against Euripides Aristotle makes the following criticisms: (1)his choruses are often irrelevant; (2)the character of the heroine in his Iphigeneia in Tauris is inconsistent; (3)in the Medea the deliberate killing of the children is ineffective and the play is inartistically ended by the machina; (4)the character of Menelaus in the Orestes is needlessly depraved; (5)Melanippe is too philosophical for a woman. yet he is certainly the most tragic of the poets.

-

Next in order comes the structure which some put first, that which has a double issue, like the Odyssey, and ends in opposite ways for the good characters and the bad.

-

It is the sentimentality of the audience which makes this seem the best form; for the poets follow the wish of the spectators.

-

But this is not the true tragic pleasure but rather characteristic of comedy, where those who are bitter enemies in the story, Orestes and Aegisthus, for instance, go off at the end, having made friends, and nobody kills anybody.

- -
-
-

Fear and pity sometimes result from the spectacle and are sometimes aroused by the actual arrangement of the incidents, which is preferable and the mark of a better poet.

-

The plot should be so constructed that even without seeing the play anyone hearing of the incidents happening thrills with fear and pity as a result of what occurs. So would anyone feel who heard the story of Oedipus.

-

To produce this effect by means of an appeal to the eye is inartistic and needs adventitious aid,

-

while those who by such means produce an effect which is not fearful but merely monstrous have nothing in common with tragedy.that here were plays which relied for their effect on the scenery and make up is clear from chapter 17:—The Phorcides and Prometheus and Scenes laid in Hades. It was even possible to produce the Eumenides so badly as to bring it into this category. But Aristotle’s criticism here includes the more important point that the poignancy of a Greek tragedy is due to what happens and not to our seeing it happen. That Medea murders her children is tragic: to display the murder coram populo would add either nothing or something merely monstrous. And although Sophocles shows Oedipus with his eyes out, it is the fact and not the sight which is properly tragic. For one should not seek from tragedy all kinds of pleasure but that which is peculiar to tragedy,

-

and since the poet must by representation produce the pleasure which comes from feeling pity and fear, obviously this quality must be embodied in the incidents.

-

We must now decide what incidents seem dreadful or rather pitiable. Such must necessarily be the actions of friends to each other or of enemies or of people that are neither.

-

Now if an enemy does it to an enemy, there is nothing pitiable either in the deed or the intention,

-

except so far as the actual calamity goes.

-

Nor would there be if they were neither friends nor enemies. But when these calamities happen among friends,when for instance brother kills brother, or son father, or mother son, or son mother—either kills or intends to kill, or does something of the kind, that is what we must look for.

-

Now it is not right to break up the traditional stories, I mean, for instance, Clytaemnestra being killed by Orestes and Eriphyle by Alcmaeon,

-

but the poet must show invention and make a skilful use of the tradition.

-

But we must state more clearly what is meant by skilful.

-

The action may happen in the way in which the old dramatists made their characters act—consciously and knowing the facts, as EuripidesThis does not necessarily imply that Aristotle reckons Euripides “a modern,” since the Greek can equally mean “Euripides as well as other old dramatists.” also made his Medea kill her children.

-

Or they may do the deed but without realizing the horror of it and then discover the relationship afterwards, like Oedipus in Sophocles. That indeed lies outside the play,i.e., Oedipus kills his father Laius before the play opens. but an example of this in the tragedy itself is the Alcmaeon of AstydamasA prolific tragedian of the fourth century. or Telegonus in the Wounded Odysseus.

-

A third alternative is to intend to do some irremediable action in ignorance and to discover the truth before doing it.

-

Besides these there is no other way, for they must either do the deed or not, either knowing or unknowing.

-

The worst of these is to intend the action with full knowledge and not to perform it. That outrages the feelings and is not tragic, for there is no calamity. So nobody does that, except occasionally, as, for instance, Haemon and CreonHaemon, discovered by his father Creon embracing the dead body of Antigone, drew his sword on him but missed his aim and Creon fled. in the Antigone.

-

Next comes the doing of the deed.

-

It is better to act in ignorance and discover afterwards. Our feelings are not outraged and the discovery is startling.

-

Best of all is the last; in the Cresphontes,By Euripides. Polyphontes killed Cresphontes, king of Messenia, and gained possession of his kingdom and his wife, Merope. She had concealed her son, Aepytus, in Arcadia, and when he returned, seeking vengeance, she nearly killed him in ignorance but discovered who he was. He then killed Polyphontes and reigned in his stead. for instance, Merope intends to kill her son and does not kill him but discovers; and in the IphigeneiaIn Tauris. See Aristot. Poet. 11.8, note. the case of the sister and brother; and in the HelleAuthor and play unknown. the son discovers just as he is on the point of giving up his mother.

-

So this is the reason, as was said above,See Aristot. Poet. 13.7. why tragedies are about a few families. For in their experiments it was from no technical knowledge but purely by chance that they found out how to produce such an effect in their stories. So they are obliged to have recourse to those families in which such calamities befell.See Aristot. Poet. 9.8, note.

-

Now concerning the structure of the incidents and the proper character of the plots enough has been said.

- -
-

Concerning character there are four points to aim at. The first and most important is that the character should be good.

-

The play will show character if, as we said above,See Aristot. Poet. 6.24. either the dialogue or the actions reveal some choice; and the character will be good, if the choice is good.

-

But this is relative to each class of people. Even a woman is good and so is a slave, although it may be said that a woman is an inferior thing and a slave beneath consideration.

-

The second point is that the characters should be appropriate. A character may be manly, but it is not appropriate for a woman to be manly or clever.

-

Thirdly, it should be like.The meaning probably is like the traditional person, e.g. Achilles must not be soft nor Odysseus stupid. Cf. Horace Ars Poet. 120 famam sequere. This is different from making the character good and from making it appropriate in the sense of the word as used above.

-

Fourthly, it should be consistent. Even if the original be inconsistent and offers such a character to the poet for representation, still he must be consistently inconsistent.

-

An example of unnecessary badness of character is Menelaos in the OrestesAristotle has a personal distaste for this character on the ground that Euripides made him a creature meaner than the plot demands.;

-

of character that is unfitting and inappropriate the lament of Odysseus in the ScyllaA dithyramb by Timotheus. Cf. Aristot. Poet. 26.3. and Melanippe’s speechA fragment survives (Eur. Fr. 484 (Nauck)). Euripides seems to have given her a knowledge of science and philosophy inappropriate to a woman.;

-

of inconsistent character Iphigeneia in Aulis, for the suppliant Iphigeneia is not at all like her later character.

-

In character-drawing just as much as in the arrangement of the incidents one should always seek what is inevitable or probable, so as to make it inevitable or probable that such and such a person should say or do such and such; and inevitable or probable that one thing should follow another.

-

Clearly therefore the denouementOr unravelling. of each play should also be the result of the plot itself and not produced mechanically as in the Medea and the incident of the embarkation in the Iliad. Hom. Il. 2.155-181, where it is only the arbitrary (i.e., uncaused) intervention of Athene which stays the flight of the Greeks. In the Medea the heroine, having killed her rival and her children, is spirited away in the chariot ot the Sun, a result not caused by what has gone before.

-

The god in the carThe μηχανή or car was a sort of crane with a pulley attached, which was fixed at the top of the back-scene in the left corner of the stage. By it a god or hero could be lowered or raised or exhibited motionless in mid-air. Weak dramatists thus introduced a car to cut the knot by declaring the denouement instead of unravelling the plot by the logic of cause and effect. It was presumably on such a car that Medea was borne away. should only be used to explain what lies outside the play, either what happened earlier and is therefore beyond human knowledge, or what happens later and needs to be foretold in a proclamation. For we ascribe to the gods the power of seeing everything.

-

There must, however, be nothing inexplicable in the incidents, or, if there is, it must lie outside the tragedy. There is an example in Sophocles’ Oedipus.i.e., Oedipus had killed Laius in a wayside quarrel, not knowing who he was. When his subjects at Thebes crave his help to remove the curse which is blighting their crops, he pledges himself to discover the murderer of Laius. It may seem odd that he should not know enough about the details of the murder to connect it in his mind with his own murderous quarrel. But that was long ago, and neither an audience nor a novel-reader is critical about incidents which occur long before the point at which the story begins. See chapter Aristot. Poet. 24.20.

-

Since tragedy is a representation of men better than ourselves we must copy the good portrait-painters who, while rendering the distinctive form and making a likeness, yet paint people better than they are. It is the same with the poet. When representing people who are hot-tempered or lazy, or have other such traits of character, he should make them such, yet men of worth [an example of hardness]Apparently a note on Achilles which has been copied by mistake into the text.; take the way in which Agathon and Homer portray Achilles.

-

Keep, then, a careful eye on these rules and also on the appeal to the eyei.e., stage-craft rather than staging. which is necessarily bound up with the poet’s business; for that offers many opportunities of going wrong. But this subject has been adequately discussed in the published treatises.As distinct from the body of esoteric doctrine circulated by oral teaching among Aristotle’s pupils.

- -
-

What a Discovery is has been already stated.In chapter 11.As for kinds of Discovery, first comes the least artistic kind, which is largely used owing to incompetence—discovery by tokens.

-

These may be congenital, like the spear the Earth-born bear or stars, like those which CarcinusA prolific tragedian of the early fourth century. The family are agreeably ridiculed in Aristophanes’ Wasps. uses in his ThyestesThese were birth-marks. The spear-head distinguished the descendants of the Spartoi at Thebes; the star or bright spot on the descendants of Pelops commemorated his ivory shoulder, and in Carcinus’s play it seems to have survived cooking.;

-

or they may be acquired and these may be on the body, for instance, wounds, or external things like necklaces, and in the TyroA play by Sophocles. Tyro’s twins by Poseidon, who appeared to her in the guise of the river Enipeus, were exposed in a little boat or ark, like Moses in the bulrushes, and this led to their identification. the discovery by means of the boat.

-

There is a better and a worse way of using these tokens; for instance Odysseus, by means of his wound, was discovered in one way by the nurse and in another way by the swine-herds.Hom. Od. 19.386ff., 205ff. The first came about automatically, the second was a deliberate demonstration to prove the point. Aristotle here distinguishes between a discovery inevitably produced by the logic of events (e.g. it was inevitable or at least probable that Odysseus, arriving as a strange traveller, should be washed by Eurycleia, and that she should thus see the old scar on his thigh and discover his identity) and a discovery produced by a deliberate declaration (e.g. Odysseus’s declaration of his identity to Eumaeus). The latter kind is manufactured by the poet, not logically caused by what has gone before.

-

Discovery scenes constructed to prove the point are inartistic and so are all such scenes, but those are better which arise out of a reversal scene, as, for instance, in The Washing.Hom. Od. 19.392. See preceding note.

-

In the second place come those which are manufactured by the poet and are therefore inartistic. For instance, in the IphigeneiaEuripides’ Iphigeneia in Tauris. See Aristot. Poet. 11.8, note. Orestes revealed himself. She was revealed to him through the letter,

-

but Orestes says himself what the poet wants and not what the plot requires. So this comes near to the fault already mentioned, for he might just as well have actually brought some tokens.To prove his identity Orestes mentions Pelops’ lance and other things from home, which is much the same as producing visible tokens. And there is the voice of the shuttleWhen Philomela’s tongue was cut out, she wove in embroidery the story of her rape by Tereus. Thus the facts were discovered to her sister, Procne, by deliberate demonstration. In Sophocles’ Tereus.

-

The third kind is due to memory, to showing distress on seeing something. An example of this is the scene in the Cyprians by Dicaeogenes; on seeing the picture he burst into tearsTeucer, returning to Salamis in disguise and seeing a portrait of his dead father Telamon, burst into tears and was thus discovered. So, too, in The Two Gentlemen of <placeName key="perseus,Verona">Verona</placeName> Julia is discovered because she swoons on hearing Valentine offer Sylvia to his rival.: and again in the Tale of Alcinous, Hom. Od. 8.521ff. hearing the minstrel he remembered and burst into tears; and thus they were recognized.

-

The fourth kind results from an inference; for instance, in the Choephoroe Someone like me has come; but nobody is like me except Orestes; therefore he has come. And there is Polyidus’sA Sophist who either wrote an Iphigeneia with this denouement or more probably suggested in a work of criticism (cf. Aristot. Poet. 17.6) that Orestes on being led to his fate should speculate aloud upon the odd coincidence that both he and his sister should be sacrificed, thus revealing his identity to Iphigeneia. Like most critics, Polyidos would have been a poor dramatist. There is an example of this form of discovery in the French opera Coeur de Lion, where the old knight says goddam and is thus discovered to be an Englishman. idea about Iphigeneia, for it is likely enough that Orestes should make an inference that, whereas his sister was sacrificed, here is the same thing happening to him. And in Theodectes’ Tydeus that having come to find a son, he is perishing himself. And the scene in the Phineidae, where on seeing the spot the women inferred their fate, that they were meant to die there for it was there that they had been exposed.In these cases the inference was presumably uttered aloud and hence the identity of the speakers discovered. Nothing else is known of these plays.

-

There is also a kind of fictitious discovery which depends on a false inference on the part of the audience, for instance in Odysseus the False Messenger, he said he would recognize the bow, which as a matter of fact he had not seen, but to assume that he really would reveal himself by this means is a false inference.The text is obscure, and our ignorance of the play or rhapsody adds to the darkness, but the reference may be to the ruse, common in detective stories, of misleading the audience by false clues in order to make the final revelation more effective.

-

Best of all is the discovery which is brought about directly by the incidents, the surprise being produced by means of what is likely—take the scene in Sophocles’ Oedipus or in the Iphigeneia—for it is likely enough that she should want to send a letter. These are the only discovery scenes which dispense with artificial tokens, like necklaces.The classical example of these tokens in English drama is the strawberry mark on the left arm in Box and Cox. But Aristotle seems here to use tokens in a wider sense than at the beginning of the chapter and to include not only birthmarks, necklaces, etc., but any statement or action which may be used as a sign in the scene of Discovery.

-

In the second place come those that are the result of inference.

- -
-

In constructing plots and completing the effect by the help of dialogue the poet should, as far as possible, keep the scene before his eyes. Only thus by getting the picture as clear as if he were present at the actual event, will he find what is fitting and detect contradictions.

-

The censure upon Carcinos is evidence of this. Amphiaraos was was made to rise from a temple. The poet did not visualize the scene and therefore this escaped his notice, but on the stage it was a failure since the audience objected.The example is obscure. Clearly Carcinus introduced an absurdity which escaped notice until the play was staged. Margoliouth suggests that if Amphiaraus were a god he should come down, and if a mere hero, he sould not have a temple. In The Master of Ballantrae Mrs. Henry cleans a sword by thrusting it up to the hilt in the ground—which is iron-bound by frost. The would be noticed on the stage: a reader may miss the incongruity.

-

The poet should also, as far as possible, complete the effect by using the gestures. For, if their natural powers are equal, those who are actually in the emotions are the most convincing; he who is agitated blusters and the angry man rages with the maximum of conviction.Sir Joshua Reynolds used thus to simulate emotion before a mirror. In his Preface to the Lyrical Ballads Wordsworth says that the Poet will wish to bring his feelings near to those of the persons whose feelings he describes . . . and even confound and identify his own feelings with theirs. See also Burke, On the Sublime and Beautiful,4. 4.

-

And that is why poetry needs either a sympathetic nature or a madman,Genius to madness near allied is the meaning of μανικός as used here. Plato held that the only excuse for a poet was that he couldn’t help it. the former being impressionable and the latter inspired.

-

The stories, whether they are traditional or whether you make them up yourself, should first be sketched in outline and then expanded by putting in episodes.

-

I mean that one might look at the general outline, say of the Iphigeneia, like this: A certain maiden has been sacrificed, and has disappeared beyond the ken of those who sacrificed her and has been established in another country, where it is a custom to sacrifice strangers to the goddess; and this priesthood she holds. Some time afterwards it happens that the brother of the priestess arrives there—the fact that the god told him to go there, and why, and the object of his journey, lie outside the outline-plot. He arrives, is seized, and is on the point of being sacrificed, when he reveals his identity either by Euripides’ method or according to Polyidos, by making the very natural remark that after all it is not only his sister who was born to be sacrificed but himself too; and thus he is saved.

-

Not until this has been done should you put in names and insert the episodes;

-

and you must mind that the episodes are appropriate, as, for instance, in the case of Orestes the madness that led to his capture and his escape by means of the purification.In the Iphigeneia in Tauris Orestes is captured because he is suffering from a fit of mania; and at the end Iphigeneia pretends that the image of Artemis has been infected by the blood-guiltiness of the Greek strangers, and that, before they can be sacrificed, she must cleanse both image and strangers secretly in the sea. Thus they all escape together by boat.

-

Now in drama the episodes are short, but it is by them that the epic gains its length.

-

The story of the Odyssey is quite short. A man is for many years away from home and his footsteps are dogged by Poseidon and he is all alone. Moreover,affairs at home are in such a state that his estate is being wasted by suitors and a plot laid against his son, but after being storm-tossed he arrives himself, reveals who he is, and attacks them, with the result that he is saved and destroys his enemies.

-

That is the essence, the rest is episodes.

- -
-

In every tragedy there is a complication and a denouement.The Greek says simply tying and loosing. Complication and denouement seem clumsy equivalents, yet they are the words we use in dramatic criticism. The incidents outside the plot and some of those in it usually form the complication, the rest is the denouement.

-

I mean this, that the complication is the part from the beginning up to the point which immediately precedes the occurrence of a change from bad to good fortune or from good fortune to bad; the denouement is from the beginning of the change down to the end.

-

For instance, in the Lynceus of Theodectes the complication is the preceding events, and the seizure of the boy, and then their own seizure; and the denouement is from the capital charge to the end.The boy must be Abas, and they are presumably Danaus and perhaps his other daughters. Aristotle seems to regard the arrest of Danaus not as part of the λύσις, but as the end of the δέσις.

-

Tragedies should properly be classed as the same or different mainly in virtue of the plot, that is to say those that have the same entanglement and denouement. Many who entangle well are bad at the denouement. Both should always be mastered.

-

There are four varieties of tragedy—the same as the number given for the elementsApparently the reference here is to the four elements into which in the course of chapters 10-15. Plot has been analysed, Reversal, Discovery, Calamity, and Character. But the symmetry is spoilt by the fact that his first species, the complex play, corresponds to the first two of these four elements, viz. to Reversal and Discovery. Thus his fourth species is left in the air and he hurriedly introduces Spectacle as the fourth corresponding element. Other explanations seem even sillier than this.—

-

first the complex kind, which all turns on reversal and discovery;

-

the calamity play like the stories of Ajax and Ixion;

-

the character play like the Phthian WomenBy Sophocles. and the PeleusBoth Sophocles and Euripides wrote a Peleus..

-

The fourth element is spectacle, like the PhorcidesThe text is obscure, and our ignorance of the play or rhapsody adds to the darkness, but the reference may be to the ruse, common in detective stories, of misleading the audience by false clues in order to make the final revelation more effective. and Prometheus, and all scenes laid in Hades.

-

One should ideally try to include all these elements or, failing that, the most important and as many as possible, especially since it is the modern fashion to carp at poets, and, because there have been good poets in each style, to demand that a single author should surpass the peculiar merits of each.

-

One must remember, as we have often said, not to make a tragedy an epic structure:

-

by epic I mean made up of many stories—suppose, for instance, one were to dramatize the IIiad as a whole.

-

The length of the IIiad allows to the parts their proper size, but in plays the result is full of disappointment.

-

And the proof is that all who have dramatized the Sack of Troy as a whole, and not, like Euripides, piecemeal, or the Niobe story as a whole and not like Aeschylus, either fail or fare badly in competition. Indeed even Agathon failed in this point alone.

-

In reversals, however, and in simple storiesi.e., those that have no Discovery or Reversal. See chapter 10. too,they admirably achieve their end, which is a tragic effect that also satisfies your feelings.

-

This is achieved when the wise man, who is, however, unscrupulous, is deceived—like Sisyphus—and the man who is brave but wicked is worsted.

-

And this, as Agathon says, is a likely result, since it is likely that many quite unlikely things should happen.

-

The chorus too must be regarded as one of the actors. It must be part of the whole and share in the action, not as in Euripides but as in Sophocles.

-

In the others the choral odes have no more to do with the plot than with any other tragedy. And so they sing interludes, a practice begun by Agathon. And yet to sing interludes is quite as bad as transferring a whole speech or scene from one play to another.

- -
-

The other factors have been already discussed. It remains to speak of Diction and Thought.

-

All that concerns Thought may be left to the treatise on Rhetoric, for the subject is more proper to that inquiry.Thought—no English word exactly corresponds with διάνοια—is all that which is expressed or effected by the words (cf. Aristot. Poet. 6.22, 23, and 25). Thus the student is rightly referred to the Art of Rhetoric, where he learns what to say in every case. Aristotle adds that the rules there given for the use of ideas will guide him also in the use of incidents, since the same effect may be produced either by talk or by situation.

-

Under the head of Thought come all the effects to be produced by the language.

-

Some of these are proof and refutation, the arousing of feelings like pity, fear, anger, and so on, and then again exaggeration and depreciation.It is an important part of the orator’s skill to depreciate what is important and to exaggerate trivial points.

-

It is clear that in the case of the incidents, too, one should work on the same principles, when effects of pity or terror or exaggeration or probability have to be produced.

-

There is just this difference, that some effects must be clear without explanation,Those produced by situation. whereas others are produced in the speeches by the speaker and are due to the speeches. For what would be the use of a speaker, if the required effect were likely to be felt without the aid of the speeches?

-

Under the head of Diction one subject of inquiry is the various modes of speech, the knowledge of which is proper to elocution or to the man who knows the master artRhetoric is a master art in relation to elocution, since it decides the effects to be produced, and elocution decides how to produce them. So the doctor’s art is master to that of the dispenser, and the art of riding to that of the maker of bridles.—I mean for instance, what is a command, a prayer, a statement, a threat, question, answer, and so on.

-

The knowledge or ignorance of such matters brings upon the poet no censure worth serious consideration. For who could suppose that there is any fault in the passage which Protagoras censures, because Homer, intending to utter a prayer, gives a command when he says, Sing, goddess, the wrath? To order something to be done or not is, he points out, a command.

-

So we may leave this topic as one that belongs not to poetry but to another art.

- -
-

Diction as a wholeA translator is bound to render this chapter, since the balance of evidence is in favour of its inclusion. But the readaer is advised to skip it, since it is written from the point of view of grammar and philology, and does not, like the succeeding chapter, deal with the literary use of words. It is also very obscure. Students should refer to Bywater’s edition. is made up of these parts: letter, syllable, conjunction, joint,A joint, as defined below, appears to be a word which indicates the beginning or end of a clause. noun, verb, case, phrase.

-

A letter is an indivisible sound, not every such sound but one of which an intelligible sound can be formed. Animals utter indivisible sounds but none that I should call a letter.

-

Such sounds may be subdivided into vowel, semi-vowel, and mute. A vowel is that which without any addition has an audible sound; a semivowel needs the addition of another letter to give it audible sound, for instance S and R; a mute is that which with addition has no sound of its own but becomes audible when combined with some of the letters which have a sound. Examples of mutes are G and D.

-

Letters differ according to the shape of the mouth and the place at which they are sounded; in being with or without aspiration; in being long and short; and lastly in having an acute, grave, or intermediate accent. But the detailed study of these matters properly concerns students of metre.

-

A syllable is a sound without meaning, composed of a mute and a letter that has a sound. GR, for example, without A is a syllable just as much as GRA with an A. But these distinctions also belong to the theory of metre. words. It is also very obscure. Students should refer to Bywater’s edition.

-

A conjunction is a sound without meaning, which neither hinders nor causes the formation of a single significant sound or phrase out of several sounds, and which, if the phrase stands by itself, cannot properly stand at the beginning of it, e.g. μέν, δή, τοί, δέ; or else it is a sound without meaning capable of forming one significant sound or phrase out of several sounds having each a meaning of their own, e.g. ἀμφί, περί.

-

A joint is a sound without meaning which marks the beginning or end of a phrase or a division in it, and naturally stands at either end or in the middle.This paragraph remains a cause of despair. Bywater’s notes suggest a restoration.

-

A noun is a composite sound with a meaning, not indicative of time, no part of which has a meaning by itself; for in compounds we do not use each part as having a meaning of its own, for instance, in Theodorus, there is no meaning of δῶρον (gift).

-

A verb is a composite sound with a meaning, indicative of time, no part of which has a meaning by itself—just as in nouns. Man or white does not signify time, but walks and has walked connote present and past time respectively.

-

A case(or inflection)of a noun or verb is that which signifies either of or to a thing and the like;or gives the sense of one or many e.g. men and man; or else it may depend on the delivery, for example question and command. Walked? and Walk! are verbal cases of this kind.

-

A phraseThere is no exact English equivalent of this meaning of λόγος, which has been used already in 7 above without explanation. Statement and proposition also cover part of its meaning. is a composite sound with a meaning, some parts of which mean something by themselves.

-

It is not true to say that every phrase is made up of nouns and verbs, e.g. the definition of manProbably one of the two definitions given in the Topics, a two-footed land animal and an animal amenable to reason.; but although it is possible to have a phrase without verbs, yet some part of it will always have a meaning of its own, for example, Cleon in Cleon walks.

-

A phrase may be a unit in two ways; either it signifies one thing or it is a combination of several phrases. The unity of the Iliad, for instance, is due to such combination, but the definition of man is one phrase because it signifies one thing.

- -
-

Nouns are of two kinds. There is the simple noun, by which I mean one made up of parts that have no meaning, like γῆ, and there is the compound noun.

-

These may be made up either of a part which has no meaning and a part which has a meaning—though it does not have its meaning in the compound—or of two parts both having a meaning.

-

A compound noun may be triple and quadruple and multiple, e.g. many of the bombastic names like Hermocaicoxanthus.A compound of the names of three rivers, Hermus, Caicus, and Xanthus. . . .

-

Every noun is either ordinaryi.e., one which has dined normal currency as contrasted with the rare word, which is confined to a dialect or borrowed from a foreign language. or rare or metaphorical or ornamental or invented or lengthened or curtailed or altered.

-

An ordinary word is one used by everybody, a rare word one used by some;

-

so that a word may obviously be both ordinary and rare, but not in relation to the same people. σίγυνον,Meaning, spear. for instance, is to the Cypriots an ordinary word but to us a rare one.

-

Metaphor is the application of a strange term either transferred from the genus and applied to the species or from the species and applied to the genus, or from one species to another or else by analogy.

-

An example of a term transferred from genus to species is Here stands my ship. Riding at anchor is a species of standing.

-

An example of transference from species to genus is Indeed ten thousand noble things Odysseus did, for ten thousand, which is a species of many, is here used instead of the word many.

-

An example of transference from one species to another is Drawing off his life with the bronze and Severing with the tireless bronze, where drawing off is used for severing and severing for drawing off, both being species of removing.Probably the bronze is in the first case a knife and in the second a cupping-bowl. This would make the metaphor intelligible.

-

Metaphor by analogy means this: when B is to A as D is to C, then instead of B the poet will say D and B instead of D.

-

And sometimes they add that to which the term supplanted by the metaphor is relative.This may claim to be one of Aristotle’s least lucid sentences. It means this: If Old Age: Life :: Evening: Day, then we may call old age the Evening of Life. In that case old age is the term supplanted by the metaphor, and it is relative to Life; therefore Life (i.e., that to which the term supplanted by the metaphor is relative) is added to the metaphorical (or transferred) term Evening.For instance, a cup is to Dionysus what a shield is to Ares;

-

so he will call the cup Dionysus’s shield and the shield Ares’ cup. Or old age is to life as evening is to day; so he will call the evening day’s old-age or use Empedocles’ phraseUnknown to us.; and old age he will call the evening of life or life’s setting sun.

-

Sometimes there is no word for some of the terms of the analogy but the metaphor can be used all the same. For instance, to scatter seed is to sow, but there is no word for the action of the sun in scattering its fire. Yet this has to the sunshine the same relation as sowing has to the seed, and so you have the phrase sowing the god-created fire.

-

Besides this another way of employing metaphor is to call a thing by the strange name and then to deny it some attribute of that name. For instance, suppose you call the shield not Ares’ cup but a “wineless cup.” . . .Or you might call Love Venus’s bloodless War. At this point a few lines on Ornament have evidently been lost, since this is its place in the catalogue of nouns above. By ornament he seems to mean an embellishing epithet or synonym. In the Rhetoric he quotes Our lady the fig-tree as a misplaced ornament. One might add the seventeenth-century use of Thames for water. . . .

-

An invented word is one not used at all by any people and coined by the poet. There seem to be such words, eg. sprouters for horns and pray-er for priest.

-

A word is lengthened or curtailed, the former when use is made of a longer vowel than usual or a syllable inserted, and the latter when part of the word is curtailed.

-

An example of a lengthened word is πόληος for πολέως and Πηληιάδεω for Πηλείδου; and of a curtailed word κρῖ and δῶ, and e.g. μία γίνεται ἀμφοτέρων ὄψ.κρῖ for κριθή, barley; δῶ for δῶμα house; ὄψ for ὄψις face, eye, or appearance.

-

A word is altered when the poet coins part of the word and leaves the rest unchanged, e.g. δεξιτερὸν κατὰ μαζόν instead of δεξιόν.

-

Of the nouns themselves, some are masculine, some feminine, and some neuter.This paragraph the reader should either skip or study with Bywater’s notes. Without them these generalizations on gender seem merely wrong.

-

Masculine are all that end in N and P and Σ and in the two compounds of Σ, Ψ and Ξ.

-

Feminine are all that end in those of the vowels that are always long, for instance Η and Ω, and in Α among vowels that can be lengthened.

-

The result is that the number of masculine and feminine terminations is the same, for Ψ and Ξ are the same as Σ.

-

No noun ends in a mute or in a short vowel.

-

Only three end in Ι, μέλι, κόμμι, and πέπερι. Five end in Υ. The neuters end in these letters and in Ν and Σ.

- -
-

The merit of diction is to be clear and not commonplace. The clearest diction is that made up of ordinary words, but it is commonplace.

-

An example is the poetry of Cleophon and of Sthenelus.A tragedian whom Aristophanes ridicules for the insipidity of his diction.

-

That which employs unfamiliar words is dignified and outside the common usage. By unfamiliar I mean a rare word, a metaphor, a lengthening,See preceding chapter 19. and anything beyond the ordinary use.

-

But if a poet writes entirely in such words, the result will be either a riddle or jargon; if made up of metaphors, a riddle and if of rare words, jargon.

-

The essence of a riddle consists in describing a fact by an impossible combination of words. By merely combining the ordinary names of things this cannot be done, but it is made possible by combining metaphors. For instance, I saw a man weld bronze upon a man with fire, and so on.The answer is a cupping-bowl. This was a bronze vessel which was applied to the body at the place at which a small incision had been made. Heated lint was placed in the bowl of it and the reduction of air-pressure thus caused a strong flow of blood. For this form of riddle cf. Out of the strong came forth sweetness.

-

A medley of rare words is jargon.

-

We need then a sort of mixture of the two. For the one kind will save the diction from being prosaic and commonplace, the rare word, for example, and the metaphor and the ornament, whereas the ordinary words give clarity.

-
-

A considerable aid to clarity and distinction are the lengthening and abbreviation and alteration of words. Being otherwise than in the ordinary form and thus unusual, these will produce the effect of distinction, and clarity will be preserved by retaining part of the usual form.

-

Those critics are therefore wrong who censure this manner of idiom and poke fun at the poet, as did the elder EucleidesA critic of this name wrote on the drama, but his date is uncertain. who said it was easy to write poetry, granted the right to lengthen syllables at will. He had made a burlesque in this very style: Ἐπιχάρην εἶδον Μαραθῶνάδε βαδίζοντα and οὐκ ἄν γ’ ἐράμενος τὸν ἐκείνου ἐλλέβορον.In Homer we find short vowels lengthened by position, but, whereas Homer uses the licence sparingly, Eucleides raised a laugh by overdoing it and writing in parody such hexameters as those here quoted. A modern parallel may illustrate this. The poet Stephen Phillips employed to excess the licence whihc allows a clash between the natural accent and the metrical ictus, and Mr. Owen Seaman, for the express purpose of raising a laugh, parodied the trick by carrying it to further excess and wrote in blank verse, She a milliner was and her brothers Dynamiters.

-

Now to make an obtrusive use of this licence is ridiculous;

-

but moderation is a requisite common to all kinds of writing. The same effect could be got by using metaphors and rare words and the rest unsuitably for the express purpose of raising a laugh.

-

What a difference is made by the proper use of such licence may be seen in epic poetry, if you substitute in the verse the ordinary forms.

-

Take a rare word or metaphor or any of the others and substitute the ordinary word; the truth of our contention will then be obvious.For instance, Aeschylus and Euripides wrote the same iambic line with the change of one word only, a rare word in place of one made ordinary by custom, yet the one line seems beautiful and the other trivial. Aeschylus in the Philoctetes wrote, The ulcer eats the flesh of this my foot, and Euripides instead of eats put feasts upon. Or take I that am small, of no account nor goodly; suppose one were to read the line substituting the ordinary words, I that am little and weak and ugly. Or compare He set a stool unseemly and a table small. with He set a shabby stool and a little table, or the sea-shore is roaring with the sea-shore is shrieking.Similarly we might use ordinary words instead of those which Keats chose so carefully and speak of wonderful windows abutting on to a dangerous sea-shore in a dreary, mysterious country.

-

AriphradesUnknown. again made fun of the tragedians because they employ phrases which no one would use in conversation, like δωμάτων ἄπο instead of ἀπὸ δωμάτων and their σέθεν and ἐγὼ δέ νιν and Ἀχιλλέως πέρι for περὶ Ἀχιλλέως, and so on.

-

All that sort of thing, not being in the ordinary form, gives distinction to the diction, which was what he failed to understand.

-

It is a great thing to make a proper use of each of the elements mentioned, and of double words and rare words too, but by far the greatest thing is the use of metaphor.

-

That alone cannot be learnt; it is the token of genius. For the right use of metaphor means an eye for resemblances.i.e., the power of detecting identity in difference which distinguishes also both the philosopher and the scientist.

-

Of the various kinds of words the double forms are most suited for dithyrambs, rare words for heroic verse and metaphors for iambics.

-

And indeed in heroic verse they are all useful; but since iambic verse is largely an imitation of speech, only those nouns are suitable which might be used in talking. These are the ordinary word, metaphor, and ornament.

-

Now concerning tragedy and the art of representing life in action, what we have said already must suffice.

- -
-

We come now to the art of representation which is narrative and in metre.i.e., epic. Clearly the story must be constructed as in tragedy, dramatically, round a single piece of action, whole and complete in itself,with a beginning, middle and end, so that like a single living organism it may produce its own peculiar form of pleasure.

-

It must not be such as we normally find in history, where what is required is an exposition not of a single piece of action but of a single period of time, showing all that within the period befell one or more persons, events that have a merely casual relation to each other.

-

For just as the battle of Salamis occurred at the same time as the Carthaginian battle in Sicily, but they do not converge to the same resultGelo’s defeat of the Carthaginians in Sicily in 480 B.C. took place, according to Herodotus, on the same day as the battle of Salamis.; so, too, in any sequence of time one event may follow another and yet they may not issue in any one result.

-

Yet most of the poets do this.

-

So in this respect, too, compared with all other poets Homer may seem, as we have already said, divinely inspired, in that even with the Trojan war, which has a beginning and an end, he did not endeavor to dramatize it as a whole, since it would have been either too long to be taken in all at once or, if he had moderated the length, he would have complicated it by the variety of incident. As it is, he takes one part of the story only and uses many incidents from other parts, such as the Catalogue of Ships and other incidents with which he diversifies his poetry.

-

The others, on the contrary, all write about a single hero or about a single period or about a single action with a great many parts, the authors, for example, of the Cypria and the Little Iliad.As we have seen already in chapter 8, a poem or a play must be one story and not several stories about one hero. Thus, since the Iliad and Odyssey have this essential unity (i.e., one thread runs through the narrative of each), few plays can be made out of them but many out of the Cypria or the Little Iliad, which are merely collections of lays on similar themes.

-

The result is that out of an Iliad or an Odyssey only one tragedy can be made, or two at most, whereas several have been made out of the Cypria, and out of the Little Iliad more than eight, e.g. The Award of Arms, Philoctetes, Neoptolemus, Eurypylus, The Begging, The Laconian Women, The Sack of <placeName key="perseus,Troy">Troy</placeName>, and Sailing of the Fleet, and Sinon, too, and The Trojan Women.

- -
-

The next point is that there must be the same varieties of epic as of tragedySee Aristot. Poet. 18.4.: an epic must be simple or complex,See chapter 10. or else turn on character or on calamity.

-

The constituent parts, too, are the same with the exception of song and spectacle. Epic needs reversals and discoveries and calamities, and the thought and diction too must be good.

-

All these were used by Homer for the first time, and used well. Of his poems he made the one, the Iliad, a simple story turning on calamity, and the Odyssey a complex story—it is full of discoveries—turning on character. Besides this they surpass all other poems in diction and thought.

-

Epic differs from tragedy in the length of the composition and in metre.

-

The limit of length already givenSee Aristot. Poet. 7.12. will suffice—it must be possible to embrace the beginning and the end in one view,which would be the case if the compositions were shorter than the ancient epics but reached to the length of the tragedies presented at a single entertainment.“Entertainment” must mean a festival. At the City Dionysia three poets competed, each with three tragedies. By the end of the fifth century only one Satyr play was performed at each festival. But the tragedies were longer than those we possess. It is therefore likely that the nine tragedies together with one Satyr play amounted to about 15,000 lines. The Iliad contains between 16,000 and 17,000 lines.

-

Epic has a special advantage which enables the length to be increased, because in tragedy it is not possible to represent several parts of the story as going on simultaneously, but only to show what is on the stage, that part of the story which the actors are performing; whereas, in the epic, because it is narrative, several parts can be portrayed as being enacted at the same time.

-

If these incidents are relevant, they increase the bulk of the poem, and this increase gives the epic a great advantage in richness as well as the variety due to the diverse incidents; for it is monotony which, soon satiating the audience, makes tragedies fail.

-

Experience has shown that the heroic hexameter is the right metre. Were anyone to write a narrative poem in any other metre or in several metres, the effect would be wrong.

-

The hexameter is the most sedate and stately of all metres and therefore admits of rare words and metaphors more than others, and narrative poetry is itself elaborate above all others.

-

The iambic and the trochaic tetrameter are lively, the latter suits dancing and the former suits real life.

-

Still more unsuitable is it to use several metres as Chaeremon did.

-

So no one has composed a long poem in any metre other than the heroic hexameter. As we said above, Nature shows that this is the right metre to choose.

-

Homer deserves praise for many things and especially for this, that alone of all poets he does not fail to understand what he ought to do himself. The poet should speak as seldom as possible in his own character, since he is not representing the story in that sense.This takes us back to the beginning of chapter 3, where the various manners of representation are distinguished. Homer represents life partly by narration, partly by assuming a character other than his own. Both these manners come under the head of Imitation. When Aristotle says the poet speaks himself and plays a part himself he refers not to narrative, of which there is a great deal in Homer, but to the preludes (cf. φροιμιασάμενος below) in which the poet, invoking the Muse, speaks in his own person. Ridgeway points out that in the whole of the Iliad and Odyssey Homer thus speaks himself only 24 lines.

-

Now the other poets play a part themselves throughout the poem and only occasionally represent a few things dramatically, but Homer after a brief prelude at once brings in a man or a woman or some other character, never without character, but all having character of their own.

-

Now the marvellous should certainly be portrayed in tragedy, but epic affords greater scope for the inexplicable(which is the chief element in what is marvellous), because we do not actually see the persons of the story.

-

The incident of Hector’s pursuitIliad, xxii. 205. sq. “And to the host divine Achilles nodded with his head a sign and let them not launch their bitter darts at Hector, lest another should win glory by shooting him and Achilles himself come second.” would look ridiculous on the stage, the people standing still and not pursuing and Achilles waving them back, but in epic that is not noticed.

-

But that the marvellous causes pleasure is shown by the fact that people always tell a piece of news with additions by way of being agreeable.

-

Above all, Homer has taught the others the proper way of telling lies,that is, by using a fallacy. When B is true if A is true, or B happens if A happens, people think that if B is true A must be true or happen. But that is false. Consequently if A be untrue but there be something else, B, which is necessarily true or happens if A is true, the proper thing to do is to posit B, for, knowing B to be true, our mind falsely infers that A is true also. This is an example from the Washing.Odyssey 19. Odysseus tells Penelope that he is a Cretan from Gnossus, who once entertained O. on his voyage to Troy. As evidence, he describes O.’s dress and his companions (Hom. Od. 19.164-260). P. commits the fallacy of inferring the truth of the antecedent from the truth of the consequent: “If his story were true, he would know these details; But he does know them; Therefore his story is true.” The artist in fiction uses the same fallacy, e.g.: “If chessmen could come to life the white knight would be a duffer; But he is a most awful duffer (look at him!); Therefore chessmen can come to life.” He makes his deductions so convincing that we falsely infer the truth of his hypothesis.

-

What is convincing though impossible should always be preferred to what is possible and unconvincing.

-

Stories should not be made up of inexplicable details; so far as possible there should be nothing inexplicable, or, if there is, it should lie outside the story—as, for instance, Oedipus not knowing how Laius died—and not in the play; for example, in the Electra the news of the Pythian games,In Sophocles’Electrathe plot hinges on a false story of Orestes’ death by an accident at the Pythian games. Presumably the anachronism shocked Aristotle. or in the Mysians the man who came from Tegea to Mysia without speaking.Telephus. To say that the plot would otherwise have been ruined is ridiculous.

-

One should not in the first instance construct such a plot, and if a poet does write thus, and there seems to be a more reasonable way of treating the incident, then it is positively absurd.

-

Even in the Odyssey the inexplicable elements in the story of his landingHom. Od. 13.116ff. It seemed to the critics inexplicable that Odysseus should not awake when his ship ran aground at the harbour of Phorcys in Ithaca and the Phaeacian sailors carried him ashore. would obviously have been intolerable, had they been written by an inferior poet. As it is, Homer conceals the absurdity by the charm of all his other merits.

-

The diction should be elaborated only in the idle parts which do not reveal character or thought.The Messengers’ speeches, a regular feature of Greek tragedy, may serve to illustrate what is here called the idle part of a play, i.e., passages which, but for brilliant writing, might be dull, since no character is there elucidated and no important sentiments expressed. Too brilliant diction frustrates its own object by diverting attention from the portrayal of character and thought.

- -
-

With regard to problems,A problem in this sense is a difficult passage or expression which explanation and may easily be censured by an unsympathetic critic. Aristotle here classifies the various grounds of censure and the various lines of defence. Most of his illustrations are drawn from the critical objections lodged against the Iliad by Zoilus and other hammerers of Homer. As the reader will see, many of them are abysmally foolish. and the various solutions of them, how many kinds there are, and the nature of each kind, all will be clear if we look at them like this.

-

Since the poet represents life, as a painter does or any other maker of likenesses, he must always represent one of three things—either things as they were or are; or things as they are said and seem to be; or things as they should be.

-

These are expressed in diction with or without rare words and metaphors, there being many modifications of diction, all of which we allow the poet to use.

-

Moreover, the standard of what is correct is not the same in the art of poetry as it is in the art of social conduct or any other art.

-

In the actual art of poetry there are two kinds of errors, essential and accidental.

-

If a man meant to represent something and failed through incapacity, that is an essential error. But if his error is due to his original conception being wrong and his portraying, for example, a horse advancing both its right legs, that is then a technical error in some special branch of knowledge,in medicine, say, or whatever it may be; or else some sort of impossibility has been portrayed, but that is not an essential error.

-

These considerations must, then, be kept in view in meeting the charges contained in these objections.

-

Let us first take the charges against the art of poetry itself. If an impossibility has been portrayed, an error has been made.

-

But it is justifiable if the poet thus achieves the object of poetry—what that is has been already stated—and makes that part or some other part of the poem more striking. The pursuit of Hector is an example of this.See Aristot. Poet. 24.16 and note.

-

If, however, the object could have been achieved better or just as well without sacrifice of technical accuracy, then it is not justifiable, for, if possible, there should be no error at all in any part of the poem.

-

Again one must ask of which kind is the error, is it an error in poetic art or a chance error in some other field? It is less of an error not to know that a female stag has no horns than to make a picture that is unrecognizable.

-

Next, supposing the charge is That is not true, one can meet it by saying But perhaps it ought to be, just as Sophocles said that he portrayed people as they ought to be and Euripides portrayed them as they are.

-

If neither of these will do, then say, Such is the tale; for instance, tales about gods.

-

Very likely there is no advantage in telling them, and they are not true either, but may well be what Xenophanes declaredi.e., immoral and therefore untrue. He opened the assault on Homeric theology at the end of the sixth or the beginning of the fifth century B.C.—all the same such is the tale.

-

In another case, perhaps, there is no advantage but such was the fact, e.g. the case of the arms, Their spears erect on butt-spikes stood,Hom. Il. 10.152. Problem: Surely a bad stance: they might so easily fall and cause alarm. Solution: Homer does not defend it. He merely states a fact. It is thus that we excuse unpleasant fiction. for that was then the custom, as it still is in Illyria.

-

As to the question whether anything that has been said or done is morally good or bad, this must be answered not merely by seeing whether what has actually been done or said is noble or base, but by taking into consideration also the man who did or said it, and seeing to whom he did or said it, and when and for whom and for what reason; for example, to secure a greater good or to avoid a greater evil.

-

Some objections may be met by reference to the diction, for example, by pleading rare word, e.g. οὐρῆας μὲν πρῶτον, for perhaps he means not mules but sentinels.Hom. Il. 1.50: The mules and swift-footed hounds he first beset with his arrows. Apollo is sending plague upon the Greek army. Problem: Why should he first attack the mules? Solution: The word may here mean sentiels. And Dolon, One that was verily evil of form, it may be not his deformed body but his ugly face, for the Cretans use fair-formed for fair-featured.Hom. Il. 10.316: One that was verily evil inform but swift in his running. Problem: If Dolon were deformed, how could he run fast? Solution: Form may here mean feature. And again Livelier mix it may mean not undiluted as for drunkards but quicker.Hom. Il. 9.202: Set me, Menoetius’ son, a larger bowl for the mingling, Livelier mix it withal and make ready for each one a beaker. Problem: Livelier suggests intemperance. Solution: Perhaps the word means quicker. Similar scruples emended the lines in Young Lochinvar to read: And now am I come with this pretty maid To dance but one measure, drink one lemonade.

-

Other expressions are metaphorical, for example: Then all the other immortals and men lay all night in slumber, while yet he says: Yea, when indeed he gazed at the Trojan plain Agamemnon Marvelled at voices of flutes . . . All is used instead of many metaphorically, all being a species of many.Hom. Il. 2.2 (quoted by mistake for Hom. Il. 10.1) and Hom. Il. 10.13, 14: Then all the other immortals and all the horse-crested heroes Night-long slumbered, but Zeus the sweet sleep held not. . . (Hom. Il. 2.1, 2) Yea, when indeed he gazed at the Trojan plain, Agamemnon Marvelled at voices of flutes and of pipes and the din of the soldiers. (Hom. Il. 10.13, 14) Problem: If all were asleep, who was playing the flute? Solution: This may be a metaphor; as explained in chapter 21, all is one kind or species of many, and thus by transference all is used for many, the species for the genus. And again, Alone unsharingHom. Il. 18.489: She alone of all others shares not in the baths of the Ocean. The reference is to the Great Bear. Problem: Why does Homer say she alone when the other Northern Constellations also do not set? Solution: As in the last instance, the may be metaphorical, i.e., the genus, sole, may be here used by transference for one of its species, best known. is metaphorical; the best known is called the only one.

-

By intonation also; for example, the solutions of Hippias of Thasos, his δίδομεν δέ οἱHom. Il. 2.15. Our text is different. Aristotle, who quotes the line agains elsewhere, read thus: No longer the gods in the halls of Olympus Strive in their plans, for Hera has bent them all to her purpose Thus by her prayers; and we grant him to win the boast of great glory. Zeus is instructing the Dream, whom he is sending to lure Agamemnon to disaster. Problem: The last statement is a lie. Solution: Change the accent and the statement δίδομεν δέ οἱ becomes a command (the infinitive διδόμεναι written in a shortened form and used as an imperative). The lie will then be told by the Dream and not by Zeus, who may thus save his reputation for veracity. and τὸ μὲν οὗ καταπύθεται ὄμβρῳHom. Il. 23.327: A fathom high from the earth there rises a stump all withered, A stump of an oak or a pine, that rots not at all in the rain. Problem: The last statement is incredible. Solution: Alter the breathing and τὸ μὲν οὐ becomes τὸ μὲν οὗ and means part of it rots in the rain.;

-

and by punctuation; for example, the lines of Empedocles: Soon mortal grow they that aforetime learnt Immortal ways, and pure erstwhile commingled.The Problem is erstwhile goes with pure or with commingled. The former interpretation seems to give the best solution. Empedocles is speaking of the elements or atoms.

-

Or again by ambiguity, e.g. παρῴχηκεν δὲ πλέω νύξ, where πλείω is ambiguous.Hom. Il. 10.252: Come now, the night is far spent and at hand is the dawning, Far across are the stars and more than two parts of the night-time Are gone, but a third is still left us. Problem: If more than two parts are gone, a third cannot be left. Solution: πλέω here means full, i.e., the full night of two-thirds = full two-thirds of the night is gone, and so Homer’s arithmetic is saved.

-

Others according to the habitual use of the phrase, e.g. wine and water is called wine so you get the phrase greaves of new-wrought tin;Problem: Greaves are made not of tin but of an alloy of tin and copper. Solution: Compounds are called by the name of the more important partner. Just as a mixture of wine and water is called wine, so here an alloy of tin and copper is called tin. So, too, is whisky and water called whisky. or workers in iron are called braziers, and so Ganymede is said to pour wine for Zeus, though they do not drink wine. This last might however be metaphorical.Nectar:gods :: wine: men. Therefore, according to the rules of metaphor in chapter 21, nectar may be called wine or the wine of the gods.

-

Whenever a word seems to involve a contradiction, one should consider how many different meanings it might bear in the passage, e.g. in There the bronzen shaft was stayed,Hom. Il. 20.272: Nay but the weighty shaft of the warlike hero Aeneas Brake not the shield; for the gold, the gift of a god, did withstand it. Through two folds it drave, yet three were beneath, for Hephaestus, Crook-footed god, five folds had hammered; two were of bronze-work, Two underneath were of tin and one was of gold; there the bronzen Shaft of the hero was stayed in the gold. Problem: Since the gold was presumably outside for the sake of ornament, how could the spear he stayed in the gold and yet penetrate two folds? Bywater suggests as a solution that the plate of gold sufficed to stop the course of the spear, though the spear-point actually pierced it and indented the underlying plates of brass. we should ask in how many ways being stayed might be taken,

-

interpreting the passage in this sense or in that, and keeping as far as possible from the attitude which GlauconThis may well be the Glaucon mentioned in Plato’s Ion as an authority on Homer. describes

-

when he says that people make some unwarrantable presupposition and having themselves given an adverse verdict proceed to argue from it, and if what they think the poet has said does not agree with their own preconceived ideas, they censure him, as if that was what he had said.

-

This is what has happened in the case of Icarius.Penelope’s father. They assume that he was a Spartan and therefore find it odd that when Telemachus went to Sparta he did not meet him. But the truth may be, as the Cephallenians say, that Odysseus married a wife from their country and that the name was not Icarius but Icadius. So the objection is probably due to a mistake.

-

In general any impossibility may be defended by reference to the poetic effect or to the ideal or to current opinion.

-

For poetic effect a convincing impossibility is preferable to that which is unconvincing though possible.

-

It may be impossible that there should be such people as ZeuxisSee Aristot. Poet. 6.15. used to paint, but it would be better if there were; for the type should improve on the actual.

-

Popular tradition may be used to defend what seems irrational, and you can also say that sometimes it is not irrational, for it is likely that unlikely things should happen.

-

Contradictions in terms must be examined in the same way as an opponent’s refutations in argument, to see whether the poet refers to the same thing in the same relation and in the same sense, and has contradicted either what he expressly says himself or what an intelligent person would take to be his meaning.

-

It is right, however, to censure both improbability and depravity where there is no necessity and no use is made of the improbability.An example is Euripides’ intro duction of AegeusEur. Medea 663. In Aristotle’s opinion there is no good reason for Aegeus’s appearance and no good use is made of it. or(of depravity)the character of Menelans in the Orestes.

-

The censures they bring are of five kinds; that things are either impossible or irrational or harmful or inconsistent or contrary to artistic correctness. The solutions must be studied under the heads specified above, twelve in number.i.e., any expression that is criticized should be considered with reference to (1) things as they were; (2) things as thy are; (3) things as they are said to be; (4) things as they seem to be; (5) things as they ought to be. Further, we should consider whether (6) a rare word or (7) a metaphor is used; what is the right (8) accent and (9) punctuation; also where there may be (10) ambiguity and what is (11) the habitual use of the phrase; also we may refer to (12) the proper standard of correctness in poetry as distinct from other arts.

- -
-

The question may be raised whether the epic or the tragic form of representation is the better.

-

If the better is the less vulgar and the less vulgar is always that which appeals to the better audience, then obviously the art which makes its appeal to everybody is eminently vulgar.Aristotle first states the popular condemnation of tragedy on the ground that it can be and often is spoilt by the stupid vulgarity of actors. So might spectators of certain productions of Shakespeare in their haste condemn the poet. The refutation of this view begins at 6.

-

And indeed actors think the audience do not understand unless they put in something of their own, and so they strike all sorts of attitudes, as you see bad flute-players whirling about if they have to do the Discus, or mauling the leader of the chorus when they are playing the Scylla.Cf. Aristot. Poet. 15.8

-

So tragedy is something like what the older school of actors thought of their successors, for Mynniscus used to call Callippides the monkey, because he overacted, and the same was said of Pindarus.Mynniscus acted for Aeschylus: Callippides belonged to the next generation, end of fifth century. Pindarus is unknown.

-

The whole tragic art, then, is to epic poetry what these later actors were compared to their predecessors, since according to this view epic appeals to a cultivated audience which has no need of actor’s poses, while tragedy appeals to a lower class. If then it is vulgar, it must obviously be inferior.

-

First of all, this is not a criticism of poetry but of acting: even in reciting a minstrel can overdo his gestures, as Sosistratus did, or in a singing competition, like Mnasitheus of Opus.Both unknown.

-

Besides it is not all attitudinizing that ought to be barred any more than all dancing, but only the attitudes of inferior people. That was the objection to Callippides; and modern actors are similarly criticized for representing women who are not ladies.

-

Moreover, tragedy fulfils its function even without acting, just as much as epic, and its quality can be gauged by reading aloud. So, if it is in other respects superior, this disadvantage is not necessarily inherent.

-

Secondly, tragedy has all the elements of the epic—it can even use the hexameter—

-

and in addition a considerable element of its own in the spectacle and the music, which make the pleasure all the more vivid;

-

and this vividness can be felt whether it is read or acted.

-

Another point is that it attains its end with greater economy of length. What is concentrated is always more effective than what is spread over a long period; suppose, for example, Sophocles’Oedipuswere to be turned into as many lines as there are in the Iliad .

-

Again, the art of the epic has less unity, as is shown by the fact that any one epic makes several tragedies. The result is that, if the epic poet takes a single plot, either it is set forth so briefly as to seem curtailed, or if it conforms to the limit of lengthLiterally the length of the (proper) limit. it seems thin and diluted.

-

In saying that epic has less unity I mean an epic made up of several separate actions.

-

The Iliad has many such parts and so has the Odyssey, and each by itself has a certain magnitude. And yet the composition of these poems is as perfect as can be and each of them is—as far as an epic may be—a representation of a single action.

-

If then tragedy is superior in these respects and also in fulfilling its artistic function—for tragedies and epics should produce not any form of pleasure but the pleasure we have describedi.e., the pleasure felt when by the representation of life in art “relief is given” to pity, fear, and other such emotions, or, to use a term now prevalent, when such emotions are “released.”Cf. Aristot. Poet. 14.3.—then obviously, since it attains its object better than the epic, the better of the two is tragedy.

-

This must suffice for our treatment of tragedy and epic, their characteristics, their species, their constituent parts, and their number and attributes; for the causes of success and failure; and for critical problems and their solutions. . . .

- - - diff --git a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml index 1922e8cbd..4ce6090fc 100644 --- a/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml +++ b/data/tlg0086/tlg035/tlg0086.tlg035.perseus-eng2.xml @@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ since where some own a very great deal of property and others none there comes about either an extreme democracy or an unmixed oligarchy, or a tyranny may result from both of the two extremes, for tyranny springs from both democracy and oligarchy of the most unbridled kind, but much less often from the middle forms of constitution and those near to them. The cause of this we will speak of later in our treatment of political revolutions. That the middle form of constitution is the best is evident; for it alone is free from faction, since where the middle class is numerous, factions and party divisions among the citizens are least likely to occur. And the great states are more free from faction for the same reason, because the middle class is numerous, whereas in the small states it is easy to divide the whole people into two parties leaving nothing in between, and also almost everybody is needy or wealthy. Also democracies are more secure and more long-lived than oligarchies owing to the citizens of the middle class (for they are more numerous and have a larger share of the honors in democracies than in oligarchies), since when the poor are in a majority without the middle class, adversity sets in and they are soon ruined. And it must be deemed a significant fact that the best lawgivers are from among the middle citizens; for Solon was of that class,as appears from his poetry, and so was Lycurgus (for he was not a king) and Charondas and almost the greatest number of the other lawgivers.

And these considerations also show the reason why the constitutions of most states are either democratic or oligarchical; owing to the middle class in these states being often a small one, the classes diverging from the middle status—whichever of the two, the owners of the estates or the people, from time to time has the upper hand—conduct the government on their own lines, so that it becomes either a democracy or an oligarchy. And in addition to this, because factions occur and fights between the people and the wealthy, whichever party happens to gain the upper hand over its opponents does not establish a common or equal government, but takes the superior share in the government as a prize of victory, and makes it a democracy in the one case and an oligarchy in the other. Moreover each of the two states that in the past held the leadership of Greece took as a pattern the form of government that existed among themselves and set up in the one case democracies and in the other oligarchies in the cities, not considering the interest of the cities but their own advantage. Hence owing to these causes the middle form of constitution either never comes into existence or seldom and in few places; for one manIt is quite uncertain who is meant, possibly Solon or Theramenes. only among the states that have formerly held the leadership was induced to grant this form of organization, and by this time it has become a fixed habit with the people of the separate cities also not even to desire equality,

-
+

but either to seek to rule or to endure being under a master.

These considerations therefore make it clear which is the best constitution, and why it is the best; and now that the best has been defined, it is not difficult to see, among the other forms of constitution (inasmuch as we pronounce that there are various forms of democracy and various oligarchies), what kind is to be placed first, what second, and what next in this order, by reason of one being better and another worse. For at each stage the form nearest to the best one must necessarily be superior, and the form that is more remote from the middle must be inferior—unless one is judging relatively to given conditions: I make this reservation because it is quite possible that although one form of constitution is preferable it may often be more advantageous for certain people to have another form.

The next thing after what has been said is to discuss which constitution is advantageous for which people, and what sort of constitution for what sort of people. Now we must first grasp a general principle that applies equally to all sorts of constitution: it is essential that the part of the state that wishes the constitution to remain should be stronger than the part that does not wish it. But every state consists of both quality and quantity: by quality I mean freedom, wealth, education, good birth, and by quantity the superior numbers of the multitude. And it is possible that,while the quality of the state belongs to one among the parts of which the state consists and its quantity to another part—for example the low-born may be more numerous than the noble or the poor than the rich, yet the more numerous class may not exceed in quantity as much as they fall behind in quality. Hence these two factors have to be judged in comparison with one another.