The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Notes On Aristotle’s Politics.
• Book I.
• Book II.
• Book III.
• Book IV.
• Book V.
• Book VI.
• Book VII.
• Book VIII.

BOOK V.

The first sentence implies that we are approaching the end of the treatise; but see Essay on the Structure of the Aristotelian Writings.

ἔτι δὲ σωτηρίαι τίνες καὶ κοινῃ̑ καὶ χωρὶς ἑκάστης εἰσίν, ἔτι δὲ διὰ τίνων ἂν μάλιστα σώζοιτο τω̂ν πολιτειω̂ν ἑκάστη.

The latter of these two clauses is bracketed by Bekker in his 2nd edition as being a mere repetition of the preceding. If spurious it is probably a duplicate incorporated from some other ancient form of the text, not a gloss. But Aristotle often draws oversubtle logical distinctions, and in striving after completeness he may easily have written σωτηρίαι τίνες and διὰ τίνων ἂν σώζοιτο, with little or no difference of meaning between them.

δεɩ̂ δὲ πρω̂τον ὑπολαβεɩ̂ν τὴν ἀρχήν.

The last words may be either 1) taken adverbially; or 2)* may be the accusative after ὑπολαβεɩ̂ν, 1) ‘We must in the first place begin by conceiving’ or 2)* ‘we must in the first place conceive our starting point to be.’

τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ κατ’ ἀναλογίαν ἴσον.

In Bekker’s 2nd edition καὶ is altered to εἰ̂ναι without MSS. authority. The sense thus obtained would coincide with the conception of justice in the Nic. Eth. v. 3. § 8.

But the same thought is less accurately expressed by the text. The καὶ here, as elsewhere in Aristotle, may be taken in the sense of id est. Cp. Nic. Eth. i. 6. § 2, τὸ δὲ καθ’ αὑτὸ καὶ ἡ οὐσία πρότερον τῃ̑ ϕύσει τον̂ πρός τι: Metaph. iv. 14, 1020 b. 3, τὰ ἀκίνητα καὶ τὰ μαθηματικὰ where τὰ ἀκίνητα = τὰ μαθηματικά. And it may be further argued that the more general form of words is better suited to this passage. For Aristotle is here expressing not his own opinion but the consensus of mankind. And although the democrat in some sense acknowledges proportional equality, he would hardly go so far as to say that justice is identical with it. The reading of the MSS. is therefore preferable.

In Book iii. cc. 9 and 12 it has been assumed that justice and proportionate equality, not mere class interests, are the principles on which the state is based and which give a right to citizenship. Aristotle proceeds to show how the neglect or misconception of these principles leads to the overthrow of states.

οἱ δ’ ὡς ἄνισοι ὄντες πλεονεκτεɩ̂ν ζητον̂σι· τὸ γὰρ πλεɩ̂ον ἄνισον.

The last words are an explanation of πλεονεκτεɩ̂ν. Cp. Nic. Eth. v. 2. § 9, τὸ μὲν γὰρ πλέον ἅπαν ἄνισον, τὸ δὲ ἄνισον οὐ πα̂ν πλέον.

ἡμαρτημέναι δ’ ἁπλω̂ς εἰσί.

Spengel reads ἡμαρτηκυɩ̂αι δὲ τον̂ ἁπλω̂ς, though there is no trace of variation in the MSS. Nearly the same meaning may be elicited from the text as it stands: ‘They are perversions, when regarded simply,’ i. e. ‘by an absolute standard of justice’; that is to say, their justice is relative to aristocracy, oligarchy or democracy, and hence becomes a cause of revolution.

Διὸ καὶ αἱ μεταβολαὶ γίγνονται διχω̂ς.

The commentators are puzzled to find a connexion for these words, which the various reading δικαίως shows to have been an ancient difficulty. Either 1)* the particle διὸ is attributable to the superabundance of logical expression and therefore is not to be strictly construed; or to the condensation of two clauses into one, the word διχω̂ς referring to what follows: ‘Hence arise changes; and in two ways.’ Or 2) we must gather, however obscurely indicated, out of what has preceded some distinction corresponding to that between changes of forms of government and changes of persons and parties under the same form of government. Love of equality may perhaps be thought to lead to a change of the constitution; impatience of inequality to a change of persons and offices. But this connexion of ideas, if intended, is not clearly stated. It would be rash, after the manner of some editors (Conring, Susemihl, etc.), in a book like Aristotle’s Politics to infer a ‘lacuna’ between the words στάσεών εἰσιν and ὅθεν στασιάζουσιν from the want of connexion.

ὥσπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονί ϕασι Λύσανδρόν τινες ἐπιχειρη̂σαι καταλν̂σαι τὴν βασιλείαν.

Cp. Plut. Lys. 24-26 for an account (partly taken from Ephorus and wearing rather an improbable appearance) of the manner in which Lysander by the aid of oracles and religious imposture conspired to overturn the monarchy of Sparta and to throw open the office of king to the whole family of the Heraclidae, of which he was himself a member; or, according to another statement, to all the Spartans.

Παυσανίαν τὸν βασιλέα.

He was not king, though of the royal family; cp. Thuc. i. 132, ἄνδρα γένους τε τον̂ βασιλείου ὄντα καὶ ἐν τῳ̑ παρόντι τιμὴν ἔχοντα (Πλείσταρχον γὰρ τὸν Λεωνίδου ὄντα βασιλέα καὶ νέον ἔτι ἀνεψιὸς ὢν ἐπετρόπευεν). The same mistake is repeated in vii. 14. § 20.

καὶ ἐν Ἐπιδάμνῳ δὲ μετέβαλεν ἡ πολιτεία κατὰ μόριον· ἀντὶ γὰρ τω̂ν ϕυλάρχων βουλὴν ἐποίησαν. εἰς δὲ τὴν Ἡλιαίαν ἐπάναγκές ἐστιν ἔτι τω̂ν ἐν τῳ̑ πολιτεύματι βαδίζειν τὰς ἀρχάς, ὅταν ἐπιψηϕίζηται ἀρχή τις. ὀλιγαρχικὸν δὲ καὶ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ εἱ̑ς ἠ̑ν ἐν τῃ̑ πολιτείᾳ ταύτῃ.

The revolution at Epidamnus was only partial. The change of ϕύλαρχοι into a βουλὴ made the state less oligarchical. Cp. vi. 8. § 17, καλεɩ̂ται δὲ [τὸ κύριον τη̂ς πολιτείας] ἔνθα μὲν πρόβουλοι . . . ὅπου δὲ πλη̂θός ἐστι βουλὴ μα̂λλον. But according to an ancient custom in the governing body the magistrates (τὰς ἀρχὰς = τοὺς ἄρχοντας) were required to go to the Heliaea at every election — this relic of oligarchy survived in the democracy. A like oligarchical spirit was indicated in the appointment of ‘the single magistrate’ (cp. iii. 16. § 1).

It is also possible to take the words in another way, connecting τω̂ν ἐν τῳ̑ πολιτεύματι with εἰς τὴν Ἡλιαίαν instead of with τὰς ἀρχάς. ‘It was compulsory that the magistrates should attend the assembly of the ruling classes, when a certain magistracy took a vote requiring it.’ Which of the two modes of translating the passage is correct, we can only guess, as we have no independent knowledge of the procedure mentioned. The latter is the mode of taking them adopted by Müller (Dorians, iii. 9. § 6); but the use of Ἡλιαία simply in the sense of an assembly, and not as a proper name, and therefore its construction with τω̂ν ἐν τῳ̑ πολιτεύματι is doubtful.

τω̂ν ἐν τῳ̑ πολιτεύματι. Either 1)* the ruling class; or better 2) the governing body. The two meanings cannot always be clearly distinguished. Cp. c. 6. § 11; iv. 6. § 9 and v. 4. § 2. Compare also iii. 7. § 2, ἐπεὶ δὲ πολιτεία μὲν καὶ πολίτευμα σημαίνει ταὐτόν, πολίτευμα δ’ ἐστὶ τὸ κύριον τω̂ν πόλεων, and infra v. 8. § 5, τοɩ̂ς ἔξω τη̂ς πολιτείας καὶ τοɩ̂ς ἐν τῳ̑ πολιτεύματι, which show that the two meanings of πολίτευμα, as of πολιτεία, like the two senses of the English word ‘government’ or ‘state,’ pass into one another. The genitive is partitive.

ὁ ἄρχων ὁ εἱ̑ς ἠ̑ν. ἠ̑ν is omitted in several MSS. and is not confirmed by iii. 16. § 1, ( . . . πολλοὶ ποιον̂σιν ἕνα κύριον τη̂ς διοικήσεως· τοιαύτη γὰρ ἀρχή τίς ἐστι καὶ περὶ Ἐπίδαμνον) where Aristotle speaks of the single Archon at Epidamnus, not in the past, but in the present tense. Yet it is not impossible that he may have spoken of an office which had recently existed at Epidamnus, first, in the present, and afterwards, more correctly, in the past tense.

πανταχον̂ γὰρ διὰ τὸ ἄνισον ἡ στάσις· οὐ μὴν τοɩ̂ς ἀνίσοις ὑπάρχει ἀνάλογον· ἀΐδιος γὰρ βασιλεία ἄνισος, ἐὰν ᾐ̑ ἐν ἴσοις· ὅλως γὰρ τὸ ἴσον ζητον̂ντες στασιάζουσιν.

οὐ μὴν . . . ἴσοις is a parenthetical explanation of the word ἄνισον. 1) ‘Certainly to unequals there is no proportion.’ According to this way of taking the passage ἀνάλογον is the nom. to ὑπάρχει. 2) Others supply τὸ ἄνισον from the preceding sentence (sc. ὑπάρχει ἀνάλογον). ‘*I mean the inequality in which there is no proportion.’ This is illustrated by an example. 3) Others again connect ἀνάλογον with τοɩ̂ς ἀνίσοις. ‘Not that real inequality exists among those who are only proportionately unequal.’ According to any explanation the connexion is harsh: and therefore there is some reason for suspecting that a marginal note has crept into the text.

The punctuation of Bekker, who places a comma after τὸ κατ’ ἀξίαν, in his 2nd Edition (see note on Text) accords with his correction of the text in § 2, ὁμολογούντων τὸ δίκαιον ε[Editor: illegible character]ναι τὸ κατ’ ἀναλογίαν ἴσον instead of καὶ τὸ κατ’ ἀναλογίαν.

εὐγένεια γὰρ καὶ ἀρετὴ ἐν ὀλίγοις, ταν̂τα δ’ ἐν πλείοσιν.

The antecedent of ταν̂τα is wealth and poverty, latent in δη̂μος and ὀλιγαρχία. The conj. τἀναντία, adopted by Bekker following Lambinus in his 2nd Edition, is unnecessary.

ἄποροι δὲ πολλοὶ πολλαχον̂.

‘But there are in many places a large class of poor.’ Some MSS. read εὔποροι, some omit πολλοί, and it has been contended by Stahr that ἄποροι δὲ καὶ εὔποροι πολλαχον̂ is the true reading. But the text, which is the reading of several Greek MSS. and is confirmed by Moerbeke, is better.

τὸ δὲ ἁπλω̂ς πάντῃ καθ’ ἑκατέραν τετάχθαι τὴν ἰσότητα ϕαν̂λον.

‘Either equality of number or equality of proportion, if the only principle of a state, is vicious’: cp. infra c. 9. § 13; iv. 13. § 6; vi. 5. § 2.

ἀπὸ τον̂ πρώτου καὶ τον̂ ἐν ἀρχῃ̑ ἡμαρτημένου.

ἡμαρτημένου is to be taken with τον̂ πρώτου as well as with τον̂ ἐν ἀρχῃ̑.

ἡ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν.

ὀλιγαρχία is here used for the oligarchical party, τοὺς ὀλίγους, parallel to δη̂μος in the previous clause, although in the preceding sentence the same word means a form of government—an example of Aristotle’s transitional and uncertain use of language.

αὐτῳ̑ δὲ πρὸς αὑτόν, ὅ τι καὶ ἄξιον εἰπεɩ̂ν, οὐκ ἐγγίγνεται τῳ̑ δήμῳ στάσις.

This reflection is probably true of Greek democracies, but can hardly be justified by modern experience either of the Italian Republics, which swarmed with factions and conspiracies, or of France in the first French revolution, or of England under the Commonwealth, or of Switzerland in the war of the Sonderbund, or of N. America in the war of North and South, or of the S. American Republics. Differences of character, climate, religion, race, affect democracies as well as other forms of government.

ἔτι δὲ ἡ ἐκ τω̂ν μέσων πολιτεία ἐγγυτέρω τον̂ δήμου ἢ ἡ τω̂ν ὀλίγων, ἥπερ ἐστὶν ἀσϕαλεστάτη τω̂ν τοιούτων πολιτειω̂ν.

Aristotle is giving a further reason why democracy is safer than oligarchy, because it more nearly approximates to the μέση πολιτεία, which is the safest of all such forms of government, [i. e. of all except the perfect one]. Cp. iv. 11. § 14.

ἥπερ refers to ἡ ἐκ τω̂ν μέσων πολιτεία. τοιούτων = the imperfect forms.

An obscurity arises from the inversion of the subject. The sentence = δη̂μος ἐγγυτέρω τη̂ς τω̂ν μέσων πολιτείας ἢ ἡ τω̂ν ὀλίγων ἔστι τη̂ς τω̂ν μέσων πολιτείας. The meaning would be improved if, as in some MSS., ἡ before τω̂ν ὀλίγων was omitted.

The πω̂ς ἔχοντες, τίνων ἕνεκεν, τίνες ἀρχαὶ τω̂ν στάσεων are the material, final and efficient causes of revolutions.

περὶ ἡ̑ς ἤδη τυγχάνομεν εἰρηκότες.

Sc. in what he has said about ἴσον and ἄνισον in the previous chapter.

αἱ δ’ αἰτίαι καὶ ἀρχαὶ τω̂ν κινήσεων, ὅθεν αὐτοί τε διατίθενται τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον καὶ περὶ τω̂ν λεχθέντων, ἔστι μὲν ὡς τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἑπτὰ τυγχάνουσιν ον̓̂σαι, ἔστι δ’ ὡς πλείους.

The seven causes are κέρδος, τιμή, ὕβρις, ϕόβος, ὑπεροχή, καταϕρόνησις, αὔξησις παρὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον. Or, according to another way of reckoning (ἄλλον τρόπον), other elements, partly the same, and partly different, are added, viz. ἐριθεία, ὀλιγωρία, μικρότης, ἀνομοιότης.

As often happens both in the Politics (cp. bk. iv. c. 1) and in the Ethics (cp. vii. cc. 1-10) of Aristotle, the order in which the cases are at first enumerated is not the order in which they are afterwards discussed; the latter is as follows: ὕβρις, κέρδος, τιμή, ὑπεροχή, ϕόβος, καταϕρόνησις: the rest retain their original place.

περὶ τω̂ν λεχθέντων. To be taken closely with τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον, ‘in the manner which I have described, and about the things which I have described,’ sc. κέρδος and τιμὴ to which τοɩ̂ς εἰρημένοις (§ 5) also refers.

ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡσαύτως,

sc. ὡσαύτως ταὐτά. They are the same and not the same. ‘The love of gain seeks gain for itself, the love of honour is jealous of honour bestowed upon others.’

διὰ μικρότητα,

sc. τη̂ς κινήσεως. Cp. below, c. 3. § 10, ἔτι διὰ τὸ παρὰ μικρόν· λέγω δὲ παρὰ μικρόν, ὅτι πολλάκις λανθάνει μεγάλη γινομένη μετάβασις τω̂ν νομίμων, ὅταν παρορω̂σι τὸ μικρόν κ.τ.λ. for the explanation of the term.

συνέστησαν οἱ γνώριμοι ἐπὶ τὸν δη̂μον διὰ τὰς ἐπιϕερομένας δίκας.

This and the revolution in Rhodes mentioned below (§ 5) appear to be the same with that of which a more minute but somewhat obscure account is given in c. 5. § 2—mentioned here as illustrating fear and contempt; in c. 5, as showing that revolutions arise from the evil behaviour of demagogues in democracies; two accounts of the same event taken from different points of view, but not inconsistent with each other. Rhodes was transferred from the alliance of Athens to Sparta in 412, and remained the ally of Sparta until after the battle of Cnidos in the year 394 b.c. when the people, assisted by the Athenians, drove out the notables who were afterwards restored by the help of Teleutias the Lacedaemonian b.c. 390. Diod. Sic. xiv. 97; Xen. Hell. iv. 8. Whether this latter revolution can be identified with the ἐπανάστασις mentioned by Aristotle is uncertain.

διὰ τὰς ἐπιϕερομένας δίκας. Cp. infra c. 5. § 2, where the suits against the rich at Rhodes appear to have been brought by private individuals; also Thuc. iii. 70.

οἱ̑ον καὶ ἐν Θήβαις μετ[Editor: illegible character] τὴν ἐν Οἰνοϕύτοις μάχην κακω̂ς πολιτευομένων ἡ δημοκρατία διεϕθάρη.

Yet the destruction of the democracy seems hardly consistent with the preponderance which the Athenians retained in Boeotia during the nine years following the battle of Oenophyta (456), at the end of which time, and not until after they had won the battle of Coronea (447), all the Boeotians regained their independence. (Thuc. i. 112.) Compare as bearing on Aristotle’s knowledge of Theban history, infra c. 6. § 15, and note.

ἡ Μεγαρέων [δημοκρατία διεϕθάρη] δι’ ἀταξίαν καὶ ἀναρχίαν ἡττηθέντων.

Probably the same event mentioned infra c. 5. § 4, but apparently not the same with the revolution in Megara, mentioned in Thuc. iv. 74, which occurred after, and in consequence of, the retirement of the Athenians (b.c. 424); possibly the same with the occasion mentioned in iv. 15. § 15, when the government was narrowed to the returned exiles and their supporters. See on iv. 15. § 15.

ἐν Συρακούσαις πρὸ τη̂ς Γέλωνος τυραννίδος,

sc. ἡ δημοκρατία διεϕθάρη. According to the narrative of Herod. vii. 155, the γαμόροι were driven out by the Syracusan populace, and returned under the protection of Gelon, to whose superior force the Syracusans opened their gates. The destruction of the democracy may therefore be said to have been caused by the violent conduct of the people towards the landowners. But if so, the contradiction which Mr. Grote finds between the statements of Herodotus and Aristotle admits of a reconcilement. See note on c. 43, vol. v. 286, original edit. He thinks that for Gelo we should substitute Dionysius, and observes that the frequent confusion of the two names was noted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiq. Rom. vii. c. 1. p. 1314.

ἐν Τάραντι ἡττηθέντων.

Called by Herodotus (vii. 170) ‘the greatest slaughter of Greeks within his knowledge.’ Diodorus, ‘the Sicilian,’ (xi. 52. § 5), apparently in ignorance of the geography of Italy, says that the Iapygian victors pursued the Rhegians into the town of Rhegium (a distance of about 200 miles), and entered with them!

δημοκρατία ἐγένετο ἐκ πολιτείας.

Cp. vi. 5. §§ 10, 11, where the Tarentines are described in the present tense as being under a sort of πολιτεία or moderate democracy, to which they probably reverted at some time later than that referred to in the text. In the Syracusan expedition they were hostile to the Athenians (Thuc. vi. 44), and are therefore not likely at that time to have been a democracy.

καὶ ἐν Ἄργει τω̂ν ἐν τῃ̑ ἑβδόμῃ ἀπολομένων ὑπὸ Κλεομένους τον̂ Λάκωνος ἠναγκάσθησαν παραδέξασθαι τω̂ν περιοίκων τινάς.

The meaning of the name Hebdomê was unknown to the Greeks themselves. The victory of Cleomenes over the Argives is mentioned in Herodotus (vi. 76-83), Pausanias (iii. 4), and in Plutarch (De Mulierum Virtutibus, iv. 245 D). In the narrative of the latter various plays on the number seven occur, which probably originated in the word ἑβδόμη. The number of the dead slain by Cleomenes is said to have been 7777: the battle is said to have been fought on the seventh day of the month (ἑβδόμῃ ἱσταμένου μηνός, Ib.); or during a truce of seven days which Cleomenes violated by attacking the Argives during the night, he arguing that the seven days did not include the nights, or, perhaps with better reason, that vengeance on an enemy was deemed preferable to justice both by Gods and men (Apophth. Lacon. 223 B). The word may have been the name of the wood mentioned in the accounts of Herodotus and Pausanias (loc. cit.) or of some other place* called after the number seven; but more likely of a festival held on the seventh day, which gave its name to the battle.

ἀπολομένων ὑπὸ Κλεομένους κ.τ.λ. Read in the English text: ‘the Argives, after their army had been cut to pieces.’

καὶ ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀτυχούντων πεζῃ̑ οἱ γνώριμοι ἐλάττους ἐγένοντο διὰ τὸ ἐκ καταλόγου στρατεύεσθαι ὑπὸ τὸν Λακωνικὸν πόλεμον.

The κατάλογος ὁπλιτω̂ν mentioned in Thuc. vi. 43, καὶ τούτων Ἀθηναίων μὲν αὐτω̂ν ἠ̑σαν πεντακόσιοι μὲν καὶ χίλιοι ἐκ καταλόγου, and elsewhere, Xen. Mem. iii. 4. § 1, in which the Θη̂τες, or lowest of the four classes, were not included.

ἐκ καταλόγου. Every one was obliged to take his turn in the order of the roll, and no substitutes were allowed, because the number of soldiers willing to offer themselves was not sufficient.

ὑπὸ τὸν Λακωνικὸν πόλεμον. As in the Syracusan expedition, to which the word ἀτυχούντων chiefly refers. Cp. Thuc. vii. 27.

πλειόνων γὰρ τω̂ν ἀπόρων γινομένων.

Most of the extant MSS. are in favour of εὐπόρων. But ἀπόρων, which is the reading of the old translator, is not wholly indefensible. The meaning may be that power falls into the hands of the few, either when the poor become more numerous, or when properties increase; the extremes of want and of wealth coexisting in the same state. The two cases are really opposite aspects of the same phenomenon, ‘when the citizens become more and more divided into rich and poor.’ The argument from the more difficult reading is in favour of ἀπόρων.

ἐν Ὠρεῳ̑.

A later name of Hestiaea in Euboea, or rather (Strabo x. p. 446) of an Athenian city established in the time of Pericles, on the same site, to maintain control over Euboea. After the fall of Athens it passed into the hands of Sparta and received an oligarchical constitution, reverting to Athens in the year 377. Probably at this time κατελύθη ἡ ὀλιγαρχία. For another reference to Hestiaea, which never entirely lost its old name (Pausan. vii. p. 592), see c. 4. § 4.

τέλος δ’ οὐθενὸς ἠ̑ρχον.

οὐθενὸς is taken in the text as the genitive of value. If this way of explaining the word is rejected as unidiomatic, or rather, not likely to be employed when according to the more familiar idiom οὐθενὸς would be governed by ἠ̑ρχον, we may adopt the emendation of Bekker’s 2nd Edition, ἀπ’ οὐθενός.

οἱ̑ον Τροιζηνίοις Ἀχαιοὶ συνῴκησαν Σύβαριν, εἰ̂τα πλείους οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ γενόμενοι ἐξέβαλον τοὺς Τροιζηνίους· ὅθεν τὸ ἄγος συνέβη τοɩ̂ς Συβαρίταις.

The foundation of Sybaris (b. c. 720) is recorded in Strabo vi. p. 263, but nothing is said of the joint occupation of the place by the Troezenians: nor of the curse. The fall of Sybaris is attributed to a very different cause in a gossiping story told by Athenaeus xii. p. 520, of a Sybarite having beaten his slave at the altar to which he fled for refuge. A rather fabulous account of the war between Sybaris and Croton, in which Milo the athlete figures as a sort of Heracles, is given by Diod. Sic. xii. 9.

καὶ ἐν Θουρίοις Συβαρɩ̂ται τοɩ̂ς συνοικήσασιν.

Sc. ἐστασίασαν or some similar word gathered from the preceding sentence. For a more detailed though not very trustworthy narrative of the event referred to, see Diod. Sic. xi. 90; xii. 10, 11. Thurii being founded on the site of Sybaris, the Sybarites who joined in the colony naturally looked upon the country as their own.

Ζαγκλαɩ̂οι δὲ Σαμίους ὑποδεξάμενοι ἐξέπεσον καἲ αὐτοί.

This, which is one of the blackest stories in Greek history, is narrated at length by Herodotus vi. 23. The Zancleans had invited Hippocrates tyrant of Gela to assist them against Anaxilaus tyrant of Rhegium, but were betrayed by him and delivered over to the Samians.

Συρακούσιοι μετὰ τὰ τυραννικὰ τοὺς ξένους καὶ τοὺς μισθοϕόρους πολίτας ποιησάμενοι ἐστασίασαν καὶ εἰς μάχην ἠ̑λθον.

Another instance of the danger of incorporating foreigners in a state. The foreigners in this case were the mercenaries of Hiero and Gelo. After the expulsion of Thrasybulus they were allowed to remain in the city, but deprived of political privileges. The narrative of their revolt, of their seizure of Acradina and Ortygia, and of the troubles which followed the attempt to drive them out in the ill-fated island of Sicily, is to be found in Diod. xi. 72 ff.

καὶ Ἀμϕιπολɩ̂ται δεξάμενοι Χαλκιδέων ἀποίκους ἐξέπεσον ὑπὸ τούτων οἱ πλεɩ̂στοι αὐτω̂ν.

αὐτω̂ν is to be taken with οἱ πλεɩ̂στοι, which is in partitive apposition with Ἀμϕιπολɩ̂ται. The event referred to cannot be shown to have any connexion with the revolt of Amphipolis during the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. iv. 105). Nor do we know of any other event which corresponds with the account given either here or in c. 6. § 8 where the revolution is spoken of ‘as an insurrection against an oligarchy, made by the aid of Chalcidians’ who had settled in the place. But an oligarchy could not have existed under the control of Athens; nor would a democracy be likely to have joined the Peloponnesian confederacy.

στασιάζουσι δ’ ἐν μὲν ταɩ̂ς ὀλιγαρχίαις κ.τ.λ.

‘There are other differences besides those of race which divide cities. There may be two cities in one (c. 12. § 15), both in oligarchies and democracies.’ This general reflection is introduced awkwardly amid the special causes of revolutions in states. But a similar confusion of general and particular occurs in several other passages; e. g. iv. 4. § 22 ff.

καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον.

Probably c. 1. §§ 3, 4.

Κολοϕώνιοι καὶ Νοτιεɩ̂ς.

That the Colophonians and Notians were torn by dissensions may be gathered from Thucydides iii. 34.

μα̂λλον δημοτικοὶ οἱ τὸν Πειραια̂ οἰκον̂ντες τω̂ν τὸ ἄστυ.

The great power of the democracy at Athens dated from the battle of Salamis; and as the sailors were the lowest class of citizens, naturally the Piraeus was its head-quarters. Liberty was saved by the fleet in the days of the Four Hundred; and when driven out of Athens by the thirty took refuge at the Piraeus, from which it returned victorious.

γίνονται μὲν ον̓̂ν αἱ στάσεις οὐ περὶ μικρω̂ν ἀλλ’ ἐκ μικρω̂ν.

Do not wars or revolutions always or almost always arise from a combination of large public and political causes with small personal and private reasons? Some spark sets fire to materials previously prepared. If Herodotus overestimates the personal and private causes of great events, does not Thucydides underestimate them, explaining everything on great principles and ignoring the trifles of politics to which Aristotle here directs attention? The course of ancient or of modern history taken as a whole appears to be the onward movement of some majestic though unseen power; when regarded in detail, it seems to depend on a series of accidents. The Greek was a lover of anecdotes; and for him this gossip about trifles had a far greater interest than the reflections of Thucydides upon the course of human events. (See Introduction, vol. i. p. xcii.)

μετέβαλε γὰρ ἡ πολιτεία κ.τ.λ.

The same story is told with additions and embellishments by Plutarch ‘Praecepta gerendae reipublicae’ p. 825 C.

ὅθεν προσλαμβάνοντες τοὺς ἐν τῳ̑ πολιτεύματι διεστασίασαν πάντας.

Here as infra c. 6. § 8 the word διεστασίασαν may be causal and active, ‘they took the members of the government to their respective sides and so split all the people into factions.’ (Cp. καταστασιάζεσθαι v. 6. § 14). Or as in the English text (taking διαστασιάζω, like στασιάζω, as a neuter) ‘they then drew all the members of the ruling class into their quarrel and made a revolution.’

ὥστε καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῃ̑ μικρὸν ἁμάρτημα ἀνάλογόν ἐστι πρὸς τὰ ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἄλλοις μέρεσιν.

The argument is that the beginning is half the whole, according to the old proverb, and therefore that an error at the beginning is equivalent to half the whole amount of error. The proverb is again cited, Nic. Ethics i. 7. § 20.

καὶ ἐν Δελϕοɩ̂ς ἐκ κηδείας γενομένης διαϕορα̂ς ἀρχὴ πασω̂ν ἐγένετο τω̂ν στάσεων τω̂ν ὕστερον.

This narrative, like the story of the Syracusan affair, is told, but in a more romantic manner, in the passage of Plutarch quoted above (Praec. geren. reip. p. 825 B) and also by Aelian, Var. Hist. xi. 5. The narrative of Plutarch contains the names of the persons concerned, Crates and Orgilaus, and is therefore probably taken not from Aristotle but from some other source. τω̂ν στάσεων κ.τ.λ., the sacred war to which another origin is assigned infra in § 7. See Essay on Contributions of Aristotle to History.

καὶ περὶ Μιτυλήνην δὲ ἐξ ἐπικλήρων στάσεως γενομένης πολλω̂ν ἐγένετο ἀρχὴ κακω̂ν καὶ τον̂ πολέμου τον̂ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους, ἐν ᾡ̑ Πάχης ἔλαβε τὴν πόλιν αὐτω̂ν· Τιμοϕάνους γὰρ τω̂ν εὐπόρων τινὸς καταλιπόντος δύο θυγατέρας, ὁ περιωσθεὶς καὶ οὐ λαβὼν τοɩ̂ς υἱέσιν αὑτον̂ Δόξανδρος ἠ̑ρξε τη̂ς στάσεως καὶ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους παρώξυνε, πρόξενος ὢν τη̂ς πόλεως.

No mention of Doxander occurs nor is there any hint of this story in Thucydides (iii. 2 ff.). The revolt of Mitylene is ascribed in his narrative entirely to political causes, and was long premeditated. The only point of coincidence between the two accounts is the mention of the proxenus, who is said in Thucydides to have given information to the Athenians. They are not, however, necessarily inconsistent: for Aristotle may be speaking of the slight occasion, Thucydides of the deeper cause. Nor can any argument be drawn from the silence of the latter. He may have known the tale, but may not have thought fit to mention it, any more than he has recorded the singular episode of the suicide of Paches in the public court on his return home, recorded by Plutarch iv. 8 (Nicias 6). There is also an omission in the account of Aristotle which is supplied by Thucydides. For the proxenos who gave information to the Athenians is afterwards said to have repented, and to have gone on an embassy to Athens petitioning for peace (Thucyd. iii. 4). Such stories as this about Doxander have been common in modern as well as in ancient history; they are very likely to be invented, but may sometimes be true.

Mnason, according to Timaeus, was the friend of Aristotle (Athenaeus vi. p. 264).

ἡ ἐν Ἀρείῳ βουλὴ εὐδοκιμήσασα ἐν τοɩ̂ς Μηδικοɩ̂ς.

According to Plut. Themistocles c. 10 Aristotle narrated that ‘at the time [of the battle of Salamis] when the Athenians had no public resources the council of the Areopagus gave to each sailor a sum of eight drachmas and thus enabled the triremes to be manned.’ Whether such a statement was really to be found in Aristotelian writings, perhaps in the Polities to which it is commonly ascribed, or whether Plutarch is confusing the more general statement of Aristotle contained in this passage with information which he had derived from some other source, is uncertain.

συντονωτέραν ποιη̂σαι τὴν πολιτείαν.

Cp. iv. 3. § 8, ὀλιγαρχικὰς μὲν τὰς συντονωτέρας καὶ δεσποτικωτέρας, τὰς δ’ ἀνειμένας καὶ μαλακὰς δημοτικάς, sc. πολιτείας. σύντονος means the more highly pitched note given by the greater tension of the string, and hence the stricter and more rigid form of government.

ὁ ναυτικὸς ὄχλος γενόμενος τη̂ς περὶ Σαλαμɩ̂να νίκης καὶ διὰ ταύτης τη̂ς ἡγεμονίας διὰ τὴν κατὰ θάλατταν δύναμιν, τὴν δημοκρατίαν ἰσχυροτέραν ἐποίησε.

διὰ ταύτης, sc. τη̂ς νίκης, ‘by means of this victory.’

τη̂ς ἡγεμονίας, sc. αἴτιος γενόμενος. διὰ τὴν κατὰ θάλατταν δύναμιν follows τη̂ς ἡγεμονίας.

Plut. Arist. 22 says that after the battle of Salamis Aristides extended the right of voting to the fourth class. He had already mentioned in c. 13 that many of the higher classes had fallen into poverty; they would therefore have been degraded but for this extension. The merits and sufferings of all classes in the war were a natural justification of such a measure. The nobility and the common people vied with one another in their defence of Hellas against the invader. No element lay deeper in the Hellenic character than the sense of superiority which all Hellenes acquired in the struggle with Persia.

περὶ τὴν ἐν Μαντινείᾳ μάχην.

I. e. the first battle of Mantinea (419 b.c. described by Thuc. v. 70-74) in which, though the Argive army was defeated, the 1000 chosen Argives (doubtless belonging to the noble families) remained unconquered, and cut their way through the enemy. There is nothing in the account of Thucydides inconsistent with this statement, though he naturally dwells more on the influence of Lacedaemon in effecting the change of government (Ib. 81).

ἐν Συρακούσαις ὁ δη̂μος αἴτιος γενόμενος τη̂ς νίκης τον̂ πολέμου τον̂ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους ἐκ πολιτείας εἰς δημοκρατίαν μετέβαλεν.

These words are not in perfect accord with the statement of Thucydides that the Athenians were unable to cope with the Syracusans because they had a form of government like their own, Thuc. vii. 55; but they agree with Diod. xiii. 34 fin., who says that the extreme form of democracy was introduced at Syracuse by Diocles after the overthrow of the Athenians. Nor is Thucydides quite consistent with himself; for the overthrow of the Athenian expedition was effected by the aristocratic leader Hermocrates and by the aid of Corinthians and Lacedaemonians. (See Essay on Contributions of Aristotle to History.)

καὶ ἐν Ἀμβρακίᾳ.

See note on English text. Ambracia is said to have been founded by Gorgus, who is described by Antonin. Liberalis (i. 4. 19 ed. Westermann) as the brother of Cypselus (cp. Neanthes apud Diog. Laert. i. 98, who says that the two Perianders were ἀνεψιοὶ ἀλλήλοις): by Scymnus (454) he is called his son. Periander is supposed by Müller (i. 8. § 3) to have been the son of Gorgus; but this is conjecture. Whether there was any real connexion, or whether the stories of relationship arise only out of an accidental similarity of names, it is impossible to determine.

οἱ δυνάμεως αἴτιοι.

‘Who are the causes of the power of a state:’ cp. supra, § 9, ὁ δη̂μος αἴτιος γενόμενος τη̂ς νίκης. The elements of strength are also the elements of danger.

ὁτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἐξαπατήσαντες . . . ἄρχουσιν αὐτω̂ν κ.τ.λ.

I. e. when fraud is succeeded by force or the old fraud by a new one. To take an example from Modern History, as the presidency of Louis Napoleon was succeeded by the coup d’état, and ended in the plébiscite by which he was made Emperor of the French; or as in ancient history the tyranny of Gelo and Hiero was acquiesced in after a time by their Syracusan subjects.

οἱ̑ον ἐπὶ τω̂ν τετρακοσίων τὸν δη̂μον ἐξηπάτησαν, ϕάσκοντες τὸν βασιλέα χρήματα παρέξειν.

Cp. Thuc. viii. 53, where Peisander demonstrates to the Athenian assembly that their only hope lay in the alliance of the Persian king.

ψευσάμενοι.

‘Having once told the lie’ which, it is inferred, was detected,

καὶ ἐν Ῥόδῳ· μισθοϕοράν τε γὰρ οἱ δημαγωγοὶ ἐπόριζον, καὶ ἐκώλυον ἀποδιδόναι τὰ ὀϕειλόμενα τοɩ̂ς τριηράρχοις· οἱ δὲ διὰ τὰς ἐπιϕερομένας δίκας ἠναγκάσθησαν συστάντες καταλν̂σαι τὸν δη̂μον.

‘The demagogues gained influence over the assembly by procuring pay for them: [probably they obtained the money for this purpose by not paying the trierarchs]. These were sued by their sailors or other creditors, and, not having been paid themselves, were unable to pay others; so in self-defence they overthrew the government.’ Such appears to be the meaning of this passage, a little amplified, on which no light is thrown from other sources.

The revolution here mentioned would seem to be the same as that which has been already referred to, supra, c. 3. § 4. The words διὰ τὰς ἐπιϕερομένας δίκας occur in both passages.

κατελύθη δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ ὁ δη̂μος.

Probably the Heraclea of Pontus founded by the Megarians in b. c. 559. The poems of Theognis imply that already in the sixth century b. c. a democratical party existed in the mother-city. Nine places bear the name of Heraclea. The Heraclea in Pontus is the most important of them and may be presumed to be meant when there is no further description as here or in c. 6. §§ 2, 3.

ἡ ἐν Μεγάροις κατελύθη δημοκρατία.

Cp. supra c. 3. § 5.

ἢ τὰς προσόδους ταɩ̂ς λειτουργίαις.

Some word containing the idea of diminishing has to be supplied from ἀναδάστους ποιον̂ντες.

Demagogues like Cleon, Lysicles, Eucrates, Hyperbolus, Cleophon, were of a different type from Peisistratus or Periander, and equally different from Hiero and Gelo or Dionysius the First.

Three reasons are given for the frequent attempts to establish tyrannies in early Greek history—1) there were great magistracies in ancient states; 2) the people were scattered and therefore incapable of resistance; 3) the demagogues were trusted by them, because they were supposed to be the enemies of the rich.

Πεισίστρατος στασιάσας πρὸς τοὺς πεδιακούς.

According to the narrative of Herodotus, i. 59 ff., Attica was at this time divided into factions, that of the inhabitants of the plain led by Lycurgus, and of the sea coast by Megacles, to which was added a third faction of the inhabitants of the highlands whom Peisistratus used as his instruments. He was restored to the tyranny by a combination of his own adherents and those of Megacles against the inhabitants of the plain.

Θεαγένης ἐν Μεγάροις.

Theagenes is mentioned in Thuc. i. 126 as the father-in-law of Cylon the conspirator; and in Arist. Rhet. i. 2, 1357 b. 33, as an example of a tyrant who like Peisistratus had asked for a guard.

Διονύσιος κατηγορω̂ν Δαϕναίου.

Cp. Diod. Sic. (xiii. 86, 91, 92) who narrates how Daphnaeus, having been elected general by the Syracusans, failed to relieve Agrigentum and on the motion of Dionysius was deposed from his command.

ἐκ τη̂ς πατρίας δημοκρατίας.

The same phrase is used in ii. 12. § 2 where Solon is said to have established ἡ πάτριος δημοκρατία, the ancient or traditional democracy, ‘the good old democracy,’ as opposed to the later and extreme form.

ἄκος δὲ τον̂ ἢ μὴ γίνεσθαι ἢ τον̂ γίνεσθαι ἡ̑ττον τὸ τὰς ϕυλὰς ϕέρειν τοὺς ἄρχοντας, ἀλλὰ μὴ πάντα τὸν δη̂μον.

τον̂ μὴ γίνεσθαι, sc. κύριον τὸν δη̂μον τω̂ν νόμων = ‘a remedy against the people becoming master.’ That is to say, when the magistrates were elected by the tribal divisions the power of the people was not so great as when they voted all together.

When the larger units of government or representation are broken up into very small ones, local interests are likely to be preferred to the general good, and local candidates for office take the place of better men—a nation ceases to be inspired by great political ideas, and cannot effectually act against other nations. On the other hand, if England, or France, or the United States were represented in the national council only as a whole, what would be the result? Aristotle might have replied that a state is not a state in which 30,000,000 of people are united under a single government, or are represented in a single assembly, having no other connecting links; nor yet when they are subdivided into parishes: cp. vii. 4. § 11.

These are extremes by which a principle may be illustrated, but no one would think of accepting either alternative. The question which Aristotle here touches has a modern and recent interest to us, and may be put in another form: ‘What should be the area of a constituency?’ Some considerations which have to be kept in view are the following: 1) The facilities of locomotion and communication; 2) The habit or tradition of acting together among the natives of a country or district; 3) The question of minorities—should the aim of a constitution be to strengthen the government, or to give a perfectly fair representation of all parties, opinions, places? 4) The greater opportunity of a political career afforded by more numerous elections and smaller bodies of electors; and, on the other hand, 5) The greater independence of the representatives of large constituencies; and 6) The advantages or disadvantages of local knowledge and of local interests have to be placed in the scale. We may conclude that in so far as the political life of a country is affected by the area of representation, it should not be so extended as to interfere with the power of common action; nor so localized that the members of the national assembly cease any longer to think in the first place of great national interests.

αἱ δ’ ὀλιγαρχίαι μεταβάλλουσι διὰ δύο μάλιστα τρόπους τοὺς ϕανερωτάτους . . . ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐξ ἄλλων ἀρχὴ στάσεως διαϕοράς.

According to c. 1. § 16, ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταɩ̂ς ὀλιγαρχίαις ἐγγίνονται δύο, ἥ τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους στάσις καὶ ἔτι ἡ πρὸς τὸν δη̂μον there are two modes of revolutions in oligarchies,—1) That arising from dissensions among the oligarchs themselves; 2) that arising from dissensions between the oligarchs and the people. The order of the two is reversed in this passage. The first which is here the second is generalized into ‘that arising from those outside the governing body’ (ἡ ἐξ ἄλλων, § 2), under which four cases are included (see Introduction). To ἕνα μὲν (§ 1) corresponds grammatically μάλιστα δέ, which introduces one of the cases of στάσις arising ἐξ ἄλλων although the leader comes ἐξ αὐτη̂ς τη̂ς ὀλιγαρχίας. The other mode of revolution from within is discussed at the end of § 5 κινον̂νται δὲ κ.τ.λ., with which the second main division begins.

ἐν Νάξῳ Λύγδαμις.

For a silly story about a bargain over some fish which is said to have been the origin of the revolt led by Lygdamis at Naxos, see Athenaeus viii. 348 who derives it from the Ναξίων πολιτεία in the so-called ‘Polities’ of Aristotle.

ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐξ ἄλλων ἀρχὴ στάσεως διαϕοράς.

Goettling would interpret ἄλλων as = ἄλλων ἢ τον̂ πλήθους which is harsh. The conjectures αὑτω̂ν and ἀλλήλων seem, at first sight, to simplify the passage, as everything from μάλιστα δ’ in § 1 onwards would then apply to the same mode of στάσις (ἡ ἐξ αὑτω̂ν): but Aristotle in § 2 expressly distinguishes the εὔποροι who are not in the government from the oligarchs, and therefore a revolution begun by them could not be described as arising ἐξ ἀλλήλων or ἐξ αὑτω̂ν.

οἱ̑ον ἐν Μασσαλίᾳ.

In vi. 7. § 4 Massalia is described by Aristotle, speaking probably of a later period, as having enlarged the narrow oligarchy by the admission of new citizens. The oligarchy thus became more like a πολιτεία (πολιτικωτέρα ἐγένετο ἡ ὀλιγαρχία).

The difference was settled, not by throwing open the government to a lower class, but by the admission in greater numbers of members of the same families.

τω̂ν ἐν τῃ̑ πολιτείᾳ.

Here the members of the governing body, see note on c. 1. § 10.

ἐν τοɩ̂ς τριάκοντα Ἀθήνησιν οἱ περὶ Χαρικλέα ἴσχυσαν τοὺς τριάκοντα δημαγωγον̂ντες, καὶ ἐν τοɩ̂ς τετρακοσίοις οἱ περὶ Φρύνιχον.

From Xenophon’s Hellenics ii. 3 we might be led to infer that Critias was the leading spirit of the thirty, but in Lysias contra Eratosthenem § 56, p. 125, we find that the name of Charicles precedes that of Critias among the leaders of the more extreme party. Charicles and Critias are also named together among the νομοθέται whom the thirty appointed in Xen. Mem. i. 2. § 31.

It is singular that the leadership of a party in the 400 should be ascribed to Phrynichus who was late in joining the attempt (Thuc. viii. 68) and was soon assassinated (c. 92). He was however a man of great ability and is said by Thucydides to have shown extraordinary energy when he once took part.

καὶ ἐν ὅσαις ὀλιγαρχίαις οὐχ οὑ̑τοι αἱρον̂νται τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐξ ὡ̑ν οἱ ἄρχοντές εἰσιν.

The people will always be able to elect those members of the oligarchy who favour their interests. The representative depends upon his constituents, and must do their bidding. The remark of Aristotle is true, and admits of several applications. Yet the opposite reflection is almost equally true, that the popular representative easily catches the ‘esprit de corps’ of the society in which he mingles, and of the order or assembly to which he is admitted.

ὅπερ ἐν Ἀβύδῳ συνέβαινεν.

We cannot be certain whether these words illustrate οἱ ὁπλɩ̂ται ἢ ὁ δη̂μος or ὁ δη̂μος only. That the membership of a club should have been the qualification for an office of which the election was in the hands of the people is remarkable (see note on § 13 infra).

καὶ ὅπου τὰ δικαστήρια μὴ ἐκ τον̂ πολιτεύματός ἐστιν· δημαγωγον̂ντες γὰρ πρὸς τὰς κρίσεις μεταβάλλουσι τὴν πολιτείαν.

Compare ii. 12. § 3, where Solon is said to have established the democracy by appointing the courts of law from the whole people.

γίνονται δὲ μεταβολαὶ τη̂ς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ ὅταν ἀναλώσωσι τὰ ἴδια ζω̂ντες ἀσελγω̂ς.

So Plat. Rep. viii. 555 D. Compare also infra c. 12. § 17.

Hipparinus, the father of Dion, was the chief supporter of Dionysius (Plut. Dio c. 3), who married his daughter.

Καὶ ἐν Αἰγίνῃ ὁ τὴν πρα̂ξιν τὴν πρὸς Χάρητα πράξας ἐνεχείρησε μεταβαλεɩ̂ν τὴν πολιτείαν.

Probably the well-known general Chares who flourished between 367-333 is here intended. He was a man who, in spite of his disreputable character, contrived by corruption to maintain a great influence over the Athenian people in the decline of their glory. Of the transaction here referred to nothing more is known.

διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν,

sc. διὰ τὸ ἀναλω̂σαι τὰ ἴδια τοὺς εὐπόρους ζω̂ντας ἀσελγω̂ς.

ὁτὲ μὲν ον̓̂ν ἐπιχειρον̂σί τι κινεɩ̂ν, ὁτὲ δὲ κλέπτουσι τὰ κοινά· ὅθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς στασιάζουσιν ἢ οὑ̑τοι ἢ οἱ πρὸς τούτους μαχόμενοι κλέπτοντας.

αὐτοὺς = ‘the government, or the other oligarchs, from whom the theft is made.’

οὑ̑τοι = ‘the thieves or peculators.’ The revolution arises in two ways, from the attack either of the thieves upon the government, or of the government upon the thieves.

ὁμοίαν τῃ̑ τω̂ν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι γερόντων.

I. e. the election of the Elean elders, besides being an election out of certain families (δυναστευτικήν), resembled that of the Lacedaemonian elders who were chosen but ‘in a ridiculous fashion’ by the whole people. See ii. 9. § 27.

Timophanes was a Corinthian general, who was about to become, or for a short time became, tyrant of Corinth. He was slain either by the hand (Diod. xvi. 65), or at the instigation, of his brother Timoleon (Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 4).

τω̂ν περὶ Σɩ̂μον.

σάμον is found in all the Greek MSS. and in the old Latin translator. It shews at any rate the faithfulness with which they copied an unmeaning reading. Σɩ̂μον which is adopted by Bekker in both editions is an ingenious conjecture of Schlosser. Simus, if he be the person mentioned in Demosthenes (de Cor. p. 241), was a Larissaean who betrayed Thessaly to king Philip.

ἐν Ἀβύδῳ ἐπὶ τω̂ν ἑταιριω̂ν ὡ̑ν ἠ̑ν μία ἡ Ἰϕιάδου.

The name of Iphiades occurs in Demosthenes (in Aristocratem, p. 679), where it is said that his son was, or ought to have been, given up as a hostage to the Athenians by the town, not of Abydos but of Sestos. It will be remembered that at Abydos (supra c. 6. § 6) some of the magistrates were elected by the people from a political club. The manner in which he is spoken of would lead us to suppose that Iphiades was tyrant of Abydos, and that by the help of his club he had overthrown the oligarchy.

Of the great Euboean cities Chalcis and Eretria, as of so many other Hellenic states which were famous in the days before the Persian War, little is known. We are told in bk. iv. 3. § 3 that the Chalcidians used cavalry against their opponents, and there is an allusion in Thuc. i. 15 to the ancient war between Chalcis and Eretria which ‘divided all Hellas,’ again mentioned by Herod. v. 99.

τω̂ν δ’ ἐν Θήβαις κατ’ Ἀρχίου.

The only Archias of Thebes known to us was an oligarch, who betrayed the citadel of Thebes to the Spartans, and was afterwards himself slain by Pelopidas and his fellow conspirators. An oligarchical revolution could not therefore be said to have arisen out of his punishment. Yet the uncertainty of the details of Greek history in the age of Aristotle should make us hesitate in assuming a second person of the name. The mention of Heraclea in juxtaposition with Thebes may suggest that this is the Heraclea not in Pontus, but in Trachis. Cp. note on c. 5. § 3.

ἐϕιλονείκησαν αὐτούς.

Const. preg. = ϕιλονεικον̂ντες ἐδίωκον. The infinitive δεθη̂ναι helps the construction of αὐτούς, ‘They carried their party spirit against them so far.’

διὰ τὸ ἄγαν δεσποτικὰς εἰ̂ναι τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας . . . ἡ ἐν Χίῳ ὀλιγαρχία.

The Chians in the later years of the Peloponnesian War were governed by an oligarchy: cp. Thuc. viii. 14. The island was recovered by Athens under the Second Empire, but again revolted in the year 458. The population is said to have been largely composed of merchant-seamen, supra, iv. 4. § 21.

πολλάκις γὰρ τὸ ταχθὲν πρω̂τον τίμημα . . . τοὺς μέσους

is an accusativus pendens; ‘Often when there has been a certain qualification fixed at first . . . the same property increases to many times the original value,’ etc.

οὐ μέντοι διὰ ταὐτὸν ὀλίγοι.

The exclusiveness of aristocracy and oligarchy is equally the ruin of both, though arising in the one case from the fewness of men of virtue and good manners, in the other from the fewness of men of wealth and birth.

Παρθενίαι (ἐκ τω̂ν ὁμοίων γὰρ ἠ̑σαν).

According to the legend the Partheniae were the progeny of Spartan women and of certain slaves or citizens of Sparta called ἐπεύνακτοι. They had in some way incurred the reproach of illegitimacy or inferiority. The fertile imagination of ancient writers, who were clearly as ignorant as ourselves, has devised several explanations of the name: they were the children of Spartans who remained at home during the Messenian war and were made Helots (Antiochus of Syracuse, fr. 14 Müller Fr. Hist. Gr. vol. i. p. 184); or of Helots who married the widows of those who had fallen in the war (Theop. fr. 190 Müller i. p. 310); or of the youngest of the army who had not taken the oath to remain until the war was finished (Ephor. fr. 33 Müller i. p. 247), and were sent home to beget children.

Λύσανδρος.

For the narrative of the later life of Lysander and of his attempt to open the Spartan monarchy to all the Heraclidae of whom he himself was one, and of his overthrow by Agesilaus whose claim to the kingdom he had previously supported, see Plutarch’s Life of Lysander, 24-26.

Κινάδων ὁ τὴν ἐπ’ Ἀγησιλάῳ συστήσας ἐπίθεσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς Σπαρτιάτας.

For a very curious account of the conspiracy of Cinadon, to which he was instigated by a desire to become one of the Spartan peers, see Xen. Hell. iii. 3. §§ 4-11.

ἐπ’ Ἀγησιλάῳ if genuine must mean ‘against Agesilaus’ and (less directly) against the Spartans.

δη̂λον δὲ καὶ τον̂το ἐκ τη̂ς Τυρταίου ποιήσεως τη̂ς καλουμένης Εὐνομίας.

See Bergk Frag. 2-7, p. 316.

Hanno is mentioned by Justin, xxi. 4. He is said to have lived in the time of Dionysius the younger about the year 346 and to have attempted to poison the senate and raise an insurrection among the slaves. Being detected and taken he was crucified with his family.

ταν̂τα γὰρ αἱ πολιτεɩ̂αί τε πειρω̂νται μιγνύναι καὶ αἱ πολλαὶ τω̂ν καλουμένων ἀριστοκρατιω̂ν.

ταν̂τα refers to τὰ δύο, democracy and oligarchy. The great difficulty is the combination of the many and the few; not of virtue with either, except from the circumstance that it so rarely exists: cp. iv. 7. §§ 3, 4, and c. 8. § 8.

διαϕέρουσι γὰρ τω̂ν ὀνομαζομένων πολιτειω̂ν αἱ ἀριστοκρατίαι τούτῳ, καὶ διὰ τον̂τ’ εἰσὶν αἱ μὲν ἡ̑ττον αἱ δὲ μα̂λλον μόνιμοι αὐτω̂ν. τὰς γὰρ ἀποκλινούσας μα̂λλον πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἀριστοκρατίας καλον̂σιν, τὰς δὲ πρὸς τὸ πλη̂θος πολιτείας.

τούτῳ and διὰ τον̂το have been taken as follows: 1)* ‘Aristocracies differ from what are termed polities in the number of elements which they combine (supra § 5), and the nature of the combination makes some of them more and some less stable.’ The words which follow return to διαϕέρουσι: ‘there are such differences; for those of them which incline more to oligarchy are called aristocracies, those which incline to democracy, polities.’

2) τούτῳ and διὰ τον̂το may be thought to refer rather to what follows than to what precedes. ‘Aristocracies differ from polities in that polities include numbers, and because of this difference some of them are less and some of them more stable, some inclining more to oligarchy or the government of a few, others to polity, which is the government of a larger number.’

Susemihl takes the whole passage nearly in the same manner: 3) ‘Aristocracies differ from the so-called polities in this respect (i. e. in having the three elements of δη̂μος, πλον̂τος, ἀρετὴ instead of the first two only), and for this reason, the former of these two kinds of governments (αὐτω̂ν) are less stable and the latter more so. For those which incline rather to oligarchy are called aristocracies, and those which incline to democracy are called polities; and for this reason they are safer than the others: for the greater number have more influence, and because they have equality they are more content.’ Polity has only two elements, while aristocracy has three. The δη̂μος being one-half of the polity but only one-third of the aristocracy are better pleased with the existing government and therefore less disposed to revolution.

This way of explaining the passage gives an excellent sense. But the words αἱ μὲν ἡ̑ττον, αἱ δὲ μα̂λλον, are partitive of αὐτω̂ν, which refers to αἱ ἀριστοκρατίαι and cannot therefore be applied αἱ μὲν μα̂λλον μόνιμοι to timocracies αἱ δὲ ἡ̑ττον μόνιμοι to aristocracies. The passage is ill written and inaccurately worded, though the general meaning is tolerably clear, namely, that there is often an ill mingling of constitutions, which in various degrees seek to unite numbers and wealth, and that of the two, numbers are the safer basis.

συνέβη δὲ τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν Θουρίοις.

Sc. the tendency of the constitution towards the prevailing element spoken of in § 7, as at Thurii from aristocracy towards oligarchy, followed by a reaction to democracy.

ἐν Θουρίοις. Thurii was founded in the year 443 under the protection of Athens, and had nearly ceased to exist in 390. Yet in this short time it was subjected to at least two serious revolutions, 1) that which is mentioned here from an oligarchical aristocracy into a democracy; 2) another revolution, noted infra § 12, by which it passed from a polity into an oligarchy of a few families, whether earlier or later than the preceding, is unknown. It may be conjectured, but it is only a conjecture, that the narrowing of the aristocracy briefly alluded to in this passage is the same change with that which is afterwards mentioned more fully in § 12, and their overthrow which ensued may be further identified with the expulsion of the Sybarites soon after the foundation of the city. It may also be conjectured with considerable probability that the government of Thurii became an oligarchy at the time when the Athenian citizens were driven out, after the failure of the Syracusan expedition.

διὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ ἀπὸ πλείονος τιμήματος εἰ̂ναι τὰς ἀρχὰς εἰς ἔλαττον μετέβη καὶ εἰς ἀρχεɩ̂α πλείω, διὰ δὲ τὸ τὴν χώραν ὅλην τοὺς γνωρίμους συγκτήσασθαι παρὰ τὸν νόμον.

Lit. ‘For because the qualification for office was high and also because the whole country was monopolized by the notables contrary to law, the qualification was reduced and the number of offices increased.’ Either the apodosis which is attached to the first member of the sentence belongs also to the second; or a clause answering to the second has been forgotten. The revolution at Thurii was a change from aristocracy or polity to democracy. The government had grown narrow and oligarchical, and the governing class had contrived to get the land into their own hands. But the people rose against the oligarchy, lowered the qualification, increased the number of offices, and got back the land. Two reasons are given for the rising of the people, 1) the increase of the qualification for office, and 2) the monopoly of land which had passed into the hands of the notables.

For εἰς ἀρχεɩ̂α πλείω, cp. ii. 11. § 14, ὥσθ’ ὅπου μὴ μικρὰ πόλις, πολιτικώτερον πλείονας μετέχειν τω̂ν ἀρχω̂ν, καὶ δημοτικώτερον· κοινότερόν τε γάρ, καθάπερ εἴπομεν, καὶ κάλλιον ἕκαστον ἀποτελεɩ̂ται τω̂ν αὐτω̂ν καὶ θα̂ττον.

ἔτι διὰ τὸ πάσας τὰς ἀριστοκρατικὰς πολιτείας ὀλιγαρχικὰς εἰ̂ναι μα̂λλον κ.τ.λ.

Aristocracies are in fact more oligarchical than aristocratical, and ‘the few’ are always grasping at wealth. Cp. infra, c. 8. § 16.

ἡ Λοκρω̂ν πόλις.

The mother of Dionysius the younger was Doris a Locrian woman, and when expelled from Syracuse he was received by the citizens of Locri in a most friendly manner, but he afterwards availed himself of their good will to impose a garrison on the town. They ultimately drove out his garrison [Diodorus xiv. 44, Justin xxi. 2 and 3].

ὃ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ οὐκ ἂν ἐγένετο, οὐδ’ ἂν ἐν ἀριστοκρατίᾳ εν̓̂ μεμιγμένῃ.

But why not? Aristotle seems to mean that no well-governed city would have allowed one of its citizens to marry into the family of a tyrant or would have entered into relation with him in consequence: or perhaps that in a democracy or well ordered aristocracy the marriage of a single citizen could not have become a great political event.

ὅπερ συνέβαινεν ἐπ’ Ἀθηναίων καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων.

We may paraphrase this rather singular expression, ‘In the days when the Greek world was divided between the Athenians and Lacedaemonians.’

παραλογίζεται γὰρ ἡ διάνοια ὑπ’ αὐτω̂ν, ὥσπερ ὁ σοϕιστικὸς λόγος.

ὑπ’ αὐτω̂ν, sc. τω̂ν δαπανω̂ν.

σοϕιστικὸς λόγος = ὁ σωρός, or ‘acervus.’

τῳ̑ μὴ ἀδικεɩ̂ν

and the following are causal or instrumental datives after διὰ τὸ εν̓̂ χρη̂σθαι. The article is to be continued with the second μὴ ἀδικεɩ̂ν.

τῳ̑ τοὺς ἡγεμονικοὺς αὐτω̂ν εἰσάγειν εἰς τὴν πολιτείαν.

For the expression of a similar spirit acting in a wider field and giving a mythological origin to the traditional policy of Rome, cp. Tac. Ann. xi. 24: ‘Quid aliud exitio Lacedaemoniis et Atheniensibus fuit, quamquam armis pollerent, nisi quod victos pro alienigenis arcebant? At conditor nostri Romulus tantum sapientia valuit, ut plerosque populos eodem die hostes, dein cives habuerit,’ and the real speech of Claudius (given by Orelli and Nipperdey in their editions).

ἔστι γὰρ ὥσπερ δη̂μος ἤδη οἱ ὅμοιοι, διὸ καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐγγίγνονται δημαγωγοὶ πολλάκις, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον.

ἤδη, sc. ὅταν πλείους ὠ̂σι.

ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον refers only to the clause, διὸ καὶ . . . πολλάκις as will be seen from the comparison of c. 6. § 6 (demagogues in an oligarchy) where nothing is said about equals in an aristocracy becoming a democracy.

πρὶν παρειληϕέναι καὶ αὐτούς.

The construction is πρὶν τὰς ϕιλονεικίας παρειληϕέναι καὶ αὐτοὺς (sc. τοὺς ἔξω), ὥσπερ τοὺς ἄλλους.

αὐτοὺς may be either the subject or the object of παρειληϕέναι, with a slightly different meaning. Either *‘before the spirit of contention has also carried away or absorbed them,’ or, ‘before they too have caught the spirit of contention.’

τον̂ τιμήματος τον̂ κοινον̂ τὸ πλη̂θος.

i. e. the amount of the whole rateable property. The object is to preserve the same number of qualified persons, when the wealth of a city has increased or diminished.

συμϕέρει τον̂ τιμήματος ἐπισκοπεɩ̂ν τον̂ κοινον̂ τὸ πλη̂θος πρὸς τὸ παρελθὸν κατὰ τον̂τον τὸν χρόνον, ἐν ὅσαις μὲν πόλεσι τιμω̂νται κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν, κ.τ.λ.

The words κατὰ τον̂τον τὸν χρόνον, though somewhat pleonastic, have a sufficiently good sense. The government is to compare the present with the past value of property at that time, i. e. with the property serving as a qualification at the time when the change is occurring (εὐπορίας νομίσματος γιγνομένης). The words are placed after κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν by Susemihl following the authority of William of Moerbek, but the meaning is thus over emphasized.

With κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν repeat κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐπισκοπεɩ̂ν κ.τ.λ.

ἐν δήμῳ καὶ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ καὶ μοναρχίᾳ καὶ πάσῃ πολιτείᾳ.

καὶ μοναρχίᾳ is omitted by Bekker in his second edition, but is found in the best MSS. The advice given is at least as applicable to kings as to other rulers of states. πάσῃ πολιτείᾳ = not ‘every constitutional government’ but in a more general sense ‘every form of government.’ (See note on text.)

τὰς παραστάσεις αὐτω̂ν.

= τοὺς παραστάτας, ‘their followers’ or ‘followings.’

τοὺς ζω̂ντας ἀσυμϕόρως πρὸς τὴν πολιτείαν.

As an example of a life unsuited to the state of which they are citizens may be cited the case of the Spartan Ephors, ii. 9. § 24.

τούτου δ’ ἄκος τὸ ἀεὶ τοɩ̂ς ἀντικειμένοις μορίοις ἐγχειρίζειν τὰς πράξεις καὶ τὰς ἀρχάς.

In this favourite remedy of ‘conservation by antagonism,’ which is really only an ‘unstable equilibrium,’ Aristotle does not seem to see how much of the force of the state is lost.

μοναχω̂ς δὲ καὶ ἐνδέχεται ἅμα εἰ̂ναι δημοκρατίαν καὶ ἀριστοκρατίαν, εἰ τον̂το κατασκευάσειέ τις.

τον̂το, sc. τὸ μὴ ἀπὸ τω̂ν ἀρχω̂ν κερδαίνειν, to be gathered from the previous sentence.

ἀντίγραϕα κατὰ ϕρατρίας καὶ λόχους καὶ ϕυλὰς τιθέσθωσαν.

λόχοι are military divisions to which in some states civil divisions appear to have corresponded. Cp. Xen. Hier. c. 9. § 5, διῄρηνται μὲν γὰρ ἅπασαι αἱ πόλεις αἱ μὲν κατὰ ϕυλὰς αἱ δὲ κατὰ μοίρας αἱ δὲ κατὰ λόχους· καὶ ἄρχοντες ἐϕ’ ἑκάστῳ μέρει ἐϕεστήκασιν. The accounts apparently are to be deposited at the bureaus or centres of such divisions.

μὴ μόνον τὰς κτήσεις μὴ ποιεɩ̂ν ἀναδάστους, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τοὺς καρπούς, ὃ ἐν ἐνίαις τω̂ν πολιτειω̂ν λανθάνει γιγνόμενον.

As might be done by taxes or state services exclusively imposed on the rich, or by a tax of which the rate increased in proportion to the amount assessed. Infra c. 11. § 10, Aristotle tells us how Dionysius contrived in five years to bring the whole property of his subjects into his treasury. Cp. also vi. 5. § 5.

κἄν τις ὑβρίσῃ τω̂ν εὐπόρων εἰς τούτους, μείζω τὰ ἐπιτίμια εἰ̂ναι ἢ ἂν σϕω̂ν αὐτω̂ν.

The construction is ἄν τις ὑβρίσῃ τινὰ σϕω̂ν αὐτω̂ν; but whether σϕω̂ν αὐτω̂ν refers 1) to οἱ εὔποροι or 2)* to τούτους, i. e. τοὺς ἀπόρους, is not clear.

μηδὲ πλειόνων ἢ μια̂ς τὸν αὐτὸν κληρονομεɩ̂ν.

Cp. Mill, Pol. Econ. Bk. v. c. 9. § 1, where he urges, much in the spirit of Aristotle and Plato, ‘that no one person should be permitted to acquire by inheritance more than the amount of a moderate independence.’

τρία δέ τινα χρὴ ἔχειν κ.τ.λ.

In this passage, which has the appearance of a digression, Aristotle is still speaking of the preservatives of the state.

See the summing up, § 5.

Cp. Rhet. ii. 1, 1378 a. 6, τον̂ μὲν ον̓̂ν αὐτοὺς εἰ̂ναι πιστοὺς τοὺς λέγοντας τρία ἐστὶ τὰ αἴτια· τοσαν̂τα γάρ ἐστι δι’ ἃ πιστεύομεν ἔξω τω̂ν ἀποδείξεων. ἔστι δὲ ταν̂τα ϕρόνησις καὶ ἀρετὴ καὶ εὔνοια: also Thuc. ii. 60, where Pericles claims εὔνοια, ϕρόνησις, ἀρετή as the proper qualities of a statesman: καίτοι ἐμοὶ τοιούτῳ ἀνδρὶ ὀργίζεσθε ὃς οὐδενὸς οἴομαι ἥσσων εἰ̂ναι γνω̂ναί τε τὰ δέοντα καὶ ἑρμηνεν̂σαι ταν̂τα ϕιλόπολίς τε καὶ χρημάτων κρείσσων.

δύναμιν τω̂ν ἔργων τη̂ς ἀρχη̂ς.

= ‘administrative capacity,’ ‘power to do the duties of the office.’

πω̂ς χρὴ ποιεɩ̂σθαι τὴν διαίρεσιν.

In this passage (cp. infra πω̂ς δεɩ̂ ποιεɩ̂σθαι τὴν αἵρεσιν) the words αἵρεσις and διαίρεσις are used almost indifferently, the latter adding to the idea of choice or selection another shade of meaning ‘discrimination or separation from others,’—‘how we are to discriminate in the choice.’

ἢ ὅτι ἐνδέχεται κ.τ.λ.

Dependent on some more general idea to be supplied from ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις. ‘May not the reason be that those who have these two qualities are possibly wanting in self control?’

ἁπλω̂ς δέ, ὅσα ἐν τοɩ̂ς νόμοις ὡς συμϕέροντα λέγομεν ταɩ̂ς πολιτείαις.

We need not suppose any allusion to a lost part of the Politics, or to a special treatise called ‘οἱ νόμοι.’ The meaning is that ‘enactments in the laws of states which are supposed to be for their good are preservative of states.’ τοɩ̂ς νόμοις = ‘their laws,’ the article referring to πολιτείαις which follows.

οἱ δ’ οἰόμενοι ταύτην εἰ̂ναι μίαν ἀρετήν.

ταύτην, sc. τὸ ὀλιγαρχώτατον (or δημοτικώτατον) εἰ̂ναι gathered from the preceding sentence.

Those who consider that rigid adherence to the principles of the existing constitution, whether democracy or oligarchy, is the only object worthy of a statesman, carry their theory to an extreme. They forget that ‘happy inconsistencies’ may be better than extremes. The Opportunist may do greater service to the Republic than the Intransigeant.

καθάπερ ῥίς.

Cp. Rhet. i. 4, 1360 a. 23, λέγω δὲ τὸ ὑπὸ οἰκείων ϕθείρεσθαι, ὅτι ἔξω τη̂ς βελτίστης πολιτείας αἱ ἄλλαι πα̂σαι καὶ ἀνιέμεναι καὶ ἐπιτεινόμεναι ϕθείρονται, οἱ̑ον δημοκρατία οὐ μόνον ἀνιεμένη ἀσθενεστέρα γίνεται ὥστε τέλος ἥξει εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπιτεινομένη σϕόδρα, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ γρυπότης καὶ ἡ σιμότης οὐ μόνον ἀνιέμενα ἔρχεται εἰς τὸ μέσον, ἀλλὰ καὶ σϕόδρα γρυπὰ γινόμενα ἢ σιμὰ οὕτω διατίθεται ὥστε μηδὲ μυκτη̂ρα δοκεɩ̂ν εἰ̂ναι.

διὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν καὶ τὴν ἔλλειψιν τω̂ν ἐναντίων.

‘On account of the excess (cp. above ἐὰν ἐπιτείνῃ) and of the defect of the opposite qualities.’

συμβαίνει δὴ τον̂το καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας πολιτείας.

ἄλλας is used adverbially, as in Plato and Thucydides, in the sense of ‘likewise.’ Cp. Nic. Eth. ii. 4. § 3, πρὸς τὸ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας ἔχειν, where ἄλλας = ‘which we are comparing with the virtues;’ and Pol. vii. 10. § 10, διοικεɩ̂ν τὴν ἄλλην οἰκίαν.

ὥστ’ ἔχειν.

ὥστε is bracketed by Bekker (2nd edition) without reason; it is found in all the MSS. and in point of Greek is unobjectionable; cp. Περὶ Ψυχη̂ς ii. 1, 412 b. 25. § 11, ἔστι δὲ οὐ τὸ ἀποβεβληκὸς τὴν ψυχὴν τὸ δυνάμει ὂν ὥστε ζη̂ν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἔχον.

ϕθείροντες τοɩ̂ς καθ’ ὑπεροχὴν νὄμοις.

Sc. τοὺς εὐπόρους ἢ τὸ πλη̂θος. ‘So that when they destroy either party by laws *carried to excess [or possibly ‘by laws based on superior power’] they destroy the state.’

μέγιστον δὲ πάντων . . . τὸ παιδεύεσθαι πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας.

Cp. Rep. iv. 423 E, ταν̂τα . . . πάντα ϕαν̂λα, ἐὰν τὸ λεγόμενον ἒν μέγα ϕυλάττωσι, μα̂λλον δ’ ἀντὶ μεγάλου ἱκανόν. τί τον̂το; ἔϕη. τὴν παιδείαν, ἠ̑ν δ’ ἐγώ, καὶ τροϕήν.

νν̂ν μὲν γὰρ ἐν ἐνίαις ὀμνύουσι ‘καὶ τῳ̑ δήμῳ κακόνους ἔσομαι καὶ βουλεύσω ὅ τι ἂν ἔχω κακόν.’

The habit of taking a formal oath of hostility may be illustrated by an Inscription containing an agreement between certain Cretan cities:—

ὀμνύω . . . θεοὺς πάντας καὶ πάσας, μὴ μὰν ἐγώ ποκα τοɩ̂ς Λυττίοις καλω̂ς ϕρονησεɩ̂ν μήτε τέχνᾳ μήτε μαχανᾳ̑ μήτε ἐν νυκτὶ μήτε πεδ’ ἁμέραν καὶ σπευσίω ὅ τι κα δύναμαι κακὸν τᾳ̑ πόλει τᾳ̑ τω̂ν Λυττίων.

The inscription is given in Vischer’s Kleine Schriften, vol. ii. p. 106.

χρὴ δὲ καὶ ὑπολαμβάνειν καὶ ὑποκρίνεσθαι τοὐναντίον.

‘To have the notion and act the part of one who does no wrong,’ not necessarily implying a mere profession or simulation, as c. 11. § 19 infra, ἀλλὰ τον̂το μὲν ὥσπερ ὑπόθεσιν δεɩ̂ μένειν, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα τὰ μὲν ποιεɩ̂ν τὰ δὲ δοκεɩ̂ν ὑποκρινόμενον τὸν βασιλικὸν καλω̂ς.

νν̂ν δ’ ἐν μὲν ταɩ̂ς ὀλιγαρχίαις οἱ τω̂ν ἀρχόντων υἱοὶ τρυϕω̂σιν κ.τ.λ.

Cp. Plat. Rep. viii. 556 D, ὅταν ἰσχνὸς ἀνὴρ πένης, ἡλιωμένος, παραταχθεὶς ἐν μάχῃ πλουσίῳ ἐσκιατροϕηκότι, πολλὰς ἔχοντι σάρκας ἀλλοτρίας. ἴδῃ ἄσθματός τε καὶ ἀπορίας μεστόν κ.τ.λ.

‘εἰς ὃ χρῄζων.’

Probably ἐστί is to be supplied. The words do not agree with any known passage of Euripides.

πρὸς βοήθειαν τὴν ἀπὸ τον̂ δήμου.

‘The assistance which arises from i. e. is necessitated by the people.’ Such we must infer to be the meaning from the parallel clause ἐπὶ τοὺς γνωρίμους which follows.

τοɩ̂ς ἐπιεικέσι.

‘The good’ in the party sense, i. e. the higher classes like the ἀγαθοὶ of Theognis 32 Bergk and elsewhere.

Besides the three accounts of the origin of monarchy given in i. 2. § 6 (the patriarchal); and iii. 14. § 12 and infra §§ 7, 8 (election for merit), and iv. 13. § 11 (the weakness of the middle and lower classes), we have here a fourth in which the royal authority is said to have been introduced for the protection of the aristocracy against the people.

Supra, c. 5. § 8, Aristotle speaks of tyrannies arising out of the need which democracies felt of a protector of the people against the rich before they became great (διὰ τὸ μὴ μεγάλας εἰ̂ναι τὰς πόλεις); here, when they were already ‘increased in power,’ (ἤδη τω̂ν πόλεων ηὐξημένων). But the discrepancy is verbal. For the terms greatness and littleness might be used of the same states at different periods of Greek history.

οἱ δη̂μοι.

Not ‘the democracies,’ but ‘the peoples in different states.’

Pheidon, a legitimate king of Argos, tenth or sixth in descent from Temenus, called by Herodotus (vi. 127) a tyrant, who gave the Peloponnesians weights and measures. He is said to have driven out the Elean judges, and to have usurped authority over the Olympic games. According to Ephorus fr. 15, Müller i. p. 236, he recovered the whole lot of Temenus and attempted to reduce all the cities once subject to Heracles. He was at length overthrown by the Eleans and Lacedaemonians.

Phalaris, according to Arist. Rhet. ii. 20. § 5, 1393 b. 8 ff., was elected by his Himerian fellow citizens general and dictator of Himera. It was on this occasion that Stesichorus told the story of the Horse and his Rider. Phalaris has been generally called tyrant of Agrigentum, and it is possible that his power having begun in the one city may have extended to the other.

Panaetius is mentioned in c. 12. § 18 as having changed the government of Leontini from an oligarchy into a tyranny.

For Cypselus, who came into power as the representative of the people against the oligarchy of the Bacchiadae from which he was himself sprung, see Herod. v. 92.

ὥσπερ Κόδρος.

In the common tradition Codrus is supposed to have saved his country in a war with the Dorians by the voluntary sacrifice of his own life; here Aristotle implies that he delivered Athens from slavery by his military services.

ἐλευθερώσαντες ὥσπερ Κν̂ρος,

who delivered the Persians from the Medes. See infra, § 24.

κτίσαντες χώραν.

‘Who have settled a country.’

κτίζειν χώραν is said like κτίζειν πόλιν, with a slight enlargement of the meaning of the word.

ὥσπερ οἱ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεɩ̂ς.

Referring, probably, not to the Lacedaemonian kings generally, who cannot be said to have added, except in the Messenian Wars, to the territory of Sparta, but to the original founders of the monarchy.

Μακεδόνων.

Such as Perdiccas I., Alexander I. (Herod. viii. 137 ff.), Archelaus (Thuc. ii. 100), Philip the father of Alexander the Great and others.

Μολοττω̂ν.

Cp. infra, c. 11. § 2, where the moderation of the Molossian monarchy is eulogized.

Cp. Nic. Eth. viii. 10. § 2, διαϕέρουσι δὲ πλεɩ̂στον· ὁ μὲν γὰρ τύραννος τὸ ἑαυτῳ̑ συμϕέρον σκοπεɩ̂· ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς τω̂ν ἀρχομένων· οὐ γάρ ἐστι βασιλεὺς ὁ μὴ αὐτάρκης καὶ πα̂σι τοɩ̂ς ἀγαθοɩ̂ς ὑπερέχων· ὁ δὲ τοιον̂τος οὐδενὸς προσδεɩ̂ται· τὰ ὠϕέλιμα ον̓̂ν αὑτῳ̑ μὲν οὐκ ἂν σκοποίη τοɩ̂ς δὲ ἀρχομένοις:—in which the ideal conception of royalty maintained in the Politics also appears.

τὸ Περιάνδρου πρὸς Θρασύβουλον συμβούλευμα.

See note on iii. 13. § 16.

ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἁρμόδιος.

Sc. ἐπέθετο, to be supplied from τω̂ν ἐπιθέσεων, or from ἐπιτίθενται (supra, § 14). Cp. Thuc. i. 20, vi. 54-58. The account of Aristotle agrees in the main with that of Thucydides, but there is no mention of the critical question raised by the latter, viz. whether Hippias or Hipparchus was the elder son of Peisistratus. The Peisistratidae are loosely spoken of as the authors of the insult, and the punishment inflicted is assumed to be the punishment of a tyrant. But the language of Aristotle is not sufficiently precise to be adduced on either side of the question.

ἐπεβούλευσαν δὲ καὶ Περιάνδρῳ τῳ̑ ἐν Ἀμβρακίᾳ τυράννῳ.

Mentioned above, c. 4. § 9, where, not inconsistently with the account here given, he is said to have been attacked by conspirators, although the conspirators failed in attaining their object, for the people took the government.

ἡ Ἀμύντου τον̂ μικρον̂.

Probably Amyntas the Second who flourished in the generation which followed the Peloponnesian War and succeeded after a struggle to the Macedonian throne b. c. 394, from which however he was deposed but afterwards restored by the help of the Spartans.

Derdas the prince of Elymia his kinsman, and at one time his ally, is probably the conspirator here mentioned.

ἡ δὲ Φιλίππου ὑπὸ Παυσανίου.

The only direct allusion to Philip which is found in Aristotle except Rhet. ii. 23, 1397 b. 31, καὶ πάλιν πρὸς τὸ Θηβαίους διεɩ̂ναι Φίλιππον εἰς τὴν Ἀττικήν, ὅτι εἰ πρὶν βοηθη̂σαι εἰς Φωκεɩ̂ς ἠξίου, ὑπέσχοντο ἄν· ἄτοπον ον̓̂ν εἰ διότι προεɩ̂το καὶ ἐπίστευσε μὴ διήσουσιν. To Alexander there is none.

The murder of Philip by Pausanias occurred at the marriage of his daughter with Alexander of Epirus b.c. 336. The mention of the circumstance shows that this passage, if not the whole of the Politics, must have been composed later than the date of this event.

The story here referred to is narrated more fully by Diodorus (xvi. 93). According to his rather incredible narrative Attalus was the uncle of Cleopatra whom Philip married in 337 b.c., and he had a friend also named Pausanias of whom the assassin Pausanias was jealous. Pausanias the friend of Attalus being abused and insulted by his namesake, sought death in battle, and Attalus, to revenge the supposed insult to his friend, invited the other Pausanias to a banquet and outraged him. When Philip could not or would not punish Attalus, Pausanias turned his anger against the king. Nearly the same story is told by Justin ix. 6. and Plutarch Alex. c. 10.

καὶ ἡ τον̂ εὐνούχου Εὐαγόρᾳ τῳ̑ Κυπρίῳ.

Sc. ἡ ἐπίθεσις. Εὐαγόρᾳ is governed by the ἐπὶ in ἐπίθεσις. The story is differently told by Theopompus (Fragm. 111, Müller i. p. 295). According to his account the eunuch Thrasydaeus got Evagoras and his sons into his power by inducing them to make assignations with a young maiden, who was the daughter of Nicocreon, a revolted subject of Evagoras. According to Diodorus (xv. 47) the name of the eunuch who conspired was Nicocles; but the name is probably a confusion with the son of Evagoras who succeeded him. Isocrates in his ‘Evagoras’ throws a veil over the whole story. Thus our four authorities all disagree with one another.

Archelaus, the son of Perdiccas, reigned in Macedonia 413-399, and had two wives,—the name of the second was Cleopatra, the name of the first is not mentioned. He seems to have thought that he would prevent quarrels in his two families if he married a son and daughter out of each of them to one another. For Archelaus see Thuc. ii. 100 and Plat. Gorg. 470, 471; for Arrhabaeus (or Arrhibaeus) the enemy of Perdiccas, as he was afterwards the enemy of Archelaus, see Thuc. iv. 79. Of Sirra, which appears to be the name of a woman, nothing more is known. The occurrence of the name in this passage has suggested a very ingenious emendation in the words of Strabo, bk. viii. c. 7. p. 327, ἡ Φιλίππου μήτηρ τον̂ Ἀμύντου Εὐρυδίκη Σίῤῥα δὲ θυγάτηρ where read Εὐρυδίκη Σίῤῥα δὲ θυγάτηρ. (Dindorf.)

Cotys was assassinated in 358 b. c. by the brothers Heraclides and Parrhon called also Python, Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 659. According to Plut. Adv. Coloten 32 and Diog. Laert. iii. 31 they had been disciples of Plato.

πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ εἰς τὸ σω̂μα αἰκισθη̂ναι πληγαɩ̂ς ὀργισθέντες οἱ μὲν διέϕθειραν οἱ δ’ ἐνεχείρησαν ὡς ὑβρισθέντες, καὶ τω̂ν περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ βασιλικὰς δυναστείας.

The first καὶ means that attempts were also made in consequence of personal ill-treatment of another sort, and the second καὶ that they were made not only upon tyrants, but upon magistrates and royal personages. See also note on Text.

In this passage, though speaking primarily of tyrannies, Aristotle digresses into monarchies generally and oligarchies.

ἐνεχείρησαν, sc. διαϕθείρειν.

Πενθαλίδας.

It was Penthilus, the son of Orestes, who according to Strabo, bk. ix. p. 403, xiii. p. 582, and Pausanias iii. 2. p. 207 recolonized Lesbos. The Penthalidae derived their name from him.

ὁ δ’ Εὐριπίδης ἐχαλέπαινεν εἰπόντος τι αὐτον̂ εἰς δυσωδίαν τον̂ στόματος.

This story, which casts a rather unfavourable light on the character of Euripides, is alluded to in Stobaeus, Serm. 39. p. 237, Εὐριπίδης ὀνειδίζοντος αὐτῳ̑ τινὸς ὅτι τὸ στόμα δυσω̂δες ἠ̑ν, πολλὰ γάρ, εἰ̂πεν αὐτῳ̑, ἀπόῤῥητα ἐγκατεσάπη, i. e. Some one said to Euripides, ‘Your breath smells.’ ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘for many things which might not be spoken have been decomposed in my mouth.’

ὥσπερ καὶ περὶ τὰς πολιτείας καὶ τὰς μοναρχίας.

We must supply περὶ in thought before μοναρχίας. It is inserted in the margin of P⁵. ‘As well in monarchies as in more popular forms of government.’

οἱ̑ον Ξέρξην Ἀρταπάνης ϕοβούμενος τὴν διαβολὴν τὴν περὶ Δαρεɩ̂ον, ὅτι ἐκρέαασεν οὐ κελεύσαντος Ξέρξου, ἀλλ’ οἰόμενος συγγνώσεσθαι ὡς ἀμνημονον̂ντα διὰ τὸ δειπνεɩ̂ν.

The Xerxes here referred to is Xerxes the First, cp. Ctesiae Fragmenta, Περσικὰ § 29 (edit. Didot p. 51), Ἀρτάπανος (sic) δὲ μέγα παρὰ Ξέρξῃ δυνάμενος, μετ’ Ἀσπαμίτρου τον̂ εὐνούχου καὶ αὐτον̂ μέγα δυναμένου βουλεύονται ἀνελεɩ̂ν Ξέρξην, καὶ ἀναιρον̂σι, καὶ πείθουσιν Ἀρτοξέρξην (sic) τὸν υἱὸν ὡς Δαρειαɩ̂ος (sic) αὐτὸν ὁ ἕτερος παɩ̂ς ἀνεɩ̂λε. Καὶ παραγίνεται Δαρειαɩ̂ος ἀγόμενος ὑπὸ Ἀρταπάνου εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Ἀρτοξέρξου πολλὰ βοω̂ν καὶ ἀπαρνούμενος ὡς οὐκ εἴη ϕονεὺς τον̂ πατρός· καὶ ἀποθνήσκει. According to Diod. xi. 69, Artabanus an Hyrcanian, having by a false accusation got rid of one of the sons of Xerxes, shortly afterwards attacked the other son Artaxerxes who succeeded him, but he was discovered and put to death. Both these stories, which are substantially the same, are so different from the narrative of Aristotle that it is better not to try and reconcile them by such expedients as the placing οὐ before ἐκρέμασε. The purport of Aristotle’s rather obscure words seems to be as follows: Artapanes had hanged Darius the son of Xerxes who was supposed to have conspired against his father; he had not been told to hang him or he had been told not to hang him (for οὐ κελεύσαντος may mean either); but he had hoped that Xerxes in his cups would forget what precisely happened.

Ctesias is several times quoted by Aristotle in the Historia Animalium but always with expressions of distrust, ii. 1. 501 a. 25, iii. 22. 523 a. 26, viii. 28. 606 a. 8; also De Gen. An. ii. 2. 736 a. 2.

Σαρδανάπαλον.

A rather mythical person apparently the same with the Assurbanipal of the Assyrian inscriptions, a mighty hunter and great conqueror, who became to the Greeks and through them to the civilized world the type of oriental luxury. The story of his effeminacy is taken by Diodorus (ii. 23-27) from Ctesias and is again referred to by Aristotle in Nic. Eth. i. 5. § 3.

εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐπ’ ἐκείνου, ἀλλ’ ἐπ’ ἄλλου γε ἂν γένοιτο ἀληθές.

For another example of a similar manner of treating old legends, see i. 11. § 8.

Διονυσίῳ τῳ̑ ὑστέρῳ Δίων ἐπέθετο.

See infra §§ 28 and 32.

ὥσπερ οἱ στρατηγον̂ντες τοɩ̂ς μονάρχοις, οἱ̑ον Κν̂ρος Ἀστυάγῃ.

Aristotle in this passage follows a legend, differing from that of Herodotus who selected the tradition about Cyrus’ life (i. 95 ff.) and death (i. 214) which seemed to him the most probable. In Aristotle’s version Cyrus, not Harpagus, was represented as the general of Astyages. Of a misconception entertained by Herodotus, Aristotle speaks with some severity in his Historia Animalium, iii. 22, 523 a. 17.

Σεύθης ὁ Θρᾳ̑ξ.

A friend and acquaintance of Xenophon who recovered his small kingdom by the help of some of the ten thousand. He is mentioned in Anab. vii. 3, Hell. iii. 2. § 2, iv. 8. § 26.

οἱ̑ον Ἀριοβαρζάνῃ Μιθριδάτης.

According to Corn. Nepos Datames, c. 11, Mithridates the son of Ariobarzanes, a revolted satrap of Pontus, attacked not Ariobarzanes but Datames the celebrated satrap of Caria. It does not therefore become less probable that he may also have attacked his own father; and the latter fact is confirmed by the allusion of Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 8. 4, ὥσπερ Μιθριδάτης τὸν πατέρα Ἀριοβαρζάνην προδούς.

οἱ̑ς ἀκολουθεɩ̂ν δεɩ̂ τὴν Δίωνος ὑπόληψιν.

‘There should be ever present with them the resolution of Dion.’

ἱκανὸν αὐτῳ̑.

Sc. ὄν.

Διὸ Λακεδαιμόνιοι πλείστας κατέλυσαν τυραννίδας.

Διό, ‘because one form of government naturally hates another.’ Cp. Thuc. i. 18, ἐπειδὴ δὲ οἵ τε Ἀθηναίων τύραννοι καὶ οἱ ἐκ τη̂ς ἄλλης Ἑλλάδος ἐπὶ πολὺ καὶ πρὶν τυραννευθείσης οἱ πλεɩ̂στοι καὶ τελευταɩ̂οι, πλὴν τω̂ν ἐν Σικελίᾳ, ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων κατελύθησαν: and Hdt. v. 92 about the Lacedaemonian hatred to tyranny.

καὶ Συρακούσιοι.

This period of liberty and prosperity lasted for sixty years, 466-406, from the overthrow of Thrasybulus to the usurpation of Dionysius. But more is known of Sicily in the days of the tyrants than of the time when the island was comparatively free.

καὶ νν̂ν ἡ τω̂ν περὶ Διονύσιον.

The final expulsion of Dionysius the younger by Timoleon occurred b. c. 343; but it is the first expulsion by Dion to which Aristotle is here referring, b. c. 356, as the Politics were written not earlier than 336 (see supra note on § 16). We have thus a measure of the latitude with which Aristotle uses the expression καὶ νν̂ν ‘quite lately’ which recurs in ii. 9. § 20, καὶ νν̂ν ἐν τοɩ̂ς Ἀνδρίοις.

οἱ δὲ συστάντες αὐτω̂ν.

Either 1) the same persons who are called οἰκεɩ̂οι συστάντες, or some part of them, οἱ συστάντες being taken substantively = οἱ συστασιω̂ται. Or 2) αὐτω̂ν may be understood of the whole people as if πολɩ̂ται had preceded; συστάντες would then refer to another band of conspirators who were not of the family. Bekker in his second edition has inserted κατ’ before αὐτω̂ν without MS. authority. Susemihl suggests μετά. Neither emendation is satisfactory.

The reign of Thrasybulus, if indeed he reigned at all except in the name of his nephew, as seems to be implied in this passage, lasted only eleven months; see infra c. 12. § 6. According to Diodorus (xi. 67, 68), who says nothing of a son of Gelo, he immediately succeeded Hiero, but soon provoked the Syracusans by his cruelty and rapacity to expel him.

Διονύσιον δὲ Δίων στρατεύσας, κηδεστὴς ὢν καὶ προσλαβὼν τὸν δη̂μον, ἐκεɩ̂νον ἐκβαλὼν διεϕθάρη.

This is a reminiscence of § 28. The emphasis is on ἐκβαλών. Aristotle is speaking of cases in which tyrants were destroyed by members of their own family. He means to say that Dion drove out Dionysius who was his kinsman, although he himself perished more than twelve months afterwards when the revolution was completed. Or, ‘Dion did indeed perish (as I have already implied), but not until he had driven out his kinsman Dionysius.’

ἀλλὰ μα̂λλον τὸ μɩ̂σος,

sc. χρη̂ται τῳ̑ λογισμῳ̑ which is supplied from the preceding sentence.

ὅσας αἰτίας εἰρήκαμεν τη̂ς τε ὀλιγαρχίας,

sc. τη̂ς ϕθορα̂ς τη̂ς ὀλιγαρχίας, understood from the general meaning of the preceding passage.

οὐ γίγνονται δ’ ἔτι βασιλεɩ̂αι νν̂ν.

Cp. iii. 14. § 13, a passage in which the gradual decline of royalty is described.

ἀλλ’ ἄν περ γίγνωνται, μοναρχίαι [καὶ] τυραννίδες μα̂λλον.

The objection to the καὶ (which is found in all the MSS.) is that μοναρχία is elsewhere the generic word (cp. supra §§ 1, 2), including βασιλεία and τυραννίς. If we accept the reading of the MSS., some general idea, ‘wherever there are such forms of government’ must be supplied with γίγνωνται from βασιλεɩ̂αι. ‘There are no royalties nowadays: but if there are any,’ or rather ‘instead of them mere monarchies and tyrannies.’ Here ‘monarchies’ is taken in some specific bad or neutral sense opposed to βασιλεɩ̂αι. But a variation in a technical use of language which he was endeavouring to fix, but was not always capable of himself observing, is not a serious objection to a reading found in Aristotle’s Politics.

ῥᾳδία γὰρ ἐγίνετο ἡ κατάλυσις.

‘For their overthrow was easily effected.’ The imperfect graphically represents the historical fact.

ἡ περὶ Μολοττοὺς βασιλεία.

Cp. supra, c. 10. § 8.

Theopompus is said by Tyrtaeus to have terminated the first Messenian War, Fr. 3 Bergk, Poet. Lyr. Graeci:—

• Ἡμετέρῳ βασιλη̂ϊ θεοɩ̂σι ϕίλῳ Θεοπόμπῳ,
• ὃν διὰ Μεσσήνην εἵλομεν εὐρύχορον,
• Μεσσήνην ἀγαθὴν μὲν ἀρον̂ν, ἀγαθὴν δὲ ϕυτεύειν·
• ἀμϕ’ αὐτὴν δ’ ἐμάχοντ’ ἐννεακαίδεκ’ ἔτη
• νωλεμέως, αἰεὶ ταλασίϕρονα θυμὸν ἔχοντες
• αἰχμηταὶ πατέρων ἡμετέρων πατέρες·
• εἰκοστῳ̑ δ’ οἱ μὲν κατὰ πίονα ἔργα λιπόντες,
• ϕεν̂γον Ἰθωμαίων ἐκ μεγάλων ὀρέων.

According to Plutarch, Lyc. 7, he increased the power of the Ephors, but he also made the ῥήτρα more stringent which forbade the people to amend or modify proposals submitted to them.

In this passage the institution of the Ephors is attributed to Theopompus, but in ii. c. 9 it seems to be assumed that Lycurgus is the author of all the Spartan institutions: see note in loc.

ἡ γὰρ γνω̂σις πίστιν ποιεɩ̂ μα̂λλον πρὸς ἀλλήλους.

Cp. Thuc. viii. 66 where the difficulty of overthrowing the 400 is attributed to the uncertainty of the citizens as to who were or were not included in the conspiracy.

καὶ τὸ τοὺς ἐπιδημον̂ντας ἀεὶ ϕανεροὺς εἰ̂ναι καὶ διατρίβειν περὶ θύρας.

ἐπιδημον̂ντας is translated by William de Moerbek without any authority ‘praefectos populi,’ apparently an etymological guess.

περὶ θύρας. Either *‘at his gate’ or ‘at their own gates.’ In whichever way the words are taken, the general meaning is the same, viz. that the people are not to hide but to show themselves.

καὶ τὸ πένητας ποιεɩ̂ν τοὺς ἀρχομένους, τυραννικόν, ὅπως ἥ τε ϕυλακὴ τρέϕηται.

1) *Reading ἥ τε with Bekker’s second edition after Victorius: ‘Also he should impoverish his subjects that he may find money for the support of his guards.’ Yet the mode of expression is indirect and awkward. If 2) we retain μήτε with the MSS. we must translate either ‘that he may not have to keep soldiers,’ for his subjects will keep them for him; or, ‘so that a guard need not be kept,’ because he will be in no danger on account of the depressed state of his subjects. Neither explanation is satisfactory; there is a balance of difficulties.

ἀναθήματα τω̂ν Κυψελιδω̂ν κ.τ.λ.

See Herod. i. 14.

Florence in the fifteenth century, and Paris in the nineteenth, witness to a similar policy.

τω̂ν περὶ Σάμον ἔργα Πολυκράτεια.

Lit. and ‘among’ or ‘of the buildings of Samos the works of Polycrates.’ Among these splendid works an artificial mountain containing a tunnel forming an aqueduct, a mole in front of the harbour, and the greatest temple known, are commemorated in Herod. iii. 60, but he does not expressly attribute them to Polycrates.

καὶ ἡ εἰσϕορὰ τω̂ν τελω̂ν, οἱ̑ον ἐν Συρακούσαις· ἐν πέντε γὰρ ἔτεσιν ἐπὶ Διονυσίου τὴν οὐσίαν ἅπασαν εἰσενηνοχέναι συνέβαινεν.

Compare a story equally incredible told of Cypselus in the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomics ii. 1346 a. 32: ‘Cypselus the Corinthian made a vow that if he ever became lord of the city he would consecrate to Zeus the whole wealth of the citizens, so he bade them register themselves, and when they were registered he took from them a tithe of their property and told them to go on working with the remainder. Each year he did the like; the result was that at the end of ten years he got into his possession all which he had consecrated; the Corinthians meanwhile had gained other property.’

There are several similar legends respecting Dionysius himself recorded in the Oeconomics, such as the story of his collecting the women’s ornaments, and after consecrating them to Demeter lending them to himself, 1349 a. 14; or of his taking the money of the orphans and using it while they were under age, ib. b. 15; or of his imposition of a new cattle-tax, after he had induced his subjects to purchase cattle by the abolition of the tax, ib. b. 6. The fertile imagination of the Greeks was a good deal occupied with inventions about the tyrants; the examples given throw a light upon the character of such narratives.

βουλομένων μὲν πάντων, δυναμένων δὲ μάλιστα τούτων.

Cp. note on text.

καὶ γὰρ ὁ δη̂μος εἰ̂ναι βούλεται μόναρχος.

i. e. ‘for they are both alike.’

ἥλῳ γὰρ ὁ ἡ̑λος, ὥσπερ ἡ παροιμία.

Sc. ἐκκρούεται, ‘one nail is knocked out by another’ = one rogue is got rid of by another. That is to say; ‘The tyrant finds in rogues handy and useful instruments.’ Such appears to be the application of the proverb in this passage. Yet the common meaning of it given in collections of proverbs is that ‘one evil is mended by another.’ Cp. Lucian, Pro Lapsu inter Salutandum, § 7, μυρία δὲ καὶ ἄλλα ἔκ τε ποιητω̂ν καὶ συγγραϕέων καὶ ϕιλοσόϕων καταδεɩ̂ξαί σοι ἔχων, προτιμώντων τὸ ὑγιαίνειν, τον̂το μὲν παραιτήσομαι, ὡς μὴ εἰς ἀπειροκαλίαν τινὰ μειρακιώδη ἐκπέσῃ μοι τὸ σύγγραμμα καὶ κινδυνεύωμεν ἄλλῳ ἥλῳ ἐκκρούειν τὸν ἡ̑λον.

αὑτὸν γὰρ εἰ̂ναι μόνον ἀξιοɩ̂ τοιον̂τον ὁ τύραννος.

Compare the saying attributed to the Russian Emperor Paul, ‘Il n’y a pas de considérable ici que la personne à laquelle je parle, et pendant le temps que je lui parle.’ Wallace’s Russia, p. 280, ed. 8.

οὐθὲν δ’ ἐλλείπει μοχθηρίας.

Sc. ὁ τύραννος; or οἰθὲν may be the nominative to ἐλλείπει.

εἰς οὓς μὲν ον̓̂ν ὅρους . . . ϕρονω̂σιν.

The end of § 16 is bracketed by Bekker in his 2nd Edition (after Schneider). It is only a repetition of what goes before, the three aims of the tyrant being stated in a different order.

The 1st in § 15 = 3rd in § 16.

The 2nd in § 15 = 1st in § 16.

The 3rd in § 15 = 2nd in § 16.

The parallel words are either a summary or a duplicate.

But there is no reason for excluding either of the two passages any more than for excluding the repetitions in Homer. Both versions can hardly be supposed to have come from the hand of Aristotle, but they belong to a text which we cannot go behind.

ὁ δ’ ἕτερος σχεδὸν ἐξ ἐναντίας ἔχει τοɩ̂ς εἰρημένοις τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν.

Literally, ‘the other manner of preserving a tyranny takes pains,’ i.e. works, ‘from an opposite direction.’

ἓν ϕυλάττοντα μόνον τὴν δύναμιν . . . . τον̂το μὲν ὥσπερ ὑπόθεσιν δεɩ̂ μένειν, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα τὰ μὲν ποιεɩ̂ν τὰ δὲ δοκεɩ̂ν ὑποκρινόμενον τὸ βασιλικὸν καλω̂ς.

Compare Machiavelli, who in his ‘Prince’ goes much farther than Aristotle in preaching the doctrine of ‘doing evil that good may come’ and of ‘keeping up appearances’ and of ‘fear to be preferred to love.’ ‘Let it be the Prince’s chief care to maintain his authority; the means he employs, be they what they may, will for this purpose always appear honourable and meet applause; for the vulgar are ever caught by appearances and judge only by the event.’ (c. 18, Bohn’s Translation, p. 461.) Again ‘A prince ought to be very sparing of his own or of his subjects’ property.’ . . . ‘To support the reputation of liberality, he will often be reduced to the necessity of levying taxes on his subjects and adopting every species of fiscal resource, which cannot fail to make him odious.’ (c. 16. pp. 454, 455.) And for much of what follows, infra §§ 20, 25: ‘He should make it a rule above all things never to utter anything which does not breathe of kindness, justice, good faith and piety; this last quality it is most important for him to appear to possess, for men judge more from appearances than from reality.’ (ib.) Again, cp. §§ 22, 23 with Machiavelli c. 19. p. 462: ‘Nothing in my opinion renders a prince so odious as the violation of the rights of property and disregard to the honour of married women. Subjects will live contentedly enough under a prince who neither invades their property nor their honour, and then he will only have to contend against the pretensions of a few ambitious persons whom he can easily find means to restrain. A prince whose conduct is light, inconstant, pusillanimous, irresolute and effeminate is sure to be despised—these defects he ought to shun as he would so many rocks and endeavour to display a character for courage, gravity, energy and magnificence in all his actions.’ Like Aristotle he advises that princes should practise economy and not overcharge the people with taxes; they should give festivals and shows at certain periods of the year and ‘should remember to support their station with becoming dignity,’ p. 476. Cp. Hallam, Mid. Ages i. 66, ‘The sting of taxation is wastefulness. What high-spirited man could see without indignation the earnings of his labour yielded ungrudgingly to the public defence become the spoil of parasites and speculators?’ (quoted by Congreve).

Bekker in his 2nd edition, following a suggestion of Schneider, adds εἰς before δωρεάς, but unnecessarily.

The moderation here described in everything but ambition was shown by the elder Dionysius as he is pictured by Cornelius Nepos De Regibus c. 2: ‘Dionysius prior . . et manu fortis et belli peritus fuit, et, id quod in tyranno non facile reperitur, minime libidinosus, non luxuriosus, non avarus, nullius rei denique cupidus, nisi singularis perpetuique imperii, ob eamque rem crudelis. Nam dum id studuit munire, nullius pepercit vitae, quem ejus insidiatorem putaret.’

The second Dionysius would furnish a tyrant of the opposite type (§ 23), if we may believe the writer of the Aristotelian Polity of Syracuse, Ἂριστοτέλης δὲ ἐν τῃ̑ Συρακοσίων πολιτείᾳ καὶ συνεχω̂ς ϕησὶν αὐτὸν [Διονύσιον τὸν νεώτερον] ἔσθ’ ὅτε ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ἐνενήκοντα μεθύειν· διὸ καὶ ἀμβλυωπότερον γενέσθαι τὰς ὄψεις. (Arist. Berl. Ed. 1568, b. 19.)

ϕαίνεσθαι τοɩ̂ς ἄλλοις βούλονται τον̂το ποιον̂ντες.

These words curiously illustrate the love of ostentation inherent in the Greek character.

κατασκευάζειν γὰρ δεɩ̂ καὶ κοσμεɩ̂ν τὴν πόλιν.

Like Polycrates at Samos, Gelo at Syracuse, Cypselus and Periander at Corinth, Theron at Agrigentum, Peisistratus at Athens.

κολάσεως.

Bracketed by Bekker in his 2nd edition after Schneider. Certainly the word is not appropriate if taken with ἡλικίαν, but ὕβρεως may be supplied with τη̂ς εἰς τὴν ἡλικίαν from the preceding.

διαϕθείραντες.

Sc. τὸν τύραννον.

χαλεπὸν θυμῳ̑ μάχεσθαι.

Quoted in Nic. Eth. ii. 3. § 10, ἔτι χαλεπώτερον ἡδονῃ̑ μάχεσθαι ἢ θυμῳ̑, καθάπερ ϕησὶν Ἡράκλειτος.

For the arts of the tyrant cp. Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’ quoted above, especially chaps. 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23.

μάλιστα μὲν ἀμϕοτέρους ὑπολαμβάνειν δεɩ̂ σώζεσθαι διὰ τὴν ἀρχήν.

The consciousness that no other government could hold the balance between irreconcileable parties seems to have been the main support of recent French Imperialism.

ἔτι δ’ αὐτὸν διακεɩ̂σθαι κατὰ τὸ ἠ̑θος ἤτοι καλω̂ς πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἢ ἡμίχρηστον ὄντα, καὶ μὴ πονηρὸν ἀλλ’ ἡμιπόνηρον.

Cp. Machiavelli, Prince, c. 15. p. 453, in a still more subtle style of reflection: ‘It would doubtless be happy for a prince to unite in himself every species of good quality, but as our nature does not allow of so great a perfection a prince should have prudence enough to avoid those defects and vices which may occasion his ruin.’ And again: ‘He should not shrink from encountering some blame on account of vices which are important to the support of his states; for there are some things having the appearance of virtues which would prove the ruin of a prince, should he put them in practice, and others upon which, though seemingly bad and vicious, his actual welfare and security entirely depend.’

Hdt. vi. 126 gives the Sicyonian tyrants as 1) Andreas, 2) Myron, 3) Aristonymus, 4) Cleisthenes. According to Pausanias x. 7. § 3. p. 814 Cleisthenes is said to have won a victory in the Pythian games b.c. 582. Grote (vol. iii. c. 9. p. 43) says ‘there is some confusion about the names of Orthagoras and Andreas. It has been supposed with some probability that the same person is designated under both names: for the two names do not seem to occur in the same author.’ Orthagoras, ‘speaker for the right,’ may have been a surname or second name of Andreas. Infra § 12, Aristotle supposes the tyranny to have passed directly from Myron to Cleisthenes.

Πεισίστρατον ὑπομεɩ̂ναί ποτε προσκληθέντα δίκην εἰς Ἄρειον πάγον.

According to Plutarch in the life of Solon c. 31 he is said to have gone to the Court of the Areopagus intending to defend himself against a charge of homicide, but his accuser did not appear.

Cypselidae.

The addition in this passage appears to be incorrect.

From these numbers how does Aristotle get a total 73½ years?

Sylburg would change τρία καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα into ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα. Giphanius would omit καὶ τέτταρα after τετταράκοντα. Susemihl would change τέτταρα into ἥμισυ, which would give exactly the sum wanted. Goettling has a very farfetched and groundless supposition that the reign of Psammetichus was omitted by Aristotle in the addition, because he was only a commander of mercenaries and not of Cypselid blood. It might also be suggested that some of the reigns overlap in consequence of a tyrant adopting his successor as colleague. But a mistake either of Aristotle or his copyists is more likely.

All the MSS. read τέτταρα or τέσσαρα.

τριάκοντα καὶ πέντε.

Hdt. v. 65 makes the Peisistratidae rule Athens 36 years.

Peisistratus seized the sovereignty in 560 b.c. and died in 527; he reigned 17 years out of the 33. Hippias reigned 14 years before the death of Hipparchus (514), and in the year 510, four years afterwards, he was expelled. 17 + 14 + 4 = 35.

The whole period 560-510 is 50 years, 35 of actual rule. In the calculation of Herodotus there is a year more. From Thuc. vi. 54 we learn that even at Athens not 100 years after the event, there were erroneous ideas about the expulsion of the Peisistratidae.

Here the addition is correct. 7 + 10 + 1 = 18, although the time assigned to Hiero’s reign does not agree with the statement of Diodorus (xi. 66) that he reigned 11 years. But why does Aristotle omit Dionysius, whose tyranny lasted longer, and therefore afforded a better example? Dionysius I b.c. 405-367, Dionysius II 367-356, and again 346-344, besides the shorter reigns of Dion and others, in all about 60 years.

ἰδίως.

i.e. in any way specially applicable to that form of government.

We may observe that Aristotle criticises the Platonic number as if it had a serious meaning: yet he omits τρὶς αὐξηθείς, words which are an essential part of the calculation, after δύο ἁρμονίας παρέχεται. (See Rep. viii. 546 C.)

διά τε τον̂ χρόνου.

Sc. τί ἂν ἴδιος εἴη μεταβολὴ to be supplied from the preceding sentence. ‘And in what is any special change made by time?’ i.e. What has time alone to do with the changes of states?

With τὰ μὴ ἀρξάμενα supply τί or διὰ τί from τί ἂν εἴη above; cp. διὰ τίν’ αἰτίαν (infra § 10). ‘And why should things which do not begin together change together?’

διὰ τίν’ αἰτίαν ἐκ ταύτης εἰς τὴν Λακωνικὴν μεταβάλλει;

Aristotle unfairly criticizes Plato’s order as if it were meant to be an order in time. The same objection might be taken to his own use of the phrases μεταβάλλειν and μεταβαίνειν in Nic. Eth. viii. 10, where he talks as if states always ‘passed over’ into their opposites:—the ‘passing over’ is logical, a natural connexion of ideas, not always historical.

ἔτι δὲ τυραννίδος οὐ λέγει οὔτ’ εἰ ἔσται μεταβολή, οὔτ’ εἰ μὴ ἔσται, διὰ τίν’ αἰτίαν, καὶ εἰς ποίαν πολιτείαν.

1) *‘He never says whether tyranny is or is not liable to revolutions, and if it is, what is the cause of them and into what form it changes’—a condensed sentence in which καὶ is omitted before διὰ τίν’ εἰς ποίαν πολιτείαν, sc. ἔσται μεταβολή.

2) It is also possible and perhaps better, with Bekker in his second edition, to place a comma after the second οὔτε: οὔτ’, εἰ μὴ ἔσται, διὰ τίν’ αἰτίαν. (It will be remembered that tyranny is the last development of the Platonic cycle, and it is natural to ask ‘Why does not the cycle continue or return into itself?’) The meaning may then be paraphrased as follows: ‘He never says whether (as might be expected) tyranny, like other forms of government, experiences a change, or if not, what is the explanation of this inconsistency?’

ἡ Χαριλάου.

According to Heraclides Ponticus (fr. 2 Müller) Charillus, as the name is also spelt in ii. 10. § 2, or Charilaus, as here, made himself tyrant during the absence of Lycurgus, who on his return to Sparta restored or introduced good order. The change which he then effected in the constitution of Sparta is called by Aristotle, who appears to follow the same tradition, a change from tyranny to aristocracy.

ἐν Καρχηδόνι.

Sc. τυραννὶς μετέβαλεν εἰς ἀριστοκρατίαν. Yet he says in Book ii. c. 11. § 2 — ‘that Carthage has never had a sedition worth speaking of, nor been under a tyrant,’ and a similar statement occurs in this chapter (§ 14). Cp. also vi. 5. § 9, τοιον̂τον δέ τινα τρόπον Καρχηδόνιοι πολιτευόμενοι ϕίλον κέκτηνται τὸν δη̂μον· ἀεὶ γάρ τινας ἐκπέμποντες τον̂ δήμου πρὸς τὰς περιοικίδας ποιον̂σιν εὐπόρους κ.τ.λ. To avoid this apparent contradiction St. Hilaire conjectures Χαλκηδόνι, a useless emendation of which there can be neither proof nor disproof; for we know nothing of the history of Chalcedon and not much of the history of Carthage.

It might be argued that the text as it stands may refer to a time in the history of Carthage before the establishment of the aristocratical constitution described in Bk. ii. c. 11, as he says in this very passage of Lacedaemon, § 12, that it passed from tyranny into aristocracy. But such a violent supposition is hardly to be assumed in order to save Aristotle’s consistency. In § 14 infra, he calls Carthage a democracy. In ii. 11. § 5, he talks of it as having a democratic element.

ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ ϕάναι δύο πόλεις εἰ̂ναι τὴν ὀλιγαρχικήν, πλουσίων καὶ πενήτων.

Here as elsewhere Aristotle is really objecting to a figure of speech, Plat. Rep. iv. 422 E; viii. 551 D. It may be certainly said of a state which is governed by an oligarchy, with much more truth than of a timocracy or democracy, that it consists of two cities.

Bekker inserts καὶ in his 2nd Edition—ἀσωτευόμενοι (καὶ) κατατοκιζόμενοι. The addition makes no change in the sense.

μεταβάλλουσιν οὐθὲν μα̂λλον οὐδέποτε εἰς δη̂μον ἢ εἰς ἄλλην πολιτείαν.

Yet in iii. 15. § 12, Aristotle says that oligarchies passed into tyrannies and these into democracies.