Online Library of Liberty

A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets. A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Advanced Search

Aristotle, The Politics vol. 2 (notes) [1885]

0033-02_tp
Title Page

Edition used:

Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, trans. into English with introduction, marginal analysis, essays, notes and indices by B. Jowett. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1885. 2 vols. Vol. 2. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/819

Available in the following formats:
Facsimile PDF small 10.7 MB This is a compressed facsimile or image-based PDF made from scans of the original book.
Facsimile PDF 24.9 MB This is a facsimile or image-based PDF made from scans of the original book.
Kindle 638 KB This is an E-book formatted for Amazon Kindle devices.
EBook PDF 947 KB This text-based PDF or EBook was created from the HTML version of this book and is part of the Portable Library of Liberty.
HTML 1.67 MB This version has been converted from the original text. Every effort has been taken to translate the unique features of the printed book into the HTML medium.
Simplified HTML 1.67 MB This is a simplifed HTML format, intended for screen readers and other limited-function browsers.

About this Title:

Volume 2 of Benjamin Jowett’s translation of one of Aristotle’s most influential writings. This volume contains Jowett’s detailed notes to each Book.

Copyright information:

The text is in the public domain.

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

Table of Contents:

Edition: current; Page: [none]
the POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE
jowett
Edition: current; Page: [none]

London

HENRY FROWDE

Oxford University Press Warehouse Amen Corner, E.C.

Edition: current; Page: [none]
THE POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH INTRODUCTION, MARGINAL ANALYSIS ESSAYS, NOTES AND INDICES
by B. JOWETT, M.A. master of balliol college regius professor of greek in the university of oxford doctor in theology of the university of leyden
VOL. II. PART I CONTAINING THE NOTES
Oxford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1885
[All rights reserved]
Edition: current; Page: [1]

NOTES ON ARISTOTLE’S POLITICS.

BOOK I.

Jowett1885v1: 1. 1.ἐπειδὴ πα̂σαν πόλιν κ.τ.λ.

The order of the first paragraph is disturbed by the repetition of the statement that every community aims at some good. The meaning will be clearer if drawn out in a technical form:

  • Every community aims at some good:
  • Every city is a community; and therefore
  • Every city aims at some good.

Upon which rests a second syllogism with added determinants:

  • Whereas all communities aim at some good,
  • the highest aim at the highest good:
  • The city is the highest community; and therefore
  • The city aims at the highest good.

Compare the opening of the Nicom. Ethics, i. 1. § 1,—

πα̂σα τέχνη καὶ πα̂σα μέθοδος ὁμοίως δὲ πρα̂ξις καὶ προαίρεσις ἀγαθον̂ τινὸς ἐϕίεσθαι δοκεɩ̂· διὸ καλω̂ς ἀπεϕήναντο τἀγαθὸν οὑ̑ πάντ’ ἐϕίεται.

Similarly the Metaphysics begin with a general proposition, πάντες ἄνθρωποι τον̂ εἰδέναι ὀρέγονται ϕύσει; and the Posterior Analytics, πα̂σα διδασκαλία καὶ πα̂σα μάθησις διανοητικὴ ἐκ προϋπαρχούσης γίνεται γνώσεως.

The connexion of what follows in § 2, if there be any, is not easy to trace: ‘But a community is a complex organisation;’ Or, ‘But we must not suppose the different forms of communities to be the same;’ Or, the agreement described in the first sentence may be contrasted with the difference of opinion in the second;— Edition: current; Page: [2]‘We are all agreed about the end of the state, but we are not equally agreed about the definition of the ruler.’

Ὅσοι μὲν ον̓̂ν οἴονται πολιτικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν καὶ οἰκονομικὸν καὶJowett1885v1: 1. 2. δεσποτικὸν εἰ̂ναι τὸν αὐτὸν κ.τ.λ.

The starting-point of Aristotle’s enquiry here, as in many other passages, is a criticism of Plato. See Politicus, 259 C, ϕανερὸν ὡς ἐπιστήμη μία περὶ πάντ’ ἐστὶ ταν̂τα· ταύτην δὲ εἴτε βασιλικὴν εἴτε πολιτικὴν εἴτε οἰκονομικήν τις ὀνομάζει, μηδὲν αὐτῳ̑ διαϕερώμεθα.

This criticism is further worked out in ii. c. 1-5; cp. especially, c. 2. §§ 2-8, where Aristotle shows that the state is composed of dissimilar elements. An opposite view is maintained, or appears to be maintained by Socrates in Xen. Mem. iii. 4. § 12, where he says, ἡ τω̂ν ἰδίων ἐπιμέλεια πλήθει μόνον διαϕέρει τη̂ς τω̂ν κοινω̂ν; and § 7, where the good οἰκονόμος is said to be the good στρατηγός. This is a paradoxical way of insisting on the interdependence or identity of different callings; Aristotle rather dwells upon their diversity.

οἱ̑ον ἂν μὲν ὀλίγων. Sc. ἄρχων ᾐ̑, or ἄρχῃ.Jowett1885v1: 1. 2.

A general notion gathered from the words πολιτικὸν καὶ βασιλικὸν κ.τ.λ.

καὶ πολιτικὸν δὲ κ.τ.λ.,Jowett1885v1: 1. 2.

sc. τὸν ἄρχοντα λέγουσι.

τη̂ς ἐπιστήμης τη̂ς τοιαύτης,Jowett1885v1: 1. 2.

sc. πολιτικη̂ς, to be supplied either from the previous part of the sentence, or from the word πολιτικὸν which follows:—‘According to the principles of the science which deals with this subject.’ Cp. i. 8. § 7, θάλατταν τοιαύτην, where τοιαύτην is to be explained from ἁλιείας which precedes: and in the same chapter, § 9, τοιαύτη κτη̂σις, where τοιαύτη (meaning ‘in the sense of a bare livelihood’) is gathered from αὐτόϕυτος and μὴ δι’ ἀλλαγη̂ς in the previous section; and ii. 4. § 4, δεɩ̂ δὲ τοιούτους εἰ̂ναι τοὺς ἀρχομένους πρὸς τὸ πειθαρχεɩ̂ν καὶ μὴ νεωτερίζειν; where τοιούτους, meaning ‘disunited,’ is a notion supplied from the preceding words,—ἡ̑ττον γὰρ ἔσται ϕιλία κοινω̂ν ὄντων τω̂ν τέκνων καὶ τω̂ν γυναικω̂ν: and ii. 6. § 22, ὡς μὲν ον̓̂ν οὐκ ἐκ δημοκρατίας καὶ μοναρχίας δεɩ̂ συνιστάναι τὴν τοιαύτην πολιτείαν, where the Edition: current; Page: [3]idea of an ‘imperfect’ state, like that contained in Plato’s Laws, has to be gathered from the whole preceding passage.

κατὰ τὴν ὑϕηγημένην μέθοδον. Jowett1885v1: 1. 3.

i. e. the method of analysis which resolves the compound into the simple. Cp. c. 8. § 1, ὅλως δὲ περὶ πάσης κτήσεως καὶ χρηματιστικη̂ς θεωρήσωμεν κατὰ τὸν ὑϕηγημένον τρόπον, ἐπείπερ καὶ ὁ δον̂λος τη̂ς κτήσεως μέρος τι ἠ̑ν.

ὑϕηγημένην, ‘which we have followed,’ not merely in the Ethics, as Schneider and others; for the same expression occurs N. E. ii. 7. § 9 (κατὰ τὸν ὑϕηγημένον τρόπον), and therefore can hardly refer to them, but ‘generally’ or ‘in this discussion.’ The μέθοδος, like the λόγος in Plato, goes before and we follow. Cp. De Gen. Anim. 3. 758 a. 28, and note on c. 13. § 6.

ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἄλλοις τὸ σύνθετον μέχρι τω̂ν ἀσυνθέτων ἀνάγκη Jowett1885v1: 1. 3. διαιρεɩ̂ν (ταν̂τα γὰρ ἐλάχιστα μόρια τον̂ παντός), οὕτω καὶ πόλιν ἐξ ὡ̑ν σύγκειται σκοπον̂ντες ὀψόμεθα καὶ περὶ τούτων μα̂λλον, τί τε διαϕέρουσιν ἀλλήλων καὶ εἴ τι τεχνικὸν ἐνδέχεται λαβεɩ̂ν περὶ ἕκαστον τω̂ν ῥηθέντων.

τούτων may either refer 1)* to ἐξ ὡ̑ν σύγκειται, i. e. the elements of the state which he is going to distinguish in this book; or 2) to the different kinds of rule mentioned in the preceding paragraph (Bernays, Susemihl): in the latter case it is paraphrased by περὶ ἕκαστον τω̂ν ῥηθέντων, in the next clause. (For the vague antecedent to τούτων cp. supra c. 2. §§ 2, 12, etc., etc.) Aristotle treats of ‘the kinds of rule’ in Book iii. cc. 7, 8, and in the fourth and sixth books.

καί, according to the first explanation = ‘as about the state so about the elements of the state,’ according to the second, = ‘about kinds of government as well as about other things.’ ὥσπερ ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἄλλοις . . καὶ περὶ τούτων is repeated or resumed in ὥσπερ ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἄλλοις καὶ ἐν τούτοις at the beginning of the next paragraph, c. 2. § 1.

The argument is to the effect that if we analyse forms of government into their parts, or into their kinds, we shall see that they differ in something besides number—e. g. in the nature of the authority exercised in them, or in the character of their magistracies, or in the classification of their citizens. (Cp. iv. 4. § 7 ff.) That states consist not only of their elements, but have in them something analogous to the principle of life in the human Edition: current; Page: [4]frame, is a truth strongly felt by Plato (Rep. v. 462 D), less strongly by Aristotle (infra c. 2. § 13).

εἰ δή τις ἐξ ἀρχη̂ς τὰ πράγματα ϕυόμενα βλέψειεν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἄλλοις,Jowett1885v1: 2. 1. καὶ ἐν τούτοις κάλλιστ’ ἂν οὕτω θεωρήσειεν.

Aristotle does not mean that politics are to be studied in the light of history; but rather that the complex structure of the state is to be separated into the simple elements out of which it appears to be created. Yet the two points of view are not always distinguished by him; and his method of procedure is often historical (e. g. in Book v) as well as analytical.

καὶ ἐν . . . ϕυτοɩ̂ς ϕυσικὸν τὸ ἐϕίεσθαι, οἱ̑ον αὐτό, τοιον̂τον καταλιπεɩ̂νJowett1885v1: 2. 2. ἕτερον.

Aristotle, like Plato (Symp. 186), attributed sex to plants, male and female being combined in the same plant. The analogy of plants and animals is drawn out; De Gen. Anim. i. c. 23.

ταν̂τα ποιεɩ̂ν,Jowett1885v1: 2. 2.

sc. τὰ προορώμενα ὑπὸ τον̂ ἄρχοντος, another instance of the vague antecedent (c. 1. § 2 and c. 2. § 12).

τὴν Δελϕικὴν μάχαιραν.Jowett1885v1: 2. 3.

Evidently an instrument that could serve other purposes than that of a knife. Compare the ὀβελισκολύχνιον mentioned in iv. 15. § 8. The Delphian knife is described by Hesychius as λαμβάνουσα ἔμπροσθεν μέρος σιδηρον̂ν, ‘having an iron part added to it in front.’ The name is in some way connected with the sacrifice at Delphi, and is said in the appendix to the Proverbiorum Centuria, 1. 94 (p. 393 Schneidewin) to have passed into a proverb directed against the meanness of the Delphians in taking a part of the sacrifices and in charging for the use of the sacrificial knife. (See Goettling, Commentatio de Machaera Delphica, Jena, 1856.) We may agree with Schlosser in thinking that the matter is unimportant.

τὸ ϕύσει ἄρχον οὐκ ἔχουσιν, . . . γίνεται ἡ κοινωνία αὐτω̂ν δούλης καὶ δούλου.Jowett1885v1: 2. 4.

‘Among barbarians women are slaves. The reason is that all barbarians are equally slaves: there is no ruling principle among them such as gives the true relation of husband and wife, of master and slave; they are all upon a level.’ Cp. infra, cc. 12, 13.

Edition: current; Page: [5]

‘ο[Editor: illegible character]κον μὲν πρώτιστα γυναɩ̂κά τε βον̂ν τ’ ἀροτη̂ρα·’Jowett1885v1: 2. 5.

Compare Wallace’s Russia (p. 90. ed. 8). ‘The natural labour unit (i. e. the Russian peasant family of the old type) comprises a man, a woman, and a horse.’

εἰς πα̂σαν ἡμέραν.Jowett1885v1: 2. 5.

‘For wants which recur every day,’ and therefore can never be left unsatisfied.

ὁμοκάπνους.Jowett1885v1: 2. 5.

‘Sitting in the smoke of one fire’ is read by MSS. of the better class, P4, Ls, corr. Mb, William de Moerbek; ὁμοκάπους by the rest (Susemihl). The meaning of the latter word ‘fed at the same manger’ is better suited to the context.

ἡ δ’ ἐκ πλειόνων οἰκιω̂ν κοινωνία πρώτη χρήσεως ἕνεκεν μὴ ἐϕημέρου κώμη.Jowett1885v1: 2. 5.

There was a time when the κώμη or village community had an important place in Greek life. Cp. iii. 9. § 14, where it is joined with γένος (πόλις δὲ ἡ γενω̂ν καὶ κωμω̂ν κοινωνία ζωη̂ς τελείας καὶ αὐτάρκους), and Thucydides, i. 5: ib. 10 (κατὰ κώμας δὲ τῳ̑ παλαιῳ̑ τη̂ς Ἑλλάδος τρόπῳ οἰκισθείσης, sc. τη̂ς Σπάρτης). Such communities lasted into historical times in Ætolia, Acarnania, Arcadia, and even in Laconia. During the life of Aristotle himself the villages of Arcadia had been united by Epaminondas in the city of Megalopolis (cp. note on ii. 2. § 3).

πρώτη. To be taken with the words which follow: ‘When they began no longer to regard only the necessities of life.’

μάλιστα δὲ κατὰ ϕύσιν ἔοικεν ἡ κώμη ἀποικία οἰκίας εἰ̂ναι· οὓς καλον̂σίJowett1885v1: 2. 6. τινες ὁμογάλακτας, παɩ̂δάς τε καὶ παίδων παɩ̂δας.

‘The tie of relationship is still acknowledged in the village, which in its most natural form is only a larger family or a colony of the family.’ (There should be a comma in the Greek after ὁμογάλακτας; the words παɩ̂δάς τε κ.τ.λ. though construed with καλον̂σιν, being really an explanation of ἀποικία.) The form of the village community is most natural, not when composed of individuals combined by chance, say, for the purposes of plunder or self-defence, but when the family becoming enlarged leaves its original seat and finds a new home. The expression ἀποικία οἰκίας is not strictly accurate, for the village might grow up on the same spot.

Edition: current; Page: [6]

Cp. Cicero de Officiis, i. 17, ‘Nam cum sit hoc natura commune animantium, ut habeant lubidinem procreandi, prima societas in ipso conjugio est: proxima in liberis: deinde una domus, communia omnia. Id autem est principium urbis et quasi seminarium reipublicae. Sequuntur fratrum conjunctiones, post consobrinorum sobrinorumque; qui cum una domo jam capi non possunt, in alias domos tanquam in colonias exeunt. Sequuntur connubia et affinitates, ex quibus etiam plures propinqui. Quae propagatio et soboles origo est rerum publicarum.’

ὁμογάλακτες, a rare term for γεννη̂ται or ϕράτερες.

διὸ καὶ τὸ πρω̂τον ἐβασιλεύοντο αἱ πόλεις, καὶ νν̂ν ἔτι τὰ ἔθνη· ἐκJowett1885v1: 2. 6. βασιλευομένων γὰρ συνη̂λθον. πα̂σα γὰρ οἰκία βασιλεύεται ὑπὸ τον̂ πρεσβυτάτου, ὥστε καὶ αἱ ἀποικίαι διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν. καὶ τον̂τ’ ἐστὶν ὃ λέγει Ὅμηρος,

  • ‘θεμιστεύει δὲ ἕκαστος
  • παίδων ἠδ’ ἀλόχων.’

σποράδες γάρ· καὶ οὕτω τὸ ἀρχαɩ̂ον ᾢκουν. καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς δὲ διὰ τον̂το πάντες ϕασὶ βασιλεύεσθαι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ μὲν ἔτι καὶ νν̂ν, οἱ δὲ τὸ ἀρχαɩ̂ον ἐβασιλεύοντο· ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη ἑαυτοɩ̂ς ἀϕομοιον̂σιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς βίους τω̂ν θεω̂ν.

The argument is as follows: The rise of the village from the family explains also the existence of monarchy in ancient Hellas. For in the family the eldest rules. This rule of the eldest in the family is continued into the village, and from that passes into the state. In support of his opinion Aristotle quotes what Homer says of the Cyclopes (a passage also quoted by Plato, Laws 680, in a similar connexion), and he further illustrates it by men’s ideas about the Gods, to whom they attribute a regal or patriarchal form of government, such as their own had been in primitive times.

τὰ ἔθνη here as in ii. 5. § 2 (see note in loco), a general term for barbarians.

ἐκ βασιλευομένων γὰρ συνη̂λθον.

Aristotle is here speaking of one kind of monarchy, which may be called the patriarchal. In iii. 14. § 12, he attributes the rise of monarchy to the benefits conferred on the inhabitants of a country in peace or war by distinguished individuals, whereas in this passage he assigns to it a patriarchal origin. Both accounts Edition: current; Page: [7]have probably a certain degree of truth in them. And doubtless in history either form of monarchy may have taken the place of the other; a series of undistinguished kings may have been interrupted by the hero or legislator, and the hero or legislator may have transmitted his power to his posterity. Cp. also iv. 13. § 12.

διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν.

Either ‘the relation of the members of the κώμη (γένος) to one another,’ or ‘to the original οἰκία.’

‘θεμιστεύει δὲ ἕκαστος παίδων ἠδ’ ἀλόχων.’

Odyssey ix. 114; again alluded to in Nicom. Ethics x. 9. § 13, κυκλωπικω̂ς θεμιστεύων παίδων ἠδ’ ἀλόχου.

ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη ἑαυτοɩ̂ς ἀϕομοιον̂σιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι οὕτω καὶ τοὺς βίους τω̂ν θεω̂ν.

This is especially true of the Greeks, who limited the divine by the human; in other mythologies the idea of a superior being who could not be conceived, led to extravagance and grotesqueness. And even among the Greeks, the light of fancy was always breaking in, though not in such a manner as to impair the harmony of the poetical vision.

τέλειος πόλις.Jowett1885v1: 2. 8.

Opposed to πρώτη (§ 5).

γινομένη μὲν ον̓̂ν τον̂ ζη̂ν ἕνεκεν, ον̓̂σα δὲ τον̂ εν̓̂ ζη̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 2. 8.

‘The state is created for the maintenance of life, but when once established has a higher aim.’

ον̓̂σα partly derives its meaning from γινομένη, ‘having a true being’ opposed to ‘coming into being’ (cp. οὐσία and γένεσις).

ἡ δὲ ϕύσις τέλος [Editor: illegible character]στίν.Jowett1885v1: 2. 8.

By Aristotle the end of a thing is said to be its nature; the best and alone self-sufficing development of it. From this transcendental point of view the state is prior to the individual, the whole to the part (§ 12). But he is not always consistent in his use of language; for while in this passage he speaks of the state as the end or final cause of the οἰκία, in Nic. Ethics viii. 12. § 7 he also speaks of the οἰκία as prior to the state and more necessary (πρότερον καὶ ἀναγκαιότερον οἰκία πόλεως). Cp. Categories c. 12, 14 a 26.

εἴπερ καὶ αἱ πρω̂ται κοινωνίαι.Jowett1885v1: 2. 8.

Edition: current; Page: [8]

‘If the original elements of the state exist by nature, the state must exist by nature.’ But is the argument sound? are not two senses of the word nature here confused?

τω̂ν ϕύσει ἡ πόλις.Jowett1885v1: 2. 9.

i.e. because it is the end, the fulfilment, the self-sufficing, the good: yet there is another sense of the word ϕύσις, which is not applicable to the state.

ϕύσει τοιον̂τος καὶ πολέμου ἐπιθυμητής, ἅτε περ ἄζυξ ὢν ὥσπερ ἐν πεττοɩ̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 2. 10.

Lit. ‘For the alien, who is by nature such as I have described, is also a lover of war.’

The margin of one MS. supported by the old Latin Version (which gives ‘sicut in volatilibus’) reads πετεινοɩ̂ς. πετοɩ̂ς is the reading of one late MS., πεττοɩ̂ς apparently of all the rest. In support of the last a very difficult epigram of Agathias (Pal. Anthology, ix. 482) is adduced in which the term ἄζυξ occurs in the description of a game played with dice and similar to our backgammon; the game is not however called πεττοί, nor does the description answer to the game of πεττοί. The word ἄζυξ, when applied to a game, may mean either ‘exposed’ or ‘blocked,’ and so incapable of combination or action. With ἐν πετεινοɩ̂ς, ἄζυξ might be interpreted of birds of prey which fly alone, the solitary opposed to the gregarious: cp. παντὸς ἀγελαίου ζῴου in the next sentence.

But neither ἐν πεττοɩ̂ς nor ἐν πετεινοɩ̂ς can be precisely explained. The variations of reading (omission of ἄζυξ ὤν, alteration into ἄνευ ζυγον̂ τυγχάνων) shew that the copyists were in a difficulty. We can only infer that whether applied to birds or to the pieces of a game, the word ἄζυξ is here used as a figure representing the solitude of a savage who has no city or dwelling-place.

διότι.Jowett1885v1: 2. 10.

Either 1) *‘why,’ or 2) ‘that.’ In either case the reason is supplied from what follows (§ 11):—‘Man has the faculty of speech, and speech was given him that he might express pleasure and pain, good and evil, the ideas which lie at the basis of the state.’

ἡ δὲ τούτων κοινωνία ποιεɩ̂ οἰκίαν καὶ πόλιν.Jowett1885v1: 2. 12.

τούτων, sc. ‘of these perceptions,’ or rather ‘of those who have these perceptions.’ For the vague antecedent see note on § 2.

Edition: current; Page: [9]

καὶ πρότερον δὴ τῃ̑ ϕύσει κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 2. 12.

In idea the state is prior to the family, as the whole is prior to the part, for the true or perfect family cannot exist until human nature is developed in the state: but in time, and in history, the family and the village are prior to the state. The state is ϕύσει πρότερον, but the family χρόνῳ πρότερον. See above, note on § 8, and Categ. c. 12, 14 a, 26.

διαϕθαρεɩ̂σα γὰρ ἔσται τοιαύτη.Jowett1885v1: 2. 13.

Referring either 1) to ὁμωνύμως:—‘When the powers of the hand are destroyed (διαϕθαρεɩ̂σα) it will only be such in an equivocal sense;’ or 2) *to ὥσπερ λιθίνη ‘it will be like a stone hand.’ Cp. Sir J. F. Stephen’s Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, p. 128, ‘A man would no more be a man if he was alone in the world, than a hand would be a hand without the rest of the body.’

ὅτι μὲν ον̓̂ν ἡ πόλις καὶ ϕύσει καὶ πρότερον ἢ ἕκαστος, δη̂λον· εἰ γὰρ μὴJowett1885v1: 2. 14. αὐτάρκης ἕκαστος χωρισθείς, ὁμοίως τοɩ̂ς ἄλλοις μέρεσιν ἕξει πρὸς τὸ ὅλον.

This is a resumption of the words; καὶ πρότερον δὴ τῃ̑ ϕύσει κ.τ.λ. in § 12. ‘That the state exists by nature and is prior to the individual is proved by the consideration that the individual is not self-sufficing; he is therefore a part, like every other part, relative to the whole and so implying it.’

ὥστε ἢ θηρίον ἢ θεός.Jowett1885v1: 2. 14.

Compare the old scholastic aphorism derived from Aristotle that ‘the man who lives wholly detached from others must be either an angel or a devil;’ quoted by Burke, ‘Thoughts on the causes of the present discontent,’ vol. i. p. 340, edit. 1826.

ϕύσει μὲν ον̓̂ν ἡ ὁρμή.Jowett1885v1: 2. 15.

‘True, the political instinct is implanted in all men by nature: yet he who brought them together in a state was the greatest of benefactors’: or 2) with a less marked opposition: ‘The political instinct is natural; and he who first brought men together [and so developed it] was the greatest of benefactors.’

Here as elsewhere Aristotle presupposes a given material, upon which, according to the traditional Greek notion, the legislator works. Society is born and grows, but it is also made.

Edition: current; Page: [10]

ὁ δ’ ἄνθρωπος ὅπλα ἔχων ϕύεται ϕρονήσει καὶ ἀρετῃ̑, οἱ̑ς ἐπὶ τἀναντίαJowett1885v1: 2. 16. ἔστι χρη̂σθαι μάλιστα.

1) *ὅπλα ἔχων = ὡπλισμένος, the words ϕρονήσει καὶ ἀρετῃ̑ being datives of the instrument. It seems strange at first sight to speak of ϕρόνησις and ἀρετή as capable of a wrong direction. We might rather have expected Aristotle to have distinguished ϕρόνησις from what in Nic. Eth. vi. 12. § 9, is called δεινότης, (an intellectual capacity which may receive a good direction and become ϕρόνησις; but may also when receiving a bad direction become πανουργία) and ἀρετή, from what in the same passage of the Ethics is spoken of as mere ϕυσικὴ ἀρετὴ (Nic. Eth. vi. 13. §§ 1 and 2) or in the Magna Moralia i. c. 35, 1197 b. 39, as ὁρμαί τινες ἄνευ λόγου πρὸς τὰ ἀνδρεɩ̂α καὶ τὰ δίκαια κ.τ.λ., which may become injurious unless directed by reason (ἄνευ νον̂ βλαβεραὶ ϕαίνονται ον̓̂σαι, Nic. Eth. vi. 13, § 1). But the transfer of certain words from a good to a neutral sense or from a technical to a general one is common in Aristotle; and in the fluctuating state of philosophical language may be expected to occur. We must not suppose that he always employed words in the same senses; or that he had a scientific vocabulary fixed by use and ready on all occasions.

2) Bernays and others translate ‘Man is by nature equipped with arms or instruments for wisdom and virtue;’ i. e. Man has a natural capacity which may be developed into ϕρόνησις and ἀρετή, or may degenerate into their opposites. This gives an excellent meaning and agrees in the use of words as well as in thought with the passage in the Ethics referred to above. But the construction of the dative in the sense of ‘for’ after ὅπλα ἔχων is impossible. Or if 3) the datives are taken with ϕύεται, a construction which is quite possible, the words ὅπλα ἔχων become pointless. In this uncertainty of the construction the general meaning is clear; viz., that ‘man has intelligence and an aptitude for virtue, gifts which are in the highest degree capable of abuse.’

ἐπὶ τἀναντία ἔστι χρη̂σθαι μάλιστα. There is an inaccuracy in these words; for it is not virtue and knowledge which can be turned to the worst uses (cp. Rhet. i. 1355 b. 4) but the finer nature which is alone capable of virtue. Cp. Goethe’s Faust, Prologue in Heaven, where Mephistopheles says, ‘Er nennt’s Vernunft und braucht’s allein nur thierischer als jedes Thier zu sein;’ and Nic. Eth. vii. 6. Edition: current; Page: [11]§ 7, ἔλαττον δὲ θηριότης κακίας ϕοβερώτερον δέ. Compare also Plato Repub. vi. 495 A, B, where it is said that the best, i.e. the greatest natures, if they are ill educated, become the worst:—καὶ ἐκ τούτων δὴ τω̂ν ἀνδρω̂ν καὶ οἱ τὰ μέγιστα κακὰ ἐργαζόμενοι τὰς πόλεις γίγνονται καὶ τοὺς ἰδιώτας καὶ οἱ τἀγαθά, οἳ ἂν ταύτῃ τύχωσι ῥυέντες· σμικρὰ δὲ ϕύσις οὐδὲν μέγα οὐδέποτε οὐδένα οὔτε ἰδιώτην οὔτε πόλιν δρᾳ̑.

ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη πολιτικόν· ἡ γὰρ δίκη πολιτικη̂ς κοινωνίας τάξις ἐστίν· ἡJowett1885v1: 2. 16. δὲ δίκη τον̂ δικαίου κρίσις.

‘But the virtue of justice unites men in states (i.e. is the quality opposed to the lawlessness which makes men lower than the beasts), and executive justice is the ordering of political society and the decision of what is just.’

In this passage δίκη is the ‘administration of justice’: δικαιοσύνη, ‘the virtue of justice’: τὸ δίκαιον, ‘the principle of justice to be applied in each case.’

οἰκίας δὲ μέρη, ἐξ ὡ̑ν αν̓̂θις οἰκία συνίσταται· οἰκία δὲ τέλειος ἐκJowett1885v1: 3. 1. δούλων καὶ ἐλευθέρων.

αν̓̂θις = ‘in turn.’ ‘As the state is made up of households, so the household in turn is made up of lesser parts; and a complete household includes both slaves and freemen.’ Of these elements of the household Aristotle now proceeds to speak.

ταν̂τα δ’ ἐστὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ γαμική (ἀνώνυμον γὰρ ἡ γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρὸςJowett1885v1: 3. 2. σύζευξις) καὶ τρίτον τεκνοποιητική.

Not finding common words which express his idea, Aristotle gives new senses to γαμική and τεκνοποιητική. In ordinary Greek they would have meant ‘of or referring to marriage,’ and ‘to the procreation of children’: here he extends their meaning to the whole marital or parental relation. It was natural in the beginning of philosophy to make new words, or to give new meanings to old ones; cp. Plato, Theæt. 182 A, where he calls ποιότης an ἀλλόκοτον ὄνομα, and Nic. Eth. v. 6. § 9, where the relation of husband and wife is termed by a periphrasis τὸ οἰκονομικὸν δίκαιον, or τὸ πρὸς γυναɩ̂κα δίκαιον: cp. also c. 12. § 1 infra, where πατρική is used for what is here called τεκνοποιητική. That Aristotle found many words wanting in his philosophical vocabulary, we gather from Nic. Eth. ii. 7. §§ 2, Edition: current; Page: [12]3, 8, 11, De Interp. c. 2 and 3, and infra iii. 1. § 7, where similar remarks are made upon ἀναισθησία, upon the anonymous mean of ϕιλοτιμία and ἀϕιλοτιμία, upon ἀϕοβία the excess of courage, and upon ὄνομα ἀόριστον, ῥη̂μα ἀόριστον, ἀόριστος ἀρχή.

ἔστωσαν δ’ αὑ̑ται τρεɩ̂ς ἃς εἴπομεν.Jowett1885v1: 3. 2.

‘Let us assume the relationships, by whatever names they are called, to be three, those which I have mentioned.’ Cp. περὶ τριω̂ν § 1 above. The passage would read more smoothly if αἱ were inserted before τρεɩ̂ς: ‘let there be those three.’

τοɩ̂ς δὲ παρὰ ϕύσιν τὸ δεσπόζειν.Jowett1885v1: 3. 4.

Many traces of this sophistic or humanistic feeling occur in Greek Poetry, especially in Euripides: some of the most striking are collected by Oncken, Die Staatslehre des Aristoteles, vol. ii. pp. 34-36:—

Eurip. Ion, 854-856,—

  • ἓν γάρ τι τοɩ̂ς δούλοισιν αἰσχύνην ϕέρει
  • τοὔνομα· τὰ δ’ ἄλλα πάντα τω̂ν ἐλευθέρων
  • οὐδεὶς κακίων δον̂λος, ὅστις ἐσθλὸς ᾐ̑.

ib. Helena, 726 ff.,—

  • κακὸς γὰρ ὅστις μὴ σέβει τὰ δεσποτω̂ν
  • καὶ ξυγγέγηθε καὶ ξυνωδίνει κακοɩ̂ς.
  • ἔγω μὲν εἴην, κεἰ πέϕυχ’ ὑμω̂ν λάτρις,
  • ἐν τοɩ̂σι γενναίοισιν ἠριθμημένος
  • δούλοισι, τοὔνομ’ οὐκ ἔχων ἐλεύθερον
  • τὸν νον̂ν δέ.

ib. Melanippe, fr. 515,—

  • δον̂λον γὰρ ἐσθλὸν τοὔνομ’ οὐ διαϕθερεɩ̂
  • πολλοὶ δ’ ἀμείνους εἰσὶ τω̂ν ἐλευθέρων.

Philem. apud Stobæum,—

  • κἂν δον̂λος ᾐ̑ τις, οὐθὲν ἡ̑ττον, δέσποτα,
  • ἄνθρωπος οὑ̑τός ἐστιν, ἂν ἄνθρωπος ᾐ̑.

ib. fr. 39,—

  • κἂν δον̂λός ἐστι, σάρκα τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει·
  • ϕύσει γὰρ οὐδεὶς δον̂λος ἐγενήθη ποτέ·
  • ἡ δ’ αν̓̂ Τύχη τὸ σω̂μα κατεδουλώσατο.

βίαιον γάρ.Jowett1885v1: 3. 4.

Edition: current; Page: [13]

Either 1) * = παρὰ ϕύσιν or simply 2) ‘brought about by violence;’ βία may be opposed either to ϕύσις or νόμος or both.

ὥσπερ δὲ ἐν ταɩ̂ς ὡρισμ[Editor: illegible character]ναις τέχναις ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ἂν εἴη ὑπάρχειν τὰJowett1885v1: 4. 1. οἰκεɩ̂α ὄργανα, εἰ μέλλει ἀποτελεσθήσεσθαι τὸ ἔργον, οὕτω καὶ τω̂ν οἰκονομικω̂ν.

The first six words ὥσπερ . . . τέχναις are read as in Bekker supported by some MSS. There is also MS. authority for the omission of δέ; and for the omission of both δὲ and ἐν.

Retaining Bekker’s reading, we must either 1) *translate, as in the text, making the apodosis to ἐπεὶ ον̓̂ν begin with καὶ ἡ κτητική; or 2) δὲ after ὥσπερ may be regarded as marking the apodosis; or 3) the sentence may be an anacoluthon; as frequently after ἐπεὶ in Aristotle (cp. Rhet. ii. 25, 1402 b. 26 ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ μὲν κατηγορω̂ν δι’ εἰκότων ἀποδείκνυσιν κ.τ.λ.). If we omit δέ, the apodosis still begins with ὥσπερ.

ταɩ̂ς ὡρισμέναις τέχναις: The arts which have a definite sphere, such as the art of the pilot, or of the carpenter, contrasted with the ill defined arts of politics or household management, cp. c. 13, § 13 ὁ γὰρ βάναυσος τεχνίτης ἀϕωρισμένην τινὰ ἔχει δουλείαν.

Instead of Bekker’s reading οὕτω καὶ τω̂ν οἰκονομικω̂ν another reading οὕτω καὶ τῳ̑ οἰκονομικῳ̑ has been proposed on the authority of the old translation (Moerbek) ‘sic et yconomico.’ But τω̂ν οἰκονομικω̂ν is more idiomatic and has the support of the greater number of MSS. Sc. οἰκεɩ̂α ὄργανα δεɩ̂ ὑπάρχειν.

καὶ ὥσπερ ὄργανον πρὸ ὀργάνων.Jowett1885v1: 4. 2.

Not ‘instead of’ but ‘taking precedence of’:—the slave is in idea prior to the tool which he uses. He is an instrument, but he is also a link between his master and the inferior instruments which he uses and sets in motion.

For the use of πρὸ cp. the proverb quoted in c. 7. § 3 δον̂λος πρὸ δούλου, δεσπότης πρὸ δεσπότου. So the hand is spoken of as ὄργανον πρὸ ὀργάνων (De Part. Anim. iv. 10, 687 a. 21).

εἰ γὰρ ἠδύνατο κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 4. 3.

The connexion is as follows:—‘There are not only lifeless but living instruments; for the lifeless instrument cannot execute its purpose without the living.’

Edition: current; Page: [14]

τὰ μὲν ον̓̂ν λεγόμενα ὄργανα ποιητικὰ ὄργανά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ κτη̂μα πρακτικόν·Jowett1885v1: 4. 4. ἀπὸ μὲν γὰρ τη̂ς κερκίδος ἕτερόν τι γίνεται παρὰ τὴν χρη̂σιν αὐτη̂ς, ἀπὸ δὲ τη̂ς ἐσθη̂τος καὶ τη̂ς κλίνης ἡ χρη̂σις μόνον.

It was said that a possession is an instrument for maintaining life, and there seems to be no reason why both κτήματα and ὄργανα should not be regarded as different aspects of wealth (cp. infra c. 8. § 15, ὁ δὲ πλον̂τος ὀργάνων πλη̂θός ἐστιν οἰκονομικω̂ν καὶ πολιτικω̂ν, and Plato Politicus 287 D, who feels the difficulty of specialising the notion of an ὄργανον: ‘there is plausibility in saying that everything in the world is the instrument of doing something’). But here the term instrument, used in a narrower sense, is opposed to a possession, and regarded as a mere instrument of production. A parallel distinction is drawn between production and action, and the slave is described as the instrument of action. But he is also spoken of as the ‘instrument preceding instruments’ (§ 2), words which rather indicate the minister of production. Aristotle passes from one point of view to another without marking the transition.

He wants to discriminate the household slave from the artisan; but in the attempt to make this distinction becomes confused. The conception of the slave on which he chiefly insists is that he is relative to a master and receives from him a rule of life: c. 13. §§ 12-14. He therefore differs from the artisan.

τὰ λεγόμενα, e.g. instruments such as the shuttle, etc.

ὁ δὲ βίος πρα̂ξις, οὐ ποίησίς ἐστιν· διὸ καὶ ὁ δον̂λος ὑπηρέτης τω̂ν πρὸςJowett1885v1: 4. 5. τὴν πρα̂ξιν.

‘Life is action, and therefore the slave, i.e. the household slave, is the minister of action, because he ministers to his master’s life.’

τὸ γὰρ μόριον οὐ μόνον ἄλλου ἐστὶ μόριον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅλως ἄλλου.Jowett1885v1: 4. 5.

Cp. Nic. Eth. v. 6. § 8, τὸ δὲ κτη̂μα καὶ τὸ τέκνον, ἕως ἂν ᾐ̑ πηλίκον καὶ μὴ χωρισθῃ̑, ὥσπερ μέρος αὐτον̂.

ὅλως ἐκείνου.Jowett1885v1: 4. 5.

The master although relative to the slave has an existence of his own, but the slave’s individuality is lost in his master.

τῳ̑ λόγῳ θεωρη̂σαι καὶ ἐκ τω̂ν γινομένων καταμαθεɩ̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 5. 1.

Here as elsewhere Aristotle distinguishes between reasoning and Edition: current; Page: [15]facts, the analogy of nature supplying the theory, the observation of the differences which exist among mankind, the fact. Cp. infra vii. 1. § 6, and Nic. Eth. i. 8. § 1; ix. 8. § 2; x. 1. § 4, and Plato (Polit. 278 D), who speaks of the ‘long and difficult language of facts.’ The verbal antithesis of λόγος and ἔργον, which in Thucydides is often merely rhetorical, enters deeply into the philosophy of Aristotle. There is however no real opposition between them any more than between the a priori and a posteriori reasoning of modern philosophers, which are only different modes of proving or of conceiving the same fact.

εὐθὺς ἐκ γενετη̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 5. 2.

‘From their very birth,’ or, with a logical turn, ‘to go no further than the state of birth;’ cp. c. 13. § 6, καὶ τον̂το εὐθὺς ὑϕήγηται περὶ τὴν ψυχήν and infra § 4, τὸ δὲ ζῳ̑ον πρω̂τον κ.τ.λ.

ὅπου δὲ τὸ μὲν ἄρχει, τὸ δὲ ἄρχεται, ἔστι τι τούτων ἔργον.Jowett1885v1: 5. 3.

‘As ruler and subject, they may be said to have a work or function—the one to command, the other to obey, apart from any other work or function.’

εἴτ’ ἐκ συνεχω̂ν εἴτ’ ἐκ διῃρημένων.Jowett1885v1: 5. 3.

For the division of quantity into continuous and discrete, cp. Categ. 6. 1, p. 4 b. 20, and Nic. Eth. ii. 6. § 4. The human frame would be an instance of the first, musical harmony or a chorus or an army of the second. The πόλις may be said to partake of the nature of both in being one body and having many offices or members.

καὶ τον̂το ἐκ τη̂ς ἁπάσης ϕύσεως ἐνυπάρχει τοɩ̂ς ἐμψύχοις· καὶ γὰρ ἐνJowett1885v1: 5. 4. τοɩ̂ς μὴ μετέχουσι ζωη̂ς ἐστί τις ἀρχή, οἱ̑ον ἁρμονίας.

1) The connexion is as follows: ‘This principle of a superior is found in living beings, but not confined to them. *It is derived from the universal nature, for it pervades all things, inanimate as well as animate’ (so Bernays). It is remarkable that Aristotle recognises a common principle pervading alike organic and inorganic nature.

2) Or ἐκ is partitive; see Bonitz, Index Arist. 225 b. 11 ff. ‘Out of all the kingdom of nature this is found [especially] in living beings’ (Stahr, Susemihl). But according to this interpretation, Edition: current; Page: [16]the addition of μάλιστα after ἐνυπάρχει, suggested by Susemihl, appears to be indispensable to the meaning.

οἱ̑ον ἁρμονίας.

Either 1)* ‘as in musical harmony there is a ruling principle determining the character of the harmony,’ or 2) ‘as harmony is a ruling principle governing the combinations of sounds.’ The first accords best with the common meaning of the word ἁρμονία and with the use of the genitive.

ἐξωτερικωτέρας.Jowett1885v1: 5. 4.

‘Somewhat foreign to the present subject,’ not in the sense of ἐξωτερικοὶ λόγοι.

τὸ δὲ ζῳ̑ον πρω̂τον συνέστηκεν ἐκ ψυχη̂ς καὶ σώματος, ὡ̑ν τὸ μὲν ἄρχονJowett1885v1: 5. 4. ἐστὶ ϕύσει τὸ δ’ ἀρχόμενον.

i. e. ‘the living creature, as soon as we begin to analyse it, is found to consist of soul and body.’

The opposition expressed by δὲ in τὸ δὲ ζῳ̑ον is as follows: ‘not to speak of the whole of nature, but of the living creature only.’

For πρω̂τον (which is to be taken with συνέστηκε) meaning either ‘to go no further,’ or ‘as the first result of analysis,’ cp. πρω̂τον ἐν ζῴῳ θεωρη̂σαι infra § 6, and the similar use of εὐθὺς supra § 2.

δεɩ̂ δὲ σκοπεɩ̂ν ἐν τοɩ̂ς κατὰ ϕύσιν ἔχουσι μα̂λλον τὸ ϕύσει καὶ μὴ ἐν τοɩ̂ςJowett1885v1: 5. 5. διεϕθαρμένοις.

Cp. Nic. Eth. ix. 9. § 8 and Cicero Tusc. Disput. i. 14 ‘num dubitas quin specimen naturae capi deceat ex optima quaque natura?’

ἔστι δ’ ον̓̂ν ὥσπερ λέγομεν.Jowett1885v1: 5. 6.

A resumption of the words τὸ δὲ ζῳ̑ον πρω̂τον above.

ἡ μὲν γὰρ ψυχή κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 5. 6.

Psychology, like logic, is constantly made by Aristotle and Plato the basis or form of politics. The individual is the image of the state in the complexity of his life and organisation, and the relations of the parts of the state are expressed and even suggested by the divisions of the soul, and the relations of mind and body.

τυγχάνει γὰρ σωτηρίας οὕτως.Jowett1885v1: 5. 7.

Cp. supra c. 2. § 2 ἄρχον δὲ ϕύσει καὶ ἀρχόμενον διὰ τὴν σωτηρίαν. Edition: current; Page: [17]εἴπερ καὶ τοɩ̂ς εἰρημένοις.Jowett1885v1: 5. 8.

I.e. for the animals, for the body, for the female sex, for τὸ παθητικὸν μόριον τη̂ς ψυχη̂ς, to which he has just referred as inferiors.

διὸ καὶ ἄλλου ἐστίν.Jowett1885v1: 5. 9.

‘Because he is by nature capable of belonging to another, he does belong to another.’

τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα ζῳ̑α οὐ λόγου αἰσθανόμενα, ἀλλὰ παθήμασιν ὑπηρετεɩ̂· καὶ ἡJowett1885v1: 5. 9. χρεία δὲ παραλλάττει μικρόν.

‘The difference between the slave and the animal is that the slave can apprehend reason but the animal cannot; the use of them is much the same.’

Aristotle is chiefly dwelling on the resemblance between the slave and the animal: but in nothing the difference, he has not duly subordinated it to the general tone of the passage. Hence an awkwardness in the connection.

βούλεται μὲν ον̓̂ν ἡ ϕύσις καὶ τὰ σώματα διαϕέροντα ποιεɩ̂ν τὰ τω̂νJowett1885v1: 5. 10. ἐλευθέρων καὶ τω̂ν δούλων, τὰ μὲν ἰσχυρὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν χρη̂σιν, τὰ δ’ ὀρθὰ καὶ ἄχρηστα πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ἐργασίας, ἀλλὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς πολιτικὸν βίον (οὑ̑τος δὲ καὶ γίνεται διῃρημένος εἴς τε τὴν πολεμικὴν χρείαν καὶ τὴν εἰρηνικήν), συμβαίνει δὲ πολλάκις καὶ τοὐναντίον, τοὺς μὲν τὰ σώματ’ ἔχειν ἐλευθέρων τοὺς δὲ τὰς ψυχάς.

‘Nature would in fact like, if she could, to make a difference between the bodies of freemen and slaves . . . but her intention is not always fulfilled; for some men have the bodies and some the souls of freemen:’ that is to say, they are deficient in the other half. The bodies of freemen and the souls of freemen are found indifferently among freemen and slaves: or, referring τοὺς μὲν to the freemen and τοὺς δὲ to the slaves: ‘the one (the freemen) may have the bodies only of freemen, i. e. the souls of slaves, the others (the slaves) may have the souls of freemen.’

ἐλευθέρων must be taken both with σώματα and ψυχάς.

βούλεται expresses, first of all, ‘intention’ or ‘design;’ secondly, ‘tendency.’ The personal language easily passes into the impersonal. Cp. for the use of βούλομαι Nic. Eth. v. 8. § 14, βούλεται μένειν μα̂λλον, sc. τὸ νόμισμα, and infra c. 12. § 2. For the general Edition: current; Page: [18]thought, cp. Theognis (line 535 Bergk), οὔποτε δουλείη κεϕαλὴ ἰθεɩ̂α πέϕυκεν ¦ ἀλλ’ αἰεὶ σκολιή, καὐχένα λοξὸν ἔχει.

ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὁμοίως ῥᾴδιον ἰδεɩ̂ν τό τε τη̂ς ψυχη̂ς κάλλος καὶ τὸ τον̂Jowett1885v1: 5. 11. σώματος.

The connection is,—‘There is as great difference between souls as between bodies or even greater, but not in the same degree perceptible.’ For the ‘sight of the invisible’ cp. Plat. Phaedr. 250 D, ‘For sight is the keenest of our bodily senses, though not by that is wisdom seen,’ and the words preceding.

ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν εἰσὶ ϕύσει τινὲς οἱ μὲν ἐλεύθεποι, οἱ δὲ δον̂λοι, ϕανερόν·Jowett1885v1: 5. 11.

οἱ μὲν and οἱ δὲ are not subdivisions of τινές, which is itself partitive, but there appears to be a pleonastic confusion of two constructions; 1) τινὲς μὲν ἐλεύθεροι τινὲς δὲ δον̂λοι: and 2) οἱ μὲν ἐλεύθεροι οἱ δὲ δούλοι. In other words the construction beginning with τινὲς has varied into οἱ μὲν—οἱ δέ.

ὥσπερ ῥήτορα γράϕονται παρανόμων.Jowett1885v1: 6. 2.

‘But a convention by which captives taken in war are made slaves, is a violation of nature, and may be accused of illegality like the author of an unconstitutional measure.’ The more common view is expressed in Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. § 73, νόμος γὰρ ἐν πα̂σιν ἀνθρώποις ἀΐδιός ἐστιν, ὅταν πολεμούντων πόλις ἁλῳ̑, τω̂ν ἑλόντων εἰ̂ναι καὶ τὰ σώματα τω̂ν ἐν τῃ̑ πόλει καὶ τὰ χρήματα.

αἴτιον δὲ ταύτης τη̂ς ἀμϕισβητήσεως, καὶ ὃ ποιεɩ̂ τοὺς λόγους ἐπαλλάττειν,Jowett1885v1: 6. 3, 4. ὅτι τρόπον τινὰ ἀρετὴ τυγχάνουσα χορηγίας καὶ βιάζεσθαι δύναται μάλιστα, καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ τὸ κρατον̂ν ἐν ὑπεροχῃ̑ ἀγαθον̂ τινός, ὥστε δοκεɩ̂ν μὴ ἄνευ ἀρετη̂ς εἰ̂ναι τὴν βίαν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τον̂ δικαίου μόνον εἰ̂ναι τὴν ἀμϕισβήτησιν. Διὰ γὰρ τον̂το τοɩ̂ς μὲν εὔνοια δοκεɩ̂ τὸ δίκαιον εἰ̂ναι, τοɩ̂ς δ’ αὐτὸ τον̂το δίκαιον, τὸ τὸν κρείττονα ἄρχειν, ἐπεὶ διαστάντων γε χωρὶς τούτων τω̂ν λόγων οὔτ’ ἰσχυρὸν οὐθὲν ἔχουσιν οὔτε πιθανὸν ἅτεροι λόγοι, ὡς οὐ δεɩ̂ τὸ βέλτιον κατ’ ἀρετὴν ἄρχειν καὶ δεσπόζειν.

ὃ ποιεɩ̂ τοὺς λόγους, κ.τ.λ. Not ‘makes the reasons ambiguous’ (Liddell and Scott), but ‘makes the arguments pass from one side to the other,’ or, ‘makes them overlap’ or ‘invade each other’s territory,’ as in the Homeric phrase, ὁμοιίου πολέμοιο ¦ πεɩ̂ραρ ἐπαλλάξαντες Edition: current; Page: [19](Il. xiii. 358, 9), and in iv. 10. § 2,—τυραννίδος δ’ εἴδη δύο μὲν διείλομεν ἐν οἱ̑ς περὶ βασιλείας ἐπεσκοπον̂μεν, διὰ τὸ τὴν δύναμιν ἐπαλλάττειν πως αὐτω̂ν καὶ πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν. vi. 1. § 3,—ταν̂τα γὰρ συνδυαζόμενα ποιεɩ̂ τὰς πολιτείας ἐπαλλάττειν, ὥστε ἀριστοκρατίας τε ὀλιγαρχικὰς εἰ̂ναι καὶ πολιτείας δημοκρατικωτέρας. See also infra c. 9. § 15. Virtue and power are opposed: but from one point of view the arguments cross over or pass into one another, because there is an element of virtue in power and of power in virtue. Cp. Plat. Rep. i. 352 ff.

Διὰ γὰρ τον̂το, κ.τ.λ. The translation given in the text nearly agrees with that of Bernays: the phrase τούτων τω̂ν λόγων in § 4 refers, not to the τοὺς λόγους of § 3, but to the two positions which immediately precede; the first, that justice is benevolence; the second, that justice is the rule of a superior. These two positions, according to Aristotle, have a common ground, which explains why such a difference of opinion can exist (§ 3). This common ground is the connexion between ἀρετὴ and βία; the point in dispute being whether the principle of justice is benevolence or power (§§ 3, 4). If these two propositions are simply kept apart and not allowed to combine, there will follow the silly and unmeaning result that the superior in virtue is not entitled to rule: ‘but there is no force or plausibility in this’ [and therefore they cannot be kept apart, but must be combined]. Aristotle is arguing from his own strong conviction, which is repeated again and again in the Politics, that the superior in virtue has a right to rule. He continues: ‘There are others who maintain that what is legal is just; but they contradict themselves, for what is allowed by law may be in a higher sense illegal. Captives taken in war are by law usually enslaved, yet the war may be unjust, and the persons may be ‘nature’s freemen,’ and unworthy to be made slaves. But all these views are untenable; and so Aristotle shews negatively that his own view (expressed in c. 6. §§ 1 and 3) is right, namely, that there is a slavery which is natural and just, because based on the superior virtue of the master, and therefore combining power and right; and that there is a slavery which is unnatural and unjust, because based on mere violence; also that the argument from the right of the conqueror is invalid.

Edition: current; Page: [20]

The chief difficulties in this complicated passage are the following:—

(1) The opposition of justice to virtue, which is, perhaps, only to virtue in the lower sense of the word.

(2) What is the meaning of διὰ γὰρ τον̂το (§ 4)? See Eng. text.

(3) Is εὔνοια a) a principle excluding slavery (Bernays), or b) justifying slavery, as existing for the protection of the inferior races (cp. 5. § 11, οἱ̑ς καὶ συμϕέρει τὸ δουλεύειν, 6. § 10 and iii. 6. § 6)? The thesis that ‘justice is benevolence’ is held by Aristotle to be not inconsistent with slavery, that is, with the just rule of a superior.

(4) Do the words διαστάντων χωρὶς = a)* ‘being kept apart and not combined, placed in bare opposition,’ or b) ‘being set aside?’ Both uses of διίστασθαι are justified by examples; in support of the former we may quote Ar. de Caelo, ii. 13, 295 a. 30, ὅτε τὰ στοιχεɩ̂α (sc. of Empedocles) διειστήκει χωρὶς ὑπὸ τον̂ νείκους, and supra c. 5. §§ 2, 8; and this meaning agrees better with the context.

(5) Do the words ἅτεροι λόγοι refer a) to one of the two preceding propositions, or b) to a further alternative? It is doubtful whether they are Greek, if taken in the sense of ‘the latter,’ or ‘one of these two propositions.’ It is better to translate ‘the other view,’ which is explained by what follows, ὡς οὐ δεɩ̂ κ.τ.λ., being the view which denies the natural right of the superior in virtue to rule, and which here as elsewhere, iii. 13. 25, is regarded by Aristotle as absurd. (See discussion of this passage in the Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society, Vol. II.)

No philosopher is known to have asserted that δικαιοσύνη is εὔνοια. Aristotle in Nic. Eth. viii. 1. § 4, 9. §§ 1-3 notes some resemblances between δικαιοσύνη and ϕιλία: and we may cite as parallel the Christian maxim, ‘Love is the fulfilling of the law.’

ὅλως δ’ ἀντεχόμενοί τινες, ὡς οἴονται, δικαίου τινός·Jowett1885v1: 6. 5.

‘There are some again who identify law and justice.’ Ὅλως may be taken either 1) with τιθέασι, ‘they maintain in general terms,’ i.e. holding to some general notion of justice; or 2)* with ἀντεχόμενοι, ‘holding absolutely to a kind of justice.’

ἅμα δ’ οὔ ϕασιν·Jowett1885v1: 6. 5.

‘But in the same breath they say the opposite,’ i.e. they are Edition: current; Page: [21]compelled by facts, if they think for a moment, to contradict themselves. The language is slightly inaccurate; for it is not they who contradict themselves, but the facts which refute them.

τήν τε γὰρ ἀρχὴν ἐνδέχεται μὴ δικαίαν εἰ̂ναι τω̂ν πολέμων, καὶ τὸνJowett1885v1: 6. 5. ἀνάξιον δουλεύειν οὐδαμω̂ς ἂν ϕαίη τις δον̂λον εἰ̂ναι.

Either one or two distinct grounds are alleged: 1)* the cause of war may be unjust, and then the slave ought not to be a slave; or 2) the cause of war may be unjust, and also the slave, being a Greek, ought not to be a slave.

διόπερ αὐτοὺς οὐ βούλονται λέγειν δούλους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς βαρβάρους.Jowett1885v1: 6. 6.

Cp. Xen. Hell. i. 6. § 14, κελευὄντων τω̂ν ξυμμάχων ἀποδόσθαι καὶ τοὺς Μηθυμναίους οὐκ ἔϕη [ὁ Καλλικρατίδας] ἑαυτον̂ γε ἄρχοντος οὐδένα Ἑλλήνων εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου δυνατὸν ἀνδραποδισθη̂ναι, and Plat. Rep. v. 469 B, C, where Plato indignantly prohibits Hellenes from becoming the owners of other Hellenes taken in war.

ὥσπερ ἡ Θεοδέκτου Ἑλένη ϕησί.Jowett1885v1: 6. 7.

Theodectes was a younger contemporary, and, according to Suidas, scholar of Aristotle. During the earlier portion of his life he had studied rhetoric under Isocrates, and is said by Dionysius to have been one of the most famous of rhetoricians. His works are often quoted by Aristotle, e.g. Rhet. ii. 23, 1399 a. 7, παράδειγμα ἐκ τον̂ Σωκράτους τον̂ Θεοδέκτου, Εἰς ποɩ̂ον ἱερὸν ἠσέβηκεν; τίνας θεω̂ν οὐ τετίμηκεν, ὡ̑ν ἡ πόλις νομίζει; Nic. Eth. vii. 7. § 6, οὐ γὰρ εἴ τις ἰσχυρω̂ν καὶ ὑπερβαλλουσω̂ν ἡδονω̂ν ἡττα̂ται ἢ λυπω̂ν, θαυμαστόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ συγγνωμονικόν, εἰ ἀντιτείνων, ὥσπερ ὁ Θεοδέκτου Φιλοκτήτης ὑπὸ τον̂ ἔχεως πεπληγμἔνος, and in several other passages. See Bonitz.

ὅταν δὲ τον̂το λέγωσιν, οὐθενὶ ἀλλ’ ἢ ἀρετ[Editor: illegible character] καὶ κακίᾳ διορίζουσι τὸJowett1885v1: 6. 8. δον̂λον καὶ ἐλεύθερον.

‘When they speak of Hellenes as everywhere free and noble, they lay down the principle that slave and free are distinguished by the criterion of bad and good.’

ἡ δὲ ϕύσις βούλεται μὲν τον̂το ποιεɩ̂ν πολλάκις οὐ μέντοι δύναται.Jowett1885v1: 6. 8.

Not ‘nature sometimes intends this and sometimes not,’ for Edition: current; Page: [22]she always intends it; nor ‘nature always intends this, but often cannot accomplish it,’ which does violence to the order of the words πολλάκις οὐ μέντοι: but ‘this nature often intends, when unable to accomplish it,’ πολλάκις adhering to both clauses.

ὅτι μὲν ον̓̂ν ἔχει τινὰ λόγον ἡ ἀμϕισβήτησις.Jowett1885v1: 6. 9.

ἡ ἀμϕισβήτησις, sc. the objection to slavery with which chapter 6 commenced, ὅτι δὲ καὶ οἱ τἀναντία ϕάσκοντες.

καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν οἱ μὲν ϕύσει δον̂λοι οἱ δ’ ἐλεύθεροι.Jowett1885v1: 6. 9.

‘And that men are not by nature, the one class [all] slaves and the other [all] freemen, is evident,’ repeating ὅτι. Aristotle had maintained at the end of chapter 5, ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν εἰσὶ ϕύσει τινὲς οἱ μὲν ἐλεύθεροι, οἱ δὲ δον̂λοι, ϕανερόν: here he affirms the opposite of his former statement; but he does not explain in what way the two statements are to be reconciled with one another. ‘Nature has divided mankind into slaves and freemen, but she has not consistently carried out the division; and there are slaves and freemen who were not the creation of nature.’

The words εἰσὶ καὶ are inserted before οὐκ εἰσὶν by Bekker, (ed. 2); ‘if there are some who are by nature slaves and some who are by nature freemen, there are some who are not.’ The change has no authority, and is not required by the sense.

ἔν τισι διώρισται τὸ τοιον̂τον, ὡ̑ν συμϕέρει τῳ̑ μὲν τὸ δουλεύειν τῳ̑ δὲ τὸJowett1885v1: 6. 9. δεσπόζειν.

‘Such a distinction has been made in some cases, and in these it is expedient that one should serve another rule’; ὡ̑ν is substituted for οἱ̑ς, that it may be in regimen with τῳ̑ μέν.

ὥστε καὶ δεσπόζειν.Jowett1885v1: 6. 9.

‘And consequently the master over his slaves,’ i.e. if they and he are fitted, the one to serve, the other to command.

διὸ καὶ συμϕέρον ἐστί τι καὶ ϕιλία δούλῳ καὶ δεσπότῃ πρὸς ἀλλήλους.Jowett1885v1: 6. 10.

Cp. Nic. Eth. viii. 11. § 7, ᾐ̑ μὲν ον̓̂ν δον̂λος οὐκ ἐστὶ ϕιλία πρὸς αὐτόν, ᾐ̑ δὲ ἄνθρωπος. The qualification contained in the last three words shows the contradiction of Aristotle’s position.

Edition: current; Page: [23]

ϕανερὸν δὲ καὶ ἐκ τούτων.Jowett1885v1: 7. 1.

Aristotle returns to the thesis with which he commenced; ‘From these considerations, too, i.e. from the natural and permanent difference of freemen and slaves, our old doctrine (i. 1. § 2) that the rule of a master differs from that of a king or statesman, the art of governing a family from the art of governing freemen,’ is clearly proven.

ἔστι γὰρ ἕτερα ἑτέρων κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 7. 3.

‘Slaves have various duties, higher and lower, and therefore the science which treats of them will have many branches; and there is a corresponding science of using slaves, which is the science of the master; yet neither is implied in the terms master or slave; who are so called not because they have science, but because they are of a certain character.’ Yet the two propositions are not inconsistent: Plato would have said that the master must have science, and not have denied that he must be of a certain character.

δον̂λος πρὸ δούλου, δεσπότης πρὸ δεσπότου.Jowett1885v1: 7. 3.

Aristotle clearly uses the word πρὸ in the sense of precedence as supra c. 4. § 2, ὄργανον πρὸ ὀργάνων. Such a hierarchy among servants as well as masters is not unknown in modern society.

But compare iv. 6. § 6, where he says that the rich having toJowett1885v1: 7. 5. take care of their property have no leisure for politics.

ἡ δὲ κτητικὴ ἑτέρα ἀμϕοτέρων τούτων, οἱ̑ον ἡ δικαία, πολεμική τις ον̓̂σα ἢJowett1885v1: 7. 5. θηρευτική.

The passage is obscurely expressed. The writer means to say that the art of acquiring slaves is not to be identified either with the art of the slave or of the master: it is a kind of war (vii. 14. § 21) or hunting. The words οἱ̑ον ἡ δικαία imply that Aristotle is not disposed to justify every mode of acquiring slaves from inferior races: (compare below c. 8. § 12, ἡ γὰρ θηρευτικὴ μέρος αὐτη̂ς [sc. τη̂ς κτητικη̂ς], ᾐ̑ δεɩ̂ χρη̂σθαι πρός τε τὰ θηρία καὶ τω̂ν ἀνθρώπων ὅσοι πεϕυκότες ἄρχεσθαι μὴ θέλουσιν, ὡς ϕύσει δίκαιον τον̂τον ὄντα τὸν πόλεμον). The awkward manner of their introduction leads to the suspicion that they are a gloss, suggested by the passage just cited. The sense of οἱ̑ον is explanatory and so corrective; not, as Bernays, Edition: current; Page: [24]‘for example, the art of justly acquiring slaves approximates to the art of war or hunting;’ for this would apply equally to every mode of acquiring slaves, and the meaning given to τις is feeble; but ‘I mean to say,’ or ‘I am speaking of the just mode of acquiring slaves which is a kind of war or of hunting.’ (See Bonitz, Index Arist., s.v. οἱ̑ον.)

ὅλως δὲ περὶ πάσης κτήσεως καὶ χρηματιστικη̂ς θεωρήσωμεν κατὰ τὸνJowett1885v1: 8. 1. ὑϕηγημένον τρόπον, ἐπείπερ καὶ ὁ δον̂λος τη̂ς κτήσεως μέρος τι ἠ̑ν.

‘We have been speaking (ἠ̑ν) of the possession of slaves which is a part of property, and according to our usual method of resolving the whole into its parts, we will now proceed to consider generally the other parts of property.’ For ὑϕηγημένον cp. note on c. 1. § 3.

πότερον ἡ χρηματιστικὴ ἡ αὐτὴ τῃ̑ οἰκονομικῃ̑ ἐστίν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 8. 1.

Aristotle proceeds to show that the art of money-making is not the same with the management of the family; it is only subordinate to it. But subordinate in what way? Bearing in mind his own distinction of instrumental and material, he argues that it provides material to the household, but is not the same with household management.

ὥστε πρω̂τον κ.τ.λ. = ‘the question arises’ or ‘we are led to askJowett1885v1: 8. 3. first of all, whether tillage is a part of the management of a household; or rather whether we must not include all the various ways of providing food,’ which are then described at length.

The digression which follows is intended to contrast χρηματιστικὴ in all its branches with οἰκονομική, and to prepare for the distinction between the natural and unnatural modes of acquisition.

The sentence is irregular, the clause ὥστε πρω̂τον κ.τ.λ. following as if ἔστι τον̂ χρηματιστικον̂ θεωρη̂σαι without εἰ had preceded. The words ἔστι τον̂ χρηματιστικον̂ κ.τ.λ. are to be repeated with πότερον μέρος τι.

ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴδη γε πολλὰ τροϕη̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 8. 4.

‘The question has been asked, Is the whole provision of food a part of money-making?—But then we should remember that there are several kinds of food.’

Edition: current; Page: [25]

πρὸς τὰς ῥαστώνας καὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τὴν τούτων.Jowett1885v1: 8. 5.

τὰς ῥαστώνας κ.τ.λ. ‘For their convenience and the obtaining’; the words may also be regarded as a hendiadys, ‘for the opportunity of obtaining.’

τούτων. Sc. καρπον̂, ζῴων, understood from ζῳοϕάγα, καρποϕάγα.

According to the common notion the life of the hunter precedesJowett1885v1: 8. 6. that of the shepherd; Aristotle places the shepherd first, apparently because the least exertion is required of him. The remark arises out of the previous sentence, in which he divided the lives of men according to the facility with which they obtained food. Cp. Mill, Polit. Econ., Preliminary Remarks.

θάλατταν τοιαύτην.Jowett1885v1: 8. 7.

Sc. συμϕέρουσαν πρὸς ἁλιείαν. Cp. note on c. 1. § 2.

αὐτόϕυτον.Jowett1885v1: 8. 8.

Either 1)* ‘immediately obtained from the products of nature’ = ἐξ αὐτη̂ς τη̂ς ϕύσεως, or 2) = αὐτουργόν, ‘by their own labour.’

τὸν ἐνδεέστατον βίον.Jowett1885v1: 8. 8.

Bernays reads ἐνδεέστερον without MS. authority, but there is no need to make any change. The meaning is that they supplement the extreme poverty (ἐνδεέστατον) of one kind of life by another: the two together give them a comfortable subsistence.

σκωληκοτοκεɩ̂.Jowett1885v1: 8. 10.

Cp. De Gen. Anim. ii. 1, 732 b. 10, τω̂ν δ’ ἀναίμων τὰ ἔντομα σκωληκοτοκεɩ̂. The term ‘vermiparous’ is not strictly correct: for all animals are either viviparous or oviparous. But Aristotle appears not to have been aware that the larva of the insect comes from an egg.

τὴν τον̂ καλουμένου γάλακτος ϕύσιν.Jowett1885v1: 8. 10.

A pleonasm common in Aristotle: cp. ἡ τη̂ς ἀτμίδος, τον̂ σπέρματος, τω̂ν καταμηνίων, ϕύσις, Hist. Animal. passim. (See Bonitz, Index Arist., p. 838 a. 8 ff.)

ὥστε ὁμοίως δη̂λον ὅτι καὶ γενομένοις οἰητέον τά τε ϕυτὰ τω̂ν ζῴων ἕνεκενJowett1885v1: 8. 11. εἰ̂ναι καὶ τἀ̑λλα ζῳ̑α τω̂ν ἀνθρώπων χάριν, τὰ μὲν ἥμερα καὶ διὰ τὴν χρη̂σιν καὶ Edition: current; Page: [26]διὰ τὴν τροϕήν, τω̂ν δ’ ἀγρίων, εἰ μὴ πάντα, ἀλλὰ τά γε πλεɩ̂στα τη̂ς τροϕη̂ς καὶ ἄλλης βοηθείας ἕνεκεν, ἵνα καὶ ἐσθὴς καὶ ἄλλα ὄργανα γίνηται ἐξ αὐτω̂ν.

Aristotle is tracing the design of nature in the creation of animals and plants, first at their birth, secondly at their maturity. She has provided food taken from the parents in various forms for the young of animals at or about the time of their birth, and, after they are born, she has provided one to sustain the other, plants for the sake of animals, animals for the sake of man. The principle that the lower exist for the sake of the higher is deeply rooted in the philosophy of Aristotle. The belief that the animals are intended for his use is natural to man because he actually uses a small part of them. Yet Plato would remind us (Politicus 263 D) that ‘a crane or some other intelligent animal’ would have a different account to give of the matter.

Compare Butler, Analogy, Pt. I., ch. vii.: ‘It is highly probable, that the natural world is formed and carried on merely in subserviency to the moral, as the vegetable world is for the animal, and organized bodies for minds.’ Yet how far the idea of design is applicable to nature, how far we can argue from a fact to an intention, and how far such a conception, whether in ancient or modern times, has enlightened or has blinded the minds of philosophical enquirers,—are questions not easily determined.

The opposition is between the young of animals before and after birth, answering imperfectly to κατὰ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν, and εὐθὺς καὶ τελειωθεɩ̂σι: the first is illustrated in § 10, the second in § 11. There is no necessity for omitting (with Göttling and Bernays) γενομένοις, which is found with a slight variation, γενωμένοις, in all MSS. and confirmed by Moerbeke who has ‘genitis.’ For the use of γενομένοις = ‘after they are born’ cp. Nic. Eth. viii. 12. § 5, τον̂ γὰρ εἰ̂ναι καὶ τραϕη̂ναι αἴτιοι (sc. οἱ γονεɩ̂ς) καὶ γενομένοις τον̂ παιδευθη̂ναι.

ἡ γὰρ θηρευτικὴ μέρος αὐτη̂ς (sc. τη̂ς πολεμικη̂ς).Jowett1885v1: 8. 12.

Cp. Plat. Soph. 222 C, where hunting is the genus of which war is a species: and Laveleye (Primitive Property, c. 7, p. 100, English trans.), who speaks of the warlike character of hunting tribes, citing this passage.

Edition: current; Page: [27]

ἓν μὲν ον̓̂ν εἰ̂δος κτητικη̂ς κατὰ ϕύσιν τη̂ς οἰκονομικη̂ς μέρος ἐστίν.Jowett1885v1: 8. 13.

In this sentence two clauses are compressed into one:—‘one kind of acquisition is according to nature, and this is a part of household management.’

κατὰ ϕύσιν is equivalent to ἣ κατὰ ϕύσιν ἐστί, and is best taken, not with οἰκονομικη̂ς (Bernays) but with κτητικη̂ς, as is shown by the use of the words infra § 15: ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἔστι τις κτητικὴ κατὰ ϕύσιν τοɩ̂ς οἰκονόμοις καὶ τοɩ̂ς πολιτικοɩ̂ς, καὶ δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν, δη̂λον.

ὃ δεɩ̂ ἤτοι ὑπάρχειν ἢ πορίζειν αὐτὴν ὅπως ὑπάρχῃ, ὡ̑ν ἐστὶ θησαυρισμὸςJowett1885v1: 8. 13. χρημάτων πρὸς ζωὴν ἀναγκαίων καὶ χρησίμων εἰς κοινωνίαν πόλεως ἢ οἰκίας.

ὃ δεɩ̂ is a confused expression referring grammatically to εἰ̂δος κτητικη̂ς or τη̂ς οἰκονομικη̂ς μέρος, but in sense to the property with which this art of acquisition is concerned. It it needless to read with Bernays καθ’ ὃ δεɩ̂, for the inexact antecedent is common in Aristotle.

αὐτὴν refers to κτητικὴ or possibly to ϕύσις: the nominative to ὑπάρχῃ is either the same as to ὑπάρχειν, i. e. ὃ = κτήματα understood from εἰ̂δος κτητικη̂ς, or θησαυρισμὸς χρημάτων ἅ ἐστι πρὸς ζωὴν ἀναγκαɩ̂α, the genitive ὡ̑ν being substituted by attraction for the nominative = ὅπως ὑπάρχῃ χρήματα ὡ̑ν ἐστὶ θησαυρισμός. It must be admitted that the words ὡ̑ν ἐστὶ would be better away: they read awkwardly, and, if this were a sufficient reason for rejecting them, might be deemed spurious.

πλούτου δ’ οὐθὲν τέρμα πεϕασμένον ἀνδράσι κεɩ̂ται.Jowett1885v1: 8. 14.

Solon, Fr. xii. 71 Bergk. The line is also found in Theognis 227 with a slight variation, ἀνθρώποισι for ἀνδράσι κεɩ̂ται.

κεɩ̂ται γὰρ ὥσπερ καὶ ταɩ̂ς ἄλλαις τέχναις.Jowett1885v1: 8. 15.

A slight inaccuracy; either 1) πλούτῳ understood = τῃ̑ τέχνῃ τον̂ πλούτου: or 2) ταɩ̂ς ἄλλαις τέχναις may be taken to mean the subjects of the other arts: or vaguely = ‘in the other arts’: or 3) τῃ̑ κατὰ ϕύσιν κτητικῃ̑ may be supplied from the beginning of the sentence.

οὐδὲν γὰρ ὄργανον ἄπειρον οὐδεμια̂ς ἐστὶ τέχνης οὔτε πλήθει οὔτε μεγέθει,Jowett1885v1: 8. 15. ὁ δὲ πλον̂τος ὀργάνων πλη̂θός ἐστιν οἰκονομικω̂ν καὶ πολιτικω̂ν.

Life, according to Aristotle, is subject, like the arts, to a limit, and requires only a certain number of implements.

Edition: current; Page: [28]

Cp. the passage in the Republic (i. 349, 350) in which it is shewn from the analogy of the arts that the just and the wise do not aim at excess. Here as elsewhere ‘the good is of the nature of the finite,’ whereas evil is undefined. Cp. also Nic. Eth. ii. 6. § 14, τὸ γὰρ κακὸν τον̂ ἀπείρου, ὡς οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι εἴκαζον, τὸ δὲ ἀγαθὸν τον̂ πεπερασμένου: and Mill, Polit. Econ., Preliminary Remarks, ‘the definition of wealth as signifying instruments is philosophically correct but departs too widely from the custom of language.’

δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν.Jowett1885v1: 8. 15.

Sc. because provision has to be made for the uses of life.

δι’ ἣν οὐδὲν δοκεɩ̂ πέρας.Jowett1885v1: 9. 1.

‘Owing to which,’ or ‘to the nature of which,’ ‘there appears to be no limit,’ etc.

ἔστι δ’ ἡ μὲν ϕύσει ἡ δ’ οὐ ϕύσει.Jowett1885v1: 9. 1.

So Plato divides κτητικὴ into θηρευτικὴ and ἀλλακτική, Soph. 223 ff.

ἑκάστου κτήματος διττὴ ἡ χρη̂σις.Jowett1885v1: 9. 2.

Cp. Adam Smith’s ‘Value in use’ and ‘Value in exchange’; Wealth of Nations, Book i. c. 4, though the order of the two ideas is inverted. For to Aristotle the value in use or teleological value is the truer and better, to Adam Smith as a political economist the value in exchange is prior in importance.

ὅσον γὰρ ἱκανὸν αὐτοɩ̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 9. 4.

Sc. τοɩ̂ς ἀνθρώποις.

οἱ μὲν γὰρ τω̂ν αὐτω̂ν ἐκοινώνουν πάντων, οἱ δὲ κεχωρισμένοι πολλω̂νJowett1885v1: 9. 5. πάλιν καὶ ἑτέρων· ὡ̑ν κατὰ τὰς δεήσεις ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ποιεɩ̂σθαι τὰς μεταδόσεις.

Bernays inserts ἕτεροι before ἑτέρων, which he would translate ‘different persons want different things;’ and he assumes the idea of want to be implied in κεχωρισμένοι. But it is difficult to understand this explanation. A fair meaning may be elicited from the text, as it stands:— 1)* ‘In families they shared in all things alike; when they were dispersed they had many things as before, but not all the same’: or 2) καὶ ἑτέρων may be taken more simply: ‘they shared in many things as before, and had many other things as well’; i. e. the enlargement of society gave rise to new wants. The Edition: current; Page: [29]word ἐκοινώνουν = κοινὰ εἰ̂χον is not equally applicable to both clauses; in the second clause some other word like εἰ̂χον or ἐκτω̂ντο is wanted.

For κεχωρισμένοι compare ii. 2. § 3, Διοίσει δὲ τῳ̑ τοιούτῳ καὶ πόλις ἔθνους ὅταν μὴ κατὰ κώμας ὠ̂σι κεχωρισμένοι τὸ πλη̂θος, ἀλλ’ οἱ̑ον Ἀρκάδες.

οἱ μέν, sc. οἱ ἐν τῃ̑ πρώτῃ κοινωνίᾳ, ‘mankind in the first stage of society’; οἱ δέ, sc. πλείονος τη̂ς κοινωνίας οὔσης further explained by κεχωρισμένοι, ‘mankind after their dispersion.’

ὡ̑ν in the words which follow is to be connected with τὰς μεταδόσεις.

καὶ τω̂ν βαρβαρικω̂ν ἐθνω̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 5.

καὶ which is found in all the MSS., though omitted in William de Moerbeke, merely emphasizes the whole clause ‘As moreover some barbarian nations still do.’ There is no need to introduce νν̂ν after καὶ without MS. authority, as Bernays has done.

εἰς ἀναπλήρωσιν τη̂ς κατὰ ϕύσιν αὐταρκείας.Jowett1885v1: 9. 6.

Lit. ‘to fill up what was wanting of the self-sufficingness intended by nature;’ or ‘to fill up what nature demanded in order to make man self-sufficing,’ = εἰς ἀναπλήρωσιν τη̂ς κατὰ ϕύσιν ἐνδείας ὥστε αὐτάρκη εἰ̂ναι.

κατὰ λόγον. ‘In a natural way’; ‘as might be expected.’Jowett1885v1: 9. 7.

ξενικωτέρας γινομένης τη̂ς βοηθείας.Jowett1885v1: 9. 7.

‘When the supply began to come more from foreign countries,’ etc.

ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἡ τον̂ νομίσματος ἐπορίσθη χρη̂σις.Jowett1885v1: 9. 7.

‘Of necessity there arose a currency.’

Cp. Plat. Rep. ii. 371 B, νόμισμα σύμβολον τη̂ς ἀλλαγη̂ς ἕνεκα. Nic. Eth. v. 5. § 11, οἱ̑ον δ’ ὑπάλλαγμα τη̂ς χρείας τὸ νόμισμα γέγονε κατὰ συνθήκην.

ὃ τω̂ν χρησίμων αὐτὸ ὂν εἰ̂χε τὴν χρείαν εὐμεταχείριστον.Jowett1885v1: 9. 8.

‘Money belongs to the class of things which are in themselves useful and convenient for the purposes of life,’ although there may be circumstances under which it is a mere sham (λη̂ρος); see § 11.

πορισθέντος ον̓̂ν ἤδη νομίσματος ἐκ τη̂ς ἀναγκαίας ἀλλαγη̂ς θάτερον εἰ̂δοςJowett1885v1: 9. 9. τη̂ς χρηματιστικη̂ς ἐγένετο, τὸ καπηλικόν, τὸ μὲν πρω̂τον ἁπλω̂ς ἴσως γινόμενον, Edition: current; Page: [30]εἰ̂τα δι’ ἐμπειρίας ἤδη τεχνικώτερον, πόθεν καὶ πω̂ς μεταβαλλόμενον πλεɩ̂στον ποιήσει κέρδος.

θάτερον εἰ̂δος, i.e. ‘other’ than what Aristotle before called ἓν εἰ̂δος κτητικη̂ς (c. 8. § 13) which he had not yet distinguished from καπηλική. He admits that the simpler forms of exchange are necessary; but he also supposes that there are two uses to which the art of money-making may be applied, the one, the storing up of the necessaries of life, which he approves, the other, retail trade which he condemns. A prejudice against money, which is further developed in the condemnation of usury (c. 10. §§ 4, 5) underlies the whole tone of thought. We may note that καπηλική, though here applied to trade in general, carries with it the disparaging association of shopkeeping.

πόθεν καὶ πω̂ς μεταβαλλόμενον is dependent on δι’ ἐμπειρίας.

For the story of Midas see Ovid, Met. xi. 90-145. It is obviousJowett1885v1: 9. 11. that Midas would have suffered equally if his touch had produced food or clothing or any other article of commerce. In his account of money Aristotle seems to be perplexed between its usefulness and its uselessness, and between the good and bad consequences which flow from it.

τὸ γὰρ νόμισμα στοιχεɩ̂ον καὶ πέρας τη̂ς ἀλλαγη̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 9. 12.

Money is the element, i.e. the instrument of exchange. It is also the limit or end of it. Exchange is not possible without money and seeks for nothing beyond it.

καὶ ἄπειρος δὴ οὑ̑τος ὁ πλον̂τος.Jowett1885v1: 9. 13.

There is no limit to the art of making money any more than to medicine or other arts; for we want to have as much health and wealth as we can. But there is a limit if we regard wealth as only a means to an end, i.e. to the maintenance of a household. The passage is not very clearly expressed, owing partly to the double meaning of the word πέρας, (1) ‘limit’ or ‘measure,’ as opposed to the infinite or indefinite ἄπειρον, and (2) ‘end’ as opposed to ‘means.’ Aristotle probably intends to say that the art of money making is unlimited, having no other end but wealth, which is also unlimited; whereas in the art of household management, the limit or end is fixed by natural needs.

Edition: current; Page: [31]

There is another confusion in this chapter. Aristotle tries to make a difference in kind between the legitimate and illegitimate use of exchange, but the difference is really one of degree. Trade is not rendered illegitimate by the use of coin, which is natural and necessary. The source of the confusion is that he never regards exchange on the great scale as the saving of labour, but only as the means of creating superfluous wealth.

ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἰατρικὴ τον̂ ὑγιαίνειν εἰς ἄπειρόν ἐστι καὶ ἑκάστη τω̂νJowett1885v1: 9. 13. τεχνω̂ν τον̂ τέλους εἰς ἄπειρον (ὅτι μάλιστα γὰρ ἐκεɩ̂νο βούλονται ποιεɩ̂ν), τω̂ν δὲ πρὸς τὸ τέλος οὐκ εἰς ἄπειρον (πέρας γὰρ τὸ τέλος πάσαις), οὕτω καὶ ταύτης τη̂ς χρηματιστικη̂ς οὐκ ἔστι τον̂ τέλους πέρας, τέλος δὲ ὁ τοιον̂τος πλον̂τος καὶ χρημάτων κτη̂σις.

‘The art of money-making, like the other arts, is limited in the means, but unlimited in the end; as the physician seeks health without limit, so the money-maker seeks wealth without limit.’ Yet the analogy is defective; for there is no accumulation of health in the same sense in which there may be an accumulation of wealth. The physician stands really on the same footing with the manager of the household; for both equally seek to fulfil to the utmost their respective functions, the one to order the household, the other to improve the health of the patient, and there is a limit to both. The opposition of means and ends is also questionable; for the end may be regarded as the sum of the means, and would not an unlimited end, if such a conception is allowable, imply unlimited means, or the unlimited use of limited?

τη̂ς δ’ οἰκονομικη̂ς οὐ χρηματιστικη̂ς ἔστι πέρας· οὐ γὰρ τον̂το τη̂ς οἰκονομικη̂ςJowett1885v1: 9. 14. ἔργον.

Lit. ‘the art of household management which is not concerned with money-making has a limit; for this (sc. ὁ τοιον̂τος, the unlimited making of money described above) is not its business.’

ἐπαλλάττει γὰρ ἡ χρη̂σις τον̂ αὐτον̂ ον̓̂σα ἑκατέρα τη̂ς χρηματιστικη̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 9. 15.

‘For the two uses of money-making being concerned with the same thing, namely coin or wealth, they run into each other.’

ἡ χρη̂σις governs both τη̂ς χρηματιστικη̂ς and τον̂. αὐτον̂. The emendation of Bernays ἑκατέρᾳ τῃ̑ χρηματιστικῃ̑ is unnecessary.

Edition: current; Page: [32]

τη̂ς γὰρ αὐτη̂ς ἐστὶ χρήσεως κτη̂σις, ἀλλ’ οὐ κατὰ ταὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τη̂ς μὲνJowett1885v1: 9. 15. ἕτερον τέλος, τη̂ς δ’ ἡ αὔξησις.

χρήσεως κτη̂σις. ‘For acquisition belongs to the same use of χρηματιστική,’ i.e. in all acquisition chrematistic is used in the same way, though the ends differ, for the end in the one case is external, i.e. the supply of the household, in the other case, mere accumulation.

ὅσοι δὲ καὶ τον̂ εν̓̂ ζη̂ν ἐπιβάλλονται, τὸ πρὸς τὰς ἀπολαύσεις τὰς σωματικὰςJowett1885v1: 9. 16. ζητον̂σιν, ὥστ’ ἐπεὶ καὶ τον̂τ’ ἐν τῃ̑ κτήσει ϕαίνεται ὑπάρχειν κ.τ.λ.

Even good men desire pleasures, and therefore wealth, just because these (τον̂τ’) depend on wealth. Cp. τον̂το, § 15, referring to χρηματιστική.

ἀνδρίας γὰρ οὐ χρήματα ποιεɩ̂ν ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ θάρσος.Jowett1885v1: 9. 17.

I. e. whereas the virtue of courage, the art of medicine or of military command have severally ends of their own, they are perverted to the unnatural end of money-making.

δη̂λον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀπορούμενον ἐξ ἀρχη̂ς, πότερον τον̂ οἰκονομικον̂ καὶ πολιτικον̂Jowett1885v1: 10. 1. ἐστὶν ἡ χρηματιστικὴ ἢ οὔ, ἀλλὰ δεɩ̂ τον̂το μὲν ὑπάρχειν κ.τ.λ.

τὸ ἀπορούμενον see supra c. 8. §§ 1, 2.

τον̂το, sc. τὰ χρήματα, understood from χρηματιστικὴ as infra § 3 τον̂το ὑπάρχειν refers to τὰ χρήματα. ἀλλὰ δεɩ̂ is the other alternative of the ἀπορία, implying the answer to the question: ‘whether the art of money-making is the business of the manager of the household and of the statesman or whether [this is not the case, but] the possession of wealth must be presupposed? [We reply, the latter.] For as the art of the statesman receives men from nature, even so must nature, that is to say land or sea or some other element, provide them with food.’

ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ ἀνθρώπους οὐ ποιεɩ̂ ἡ πολιτική, ἀλλὰ λαβον̂σα παρὰ τη̂ςJowett1885v1: 10. 1. ϕύσεως χρη̂ται αὐτοɩ̂ς, οὕτω καὶ τροϕὴν τὴν ϕύσιν δεɩ̂ παραδον̂ναι γη̂ν ἢ θάλατταν ἢ ἄλλο τι.

The last words γη̂ν ἢ θάλατταν ἢ ἄλλο τι are either 1)* in apposition with τὴν ϕύσιν, or 2) accusatives after παραδον̂ναι. In the first case γη̂ν and θάλατταν are an explanation of τὴν ϕύσιν. In the second case τροϕὴν is a remote accusative, ‘nature gives land and sea for the supply of food.’ The latter way of taking the words is Edition: current; Page: [33]forced. Nature is here said to provide food, but no real distinction can be drawn between the provision of food by nature and the acquisition or appropriation of it by the labour of man, cp. § 3.

ἐκ δὲ τούτων, ὡς δεɩ̂, ταν̂τα διαθεɩ̂ναι προσήκει τὸν οἰκονόμον.Jowett1885v1: 10. 1.

ἐκ τούτων, ‘thereupon,’ i. e. ἐκ τον̂ λαβεɩ̂ν παρὰ ϕύσεως; ταν̂τα διαθεɩ̂ναι, ‘to order them,’ i. e. the things which nature gives [for the use of the household]; or ἐκ τούτων = ‘from what is given by nature.’ ταν̂τα διαθεɩ̂ναι, ‘to set in order,’ i. e. to select and arrange the things necessary for the household.

καὶ γὰρ ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις.Jowett1885v1: 10. 2.

‘Were this otherwise’ (as in the translation) i. e. ‘if the duty of the manager of a household consisted in producing and not in using, then he would be equally concerned with money-making and with medicine. And so he is to a certain extent concerned with both, but unlike the physician or the maker of money only to a certain extent, whereas they pursue their vocations without limit.’

καὶ περὶ ὑγιείας.Jowett1885v1: 10. 3.

About health as well as about wealth.

μάλιστα δέ, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, δεɩ̂ ϕύσει τον̂το ὑπάρχειν.Jowett1885v1: 10. 3.

τον̂το refers to some general idea, such as ‘the means of life,’ to be gathered from τὰ χρήματα in the preceding sentence.

παντὶ γάρ, ἐξ οὑ̑ γίνεται, τροϕὴ τὸ λειπόμενόν ἐστιν.Jowett1885v1: 10. 3.

τὸ λειπόμενον = τὸ λειπόμενον ἐν ἐκείνῳ ἐξ οὑ̑ γίνεται, the residuum or that from which the offspring parts, i. e. milk, white of egg, etc.: cp. De Hist. Anim. i. 5, 489 b. 8, ᾠὸν . . ἐξ οὑ̑ γίγνεται τὸ γινόμενον ζῳ̑ον ἐκ μορίου τὴν ἀρχήν, τὸ δ’ ἄλλο τροϕὴ τῳ̑ γινομένῳ ἐστίν: and supra c. 8. § 10.

διὸ κατὰ ϕύσιν ἐστὶν ἡ χρηματιστικὴ πα̂σιν ἀπὸ τω̂ν καρπω̂ν καὶ τω̂νJowett1885v1: 10. 4. ζῴων.

Fruits and animals are the gifts of nature and intended for the subsistence of man (cp. c. 8): hence (διό), with some equivocation, the trade in them is said to be natural.

ὁ δὲ τόκος γίνεται νόμισμα νομίσματος.Jowett1885v1: 10. 5.

Cp. Arist. Nub. 1286, τον̂το δ’ ἔσθ’ ὁ τόκος τί θηρίον; Thesm. 845, ἀξία γον̂ν εἰ̂ τόκου τεκον̂σα τοιον̂τον τόκον.

Edition: current; Page: [34]

Cp. also Shakspere’s Merchant of Venice, Act i, Scene 3,—‘A breed of barren metal.’

It has been customary, since Bentham wrote, to denounce Usury Laws on the ground 1) that they are ineffectual, or worse, 2) that they are unjust both to lender and borrower, because they interfere with the natural rate of interest. But in primitive states of society, as in India at the present day, they may have been more needed and more easy to enforce. In a simple agricultural population where the want of capital is greatly felt, and land is the only security, the usurer becomes a tyrant: hence the detestation of usury. The other and better side of usury, that is to say, the advantage of transferring money at the market rate from those who cannot use it to those who can, was not understood by Aristotle any more than the advantage of exchanging commodities. Cp. Plat. Rep. viii. 555 E; Laws v. 742.

τὰ τοιαν̂τα τὴν μὲν θεωρίαν ἐλεύθερον ἔχει, τὴν δ’ ἐμπειρίαν ἀναγκαίαν.Jowett1885v1: 11. 1.

1*) ‘To speculate about such matters is a liberal pursuit; the practice of them is servile.’ In modern language ‘a gentleman may study political economy, but he must not keep a shop.’ Cp. infra § 5, περὶ ἑκάστου δὲ τούτων καθόλου μὲν εἴρηται καὶ νν̂ν, τὸ δὲ κατὰ μέρος ἀκριβολογεɩ̂σθαι χρήσιμον μὲν πρὸς τὰς ἐργασίας, ϕορτικὸν δὲ τὸ ἐνδιατρίβειν: and iv. 15. § 4, ἀλλὰ ταν̂τα διαϕέρει πρὸς μὲν τὰς χρήσεις οὐθὲν ὡς εἰπεɩ̂ν· οὐ γάρ πω κρίσις γέγονεν ἀμϕισβητουντων περὶ τον̂ ὀνόματος· ἔχει δέ τιν’ ἄλλην διανοητικὴν πραγματείαν: also iii. 8. § 1, τῳ̑ δὲ περὶ ἑκάστην μέθοδον ϕιλοσοϕον̂ντι καὶ μὴ μόνον ἀποβλέποντι πρὸς τὸ πράττειν οἰκεɩ̂όν ἐστι τὸ μὴ παρορα̂ν μηδέ τι καταλείπειν, ἀλλὰ δηλον̂ν τὴν περὶ ἕκαστον ἀλήθειαν.

Or again 2) ‘Speculation is free; but in practice we are limited by circumstances;’ i.e. speculation on such matters may go to any extent or take any direction, but in practice we must restrict ourselves to the necessities of the case, e. g. the nature of the soil, climate, neighbourhood, etc. § 5 infra may be quoted in defence of either explanation, the words χρήσιμον πρὸς τὰς ἐργασίας supporting the second, ϕορτικὸν τὸ ἐνδιατρίβειν the first. ἐμπειρίαν connects with ἔμπειρον which follows: ‘experience of live-stock is one of the useful parts of money-making.’

Edition: current; Page: [35]
lf0033-02_figure_002.jpg
SYNOPSIS OF THE VARIOUS DIVISIONS OF κτητική, in c. 11. §§ 1-4.
Edition: current; Page: [36]

ναυκληρία, ϕορτηγία.Jowett1885v1: 11. 3.

ναυκληρία = ‘commerce by sea,’ ϕορτηγία = ‘commerce by land.’ The word ναυκληρία may also be taken in the narrower sense of ‘owning of ships’; and ϕορτηγία in the sense of ‘carrying whether by sea or land.’ But this explanation of the words does not afford so natural a division.

διαϕέρει δὲ τούτων ἕτερα ἑτέρων τῳ̑ τὰ μὲν ἀσϕαλέστερα εἰ̂ναι, τὰ δὲJowett1885v1: 11. 3. πλείω πορίζειν τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν.

It is not certain whether in this sentence Aristotle is speaking of trades in general without reference to the three previous divisions, or, of the divisions themselves, commerce by sea being the more profitable, commerce by land the more secure mode of trading. The opposition of τὰ μὲν . . τὰ δὲ favours the more general application of the words.

οἱ̑ον ὑλοτομία τε καὶ πα̂σα μεταλλευτική. αὕτη δὲ πολλὰ ἤδη περιείληϕεJowett1885v1: 11. 4, 5. γένη· πολλὰ γὰρ εἴδη τω̂ν ἐκ γη̂ς μεταλλευομένων ἐστίν.

In these words Aristotle is illustrating ‘the third or mixed kind of chrematistic,’ which is concerned not only with fruits of the earth and animals, but with other products dug out of the earth and manufactured by man.

ἤδη, ‘mining again is not a simple art, but already—or, not to speak of other species—contains in itself many subdivisions.’

εἰσὶ δὲ τεχνικώταται μὲν τω̂ν ἐργασιω̂ν ὅπου ἐλάχιστον τη̂ς τύχης, βαναυσόταταιJowett1885v1: 11. 6, 7. δ’ ἐν αἱ̑ς τὰ σώματα λωβω̂νται μάλιστα, δουλικώταται δὲ ὅπου τον̂ σώματος πλεɩ̂σται χρήσεις, ἀγεννέσταται δὲ ὅπου ἐλάχιστον προσδεɩ̂ ἀρετη̂ς. ἐπεὶ δ’ ἐστὶν ἐνίοις γεγραμμένα περὶ τούτων, κ.τ.λ.

The connexion is with the word καθόλου in § 5. Aristotle, although he declines to go into the particulars of these arts, gives some general characteristics of them.

In the sentence which follows, the clause ἐπεὶ δ’ ἐστὶν skips the intervening passage εἰσὶ δὲ . . . ἀρετη̂ς, and goes back to the previous subject. In another author we might suspect a gloss. But there are many such dislocations in Aristotle’s Politics; e. g. iii. 4. §§ 11-13. For the meaning cp. Rhet. i. 4. 1359 b. 31, ἀναγκαɩ̂ον τω̂ν παρὰ τοɩ̂ς ἄλλοις εὑρημένων ἱστορικὸν εἰ̂ναι.

Edition: current; Page: [37]

οἱ̑ον Χάρητι δή.Jowett1885v1: 11. 7.

δὴ is to be taken with οἱ̑ον like ὅλως δή, οὕτω δή, καὶ δὴ with a slight emphasis, and sometimes with a word interposed, e. g. καὶ πλούτῳ δή, Nic. Eth. iv. 1. § 6.

Θάλεω τον̂ Μιλησίου.Jowett1885v1: 11. 8.

Thales is referred to in the Nic. Eth. vi. 7. § 5 and by Plato in the Theaetetus (p. 174 A) as a type of the unpractical philosopher. ‘But even he could have made a fortune, if he had pleased.’

τυγχάνει δὲ καθόλου τι ὄν.Jowett1885v1: 11. 8.

Cp. § 12. The device attributed to Thales is only an application of the general principle of creating a monopoly.

ἐπώλει μόνος, οὐ πολλὴν ποιήσας ὑπερβολήν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 11. 11.

I. e. he bought up all the iron when it was very cheap, and having a monopoly sold it rather, but not very, dear.

ὅραμα Θάλεω.Jowett1885v1: 11. 12.

ὅραμα, which is the reading of all the MSS., is used in the metaphorical sense of ‘idea’ here required, only in Pseudo-Demosthenes, 1460. 26, perhaps a sufficient authority for the meaning of a word.

* εὕρημα (Camerarius): θεώρημα (Coraes): δρα̂μα (Prof. Campbell) may be suggested. Cp. Plat. Theaet. 150 A.

ἐπεὶ δὲ τρία μέρη, κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 12. 1.

The apodosis is lost; the suppressed thought that ‘all three parts are concerned with man’ is resumed in the next chapter.

καὶ γὰρ γυναικὸς ἄρχειν καὶ τέκνων.Jowett1885v1: 12. 1.

Sc. τὸν ἄνδρα. Supply for the construction either ἠ̑ν μέρος οἰκονομικη̂ς or εἴρηται αὐτὸν from the preceding words.

ἐξ ἴσου γὰρ εἰ̂ναι βούλεται τὴν ϕύσιν καὶ διαϕέρειν μηθέν. ὅμως δέ,Jowett1885v1: 12. 2. ὅταν τὸ μὲν ἄρχῃ τὸ δ’ ἄρχηται, ζητεɩ̂ διαϕορὰν εἰ̂ναι καὶ σχήμασι καὶ λόγοις καὶ τιμαɩ̂ς, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἄμασις εἰ̂πε τὸν περὶ τον̂ ποδανιπτη̂ρος λόγον.

βούλεται sc. ἡ πολιτεία or ἡ πολιτικὴ ἀρχή, understood from ἐν ταɩ̂ς πολιτικαɩ̂ς ἀρχαɩ̂ς: ‘where there is a πολιτεία, political equality is implied. All other differences, such as titles of honour, are temporary and official only.’ The construction of ζητεɩ̂ may be similarly explained. Or both may be taken impersonally.

Edition: current; Page: [38]

Ἄμασις, who made his foot-pan into a god, as he had himself been made into a king, cp. Herod. ii. 172. The connexion is as follows: ‘Among equals, where one rules and another is ruled, we make an artificial distinction of names and titles, but this is not the case in the relation of husband and wife, because the distinction between them exists already and is permanent.’

τὸ δ’ ἄρρεν ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ θη̂λυ τον̂τον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον.Jowett1885v1: 12. 3.

Resuming the words in § 1 γυναικὸς μὲν πολιτικω̂ς, and adding the distinction that the relation between husband and wife, unlike that between ruler and subject in a πολιτεία, is permanent (ἀεί). This permanence of relation between husband and wife makes it rather an ‘aristocratical’ than a ‘constitutional’ rule, and in Nic. Eth. viii. 10. § 5 and Eud. Eth. vii. 9. § 4 it is so described.

καὶ τω̂ν ἄλλων τω̂ν τοιούτων ἕξεων.Jowett1885v1: 13. 2.

Supply ἀρετή τις before τω̂ν ἄλλων—assisted by οὐδεμία in the following clause. Cp. infra § 13, σκυτοτόμος δ’ οὐθείς, οὐδὲ τω̂ν ἄλλων τεχνιτω̂ν. The words τω̂ν τοιούτων are used inaccurately ‘of such habits,’ meaning the habits which have virtues like these.

ἀνάγκη μὲν μετέχειν ἀμϕοτέρους ἀρετη̂ς, ταύτης δ’ εἰ̂ναι διαϕοράς, ὥσπερJowett1885v1: 13. 5. καὶ τω̂ν ϕύσει ἀρχομένων.

‘Both require virtue, and of these virtues there will be different kinds since the natural subject differs [from the natural ruler]’; or, with Bernays, ‘corresponding to the difference in the subject classes,’ cp. infra clause 7. But why only in the subject?—a difficulty which seems to have been felt by those copyists or editors who, supported by Moerbeke, insert ἀρχόντων καὶ before ἀρχομένων. Better: ‘There will be differences of virtue in the ruling and subject classes, similar to those which [we have already noted to exist] in the natural subject.’

καὶ τον̂το εὐθὺς ὑϕήγηται περὶ τὴν ψυχήν.Jowett1885v1: 13. 6.

1) ‘*And this is immediately suggested by the soul’: or 2) ‘And this, without looking further, is the leading or guiding principle in the soul.’ There is a rule of superior and inferior, not only in states, but in the soul itself.

The verb ὑϕήγηται in this passage is taken passively by Bonitz, Edition: current; Page: [39]‘and this distinction was indicated in the soul.’ Cp. Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. i. 2. 3, δη̂λον ὅτι καθάπερ ὑϕήγηται περὶ τούτων λεκτέον. But in most other examples of its use the word must be, or is better, construed actively, and it is safer to take it so in this passage. Cp. supra c. 5. §§ 2-6.

ὥστε ϕύσει τὰ πλείω ἄρχοντα καὶ ἀρχόμενα. ἄλλον γὰρ τρόπον τὸ ἐλεύθερονJowett1885v1: 13. 6-8. τον̂ δούλου ἄρχει καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν τον̂ θήλεος καὶ ἀνὴρ παιδός· καὶ πα̂σιν ἐνυπάρχει μὲν τὰ μόρια τη̂ς ψυχη̂ς, ἀλλ’ ἐνυπάρχει διαϕερόντως. ὁ μὲν γὰρ δον̂λος ὅλως οὐκ ἔχει τὸ βουλευτικόν, τὸ δὲ θη̂λυ ἔχει μέν, ἀλλ’ ἄκυρον· ὁ δὲ παɩ̂ς ἔχει μέν, ἀλλ’ ἀτελές. ὁμοίως τοίνυν ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ἔχειν καὶ περὶ τὰς ἠθικὰς ἀρετάς.

By inserting ἐπεὶ before ϕύσει, altering τὰ πλείω ἄρχοντα into πλείω τὰ ἄρχοντα, and omitting ἀναγκαɩ̂ον before ἔχειν a few lines lower down, Bernays has ingeniously fused the whole train of thought with its many involutions, into a single consistent sentence. But in such a complex passage, an anacoluthon seems more probable, and Bernays’ alterations are considerable and unsupported by MS. authority. Cp. Nic. Eth. iii. 5. § 17, for a similar passage, which has also been arranged so as to form a continuous sentence; also c. 8. § 3; c. 12. § 1; iii. 9. § 6, and note. The words ἄλλον γὰρ τρόπον go back to ταύτης εἰ̂ναι διαϕοράς.

ὥστε ϕανερὸν ὅτι ἐστὶν ἠθικὴ ἀρετὴ τω̂ν εἰρημένων πάντων, καὶ οὐχ ἡJowett1885v1: 13. 9. αὐτὴ σωϕροσύνη κ.τ.λ.

‘Moral virtue is to be attributed to all these classes and [as they differ in character so] their virtues differ.’

καθόλου γὰρ οἱ λέγοντες κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 13. 10.

In the Meno of Plato (p. 73), Socrates argues for the necessity of some general definition of virtue against Gorgias, who, being unable to apprehend such a general idea, confuses the whole of virtue with its parts. Either from an imperfect recollection of the passage or perhaps also from the party spirit which made him or his school professional adversaries of Plato (see note on ii. 4. § 2), Aristotle takes a view of his meaning which, when compared with the context, is seen to be untenable. For the Platonic Socrates is maintaining what Aristotle is elsewhere quite ready to Edition: current; Page: [40]allow, — that there must be a common idea of virtue; this Gorgias the Sophist in the infancy of philosophy is unable to understand, and in reply can only enumerate separate virtues. The tendency in the Aristotelian writings to refer to Plato, the mention of Gorgias, and the opposition between the general idea of virtue and the particular virtues sufficiently prove that the passage in the Meno is intended.

καὶ ὁ μὲν δον̂λος τω̂ν ϕύσει σκυτοτόμος δ’ οὐθείς.Jowett1885v1: 13. 13.

Aristotle is contrasting the lot of the slave and of the artisan. The slave is in one respect better off than the artisan because he is directed by a master, whereas the artisan has no intelligence but his own by which to guide his life. He too is a slave without the advantages of slavery. Thus Socialist writers, like Lassalle and others, in recent times have contrasted unfavourably the lot of the modern operative with that of the mediæval serf. We may note in modern times the civilizing influence of domestic service on the homes and manners of the poor. Many a household servant in England has received an impress from a master or mistress, and in Aristotle’s language, ‘has derived a virtue from them.’ Cp. iii. 5. § 4, τω̂ν δ’ ἀναγκαίων οἱ μὲν ἑνὶ λειτουργον̂ντες τὰ τοιαν̂τα δον̂λοι, οἱ δὲ κοινοὶ βάναυσοι καὶ θη̂τες, where, in a similar spirit, Aristotle contrasts the duties of the artisan, which are rendered to the community, with the duties of the slave, which are rendered to the individual.

ἀλλ’ οὐ τὴν διδασκαλικὴν ἔχοντα τω̂ν ἔργων δεσποτικήν.Jowett1885v1: 13. 14.

These strange words may be translated literally: ‘But not in so far as he possesses an art of the master such as would direct the slave in his particular employment;’ i. e. it is not as the teacher of a craft but as a master that he imparts virtue to his slave.

The slave is relative to the master. His virtues are all received from him, and cannot be imparted by any chance instructor. Nor does the master instruct him in any art. But the artisan stands in no relation to another; he has a separate art (§ 13) which he exercises independently. He is without any ennobling influence external to himself, whereas the slave is inspired by his master.

διὸ λέγουσιν οὐ καλω̂ς οἱ λόγου τοὺς δούλους ἀποστερον̂ντες καὶJowett1885v1: 13. 14. Edition: current; Page: [41]ϕάσκοντες ἐπιτάξει χρη̂σθαι μόνον· νουθετητέον γὰρ μα̂λλον τοὺς δούλους ἢ τοὺς παɩ̂δας.

These words may mean: either 1)* ‘who do not allow us to converse with slaves,’ or 2) ‘who do not allow to slaves the gift of reason.’ In either case there is a reference to Plato, Laws, vi. 777, 778.

περὶ δὲ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς καὶ τέκνων καὶ πατρός, τη̂ς τε περὶ ἕκαστονJowett1885v1: 13. 15. αὐτω̂ν ἀρετη̂ς, καὶ τη̂ς πρὸς σϕα̂ς αὐτοὺς ὁμιλίας, τί τὸ καλω̂ς καὶ μὴ καλω̂ς ἐστί, καὶ πω̂ς δεɩ̂ τὸ μὲν εν̓̂ διώκειν τὸ δὲ κακω̂ς ϕεύγειν, ἐν τοɩ̂ς περὶ τὰς πολιτείας ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ἐπελθεɩ̂ν.

This is one of the many promises in the Politics which are unfulfilled. Cp. iv. 15. § 3, a passage which is sometimes quoted in this connexion. But the reference is only to the office of παιδονόμος and γυναικονόμος.

Edition: current; Page: [42]

BOOK II.

ἔτι δὲ τὸ ζητεɩ̂ν τι παρ’ αὐτὰς ἕτερον μὴ δοκῃ̑ πάντως εἰ̂ναι σοϕίζεσθαιJowett1885v1: 1. 1. βουλομένων.

τὸ ζητεɩ̂ν is the nominative of μὴ δοκῃ̑: πάντως is to be taken closely with μή, ‘and that our object in seeking for a new state is not at all to make a display of ingenuity; but to supply defects in states which are known to us, both in those which are actually existing and also in theoretical states like that of Plato.’ μὴ δοκῃ̑ and δοκω̂μεν are dependent on ἵνα.

ἐπιβαλέσθαι τὴν μέθοδον.Jowett1885v1: 1. 1.

‘To undertake’ or ‘take upon oneself,’ a curious and idiomatic use of the word, found also in Plato and Thucydides. See Bonitz (Liddell and Scott), s. v.

ὁ μὲν γὰρ τόπος εἱ̑ς ὁ τη̂ς μια̂ς πόλεως, οἱ δὲ πολɩ̂ται κοινωνοὶ τη̂ς μια̂ςJowett1885v1: 1. 2. πόλεως.

εἱ̑ς ὁ τη̂ς is required by the sense and is supported by the old Latin Translation. All the Greek MSS. however read ἰσότης.

ἐν τῃ̑ πολιτείᾳ τῃ̑ Πλάτωνος, either the title of the book (cp. iv. c. 4.Jowett1885v1: 1. 3. § 11; c. 7. § 1), or ‘in the state which is described by Plato.’

The comments of Aristotle on Plato’s Republic and Laws, contained in this and the following chapters, can hardly be dealt with properly in single notes. They are full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies. But the nature of these comments, which throw great light on the character of ancient criticism in general, will be best appreciated when they are brought together and compared with one another in a comprehensive manner. I have therefore reserved much of what has to be said about them for an essay ‘On the Edition: current; Page: [43]Criticisms of Plato in Aristotle.’ Both in the essay and in the notes I have been much indebted to Susemihl.

δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ϕησὶ δεɩ̂ν νενομοθετη̂σθαι τὸν τρόπον τον̂τον ὁ Σωκράτης, οὐJowett1885v1: 2. 1. ϕαίνεται συμβαɩ̂νον ἐκ τω̂ν λόγων. ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τὸ τέλος ὅ ϕησι τῃ̑ πόλει δεɩ̂ν ὑπάρχειν, ὡς μὲν εἴρηται νν̂ν, ἀδύνατον. πω̂ς δὲ δεɩ̂ διελεɩ̂ν οὐδὲν διώρισται.

δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν, sc. unity.

‘The argument of Socrates does not show that these enactments are to be approved for the reason which he gives [viz. as tending to unity]; and, regarded as a means to the end which he attributes to the state, unless some new explanation of them is offered, they are impossible.’ Bernays places a comma after πρός, which he takes with ἔτι: cp. πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι (Meteorol. i. 8, 346 a. 10); πρὸς δὲ ἔτι (Herod. iii. 74). The construction is thus made simpler; but the adverbial use of πρὸς hardly ever occurs in Aristotle. ‘Moreover, the end, viz. unity, which he attributes to the state upon his own showing is impossible.’

The first of these propositions, τὸ μίαν ὅτι μάλιστα εἰ̂ναι τὴν πόλιν is discussed in the remainder of this chapter,—the second at the commencement of chapter 3.

ὡς μὲν εἴρηται νν̂ν, ‘as it is described in his book,’ or ‘as it is actually described.’ Cp. infra c. 5. § 23, νν̂ν γε οὐδὲν διώρισται.

πω̂ς δὲ δεɩ̂ διελεɩ̂ν. Sc. τὸ τέλος, or generally ‘what Plato means by unity.’

For the use of διελεɩ̂ν in the sense of ‘*to interpret,’ cp. Herod. vii. 16, εἰ δὲ ἄρα μή ἐστι τον̂το τοιον̂το οἱ̑ον ἐγὼ διαιρέω, ἀλλά τι τον̂ θεον̂ μετέχον, σὺ πα̂ν αὐτὸ συλλαβὼν εἴρηκας. διελεɩ̂ν may also be taken in the more common sense of ‘to distinguish,’ i.e. how we are to distinguish or define unity and plurality (cp. iii. 13. § 6: εἰ δὴ τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἰ̂εν ὀλίγοι πάμπαν οἱ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἔχοντες, τίνα δεɩ̂ διελεɩ̂ν τὸν τρόπον;).

οὐ γὰρ γίνεται πόλις ἐξ ὁμοίων.Jowett1885v1: 2. 3.

The equality among citizens which is elsewhere (iii. 16. § 2; iv. 11. § 8; vii. 8. § 4) said to be the true and natural principle, is not inconsistent with a difference of character and of pursuits.

διοίσει δὲ τῳ̑ τοιούτῳ καὶ πόλις ἔθνους, ὅταν μὴ κατὰ κώμας ὠ̂σι κεχωρισμένοιJowett1885v1: 2. 3. τὸ πλη̂θος, ἀλλ’ οἱ̑ον Ἀρκάδες.

The clause ὅταν μὴ κ.τ.λ. may be a description either 1)* of the Edition: current; Page: [44]ἔθνος, ‘when the inhabitants of a country are not yet distributed in villages’; or 2) of the πόλις, ‘when they are no longer dispersed in villages.’ According to 1), the Arcadians are placed below, according to 2), above the ordinary condition of village communities.

1) Taking the first rendering, we may compare Plato’s Symposium, 193 A, νυνὶ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν διῳκίσθημεν ὑπὸ τον̂ θεον̂ καθάπερ Ἀρκάδες ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων. But Arcadia was also the most backward state in Hellas, the type of primitive simplicity. Hence, without referring to the dispersion of the Mantineans by the Lacedaemonians (Xen. Hell. v. 2. 6) it is possible that Aristotle is speaking, not of their actual, but of their primitive and traditional state. 2) On the other hand he may be using the Arcadians as an example, not of the ἔθνος but of the πόλις, and contrasting their condition, when centralized in Megalopolis by Epaminondas, with the ruder life of earlier times. They would certainly have furnished the latest illustration of a συνοίκισις. We may paraphrase ‘When they are not scattered in villages, but, like the Arcadians, have a central city.’

It may be argued on the other side that Aristotle would not have used the Arcadians who were the most backward of Hellenes, as the type of a civilized, but of a semi-barbarous, nation.

To Aristotle the ἔθνος is a lower stage than the πόλις. He had no idea of a nation in the higher sense; nor did he see how ill adapted the Greek πόλις was to the larger order of the world, which was springing up around him, or how completely it had outlived its objects.

ἐξ ὡ̑ν δὲ δεɩ̂ ἓν γενέσθαι, εἴδει διαϕέρει.Jowett1885v1: 2. 3.

The state like the nation is not a mere aggregate, but has an organic unity of higher and lower elements.

διόπερ τὸ ἴσον τὸ ἀντιπεπονθὸς σώζει τὰς πόλεις, ὥσπερ ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἠθικοɩ̂ςJowett1885v1: 2. 4. εἴρηται πρότερον.

Euclid in his 6th Book uses ἀντιπεπονθέναι to express the relation of reciprocal proportion. Probably the ethical significance of the term among the Pythagoreans was derived from its mathematical Edition: current; Page: [45]use. Cf. Nic. Eth. v. 5. § 1, and Alex. Aphrod. on Met. i. 5, τη̂ς μὲν δικαιοσύνης ἴδιον ὑπολαμβάνοντες τὸ ἀντιπεπονθός τε καὶ ἴσον, etc. (Scholia in Arist. Ed. Berol. 539 b. 12.)

ὥσπερ ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἠθικοɩ̂ς. Here, and in vii. 13. § 5, Aristotle quotes the Ethics in the Politics, as he quotes the Politics in the Rhetoric (i. 8, 1366 a. 21). But probably the references have been interpolated.

ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ μετέβαλλον οἱ σκυτεɩ̂ς καὶ οἱ τέκτονες καὶ μὴ οἱ αὐτοὶ ἀεὶJowett1885v1: 2. 5. σκυτοτόμοι καὶ τέκτονες ἠ̑σαν.

These words are a reflection on the proposed arrangement, not unlike the satirical remarks of Socrates in the Memorabilia (i. 2. § 9), and in the Republic ii. 374. But the connexion is imperfectly drawn out:—Aristotle, while making this reflection upon the inconvenience of the practice, admits in the next sentence that the alternation of rulers and subjects is in some cases the only arrangement possible. To Plato it seemed essential that the division between rulers and ruled should be permanent, like the division of labour in the arts, between one craftsman and another. Aristotle says, ‘yes, if possible,’ but this permanence is not always attainable, for where there is equality and freedom among the citizens, they must rule in turn (vii. c. 9; cp. also infra, c. 11. § 13).

ἐν οἱ̑ς δὲ μὴ δυνατὸν . . ἐξ ἀρχη̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 2. 6.

‘However desirable it may be that the same should rule, yet, if they cannot, but justice requires that all, being by nature equal, should share in the government, then they must rule by turns.’

ἐν τούτοις δὲ μιμεɩ̂σθαι τὸ ἐν μέρει τοὺς ἴσους εἴκειν ὁμοίως τοɩ̂ς ἐξJowett1885v1: 2. 6. ἀρχη̂ς.

ἐν τούτοις, sc. among those who are naturally equal and have a right to share in the government.

μιμεɩ̂σθαι, ‘to imitate,’ i.e. to come as near as we can to ‘this principle of succession,’ dependent on βέλτιον.

τοɩ̂ς ἐξ ἀρχη̂ς, sc. εἴκουσιν. Like ‘the original rulers, who have yielded to them;’ or, without supplying εἴκουσιν, nearly the same meaning may be obtained. Cp. Book iii. 6. § 9, a passage which helps to explain this, διὸ καὶ τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρχάς, ὅταν ᾐ̑ κατ’ ἰσότητα τω̂ν Edition: current; Page: [46]πολιτω̂ν συνεστηκυɩ̂α καὶ καθ’ ὁμοιότητα, κατὰ μέρος ἀξιον̂σιν ἄρχειν, πρότερον μέν, ᾐ̑ πέϕυκεν, ἀξιον̂ντες ἐν μέρει λειτουργεɩ̂ν, καὶ σκοπεɩ̂ν τινὰ πάλιν τὸ αὑτον̂ ἀγαθόν, ὥσπερ πρότερον αὐτὸς ἄρχων ἐσκόπει τὸ ἐκείνου συμϕέρον.

τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ἀρχόντων ἕτεροι ἑτέρας ἄρχουσιν ἀρχάς.Jowett1885v1: 2. 7.

1) The equalisation of rulers and ruled is attained in two ways: a) by succession; b) by the variety of offices which the same person may hold,—that is to say, instead of going out of office, he may pass from one office to another, from higher to lower and conversely; the alderman may become a common councillor or the common councillor an alderman. Or, 2) the words are a passing thought suggested by ἄλλοι γενόμενοι, confirmatory of the view that the State consists of dissimilars. ‘There is a further variety; not only do they come into and go out of office, as if they were no longer the same persons, but they have different offices.’

εἰ μὲν ον̓̂ν ὡς ἕκαστος, τάχ’ ἂν εἴη μα̂λλον ὃ βούλεται ποιεɩ̂ν ὁ ΣωκράτηςJowett1885v1: 3. 2. . . . νν̂ν δ’ οὐχ οὕτω ϕήσουσιν κ.τ.λ.

‘When each man can speak of his own wife, his own son, or his own property, the clear conviction which he entertains may tend to produce unity, but this is not the meaning of those who would have all things in common; they mean “all,” not “each.” ’

τὸ γὰρ πάντες καὶ ἀμϕότερα καὶ περιττὰ καὶ ἄρτια διὰ τὸ διττὸν καὶ ἐνJowett1885v1: 3. 3. τοɩ̂ς λόγοις ἐριστικοὺς ποιεɩ̂ συλλογισμούς· διὸ ἐστὶ τὸ πάντας τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν ὡδὶ μὲν καλόν, ἀλλ’ οὐ δυνατόν, ὡδὶ δ’ οὐθὲν ὁμονοητικόν.

The absolute unity of ‘all’ in the sense of ‘each’ is not what Plato intended, and is in fact impracticable. The unity of all in the abstract, i.e. of the whole state, excluding individuals, does not tend to harmony. Such a unity is really inconceivable; a state without individuals is a μάταιον εἰ̂δος. (Nic. Eth. i. 6. § 10.) The term ‘all,’ like the term ‘one,’ is ambiguous, and has a different meaning when applied to the state and to the individuals of whom the state is composed.

πάντες καὶ ἀμϕότερα. The fallacy is that these words may mean ‘all’ or ‘both,’ either in a collective or individual sense.

περιττὰ καὶ ἄρτια. The fallacy consists in assuming that odd and even are the same because two odd numbers when added together Edition: current; Page: [47]are even: e. g. the odd numbers, 5 + 7 = 12, which is an even number; or that five is both odd and even, because it is composed of three which is an odd and two which is an even number. See Arist. Sophist. Elench. c. 4. 162 a. 33. Cp. infra c. 5. § 27, οὐ γὰρ τω̂ν αὐτω̂ν τὸ εὐδαιμονεɩ̂ν ὡ̑νπερ τὸ ἄρτιον, κ.τ.λ.

καὶ ἐν τοɩ̂ς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. ‘For the word πάντες is fallacious, and indeed the use of this and other analogous terms is a source of contentious syllogisms in arguments.’ καί, ‘not only in this instance, but in arguments generally.’

The fallacy referred to is that of σύνθεσις and διαίρεσις, cp. Soph. Elench. c. 20. 177 a. 33 ff.

ἢ ὅσον ἑκάστῳ ἐπιβάλλει.Jowett1885v1: 3. 4.

Either, ‘only so far as comes in the way of,’ or, ‘is the business of each,’ or, with a slight difference of meaning, ‘only so far as it touches or affects each.’ Cp. i. 13. § 8, διὸ τὸν μὲν ἄρχοντα τελέαν ἔχειν δεɩ̂ τὴν ἠθικὴν ἀρετὴν τω̂ν δ’ ἄλλων ἕκαστον ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει αὐτοɩ̂ς.

καὶ οὑ̑τοι οὐχ ὡς ἑκάστου.Jowett1885v1: 3. 5.

‘Every man will have a thousand sons, and these do not properly belong to him individually, but equally to all.’

ἔτι οὕτως ἕκαστος ἐμὸς λέγει τὸν εν̓̂ πράττοντα τω̂ν πολιτω̂ν ἢ κακω̂ς,Jowett1885v1: 3. 5. ὁπόστος τυγχάνει τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὤν, οἱ̑ον ἐμὸς ἢ τον̂ δεɩ̂νος, τον̂τον τὸν τρόπον λέγων καθ’ ἕκαστον τω̂ν χιλίων.

οὕτως*, ‘on this principle’; ἐμὸς = ἐμός ἐστι. ‘Further, on this principle [of common parentage], each one says of the citizen who fares ill or well, “he is mine,” whatever fraction he himself may be of the whole number; I mean that (οἱ̑ον) he will say, “he is mine,” or, “his,” and this will be his way of speaking about each of Plato’s thousand citizens.’ The words have a reference to Plat. Rep. v. 463 E, μάλιστα συμϕωνήσουσιν ἑνός τινος ἢ εν̓̂ ἢ κακω̂ς πράττοντος . . . ὅτι τὸ ἐμὸν εν̓̂ πράττει ἢ τὸ ἐμὸν κακω̂ς. The citizen speaks as one in a thousand of all the rest: he gives a thousandth part of his affection to each and all of the thousand persons who are the objects of it. Or, to put the matter in another way: we may suppose the citizens to be conversing with each other: they say, ‘my son is doing well,’ or, ‘is not doing well,’ being each of them a thousandth part Edition: current; Page: [48]of the whole, and those of whom they speak being likewise each of them a thousandth part.

A different view of this passage has been taken in the Text. More stress is laid on the words τὸν εν̓̂ ἢ κακω̂ς πράττοντα: the parent is supposed to appropriate the youth who is doing well, and to disown the one who is doing badly: ἐμὸς λέγει τὸν εν̓̂ ἢ κακω̂ς πράττοντα = ἐμὸς λέγει τὸν εν̓̂ πράττοντα, οὐκ ἐμὸς λέγει τὸν κακω̂ς πράττοντα. It must be remembered that, according to Aristotle, the true children are liable to be discovered by their likeness to their parents.

τω̂ν χιλίων, as if Plato had made his state to consist of a thousand citizens; cp. infra c. 6. § 5. This is only an inference from Rep. iv. 423 A, in which Plato says that the ideal state, even if consisting of no more than a thousand soldiers, would be invincible.

ὁ μὲν γὰρ υἱόν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 3. 7.

‘In Plato’s state they are all “mine”: in ordinary states there are many sorts of relationship, and the same person may be a father or a brother or a cousin of some one or other; there are likewise remoter degrees of affinity, and remoter still the tie of fellow wardsman or fellow tribesman. Even a distant cousinship is preferable to that shadow of a relationship which supersedes them all.’

ὁ δ’ ἀνεψιόν, ἢ κατ’ ἄλλην τινὰ συγγένειαν.Jowett1885v1: 3. 7.

The variety of human relations as ordinarily conceived is contrasted with the monotony of Plato’s society in which the state and the family are identified.

κρεɩ̂ττον γὰρ ἴδιον ἀνεψιὸν εἰ̂ναι ἢ τὸν τρόπον τον̂τον υἱόν.Jowett1885v1: 3. 7.

A resumption of πότερον οὕτω κρεɩ̂ττον; ‘Is not the present practice better? for it is better to have a cousin of your own than to have a son after Plato’s fashion.’

ϕασί τινες . . τω̂ν τὰς τη̂ς γη̂ς περιόδους πραγματευομένων εἰ̂ναί τισι τω̂νJowett1885v1: 3. 9. ἄνω Λιβύων κοινὰς τὰς γυναɩ̂κας, τὰ μέντοι γενόμενα τέκνα διαιρεɩ̂σθαι κατὰ τὰς ὁμοιότητας.

Cp. Herod. iv. 180, τῳ̑ ἂν οἴκῃ τω̂ν ἀνδρω̂ν τὸ παιδίον, τούτου παɩ̂ς νομίζεται, who is speaking, however, not of Upper, but of Lower Libya.

Edition: current; Page: [49]

ὡ̑ν οὐδὲν ὅσιόν ἐστι γίνεσθαι πρὸς πατέρας καὶ μητέρας καὶ τοὺς μὴJowett1885v1: 4. 1. πόρρω τη̂ς συγγενείας ὄντας, ὥσπερ πρὸς τοὺς ἄπωθεν.

‘Crimes of violence are worse in the republic of Plato because they are attended with impiety, and they are more likely to be committed because natural relationships are undiscoverable.’ Aristotle here mixes up Plato’s point of view and his own. He does not remark that Plato having abolished family relations is not really chargeable with the occurrence of offences which arise out of them. Perhaps he would have retorted that the natural relationship could not be thus abolished.

καὶ γενομένων, τω̂ν μὲν γνωριζόντων ἐνδέχεται τὰς νομιζομένας γίνεσθαιJowett1885v1: 4. 1. λύσεις, τω̂ν δὲ μηδεμίαν.

τω̂ν δὲ is opposed to τω̂ν μέν, though not parallel with it = ‘but in the other case,’ as if τω̂ν μὲν without γνωριζόντων had preceded. Or a comma may be placed after τω̂ν μέν, and γνωριζόντων may be separated from it. ‘And when offences take place, in the one case men having knowledge of them, the customary expiations may be made, in the other case they cannot.’

ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ κοινοὺς ποιήσαντα τοὺς υἱοὺς τὸ συνεɩ̂ναι μόνον ἀϕελεɩ̂νJowett1885v1: 4. 2. τω̂ν ἐρώντων, τὸ δ’ ἐρα̂ν μὴ κωλν̂σαι, μηδὲ τὰς χρήσεις τὰς ἄλλας, ἃς πατρὶ πρὸς υἱὸν εἰ̂ναι πάντων ἐστὶν ἀπρεπέστατον καὶ ἀδελϕῳ̑ πρὸς ἀδελϕόν· ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἐρα̂ν μόνον.

The instance quoted, πατρὶ πρὸς υἱόν, shews that the reference is to Rep. iii. 403, but Aristotle has been hasty or forgetful in his citation. Plato does not say that he will allow the practice of lovers to prevail between father and son, or brother and brother, but that the endearments of lovers shall be only such as might be practised without offence between members of the same family. τὸ ἐρα̂ν evidently in the lover’s sense of the word.

ἔοικε δὲ μα̂λλον κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 4. 4.

‘If the legislator desire to keep the inferior classes in a state of weakness, and communism is a source, not of strength, but of weakness, then it is better adapted to them than to the guardians’— that is, according to Aristotle’s view of communism, not Plato’s. Cp. vii. 9. § 8; c. 10. § 13 where he argues that the legislator should Edition: current; Page: [50]destroy as far as possible any tie of race among the slave population. And the traditional policy of slave-holding countries has been to deprive the slave of education and of family rights.

τοιούτους.Jowett1885v1: 4. 4.

Sc. ἡ̑ττον ϕιλικοὺς gathered from ἡ̑ττον ϕιλία.

καὶ δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ὁ Σωκράτης οὕτως οἴεται δεɩ̂ν τάττειν τὰ περὶ τὰ τέκνα.Jowett1885v1: 4. 5.

Supply τοὐναντίον (from the preceding) τη̂ς αἰτίας δι’ ἥν, viz. unity. Cp. supra c. 2. § 1, καὶ δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ϕησὶ δεɩ̂ν νενομοθετη̂σθαι τὸν τρόπον τον̂τον ὁ Σωκράτης οὐ ϕαίνεται συμβαɩ̂νον ἐκ τω̂ν λόγων.

δ καὶ δοκεɩ̂ κἀκεɩ̂νος εἰ̂ναί ϕησι τη̂ς ϕιλίας ἔργον, καθάπερ ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἐρωτικοɩ̂ςJowett1885v1: 4. 6, 7. λόγοις ἴσμεν λέγοντα τὸν Ἀριστοϕάνην ὡς τω̂ν ἐρώντων διὰ τὸ σϕόδρα ϕιλεɩ̂ν ἐπιθυμούντων συμϕν̂ναι καὶ γενέσθαι ἐκ δύο ὄντων ἀμϕοτέρους ἕνα. ἐνταν̂θα μὲν ον̓̂ν ἀνάγκη ἀμϕοτέρους ἐϕθάρθαι ἢ τὸν ἕνα· ἐν δὲ τῃ̑ πόλει τὴν ϕιλίαν ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ὑδαρη̂ γίνεσθαι διὰ τὴν κοινωνίαν τὴν τοιαύτην, καὶ ἥκιστα λέγειν τὸν ἐμὸν ἢ υἱὸν πατέρα ἢ πατέρα υἱόν.

Socrates wishes to have the city entirely one: now such a unity is either attained or not attained: if attained like that of the lovers in the Symposium (called here ἐρωτικοὶ λόγοι), p. 192, it would be suicidal. But it is not attained, for he only succeeds in creating a very loose tie between his citizens.

ὡς τω̂ν ἐρώντων, a rare construction after λέγειν. Cp. Plat. Men o 95 E, ὡς διδακτον̂ οὔσης τη̂ς ἀρετη̂ς λέγει.

ἢ τὸν ἕνα. ‘If they are to be absorbed in one another, both individualities cannot subsist, though one may.’

οὕτω συμβαίνει καὶ τὴν οἰκειότητα τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὴν ἀπὸ τω̂ν ὀνομάτωνJowett1885v1: 4. 8. τούτων διαϕροντίζειν ἥκιστα ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ὂν ἐν τῃ̑ πολιτείᾳ τῃ̑ τοιαύτῃ, ἢ πατέρα ὡς υἱω̂ν ἢ υἱὸν ὡς πατρός, ἢ ὡς ἀδελϕοὺς ἀλλήλων.

ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ὂν is to be taken with συμβαίνει, ἥκιστα with διαϕροντίζειν. The latter word has two constructions, 1) with τινὰ for subject, and οἰκειότητα as object; 2) with πατέρα, υἱόν for subjects, and the genitives υἱω̂ν, πατρὸς following, e. g. ἢ πατέρα διαϕροντίζειν ὡς υἱω̂ν.

τό τε ἴδιον καὶ τὸ ἀγαπητόν.Jowett1885v1: 4. 9.

ἀγαπητόν, ‘that which is to be cherished or valued,’ like ἀγαπητὸς in Plat. (?) Alcibiades I. 131 E, οὔτ’ ἐγένετο, ὡς ἔοικεν, Ἀλκιβιάδῃ τῳ̑ Edition: current; Page: [51]Κλεινίου ἐραστὴς οὔτ’ ἔστιν ἀλλ’ ἢ εἱ̑ς μόνος, καὶ οὑ̑τος ἀγαπητός, Σωκράτης ὁ Σωϕρονίσκου καὶ Φαιναρέτης: and Rhet. i. 7, 1365 b. 19, οὐκ ἴση ζημία, ἄν τις τὸν ἑτερόϕθαλμον τυϕλώσῃ καὶ τὸν δύ’ ἔχοντα· ἀγαπητὸν γὰρ ἀϕῄρηται: also Homer (Odyssey ii. 365) μον̂νος ἐὼν ἀγαπητός. Compare the English ‘dear.’ Or, more simply, ἀγαπητὸν may also be taken as answering to ϕιλείν: ‘men love an object which is naturally to be loved.’

καὶ πάλιν οἱ παρὰ τοɩ̂ς ϕύλαξιν [εἰς] τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας.Jowett1885v1: 4. 10.

Aristotle is referring to the case of the citizens who pass from one rank to another. Those who are raised to the condition of the guardians and those who are degraded from it have both lost the natural relationships of brothers and sisters, parents and children. But the natural relations still exist although the names of them have disappeared; and therefore they are now less likely to be respected. Here again Aristotle is confusing his own point of view with that of Plato.

παρὰ τοɩ̂ς ϕύλαξιν must be explained as a confusion of rest and motion, lit. ‘those who [having been transferred from the other citizens] are now among the guardians.’ The words εἰς τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας have been explained as a pleonasm = ‘in relation to the other citizens’ (οὐ προσαγορεύουσιν ἀδελϕούς, κ.τ.λ.), ‘they do not call them brothers.’ But the use of εἰς in a different sense in two successive lines is objectionable. It is possible that the words εἰς τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας are an error of the copyist, who may have repeated the words of the previous line. The omission of εἰς (which is wanting in Moerbeke and in two good MSS., Ms. P1, but inserted as a correction in one of them, and found in all the rest) is the best way of amending the passage.

κἂν ᾐ̑ ἐκεɩ̂να χωρίς,Jowett1885v1: 5. 2.

sc. τὰ περὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰς γυναɩ̂κας.

πότερον . . τάς τε κτήσεις κοινὰς εἰ̂ναι βέλτιον καὶ τὰς χρήσεις.Jowett1885v1: 5. 2.

These words are a statement of the general question which is afterwards subdivided into three cases, though the carelessness of the language might at first sight lead to the inference that Aristotle is putting the third case only. Hence Bernays has been led, unnecessarily, Edition: current; Page: [52]to alter the reading. The change made by him of τε into γε and of καὶ into κατὰ impairs the parallelism of κτήσεις and χρήσεις (τάς γε κτήσεις κοινὰς εἰ̂ναι βελτιον κατὰ τὰς χρήσεις). The three cases are: 1) the soil divided, produce common: 2) soil common, produce divided: 3) soil and produce alike common.

ὅπερ ἔνια ποιεɩ̂ τω̂ν ἐθνω̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 5. 2.

ἔθνη as in i. 2. § 6, a vague expression for βάρβαροι and generally opposed to πόλεις or Ἕλληνες: also any loosely organised people, ii. 2. § 3; applied to the more general divisions of Hellas, vii. 7. § 4. The cases of Sparta, infra § 7, and of Tarentum, vi. 5. § 10, are not in point, even if their practice could be regarded as communism.

ἑτέρων μὲν ον̓̂ν ὄντων τω̂ν γεωργούντων ἄλλος ἂν εἴη τρόπος καὶ ῥᾴων.Jowett1885v1: 5. 3.

If the land were cultivated by serfs there would be no disputes among the cultivators, for having no property, they would have nothing to quarrel about.

τω̂ν συναποδήμων κοινωνίαι· σχεδὸν γὰρ οἱ πλεɩ̂στοι διαϕερόμενοι κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 5. 4.

Either* ‘fellow-travellers’ or ‘fellow-settlers in a foreign city.’ Whether the κοινωνίαι were formed for the purposes of business or only of companionship is not determined. With the words σχεδὸν γὰρ κ.τ.λ. supply προσκρούουσι.

καὶ ἐπικοσμηθὲν . . διενέγκαι.Jowett1885v1: 5. 5.

A condensed expression put for ὃν δὲ νν̂ν τρόπον ἔχει, διαϕέρει, καὶ ἐπικοσμηθὲν (‘when it has been improved’), οὐ μικρὸν ἂν διενέγκαι.

αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιμέλειαι διῃρημέναι τὰ ἐγκλήματα πρὸς ἀλλήλους οὐJowett1885v1: 5. 6. ποιήσουσιν.

Either 1), ‘for the division of labour will give rise to no complaints,’ i. e. will prevent complaints, ἐπιμέλειαι being taken as the nominative to οὐ ποιήσουσιν: or 2) regarding (as the words πρὸς ἀλλήλους and the following clause μα̂λλον δ’ ἐπιδώσουσιν seem to indicate) αἱ μὲν ἐπιμέλειαι as nom. absolute, or the construction of the sentence as changing, we may translate, ‘Every one having a distinct occupation, men will not complain of one another.’

δι’ ἀρετὴν δέ.Jowett1885v1: 5. 6.

‘But where there is virtue there will be in practice community of goods among friends.’

Edition: current; Page: [53]

ὑπογεγραμμένον.Jowett1885v1: 5. 6.

‘Sketched out or faintly indicated.’ For ὑπογράϕειν, cp. De Gen. Anim. ii. 6, 743 b. 24, οἱ γραϕεɩ̂ς ὑπογράψαντες ταɩ̂ς γραμμαɩ̂ς οὕτως ἐναλείϕουσι τοɩ̂ς χρώμασι τὸ ζῳ̑ον.

οἱ̑ον καὶ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι τοɩ̂ς τε δούλοις χρω̂νται τοɩ̂ς ἀλλήλων ὡς εἰπεɩ̂νJowett1885v1: 5. 7. ἰδίοις, ἔτι δ’ ἵπποις καὶ κυσίν, κἂν δεηθω̂σιν ἐϕοδίων ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἀγροɩ̂ς κατὰ τὴν χώραν.

χώρα as opposed to πόλις:—‘When on a journey in the country, they take the produce in the fields.’ The apodosis (i. e. some such words as χρω̂νται ἐϕοδίοις) is omitted. Cp. Xen. Respub. Lac. 6, §§ 1, 3, 4, Ἐναντία γε μὴν ἔγνω καὶ τάδε τοɩ̂ς πλείστοις. Ἐν μὲν γὰρ ταɩ̂ς ἄλλαις πόλεσι τω̂ν ἑαυτον̂ ἕκαστος καὶ παίδων καὶ οἰκετω̂ν καὶ χρημάτων ἄρχουσιν· ὁ δὲ Λυκον̂ργος, κατασκευάσαι βουλόμενος ὡς ἂν μηδὲν βλάπτοντες ἀπολαύοιέν τι οἱ πολɩ̂ται ἀλλήλων ἀγαθόν, ἐποίησε παίδων ἕκαστον ὁμοίως τω̂ν ἑαυτον̂ καὶ τω̂ν ἀλλοτρίων ἄρχειν. . . . . . ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ οἰκέταις, εἴ τις δεηθείη, χρη̂σθαι καὶ τοɩ̂ς ἀλλοτρίοις. Καὶ κυνω̂ν δὲ θηρευτικω̂ν συνη̂ψε κοινωνίαν· ὥστε οἱ μὲν δεόμενοι παρακαλον̂σιν ἐπὶ θήραν, ὁ δὲ μὴ αὐτὸς σχολάζων ἡδέως ἐκπέμπει. Καὶ ἵπποις δὲ ὡσαύτως χρω̂νται· ὁ γὰρ ἀσθενήσας ἢ δεηθεὶς ὀχήματος ἢ ταχύ ποι βουληθεὶς ἀϕικέσθαι, ἤν που ἴδῃ ἵππον ὄντα, λαβὼν καὶ χρησάμενος καλω̂ς ἀποκαθίστησιν, κ.τ.λ. Also Plat. Laws, viii. 845 A, ἐὰν δὲ ξένος ἐπιδημήσας ὀπώρας ἐπιθυμῃ̑ ϕαγεɩ̂ν διαπορευόμενος τὰς ὁδούς, τη̂ς μὲν γενναίας ἁπτέσθω, ἐὰν βούληται, με[Editor: illegible character] ἑνὸς ἀκολούθου χωρὶς τιμη̂ς, ξένια δεχόμενος, τη̂ς δὲ ἀγροίκου λεγομένης καὶ τω̂ν τοιούτων ὁ νόμος εἰργέτω μὴ κοινωνεɩ̂ν ἡμɩ̂ν τοὺς ξένους.

ὅπως δὲ γίνωνται τοιον̂τοι.Jowett1885v1: 5. 8.

‘Of such an unselfish character as to place their property at the service of others.’

τὸ δὲ ϕίλαυτον εἰ̂ναι ψέγεται δικαίως, κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 5. 9.

Cp. Nic. Eth. ix. 8; Rhet. i. 11. § 26; Plato’s Laws, v. 731 E.

τω̂ν τοιούτων.Jowett1885v1: 5. 9.

‘Not only money, but anything towards which there can be an excess of love.’ Cp. note on i. 1. § 2.

ἀναιρον̂σιν ἔργα . . σωϕροσύνης περὶ τὰς γυναɩ̂κας.Jowett1885v1: 5. 10.

Yet Plato in his Republic aimed really at an impossible strictness Edition: current; Page: [54]in the relation of the sexes, and is very far from allowing his guardians to indulge in sensuality.

Εὐπρόσωπος μὲν ον̓̂ν ἡ τοιαύτη νομοθεσία καὶ ϕιλάνθρωπος ἂν εἰ̂ναιJowett1885v1: 5. 11. δόξειεν· ὁ γὰρ ἀκροώμενος ἄσμενος ἀποδέχεται, νομίζων ἔσεσθαι ϕιλίαν τινὰ θαυμαστὴν πα̂σι πρὸς ἅπαντας, ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅταν κατηγορῃ̑ τις τω̂ν νν̂ν ὑπαρχόντων ἐν ταɩ̂ς πολιτείαις κακω̂ν ὡς γινομένων διὰ τὸ μὴ κοινὴν εἰ̂ναι τὴν οὐσίαν, λέγω δὲ δίκας τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ συμβολαίων καὶ ψευδομαρτυριω̂ν κρίσεις καὶ πλουσίων κολακείας.

The flow and regularity of this sentence remind us of the opening of Book vii, noticed by Bernays. Cp. for a similar regularity supra c. 1.

Mankind quickly become enamoured of socialistic theories, especially when they are interspersed with attacks on existing institutions. Cp. Plat. Rep. v. 464, 465; iv. 425.

ὡ̑ν οὐδὲν γίνεται διὰ τὴν ἀκοινωνησίαν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν μοχθηρίαν.Jowett1885v1: 5. 12.

A similar unwillingness to ascribe to institutions what is due to human nature may be remarked elsewhere: e.g. c. 7. § 8, ἔτι δ’ εἴ τις καὶ τὴν μετρίαν τάξειεν οὐσίαν πα̂σιν, οὐδὲν ὄϕελος· μα̂λλον γὰρ δεɩ̂ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ὁμαλίζειν ἢ τὰς οὐσίας κ.τ.λ.

The emphatic negative ὡ̑ν οὐδὲν γίνεται for ἃ οὐ γίνεται is curious.

ἀλλὰ θεωρον̂μεν ὀλίγους τους ἐκ τω̂ν κοινωνιω̂ν διαϕερομένους πρὸς πολλοὺςJowett1885v1: 5. 12. συμβάλλοντες τοὺς κεκτημένους ἰδίᾳ τὰς κτῄσεις.

To what Aristotle may be alluding is not very clear. He may have remarked that there were more quarrels among Pythagorean sects, as well as among friends who had become fellow-travellers, than among other men. A similar reflection has often been made on the religious communities of later times. Or he may be referring to disputes arising in ‘guilds’ or ‘clubs,’ or partnerships in business. διαϕερομένους is to be repeated with κεκτημένους. The meaning is that the owners of common property are comparatively few, and that therefore their quarrels, though relatively more frequent, do not so often come under our notice.

ἀλλὰ δεɩ̂ πλη̂θος ὄν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, διὰ τὴν παιδείαν κοινὴν καὶJowett1885v1: 5. 15. μίαν ποιεɩ̂ν.

Aristotle takes up a position half way between the communism Edition: current; Page: [55]of Plato and the existing practice of states. He would have men lend or give to their neighbours more than they do, but he would not enforce by law a community of goods; he would unite them by education, but would not destroy family life.

ὥσπερ τὰ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις ἐν Λακεδαίμονι καὶ Κρήτῃ τοɩ̂ς συσσιτίοις ὁJowett1885v1: 5. 15. νομοθέτης ἐκοίνωσεν.

This remark more truly applies to Crete, where the common tables were provided at the public expense (c. 10. § 7), than to Sparta, where he who could not afford to contribute to his mess lost the rights of citizenship (c. 9. §§ 30-32). Still in both there was a common mode of life; and an element of communism was introduced by the legislator. Compare also the remarkable description of the effect of Lacedaemonian training (iv. 9. §§ 6-9) in producing the same simple habits of life both among rich and poor; and Xen. De Rep. Laced. 6. §§ 1, 3, 4.

πάντα γὰρ σχεδὸν εὕρηται μέν, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν οὐ συνη̂κται, τοɩ̂ς δ’ οὐJowett1885v1: 5. 16. χρω̂νται γινώσκοντες.

οὐ συνη̂κται, lit. ‘they have not been put together,’ implying that no comparison has been made of them, nor inference drawn from them. In other cases the inference has been drawn, but not applied to a practical use. As in Pol. vii. 10. § 7, and Metaph. xi. 8, 1074 b. 8 (ὡ̑ν εἴ τις χωρίσας αὐτὸ λάβοι μόνον τὸ πρω̂τον, ὅτι θεοὺς ἂοντο τὰς πρώτας οὐσίας εἰ̂ναι, θείως ἂν εἰρη̂σθαι νομίσειεν, καὶ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς πολλάκις εὑρημένης εἰς τὸ δυνατὸν ἑκάστης καὶ τέχνης καὶ ϕιλοσοϕίας καὶ πάλιν ϕθειρομένων καὶ ταύτας τὰς δόξας ἐκείνων οἱ̑ον λείψανα περισεσω̂σθαι μέχρι τον̂ νν̂ν), and several other passages, Aristotle supposes the inventions of arts and laws to have been made many times over. Compare Plat. Laws iii. 677 A foll.

μάλιστα δ’ ἂν γένοιτο ϕανερόν, εἴ τις τοɩ̂ς ἔργοις ἴδοι τὴν τοιαύτηνJowett1885v1: 5. 17. πολιτείαν κατασκευαζομένην.

‘In the actual process of creation.’

Cp. Plat. Tim. 19 B, προσέοικε δὲ δή τινί μοι τοιῳ̑δε τὸ πάθος, οἱ̑ον εἴ τις ζῳ̑α καλά που θεασάμενος, εἴτε ὑπὸ γραϕη̂ς εἰργασμένα εἴτε καὶ ζω̂ντα ἀληθινω̂ς, ἡσυχίαν δὲ ἄγοντα, εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν ἀϕίκοιτο θεάσασθαι κινούμενά τε αὐτὰ καί τι τω̂ν τοɩ̂ς σώμασι δοκούντων προσήκειν κατὰ τὴν ἀγωνίαν ἀθλον̂ντα. ταὐτὸν καὶ ἐγὼ πέπονθα πρὸς τὴν πόλιν ἣν διήλθομεν.

Edition: current; Page: [56]

μὴ μερίζων αὐτὰ καὶ χωρίζων.Jowett1885v1: 5. 17.

αὐτὰ refers to some general subject gathered from τὴν τοιαύτην πολιτείαν. The neuter is supported by τὰ μὲν and τὰ δέ, which follow.

ὅπερ καὶ νν̂ν Λακεδαιμόνιοι ποιεɩ̂ν ἐπιχειρον̂σιν.Jowett1885v1: 5. 17.

1)* ‘Which already,’ i.e. as a matter of fact, without having recourse to Plato’s ideal, the Lacedaemonians are actually carrying out; or 2), ‘which at this very time the Lacedaemonians are trying to carry out [as though they had fallen into desuetude]’ (Schneider). For the use of νν̂ν compare ii. 8. 6.

ἐπιχειρον̂σιν according to 1), (as often in Plato. See Ast’s Lexicon) is used pleonastically = ‘do carry out.’ So τω̂ν ἐπιχειρησάντων νεωτερίζειν (v. 7. § 13) = τω̂ν νεωτερισάντων. And Plato’s Phaedrus, 265 E, μὴ ἐπιχειρεɩ̂ν καταγνύναι μέρος μηδέν.

ποιεɩ̂ γὰρ τοὺς μὲν ϕύλακας οἱ̑ον ϕρουρούς, τοὺς δὲ γεωργοὺς καὶ τοὺςJowett1885v1: 5. 20. τεχνίτας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας.

1)* The emphasis is on τοὺς μὲν and τοὺς δέ. ‘He makes one class to consist of the guardians, who are a sort of garrison, and he makes husbandmen, [or, ‘to these he opposes the husbandmen’] and the artisans and the rest of the citizens.’ 2) Bernays translates, ‘For he makes the guardians a sort of garrison and the husbandmen and the artisans and the others, citizens [held in check by the garrison],’ making a pause at τοὺς ἄλλους. Cp. Rep. iv. 419. But the opposition between ϕρουροὺς and πολίτας is harsh. For the ϕρουροὶ or ϕύλακες had a special right to the name citizens, whereas the husbandmen, as is implied in §§ 23, 28, are hardly to be reckoned in the State at all. Cp. c. 6. §§ 2, 3. Yet it may be argued on the other hand, that Aristotle has only an imperfect recollection of Plato; that he ‘snatches’ at the word ϕρουρον̂ντας, and puts into the mouth of Socrates an objection which really proceeds from Adeimantus, though afterwards paradoxically admitted by Socrates himself. Nor is it possible to set any limits to the misinterpretations of Plato passing under the name of Aristotle. The first way of taking the passage is confirmed by c. 8. § 2 infra: ἐποίει γὰρ ἓν μὲν μέρος τεχνίτας, ἓν δὲ γεωργούς, τρίτον δὲ τὸ προπολεμον̂ν καὶ τὰ ὅπλα ἔχον.

ἀλλὰ γὰρ εἴτ’ ἀναγκαɩ̂α ταν̂θ’ ὁμοίως εἴτε μή, νν̂ν γ’ οὐδὲν διώρισται.Jowett1885v1: 5. 23.

Edition: current; Page: [57]

Here, again, the antecedent to ταν̂τα is to be gathered generally from the context, = ‘whether these communistic institutions are equally necessary for the inferior and for the superior classes,’ &c. Cp. note on i. 2. § 2.

νν̂ν γε.Jowett1885v1: 5. 23.

‘As far, at least, as his book shows.’ Cp. supra c. 2. § 1.

καὶ περὶ τω̂ν ἐχομένων.Jowett1885v1: 5. 23.

Sc. οὐδὲν διώρισται from the previous sentence. ‘And as to matters connected with these, what is to be their government, what their education, what their laws, nothing has been determined.’ A repetition of § 18. The emendation ἀρχομένων (Congreve) is unnecessary and out of place; for Aristotle has already disposed of the subject class in § 22, and at § 24 he returns to speak of the members of the state generally.

κἂν εἰ κοιναὶ αἱ κτήσεις καὶ αἱ τω̂ν γεωργω̂ν γυναɩ̂κες.Jowett1885v1: 5. 24.

Sc. τίς οἰκονομήσει; or more generally, ‘What then’? Two cases are supposed: 1) what if wives are common and possessions private; and 2) what if possessions and wives are both common.

ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τω̂ν θηρίων ποιεɩ̂σθαι τὴν παραβολήν, ὅτι δεɩ̂ τὰJowett1885v1: 5. 24. αὐτὰ ἐπιτηδεύειν τὰς γυναɩ̂κας τοɩ̂ς ἀνδράσιν οἱ̑ς οἰκονομίας οὐδὲν μέτεστιν.

The language is not exact; ποιεɩ̂σθαι τὴν παραβολὴν = to argue from the comparison of the animals. οἱ̑ς: sc. τοɩ̂ς θηρίοις.

‘The rulers must always be the same; for they cannot changeJowett1885v1: 5. 26. the metal or quality which is infused into their souls by nature.’ But then Plato supposes the whole ruling class to be guardians, divided only as young and old into warriors and counsellors (as in the state described in vii. 9. § 5); and he provides for exceptional merit by the transfer from one class to another. The actual governing class are men advanced in years (Rep. vii. 536 ff.), and Aristotle himself acknowledges (vii. 14. § 5) that the division of functions between young and old is natural, and that the young wait their turn and do not rebel against such an arrangement.

ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν ἀϕαιρούμενος τω̂ν ϕυλάκων, ὅλην ϕησὶ δεɩ̂νJowett1885v1: 5. 27. εὐδαίμονα ποιεɩ̂ν τὴν πόλιν τὸν νομοθέτην. ἀδύνατον δὲ εὐδαιμονεɩ̂ν ὅλην, μὴ τω̂ν πλείστων ἢ μὴ πάντων μερω̂ν ἢ τινω̂ν ἐχόντων τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν.

This passage, like many others in the Politics, involves a misconception Edition: current; Page: [58]of Plato’s meaning. The literalism of Aristotle prevents him from seeing that Plato does not really take away the happiness of individuals in affirming that the happiness of the state must be considered first. He takes it away that he may afterwards restore a larger measure of it. He is only insisting that the doctrine of the priority of the whole to the part, which Aristotle holds in common with him (cp. Pol. i. 2. § 13), should be carried out in practice. Compare also Rep. iv. 420 B, C, and Politics vii. 9. § 7, (τὸ μὲν γὰρ εὐδαιμονεɩ̂ν ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ὑπάρχειν μετὰ τη̂ς ἀρετη̂ς, εὐδαίμονα δὲ πόλιν οὐκ εἰς μέρος τι βλέψαντας δεɩ̂ λέγειν αὐτη̂ς ἀλλ’ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πολίτας) where Aristotle appears to coincide with Plato in the doctrine which he here repudiates.

ὡ̑νπερ τὸ ἄρτιον, κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 5. 27.

Aristotle means to say that the even number may exist in the whole though not always in the parts (cp. note on c. 3. § 3 supra); but happiness must always exist in both.

Socrates is here spoken of by implication (ὀλίγα δὲ περὶ τη̂ςJowett1885v1: 6. 1-4. πολιτείας εἴρηκεν, § 4) as if he were the chief speaker in the Laws, though he is not introduced at all. The Laws are quoted as Plato’s in c. 7. § 4.

καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῃ̑ πολιτείᾳ περὶ ὀλίγων πάμπαν διώρικεν ὁ Σωκράτης.Jowett1885v1: 6. 1.

The list which follows is a very inadequate summary of the subjects contained in the Republic. Probably the metaphysical and imaginative portions of the work appeared to Aristotle ποιητικαὶ μεταϕοραὶ (Met. c. 9. 991 a. 22) and alien from politics.

τὸ δὲ εἰς τὸ προπολεμον̂ν μέρος· τρίτον δ’ ἐκ τούτων τὸ βουλευόμενον καὶJowett1885v1: 6. 2. κύριον τη̂ς πόλεως.

‘And a third class taken from the warriors,’ (τω̂ν προπολεμούντων).

περὶ δὲ τω̂ν γεωργω̂ν καὶ τω̂ν τεχνιτω̂ν, πότερον οὐδεμια̂ς ἢ μετέχουσίJowett1885v1: 6. 3. τινος ἀρχη̂ς . . . ο[Editor: illegible character]δὲν διώρικεν.

Yet Plato has expressly foretold, emphasizing his words by the declaration of an oracle, ‘that when a man of brass or iron guards the State it will then be destroyed’ (Rep. iii. 415, and supra c. 5. § 26), by which he clearly means that the third and fourth classes Edition: current; Page: [59]are to be excluded from office. Nor would he have thought for a moment of a shoemaker, or agricultural labourer, exercising political rights. On the other hand, it is true to say that Plato has nowhere defined the position of the lower classes: he has thus evaded the question of slavery to which Aristotle was keenly alive. He acknowledges the difficulty of this question in the Laws v. 776 ff.

τοɩ̂ς ἔξωθεν λόγοις.Jowett1885v1: 6. 3.

I. e. with digressions, such as the attack upon the poets (Books ii and iii), the theory of knowledge (v, vi, vii), the doctrine of immortality (x). To Aristotle these appear irrelevant, though naturally entering into Plato’s conception of the state, which includes philosophy and religion as well as politics.

τω̂ν δὲ νόμων τὸ μὲν πλεɩ̂στον μέρος νόμοι τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες, ὀλίγα δὲJowett1885v1: 6. 4. περὶ τη̂ς πολιτείας εἴρηκεν.

This statement is far from accurate. The truth is that in the Laws of Plato a nearly equal space is given to the constitution and to legislation; the latter half of the fifth book, the sixth, seventh, eighth, and a portion of the twelfth book being devoted to the constitution; the ninth, tenth, eleventh and the remainder of the twelfth to legislation.

καὶ ταύτην βουλόμενος κοινοτέραν ποιεɩ̂ν ταɩ̂ς πόλεσι κατὰ μικρὸνJowett1885v1: 6. 4. περιάλει πάλιν πρὸς τὴν ἑτέραν πολιτείαν.

For a similar use of the word κοινοτέραν cp. c. 6. § 16, εἰ μὲν ον̓̂ν ὡς κοινοτάτην ταύτην κατασκευάζει ταɩ̂ς πόλεσι τω̂ν ἄλλων πολιτείαν, κ.τ.λ.

ἑτέραν πολιτείαν, sc. the Republic. The idea of good, the rule of philosophers, the second education in dialectic, the doctrine of another life, are the chief speculative elements, as the community of property, and of women and children, are the chief social or practical elements, of the Republic which vanish in the Laws (Laws v. 739). The spirit of the Republic is more ideal and poetical, of the Laws more ethical and religious. Plato may be said to ‘bring round the Laws to the Republic’ in the assimilation of male and female education, in the syssitia for women, in the assertion of the priority of the soul to the body and of her fellowship with the gods; in the final revelation of the unity of knowledge to Edition: current; Page: [60]which he introduces his guardians at the end of the work (Laws xii. 965 ff.).

τὴν μὲν χιλίων.Jowett1885v1: 6. 5.

Cp. note on c. 3. § 5, supra.

τὸ μὲν ον̓̂ν περιττόν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 6. 6.

This and the noble passage in the Nic. Eth. i. 6. § 1 (προσάντους τη̂ς τοιαύτης ζητήσεως γινομένης διὰ τὸ ϕίλους ἄνδρας εἰσαγαγεɩ̂ν τὰ εἴδη. Δόξειε δ’ ἂν ἴσως βέλτιον εἰ̂ναι καὶ δεɩ̂ν ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ γε τη̂ς ἀληθείας καὶ τὰ οἰκεɩ̂α ἀναιρεɩ̂ν, ἄλλως τε καὶ ϕιλοσόϕους ὄντας· ἀμϕοɩ̂ν γὰρ ὄντοιν ϕίλοιν ὅσιον προτιμα̂ν τὴν ἀλήθειαν·) are a sufficient confutation of the idle calumnies spread abroad in later times respecting the quarrels of Plato and Aristotle, which only reflect the odium philosophicum of their respective schools. Cp. note, i. 13. § 10.

χώρας δεήσει τοɩ̂ς τοσούτοις Βαβυλωνίας κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 6. 6.

A strange remark: Aristotle himself mentions, apparently without surprise, that according to the ancient tradition the Spartan citizens had once numbered ten thousand, and he has himself testified that the country could support thirty thousand hoplites and fifteen hundred cavalry (c. 9. §§ 16, 17). Nor were the 5000 or rather 5040 citizens to be maintained in idleness, for each of them had to cultivate his lot.

δεɩ̂ μὲν ον̓̂ν ὑποτίθεσθαι κατ’ εὐχήν, μηδὲν μέντοι ἀδύνατον.Jowett1885v1: 6. 7.

Even the best state, according to Aristotle, is limited by the number of citizens who can readily act together and by other conditions. These conditions he accuses Plato of having disregarded. Cp. vii. 4. § 2, and 4. § 11.

Plato would not have admitted the impracticability of his ideal state. It might be hard to realise, but was not impossible, Rep. v. 471-474. In the Laws he resigns his ideal, though with reluctance, and acknowledging the conditions of actual life, he allows that there must be a second-best and even a third-best sample of states; Laws v. 739.

ἔτι δὲ καλω̂ς ἔχει προσθεɩ̂ναι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς γειτνιω̂ντας τόπους, εἰ δεɩ̂ τὴνJowett1885v1: 6. 7. πόλιν ζη̂ν βίον πολιτικόν.

Compare vii. 6. § 7, εἰ γὰρ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πολιτικὸν ζήσεται βίον κ.τ.λ. Edition: current; Page: [61][sc. ἡ πόλις]. The two passages mutually confirm each other and the comparison of them shows that neither here, with Muretus, nor in vii. 6. § 7, with Bekker (2nd edition), do we need to substitute πολεμικὸν for πολιτικὸν which in both passages is used to express International Relations. The addition of μὴ μονωτικὸν or μὴ μονώτερον in some MSS. after πολιτικὸν appears to be a gloss, probably suggested by vii. 2. § 16.

The same criticism—that a state must have a foreign as well as a domestic policy, is made once more on Phaleas in c. 7. § 14. Nations and cities can no more get rid of other nations and cities than man (except by going into the wilderness) can tear himself from the society of his fellows. Cp. Mazzini’s forcible saying, ‘Non-interference is political suicide.’

εἰ δέ τις μὴ τοιον̂τον ἀποδέχεται βίον, μήτε τὸν ἴδιον μήτε τὸν κοινὸν τη̂ςJowett1885v1: 6. 8. πόλεως . . ἀπελθον̂σιν.

‘But if a person does not accept the life of action either for individuals or for states, still the country must be protected against her enemies.’ In modern language, ‘however much we may dislike war and the use of arms, there are cases in which the resistance to an enemy becomes a duty.’

ἀπελθον̂σιν, i.e. ‘lest they renew the attempt.’

καὶ τὸ πλη̂θος δὲ τη̂ς κτήσεως ὁρα̂ν δεɩ̂, μήποτε βέλτιον ἑτέρως διορίσαιJowett1885v1: 6. 8. τῳ̑ σαϕω̂ς μα̂λλον.

Literally, ‘Would it not be better to define the amount of property differently by defining it more clearly?’

ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις εἰ̂πεν ὥστε ζη̂ν εν̓̂· τον̂το γάρ ἐστι καθόλου μα̂λλον.Jowett1885v1: 6. 8.

It is doubtful whether these words are to be taken 1) as an illustration of the want of clearness in Plato’s definition, or 2) as a correction of it; e.g. 1) ‘this is only saying, “enough to enable a man to live well.” ’ But this explanation seems to require that the following words τον̂το γάρ ἐστι καθόλου μα̂λλον should be translated ‘this however is too general’ (Bernays), giving a sense to μα̂λλον (= μα̂λλον ἢ δεɩ̂) which is doubtful unless suggested by the context, as in Rep. iii. 410 E, Phaedo 63 D. 2)* ‘By the confused expression “Enough to live upon with temperance,” he means only “enough to live upon well or virtuously; for this is the more general idea.” ’

Edition: current; Page: [62]

ἕξεις αἱρεταί.Jowett1885v1: 6. 9.

The MSS. give ἀρεταί, corrected by Bekker from a marginal note in a copy of the Aldine edition into αἱρεταί. But the words ἕξεις αἱρεταί are unmeaning. It is possible that ἕξεις may be the true reading and ἀρεταὶ the gloss or vice versâ. See note on text.

ἀϕεɩ̂ναι τὴν τεκνοποιίαν.Jowett1885v1: 6. 10.

Another inaccurate criticism. For Plato expressly provides that the overplus of population should be sent to colonies (Laws v. 740).

δεɩ̂ δὲ τον̂τ’ οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀκριβω̂ς ἔχειν περὶ τὰς πόλεις τότε καὶ νν̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 6. 11.

‘But this matter ought not to be regulated with the same strictness then and now,’ i.e. it ought to be regulated with greater strictness in the imaginary state of the Laws than in existing states.

παράζυγας.Jowett1885v1: 6. 11.

‘For whom there is no place at the banquet of life.’—Malthus.

τον̂το δὲ τιθέναι τὸ πλη̂θος ἀποβλέποντα πρὸς τὰς τύχας, ἂν συμβαίνῃJowett1885v1: 6. 12. τελευτα̂ν τινὰς τω̂ν γεννηθέντων, καὶ πρὸς τὴν τω̂ν ἄλλων ἀτεκνίαν.

τω̂ν ἄλλων, ‘the sterility of others,’ i.e. of others than those who have children, implied in the word γεννηθέντων,—‘the death of some of the children and the sterility of some of the married couples.’

Φείδων μὲν ον̓̂ν ὁ Κορίνθιος, ὢν νομοθέτης τω̂ν ἀρχαιοτάτων, τοὺς οἴκουςJowett1885v1: 6. 13. ἴσους ᾠήθη δεɩ̂ν διαμένειν καὶ τὸ πλη̂θος τω̂ν πολιτω̂ν, καὶ εἰ τὸ πρω̂τον τοὺς κλήρους ἀνίσους εἰ̂χον πάντες κατὰ μέγεθος.

ἴσους and ἀνίσους are here used in slightly different senses, ἴσους referring to the numbers of the families, ἀνίσους to the size of the lot. ‘He thought that the number of the families should be the same, even although the original size of the lot was different.’ That is to say he accepted the existing distribution of property among families, however disproportioned, and did not allow it to be afterwards altered.

Of Pheidon the Corinthian nothing is known; he has been identified with Pheidon the tyrant of Argos on the ground that Corinth lay in the Argive dominions (Müller, Dorians i. 7. § 15). But no evidence is adduced of this assertion. The word Κορίνθιος may have been a slip: (cp. for a similar or worse error, infra c. 11. Edition: current; Page: [63]§§ 2, 15; v. 12. §§ 12, 14); but such a slip would be remarkable in a writer who has elsewhere called Pheidon tyrant of Argos, v. 10. § 6.

περὶ μὲν τούτων . . λεκτέον ὕστερον.Jowett1885v1: 6. 14.

There is no adequate fulfilment of this promise to resume the question hereafter. But cp. vii. 5. § 1; 10. § 11; 16. § 15.

ϕησὶ γὰρ δεɩ̂ν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 6. 14.

Aristotle is finding fault with Plato’s vagueness:—‘He says nothing but that the governors and governed should be made of a different wool.’

τὴν πα̂σαν οὐσίαν ἐϕίησι γίνεσθαι μείζονα μέχρι πενταπλασίας.Jowett1885v1: 6. 15.

Cp. Laws, v. 744 E, where the proprietor is allowed to acquire (κτα̂σθαι) four times the value of his original inheritance. If we add in the original inheritance which was not acquired, the limit of property will be fivefold. There is no reason for supposing any mistake in this statement (Susemihl) or in c. 7. § 4.

καὶ τὴν τω̂ν οἰκοπέδων δὲ διαίρεσιν δεɩ̂ σκοπεɩ̂ν, μή ποτ’ οὐ συμϕέρῃJowett1885v1: 6. 15. πρὸς οἰκονομίαν.

One of the homesteads is to be in the city, another on the border (v. 745 E), the first to be the dwelling of the elders, the second of the son of the house (vi. 776 A). A plan similar to the one which he condemns is adopted by Aristotle in vii. 10. § 11: cp. note on text, in which the inconsistency of the two passages is pointed out.

ἐκ γὰρ τω̂ν ὁπλιτευόντων ἐστίν.Jowett1885v1: 6. 16.

The normal idea of a πολιτεία is that it consists of the free citizens who carry arms and are its natural defenders. Cp. iii. 7. §§ 3, 4, ὅταν δὲ τὸ πλη̂θος πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν πολιτεύηται συμϕέρον, καλεɩ̂ται τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα πασω̂ν τω̂ν πολιτειω̂ν, πολιτεία· συμβαίνει δ’ εὐλόγως· ἕνα μὲν γὰρ διαϕέρειν κατ’ ἀρετὴν ἢ ὀλίγους ἐνδέχεται, πλείους δ’ ἤδη χαλεπὸν ἠκριβω̂σθαι πρὸς πα̂σαν ἀρετήν, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα τὴν πολεμικήν· αὕτη γὰρ ἐν πλήθει γίγνεται· διόπερ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν πολιτείαν κυριώτατον τὸ προπολεμον̂ν, καὶ μετέχουσιν αὐτη̂ς οἱ κεκτημένοι τὰ ὅπλα, and see also Ib. c. 17. § 4; iv. 13. § 7; and Nic. Eth. viii. 10. 6.

τὴν γὰρ πρώτην πολιτείαν.Jowett1885v1: 6. 16.

The same as the ἑτέρα πολιτεία (§ 4), i. e. the Republic of Plato.

Edition: current; Page: [64]

Here the Spartan is spoken of as a mixed constitution; in iv.Jowett1885v1: 6. 17. c. 9. § 7, as a combination of aristocracy and democracy. So uncritical writers of the last century extol the English constitution as comprehending the elements of every other. It was thought by other nations as well as by ourselves to be an ideal which Europe should copy. But so far from being the fulfilment of a perfect design, it was really the growth of accident; the merit lay not in any wisdom of our ancestors, but in the willingness of the people to conform to circumstances which was so wanting among the Spartans…; With the criticisms of Aristotle on the Lacedaemonian constitution it is interesting to compare the very similar criticism of Plato in the Laws, iv. 712 D, E, καὶ μὴν ξυννοω̂ν γε, ὠ̂ ξένε, τὴν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι πολιτείαν οὐκ ἔχω σοι ϕράζειν οὕτως, ἥντινα προσαγορεύειν αὐτὴν δεɩ̂· καὶ γὰρ τυραννίδι δοκεɩ̂ μοι προσεοικέναι· τὸ γὰρ τω̂ν ἐϕόρων θαυμαστὸν ὡς τυραννικὸν ἐν αὐτῃ̑ γέγονε· καί τις ἐνίοτέ μοι ϕαίνεται πασω̂ν τω̂ν πόλεων δημοκρατουμένῃ μάλιστ’ ἐοικέναι. τὸ δ’ αν̓̂ μὴ ϕάναι ἀριστοκρατίαν αὐτὴν εἰ̂ναι παντάπασιν ἄτοπον. καὶ μὴν δὴ βασιλεία γε διὰ βίου τ’ ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτῃ̑ καὶ ἀρχαιοτάτη πασω̂ν καὶ πρὸς πάντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἡμω̂ν αὐτω̂ν λεγομένη. ἐγὼ δὲ οὕτω νν̂ν ἐξαίϕνης ἂν ἐρωτηθεὶς ὄντως, ὅπερ εἰ̂πον, οὐκ ἔχω διωρισάμενος εἰπεɩ̂ν τίς τούτων ἐστὶ τω̂ν πολιτειω̂ν. Cp. Cic. de Rep. ii. 23.

ἐν δὲ τοɩ̂ς νόμοις εἴρηται τούτοις ὡς δέον συγκεɩ̂σθαι τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείανJowett1885v1: 6. 18. ἐκ δημοκρατίας καὶ τυραννίδος.

This is not really said, though in Laws (iv. 710 ff.) Plato sketches an imaginary tyrant who is to mould the state to virtue.

ϕέρειν ἄρχοντας.Jowett1885v1: 6. 19.

ϕέρειν = ‘to vote for,’ used here as in Plato and Demosthenes with the accusative of the person.

αἱρον̂νται μὲν γὰρ πάντες ἐπάναγκες, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τον̂ πρώτου τιμήματος, εἰ̂ταJowett1885v1: 6. 20. πάλιν ἴσους ἐκ τον̂ δευτέρου, εἰ̂τ’ ἐκ τω̂ν τρίτων. πλὴν οὐ πα̂σιν ἐπάναγκες ἠ̑ν τοɩ̂ς ἐκ τω̂ν τρίτων ἢ τετάρτων, ἐκ δὲ τον̂ τετάρτου τω̂ν τετάρτων μόνοις ἐπάναγκες τοɩ̂ς πρώτοις καὶ τοɩ̂ς δευτέροις.

The general meaning is that the higher the qualification of the elected, the lower may be the qualification of the electors, or, vice versâ, the lower the qualification of the elected, the higher must be the qualification of the electors; they should balance one another.

Edition: current; Page: [65]

There remain, however, some difficulties in reconciling the text of the Politics with the statements of Plato.

What Plato says in the Laws (756) may be shortly stated as follows: ‘For those who are to be elected out of the 1st and 2nd classes, all are compelled to vote and are liable to penalties if they abstain from voting: for those who are to be elected out of the 3rd class, only the three first classes are compelled to vote and are liable to penalties; for those who are to be elected out of the 4th class only the two first classes.

The text of the Politics as given by Bekker (which is that of all the MSS.) does not agree with the corresponding passage of Plato and in one place at least is corrupt.

1) The words ἐκ τον̂ τετάρτου τω̂ν τετάρτων can hardly be right if we are to get any sense out of the passage at all. Either τον̂ τετάρτου or τω̂ν τετάρτων must be omitted. Probably we should omit the latter, for τον̂ τετάρτου agrees best with τον̂ πρώτου τιμήματος and τον̂ δευτέρου antea, and τω̂ν τετάρτων may have crept into the text from the preceding τετάρτων. Either alternative is simpler than reading τεττάρων (for τετάρτων) as in 2nd Ald. edition.

But 2) if we are to make the passage agree with Plato, we should further omit τρίτων ἢ before τετάρτων. Cp. Laws, 756 D, where nothing is said about the third class.

Finally, we must allow that Aristotle may not have remembered or may have misunderstood the words of Plato. Such a supposition cannot be thought far-fetched, when we consider the numerous passages in which he has done unintentional injustice to his master, Pol. i. 13. § 10; ii. 4. § 2; ii. 5. § 27; ii. 6. § 5, etc. The words οὐ πα̂σιν ἐπάναγκες, sc. αἱρεɩ̂σθαι, do not imply that some of the class were compelled to vote. They are used as they are in Anal. Pr. ii. 15, 63, b 26 for the particular negative proposition, which is called by Aristotle indifferently τὸ οὐ παντὶ and τὸ οὐ τινί, from which of course we can logically infer nothing as to the particular affirmative.

ὡς μὲν ον̓̂ν οὐκ ἐκ δημοκρατίας καὶ μοναρχίας δεɩ̂ συνιστάναι τὴν τοιαύτηνJowett1885v1: 6. 22. πολιτείαν, ἐκ τούτων ϕανερὸν καὶ τω̂ν ὕστερον ῥηθησομένων, ὅταν ἐπιβάλλῃ περὶ τη̂ς τοιαύτης πολιτείας ἡ σκέψις.

Edition: current; Page: [66]

ἐκ τούτων. Whether the inference be true or false, it is difficult to elicit from the words which have preceded the grounds for maintaining that a polity should not be made up of democracy and monarchy. Strictly speaking they are only a more detailed statement of this proposition, not an argument in support of it.

In the passage which follows (ὅταν ἐπιβάλλῃ), Aristotle is looking forward to the discussion of what he calls πολιτεία, or ‘constitutional government,’ which like the constitution of the Laws, falls short of the ideal state, but is in advance of most existing forms.

τοιαύτης, ‘a state similar to that in the Laws.’

τω̂ν ὕστερον ῥηθησομένων.Jowett1885v1: 6. 22.

Mixed constitutions are treated of in iv. cc. 7-9, but the promise seems hardly to be fulfilled in that place.

ἔχει δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν τω̂ν ἀρχόντων τὸ ἐξ αἱρετω̂ν αἱρετοὺς ἐπικίνδυνον·Jowett1885v1: 6. 22. εἰ γάρ τινες συστη̂ναι θέλουσι καὶ μέτριοι τὸ πλη̂θος, ἀεὶ κατὰ τὴν τούτων αἱρεθήσονται βούλησιν.

Cp. Mill’s Representative Government, chap. ix (Should there be two stages of election?), ‘The comparatively small number of persons in whose hands, at last, the election of a member of parliament would reside, could not but afford additional facilities to intrigue.’ The double election of representatives is thought to be a safeguard against democracy ; it is really a source of danger and suspicion, and weakens the national interest in politics. It seems often to supersede itself. Thus the election of the President of the United States by Electoral Colleges has passed into a mere form of universal suffrage. The only case in which such elections succeed is where the electors have other important functions (like the American State Legislatures, to which the election of the Senate is entrusted), and therefore cannot be appointed under a pledge to vote for an individual.

For the indefinite use of ἐπικίνδυνον cp. Thuc. i. 137, ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῳ̑ ἀσϕαλεɩ̂ μὲν ἐμοί, ἐκείνῳ δὲ ἐν ἐπικινδύνῳ πάλιν ἡ ἀποκομιδὴ ἐγένετο.

αἱ μὲν ἰδιωτω̂ν αἱ δὲ ϕιλοσόϕων καὶ πολιτικω̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 7. 1.

ἰδιώτης is opposed both to philosophers and statesmen, as in Plato to δημιουργὸς (Laws 921 B) and to ποιητὴς (Phaedr. 258 D), and in Thucydides (ii. 48) to ἰατρός. ‘ἰδιω̂ται’ such as Phaleas Edition: current; Page: [67]and Hippodamus; ‘philosophers’ such as Pittacus or perhaps Pythagoras; ‘statesmen’ such as Solon or Lycurgus (cp. infra, c. 12. § 1).

διὸ Φαλέας ὁ Χαλκηδόνιος τον̂τ’ εἰσήνεγκε πρω̂τος.Jowett1885v1: 7. 2.

A sentence apparently inconsequential but really a condensation of two propositions. ‘Therefore Phaleas the Chalcedonian introduced this, sc. the regulation of property, he being the first to do it.’

Nothing is known of Phaleas from other sources. The manner in which Aristotle speaks of him in this passage (§ 2 ϕησὶ γάρ, § 8 εἴποι ἂν ὁ Φαλέας, οἴεται γὰρ) would lead us to the inference that he was not a legislator but the writer of a book; and this inference is further confirmed by c. 12. § 1, in which Aristotle (?) places first, and in a class by themselves, the private individuals who had treated of laws, apparently meaning Phaleas and Hippodamus. Whether Phaleas was earlier than Hippodamus is uncertain. It is true that Hippodamus is described as the first of those not statesmen who treated of ‘the best state,’ c. 8. § 1. But the stress may be laid on the words περὶ τη̂ς πολιτείας τη̂ς ἀρίστης, ‘Hippodamus was the first, not of political writers, but the first who treated of the perfect state’ which would be consistent with the claim of Phaleas to be an earlier writer on the subject of politics in general.

We cannot argue with Grote (Pt. II. c. 6, vol. ii. p. 523) that because Phaleas was the first who wrote or speculated about the equal division of land, therefore the legislation of Lycurgus or the ancient Dorian institutions may not have anticipated him in fact.

κατοικιζομέναις, sc. ταɩ̂ς πόλεσι or πολιτείαις, an emphatic present,Jowett1885v1: 7. 3. ‘when in process of settlement.’

τῳ̑ τὰς προɩ̂κας τοὺς μὲν πλουσίους διδόναι μὲν λαμβάνειν δὲ μή κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 7. 3.

Cp. the Babylonian ‘marriage-market’ in Hdt. i. 196.

ἔργον γὰρ μὴ νεωτεροποιοὺς εἰ̂ναι τοὺς τοιούτους.Jowett1885v1: 7. 5.

With this passage compare v. 12. § 17 where Aristotle criticizes rather captiously the remark of Plato ‘that loss of fortune is a source of revolutions,’ to which he replies that ‘it is only dangerous when it affects the leaders of the state.’

Edition: current; Page: [68]

οἱ̑ον καὶ Σόλων ἐνομοθέτησεν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 7. 6.

Mr. Grote (iii. pt. ii. chap. 11, p. 179) thinks that these words refer only to the annulment of mortgages. But they clearly imply that Solon restricted or attempted to restrict the amount of land which might be held by individuals. Although there is no other evidence of this fact, the silence of antiquity cannot be taken as decisive against the statement of Aristotle, and is certainly no reason for explaining away the plain meaning of his words, whether he was correctly informed or not.

ἔτι δὲ τοὺς παλαιοὺς κλήρους διασώζειν.Jowett1885v1: 7. 7.

Dependent on νόμοι εἰσί, gathered from the preceding sentence. The preservation of the lot tended to maintain the equality of property; hence the transition from the one subject to the other.

οὐ γὰρ ἔτι συνέβαινεν ἀπὸ τω̂ν ὡρισμένων τιμημάτων εἰς τὰς ἀρχὰς βαδίζειν.Jowett1885v1: 7. 7.

The meaning is as follows:—Originally the Leucadian citizens had a lot which was their qualification for office. They were afterwards allowed to sell this lot, and still retained the right of holding office, when they had lost their qualification.

ἀλλὰ τήν τε παιδείαν ἥτις ἔσται δεɩ̂ λέγειν, καὶ τὸ μίαν εἰ̂ναι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴνJowett1885v1: 7. 9. οὐδὲν ὄϕελος.

So in modern times reflections are often made on the evils of education unless based on moral and religious principles. Yet it was a noble thought of an early thinker like Phaleas that there should be equal education for all.

καὶ τὸ μίαν κ.τ.λ. ‘Moreover there is no point in saying that it is one and the same, for it may be bad.’

τοὐναντίον δὲ περὶ ἑκάτερον· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὶ διὰ τὸ περὶ τὰς κτήσειςJowett1885v1: 7. 10. ἄνισον, οἱ δὲ χαρίεντες περὶ τω̂ν τιμω̂ν, ἐὰν ἴσαι.

The opposition here intended is between the inequality of property by which the many are offended, and the equality of honour which offends the higher classes.

περὶ ἑκάτερον, sc. τὰς κτήσεις καὶ τὰς τιμάς.

Edition: current; Page: [69]

οὐ τοὶνυν διὰ ταύτην μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἂν ἐπιθυμοɩ̂εν, ἵνα χαίρωσι ταɩ̂ς ἄνευJowett1885v1: 7. 12. λυπω̂ν ἡδοναɩ̂ς. Τί ον̓̂ν ἄκος τω̂ν τριω̂ν τούτων;

The words καὶ ἂν ἐπιθυμοɩ̂εν, though rather weak, are found in all MSS. and are therefore probably genuine. They are omitted however by Bernays, and have been variously corrected, καὶ ἄνευ ἐπιθυμιω̂ν (Bojesen), sc. ἀδικήσουσιν, an ingenious conjecture; ἂν μὴ ἐπιθυμω̂σιν (Schneider), too great a departure from the MSS.; ἀνεπιθύμητοι (also Bojesen), too rare a word.

The general meaning is plain: ‘And therefore, i.e. not only to still pain, but also to gain pleasure, they will desire pleasures to which no pains are annexed.’ The three motives are, 1) necessity, 2) desire of things not necessary, 3) desire of painless pleasures.

οὐκ ἂν ἐπιζητοɩ̂εν εἰ μὴ παρὰ ϕιλοσοϕίας ἄκος.Jowett1885v1: 7. 12.

‘They will look for a cure from philosophy and go no further.’

οἱ̑ον τυραννον̂σιν οὐχ ἵνα μὴ ῥιγω̂σιν. Διὸ καὶ αἱ τιμαὶ μεγάλαι.Jowett1885v1: 7. 13.

Cp. the Story of Jason, who said πεινη̂ν ὅτε μὴ τυραννοɩ̂, iii. 4. § 9 and note. So Daniel Manin (quoted by Stahr) used to say of himself that ‘he knew nothing except how to govern.’ ‘And as is the greatness of the crime, so is the honour given to the tyrannicide.’

δεɩ̂ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς γειτνιω̂ντας κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 7. 14.

A favourite idea of Aristotle. Cp. supra c. 6. § 7.

ἀλλ’ οὕτως ὡς ἂν καὶ μὴ ἐχόντων τοσαύτην οὐσίαν.Jowett1885v1: 7. 16.

= ἀλλ’ οὕτως ποιεɩ̂ν ὡς ἂν ποιοɩ̂εν καὶ μὴ ἐχόντων τοσαύτην οὐσίαν, the more general word ποιεɩ̂ν being understood from πολεμεɩ̂ν.

‘That your enemies should act as they would do if you had not so great an amount of property,’ i.e. that your wealth should be no temptation. Cp. Plat. Rep. iv. 422, where he argues that trained warriors will be always too much for wealthy citizens.

Eubulus, by birth a Bithynian, was the tyrant of Atarneus inJowett1885v1: 7. 17. Mysia, and was succeeded by Hermias his slave, whose niece or adopted daughter Aristotle is said to have married; Eubulus revolted from Persia, and was besieged by Autophradates, the Satrap of Lydia. See Strabo, xiii. 610, Suidas s. v. Ἀριστοτέλης.

Edition: current; Page: [70]

διωβελία.Jowett1885v1: 7. 19.

The diobelia was the ordinary payment of two obols for attendance on the assembly and the courts, and also for theatrical entertainments. These payments seem in the later days of Athens, and even during the Peloponnesian war, to have amounted to three obols, and some of them to have been as high as a drachma. They were also made much more frequently than in ‘the good old times.’ Cp. Schol. in Aristoph. Vesp. 684, where it is said on the authority of Aristotle in [the] Politics that the sum given was originally three obols, but afterwards varied at different times: also cp. Lucian Dem. Encom. 36; Prooem. Dem. 1459, 27, a remarkable place; and other passages quoted by Boeckh, ‘Public Economy,’ Eng. Tr. vol. i. ed. 1, pp. 296 ff.

τω̂ν ον̓̂ν τοιούτων ἀρχή κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 7. 20.

If ἀρχὴ be retained, τω̂ν τοιούτων refers to some idea of reform vaguely implied in the previous sentences. ἄκη conj. Scaliger, ἀρκεɩ̂ Coraes.

ἀλλ’ εἴπερ δεɩ̂ δημοσίους εἰ̂ναι, τοὺς τὰ κοινὰ ἐργαζομένους δεɩ̂ καθάπερ ἐνJowett1885v1: 7. 23. Ἐπιδάμνῳ τε, καὶ ὡς Διόϕαντός ποτε κατεσκεύαζεν Ἀθήνησι, τον̂τον ἔχειν τὸν τρόπον.

Bernays places a comma after εἴπερ, and omits the second δεɩ̂, placing a καὶ before καθάπερ. ‘But if this is so (i. e. if artisans are to be public slaves), those who are to be engaged in public works should be slaves.’ Nearly the same meaning may be got from the text, *if we place a comma after εἰ̂ναι and remove the comma after ἐργαζομένους: ‘But if artisans are to be public slaves, those who are engaged in public works should form this class.’

τον̂τον ἔχειν τὸν τρόπον, sc. δημοσίους εἰ̂ναι. This Diophantus, or ‘some one else of the same name, about whom nothing is known, was Archon at Athens in the year 395.

Stobaeus has preserved some fragments of a work περὶ πολιτείας,Jowett1885v1: 8. 1. which bear the name of ‘Hippodamus the Pythagorean’ (Florileg. xliii. pp. 248-251, xcviii. p. 534, Mullach. Fragm. Philos. Graec. vol. ii. p. 11). But there can be little doubt that they are, as Schneider says, the pious fraud of some later writer. The Edition: current; Page: [71]portions cited by Stobaeus will be enough to show the character of such performances. These fragments disagree in several points with the statements of Aristotle; such as the threefold division of the citizens into councillors, auxiliaries, and artisans (cp. the Republic of Plato), and the subdivision of each class into three other classes; the three principles of honesty, justice, utility, and the three instruments by which civil society is knit together, reason, habit, law. Of all this and of a good deal else, there is no trace in Aristotle, although the triplets are also found in Stobaeus. Considerable differences are not however inconsistent with the genuineness of the fragments. A more suspicious circumstance is the character of the philosophical distinctions, such as the opposition of καλόν, δίκαιον, and συμϕέρον, which could hardly have existed before the time of Socrates, and a certain later tone of thought.

Hippodamus Περὶ Πολιτείας.

‘In my opinion the whole state is divided into three parts: one the “Good”—that is, those who govern the commonwealth by mind; another, those who rule by force; a third part, those who supply and furnish necessaries. The first class I call councillors; the second, “allies” or warriors; the third, artisans. To the two former classes belong those who lead a freeman’s life: to the latter those who work for their living. The councillors are the best, the artisans the worst, the warriors are in a mean. The councillors must rule, the artisans must be ruled, while the warriors must rule and be ruled in turn. For the councillors settle beforehand what is to be done: the warriors rule over the artisans, because they fight for the state, but in so far as they must be guided, they have to submit to rule.

‘Each of these parts again has three divisions: of the councillors there are 1) the supreme council; 2) the magistrates; 3) the common councillors. The first has the presidency, and deliberates about all matters before they are carried to the assembly. The second comprises all those who are or have been magistrates. The third, the common councillors, are the mass of senators who receive the measures which the upper council have prepared, and vote upon and determine matters which come before Edition: current; Page: [72]them for decision. In a word, the upper council refers matters to the common council, and the common council, through the general, to the assembly. In like manner there are three divisions of the warrior or military class: the officers, the fighters in the front ranks, and lastly the common herd of soldiers, who are the larger number. The officers are the class which furnishes generals and colonels and captains and the front rank of soldiers, and generally all those who have authority. The soldiers of the front rank are the whole class of the bravest, most spirited, and most courageous men; the common herd of soldiers are the remaining multitude. Again, of the class who work for their living, some are husbandmen and tillers of the ground; others mechanics, who supply tools and instruments for the needs of life; others traders and merchants, who export superfluous productions to foreign countries, and import necessaries into their own. The framework of the political community then is composed of such and so many parts; we will therefore proceed to speak of the harmony and unison of them.

‘Now every political community exactly resembles a stringed instrument, in that it needs arrangement and harmony and touch and frequent practice. Of the character and number of the elements which form the arrangement of the state I have already spoken. The state is harmonized by these three things — reason (λόγος), moral habit, law, and by these three man is educated and becomes better. Reason gives instruction and implants impulses towards virtue. The law partly deters men from crime by the restraint of fear, partly attracts and invites them by rewards and gifts. Habits and pursuits form and mould the soul, and produce a character by constant action. All these three must have regard to the honourable and the expedient and the just; and each of the three must aim at them all if possible, or, if this is not possible, at one or two. So will reason and habit and law all be honourable and just and expedient; but the honourable must always be first esteemed; secondly, the just; thirdly, the expedient. And generally our aim should be to render the city by these qualities as far as possible harmonious, and deliver it from the love of quarrelling Edition: current; Page: [73]and strife, and make it at unity with itself. This will come to pass if the passions of the youthful soul are trained by endurance in pleasures and pains and conformed to moderation;—if the amount of wealth is small, and the revenue derived from the cultivation of the soil; — if the virtuous fill the offices in which virtue is needed, the skilful those in which skill is needed, the rich those in which lavish expenditure and profusion are needed; and to all these, when they have filled in due manner their proper offices, due honour be assigned. Now the causes of virtue are three: fear, desire, shame. The law creates fear, moral habits, shame (for those who have been trained in right habits are ashamed to do wrong); reason implants desire. For it is a motive power, at once giving the reason and attracting the soul, especially when it is combined with exhortation. Wherefore also we must prepare for the souls of the young guilds and common meals, and places of living and meeting together, military as well as civil, and the elders must be harmonized with them, since the young want prudence and training, the old, cheerfulness and quiet enjoyment.’

Aristotle’s account of the character and attainments of Hippodamus may be compared with the passage in the Lesser Hippias of Plato(?) (368 A foll.), in which Hippias is described as acquainted with every conceivable art and science. The personal description of Hippodamus also bears an odd resemblance to the statement of Diogenes Laertius about Aristotle himself—τραυλὸς τὴν ϕωνὴν . . . ἀλλὰ καὶ ἰσχνοσκελής . . . ἠ̑ν, καὶ μικρόμματος, ἐσθη̂τί τε ἐπισήμῳ χρώμενος καὶ δακτυλίοις καὶ κουρᾳ̑ (v. 1. § 2 init.).

The quantity of the name Hippod[Editor: illegible character]mus, though unimportant, is a somewhat difficult question. In Aristophanes (Knights 327) the a is long, yet if the name be a compound of δη̂μος, it is hard to give any meaning to it. It has been thought that Aristophanes has altered the quantity for the sake of the joke.

Mention occurs of the Ἱπποδάμειος ἀγορὰ at the Piraeus in Andoc. de Myst. § 45, p. 7, Xen. Hell. ii. 4. § 11, and Dem.(?) adv. Timoth. § 22, p. 1190. A tradition is preserved by Strabo (xiv. 653, ὡς ϕασίν), that the architect of the Piraeus was the architect of the Edition: current; Page: [74]magnificent city of Rhodes. The scholiast on Knights 327 who supposes the Hippodamus of Aristophanes to be the person here mentioned, supposes him also to have designed the Piraeus at the time of the Persian War (κατὰ τὰ Μηδικά); but he had probably no special means of information and only ‘combined’ the two facts that Hippodamus was the architect of the Piraeus and that Themistocles was the original author of the proposal to improve the harbour. Hippodamus is also called ‘the Thurian’ in Hesychius. The city of Thurii was founded in 445 b.c. and Rhodes was built in 406 b.c. If therefore Hippodamus was a Thurian and also the builder of Rhodes he must have designed not the original works of the Piraeus, but the improvements made at a later date, such as was the middle wall in the age of Pericles, b.c. 444. This latter date is more in accordance with the half Sophist, half Pythagorean character which is attributed to Hippodamus. It is also more in accordance with the words of Aristotle in vii. 11. § 6, ἡ δὲ τω̂ν ἰδίων οἰκήσεων διάθεσις ἡδίων μὲν νομίζεται . . . ἂν εὔτομος ᾐ̑ καὶ κατὰ τὸν νεώτερον καὶ τὸν Ἱπποδάμειον τρόπον, where it is implied that the Hippodamean plan of arranging cities in straight streets was comparatively recent. Cp. for the whole subject C. F. Hermann de Hippodamo Milesio.

καὶ κόσμῳ πολυτελεɩ̂, ἔτι δὲ ἐσθη̂τος εὐτελον̂ς κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 8. 1.

There is no reason for suspecting corruption. The eccentricity of Hippodamus consisted in combining expensiveness and simplicity: ἐσθη̂τος is dependent on some such word as χρήσει to be supplied from κόσμῳ.

διῄρει δ’ εἰς τρία μέρη τὴν χώραν, τὴν μὲν ἱεράν, τὴν δὲ δημοσίαν, τὴν δ’Jowett1885v1: 8. 3. ἰδίαν.

The division of the land proposed in the Seventh Book (c. 10. § 11) is nearly similar to that of Hippodamus.

δικαστήριον ἓν τὸ κύριον.Jowett1885v1: 8. 4.

Plato in the Laws also establishes an appeal, vi. 767 C. ‘The final judgment shall rest with that court, which has been established for those who are unable to get rid of their suits either in the courts of the neighbours or of the tribes.’

Edition: current; Page: [75]

τὰς δὲ κρίσεις ἐν τοɩ̂ς δικαστηρίοις κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 8. 5.

See infra note on §§ 14, 15. Though the principle of Hippodamus is condemned by Aristotle as unsuited to the Athenian popular courts of law, it prevailed in the more advanced jurisprudence of the Romans in which the judges were allowed to give a sentence of n. l. or non liquet, whence the Scotch verdict of ‘not proven.’ The ideas of Hippodamus certainly show great legislative ingenuity in an age when such a quality was extremely rare.

ὡς οὔπω τον̂το παρ’ ἄλλοις νενομοθετημένον· ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐν ἈθήναιςJowett1885v1: 8. 6. οὑ̑τος ὁ νόμος νν̂ν καὶ ἐν ἑτέραις τω̂ν πόλεων.

Aristotle intends to say that Hippodamus proposed this law as a novelty of which he claimed the credit, whereas it already existed at Athens and elsewhere. The meaning is clear, though the form of the sentence is not perfectly logical: ‘*But this law actually exists in Athens at the present day,’ and this is considered as sufficient proof that it existed at the time of Hippodamus. Or 2) without any opposition but with less point: ‘And this law now exists at Athens.’ Cp. Thuc. ii. 46.

τοὺς δ’ αἱρεθέντας ἐπιμελεɩ̂σθαι κοινω̂ν καὶ ξενικω̂ν καὶ ὀρϕανικω̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 8. 7.

I. e. ‘They were to watch over the public interests and over the interests of persons who had no legal status.’

Aristotle, after his rather onesided manner of attacking anJowett1885v1: 8. 10, 11. opponent, raises several ἀπορίαι respecting the three classes of Hippodamus. ‘How can the two inferior classes, who have no arms, maintain their independence? For many offices they are obviously unfitted: and if they have no share in the state how can they be loyal citizens? Granting that the artisans have a raison d’étre, what place in the state can be claimed by the husbandmen and why should they have land of their own? If the soldiers cultivate their own lands, there will be no distinction between them and the husbandmen; this, however, is not the intention of the legislator: if there are separate cultivators of the public lands, then there are not three, but four classes. The husbandmen are practically slaves who will be at the mercy of the warriors; and if so, why should they elect the magistrates? They will have no attachment to the state and must be kept down by force.’

Edition: current; Page: [76]

To these ἀπορίαι he finds no answer. He adds one or two more: ‘How can the husbandmen produce enough for themselves and the warriors? And why, if they can, should there be any distinction between their lots and those of the soldiers?’

γεωργήσει δύο οἰκίας.Jowett1885v1: 8. 12.

Either οἰκία is here used like οἰ̂κος in the sense of ‘property’ or ‘inheritance’; or γεωργήσει must be taken to mean ‘maintains by agriculture.’ (Cp. for a similar use of οἰκία Dem. de Falsâ Leg. καρπουμένη τὰς τω̂ν χρωμένων οἰκίας: and for another singular use of γεωργέω, i. 8. § 6, ὥσπερ γεωργίαν ζω̂σαν γεωργον̂ντες.) If neither of these explanations is deemed satisfactory, we must suppose a corruption of the text, which may be corrected by reading εἰς δύο οἰκίας (Bernays), or δύσιν οἰκίαις. The old Latin translation ‘ministrabit’ has suggested the emendation ὑπουργήσει. This is no better, or rather worse, Greek than γεωργήσει in the sense given above.

τον̂το δ’ ἐν μὲν τῃ̑ διαίτῃ καὶ πλείοσιν ἐνδέχεται.Jowett1885v1: 8. 13.

‘This is an arbitration is possible, even although the judges are many.’

ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἴκοσι μνα̂ς, ὁ δὲ δικαστὴς κρίνει δέκα μνα̂ς, ἢ ὁ μὲν πλέον, ὁ δ’Jowett1885v1: 8. 14. ἔλασσον, ἄλλος δὲ πέντε, ὁ δὲ τέτταρας.

ὁ μὲν γὰρ clearly refers to the litigant, sc. ὀϕείλεσθαι οἴεται. But in what follows, the words ἢ ὁ μὲν πλ[Editor: illegible character]ον ὁ δὲ ἔλασσον may refer either 1) to the difference between the judges and the litigant or 2*) to the differences of the judges among themselves. In the first case ἢ ὁ μὲν πλέον ὁ δὲ ἔλασσον is a generalised statement of the words which have preceded, ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἴκοσι μνα̂ς, ὁ δὲ δικαστὴς κρίνει δέκα μνα̂ς. But in the second case the words are restricted to ὁ δὲ δικαστὴς κρίνει δέκα μνα̂ς, ἄλλος δὲ πέντε, ὁ δὲ τέτταρας. Anyhow there is a colloquial irregularity, the words ἄλλος δὲ πέντε κ.τ.λ. having crept in out of place, as an illustration of the general principle ὁ μὲν πλέον κ.τ.λ. already stated.

εὔόϕθαλμον ἀκον̂σαι μόνον.Jowett1885v1: 8. 16.

A confusion of language: cp. εὐπρόσωπος (c. 5. § 11).

ἔχει γὰρ συκοϕαντίας.Jowett1885v1: 8. 16.

That Hippodamus was speaking of political discoveries and not Edition: current; Page: [77]of inventions in the arts, is clear from the context. Hippodamus’ error was derived from the analogy of the arts, § 18. We can easily understand the danger of rewarding discoveries such as were made in the conspiracy of the Hermae at Athens or in the days of the Popish Plot in England. Aristotle admits that there have been and will be changes in government, but he advocates caution and insists that law should be based on custom.

αἱ τέχναι πα̂σαι καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις.Jowett1885v1: 8. 18.

Every art and science is also a power to make or become; hence the word δύναμις being the more general term is constantly associated with both τέχνη and ἐπιστήμη.

ζητον̂σι δ’ ὅλως οὐ τὸ πάτριον ἀλλὰ τἀγαθὸν πάντες.Jowett1885v1: 8. 21.

This statement goes beyond the truth. For the traditions of families or clans are very slow in giving way, as e.g. in the constitution of Lycurgus or Solon, to a sense of the common good. It is rarely and for a brief space that nations wake up to the feeling of their own nationality, or are touched by the enthusiasm of humanity.

ὁμοίους εἰ̂ναι καὶ τοὺς τυχόντας καὶ τοὺς ἀνοήτους, ὥσπερ καὶ λέγεταιJowett1885v1: 8. 21. κατὰ τω̂ν γηγενω̂ν.

ὁμοίους has been altered by Bernays into ὀλίγους but without reason. It may be taken 1) as = ὁμοίους τοɩ̂ς γηγενέσι, or, 2)* ὁμοίους may be joined with καὶ τοὺς τυχόντυς = ‘no better than simple or common persons.’ Cp. Hdt. vii. 50, γνώμῃσι ἐχρέοντο ὁμοίῃσι καὶ σύ. Plat. Theaet. 154 A, ἄλλῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀ̑ρ’ ὅμοιον καὶ σοὶ ϕαίνεται ὁτιον̂ν.

ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας, καὶ τὴν πολιτικὴν τάξιν ἀδύνατονJowett1885v1: 8. 22. ἀκριβω̂ς πάντα γραϕη̂ναι.

1)* If we take πάντα as subject, τὴν πολιτικὴν τάξιν may be the remote object of γραϕη̂ναι, or the words may be governed by περὶ of which the force is continued from περὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας. Or 2) τὴν πολιτικὴν τάξιν may be the subject of γραϕη̂ναι, in which case πάντα is to be taken adverbially.

οὐ γὰρ τοσον̂τον ὠϕελήσεται κινήσας, ὅσον βλαβήσεται τοɩ̂ς ἄρχουσινJowett1885v1: 8. 23. ἀπειθεɩ̂ν ἐθισθείς.

Cp. Thuc. iii. 37, μηδὲ γνωσόμεθα, ὅτι χείροσι νόμοις ἀκινήτοις χρωμένη πόλις κρείσσων ἐστὶν ἢ καλω̂ς ἔχουσιν ἀκύροις.

Edition: current; Page: [78]

κινήσας, sc. ὁ πολίτης gathered from the previous sentence.

ὁ γὰρ νόμος ἰσχὺν οὐδεμίαν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ πείθεσθαι πλὴν παρὰ τὸ ἔθος,Jowett1885v1: 8. 24, 25. τον̂το δ’ οὐ γίνεται εἰ μὴ διὰ χρόνου πλη̂θος, ὥστε τὸ ῥᾳδίως μεταβάλλειν ἐκ τω̂ν ὑπαρχόντων νόμων εἰς ἑτέρους νόμους καινοὺς ἀσθενη̂ ποιεɩ̂ν ἐστὶ τὴν τον̂ νόμου δύναμιν . . ἔχει μεγάλην διαϕοράν.

Cp. Plat. Laws i. 634 D, εἱ̑ς τω̂ν καλλίστων ἂν εἴη νόμων μὴ ζητεɩ̂ν τω̂ν νέων μηδένα ἐα̂ν, ποɩ̂α καλω̂ς αὐτω̂ν ἢ μὴ καλω̂ς ἔχει and Arist. Met. ii. 3, 995 a. 3, ἡλίκην δὲ ἰσχὺν ἔχει τὸ σύνηθες οἱ νόμοι δηλον̂σιν, ἐν οἱ̑ς τὰ μυθώδη καὶ παιδαριώδη μεɩ̂ζον ἰσχύει τον̂ γινώσκειν περὶ αὐτω̂ν διὰ τὸ ἔθος.

ἔχει μεγάλην διαϕοράν, lit. ‘makes a great difference.’

In this chapter Aristotle tacitly assumes or perhaps acquiesces inJowett1885v1: 9. 1. the popular belief that Lycurgus is the author of all Spartan institutions. He was supposed to be the founder of the Spartan constitution, as Solon of the Athenian, or as King Alfred of the ancient English laws. The Ephoralty is apparently attributed to him; yet elsewhere (v. 11. §§ 2, 3) Theopompus, a later king of Sparta, is said to have introduced this new power into the state.

εἴ τι πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν καὶ τὸν τρόπον ὑπεναντίως τη̂ς προκειμένης αὐτοɩ̂ςJowett1885v1: 9. 1. πολιτείας.

εἴ τι, sc. νενομοθέτηται: καὶ τὸν τρόπον following πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν. προκειμένης αὐτοɩ̂ς, i.e. 1)* ‘which is proposed to the citizens,’ πολίταις understood from πολιτειω̂ν supra; or 2) ‘which legislators set before themselves’ referring to νομοθέται implied in νενομοθέτηται: cp. ἡ ὑπόθεσις τον̂ νομοθέτου at the end of this chapter (§ 33).

τὴν τω̂ν ἀναγκαίων σχολήν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 2.

‘Leisure or relief from the necessary cares of life.’ The construction is singular and rare in prose, yet not really different from ἔν τινι σχολῃ̑ κακον̂ of Soph. Oed. Tyr. 1286. So Plat. Rep. ii. 370 C ὅταν εἱ̑ς ἕν, σχολὴν τω̂ν ἄλλων ἄγων, πράττῃ.

ἥ τε γὰρ Θετταλω̂ν πενεστεία πολλάκις ἐπέθετο τοɩ̂ς Θετταλοɩ̂ς, ὁμοίως δὲJowett1885v1: 9. 2. καὶ τοɩ̂ς Λάκωσιν οἱ Εἵλωτες· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐϕεδρεύοντες τοɩ̂ς ἀτυχήμασι διατελον̂σιν.

Cp. Laws vi. 776 C, D: ‘I am not surprised, Megillus, for the state of Helots among the Lacedaemonians is of all Hellenic forms of slavery the most controverted and disputed about, some approving Edition: current; Page: [79]and some condemning it; there is less dispute about the slavery which exists among the Heracleots, who have subjugated the Mariandynians, and about the Thessalian Penestae.’ Yet in this passage of Aristotle the Penestae are spoken of as constantly revolting from their masters.

περὶ δὲ τοὺς Κρη̂τας οὐδέν πω τοιον̂τον συμβέβηκεν· αἴτιον δ’ ἴσως τὸJowett1885v1: 9. 3. τὰς γειτνιώσας πόλεις, καίπερ πολεμούσας ἀλλήλαις, μηδεμίαν εἰ̂ναι σύμμαχον τοɩ̂ς ἀϕισταμένοις διὰ τὸ μὴ συμϕέρειν καὶ αὐταɩ̂ς κεκτημέναις περιοίκους· τοɩ̂ς δὲ Λάκωσιν οἱ γειτνιω̂ντες ἐχθροὶ πάντες ἠ̑σαν, Ἀργεɩ̂οι καὶ Μεσσήνιοι καὶ Ἀρκάδες.

The argument is that in Crete, where all the states had their Perioeci or subject class, no attempt was ever made to raise a servile insurrection when they went to war, because such a measure would have been contrary to the interests of both parties. The Cretans were the inhabitants of an island and there were no out-siders to encourage revolt among the slaves (cp. c. 10. § 15, ἀλλὰ καθάπερ εἴρηται σώζεται διὰ τὸν τόπον). Probably also a sort of international custom prevailed among them, arising from their common necessity, of not raising the slaves in their wars with one another. The Argives and the other Peloponnesian states, when at war, were always receiving the insurgent Helots. But the Argive subject population, like the Cretan, were not equally ready to rise, and indeed were at times admitted to the governing body (cp. v. 3. § 7, καὶ ἐν Ἄργει τω̂ν ἐν τῃ̑ ἑβδόμῃ ἀπολομένων ὑπὸ Κλεομένους τον̂ Λάκωνος ἠναγκάσθησαν παραδέξασθαι τω̂ν περιοίκων τινάς). We may also remark that in c. 5. § 19 supra, Aristotle incidentally observes that the Cretan slaves were comparatively well treated, although forbidden gymnastics and the use of arms.

The word ‘perioeci’ appears to have been used in Crete to denote generally an inferior class, who were not, as at Sparta, distinguished from Helots or slaves. This is confirmed by c. 10. § 5, γεωργον̂σί τε γὰρ τοɩ̂ς μὲν (sc. Λακεδαιμονίοις) Εἵλωτες, τοɩ̂ς δὲ Κρη̂σιν οἱ περίοικοι. But compare also Sosicrates [b.c. 200-128] preserved in Athenaeus (vi. c. 84. fin., p. 263), τὴν μὲν κοινὴν δουλείαν οἱ Κρη̂τες καλον̂σι μνοίαν, τὴν δὲ ἰδίαν ἀϕαμιώτας, τοὺς δὲ περιοίκους ὑπηκόους. The use of the term μνοία in Sosicrates is confirmed by the celebrated Edition: current; Page: [80]Scolium of Hybrias the Cretan (Bergk 27), τούτῳ (sc. τῳ̑ ξίϕει) δεσπότας μνωΐας κέκλημαι. Cp. also Athen. vi. 267, where the term μνῴτης is said by Hermon to be applied to ‘well-born’ serfs: εὐγενεɩ̂ς οἰκέται.

καὶ αὐταɩ̂ς κεκτημέναις περιοίκους. ‘Since they too have perioeci.’

With these criticisms we may compare Aristotle’s proposal (vii.Jowett1885v1: 9. 4. 9. § 8 and 10. §§ 13, 14) in the description of his own state, that the husbandmen should be either slaves or foreign perioeci.

ὥσπερ γὰρ οἰκίας μέρος ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνή.Jowett1885v1: 9. 5.

The singular μέρος is used by attraction with the singular ἀνήρ.

For the general subject, cp. Laws vi. 780 E ff.: ‘For in your country, Cleinias and Megillus, the common tables of men are a heaven-born and admirable institution, but you are mistaken in leaving the women unregulated by law. They have no similar institution of public tables in the light of day, and just that part of the human race which is by nature prone to secrecy and stealth on account of their weakness—I mean the female sex — has been left without regulation by the legislator, which is a great mistake. And, in consequence of this neglect, many things have grown lax among you, which might have been far better if they had been only regulated by law; for the neglect of regulations about women may not only be regarded as a neglect of half the entire matter, but in proportion as woman’s nature is inferior to that of men in capacity of virtue, in that proportion is she more important than the two halves put together.

Cp. also Rhet. i. 5, 1361 a. 10, ὅσοις γὰρ τὰ κατὰ γυναɩ̂κας ϕαν̂λα ὥσπερ Λακεδαιμονίοις, σχεδὸν κατὰ τὸ ἥμισυ οὐκ εὐδαιμονον̂σι: and supra i. 13. § 16; also Eur. Andr. 595,

  • οὐδ’ ἄν, εἰ βούλοιτό τις,
  • σώϕρων γένοιτο Σπαρτιατίδων κόρη.

ἐπὶ τη̂ς ἀρχη̂ς αὐτω̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 8.

Translated in the text, as by interpreters generally*, ‘in the days of their greatness,’ i. e. in the fourth century b. c. after the taking of Athens when Sparta had the hegemony of Hellas. But is not the passage rather to be explained ‘many things in their government were ordered by women’? (Schlosser). For why should Edition: current; Page: [81]women be more powerful in the days of their greatness than in their degeneracy? To which it may be replied that the very greatness of the empire made the evil more conspicuous. According to the latter of the two explanations ἀρχη̂ς corresponds to ἄρχειν in what follows.

This use of the genitive is not uncommon: cp. ἐπὶ στρατια̂ς Arist. Wasps 557; τοὺς ἐπὶ τω̂ν πραγμάτων, sc. ὄντας, Dem. 309. 10.

For the conduct of the Spartan women in the invasion ofJowett1885v1: 9. 10. Epaminondas: compare Xenophon, himself the eulogist of Sparta, Hell. vi. 5. § 28, τω̂ν δὲ ἐκ τη̂ς πόλεως αἱ μὲν γυναɩ̂κες οὐδὲ τὸν καπνὸν ὁρω̂σαι ἠνείχοντο, ἅτε οὐδέποτε ἰδον̂σαι πολεμίους, and Plutarch, Ages. 31, who has preserved a similar tradition, οὐχ ἡ̑ττον δὲ τούτων ἐλύπουν τὸν Ἀγησίλαον οἱ κατὰ τὴν πόλιν θόρυβοι καὶ κραυγαὶ καὶ διαδρομαὶ τω̂ν πρεσβυτέρων δυσανασχετούντων τὰ γινόμενα, καὶ τω̂ν γυναικω̂ν οὐ δυναμένων ἡσυχάζειν, ἀλλὰ παντάπασιν ἐκϕρόνων οὐσω̂ν πρός τε τὴν κραυγὴν καὶ τὸ πν̂ρ τω̂ν πολεμίων.

χρήσιμοι μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἠ̑σαν, ὥσπερ ἐν ἑτέραις πόλεσιν, θόρυβον δὲJowett1885v1: 9. 10. παρεɩ̂χον πλείω τω̂ν πολεμίων.

Either 1)* ‘For, unlike the women in other cities, they were utterly useless’; or 2) ‘For, like the women of other cities, they were utterly useless; and they caused more confusion than the enemy.’

The employment of the men on military service, which renderedJowett1885v1: 9. 11. it more easy for Lycurgus to bring them under his institutions, is supposed to have caused the disorder of the women which made it more difficult to control them. Yet we may fairly doubt whether this notion is anything more than a speculation of Aristotle or some of his predecessors (ϕασὶ μέν), striving to account for a seemingly contradictory phenomenon. For there could have been no trustworthy tradition of the time before Lycurgus. It is observable that Aristotle, if his words are construed strictly, supposes Lycurgus to have lived after the time of the Messenian and Argive wars. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. i., p. 143 note w, considers the words καὶ Μεσσηνίονς in § 11 to be an interpolation. But this assumption of interpolation is only due to the exigencies of chronology. The testimony of Aristotle may be summed up as follows: on the one Edition: current; Page: [82]hand he favours the traditional date; for he connects the name of Charillus an ancient king with that of Lycurgus c. 10. § 2: and on the other hand it is very possible that he may not have known, or may not have remembered the date of the Messenian Wars.

Grote (p. 2. c. 6, p. 516, n. 3) defends the Spartan women against the charges of Aristotle and Plato (the ϕιλολάκων) Laws vii. p. 806, reiterated by Plutarch (Ages. c. 31), and even supposes that ‘their demonstration on that trying occasion (i.e. the invasion of Laconia) may have arisen quite as much from the agony of wounded honour as from fear.’ Yet surely Aristotle writing not forty years afterwards, who is to a certain extent supported by the contemporary Xenophon (vi. 5, 28 see above), could hardly have been mistaken about a matter which was likely to have been notorious in Hellas.

αἰτίαι μὲν ον̓̂ν εἰσὶν αὑ̑ται τω̂ν γενομένων.Jowett1885v1: 9. 12.

Sc. the women:* or ‘these are the causes’ (αὑ̑ται by attraction for ταν̂τα). The first way of taking the words gives more point to the clause which follows.

τίνι δεɩ̂ συγγνώμην ἔχειν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 12.

‘We have not to consider whether we are to blame Lycurgus, or to blame the women; but whether such a state of things is right.’

οὐ μόνον ἀπρέπειάν τινα ποιεɩ̂ν τη̂ς πολιτείας αὐτὴν καθ’ αὑτήν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 13.

αὐτὴν καθ’ αὑτὴν must agree with πολιτείαν understood in ἀπρέπειάν τινα ποιεɩ̂ν τη̂ς πολιτείας, these words being equivalent to ἀπρεπη̂ ποιεɩ̂ν τὴν πολιτείαν: or αὐτη̂ς, which appears to have been the reading of the old translator (ipsius), may be adopted instead of αὐτήν.

μετὰ γὰρ τὰ νν̂ν ῥηθέντα τοɩ̂ς περὶ τὴν ἀνωμαλίαν τη̂ς κτήσεως ἐπιτιμήσειεν Jowett1885v1: 9. 13. ἄν τις.

1)* The mention of avarice, or 2) the mention of women naturally leads Aristotle to speak of the inequality of property. The connexion is either 1) that avarice tends to inequality or 2) that inequality is produced by the great number of heiresses.

Plutarch (Agis, c. 5) apparently ascribes to the Ephor EpitadeusJowett1885v1: 9. 14. the law which enabled a Spartan to give or bequeath his property as he pleased. Either Aristotle has followed a different tradition. Edition: current; Page: [83]or the legislator is only a figure of speech for the institution (cp. supra, note at beginning of chapter).

τω̂ν τ’ ἐπικλήρων.Jowett1885v1: 9. 15.

Cp. Nic. Eth. viii. 10. § 5, ἐνίοτε δὲ ἄρχουσιν αἱ γυναɩ̂κες ἐπίκληροι ον̓̂σαι.

ἢ καὶ μετρίαν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 15.

‘Or even a moderate one.’ καὶ is here qualifying. ‘Better have no dowries or small ones, or you may even go so far as to have moderate ones.’

νν̂ν δὲ ἔξεστι δον̂ναι τὴν ἐπίκληρον ὅτῳ ἂν βούληται.Jowett1885v1: 9. 15.

νν̂ν, not ‘now,’ as opposed to some former time, but ‘as the law stands.’ See note on c. 5. § 23 supra. δον̂ναι, sc. τινά.

‘A man may give his heiress to any one whom he pleases’: i.e. heiresses may be married by their relatives to rich men, and the evil of accumulating property in a few hands will thus be increased. Herodotus, vi. 57, says that the giving away of an heiress whom her father had not betrothed was a privilege of the kings of Sparta. There may have been a difference in the custom before and after the days of Epitadeus (cp. note on § 14), though this is not expressed by the particle νν̂ν.

οὐδὲ χίλιοι τὸ πλη̂θος ἠ̑σαν, sc. ἐπὶ τη̂ς Θηβαίων ἐμβολη̂ς, §§ 10, 16.Jowett1885v1: 9. 16.

γέγονε δὲ διὰ τω̂ν ἔργων αὐτω̂ν δη̂λον ὅτι ϕαύλως αὐτοɩ̂ς εἰ̂χε τὰ περὶJowett1885v1: 9. 16. τὴν τάξιν ταύτην.

τὰ περὶ τὴν τάξιν ταύτην, sc. their arrangements respecting property described in the previous sentence. For the use of ταύτην with a vague antecedent, cp. below ταύτην τὴν διόρθωσιν: also i. 2. § 2.

μίαν πληγήν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 16.

The battle of Leuctra (b.c. 371) at which, according to Xenophon, Hellen, vi. 4. § 15, one thousand Lacedaemonians and four hundred out of seven hundred Spartans perished. The population of Sparta was gradually diminishing. In the time of Agis IV. reg. 240-248 b.c. according to Plutarch (Agis, c. 5), the Spartans were but 700, and only about 100 retained their lots.

ἐπὶ μὲν τω̂ν προτέρων βασιλέων μετεδίδοσαν τη̂ς πολιτείας.Jowett1885v1: 9. 17.

Yet Herodotus (ix. 35) affirms that Tisamenus of Elis, the Edition: current; Page: [84]prophet, and Hegias, were the only foreigners admitted to the rights of citizenship at Sparta. According to Plutarch, Dion was also made a Spartan citizen (Dio, c. 17).

καί ϕασιν εἰ̂ναί ποτε τοɩ̂ς Σπαρτιάταις καὶ μυρίους.Jowett1885v1: 9. 17.

The ancient number of Spartan citizens is variously given: here at 10,000; in Herod. vii. 234, at 8,000; according to a tradition preserved by Plutarch (Lycurg. c. 8), there were 9,000 lots which are said to have been distributed partly by Lycurgus, partly by Polydorus, the colleague of the king Theopompus.

ὑπεναντίος δὲ καὶ ὁ περὶ τὴη τεκνοποιίαν νόμος πρὸς ταύτην τὴνJowett1885v1: 9. 18. διόρθωσιν.

At Sparta the accumulation of property in a few hands tended to disturb the equality of the lots. The encouragement of large families, though acting in an opposite way, had a similar effect. According to Aristotle, depopulation and overpopulation alike conspired to defeat the intention of Lycurgus. Yet it does not seem that the great inducements to have families were practically successful; perhaps because the Spartans intermarried too much.

Like Plato and Phaleas, the Spartan legislator is accused of neglecting population. (Cp. supra c. 6. §§ 12, 13, and c. 7. §§ 4-8.) It is clearly implied in the tone of the whole argument (against Mr. Grote, vol. ii. c. 6) that there was an original equality of property, but that it could not be maintained; cp. τὰς κτήσεις ἰσάζοντα, 6. § 10; τη̂ς χώρας οὕτω διῃρημένης, 9. § 19; and so Plato, Laws 684 D.

διὰ τὴν ἀπορίαν ὤνιοι ἠ̑σαν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 19.

Cp. Thuc. i. 131, etc. where we are told that Pausanias trusted to escape by bribery, πιστεύων χρήμασιν διαλύσειν τὴν διαβολήν. Also Rhet. iii. 18. § 6, 1419 a. 31, Καὶ ὡς ὁ Λάκων εὐθυνόμενος τη̂ς ἐϕορίας, ἐρωτώμενος εἰ δοκον̂σιν αὐτῳ̑ δικαίως ἀπολωλέναι ἅτεροι, ἔϕη. Ὁ δέ, ‘οὐκον̂ν σὺ τούτοις ταὐτὰ ἔθου;’ Καὶ ὃς ἔϕη. ‘οὐκον̂ν δικαίως ἄν,’ ἔϕη ‘καὶ σὺ ἀπόλοιο;’ ‘οὐ δη̂τα,’ ἔϕη, ‘οἱ μὲν γὰρ χρήματα λαβόντες ταν̂τα ἔπραξαν, ἐγὼ δ’ οὐκ, ἀλλὰ γνώμῃ.’

καὶ νν̂ν δ’ ἐν τοɩ̂ς Ἀνδρίοις.Jowett1885v1: 9. 20.

Ἀνδρίοι is a proper name, probably referring to some matter in Edition: current; Page: [85]which the Andrians were concerned. It is unlikely that Aristotle would have used the archaic word ἄνδρια for ϕιδίτια or συσσίτια. For this use of the word ἄνδρια cp. c. 10. § 5, καὶ τό γε ἀρχαɩ̂ον ἐκάλουν οἱ Λάκωνες οὐ ϕιδίτια ἀλλ’ ἄνδρια, καθάπερ οἱ Κρη̂τες, ᾐ̑ καὶ δη̂λον ὅτι ὲκεɩ̂θεν ἐλήλυθεν.

The event to which Aristotle refers is wholly unknown to us, though the strange expression which he uses indicates the great importance of it (ὅσον ἐϕ’ ἑαυτοɩ̂ς ὅλην τὴν πόλιν ἀπώλεσαν).

ὥστε καὶ ταύτῃ συνεπιβλάπτεσθαι τὴν πολιτείαν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 20.

‘So that in this way, as well as by the venality of the Ephors, together with the royal office the whole constitution was injured.’

δεɩ̂ γὰρ τὴν πολιτείαν τὴν μέλλουσαν σώζεσθαι πάντα βούλεσθαι τὰJowett1885v1: 9. 22. μέρη τη̂ς πόλεως εἰ̂ναι καὶ διαμένειν ταὐτά.

The nominatives which occur in the next sentence, οἱ μὲν ον̓̂ν βασιλεɩ̂ς, οἱ δὲ καλοὶ κἀγαθοί, κ.τ.λ. show that the corresponding words τὰ μέρη τη̂ς πόλεως are the subject of βούλεσθαι = δεɩ̂ πάντα τὰ μέρη τη̂ς πόλεως βούλεσθαι τὴν πολιτείαν σώζεσθαι καὶ διαμένειν ταὐτά.

ταὐτὰ is to be taken adverbially with διαμένειν = κατὰ ταὐτά.

ἀ̑θλον γὰρ ἡ ἀρχὴ αὕτη τη̂ς ἀρετη̂ς ἐστίν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 22.

Nearly the same words occur in Demosthenes, c. Lept. § 119, p. 489, where speaking of the γερουσία, he says, ἐκεɩ̂ μὲν γάρ ἐστι τη̂ς ἀρετη̂ς ἀ̑θλον τη̂ς πολιτείας κυρίῳ γενέσθαι μετὰ τω̂ν ὁμοίων.

παιδαριώδης γάρ ἐστι λίαν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 23.

It is not known how the Ephors were elected. Possibly in the same way as the γέροντες (vide note on § 27 infra), which Aristotle likewise calls παιδαριώδης. Plato, Laws iii. 692 A, says that the Ephoralty is ἐγγὺς τη̂ς κληρωτη̂ς δυνάμεως, by which he seems to mean that the election to the Ephoralty was almost as indiscriminate as if it had been by lot.

As in the funeral oration of Pericles, the Spartan discipline isJowett1885v1: 9. 24. everywhere described as one of unnatural constraint. There was no public opinion about right and wrong which regulated the lives of men. Hence, when the constraint of law was removed and they were no longer ἀρχόμενοι but ἄρχοντες, the citizens of Sparta seem Edition: current; Page: [86]to have lost their character and to have fallen into every sort of corruption and immorality. The love of money and the propensity to secret luxury were kindred elements in the Spartan nature.

τὸν τρόπον δὲ τον̂τον πεπαιδευμένων ὥστε καὶ τὸν νομοθέτην αὐτὸν ἀπιστεɩ̂νJowett1885v1: 9. 25. ὡς οὐκ ἀγαθοɩ̂ς ἀνδράσιν, οὐκ ἀσϕαλές.

‘But when men are so educated that the legislator himself cannot trust them, and implies that they are not good men, there is a danger.’ The remark is resumed and justified in § 30 (ὅτι δ’ ὁ νομοθέτης, κ.τ.λ.), by the general suspicion of their citizens which the Spartan government always showed, and also (§ 26) by the circumstance that the Gerontes were placed under the control of the Ephors.

οὐκ ἀσϕαλές, sc. τὸ κυρίους αὐτοὺς εἰ̂ναι μεγάλων.

δόξειε δ’ ἄν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 9. 26.

The discussion about the Ephors and Gerontes is a sort of dialogue, in which objections are stated and answers given, but the two sides of the argument are not distinctly opposed.

ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν αἵρεσιν ἣν ποιον̂νται τω̂ν γερόντων, κατά τε τὴν κρίσιν ἐστὶJowett1885v1: 9. 27. παιδαριώδης κ.τ.λ.

For the mode of the election cp. Plut. Lycurg. c. 26: ‘The election took place after this fashion: When the assembly had met, certain persons selected for the purpose were shut up in a building near at hand, so that they could not see or be seen, but could only hear the shouting of the assembly. For, as with other matters (cp. Thuc. i. 87, κρίνουσι γὰρ βοῃ̑ καὶ οὐ ψήϕῳ), the Lacedaemonians decided by acclamation between the competitors. One by one the candidates were brought in, according to an order fixed by lot, and walked, without speaking, through the assembly. The persons who were shut up marked on tablets the greatness of the shout given in each case, not knowing for whom it was being given, but only that this was the first or the second or the third in order of the candidates. He was elected who was received with the loudest and longest acclamations.’

δεɩ̂ γὰρ καὶ βουλόμενον καὶ μὴ βουλόμενον ἄρχειν τὸν ἄξιον τη̂ς ἀρχη̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 9. 27.

Cp. Plat. Rep. 345 E ff., 347 D.

Edition: current; Page: [87]

νν̂ν δ’ ὅπερ καὶ περὶ τὴν ἄλλην πολιτείαν ὁ νομοθέτης ϕαίνεται ποιω̂ν·Jowett1885v1: 9. 28. ϕιλοτίμους γὰρ κατασκευάζων τοὺς πολίτας τούτοις κέχρηται πρὸς τὴν α[Editor: illegible character]ρεσιν τω̂ν γερόντων.

According to the view of Aristotle and of Plato nobody should seek to rule, but everybody if he is wanted should be compelled to rule. Yet this is rather a counsel of perfection than a principle of practical politics. And it seems hardly fair to condemn the work of Lycurgus, because like every other Greek state, Sparta had elections and candidatures.

διόπερ ἐξέπεμπον συμπρεσβευτὰς τοὺς ἐχθρούς.Jowett1885v1: 9. 30.

συμπρεσβευτὰς does not refer to the kings, but is an illustration of the same jealousy which made the Spartans consider the dissensions of the kings to be the salvation of their state. διόπερ = ‘by reason of a like suspicion.’

It has been argued that Aristotle in this section is criticising the kings only. And we might translate (with Bernays and others) ‘they sent enemies as colleagues of the king,’ e.g. in such cases as that of Agis (Thuc. v. 63). But these could hardly be described as συμπρεσβευταί, any more than the Ephors who, according to Xenophon (de Rep. Lac. c. 13. § 5), were the companions of the king—not his active counsellors, but spectators or controllers of his actions.

Ancient historians are apt to invent causes for the facts which tradition has handed down. Cp. note on c. 9. § 11 supra; also v. 11. § 2; Herod. v. 69; Thuc. i. 11, &c. It may be easily believed that there were frequent παραπρεσβεɩ̂αι among Spartans, but that these were the result of a deeply-laid policy is the fancy of later writers. Still less can we suppose the double royalty which clearly originated in the ancient history of Sparta to be the work of the legislator. Compare the Laws (iii. 691 D) of Plato (who probably first suggested the notion of a special design), ‘A god who watched over Sparta gave you two families of kings instead of one and thus brought you within the limits of moderation.’

τὴν σύνοδον.Jowett1885v1: 9. 31.

Either 1) the gathering for meals; or 2) the contribution, as in Hdt. i. 64.

Edition: current; Page: [88]

βούλεται μὲν γὰρ δημοκρατικὸν εἰ̂ναι τὸ κατασκεύασμα τω̂ν συσσιτίων.Jowett1885v1: 9. 32.

It may be admitted that the common meals had a sort of leveling or equalizing tendency; but this could hardly have been the original intention of them, whether they were first instituted at Sparta by Lycurgus or not (cp. vii. 10. § 2 ff.). They are more naturally connected with the life of a camp (§ 11) and the brotherhood of arms. They may also be the survival of a patriarchal life.

The remark that the office of admiral was a second royaltyJowett1885v1: 9. 33. appears to be justified chiefly by the personal greatness of Lysander. Teleutias the brother of Agesilaus was also a distinguished man. It cannot be supposed that Eurybiades or Cnemus or Alcidas or Astyochus were formidable rivals to the king.

τούτου δὲ ἁμάρτημα οὐκ ἔλαττον· νομίζουσι μὲν γὰρ γίνεσθαι τἀγαθὰ τὰJowett1885v1: 9. 35. περιμάχητα δι’ ἀρετη̂ς μα̂λλον ἢ κακίας· καὶ τον̂το μὲν καλω̂ς, ὅτι μέντοι ταν̂τα κρείττω τη̂ς ἀρετη̂ς ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, οὐ καλω̂ς.

‘The Spartans were right in thinking that the goods of life are to be acquired by virtue, but not right in thinking that they are better than virtue’ (cp. vii. c. 2. and c. 14). The ‘not less error’ is that they degrade the end into a means; they not only prefer military virtue to every other, but the goods for which they are striving to the virtue by which they are obtained.

τὴν μὲν γὰρ πόλιν πεποίηκεν ἀχρήματον, τοὺς δ’ ἰδιώτας ϕιλοχρημάτους.Jowett1885v1: 9. 37.

It is quite true that many Spartans, Pausanias, Pleistoanax, Astyochus, Cleandridas, Gylippus and others were guilty of taking bribes. But it is hard to see how their crime is attributable to the legislator. Not the institutions of Lycurgus, but the failure of them was the real source of the evil.

The love of money to whatever cause attributable was held to be characteristic of Sparta in antiquity. The saying χρήματα χρήματ’ ἀνὴρ is placed by Alcaeus (Fr. 50) in the mouth of a Spartan, and the oracle ἁ ϕιλοχρηματία Σπάρταν ὀλεɩ̂ ἄλλο δὲ οὐδὲν is quoted in the Aristotelian Πολιτεɩ̂αι fr. Rei. Lac. 1559 b. 28.

πάρεγγυς μέν ἐστι ταύτης.Jowett1885v1: 10. 1.

Polyb. vi. 45 denies the resemblance between Crete and Lacedaemon, Ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν τω̂ν Κρητω̂ν μεταβάντες (πολιτείαν) ἄξιον ἐπιστη̂σαι Edition: current; Page: [89]κατὰ δύο τρόπους πω̂ς οἱ λογιώτατοι τω̂ν ἀρχαίων συγγραϕέων Ἔϕορος, Ξενοϕω̂ν, Καλλισθένης, Πλάτων, πρω̂τον μὲν ὁμοίαν εἰ̂ναί ϕασι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν τῃ̑ Λακεδαιμονίων, δεύτερον δ’ ἐπαινετὴν ὑπάρχουσαν ἀποϕαίνουσιν. ὡ̑ν οὐδέτερον ἀληθὲς εἰ̂ναί μοι δοκεɩ̂. He contrasts the two states in several particulars; 1) the equal distribution of land in Sparta did not exist in Crete; 2) the greed of wealth which existed in Crete is said, strangely enough, to have been unknown at Sparta; 3) the hereditary monarchy of Sparta is contrasted with the life tenure of the γέροντες; 4) the harmony which prevailed at Sparta is contrasted with the rebellions and civil wars of Crete.

τὸ δὲ πλεɩ̂ον ἡ̑ττον γλαϕυρω̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 10. 1.

Compare what is said of Charondas in c. 12. § 11, τῃ̑ ἀκριβείᾳ τω̂ν νόμων ἐστὶ γλαϕυρώτερος καὶ τω̂ν νν̂ν νομοθετω̂ν.

According to this view the Spartan institutions are not DorianJowett1885v1: 10. 2. but Pre-Dorian, having been established originally by Minos; received from him by the Lacedaemonian colony of Lyctus in Crete, and borrowed from the Lyctians by Lycurgus.

διὸ καὶ νν̂ν οἱ περίοικοι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον χρω̂νται αὐτοɩ̂ς, ὡς κατασκευάσαντοςJowett1885v1: 10. 3. Μίνω πρώτου τὴν τάξιν τω̂ν νόμων.

The connexion is as follows:—The Lacedaemonian Laws are borrowed from the Cretan. Among the Lyctians, a colony of the Lacedaemonians who settled in Crete and whom Lycurgus is said to have visited, these laws were already in existence, and he adopted them. And even at this day, the laws of Minos are still in force among the subject population or aborigines of Crete. διὸ is unemphatic; the logical form outruns the meaning.

Either the laws of Minos had ceased to be enforced among the freemen of Crete or the freemen of Crete had themselves changed (Bernays); and therefore any vestiges of the original law were only to be found among the ancient population. Thus communistic usages may be observed among the peasants of India and Russia, which have disappeared in the higher classes. Yet Aristotle also speaks of the common meals in Crete as still continuing. Does he refer only to the survival of them among the Perioeci? By Dosiades (b.c.?) the Cretan Syssitia are described as still existing Edition: current; Page: [90](see the passage quoted in note on § 6). Aristotle supposes that Lycurgus went to Crete before he gave laws to Sparta. According to other accounts his travels, like those of Solon, were subsequent to his legislation.

Ephorus, the contemporary of Aristotle [see fragment quoted in Strabo x. 480], argues at length that the Spartan Institutions originally existed in Crete but that they were perfected in Sparta, and that they deteriorated in Cnossus and other Cretan cities; both writers agree in the general view that the Cretan institutions are older than the Spartan and in several other particulars, e.g. that the Lyctians were a Lacedaemonian colony, that the common meals were called Ἄνδρια or Ἀνδρεɩ̂α, that the Cretan institutions had decayed in their great towns but survived among the Perioeci; and also in the similarity of offices at Lacedaemon and Crete. The great resemblance between this account and that of Aristotle seems to indicate a common unknown source.

The existence of the same institutions in Sparta and Crete and the greater antiquity of the Cretan Minos may have led to the belief in their Cretan origin. Others deemed such an opinion unworthy of Sparta and argued plausibly that the greater could not have been derived from the less; Strabo l.c.

Δοκεɩ̂ δ’ ἡ νη̂σος καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν πεϕυκέναι καὶ κεɩ̂σθαιJowett1885v1: 10. 3. καλω̂ς.

Aristotle, like Herodotus, Thucydides, Aeschylus, is not indisposed to a geographical digression; cp. vii. 10. §§ 3-5.

It may be observed that the remark is not perfectly consistent with §§ 15, 16. The ‘silver streak’ and ‘the empire of the sea’ are the symbols of two different policies.

Διὸ καὶ τὴν τη̂ς θαλάσσης ἀρχὴν κατέσχεν ὁ Μίνως.Jowett1885v1: 10. 4.

Cp. Herod. iii. 122, Thuc. i. 4.

γεωργον̂σί τε γὰρ τοɩ̂ς μὲν εἵλωτες τοɩ̂ς δὲ Κρησὶν οἱ περίοικοι.Jowett1885v1: 10. 5.

But if Sosicrates, a writer of the second century b.c., quoted by Athenaeus vi. 84 is to be trusted, Aristotle is here at fault in his use of terms; τὴν μὲν κοινὴν δουλείαν οἱ Κρη̂τες καλον̂σι μνοίαν, τὴν δὲ ἰδίαν ἀϕαμιώτας, τοὺς δὲ περιοίκους ὑπηκόους: see c. 9. § 3.

Edition: current; Page: [91]

ᾐ̑ καὶ δη̂λον ὅτι ἐκεɩ̂θεν ἐλήλυθεν.Jowett1885v1: 10. 5.

These words may be compared with the passage in Book vii. 10. § 2, ἀρχαία δ’ ἔοικεν εἰ̂ναι καὶ τω̂ν συσσιτίων ἡ τάξις, τὰ μὲν περὶ Κρήτην γενόμενα περὶ τὴν Μίνω βασιλείαν, τὰ δὲ περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν πολλῳ̑ παλαιότερα τούτων. In both passages Aristotle says that the common meals came from Crete to Sparta.

οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἔϕοροι τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσι δύναμιν τοɩ̂ς ἐν τῃ̑ Κρήτῃ καλουμένοιςJowett1885v1: 10. 6. κόσμοις.

The office of the Cosmi is identified by Aristotle with that of the Ephors. But the resemblance between them is very slight. The fact that at Sparta there were kings, while in Crete the kingly power, if it ever existed at all, had long been abolished, makes an essential difference. The Ephors were democratic, the Cosmi were oligarchical officers. And although both the Ephors and the Cosmi were an executive body, yet the Ephors, unlike the Cosmi, never acquired the military command, which was retained by the Spartan kings. Aristotle observes that the Cosmi were chosen out of certain families, the Ephors out of all the Spartans, a circumstance to which he ascribes the popularity of the latter institution.

οὓς καλον̂σιν οἱ Κρη̂τες βουλήν.Jowett1885v1: 10. 6.

Yet we are told that the term βουλὴ was generally used to signify ‘the council in a democracy.’ Cp. iv. 15. § 11 and vi. 8. § 17, also v. 1. § 10, [at Epidamnus] ἀντὶ τω̂ν ϕυλάρχων βουλὴν ἐποίησεν. In the Cretan use of the term βουλὴ there may be a survival of the Homeric meaning of the word.

βασιλεία δὲ πρότερον μὲν ἠ̑ν.Jowett1885v1: 10. 6.

Probably an inference from the legendary fame of Minos. No other king of Crete is mentioned.

Dosiades, quoted by Ath. iv. c. 22. p. 143, gives the following account of the Cretan Syssitia: ‘The Lyctians collect the materials for their common meals in the following manner: Every one brings a tenth of the produce of the soil into the guild (ἑταιρία) to which he belongs, and to this [are added] the revenues of the city, which the municipal authorities distribute to the several households. Further, each of the slaves contributes a poll-tax of an Edition: current; Page: [92]Aeginetan stater. All the citizens are divided among these guilds which they call andreia. A woman takes care of the syssitia with three or four of the common people to help in waiting; and each of these has two attendants, called καλοϕόροι, to carry wood for him. Everywhere in Crete there are two buildings for the syssitia, one called the andreion, the other, which is used for the reception of strangers, the dormitory (κοιμητήριον). And first of all they set out two tables in the room for the syssitia, called “strangers’ tables,” at which any strangers who are present take their place. Next to these come the tables for the rest. An equal portion is set before every man: the children receive a half portion of meat, but touch nothing else. On every table a large vessel is set full of diluted wine: from this all who sit at that table drink in common; and when the meal is finished another cup is put on. The children too drink in common from another bowl. The elders may, if they like, drink more. The best of the viands are taken by the woman who superintends the syssitia in the sight of all, and placed before those who have distinguished themselves in war or council. After dinner their habit is first of all to consult about state affairs, and then to recount their deeds in battle and tell the praise of their heroes. Thus they teach the youth to be valiant.’

ὥστ’ ἐκ κοινον̂ τρέϕεσθαι πάντας, καὶ γυναɩ̂κας καὶ παɩ̂δας καὶ ἄνδρας.Jowett1885v1: 10. 8.

ἐκ κοινον̂, ‘out of a common stock’; not necessarily at common tables. The syssitia or common meals of women are said by Aristotle in chap. 12 to be an invention of Plato in the Laws, and if so they could hardly have existed at Crete. Nor is there any allusion to them in the fragment of Dosiades (supra). The name ἄνδρια or ἀνδρεɩ̂α also affords a presumption against the admission of women to the public tables. But if the words ἐκ κοινον̂ are interpreted as above, there is no reason that with Oncken (Staatslehre der Arist. ii. 386) we should suppose the words γυναɩ̂κας καὶ παɩ̂δας on this ground to be spurious; nor is such a mode of textual criticism legitimate.

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ὀλιγοσιτίαν.Jowett1885v1: 10. 9.

The connexion appears to be as follows: ‘And as there were so many mouths to feed,’ the legislator had many devices for Edition: current; Page: [93]encouraging moderation in food, which he thought a good thing, as well as for keeping down population.

τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἄρρενας ποιήσας ὁμιλίαν, περὶ ἡ̑ς εἰ ϕαύλως ἢ μὴ ϕαύλωςJowett1885v1: 10. 9. ἕτερος ἔσται τον̂ διασκέψασθαι καιρός.

If these words refer to this work, the promise contained in them is unfulfilled. Nothing is said on the subject in Book vii. c. 16, when the question of population is discussed. The promise, however, is somewhat generally expressed; like the end of c. 8. § 25 supra, Διὸ νν̂ν μὲν ἀϕω̂μεν ταύτην τὴν σκέψιν, ἄλλων γάρ ἐστι καιρω̂ν.

ἐνταν̂θα δ’ οὐκ ἐξ ἁπάντων αἱρον̂νται τοὺς κόσμους ἀλλ’ ἐκ τινω̂ν γενω̂ν, καὶJowett1885v1: 10. 10-12. τοὺς γέροντας ἐκ τω̂ν κεκοσμηκότων. περὶ ὡ̑ν τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄν τις εἴπειε λόγους καὶ περὶ τω̂ν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι γινομένων. τὸ γὰρ ἀνυπεύθυνον, καὶ τὸ διὰ βίου μεɩ̂ζόν ἐστι γέρας τη̂ς ἀξίας αὐτοɩ̂ς. . . τὸ δ’ ἡσυχάζειν, κ.τ.λ.

περὶ ὡ̑ν. Do these words refer to* the γέροντες (Susemihl, Bernays) or to the κόσμοι (Stahr)? The connexion would lead us to suppose the latter; for what precedes and what follows can only be explained on this supposition. Yet the Cosmi appear not to have held office for life (cp. γέροντας ἐκ τω̂ν κεκοσμηκότων), perhaps only for a year (Polyb. vi. 46), though nothing short of a revolution could get rid of them; see infra, § 14. It is better to suppose that Aristotle has ‘gone off upon a word’ as at c. 9. § 30, and is here speaking of the γέροντες, but returns to his original subject at τὸ δ’ ἡσυχάζειν. περὶ ὡ̑ν and γινομένων have also been taken as neuters: ‘about which things,’ i. e. the mode of electing: but this explanation does not agree with the next words, which relate, not to the mode of election, but to the irresponsibility of the office.

καὶ τὸ μὴ κατὰ γράμματα ἄρχειν, ἀλλ’ αὐτογνώμονας ἐπισϕαλές.Jowett1885v1: 10. 11.

Cp. c. 9. § 23 where similar words are applied not, as here, to the Cosmi and elders, but to the Ephors. Another more general censure is passed on the γέροντες, § 25.

οὐδὲ γὰρ λήμματός τι τοɩ̂ς κόσμοις ὥσπερ τοɩ̂ς ἐϕόροις, πόρρω γ’ ἀποικον̂σινJowett1885v1: 10. 12. ἐν νήσῳ τω̂ν διαϕθερούντων.

Yet to say that the Cosmi could not be bribed because they lived in an island appears to be rather far-fetched. Probably Aristotle is thinking of the bribery of Hellenes by foreign powers, Edition: current; Page: [94]and for this there was little opportunity because the Cretans were isolated from the world.

οὐ γὰρ ἀσϕαλὴς ὁ κανών.Jowett1885v1: 10. 13.

The expression is not quite accurate, for the caprice of an individual cannot be called a κανών. He means that to make the caprice of man a rule is unsafe.

πάντων δὲ ϕαυλότατον τὸ τη̂ς ἀκοσμίας τω̂ν δυνατω̂ν, ἣν καθιστα̂σιJowett1885v1: 10. 14. πολλάκις ὅταν μὴ δίκας βούλωνται δον̂ναι.

The words ἣν καθιστα̂σι πολλάκις which follow and the preceding ἐκβάλλουσι συστάντες τινὲς show that the expression τὸ τη̂ς ἀκοσμίας τω̂ν δυνατω̂ν means not the insubordination of the notables, but the temporary abrogation of the office of Cosmi by their violence, or, possibly, their defiance of its authority.

ἔστι δ’ ἐπικίνδυνος οὕτως ἔχουσα πόλις τω̂ν βουλομένων ἐπιτίθεσθαι καὶJowett1885v1: 10. 15. δυναμένων.

Translated in the English text: ‘A city is in a dangerous condition, when those who are willing are also able to attack her.’ More correctly, ‘A city which may at any time fall into anarchy (οὕτως ἔχουσα) is in a dangerous condition when those who are willing are also able to attack her.’

Διὸ καὶ τὸ τω̂ν περιοίκων μένει.Jowett1885v1: 10. 16.

‘And this is also a reason why the condition of the Perioeci remains unchanged.’

οὔτε γὰρ ἐξωτερικη̂ς ἀρχη̂ς κοινωνον̂σι.Jowett1885v1: 10. 16.

Either 1*) have no foreign domains; or 2) have no relation to any foreign power. The language is not quite clear or accurate; for although a nation may possess foreign dominions it cannot ‘share’ in them. The Cretans were not members either of the Delian or of the Lacedaemonian confederacy.

νεωστί τε πόλεμος ξενικὸς διαβέβηκεν εἰς τὴν νη̂σον.Jowett1885v1: 10. 16.

The date of this event is said to be b. c. 343 when Phalaecus, the Phocian leader, accompanied by his mercenaries, crossed into Crete and took service with the inhabitants of Cnossus against those of Lyctus over whom he gained a victory, but shortly afterwards Edition: current; Page: [95]perished (Diod. xvi. 62, 63). This however is rather a civil than a ‘foreign war.’ Others refer the words to the war in the time of Agis II. (b.c. 330), or to the Cretan rising against Alexander.

νεωστί τε refers to σώζεται διὰ τὸν τόπον, ‘Quite lately [her isolation did not save her,] foreign mercenaries brought war into the island.’

καὶ πολλὰ περιττω̂ς πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους.Jowett1885v1: 11. 1.

‘And in many respects their government is remarkable when compared with those of other nations’ or ‘with the others of whom I have been speaking.’ For the use of περιττός, cp. c. 6. § 6.

αὑ̑ται γὰρ αἱ πολιτεɩ̂αι τρεɩ̂ς ἀλλήλαις τε σύνεγγύς πώς εἰσι.Jowett1885v1: 11. 1.

Yet the differences are far more striking than the resemblances, which seem to be only ‘the common tables,’ the analogous office of kings at Sparta and Carthage, and the council of Elders. The real similarity to one another of any of these institutions may be doubted (see note on § 3 infra): while the entire difference in spirit is not noticed by Aristotle. The Semitic trading aristocracy has little in common with the Hellenic military aristocracy; the prosperity of Carthage with the poverty and backwardness of Crete. But in the beginnings of reflection mankind saw resemblances more readily than differences. Hence they were led to identify religions, philosophies, political institutions which were really unlike though they bore the impress of a common human nature.

σημεɩ̂ον δὲ πολιτείας συντεταγμένης.Jowett1885v1: 11. 2.

‘And the proof that they were an organized state’ or ‘that they had a regular constitution.’ The insertion of εν̓̂ before συντεταγμένης (Schneider) is unnecessary. Cp. supra ii. 9. § 22.

τὸν δη̂μον ἔχουσαν agrees with some word such as πόλιν understoodJowett1885v1: 11. 2. from πολιτείαν = ‘the city with its democracy.’ There is no need to change ἔχουσαν into ἑκόντα (Bernays) or ἑκούσιον (Spengel).

μήτε στάσιν γεγενη̂σθαι.Jowett1885v1: 11. 2.

For the inconsistency of these words with another statement of Aristotle (v. 12. § 12) that ‘the Carthaginians changed from a tyranny into an aristocracy,’ which is also irreconcileable with the further statement in v. 12. § 14, that they never had a revolution, see note in loco.

Edition: current; Page: [96]

ἔχει δὲ παραπλήσια τῃ̑ Λακωνικῃ̑ πολιτείᾳ τὰ μὲν συσσίτια τω̂ν ἑταιριω̂νJowett1885v1: 11. 3. τοɩ̂ς ϕειδιτίοις, τὴν δὲ τω̂ν ἑκατὸν καὶ τεττάρων ἀρχὴν τοɩ̂ς ἐϕόροις . . τοὺς δὲ βασιλεɩ̂ς καὶ τὴν γερουσίαν ἀνάλογον τοɩ̂ς ἐκεɩ̂ βασιλεν̂σι καὶ γέρουσιν.

Yet there could hardly have been much resemblance between the common tables of guilds or societies in the great commercial city of Carthage, and the ‘camp life’ of the Spartan syssitia; or between the five ephors of Sparta and the hundred and four councillors of Carthage: or between kings who were generals and elected for life at Sparta and the so called kings or suffetes who seem to have been elected annually and were not military officers at Carthage, but are distinguished from them, infra § 9.

οὐ χεɩ̂ρον.Jowett1885v1: 11. 3.

Is to be taken as an adverb agreeing with the sentence, ‘and this is an improvement.’

καὶ βέλτιον δὲ τοὺς βασιλεɩ̂ς μήτε κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ εἰ̂ναι γένος, μηδὲ τον̂τοJowett1885v1: 11. 4. τὸ τυχόν, εἴ τε διαϕέρον ἐκ τούτων αἱρετοὺς μα̂λλον ἢ καθ’ ἡλικίαν.

The true meaning of this rather perplexed passage is probably that given in the English text which may be gathered from the words as they stand. With διαϕέρον supply τὸ γένος ἐστί. The correction of Bernays, τυχόν, εἰς δὲ γερουσίαν ἐκ πλουσίων αἱρετοὺς is too great a departure from the MSS. Lesser corrections, εἰ δέ, ἀλλ’ εἴ τι, εἴτι have some foundation in the Latin Version, but are unnecessary. εἴ τε is to be read as two words and answers to μήτε, as διαϕέρον does to μηδὲ τον̂το τὸ τυχόν. ‘It is a great advantage that the kings are not all of the same family and that their family is no ordinary one, and if there be an extraordinary family, that the kings are elected out of it and not appointed by seniority.’

μεγάλων γὰρ κύριοι καθεστω̂τες, ἂν εὐτελεɩ̂ς ὠ̂σι, μεγάλα βλάπτουσι καὶJowett1885v1: 11. 4. ἔβλαψαν ἤδη τὴν πόλιν τὴν τω̂ν Λακεδαιμονίων.

He elsewhere speaks of the Spartan monarchy in a somewhat different spirit (iii. 14. § 3, 15. § 1 ff.). The praise here given to the elective Monarchy or Consulate of the Carthaginians at the expense of the Spartan kingship is considerably modified by the fact mentioned in § 10, that they not unfrequently sold the highest offices for money.

Edition: current; Page: [97]

τω̂ν δὲ πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τη̂ς ἀριστοκρατίας καὶ τη̂ς πολιτείας,Jowett1885v1: 11. 5.

sc. ἐπιτιμηθέντων ἂν κ.τ.λ. Lit. ‘But of the things which would be censured when compared with the ideal of aristocracy and constitutional government, etc.’

The constitution of Carthage was an aristocracy in the lowerJowett1885v1: 11. 5. sense, and like Aristotle’s own πολιτεία, a combination of oligarchy and democracy (iv. 8. § 9, v. 7. §§ 5-7). While acknowledging that wealth should be an element in the constitution, because it is the condition of leisure, Aristotle objects to the sale of places and the other abuses which arose out of it at Carthage. The Carthaginian constitution is expressly called an ‘aristocracy’ in iv. 7. § 4, because it has regard to virtue as well as to wealth and numbers; and once more (in v. 12. § 14) a democracy in which, as in other democracies, trade was not prohibited. According to Aristotle the people had the power 1) of debating questions laid before them; 2) of deciding between the kings and nobles when they disagreed about the introduction of measures, but 3) they had not the power of initiation.

ἐν ταɩ̂ς ἑτέραις πολιτείαις.Jowett1885v1: 11. 6.

Sc. Crete and Sparta. Cp. supra § 5, ταɩ̂ς εἰρημέναις πολιτείαις.

τὸ δὲ τὰς πενταρχίας κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 11. 7.

Of these pentarchies, or of the manner in which they held office before and after the regular term of their magistracy had expired, nothing is known. We may conjecture that they were divisions or committees of the γερουσία. Their position may be illustrated by that of the Cretan Cosmi, who became members of the γερουσία when their term of office had expired (cp. c. 10. § 10).

τὴν τω̂ν ἑκατόν.Jowett1885v1: 11. 7.

Possibly the same which he had previously (§ 3) called the magistracy of 104. The magistracy here spoken of is termed μεγίστη ἀρχή, the other is said to consist of great officers who are compared with the Ephors. If the two institutions are assumed to be the same, we might adduce for an example of a like inaccuracy in number, a passage, c. 6. § 5, where the citizens in Plato’s Laws who number 5040 are called the 5000. Edition: current; Page: [98]But it is not certain that they can be identified. According to Livy and Justin the ordo judicum consisted of 100. ‘Centum ex numero senatorum judices deliguntur.’ Justin xix. 2. (Cp. Livy xxxiii. 46.) They were appointed about the year b.c. 450, to counteract the house of Mago, and are spoken of as a new institution. These facts rather lead to the inference that the 100 are not the same with the magistracy of 104, which was probably more ancient. But in our almost entire ignorance of early Carthaginian history the question becomes unimportant.

καὶ τὸ τὰς δίκας ὑπὸ τω̂ν ἀρχείων δικάζεσθαι πάσας [ἀριστοκρατικόν], καὶJowett1885v1: 11. 7. μὴ ἄλλας ὑπ’ ἄλλων, καθάπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι.

Either 1)* καθάπερ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι refers to the immediately preceding clause, μὴ ἄλλας ὑπ’ ἄλλων:—or 2), to the words δίκας ὑπὸ τω̂ν ἀρχείων δικάζεσθαι πάσας, in which case καὶ . . . ἄλλων must be taken as an explanatory parenthesis.

According to the first view, Aristotle is opposing Carthage and Lacedaemon. In Carthage all cases are tried by the same board or college of magistrates (or by the magistrates collectively), whereas in Lacedaemon some magistrates try one case and some another. The former is the more aristocratical, the second the more oligarchical mode of proceeding: the regular skilled tribunal at Carthage is contrasted with the casual judgments of individuals at Lacedaemon. The difficulty in this way of taking the passage is that we should expect ὑπὸ τω̂ν αὐτω̂ν ἀρχείων, unless the words καὶ μὴ ἄλλας ὑπ’ ἄλλων be regarded as suggesting αὐτω̂ν by antithesis.

According to the second view, Aristotle, as in iii. 1. § 10, is comparing the general points of resemblance in Carthage and Lacedaemon. ‘Both at Carthage and Lacedaemon cases are tried by regular boards of magistrates, and not by different persons, some by one and some by another.’ The difference between the professional judges of the Carthaginians and the casual magistrates of the Spartans is noted in iii. 1. § 10, but here passed over in silence. The Carthaginian and Lacedaemonian arrangements may thus be considered as both aristocratic and oligarchic,—aristocratic because limiting judicial functions to regular magistrates; oligarchic, because confining them to a few. They are Edition: current; Page: [99]both contrasted with the judicial institutions of a democracy. The difficulty in this way of construing the passage is not the parenthesis, which is common in Aristotle, but the use of ἄλλων vaguely for ‘different persons,’ and not, as the preceding words ὑπὸ τω̂ν ἀρχείων would lead us to expect, for ‘different magistracies,’ or ‘boards of magistrates.’

In neither way of taking the passage is there any real contradiction to the statement of iii. 1. § 10. The words of the latter are as follows: ‘For in some states the people are not acknowledged, nor have they any regular assembly; but only extraordinary ones; suits are distributed in turn among the magistrates; at Lacedaemon, for instance, suits about contracts are decided, some by one Ephor and some by another; while the elders are judges of homicide, and other causes probably fall to some other magistracy. A similar principle prevails at Carthage; there certain magistrates decide all causes.’

For the sale of great offices at Carthage, see Polyb. vi. 56. § 4,Jowett1885v1: 11. 9. παρὰ μὲν Καρχηδονίοις δω̂ρα ϕανερω̂ς διδόντες λαμβάνουσι τὰς ἀρχάς· παρὰ δὲ Ῥωμαίοις θάνατός ἐστι περὶ τον̂το πρόστιμον.

δεɩ̂ δὲ νομίζειν ἁμάρτημα νομοθέτου τὴν παρέκβασιν εἰ̂ναι τη̂ς ἀριστοκρατίαςJowett1885v1: 11. 10. ταύτην κ.τ.λ.

The error consists in making wealth a qualification for office; the legislator should from the first have given a competency to the governing class, and then there would have been no need to appoint men magistrates who were qualified by wealth only. Even if the better classes generally are not to be protected against poverty, such a provision must be made for the rulers as will ensure them leisure. See infra § 12, βέλτιον δ’ εἰ καὶ προεɩ̂το τὴν ἀπορίαν τω̂ν ἐπιεικω̂ν ὁ νομοθέτης κ.τ.λ.

εἰ δὲ δεɩ̂ βλέπειν καὶ πρὸς εὐπορίαν χάριν σχολη̂ς, ϕαν̂λον τὸ τὰς μεγίσταςJowett1885v1: 11. 10. ὠνητὰς εἰ̂ναι τω̂ν ἀρχω̂ν, τήν τε βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν στρατηγίαν.

Of this, as of many other passages in the Politics, the meaning can only be inferred from the context. In the Carthaginian constitution the element of wealth superseded merit. But whether there was a regular traffic in offices, as the words τὰς μεγίστας Edition: current; Page: [100]ὠνητὰς εἰ̂ναι τω̂ν ἀρχω̂ν would seem to imply, or merely a common practice of corruption, as in England in the last century, Aristotle does not clearly inform us. Cp. Plat. Rep. viii. 544 D, ἤ τινα ἄλλην ἔχεις ἰδέαν πολιτείας, ἥτις καὶ ἐν εἴδει διαϕανεɩ̂ τινὶ κεɩ̂ται; δυναστεɩ̂αι γὰρ καὶ ὠνηταὶ βασιλεɩ̂αι καὶ τοιαν̂ταί τινες πολιτεɩ̂αι μεταξύ τι τούτων πού εἰσιν, εὕροι δ’ ἄν τις αὐτὰς οὐκ ἐλάττους περὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους ἢ τοὺς Ἕλληνας.

βέλτιον δ’ εἰ καὶ προεɩ̂το τὴν ἀπορίαν τω̂ν ἐπιεικω̂ν ὁ νομοθέτης.Jowett1885v1: 11. 12.

The MSS. vary between ἀπορίαν and εὐπορίαν without much difference of meaning: ‘Even if the legislator were to give up the question of the poverty’ [or ‘wealth] of the better class.’ A similar confusion of ἄπορος and εὔπορος occurs elsewhere: iii. 17. § 4, ἀπόροις and εὐπόροις: v. 1. § 14, ἄποροι and εὔποροι: v. 3. § 8, ἀπόρων and εὐπόρων: vi. 2. § 9, ἀπόροις and εὐπόροις.

κοινότερόν τε γάρ, καθάπερ εἴπομεν, καὶ κάλλιον ἕκαστον ἀποτελεɩ̂ται τω̂νJowett1885v1: 11. 14. αὐτω̂ν καὶ θα̂ττον.

κοινότερον, ‘more popular,’ because more persons hold office.

καθάπερ εἴπομεν, cp. § 13.

ἕκαστον τω̂ν αὐτω̂ν, i.e. because each thing remains the same. The insertion of ὑπὸ before τω̂ν, suggested by the Old Translation ab eisdem, is unnecessary. τω̂ν αὐτω̂ν, ‘where the duties are the same.’

κάλλιον ἀποτελεɩ̂ται, i.e. if many share in the government each individual can be confined to the same duties, a division of labour to which frequent reference is made in Aristotle. (Cp. ii. 2. §§ 5, 6; iv. 15. §§ 7, 8; vi. 2. § 8, and Plat. Rep. ii. 374 A, iii. 397 E.) And there is more political intelligence where everybody is both ruler and subject.

ἐκϕεύγουσι τῳ̑ πλουτεɩ̂ν. See note on text.Jowett1885v1: 11. 15.

So England has been often said to have escaped a revolution during this century by the help of colonization: nor is there ‘any more profitable affair of business in which an old country can be engaged’ (Mill). That Aristotle was not averse to assisting the poor out of the revenues of the state when any political advantage could be gained, or any permanent good effected for them, we infer from vi. 5. §§ 8, 9.

Edition: current; Page: [101]

ἀλλὰ τουτί ἐστι τύχης ἔργον.Jowett1885v1: 11. 15.

Though the government of the Carthaginians is in good repute (§ 1), Aristotle regards this reputation as not wholly deserved, their stability being due to the power of sending out colonies which their wealth gave them; but this is only a happy accident. In a similar spirit he has remarked that the permanency of the Cretan government is due to their insular position (c. 10. § 15).

ἂν ἀτυχία γένηταί τις.Jowett1885v1: 11. 16.

The later reflection on the accidental character of the stability which he attributes to Carthage is not quite in harmony with the statement of § 2, in which he cites the lastingness of the government as a proof of the goodness of the constitution.

Grote in his eleventh chapter (vol. iii. p. 167, ed. 1847) saysJowett1885v1: 12. 2-6. that, according to Aristotle, Solon only gave the people the power to elect their magistrates and hold them to accountability. What is said in §§ 2 and 3 he considers not to be the opinion of Aristotle himself, but of those upon whom he is commenting. This is true of § 2: but not of § 3, which contains Aristotle’s criticism on the opinion expressed in § 2. Thus we have the authority of Aristotle (at least of the writer of this chapter) for attributing the institution of the δικαστήρια to Solon (cp. Schömann’s Athenian Constitution, transl. by Bosanquet, pp. 36 ff.). The popular juries are said to be a democratic institution (τὸν δὲ δη̂μον καταστη̂σαι, τὰ δικαστήρια ποιήσας ἐκ πάντων); but it is obvious that, so long as the jurors were unpaid, the mass of the people could make no great use of their privileges. The character of the democracy was therefore far from being of an extreme kind; cp. iv. 6. §§ 5, 6 and 13. §§ 5, 6, vi. 2. §§ 6, 7.

The sum of Aristotle’s (?) judgment upon Solon (§ 3) is that he did create the democracy by founding the dicasteries, but that he was not responsible for the extreme form of it which was afterwards established by Ephialtes, Pericles, and their followers.

ἕκαστος τω̂ν δημαγωγω̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 12. 4.

The writer of this passage clearly intended to class Pericles among the demagogues. He judges him in the same depreciatory spirit as Plato in the Gorgias, pp. 515, 516.

Edition: current; Page: [102]

ἐπεὶ Σόλων γε ἔοικε τὴν ἀναγκαιοτάτην ἀποδιδόναι τῳ̑ δήμῳ δύναμιν.Jowett1885v1: 12. 5.

Cp. Solon, Fragm. 4 in Bergk Poet. Lyr. Graeci, Δήμῳ μὲν γὰρ ἔδωκα τόσον κράτος, ὅσσον ἐπαρκεɩ̂, ¦ Τιμη̂ς οὔτ’ ἀϕελὼν οὔτ’ ἐπορεξάμενος.

τὰς δ’ ἀρχὰς ἐκ τω̂ν γνωρίμων καὶ τω̂ν εὐπόρων κατέστησε πάσας, ἐκ τω̂νJowett1885v1: 12. 6. πεντακοσιομεδίμνων καὶ ζευγιτω̂ν καὶ τρίτου τέλους τη̂ς καλουμένης ἱππάδος· τὸ δὲ τέταρτον θητικόν, οἱ̑ς οὐδεμια̂ς ἀρχη̂ς μετη̂ν.

The arrangement of the classes here is somewhat disorderly, the second class or Knights being placed third in the series. That Aristotle should have supposed the Hippeis to have formed the third class is incredible; but it is difficult to say what amount of error is possible in a later writer. See an absurd mistake in Suidas and Photius about ἱππεɩ̂ς and ἱππὰς (Boeckh, P. E. ii. 260) under ἱππάς, which in Photius s. v. is called a fifth class; while in the next entry four Athenian classes are cited in the usual order with a reference to Aristotle (?) de Rep. Atheniensium, and an addition ‘that ἱππάδες belong to ἱππεɩ̂ς’ (?).

νομοθέται δ’ ἐγένοντο Ζάλευκός τε Λοκροɩ̂ς τοɩ̂ς ἐπιζεϕυρίοις, καὶ ΧαρώνδαςJowett1885v1: 12. 6. ὁ Καταναɩ̂ος τοɩ̂ς αὑτον̂ πολίταις.

Strabo (vi. 260), quoting Ephorus, says that Zaleucus made one great innovation, in taking away from the dicasts, and inserting in the law, the power of fixing the penalty after sentence was given.

Aristotle attributes greater precision to Charondas than to modern legislators. But early laws have a greater appearance of precision because society is simpler, and there are fewer of them.

Θάλητα.Jowett1885v1: 12. 7.

Thales, called also Thaletas, probably the Cretan poet who is said by Ephorus apud Strabonem, x. p. 481, to have been the friend of Lycurgus; and also to have introduced the Cretan rhythm into vocal music. Mentioned in Plut. de Musica, pp. 1135, 1146. Clinton supposes him to have flourished from 690 to 660 b.c. But chronology cannot be framed out of disjointed statements of Plutarch and Pausanias.

Λυκον̂ργον καὶ Ζάλευκον.Jowett1885v1: 12. 7.

A greater anachronism respecting Lycurgus is found in the fragments of Ephorus (Strabo x. 482, ἐντυχόντα δ’, ὥς ϕασί τινες, καὶ Edition: current; Page: [103]Ὁμἡρῳ διατρίβοντι ἐν Χίῳ, quoted by Oncken, Staatslehre des Aristoteles, ii. p. 346).

ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ Φιλόλαος ὁ Κορίνθιος.Jowett1885v1: 12. 8.

The δὲ is not opposed to μὲν at the end of the last sentence, ἀλλὰ ταν̂τα μὲν λέγουσιν κ.τ.λ., but is a resumption of the δὲ at the beginning of the previous sentence, πειρω̂νται δέ. The story, if any reason is required for the introduction of it, may be intended to explain how Philolaus a Corinthian gave laws for Thebes.

Of Onomacritus, Philolaus, Androdamas, nothing more is known:Jowett1885v1: 12. 11. of Zaleucus not much more. A good saying attributed to him has been preserved in Stobaeus xlv. p. 304, Ζάλευκος, ὁ τω̂ν Λοκρω̂ν νομοθέτης, τοὺς νόμους ἔϕησε τοɩ̂ς ἀραχνίοις ὁμοίους εἰ̂ναι· ὥσπερ γὰρ εἰς ἐκεɩ̂να ἐὰν μὲν ἐμπέσῃ μυɩ̂α ἢ κώνωψ, κατέχεται, ἐὰν δὲ σϕὴξ ἢ μέλιττα, διαῤῥήξασα ἀϕίπταται, οὕτω καὶ εἰς τοὺς νόμους ἐὰν μὲν ἐμπέσῃ πένης, συνέχεται· ἐὰν δὲ πλούσιος ἢ δυνατὸς λέγειν, διαῤῥήξας ἀποτρέχει, an apophthegm which in Aristotle’s phraseology (i. 11. § 10) may be truly said ‘to be of general application.’ Stobaeus has also preserved (xliv. p. 289) numerous laws which are attributed to Charondas and Zaleucus. They are full of excellent religious sentiments, but are evidently of a late Neo-Pythagorean origin. The same remark applies still more strongly to the citations in Diodorus xii. c. 12 ff.

Πλάτωνος δ’ ἥ τε τω̂ν γυναικω̂ν καὶ παίδων καὶ τη̂ς οὐσίας κοινότης καὶJowett1885v1: 12. 12. τὰ συσσίτια τω̂ν γυναικω̂ν, ἔτι δ’ ὁ περὶ τὴν μέθην νόμος, τὸ τοὺς νήϕοντας συμποσιαρχεɩ̂ν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τοɩ̂ς πολεμικοɩ̂ς ἄσκησιν ὅπως ἀμϕιδέξιοι γίνωνται κατὰ τὴν μελέτην, ὡς δέον μὴ τὴν μὲν χρήσιμον εἰ̂ναι τοɩ̂ν χεροɩ̂ν τὴν δὲ ἄχρηστον.

The reference to Plato’s communism in contrast with Phaleas’ proposal of equality is not unnatural; but the allusion to three unconnected, two of them very trivial, points in the ‘Laws,’ is strange, and looks like the addition of a later hand. This whole chapter has been often suspected. It consists of miscellaneous jottings not worked up, some of them on matters already discussed. But mere irregularity and feebleness are no sufficient ground for doubting the genuineness of any passage in the sense in which Edition: current; Page: [104]genuineness may be ascribed to the greater part of the Politics. The chapter may be regarded either as an imperfect recapitulation or as notes for the continuation of the subject. The story of Philolaus, and the discussion respecting Solon, are characteristic of Aristotle.

καὶ τὴν ἐν τοɩ̂ς πολεμικοɩ̂ς ἄσκησιν. The change of construction arises from the insertion of the clause ὁ περὶ τὴν μέθην νόμος. The accusative may be explained as the accusative of the remote object after ἀμϕιδέξιοι γίνωνται, or may be taken with περί.

It may be remarked that Aristotle looks on the ἀμϕιδέξιος as an exception to nature (cp. Nic. Eth. v. 7. § 4, ϕύσει γὰρ ἡ δεξιὰ κρείττων καίτοι ἐνδέχεταί τινας ἀμϕιδεξίους γενέσθαι), whereas in Plato (Laws 794 D, E) the ordinary use of the right hand only is regarded as a limitation of nature.

Δράκοντος δὲ νόμοι.Jowett1885v1: 12. 13.

Cp. Plut. Solon 17. Another reference to Draco occurs in Rhet. ii. 23, 1400 b. 21, καὶ Δράκοντα τὸν νομοθέτην, ὅτι οὐκ ἀνθρώπου οἱ νόμοι ἀλλὰ δράκοντος· χαλεποὶ γάρ.

Edition: current; Page: [105]

BOOK III.

τῳ̑ περὶ πολιτείας ἐπισκοπον̂ντι.Jowett1885v1: 1. 1.

The particle δὲ after τῳ̑ was probably omitted when the treatise was divided into books.

τον̂ δὲ πολιτικον̂ καὶ τον̂ νομοθέτουJowett1885v1: 1. 1.

are a resumption of the opening words τῳ̑ περὶ πολιτείας ἐπισκοπον̂ντι. ‘The legislator or statesman is wholly engaged in enquiries about the state. But the state is made up of citizens, and therefore he must begin by asking who is a citizen.’ The clause τον̂ δὲ πολιτικον̂ . . . περὶ πόλιν is a repetition and confirmation of the previous sentence, τῳ̑ περὶ πολιτείας . . . ἡ πόλις, the enquirer being more definitely described as the legislator or statesman.

οὐδ’ οἱ τω̂ν δικαίων μετέχοντες οὕτως ὥστε καὶ δίκην ὑπέχειν καὶ δικάζεσθαι.Jowett1885v1: 1. 4.

καὶ is closely connected with οἱ τω̂ν δικαίων μετέχοντες. ‘Nor those who share in legal rights, so that as a part of their legal rights they are sued and sue, as plaintiffs and defendants.’

καὶ γὰρ ταν̂τα τούτοις ὑπάρχει.Jowett1885v1: 1. 4.

These words are omitted in the old translation and in several Greek MSS. and are bracketed by Susemihl (1st ed.). If retained, they either 1) refer to the remote antecedent μέτοικοι above, ‘for the metics have these rights, and yet are not citizens,’ whereupon follows the correction, ‘although in many places metics do not possess even these rights in a perfect form.’ Or 2*) they are only a formal restatement of the words immediately preceding (for a similar restatement, which is bracketed by Bekker, see iv. 6. § 3), and are therefore omitted in the translation. Other instances of such pleonastic repetitions occur elsewhere, e. g. infra c. 6. § 4, where Edition: current; Page: [106]τον̂ ζη̂ν ἕνεκεν αὐτον̂ is repeated in κατὰ τὸ ζη̂ν αὐτὸ μόνον: also iv. 1. § 1, καὶ γὰρ τον̂το τη̂ς γυμναστικη̂ς ἐστίν, and v. 1. § 1.

Aristotle argues that the right of suing and being sued does not make a citizen, for a) such a right is conferred by treaty on citizens of other states: (cp. Thuc. i. 77, καὶ ἐλασσούμενοι γὰρ ἐν ταɩ̂ς ξυμβολαίαις πρὸς τοὺς ξυμμάχους δίκαις καὶ παρ’ ἡμɩ̂ν αὐτοɩ̂ς ἐν τοɩ̂ς ὁμοίοις νόμοις ποιήσαντες τὰς κρίσεις ϕιλοδικεɩ̂ν δοκον̂μεν). b) The metics have this right, which, as he proceeds to remark, in many places is only granted them at second-hand through the medium of a patron.

οὐχ ἁπλω̂ς δὲ λίαν.Jowett1885v1: 1. 5.

λίαν qualifies and at the same time emphasises ἁπλω̂ς: ‘But not quite absolutely.’

ἐπεὶ καὶ περὶ τω̂ν ἀτίμων κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 1. 5.

I. e. doubts may be raised about the rights to citizenship of exiles and deprived citizens, but they may also be solved by the expedient of adding some qualifying epithet.

ἀνώνυμον γὰρ τὸ κοινὸν ἐπὶ δικαστον̂ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστον̂.Jowett1885v1: 1. 7.

‘This is a merely verbal dispute arising out of the want of a word; for had there been a common name comprehending both dicast and ecclesiast it would have implied an office.’ Cp. Laws, vi. 767 A: ‘Now the establishment of courts of justice may be regarded as a choice of magistrates; for every magistrate must also be a judge of something, and the judge, though he be not a magistrate, is a very important magistrate when he is determining a suit.’

δεɩ̂ δὲ μὴ λανθάνειν ὅτι τω̂ν πραγμάτων ἐν οἱ̑ς τὰ ὑποκείμενα διαϕέρει τῳ̑Jowett1885v1: 1. 8. εἴδει, καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτω̂ν ἐστὶ πρω̂τον τὸ δὲ δεύτερον τὸ δ’ ἐχόμενον, ἢ τὸ παράπαν οὐδέν ἐστιν, ᾐ̑ τοιαν̂τα, τὸ κοινόν, ἢ γλίσχρως.

τὰ ὑποκείμενα. 1*) ‘the underlying notions’ or ‘the notions to which the things in question are referred,’ i. e. in this passage, as the connexion shows, ‘the forms of the constitution on which the idea of the citizen depends’ (see Bonitz s. v.). 2) ὑποκείμενα is taken by Bernays to mean the individuals contained under a class, and he translates ‘where things which fall under one conception are different in kind.’ But it is hard to see how things which are Edition: current; Page: [107]different in kind can fall under one class or conception, and the meaning, even if possible, is at variance with the immediate context which treats not of citizens but of constitutions.

τὰς δὲ πολιτείας ὁρω̂μεν εἴδει διαϕερούσας ἀλλήλων, καὶ τὰς μὲν ὑστέραςJowett1885v1: 1. 9. τὰς δὲ προτέρας οὔσας.

The logical distinction of prior and posterior is applied by Aristotle to states, and so leads to the erroneous inference that the perfect form of the state has little or nothing in common with the imperfect. So in Nic. Eth. i. 6. § 2, ‘there are no common ideas of things prior and posterior.’ The logical conceptions of prior and posterior have almost ceased to exist in modern metaphysics; they are faintly represented to us by the expressions ‘a priori’ and ‘a posteriori,’ or ‘prior in the order of thought,’ which are a feeble echo of them; from being differences in kind, they are becoming differences of degree, owing to the increasing sense of the continuity or development of all things.

διόπερ ὁ λεχθεὶς ἐν μὲν δημοκρατίᾳ μάλιστ’ ἐστὶ πολίτης.Jowett1885v1: 1. 10.

Yet not so truly as in Aristotle’s own polity hereafter to be described, in which all the citizens are equal (cp. infra, c. 13. § 12). Democracy is elsewhere called a perversion (infra, c. 7. § 5), but he here uses the term carelessly, and in a better sense, for that sort of democracy which is akin to the μέση πολιτεία.

κατὰ μέρος.Jowett1885v1: 1. 10.

Generally ‘in turn,’ but the examples show that the phrase must here mean ‘by sections’ or ‘by different bodies or magistracies.’

τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ Καρχηδόνα· πάσας γὰρ ἀρχαί τινες κρίνουσιJowett1885v1: 1. 11. τὰς δίκας.

τὸν αὐτόν, i. e. because in both these cases the administration of justice is taken out of the hands of the people and entrusted to the magistrates, either the same or different magistrates.

The oligarchies or aristocracies of Carthage and Sparta are here contrasted, not with each other, but with democracy. A minor difference between them is also hinted at: at Carthage there were regular magistrates to whom all causes were referred; at Lacedaemon Edition: current; Page: [108]causes were distributed among different magistrates. See note on ii. 11. § 7.

ἀλλ’ ἔχει γὰρ διόρθωσιν ὁ τον̂ πολίτου διορισμός.Jowett1885v1: 1. 11.

The particle γὰρ implies an objection which is not expressed. ‘But how, if our definition is correct, can the Lacedaemonians, Carthaginians, and others like them be citizens; for they have no judicial or deliberative assemblies.’ To which Aristotle answers, ‘But I will correct the definition so as to include them.’ Finding ἀόριστος ἀρχὴ to be a definition of citizenship inapplicable to any state but a democracy, he substitutes a new one, ‘admissibility to office, either deliberative or judicial.’

ταύτης τη̂ς πόλεως.Jowett1885v1: 1. 12.

Namely, of that state in which the assembly or law-court exists.

πολιτικω̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 2. 1.

‘Popularly’ or ‘enough for the purposes of politics.’ Cp. Plat. Rep. 430 C. So νομικω̂ς (viii. 7. § 3), ‘enough for the purposes of law.’

For ταχέως Camerarius and Bernays needlessly read παχέως.

Γοργίας μὲν ον̓̂ν ὁ Λεοντɩ̂νος, τὰ μὲν ἴσως ἀπορω̂ν τὰ δ’ εἰρωνευόμενος,Jowett1885v1: 2. 2. ἔϕη, καθάπερ ὅλμους εἰ̂ναι τοὺς ὑπὸ τω̂ν ὁλμοποιω̂ν πεποιημένους, οὕτω καὶ Λαρισσαίους τοὺς ὑπὸ τω̂ν δημιουργω̂ν πεποιημένους· εἰ̂ναι γάρ τινας λαρισσοποιούς.

ἀπορω̂ν. ‘In doubt about the question who is a citizen?’

δημιουργω̂ν. Properly the name of a magistrate in some Dorian states. The word is used here with a double pun, as meaning not only ‘magistrates,’ but 1) ‘makers of the people,’ 2) ‘artisans.’ The magistrates, like artisans, are said to make or manufacture the citizens because they admit them to the rights of citizenship.

There is also a further pun upon the word Λαρισσαίους, which probably meant kettles, or was used as a characteristic epithet of kettles derived from their place of manufacture:—

  • ‘Artisans make kettles.
  • Magistrates make citizens.’

The sentence may be translated as follows:—‘Gorgias, very Edition: current; Page: [109]likely because he was in a difficulty, but partly out of irony, said that, as mortars are made by the mortar-makers, so are the Larisseans manufactured by their ‘artisan-magistrates; for some of them were makers of kettles’ (Λάρισσαι or Λαρισσαɩ̂οι).

For the term εἰρωνευόμενος, applied to Gorgias, compare Rhet. iii. 7, 1408 b. 20, ἢ μετὰ εἰρωνείας, ὅπερ Γοργίας ἐποίει: and for Λάρισσαι compare Τάναγρα Ταναγρίς, a kettle, (Hesych., Pollux); also an epigram of Leonides of Tarentum (Anth. vi. 305):—

  • Λαβροσύνᾳ τάδε δω̂ρα, ϕιλευλείχῳ τε Λαϕυγμῳ̑
  • θήκατο δεισόζου* Δωριέως κεϕαλά,
  • τὼς Λαρισσαίως βουγάστορας ἑψητη̂ρας,
  • καὶ χύτρως καὶ τὰν εὐρυχαδη̂ κύλικα,
  • καὶ τὰν εὐχάλκωτον ἐΰγναμπτόν τε κρεάγραν,
  • καὶ κνη̂στιν, καὶ τὰν ἐτνοδόνον τορύναν.
  • Λαβροσύνα, σὺ δὲ ταν̂τα κακον̂ κακὰ δωρητη̂ρος
  • δεξαμένα, νεύσαις μή ποκα σωϕροσύναν.

ξένους καὶ δούλους μετοίκους. (See note on text.)Jowett1885v1: 2. 3.

Mr. Grote, c. 31. vol. iv. 170. n., would keep the words as they stand, taking μετοίκους with both ξένους and δούλους. He quotes Aristoph. Knights 347 (εἴ που δικίδιον εἰ̂πας εν̓̂ κατὰ ξένου μετοίκου), and infers from the juxtaposition of the words δούλους μετοίκους, that they mean, ‘slaves who, like metics, were allowed to live by themselves, though belonging to a master.’ That is to say μέτοικοι are spoken of in a general as well as in a technical sense. According to Xen. de Vect. 2. § 3, all kinds of barbarians were metics. Cp. for the general subject, Polit. vi. 4. § 18, where measures, like those which Cleisthenes the Athenian passed when he wanted to extend the power of the democracy, are said to have been adopted at Cyrene. Such a reconstruction of classes also took place at Sicyon under Cleisthenes the tyrant, who gave insulting names to the old Dorian tribes (Herod. v. 68).

τὸ δ’ ἀμϕισβήτημα πρὸς τούτους ἐστὶν οὐ τίς πολίτης, ἀλλὰ πότερονJowett1885v1: 2. 4. ἀδίκως ἢ δικαίως. καίτοι καὶ τον̂τό τις ἔτι προσαπορήσειεν κ.τ.λ.

Aristotle means to say that what is true in fact may be false in Edition: current; Page: [110]principle. These two senses of the words ‘true’ and ‘false’ were confused by sophistical thinkers. See Plat. Euthyd. 284, ff.

τη̂ς τοια̂σδε ἀρχη̂ς refers to τινί, sc. ἀορίστῳ, supra 1. § 7, ‘an officeJowett1885v1: 2. 5. such as we spoke of.’

δη̂λον ὅτι πολίτας μὲν εἰ̂ναι ϕατέον καὶ τούτους, περὶ δὲ τον̂ δικαίως ἢ μὴJowett1885v1: 3. 1. δικαίως συνάπτει πρὸς τὴν εἰρημένην πρότερον ἀμϕισβήτησιν.

A doubt is raised whether the ἀδίκως πολιτεύων is truly a πολίτης. The answer is that the ἀδίκως ἄρχων is truly an ἄρχων. But the πολίτης is by definition an ἄρχων, and therefore the ἄδικος πολίτης may be rightly called a πολίτης.

καὶ τούτους, sc. τοὺς ἀμϕισβητουμένους (§ 4), ‘these as well as the legitimate citizens.’

πρὸς τὴν εἰρημένην πρότερον ἀμϕισβήτησιν is the question touched upon in c. 1. § 1, and resumed in the words which follow. The controversy concerning the de jure citizen runs up into the controversy respecting the de jure state, which is now to be discussed.

ὅταν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας ἢ τυραννίδος γένηται δημοκρατία. τότε γὰρ οὔτε τὰJowett1885v1: 3. 1, 2. συμβόλαια ἔνιοι βούλονται διαλύειν.

A question which has often arisen both in ancient and modern times, and in many forms. Shall the new government accept the debts and other liabilities of its predecessor, e.g. after the expulsion of the thirty tyrants, or the English or French Revolution or Restoration? Shall the Northern States of America honour the paper of the Southern? Shall the offerings of the Cypselids at Delphi bear the name of Cypselus or of the Corinthian state? Or a street in Paris be called after Louis Philippe, Napoleon III, or the French nation?

εἴπερ ον̓̂ν καὶ δημοκρατον̂νταί τινες κατὰ τὸν τρόπον τον̂τον, ὁμοίως τη̂ςJowett1885v1: 3. 2. πόλεως ϕατέον εἰ̂ναι ταύτης τὰς τη̂ς πολιτείας ταύτης πράξεις καὶ τὰς ἐκ τη̂ς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ τη̂ς τυραννίδος.

The mere fact that a government is based on violence does not necessarily render invalid the obligations contracted by it; at any rate the argument would apply to democracy as well as to any other form of government. Cp. Demosth. πρὸς Λεπτίνην, p. 460, where it is mentioned that the thirty tyrants borrowed money of the Lacedaemonians, Edition: current; Page: [111]which, after a discussion, was repaid by the democracy out of the public funds, and not by confiscation of the property of the oligarchs. Cp. also Isocr. Areopag. vii. 153, where the same story is repeated.

ἐνδέχεται γὰρ διαζευχθη̂ναι τὸν τόπον καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.Jowett1885v1: 3. 3.

E.g. the case of the Athenian κληρον̂χοι, who, while possessing land in other places, remained citizens of Athens; or of migrations in which a whole state was transferred; or possibly a dispersion like that of the Arcadian cities which were afterwards reunited by Epaminondas. Yet, ii. 1. § 2, ὁ τόπος εἱ̑ς ὁ τη̂ς μια̂ς πόλεως.

πολλαχω̂ς γὰρ τη̂ς πόλεως λεγομένης ἐστί πως εὐμάρεια τη̂ς τοιαύτηςJowett1885v1: 3. 4. ζητήσεως.

‘When difficulties are raised about the identity of the state, you may solve many of them quite easily by saying that the word “state” is used in different senses.’

ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τω̂ν τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον κατοικούντων,Jowett1885v1: 3. 4.

sc. ἡ ἀπορία ἐστίν, supplied from τη̂ς ἀπορίας ταύτης.

τοιαύτη δ’ ἴσως ἐστὶ καὶ Βαβυλών.Jowett1885v1: 3. 5.

‘Such as Peloponnesus would be, if included within a wall,’—further illustrated by ἡ̑ς γ’ ἑαλωκυίας κ.τ.λ.

ἡ̑ς γέ ϕασιν ἑαλωκυίας τρίτην ἡμέραν οὐκ αἰσθέσθαι τι μέρος τη̂ς πόλεως.Jowett1885v1: 3. 5.

Cp. Herod. i. 191: ‘The Babylonians say that, when the further parts of the city had been taken by Cyrus, those in the centre knew nothing of the capture, but were holding a festival.’ Also Jeremiah li. 31: ‘One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another to show the king of Babylon that his city is taken at one end.’

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν ταύτης τη̂ς ἀπορίας εἰς ἄλλον καιρὸν χρήσιμος ἡ σκέψις·Jowett1885v1: 3. 6. περὶ γὰρ μεγέθους τη̂ς πόλεως, τό τε πόσον καὶ πότερον ἔθνος ἓν ἢ πλείω συμϕέρει, δεɩ̂ μὴ λανθάνειν τὸν πολιτικόν.

The subject is resumed in Book vii. 4. § 4, ἔστι δὲ πολιτικη̂ς χορηγίας πρω̂τον τό τε πλη̂θος τω̂ν ἀνθρώπων, πόσους τε καὶ ποίους τινὰς ὑπάρχειν δεɩ̂ ϕύσει, καὶ κατὰ τὴν χώραν ὡσαύτως, ὅσην τε εἰ̂ναι καὶ ποίαν Edition: current; Page: [112]τινὰ ταύτην, and § 11. In the words τὸν πολιτικὸν Aristotle identifies himself with the statesman or politician of whom he is speaking.

πότερον ἔθνος ἓν ἢ πλείω, cp. vii. 9. § 8 and 10. § 13.

ἀλλὰ τω̂ν αὐτω̂ν κατοικούντων τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον, πότερον ἕως ἂν ᾐ̑ τὸ γένοςJowett1885v1: 3. 6, 7. ταὐτὸ τω̂ν κατοικούντων, τὴν αὐτὴν εἰ̂ναι ϕατέον πόλιν, καίπερ ἀεὶ τω̂ν μὲν ϕθειρομένων τω̂ν δὲ γινομένων, ὥσπερ καὶ ποταμοὺς εἰώθαμεν λέγειν τοὺς αὐτοὺς καὶ κρήνας τὰς αὐτάς, καίπερ ἀεὶ τον̂ μὲν ἐπιγινομένου νάματος, τον̂ δ’ ὑπεξιόντος, ἢ τοὺς μὲν ἀνθρώπους ϕατέον εἰ̂ναι τοὺς αὐτοὺς διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν, τὴν δὲ πόλιν ἑτέραν; εἴπερ γάρ ἐστι κοινωνία τις ἡ πόλις κ.τ.λ.

From the digression into which he has fallen respecting the size of the state, Aristotle returns to the original question, What makes the identity of the state? He answers in an alternative: Shall we say that the identity of the state depends upon the race, although the individuals of the race die and are born—like a river which remains the same although the waters come and go? Or is not the truer view that the form or idea of the state makes the state the same or different, whether the race remain or not? This latter alternative he accepts, illustrating his meaning by the simile of a chorus (§ 7), which may be Tragic or Comic, although the members of it are the same; and of musical harmony (§ 8) in which the same notes are combined in different modes.

This is the conclusion which Aristotle intends to draw from the words εἴπερ γάρ ἐστι κοινωνία τις ἡ πόλις κ.τ.λ., and is clearly the general drift of the passage. But the alternatives ἀλλὰ τω̂ν . . . ἑτέραν create an obscurity, because Aristotle begins by opposing the continuance of the race to the transitoriness of the individuals who are always going and coming, when he is really intending to oppose the idea of the state to both of them, §§ 7, 9.

διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν. ‘For the same reason as the rivers;’ i.e. because there is an unbroken succession of citizens as of waters.

The argument is neither clearly expressed nor altogether satisfactory. For 1) the identity of a state consists in many things, such as race, religion, language, as well as government, and therefore cannot be precisely defined; 2) it is always changing for better or Edition: current; Page: [113]for worse; 3) whether the identity is preserved or not is a question of degree; a state may be more or less the same, like the English constitution, and yet be continuous in the course of ages. Aristotle would have done better to have solved this question by having recourse once more to the different senses of the word πόλις (§ 4). Cp. iv. 5. § 3; v. 1. § 8.

εἴπερ γάρ ἐστι κοινωνία τις ἡ πόλις, ἔστι δὲ κοινωνία πολιτω̂ν πολιτείας,Jowett1885v1: 3. 7. γινομένης ἑτέρας τῳ̑ εἴδει καὶ διαϕερούσης τη̂ς πολιτείας ἀναγκαɩ̂ον εἰ̂ναι δόξειεν ἂν καὶ τὴν πόλιν εἰ̂ναι μὴ τὴν αὐτήν.

‘For a state being a community, and a community of citizens being a community in a constitution, ἔστι δὲ κοινωνία πολιτω̂ν κοινωνία πολιτείας, when the form of this community changes, the state also changes’: or, if this construction is deemed harsh πολιτείας, may be thought to have crept in from the next line, and may be omitted as in the English text.

The particle γὰρ implies assent to the second alternative (supra).

‘The sailor besides his special duties has a general duty, whichJowett1885v1: 4. 1, 2. is the safety of the ship; the citizen has also a general duty, which is the salvation of the state—the nature of this duty will vary according to the character of the state. And besides the general duty citizens, like sailors, will have special duties and functions in the state, as in the ship.’

οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ’ ἄλλον τρόπον ἔστι διαπορον̂ντας ἐπελθεɩ̂ν τὸν αὐτὸνJowett1885v1: 4. 4. λόγον περὶ τη̂ς ἀρίστης πολιτείας.

The last words are an explanation of κατ’ ἄλλον τρόπον.

Two conceptions of the state are continually recurring in the Politics of Aristotle, first the ideal state, in which the best has a right to rule and all the citizens are good men: secondly, the constitutional state, which approaches more nearly to actual fact (ii. 2. § 6; vii. 14. §§ 2-5). In the first, the good man and the good citizen, or rather the good ruler, are said to coincide; in the second, they have a good deal in common, but still the virtue of the citizen is relative to the government under which he lives, and the occupation in which he is engaged.

These two points of view are apt to cross (ἐπαλλάττειν in Aristotle’s own language), and they appear to be here confused.

Edition: current; Page: [114]

εἰ γὰρ ἀδύνατον ἐξ ἁπάντων σπουδαίων ὄντων εἰ̂ναι πόλιν, δεɩ̂ δ’ ἕκαστονJowett1885v1: 4. 5. τὸ καθ’ αὑτὸν ἔργον εν̓̂ ποιεɩ̂ν, τον̂το δ’ ἀπ’ ἀρετη̂ς· ἐπεὶ δ’ ἀδύνατον ὁμοίους εἰ̂ναι πάντας τοὺς πολίτας, οὐκ ἂν εἴη μία ἀρετὴ πολίτου καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθον̂. τὴν μὲν γὰρ τον̂ σπουδαίου πολίτου δεɩ̂ πα̂σιν ὑπάρχειν (οὕτω γὰρ ἀρίστην ἀναγκαɩ̂ον εἰ̂ναι τὴν πόλιν), τὴν δὲ τον̂ ἀνδρὸς τον̂ ἀγαθον̂ ἀδύνατον, εἰ μὴ πάντας ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ἀγαθοὺς εἰ̂ναι τοὺς ἐν τῃ̑ σπουδαίᾳ πόλει πολίτας.

The argument is that the perfect state is not composed only of perfectly good men; for such absolute goodness is incompatible with the different occupations or natural qualities of different citizens, or their duties toward the government under which they live. All the citizens are not the same, and therefore the one perfect virtue of the good man cannot be attained equally by all of them. But they may all have a common interest in the salvation of society, which is the virtue of a good citizen. The Pythagorean doctrine of the unity of virtue still lingers in the philosophy of Aristotle. (Compare Ethics ii. 5. § 14, ἐσθλοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἁπλω̂ς, παντοδαπω̂ς δὲ κακοί.)

καὶ οἰκία ἐξ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς καὶ κτη̂σις ἐκ δεσπότου καὶ δούλου.Jowett1885v1: 4. 6.

κτη̂σις is here omitted by Bernays, because the slave is a part of the οἰκία: but it may be observed that in i. 4. § 1, κτη̂σις is a subdivision of the οἰκία under which the slave is included.

ϕαμὲν δὴ τὸν ἄρχοντα τὸν σπουδαɩ̂ον ἀγαθὸν εἰ̂ναι καὶ ϕρόνιμον, τὸνJowett1885v1: 4. 7. δὲ πολιτικὸν ἀναγκαɩ̂ον εἰ̂ναι ϕρόνιμον.

Cp. Nic. Eth. vi. 5. § 5, where Pericles is spoken of as a type of the ϕρόνιμος: and vi. 8. § 1, where πολιτικὴ is described as a species of ϕρόνησις.

ἀλλ’ ἀ̑ρα ἔσται τινὸς ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ πολίτου τε σπουδαίου καὶ ἀνδρὸςJowett1885v1: 4. 7, 8. σπουδαίου; ϕαμὲν δὴ τὸν ἄρχοντα τὸν σπουδαɩ̂ον ἀγαθὸν εἰ̂ναι καὶ ϕρόνιμον, τὸν δὲ πολιτικὸν ἀναγκαɩ̂ον εἰ̂ναι ϕρόνιμον. καὶ τὴν παιδείαν δ’ ε[Editor: illegible character]θὺς ἑτέραν εἰ̂ναι λέγουσί τινες τον̂ ἄρχοντος, ὥσπερ καὶ ϕαίνονται οἱ τω̂ν βασιλέων υἱεɩ̂ς ἱππικὴν καὶ πολεμικὴν παιδευόμενοι.

Aristotle having determined that the good citizen is not always a good man, now proceeds to ask the question whether some good citizens are not good men? Yes, the ruler must be a good and wise man; and the difference between him and other citizens is partly proved by the fact that he has a different education.

Edition: current; Page: [115]

καὶ τὴν παιδείαν δ’ εὐθὺς κ.τ.λ. ‘Some persons say that, if we go no further than education, even this should be different.’ So in § 6 above, εὐθὺς ἐκ ψυχη̂ς καὶ σώματος. Cp. i. 5. § 2; Met. iii. 2, 1004 a. 5, ὑπάρχει γὰρ εὐθὺς γένη ἔχοντα τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ ὄν.

μή μοι τὰ κόμψ’.Jowett1885v1: 4. 8.

The whole fragment, which appears to contain a piece of advice addressed to young princes, is given by Nauck, Eurip. Aeol. Fr. 16:—

  • λαμπροὶ δ’ ἐν αἰχμαɩ̂ς Ἄρεος ἔν τε συλλόγοις,
  • μή μοι τὰ κομψὰ ποικίλοι γενοίατο,
  • ἀλλ’ ὡ̑ν πόλει δεɩ̂, μεγάλα βουλεύοιντ’ ἀεί.

Two points strike us about quotations from the poets which occur in Aristotle: 1) The familiarity with the words which they imply in the reader; for they are often cited in half lines only, which would be unintelligible unless the context was present to the mind. We are reminded that the Greek like some of our English youth were in the habit of committing to memory entire poets (Plat. Laws vii. 810 E). 2) The remoteness and ingenuity of the application. For a similar far fetched quotation, cp. infra c. 5. § 9.

εἰ δὲ ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἄρχοντός τε ἀγαθον̂ καὶ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθον̂, πολίτης δ’ ἐστὶJowett1885v1: 4. 9. καὶ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ ἁπλω̂ς ἂν εἴη πολίτου καὶ ἀνδρός, τινὸς μέντοι πολίτου.

‘If the good man and the good ruler are to be identified, and the subject is also a citizen, then the virtue of the good man is not coextensive with the virtue of all good citizens, but only with that of a certain citizen,’ i.e. the citizen of a perfect state who is also a ruler, and therefore has a sphere for the employment of his energies, cp. Nic. Eth. vi. 8. § 4.

οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ ἄρχοντος καὶ πολίτου, καὶ διὰ τον̂τ’ ἴσως Ἰάσων ἔϕη πεινη̂ν,Jowett1885v1: 4. 9. ὅτε μὴ τυραννοɩ̂, ὡς οὐκ ἐπιστάμενος ἰδιώτης εἰ̂ναι.

Another illustration of the difference in the nature of the ruler and of the citizen is contained in the saying of Jason, 1) ‘that he had no choice between starvation and tyranny, for he had never learned how to live in a private station’; or 2)* ‘that he felt a sensation like hunger when not a tyrant; for he was too proud to Edition: current; Page: [116]live in a private station.’ The two interpretations differ according to the shade of meaning given to πεινη̂ν and ἐπιστάμενος.

The Jason here referred to is Jason of Pherae, the Tagus of Thessaly.

Another saying of Jason is quoted in Rhet. i. 12, 1373 a. 26, ‘δεɩ̂ν ἀδικεɩ̂ν ἔνια, ὅπως δύνηται καὶ δίκαια πολλὰ ποιεɩ̂ν.’

εἰ ον̓̂ν τὴν μὲν τον̂ ἀγαθον̂ ἀνδρὸς τίθεμεν ἀρχικήν, τὴν δὲ τον̂ πολίτουJowett1885v1: 4. 10. ἄμϕω, οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἄμϕω ἐπαινετὰ ὁμοίως.

1) Aristotle here lights upon a paradox, which he cannot resist mentioning, but does not pursue further. ‘If the virtue of the good man is of a ruling character, but the virtue of the citizen includes ruling and being ruled, their virtues cannot [from this point of view] be equally praiseworthy, [for the good man has one virtue only, the citizen two].’

2) Or the meaning may be, ‘that the virtue of the good man being the virtue of ruling is higher than that of the citizen who only rules at times, or who obeys as well as rules.’

The words οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἄμϕω ἐπαινετὰ ὁμοίως according to the first way = ‘the citizen is more to be praised than the good man’: according to the second, ‘the virtue of the two, i.e. of ruler and citizen, are not equally praiseworthy’; in other words, the virtue of the good man is the higher of the two.

The whole passage is perplexed, not from any corruption of the text, but from the love of casuistry and a want of clearness in distinguishing the two sides of the argument.

ἐπεὶ ον̓̂ν ποτὲ δοκεɩ̂ ἀμϕότερα, καὶ οὐ ταὐτὰ δεɩ̂ν τὸν ἄρχοντα μανθάνεινJowett1885v1: 4. 11. καὶ τὸν ἀρχόμενον, τὸν δὲ πολίτην ἀμϕότερ’ ἐπίστασθαι καὶ μετέχειν ἀμϕοɩ̂ν, τοὐντεν̂θεν ἂν κατίδοι τις.

Aristotle seems to mean that the citizen acquires a knowledge of the duties of both ruler and ruled, which are different. Since the ruler and the ruled must learn both, and the two things are distinct, and the citizen must know both and have a part in both, the inference is obvious. But what is this obvious inference we are uncertain:—either, 1)* that some kind of previous subjection is an advantage to the ruler; or 2) that the citizen who knows both at once is to be preferred to the ἄρχων and ἀρχόμενος, taken separately.

Edition: current; Page: [117]

The sentence is awkwardly expressed and is perhaps corrupt. The change of ἀμϕότερα into ἄμϕω ἕτερα (Bernays) would give much the same meaning with rather less difficulty, (‘since the two must learn different things, and the ruler and the ruled are not required to learn the same things’), because τὸν ἄρχοντα καὶ τὸν ἀρχόμενον have not then to be taken in two senses, collective and distributive. It might be argued in favour of Bernays’ emendation that ἀμϕότερα may have crept in from the ἀμϕότερα in the next line; and against it that the two words ἄμϕω ἕτερα, the one having a collective, the other a distributive sense, are not happily combined.

§ 11 seems to be intended as a summing up of §§ 8-10. The thread of the argument is resumed at the words ταύτην γὰρ λέγομεν in § 14.

ἔστι γὰρ ἀρχὴ δεσποτική κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 4. 11.

is a digression introduced for the sake of distinguishing the ἀρχὴ δεσποτικὴ to which the preceding remarks do not apply, from the ἀρχὴ πολιτικὴ to which they do.

ἔστι γὰρ refers back to τὸν ἄρχοντα, ‘We are speaking of the ruler who is also a subject; for we must remember that there is a rule of the master over his slave with which we are not here concerned.’

διὸ παρ’ ἐνίοις οὐ μετεɩ̂χον οἱ δημιουργοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀρχω̂ν, πρὶν δη̂μονJowett1885v1: 4. 12. γενέσθαι τὸν ἔσχατον.

διό, referring to ἀνδραποδω̂δες and the various kinds of menial duties in which the artisan class were employed, ‘Because of their servile and degraded character.’

τω̂ν ἀρχομένων οὕτως.Jowett1885v1: 4. 13.

I. e. those who (like household servants) are subject to the rule of a master.

εἰ μή ποτε χρείας χάριν αὐτῳ̑ πρὸς αὑτόν, οὐ γὰρ ἔτι κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 4. 13.

*‘For if men practise menial duties, not only for the supply of their own occasional wants, but habitually’ (indicated by ποτέ), ‘there is no longer any difference between master and slave,’ i. e. the natural distinction of classes is effaced. It has been proposed to read τότε μέν, τότε δέ, instead of τὸν μέν, τὸν δέ, ‘for then the case no longer occurs of a man being at one time master and at Edition: current; Page: [118]another time servant’—an arbitrary emendation (Riese, Susemihl) which gives a poor sense.

οὐκ ἔστιν εν̓̂ ἄρξαι μὴ ἀρχθέντα.Jowett1885v1: 4. 14.

An ancient proverb naturally attributed by tradition (Diog. Laert. i. 60; Stobaeus xlvi. p. 308) to Solon. Cp. Plut. Apophth. Lac. 215 D, who assigns the saying to Agis, ἐρωτηθεὶς τί μάθημα μάλιστα ἐν Σπάρτῃ ἀσκεɩ̂ται, τὸ γινώσκειν, εἰ̂πεν, ἄρχειν τε καὶ ἄρχεσθαι.

καὶ ἀνδρὸς δὴ ἀγαθον̂ ἄμϕω.Jowett1885v1: 4. 16.

At first Aristotle appeared to draw an artificial line between the good citizen and the good man; but he now shifts his point of view. The good man may be supposed to have all virtue; he must therefore have the virtues both of the ruler and subject, although the virtue of the ruler is of a peculiar character, and the virtue of the subject, if he be a freeman, takes many forms. So the virtue of a man and of a woman differ in degree and even in kind, yet both are included in the idea of virtue.

καὶ γυνὴ λάλος, εἰ οὕτω κοσμία εἴη ὥσπερ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἀγαθός.Jowett1885v1: 4. 17.

Compare for the ideal of womanly virtue, Thuc. ii. 45, τη̂ς τε γὰρ ὑπαρχούσης ϕύσεως μὴ χείροσι γενέσθαι ὑμɩ̂ν μεγάλη ἡ δόξα, καὶ ἡ̑ς ἂν ἐπ’ ἐλάχιστον ἀρετη̂ς πέρι ἢ ψόγου ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἄρσεσι κλέος ᾐ̑.

ἀρχομένου δέ γε οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρετὴ ϕρόνησις, ἀλλὰ δόξα ἀληθής· ὥσπερJowett1885v1: 4. 18. αὐλοποιὸς γὰρ ὁ ἀρχόμενος, ὁ δ’ ἄρχων αὐλητὴς ὁ χρώμενος.

Cp. Plat. Rep. x. 601 D, E, where the distinction is drawn between the ποιητής who has only πίστις ὀρθὴ and the χρώμενος who has ἐπιστήμη, and where there is the same illustration from the difference between the αὐλοποιὸς and the αὐλητής, and Cratylus 388 ff. also Nic. Eth. vi. 10. § 2, ‘ἡ μὲν γὰρ ϕρόνησις ἐπιτακτική ἐστιν . . . ἡ δὲ σύνεσις κριτικὴ μόνον.’

The discussion which follows is not unconnected with theJowett1885v1: 5. preceding. For if, as has been assumed, a freeman or citizen is one who commands as well as obeys, then it would seem that the artisan or mean person, even though not a slave, must be excluded.

οὑ̑τος γὰρ πολίτης.Jowett1885v1: 5. 1.

Sc. ὁ ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρετήν. See note on English text.

Edition: current; Page: [119]

ἢ διά γε τον̂τον τὸν λόγον οὐδὲν ϕήσομεν συμβαίνειν ἄτοπον; οὐδὲ γὰρJowett1885v1: 5. 2. οἱ δον̂λοι τω̂ν εἰρημένων οὐδέν, οὐδ’ οἱ ἀπελεύθεροι.

‘But if the artisan is not included in the number of citizens where is he to be placed? He is not a metic, nor a stranger. Yet no real difficulty is involved in his exclusion any more than in that of slaves or freedmen.’

διά γε τον̂τον τὸν λόγον = so far as this objection goes, viz. the implied objection that he has no place in the state.

τω̂ν εἰρημένων refers to οὐδὲ μέτοικος οὐδὲ ξένος.

ἐξ ὑποθέσεως.Jowett1885v1: 5. 2.

‘On the supposition that they grow up to be men.’

τω̂ν δ’ ἀναγκαίων.Jowett1885v1: 5. 4.

‘But in respect to servile occupations’; either an anacoluthon resumed in τὰ τοιαν̂τα, or governed by the idea of ἔργον contained in λειτουργον̂ντες.

The point is how to determine the position of the artisan or mean person. There is no difficulty in seeing that some who live in states are not citizens, but how is the mechanic to be distinguished from the slave? The answer is that the slave ministers to a single master, artisans and serfs belong to the state.

ϕανερὸν δ’ ἐντεν̂θεν μικρὸν ἐπισκεψαμένοις πω̂ς ἔχει περὶ αὐτω̂ν· αὐτὸ γὰρJowett1885v1: 5. 4. ϕανὲν τὸ λεχθὲν ποιεɩ̂ δη̂λον. ἐπεὶ γάρ κ.τ.λ.

‘What has been said at once (ϕανὲν) makes the matter clear.’ It has been said that the best form of state will not admit the artisan class to citizenship (§ 3), and that the citizen will vary with the state (supra c. 1. § 9), a remark which he repeats in what follows. ‘For there are many forms of states; virtue is the characteristic of aristocracy, wealth of oligarchy. Now although the mechanic or skilled artisan cannot have virtue, he may have wealth, and therefore he may be a citizen of some states, but not of others.’

περὶ αὐτω̂ν, sc. about the lower class.

ἐν Θήβαις δὲ νόμος ἠ̑ν τὸν δέκα ἐτω̂ν μὴ ἀπεσχημένον τη̂ς ἀγορα̂ς μὴJowett1885v1: 5. 7. μετέχειν ἀρχη̂ς.

Cp. infra vi. 7. § 4, where the fact respecting Thebes is repeated.

It is clearly for the common interest and for the security of the Edition: current; Page: [120]state, that the passage from one class to another should be as easy as possible under all forms of government. Such a power of extending, and including other classes is necessary to the very existence of an oligarchy or of an aristocracy, or even of a constitutional government. And the avenue by which the lower naturally pass into the higher is personal merit or fitness which ought to overcome circumstances and not beat helplessly against the bars of a prison. The gold which the god has implanted in a person of an inferior class should be allowed to find its place (Plat. Rep. iii. 415), even if we cannot degrade the brass or lead in the higher. The higher class too have governing qualities which pass into the lower, and they themselves receive new life and new ideas from the association.

προσεϕέλκεται καὶ τω̂ν ξένων ὁ νόμος . . οὐ μὴν ἀλλά κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 5. 7, 8.

ξένων is partitive: ‘The law goes so far as in addition to include some of the stranger class. Nevertheless, when there are citizens more than enough the law which extended, again contracts, the right.’ For restrictions of population see Plat. Laws v. 740.

τοὺς ἀπὸ γυναικω̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 5. 8.

I. e. whose mothers were free women and their fathers not slaves (for this case has been already provided for in the words ἐκδούλου), but strangers or resident aliens.

τέλος δὲ μόνον τοὺς ἐξ ἀμϕοɩ̂ν αὐτω̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 5. 8.

The MSS. read αὐτω̂ν: Schneider, following Perizonius, has changed αὐτω̂ν into ἀστω̂ν, and the emendation is adopted by Bekker in both editions: but 1) the word ἀστὸς is of very rare occurrence in Aristotle; 2) it would be in awkward proximity to πολίτης: and 3) the change is unnecessary. Lit. ‘they make only those of them (αὐτω̂ν) citizens, who are children of citizens both on the father’s and mother’s side.’ αὐτω̂ν, though not exactly needed, is idiomatic.

ὡς εἴ τιν’ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην.Jowett1885v1: 5. 9.

Quoted also in Rhet. ii. 2, 1378 b. 33. Compare for a similar application of Homer bk. i. 2. § 9. Aristotle has given a new turn to the meaning of ἀτίμητος = τιμω̂ν μὴ μετέχων. But there is nothing singular in this; for quotations are constantly cited in new senses.

Edition: current; Page: [121]

ἀλλ’ ὅπου τὸ τοιον̂τον ἐπικεκρυμμένον ἐστίν, ἀπάτης χάριν τω̂ν συνοικούντωνJowett1885v1: 5. 9. ἐστίν.

τὸ τοιον̂τον = τὸ μὴ μετέχειν τω̂ν τιμω̂ν, i.e. the exclusion from office of certain classes is concealed in order to deceive the excluded persons. The reference is not to such cases as that of the 5000 at Athens, whose names were concealed for a political purpose (Thuc. viii. 92); but more probably to such deceptions as those of which Aristotle speaks in iv. 12. § 6 and c. 13 whereby the poor, though nominally citizens, were really deprived of their privileges because they had no leisure to exercise them. The intention was to trick them, but they were not dissatisfied; for they did not find out the trick. The English translation is defective, and should have run, ‘the object is that the privileged class may deceive their fellow-citizens.’

Another way of explaining the passage is to place an emphasis on τω̂ν συνοικούντων, which is taken in the sense of ‘fellow-colonists’: ‘the intention is to attract settlers by deceiving them into the belief that they will become citizens, when the rights of citizenship are really withheld from them.’ (For examples of fraud practised by colonists on strangers or fellow settlers, see v. 3. §§ 11-13.) But the words refer to states generally and not merely to colonies.

κἀκεɩ̂νος.Jowett1885v1: 5. 10.

Sc. ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ πολίτης σπουδαɩ̂ος ὤν. In his later edition Bekker reads κἀκείνης, a correction of one MS. All the rest, and the old translator, read κἀκεɩ̂νος. With either reading the meaning of the passage is much the same. ‘Even where the virtues of the good man and the good citizen coincide (i. e. in the perfect state), it is not the virtue of every citizen which is the same as that of the good man, but only that of the statesman and ruler.’ κἀκεɩ̂νος = καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς κ.τ.λ.: κἀκείνης = ἐν ᾐ̑ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς κ.τ.λ.

ἔστι δὲ πολιτεία . . πολιτείαν ἑτέραν εἰ̂ναι τούτων.Jowett1885v1: 6. 1, 2.

Lit. ‘The state [πολιτεία] is the ordering of the powers of a state, and especially of the supreme power. The government [πολίτευμα] is this supreme power, and the state or constitution (ἡ πολιτεία subj.) is what the government is. In democracies, for example, the people are the ruling power, in oligarchies the few. Accordingly Edition: current; Page: [122]we say that they differ in their constitutions.’ The three words πολίτευμα, πολιτεία, πόλις have three primary gradations of meaning: 1) πολίτευμα = the government, i. e. the persons through whom the government acts; πολιτεία = the government administering and being administered, i. e. the state or constitution; πόλις = the whole state including the government. But these senses pass into one another.

καθ’ ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει μέρος ἑκάστῳ τον̂ ζη̂ν καλω̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 6. 3.

μέρος is to be taken with καθ’ ὅσον, the genitive τον̂ ζη̂ν καλω̂ς is partitive. ἐπιβάλλει, sc. ἑκάστῳ τὸ ζη̂ν καλω̂ς or impersonally. For the meaning of this word cp. note on ii. 3. § 4.

συνέρχονται δὲ καὶ τον̂ ζη̂ν ἕνεκεν αὐτον̂ (ἴσως γὰρ ἔνεστί τι τον̂ καλον̂Jowett1885v1: 6. 4. μόριον), καὶ συνέχουσι τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν καὶ κατὰ τὸ ζη̂ν αὐτὸ μόνον, ἂν μὴ τοɩ̂ς χαλεποɩ̂ς κατὰ τὸν βίον ὑπερβάλλῃ λίαν.

Cp. Plat. Polit. 301 E, 302 A: ‘And when the foundation of politics is in the letter only and in custom, and knowledge is divorced from action, can we wonder, Socrates, at the miseries that there are, and always will be, in States? Any other art, built on such a foundation, would be utterly undermined,—there can be no doubt of that. Ought we not rather to wonder at the strength of the political bond? For States have endured all this, time out of mind, and yet some of them still remain and are not overthrown, though many of them, like ships foundering at sea, are perishing and have perished and will hereafter perish, through the incapacity of their pilots and crews, who have the worst sort of ignorance of the highest truths,—I mean to say, that they are wholly unacquainted with politics, of which, above all other sciences, they believe themselves to have acquired the most perfect knowledge.’

ὡς ἐνούσης τινὸς εὐημερίας ἐν αὐτῳ̑ καὶ γλυκύτητος ϕυσικη̂ς: cp. Nic. Eth.Jowett1885v1: 6. 5. ix. 9. § 7, τὸ δὲ ζη̂ν τω̂ν καθ’ αὑτὸ ἀγαθω̂ν καὶ ἡδέων κ.τ.λ.

ὅταν δὲ τούτων εἱ̑ς γένηται καὶ αὐτός.Jowett1885v1: 6. 8.

αὐτὸς refers inaccurately either to the trainer or to the pilot.

τὸ αὑτον̂ ἀγαθόν.Jowett1885v1: 6. 9.

The reflexive refers to the principal subject ἀξιον̂ντες: but is Edition: current; Page: [123]changed into the singular by the introduction of τινά. Translated into the first person the sentence would run, ‘Some one should now look after my interest as I looked after his when in office.’ For the ‘disinterestedness’ of traders cp. Plat. Rep. i. pp. 345, 346.

νν̂ν δέ.Jowett1885v1: 6. 10.

Answering to πρότερον μὲν above. ‘The natural principle that men should rule and be ruled in turn was once the practice; but now from corrupt motives, they insist on ruling perpetually.’

ἢ γἀρ οὐ πολίτας ϕατέον εἰ̂ναι τοὺς μετέχοντας, ἢ δεɩ̂ κοινωνεɩ̂ν τον̂ συμϕέροντος.Jowett1885v1: 7. 2.

The meaning of γὰρ is as follows: ‘Since there are perverted, as well as true states, there are states of which the members are not to be called citizens; or, if they were, they would partake of the common good.’ For, as has been said at the beginning of the treatise, πα̂σαν πόλιν ὁρω̂μεν κοινωνίαν τινὰ ον̓̂σαν καὶ πα̂σαν κοινωνίαν ἀγαθον̂ τινὸς ἕνεκεν συνεστηκυɩ̂αν. And the true forms of government are those which regard the good of the governed.

ἀριστοκρατίαν, ἢ διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἀρίστους ἄρχειν, ἢ διὰ τὸ πρὸς τὸ ἄριστον.Jowett1885v1: 7. 3.

Of course in reality the first of the two etymologies is the true one, but Aristotle, like Plato in the Cratylus, regards the relation which the component parts of words bear to one another as variable. He is fond of etymological meanings and sometimes forces the etymology to suit the meaning, e.g. σωϕροσύνη, ὡς σώζουσα τὴν ϕρόνησιν, Nic. Eth. vi. 5. § 5; ἠθικὴ from ἔθος, Nic. Eth. ii. 1. § 1; δίκαιον ὅτι δίχα ἐστίν, Nic. Eth. v. 4. § 9; μακάριον ἀπὸ τον̂ χαίρειν, Nic. Eth. vii. 11. § 2; τιμοκρατία . . ἡ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων πολιτεία, Nic. Eth. viii. 10. § 1.

The first of the two explanations of ἀριστοκρατία is more in accordance not only with the principles of etymology but with the facts of history, if we take ἄριστοι in the sense in which the word would have been understood by Alcaeus or Theognis: the second answers best to Aristotle’s ideal state.

πολιτεία.Jowett1885v1: 7. 3.

In Ethics viii. 10. § 1 this is identified with τιμοκρατία = ἡ ἀπὸ τιμημάτων πολιτεία, a government based upon a property qualification (ἣν τιμοκρατικὴν λέγειν οἰκεɩ̂ον ϕαίνεται, πολιτείαν δ’ αὐτὴν εἰώθασιν οἱ πλεɩ̂στοι Edition: current; Page: [124]καλεɩ̂ν). No example of the word τιμοκρατία occurs in the Politics. It is used by Plato in another sense = the government of honour (ἡ ϕιλότιμος πολιτεία, Rep. viii. 545 B).

πολιτεία originally meaning, as in Thucydides, any form of government, a sense which is continued in Aristotle, has also like our own word ‘constitution’ a second and specific sense, apparently coming into use in the age of Aristotle, though not invented by him. Cp. iv. 7. § 1, πέμπτη δ’ ἐστὶν ἣ προσαγορεύεται τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα πασω̂ν (πολιτείαν γὰρ καλον̂σιν), ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μὴ πολλάκις γίνεσθαι λανθάνει τοὺς πειρωμένους ἀριθμεɩ̂ν τὰ τω̂ν πολιτειω̂ν εἴδη, καὶ χρω̂νται ταɩ̂ς τέτταρσι μόνον, ὥσπερ Πλάτων ἐν ταɩ̂ς πολιτείαις: also ii. 6. § 16.

The subject of this chapter is again referred to in iv. c. 4. TheJowett1885v1: 8. discussion which follows affords a curious example of the manner in which Aristotle after passing through a maze of casuistry at length arrives at the conclusions of common sense.

διὸ καὶ οὐ συμβαίνει τὰς ῥηθείσας αἰτίας γίνεσθαι διαϕορα̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 8. 6.

The MSS. have διαϕοράς (‘That the already mentioned differences are the true causes,’ a reading which gives a somewhat unusual sense to αἰτίας). The old translator has ‘differentiae’ in the genitive. Better to take διαϕορα̂ς as a genitive, making αἰτίας the predicate, and repeating the word with ῥηθείσας. ‘And thus the so-called causes of difference are not real causes.’ Bernays inserts πολιτείας after ῥηθείσας without authority, and appears to translate the passage rather freely: ‘And they cannot therefore create any form of constitution which can be specifically named.’

The argument is intended to show that the essential differences between oligarchy and democracy are not made by the governing body being few or many (τὰς ῥηθείσας αἰτίας), but by poverty and wealth. It is an accident that the rich are few, and the poor many.

καὶ ἔστιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πα̂σιν, ἀλλὰ τοɩ̂ς ἴσοις.Jowett1885v1: 9. 1.

‘And so it is; not however for all, but only for the equal.’ Cp. Cic. de Rep. i. c. 34, ‘Cum par habetur honos summis et infimis . . ipsa aequitas iniquissima est.’ Burke, French Revol. (vol. v. p. 106. ed. 1815), ‘Everything ought to be open, but not indifferently to every man.’

Edition: current; Page: [125]

τὸ δ’ αἴτιον ὅτι περὶ αὑτω̂ν ἡ κρίσις.Jowett1885v1: 9. 2.

Men think themselves to be as good or better than others, and therefore claim equal or greater political rights; e.g. they claim to exercise the franchise without considering whether they are fit or not. They can never see that they are inferior, and that therefore it may be just for them to have less than others: cp. below § 3.

ἐπεὶ . . διῄρηται τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπί τε τω̂ν πραγμάτων καὶ οἱ̑ς.Jowett1885v1: 9. 3.

Lit. ‘Since justice is distributed in the same manner (i.e. equally) over things and over persons.’ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον is to be taken not with διῄρηται, but with the words which follow = ὁμοίως.

τὴν δὲ οἱ̑ς ἀμϕισβητον̂σι.Jowett1885v1: 9. 3.

τὴν δέ, sc. ἰσότητα is accusative after ἀμϕισβητον̂σι.

οἱ̑ς as above τὸ οἱ̑ς, the technical word for persons, lit. ‘in relation to the whom.’ Cp. Nic. Eth. v. 3. §§ 6, 7.

οὐ γὰρ εἰ̂ναι δίκαιον ἴσον μετέχειν τω̂ν ἑκατὸν μνω̂ν τὸν εἰσενέγκαντα μίανJowett1885v1: 9. 5. μνα̂ν τῳ̑ δόντι τὸ λοιπὸν πα̂ν, οὔτε τω̂ν ἐξ ἀρχη̂ς οὔτε τω̂ν ἐπιγινομένων.

Either 1)* τω̂ν ἐξ ἀρχη̂ς is in apposition with τω̂ν ἑκατὸν μνω̂ν or with some more general word, such as χρημάτων, understood; or 2) the words may = τω̂ν ἐξ ἀρχη̂ς εἰσενεγκάντων τινά i.e. either any of those who originally contributed, or any subsequent generation of contributors. Cp. Burkē, Ref. on F. R. (vol. v. p. 121, ed. 1815), ‘In these partnerships all men have equal rights, but not to equal things. He that has but five shillings in the partnership has as good a right to it as he that has five hundred pounds has to his larger proportion. But he has not a right to an equal dividend in the product of the joint stock.’

εἰ δὲ μήτε τον̂ ζη̂ν μόνον ἕνεκεν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 9. 6.

εἰ δὲ introduces the opposite side of the question. ‘If a good life is the object, then the oligarch is wrong’ (cp. above, § 5, ὥσθ’ ὁ τω̂ν ὀλιγαρχικω̂ν λόγος δόξειεν ἂν ἰσχύειν), but the apodosis is lost in what follows. For a similar anacoluthon cp. infra c. 12. § 1.

καὶ γὰρ ἂν δούλων καὶ τω̂ν ἄλλων ζῴων ἠ̑ν πόλις.Jowett1885v1: 9. 6.

Nic. Eth. x. 6. § 8, εὐδαιμονίας δ’ οὐδεὶς ἀνδραπόδῳ μεταδίδωσιν εἰ μὴ καὶ βίου.

οἱ̑ς ἐστὶ σύμβολα πρὸς ἀλλήλους.Jowett1885v1: 9. 6.

Edition: current; Page: [126]

Cp. above, c. 1. § 4, τοɩ̂ς ἀπὸ συμβόλων κοινωνον̂σιν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 8. μὴ λόγου χάριν

is either 1)* taken with περὶ ἀρετη̂ς ἐπιμελὲς εἰ̂ναι, or 2) is an explanation of ὡς ἀληθω̂ς, which it pleonastically emphasizes.

γίνεται γὰρ ἡ κοινωνία.Jowett1885v1: 9. 8.

‘For otherwise the state becomes’ or ‘would be.’

συμμαχία τω̂ν ἄλλων τόπῳ διαϕέρουσα μόνον τω̂ν ἄποθεν συμμάχων.Jowett1885v1: 9. 8.

The construction is unsymmetrical, passing, as elsewhere, from the abstract to the concrete. ‘A city is an alliance differing from any other allies [= alliances], who are at a distance, in place only.’ Or τω̂ν ἄλλων may be taken with συμμαχιω̂ν, τω̂ν ἄποθεν συμμάχων being epexegetic = other alliances of which the members live apart.

Λυκόϕρων ὁ σοϕιστής.Jowett1885v1: 9. 8.

An obscure rhetorician who is censured in the Rhetoric (iii. c. 3. §§ 1-3) for frigidity of style. It is also said that when set to make an encomium on the lyre he attacked some other thesis (Soph. Elench. c. 15, 174 b. 32), or, according to Alexander Aphrodisiensis, he began with the earthly lyre, and went on to speak of the constellation Lyra. Lycophron seems to have held the doctrine that ‘the state is only a machine for the protection of life and property.’ Cp. Rhet. i. 15, 1376 b. 10, αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος συνθήκη τις ἐστίν.

The opposite view is maintained in Burke, French Revolution (vol. v. ed. 1815, p. 184): ‘The state ought not to be considered nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the partners. It is to be looked upon with other reverence, because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature.’

εἰ γὰρ καὶ συνέλθοιεν οὕτω κοινωνον̂ντες, ἕκαστος μέντοι χρῳ̑το τῃ̑ ἰδίᾳJowett1885v1: 9. 11. οἰκίᾳ ὥσπερ πόλει καὶ σϕίσιν αὐτοɩ̂ς ὡς ἐπιμαχίας οὔσης βοηθον̂ντες ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀδικον̂ντας μόνον, οὐδ’ οὕτως ἂν εἰ̂ναι δόξειε πόλις τοɩ̂ς ἀκριβω̂ς θεωρον̂σιν, εἴπερ ὁμοίως ὁμιλοɩ̂εν συνελθόντες καὶ χωρίς.

Edition: current; Page: [127]

‘As a confederacy is not a city, so a number of individuals uniting in the same manner in which cities form a confederacy, would not be a city, unless they changed their manner of life after the union.’ The main distinction which Aristotle draws between the confederacy, in which many cities are united by a treaty, and the single city is that the object of the one is negative, of the other positive,—the one regards the citizens in some particular aspect, e. g. with a view to the prevention of piracy or the encouragement of commerce; the other takes in their whole life and education.

χρῳ̑το τῃ̑ ἰδίᾳ οἰκίᾳ ὥσπερ πόλει. I. e. ‘If every man were lord in his own house or castle, and only made a treaty with his neighbours like the cities in a federation;’ in other words, if the inhabitants of the common city had no social relations.

βοηθον̂ντες is parallel with κοινωνον̂ντες, and in apposition with the nominative to συνέλθοιεν.

καὶ διαγωγαὶ τον̂ συζη̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 13.

Nearly = τρόποι τον̂ συζη̂ν, ‘pleasant modes of common life,’ or more freely ‘enjoyments of society,’ not ‘relaxations for the sake of society,’ a construction not admissible in prose.

ἔχει δ’ ἀπορίαν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 10. 1.

The argument of this chapter consists of a series of ἀπορίαι which may be raised against the claims of any one person or class to have the supreme power. The ἀπορίαι are restated somewhat less sharply in the next chapter. They are indirectly, but not distinctly or completely, answered in the latter part of c. 13.

ἔδοξε γὰρ νὴ Δία τῳ̑ κυρίῳ δικαίως.Jowett1885v1: 10. 1.

It is difficult to account for this sudden outburst of vivacity. Compare infra c. 11. § 5, ἴσως δὲ νὴ Δία δη̂λον ὅτι περὶ ἐνίων ἀδύνατον: cp. Xen. Mem. v. 1. 4, ἀλλὰ ναὶ μὰ Δία τόδε ἄξιόν μοι δοκεɩ̂ εἰ̂ναι: Dem. de Chersones. §§ 9, 17; Polyb. vi. 3. § 6, πότερον ὡς μόνας ταύτας ἢ καὶ νὴ Δί’ ὡς ἀρίστας ἡμɩ̂ν εἰσηγον̂νται πολιτειω̂ν; and the use of Hercule in Tacit. Ann. i. 3.

The whole passage is a kind of suppressed dialogue in which two opposite opinions are abruptly brought face to face. No conclusion is drawn; the only inference being really the impossible one that all forms of government are equally baseless, because they are not Edition: current; Page: [128]based on justice, and therefore in all of them abuse of power is possible.

πάλιν τε πάντων ληϕθέντων κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 10. 2.

ληϕθέντων has been explained, either 1) as neut. or 2) masc. Either 1)* ‘when everything, i.e. when all the property of the rich has been exhausted;’ for this meaning of the word cp. iv. 4. § 8; or 2) ‘when all the citizens are taken together,’ but this is a doubtful use of ληϕθέντων and does not give a good sense.

The passage is a reductio ad absurdum of the previous argument: ‘When the many poor have taken all the property of the few rich, and the majority go on subdividing among themselves, the property of the minority will become smaller and smaller, and the state will be ruined.’

Or, expressing the same idea in numbers, let us suppose a state of 1000 citizens. If a mere numerical majority constitutes rightful sovereignty, 600 citizens may resolve,—and rightly, according to the hypothesis,—to confiscate the goods of the remaining 400, and divide them among themselves. Thus 400 will cease to be citizens. Of the remaining 600, 400 may go on to divide the property of the others, and thus the state becomes reduced to 400 and so on, till it disappears altogether.

It may be remarked that in all schemes for the division of property, the wealth which has been created under a system of accumulation is supposed to continue when the motives for accumulation have ceased. The poor are not fitted to govern the rich. But neither are the rich fitted to govern the poor. The truth is that no class in the state can be trusted with the interests of any other.

ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐχ ἥ γ’ ἀρετὴ ϕθείρει τὸ ἔχον αὐτήν.Jowett1885v1: 10. 2.

For the virtue of anything is that quality by which it fulfils its own proper ἔργον. Cp. Plat. Rep. x. 608 E.

ἂν ον̓̂ν ᾐ̑ νόμος μὲν ὀλιγαρχικὸς δὲ ἢ δημοκρατικός, τί διοίσει περὶ τω̂νJowett1885v1: 10. 5. ἠπορημένων;

‘Even if we assume the law to rule and not the few or many, where is the difference? For the law may only represent the prejudices Edition: current; Page: [129]or interests of oligarchy or democracy.’ Compare infra c. 11. §§ 20, 21.

δόξειεν ἂν λύεσθαι καί τιν’ ἔχειν ἀπορίαν, τάχα δὲ κἂν ἀλήθειαν.Jowett1885v1: 11. 1.

This passage has been thought corrupt. Two conjectures have been proposed, 1) εὐπορίαν for ἀπορίαν (but the sense which would be given to εὐπορία is not natural or idiomatic), and 2) the omission of λύεσθαι or λύεσθαι καί, the latter words being thought to be suggested by the mention of ἀπορίαν, or to be a corruption of ἀλήθειαν. There is a want of order in the thought, but the same disorder occurs in a parallel expression (c. 12. § 2), ἔχει γὰρ τον̂τ’ ἀπορίαν καὶ ϕιλοσοϕίαν πολιτικήν. The text may therefore be accepted.

ὥσπερ καὶ τω̂ν μὴ καλω̂ν τοὺς καλούς (διαϕέρειν) ϕασι καὶ τὰ γεγραμμέναJowett1885v1: 11. 4. διὰ τέχνης τω̂ν ἀληθινω̂ν, τῳ̑ συνη̂χθαι τὰ διεσπαρμἐνα χωρὶς εἰς ἕν, ἐπεὶ κεχωρισμένων γε κάλλιον ἔχειν τον̂ γεγραμμένου τουδὶ μὲν τὸν ὀϕθαλμόν, ἑτέρου δέ τινος ἕτερον μόριον.

The combination of qualities in the multitude is compared to the combination of qualities in the individual: e. g. in a statue or picture of which the features taken separately may be far excelled by others, but when combined make a better portrait, because they are adapted to one another. (Cp. Plat. Rep. iv. 420 C, D, ff.) Thus the multitude may be supposed to have a generalized excellence, and to be superior as a whole. This rather doubtful principle is not of universal application [§ 5]. We must presuppose the many to be good citizens and good men (infra c. 15. § 9).

Contrast the opposite view of Plato (Rep. vi. 493 A, B), in which he describes the multitude under the figure of a great beast, a view which is modified by his apology for them in Rep. vi. 498-500.

Compare the saying of Goethe: ‘Nothing can be more certain than that this great Public, which is so honoured and so despised, is almost always in a state of self-delusion about details, but never or hardly ever about the broad truth (das Ganze).’

Yet we may also make the opposite reflection, that a few wise men when they meet and act together are apt to fall short of the average intelligence of mankind: a Ministry of All the Talents may have less sense than any man in it—a coalition may never coalesce—individuality Edition: current; Page: [130]may be too much for unity; or unity may only be enforced by the strong will of a single person.

ἴσως δὲ νὴ Δία δη̂λον ὅτι περὶ ἐνίων ἀδύνατον. ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς κἂν ἐπὶ τω̂νJowett1885v1: 11. 5. θηρίων ἁρμόσειε λόγος. καίτοι τί διαϕέρουσιν ἔνιοι τω̂ν θηρίων;

‘Assuredly,’ retorts the opponent, or Aristotle himself, struck by an objection which had not previously occurred to him, ‘this principle cannot be true of all men. For it would be a reductio ad absurdum to say that it was true of beasts, and some men are no better than beasts.’

Admitting the objection Aristotle still maintains that his doctrine of ‘collective wisdom’ is true of some men, though not of all. He proceeds to argue that deliberative and judicial functions may be safely granted to the many, and cannot be safely denied to them; but that it would be dangerous to entrust them with high office.

διί τε γὰρ ἀδικίαν καὶ δι’ ἀϕροσύνην τὰ μὲν ἀδικεɩ̂ν ἂν τὰ δ’ ἁμαρτάνεινJowett1885v1: 11. 7. αὐτούς.

The sentence is an anacoluthon; it has been forgotten that no words such as εἰκός ἐστιν or ἀνάγκη have preceded, and that they cannot be easily gathered from the context.

ἔχουσι συνελθόντες ἱκανὴν αἴσθησιν.Jowett1885v1: 11. 9.

Cp. Nic. Eth. vi. 10. § 2, where the distinction is drawn between σύνεσις ( = αἴσθησις in this passage), which is κριτικὴ μόνον, and ϕρόνησις, which is ἐπιτακτική. And with both places, cp. Thuc. ii. 40, where Pericles, speaking in the name of the Athenian democracy, says, ἤτοι κρίνομέν γε ἢ ἐνθυμούμεθα ὀρθω̂ς τὰ πράγματα.

Aristotle is now stating the other side of the argument:—‘TheJowett1885v1: 11. 10, 11. physician is a better judge than he who is not a physician. And it must be remarked that under the term “physician” is included 1) the higher sort of physician, 2) the apothecary, and 3) the intelligent amateur whether he practises medicine or not. In all of these there exists a knowledge which is not to be found in the many. Apply this principle to the art of politics. Even in the choice of magistrates the well-informed man, whether he be a statesman or Edition: current; Page: [131]not, is better able to judge than the multitude.’ This argument is then refuted in what follows, § 14.

The context is rendered difficult by the correction of the word ‘artist,’ for which Aristotle substitutes ‘one who has knowledge’ (§§ 11, 12). For the distinction between the δημιουργ[Editor: illegible character]ς and the ἀρχιτεκτονικὸς ἰατρὸς cp. Plat. Laws iv. 720, where the doctor, who attends the slaves, is humorously distinguished from the doctor who attends freemen. And for the notion of the ἰδιώτης ἰατρὸς (ὁ πεπαιδευμένος περὶ τὴν τέχνην) cp. Politicus 259 A, ‘εἴ τῴ τις τω̂ν δημοσιευόντων ἰατρω̂ν ἱκανὸς ξυμβουλεύειν ἰδιωτεύων αὐτός, ἀ̑ρ’ οὐκ ἀναγκαɩ̂ον αὐτῳ̑ προσαγορεύεσθαι τοὔνομα τη̂ς τέχνης ταὐτὸν ὅπερ ᾡ̑ συμβουλεύει;’

Aristotle proceeds to argue that there is a judgment of commonJowett1885v1: 11. 14-17. sense equal, if not superior to that of the artist himself, which is possessed by the many.

Without pretending that the voice of the people is the voice of God, it may be truly said of them, 1) that they are free from the hypercriticism which besets the individual; 2) that they form conclusions on simple grounds; 3) that their moral principles are generally sound; 4) that they are often animated by noble impulses, and are capable of great sacrifices; 5) that they retain their human and national feeling. The intelligent populace at Athens, though changeable as the wind (Thuc. ii. 65; Demosth. 383, ὁ μὲν δη̂μος . . . . . . ὥσπερ ἐν θαλάττῃ πνεν̂μα ἀκατάστατον·) and subject to fits of panic and fanatical fury (Thuc. vi. 27), were also capable of entertaining generous thoughts (Id. iii. 49), and of showing a wise moderation (Id. viii. 97), and in nearly every respect were superior to their oligarchical contemporaries, far less cunning and cruel (Id. iv. 80), and far more willing to make sacrifices (Id. i. 74) for the public interest.

The more general question which is here suggested by Aristotle, § 11, ‘whether the amateur or the artist is the better judge of a work of art or literature’ is also worthy of attention. It is probable that either is a better judge than the other, but of different merits or excellences. The artist e.g. may be expected to be the best judge of points in which a minute knowledge of detail is required; the amateur has the truer sense of proportion because he compares Edition: current; Page: [132]many works of art and is not under the dominion of a single style. He judges by a wider range and is therefore less likely to fall into eccentricity or exclusiveness.

See infra at the beginning of c. 12.

καὶ τὸ τίμημα δὲ πλεɩ̂ον τὸ πάντων τούτων ἢ τὸ τω̂ν καθ’ ἕνα καὶ κατ’Jowett1885v1: 11. 18. ὀλίγους μεγάλας ἀρχὰς ἀρχόντων.

Aristotle seems here to have fallen into the error of confounding the collective wealth of the state with the wealth of individuals. The former is the wealth of a great number of persons which may be unequally distributed and in infinitesimally small portions among the masses, thus affording no presumption of respectability or education; whereas the wealth of the individual is the guarantee of some at least of the qualities which are required in the good citizen. Cp. infra c. 13. §§ 4, 10.

ἡ δὲ πρώτη λεχθεɩ̂σα ἀπορία κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 11. 19.

That is to say the certainty that any single individual or class, if dominant, will infringe upon the rights of others renders it indispensable that the law should be above them all. Cp. c. 10. § 1.

According to Bernays (Transl. of Pol. I-III. p. 172) c. 12 andJowett1885v1: 12. 13 are a second sketch of the same discussion which has been commenced in c. 9-11 and is continued in c. 16 and 17. But though in what follows there is some repetition of what has preceded, e.g. c. 12. §§ 1, 2 and c. 13. § 2 compared with c. 9. §§ 1, 2. c. 13. § 1 and c. 9. §§ 14, 15, and c. 13. § 10 with c. 11. § 2 ff., the resemblances are not sufficient to justify this statement. In c. 13 new elements are introduced, e.g. the discussion on ostracism; and the end of c. 11 in which the supremacy of law is asserted (§ 20) has no immediate connexion with c. 14 in which the forms of monarchy are considered; while the transition from the end of c. 13, in which the claim of the one best man to be a monarch is discussed, is not unnatural.

ἐπεὶ δ’ ἐν πάσαις κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 12. 1.

Again, as in c. 9. § 6, the apodosis appears to be lost in the length of the sentence. It is also possible to gather it from the words ποίων δ’ ἰσότης κ.τ.λ. (§ 2). The process of reasoning will then Edition: current; Page: [133]be as follows: ‘Seeing that the end of the state is “justice” which is the common good, etc., and is also equality between equals, of whom or what is this equality or inequality?’

δοκεɩ̂ δὲ πα̂σιν . . τοɩ̂ς κατὰ ϕιλοσοϕίαν λόγοις.Jowett1885v1: 12. 1.

Compare Topics i. 14, 105 b. 30, πρὸς μὲν ον̓̂ν ϕιλοσοϕίαν κατ’ ἀλήθειαν περὶ αὐτω̂ν πραγματευτέον, διαλεκτικω̂ς δὲ πρὸς δόξαν.

εἰ γὰρ μα̂λλον τὸ τὶ μέγεθος, καὶ ὅλως ἂν τὸ μέγεθος ἐνάμιλλον εἴη καὶJowett1885v1: 12. 6. πρὸς πλον̂τον καὶ πρὸς ἐλευθερίαν. ὥστ’ εἰ πλεɩ̂ον ὁδὶ διαϕέρει κατὰ μέγεθος ἢ όδὶ κατ’ ἀρετήν, καὶ πλεɩ̂ον ὑπερέχει ὅλως ἀρετη̂ς μέγεθος, εἴη ἂν συμβλητὰ πάντα· τοσόνδε γὰρ μέγεθος εἰ κρεɩ̂ττον τοσον̂δε, τοσόνδε δη̂λον ὡς ἴσον.

That is to say, If different qualities can be compared in the concrete, they can be compared in the abstract, and degrees of difference can be compared even when two things differ in kind. If a tall man can be compared with a virtuous, then virtue can be compared with height, and all degrees of height and virtue can be compared. But this is impossible, for they have no common measure. Qualities can only be compared when they have a common relation, such as virtue and wealth have to the state.

εἰ γὰρ μα̂λλον, ‘for if we begin by saying that size in the concrete can be compared with wealth and freedom then we cannot avoid saying the same of size in the abstract: which is absurd.’

The bearing of this argument on the general discussion is as follows: Aristotle is explaining the nature of political equality which can only exist between similar or commensurable qualities and therefore between persons who possess such qualities: in the case of the state for example only between qualities or persons which are essential to the state, not between such as are indifferent, not between flute-playing and virtue, but between virtue and wealth.

ἄνευ τω̂ν προτέρων . . ἄνευ δὲ τούτων.Jowett1885v1: 12. 9.

1) freedom and wealth . . 2) justice and valour.

ἀνάγκη πάσας εἰ̂ναι τὰς τοιαύτας πολιτείας παρεκβάσεις.Jowett1885v1: 13. 1.

In a certain sense even the government of virtue is a perversion, if we could suppose the virtuous to govern for their own interests and to disregard those of others (cp. infra §§ 10, 20). At any rate virtue is not the only element required in a state.

Edition: current; Page: [134]

ἡ δὲ χώρα κοινόν.Jowett1885v1: 13. 2.

‘The common or inclusive element of the state,’ ‘an element in which all are concerned’; or, if the phrase be modernized, ‘the land is a great public interest.’

The word is here used nearly as in τὸ κοινὸν = ‘public’ or ‘common’: elsewhere in the sense of ‘comprehensive,’ ‘general,’ (Nic. Eth. ii. 2. § 2); applicable to the larger or more inclusive class, the more popular constitution (supra ii. 6. § 4), the more generally useful branch of knowledge (Rhet. i. 1, 1354 b. 29).

καθ’ ἑκάστην μὲν ον̓̂ν πολιτείαν τω̂ν εἰρημένων ἀναμϕισβήτητος ἡ κρίσιςJowett1885v1: 13. 5. τίνας ἄρχειν δεɩ̂· τοɩ̂ς γὰρ κυρίοις διαϕέρουσιν ἀλλήλων, οἱ̑ον ἡ μὲν τῳ̑ διὰ πλουσίων ἡ δὲ τῳ̑ διὰ τω̂ν σπουδαίων ἀνδρω̂ν εἰ̂ναι, καὶ τω̂ν ἄλλων ἑκάστη τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον. ἀλλ’ ὅμως σκοπον̂μεν, ὅταν περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ταν̂θ’ ὑπάρχῃ χρόνον, πω̂ς διοριστέον.

‘There is no difficulty in determining who are to be the governing body in an oligarchy or aristocracy or democracy; for the nature of these is really implied in the name. The difficulty arises only when the few and the many and the virtuous are living together in the same city: how are their respective claims to be determined? For any of them, carried out consistently, involves an absurdity.’

εἰ δὴ τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἰ̂εν ὀλίγοι πάμπαν οἱ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἔχοντες, τίνα δεɩ̂Jowett1885v1: 13. 6. διελεɩ̂ν τὸν τρόπον;

‘How are we to decide between them; or how are we to arrange the state having regard both to virtues and number?’ For διελεɩ̂ν see ii. 2. § 1: also τίνα τρόπον νενέμηνται, iv. 1. § 10.

ἢ τὸ ὀλίγοι πρὸς τὸ ἔργον δεɩ̂ σκοπεɩ̂ν, εἰ δυνατοὶ διοικεɩ̂ν τὴν πόλιν [Editor: illegible character]Jowett1885v1: 13. 6. τοσον̂τοι τὸ πλη̂θος ὥστ’ εἰ̂ναι πόλιν ἐξ αὐτω̂ν;

‘Must we consider their fewness relatively to their duties, and whether they are able to govern a state, or numerous enough to form a state of themselves?’

τὸ ὀλίγοι = ‘the idea of the few,’ like τὸ οἱ̑ς supra c. 9. § 2.

πρὸς τὸ ἔργον may be taken either with δεɩ̂ σκοπεɩ̂ν, or with τὸ ὀλίγοι.

τοσον̂τοι is dependent on εἰ, understood from εἰ δυνατοὶ = ἢ δεɩ̂ σκοπεɩ̂ν εἰ τοσον̂τοι τὸ πλη̂θος εἰσί.

Edition: current; Page: [135]

διὸ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀπορίαν, ἣν ζητον̂σι καὶ προβάλλουσί τινες, ἐνδέλεταιJowett1885v1: 13.11, 12. τον̂τον τὸν τρόπον ἀπαντα̂ν. ἀπορον̂σι γάρ τινες πότερον τῳ̑ νομοθέτῃ νομοθετητέον, βουλομένῳ τίθεσθαι τοὺς ὀρθοτάτους νόμους, πρὸς τὸ τω̂ν βελτιόνων συμϕέρον ἢ πρὸς τὸ τω̂ν πλειόνων, ὅταν συμβαίνῃ τὸ λεχθέν. τὸ δ’ ὀρθὸν ληπτέον ἴσως· τὸ δ’ ἴσως ὀρθὸν πρὸς τὸ τη̂ς πόλεως ὅλης συμϕέρον καὶ πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τὸ τω̂ν πολιτω̂ν.

Aristotle here raises the question whether the laws shall be enacted for the good of all or of a privileged class when several classes exist together in a state. He answers that the laws must be equal, and this equal right, or law, means the principle which conduces to the good of the whole state.

1)* ὅταν συμβαίνῃ τὸ λεχθὲν refers immediately to § 10, which suggests the co-existence of classes in a state, and to § 4, which contains a more formal statement to the same effect.

2) Bernays alters the punctuation by enclosing ἀπορον̂σι . . . πλειόνων in a parenthesis explanatory of τὴν ἀπορίαν. This gives a sufficient sense; but a short clause at the end of a sentence following a long parenthesis is not in the manner of Aristotle. He also refers ὅταν συμβαίνῃ τὸ λεχθὲν to the words τὸ πλη̂θος εἰ̂ναι βέλτιον κ.τ.λ., not ‘when all the elements co-exist,’ but ‘when the whole people is better and richer than the few.’

ὥστε μὴ συμβλητὴν εἰ̂ναι τὴν τω̂ν ἄλλων ἀρετὴν πάντων μηδὲ τὴν δύναμινJowett1885v1: 13. 13. αὐτω̂ν τὴν πολιτικὴν πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων.

The virtue here spoken of seems to be the virtue of the kind attributed by Thucydides viii. 68 to Antiphon, viz. political ability, and the characters who are ‘out of all proportion to other men’ are the master spirits of the world, who make events rather than are made by them, and win, whether with many or with few, such as Themistocles, Pericles, Alexander the great, Caesar, and in modern times a Marlborough, Mirabeau, Napoleon I, Bismarck.

οὐ γὰρ ἐθέλειν αὐτὸν ἄγειν τὴν Ἀργώ.Jowett1885v1: 13. 16.

The legend is preserved by Apollodorus (i. 9. § 19). According to him the ship Argo, speaking with a human voice, refused to take on board Hercules, ϕθεγξαμένη μὴ δύνασθαι ϕέρειν τὸ τούτου βάρος. This agrees with the text of the Politics if the word ἄγειν is taken to mean ‘convey,’ ‘take on board,’ as in Soph. Phil. 901, Edition: current; Page: [136]ὥστε μή μ’ ἄγειν ναύτην ἔτι. Stahr translates wrongly: ‘Hercules would not row with his comrades, because he was so far superior to them in strength.’

τὴν Περιάνδρου Θρασυβούλῳ συμβουλίαν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 13. 16.

Cp. Herod. v. 92, who reverses the characters, the advice being given not by Periander to Thrasybulus, but by Thrasybulus to Periander; and Livy i. 54: also Shakes. Rich. II. act iii. sc. 4:—

  • ‘Go thou, and, like an executioner,
  • Cut off the heads of too fast-growing sprays
  • That look too lofty in our commonwealth.’

διὸ καὶ τοὺς ψέγοντας τὴν τυραννίδα καὶ τὴν Περιάνδρου ΘρασυβούλῳJowett1885v1: 13. 16. συμβουλίαν οὐχ ἁπλω̂ς οἰητέον ὀρθω̂ς ἐπιτιμα̂ν.

Because all governments rest on the principle of self-preservation, and at times extreme measures must be allowed.

ὁ ὀστρακισμὸς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει δύναμιν . . τῳ̑ κολούειν.Jowett1885v1: 13. 18.

In this passage there is a doubt about the reading, and also about the construction. Several MSS. read τὸ κωλύειν = ‘have the same effect in respect of putting down the chief citizens.’

If we retain the reading of Bekker’s text, it is doubtful whether τῳ̑ κολούειν 1) is to be taken after τὴν αὐτὴν (Bernays), or 2)* is the dative of the instrument. To the first way of explaining the words it may be objected that τῳ̑ κολούειν must then be referred to the particular instance of the counsel of Periander, whereas ostracism has been just asserted to be general, and to represent the policy of oligarchy and democracy as well as of tyranny. ‘It has the same effect with the “lopping off” the chief citizens.’

It can hardly be supposed that the legislator who institutedJowett1885v1: 13.18-23. ostracism had any definite idea of banishing the one ‘best man’ who was too much for the state. The practice seems to have arisen out of the necessities of party warfare, and may be regarded as an attempt to give stability to the ever-changing politics of a Greek state. It certainly existed as early as the time of Cleisthenes, and is said to have been employed against the adherents of Peisistratus. Every year on a fixed day the people were asked if Edition: current; Page: [137]they would have recourse to it or not. If they approved, a day was appointed on which the vote was taken. To ostracise any citizen not less than 6000 citizens must vote against him. We may readily believe, as Aristotle tells us (§ 23), that ‘instead of looking to the public good, they used ostracism for factious purposes.’ Aristides, according to the well-known legend, was banished because the people were tired of his virtues. Themistocles, the saviour of Hellas, was also ostracised (Thuc. i. 137). The last occasion on which the power was exercised at Athens was against Hyperbolus, who was ostracised by the combined influence of Nicias and Alcibiades. Other states in which the practice prevailed were Argos (v. 3. § 3), Megara, Syracuse, Miletus, Ephesus.

οἱ̑ον Ἀθηναɩ̂οι μὲν περὶ Σαμίους καὶ Χίους καὶ Λεσβίους.Jowett1885v1: 13. 19.

For the Samians, cp. Thuc. i. 116; for the Chians, Thuc. iv. 51; for the Lesbians, Thuc. iii. 10.

ὥστε διὰ τον̂το μὲν οὐδὲν κωλύει τοὺς μονάρχους συμϕωνεɩ̂ν ταɩ̂ς πόλεσιν,Jowett1885v1: 13. 22. εἰ τη̂ς οἰκείας ἀρχη̂ς ὠϕελίμου ταɩ̂ς πόλεσιν οὔσης τον̂το δρω̂σιν.

1)*, ‘as far as the application of this principle of compulsion is concerned, there is nothing to prevent agreement between kings and their subjects, for all governments must have recourse to a similar policy’ (cp. note on § 16). τον̂το δρω̂σιν refers to the whole passage: sc. if they use compulsion for the benefit of the whole state.

Or 2), ‘there is nothing to make the policy of kings differ from that of free states.’ It is an objection, though not a fatal one, to this way of taking the passage that ταɩ̂ς πόλεσιν then occurs in two successive lines in different senses.

κατὰ τὰς ὁμολογουμένας ὑπεροχάς.Jowett1885v1: 13. 22.

The meaning is that where the superiority of a king or government is acknowledged, there is a political justification for getting a rival out of the way.

ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ’ ἄρχειν γε τον̂ τοιούτου· παραπλήσιον γὰρ κἂν εἰ τον̂ ΔιὸςJowett1885v1: 13. 25. ἄρχειν ἀξιοɩ̂εν, μερίζοντες τὰς ἀρχάς.

See note on text. ‘Nay, more; a man superior to others is like Edition: current; Page: [138]a god, and to claim rule over him would be like claiming to rule over Zeus.’ The words μερίζοντες τὰς ἀρχὰς may refer either 1)* to the Gods or 2) to men; either 1)* ‘as if in making a division of the empire of the Gods’ according to the old legend, they, i.e. the gods, should claim to rule over Zeus; or 2) more generally, ‘as if when persons were distributing offices they should give Zeus an inferior place.’ Cp. Plat. Rep. x. 607 C, ὁ τω̂ν Δία σοϕω̂ν ὄχλος κρατω̂ν, Nic. Eth. vi. 13. § 8, ὅμοιον κἂν εἲ τις τὴν πολιτικὴν ϕαίη ἄρχειν τω̂ν θεω̂ν, and Herod. v. 49, τῳ̑ Διῒ πλούτου πέρι ἐρίζετε: also Plat. Polit. 301 D, 303 B.

Bernays translates μερίζοντες ‘upon the principle of rotation of offices,’ but no such use of μερίζειν occurs.

κτεɩ̂ναι γὰρ οὐ κύριος, εἲ μὴ ἒν τινι βασιλείᾳ, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τω̂ν ἀρχαίωνJowett1885v1: 14. 4. ἐν ταɩ̂ς πολεμικαɩ̂ς ἐξόδοις ἐν χειρὸς νόμῳ.

οὐ κύριος, sc. ὁ βασιλεύς, supplied from ἡ βασιλεία. We have a choice of difficulties in the interpretation of the words which follow. Either 1) ἔν τινι βασιλείᾳ must be explained ‘in a certain exercise of the royal office,’ i.e. when the king is in command of the army. This way of taking the passage gives a good sense and the fact is correct; but such a meaning cannot be extracted from the Greek. Or 2), ‘for a king has no power to inflict death, unless under a certain form of monarchy’; Aristotle, writing in a fragmentary manner, has reverted from the kings of Sparta to monarchy in general. Or 3)*, possibly the words ἔν τινι βασιλείᾳ, bracketed by Bekker, are a clumsy gloss which has crept into the text, intended to show that the remark did not apply to every monarchy, but only to the Spartan. The conjecture of Mr. Bywater, who substitutes ἕνεκα δειλίας for ἔν τινι βασιλείᾳ, though supported by the citation from Homer, is too far removed from the letters of the MSS; and there is no proof that the Spartan kings had the power of putting a soldier to death for cowardice.

ἐν χειρὸς νόμῳ is often translated ‘by martial law.’ But the comparison of passages in Herodotus (e.g. ix. 48) and Polybius (iv. 58. § 9, etc.) shows that the word νόμος is only pleonastic, and that ἐν χειρὸς νόμῳ = ἐν χερσίν, ‘hand to hand,’ or ‘by a sudden blow.’

Edition: current; Page: [139]

ὃν δέ κ’ ἐγὼν ἀπάνευθε μάχης κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 14. 5.

Il. ii. 391-393. These lines which are rightly assigned here to Agamemnon are put into the mouth of Hector in Nic. Eth. iii. 8. § 4.

πὰρ γὰρ ἐμοὶ θάνατος.Jowett1885v1: 14. 5.

These words are not found either in this or any other passage of our Homer, though there is something like them in Iliad, xv. 348: —

  • ὃν δ’ ἂν ἐγὼν ἀπάνευθε νεω̂ν ἑτέρωθι νοήσω,
  • αὐτον̂ οἱ θάνατον μητίσομαι κ.τ.λ.

The error is probably due, as in Nic. Eth. ii. 9. § 3 and iii. 8. § 4, to a confused recollection of two or more verses. For a similar confusion of two lines of Homer cp. Plat. Rep. 389 E.

ἔχουσι δ’ αὑ̑ται τὴν δύναμιν πα̂σαι παραπλησίαν τυραννικῃ̑· εἰσὶ δ’ ὅμωςJowett1885v1: 14. 6. κατὰ νόμον καὶ πατρικαί.

The MSS. vary greatly: The Milan MS. reads τυραννίσι καὶ κατά, instead of τυραννικῃ̑· εἰσὶ δ’ ὅμως. So Paris 1, 2, but omitting καί: other MSS. preserve traces of the same reading. Others read παραπλησίως τυραννικήν. Out of these Bekker has extracted the Text, in which however ὅμως seems to be unnecessary and to rest on insufficient authority. Susemihl reads τυραννίσιν· εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ κ.τ.λ.

For the distinguishing characteristics of nations, see Book vii.Jowett1885v1: 14. 6. 7. §§ 1-4.

καὶ ἡ ϕυλακὴ δὲ βασιλικὴ καὶ οὐ τυραννικὴ διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν· οἱJowett1885v1: 14. 7. γὰρ πολɩ̂ται ϕυλάττουσιν ὅπλοις τοὺς βασιλεɩ̂ς, τοὺς δὲ τυράννους ξενικόν.

διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν. ‘Because the form of government is legal.’

The omission of the article before ξενικὸν emphasizes the opposition between οἱ πολɩ̂ται and ξενικὸν—‘their own citizens’ are contrasted with ‘any mercenary body.’

τὸν κακοπάτριδα.Jowett1885v1: 14. 10.

Either on analogy of εὔπατρις,* ‘the base born,’ or possibly ‘the injurer of his country,’ like κακόδουλος, ‘the maltreater of his slaves.’

διὰ γὰρ τὸ τοὺς πρώτους γενέσθαι τον̂ πλήθους εὐεργέτας κατὰ τέχνας ἢJowett1885v1: 14. 12. πόλεμον, ἢ διὰ τὸ συναγαγεɩ̂ν ἢ πορίσαι χώραν, ἐγίνοντο βασιλεɩ̂ς ἑκόντων καὶ τοɩ̂ς παραλαμβάνουσι πάτριοι.

Cp. v. 10. §§ 7-9, where royalty is said to be based on merit; Edition: current; Page: [140]and i. 2. § 6, where it is assumed to have arisen from the Patriarchal relation: and for what follows vi. 8. § 20, where the ministers of Public Sacrifices are called Kings or Archons.

ὅπου δ’ ἄξιον εἰπεɩ̂ν εἰ̂ναι βασιλείαν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 14. 13.

The kings who became priests retained only the shadow of royalty; but where they held military command beyond the borders, the name might be applied with greater propriety.

ὥστε τὸ σκέμμα σχεδὸν περὶ δυοɩ̂ν ἐστίν, ἓν μὲν πότερον συμϕέρει ταɩ̂ςJowett1885v1: 15. 2. πόλεσι στρατηγὸν ἀΐδιον εἰ̂ναι, καὶ τον̂τον ἢ κατὰ γένος ἢ κατὰ μέρος, ἢ οὐ συμϕέρει· ἓν δὲ πότερον ἕνα συμϕέρει κύριον εἰ̂ναι πάντων, ἢ οὐ συμϕέρει.

κατὰ μέρος, not ‘by rotation in a fixed order,’ (as in iv. 14. § 4) but more simply, ‘by a succession of one citizen to another.’ It is implied, though not expressed, that they are chosen by vote: cp. supra c. 14. § 5, ἓν μὲν ον̓̂ν τον̂τ’ εἰ̂δος βασιλείας, στρατηγία διὰ βίου· τούτων δ’ αἱ μὲν κατὰ γένος εἰσίν, αἱ δ’ αἱρεταί.

Three MSS. read καθ’ αἵρεσιν instead of κατὰ μέρος. It is more likely that καθ’ αἵρεσιν is a gloss on κατὰ μέρος, than the reverse.

τὸ μὲν ον̓̂ν περὶ τη̂ς τοιαύτης στρατηγίας ἐπισκοπεɩ̂ν νόμων ἔχει μα̂λλονJowett1885v1: 15. 2. εἰ̂δος ἢ πολιτείας.

‘Is a legal, rather than a constitutional question,’ ‘is to be regarded as a matter of administration.’ εἰ̂δος νόμων μα̂λλον ἢ πολιτείας is an abridgment of εἰ̂δος τον̂ ἐπισκοπεɩ̂ν περὶ τω̂ν νόμων μα̂λλον ἢ πολιτείας.

εἰ̂δος (like ϕύσις i. 8. § 10, νόμος iii. 14. § 4) is pleonastic as in i. 4. § 2, ὁ γὰρ ὑπηρέτης ἐν ὀργάνου εἴδει ἐστίν, ‘has the form or character of an instrument.’

ὥστ’ ἀϕείσθω τὴν πρώτην.Jowett1885v1: 15 2.

After reducing the different forms of a monarchy to two, he now rejects one of them,—namely, the Lacedaemonian, because the Lacedaemonian kings were only generals for life, and such an office as this might equally exist under any form of government. This is a strange notion; for although the kings of Sparta were not generally distinguished, it can hardly be said with truth that Archidamus or Agesilaus were no more than military commanders.

ἀϕείσθω, sc. τον̂το τὸ εἰ̂δος.

τὴν πρώτην is to be taken adverbially in the sense of ‘to begin with’ or ‘at once’: so τὴν ταχίστην, (Dem.). The phrase also occurs Edition: current; Page: [141]in Xenophon Mem. iii. 6. § 10, περὶ πολέμου συμβουλεύειν τήν γε πρώτην ἐπισχήσομεν: and in Arist. Met. ζ. 12, 1038 a. 35, τοσαν̂τα εἰρήσθω τὴν πρώτην. Aristotle refers to the Lacedaemonian kings again in v. 11. § 2, and to the life generalship, c. 16. § 1, infra.

This passage is closely connected with a similar discussion inJowett1885v1: 15. 3 ff. Plato’s Politicus 293-295, where the comparative advantages of the wise man and the law are similarly discussed, and the illustration from the physician’s art is also introduced. Cp. also Rhet. i. 1354 a. 28, where Aristotle argues, besides other reasons, that the law is superior to the judge, because the judge decides on the spur of the moment.

μετὰ τὴν τετρήμερον,Jowett1885v1: 15. 4.

sc. ἡμέραν = μετὰ τὴν τετάρτην ἡμέραν. The MSS. vary between τριήμερον and τετρήμερον.

ἀλλ’ ἴσως ἂν ϕαίη τις ὡς ἀντὶ τούτου βουλεύσεται περὶ τω̂ν καθ’ ἕκασταJowett1885v1: 15. 5, 6. κάλλιον. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἀνάγκη νομοθέτην αὐτὸν εἰ̂ναι, δη̂λον, καὶ κεɩ̂σθαι νόμους, ἀλλὰ μὴ κυρίους ᾐ̑ παρεκβαίνουσιν, ἐπεὶ περὶ τω̂ν γ’ ἄλλων εἰ̂ναι δεɩ̂ κυρίους.

αὐτόν, sc. τὸν βουλευόμενον, incorrectly translated in the text ‘a king:’ better, ‘whether you call him king or not’ there must be a legislator who will advise for the best about particulars.

ἀλλὰ μὴ κυρίους ᾐ̑ παρεκβαίνουσιν is a qualification of what has preceded:—‘although they have no authority when they err,’ i. e. there must be laws and there must be cases which the laws do not touch, or do not rightly determine. This is one of the many passages in Aristotle’s Politics in which two sides of a question are introduced without being distinguished. The argument would have been clearer if the words ἀλλὰ μὴ . . . δεɩ̂ κυρίους had been omitted. Aristotle concedes to the opponent that there must be a correction of the law by the judgment of individuals. In fact both parties agree 1) that there must be laws made by the legislator; 2) that there must be exceptional cases. But there arises a further question: Are these exceptional cases to be judged of by one or by all?

The supposition contained in the words ἀλλ’ ἴσως . . . κάλλιον is repeated in a more qualified form in the sentence following, ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν . . . κυρίους.

Edition: current; Page: [142]

ἀλλ’ ἐστὶν ἡ πόλις ἐκ πολλω̂ν, ὥσπερ ἑστίασις συμϕορητὸς καλλίων μια̂ςJowett1885v1: 15. 7. καὶ ἁπλη̂ς. διὰ τον̂το καὶ κρίνει ἄμεινον ὄχλος πολλὰ ἢ εἱ̑ς ὁστισον̂ν.

Compare the saying ‘that the House of Commons has more good sense or good taste than any one man in it;’ and again, Burke, ‘Besides the characters of the individuals that compose it, this house has a collective character of its own.’

ἐκεɩ̂ δ’ ἔργον ἅμα πάντας ὀργισθη̂ναι καὶ ἁμαρτεɩ̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 15. 8.

It is true no doubt that the passions of the multitude may sometimes balance one another. But it is also true that a whole multitude may be inflamed by sympathy with each other, and carried away by a groundless suspicion, as in the panic after the mutilation of the Hermae, or the trial of the generals after the battle of Arginusae, or the English Popish Plot, or the witch hunting mania at Salem in Massachusetts, or the French reign of Terror; and commonly in religious persecutions.

αἱρετώτερον ἂν εἴη ταɩ̂ς πόλεσιν ἀριστοκρατία βασιλείας, καὶ μετὰ δυνάμεωςJowett1885v1: 15. 10. καὶ χωρὶς δυνάμεως οὔσης τη̂ς ἀρχη̂ς, ἂν ᾐ̑ λαβεɩ̂ν πλείους ὁμοίους.

That is to say aristocracy, or the rule of several good men, is better than the rule of one—we may leave out the question of power, if only it be possible to find the many equals who will constitute this ‘aristocracy of virtue.’ In other words, the superiority of the aristocracy, who are many, to the king, who is one, does not simply consist in greater strength.

ὁμοίους, ‘equal in virtue to one another,’ an idea which is to be gathered from the mention of ἀριστοκρατία in the preceding clause, and explained in the words which follow, πολλοὺς ὁμοίους πρὸς ἀρετήν, § 11.

ἐντεν̂θέν ποθεν εὔλογον γενέσθαι τὰς ὀλιγαρχίας.Jowett1885v1: 15. 12.

Yet in v. 12. § 14 he repudiates the notion of Plato that the state changes into oligarchy, because the ruling class are lovers of money. Royalty, aristocracy, oligarchy, tyranny, democracy—the order of succession in this passage—may be compared with that of Plato (Rep. viii. and ix)—the perfect state, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, tyranny. The order in which constitutions succeed to one another is discussed in Nic. Eth. viii. 10.

Edition: current; Page: [143]

ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ μείζους εἰ̂ναι συμβέβηκε τὰς πόλεις, ἴσως οὐδὲ ῥᾴδιον ἔτιJowett1885v1: 15. 13. γίγνεσθαι πολιτείαν ἑτέραν παρὰ δημοκρατίαν.

Here as elsewhere iv. 6. § 5, he accepts democracy not as a good but as a necessity, which arises as soon as wealth begins to flow and tradesmen ‘circulate’ in the agora, vi. 4. § 13; and the numbers of the people become disproportioned to the numbers of the governing class.

ὅμως ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ὑπάρχειν αὐτῳ̑ δύναμιν, ᾐ̑ ϕυλάξει τοὺς νόμους.Jowett1885v1: 15. 15.

Compare what was said above c. 13. § 22, ὥστε διὰ τον̂το κ.τ.λ. that ‘there need be no disagreement between a king and his subjects, because he is sometimes obliged to use force to them.’ Or, according to the other mode of interpreting the passage, ‘there is no difference between a king and a free state because’ &c.

διδόναι τοσούτους.Jowett1885v1: 15. 16.

Either 1)* with emphasis ‘so many and no more’; or better 2) with reference to the previous words εἰ̂ναι δὲ τοσαύτην τὴν ἰσχὺν ὥστε ἑκάστου μὲν καὶ ἑνὸς συμπλειόνων κρείττω, τον̂ δὲ πλήθους ἥττω, ‘so many as would not make him dangerous.’

Nearly the whole of this chapter is a series of ἀπορίαι; as in c.Jowett1885v1: 16. 15, Aristotle states, without clearly distinguishing, them.

Yet the στρατηγὸς ἀΐδιος, who in time of peace is deprived ofJowett1885v1: 16. 1. functions, and on the battle-field has arbitrary power, is not really the same with ὁ κατὰ νόμον βασιλεύς.

περὶ Ὀπον̂ντα δὲ κατά τι μέρος (sc. τη̂ς διοικήσεως) ἔλαττον (sc. τη̂ςJowett1885v1: 16. 1. Ἐπιδάμνου).

‘With a somewhat more limited power than at Epidamnus.’

δοκεɩ̂ δέ τισιν.Jowett1885v1: 16. 2.

Either the construction may be an anacoluthon, or δὲ after δοκεɩ̂ may mark the apodosis.

διόπερ οὐδὲν μα̂λλον ἄρχειν ἢ ἄρχεσθαι δίκαιον. καὶ τὸ ἀνὰ μέρος τοίνυνJowett1885v1: 16. 3. ὡσαύτως. τον̂το δ’ ἤδη νόμος.

καὶ τὸ ἀνὰ μέρος = καὶ τὸ ἀνὰ μέρος ἄρχειν ὡσαύτως δίκαιον.

Aristotle, taking the view of an opponent of the παμβασιλεία, Edition: current; Page: [144]asserts that equals are entitled to an equal share in the government; there is justice in their ruling and justice in their being ruled: and therefore in their all equally ruling by turns. ‘And here law steps in; for the order of their rule is determined by law.’

ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅσα γε μὴ δοκεɩ̂ δύνασθαι διορίζειν ὁ νόμος, οὐδ’ ἄνθρωπος ἃνJowett1885v1: 16. 4, 5. δύναιτο γνωρίζειν. ἀλλ’ ἐπίτηδες παιδεύσας ὁ νόμος ἐϕίστησι τὰ λοιπὰ τῃ̑ δικαιοτάτῃ γνώμῃ κρίνειν καὶ διοικεɩ̂ν τοὺς ἄρχοντας. ἔτι δ’ ἐπανορθον̂σθαι δίδωσιν, ὅ τι ἂν δόξῃ πειρωμένοις ἄμεινον εἰ̂ναι τω̂ν κειμένων.

ἀλλὰ μὴν κ.τ.λ. ‘But surely if there are cases which the law cannot determine, then neither can an individual judge of them.’

τὰ λοιπά, what remains over and above law.

The connexion of the whole passage is as follows: Instead of one man ruling with absolute power, the law should rule, and there should be ministers and interpreters of the law. To this it is answered that the interpreter of the law is no more able to decide causes than the law itself. To this again the retort is made, that the law trains up persons who supply what is wanting in the law itself, to the best of their judgment.

ὁ μὲν ον̓̂ν τὸν νόμον κελεύων ἄρχειν δοκεɩ̂ κελεύειν ἄρχειν τὸν θεὸν καὶJowett1885v1: 16. 5. τὸν νον̂ν μόνους, ὁ δ’ ἄνθρωπον κελεύων προστίθησι καὶ θηρίον.

This is a reflection on the παμβασιλεύς. The rule of law is the rule of God and Reason: in the rule of the absolute king an element of the beast is included.

The reading of τὸν νον̂ν (instead of τὸν νόμον), which has the greater MS. authority, gives no satisfactory sense because it transposes the natural order of ideas. It has been therefore rejected. Schneider and Bekker, 2nd Edit., who are followed in the text, retain τὸν νόμον in the beginning of the clause and read τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν νον̂ν μόνους, a very ingenious and probable emendation, partly derived from a correction νον̂ν which is found in the margin of two or three MSS. instead of θεόν.

ὥστε δη̂λον ὅτι τὸ δίκαιον ζητον̂ντες τὸ μέσον ζητον̂σιν· ὁ γὰρ νόμος τὸJowett1885v1: 16. 8. μέσον.

‘And so, because men cannot judge in their own case, but are impelled this way and that, they have recourse to the mean, which is the law.’

Edition: current; Page: [145]

ἔτι κυριώτεροι καὶ περὶ κυριωτέρων τω̂ν κατὰ γράμματα νόμων οἱ κατὰ τὰJowett1885v1: 16. 9. ἔθη εἰσίν, ὥστε τω̂ν κατὰ γράμματα ἄνθρωπος ἄρχων ἀσϕαλέστερος, ἀλλ’ οὐ τω̂ν κατὰ τὸ ἔθος.

The defects of written law are supplied not only by the judgments of individuals but by tradition and precedent. In any comparison of the judgments of law and of individuals, these have to be reckoned to the credit of law. And in early times this unwritten law is more sacred and important than written. Hence arises an additional argument against the superiority of the individual to the law. For the importance of unwritten law cp. Thuc. ii. 37, τω̂ν τε ἀεὶ ἐν ἀρχῃ̑ ὄντων ἀκροάσει καὶ τω̂ν νόμων καὶ μάλιστα αὐτω̂ν ὅσοι τε ἐπ’ ὠϕελίᾳ τω̂ν ἀδικουμένων κεɩ̂νται καὶ ὅσοι ἄγραϕοι ὄντες αἰσχύνην ὁμολογουμένην ϕέρουσιν, and Rhet. i. 10, 1368 b. 7, λέγω δὲ ἴδιον μὲν καθ’ ὃν γεγραμμένον πολιτεύονται, κοινὸν δὲ ὅσα ἄγραϕα παρὰ πα̂σιν ὁμολογεɩ̂σθαι δοκεɩ̂.

τον̂τον τὸν τρόπον.Jowett1885v1: 16. 9.

Referring to the words which have preceded—κατὰ τὸ πλείονας εἰ̂ναι τοὺς ὑπ’ αὐτον̂ καθισταμένους ἄρχοντας.

In the whole of this passage Aristotle is pleading the cause ofJowett1885v1: 16. 9-13. the law against absolute monarchy. He shows that the law is not liable to corruption, that its deficiencies are supplied by individuals, that it trains up judges who decide not arbitrarily but according to a rule, that many good men are better than one. But the monarch too must have his ministers; he will surround himself by his friends, and they will have ideas like his own. Thus the two approximate to a certain extent. In either case the rulers must be many and not one. But if so it is better to have the trained subordinates of the law than the favorites of a despot.

εἰ τούτους οἴεται δεɩ̂ν ἄρχειν τοὺς ἴσους καὶ ὁμοίους ἄρχειν οἴεται δεɩ̂ν ὁμοίως.Jowett1885v1: 16. 13.

Even in the παμβασιλεία there is an element of equality. ὁμοίως either 1) ‘equally with himself’; or 2) with a slight play of words ‘after the manner of equals.’

εἰ μὴ τρόπον τινά.Jowett1885v1: 17. 2.

To be taken after ἀμείνων ‘better in a certain manner, i.e. the imaginary and rather absurd case, to which he returns in § 5, of the Edition: current; Page: [146]virtue of the individual being more than equal to the collective virtue of the community.

ἐν ᾡ̑ πέϕυκε [καὶ ἓν] ἐγγίνεσθαι πλη̂θος πολεμικόν.Jowett1885v1: 17. 4.

The reading of Bekker, καὶ ἕν, which is wanting in the best MSS. and is omitted by Bernays, may have arisen out of the termination of πέϕυκεν. If they are retained the meaning will be ‘in which there is likewise a single’ or ‘compact body, defined by their all carrying arms’ (ii. 6. § 16, etc.) as other forms of government by virtue, wealth, etc.

κατὰ νόμον τὸν κατ’ ἀξίαν διανέμοντα τοɩ̂ς εὐπόροις τὰς ἀρχάς.Jowett1885v1: 17. 4.

The citizens of a polity are here called εὔποροι, ‘respectable’ or ‘upper class,’ though a comparatively low qualification is required of them (iv. 3. § 1; 9. § 3). They are ‘the hoplites’ (ii. 6. § 16) who are also elsewhere called εὔποροι (vi. 7. § 1). τοɩ̂ς εὐπόροις is found in the better MSS.: al. ἀπόροις.

οὐ μόνον . . . ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ πρότερον λεχθέν.Jowett1885v1: 17. 6.

‘He has a right to rule not only on the general ground which is put forward by all governments, but also upon the principle which we maintain, that he is superior in virtue.’

ἄρχεσθαι κατὰ μέρος· οὐ γὰρ πέϕυκε τὸ μέρος ὑπερέχειν τον̂ παντός, τῳ̑Jowett1885v1: 17. 7. δὲ τηλικαύτην ὑπερβολὴν ἔχοντι τον̂το συμβέβηκεν.

‘This miraculous being cannot be asked to be a subject in turn or in part, for he is a whole, and the whole cannot be ruled by the part.’ The double meaning of μέρος is lost in English. The idealization of the whole or the identification of the perfect man with a whole of virtue is strange. Cp. Nic. Eth. viii. 10. § 2. τον̂το = τὸ εἰ̂ναι πα̂ν.

ἄρχεσθαι δυναμένων.Jowett1885v1: 18. 1.

Bekker’s insertion of καὶ ἄρχειν after ἄρχεσθαι (ed. sec.) is unnecessary. The idea is already implied in the previous words. Under any of the three forms of government, the virtue of obedience is required in some, of command in others.

ἐν δὲ τοɩ̂ς πρώτοις ἐδείχθη λόγοις ὅτι τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ἀνδρὸς ἀρετὴνJowett1885v1: 18. 1. εἰ̂ναι καὶ πολίτου τη̂ς πόλεως τη̂ς ἀρίστης.

Edition: current; Page: [147]

The views of Aristotle respecting the relation of the good citizen to the good man may be drawn out as follows:—

1) The good citizen is not the same with the good man in an ordinary state, because his virtue is relative to the constitution (c. 4. § 3).

2) But in the perfect state he is the same: and this appears to be upon the whole the principal conclusion (c. 18. § 1, and iv. 7. § 2).

3) Yet even in the perfect state the citizens cannot all conform to a single type of perfection; for they have special duties to perform and special virtues by which they perform them (c. 4. §§ 5, 6).

4) It is therefore the good ruler who is really to be identified with the good man (§ 7; also i. 13. § 8, where the subject is introduced for the first time).

5) And still a ‘grain of a scruple may be made’; for if the good ruler be merely a ruler, the private citizen who knows both how to rule and how to obey will have more complete virtue.

6) And therefore in the perfect state the citizens should rule and be ruled by turns (§ 11), cp. vii. c. 9.

This seems to be the result of many scattered and rather indistinct observations made from different points of view and not arranged in a clear logical order.

ἀνάγκη δὴ τὸν μέλλοντα περὶ αὐτη̂ς ποιήσασθαι τὴν προσήκουσαν σκέψιν.Jowett1885v1: 18. 2.

These words are removed from the end of this book by Bekker, who in his Second Edition adopts the altered arrangement of the books. See Essay on the Structure of Aristotle’s Writings.

Edition: current; Page: [148]

BOOK IV.

The statesman has four problems to consider,Jowett1885v1: 1. 2-6.

1) What is the best or ideal state?

2) What state is best suited to a particular people?

3) How any given state, even though inferior to what it might be, may be created or preserved?

4) What is the best state for average men?

1) is the best possible; 2) the best relatively to circumstances; 3) neither the best possible nor the best under the circumstances, but any constitution in which men are willing to acquiesce, even though ill-provided and ill-administered—such are to be found in the world and must therefore enter into the consideration of the statesman; 4) the best for mankind in general.

ταύτην ἐστὶ τὴν δύναμιν.Jowett1885v1: 1. 2.

The MSS. vary between ἔτι and ἐστί: ἔτι has rather the greater MSS. authority, but ἐστὶ is required for the construction, and the recurrence of ἔτι which was the first word of the sentence at the end of it is unpleasing.

ἀχορήγητόν τε εἰ̂ναι καὶ τω̂ν ἀναγκαίων.

Explained in the text, with Susemihl, *‘not possessing the outward means necessary for the best state,’ but the words ‘for the best state,’ are not found in the Greek. Better ‘not possessing the common necessaries or simple requisites of life,’ a hard but not impossible condition, e.g. in a remote colony. Cp. c. 11. § 21, πολλάκις οὔσης ἄλλης πολιτείας αἱρετωτέρας ἐνίοις οὐθὲν κωλύσει συμϕέρειν ἑτέραν μα̂λλον εἰ̂ναι πολιτείαν, which is similar but not the same with this passage. For ἀχορήγητον, cp. κεχορηγημένῳ in § 1, and δεομένην πολλη̂ς χορηγίας in § 6.

Edition: current; Page: [149]

τὰς ὑπαρχούσας ἀναιρον̂ντες πολιτείας τὴν Λακωνικὴν . . . ἐπαινον̂σιν.Jowett1885v1: 1. 6.

Although the language is inaccurate (for the Lacedaemonian is an ‘existing’ constitution), the meaning is plain. ‘They put aside their own constitution and praise the Lacedaemonian or some other.’

χρὴ δὲ τοιαύτην εἰσηγεɩ̂σθαι τάξιν ἣν ῥᾳδίως ἐκ τω̂ν ὑπαρχουσω̂ν καὶJowett1885v1: 1. 7. πεισθήσονται καὶ δυνήσονται κοινωνεɩ̂ν, ὡς ἔστιν οὐκ ἔλαττον ἔργον τὸ ἐπανορθω̂σαι πολιτείαν ἢ κατασκευάζειν ἐξ ἀρχη̂ς, ὤσπερ καὶ τὸ μεταμανθάνειν τον̂ μανθάνειν ἐξ ἀρχη̂ς.

‘The legislator should introduce an order of government into which the citizens will readily fall, and in which they will be able to co-operate; for the reformation of a state is as difficult as the original establishment of one and cannot be effected by the legislator alone, or without the assistance of the people.’

ἐκ τω̂ν ὑπαρχουσω̂ν (sc. πολιτειω̂ν) may be taken either with τάξιν or with κοινωνεɩ̂ν, either we ought to introduce 1) ‘from among existing constitutions’; or 2) ‘in passing out of existing constitutions that form,’ &c.; cp. in next sentence ταɩ̂ς ὑπαρχούσαις πολιτείαις βοηθεɩ̂ν.

κοινωνεɩ̂ν is the reading of the majority of MSS. Some have κινεɩ̂ν. The emendation κιχεɩ̂ν [Susemihl], taken from ‘consequi’ in the old Latin translation, is an unnecessary conjecture; nor does the word occur commonly, if at all, in Aristotle; καινον̂ν is open to the objection of introducing a special when a general word is required. But no change is really needed.

ὡς ἔστιν οὐκ ἔλαττον ἔργον κ.τ.λ. The connexion of these words is difficult: Aristotle seems to mean that the legislator should select a constitution suited to the wants of the people: for however good in itself, if unsuited to them, they will not work it, and he will have as great or greater difficulty in adapting it than he would originally have had in making one for which they were fitted.

Διὸ πρὸς τοɩ̂ς εἰρημένοις καὶ ταɩ̂ς ὑπαρχούσαις πολιτείαις δεɩ̂ δύνασθαιJowett1885v1: 1. 7. βοηθεɩ̂ν.

We may paraphrase as follows: Therefore, i. e. because it is difficult to introduce anything new in addition to what has been said [about the highest and other forms of government by the unsatisfactory political writers mentioned in § 5], we ought also to Edition: current; Page: [150]be able to maintain existing constitutions, [which they would get rid of].

καθάπερ ἐλέχθη καὶ πρότερον.Jowett1885v1: 1. 7.

There is nothing in what has preceded, which precisely answers to this formal reference. § 4 may perhaps be meant.

νν̂ν δὲ μίαν δημοκρατίαν οἴονταί τινες εἰ̂ναι καὶ μίαν ὀλιγαρχίαν.Jowett1885v1: 1. 8.

This is true of Plato, who is probably intended under this general form. For the anonymous reference to him cp. i. 1. § 2, ὅσοι μὲν οἴονται κ.τ.λ., and c. 2. § 3 infra.

συντίθενται ποσαχω̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 1. 8.

That is to say, either 1) the different ways in which the judicial and other elements of states are combined; or 2) the different ways in which the spirit of one constitution may be tempered by that of another: for the latter cp. infra c. 5. §§ 3, 4; c. 9. §§ 4-9.

καὶ τί τὸ τελος ἑκάστης τη̂ς κοινωνίας ἐστίν.Jowett1885v1: 1. 10.

‘And what is the end of each individual form of society?’ i. e. whether or not the good of the governed (cp. iii. c. 6).

ἑκάστης, with the article following, is emphatic.

κοινωνία is the state under a more general aspect.

νόμοι δὲ κεχωρισμένοι τω̂ν δηλούντων τὴν πολιτείαν.Jowett1885v1: 1. 10.

Either 1)* the words τω̂ν δηλούντων are governed by κεχωρισμένοι, ‘are separated from those things which show the nature of the constitution’; i. e. they are rules of administration and may be the same under different constitutions; but see infra § 11. Or 2), the genitive is partitive: ‘Laws are distinct and belong to that class of things which show the nature of the constitution.’

τὰς διαϕορὰς ἀναγκαɩ̂ον καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἔχειν τη̂ς πολιτείας ἑκάστης καὶJowett1885v1: 1. 11. πρὸς τὰς τω̂ν νόμων θέσεις.

Either 1), ‘we must know the differences of states (sc. πολιτειω̂ν) and the number of differences in each state, with a view to legislation; or 2)*, referring τη̂ς πολιτείας ἑκάστης only to διαϕοράς, and supplying πολιτειω̂ν with ἀριθμόν, ‘the difference of each state and the number of states;’ or 3), τὸν ἀριθμὸν means ‘the order of classification’ (Susemihl; cp. iii. 1. § 9, where the defective (corrupt) Edition: current; Page: [151]states are said to be ‘posterior’ to the good states). This gives a good sense, but is with difficulty elicited from the words.

ἐν τῃ̑ πρώτῃ μεθόδῳ.Jowett1885v1: 2. 1.

Cp. infra c. 8. § 1, where the words ἐν τοɩ̂ς κατ’ ἀρχὴν refer to iii. c. 7. See Essay on the Structure of Aristotle’s Writings.

περὶ μὲν ἀριστοκρατίας καὶ βασιλείας εἴρηται (τὸ γὰρ περὶ τη̂ς ἀρίστηςJowett1885v1: 2. 1. πολιτείας θεωρη̂σαι ταὐτὸ καὶ περὶ τούτων ἐστὶν εἰπεɩ̂ν τω̂ν ὀνομάτων).

He seems to mean that in discussing the ideal state he has already discussed Aristocracy and Royalty. But the discussion on the ideal state has either been lost, or was never written, unless, as some think, it is the account of the state preserved in Book vii.

Other allusions to the same discussion occur in what follows: c. 3. § 4, ἔτι πρὸς ταɩ̂ς κατὰ πλον̂τον διαϕοραɩ̂ς ἐστὶν ἡ μὲν κατὰ γένος ἡ δὲ κατ’ ἀρετήν, κἂν εἴ τι δὴ τοιον̂τον ἕτερον εἴρηται πόλεως εἰ̂ναι μέρος ἐν τοɩ̂ς περὶ τὴν ἀριστοκρατίαν, a passage which is supposed to refer to vii. i. e. iv. c. 8 and 9, by those who change the order of the books (Susemihl, &c.). But in this latter passage the allusion to the perfect state is very slight, and the point of view appears to be different; for no hint is given that it is to be identified with royalty or aristocracy. Whether the words of the text have a reference, as Schlosser supposes, to the end of Book iii. c. 14-18, where Aristotle discusses the relation of the one best man to the many good, is equally doubtful. A reference to the discussion of aristocracy in some former part of the work also occurs infra c. 7. § 2, ἀριστοκρατίαν μὲν ον̓̂ν καλω̂ς ἔχει καλεɩ̂ν περὶ ἡ̑ς διήλθομεν ἐν τοɩ̂ς πρώτοις λόγοις.

βούλεται γὰρ ἑκατέρα κατ’ ἀρετὴν συνεστάναι κεχορηγημένην.Jowett1885v1: 2. 1.

‘For royalty and aristocracy, like the best state, rest on a principle of virtue, provided with external means.’

πότε δεɩ̂ βασιλείαν νομίζειν.Jowett1885v1: 2. 1.

Not ‘when we are to consider a constitution to be a royalty,’ for there is no question about this, but νομίζειν is taken in the other sense of ‘having,’ ‘using,’ ‘having as an institution,’ like utor in Latin. For this use of the word cp. νομίζειν ἐκκλησίαν, iii. 1. § 10; and for the matter cp. iii. 17. §§ 4-8.

Edition: current; Page: [152]

τὴν δὲ βασιλείαν ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ἢ τοὔνομα μόνον ἔχειν οὐκ ον̓̂σαν, ἢ διὰJowett1885v1: 2. 2. πολλὴν ὑπεροχὴν εἰ̂ναι τὴν τον̂ βασιλεύοντος, ὥστε τὴν τυραννίδα χειρίστην ον̓̂σαν πλεɩ̂στον ἀπέχειν πολιτείας, δεύτερον δὲ τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν (ἡ γὰρ ἀριστοκρατία διέστηκεν ἀπὸ ταύτης πολὺ τη̂ς πολιτείας).

Royalty and tyranny both depend upon the individual will of the king or tyrant: hence it is argued that if royalty is the best, tyranny must be the worst of governments, because one is the preeminence of good, the other of evil. Aristotle, who is overmastered by the idea of opposites, naturally infers that the very worst must be the opposite of the very best.

πολιτείας. We might expect αὐτη̂ς, or τη̂ς ἀρίστης to be added; but Aristotle substitutes the more general πολιτεία here, as elsewhere, used in a good sense. Compare infra c. 8. § 2, τελευταɩ̂ον δὲ περὶ τυραννίδος εὔλογόν ἐστι ποιήσασθαι μνείαν διὰ τὸ πασω̂ν ἥκιστα ταύτην εἰ̂ναι πολιτείαν, ἡμɩ̂ν δὲ τὴν μέθοδον εἰ̂ναι περὶ πολιτείας: also for the general meaning, Plat. Polit. 301 D, Rep. ix. 576 D, etc.

In the phrase ταύτης τη̂ς πολιτείας the word refers to ὀλιγαρχίαν.

ἤδη μὲν ον̓̂ν τις ἀπεϕήνατο καὶ τω̂ν πρότερον οὕτως.Jowett1885v1: 2. 3.

The difference between Plato (Polit. 303) and Aristotle, which is dwelt upon so emphatically, is only verbal: the latter objecting to call that good in any sense, which may also be evil, a somewhat pedantic use of language, which is not uniformly maintained by Aristotle himself. Cp. vi. 4. § 1, δημοκρατιω̂ν οὐσω̂ν τεττάρων βελτίστη ἡ πρώτη τάξει.

καὶ τω̂ν πρότερον is a strange form of citation from Plato which would seem more appropriate to a later generation than to Aristotle. See Essay on the Criticism of Plato in Aristotle.

The programme corresponds fairly, but not very accurately,Jowett1885v1: 2. 4-6. with the subjects which follow. At chap. 14, before discussing the causes of ruin and preservation in states, having analysed in general outline the various types of oligarchy, democracy, polity, tyranny, Aristotle introduces a discussion respecting the powers and offices which exist in a single state: but of this new beginning which interrupts the sequence of his plan he says nothing here.

The diversity of governments has been already discussed, butJowett1885v1: 3. 1. not in detail, in bk. iii. c. 6-8.

Edition: current; Page: [153]

ἔτι πρὸς ταɩ̂ς κατὰ πλον̂τον διαϕοραɩ̂ς ἐστὶν ἡ μὲν κατὰ γένος ἡ δὲ κατ’Jowett1885v1: 3. 4. ἀρετήν, κἂν εἴ τι δὴ τοιον̂τον ἕτερον εἴρηται πόλεως εἰ̂ναι μέρος ἐν τοɩ̂ς περὶ τὴν ἀριστοκρατίαν.

The parts of the state are spoken of in vii. 8. § 7. The opening sentence of book vii. itself also professes to speak of aristocracy. But the writer goes on to treat rather of the ὑποθέσεις or material conditions of the best state, than of the best state itself. These references are vague; if they were really the passages here cited, we should have to suppose that the seventh book preceded the fourth. But they are not precise enough to be adduced as an argument in favour of the changed order.

καὶ γὰρ ταν̂τ’ εἴδει διαϕέρει τὰ μέρη σϕω̂ν αὐτω̂η.Jowett1885v1: 3. 5.

‘As the parts of states differ from one another (σϕω̂ν αὐτω̂ν), so must states differ from one another.’ Compare the curious comparison infra c. 4. §§ 8, 9.

πολιτεία μὲν γὰρ ἡ τω̂ν ἀρχω̂ν τάξις ἐστί, ταύτην δὲ διανέμονται πάντες ἢJowett1885v1: 3. 5. κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τω̂ν μετεχόντων ἢ κατά τιν’ αὐτω̂ν ἰσότητα κοινήν, λέγω δ’ οἱ̑ον τω̂ν ἀπόρων ἢ τω̂ν εὐπόρων, ἢ κοινήν τιν’ ἀμϕοɩ̂ν.

The last words, κοινήν τιν’ ἀμϕοɩ̂ν, which are obscure and do not cohere very well with δύναμιν, are bracketed by Bekker in his 2nd edition. But there is no reason for doubting their genuineness. Aristotle means to say that governments subsist according to the powers of those who share in them; or according to equality, whether that equality be an equality of the rich among themselves, or of the poor among themselves, or an equality of proportion which embraces both rich and poor: cp. infra c. 4. § 2. The words οἱ̑ον τω̂ν ἀπόρων ἢ τω̂ν εὐπόρων may be an explanation of κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τω̂ν μετεχόντων, which comes in out of place, and ἢ κοινήν τιν’ ἀμϕοɩ̂ν, as in the English text, may be an explanation of ἰσότητα κοινήν.

κατά τιν’ αὐτω̂ν ἰσότητα κοινήν, ‘More power may be given to the poor as being the more numerous class, or to the rich as being the more wealthy; or power may be given upon some principle of compensation which includes both;’ as e. g. in a constitutional government. In this way of explaining the passage the difficulty Edition: current; Page: [154]in the words ἢ κοινήν τιν’ ἀμϕοɩ̂ν, which has led Bekker to bracket them, is avoided.

For the winds compare Meteorologica ii. 4, 361 a. 4 ff., a passageJowett1885v1: 3. 7. in which Aristotle argues that north and south are the chief winds because wind is produced by evaporation and the evaporation is caused by the movement of the sun to the north or south. Also for the two principal forms of government cp. Plato’s Laws iii. 693 C: according to Plato they are democracy and monarchy.

ἀληθέστερον δὲ καὶ βέλτιον ὡς ἡμεɩ̂ς διείλομεν, δυοɩ̂ν ἢ μια̂ς οὔσης τη̂ςJowett1885v1: 3. 8. καλω̂ς συνεστηκυίας τὰς ἄλλας εἰ̂ναι παρεκβάσεις, τὰς μὲν τη̂ς εν̓̂ κεκραμένης ἁρμονίας, τὰς δὲ τη̂ς ἀρίστης πολιτείας.

Aristotle having compared the different forms of states with the different sorts of harmonies, now blends the two in one sentence, and corrects the opinion previously expressed by him: ‘There are not two opposite kinds of harmonies and states, but one or at the most two, δυοɩ̂ν ἢ μια̂ς (the two states are royalty and aristocracy), which are not opposed but of which all the rest are perversions.’ From this transcendental point of view polity or constitutional government itself becomes a perversion; but in c. 8. § 1 it is said not to be a perversion, though sometimes reckoned in that class.

ὥσπερ ἐν Αἰθιοπίᾳ ϕασί τινες.Jowett1885v1: 4. 4.

According to Herod. iii. 20, the Ethiopians are the tallest and most beautiful of mankind: and they elect the tallest and strongest of themselves to be their kings.

ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ πλείονα μόρια καὶ τον̂ δήμου καὶ τη̂ς ὀλιγαρχίας εἰσίν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 4. 5.

It is argued that neither freedom alone, nor numbers alone are a sufficient note of democracy, nor fewness of rulers, nor wealth of oligarchy: neither a few freemen, as at Apollonia, nor many rich men, as at Colophon, constitute a democracy. But there must be many poor in a democracy and few rich in an oligarchy. A slight obscurity in the passage arises from the illustrations referring only to democracy and not to oligarchy. Cp. iii. cc. 7, 8; infra c. 8. § 7.

Aristotle would not approve a classification of states such as that of Sir G. C. Lewis and the school of Austin, who define the sovereign power according to the number of persons who exercise Edition: current; Page: [155]it (cp. G. C. Lewis’ ‘Political Terms,’ Edit. 1877, p. 50). An opposite view is held by Maine, who argues truly ‘that there is more in actual sovereignty than force’ (Early Institutions, p. 358 ff.). Aristotle insists that the character of a government depends more on the quality than on the quantity of the sovereign power.

τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Λυδούς.Jowett1885v1: 4. 5.

Possibly the war with Gyges mentioned in Herod. i. 14. The Colophonians like the other Ionians (Herod. i. 142) appear to have been the subjects of Croesus at the time of his overthrow. A testimony to their wealth and luxury is furnished by Xenophanes apud Athenaeum xii. c. 31. 526 C, who says that a thousand citizens arrayed in purple robes would meet in the agora of Colophon.

Ὅτι μὲν ον̓̂ν πολιτεɩ̂αι πλείους, καὶ δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν, εἴρηται· διότι δὲ πλείουςJowett1885v1: 4. 7. τω̂ν εἰρημένων, καὶ τίνες καὶ διὰ τί, λέγωμεν ἀρχὴν λαβόντες τὴν εἰρημένην πρότερον· ὁμολογον̂μεν γὰρ οὐχ ἓν μέρος ἀλλὰ πλείω πα̂σαν ἔχειν πόλιν.

It is remarkable that Aristotle should revert to the parts of states which he professes to have already determined when speaking of aristocracy (cp. c. 3. § 4). His reason for returning to them is that he is going to make a new sub-division of states based upon the differences of their parts or members.

πλείους τω̂ν εἰρημένων. As he says, infra § 20, Ὅτι μὲν ον̓̂ν εἰσὶ πολιτεɩ̂αι πλείους καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας εἴρηται πρότερον· ὅτι δ’ ἐστὶ καὶ δημοκρατίας εἴδη πλείω καὶ ὀλιγαρχίας λέγωμεν. Compare Book vii. 8. § 9.

The illustration from animals may be worked out as follows.Jowett1885v1: 4. 8. Suppose the different kinds of teeth were a, a′, a″, a′″, etc., the different kinds of claws, feet, etc. were b, b′, b″, b′″, c, c′, c″, c′″, and so on with the other organs which are important in determining the character of an animal. Then, according to Aristotle, the different combinations of these will give the different species. Thus:—

  • a′, b, c″, will be one species,
  • a, b′, c″, another and so on.

So with constitutions:—

If we combine γεωργοί, having some political power and coming occasionally to the assembly, with disfranchised βάναυσοι, and a politically active wealthy class, the result will be an oligarchy or Edition: current; Page: [156]very moderate democracy: or if we combine politically active γεωργοί, βάναυσοι, θη̂τες with a feeble or declining oligarchy, the result will be an extreme democracy: and so on.

It is hardly necessary to remark that the illustration taken from the animals is the reverse of the fact. The differences in animals are not made by the combination of different types, but by the adaptation of one type to different circumstances. Nor is there in the constitution of states any such infinite variety of combinations as the illustration from the animals would lead us to suppose; (one kind of husbandmen with another of serfs and so on). Nor does Aristotle attempt to follow out in detail the idea which this image suggests.

The eight or more classes cannot be clearly discriminated. TheJowett1885v1: 4. 9-17. sixth class is wanting, but seems to be represented by the judicial and deliberative classes in § 14, yet both reappear as a ninth class in § 17. Aristotle is arguing that Plato’s enumeration of the elements of a state is imperfect—there must be soldiers to protect the citizens, there must be judges to decide their disputes, there must be statesmen to guide them (although it is possible that the same persons may belong to more than one class). ‘Then at any rate there must be soldiers’ (§ 15). This rather lame conclusion seems to be only a repetition of a part of the premisses. At this point the writer looses the thread of his discourse and, omitting the sixth, passes on from the fifth class τὸ προπολεμη̂σον in § 10 to a seventh class of rich men (§ 15), and to an eighth class of magistrates (§ 16). A somewhat different enumeration of the classes, consisting in all of six, is made in vii. 8. §§ 7-9.

διόπερ ἐν τῃ̑ Πολιτείᾳ κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 4. 11-14.

The criticism of Aristotle on Plato (Rep. ii. 369) in this passage, to use an expression of his own, is παιδαριώδης λίαν. Plato, who was a poet as well as a philosopher, in a fanciful manner builds up the state; Aristotle, taking the pleasant fiction literally and detaching a few words from their context, accuses Plato of making necessity, and not the good, the first principle of the state, as if the entire aim of the work were not the search after justice. There is also an ambiguity in the word ἀναγκαία of which Aristotle Edition: current; Page: [157]here takes advantage. Plato means by the ἀναγκαιοτάτη πόλις, ‘the barest idea of a state’ or ‘the state in its lowest terms.’ But when Aristotle says judges are ‘more necessary’ than the providers of the means of life, he means ‘contribute more to the end or highest realization of the state.’ The remarks on Plato are worthless, yet they afford a curious example of the weakness of ancient criticism, arising, as in many other places, from want of imagination. But apart from the criticism the distinction here drawn between the higher and lower parts, the ‘soul’ and ‘body’ of the state, is important. Cp. vii. 9. § 10, where Aristotle introduces a similar distinction between the μέρη of the πόλις and the mere conditions (ὡ̑ν οὐκ ἄνευ) of it. ‘Husbandmen, craftsmen, and labourers of all kinds are necessary to the existence of states, but the parts of the state are the warriors and counsellors.’

ἐν τῃ̑ Πολιτείᾳ.Jowett1885v1: 4. 11.

Here evidently the title of the book.

ἴσον τε δεομένην σκυτέων τε καὶ γεωργω̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 4. 12.

Equally with τὸ καλόν.

ὅπερ ἐστὶ συνέσεως πολιτικη̂ς ἔργον.Jowett1885v1: 4. 14.

ὅπερ grammatically refers to τὸ βουλεύεσθαι, suggested by τὸ βουλευόμενον.

ὥστ’ εἴπερ καὶ ταν̂τα καὶ ἐκεɩ̂να.Jowett1885v1: 4. 15.

ταν̂τα = τὰ περὶ τὴν ψυχήν, gathered from τὰ τοιαν̂τα in § 14.

ἐκεɩ̂να = τὰ εἰς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν χρη̂σιν συντείνοντα. If the higher and the lower elements of a state are both necessary parts of it, then the warriors (who may in some cases also be husbandmen) are necessary parts: Aristotle is answering Plato, § 13, who in the first enumeration of the citizens had omitted the warriors.

ταύτην τὴν λειτουργίαν,Jowett1885v1: 4. 16.

sc. τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς.

πολλοɩ̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 4. 18.

1) ‘To many’ or ‘in many cases’ opposed to πάντες in what follows; or 2*) πολλοɩ̂ς may be taken with δοκεɩ̂, the meaning being ‘many (differing from Plato) think, etc.’; the appeal is to the common sense which Plato is supposed to contradict.

Edition: current; Page: [158]

ἀντιποιον̂νται δὲ καὶ τη̂ς ἀρετη̂ς πάντες.Jowett1885v1: 4. 18.

The connexion is as follows:—‘Different qualifications often coexist or are thought to coexist in the same persons; and indeed virtue is a qualification for office to which all men lay claim. But no man can be rich and poor at the same time.’

ὅτι μὲν ον̓̂ν εἰσὶ πολιτεɩ̂αι πλείους, καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας, εἴρηται πρότερονJowett1885v1: 4. 20. is a repetition with a slight verbal alteration (διὰ τίνας αἰτίας for δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν) of the first words of § 7.

ἐκ τω̂ν εἰρημένων.Jowett1885v1: 4. 20.

I. e. from what has been said respecting differences in the parts of states (supra §§ 7, 8). Yet the curious argument from the parts of animals is an illustration only; the actual differences of states have not been worked out in detail.

κἂν εἴ τι τοιον̂τον ἑτέρου πλήθους εἰ̂δος.Jowett1885v1: 4. 21.

Susemihl (note 1199) objects that there are no others and so the freedmen must be meant. But surely in this phrase Aristotle is merely adding a saving clause = ‘and the like.’ Cp. Nic. Eth. i. 7. § 21, τω̂ν ἀρχω̂ν αἱ μὲν ἐπαγωγῃ̑ θεωρον̂νται αἱ δ’ αἰσθήσει αἱ δ’ ἐθισμῳ̑ τινὶ καὶ ἄλλαι δ’ ἄλλως, where the last words only generalize the preceding.

τω̂ν δὲ γνωρίμων.Jowett1885v1: 4. 22.

Sc. εἴδη, here used inaccurately for differences or different kinds of εἴδη.

τὰ τούτοις λεγόμενα κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν διαϕοράν.Jowett1885v1: 4. 22.

τούτοις, dative after τὴν αὐτήν, and refers to πλον̂τος, εὐγένεια, κ.τ.λ. Lit. ‘the things which are spoken of according to the same principle of difference with these,’ or ‘similar differences having a relation to these,’ e. g. the habits and occupations of the notables.

τὸ μηδὲν μα̂λλον ὑπάρχειν τοὺς ἀπόρους ἢ τοὺς εὐπόρους.Jowett1885v1: 4. 22.

If the reading ὑπάρχειν is retained, the emphasis is on the words μηδὲν μα̂λλον which must be taken closely with it, ‘that the poor shall be no more’—which is a feeble way of saying, shall have no more power—‘than the rich’; or ‘shall have no priority,’ which gives a rather curious sense to ὑπάρχειν. A doubt about the propriety of Edition: current; Page: [159]the expression has led to two changes in the text. 1) ὑπερέχειν (Susemihl) for which there is slight MS. authority, P1, P4; and Aretino’s transl. 2) ἄρχειν an emendation of Victorius adopted by Coraes, Schneider, Stahr, and supposed to be confirmed by a parallel passage in vi. 2. § 9; see note on English Text. 3) The Old Translation ‘nihil magis existere egenis vel divitibus’ seems to favour ὑπάρχειν τοɩ̂ς ἀπόροις ἢ τοɩ̂ς εὐπόροις.

δημοκρατίαν εἰ̂ναι ταύτην.Jowett1885v1: 4. 23.

ταύτην is slightly inaccurate = ‘the state in which this occurs.’

ἓν μὲν ον̓̂ν εἰ̂δος κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 4. 24.

Five forms of democracy are reckoned: but the first of these is really a description of democracy in general, not of any particular form. The words in § 24 ἄλλο δὲ seem to have been introduced by mistake. The five forms are thus reduced to four, as in c. 6 the five forms of oligarchy given in c. 5 appear as four.

ἕτερον εἰ̂δος δημοκρατίας τὸ μετέχειν ἅπαντας τοὺς πολίτας ὅσοι ἀνυπεύθυνοι,Jowett1885v1: 4. 24. ἄρχειν δὲ τὸν νόμον. ἕτερον δὲ εἰ̂δος δημοκρατίας τὸ πα̂σι μετεɩ̂ναι τω̂ν ἀρχω̂ν, ἐὰν μόνον ᾐ̑ πολίτης, ἄρχειν δὲ τὸν νόμον.

The words ὅσοι ἀνυπεύθυνοι agree with τοɩ̂ς ἀνυπευθύνοις κατὰ τὸ γένος, as the ἐὰν ᾐ̑ πολίτης does with the ὅσοι ἂν ἐλεύθεροι ὠ̂σι in the recapitulation of the passage which follows (c. 6. § 4). In both cases all citizens are eligible and the law is supreme: but in the first of the two the rights of citizenship have been scrutinized; in the second, all reputed freemen are admitted to them without enquiry. The latter case may be illustrated by the state of Athenian citizenship before the investigation made by Pericles; the former by the stricter citizenship required after the change. The meaning of the word ἀνυπεύθυνοι is shown by the parallel passage (c. 6. § 3, ἀνυπευθύνοις κατὰ τὸ γένος) to be, ‘not proved to be disqualified by birth.’

Ὅμηρος δὲ ποίαν λέγει οὐκ ἀγαθὸν εἰ̂ναι πολυκοιρανίην, πότερον ταύτην ἢJowett1885v1: 4. 27. ὅταν πλείους ὠ̂σιν οἱ ἄρχοντες ὡς ἕκαστος, ἄδηλον.

It would be a poetical or historical anachronism to suppose that Homer in the words cited intended one of the senses which Aristotle seems to think possible. The collective action of states as distinguished from that of individuals is the conception, not of a Edition: current; Page: [160]poet, but of a philosopher. No modern reader would imagine that Homer is seeking to enforce any other lesson than the necessity of having one and not many leaders, especially on the field of battle. This anti-popular text is adapted to the argument.

τω̂ν δὲ καθ’ ἕκαστα τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὴν πολιτείαν κρίνειν.Jowett1885v1: 4. 31.

For use of gen. after κρίνειν cp. Plat. Rep. 576 D, Laws i. 646 D. τὴν πολιτείαν (πολιτεία here = πολίτευμα) is contrasted as ‘the collective government’ with αἱ ἀρχαί, ‘the individual magistrates.’ Yet in the context, both preceding and following, the word has the more general meaning of a ‘form of government’ or ‘constitution.’

ἂν μὲν ον̓̂ν ἐκ πάντων τούτων.Jowett1885v1: 5. 1.

τούτων, ‘out of all the qualified persons,’ all those referred to in the two previous sentences τω̂ν ἐχόντων τιμήματα τηλικαν̂τα ὥστε κ.τ.λ. or τω̂ν ἐχόντων μακρὰ τιμήματα.

In what follows the dynastia is the exclusive hereditary oligarchy, ruling without law.

For the forms of these hereditary oligarchies and the dangersJowett1885v1: 5. 2. to which they are exposed, cp. v. 6. § 3. We may remark that, though the most common, they are not included in Aristotle’s definition of oligarchy (iii. c. 8).

τὰ πρω̂τα μικρὰ πλεονεκτον̂ντες παρ’ ἀλλήλων.Jowett1885v1: 5. 4.

Not accurate, for the meaning is, not that the two encroach on one another, but that the dominant party encroaches on the other.

The form of a constitution is here supposed to be at variance with its spirit and practice. Thus England might be said to be a monarchy once aristocratically, now democratically administered; France a republic in which some of the methods of imperialism survive (cp. note on c. 1. § 8); while in Prussia the spirit of absolute monarchy carries on a not unequal contest with representative government.

διὸ πα̂σι τοɩ̂ς κτωμένοις ἔξεστι μετέχειν.Jowett1885v1: 6. 3.

Omitted by ii2 (i. e. the MSS. of the second family except p5) and Aretino’s translation, bracketed by Bekker in both editions, is a repetition or pleonasm of the previous thought, though not on that Edition: current; Page: [161]account necessarily to be reckoned spurious. Cp. iii. 1. § 4 and note.

διὰ τὴν ἐχομένην αἵρεσιν.Jowett1885v1: 6. 3.

‘The principle of election which follows next in order’ (cp. c. 4. § 24, ἕτερον εἰ̂δος). This use of the word ἐχομένη is supported by iii. 11. § 15, ἄλλη δ’ ἐστὶν (ἀπορία) ἐχομένη ταύτης, and vi. 8. § 4, ἑτέρα δὲ ἐπιμέλεια ταύτης ἐχομένη καὶ σύνεγγυς, and several other passages. The other interpretation of ἐχομένη, given in a note to the English text, ‘proper to it’ is scarcely defensible by examples and is probably wrong. The first form of democracy required a small property qualification, the second admitted all citizens who could prove their birth. The third admitted reputed citizens without proof of birth; though in both the latter cases the exercise of the right was limited by the opportunities of leisure. For the laxity of states in this matter, cp. iii. 5. §§ 7, 8.

διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰ̂ναι πρόσοδον.Jowett1885v1: 6. 4.

The public revenues could not be distributed, for there were none to distribute, cp. infra § 8. The want of pay prevented the people from attending the assembly.

διὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τον̂ πλήθους.Jowett1885v1: 6. 5.

Either 1*) ‘on account of the preponderance of their numbers,’ or 2) more definitely ‘on account of the preponderance of the multitude’; (cp. c. 12. § 1 and iii. 15. § 13). The numbers of the people give the power and the revenues of the state provide pay.

καὶ διὰ τὸ πλη̂θος εἰ̂ναι τω̂ν μετεχόντων τον̂ πολιτεύματος ἀνάγκη μὴ τοὺςJowett1885v1: 6. 8. ἀνθρώπους ἀλλὰ τὸν νόμον εἰ̂ναι κύριον.

The more numerous the members of the oligarchy, and the greater the difficulty of finding the means of living, the less possibility is there of the government of a few and therefore the greater need of law; cp. infra § 9.

μήθ’ οὕτως ὀλίγην ὥστε τρέϕεσθαι ἀπ[Editor: illegible character] τη̂ς πόλεως, ἀνάγκη τὸν νόμονJowett1885v1: 6. 8. ἀξιον̂ν αὐτοɩ̂ς ἄρχειν.

‘When numerous, and of a middle condition, neither living in careless leisure nor supported by the state, they are driven to maintain in their case (αὐτοɩ̂ς) the rule of law.’

Edition: current; Page: [162]

πλείω δέ,Jowett1885v1: 6. 9.

sc. οὐσίαν ἔχοντες.

τὸν νόμον τίθενται τοιον̂τον.Jowett1885v1: 6. 9.

Sc. they make the law oligarchical.

ἐὰν δ’ ἐπιτείνωσι.Jowett1885v1: 6. 10.

‘But when they stretch (the oligarchical principle) further.’

ὥσπερ Πλάτων ἐν ταɩ̂ς πολιτείαις.Jowett1885v1: 7. 1.

Either 1)* in his works on Politics, meaning especially the Republic (as in v. 12. § 7, ἐν τῃ̑ Πολιτείᾳ) and Politicus; or 2) in his treatment of the various forms of government, i.e. in Books viii. and ix. of the Republic. The latter explanation is less idiomatic. Without referring to the Republic or the Politicus, the statement is inaccurate; for if the perfect state be included, the number of constitutions is in the Republic five, in the Politicus (302) seven.

ἀριστοκρατίαν μὲν ον̓̂ν καλω̂ς ἔχει καλεɩ̂ν περὶ ἡ̑ς διήλθομεν ἐν τοɩ̂ς πρώτοιςJowett1885v1: 7. 2. λόγοις· τὴν γὰρ ἐκ τω̂ν ἀρίστων ἁπλω̂ς κατ’ ἀρετὴν πολιτείαν, καὶ μὴ πρὸς ὑπόθεσίν τινα ἀγαθω̂ν ἀνδρω̂ν, μόνην δίκαιον προσαγορεύειν ἀριστοκρατίαν.

The discussion is apparently the same to which he has already referred in iv. 2. § 1: the particle γὰρ seems to imply that he had in that discussion spoken of aristocracy as the government of the truly good. The passage most nearly corresponding to the allusion is iii. 4. § 4 ff., in which Aristotle treats of the relation of the good ruler to the good man.

καλον̂νται ἀριστοκρατίαι.Jowett1885v1: 7.

According to a strict use of terms aristocracy is only the government of the best; in popular language it is applied to the union of wealth and merit, but is not the same either with oligarchy or with constitutional government.

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταɩ̂ς μὴ ποιουμέναις κοινὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἀρετη̂ς εἰσὶν ὅμως τινὲςJowett1885v1: 7. 4. οἱ εὐδοκιμον̂ντες καὶ δοκον̂ντες εἰ̂ναι ἐπιεικεɩ̂ς.

Cp. Plat. Laws xii. 951: ‘There are always in the world a few inspired men whose acquaintance is beyond price, and who spring up quite as much in ill-ordered as in well-ordered cities.’

Edition: current; Page: [163]

οἱ̑ον ἐν Καρχηδόνι . . οἱ̑ον ἡ Λακεδαιμονίων.Jowett1885v1: 7. 4.

Elsewhere (ii. 11. § 9) the constitution of Carthage is spoken of as a perversion of aristocracy because combining wealth and virtue; here it is called in a laxer sense an aristocracy because it combines wealth, virtue and numbers. That Sparta with all its secrecy (τη̂ς πολιτείας τὸ κρυπτόν, Thuc. v. 68) might be termed a democracy and, with all its corruption and infamy, had a sort of virtue (τὸ πιστὸν τη̂ς πολιτείας, Id. i. 68) is the view, not wholly indefensible, of Aristotle, who regards the Spartan constitution under many aspects, cp. ii. 9. §§ 20, 22, and infra c. 9. § 5, but chiefly as consisting of two elements, numbers and virtue.

καὶ ἐν αἱ̑ς εἰς τὰ δύο μόνον, οἱ̑ον ἡ Λακεδαιμονίων εἰς ἀρετήν τε καὶJowett1885v1: 7. 4. δη̂μον, καὶ ἔστι μɩ̂ξις τω̂ν δύο τούτων, δημοκρατίας τε καὶ ἀρετη̂ς.

The want of symmetry in the expression εἰς ἀρετήν τε καὶ δη̂μον, followed by δημοκρατίας τε καὶ ἀρετη̂ς, instead of δήμου τε καὶ ἀρετη̂ς, probably arises out of a desire to avoid tautology.

ἀριστοκρατίας μὲν ον̓̂ν παρὰ τὴν πρώτην τὴν ἀρίστην πολιτείαν ταν̂τα δύοJowett1885v1: 7. 5. εἴδη· καὶ τρίτον ὅσαι τη̂ς καλουμένης πολιτείας ῥέπουσι πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν μα̂λλον.

There are three imperfect kinds of aristocracy beside the perfect state (ἡ πρώτη, ἡ ἀρίστη πολιτεία): 1) the governments, such as that of Carthage, in which regard is paid to virtue as well as to numbers and wealth; 2) those in which, as at Sparta, the constitution is based on virtue and numbers; 3) the forms of constitutional government (πολιτεία) which incline to oligarchy, i.e. in which the governing body is small.

ἐτάξαμεν δ’ οὕτως οὐκ ον̓̂σαν οὔτε ταύτην παρέκβασιν οὔτε τὰς ἄρτιJowett1885v1: 8. 1. ῥηθείσας ἀριστοκρατίας, ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς πα̂σαι διημαρτήκασι τη̂ς ὀρθοτάτης πολιτείας, ἔπειτα καταριθμον̂νται μετὰ τούτων, εἰσί τ’ αὐτω̂ν αὑ̑ται παρεκβάσεις, ὥσπερ ἐν τοɩ̂ς κατ’ ἀρχὴν εἴπομεν.

αὑ̑ται refers to τούτων, sc. τω̂ν παρεκβεβηκυιω̂ν or διημαρτηκυιω̂ν πολιτειω̂ν, and this to the singular παρέκβασιν.

ὥσπερ ἐν τοɩ̂ς κατ’ ἀρχὴν εἴπομεν. Sc. iii. 7. § 5.

ϕανερωτέρα γὰρ ἡ δύναμις αὐτη̂ς κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 8. 2.

‘Now that we understand what democracy and oligarchy are, it is easier to see what the combination of them will be.’

Edition: current; Page: [164]

διὰ τὸ μα̂λλον ἀκολουθεɩ̂ν παιδείαν καὶ εὐγένειαν τοɩ̂ς εὐπορωτέροις.Jowett1885v1: 8. 3.

Men tend to identify nobility with wealth (cp. infra § 8), not unreasonably, for wealth gives leisure, and in the second generation commonly education. For εὐγένεια, see Rhet. i. 5, 1360 b. 31.

δοκεɩ̂ δ’ εἰ̂ναι τω̂ν ἀδυνάτων τὸ μὴ εὐνομεɩ̂σθαι τὴν ἀριστοκρατουμένηνJowett1885v1: 8. 5. πόλιν, ἀλλὰ πονηροκρατουμένην.

The words ἀλλὰ πονηροκρατουμένην (omitted in the translation) are read by all the MSS. (and supported by W. de Moerbeke), and therefore though pleonastic are unlikely to be a gloss. If retained we must 1) supply εὐνομεɩ̂σθαι from τὸ μὴ εὐνομεɩ̂σθαι, ‘A state cannot be ill governed by good men, or well governed by evil men.’ 2) We may alter the order of words by placing μὴ before ἀριστοκρατουμένην, instead of before εὐνομεɩ̂σθαι (Thurot, Susem.). Or 3), with Bekker (2nd ed.), we may insert μὴ before πονηροκρατουμένην. Or 4) alter πονηροκρατουμένην into πονηροκρατεɩ̂σθαι, answering to εὐνομεɩ̂σθαι.

διὸ μίαν μὲν εὐνομίαν . . τὸ πείθεσθαι τοɩ̂ς κειμένοις νόμοις.Jowett1885v1: 8. 6.

Cp. Thuc. iii. 37, where Cleon says, πάντων δὲ δεινότατον εἰ βέβαιον ἡμɩ̂ν μηδὲν καθεστήξει ὡ̑ν ἂν δόξῃ πέρι, μηδὲ γνωσόμεθα ὅτι χείροσι νόμοις ἀκινήτοις χρωμένη πόλις κρείσσων ἐστὶν ἢ καλω̂ς ἔχουσιν ἀκύροις.

τον̂το δ’ ἐνδέχεται διχω̂ς κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 8. 6.

Refers back to the words τὸ καλω̂ς κεɩ̂σθαι τοὺς νόμους οἱ̑ς ἐμμένουσιν, the clause ἔστι γὰρ . . . κειμένοις being a parenthesis.

ἢ γὰρ τοɩ̂ς ἀρίστοις κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 8. 6.

Sc. ἔστι πείθεσθαι.

ἐν μὲν ον̓̂ν ταɩ̂ς πλείσταις πόλεσι τὸ τη̂ς πολιτείας εἰ̂δος καλεɩ̂ται.Jowett1885v1: 8. 8.

Sc. πολιτεία. Preserving the play of words and supplying πολιτεία with καλεɩ̂ται from τη̂ς πολιτείας, we may translate, ‘in most cities the form of the constitution is called constitutional.’ But are there ‘many’ such governments? Cp. supra c. 7. § 1; infra c. 11. § 19. For the answer to this question see Essay on the μέση πολιτεία, &c.

μόνον γὰρ ἡ μɩ̂ξις.Jowett1885v1: 8. 8.

‘It is called by a neutral name, e.g. a constitution or commonwealth, for it is a mixture which aims only at uniting the freedom Edition: current; Page: [165]of the poor and the wealth of the rich; ἐλευθερίας answering to ἀπόρων as πλούτου to εὐπόρων.

As in some other summaries of Aristotle the first division seemsJowett1885v1: 9. 1-4. to be a general description of those which follow. (Cp. supra note on c. 4. § 24.) We cannot distinguish between 1 and 3, unless in one of them we suppose Aristotle to have in his mind a syncretism of two general principles of government (see § 6), in the other an eclectic union of elements taken from different governments.

σύμβολον.Jowett1885v1: 9. 1.

Something cut in two and capable of being put together, so that the parts fitted into one another; a die or coin or ring thus divided, which friends used as a token when desirous of renewing hospitality on behalf of themselves or others, and which was also used in buying or selling. See Schol. on Eur. Med. 613, οἱ ἐπιξενούμενοι, ἀστράγαλον κατατέμνοντες, θάτερον μὲν αὐτοὶ κατεɩ̂χον μέρος, θάτερον δὲ κατελίμπανον τοɩ̂ς ὑποδεξαμένοις· ἵνα εἰ δέοι πάλιν αὐτοὺς ἢ τοὺς ἐκείνων ἐπιξενον̂σθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἐπαγόμενοι τὸ ἥμισυ ἀστραγάλιον, ἀνενεον̂ντο τὴν ξενίαν: and cp. Plat. Symp. 191 D, ἀνθρώπου ξύμβολον ἅτε τετμημένος . . ἐξ ἑνὸς δύο.

ἢ γὰρ ἀμϕότερα ληπτέον ὡ̑ν ἑκάτεραι νομοθετον̂σιν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 9. 2.

‘For either they must take the legislation of both.’ These words are resumed in εἱ̑ς μὲν ον̓̂ν οὑ̑τος τον̂ συνδυασμον̂ τρόπος and followed by ἕτερος δὲ instead of repeating ἤ.

The first case is a union of extremes, the second a mean taken between them; the third seems to be only another example of the first.

ἐμϕαίνεται γὰρ ἑκάτερον ἐν αὐτῳ̑ τω̂ν ἄκρων.Jowett1885v1: 9. 6.

From the democratical aspect a polity or timocracy has the appearance of an oligarchy or aristocracy; from the oligarchical aspect, of a democracy. Aristotle cites as an example of this many-sidedness the constitution of Lacedaemon, which he himself elsewhere (c. 7. § 4) calls an aristocracy, but which in this passage he acknowledges to have many features both of a democracy and of an oligarchy. Cp. Nic. Eth. ii. 7. § 8, ἐπιδικάζονται οἱ ἄκροι τη̂ς μέσης χώρας.

Edition: current; Page: [166]

τοὺς μὲν γὰρ γέροντας αἱρον̂νται, τη̂ς δ’ ἐϕορείας μετέχουσιν.Jowett1885v1: 9. 9.

I.e. ‘The people choose the elders, but are not eligible themselves; and they share in the Ephoralty.’ Whether they elected the Ephors is nowhere expressly said. We are only told that the mode of election was extremely childish (ii. 9. § 23).

ἐπειδὴ καὶ ταύτην τίθεμεν τω̂ν πολιτειω̂ν τι μέρος.Jowett1885v1: 10. 1.

Tyranny is and is not a form of polity, in the sense in which the word ‘polity’ is used by Aristotle. Cp. c. 8. § 2, τελευταɩ̂ον δὲ περὶ τυραννίδος εὔλογόν ἐστι ποιήσασθαι μνείαν διὰ τὸ πασω̂ν ἥκιστα ταύτην εἰ̂ναι πολιτείαν, ἡμɩ̂ν δὲ τὴν μέθοδον εἰ̂ναι περὶ πολιτείας.

περὶ μὲν ον̓̂ν βασιλείας διωρίσαμεν ἐν τοɩ̂ς πρώτοις λόγοις, ἐν οἱ̑ς περὶ τη̂ςJowett1885v1: 10. 1. μάλιστα λεγομένης βασιλείας ἐποιούμεθα τὴν σκέψιν.

Either ‘royalty* commonly so called,’ or ‘the most truly called royalty,’ which would seem to be the παμβασιλεία. Cp. iii. c. 16.

τίνα καὶ πόθεν δεɩ̂ καθιστάναι, καὶ πω̂ς.Jowett1885v1: 10. 1.

Two slightly different senses are here combined in δεɩ̂, 1) ‘what we ought to establish,’ and 2), incorrectly, ‘how or by what means we may or must establish it.’

τυραννίδος δ’ εἴδη δύο μὲν διείλομεν ἐν οἱ̑ς περὶ βασιλείας ἐπεσκοπον̂μεν.Jowett1885v1: 10. 2.

Sc. iii. 14. §§ 6-10. The two forms of tyranny there mentioned are the hereditary monarchy of barbarians, and the Aesymnetia of ancient Hellas. The barbarian monarchs are here called elected sovereigns, though before spoken of as hereditary (iii. 14. § 6), and contrasted with the elected Aesymnetes of ancient Hellas, with whom they are here compared.

διὰ τὸ τὴν δύναμιν ἐπαλλάττειν πως αὐτω̂ν καὶ πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν.Jowett1885v1: 10. 2.

Not ‘because their powers in a manner change into one another, and pass into royalty;’ for the words ‘change into one another’ would not be a reason why they should be spoken of in connexion with royalty, but ‘because the power of either of these forms of tyranny easily passes likewise into royalty;’ likewise i.e. besides being forms of tyranny. For the use of ἐπαλλάττειν, cp. vi. 1. § 3, and i. 6. § 3.

τοσαν̂τα διὰ τὰς εἰρημένας αἰτίας.Jowett1885v1: 10. 4.

εἰρημένας, sc. in the previous sentences. ‘There is more than Edition: current; Page: [167]one kind of tyranny, because the tyrant may rule either with or without law, and over voluntary or involuntary subjects.’

Aristotle now proceeds to speak of the best average constitutionJowett1885v1: 11. to which he alluded in c. 1. § 5.

τὸν μέσον ἀναγκαɩ̂ον βίον εἰ̂ναι βέλτιστον, τη̂ς ἑκάστοις ἐνδεχομένηςJowett1885v1: 11. 3. τυχεɩ̂ν μεσότητος.

The gen. μεσότητος is a resumption of μέσον, and depends on βίον. Here, as in Nic. Eth. ii. 6. § 7, the mean is admitted to be relative.

ταν̂τα δ’ ἀμϕότερα βλαβερὰ ταɩ̂ς πόλεσιν.Jowett1885v1: 11. 5.

ἀμϕότερα, sc. either 1) *‘their rogueries and their unwillingness to perform public duties, whether military or civil,’ or 2) simply ‘their dislike both of civil and military duties.’ It is possible also that ταν̂τα ἀμϕότερα may refer to the μεγαλοπόνηροι and μικροπόνηροι, in which case the words ἔτι . . . ἄρχουσι are either inserted or misplaced.

The ϕύλαρχοι at Athens were the cavalry officers under the ἵππαρχοι. See Liddell and Scott. The term is also sometimes used to denote civil magistrates, as in v. 1. § 11 to describe the oligarchical rulers of Epidamnus. βουλαρχεɩ̂ν literally = ‘to be a chief of the senate.’ The word very rarely occurs, and can here only have a generalized meaning. William de Moerbeke, apparently finding in some Greek MS. ϕιλαρχον̂σι, translates by an obvious mistake, ‘minime amant principes et volunt esse principes.’ For the association of political inactivity with the idea of crime, cp. Solon’s law forbidding neutrality in a sedition (Plut. Solon 20), τω̂ν δ’ ἄλλων αὐτον̂ νόμων ἴδιος μὲν μάλιστα καὶ παράδοξος ὁ κελεύων ἄτιμον εἰ̂ναι τὸν ἐν στάσει μηδετέρας μερίδος γενόμενον: and Pericles in Thuc. ii. 40, μόνοι γὰρ τόν τε μηδὲν τω̂νδε μετέχοντα οὐκ ἀπράγμονα ἀλλ’ ἀχρεɩ̂ον νομίζομεν.

οἱ δὲ καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν ἐν ἐνδείᾳ τούτων ταπεινοὶ λίαν.Jowett1885v1: 11. 6.

τούτων, sc. τω̂ν εὐτυχημάτων κ.τ.λ. supra.

ἄρχεσθαι μὲν οὐδεμιᾳ̑ ἀρχῃ̑.Jowett1885v1: 11. 7.

Dative of the manner; ‘to be ruled in any fashion.’

Edition: current; Page: [168]

ὥστ’ ἀναγκαɩ̂ον ἄριστα πολιτεύεσθαι ταύτην τὴν πόλιν ἐστὶν ἐξ ὡ̑ν ϕαμὲνJowett1885v1: 11. 8. ϕύσει τὴν σύστασιν εἰ̂ναι τη̂ς πόλεως.

‘So that a city having [like and equal] citizens, who in our view are the natural components of it, will of necessity be best administered.’ ταύτην, sc. τὴν ἐξ ἴσων καὶ ὁμοίων . . . ἐξ ὡ̑ν κ.τ.λ.

πολλὰ μέσοισιν ἄριστα.Jowett1885v1: 11. 9.

‘Many things are best to those who are in the mean;’ or as we might say in modern phraseology, ‘The middle class have many advantages.’ Cp. Eur. Suppl. 238-245:—

  • τρεɩ̂ς γὰρ πολιτω̂ν μερίδες· οἱ μὲν ὄλβιοι
  • ἀνωϕελεɩ̂ς τε πλειόνων τ’ ἐρω̂σ’ ἀεί·
  • οἱ δ’ οὐκ ἔχοντες καὶ σπανίζοντες βίου,
  • δεινοί, νέμοντες τῳ̑ ϕθόνῳ πλεɩ̂ον μέρος,
  • εἰς τοὺς ἔχοντας κέντρ’ ἀϕια̂σιν κακά,
  • γλώσσαις πονηρω̂ν προστατω̂ν ϕηλούμενοι·
  • τριω̂ν δὲ μοιρω̂ν ἡ ’ν μέσῳ σώζει πόλεις,
  • κόσμον ϕυλάσσουσ’ ὅντιν’ ἂν τάξῃ πόλις.
  • (Quoted by Oncken, ii. 225, note 1.)

Σόλων τε γὰρ ἠ̑ν τούτων (δηλοɩ̂ δ’ ἐκ τη̂ς ποιήσεως).Jowett1885v1: 11. 15.

The passage referred to may be that quoted by Plutarch v. Solonis, c. 3,

  • πολλοὶ γὰρ πλουτεν̂σι κακοί, ἀγαθοὶ δὲ πένονται,
  • ἀλλ’ ἡμεɩ̂ς αὐτοɩ̂ς οὐ διαμειψόμεθα
  • τη̂ς ἀρετη̂ς τὸν πλον̂τον.

In classing Solon with the middle rank Aristotle appears to be thinking only of the tradition of his poverty and of the moderation inculcated in his poems. He has ignored or forgotten the tradition of his descent from Codrus.

οὐ γὰρ ἠ̑ν βασιλεύς.Jowett1885v1: 11. 15.

The feebleness of the argument is striking; because Lycurgus, who was the guardian and is said also to have been the uncle of the king, was not a king, he is here assumed to be of the middle class! Cp. Plut. Cleom. 10, perhaps following this passage, νν̂ν δὲ τη̂ς ἀνάγκης ἔχειν συγγνώμονα τὸν Λυκον̂ργον, ὃς οὔτε βασιλεὺς ὤν, οὔτ’ ἄρχων, ἰδιώτης δὲ βασιλεύειν ἐπιχειρω̂ν ἐν τοɩ̂ς ὅπλοις προη̂λθεν εἰς ἀγοράν· ὥστε δείσαντα τὸν βασιλέα Χαρίλαον ἐπὶ βωμὸν καταϕυγεɩ̂ν. Yet Plutarch Edition: current; Page: [169]is inconsistent with himself; for he also says (Lyc. 3) that Lycurgus reigned for eight months, and resigned the royal office when the infant Charilaus was born.

Ἔτι δὲ καὶ τω̂ν ἐν ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων τη̂ς Ἑλλάδος πρὸς τὴν παρ’Jowett1885v1: 11. 18, 19. αὑτοɩ̂ς ἑκάτεροι πολιτείαν ἀποβλέποντες οἱ μὲν δημοκρατίας ἐν ταɩ̂ς πόλεσι καθίστασαν, οἱ δ’ ὀλιγαρχίας, οὐ πρὸς τὸ τω̂ν πόλεων συμϕέρον σκοπον̂ντες ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ σϕέτερον αὐτω̂ν. ὥστε διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας ἢ μηδέποτε τὴν μέσην γίνεσθαι πολιτείαν ἢ ὀλιγάκις καὶ παρ’ ὀλίγοις.

Cp. Thuc. i. 19, 76, 99, 144, iii. 82 and elsewhere.

τω̂ν ἐν ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων. Either of the leading states, opposed to ἐν ταɩ̂ς πόλεσι the states of Hellas generally.

εἱ̑ς γὰρ ἀνὴρ συνεπείσθη μόνος τω̂ν πρότερον [ἐϕ’ ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων]Jowett1885v1: 11. 19. ταύτην ἀποδον̂ναι τὴν τάξιν.

The variety of opinions entertained by commentators respecting the person here alluded to, who has been supposed to be Lycurgus (Zeller), Theopompus (Sepulveda), Solon (Schlosser), Pittacus (Goettling), Phaleas (St. Hilaire), Gelo (Camerarius), the king Pausanias II (Congreve), Epaminondas (Eaton), Alexander the Great (Zeller formerly), seems to prove that we know nothing for certain about him. Of the various claimants Solon is the most probable. He is regarded by Aristotle (ii. 12. §§ 1-6) as a sort of conservative democrat, the founder of a balanced polity, whom he contrasts with Pericles and the later Athenian demagogues (cp. Solon Frag. 5, δήμῳ μὲν γὰρ ἔδωκα τόσον κράτος ὅσσον ἐπαρκεɩ̂). The omission of the name, and the words τω̂ν πρότερον, tend to show that a well known and traditional legislator is meant. Yet it might be argued also that the phrase τω̂ν ἐϕ’ ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων seems to describe some one holding the position of Lysander or Philip of Macedon in Hellas, rather than the legislator of any single city.

If ‘one man’ only gave this form of constitution to Hellas it must have been rare indeed or rather imaginary, cp. supra c. 7. § 1, διὰ τὸ μὴ πολλάκις γίνεσθαι λανθάνει. But how is this to be reconciled with c. 8. § 8?

ἐϕ’ ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων, ‘the leading men.’ For ἐπὶ cp. οἱ ἐπὶ τοɩ̂ς πράγμασιν. (Dem.) But are not the words a copyist’s repetition of τω̂ν ἐν ἡγεμονίᾳ γενομένων above?

Edition: current; Page: [170]

ταύτην ἀποδον̂ναι τὴν τάξιν. Not necessarily ‘to restore’ or ‘give back’ but more simply ‘to give what is suitable, assign,’ like [οἱ εἰκονογράϕοι] ἀποδιδόντες τὴν ἰδίαν μορϕήν, Poet. 15, 1454 b. 10.

τίς μὲν ον̓̂ν ἀρίστη πολιτεία, καὶ διὰ τίν’ αἰτίαν.Jowett1885v1: 11. 20.

Here, as limited in § 1, ἀρίστη ταɩ̂ς πλείσταις πόλεσι.

διὰ τίν’ αἰτίαν, i. e. the moderation and stability of the state. Cp. v. 1. § 16 where it is implied that the safety of democracy is due to its approximation to the μέση πολιτεία.

λέγω δὲ τὸ πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν, ὅτι πολλάκις οὔσης ἄλλης πολιτείας αἱρετωτέραςJowett1885v1: 11. 21. ἐνίοις οὐθὲν κωλύσει συμϕέρειν ἑτέραν μα̂λλον εἰ̂ναι πολιτείαν.

‘It may often happen that some constitution may be preferable [in itself] and some other better suited to the peculiar circumstances of some state.’

πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν here (as in c. 1. § 4) means any supposed or given constitution, which may not be the best possible under the circumstances, but is the one to be preferred, in some states of society.

ἐνδέχεται δὲ τὸ μὲν ποιὸν ὑπάρχειν ἑτέρῳ μέρει τη̂ς πόλεως, ἐξ ὡ̑ν συνέστηκεJowett1885v1: 12. 2. μερω̂ν ἡ πόλις.

‘Namely to one of those parts which make up the state’; the clause ἐξ ὡ̑ν κ.τ.λ. is explanatory of ἑτέρῳ μέρει = ἑτέρῳ τω̂ν μερω̂ν.

ὅπου ὑπερέχει τὸ τω̂ν ἀπόρων πλη̂θος τὴν εἰρημένην ἀναλογίαν.Jowett1885v1: 12. 3.

‘When the poor exceed in number the [due] proportion implied in the last words.’

καὶ τη̂ς ὀλιγαρχίας τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἕκαστον εἰ̂δος κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴνJowett1885v1: 12. 3. τον̂ ὀλιγαρχικον̂ πλήθους.

‘And in like manner (not only oligarchy in general, but) each sort of oligarchy varies according to the predominance of each sort of oligarchical population (sc. ὃ ὑπάρχει αὐτῃ̑).

πανταχον̂ δὲ πιστότατος ὁ διαιτητής, διαιτητὴς δ’ ὁ μέσος.Jowett1885v1: 12. 5.

The middle class are the arbiters between the extremes of oligarchy and democracy. When Aristotle calls the arbiter [Editor: illegible character] μέσος, this is probably meant in the same sense in which δικαιοσύνη is said to be a mean because it fixes a mean. Cp. Nic. Eth. v. 5. § 17, ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη μεσότης ἐστὶν οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ταɩ̂ς πρότερον ἀρεταɩ̂ς, ἀλλ’ ὅτι μέσου ἐστίν, and v. 4. § 7, Διὸ καὶ ὅταν ἀμϕισβητω̂σιν, Edition: current; Page: [171]ἐπὶ τὸν δικαστὴν καταϕεύγουσιν· τὸ δ’ ἐπὶ τὸν δικαστὴν ἰέναι ἰέναι ἐστὶν ἐπὶ τὸ δίκαιον· ὁ γὰρ δικαστὴς βούλεται εἰ̂ναι οἱ̑ον δίκαιον ἔμψυχον· καὶ ζητον̂σι δικαστὴν μέσον, καὶ καλον̂σιν ἔνιοι μεσιδίους, ὡς, ἐὰν τον̂ μέσου τύχωσι, τον̂ δικαίου τευξόμενοι.

ἀνάγκη γὰρ χρόνῳ ποτὲ ἐκ τω̂ν ψευδω̂ν ἀγαθω̂ν ἀληθὲς συμβη̂ναι κακόν· αἱJowett1885v1: 12. 6. γὰρ πλεονεξίαι τω̂ν πλουσίων ἀπολλύουσι μα̂λλον τὴν πολιτείαν ἢ αἱ τον̂ δήμου.

Aristotle gives no reason for this statement. He may have thought that the designs of an oligarchy are more deeply laid and corrupting, while the fickleness of the multitude is in some degree a corrective to itself. The oligarchies of Hellas were certainly worse than the democracies: the greatest dishonesty of which the Athenians were guilty in the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. iv. 23) is far less hateful than the perfidy of the Spartans narrated Id. iv. 80. The cruelty of the four hundred or of the thirty tyrants strikingly contrasts on both occasions with the moderation of the democracy which overthrew them.

It is a curious question, which we have not the means of answering,Jowett1885v1: 13. whether all these artifices (σοϕίσματα) are historical facts or only inventions of Aristotle, by which he imagines that the democracy or oligarchy might weaken the opposite party. Some of them, such as the pay to the people, we know to have been used at Athens: but there is no historical proof, except what may be gathered from this passage, that the richer members of an oligarchical community were ever compelled under a penalty to take part in the assembly, or in the law courts. Cp. infra p. 178 note: also c. 15. § 14-18.

τοɩ̂ς μὲν μεγάλην, τοɩ̂ς δὲ μικράν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοɩ̂ς Χαρώνδου νόμοις.Jowett1885v1: 13. 2.

Yet the penalty must have been relatively as well as absolutely greater or smaller, or the rich would have had no more reason for going than the poor for abstaining. The meaning is not that Charondas inflicted a larger fine on the rich and a proportionally small one on the poor for absence from the assembly; but generally that he adapted his fines to the circumstances of offenders.

ἐθέλουσι γὰρ οἱ πένητες καὶ μὴ μετέχοντες τω̂ν τιμω̂ν ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν, ἐὰνJowett1885v1: 13. 8. μὴ ὑβρίζῃ τις αὐτοὺς μήτε ἀϕαιρη̂ται μηθὲν τη̂ς οὐσίας.

The connexion is as follows: ‘The qualification must be such Edition: current; Page: [172]as will place the government in the hands of a majority [and then there will be no danger]: for the poor, even though they are not admitted to office, will be quiet enough if they are not outraged.’

ἐν Μαλιεν̂σι δὲ ἡ μὲν πολιτεία ἠ̑ν ἐκ τούτων κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 13. 9.

‘Among the Malians the governing or larger body was elected from those who were past service, the magistrates from those on actual service’; the past tense (ἠ̑ν) has been thought to imply that the government had changed possibly in consequence of Philip and Alexander’s conquests: compare a similar use of the past, v. 1. § 11 respecting the government of Epidamnus, and note.

ὥστ’ ἐν τοɩ̂ς ἱππεν̂σιν εἰ̂ναι τὴν ἰσχύν.Jowett1885v1: 13. 10.

Yet the tendency of some of the Greek states to the use of cavalry was as much due to the suitability of large regions, such as Thessaly, for the breeding and support of horses, as to the form of government. Nor can the remark be true of Greek oligarchies in general, considering how ill suited the greater part of Hellas was to the training or use of horses. Cp. supra c. 3. § 3, a passage in which Aristotle has made a similar observation.

ἃς νν̂ν καλον̂μεν πολιτείας, οἱ πρότερον ἐκάλουν δημοκρατίας.Jowett1885v1: 13. 11.

I.e. what appeared to the older Greeks to be a large governing class was to the later Greeks a small or moderate one.

κατὰ τὴν σύνταξιν μα̂λλον ὑπέμενον τὸ ἄρχεσθαι.Jowett1885v1: 13. 11.

1*) Some word like ἀσθενεɩ̂ς has to be supplied from ὀλίγοι ὄντες τὸ πλη̂θος before κατὰ τὴν σύνταξιν; or 2) κατὰ τὴν σύνταξιν may be taken after ὑπέμενον, ‘and also through a (want of) organization, they were more willing to endure the dominion of others.’

Πάλιν δὲ καὶ κοινῃ̑ καὶ χωρὶς περὶ ἑκάστης λέγωμεν περὶ τω̂ν ἐϕεξη̂ς,Jowett1885v1: 14. 1. λαβόντες ἀρχὴν τὴν προσήκουσαν αὐτω̂ν.

From a consideration of the differences between states, and the causes of them, Aristotle in his accustomed manner, proceeding from the whole to the parts, passes on to consider the mode in which different powers are constituted in states, cc. 14-16. He will hereafter show how the wholes are affected by the parts.

Edition: current; Page: [173]

A somewhat similar discussion occurs in bk. vi. c. 8. See note on vi. 1. § 1.

ἔστι δὲ τω̂ν τριω̂ν τούτων (sc. μορίων) ἓν μέν τι τὸ βουλευόμενον περὶJowett1885v1: 14. 2. τω̂ν κοινω̂ν, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς (τον̂το δ’ ἐστὶν ἃς δεɩ̂ καὶ τίνων εἰ̂ναι κυρίας, καὶ ποίαν τινὰ δεɩ̂ γίνεσθαι τὴν αἵρεσιν αὐτω̂ν), τρίτον δέ τι τὸ δικάζον.

Aristotle divides the state, much as we should do, into three parts, 1) the legislative, (which has in certain cases power over individuals; see infra § 3): 2) the administrative or executive: 3) the judicial. The words τον̂το δ’ ἐστὶν seem to refer back to δεɩ̂ θεωρεɩ̂ν τὸν νομοθέτην. But if so there is a verbal irregularity. For the duties and modes of appointment to offices are not a part of the state, but questions relating to a part of the state.

τι not interrogative, to be taken closely with ἓν and with τρίτον.

Nothing more is known about Telecles. From the manner inJowett1885v1: 14. 4. which he is spoken of he appears to have been an author rather than a legislator. ἐν τῃ̑ πολιτείᾳ τον̂ Τηλεκλέους is said like ἐν τῃ̑ πολιτείᾳ τον̂ Πλάτωνος, ii. 1. § 3, iv. 4. § 11.

ἕως ἂν διέλθῃ.Jowett1885v1: 14. 4.

Some word implying the right of succession to office has to be supplied, e. g. ἡ ἀρχὴ from τὰς ἀρχάς. The same phrase occurs infra c. 15. § 17.

συνιέναι δὲ μόνονJowett1885v1: 14. 4.

is governed by εἱ̑ς μὲν τρόπος above.

ἄλλος δὲ τρόπος κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 14. 6.

A reduplication of the preceding, although there may also be a shade of distinction in the greater stress which is laid upon voting and scrutinies. Here, as in other places (c. 4. §§ 22-24; c. 6. §§ 3, 4), we have a difficulty in discriminating Aristotle’s differences. There is only an incomplete order in the catalogue of democracies. First of all comes the most moderate, in which the assembly plays a very subordinate part, then two more which are almost indistinguishable, lastly the most extreme.

Edition: current; Page: [174]

τὰ δ’ ἄλλα τὰς ἀρχὰς διοικεɩ̂ν αἱρετὰς οὔσας, ὅσας ἐνδέχεται· τοιαν̂ται δ’Jowett1885v1: 14. 6. εἰσὶν ὅσας ἄρχειν ἀναγκαɩ̂ον τοὺς ἐπισταμένους.

The words ὅσας ἐνδέχεται can only mean ‘as many elective offices as can be allowed to exist in a democracy consistently with the democratic principle of electing the magistrates by lot.’ The excepted magistracies will be those in which special skill or knowledge is required. Cp. vi. 2. § 5, τὸ κληρωτὰς εἰ̂ναι τὰς ἀρχὰς ἢ πάσας ἢ ὅσαι μὴ ἐμπειρίας δέονται καὶ τέχνης. Susemihl has introduced κληρωτὰς οὐκ before ἐνδέχεται = ὅσας οὐκ ἐνδέχεται κληρωτὰς εἰ̂ναι· τοιαν̂ται δ’ εἰσὶν referring to αἱρετάς. But the change has no MS. authority, and though ingenious is unnecessary.

ὅταν δὲ μὴ πάντες τον̂ βουλεύεσθαι μετέχωσιν ἀλλ’ αἱρετοί, κατὰ νόμον δ’Jowett1885v1: 14. 8. fin. ἄρχωσιν ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον, ὀλιγαρχικόν.

Opposed to the milder πολιτικὴ ὀλιγαρχία in the previous sentence, and repeated with greater emphasis in the words which follow ὀλιγαρχικὴν ἀναγκαɩ̂ον εἰ̂ναι τὴν τάξιν ταύτην (§ 9). μὴ πάντες, i. e. ‘not all [who possess the required qualification].’ Yet these latter words, which are necessary to the sense, are wanting in the text.

Compare for several verbal resemblances, supra c. 5.Jowett1885v1: 14. 8-10.

τω̂ν δὲ ἄλλων ἄρχοντες, καὶ οὑ̑τοι αἱρετοὶ ἢ κληρωτοί.Jowett1885v1: 14. 10.

For in an aristocracy or oligarchy, as in a democracy, a magistrate might be elected by lot, but only out of a select class.

ἀριστοκρατία μὲν ἢ πολιτεἴα.Jowett1885v1: 14. 10.

Aristocracy is elsewhere said to include numbers, wealth, and virtue; here the aristocratical element seems to reside in the magistrates who have superior merit, and control the whole administration of the state except war, peace, and the taking of scrutinies.

Compare c. 7. § 3; c. 8. §§ 3, 9, in which the near connexion between aristocracy and polity is pointed out.

διῄρηται μὲν ον̓̂ν τὸ βουλευόμενον πρὸς τὰς πολιτείας τον̂τον τὸν τρόπον,Jowett1885v1: 14. 11. καὶ διοικεɩ̂ ἑκάστη πολιτεία κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον διορισμόν.

κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον διορισμόν, i. e. each constitution will be variously administered according to some one of the principles on which Edition: current; Page: [175]the governing body is elected, e.g. out of some, or out of all; and as acting either according to law, or without law, etc.

διοικεɩ̂ has been changed into διοίσει and διοικεɩ̂ται, for which latter there is perhaps the authority of Moerbeke, who reads disponitur. But no change is needed. For use of διοικεɩ̂ν, cp. v. 10. § 36.

συμϕέρει δὲ δημοκρατίᾳ τῃ̑ μάλιστ’ εἰ̂ναι δοκούσῃ δημοκρατίᾳ νν̂ν κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 14. 12.

Aristotle remembering the short life of the extreme democracy which is above law, proposes various ways of strengthening or moderating it; he would have the notables take part in the assembly; and he would enforce their attendance by the imposition of penalties analogous to the fines which the oligarchy inflict on judges for neglect of their duties. (Cp. v. cc. 8, 9 on the preserving principles of state.)

Of the advantage of combining the few with the many there can be no question: but will the upper classes ever be induced to take an active part in a democracy? They have not done so in France or America; may we hope that they will in England?

ἀποκληρον̂ν τοὺς πλείους.Jowett1885v1: 14. 13.

I. e. he on whom the lot fell was not included, but excluded until the numbers were sufficiently reduced.

αἱρον̂νται δὲ καὶ πρεσβευταί.Jowett1885v1: 15. 3.

‘Even ambassadors, whom we might be more inclined to call magistrates, and who are elected by lot, are ἕτερόν τι παρὰ τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρχάς.’

οἱ̑ον στρατηγὸς στρατευομένων,Jowett1885v1: 15. 3.

sc. ἐπιμελεɩ̂ται implied in ἐπιμελειω̂ν.

ἀλλὰ ταν̂τα διαϕέρει πρὸς μὲν τὰς χρήσεις οὐθὲν ὡς εἰπεɩ̂ν· οὐ γάρ πωJowett1885v1: 15. 4. κρίσις γέγονεν ἀμϕισβητούντων περὶ τον̂ ὀνόματος. ἔχει δέ τιν’ ἄλλην διανοητικὴν πραγματείαν.

‘Verbal questions, such as the definition of an office, are of no practical importance, although some intellectual interest may attach to them.’ ἄλλην is redundant.

μα̂λλον ἄν τις ἀπορήσειε.Jowett1885v1: 15. 5.

I. e. rather than dispute about the name.

Edition: current; Page: [176]

βέλτιον ἕκαστον ἔργον τυγχάνει τη̂ς ἐπιμελείας μονοπραγματούσης ἢJowett1885v1: 15. 6. πολυπραγματούσης.

Cp. Plat. Rep. ii. 370 B ff.

καὶ πότερον κατὰ τὸ πρα̂γμα δεɩ̂ διαιρεɩ̂ν ἢ κατὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, λέγω δ’Jowett1885v1: 15. 9. οἱ̑ον ἕνα τη̂ς εὐκοσμίας, ἢ παίδων ἄλλον καὶ γυναικω̂ν.

Two offices are mentioned in the latter part of the sentence: cp. infra § 13, παιδονόμος καὶ γυναικονόμος: and vi. 8. § 22, ἰδίᾳ δὲ ταɩ̂ς σχολαστικωτέραις καὶ μα̂λλον εὐημερούσαις πόλεσιν . . . γυναικονομία . . . παιδονομία κ.τ.λ.

ἕτεραι ἐν ἑτέραις, οἱ̑ον ἐν μὲν ταɩ̂ς ἀριστοκρατίαις ἐκ πεπαιδευμένων.Jowett1885v1: 15. 10.

‘Differing,’ i. e. in the character of those from whom the election is made. Though the word ἕτεραι is inaccurate, the meaning is the same as that of ἑτέρων, which Susemihl, on very slight authority, has introduced into the text.

πότερον διαϕέρει . . . ἢ τυγχάνουσι μέν τινες ον̓̂σαι καὶ κατ’ αὐτὰς τὰςJowett1885v1: 15. 10. διαϕορὰς τω̂ν ἀρχω̂ν, ἔστι δ’ ὅπου συμϕέρουσιν αἱ αὐταί.

The alternative πότερον διαϕέρει κ.τ.λ. is repeated and expanded. ‘Are offices the same in different states, or not the same? Are they the same, but elected out of different classes in aristocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, democracy? Or do the offices differ naturally according to the actual differences in forms of government, the same offices being sometimes found to agree and sometimes to disagree with different forms of government, and having a lesser power in some states and a greater in others? For example, has the president of the assembly, in whatever way appointed, the same functions at Sparta and at Athens? Are not probuli suited to an oligarchy, a censor of boys and women to an aristocracy, a council to a democracy? And will they be equally suited to other forms, or may not their powers require to be extended or narrowed?’

According to this explanation the natural order of the words is somewhat inverted, for τω̂ν ἀρχω̂ν is taken with τινές: and with κατ’ αὐτὰς τὰς διαϕορὰς has to be supplied τω̂ν πολιτειω̂ν from κατὰ τὰς πολιτείας supra. We may also supply πολιτεɩ̂αι with τινές, and translate ‘may not some states essentially derive their character from offices.’ But the abrupt transition to a new subject (ἀρχαὶ) Edition: current; Page: [177]in the next clause shows this way of taking the passage to be inadmissible.

Bekker (2nd Edit.) after Victorius reads διαϕοραὶ for τὰς διαϕοράς.

οἱ̑ον ἡ τω̂ν προβούλων· αὕτη γὰρ οὐ δημοκρατική.Jowett1885v1: 15. 11.

πρόβουλοι, as he says vi. 8. § 17, are oligarchical officers, because they alone have the initiative, and, therefore, the people cannot of themselves make any change in the constitution; supra c. 14. § 14.

εἰσὶ δ’ αἱ διαϕοραὶ κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 15. 14-18.

The meaning of the text may be illustrated by the following scheme:—

οἱ τρεɩ̂ς ὅροι.
i. τίνες οἱ καθιστάντες τὰς ἀρχάς. ii. ἐκ τίνων. iii. τίνα τρόπον.
a) ἢ πάντες. a) ἢ ἐκ πάντων. a) ἢ αἱρέσει.
b) ἢ τινές. b) ἢ ἐκ τινω̂ν ἀϕωρισμένων. b) ἢ κλήρῳ.
c) ἢ τὰς μὲν πάντες, τὰς δὲ τινές. c) ἢ τὰς μὲν ἐκ πάντων, τὰς δ’ ἐκ τινω̂ν. c) ἢ τὰς μὲν αἱρέσει, τὰς δὲ κλήρῳ.
αἱ τρεɩ̂ς διαϕοραί. αἱ τρεɩ̂ς διαϕοραί. αἱ τρεɩ̂ς διαϕοραί.
οἱ δώδεκα τρόποι.
οἱ τέσσαρες τρόποι οἱ τέσσαρες τρόποι οἱ τέσσαρες τρόποι
1. πάντες ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει. A. τινὲς ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει. α. τὰς μὲν ἀρχὰς πάντες, τὰς δὲ τινὲς ἐκ πάντων αἱρέσει.
2. πάντες ἐκ πάντων κλήρῳ. B. τινὲς ἐκ πάντων κλήρῳ. β. τὰς μὲν πάντες, τὰς δὲ τινὲς ἐκ πάντων κλήρῳ.
3. πάντες ἐκ τινω̂ν αἱρέσει. C. τινὲς ἐκ τινω̂ν αἱρέσει. γ. τὰς μὲν πάντες, τὰς δὲ τινὲς ἐκ τινω̂ν αἱρέσει.
4. πάντες ἐκ τινω̂ν κλήρῳ. D. τινὲς ἐκ τινω̂ν κλήρῳ. δ. τὰς μὲν πάντες, τὰς δὲ τινὲς ἐκ τινω̂ν κλήρῳ.
οἱ δύο συνδυασμοί
τὰ μὲν κλήρῳ. τὰ δὲ αἱρέσει.
τὰ μὲν ἐκ πάντων. τὰ δὲ ἐκ τινω̂ν.

All, or some, or all and some, elect out of all, or some, or out of all and some, by vote or by lot; or by vote and by lot.

Edition: current; Page: [178]

The three modes give rise to twelve possible varieties:

All elect by vote out of all,
     by lot out of all,
     by vote out of some,
     by lot out of some;
Some elect by vote out of all,
     by lot out of all,
     by vote out of some,
     by lot out of some;
All and some elect by vote out of all,
     by lot out of all,
     by vote out of some,
     by lot out of some;

and to the two further combinations (οἱ δύο συνδυασμοί): partly by vote and partly by lot, partly out of all and partly out of some.

It is not to be supposed that, even in such a ‘bazaar of constitutions’ (Plat. Rep. viii. 557 D) as Hellas furnished, all these different forms of government were really to be found. Aristotle derives them not from his experience of history, but out of the abundance of his logic.

ὥσπερ ἐν Μεγάροις.Jowett1885v1: 15. 15.

Cp. v. 3. § 5 and 5. § 4, where the overthrow of the Megarian democracy is attributed to the corruption and oppression practised by demagogues; also Thuc. iv. 74 (though it is not certain whether Aristotle is speaking of the return of the exiles there mentioned or of some earlier or later one); and Arist. Poet. c. 3. § 5, 1448 a. 32, where he refers to an ancient democracy existing in Megara, of which the recent establishment is deplored by Theognis, line 53 ff., Bergk. There was an alliance between Athens and Megara in 458 (Thuc. i. 103, 114), which terminated at the battle of Coronea 447; probably during the alliance, but not afterwards, Megara was governed by a democracy. In the eighth year of the Peloponnesian War the oligarchs were in exile, but were restored by the influence of Brasidas. In the year b.c. 375 the democracy had been re-established: Diod. xv. 40.

Edition: current; Page: [179]

τούτων δ’ αἱ μὲν δύο κ.τ.λ.Jowett1885v1: 15. 19.

The vote is considered less democratical than the lot: both are admissible in a democracy, but it is essential to its very nature that all should elect. If any limitation takes place the government becomes an aristocracy or a polity, which alike tend to oligarchy in so far as they reduce the number of electors or of persons who are eligible, though differing in other respects. When some only appoint, in whatever manner, out of all, or all out of some, and the elections do not take place all at once (ἅμα, i.e. when the governing body retire by rotation), we have a constitutional government, which inclines to an aristocracy when the two opposite principles of ‘some out of some’ and ‘some out of all’ are combined. The high oligarchical doctrine is ‘some out of some, by vote or by lot or by both,’ the lot being employed in an oligarchy, as in a democracy, to exclude favour or merit. Cp. v. 3. § 9.

γίνεσθαι.Jowett1885v1: 15. 19.

If genuine, is used in a pregnant sense = καθίστασθαι, the construction being changed from the active, which is resumed in the clause which follows, to the neuter or passive. Though the word appears to disturb the sentence, it is found in all the MSS.

ὀλιγαρχικώτερον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐξ ἀμϕοɩ̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 15. 20.

ἐξ ἀμϕοɩ̂ν seems naturally to mean τὰς μὲν ἐκ πάντων, τὰς δὲ ἐκ τινω̂ν, cp. § 19 fin. But if so the same words which here describe the oligarchical government, are applied in the next sentence to the polity or constitutional government which inclines to aristocracy. Nor can any reason be given why the election ‘out of all and out of some’ should be ‘more oligarchical’ than the election out of some. Another way of taking the words is to explain ἐξ ἀμϕοɩ̂ν as a double election. But in this passage ἐξ is always used to introduce the persons out of whom the election is made; and therefore ἐξ ἀμϕοɩ̂ν could not = ἀμϕοɩ̂ν. Some corruption of the text is probable; the numerous repetitions are likely to have confused the eye of the copyist. τὸ ἐκ τινω̂ν ἀμϕοɩ̂ν is the ingenious and probably true emendation of Mr. Evelyn Abbott. If the principle of ‘some out of some’ is maintained, the election in both ways, i. e. by vote out of persons elected by lot, or by lot out of persons Edition: current; Page: [180]elected by vote, would clearly be more oligarchical than the simple election by vote or by lot.

μὴ γενόμενον δ’ ὁμοίως,Jowett1885v1: 15. 21.

sc. ὀλιγαρχικόν. These words which are translated in the text ‘though not equally oligarchical if taken by lot’ would be better rendered ‘and equally oligarchical if not appointed by lot’ (Stahr): that is to say, whether appointed by vote or by lot they would equally retain their oligarchical character, if some were chosen out of some. μὴ must be taken with γενόμενον.

τινὰς ἐκ τινω̂ν ἀμϕοɩ̂ν.Jowett1885v1: 15. 21.

‘In both ways,’ sc. κλήρῳ καὶ αἱρέσει.

τίνα δὲ τίσι συμϕέρει καὶ πω̂ς δεɩ̂ γίνεσθαι τὰς καταστάσεις ἅμα ταɩ̂ςJowett1885v1: 15. 22. δυνάμεσι τω̂ν ἀρχω̂ν τίνες εἰσίν, ἔσται ϕανερόν.

Neither the reading nor the meaning of this passage is quite certain. Some MSS. and the old translation omit* καὶ before τίνες, thus referring τίνες εἰσὶν to δυνάμεσι. If with Bekker and several MSS. we retain καὶ before τίνες εἰσίν, the words may receive different interpretations. Either 1), ‘how to establish them and what their powers and their nature are will be manifest,’ i. e. need no explanation; or 2), ‘we shall know how to establish them and their nature when we know their powers.’

τὸ ἐν Φρεαττοɩ̂ δικαστήριον.Jowett1885v1: 16. 3.

Nothing certain is known about this court; it is here spoken of only as a matter of tradition. The cases of which it took cognizance were rare, and therefore it is not strange that the court which tried them should have become obsolete. According to Pausanias (i. 28. § 12) Phreattys was a spot in the Piraeus near the sea, whither banished persons, against whom some fresh accusation was brought after their banishment, went to defend themselves out of a ship before judges who were on the land. This explanation is repeated by several of the scholiasts; but Aristotle, with much greater probability, supposes the banished man to offer himself for trial of the original offence. So in Plat. Laws ix. 866 D, a law is proposed, probably founded on some ancient custom, that the banished homicide, if wrecked upon his Edition: current; Page: [181]native shore, should sit with his feet in the sea, until he found an opportunity of sailing.

ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἀϕείσθω καὶ τω̂ν ϕονικω̂ν καὶ τω̂ν ζενικω̂ν, περὶ δὲJowett1885v1: 16. 5. τω̂ν πολιτικω̂ν λέγωμεν, περὶ ὡ̑ν μὴ γινομένων καλω̂ς διαστάσεις γίνονται καὶ τω̂ν πολιτειω̂ν αἱ κινήσεις.

This sentence appears to be out of place; for no special mention occurs of political causes in what follows; but the writer at once returns to his former subject, and treats the appointment of judges on the same principles which he has applied to the appointment of other magistrates. It is possible that they connect with the beginning of Book v, and that the rest of the chapter is only a repetition in an altered form of c. 15. §§ 17-22.

οἱ τρόποι τέτταρες.Jowett1885v1: 16. 5, 6.

The scheme on which judges are appointed, though abridged, is the same as that on which magistrates are appointed; and the various modes correspond in like manner to different forms of government.

The judicial institutions of a country reflect the political, but with a difference. The legislature is active, the courts of law are passive; they do not move until they are set in motion, they deal with particular cases which are brought before them by others; and through these only do they rise to general principles. They do not make laws, but interpret them; nor can they set aside a law unless by appealing to a higher law. They are the conservative element of the state, rooted in habit and precedent and tradition.

But there is also a certain analogy between the political and judicial institutions of a country. In a free state the law must be supreme, and the courts of law must exercise an independent authority; they must be open and public, and they must include a popular element. They represent the better mind of the nation, speaking through certain fixed forms; and they exercise indirectly a considerable influence upon legislation. They have their place also in the education of the people: for they, above all other instructors, teach the lesson of justice and impartiality and truth. As good actions produce good habits in the individual, so the Edition: current; Page: [182]laws of a state grow and strengthen and attain consistency by the decisions of courts.

That Aristotle was not ignorant of the connexion between the judicial and political institutions of a people is shown by his remark that ‘Solon established the democracy when he constituted the dicasteries out of the whole people’ (ii. 12. § 2).

Edition: current; Page: [183]

BOOK V.

The first sentence implies that we are approaching the end ofJowett1885v1: 1. 1. 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 τίνωνJowett1885v1: 1. 1. 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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 2.

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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 2.

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 Edition: current; Page: [184]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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 4.

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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 5.

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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 8.

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, Edition: current; Page: [185]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 τὴνJowett1885v1: 1. 10. 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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 10.

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 τω̂νJowett1885v1: 1. 10, 11. 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 Edition: current; Page: [186]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 ὑπάρχειJowett1885v1: 1. 11. 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’Jowett1885v1: 1. 13. Edition: current; Page: [187]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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 14.

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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 14.

‘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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 14.

‘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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 15.

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

ἡ πρὸς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν.Jowett1885v1: 1. 16.

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.Jowett1885v1: 1. 16.

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.

Edition: current; Page: [188]

ἔτι δὲ ἡ ἐκ τω̂ν μέσων πολιτεία ἐγγυτέρω τον̂ δήμου ἢ ἡ τω̂ν ὀλίγων,Jowett1885v1: 1. 16. 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,Jowett1885v1: 2. 1. final and efficient causes of revolutions.

περὶ ἡ̑ς ἤδη τυγχάνομεν εἰρηκότες.Jowett1885v1: 2. 2.

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 εἰρημένονJowett1885v1: 2. 4. 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,Jowett1885v1: 2. 5.

sc. ὡσαύτως ταὐτά. They are the same and not the same. ‘The Edition: current; Page: [189]love of gain seeks gain for itself, the love of honour is jealous of honour bestowed upon others.’

διὰ μικρότητα,Jowett1885v1: 2. 6.

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.Jowett1885v1: 3. 4.

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 ἡJowett1885v1: 3. 5. 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.Jowett1885v1: 3. 5.

Probably the same event mentioned infra c. 5. § 4, but apparently Edition: current; Page: [190]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,Jowett1885v1: 3. 5.

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.Jowett1885v1: 3. 7.

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.Jowett1885v1: 3. 7.

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 ΛάκωνοςJowett1885v1: 3. 7. 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 Edition: current; Page: [191]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 ἐκJowett1885v1: 3. 7. 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.Jowett1885v1: 3. 8.

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 Edition: current; Page: [192]divided into rich and poor.’ The argument from the more difficult reading is in favour of ἀπόρων.

ἐν Ὠρεῳ̑.Jowett1885v1: 3. 9.

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.Jowett1885v1: 3. 10.

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 γενόμενοιJowett1885v1: 3. 11. 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.Jowett1885v1: 3. 12.

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.Jowett1885v1: 3. 12.

This, which is one of the blackest stories in Greek history, is narrated at length by Herodotus vi. 23. The Zancleans had Edition: current; Page: [193]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 πολίταςJowett1885v1: 3. 13. ποιησάμενοι ἐστασίασαν καὶ εἰς μάχην ἠ̑λθον.

Another instance of the dan