Politics: A Treatise on Government
political governments which are established to preserve and defend the
equality of the citizens it is held right to rule by turns. Formerly, as
was natural, every one expected that each of his fellow-citizens should
in his turn serve the public, and thus administer to his private good,
as he himself when in office had done for others; but now every one is
desirous of being continually in power, that he may enjoy the advantage
which he makes of public business and being in office; as if places were
a never-failing remedy for every complaint, and were on that account so
eagerly sought after.
It is evident, then, that all those governments which have a common good
in view are rightly established and strictly just, but those who have
in view only the good of the rulers are all founded on wrong principles,
and are widely different from what a government ought to be, for they
are tyranny over slaves, whereas a city is a community of freemen.
CHAPTER VII
Having established these particulars, we come to consider next the
different number of governments which there are, and what they are; and
first, what are their excellencies: for when we have determined this,
their defects will be evident enough.
It is evident that every form of government or administration, for the
words are of the same import, must contain a supreme power over the
whole state, and this supreme power must necessarily be in the hands
of one person, or a few, or many; and when either of these apply their
power for the common good, such states are well governed; but when the
interest of the one, the few, or the many who enjoy this power is alone
consulted, then ill; for you must either affirm that those who make
up the community are not citizens, or else let these share in the
advantages of government. We usually call a state which is governed by
one person for the common good, a kingdom; one that is governed by
more than one, but by a few only, an aristocracy; either because the
government is in the hands of the most worthy citizens, or because it
is the best form for the city and its inhabitants. When the citizens at
large govern for the public good, it is called a state; which is also
a common name for all other governments, and these distinctions are
consonant to reason; for it will not be difficult to find one person,
or a very few, of very distinguished abilities, but almost impossible to
meet with the majority [1279b] of a people eminent for every virtue;
but if there is one common to a whole nation it is valour; for this is
created and supported by numbers: for which reason in such a state
the profession of arms will always have the greatest share in the
government.
Now the corruptions attending each of these governments are these; a
kingdom may degenerate into a tyranny, an aristocracy into an oligarchy,
and a state into a democracy. Now a tyranny is a monarchy where the good
of one man only is the object of government, an oligarchy considers
only the rich, and a democracy only the poor; but neither of them have a
common good in view.
CHAPTER VIII
It will be necessary to enlarge a little more upon the nature of each
of these states, which is not without some difficulty, for he who would
enter into a philosophical inquiry into the principles of them, and not
content himself with a superficial view of their outward conduct, must
pass over and omit nothing, but explain the true spirit of each of them.
A tyranny then is, as has been said, a monarchy, where one person has
an absolute and despotic power over the whole community and every member
therein: an oligarchy, where the supreme power of the state is lodged
with the rich: a democracy, on the contrary, is where those have it who
are worth little or nothing. But the first difficulty that arises from
the distinctions which we have laid down is this, should it happen that
the majority of the inhabitants who possess the power of the state (for
this is a democracy) should be rich, the question is, how does this
agree with what we have said? The same difficulty occurs, should it ever
happen that the poor compose a smaller part of the people than the rich,
but from their superior abilities acquire the supreme power; for this is
what they call an oligarchy; it should seem then that our definition
of the different states was not correct: nay, moreover, could any one
suppose that the majority of the people were poor, and the minority
rich, and then describe the state in this manner, that an oligarchy
was a government in which the rich, being few in number, possessed the
supreme power, and that a democracy was a state in which the poor, being
many in number, possessed it, still there will be another difficulty;
for what name shall we give to those states we have been describing? I
mean, that in which the greater number are rich, and that in which the
lesser number are poor (where each of these possess the supreme power),
if there are no other states than those we have described. It seems
therefore evident to reason, that whether the supreme power is vested
in the hands of many or few may be a matter of accident; but that it
is clear enough, that when it is in the hands of the few, it will be
a government of the rich; when in the hands of the many, it will be a
government of the poor; since in all countries there are many poor and
few rich: it is not therefore the cause that has been already assigned
(namely, the number of people in power) that makes the difference
between the two governments; but an oligarchy and democracy differ in
this from each other, in the poverty of those who govern in the one,
and the riches I28oa of those who govern in the other; for when the
government is in the hands of the rich, be they few or be they more, it
is an oligarchy; when it is in the hands of the poor, it is a democracy:
but, as we have already said, the one will be always few, the other
numerous, but both will enjoy liberty; and from the claims of wealth and
liberty will arise continual disputes with each other for the lead in
public affairs.
CHAPTER IX
Let us first determine what are the proper limits of an oligarchy and
a democracy, and what is just in each of these states; for all men have
some natural inclination to justice; but they proceed therein only to
a certain degree; nor can they universally point out what is absolutely
just; as, for instance, what is equal appears just, and is so; but not
to all; only among those who are equals: and what is unequal appears
just, and is so; but not to all, only amongst those who are unequals;
which circumstance some people neglect, and therefore judge ill; the
reason for which is, they judge for themselves, and every one almost is
the worst judge in his own cause. Since then justice has reference to
persons, the same distinctions must be made with respect to persons
which are made with respect to things, in the manner that I have already
described in my Ethics.
As to the equality of the things, these they agree in; but their dispute
is concerning the equality of the persons, and chiefly for the reason
above assigned; because they judge ill in their own cause; and also
because each party thinks, that if they admit what is right in some
particulars, they have done justice on the whole: thus, for instance,
if some persons are unequal in riches, they suppose them unequal in the
whole; or, on the contrary, if they are equal in liberty, they suppose
them equal in the whole: but what is absolutely just they omit; for
if civil society was founded for the sake of preserving and increasing
property, every one's right in the city would be equal to his fortune;
and then the reasoning of those who insist upon an oligarchy would be
valid; for it would not be right that he who contributed one mina should
have an equal share in the hundred along with him who brought in all the
rest, either of the original money or what was afterwards acquired.
Nor was civil society founded merely to preserve the lives of its
members; but that they might live well: for otherwise a state might
be composed of slaves, or the animal creation: but this is not so; for
these have no share in the happiness of it; nor do they live after their
own choice; nor is it an alliance mutually to defend each other from
injuries, or for a commercial intercourse: for then the Tyrrhenians and
Carthaginians, and all other nations between whom treaties of commerce
subsist, would be citizens of one city; for they have articles
to regulate their exports and imports, and engagements for mutual
protection, and alliances for mutual defence; but [1280b] yet they
have not all the same magistrates established among them, but they are
different among the different people; nor does the one take any care,
that the morals of the other should be as they ought, or that none of
those who have entered into the common agreements should be unjust, or
in any degree vicious, only that they do not injure any member of the
confederacy. But whosoever endeavours to establish wholesome laws in
a state, attends to the virtues and the vices of each individual who
composes it; from whence it is evident, that the first care of him who
would found a city, truly deserving that name, and not nominally so,
must be to have his citizens virtuous; for otherwise it is merely an
alliance for self-defence; differing from those of the same cast which
are made between different people only in place: for law is an agreement
and a pledge, as the sophist Lycophron says, between the citizens of
their intending to do justice to each other, though not sufficient to
make all the citizens just and good: and that this is fact is evident,
for could any one bring different places together, as, for instance,
enclose Megara and Corinth in a wall, yet they would not be one city,
not even if the inhabitants intermarried with each other, though this
inter-community contributes much to make a place one city. Besides,
could we suppose a set of people to live separate from each other, but
within such a distance as would admit of an intercourse, and that there
were laws subsisting between each party, to prevent their injuring one
another in their mutual dealings, supposing one a carpenter, another
a husbandman, shoemaker, and the like, and that their numbers were ten
thousand, still all that they would have together in common would be a
tariff for trade, or an alliance for mutual defence, but not the same
city. And why? not because their mutual intercourse is not near enough,
for even if persons so situated should come to one place, and every one
should live in his own house as in his native city, and there should be
alliances subsisting between each party to mutually assist and prevent
any injury being done to the other, still they would not be admitted
to be a city by those who think correctly, if they preserved the same
customs when they were together as when they were separate.
It is evident, then, that a city is not a community of place; nor
established for the sake of mutual safety or traffic with each other;
but that these things are the necessary consequences of a city, although
they may all exist where there is no city: but a city is a society of
people joining together with their families and their children to live
agreeably for the sake of having their lives as happy and as independent
as possible: and for this purpose it is necessary that they should live
in one place and intermarry with each other: hence in all cities there
are family-meetings, clubs, sacrifices, and public entertainments to
promote friendship; for a love of sociability is friendship itself;
so that the end then for which a city is established is, that the
inhabitants of it may live happy, and these things are conducive to that