 Hi, my name is Monty Johnson. This is the second of my two lectures on Aristotle's politics book, too this one on chapter 7 to 12 the criticism of model constitutions fictional and real including those of Phalaeus, Hippodamus, Sparta, Crete, and Carthage and I'm using the translation of Benjamin Jowett Oxford 1921, which is in the public domain Now to remind you of where we are in the politics after having introduced his methodology of the study of model constitutions in chapter one Aristotle criticized in detail Plato's Republic in chapters two to five and then laws in chapter six in The rest of the book he moves on to criticism of both other fictional proposals those of Phalaeus and Hippodamus and then criticism of real models the Spartan Cretan and Carthaginian Before briefly discussing Solon and other famous legislators He makes the transition between discussing in Plato between discussing Plato and these other constitutional schemes By saying the following quote other Constitutions have been proposed some by private persons others by philosophers and statesmen Which all come nearer to established or existing ones than either of Plato's No one else has introduced such novelties as the community of women and children or public tables for women Other legislators begin with what is necessary So these will be less Idealistic less utopian if you will and more practical although still they're just fictional models that haven't actually Existed in history and we begin with Phalaeus of Chalcadon About whom we know nothing except what Aristotle says here We can infer that he worked after the early 5th century BC Given that he said to be considerably later than Solon who was the Archon of Athens in 594 BC Quote in the opinion of some the regulation of property is the chief point of all That being the question upon which all revolutions turn This danger was recognized by Phalaeus of Chalcadon who was the first to affirm that citizens of a state ought to have equal possessions and of quote now this jibes with what Aristotle said earlier in chapter one that How we conceive of property being held in common is all important to the Constitution of the state and here he credits Phalaeus of Chalcadon with the first to Realize that and making it an explicit point in his political theory But he argues that Phalaeus was somewhat naive in attempting to simply equalize the possessions of all of the citizens in a state Phalaeus apparently thought that equalization could be established at the beginning of a colony and he maintained It by having the rich give marriage portions to the poor, but the poor not giving them but rather just receiving them other Historical schemes for equalization of property have been proposed such as Solon's limitation of the accumulation of property law korean laws against selling property except in cases of extreme misfortune and laws which require the Preservation of original lots meaning those given at the beginning of a colony and Aristotle discusses practical problems with each of these schemes so that equalization of property Never really can be maintained and as changes in population and arrangements of families change The property will always be becoming held unequally Now according to Aristotle what we should be focusing on is not the equalization of property, but rather the moderation of desires That is if we all had desires for the same amounts of things, then it wouldn't really matter People wouldn't try to have excessive amounts and thus there would be more around for people who currently have deficient amounts to get more and If you could get a kind of ethic about that where people had moderate desires and weren't trying to get more than their fair share or get everything Then you could have more equality, but that requires public education in order to educate and inculcate the virtue of moderation or temperance Equalization of property may still allow each person to have an excessive or deficient amount of property But of course it should aim at having At them having the moderate amount of property, but then their desires are Correspondingly moderated again this happens only by means of education Another problem with equalization of property is that the nobles who believe that they deserve more will be Upset when you take away their property and then this will motivate sedition and revolution on their part So falleus's proposals Address only petty crime and not the main motives for tyranny which is greed and excessive desire So we need an educational alternative which will change the character of people and not just the literal amount of property that they happen to possess Now that's all he says about falleus in his next character is hippodamus of myelitis hippodamus who lived from 498 to 408 BC is much better known and more widely discussed by other Authors than falleus was he's known as the father of city planning and Inventor of the grid layout for cities as opposed to the chaotic disorder of most Greek city plans at the time Aristotle goes into a surprising amount of detail about his appearance and Reputation he said to have aspired to a knowledge of nature and Aristotle certainly did and must have admired that and He's also called quote the first person not a statesman who made inquiries about the best form of government an Aristotle himself is not a statesman who makes inquiries about the best form of government So to some extent resembles this hippodamus Now hippodamus made all sorts of proposals about dividing various things into threes or trinities Which may indicate Pythagorean influence His city was composed of 10,000 citizens divided into three classes artisans husbandmen or farmers and warriors His laws were divided into three classes of lawsuits against insult injury and homicide Aristotle adds and no more classes which may suggest that Hippodamus envisioned a kind of minimal state that existed only to prevent and redress harms or violations as Opposed to positively promoting and prescribing the good life in a more paternalistic way as Plato and Aristotle do Some scholars have interpreted hippodamus as such but his other political proposals do seem like Positive initiatives that go far beyond any kind of minimal state Now his judicial proposals included instituting a final court of appeal so a kind of supreme court and A more complex method for reporting Vertex than the traditional use of either condemnation or acquittal by voting petal pebbles, which was the standard His offices were also divided into three to watch over the interests of the public foreigners and orphans Hippodamus proposed that those who invent something useful or beneficial should be Honored by the state and this has been interpreted as a kind of forerunner to the idea of patent law that the state would give some kind of reward or Recognition to those who introduced a beneficial or useful invention He also proposed that the children of citizens who died in battle should be maintained at public expense Which was a policy actually adopted in Athens and elsewhere So hippodamus has a range of proposals in a way quite radical Affecting almost all elements of the state and restructuring it in a and structuring it in a much different way than any actually existing state But there is a practical error to some of these suggestions and some of them seem quite good and quite useful So here are Aristotle's Criticisms he first criticizes hippodamus's Tripartite class system since the farmers and artisans are Unarmed these two classes would presumably become dominated by the warrior class but the warrior class and the working class don't control any Land they don't own the land. So how will they be sustained since the produce of the farmers is to be kept private Aristotle discusses several such problems about how these classes by dividing them in this way will not interact well and you won't Have enough consensus and agreement in the state He also criticizes the judicial proposals that avoid simple votes on verdicts and punishments He thinks basically they'll result in confusion and make judges more into arbiters instead of judges Aristotle also criticizes This idea of rewarding those who do so do something beneficial for the state on the ground that it will encourage informers and political commotion and too much political innovation here again Aristotle shows his preference for a conservative arrangement and He actually thinks that such an idea of encouraging political innovation would threaten the stability of the state Notice that Aristotle concentrates this criticism on political innovations not Technological Innovations so he doesn't touch the idea that Hypodermis may be an important forerunner to patent law what Aristotle is concerned with is whether people should be rewarded by introducing novel ways of arranging the state This issue leads to a digression To the general question of how much change a state should in general undergo So hypodermis's proposal occasions this question There's a risk that if its laws change too much Because you've been encouraging everyone and offering them rewards if they find ways to change it that it will result in a different kind of Constitution altogether and in this context Aristotle makes an important remark about the possibility of Progressive politics by analogy to the other arts. He says quote Such changes in the other arts and sciences have certainly been beneficial medicine for example in gymnastics and every other art and craft have departed from traditional usage and If politics be an art change must be necessary in this as in any other art That improvement has occurred is shown by the fact that old customs are exceedingly simple and barbarous For the ancient Hellenes went about armed and brought their bought their brides off of each other The remains of ancient laws that you've come down to us are quite absurd and Of quote, but he gives several further examples But the point is we've gotten rid of those old absurd laws And that shows that there has been political innovation and some amount of political progress And so this to some extent should apparently be encouraged Despite this however Aristotle thinks that very great caution is required in altering the laws He says quote sometimes and in certain cases laws may be changed But when we look at the matter from another point of view great caution would seem to be required For the habit of lightly changing the laws as an evil and when the advantage is small some errors both of Lawgivers and rulers had better be left The citizen will not gain so much by making the changes. He will lose by the habit of disobedience The analogy the arts is false The change in a law is a very different thing from a change in an art for the law has no power To command obedience except that of habit which can only be given by time So that a readiness to change from old to new laws in feebles the power of the law So we can rapidly Adopt technological Innovations by discarding our earlier worthless technologies so we can Get rid of the telegraph and move right to the telephone and get rid of the telephone and move right to video conferencing but we can't so easily shift our obedience to laws which we need time to come to understand learn about the laws and Get in the habit of obeying them and if we've just gotten in the habit of obeying certain laws And then those laws are changed and we have to develop other habits It will take either time to cultivate that or more likely we will fall into disobedience of the laws And this will understand undermine the state so again Aristotle has a kind of balanced or middle view some innovation in laws and constitutional schemes is a good idea, but To radical alteration of them results in instability and ineffectiveness of the laws and so should not be taken to an extreme Now after that set of discussions of Utopian political theories including both of the dialogues of Plato Including the work of Phalaeus and the work of hippodamus Aristotle then makes a transition to the criticism of real political models that is constitutions that exist Out there in the real world and who have histories that can be studied and investigated and That's what he devotes the last part of book to to these fictional Moving from these fictional or hypothetical cases to these real-world models and recall that he'd encouraged and accomplished empirical research into political history including the lost histories of a hundred and fifty-eight or so constitutions and that we've also found one of these we don't have that anywhere near hundreds of Constitutional histories, but a papyrus called Constitution of the Athenians has been found and that goes into quite a Quite a great detail about Athenian constitutional history and it's been attributed either to Aristotle or to a member of his school and we can assume that Of course Aristotle himself did possess these constitutions that he histories of constitutions that either wrote himself or Ordered his students to do so even if there weren't Nearly that number of them in his lifetime But among those he will have studied include those of Sparta and Crete Carthage, etc. And so some of these are touched on here in book 2 Aristotle says quote in the governments of Lacodemon and Crete that's Sparta and Crete and indeed in all Governments two points have to be considered first Whether any particular law is good or bad when compared with the perfect state Secondly whether or not it is consistent with the idea and character which the lawgiver has set before his citizens Now that's the end of the quote here in 2 9 But recall three of the four distinct questions that Aristotle raises in politics for one Which I mentioned in the previous lecture in connection with politics book 2 chapter 1 First question. What is the best constitution under any circumstance? That is what we have just been discussing in the previous chapters with the consideration of fictional utopian proposals of Plato, etc The second question. What is the best constitution under specific circumstances or for specific kinds of people? this seems to be the focus of the discussion of Sparta and Crete and Finally the third question. What is the best means of preserving any kind of constitution on the hypothesis that it would be good to preserve? seems to be the focus of the discussion of Carthage, so let's look at each of those discussions in turn First the criticism of the Constitution of the Spartans By the way Sparta, which is also known as Laconia and its inhabitants as Lac Lacodimonians Defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War and became the leading city of Greece in the 5th century Many admired their authoritarian and militaristic Society and form of government with its emphasis on law and order and especially military valor Aristotle's remarks about Sparta are mostly critical, but some of his remarks seem to be in tension with this critical attitude And so we have to look at those in detail His first criticism pertains to Sparta's management of its slave populations He begins by acknowledging a point consistent with his views on slavery expressed in book one That quote in a well-ordered state the citizens should have leisure and not have to provide for their daily wants That he says is generally acknowledged, but there's a difficulty in seeing how this leisure is to be attained So everyone agrees That certain citizens at least should have leisure and not have to do the work But how do we secure this leisure for them? He argues that the Spartan method of doing it essentially by enslaving local populations that are around them doesn't work That the revolts of the slave populations that have occurred in history Show that the citizens of the state have not found the secret of managing their subject population So he takes them to task for that His second criticism is of Spartan policies on women The quote license of the Lackadamonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan Constitution and is adverse to the happiness of the state unquote and notice that here Aristotle is discussing not the ideal Constitution, but the one that would be best suited for the character of Its people thinks that the whole Spartan Constitution is designed to promote Basically virility and virtue understood as courage and military valor, but that their policies on women undercut that purpose According to Aristotle quote the legislator wanted to make the whole state hearty and temperate And he's carried out his intention in the case of men But he's neglected the women who live in every sort of Intemperance and luxury the consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives and of quote Now some other criticisms of the Constitution of the Spartans Aristotle's third line of criticism relates to the extreme wealth inequality that exists in Spartan society Aristotle attributes this inequality to laws that are related to inheritance and dowries Which have the effect of driving down the male citizen population. He says to a thousand or less Despite the fact that it maintains this enormous army of 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites Aristotle's fourth line of criticism relates to the Spartan institution of the ephorality a quote Magistra C has authority in the highest of matters But the efforts are chosen from the whole people and so the office is apt to fall into the hands of very poor men who Being badly off are also open to bribes and so great and tyrannical is their power That even the kings have been compelled to court them so that in this way as well together with the royal office The whole constitution has deteriorated and from being an aristocracy has turned into a democracy Now it's important that for Aristotle turning from an aristocracy into a democracy is a bad thing Democracy is a corrupt form of government aristocracy is a correct form of government Aristocracy is a when the best people have the power Democracy is when the most people have the power people power And Aristotle thinks that essentially the Spartan constitution was set up so that the best people would have the power but because of this institution called the ephorality where they draw from the whole people from the masses draw people that have power since it Includes those people in political decision-making and they're not only poor and so open to bribes But they also haven't cultivated the virtues which require leisure Then they drag the whole Constitution down into a democracy where it seems oriented just for the benefit of The masses and the best people are ignored or their rights are even violated But at the same time Aristotle also makes some curiously positive remarks about this institution called the ephorality quote The ephorality certainly does keep the state together For the people are contented when they have a share in the highest office and the result whether due to the legislator or to chance Has been advantageous for if a constitution is to be permanent All the parts of the state must wish that it should exist in the same arrangements be maintained This is the case at Sparta where the Kings desire its permanence because they have due honor in their own persons The nobles because they are represented by the council of elders for the office of elder is a reward of virtue And the people because they are all eligible to the ephorality so in this account the ephorality is good because it sort of placates or co-ops the people and then the aristocracy the people who have virtue are represented on the council of elders and The Kings who get enough honor by being considered Kings then Co-operate and interact with the council of elders and the ephorality and you have a kind of nice balance that tends towards Political stability the political stability that Sparta is in fact famous for now Aristotle's criticism seems to be that it's a bit too democratic A lot of people seem to criticize it because it seems too authoritarian. His criticism is that it's too democratic But Aristotle's fifth line of criticism relates to the council of elders about which quote It may be said that the elders are good men and well trained and manly virtue and that therefore There is an advantage to the state in having them end of quote But Aristotle's criticism relates to their lifetime appointments for he says the mind grows old as well as the body And when men have been educated in such a manner that even the legislator himself cannot trust them There is a real danger. So he also criticizes the process by which The council of elders is chosen. They use elections Elections tend to promote greed and rivalry this undermines the unity of the state and Aristotle also points out that the Spartan distrust of Kings for which they're famous and and So they actually joined Having a single king with his enemies in the same embassy Or having multiple kings to kind of balance each other This raises a general set of issues about the value of kingship a topic that Aristotle Deferred detailed discussion to book three Now as you can see, there are very extensive criticisms of the Constitution of Spartans which is the most complete and Radical and the one most discussed in the literature before Aristotle's politics and one that may have even been an inspiration to the proposals of Plato But Aristotle continues with his criticism of this Constitution Criticizing their approach to common tables since they're not provided at public cost But everybody is expected to contribute and since the poor can't afford to contribute the popular purpose of common meals is subverted And in fact, they lead to the disenfranchisement of poor citizens sense if they can't pay up and contribute to the common table Then they can't even have their rights of citizenship removed Aristotle also criticizes Sparta's approach to finances in general basically thinks they don't do enough to collect taxes This makes their citizens both more greedy and in general poorer Because they don't build the public civic works and things that would circulate more of the money and Again, the emphasis is on how the Constitution of Sparta actually subverts its own intention to create virtuous people Aristotle's most general criticism of Sparta relates to this point the narrowness of the Spartan concept of virtue So he joins Plato's criticism of the Spartans that Plato offers in the laws Quote the whole Constitution has regard to one part of virtue only the virtue of the soldier Which gives victory in war So long as they were at war Therefore their power was preserved, but when they had attained Empire They fell for of the arts of peace. They knew nothing and had never engaged in any employment higher than war Now that's the end of a quotation Plato tries to address this in the laws, especially in book two by describing laws for common tables that would train and inculcate the citizens into Moderation and temperance and the enjoyment of pleasure in a moderate and temperate Way a way that is sort of regulated and promoted by the state But so that they could enjoy and cultivate the virtues even in peacetime so that they weren't always seeking war Like the Spartans do because war is really the only way for them to manifest their martial concept of virtue Aristotle also says that quote there is another error equally great into which they've fallen Although they truly think that the goods for which men contend are to be acquired by virtue rather than vice They error in supposing that these goods are to be preferred to the virtue which gains them end of quote Now what this criticism means is that the Spartans have a sort of instrumentalist view of virtue Whereas Aristotle thinks that virtue should be pursued for its own sake because it's a good thing to be a temperate and a courageous person and that other goods like money should be seen as merely Instrumentally valuable towards acquiring these virtues money gives me the leisure time to devote to concentrating on developing my virtues and Aristotle does not think that virtue should be considered instrumentally valuable towards such goods as money like that We should all be courageous because then we'll be able to go out and plunder other cities when we destroy their armies And this is how he criticizes the Spartans Now after all of that detailed criticism of the Spartans in chapter 10 Aristotle moves on to a less detailed criticism of the Constitution of the Cretans Which he asserts quote nearly resembles the Spartan and in some few points is quite as good But for the most part is less perfect in form The older constitutions are generally less elaborate than the latter and the Lackadammonian is said to be and probably is in a very great measure a copy of the Cretan and Of quote now this is interesting because Aristotle considers the Cretan Constitution older than the Spartan But he treats it here after the Spartan Why it's a methodological point because the Spartan Constitution is more elaborate and complete and radical and Many of the criticisms that are leveled against the Spartan Constitution in the previous chapter will apply here too And Aristotle doesn't need to repeat those points. He just calls attention to them So Aristotle considers the common meals of Crete to be better managed than they are in Sparta in Crete They're more of a popular character Quote there of all the fruits of the earth and cattle raised on the public lands and of the tribute which is paid by the Perry Oiki one portion is Assigned to the gods and to the service of the state and another to the common meals So that men women and children are all supported out of the common stock end of quote Aristotle then mentioned some means by which the Cretan Constitution intends to promote virtuous Moderation such as the separation of men and women So again the common stock and common meals are good and allow them to inculcate certain virtues And Aristotle seems to prefer the Cretan way of doing this to almost any other including the ways proposed by Plato But Aristotle criticizes the Cretan Institution called the Cosme which he takes to be the counterpart to Sparta's a ferality Unlike in Sparta where the entire population is eligible to participate in Crete The Cosme are selected out of certain families and the Council of Elders are then selected as a more elite unit out of the Cosme So the effect is to entrench the power of certain families Aristotle also criticizes the Cretan Council of Elders as with Sparta the lifetime Appointments are problematic and they have too much power to ignore the written law Aristotle also criticizes the way Cosme can be expelled by a conspiracy of their own colleagues as he calls it and How the office of the Cosme may itself be suspended quote a device to which the nobles often have Recourse when they will not submit to justice This shows that the Cretan government although possessing some of the characteristics of a constitutional state is really close to an oligarchy Because when the rich people decide that they don't like what's happening politically Then they can form a conspiracy undermine the Cosme and undermine the general political structures and practices so that the rich ultimately rule and a situation in which the rich rule is called an oligarchy a criticism Aristotle had also made of the Constitution in Plato's laws Now Aristotle also criticizes the practice of Cretan nobles setting up a chief With the result of causing insurrection against their own government quote the nobles have a habit too of setting up a chief They get together a party among the common people and their own friends and then quarrel and fight with one another What is this but the temporary destruction of the state and the dissolution of society a city is in a dangerous Condition when those who are willing are also able to attack her end of quote What I find interesting is this idea that within Cretan society there were these insurrectionist Elements and that that was even kind of allowed and built into the Constitutional structure that there would be oppositions not just checks and balances, but but literally overcoming and wiping out certain Parts and certain arrangements by certain other parts to Aristotle this all results in political stability and basically Codifies political instability which given his conservative approach to trying to conserve Constitutional types based on what kinds of virtuous principles you're trying to promote He considers a bad way of doing politics Now after his discussion of the Cretans Aristotle moves on to discuss the Constitution of the Carthaginians This is very interesting because Carthage was an ancient city on the course coast of North Africa near present-day Tunis Founded by Phoenicians in the 9th century BC and a remarkable thing about its inclusion here is that it's non-greek Although it's likely that several non-greek constitutions were included in Aristotle's Researches into the history of constitutions and probably into the work on the history of constitutions Aristotle's treatment of Carthage specifically seems to transcend the division that he normally recognizes between Greeks and barbarians to which Which he elsewhere Emphasizes for example in the discussion of natural slavery in politics book one in the discussion of the differences between Asians Greeks and Europeans in politics book seven other Differences in Aristotle's analysis here have led some scholars to conclude that this chapter on the Carthaginians was some later addition to book to But again, what's remarkable is that Aristotle could say of a non-greek state that Colote the Carthaginians are also considered to have an excellent form of government which differs from that of any other state in several respects Though it is in some respects very like the lack of daemonian Indeed all three states the lack of daemonian or Spartan the Cretan and the Carthaginian Nearly resemble one another and are very different from any others and Of quote so in fact most of Aristotle's comparisons Are with Sparta he compares Carthage and Sparta and doesn't much Mention Crete and this is in accordance with his methodology of using the criticism of Sparta to be the General and most radical criticism and only point out Deviations from the Spartan proposals in the subsequent analysis of Crete and Carthage Aristotle thus describes aspects of the Carthaginian Constitution as defects or deviations from the perfect state Now this is the kind of analysis. He also offers in politics book three chapters six to seven and throughout books three to six quote of the Deflections from aristocracy and constitutional government some incline more to democracy and some To oligarchy he says here in book two in book three aristocracy and constitutional government or polity are considered legitimate healthy forms of Constitution while both oligarchy and democracy are considered to be deviant forms So we see that this chapter really does seem to imply Employ some of the later methodologies of political science that he develops more fully in other books as For his criticism of the Carthaginians here The chief oligarchical and thus problematic feature is that the Carthaginians Choose magistrates on the basis not only of merit But also of wealth which of course has the effect of undermining their aristocratic principles and intent Quote we must acknowledge that in thus deviating from aristocracy. The legislator has committed in error Nothing is more absolutely necessary than to provide that the highest class not only when in office But when out of office should have leisure and not disgrace themselves in any way And to this his attention should first be directed Even if you must have regard to wealth in order to secure leisure Yet it is surely a bad thing that the greatest offices such as those of kings and generals should be bought the law Which allows this abuse makes wealth of more account than virtue and the whole state becomes Avericious For whenever the chiefs of the state deem anything honorable The other citizens are sure to follow their example and where virtue has not the first place their aristocracy cannot be firmly established So they're choosing magistrates on the basis of wealth undermines the meritocratic and aristocratic principle and Causes their constitution to resemble an oligarchy In criticizing the Carthaginian Practice of allowing the same person to hold many offices Aristotle actually makes a pro-democratic argument quote It would seem also to be a bad principle that the same person should hold many offices Which is a favorite practice among the Carthaginians for? One business is better done by one man the legislator should see this this principle which Aristotle just introduces and assumes and Should not appoint the same person to be a flute player and a shoemaker Hence where the state is large it is more in accordance both with Constitutional and with democratic principles that the offices of state should be distributed among many persons For as I said this arrangement is fairer to all and any action familiarized by repetition is better and sooner performed We have a proof in military and naval manners The duties of command and of obedience in both of these services extend to all So Aristotle prefers that we have some kind of arrangement where we divide labor and we Create habits of ruling and being ruled in turn and according to certain jobs and positions in offices Which we can develop some expertise in as opposed to just looking for one person and assigning him all of those tasks Despite his earlier praise of the excellence of the Carthaginian Constitution then or at least his pointing out that several people do praise it Aristotle argues that in effect colonization is the salvation of the Carthaginian Constitution that they're continually bringing in other resources by sending out colonies and so that its stability is actually Accidental and not due to its great constitutional features Now the last chapter of book two is not a consideration of different constitutional types, but is Is a criticism of the specific and time-limited Constitution introduced by Solon the chapter is a bit of a puzzle and as I mentioned at the beginning has the appearance of being a kind of appendix According to some scholars an appendix that wasn't even authored by Aristotle, but instead by a pupil of his It doesn't really seem to follow the methodology outlined in book two chapter one Which promised to survey model constitutions both fictional and real It's unclear how an analysis of individual legislators is supposed to serve the overall function of book one book two The main substantive discussion in the chapter is of the Constitution of Solon which can be dated to 594 BC There are a couple of other sources of information about Solon's Constitution including Aristotle's Constitution of Athens Again presumed to be one of the histories of 158 Constitutions, there's quite an extensive section on Solon there There's also fragments of Solon's own writings and there's Plutarch's life of Solon As to Solon Aristotle says he is thought by some to have been a good legislator Who put an end to the exclusiveness of the oligarchy emancipated the people Established the ancient Athenian democracy and harmonized different elements of the state end of quote Now Aristotle revises some details of an earlier account and claims that Solon quote Formed the courts of law out of all the citizens thus creating the democracy Which is the very reason why he is sometimes blamed for in giving the supreme power to the law courts Which are elected by lot He is thought to have destroyed the non-democratic element When the law courts grew powerful to please the people who were now playing the tyrant to the old Constitution was changed into an existing democracy So the old Constitution was changed into the existing democracy Effialities and Pericles curtailed the power of the Areopagus Pericles also instituted the payment of the juries and thus every demagogue in turn increased the power of the democracy until it became what we now see and Again to appreciate the criticism you have to see that destroying the non Democratic element is considered by Aristotle to be a bad thing since he considers a Pure and extreme democracy to be a very deviant and corrupt form of Constitution Where the masses look out for their own interests and discriminate against the poor minority But Aristotle puts most of the blame for this on the people themselves and the Circumstances that obtained at this time and he is overall fairly positive about Solon's constitutional reforms His criticism of other famous law givers is much more brief and less substantial He mentioned several other people who gave laws to Greek colonies whom he calls mere legislators or law givers the first is Zalusis Presumably in the mid 7th century who gave laws to the epa Zafrian Lachrians The second law giver mentioned is Churandis May have existed in the 6th century or so who legislated for his own city Katania And for other Chalcadian cities in Italy and Sicily according to Aristotle Later in the chapter Aristotle says that in the legislation of Churandis. There was nothing remarkable Except suits against false witnesses He is the first to instituted denunciation for perjury His laws are said to be more exact and more precisely expressed than even those of our modern legislators Unfortunately Aristotle provides no details The third legislator he mentions is on a Mocritus Again, probably late 6th century who quote although a Locrian by birth was trained in Crete where he lived in the exercise of his prophetic art Aristotle points out that there is a controversy over Onamocritus's chronology which reveals something about Aristotle's approach Critical approach to his sources and evidence The fourth legislator mentioned is Phil Laos the Corinthian There's an interesting detail in Aristotle's report quote Phil Laos Legislated for the Thebians and besides some other enactments gave them laws about the procreation of children Which they called the laws of adoption These laws were peculiar to him and were intended to preserve the number of lots or initial allocations of property This gives a concrete example of the transfer of a law from one state to another by the influence of a legislator Not just giving laws to his own state, but to other states and so they're being a kind of technology transfer of political innovations Now Phalaeus who was discussed above in book 2 chapter 7 and Plato who was discussed in Chapters 2 to 6 are mentioned here in an offhand way Which seems to be a further indication that this chapter originated separately or as an appendix and may have even been written by another author Aristotle also mentions Draco who had given Athens its first set of laws in 621 to 620 BC here Aristotle mentions the severity of his punishments the famous severity of Draco He is treated more extensively in the Constitution of the Athenians that Aristotle Work or work that Aristotle commissioned to be researched Like Phalaeus and Plato, but unlike the first four legislators mentioned Draco did not give laws to other countries, but only to his own Pidekis of my lead Middolini who died circa 570 about him Aristotle says he has a law which is peculiar to him that if a drunken man do something wrong He shall be more heavily punished than if he were sober Not to the excuse which might be offered for the drunkard, but only to expediency for Drunken more often than sober people commit acts of violence That's the end of a quotation now in the Nicomachean ethics Aristotle advocates this kind of law in the context of a discussion of voluntary and involuntary action He says that far from absolving you if you Admit that you were drunk in the commission of a crime the penalties should be doubled and Finally Aristotle very briefly mentioned some andro damis of regium about whom we know nothing more than his name and that is the end of Aristotle's discussion in book 12 Aristotle himself doesn't draw Any conclusions from this study, but we can make some general observations about this book first Aristotle is more or less Explicit about his methodology here that we should examine model constitutions both fictional and real the real ones he discusses are only three but His discussion here seems built upon his larger research project of surveying the history of Greek constitutions of which only the constitution of the Athenians survives so we can't look at his histories of the Spartan Cretan and Carthaginian constitutions and compare them to what he says here The only one that survives is his constitution of the Athenians But Aristotle here doesn't really discuss the Constitution of the Athenians Except for the very brief mention of the Constitution of Solon and the even briefer mention of Draco's laws The second general point is that book 2 contains a direct and fairly detailed criticism of the two most important works on politics by Aristotle's own teacher and mentor Plato He treats Plato's dialogues as if they were constitutional proposals of Socrates and doesn't consider here their nuances or aspects of them which lie outside of his examination of constitutions So he doesn't discuss The moral psychology or the metaphysics of the Republic for example third Aristotle's politics book 2 In some cases is the only evidence for and in almost all the cases is the most important evidence for certain people that he mentions His project of surveying his predecessors and Mining their work for the sake of his own project seems to be a novel approach to the subject of political science thus book 2 by its application of both empirical research methods and Theoretical criticism of other political theorists Anticipates the two major parts of political science as it is understood and practiced even today for we have both an empirical and a theoretical aspects of political science today and Both of these methods are present Already here in Aristotle's politics book 2 both Empirical research methods and criticisms of political theory. Thank you