 Book 1, sections 1 through 5 of Politics by Aristotle. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Politics by Aristotle, translated by Benjamin Jowett. Book 1, section 1 through 5. Book 1, section 1. Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good. For mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good. Some people think that the qualifications of a statesman, king, householder, and master are the same, and that they differ not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master. Over more, the manager of a household, over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there are no difference between a great household and a small state. The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows. When the government is personal, the ruler is a king. When, according to the rules of the political science, the citizens rule, and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman. But all this is a mistake. For governments differ in kind, as will be evident to anyone who considers the matter according to the method which has hitherto guided us. As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound should always be resolved into the simple elements. Or at least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be obtained about each one of them. He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. In the first place, there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other, namely of male and female, that the race may continue. And this is a union which is formed not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves, and of a natural ruler and subject that both may be preserved. For that which can foresee, by the exercise of mind, is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave. Hence master and slave have the same interest. Now nature has distinguished between the female and the slave, for she is not niggerly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for many uses. She makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best when intended for one and not for many uses. But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them. They are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say, it is meat that Hellenes should rule over barbarians, as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one. Of these two relationships, between a man and woman, master and slave, the first thing to arise is the family, and Hesiod is right when he says, First house and wife and an ox for the plow. For the ox is the poor man's slave. The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men's every day once, and the members of it are called by Corandus, companions of the cupboard, and by Epimenides the Cretan, companions of the manger. But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village, and the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren who are said to be suckled with the same milk. And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings, because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians still are. Every family is ruled by the eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family, the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood. As Homer says, each one gives law to his children and to his wives. For they lived dispersedly, as was the manner in ancient times. Wherefore men say that gods have a king because they themselves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king, for they imagine not only the forms of the gods, but their ways of lives to be like their own. When several villages are united in a single, complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. Therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and the end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best. Hence, it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal, and he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state is either a bad man or above humanity. He is like the tribeless, lawless, heartless one whom Homer denounces. The natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war. He may be compared to an isolated peace at droughts. Now that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere voice is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals, for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain, and the intimation of them to one another, and no further. The power of speech is attended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the just and unjust. And it is the characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good or evil, of just and unjust and the like, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state. Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part. For example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might sense of a stone hand, when destroyed the hand will be no better than that. But things are defined by their working and power, and we ought not say that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only that they have the same name. The proof that the state is the creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing, and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must either be a beast or a god, for he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For a man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all, since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and most savage of animals, and most full of lust and gluttony, but justice is the bond of men in states. For the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society. 3. Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state, we must speak of the management of the household. The parts of household management correspond to the persons who compose the household, and a complete household consists of slaves and freemen. Now we should begin by examining everything in its fewest possible elements, and that the first and fewest possible parts of a family are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children. We have therefore to consider what each of these three relations is and ought to be. I mean the relation of master and servant, the marriage relation, the conjunction of man and wife, has no name of its own. And thirdly, the procreative relation. This also has no proper name. And there is another element of a household, the so-called art of getting wealth, which, according to some, is identical with household management. According to others, a principal part of it. The nature of this art will also have to be considered by us. Let us first speak of master and slave, looking to the needs of practical life, and also seeking to attain some better theory of the relation that exists at present. For some are of the opinion that the rule of a master is a science, and that the management of a household and the mastership of slaves and the political and royal rule, as I was saying at the outset, are all the same. Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freemen exists by law only, and not by nature. And being in interference with nature is therefore unjust. Four. Property is a part of the household, and the art of acquiring property is a part of the art of managing the household. For no man can live well, or indeed live at all, unless he be provided with necessaries. And as in the arts which have a definite sphere, the workers must also have their own proper instruments for the accomplishment of their work. So it is in the management of a household. Now, instruments are of various sorts. Some are living, others lifeless. In the rudder, the pilot of a ship has a lifeless, in the lookout man, a living instrument. For in the arts, the servant is a kind of instrument. Thus, too, a possession is an instrument for maintaining life. And so, in the arrangement of a family, a slave is a living possession, the property a number of such instruments, and the servant is himself an instrument which takes precedence over all other instruments. For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestius, which says the poet, of their own accord entered the assembly of the gods, if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave, and the plectrum touched the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor master slaves. Here, however, another distinction must be drawn. The instrument commonly so-called are instruments of production, whilst a possession is an instrument of action. The shuttle, for example, is not only of use, but something else is made of it. Whereas of a garment or of a bed, there is only the use. Further, as production and action are different in kind, and both require instruments, the instruments which they employ must likewise differ in kind. But life is action, and not production, and therefore the slave is the minister of action. Again, a possession is spoken of as a part is spoken of. For the part is not only a part of something else, but wholly belongs to it, and this is also true of a possession. The master is only the master of the slave. He does not belong to him, whereas the slave is not only the slave of his master, but wholly belongs to him. Hence we see what is the nature and office of a slave. He who is by nature not his own, but another's man, is by nature a slave, and he may be said to be another's man, who, being a human being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an instrument of action, separable from the possessor. But is there anyone thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact, for that some should rule and others be ruled as a thing not only necessary, but expedient. From the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjugation, others for rule. And there are many kinds, both of rulers and subjects, and that the rule is better, which is exercised over better subjects. For example, to rule over men is better than to rule over wild beasts. For the work is better, which is executed by better workmen, and where one man rules and another is ruled, they may be said to have a work. For in all things which can form a composite whole, and which are made up of parts, whether continuous or discreet, a distinction between the ruling and the subject element comes to the fight. Such a duality exists in living creatures, but not in them only. It originates in the constitution of the universe, even in things which have no life, there is a ruling principle, as in a musical mode. But we are wandering from the subject. We will therefore restrict ourselves to the living creature, which in the first place consists of a soul and body, and of these two the one is by nature the ruler and the other the subject. But we must look for intentions of nature and things which retain their nature, and not in things which are corrupted. And therefore we must study the man who is in the most perfect state, both of body and soul, for in him we shall see the true relation of the two, although in bad or corrupted natures the body will often appear to rule over the soul, because they are in an evil and unnatural condition. At all events we may firstly observe in living creatures both a despotical and a constitutional rule, for the soul rules the body with the despotical rule, whereas the intellect rules the appetites with the constitutional and royal rule. And it is clear that the rule of the soul over the body and of the mind and the rational element over the passionate is natural and expedient, whereas the equality of the two or the rule of the inferior is always hurtful. The same holds good of animals in relation to men, for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man, for then they are preserved. Again the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, and the one rules and the other is ruled. This principle of necessity extends to all mankind. Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals, as in the case of those whose business is to use their body and can do nothing better. The lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master, for he who can be and therefore is and others, and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend but not to have such a principle is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle, they obey their instincts, and indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different, for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of free men and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens, that some have the souls and others have the bodies of free men. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the gods do for men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be the slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just than a similar distinction should exist in the soul. But the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear then that some men are by nature free and other slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right. End of Chapter 1, Section 1-5 Book 1, Section 6-9 of Politics by Aristotle. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Politics by Aristotle. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Book 1, Section 6-9. But that those who take the opposite view have, in a certain way, right on their side, may be easily seen. For the words slavery and slave are used in two senses. There is a slave or slavery by law, as well as by nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention. The law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors. But this right many jurists impeach, as they would an orator who has brought forward an unconstitutional measure. They detest the notion that, because one man has the power of doing violence and is superior in brute strength, another shall be a slave and subject. Even among philosophers there is a difference of opinion. The origin of the dispute and what makes the views invade each other's territory is as follows. In some sense virtue, when furnished with means, has actually the greatest power of exercising force. And as superior power is only found where there is superior excellence of some kind. Power seems to imply virtue, and the dispute to be simply one about justice. For it is due to one party identifying justice with good will, while the other identifies it with the mere rule of the stronger. If these views are thus set out separately, the other views have no force or plausibility against the view that the superior in virtue ought to rule or be master. Others, clinging as they think, simply to a principle of justice, for law and custom are a sort of justice, assumed that slavery, in accordance with the custom of war, is justified by law. But at the same moment they deny this. For what if the cause of the war be unjust? And again no one would ever say he is a slave who is unworthy to be a slave. For if this were the case, men of the highest rank would be slaves, and the children of slaves if they or their parents chanced to have been captive and sold. Wherefore Helians do not like to call other Helians slaves, but can find the term to barbarians. Yet in using this language they really mean the natural slave of whom we spoke at first. For it must be admitted that some were slaves everywhere, others nowhere. The same principle applies to nobility. Helians regard themselves as noble everywhere, and not only in their own country, but they deem the barbarians noble only when at home. Thereby implying that there are two sorts of nobility and freedom, the one absolute and the other relative. The Helen of Theodectus says, Who would presume to call me servant, who am on both sides sprung from the stem of the gods? What does this mean, but that they distinguished freedom and slavery, noble and humble birth, by the two principles of good and evil? They think that as men and animals beget men and animals, so from good men a good man springs. But this is what nature, though she may intend it, cannot always accomplish. We see then that there is some foundation for this difference of opinion, and that all are not either slaves by nature or freemen by nature. And also that there is in some cases a marked distinction between the two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters. The one a practicing obedience, the other exercising the authority and lordship which nature intended them to have. The abuse of this authority is injurious to both, for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same. And the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence where the relation of master and slave between them is natural, they are friends, and have a common interest. But where it rests merely on law and force, the reverse is true. Section 7. The previous remarks are quite enough to show that the rule of a master is not a constitutional rule, and that all the different kinds of rule are not, as some affirm, the same with each other. For there is one rule exercised over subjects who are by nature free, another over subjects who are by nature slaves. The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head, whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals. The master is not called a master because he has science, but because he is of a certain character, and the same remark applies to the slave and the freemen. Still, there may be a science for the master, and science for the slave. The science of the slave would be such as the man of Syracuse taught, who made money by instructing slaves in their ordinary duties. For such a knowledge may be carried further, so as to include cookery and similar menial arts. For some duties are the more necessary, others of the more honorable sort, as the proverb says, slave before slave, master before master. But all such branches of knowledge are servile. There is likewise of science of the master, who teaches the use of slaves. For the master as such is concerned, not with the acquisition, but with the use of them. Yet this so-called science is not anything great or wonderful, for the master need only know how to order that which the slave must know how to execute. Hence, those who are in a position which places them above toil have stewards who attend to their households, while they occupy themselves with philosophy or with politics. But the art of acquiring slaves, I mean, of justly acquiring them, differs both from the art of the master and the art of the slave. Being a species of hunting or war, enough of the distinction between master and slave. Section 8 Let us now inquire into property generally, and into the art of getting wealth, in accordance with our usual method, for a slave has been shown to be a part of property. The first question is whether the art of getting wealth is the same with the art of managing a household, or a part of it, or instrumental to it. And if the last, whether in the way that the art of making shuttles is instrumental to the art of weaving, or in the way that the casting of bronze is instrumental to the art of the statuary. For they are not instrumental in the same way, but the one provides tools and the other material, and by material I mean the substratum out of which any work is made. Thus, wool is the material of the weaver, bronze of the statuary. Now it is easy to see that the art of household management is not identical with the art of getting wealth, for the one uses the material which the other provides. For the art which uses household stores can be no other than the art of household management. There is however a doubt whether the art of getting wealth is a part of household management or a distinct art. If the getter of wealth has to consider when wealth and property can be procured, but there are many sorts of property and riches, then are husbandry and the care and provision of food in general, parts of the wealth getting art or distinct arts. Again there are many sorts of food, and therefore there are many kinds of lives, both of animals and men. They must all have food, and the differences in their food have made differences in their ways of life. For of beasts, some are gregarious, others are solitary. They live in the way which is best adapted to sustain them, accordingly as they are carnivorous, or herbivorous, or omnivorous. And their habits are determined for them by nature in such a manner that they may obtain with greater faculty the food of their choice. But as different species have different tastes, the same things are not naturally pleasant to all of them. And therefore the lives of carnivorous or herbivorous animals further differ among themselves. In the lives of men too there is great difference. The laziest are shepherds, who lead an idle life and get their subsistence without trouble from tame animals. Their flocks having to wander from place to place in search of pasture. They are compelled to follow them, cultivating a sort of living farm. Others support themselves by hunting, which is of different kinds. Some, for example, are brigands, others who dwell near lakes or marshes or rivers or a sea in which there are fish or fishermen. And others live by the pursuit of birds or wild beasts. The greater number obtain a living from the cultivated fruits of the soil. Such are the modes of subsistence which prevail among those whose industry springs up of itself and whose food is not acquired by exchange and retail trade. There is the shepherd, the husbandman, the brigand, the fisherman and the hunter. Some gain a comfortable maintenance out of two employments, eking out the deficiencies of one of them by another. Thus the life of a shepherd may be combined with that of a brigand, the life of a farmer with that of a hunter. Other modes of life are similarly combined in any way which the needs of men may require. Property, in the sense of a bare livelihood, seems to be given by nature herself to all. Both when they are first born and when they are grown up. For some animals bring forth, together with their offspring, so much food as will last until they are able to supply themselves. Of this the vermiperous or oviparous animals are an instance. And the viviparous animals have, up to a certain time, a supply of food for their young in themselves, which is called milk. In like manner we may infer that, after the birth of animals, plants exist for their sake, and that the other animals exist for the sake of man. The tame for the use in food, the wild, if not all, at least the greater part of them, for food and for the provision of clothing in various instruments. Now if nature makes nothing incomplete and nothing in vain, the inference must be that she has made all animals for the sake of man. And so, in one point of view, the art of war is the natural art of acquisition. For the art of acquisition includes hunting, an art which we all to practice against wild beasts, and against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit, for war of such kind is naturally just. Of the art of acquisition then, there is one kind which is by nature a part of the management of a household. Insofar as the art of household management must either find ready to hand or itself provide such things necessary to life and useful for the community of the family or state as can be stored. They are the elements of true riches, for the amount of property which is needed for a good life is not unlimited, though Solon in his poem says that, No bound to riches has been fixed for man. But there is a boundary fixed, just as there is in the other arts, for the instruments of any kind are never unlimited, either in number or size, and riches may be defined as the number of instruments to be used in a household or in a state. And so we see that there is a natural art of acquisition which is practiced by managers of households and by statesmen, and what is the reason of this. 9. There is another variety of the art of acquisition which is commonly and rightly called an art of wealth getting, and has in fact suggested the notion that riches and property have no limit. Being nearly connected with the proceeding, it is often identified with it. But though they are not very different, neither are they the same, the kind being described is given by nature, the other is gained by experience and art. Let us begin our discussion of the question with the following considerations. Of everything which we possess there are two uses, both belong to the things as such, but not in the same manner, for one is the proper, and the other the improper or secondary use of it. For example, a shoe is used for wear, and is used for exchange. Both are the uses of the shoe. He who gives a shoe in exchange for money or food to him, who once won, does indeed use the shoe as a shoe. But this is not the proper or primary purpose, for a shoe is not made to be an object of barter. The same may be said of all possessions, for the art of exchange extends to all of them, and that arises at first from what is natural, from the circumstances that some have too little, others too much. Hence we may infer that retail trade is not a natural part of the art of wealth getting. Had it been so, men would have ceased to exchange when they had enough. In the first community, indeed which is the family, this art is obviously of no use, but it begins to be useful when the society increases. For the members of the family originally had all things in common. Later when the family divided into parts, the parts shared in many things, and different parts in different things, which they had to exchange for what they wanted. A kind of barter which is still practiced among barbarian nations, who exchange with one another the necessaries of life, and nothing more. Giving and receiving wine, for example, in exchange for coin and the like. This sort of barter is not part of the wealth getting art, and is not contrary to nature, but is indeed needed for the satisfaction of men's natural wants. The other, or more complex form of exchange, grew, as might have been inferred out of the simpler, when the inhabitants of one country became dependent on those of another, and they imported what they needed, and exported what they had too much of. Money necessarily came into use. For the various necessaries of life are not easily carried about, and hence men agreed to employ in their in dealings with one another, something which was intrinsically useful and easily applicable to the purposes of life. For example, iron, silver, and the like. Of this, the value was at first measured simply by size and weight, but in the process of time they put a stamp on it to save the trouble of weighing and mark the value. When the use of coin had once been discovered, out of the barter of necessary articles arose the other art of wealth getting, namely retail trade, which was at first probably a simple matter, but came more complicated as soon as men learned by experience whence and by what exchanges the greatest profit might be made. Originating in the use of coin, the art of getting wealth is generally thought to be chiefly concerned with it, and to be the art which produces riches and wealth, having to consider how they may be accumulated. Indeed, riches is assumed by many to be only a quantity of coin, because the arts of getting wealth and retail trade are concerned with coin. Others maintain that coin money is a mere sham, a thing not natural, but conventional only, because if the users substitute another commodity for it, it is worthless, because it is not useful as a means to any of the necessities of life, and indeed, he who is rich in coin may often be in want of necessary food. But how can that be wealth, of which a man may have a great abundance and yet perish with hunger, like Midas in the fable, whose insatiable prayer turned everything which was set before him into gold? Hence, men seek after a better notion of riches and the art of getting wealth than the mere acquisition of coin, and they are right. For natural riches and the natural art of wealth getting are a different thing. In their true form, they are part of the management of a household, whereas retail trade is the art of producing wealth, not in every way, but by exchange. And it is thought to be concerned with coin, for coin is the unit of exchange and the measure or limit of it. And there is no bound to the riches which may spring from this art of wealth getting. As in the art of medicine, there is no limit to the pursuit of health. As in the other arts, there is no limit to the pursuit of their several ends, but they aim at accomplishing their ends to the uttermost. But of the means, there is a limit, for the end is always the limit. So too, in this art of wealth getting, there is no limit of the end, which is the riches of the spurious kind and the acquisition of wealth. But the art of wealth getting, which consists in household management, on the other hand, has a limit. The unlimited acquisition of wealth is not its business. And therefore, in one point of view, all riches must have a limit. Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, we find the opposite to be the case. For all the getters of wealth increase their hoard of coin without limit. The source of the confusion is the near connection between the two kinds of wealth getting. And either the instrument is the same, although the use is different. And so they pass into one another. For each is the use of the same property, but with a difference. Accumulation is the end in the one case, but there is a further end in the other. Hence, some persons are led to believe that the getting of wealth is the object of household management. And the whole idea of their lives is that they either ought to increase their money without limit, or at any rate, not to lose it. The origin of this disposition in men is that they are intent upon living only, and not upon living well. And as their desires are unlimited, they also desire that the means of gratifying them should be without limit. Those who do aim, at a good life, seek the means of obtaining bodily pleasures. And since the enjoyment of these appears to depend on property, they are absorbed in getting wealth. And so there arises the second species of wealth getting. For as their enjoyment is an excess, they seek an art which produces the excess of enjoyment. And if they are not able to supply their pleasures by the art of wealth getting, they try other arts, using and turn every faculty in a manner contrary to nature. The quality of courage, for example, is not intended to make wealth, but to inspire confidence. Neither is this the aim of the generals or of the physician's art, but the one aims at victory, the other at health. Nevertheless, some men turn every quality or art into a means of getting wealth. This they conceive to be the end, and to the promotion of the end they think all things must contribute. Thus then, we have considered the art of wealth getting, which is unnecessary, and why men want it, and also the necessary art of wealth getting, which we have seen to be different from the other, and to be a natural part of the art of managing a household, concerned with the provision of food, not, however, like the former kind, unlimited, but having a limit. End of Book 1, Section 6-9 Section 10 And we have found the answer to our original question, whether the art of getting wealth is the business of the manager of a household and of the statesman, or not their business, but delisette that wealth is presupposed by them. For as political science does not make men, but takes them from nature and uses them, so too nature provides them with earth or sea or the like as a source of food. At this stage begins the duty of the manager of a household, who has to order the things which nature supplies. He may be compared to the weaver, who has not to make, but to use, will, and to know, too, what sort of will is good and serviceable, or bad and unserviceable. Where this otherwise, it would be difficult to see why the art of getting wealth is a part of the management of a household and the art of medicine not. For surely the members of a household must have health just as they must have life or any other necessity. The answer is that, as from one point of view, the master of the house and the ruler of the state have to consider about health. From another point of view, not they, but the physician. So in one way, the art of household management, in another way, the subordinate art, has to consider about wealth. But strictly speaking, as I have already said, the means of life must be provided beforehand by nature. For the business of nature is to furnish food to that which is born, and the food of the offspring is always what remains over of that from which it is produced. Wherefore, the art of getting wealth out of fruits and animals is always natural. There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said. One is a part of household management, the other is retail trade, the former necessary and honorable. While that which consists in exchange is justly censored, for it is unnatural and a mode by which men gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore, of all modes of getting wealth, this is the most unnatural. Section 11. Enough has been said about the theory of wealth-getting. We will now proceed to the practical part. The discussion of such matters is not unworthy of philosophy, but to be engaged in them practically is illiberal and irksome. The useful parts of wealth-getting are first the knowledge of livestock, which are most profitable and where and how, as, for example, what sort of horses or sheep or oxen or any other animals are most likely to give a return. A man ought to know which of these pay better than others, and which pay best in particular places. For some do better in one place and some in another. Secondly, husbandry, which may be either tillage or planting, and the keeping of bees and of fish or fowl or of any animals which may be useful to man. These are the divisions of the true or proper art of wealth-getting income first. Of the other, which consists in exchange, the first and most important division is commerce, of which there are three kinds. The provision of a ship, the conveyance of goods, exposure for sale. These, again, differing as they are safer or more profitable. The second is usury, the third, service for hire. Of this, one kind is employed in the mechanical arts, the other in unskilled and bodily labor. There is still a third sort of wealth-getting intermediate between this and the first or natural mode, which is partly natural, but is also concerned with exchange. Videliset, the industries that make their profit from the earth and from things growing from the earth which, although they bear no fruit, are nevertheless profitable. For example, the cutting of timber and all mining. Part of mining, by which minerals are obtained, itself has many branches, for there are various kinds of things dug out of the earth. Of the several divisions of wealth-getting, I now speak generally. A minute consideration of them might be useful in practice, but it would be tiresome to dwell upon them at greater length now. Those occupations are most truly arts in which there is the least element of chance. They are the meanest in which the body is most deteriorated, the most servile in which there is the greatest use of the body, and the most illiberal in which there is the least need of excellence. Works have been written upon these subjects by various persons. For example, Cares the Perian and Apollodorus the Lemnian, who have treated up tillage and planting, while others have treated of other branches. Anyone who cares for such matters may refer to their writings. It would be well also to collect the scattered stories of the ways in which individuals have succeeded in amassing a fortune, for all this is useful to persons who value the art of getting wealth. There is the anecdote of Thales the Melisian and his financial device, which involves a principle of universal application, but is attributed to him on account of his reputation for wisdom. He was reproached for his poverty, which was supposed to show that philosophy was of no use. According to the story, he knew by his skill in the stars, while it was yet winter, that there would be a great harvest of olives in the coming year. So, having a little money, he gave deposits for the use of all the olive presses in Chios and Miletus, which he hired at a low price because no one bit against him. When the harvest time came, and many were wanted all at once, and of sudden, he let them out at any rate which he pleased, and made a quantity of money. Thus, he showed the world that philosophers can easily be rich if they like, but that their ambition is of another sort. He is supposed to have given a striking proof of his wisdom, but, as I was saying, his device for getting wealth is of universal application and is nothing but the creation of a monopoly. It is an art often practiced by cities when they are want of money. They make a monopoly of provisions. There was a man of Sicily who, having money deposited with him, bought up all the iron from the iron mines. Afterwards, when the merchants came from their various markets to buy, he was the only seller, and without much increasing the price, he gained 200%, which, when Dinosius heard, he told him that he might take away his money, but that he must not remain at Syracuse, for he thought that the man had discovered a way of making money which was injurious to his own interests. He made the same discovery as Thales. They both contrived to create a monopoly for themselves. And statesmen as well ought to know these things, for a state is often as much in want of money and of such devices for obtaining it as a household, or even more so. Hence, some public men devote themselves entirely to finance. Of household management, we have seen that there are three parts. One is the rule of a master over slaves, which has been discussed already, another of a father, and the third of a husband. A husband and father, we saw, rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs. The rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule. For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full grown is superior to the younger and more immature. But in most constitutional states, the citizens rule and are ruled by turns, for the idea of a constitutional state implies that the natures of the citizens are equal and do not differ at all. Nevertheless, when one rules and the other is ruled, we endeavor to create a difference of outward forms and names and titles of respect, which may be illustrated by the saying of Amasus about his footpan. The relation of the male to the female is of this kind, but there the inequality is permanent. The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power, and therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus father of gods and men, because he is the king of all of them. For a king is the natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger, of father and son. Thus it is clear that household management attends more to men than to the acquisition of inanimate things, and to human excellence more than to the excellence of property, which we call wealth, and to the virtue of freemen more than to the virtue of slaves. A question may indeed be raised, whether there is any excellence at all in a slave beyond and higher than merely instrumental in ministerial qualities, whether he can have the virtues of temperance, courage, justice, and the like, or whether slaves possess only bodily and ministerial qualities. In whichever way we answer the question, a difficulty arises, for if they have virtue, in what will they differ from freemen? On the other hand, since they are men and share irrational principle, it seems absurd to say that they have no virtue. A similar question may be raised about women and children, whether they too have virtues. Or a woman to be temperate and brave and just, and is a child to be called temperate and intemperate or not. So, in general, we may ask about the natural ruler and the natural subject, whether they have the same or different virtues. For if a noble nature is equally required in both, why should one of them always rule and the other always be ruled? Nor can we say that this is a question of degree, for the difference between ruler and subject is a difference of kind, which the difference of more and less never is. Yet how strange is the supposition that the one ought and that the other ought not to have virtue? For if the ruler is intemperate and unjust, how can he rule well? If the subject, how can he obey well? If he be licentious and cowardly, he will certainly not do his duty. It is evident, therefore, that both of them must have a share of virtue, but varying as natural subjects also vary among themselves. Here, the very constitution of the soul has shown us the way. In it one part naturally rules and the other is subject, and the virtue of the ruler we maintain to be different from that of the subject, the one being the virtue of the rational and the other of the irrational part. Now, it is obvious that the same principle applies generally, and therefore almost all things rule and are ruled according to nature, but the kind of rule differs. The free man rules over the slave after another manner from that in which the male rules over the female, or the man over the child. Although the parts of the soul are present in all of them, they are present in different degrees. For the slave has no deliberative faculty at all. The woman has, but it is without authority, and the child has, but it is immature. So, it must necessarily be supposed to be with the moral virtues also, all should partake of them, but only in such manner and degree that this is required by each for the fulfillment of his duty. Hence, the ruler ought to have moral virtue in perfection. For his function, taken absolutely, demands a master artificer, and rational principle is such an artificer. The subjects, on the other hand, require only that measure of virtue which is proper to each of them. Clearly, then, moral virtue belongs to all of them, but the temperance of a man and of a woman, the courage and justice of a man and of a woman are not, as Socrates maintained, the same. The courage of a man is shown in commanding of a woman in obeying, and this holds of all other virtues, as will be more clearly seen if we look at them in detail. For those who say generally that virtue consists in a good disposition of the soul or in doing rightly or the like, only deceive themselves. Far better than such definitions who, like Gorgias, enumerate the virtues. All classes must be deemed to have their special attributes. As the poet says of women, silence is a woman's glory, but this is not equally the glory of man. The child is imperfect, and therefore obviously his virtue is not relative to himself alone, but to the perfect man and to his teacher, and in like manner the virtue of the slave is relative to a master. Now, we determine that a slave is useful for the wants of life, and therefore he will obviously require only so much virtue as will prevent him from failing in his duty through cowardice or lack of self-control. Someone will ask whether, if what we are saying is true, virtue will not be required also in the artisans, for they often fail in their work through lack of self-control. But is there not a great difference in the two cases? For the slave shares in his master's life, the artisan is less closely connected with him, and only attains excellence in proportion as he becomes a slave. The meaner sort of mechanic has a special and separate slavery, and whereas the slave exists by nature, not so the shoemaker or other artisan. It is manifest then that the master ought to be the source of such excellence in the slave and not a mere possessor of the art of mastership, which trains the slave in his duties. Wherefore they are mistaken, who forbid us to converse with slaves and say that we should employ command only, for slaves stand even more in need of admonition than children. So much for this subject. The relations of husband and wife, parent and child, their several virtues, what in their intercourse with one another is good and what is evil, and how we may pursue the good and evil will have to be discussed when we speak of the different forms of government, for in as much as every family is a part of the state and these relationships are the part of a family, and the virtue of the part must have regard to the virtue of the whole, women and children must be trained by education with an eye to the Constitution if the virtues of either of them are supposed to make any difference in the virtues of the state. And they must make a difference to be citizens and half the free persons in a state are women. Of these matters enough has been said of what remains let us speak at another time. Regarding then our present inquiry is complete we will make a new beginning and first let us examine the various theories of a perfect state. End of book 1 sections 10 through 13 Book 2 sections 1 through to 4 of Politics by Aristotle this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org read by Lucy Burgoyne Politics by Aristotle translated by Benjamin Jowett Book 2 section 1 through to 4 Our purpose is to consider what form of political community is best of all for those who are most able to realise their ideal of life. We must therefore examine not only this but other constitutions both such as actually exist in well governed states and any theoretical forms which are held in esteem that what is good and useful may be brought to light and let no one suppose that in seeking for something beyond them we are anxious to make a statistical display at any cost we only undertake this inquiry because all the constitutions with which we are acquainted are faulty. We will begin with the natural beginning of the subject three alternatives are conceivable the members of a state must either have one all things or two nothing in common or three some things in common and some not that they should have nothing in common is clearly impossible for the constitution is a community and must at any rate have a common place the city will be in one place and the citizens are those who share in that one city but should a well ordered state have all things as far as may be in common or some only and not others for the citizens might conceivably have wives and children and property in common as Socrates proposes in the Republic of Plato which are a present condition or the proposed new order of society two there are many difficulties in the community of women and the principle on which Socrates rests the necessity of such an institution evidently is not established by his arguments further as a means to the end which he ascribes to the state the scheme taken historically is impracticable and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds that the greater the unity of the state the better it is not obvious that the state may at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a state since the nature of a state is to be a purity and in tending to greater unity from being a state it becomes a family and from being a family an individual for the family may said to be more than the state and the individual than the family so that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could for it would be the destruction of the state again a state is not made up only of so many men but of different kinds of men for similars do not constitute a state it is not like a military alliance the usefulness of the latter depends upon its quantity even where there is no difference in quality for mutual protection is the end aimed at just as a greater weight of anything is more useful than a less in like manner a state differs from a nation when the nation has not its population organized in glitches but lives an Akkadian sort of life but the elements out of which a unity is to be formed differ in kind where for the principal of compensation as I have already remarked in the ethics is the salvation of states even among freemen and equals this is a principal which must be maintained that they cannot and rule together but must change at the end of a year of some other period of time or in some order of succession the result is that upon this plan they all govern just as if shoemakers and carpenters were to exchange their occupations and the same persons did not always continue shoemakers and carpenters and since it is better that this should be so in politics as well it is clear that while there should be continuance of the same persons in power where this is possible yet where this is not possible by reason of naturalness and at the same time it is just that and should share in the government whether to govern be a good thing or a bad an approximation to this is that equal should in turn retire from office and should apart from official position be treated alike thus the one party rule and the others are ruled in turn as if they were no longer the same persons in life manner when they hold office there is a variety in the offices held hence it is evident that a city is not by nature one in that sense which some persons affirm and that what is said to be the greatest good of cities is in reality their destruction but surely the good of things must be that which preserves them again in another point of view this extreme unification of the state is clearly not good for a family is more self sufficing than an individual and a city than a family and a city only comes into being when the community is large enough to be self sufficing if then self sufficiency is to be desired the lesser degree of unity is more desirable than the greater three but even supposing that it were best for the community to have the greatest degree of unity this unity is by no means proved to follow from the fact of all men saying mine and not mine at the same instant of time which according to Socrates is the sign of perfect unity in a state for the word all is ambiguous if the meaning be that every individual says mine and not mine at the same time then perhaps the result at which Socrates aims may be in some degree accomplished each man will call the same person his own son and the same person his wife the scope of his property and all of that falls to his lot this however is not the way in which people would speak who had had their wives and children in common they would say all but not each in life manner their property would be described as belonging to them not severely but collectively there is an obvious fallacy like some other words both odd even it is ambiguous and even in abstract argument becomes a source of logical puzzles that all persons call the same thing mine in the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing but it is impractical or if the words are taken in the other sense such a unity in no way conduces to harmony and there is another objection to the proposal for that which is common to the greatest numbers has the least care bestowed upon it even one thinks chiefly of his own hardly at all of the common interest and only when he is himself concerned as an individual for besides other considerations everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few each citizen will have a thousand sons who will not be his sons individually but anybody will be equally the son of anybody and will therefore be neglected by all alike further upon the principle everyone will use the word mine of one who is prospering or the reverse however small a fraction he may himself be at the whole number the same boy will be so and so son the son of each of the thousand or whatever be the number of the citizens and even about this positive for it is impossible to know who chance to have a child or whether if one came into existence it has survived but which is better for each to say mine in this way making a man the same relation to two thousand or ten thousand citizens all to use the word mine in the ordinary and more restricted sense be usually the same person is called by one man his own son whom another calls his own brother or cousin or kinsman blood relation or connection by marriage either of himself or of some relation of his and yet another his clansman or tribesman and how much better is it to be the real cousin of somebody than to be a son in a plate hose fashion nor is there any way of preventing brothers and children and fathers and mothers from sometimes recognizing one another the children are born like their parents and they will necessarily be finding indications of their relationship to one another geographers declare such to be the fact they say that in part in India where the women are common nevertheless the children who are born are assigned to their respective fathers on the ground of their likeness and some women like the females of other animals for example mares and cows have a strong tendency to produce offspring resembling their parents as was the case for example other evils against which it is not easy for the authors of such a community to guard will be assaults and homicides voluntary as well as involuntary quarrels and slanders all which are most unholy acts when committed against fathers and mothers and near relations but not equally when there is no relationship moreover they are much more likely to occur if the relationship is unknown and when they have occurred the customary expiations of them cannot be made again how strange it is that Socrates after having made the children common should hinder lovers from carnal intercourse only but should permit love and similarities between father and son or between brother and brother than which nothing can be more unseemly since even without them love of this sort is improper how strange too to forbid intercourse for no other reason than the violence of the pleasure as though the relationship of father and son or of brothers with one another made no difference this community of wives and children seem better suited to the husband than to the guardians for if they have wives and children in common they will be bound to one another by weaker ties as the subject class should be and they will remain obedient in a word the result of such a law would be just the opposite of which good laws ought to have and the intention of Socrates in making these regulations about women and children would defeat itself for friendship we believe to be the greatest good of states and the preservative of them against revolutions neither is there anything like Socrates so greatly lords as the unity of the state which he and all the world declare to be created by friendship but the unity which he commends would be like that of lovers in the symposium who as Arras de Faens says desire to grow together in the excess of their affection and from being two to become in which case one or both would certainly perish whereas in a state having women and children common love will be watery and the father will certainly not say my son or the son, my father as a little sweet wine mingled with a great deal of water is impectable in the mixture so in this sort of community the idea of relationship which is based upon these names will be lost there is no reason why the so called father should care about the son all the son about the father all brothers about one another of the two qualities which chiefly inspire regard and affection that a thing is your own and that it is your only one neither can exist in such a state as this again the transfer of children as soon as they are born from the rank of husband or of artisans to that of guardians and from the rank of guardians into a lower rank will be very difficult to arrange the givers or transferers cannot but know when they are giving and transferring and to whom and the previously mentioned evils such as assaults, unlawful loves, homicides will happen more often amongst those who are transferred to the lower classes or who have a place assigned to them among the guardians for they will no longer call the members of the class they have left brothers and children and fathers and mothers and will not therefore be afraid of committing any crimes by reason of consanguity touching the community of wives and children let this be our conclusion end of book two sections one through to four book two sections five through six of politics by Aristotle this is a LibriVox recording a LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org politics by Aristotle translated by Benjamin Joe it book to sections five through six section five next let us consider what should be our arrangements about property should the citizens of the perfect state have their possessions in common or not this question may be discussed separately from the enactments about women and children even supposing that the women and children belong to individuals according to the customs which is at present universal may there not be an advantage in having and using possessions in common three cases are possible one the soil may be appropriated but the produce may be thrown for consumption into the common stock and this is the practice of some nations or two the soil may be common and may be cultivated in common but the produce divided among individuals for their private use this is a form of common property which is said to exist among certain barbarians or three the soil and the produce may be alike common when the husband are not the owners the case will be different and easier to deal with but when they till the ground for themselves the question of ownership will give a world of trouble if they do not share equally enjoyments and toils those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much but indeed there is always a difficulty in men living together and having all human relations in common but especially in their having common property the partnerships of fellow travelers are an example to the point for they generally fall out over everyday matters and quarrel about any trifle which turns up so with servants we are most able to take offense at those with whom we most frequently come into contact in daily life these are only some of the disadvantages which attend the community of property the present arrangement if improved as it might be by good customs and laws would be far better and would have the advantages of both systems property should be in a certain sense common but as a general rule private for when everyone has a distinct interest men will not complain of one another and they will make more progress because everyone will be attending to his own business and yet by reason of goodness and in respect of use friends as the verb says will have all things in common even now there are traces of such a principle showing that it is not impracticable but in well ordered states exist already to a certain extent and may be carried further for although every man has his own property some things he will place at the disposal of his friends while of others he shares the use with them the lace the demonians for example use one another slaves and horses and dogs as if they were their own and when they lack provisions on a journey they appropriate what they will find in the fields throughout the country it is clearly better that property should be private but the use of it common and the special business of the legislator is to creating men this benevolent disposition again how immeasurably greater is the pleasure when a man feels his own for surely the love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and not given in vain although selfishness is rightly censored this however is not the mere love of self but the love of self in excess like the miser's love of money for all or almost all men love money and other such objects in a measure and further there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or companions or guests or companions which can only be rendered when a man has private property these advantages are lost by excessive unification of the state the exhibition of two virtues besides is visibly annihilated in such a state first temperance towards women for it is an honorable action to abstain from another's wife for temperance sake secondly liberality in the matter of property no one when men have all things in common will any longer set an example of liberality or do any liberal action for liberality consist in the use which is made of property such legislation may have a special appearance of benevolence men readily listen to it and are easily induced to believe that in some wonderful manner everybody will become everybody's friend especially when someone is her denouncing existing in states suits about contracts convictions for perjury flatteries of rich man and the like which are said to arise out of the possession of private property these evils however are due to a very different cause the wickedness of human nature indeed we see that there is much more quarreling among those who have all things in common though there are not many of them when compared with the vast numbers of property again we ought to reckon not only the evils from which the citizens will be saved but also the advantages which they will lose the life which they are to lead appears to be quite impracticable the error of Socrates must be attributed to the false notion of unity from which he starts unity there should be both of the family and of the state but in some respects only for there is a point at which the state may attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a state or at which without actually ceasing to exist it will become an inferior state like the harmony passing into unison or rhythm which has been reduced to a single foot the state as I was saying is a plurality which should be united and made into a community by education and it is strange that the author of a system of education which he thinks will make the state virtuous should expect to improve his citizens by regulations of this sort and not by philosophy or by customs and laws like those which prevail at Sparta and Crete respecting common meals whereby the legislator has made property common let us remember that we should not disregard the experience of ages in the multitude of years these things if they were good would certainly not have been unknown for almost everything has been found out although sometimes they are not put together in other cases men do not use the knowledge which they have great light would be thrown on the subject if we could see such a form of government in the actual process of construction for the legislator could not form a state at all without distributing and dividing its constituents into associations for common meals and into fratries and tribes but all this legislation ends only in forbidding agriculture to the guardians a prohibition which the Lacedemonians try to enforce already but indeed Socrates has not said nor is it easy to decide what in such a community will be the general form of the state the citizens who are not guardians are the majority and about them nothing has been determined are the husband men too to have their property in common or is each individual to have his own and are the wives and children to be individual or common if like the guardians they are to have all things in common what do they differ from them or what will they gain by submitting to their government or upon what principle would they submit unless indeed the governing class adopt the ingenious policy of the Cretans who give their slaves the same institutions as their own but forbid them the monastic exercises and the possession of arms if on the other hand the inferior classes are to be like other cities in respect of marriage and property what would be the form of the community must it not contain two states in one each hostile to the other who makes the guardians into a mere occupying garrison while the husband men and artisans and the rest are the real citizens but if so the suits and quarrels and all things which socrates affirms to exist in other states will exist equally among them he says indeed that having so good in education the citizens will not need many laws for example laws about the city or about the markets but then he confines his education to the guardians again he makes the husband men owners of the property upon condition of their paying a tribute but in that case they are likely to be more unmanageable and conceded than the helots or peniste or slaves in general and whether community of wives and property be necessary for the lower equally with the higher class or not and the questions akin to this what will be the education form of government laws of the lower class socrates has nowhere determined neither is it easy to discover this nor is there character of small importance common life of the guardians is to be maintained again if socrates makes the women common and retains private property the men will see to the fields but who will see to the house and who will do so if the agricultural class have both their property and their wives in common once more it is observed to argue from the analogy of the animals that men and women should follow the same pursuits for animals to be unmanage a household the government too as constituted by socrates contains elements of danger for he makes the same persons always rule and if this is often a case of disturbance among the meaner sort how much more among high spirited warriors but that the persons whom he makes rulers must be the same is evident for the gold which the god mingles in the souls of men is not at one time given to one another but always to the same as he says god mingles gold in some and silver in others from their very birth but brass and iron in those who are meant to be artisans and husband again he deprives the guardians even of happiness and says that the legislator ought to make the whole state happy but the whole cannot be happy unless most or all or some of its parts enjoy happiness in this respect happiness is not like the even principle in numbers which may exist only in the whole but in neither of the parts not so happiness and if the guardians are not happy who are surely not the artisans or the common people the republic of which socrates discourses has all these difficulties and others quite as great section six the same or nearly the same objections apply to plateaus later work the laws and therefore we had better examine briefly the constitution which is there in described in the republic socrates has definitely settled in all a few questions only such as the community of women and children the community of property and the constitution of the state the population is divided into two classes one of husband men and the other of warriors from this ladder is taken a third class of counselors and rulers of the state but socrates has not determined whether the husband men and artisans are to have a share in the government and whether they too are to carry arms and share in military service or not he certainly thinks that the women ought to share in the education of the guardians and to fight by their side the remainder of the work is filled up with questions for and to the main subject and with discussions about the education of the guardians in the laws there is hardly anything but laws but much is said about the constitution this which he had intended to make more of the ordinary type he gradually brings round to the other or ideal form for with the exception of the community of women and property he supposes everything to be the same in both states there is to be the same education the citizens of both are to live free from servile occupations and there are to be common meals in both the only difference is that in the laws the common meals are extended to women and the warriors number five thousand but in the republic only one thousand the discourses of socrates are never commonplace they always exhibit grace and originality and thought but perfection in everything can hardly be expected we must not overlook the fact that the number of five thousand citizens just now mentioned will require a territory as large as babelon or some other huge site if so many persons are to be supported in idleness together with their women and attendants who will be a multitude many times is great in framing an ideal we may assume what we wish but should avoid impossibilities it is said that the legislator ought to have his eyes directed to two points the people and the country but neighboring countries also must not be forgotten by him firstly because the state for which he legislates is to have a political and not an isolated life for a state must have such a military force as will be serviceable against her neighbors and not merely useful at home even if the life of action is not admitted to be the best either for individuals or states still a city should be formidable to enemies whether invading or retreating there is another point should not the amount of property be defined in some way which differs from this by being clearer for socrates says that a man should have so much property as will enable him to live temporarily which is only a way of saying to live well this is too general a conception further a man may live temporarily and yet miserably a better definition would be that a man must have so much property as will enable him to live not only temporarily but liberally if the two are parted liberally will combine with luxury temperance will be associated with toil for liberality and temperance are the only eligible qualities which have to do with the use of property a man cannot use property with mildness or courage but temporarily and liberally he may and therefore the practice of these virtues is inseparable from property there is an inconsistency too in equalizing the property and not regulating the number of the citizens the population is to remain unlimited and he thinks that it will be sufficiently equalized by a certain number of marriages being unfruitful however many are born to others because he finds this to be the case in existing states but greater care will be required than now for among ourselves whatever may be the number of citizens the property is always distributed among them and therefore no one is in want but if the property were incapable of division as in the laws the super numeraries whether few or many would get nothing one would have thought that it was even more necessary to limit population than property and that the limit should be fixed by calculating the chances of mortality in the children and of the sterility in married persons the neglect of this subject which in existing states is so common is a never failing cause of poverty among the citizens and poverty is the parent of revolution and crime Fiden the Corinthian who was one of the most ardent legislators thought that the families and the number of citizens ought to remain the same although originally all the lots may have been of different sizes but in the laws the opposite principle is maintained what in our opinion is the right arrangement will have to be explained hereafter there is another omission in the laws Socrates does not tell us how the rulers differ from their subjects he only says that they should be related as the warp and the wolf which are made out of different walls he allows that a man's whole property may be increased five fold but why should not his land also increase to a certain extent again will the good management of a household be promoted by his arrangement of homesteads for he assigns to each individual two homesteads in separate places and it is difficult to live in two houses the whole system of government tends to be neither democracy nor oligarchy but something in a mean between them which is usually called a polity and is composed of the heavy armed soldiers now if he intended to frame a constitution which would suit the greatest number of states he was very likely right but not if he meant to say that this constitutional form came nearest to his first or ideal state for many would prefer the Lacedemonian or possibly some other more aristocratic government some indeed say that the best constitution is a combination of all existing forms and they praise the Lacedemonian because it is made up of oligarchy monarchy and democracy the king forming the monarchy and the council of elders the oligarchy while the democratic element is represented by the efforts for the efforts are selected from the people others however declare that the best constitution is made up of democracy and tyranny and find the element of democracy in the common meals and in the habits of daily life in the laws it is maintained that the best constitution is made up of democracy and tyranny which are either not constitutions at all or are the worst of all but they are nearer the truth who combine many forms for the constitution is better which is made up of more numerous elements and the laws has no element of monarchy at all it is nothing but oligarchy and democracy leaning rather to oligarchy this is seen in the mode of appointing magistrates for although the appointment of them by law from among those who have been already selected combines both elements the way in which the rich are compelled by law to attend the assembly and vote for magistrates or discharge other political duties while the rest may do as they like or to have the greater number of the magistrates appointed out of the richer classes and the highest officers selected from those who have the greatest incomes both these are oligarchal features the oligarchal principle prevails also in the choice of the council for all are compelled to choose but the compulsion extends only to the choice out of the first class and of an equal number out of the second class and out of the third class but not in this latter case to all the voters but to those of the first three classes and the selection of candidates out of the fourth class is only compulsory on the first and second then from the person so chosen he says that there ought to be an equal number of each class selected thus a preponderance will be given to the better sort of people who have the larger incomes because many of the lower classes not being compelled will not vote these considerations and others which would be adduced when the time comes for examining similar polities tend to show that states like Plato's should not be composed of democracy and monarchy there is also a danger in electing the magistrates out of the body who are themselves elected for if but a few small number choose to combine the elections will always go as they desire such is the constitution which is described in the laws end of book two sections five and six book two section seven through eight of politics by Aristotle this is a LibriVox recording our LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org politics by Aristotle translated by Benjamin Joe it book two section seven through eight section seven 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 in the position 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 Chalcedon who was the first to affirm that the citizens of a state ought to have equal possessions he thought that in a new colony the equalization might be accomplished without difficulty not so easily when a state was already established and that the capacity of compassing the desired end would be for the rich to give and not to receive marriage portions and for the poor not to give but to receive them Plato in the laws was of the opinion that to a certain extent accumulation should be allowed forbidding as I have already observed any citizen to possess more than five times the minimum qualification but those who make such laws should remember what they are apt to forget the legislator who fixes the amount of property should also fix the number of children for if the children are too many for the property the law must be broken and besides the violation of the law it is a bad thing that many from being rich should become poor for men of ruined fortunes are sure to stir up revolutions that the equalization of property exercises an influence on political society was clearly understood even by some of the old legislators laws were made by Salon and others prohibiting an individual from possessing as much land as he pleased and there are other laws in the states which forbid the sale of property among the Locrians for example there is a law that a man is not to sell his property unless he can prove unmistakably that some misfortune has befallen him again there have been laws which enjoy the preservation of the original lots such a man existed in the island of Lucas and the abrogation of it made the constitution too democratic for the rulers no longer had the prescribed qualifications again where there is equality of property the amount may be either too large or too small and the possessor may be living either in luxury or pinery clearly then the legislator not only to aim at the equalization of properties but at moderation in their amount further if he prescribed this moderate amount equally to all he will be no nearer the mark for it is not the possessions but the desires of mankind which require to be equalized and this is impossible unless a sufficient education is provided by the laws but Phalaeus will probably reply that this is precisely what he means and that in his opinion there ought to be in states not only equal property but equal education still he should tell precisely what he means and that in his opinion there ought to be in having one and the same for all if it is of a sort that predisposes men to avarice or ambition or both moreover civil troubles arise not only out of the inequality of property but out of the inequality of honor though in opposite ways for the common people quarrel about the inequality of property the higher classes about the equality of honor as the poet says the bad and good alike in honor share there are crimes of which the motive is won't and for these Phalaeus expects to find a cure in the equalization of property which will take away from a man the temptation to be a highwayman because he is hungry or cold but won't is not the sole incentive to crime men also wish to enjoy themselves and not to be in a state of desire they wish to cure some desire going beyond the necessities of life which prey upon them nay this is not the only reason they may desire superuities in order to enjoy pleasures unaccompanied with pain and therefore they commit crimes now what is the cure of these three disorders of the first moderate possessions and occupation of the second habits of temperance as to the third if any desire pleasures which depend on themselves they will find the satisfaction of their desires nowhere but in philosophy for all other pleasures we are dependent on others the fact is that the greatest crimes are caused by excess and not by necessity men do not become tyrants in order that they may not suffer cold and hence great is the honor bestowed not on him who kills a thief but on him who kills a tyrant thus we see that the institutions of Phalaeus avail only against petty crimes there is another objection to them they are chiefly designed to promote the internal welfare of the state but the legislator should consider also its relation to neighboring nations and to all who are outside of it the government must be organized with a view to military strength and of this he has said not a word and so with respect to property there should not only be enough to supply the internal wants of the state but also to meet dangers coming from without the property of the state should not be so large that more powerful neighbors may be tempted by it while the owners are unable to repel the invaders nor yet so small that the state is unable to maintain a war against states of equal power and of the same character Phalaeus has not laid down any rule but we should bear in mind that abundance of wealth is an advantage the best limit will probably be that a more powerful neighbor must be to inducement to go to war with you by reason of the excess of your wealth but only such as he would have had if you had possessed less there is a story that Ubulus when Audifredades was going to besiege Atarnius told him to consider how long the operation would take and then reckon upon the cost which would be incurred in the time for he said I am willing for a smaller sum than that to leave Atarnius at once these words of Ubulus made an impression on Audifredades as he desisted from the siege the equalization of property is one of the things that tend to prevent the citizens from quarreling not that the gain in this direction is very great for the nobles will be dissatisfied because they think themselves worthy of more than an equal share of honors and this is often found to be a cause of sedition and revolution and the avarice of mankind is insatiable at one time two obels was pay enough but now when the sum has become customary men always want more and more without end for it is of the nature of desire not to be satisfied and most men live only for the gratification of it the beginning of reform is not so much to equalize property as to train the nobler sort of nature not to desire more and to prevent the lower from getting more that is to say it must be kept down but not ill treated besides the equalization proposed by Phalaeus is imperfect for he only equalizes land whereas a man may be rich also in slaves and cattle and money and in the abundance of what are called his movables now either all these things must be equalized or some limit must be imposed on them or they must be let alone it would appear that Phalaeus only if as he supposes all the artisans are to be public slaves and not to form a supplementary part of the body of citizens but if there is a law that artisans are to be public slaves it should only apply to those engaged in public works as at Epidamnus or at Athens on the plan which Diophantus once introduced from these observations anyone may judge how far Phalaeus was wrong or right in his ideas Section 8 Hippodamnus the son of Euryphon a native of Miletus the same who invented the art of planning cities and who also laid out the Piraeus a strange man whose fondness for distinction led him into a general eccentricity of life which made some think him affected for he would wear flowing hair and expensive ornaments but these were worn on a cheap but warm garment both in winter he besides aspiring to be adept in the knowledge of nature was the first person not a statesman who made inquiries about the best form of government the city of Hippodamnus was composed of ten thousand citizens divided into three parts one of artisans, one of husbandmen and a third of armed defenders of the state he also divided the land into three parts one sacred, one public the third private the first was set apart to maintain the customary worship of the gods the second was to support the warriors the third was the property of the husbandmen he also divided laws into three classes and no more for he maintained that there are three subjects of lawsuits insult, injury and homicide he likewise instituted a single final court of appeal to which all cases seeming to have been improperly decided might be preferred this court he formed of elders chosen for the purpose he was further of opinion that the decisions of the court ought not to be given by the use of a voting pebble but that every one should have a tablet on which you might not only write a simple condemnation or leave the tablet blank for a simple acquittal but if he partly acquitted and partly condemned he was to distinguish accordingly to the existing law he objected that it obliged the judges to be guilty of perjury whichever way they voted he also enacted that those who discovered anything for the good of the state should be honored and he provided that the children of citizens who died in battle should be maintained at the public expense as if such an enactment had never been heard of before yet it actually exists at Athens and in other places as to the magistrates he would have them all elected by the people that is by the three classes already mentioned and those who were elected were to watch over the interest of the public of strangers and of orphans these are the most striking points in the constitution of hippodamus there is not much else the first of these proposals to which objection may be taken is the threefold division of the citizens the artisans and the husbandmen and the warriors all have a share in the government but the husbandmen have no arms and the artisans neither arms nor land and therefore they become all but slaves of the warrior class that they should share in all the offices is an impossibility for generals and guardians of the citizens and nearly all the principal magistrates must be taken from the classes of those who carry arms yet if the two other classes have no share in the government how can they be loyal citizens it may be said that those who have arms must necessarily be masters of both the other classes but this is not so easily accomplished unless they are numerous and if they are why should the other classes share in the government at all or have power to appoint magistrates further what use are farmers to the city artisans there must be for these are wanted in every city and they can live by their craft as elsewhere and the husbandmen too if they really provided the warriors with food might fairly have a share in the government but in the republic of hippodamus they are supposed to have land of their own which they cultivate for their private benefit again as to this common land out of which the soldiers are maintained if they are themselves to be the cultivators of it the warrior class will be identical with the husbandman although the legislator intended to make a distinction between them if again there are to be other cultivators distinct both from the husbandman who have land of their own and from the warriors they will make a fourth class which has no place in the state and no share in anything or if the same persons are to cultivate their own lands and those of the public as well they will have difficulty in supplying the quantity of produce which will maintain two households and why in this case should there be any division for they might find food themselves and give to the warriors from the same land and the same lots there is surely a great confusion in all this neither is the law to be commended which says that the judges when a simple issue is laid before them should distinguish in their judgment now in an arbitration although the arbitrators are many they confer with one another about the decision and therefore they can distinguish but in courts of law this is impossible and indeed most legislators take pains to prevent the judges from holding any communication with one another again will there not be confusion if the judges think that damages should be given but not so much as the suitor demands he asks say for twenty minie and the judge allows him ten minie or in general the suitor asks for more and the judge allows less while another judge allows five another four minie in this way they will go on splitting up the damage and some will grant the whole and others nothing how is this final reckoning to be taken again no one contends that he who votes for a simple acquittal or condemnation perjures himself if the indictment has been laid in an unqualified form and this is just for the judge who acquits does not decide that the defendant owes nothing but that he does not owe the twenty minie he only is guilty of perjury who thinks that the defendant ought not to pay twenty minie and yet condemns him to honor those who discover anything which is useful for a proposal which has a specious sound that cannot safely be enacted by law for it may encourage informers and perhaps even lead to political commotions this question involves another it has been doubted whether it is or is not expedient to make any changes in the laws of a country even if another law be better now if changes are inexpedient we can hardly assent to the proposal of hippodamus for under pretense in a public service a man may introduce measures which are really destructive to the laws or to the constitution but since we have touched upon this subject perhaps we have better go a little into detail for as I was saying there is a difference of opinion and it may sometimes seem desirable to make changes such changes in the other arts and scientists have certainly been beneficial medicine for example and gymnastic and every other art and craft started from the 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 helens went about armed and bought their brides for each other the remains of ancient laws which have come down to us are quite absurd for example in cumie there is a law about the fact that if the accuser produced a certain number of witnesses from among his own kinsmen the accused shall be held guilty again men in general desire the good but not merely what their fathers had but the primeval inhabitants whether they were born of the earth or where the survivors are some destruction may be supposed to have been no better than ordinary or even foolish people among ourselves such is certainly the tradition concerning born men and it would be ridiculous to rest contented with their notions even when laws have been written down they ought not always to remain unaltered as in other sciences so in politics it is impossible that all things should be precisely set down in writing for enactments must be universal but actions are concerned with particulars hence we infer that 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 is an evil and when the advantage is small some errors both of law givers and rulers had better be left the citizen will not gain so much by making the change as he will lose by the habit of disobedience the analogy of the arts is false a change in a law is a very different thing from a change in art for the law has no power to command obedience except that of habit which can only be given by time so that readiness to change from old to new laws enfeebles the power of the law even if we admit that the laws are to be changed are they all to be changed and in every state and are they to be changed by anybody who likes or only by certain persons these are very important questions and therefore we have better of the discussion of them to a more suitable occasion end of book 2 section 7 through 8