II. ARISTOTLE (364-322 B.C.)

INTRODUCTION

Aristotle is commonly called the father, or maker, of political science. Such a title is justified by the character of his political writing, as well as by the great influence which his researches in this field have exerted upon later political reflection. The range of his discussion is comprehensive; his analysis is systematic; his exposition is thorough and is fully illustrated from his fund of historical knowledge and contemporary observation. The influence of his ideas and methods in political theory became particularly manifest after the revival of the study of his works in the thirteenth century.

Aristotle was a younger contemporary of Plato. He was born at Stagira, in Thrace, his father being physician to Amyntas II, king of Macedonia. While a youth Aristotle came to Athens and was one of Plato's pupils for about twenty years. He next spent a few years at the court of Hermias, prince of Atarneas, in Asia Minor; he fled from that country when the brief tyranny of Hermias was terminated by revolution. Aristotle was then invited to the Macedonian court by King Philip, who made him tutor to the young Alexander. Some time after the accession of Alexander to the Macedonian throne Aristotle returned to Athens, where he conducted a school at the gymnasium called the Lyceum. The system of thought there founded came to be known as the "Peripatetic;" this is, as some say, because Aristotle would meet his students in one of the walks of the Lyceum, or, as others say, because of his habit of strolling about while giving his lectures.

Aristotle, like Plato, lived through anarchy and war in the Greek states, and witnessed the failure of any of them to establish lasting supremacy over the others. On the other hand, he saw the accomplishment of Macedonian expansion and lived under the protection of, and for a time in close association with, the great wielder of the strong-man power in that expansion.

Aristotle's writings cover a wide field: logic and metaphysics; mathematics and physics; the natural sciences; rhetoric and poetry; ethics and politics. There is not complete agreement among historians of philosophy as to the extent to which the metaphysical basis of Aristotle's system accords with that of his teacher, Plato. Aristotle criticised Plato's ascription of exclusive and independent reality to abstract and general qualities; and he argued that these general elements are real only as attributes attached to concrete objects, which are the only completely real things. This philosophical point of view is a basis for inductive reasoning; and whether or not the general theories of Plato and Aristotle are reconcilable, there are very evident differences in their methods. These differences are especially manifest in their political works; Aristotle's discussion is more practical, systematic, and precise than that of Plato, and it is based more on history and observation, with relatively slight allegorical and poetical embellishment. Moreover, politics with Aristotle comes near to being a distinct discipline, separated from philosophy and ethics.

Most of the writings of Aristotle that have come down to us are in fragmentary and disarranged form, suggesting that the earliest manuscripts may have been compiled from lecture notes of teacher or pupil. There is much repetition in The Politics, as in other works of Aristotle. None of the arrangements that have been made of the books of The Politics are such as to present his thought in clear logical sequence. The selections below embody his ideas on fundamental subjects of political theory, as follows: the nature, origin and end of the state; the justification of slavery; the definition of citizenship; the location of sovereignty; forms of state; the departments of government; the cause and prevention of changes in state-form. Following this order it is necessary at a few places to depart from the order in which the passages appear in the translation from which the selections are taken.

READINGS FROM THE POLITICS1

1. The Nature, End, and Origin of the State 2

55

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, and in a greater degree than any other, at the highest good.

Now there is an erroneous opinion that 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 were 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 principles 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 any one 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 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 they differ from one another, and whether any scientific distinction can be drawn between the different kinds of rule.

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 (1) there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; for example, 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 (2) there must be a union of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved. For he who can foresee with his mind is by nature intended to be lord 1 The selections are taken from The Politics of Aristotle, translated into English, by Benjamin Jowett, two volumes, Oxford, 1885. Published by the Clarendon Press.

*I, i, ii, iii (in part), v; III, ix. Jowett, pp. 1-5, 7-9, 82-84.

and master, and he who can work with his body is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest. Nature, however, has distinguished between the female and the slave. For she is not niggardly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for many uses; she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made 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 meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;

as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature

one.

Out of these two relationships between man and woman, master and slave, the family first arises, and Hesiod is right when he says,— First house and wife and an ox for the plough,

for the ox is the poor man's slave. The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men's everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas "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, then comes into existence 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 [of the Cyclopes]:

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 the 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 life to be like their own.

When several villages are united in a single community, perfect and 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. And therefore,

if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the [completed] nature is the 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 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 that man is by nature a political animal. and not by mere accident is without a humanity, or below it; he is the

creation of nature, and And he who by nature state, is either above

Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, whom Homer denounces-the outcast who is a lover of war; he may be compared to a bird which flies alone.

Now the reason why 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 sound 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 intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and likewise the just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state.

Thus 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 speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same when they are no longer the same, but only that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a 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 be either a beast or a god: 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 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 the arms of