Book 1
Aristotle defines the polis, or city, as a koinonia, or political association, and he asserts that all such
associations, like all deliberate human acts, are formed with the aim of achieving some good. He
adds that political association is the most sovereign form of association since it incorporates all other
forms of association and aims at the highest good.
The different kinds of associations that exist are founded on different kinds of relationships. The
basic unit of association is the household, the next is the village, and the ultimate association is the
city, toward which end humans, seeking to attain the highest quality of life, naturally move. Aristotle
concludes, "man is by nature a political animal." Only as part of a city can people fully realize their
nature; separated from the city, they are worse than animals.
Aristotle identifies the three kinds of relationships that make up the household: master-slave;
husband-wife; and parent-child. He also identifies a fourth element of the household, which he calls
the "art of acquisition."
Aristotle views slaves as the means by which the master secures his livelihood. He defends slavery by
noting that nature generally consists of ruling and ruled elements: some people are slaves by nature,
while others are masters by nature. It is thus unjust to enslave, through war or other means, those
who are not slaves by nature. Though being suited to mastery or slavery is generally inherited,
slavery is just only when the rule of master over slave is beneficial for both parties.
Aristotle likens the relationship between master and slave to that between soul and body: the
master possesses rational, commanding powers, while the slave, lacking these, is fit only to carry out
menial duties. He also likens the relationship between master and slave to that between a monarch
and his people and that between a statesman and free citizens.
Aristotle examines the art of acquisition, which pertains to the satisfaction of basic needs,
distinguishing between natural and unnatural acquisition. Different people go about satisfying these
needs in different ways, depending on their mode of life: some are farmers, some hunter-gatherers,
and some pirates or freebooters, etc. This securing of food, shelter, and other necessities is called
natural acquisition because it is an indispensable part of the management of a household.
Unnatural acquisition, on the other hand, consists of accumulating money for its own sake. Aristotle
observes that goods such as food and clothing have not only a use-value, but also an exchangevalue. In societies where trade is common, a monetary currency naturally arises as a facilitator of
exchange. The aim of exchange is the accumulation of such currency—i.e., the production of
monetary wealth rather than the natural acquisition of goods. Aristotle further dislikes this
accumulation of currency because there is no limit to the amount of currency one can accumulate,
leading people to indulge in an excess of enjoyment.
Aristotle addresses the household relationships of husband-and-wife and father- and-child. The
former relationship resembles that of the statesman to his people in that the husband and wife
share the same free (i.e., not slave) nature; that the male, by his nature, is more fit than the female
to command, justifies the fact that it is the husband, not the wife, who rules the household. The
latter relationship resembles that of the king to his subjects, as the father rules by virtue of his
children's love for him and their respect of his age. The respective virtues of master, wife, child, and
slave vary in aim and measure according to the different roles these individuals fulfill.
Book 2
Before proposing his own theory of government, Aristotle examines other theories of government
and reviews existing constitutions of well-governed states. He begins with an extended criticism of
Plato's ##Republic##, interpreting its main thrust to be that citizens should share in common as
much as possible, including wives, children, and property. The goal of this community is to achieve
as much unity in the city as possible, but Aristotle counters that the city involves an essential
plurality: different people must make different contributions, fulfill different roles, and fit into
distinct social classes. Otherwise, a city will not be able to perform the many functions necessary for
it to remain self- sufficient.
Aristotle disapproves of Plato's suggestion that men share the women of the city and that children
be taken from their mothers at birth and raised collectively in state nurseries. By this proposal, no
child would receive proper parental care, and the lack of family ties would render citizens less
capable of showing friendship and love. Aristotle also notes that Plato does not explain how children
can be transferred between social classes without great discord.
Aristotle also attacks Plato's remarks on the community of property, stating that the practice of
generosity, an important virtue, requires individual ownership of property. The problems people
often associate with ownership of private property arise not from privatization but from human
wickedness. The solution is to share education, not property. Aristotle also points out that Plato is
not clear on exactly what kind of ownership the farming class should have over its property. In any
case, Aristotle finds none of the possible kinds of ownership satisfying.
In a final comment on Plato's republic, Aristotle notes that it is dangerous to leave the governance of
the city entirely in the hands of one class. Besides, Plato's system seems to deprive the guardian
class, and by extension the whole republic, of happiness, thus defeating the purpose of association.
Aristotle then details the faults he has found with Plato's Laws: (1) Plato's proposed city requires a
vast territory but makes no provision for safe relations with neighbors; (2) generosity, like
temperance, should be a guiding principle regarding wealth; (3) Plato says that land should be
divided into even lots and distributed evenly between citizens but makes no allowance for
fluctuations in population; and (4) Plato seems to want a politeia, or balanced constitutional
government but ends up with an oligarchy.
Aristotle then criticizes the theories proposed by Phaleas of Chalcedon and Hippodamus of Miletus.
Phaleas's primary concern is the equalization of property, but he does not realize that material
equality alone cannot make people good; rather, happiness arises out of moderation and education.
Hippodamus's class distinctions are confused, his legal reforms unsavory, and his system of rewards
dangerous.
Having dealt with these theoretical systems, Aristotle turns his attention to existing constitutions
and finds none that is wholly satisfactory. He finds a number of problems with the much-admired
Spartans' government: (1) the system of serfdom leaves the ever-present danger of revolution; (2)
the undue freedom given to women presents many hazards, the worst of which is a dowry system
that hurts the economy and the military; (3) the Ephors, or overseers, are elected almost at random
from the general populace; (4) both Ephors and councilors are susceptible to bribes; and (5) the
state's two kings are not elected on the basis of merit.
Aristotle is dissatisfied also with Crete and Carthage. The Cretan system is elitist, susceptible to
feuds, and has only remained safe thanks to its isolation from other states. While Carthage is
superior to both Sparta and Crete, it rewards the rich too much, which encourages greediness.
Book 3
Book III is ultimately concerned with the nature of different constitutions, but in order to understand
cities and the constitutions on which they are founded, Aristotle begins with an inquiry into the
nature of citizenship. It is not enough to say a citizen is someone who lives in the city or has access
to the courts of law, since these rights are open to resident aliens and even slaves. Rather, Aristotle
suggests that a citizen is someone who shares in the administration of justice and the holding of
public office. Aristotle then broadens this definition, which is limited to individuals in democracies,
by stating that a citizen is anyone who is entitled to share in deliberative or judicial office.
Aristotle points out that though citizenship is often reserved for those who are born to citizen
parents, this hereditary status becomes irrelevant in times of revolution or constitutional change,
during which the body of citizens alters. This raises the question: to whom may citizenship be justly
granted, and can the city be held accountable for decisions made by governing individuals if these
individuals have not been justly granted citizenship? Further, if the city is not identical to its
government, what defines a city, and at what point does a city lose its identity? Aristotle suggests
that a city is defined by its constitution, so that a change in constitution signifies a change in the city.
He does not, however, resolve the question of whether a city should honor debts and obligations
made under a previous constitution.
Aristotle next compares the criteria for being a good citizen and those for being a good man. One is a
good citizen to the extent to which one upholds and honors the constitution. Because there are
different kinds of constitutions there are also different kinds of good citizens. Perfect virtue,
however, is the only standard for being a good man, so it is possible to be a good citizen without
being a good man. Aristotle suggests that a good ruler who possesses practical wisdom can be both
a good citizen and a good man.
There is the further question of whether manual laborers can be citizens. Aristotle acknowledges
that they are necessary to a city but states that not everyone who is necessary to the city can be a
citizen: good citizenship requires that the citizen be free from the necessary tasks of life. Still, in
oligarchies, in which citizenship is determined by wealth, a rich manual laborer may qualify for
citizenship.
Next, Aristotle details the different kinds of constitutions that exist. There are just constitutions
geared toward bringing about well-being for all of their respective citizens, and unjust constitutions
geared toward the benefit of those in power. Constitutions vary also in the size of the governing
body: a single person; a small, elite group; or the masses. Thus, there are six kinds of government:
three just and three unjust. Just government by a single person is kingship, by a small group is
aristocracy, and by the masses is politeia, or constitutional government, participation in which is
reserved for those who possess arms. The three forms of unjust government are perversions of the
corresponding forms of just government: a kingship directed toward the sole interest of the ruler is a
tyranny; an aristocracy directed toward the sole interest of the wealthy is an oligarchy; and a
constitutional government directed toward the sole interest of the poor is a democracy.
Aristotle says that all constitutions are based on a notion of justice; this notion, however, varies
between constitutions. Oligarchs, for instance, maintain that it is just to grant benefits in proportion
to a person's wealth, while democrats claim that all who are equal in free birth should be granted an
equal share in the wealth of the city. This difference in distribution results from differing notions
about the end goal of the city. If the end goal of a city were property and wealth, then the wealthiest
members would indeed contribute the most to the city, and thus they would deserve the greatest
share of benefits. Alternatively, if the end goal of the city were simply life or security, then all would
be equal partners in this enterprise, and all would deserve an equal share of benefits. But
associations based on wealth and security are not cities. The end goal of a city is life of good quality
for its citizens, and thus benefits should be extended to those who do the most to contribute to this
end by encouraging civil excellence, regardless of their birth or wealth.
Aristotle examines a number of problems regarding sovereignty. If the governing body is allowed to
determine what is just, then democracies, oligarchies, and tyrannies would then be just. And though
aristocracies and kingships may rule justly, these systems deprive the rest of the citizens of the
honor of holding civic office. Likewise, laws cannot be allowed to determine automatically what is
just, since they may be formulated unjustly.
Aristotle believes that a politeia can overcome many of these difficulties. While each individual
person may not be particularly commendable, the populace as a whole is less susceptible to error
and should share collectively in the judicial and deliberative offices of government. Aristotle answers
the objection that government should be left to experts by saying that the collective populace is
wiser than any individual expert, and more importantly, a better judge as to whether the people are
being governed well. Aristotle concludes nonetheless that well-constituted laws should ultimately be
sovereign, and governing bodies should deal only with particular cases not covered by general laws.
Aristotle asserts that justice is the end goal of politics, granting benefits in proportion to merit. Merit
is determined by one's contribution to the functioning and well-being of the city, but it is not entirely
clear how one can determine who contributes the most toward these ends: separate arguments can
be made in favor of the wealthy, the nobly born, the good, and the masses. Aristotle argues on
behalf of the masses but suggests that if there is a single individual far superior in all respects to
everyone else, he should be made king.
Kingship ranges from being a military commander to being the absolute sovereign in every matter.
Aristotle concerns himself particularly with the issues of this latter form, absolute monarchy. A king
is more adaptable than laws to particular circumstances, but a single person cannot possibly deal
with all the city's affairs. Further, a single individual is more susceptible than a larger body to
corruption. Given the vital need for impartiality, Aristotle considers a larger body preferable to a king
(even if the king were to subject himself to impartial laws) in the making of day-to-day decisions.
Nonetheless, in those rare cases in which one individual clearly outstrips the rest, it may be just to
grant that individual absolute kingship.
Book 4
Aristotle asks what sorts of states are the most practical for existing circumstances. Having asked
what constitution is the best in an ideal case, he wants to study what sort of constitution suits what
kind of civic body, how best a given constitution can be maintained, and what kind of constitution is
best suited for the majority of contemporary cities. Every city has different constituent elements:
the number, diversity, wealth, skill, etc., of the different classes of society may vary greatly, allowing
for many different constitutions.
Aristotle defines democracy as a state in which the freeborn are sovereign, and oligarchy as a state
in which the rich are sovereign. In order to analyze the different kinds of democracy and oligarchy,
Aristotle breaks the city down into nine constituent parts: (1) farming class; (2) mechanical class
concerned with the arts and crafts; (3) merchant and retailer class; (4) hired laborers; (5) soldiers; (6)
wealthy patrons; (7) the executive, (8) the deliberative, and (9) judicial branches of public affairs.
Though the same person may fall into more than one of these categories, no one can be both rich
and poor. As a result, there are always two distinct classes in society, and two basic forms of
government—democracy and oligarchy—depending on which of the two classes is in power.
Aristotle classifies five different forms of democracy: (1) everyone is equal by law, regardless of
wealth; (2) an individual must meet a modest minimum property qualification to hold public office;
(3) only the nobly born may hold public office, but the law remains sovereign; (4) anyone can hold
public office, but the law remains sovereign; and (5) anyone can hold public office and the public,
rather than the law, is sovereign. This last form is susceptible to the onset of demagoguery, in which
a popular leader can sway public opinion to the extent that he can do as he wills without
repercussion.
Aristotle classifies four different kinds of oligarchy: (1) there is a property qualification for holding
public office; (2) there is a high property qualification for holding public office and the current
officers select new officers; (3) public office is hereditary; and (4) dunasteia or dynasty, in which
public office is hereditary and the officers, rather than the law, are sovereign.
Aristotle notes that a state with a democratic constitution is often a de factooligarchy, and vice
versa. Normally, when people have wealth and hence leisure sufficient to devote a great deal of time
to public office, states tend toward the more extreme forms of government in which officers, rather
than the law, are sovereign.
An aristocracy accords public office primarily on the basis of merit, though some regard may be paid
to the wealthy or the masses. Politeia, or constitutional government, is a mixture of oligarchy and
democracy that confers benefits both on the masses and on the wealthy, but it does not
discriminate on the basis of merit. A constitutional government can mix democracy and oligarchy in
one of three ways: (1) a combination of the two; (2) a mean between the two; or (3) a mixture of
elements taken from each. In a healthy constitutional government, it is essential that everyone in
the city be content with the constitution.
Last, Aristotle distinguishes between three kinds of tyranny: (1) that among barbarians; (2) that once
existing in Greece; and (3) a tyrannical and entirely self-interested rule exerted over unwilling
subjects.
Aristotle states that the type of government that is simultaneously most practical and most realistic
is a politeia, or constitutional government, in which power rests in the hands of a strong middle
class. Drawing on a major theme of the ##Nicomachean Ethics##, Aristotle asserts that a life of
virtue consists of finding the mean between two extremes. In the case of politics, the middle class is
the mean between the rich and the poor. In a city that consists only of rich and poor, the rich will
feel contempt for the poor and the poor will feel hatred and envy for the rich. The spirit of friendship
that is so essential to a healthy city is made possible only by a strong middle class that holds no
grudges and is not prone to factionalism. Aristotle laments, however, that a strong middle class
rarely develops: it is possible neither in small cities, nor in the superpowers of Athens and Sparta,
which have encouraged democracy and oligarchy respectively.
Aristotle addresses the question of which type of constitution is best suited to which sort of state.
The fundamental principle is that the part of the city that wants a certain constitution must be
stronger than the part of the city that opposes it. Where the nobility, wealth, and culture of the rich
outweigh the sheer numbers of the poor, an oligarchy is desirable, and where the numbers of the
poor outweigh the trappings of the rich, a democracy is desirable. When the middle class outweighs
both of these classes, a politeia, is desirable. The middle class serves as a good arbitrator and, so,
should always be a party to the constitution.
Aristotle points out that oligarchies fine the rich for not participating in the assembly, public office,
law courts, army, and athletics. The rich are thus encouraged to participate while the poor have no
motivation to do so. Democracies practice the contrary, paying the poor but not the rich for their
participation in civic activities. A mean between democracy and oligarchy would thus have to fine
the rich and reward the poor in order to encourage both to participate. Aristotle recommends,
however, that some minor property qualification, like the possession of arms, be required for those
wishing to participate in government.
Aristotle considers the three elements of civic government: the deliberative, the executive, and the
judicial. The deliberative element deals with public matters such as foreign policy, the enacting of
laws, judicial cases in which a severe penalty is involved, and the appointment of public officials. The
executive element holds public order and takes responsibility for governing and issuing commands.
The judicial element passes rulings on matters of private and public interest. Generally, a democracy
permits all people to be involved in these matters, an oligarchy permits only a select group to be
involved, and both constitutional government and aristocracy permit all to be involved in some
matters and only a select group in others.
Executive elements vary greatly from constitution to constitution, according primarily to four
factors: the number of offices, the function of each office, the length of tenure in a given office, and
the method by which officers are appointed. The method of appointment may vary depending on
who does the appointing, who is eligible to be appointed, and what method is used to appoint
(whether by election, by lot, or by a combination of the two.
Book 5
The general topic of Book V is constitutional change: what causes constitutions to change; the ways
in which different constitutions are susceptible to change; and how constitutions can be preserved.
Aristotle argues that the root cause of constitutional change is that different groups have different
conceptions of justice and equality. While democrats believe that all freeborn people are absolutely
equal, oligarchs believe that inequality in wealth implies inequality on an absolute scale. The wealthy
and the poor are thus liable to form separate factions, each trying to alter the constitution to its
advantage. Some argue that justice should be in proportion to merit or birth, but because these
individuals of great merit or high birth are so few in number, they never form powerful factions.
Absolute democracy and absolute oligarchy are not very durable, as some compromise between the
two is usually necessary. However, Aristotle suggests, democracy is less susceptible than oligarchy to
factionalism.
Aristotle identifies three aspects of the cause of factional conflict: (1) the state of mind that leads
someone to form a faction; (2) what can be gained or lost in forming a faction; and (3) the causes of
political disputes that may lead to factions. Aristotle then identifies eleven potential causes of
constitutional change: (1) arrogant behavior or hubris on the part of a ruler upsets his subjects; (2) a
faction realizes how rebelling might profit it; (3) people act to avoid disgrace or to win greater honor
for themselves; (4) a ruling oligarchy or monarchy is too powerful; (5) people fear punishment at the
hands of those in power; (6) those who are not in power despise the poor government of those in
power; (7) one class grows disproportionately larger than another; (8) corrupt election procedures
lead to safeguards that alter the constitution; (9) people who are not loyal to the constitution rise in
the ranks; (10) much minor change to the constitution amounts to one substantial change; and (11)
large numbers of immigrants splinter into factions. Aristotle identifies several other causes of
constitutional conflict: petty quarrels between important officials; changes in the power of certain
public offices; equality between antagonistic elements (the poor will not revolt against the rich
unless they feel as powerful as the rich); force; and fraud.
Aristotle identifies causes of change that are particular to democracies, oligarchies, and
aristocracies. A democracy is most liable to be overthrown when it devolves into demagoguery and
when the demagogue leads a crusade against the rich. Oligarchies can be changed either from
without or from within. Change from without may occur when the poor—or others who have been
mistreated and excluded from government—fight back. Change from within may occur with
infighting, the impoverishment of certain members, or the formation of an inner, even more elite,
circle. Alternatively, change may occur when the city as a whole has become much wealthier,
allowing a great many more people to meet the property requirement that makes one eligible for
office. Aristocracies endanger themselves when the ruling circle becomes increasingly narrow.
Additionally, aristocracy and constitutional government both contend with the challenge of
balancing the democratic and oligarchic aspects of government.
Aristotle notes also that all forms of constitution are subject to change from without if a powerful
neighbor with a different form of constitution uses its might to impose its constitution on conquered
states.
Aristotle next addresses the question of how constitutions may be preserved, noting that when the
cause of change is known, one has a better idea of how to prevent such change. Aristotle
recommends that the ruling party (1) always be wary of lawlessness, especially in its petty forms; (2)
never try to deceive the masses; (3) treat everybody well and fairly, especially those outside the
constitution; (4) cultivate a state of emergency so that people will not attempt a revolt; (5) prevent
in-fighting between nobles; (6) ensure that the property qualification for office remains
proportionate to the wealth of the city; (7) be careful not to confer great promotions or significant
withdrawals of honor too suddenly; (8) be wary of a class that is on the rise, and give power to the
opposing class or the middle class; (9) prevent public office from becoming a source of profit; and
(10) offer special consideration to the rich in a democracy and to the poor in an oligarchy.
Aristotle explains that a constitution is most likely to last if those holding office are loyal to the
constitution, highly competent, and of good character. Additionally, it is essential that a majority in
the city be in favor of the constitution and that the constitution refrain from becoming too extreme.
A middle ground is important in all things: extremism may well undermine the very goals of the
extremists. Most important of all, however, is the education of the citizens in the spirit of the
constitution. Being bound to a constitution can then be liberating rather than enslaving.
Aristotle focuses on the particular questions involved in the preservation of monarchies, both
kingships and tyrannies. Aristotle applies much of what he has said earlier about non-monarchies to
monarchies, as a kingship is similar to an aristocracy—the rule of the best directed toward the
benefit of all—and a tyranny is a combination of the most extreme and harmful elements of
oligarchy and democracy. Tyrannies are particularly unstable, and may be toppled by outside forces
or by the hatred and contempt of inside forces. Kingships are generally quite durable, though, as
Aristotle notes, they are becoming increasingly rare, as there are fewer exceptional individuals to
assume the mantle of kingship.
Aristotle believes that kingships are best preserved through a policy of moderation. Tyrannies may
be preserved in one of two opposing ways. The first involves implementing a policy of harsh
repression that consists of breaking the spirit of the people, making them mistrust each other, and
rendering them incapable of action. Such a policy would include expelling or executing men of merit,
forbidding public gatherings or cultural events, employing a secret police, and so on. The second
method of preserving a tyranny involves doing everything to keep the people happy, short of
surrendering absolute power. The tyrant should be careful with public funds, ensuring that they are
spent to the benefit of the people, he should temper his own indulgences and extravagances, and he
should also never abuse his subjects physically or sexually. This will ensure that his rule is not only
more durable, but also more tolerable than most forms of tyranny.
In closing, Aristotle comments that tyrannies and oligarchies tend to be the most short-lived forms
of government. He then launches a brief attack on Plato's ##Republic##, remarking that
the Republic gives an inadequate account of the ways in which constitutions can change.
Book 6
In addressing the question of the construction of democracies and oligarchies, Aristotle reminds us
that even someone wholly committed to the principles of democracy would not want to construct a
city based entirely on the principles of democracy. This would in effect be an extreme form of
democracy, or demagoguery, which would undermine the very principles it was created to serve.
Rather, a government must temper these principles and discover how best to apply them, given the
particular make-up of the people over whom it rules.
Aristotle states that the underlying principle of all democracy is liberty, but the concept of liberty can
be interpreted in two different ways. Under one interpretation, liberty means an even interchange
between ruling and being ruled by all freeborn citizens. This implies the sovereignty of the majority
and the equality of all before the law. Under the other interpretation, liberty means the freedom to
do whatever one wants. In this system, ideally, one would not be ruled at all; if government became
necessary, however, an even interchange between ruling and being ruled would arise. These
conceptions of liberty (and by extension democracy) share the fundamental principle that all people
are equal, regardless of wealth or merit.
Raising the question of how equality should be secured, Aristotle recommends a compromise
between democracy and oligarchy, suggesting that sovereignty should be granted to whichever side
has the greatest absolute amount of wealth. This is oligarchic in giving importance to wealth, but
democratic in allowing the numbers of the poor to count.
Aristotle asserts that a population of farmers makes for the best kind of democracy: they must work
hard and are well spread apart so they can't spend too much time in government. So, as long as they
can select officers and are not robbed of their wealth, they are happier working their farms than
they would be in public office. The wealthy hold all significant offices, but they are entirely
accountable to the farmers.
The worst kind of population for a democracy is made up of mechanics, shopkeepers, and laborers.
Because they are all crowded around the city center, they take a very active part in politics and tend
to encourage mob rule and demagoguery.
Aristotle issues a reminder that the best democratic policy is not the most extreme but rather the
one that will ensure the survival of the democracy. As a result, the populace should not be able to
profit from confiscating the wealth of the rich, and payments to the poor should be in the form of
block grants that allow them to buy land rather than simple handouts.
Aristotle states that oligarchy, like democracy, is most likely to thrive when it is practiced in
moderation. While higher offices should be reserved for the wealthy, the poor should still be able to
hold some of the lower offices. Furthermore, wealthy officers should be obliged to perform
significant public service in order to hold office, thus earning the admiration and approval of the
poor. Oligarchies fare best in cities with a strong cavalry or heavy infantry, whereas cities with many
light infantrymen (poorer than heavy infantrymen) or naval forces tend toward democracy.
Aristotle closes by listing the different kinds of executive office. There are six offices dealing with
day-to-day affairs that are indispensable to all cities, and there are four more important offices that
require some expertise: military command; control of finance; preparation of business for the
deliberative assembly; and directing of public worship.
Book 7
Book VII marks Aristotle's attempt to envision an ideal city. He distinguishes between three kinds of
goods: external goods (wealth, reputation, etc.); goods of the body (health, sensual pleasure, etc.);
and goods of the soul (wisdom, virtue, etc.). Aristotle gives preeminence to goods of the soul, since
they are ends in themselves, whereas the other two kinds of goods are merely means to this end.
Goods of the soul depend ultimately on each individual's nature, not on luck. A city, like a person,
needs internal goodness and wisdom in order to be happy.
Aristotle confronts a dilemma: is the ideal civic life an external life of political action, or an internal
life of philosophical speculation? Dismissing the militaristic life as focusing exclusively on what
should only be a measure of security, Aristotle compares statesmanship and solitary contemplation.
On one hand, governing in a city of freeborn men is a high-minded activity, and an active life of
politics is preferable to an inactive life, since happiness is a state of action, not inaction. On the other
hand, governing others full-time is not fulfilling, and a life of philosophical contemplation is far from
inactivity. One's thoughts are the authors of one's deeds, so thought is intimately linked with action.
Aristotle believes that the population of a city should be neither too large nor too small. Small cities
are not self-sufficient, while large cities are difficult to govern. The judicial and electoral functions of
the city require that the citizens know one another and be able to judge one another's character.
Aristotle thus advises that the population of a city be "the greatest surveyable number required for
achieving a life of self-sufficiency."
Similarly, the territory should be large enough to ensure self-sufficiency and leisure but small enough
to be surveyable (readily taken in by the eye), for purposes of defense and facilitation of commerce.
Aristotle advocates living by the sea and building a seaport, though he warns of the danger of having
unwanted aliens crowd the city. Living by the sea allows for easier commerce, though such
commerce should be conducted in a spirit of temperance rather than greed. Aristotle also
recommends building up a navy, but putting it in the command of farmers and serfs, rather than
citizens.
Aristotle believes that Greeks make ideal citizens as they fit a perfect compromise between high
spirit and skill and intelligence. He also believes that Europeans to the north are full of spirit but lack
the skill and intelligence for political organization, whereas Asians have skill and intelligence but lack
spirit and are easily subjected and enslaved.
Concerning social structure, Aristotle makes a sharp distinction between those elements that are
necessary parts to the city (such as slaves) and those that are integral parts of the city. Slaves are like
property: no city can exist without them, but they themselves are not the city. Aristotle identifies six
components of a city: food, crafts, arms, property, worship, and government. The first two must be
left to non-citizen farmers and laborers since they require a great deal of work and cannot be
combined with the citizen's life of leisure. The citizens themselves should undertake the rest: the
young should serve in the military; the middle-aged should govern; and the old should serve in the
cult of the gods. The citizens, furthermore, should own all property, some publicly and some
privately.
Aristotle adds that the city should be built with fortifying walls and access to fresh water. It should
also be pleasant and amenable to a healthy political life.
Aristotle turns to the question of how people should be educated in his ideal city. This is a matter of
determining both the suitable aim of education and the proper means to achieve this end. This end,
as both the Politics and the ##Nicomachean Ethics## make clear, is a life of good quality, or
happiness. To the extent of having such things as health and wealth, this happiness is partly
contingent on fortune. But absolute, positive happiness (as opposed to simply the absence of
unpleasantness) depends on the knowledge and purpose of the individual or city.
Aristotle argues that people can be made good through nature, reason, and habit. In his earlier
discussion of nature, he concludes that the Greek combination of high spirit, skill, and intelligence is
ideal. He holds off on explaining how reason and habit should be taught.
Aristotle states that in a city of equal citizens, everyone should take turns ruling and being ruled. The
younger should first learn how to be ruled properly before they themselves take a hand in
government.
Aristotle distinguishes within the soul a part that rules (reason) from a part that is not rational but
that can be ruled by reason (feelings, passions, or qualities). Reason, the superior part, can further
be divided into practical and speculative aspects. The practical aspect is important, but speculative
reason is the ultimate end in itself. Military concerns, far from being a priority, should only be a
security measure. A number of virtues—particularly wisdom and temperance—are necessary to
make proper use of leisure time.
Aristotle returns to the question of how reason and habit should be trained, concluding that habit
should be dealt with first. As babies, humans have only desires and appetites, whereas reason, the
end toward which we train our habits, is a later development.
Aristotle addresses questions of marriage and childbirth that serve as preliminaries to raising a child.
He believes that conception should take place in the winter and when the wind is northerly. He
recommends that men marry at the age of thirty-seven and women at eighteen, that they cease
reproducing about seventeen years later, and that they both keep in reasonably good physical shape
without overexerting themselves. He also considers questions of inducing miscarriage or leaving
babies to die of exposure in order to limit the population and recommends harsh punishment for
adultery.
Aristotle further believes that newborns should be raised on milk, encouraged to move about, and
inured to the cold. Up to the age of five, children should play games that involve movement, be told
stories, and be protected from anything that is low and vulgar, including bad language, indecent
pictures, and slaves. Up to the age of seven, children should observe the older students, and then
engage in proper study from the ages of seven to twenty-one, divided into periods before and after
puberty.
Book 8
Aristotle states that since a city's educational system largely determines the character of its citizens,
it is of the utmost importance that this system serves the overall ends of the city. Thus, Aristotle
recommends the institution of public education, which he feels is preferable to the prevalent custom
of parents having their children privately tutored.
Aristotle says that there are arguments to be made for teaching children what is useful, for teaching
moral goodness, and for teaching pure knowledge for its own sake. He suggests that a great deal
depends on how and to what end the subjects are taught. Certain kinds of practical knowledge are
good, but children should not demean themselves by learning menial labor; it is fine to teach moral
goodness, though there are many different conceptions of what is good and how it should be taught.
Pure knowledge is good as well, but it should not be pursued to such an extent that it becomes
overbearing. As a general rule, Aristotle suggests that knowledge is good to the extent that it
satisfies one's mind or helps a friend, but it is dangerous when it becomes a skill that is rendered as a
service to others.
Aristotle distinguishes four major disciplines of study: (1) reading and writing; (2) physical training or
gymnastics; (3) music; and (4) drawing. Reading, writing, and drawing all have practical purposes and
physical training promotes courage. Determining the value of music is trickier, but Aristotle suggests
that it helps promote the proper use of leisure. In doing so, he distinguishes between work, play and
relaxation, and leisure. Play and relaxation are forms of relief from hard work. Leisure is more than
just relief; it is the medium in which happiness and a life of good quality can be pursued. If leisure
consisted simply in play and relaxation, then a life of good quality—the end goal for which man
strives—would be nothing more than play and relaxation. While music is not useful and does not
promote courage, it helps man make use of his leisure. Similarly, the practical tools of reading,
writing, and drawing can have application beyond their usefulness, and they can also widen man's
knowledge and teach him to appreciate form and beauty.
Aristotle values physical training but warns that it should not be overdone, as it can create a savage
character and stunt the development of the young. Aristotle recommends light training until the age
of puberty, followed by three years of study. After those three years, physical training should begin
in earnest. Working the mind and body simultaneously will be counter-productive.
Aristotle returns to the question of music's place in education. He offers three possible arguments
for the use of music: (1) amusement and relaxation; (2) improvement of moral character; and (3)
cultivation of the mind. Aristotle suggests that one learns a deeper and subtler appreciation of music
by understanding what goes into its performance. However, education in music should not be taken
beyond the point of learning an appreciation of rhythm and harmony: if students dedicate
themselves to being skilled performers, they will be studying only to please others. For that reason,
Aristotle suggests that students not learn the flute or harp, or, for that matter, any instrument
requiring a great deal of skill.
Questions and Answers
What does Aristotle mean when he says "man is a political animal"?
According to Aristotle, the end goal of human life is happiness, which is found in the application of
reason. This life of good quality is not possible except within the confines of a city. Man needs the
leisure and the social interaction that citizens in a polis enjoy in order to enjoy achieve this
happiness. As a result, non-citizens are unable to attain true happiness or rationality and are thus
less complete, less human than citizens. To realize his true human nature, man must take part in
political life, and so, Aristotle concludes, he is a political animal.
What are Aristotle's main arguments in defence of private property?
Aristotle argues that private property is not the root of man's wickedness, but rather a
manifestation. Because man's wickedness runs deep, eliminating private property will not make man
better. Aristotle suggests instead that education and moderation will eliminate vice. He also points
out that the important virtue of generosity would not be possible if there were no private property
with which to be generous.
Is a good citizen the same thing as a good man? Why or why not?
The ideal citizen is someone who best serves the ends of the city. Because there are many different
kinds of constitutions, and each constitution calls for many different kinds of citizens, there must
necessarily be many different standards for excellence in a citizen. However, there is only one
universal standard for excellence in a man. Thus it is possible for a good citizen not to be a good
man. The end goal of every city is to make a life of good quality possible for its citizens, but only the
best citizens in the best city will be able to attain this end. A good leader, Aristotle suggests, is
practiced at both ruling and being ruled, and so has all the necessary qualities that make a good
man.
Suggested Essay Topics
Explain Aristotle's concept of distributive justice.
In what cases and in what ways can an oligarchy and democracy resemble one another? (Hint:
demagoguery vs. dynasty.)
Why does Aristotle think that a strong middle class is important? How is this linked with his
conclusions in the ##Nicomachean Ethics##?
According to Aristotle, what is the root cause of all constitutional change? Why are certain kinds of
constitutions more susceptible to change than others?
Why does Aristotle give instructions on how to preserve a tyranny if he thinks tyrannies are evil?
Aristotle comes up with two conceptions of liberty: (1) an even interchange between ruling and
being ruled; and (2) the freedom to do as one pleases. Which of these does he prefer, and why?
What is the significance of simultaneously ruling and being ruled?
Trace Aristotle's debate between the life of political activity and the life of philosophical speculation.
What arguments does he provide for each? Which does he ultimately conclude is better?