A Companion to Aristotle's Politics
A Companion to Aristotle's Politics
EDITED BY DAVID KET AND FRED D. MILLER, JR.
I
BLACl<WELL
l UK - Camhrilre USA
Copyright
©
in selection and editorial matter David Keyt
°
ad Fd D. Miller, Jr. 191
·
Fist publishd 191
First published in USA 1991
Basil Blackwell, Inc.
3 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA
Basil Blackwell Ltd
108 Cowley Road, Oxord OX4 IJF, UK
All rights reserved. Except or the quotation of short passages or the purposes of
criticism and review, no part of this publication may e reprduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any orm or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or othewise, withoui the prior permission of the publisher.
Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that
it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise
circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any orm of binding or cover other
than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this
condition being imosed on the subsequent purchaser.
libray of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A Companion o Astotle's Politics I edited by David Keyt and
Fred D. Miller, Jr...
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-5578-2-1 - I SBN 1-5578-9-X (pbk.):
I. Aristotle. Politics. 2. Aristotle - Contributions in political
science.
I. Miller, Fred Dycus, 194- . I I. Keyt, David.
JC71.A7A75 190
320' .0 I ' I - dc20
9-35094
CIP
British Libray Cataloguing i n Publication Data
A C I P catalogue record or this book is available rom the British
Library
Typeset in 10 on 11 pt Baskerville
by TecSet Ltd, Surrey
Printd in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Ltd, Wocester
Contents
Contributors
Preace
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Introduction
2
3
4
vii
x
XI
Xlll
I
Aristotle's Conception of the State
13
Aims and Methds in Aristotle's Politics
57
A. C. BRADLEY
C H RISTOPHER ROWE
The Connection between Aristotle's Ethics and Politics
75
A. W. H. ADKINS
Man as a Political Animal in Aristotle
WOLFGANG KULLMANN
5
6
Three Basic Theorems in Aristotle's Politics
DAV I D K EYT
Aristotle's Theory of Natural Slavery
NICHOLAS D. SM ITH
7
Aristotle and Exchange Value
8
Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Repubic
118
142
'
156
S. M EIKLE
9
R. F. STALLEY
182
Aristotle's Defense of Private Property
T. H. I R W I N
IO Aristotle on Prior and Posterior, Correct and Mistaken
Constitutions
W I LLIAM W. FORTENBAUGH
I I Aristotle's Theory of Distributive Justice
238
12 Aristotle on Natural Law and Justice
279
DAVID KEYT
FRED D. M I LLER, J R.
13 Aristotle's Analysis of Oligarchy and Democracy
R I CHARD M U LGAN
. 307
'
vi
CONTENS
14 Aristotle on Political Change
RONALD OLANSKY
15 Politics, Music, and Contemplation in Aristotle's Ideal State
DAVID J. DEPEW
Bibliography on Aristotle's Politics
Index Locorum
�,
36
381
390
Contributors
A. w. H. ADKINS
is Edward Olson Professor of Greek and Professor of
Philosophy and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago. He
is author of Merit and Responsibiliy: A Study in Greek Values ( 1 960) , From the
Many to the One: A Stuy of Personaliy and iews of Human Nature in the Context of
Ancient Greek Sociey, Values and Belis ( 1 970) , Moral Values and PoliticaJ
Behaviour in Ancient Greece ( 1 97 2 ) , and Poetic Crat in the Eary Greek Elegists
( 1 985) .
A. c. BRADLEY
( 1 85 1- 1 935) , a younger brother of the philosopher F. H.
Bradley, made his name as a Shakespearean critic rather than as a classicist
or philosopher. He was educated at Balliol College, Oxord, where he
became a fellow in 1 874. He left Oxord in 1 88 1 or a professorship at
University College, Liverpool, and proceeded rom there in 1 889 to a
professorship at Glasgow University. I n 1 90 1 he returned to Oxord as
Professor of Poetry. He is particularly remembered or his books Shakespearean
Tragedy ( 1 904) and Oford Lectures on Poety ( 1 909) .
is Professor of Philosophy at Caliornia State University,
Fullerton. He is editor of The Greeks ad the Good Le ( 1 980) , and co-editor of
Evolution at a Crossroas ( 1 985) and Entropy, Ifomation and Evolution ( 1 988) . He
is currently at work on a book entitled Bioloy, Politics and Philosophy in
Aristotle's Politics.
DAVI D J. DEPEW
WILLIAM w. FORTENBAUGH
is Professor of Classics at Rutgers University, where
he is currently chairman of the Department of Classics and Archaeology. For
ten years he has been Director of Project Theophrastus, an international
undertaking whose goals include collecting, editing, and translating the
ragments of Aristotle's pupil Theophrastus. He is also editor of the series
Rutgers Universiy Studies in Classical Humanities and author of Aristotle on
Emotion ( 197 5) and Quellen �ur Ethik Theophrsts ( 1 984) .
is Professor of Philosophy at Cornell University. He is author of
Plato 's Moal Theoy ( 1 97 7 ) , Plato 's Gorgis ( 1 979) , Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
( 1 985 ) , A ristotle 's First Principles ( 1 988) , and Clssical Thought ( 1 989) .
T. H. I R W I N
viii
CONTR I BUTORS
DAV I D KEYT is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Washington. He
has held visiting appoin tments at Cornell University, the University of Hong
Kong, Princeton University, and the Los Angeles and Ivine campuses of the
University of Caliornia. He has been a junior fellow of the Institute or
Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin and the Center
for Hellenic Studies in Washington, DC, and a member of the I ns titute or
Advanced Study in Princeton. He writes on both ancient and recent
philosophy.
is Professor of Classical Philology of the University of
Frei burg im Breisgau. He is author of Das Wirken der Gotter in der Ilis ( 1 956) ,
Die Quellen der lias ( 1 960) , Wisseschat und Methode. lnterpretationen zur
aristotelischen Theorie der Natuwsseschat ( 1 974) , and Die Teleologie in er
arstotelischen Biologie ( 1 979) . He has published numerous articles on various
topics in classical philology and ancient philosophy and is co-editor of Studia
Platonica ( l 9 7 4) and of Studien zur antiken Philosophie and Hemes-Einzelschrten.
WOLFGANG KU LLMANN
s. M EIKLE
is Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Glasgow. His
published work is mainly on Marx, Aristotle, and the 'economic' life of the
ancient world. He is author of Essentialism in the Thought f Karl Marx ( 1 985) .
FRD D. MILLER.JR. i s Professor of Philosophy and Executive Director of the
Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University. He
is associate editor of Social Philosophy & Poliy. He has published numerous
articles on Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek philosophers and is at work on a
book entitled Nature, Jstice ad Rights in Aristotle 's Politics.
RICHARD MULGAN is Professor of Political Studies at the University of
Auckland. Beginning in Oxord and then in a number of New Zealand
universities, he has, at diferent times, taught philosophy, classics, and
political science. He is author of Aristotle 's Political Theoy ( 1 97 7 ) and of
numerous articles on Aristotle and other aspects of Greek political theory, as
well as books and articles on New Zealand politics.
RONALD POLANSKY is Professor of Philosophy at Duquesne University and
editor of Ancient Philosopy. He is author of many articles on Plato and
Aristotle and of a commentary on Plato's Theaetetus. His other interests
include early modern political philosophy, human character, and the
passions.
is Head of the Department of Classics and Archaeology at
the University of Bristol. The research or his paper in this volume was
conducted during tenure of fellowships at the Edinburgh Institute or
Advanced Studies in the Humanities and at the Center or Hellenic Studies
in Washington, DC. He is author of The Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics: A
Study in the Development of Aristotle's Thought ( 1 97 1 ) , Plato ( 1 984) , and Plato:
Puuds ( 1986). He is currently completing a commentary on Plato's Phaedo.
CHRISTOPH ER ROWE
CONTR IBUTORS
IX
NICHOl.,\S D. SMTH is Professor of Philosophy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University. He has published numerous articles in Greek philoso­
phy , many with co-author Thomas C. Brickhouse, with whom he wrote
Socrates on Trial ( 1 989) . Brickhouse and Smith are currently at work on a book
on the phil osophy of Plato's early period.
R. F. STALLEY
is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Glasgow.
He is author of An Introduction to Plato's Laws ( 1 983) .
Prface
The papers in this collection ocus on the central concepts and arguments of
Aristotle's Politics. One paper is an inluential study rom the nineteenth
centuy; our were written speciically or this volume; and the remainder
have all been revised and updated or republication. Essay 4 appears or the
ist time in an English translation. The collection is intended or a wide
audience, including students and scholars in social and political philosophy
s well as specialists in Greek philosophy.
Greek terms are transliterated except where a point is being made about
the Greek text, and nothing in Greek is left untranslated. It should be noted
that upsilon is transliterated as "u"; eta as "e"; omega as "o"; and iota
subscipt is either omitted or rendered by an "i" ollowing the subscripted
vowel. The word " polis" is treated in this volume as a naturalized word of
English having an English plural ("polises") and is thus printed in Latin
letters rather than in italics.
We are grateul to the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling
Green State University and its staf or their support or this project and in
particular to May Dilsaver, Tammi Sharp, Terrie Weaver, and Dan
Greenberg. Special thanks are due to Dan Greenberg, Jennifer Lange, and
Thomas May or their assistance in preparing the index. We are also
indebted to Christopher Shields and Margaret Meghdadpour or help with
the translation of Essay 4. We also thank Anthony Raubitschek and Kurt
Luckner or assistance on the cover illustration. Fred Miller grateully
acknowledges a grant rom the Earhart Foundation, a research leave rom
Bowling Green, and the hospitality of the Fellows of Jesus College, Oxord,
all of which enabled him to work on this volume.
Finally, we much appreciate the patience, encouragement, and expert
assistance of Blackwell in bringing this project to completion.
David Keyt, Seattle, Washington
Fred D. Miller, Jr, Bowling Green, Ohio
Acknowledgments
The edi tors and publishers grateully acknowledge permission to reproduce
the ollowing:
A. C. Bradley, "Aristotle's Conception of the State," originally appeared in
Hellenica, ed. Evelyn Abbott, ( London, 1 880 [repr. 1 97 1 ]) , pp. 1 8 1 -243.
Christopher Rowe, "Aims and Methods in Aristotle's Politcs," originally
appeared in the Classical Quartery, 27 ( 1 97 7), pp. 1 5-72.
A. W . H . Adkins, "The Connection Between Aristotle's Ethics and Politics,"
originally appeared in Political Teoy , 1 2 ( 1 984) , pp. 249.
Wolfgang Kullmann,'" Man as a Political Animal in Aristotle," originally
appeared as "Der Mensch als politisches Lebewesen bei Aristoteles," in
Hemes, 1 08 ( 1 980), pp. 4 1 -43.
David Keyt, "Three Basic Theorems in Aristotle's Politics, " originally
appeared as "Three Fundamental Theorems in Aristotle's Politics, " in
Phroesis, 32 ( 1 98 7 ) , pp. 5-79.
Nicholas D. Smith, "Aristotle's Theory of Natural Slavery," originally
appeared in Phoenix, 37 ( 1 983) , pp. 1 0-22.
S. Meikle, "Aristotle and Exchange Value," is a substantially revised version
of "Aristotle and the Political Economy of the Polis, " which appeared in
the jounal of Hellenic Studies, 99 ( 1 979) , pp. 57-73.
T. H. Irwin, "Aristotle's Defense of Private Property," is a substantially
revised version of "Generosi ty and Property in Aristotle's Politics," which
appeared in Social Philosophy & Poliy, 4 ( 1 987), pp. 37-54.
William W. Fortenbaugh, "Aristotle on Prior and Posterior, Correct and
Mistaken Constitutions, " is a revised version of an article that appeared in
Transactions of the American Philological A ssociation, 1 06 ( 1 976) , pp. 1 2-37 .
xii
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
David Keyt, "Aristotle's Theoy of Distributive Justice , " is a substantially
revised version of "Distributive Justice in Aristotle's Ethics and Politics,"
which appeared in Topoi, 4 ( 1 98 5) , pp. 245.
Fred D. Miller, Jr. "Aristotle on Natural Law and Justice," is an expanded
version of "Aristotle on Nature, Law and Justice," which appeared in the
Universiy of Dayton Review, Special Issue on Aristotle, 19 ( 1 98-9) , pp.
5769.
Abbreviations
Rhet.
Rhet. A l.
SE
Somn.
Top.
Aristotle
A naytica Posteriora
A naytica Priora
de Anima
A thenaion Politeia
de Caeo
Categoriae
Ethica Eudemia
Ethica Nicomachea
de Generatione A nimalium
de Generatione et Corruptione
Histoia A nimalium
de /ncessu A nimalium
de lnterpretatione
Magna Moralia
Metapysica
Meteorologica
de Motu Animalium
Oeconomica
de Partibus A nimalium
Pysica
Poetica
Politica
Problemata
Protrepticus
Rhetorica
Rhetorica ad A lexandrum
Sophistici Elezchi
de Somno et igilia
Topica
A po!.
Gorg.
Pam.
Plato
A poloy
Gorgias
Parmenides
An. Post.
An. Pr.
DA
Ath. Pol.
DC
Ca t.
EE
EN
GA
cc
HA
IA
DI
MM
et.
A1eteor.
MA
Oec.
PA
Pys.
Poet.
Pol.
Prob!.
Pro tr.
XIV
ABBREVIATIONS
Phdo.
Phlb.
Rep.
Soph.
Theaet.
Tim.
Phaedo
Philebus
Republic
Sophist
Theaetetus
Timaeus
Introduction
The two great classics of Greek political philosophy are Plato's Republic and
Aristotle's Politics. They have similar Greek titles, Politeia and Politika
respectively, and share a theme - justice. Along with Plato's Statesman and
Laws, they mark the beginning of political philosophy as a distinct ield of
study. In the grand scheme of the Republic politics is closely intertwined with
ethics: Plato seeks justice in the city in order to ind j ustice in the soul and
uses the all of the city to explain the all of the soul. In Plato's later dialogues
and in Aristotle, .thics and politics pull apart. Thus, strictly speaking, the
Aristotelian works that correspond to the Republic are the Ethics and the
Politics, the two treatises whose joint subject Aristotle at one place calls '.the
philosophy of human afairs" (EN X.9. l l 8 l b l 5; see also I .2. 1 094a26-b l l ) .
Although Aristotle disentangles ethics and politics, he makes no attempt to
disconnect them. Both Plato and Aristotle are intent on inding a standard of
justice by means of which all the various orms of government may be
ranked , and both maintain that a primary aim of a j ust government is to
produce just men and women.
This common ground is contested by the modern tradition of political
philosophy stemming rom Machiavelli and Hobbes (with roots in the Greek
Atomists and Epicurus) . Hobbes regards it as a bad mistake on Aristotle's
part to claim that certain orms of government such as kingship and
aristocracy arc correct because they promote the common interest and other
orms such as tyranny and oligarchy are deviations because they promote the
interest of their rulers only ( Pol I I I .6. l 2 79a l 7-7. 1 2 79b l 0 ) . [yrann y and
Oligarcy] are not the names of other Formes of Government," Hobbes says,
" but of the same Formcs misliked. For they that are discontented under
Monarchy, call it yranny; and they that are displeased with Aristocray, call it
Oligarcy." 1 Hobbes also disagrees with Plato and Aristotle over the end, or
goal, of government. For Hobbes the aim of government is safety, not moral
c haracter. 2
Although the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle have much in
common, there is also a undamental diference between them springing rom
.
I Leviathan (London, 1651 ) , ch. 19, p. 95.
Ibid., ch. 30, p. 175.
2
"
2
INTRODUTION
a diference in their metaphysics. Both Plato and Aristotle wish to combat
the moral relativism of Protagoras, picked up later by Hobbes, 3 by which
whatev�r things appear just and ine to each city are so or it as long as it
holds by them" (Plato, Thtatt. 1 67c-5) . Both seek a true standard ofjustice.
Plato inds it in a transcendent realm of Forms (Rep. V.472a-e6 ,
IX.592a l-4) . Aristotle, who rejects Plato's theory of Forms, must lok
elsewhere. He inds his standard, not in a supersensible world of Forms, but
in the sensible world of nature
. In creating political philosophy, Plato and Aristotle were helped along by
the Greek language with its elaborate political vocabulary based on the word
"polis. " The unity of the vocabu lary would seem to indicate the existence of a
special entity calling or s tudy The chief items of this vocabulay that appear
in the Politics are the ollowing:
"
.
.
polis
city, state, city-state
polits
citizen
polits
female citizen
polittia
constitution
politeuma·
governing class
i politike (sc. techJ or episteme)
political science
ho politikos (sc. aer)
politician or stateman
the citizenry
o olitikon
achi politikt
political oice or political authority
politika
things political ( title of the Politcs)
philosophia politikt
political philosophy ( I I I . 1 2 . 1 282b23)
politeuesthai
to engage in politics
The political vocabulay of English is based partly on "polis" and partly on
"civis," the Latin word or citizen. As a consequence, and as the oregoing list
makes plain, English does not mark out a special ield of study as vividly as
Greek
During Aristotle's lifetime (38-322 BC) the ace of the world was
changed. The perid of his adult life witnessed the rise under Philip I I
(38 1-336 BC) of the semi-barbarian Macedon to dominance i n the Greek
world and the conquest of Persia and the Far East by an army led by Philip's
son, Alexander the Great (35--3 23 BC). In spite of Aristotle's ties to the
Macedonian monarchy, these great events are never mentioned in Aristotle's
extant treatises.
All of Aristotle's adult life, except or its very end and a dozen years in the
_
middle,
was spent in Athens. He was born in Stagira, a city on the east coast
of the C halcid i c peninsula later destroyed by Philip. His ather, Nicomachus,
was the cour t p hysician to Philip's ather, King Amyntas. As a youth of
.
.
3 "no Law can be Unj ust. The Law is made b y the Soveraign Power and all that is
do�e by s u ch Powe�, is warranted, and owned by every one of the p�ople; and that
whu;h evey man will have so, no man can say is unj ust" (ibid . , ch. 30, p. 182).
I NTRODUCTION
3
seven teen , Aristotle came to Athens and entered Plato's Academy where he
re m ai ned o r twenty years. When Plato died in 347 BC , he left Athens and
spen t th e next period of his life irst in Assos in northwest Asia Minor and
then in M ytilene on the island of Lesbos . In 343 BC Philip invited Aristotle,
now in his early orties, to his court to supervise the education of his
thirteen-year-old son Alexander. Although this supevision lasted no more
than three years, Aristotle was still in northern Greece in 336 BC when Philip
was assassinated and Alexander ascended the throne. He returned to Athens
the next year and ounded his own school in the Lyceum. During his second
residence in Athens he maintained his riendship with Antipater, who ws
the Macedonian regent in Greece while Alexander was campaigning in Asia.
When Alexander died suddenly in 323 BC , the Greek cities rose against their
Macedonian masters and Aristotle, because of his Macedonian connections,
was orced to lee to Chalcis on the island of Euboea, where he died a year
later at the relatively early age of 62. 4
Aristotle's life is relected in the Politics in a number of ways. First of all,
Aristotle's interest in biology, of which the naturalism of the Politics is an
ofshoot, was probably acquired rom his a the r . Second, the cool, dispassio­
nate tone of the outsider c h aract e ri st ic of the Politics is perhaps explained by
the act that Aristotle was a resident alien, or metic, all of his adult life and
had no pol i ti c al rights in any of the cities in which he resided. Third, the
trenchant cri ticism of Plato's three major dialogues on politics - the Republic,
the Statesman, an d the Laws - as well as his debt to the Laws in sketching his
ideal city in Politics V I I and V I I I stems directly rom his years of study and
discussion in the Academy. Fourth, the audience of rulers and statemen or
whom the Politics is intended relects the high political circles in which
Aristotle moved . Finally, his qualiied defense of both democracy (111. 1 1)
and absolute kingship (111. 1 7 ) owes something to his experience of democra­
tic Athens and autocratic Macedon .
The Politics is not a well-integrated whole like Plato's Republic, where an
overarching structure determines the position of every sentence, but a loosely
connected set of essays on various topics in political philosophy held together
hy the inner logic of the subject matter. I ndeed, the treatise we have may not
have been put together by Aristotle himself, but by an editor after his death.
For all we know, Aristotle may never have intended to orm a single treatise
rom the various essays. The table of contents shows the loose structure:
1. 1-2
1.3- 1 3
II
III
I ntrod uc t i on
Slavery and the amily
Previous model constitutions ( Plato's Republic and Laws;
Spar ta and Carthage)
General theory of constitutions ( citizenship, classiication of
constitutions and general principles, kingship)
4 Ancient texts on the life of Aristotle are collected in I. During, A ristotle in the Aint
Biogaphical Tradition (Goteborg, 1957 [repr. 1987) ) .
4
INTRODUCTION
IV
v
VI
V I I-V I I I
The inferior constitutions
The preservation and destruction of constitutions
Democracy and oligarchy
The best constitution (the best life, the best city, education)
The sequence of chapters is awkward in two respects. The natural place or
the essay on the best constitution is beore the essay on the inferior
constitutions, and the natural place or the essay on the preservation and
destruction of constitutions is after the essay on democracy and oligarchy.
This has led many modern editors and translators of the Politics rom
the ourteenth through the nineteenth centuries to transpose various books.·
Thus Franz Susemihl, the great nineteenth-century German editor of
the Politics, adopts the arrangement I-I I-I I I-V I I-V I I I-IV-VI-V; and
W. L. Newman, his great English counterpart, adopts the arrangement
I-I I-I I I- V I I-V I I I-I V-V-VI . That B0oks V I I and V I I I were in tended to
ollow immediately after I I I seems to be indicated by the concluding
sentence of I I I and by a ragment of a urther sentence appended to it in
some of the manuscripts. The ormer promises an immediate discussion of
the best constitution, and the latter is a slightly altered version of half of the
opening sentence of Book V I I . But putting V I I and V I I I beore IV does not
greatly improve the structure of the Politics since the transition rom VI I I to
IV is even more awkward than that rom I I I to IV. The transposition of
Books V and V I , proper as it seems at irst glance, is ruled out by the act
that Book VI refers back to V our times ( V l . 1 . 1 3 1 6b3 1 -6, 1 3 1 7a3--8,
4. 1 3 1 9b6, 5.13 1 9b37-9) .
.
The network of cross-references linking one passage in the· Politics with
another throws a great deal oflight on the structure that Aristotle intended to
impose upon his material (on the assumption that these references are all by
his hand rather than the hand of an editor or scribe). 5 First of all, every book
of the Politics except the irst and the last refers unmistakably to Book I I I . As
Newman remarks and as the cross-references bear out, "the Third Book is
the centre round which the whole treatise is grouped."6 Second, there are no
unmistakable and unambiguous references to passages in Books I V-V I rom
books outside this group. Finally, although Books I V-VI are laced with
cross-references to each other, the only book outside the group that they refer
to is Book II I . The ten or twelve references to it are strong and numerous
enough to tempt one to group it with them. The absence of cross-references
between Books V I I-V I I I and IV-VI sugges ts that Aristotle never settled
the relation of the one group to the other. If this is so, the eight books of the
Politics do not orm a linear sequence. What we have instead is only the
ollowing partial ordering:
5 Th e cross r�ferences within and between boks as well as promises never ulilled
.
are hsted (with a few omissions and many typographical errors) at the end of
Susemihl's Teubner edition of the Politics (Leipzig, 1 894), pp. 368.
6 The Politics of Aristotle, 4 vols (Oxord, 1 887- 102 [repr. 1 9 73]), vol. I I , p. xxxi.
INTRODUCTJO;
5
This pa rtial ordering ollows the internal logic of the treatise, stays Wit hin the
pattern of cross-references, and emphasizes the central position of Book I I I .
The latest historical event referred to in the Politics that can be identiied
with conidence is the assassination of Philip II in 336 (V. 1 0. 1 3 1 lb l -3) . 7
Thus we know that at least one sentence of the Politics was written during the
last period of Aristotle's life and after Alexander had ascended the throne.
Because of its loose structure, it is diicult to estimate how much of it was
written beore or after this one sentence. Aristotle may have written the
Politics in its entirety during the period of the Lyceum; but on the other hand,
he may have written its various parts at various times throughout his adult
life.
Much ink has been spilled in this century attempting to discover diferent
chronological strata in the Politics. The aim of such investigations is to
reconcile alleged inconsistencies of approach or of doctrine in a given work.
For a philosopher contradicts himself only if he simultaneousy airms and
denies the same proposition - not if he changes his mind. Thus one way to
remove an alleged inconsistency is to assign its diferent compon ents to.
diferent periods of the philosopher's life. But it remains an open question
whether there are any major inconsistencies, of approach or of doctrine in the
Politics and , consequently, whether there are any problems that the discovery
of diferent chronological strata could clear up. Although Aristotle does use a
variety of diferent approaches in the Politics - historical, aporetic,
classiicatory, expository - such variety in itself does not pose a problem.
Diferent topics may call or diferent approaches, so there is no reason
Aristotle should not exploit a variety of approaches during a single period of
his life.
Although Aristotle devotes diferent works to ethics and politics , they are
closely connected in his view. This is made plain by the references to politics
in his ethical works and to ethics in his work on politics. The Nicomachean
Eth ics describes itself in its early chapters as concerned with politics
( 1 . 2. 1 094a2 7-8, b l-- 1 1; 3. 1 094b l -5 , 1 095a2; 4. 1 095a l -17; and compare
EE VII. 1 . l 234b22) and ends with a transition to a study of politics and the
science of legislation (X.9. l 1 80b2end) . I ts inal paragraph, or epilogue,
even outlines the contents of a work on politics:
.
;
Since our predecessors left the subject of legislation unexplored, it is perhaps
proper that we should ourselves examine it and the general topic of the
constitution, in order that as ar as possible the philosophy of man may be
7 Even ts that occurred as late as 333 may be referred to in two passages
( I I . 9. l 270b l 1- 1 2, 1 0. 1 272b l --22) , but the matter admits of dispute. See Newman,
ad oc.
6
INTRODUCTION
� �
completed. Fist, then, if any particular poi�t h�s been treated well y t ose
who have gone beore us, we must try to review 1t; then rom the constitutions
that have een collected we must try to see what it is that preserves and
destroys cities and what it is that preserves and destroys each of the
cons ti tutions and or what reasons some cities are well governed and others the
revese. For when these things have been examined , we will perhaps better
understand also what sort of constitution is best, and how each is structured,
and which laws and customs it uses (l 1 8 l b l 2 22 .
,
-
)
This outline mentions many of the topics treated in the Politics, although the
extent to which it describes the treatise that has come down to us is a matter
of dispute.
The references rom the Politics to the ethical works are as numerous as
those in the opposite direction. I ndeed, Aristotle refers six times to a treatise
entitled the Ethics (ta ethika or hoi ethikoi logoi). But the matter is complicated
by the act that three diferent ethical works are attributed to Aristotle - the
Nicomachean Ethics, the Eudemian Ethics, and the Magna Moralia - and it is
unclear which of the three the Politics is referring to. A urther complication is
that Books V-V I I of the Nicomachean Ethics are also claimed as Books IV-VI
of the Eudemian Ethics.8 Four of the six references to the Ethics are to these
common books, 9 and two are most probably to the Eudemian Ethics.10
The Politics is a treatise in practical philosophy (EN l .4. l 095b5 ) . To grasp
the import of this, one must understand how political philosophy on
Aistotle's view difers rom other branches of philosophy, which in turn
involves a short detour through Aristotle's classiication of the sciences. All
thought, according to Aistotle's classiicatory scheme, is either theoretical,
practical, or productive (Top. V l . 6. 1 45a l 5- 1 6; Met. V l . l . l 025b25,
XI. 7 . l 064a l --1 9; EN V l . 2 . l 1 39a2--8 ) . These three types of thought difer
in their ends or goals. The end of theoretical thought is knowledge; the end of
practical thought is good action; and the end of productive thought seems to
be useul and beautiful objects such as sandals and poems and good qualities
such as health and strength (Met. I l . l.993b l 9-2 1 ; EN V l . 2 . 1 1 39a27-31,
b�, V l . 5 . l l 40b--7 ) . Theoretical and practical thought are divided in their
turn into three subtypes, and productive thought into two. The three kinds of
8 Altho ugh the Nicomachean and Eudemian Ethics are in general agreement, they
contain i mportant diferences of detail . Scholars dispute about which was written irst
and about which the common books were intended or. Most regard the Nicomachean
Ethcs as the later and more mature work and the home of the common books, but a
few such as Anthony Kenny in The A ristotelian Ethics ( Oxord, 1 9 78 champion the
Ema� Ethcs on both scores. It should also be noted that the Magna Moralia has
een rejected by many scholars as spurious, but some contend that it was really
itten by Aristotle.
9 Il.2.126la31 refers to EN V.5.l 132 b3 1 4 ; I I l .9. 1 280a l 8 refers
to EN
V.3.113la1-24, Ill.12. 1282b20 refers to EN V.3· and IV. l l . 1 295a36 refers to EN
'
VIl.13.ll53b-21.
IO Vll.l3.1332a8 most probably refers to EE I I . l . 1 2 1 9a3--9 , b l -2, though it
may
refer to EN l.7.198al-18, IO. l I O!al- 1 6 . VII.13.1332a22 most probably refers to
EE VIIl.3.1248b2-7, but it may refer to MM II.9.1207b31-3.
)
I NTRODUCTION
7
theoret ical thought are irst philosophy or theology, natural philosophy, and
mathema tics (Met. Vl. 1 . 1 026al8-1 9, Xl.7.l064b l-3, and see also EN
VI .8 . 1 1 42al 7- 1 8) , where natural philosophy includes physics, biology,
psych ology, and astronomy (Phys. I l . 1 . 1 92b8- 1 2, DC I I l . 1 . 298a27-32, DA
I. l . 403 a27-b2 ) . The three types of practical thought, which deal with the
in di vid ual, the amily, and the polis respectively, are ethics, household
management, and politics (see EN VI.8 and EE l.8.1 21 8bl3). Prductive
thou gh t, or art, is either useul or mimetic. The useul arts are such things as
shipbuilding, garmentmaking, gymnastics, medicine, and (presumably)
agriculture (Pol. I V . l.1 288bl-2l ) , whereas the mimetic arts are such things
as painting, sculpture, music, dance, and poetry (Rhet. 1.1 1.1371 b-8, Poet.
1 ) . I t is unclear where Aristotle intended to place logic in this scheme. Later
Aristotelians pursuing a remark in the Metapysics (IV .3. l005b2-5) regarded
logic (since it can be applied equally to any subj ect matter) not as a science
but as the organon, or instrument, of science - as a discipline that is
presupposed by the sciences. If one adopts this reasonable idea, Aristotle's
classiication of the sciences can be diagramed as ollows:
Logic
presupposed by
Science
I
Theology
Productive
Practical
Theoretical
I
Mathematics
Politics
I
Natural
science
1
Mimetic arts
Household management
I
Useul arts
Ethics
Turning now to the papers in this volume, Essay I, "Aristotle's Concep­
ti on of the State" by A. C. Bradley, was originally published over a century
ago and may airly be said to represent the standard interpretation of the
Politics. This is due partly to Bradley's inluence on the great scholars who
were producing their large works on the Politics as the nineteenth century
drew to a close and the twentieth began. W. L. Newman mentions that
Bradley commented on a portion of the proof-sheets of his commentary;
Franz Susemihl and R. D. Hicks requently refer to Bradley's essay in their
competing commentary; and Ernest Barker, the most inluential British
wri ter on the Politics during the irst half of this century, credits Bradley's
ess ay with arousing his in terest in the Politics.11
1 1 Newman, Politics, vol . I , p. x; F. Susemihl and R. D. Hicks, The Politics of Aistotle
( London, 1 894 [repr. 1 976] ) , pp. 1 46, 354, 390, and elsewhere; E. Barker, The Political
Thought f Plato and Aristotle ( London, 1 906 [repr. 1 959] ) , p. viii .
8
I NTRODUCTION
The problem of relating the various parts of the Politics to each other,
alluded to earlier, is examined by Christopher Rowe in Essay 2, "Aims and
Methods in Aristotle's Politics." The classical scholar Werner Jaeger sought
to resolve this problem by distinguishing two distinct chronological strata
within the Politics: on the one hand, there were the " U topian" books,
including V I I-V II I , and, on the other, the "purely empirical" books,
IV-VI, which belonged to a diferent and later conception of political
theory. 1 � Rowe points out, however, that the conception of political theory
ound in Book IV itself represents the business of constructing ideal states as
perfectly compatible with that of addressing actual politica.l problems . I n
principle these two exercises are, indeed, perfectly compatible; but, Rowe
argues, in Aristotle's case, though Aristotle nowhere acknowledges the point,
the second exercise necessarily involves a diferent set of standards rom the
irst. From the perspective of his best constitution, all actual constitutions are
merely defective and incapable of improvement. Rowe concludes that there is
a real diference between the two groups of books, but that it is not to be
explained in chronological terms. According to Rowe, Aristotle is simulta­
neously committed both to the Platonic ideal of the virtuous city, as
represented in the best constitution of VI I-VIII , and to the view that
political theory should, as Aristotle says, have something to contribute which
is of immediate practical use.
In Essay 3, "The Connection Between Aristotle's Ethics and Politics,"
Arthur Adkins examines the relation of the Nicomchean Ethics to the Politics.
He focuses on the amous "unction." or ergon, argument of Nicomachean Ethics
1.7, in which Aristotle arrives at his deinition of happiness (eudaimonia) as
activity in accordance with virtue (arete) by considering the ergon of a human
being ( anthropos). After discussing the meanings of the key terms of this
argument, especially the term ergon, or Aristotle's audience, Adkins
examines the gap between the (unspeciied) arete of Aristotle's deinition and
the aretai catalogued in the remainder of the Nicomachean Ethics. These latter
are basically the traditional civic virtues concerned with the defense and
administration of the city and household that are possessed by a limited
number of adult male Greeks. Thus Aristotle began by seeking the task and
excellence of a human being (anthropos) but ended up discovering instead the
task and excellence of a man (aner). Adkins contends that the gap between
these two diferent conceptions of arete is bridged not by argument but by
presuppositions and attitudes rom the daily life of ancient Greece.
Politics 1 . 1-2 is a sort of preace or introduction to the rest of the treatise,
and 1.2 contains a detailed defense of three basic theses of Aristotle's political
naturalism: that man is by nature a political animal, that the polis exists by
nature, and that the polis is prior by nature to the individual. Essay 4, " Man
as a Political Animal in Aristotle," by Wolfgang Kullmann, is devoted to the
irst of these three theses. On the basis of an examination of all the
12 Asote: FunaUntas of the Hstoy f hs Develoment, tr. R. Robinson, 2nd edn
(Oxord, 148), ch. 10.
INTRODUCTION
9
occu rren ces of zoon politikon ("political animal") in the Aristotelian corpus,
Kul lm ann concludes that it is Aristotle's view that politikon is not a speciic
di ferentia of man but a property man shares with certain gregarious
ani m als; the political impulse of man is thus genetically ingrained. This does
no t m ean , however, that Aristotle saw no diference between a polis and a
co lony of honeybees. The existence of a colony of honeybees is due en tirely to
biological actors; however, according to Aristotle, the existence of a polis is
du e to a speciically human actor - the conscious striving after gain and
hap pines s - as well as a biological one. Kullmann also contends that within
Aris totle's political philosophy the maxim that man is by nature a political
a ni mal is primary and the thesis that the polis exists by nature derivative
ro m it. This derivative thesis, moreover, is not to be taken literally. It is not
Aris totle's view, according to Kullmann, that a polis is an organic entity or a
sub stance strictly speaking, though it is analogous to such an entity.
Essay 5, "Three Basic Theorems in Aristotle's Politics," by David Keyt,
which ocuses on the arguments Aristotle advances in Politics l.2 or his
political naturalism, covers some of the same ground as Kullmann's essay,
though Keyt's interpretation of the three basic theses diverges to some extent
rom Kullmann's. Although he agrees with Kullmann's interpretation of ::oon
politikon, he reverses the order of priority between the maxim that man is by
nature a political animal and the naturalness of the polis. For Keyt, the
ormer is a corollary of the latter rather than a irst principle of Aristotle's
political philosophy. Keyt also maintains, in opposition to Kullmann, that
or Aristotle the polis is literally, not just analogically, a natural object. Keyt
contends, however, that none of Aristotle's arguments or the naturalness of
the polis is successul and that in act Aristotle has good reasons to hold that
it is an artiicial rather than a natural object.
One reason the polis is natural, in Aristotle's view, is that it is composed of
natural communities - most importantly, of households - the household, in
turn, is natural because the relations within it are natural . One such relation
is that of master and slave. In Politics 1 .-7 and 1 . 1 3, Aristotle argues that
some individuals are slaves by nature and hence slaves j ustly. I n Essay 6,
"Aristotle's Theory of Natural Slavery," Nicholas D. Smith discusses the
psychology that grounds Aristotle's theory. Smith contends that Aristotle's
theory in act combines two diferent psychological models. According to
one, the slave is to the master as emotion is to reason: the slave can listen to
and obey reason but not initiate a rational course of action. According to the
other model, the slave is to the master as the body is to the soul, or as animals
are to human beings. Having shown that every aspect of Aristotle's theory
can be explained by the application of one or the other of these two models,
Smith argues that the two models are incompatible and, as a result, that
Aristotle's theory of natural slavey is incoherent.
In Politics 1 .--1 1 Aristotle turns to an analysis of the science or art of
acquisition, which provides the resources the household needs. This leads
Aristotle to a discussion of various economic relations, including commerce.
This discussion, along with that of reciprocal j ustice in Nicomachean Ethics
V.5, has been of particular interest to economic historians although they
l0
INTRODUCTION
have difered widely as to its signiicance. Some interpreters represent
Aristotle's thought as a prototype of the sort of modern economic thinking
that arose with market economies. Others reply that Aristotle's grasp of
economic relations was too primitive or such an· interpretation to be
credible: he was engaged in ethical rather than economic analysis, and he
was more concerned with defending archaic relationships such as slavery
than with studying new ones such as commodity exchange. In Essay 7 ,
"Aristotle and Exchange Value," Scott Meikle argues that Aristotle's
discussion contains coherent but incomplete analyses of the commodity,
>conomic value, and the development of exchange. Meikle defends Aristot­
le's analyses as philosophically deeper than those of Adam Smith and David
Ricardo and claims that Marx derived his main criticism of classical political
economy rom them.
Book I I of the Politics is devoted to a critical examination of various
allegedly ideal constitutions, including those proposed by Plato and other
theorists. Aristotle's discussion of Plato's Republic in Politics 11.2-5 has been
extensively criticized. Many of Aristotle's comments seem to have little
relevance to the Republic, and some scholars have thought they show that the
empirically-minded Aristotle was incapable of appreciating the thought of
his more idealistic predecessor. In Essay 8, "Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's
Republic," R. F. Stalley argues that we can make sense of Aristotle's
comments by seeing them as a discussion of the idea of political community,
loosely based on certain sections of the Republic, rather than as an attempt at
detailed criticism of Plato's dialogue. The main reason Aristotle takes issue
with Plato is not that he adopts a purely empirical approach, but rather that
his conception of human good is undamentally diferent rom Plato's.
One point of contention between Plato and Aristotle is over the status of
property in the ideal state. Aristotle contends that Plato's abolition of private
property among the guardians of his ideal state is more likely to increase than
to decrease social conlict and that the moral virtues of generosity and
riendship, which are important components of the good life, require private
property or their exercise (Pol. 11. 5 ) . In Essay 9, "Aristotle's Defense of
Private Property," T. H. I rwin examines this dispute. Irwin argues that
although Aristotle's criticism of Plato's abolition of private property identi­
ies some central aults or obscurities in Plato's account of the unctions of the
state, especially in his treatment of intrinsic goods, it rests on some
controversial premisses that Aristotle would be hard-pressed to defend
without raising diiculties or some of his other political doctrines. Irwin
concludes that whereas Aristotle may succeed in defending some sort of
individual control over material resources, his defense of anything readily
recognizable as private property is seriously defective.
The philosophical core of the Politics is Book I I I , which introduces
Aristotle's theory of the constitution. Aristotle deines a constitution as the
distinctive orm or organization of a polis, which determines its end, or telos,
and how its oices, especially the highest, are distributed among its citizens.
In Politics I I I . 7 Aristotle divides constitutions into two groups: those that are
correct and those that are mistaken, or deviant. In Essay 1 0, "Aristotle on