Politics: Book VIII

I

The primary attention of a state’s legislator should be to the education of the youth as their development of character leads to the betterment of the government. And as the whole city has one end, the education should be made public rather than private because no citizen belongs to himself, but all belong to the state.

II

Arguments exist on the character of public education and the way of teaching as the confusion lays between practicability of education, issues of moral virtue and intellectuality being the aim for education; and opinions vary. Education should neither overburden nor vulgarize the mind. As occupation is divided between liberal and illiberal, knowledge, that is good for the sake of the person and friends should be imparted, but the same education, if it becomes a skill that is rendered as servile and menial, is dangerous and is to be avoided.

 
III

Education has four customary branches – i) reading & writing ii) gymnastic exercises iii) music, and iv)drawing. Reading, writing and drawing have their practical purposes and gymnastics promote courage. The problem comes at determining the value of music and Aristotle ascribes the value of leisure to it, which he says, is the first principle of all action. Leisure must not always be filled with amusement, otherwise amusement shall be the end of life, should be for suitable times as medicines for the exertions of occupation. The pleasure from leisure for different people are varied in form. Thus, whereas knowledge used for business exists for the sake of the branches of knowledge related to leisure that exist for their own sake. For this, music exists for intellectual pleasure and not for its necessity or utility. Similarly, the branches of reading, writing, and drawing can have application beyond their practicality as they can widen man's knowledge and teach him to appreciate beauty; thus making a sort of education that is noble. Children should begin with physical aspects of education as education in practice must predate that in theory as training of body must predate that of the mind.

 
IV

Development of athletic habit as the sole goal in children's education leads to malformation of holistic growth. Devoting children to only gymnastics and neglecting other forms of education vulgarizes their character. The state of decadence Lacedaemonians face is due to the aforesaid condition which has lead to the replacement of nobleness with ferocity. Boyhood should include light gymnastic training along with studies without any strict diet and then at the end of boyhood, three years should be devoted to other studies and only after that strict dietary methods and hard physical exercises should be introduced because simultaneous mental and physical labors prove to be counter-productive.

 
V

Aristotle returns to the question of music’s place in education and its nature and need. For the use, he forwards three arguments, as i) amusement and relaxation ii) development of moral character, and iii) cultivation of the mind. But why must a boy learn to play music himself when he can enjoy it as a mode of leisure and amusement being played by others like kings? It's because to gauge the correctness of music and to attain true pleasure that one should learn it with pain only to enjoy it later on. Amusement gives relaxation that relieves past pains; and this pleasantness along with the element of nobleness from intellectual enjoyment of music gives happiness. In addition, it has influence over ethical part of the soul and character and thus is a source for enthusiasm as the mimetic quality of the various modes of music and rhythm in portraying and arousing movement of varied emotions change the soul. Thus music is necessary for education because the harmonious blend of sounds results in the soul's balancing of the passions harmoniously in accordance with reason.

 
VI

Children should be taught music so as to be not only critics but performers too. To the objection that may rise as the study of music being vulgar, Aristotle says that though certain types of teaching and learning music may have degrading effect, one must carefully select the rhythm, melody and type of musical instrument to avoid the problem of degradation. The right measure of study of music will be attained if the student does not learn to the point of being professional players, i.e. playing in contests or being paid performers, but being limited to feel delighted in noble melodies and rhythms. By the same principle, instruments like flutes, harps, etc are to be excluded as they require exceptional skill to play and are merely for excitement of senses and thus have no true educational value.

 
VII

Music is produced by melody and rhythm and of the former, philosophers have made three divisions, which are ethical melodies, melodies of action and passionate & inspiriting melodies, with each having a corresponding mode. Music should be studied for i) education, ii) purgation, and iii) relaxation, enjoyment & recreation. Ethical modes are preferred in education and modes of passion and action while listening to performance of others. Purgative melodies work by creating emotions, like pity, fear, etc. in human soul which then purges it by the dint of excess of it, in a cathartic effect, and are thus sources of innocent pleasure. The performing musicians must perform varied melodies suiting the taste of the different rungs of society. Whereas the Phrygian mode is too exciting and frivolous and the Lydian gentle and relaxed, the Dorian is the ideal mode for education owing to its graveness and manliness. Aristotle ends with giving the three principles upon which education should be based: i) the mean, ii) the possible, and iii) the becoming.

- Shubhankar Das@PG I

The Histories of Polybius: Book VI

Polybius asserts that a state’s success or failure is largely due to the form of its constitution, for the constitution is the not only the fountain-head of all plans of action, but also the consummation of all actions. He contests that there are more than just the three traditional kinds of government (kingship [βασιλεία], aristocracy, and democracy); each of the three types has a degraded opposite variety (Kingship>Tyranny; Aristocracy>Oligarchy; Democracy>Ochlocracy) which is a different kind of polity in its own right. Moreover, while kingship, aristocracy and democracy are the better forms of government, the best kind of government is none of these three, but one which partakes of all of them. Lycurgus’s Spartan constitution is posited as an example. 

Polybius argues for a natural cycle of polities [πολιτειων ανακυκλωσις], beginning with Despotism that adjusts into Kingship which descends into Tyranny. Political order is salvaged by an Aristocracy which is perverted into an Oligarchy. Order is retrieved by a Democracy which becomes an Ochlocracy (mob-rule) when corrupt. Eventually, civilization is wiped out and a political state is rediscovered in Despotism.

In the original condition of nature, as it is with animals, the strongest becomes the leader. This is how the state originates. The limit of its authority is physical strength, and such a dispensation should be called Despotic. What changes Despotism into Kingship is a sense of morality.

Polybius posits a quaint origin for morality: in children. A child is born as a result of natural human tendencies, and is reared by its parents. Now if a child makes no return (of care and protection) to those who nurtured it but injures them by word or deed, it offends all others. Others are offended because they reason (another natural human propensity) that their own children may exhibit such disagreeable behaviour towards them, and so they condemn ingratitude, and generally respect goodness [καλον] and justice [δικαιον]. In this way, a notion of duty arises which, Polybius platonically claims, is the beginning and end of justice.

When a despot is just, distributing to each man according to his deserts, his rule is no longer obeyed from fear of violence, but from conviction of its utility. By imperceptible degrees, the despot becomes king.

When Kingship is inherited over many years, kings seek to differentiate and distance themselves from the masses. They attribute luxuries and all sorts of indulgences to themselves, and generally give rein to their appetites. This gives rise to jealousy, offence and hatred. Kingship is thus changed into a Tyranny. Plots are now formed against the tyrant, but these are made by the noblest men because they cannot bear to live under unjust tyranny.

These noble men who spearhead revolution and whose chief concern is public advantage are employed as the new leaders of the masses. We are now witnessing an Aristocracy. However, children of these noble-men (or their children), also distance themselves from the masses, indulging in avarice and general debauchery. The aristocratic government is thus perverted and becomes an oligarchy.

The people eventually rebel, and drive out these rulers (by assassination or exile), and fed up with rulers, take up the reins of state themselves. Over time, the children of the masses [there is always generational decline] forget their history, and their value for equality and freedom weakens. Gradually, the public is corrupted; it is greedy to receive bribes for individual gain, and the virtue of democracy is destroyed. Habituated now to feed at the expense of others, a reign of violence is produced. This is followed by tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments etc. until all trace of civilisation is lost.

Once again a despot is found, and the anakuklosis begins anew.

Polybius tips his hat to Lycurgus, mentioning that Lycurgus saw all this by the light of reason, and combined all the excellences of the three better constitutions in such a way that each power was checked by the other two. In Sparta, royal power feared people-power; the people were restrained by the Gerusia (council of elders), who were selected on grounds of merit. 

The Romans arrived at the same result; not through abstract reasoning, however, but through hard experience. The result of their many struggles and difficulties was a constitution similar to Lycurgus’s and the best, according to Polybius, in his time.

The Roman constitution has three divisions, each sovereign: the Consuls, the Senate, and the People.

The two Consuls are supreme masters of administration from whom all magistrates, except the elected Tribunes (who represent the people directly), take their orders. Moreover, as commanders of the army, the Consuls have absolute authority on any campaign.
The Senate controls the treasury and regulates receipts and disbursements. It is responsible for civic structures (such as public buildings) and for public investigations.

The People are the sole fountain of honour and of punishment, by which two things, Polybius maintains, human society is held together. In matters of life and death, the people are the only court.

The Consul is dependant on the Senate for corn, clothes and pay. Additionally, the Senate has power to recall a Consul after a year of service. The Consul’s power is thus balanced by the Senate’s control over it. The Senate, in turn, depends on the People for the ratification of death-penalties. Further, the People can pass laws that directly affect Senators. Moreover, the Tribunes, who have veto powers, are bound to carry out the decree of the People. In this manner, the Senate is dependent on the People.

Inversely, the People are individually dependent on the Senate, for there is hardly a single man who is not involved with any of the Senate’s many public contracts and projects. Additionally, Senators double up as judges in the majority of trials, when accused citizens are at their mercy. The People are thus subject to the Senate’s powers. For similar reasons the People do not rashly resist the Consuls, but especially because on a campaign they are directly subject to the Consul’s absolute authority.

This interdependency of the three estates brings strength to the state as a whole, and any tendency of any one estate towards degeneracy is checked by the other estates. Thus, equilibrium is maintained. Accordingly, a State of this kind becomes irresistible.

An elaborate description of the Roman army, its selection processes, administration, division of duties etc. follows. In the army, order and military success, Polybius suggests, is individually preserved by the double dose of great glory and severe punishment; desire for one and fear of the other effectively guarantee perfect execution of duty.

Polybius next compares the Roman Republic with other constitutions:

Thebes had suddenly attained great glory due to the valour of its leaders. This was, however, matched by an equally sudden evaporation. It is inferred that its fifteen seconds of fame were due not to its constitution, but to the exceptionality of a rare set of leaders.

Athens is likened to a ship without a commander. Although it had greater political glory than Thebes, particularly under Themistocles [and Pericles], it quickly declined. Athens, like Thebes, being essentially controlled by a mob with its unfettered impulses, could not have a worthy constitution.

The Cretan and Spartan constitutions are now compared. The Cretan polity did have annual election of officers on a democratic footing, but this was only a superficial arrangement. As greed and avarice were really the only thing held in common, public policy was inequitable and treacherous in practice. Sparta, on the other hand, had the peculiar merits of equitable land laws, and utter disregard for money. Lycurgus’s administration excelled partly due to the abolishment of covetousness because of which all motive for civil discord was removed.

Next, making a mention of Plato’s Republic, Polybius says it is not a contest at all, because any constitution must first point to some genuine and practical achievement.

The Spartan constitution seemed to be supreme, but it was not quite perfect. It was defective because although it was internally concordant, there were no established procedures for foreign relations. Polybius makes the interesting argument that Sparta fell to Persia essentially because of incompatible means of exchange. While Sparta could exercise dominion over Greece, it did not have the universal currency (in a double sense) to dominate non-Greek states.

By fact, then, Rome was superior to Sparta, because Rome actually brought ‘the whole world’ under its rule. The Roman constitution which betters Sparta (which bettered all others) is left only to be compared with the Carthaginian constitution.

The Carthaginian constitution was similar to the Roman, but it was past its prime. Essentially, in Carthage, the many determined policy; in Rome, the best. Moreover, Rome was superior to Carthage because of its army. Rome employed its own citizens who fought for country and children, whereas Carthage employed mercenaries who fought for money. Consequently, due to better policy and a better army, the Romans did conquer the Carthaginians in war.

Finally, Roman patriotism was maintained by such devices as public funerals, and public awards; religion played the key role of keeping the masses in check by mysterious terrors.  For these various reasons the Roman public state could not be corrupt, and so it had the most excellent constitution, in theory and in practice.  

The danger ahead for Rome, writes Polybius, is only great prosperity. Prosperity, promoting extravagance & negligence, avarice & corruption, can only ultimately result in mob-rule.

Thus the wheel turns.

Politics: Book 6

In Book VI of Politics Aristotle explores the constitution and functioning of democracy in greater detail, also taking into consideration its ideological opposite, oligarchy. There are various kinds of democracy, and variations of this form of government can be created by different combinations of the elements of self rule. The form of governance is to be tailored to suit particular cities or populations.

Democracy does not imply the ability to do as one pleases, but to rule and be ruled in turn, that is, according to the general will of the population. Liberty based on equality is the basic tenet of democratic constitutions, and the majority holds authority over the state, which means that the poor are more powerful than the rich by virtue of outnumbering them. However, if public opinion is equally divided, the side with more merit or value shall win over the other.

A democracy is characterised by paid offices of government, with limited tenures, checks on the repetition of terms in these offices, eligibility of all citizens to be elected into office, elections by lots, and a judiciary made up of citizens, as well as a popular assembly vested with considerable authority. As a counterpoint to oligarchy, in a democracy low birth, poverty and mean employment are the focus. While democracy grants absolute power to the majority, oligarchy grants power to the aristocracy, neither form is completely just.

Aristotle lists the four kinds of democracy based on the nature of the population. The most successful kind is that constituted of farmers, who are content with their work and do not interfere with the functioning of the assembly, and can be pacified with a limited amount of power over elections and governance. The next best kind is a population of herdsmen, followed by merchants and labourers. In each case, the effectiveness of the democracy is somewhat reduced. The stability of a democracy depends on the constituency; no one section of the population should vastly outnumber the others.

The difficulty lies not in forming a democracy, but in maintaining it. The legislator is to make laws to safeguard the democracy against destructive elements, as well as ensure the perpetuation of the system. Aristotle recommends a few legislative measures such as making confiscated property sacred instead of redistributing it, regulating taxation of the rich, ensuring a degree of prosperity for the poor, and penalising frivolous lawsuits, in order to keep the population interested in polity, but not in a position to acquire personal gains from it. If there are insufficient revenues to pay citizens to attend the assemblies, fewer assemblies should be held

While a democracy can survive on the basis of the mass of its population, an oligarchy must be well organised in order to remain stable. The best form of oligarchy is similar to constitutional governance. There should be elections to offices on two distinct levels based on the assessment of property, less important offices having a lower requirement, and the most prestigious having higher requirements as well as significant public service requirements, so that the individuals holding them gain the admiration of the people.

Based on the nature of the military of a city, it may tend towards one form of governance or the other. Aristotle opines that while heavy infantries and substantial cavalries make cities best suited to be oligarchies, those with a large number of light infantrymen, or dependent on naval forces, are usually democracies.

Certain executive offices are necessary for the governance of any given state; among these are six that manage state affairs such as trade, public property, taxes, private contracts, law enforcement and persecution of offenders. Four other offices, also indispensable but ranked higher since they require greater expertise, are: the command of military forces, regulation of finance and auditing, handling the functioning of the deliberative assembly, and directing public worship and taking care of priests and religious leaders in the state.

Depending on the size and population of a state the number of offices required to run it may vary.

-Nilanjana Chakraborty, PG II

Politics: Book 5

In Book V of Politics, Aristotle considers the causes of revolution in a state, how a state may be preserved and how it is destroyed. He mentions how democracy is based on the notion that those who are equally free should be absolutely equal while oligarchy is based on the idea that those who are unequal in one respect, namely property, must be absolutely unequal. Both forms of government are partially correct but neither is entirely so. When their share in government is not at par with the conceptions they happen to have, conflict is inevitable. Inequality is thus an important cause of revolution. Aristotle also distinguishes between those who are virtuous or genuinely worthy and those who possess rank in society due to wealth and ancestry.

Two kinds of equality in a regime must be observed - numerical or equality in numbers, and proportional or equality of ratios. In the abstract, people agree that justice is proportion but when applied to the state, numerical equality is considered. There are those who think that if they are equal in some respect, they should be equal in all respects while there are others who think that if they are unequal in some respect, they must be unequal in all respects. Hence, both democrats and oligarchs exist. But states ordered by one particular principle never last and the best regime is one wherein both types of equality are used. Democracy tends to be less liable to revolution as compared to oligarchy because democracies may only have a conflict between rich and poor, while oligarchies also result in conflicts amongst the those in power. According to Aristotle, a regime that is moderate, is one that will endure.

The chief reason behind feelings that lead to revolution is a desire for equality, when men think they are equal to others who have more, or for inequality, when they think they are superior to those around them and deserve more. However, the desire for gain and honour or the fear of dishonour and loss may also be responsible for revolution. Various other causes of revolution are given by Aristotle such as the insolence of magistrates, disproportionate increase in some part of a state and differences in race. Aristotle says that democracies undergo revolution on account of the ‘wanton behaviour’ of the popular leaders. Leaders such as this rile up owners of property to join against democracy and in the process, turn the poor against the rich in order to maintain themselves in power. He mentions the overthrown democracies of Cos and Heraclea as examples. In earlier times, democracy was more likely to turn into tyranny because of demagogues or manipulative leaders who were also generals of great power, such as the tyranny that arose at Miletus. In oligarchies, the chief cause of revolution is when the multitude is unjustly oppressed and any person becomes worthy of leadership, as in the case of Lygdamis at Naxos. Revolution may also occur when members of the wealthy feel excluded from a rightful share in government.

Inspite of the flawed nature of every regime and the risks involved in a particular regime being overthrown, Aristotle does discuss how a state may be best preserved. Firstly, it is important to know the reasons behind a revolution and taking precautionary measures to avoid such circumstances. Secondly, laws must be in place and trivial matters should not be disregarded in an existing regime. The laws of government should be arranged in such a manner that it is impossible to take advantage of positions of power and the masses do not mind being kept away from ruling. Aristotle mentions three qualifications for persons holding offices in a government - “(1) first of all, loyalty to the established constitution; (2) the greatest administrative capacity; (3) virtue and justice of the kind proper to each form of government; for, if what is just is not the same in all governments, the quality of justice must also differ." Although it is difficult to find all these qualities in men, the choice must be made considering which quality is common and which is rare. A regime is long lasting when the government in power, whether it is an oligarchy or a democracy is not hostile to the other group.

Aristotle believes that education, adapted to the form of government, plays a vital role in the permanence of a constitution and the well-being of the state. This does not mean that people living in an oligarchy should be made to believe that democracy is the enemy of the state or that the wealthy must regard the less fortunate with disdain. Instead, to be educated in ‘the spirit of the constitution’ is to understand the values of moderate democracy and moderate oligarchy such that revolution is avoided and the regime is stable.

In the rest of Book V, the causes of monarchy and its two forms, aristocracy and tyranny are discussed in detail. In the case of aristocracy, an individual is appointed king because he possesses superior virtue as compared to all other citizens and he rules by merit for the welfare of the state. For example, Codrus prevented the state from being enslaved in war. A tyrant, on the other hand, has no regard for the good of his people and rules with selfish intent such as the Ionian tyrants who achieved tyranny by holding great offices. Therefore, the rule of the best man over others, is far better than the rule of a master over a regime in which all are slaves. Stating reasons for the destruction of these regimes, Aristotle mentions hatred, fear and contempt as having brought about conspiracies in monarchies as well as in other forms of government. For instance, at Mytilene, Megacles and his friends attacked and slew the Penthilidae out of fear, as they were going about striking people with clubs. Aristotle concludes by analysing and refuting certain arguments made by Plato in The Republic regarding the causes of change in government.

Politics: Book 4

Politics 'Book IV'

Politics, like other practical arts, has to '[C]onsider the different methods appropriate to the different categories of its subject.'¹ Thus, one must consider the following.

1. What is the best i.e ideal constitution when there are no factors to hamper its formation.
2. Which sort of constitution suits which sort of civic body.
3. The study of constitutions that are not the ideal and are not the best possible under the given circumstances.
4. What constitution is best for cities generally.

The constitution being proposed should be such that it is acceptable to the majority of the people, given the system they currently have. The statesman (politikos) should thus know how many different kinds of constitution there are. Aristotle opines that there is not, as is believed, only one sort of democracy and one sort of oligarchy. This understanding is also essential for the framing of laws. Laws must be framed according to each constitution if they are to be appropriate for that constitution. A constitution is an organization of offices in a city which fixes the method of their distribution, the sovereign authority and the nature of the end to be pursued. Laws set the rules by which magistrates can check transgressors and exercise their authority. A law appropriate for one constitution need not be appropriate for another.

Having discussed aristocracy and kingship in 'Book III', Aristotle now proposes to discuss 'constitutional government', oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Oligarchy, democracy and tyranny are perversions of ideal constitutions, according to Aristotle, with tyranny being the worst, followed by oligarchy and then democracy.

A city is composed of different parts and the different ways in which these parts share in the control of the constitution gives rise to different constitutions. Aristotle argues that democracy cannot be defined merely as a constitution where the greater number are sovereign. In all forms the decision of the majority of those who share in the constitution is sovereign. Similarly, oligarchy cannot be defined as a constitution where a few people have sovereignty over the constitution.

“There is a democracy when the free-born and poor control the government, being at the same time a majority; and similarly there is an oligarchy when the rich and better-born control the government, being at the same time a minority.”

-- Politics,1290^b20

Having established that a city is composed of different parts, Aristotle says that the same set of people may possess the capacity to act in different roles ( as soldiers and as part of the judicial court, for instance) but since the same people cannot be both rich and poor, these two are regarded as parts of the city in a special sense. They appear to be opposed elements since once is usually larger than the other. This is why constitutions are established based on the predominance of one or the other and the different ways in which offices are organised gives rise to different types of democracy and oligarchy.

The various types of democracies that Aristotle defines are

1. The poor and the rich share, as far as possible, on the same terms in the constitution and the decision of the majority is sovereign
2. There is a low property qualification, with everyone who achieves it eligible for a share in office.
3. Every citizen of unimpeachable descent is eligible for office but the law is the final sovereign.
4. Everyone, provided only that he is a citizen, is eligible but the law is the final sovereign.
5. The fifth is the same in other respects [by which I understand that every citizen is eligible], but the people and not the law are the final sovereign i.e. popular decrees are sovereign and not the law.

Where the people and not the law are the final sovereign, demagogues arise and the people then becomes a monarchy. Aristotle likens them to tyrannical forms of monarchy, despotic and likens their decrees to the edicts of the monarch. He argues that they are not democracies in the proper sense since decrees can never be general.

Having classified democracies, Aristotle proceeds to classify oligarchies under the following categories.

1. Where there is a high enough property qualification to exclude the poor but where anyone who attains that qualification is eligible.
2. Where the property qualifications are high and those eligible themselves choose the replacements for vacancies.
3. Where sons succeed their fathers but the law is sovereign.
4. Where sons succeed their fathers but the officials, not the law, are sovereign and this is equivalent to tyrannies and the fifth form of democracy mentioned earlier.

Aristotle then provides another system of classifying democracies and oligarchies, this time on the basis of the amount of leisure available. Where those eligible to participate do not enjoy the leisure required, the rule of law is sovereign. In democracies, when there is state payment for attending assemblies, the mass of poor become the sovereign power while in oligarchies when those eligible acquire considerable property and are able to wield considerable influence, a 'dynasty' akin to personal rule appears.

Other forms of constitution are aristocracy and 'constitutional government'[or polity]. Aristotle opines that a constitution can with strict justice be called an aristocracy when the members are not merely 'good' relative to some standard but absolutely the best[aristoi] in excellence.

“[M]erit is the criterion of aristocracy, as wealth is the criterion of oligarchy, and free-birth of democracy.”

-- Politics, 1294^a9

In a mixed form of constitution, we must ideally consider free birth, wealth and merit. However only the first two are usually considered with the wealthy being considered gentlemen. A 'constitutional government' contains elements of both democracy and oligarchy. This can be achieved by either combining elements or taking the mean between them.

After a brief discussion on tyrannies, Aristotle goes on to consider the best constitution and way of life for the majority of people and cities. The best form of political association, if the best kind of life is in a mean attained by every individual, is one where power is vested in the middle class (which is the mean between the rich and the poor) and where the middle class is large enough so that they are at least stronger than each singly. This form is free from factions and its members are most ready to listen to reason.

Having established that the best constitution will follow the mean, Aristotle considers what type of constitution is suited for which people, based on quantity (superiority in numbers) and quality( free birth, wealth, culture and nobility of descent). However, he urges the legislator to always make the middle class partners in the constitution. Similarly, various devices are adopted to “fob off the masses” and Aristotle recommends honest compromise instead of deception.

Finally, Aristotle deliberates on the methods of establishing constitutions. He identifies three elements or powers in a city : the deliberative, concerned with common affairs, the legislative, concerned with public offices, and the judiciary. The deliberative deals with issues like war, alliances, capital punishment and auditing of offices. He enumerates various methods of achieving this like assigning responsibility to all citizens on all decisions, to all on some decisions and not on others and so on. However he advices that those assigned these responsibilities be drawn from all sections.

The legislative is concerned with public offices (defined as directing either the whole body of citizens or some part of them in a particular sphere of activity.) Aristotle again enumerates different arrangements based on the number of offices, the subjects with which they deal, their tenure and their method of appointment. The last point raises further questions regarding who should be eligible, who can appoint them and how they will be appointed.

Those eligible for office and to appoint to office can be all the citizens or some of the citizens and the method of appointment can be by election or by lot. Various combinations of these factors are democratic or oligarchic depending on whether all are appointing from all, whether by lot or election or whether some are appointing from some. Other combinations are aristocratic when appointment is done by a section from all or by all from a section by election.

Aristotle ends by discussing the judicial element. He categorises courts into eight parts discusses courts that deal with a political nature further. Again the courts will be democratic or oligarchic depending on whether the entire citizen body is eligible to give decision or whether only a section is eligible, and whether they are chosen by lot or election or a combination of these two.

'Book IV' thus gives an empirical view of constitutions with Aristotle defining various types of constitutions and the different arrangements possible that give rise to them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Politics, 1288^b10

All quotations are from the Oxford edition of Aristotle's Politics translated by Sir Ernest Barker, revised by R.F. Stallley.

Politics: Book 3

A city is a self-sufficient [autarkeia] whole made of different parts: citizens. A citizen, not defined by his place of residence or by his right to justice, is one who “shares in the administration of justice and in the holding of office.” ‘Citizens’ differ from constitution to constitution. Some become citizens by birth, some by changes in the constitution. A city changes its identity with a change in its constitution even if the people or the space remains the same.

Excellence  in a good man, and in a good citizen is not the same. Excellence in the citizen is relative to the city’s constitution, while in a good man it coincides with that of a ruler (though in a well-ordered state one may not be able to distinguish between the good man and the good citizen). The ruler need not know how to perform tasks, but how to use those who do: the manual labourers. One learns ‘political rule’ (rule over those similar in birth) by being ruled first. Ruler and ruled require different virtues.  The city tries to ensure eudaimonia for citizens. Therefore, under most constitutions, “all who are necessary to the city’s existence” [barnausoi], cannot be considered citizens. Shortage of genuine citizens calls for relaxed rules of citizenship.

The Civic body [politeuma] (synonymous with Constitution [politeia]) is sovereign. The sovereign (one, few, or many), who considers public interest is good, while all else is despotic. Kingship, Aristocracy, ‘Constitutional Government’ are the right forms; their perversions being Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Democracy. Each constitution has its own view of Justice. All parties concerned think that they profess absolute justice. Equality and inequality are both considered just, but one for equals, and the inequality for unequals. He tries later to determine the criteria for judging of ‘equality’. Contribution to the state is to be the deciding factor. Proximate habitation, mutual safeguard of justice, and commercial exchange are necessary conditions for a city’s existence, but it is ultimately a community engaged in a ‘good life’.

Although Aristotle maintains faith in people, who according to him, act in judicious and prudent manner as a group, he concludes that sovereignty should ultimately lie not in human beings, but in law. He then discusses the possibility of the coexistence of ‘the good, the wealthy, and wellborn, and some general body of citizens’, all fit to rule. If there is a person, superior in all aspects to the rest, it would be unjust to give him a share equal to what the others receive. In perverted forms, Aristotle explains with illustrations, these persons are ostracized. But in the best constitution, all else would pay him willing obedience.

There are five types of kingship: i) Spartan (in charge of military); ii) (barbarian) law-governed tyrannies; iii) (‘Heroic Age’) elective tyranny [aisumneteia]; iv) consensual tyranny; and v) absolute kingship. Since a ‘numerous body’ is less easily corruptible, Aristotle seems to argue for limited powers of kingship. Even if there is one person ruling, he should be made ‘servant’ of the law. When a family surpasses the ordinary people it should be vested with kingship. He may then command absolute subservience, and his rule need not be time-bound.

Aristotle commends most highly a constitution administered by the best (one, few, or a number of people). “[T]he same method… by which a man becomes good, should also be used to achieve the creation of a city on the pattern of aristocracy or kingship; and thus the training and habits of action which make a good man are the same as those which make a good statesman or a  good king.”

Politics: Book 2

In Book 2 Aristotle’s goal is to demonstrate the need for a new theory of government, since neither a perfect theory nor a perfect government exists. 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. Most significantly, Aristotle sustains a defense of private property. Most of the theorists he attacks that seek to abolish private property do so with the intention of abolishing the greed and selfishness that accompany private property. Aristotle argues that these vices result from human wickedness, not from the mere existence of private property. Consequently, abolishing private property is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for eliminating vice. If people were equal and equally wealthy, for example, they would become lazy in their luxury. If people were equal and equally poor, they would quickly become discontented. The history of communism in the twentieth century has done a great deal to support Aristotle's claim that the abolition of private property is not enough to make people happy or virtuous. The solution is to share education, not property.

Aristotle then details the faults he has found with Plato's Laws: Plato's proposed city requires a vast territory but makes no provision for safe relations with neighbors; generosity, like temperance, should be a guiding principle regarding wealth; Plato says that land should be divided into even lots and distributed evenly between citizens but makes no allowance for fluctuations in population; and Plato seems to want a politeia, or balanced constitutional government but ends up with an oligarchy.

Aristotle also 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.

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: the system of serfdom leaves the ever-present danger of revolution; the undue freedom given to women presents many hazards, the worst of which is a dowry system that hurts the economy and the military; the Ephors, or overseers, are elected almost at random from the general populace; both Ephors and councilors are susceptible to bribes; and 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.

-Soumita Adhikary

Politics: Book 1

Aristotle begins his Politics by talking about the highest community of all i.e., the state or the political community, which aims at the highest good. He goes on to differentiate among the roles of various authoritarian figures like the king, the household manager, the master, for which he feels it is necessary to consider the constituent units of a state.

A community is formed by bringing together beings interdependent for their sustenance and preservation, like the master and the slave, the male and the female. A combination of these two relationships leads to the formation of a family. Many families unite to form a village and many villages unite to form a self-sufficient state which originates in the bare needs of life, and continues to exist for the sake of a good life for its inhabitants. A state is thus a natural creation and its inhabitants, the men, are naturally socio-political animals who cannot exist by themselves. A man who is not part of any state is either beastly or superior to man. 'Men', who are in an advantageous position compared to the animals, having speech and the ability to judge, can aspire for a good life only if they remain within the bounds of law and justice within the state.

Aristotle then goes on to talk about household management with reference to the three types of relationships possible in a household-

• that between master and slave
• marital relationship between male and female
• procreative relationship between father and children.

To manage a household one needs to have the expertise of acquiring necessary property, which can be done with instruments of action, living or non-living. The most effective instrument of action is a slave who is also a possession of his master. Some feel the relationship between a master and a slave to be akin to political rule but in political rule the king rules for the subjects’ good where as the master rules the slave for his own good. Again, some see turning a person forcefully into being a slave as unjust, as nature has created all men to be equal. Aristotle opines that the superior in ‘virtue’ should be the master and not the superior in ‘strength’.

Aristotle believes in the theory of natural and unnatural slaves. Some are born to rule and some (the inferior) are naturally born to be ruled for the better. Those who are unnatural slaves, made by law, are usually the ones defeated in a war and thereby possessed by the victors. This seems unjust to Aristotle especially when the cause of the war is unjustified. The natural relation between a master and a slave is friendly, where as the one imposed by law is torturous.

In Book I, Aristotle also compares the art of household management to the “art of wealth-getting”. This wealth can refer to that supplied by nature, which is to be acquired in keeping with the ways of lives of various animals who try to be self-sufficient. The household manager accumulates this wealth for the proper running of the household. This would comprise the proper use of a thing. Things would be used improperly when they are used as means of exchange. The need for exchange arises in a society between some people who have excess of something and others who are in dearth of that same commodity. Exchange leads to barter system from which grows the practice of import and export among countries. Gradually money comes into use as a result. Use of money further teaches men the art of retail trade and consequently the art of getting wealthy by accumulation of money through profit making. However, as Aristotle feels, coins are useless as they themselves cannot meet the necessities of daily life, as did the earlier means of barter where people exchanged necessary articles. While ‘wealth-getting’ for the household remains in limit, is necessary and honourable, the wealth produced by trade and interest (“money born out of money”) has no limit to it, leads to usury and is unnecessary. One can desire more and more but neither desire has any end nor the means of satisfying it. There is also a third type of ‘wealth-getting’, that through industries which exploit the resources of nature to earn profit.

Aristotle then returns to talk about the last two types of rules-

• royal rule of the father over children, which comprises love and respect for the father, by virtue of his age, and 
• constitutional rule of the husband over his wife who is seen as an unequal and naturally less fit compared to her husband being a female.

Although the latter type of rule is termed as constitutional, the actual rule in a state is over subjects who are free and equal unlike the females. However, the females are different from the slaves in that, that females are ruled for their good. Aristotle seems to accept this subordination of women to men but is unable to justify it.

Aristotle ends Book I by raising the question as to whether the natural ruler and the natural subjects like the slaves, women, children, who are human beings of the subordinate kind, share the same virtues. The answer to this would be in accordance to what Socrates believed; each possesses moral virtue such that each can perform his(her) duty perfectly. Women can also have intellectual virtues, but in a subordinate way.  However, all the virtues should be in keeping with the constitution of the state.

Book I gives way to Book II where Aristotle will examine the theories of a perfect state.
--Koyel Ghosh (PG II)

The Republic: Book X

Socrates reverts to the discussion which had first taken place in Books II & III of poetry’s place in this ideal community. Socrates argues that he was right in banishing (bad) mimetic poetry, and explains to Glaucon his reasons for doing so. The harmful effects of poetry on the human mind, in so far as it draws one away from the ultimate reality, are illustrated by means of the art of painting. Socrates says that there is only one essential or ideal bed, the form of which is behind the carpenter’s material bed, and it is this material bed that the painter represents in his painting. The painter’s bed is twice-removed from reality. Similarly, poetic representation is also twice-removed from the real world of forms.

Next, Socrates points out that Homer, the greatest of poets, was not of much use to his country. While Italy and Sicily remember Charondas as their reformer and Athenians name Solon in this respect, no community or country can refer to Homer as a good advice-giver or governor. Unlike Pythagoras, Homer had not even been applauded for being a good teacher. The only skills that Homer possessed were representational skills. With this example of Homer, Plato launches his attack on poetry.

The poet is described as ignorant, without any real knowledge of what he is representing. He is not even armed to differentiate between the good and bad of what is being represented. Moreover, he will continue to represent the bad aspect of things just because his audience demands it. Painting or poetry is not only twice-removed from the truth; its appeal is also to that part of the human mind which is not reasonable.

In difficult situations, a human being is expected to not give into his emotions and to deal with problems bravely. While one part of his mind gets emotional or scared, the other reasonable part of his mind wants to overcome the problems. The poet, however, is only concerned with that part of the human mind which is petulant because it is there that he has any appeal for his audience.

The worst aspect of mimetic poetry is that it corrupts even a good human being. When Homer shows his hero breaking down in the face of disaster, the audience does derive a kind of pleasure, but the same audience would not want to break down in case of disaster in their lives but rather face it bravely. But in the process of enjoying mimetic poetry, the audience may give in to that part of his mind which is emotional – he will loosen his guard over rationality.

Socrates concludes this discussion on poetry by saying that a human being will be best rewarded if he detaches himself from poetry, power and wealth, which detract from the truth, and applies himself to morality.

Before ending the discussion on morality, Socrates claims that the human mind is immortal. Glaucon is surprised by this statement, and Socrates puts forward his explanation. He argues that the body can be damaged by disease or illness, and any given object can be destroyed because of its specific illness or what is harmful for it. But vice, the peculiar evil of the mind, cannot ensure the literal perishing of the mind. Since the mind is not destroyed by its own affliction, and as it can’t be destroyed by the body’s affliction or any other affliction, it is immortal.

Socrates further asserts that immoral people might win the race of life towards the beginning but towards the end they are jeered because of their shortcomings and vices. But a moral person is a winner all throughout his life and is appreciated by the community at large.

Finally, the Republic concludes by recounting the myth of Er who, apparently slain in battle, entered the afterlife. Er saw how the moral are rewarded and the immoral are punished severely in life-after-death. Judges sitting at the opening of two gates, one of heaven and the other of the dark underworld, decide which man is fit to take which path. After several days of journey Er and the other souls reach the spindle of Necessity where apart from Er, each soul is given a token according to which he or she can choose his next life on earth. Wise men like Orpheus choose the life of a swan while the bitter Agamemnon prefers to be an eagle. Finally the souls become oblivious after drinking water from the River of Neglect and then return to earth to be reborn. Er comes back to life just as his funeral is about to take place, and recounts this vision of death.

Socrates tells Glaucon that it is important to regard the soul as immortal and to always follow the path of morality. This is the best way to please the Gods and have a rewarding life.

- Shreya Sarkar (PG II)

The Republic: Book IX

In this book, Socrates concentrates on the tyrannical individual, figure of the political tyrant and the tyrannical state. Before discussing the origin and features of a tyrant, Socrates talks about the lawless desires in man. A man ruled by both social laws and reasoning never indulges in unlawful activities like incest, parricide or the eating of forbidden food. Such wild and beastly desires may only find vent in dreams. Nonetheless, this beastly quality is latent in human beings.

By making this point, Socrates then brings to attention two political figures associated with the tyrant.

A) The Democratic man: The tyrant is raised by his democratic father. The democratic man, in turn, has been raised by miserly parent who discouraged all unnecessary activities dealing with pleasure. As a result, he rebelled by leading a lawless life. But the better sense in him prevailed and he only moderately indulged in pleasures.

B) The Oligarch: This democratic man is raised by an oligarch. He is an absolute miser who pushes his son into a more anarchic life style till his proper reasoning makes him follow the more moderate democratic path.

The tyrant, like his democratic father, is also seduced into the life pleasures which his father also pursues but in moderation. The tyrant does not have the restraints and check of the democrat’s and is pushed further into lawlessness. All his principles and sense of rationale diminishes. He is like an eternally drunk man who is driven into an unlimited frenzy where he believes he can rule over the gods. His soul is driven by love for the lustful and the unlawful. The more he indulges the shorter his revenues become till he is left with no more. He soon looks for other ways to fund his desires. He sells of his property and when that is no more a feasible option, he  plunders and loot his own parents till they are forced to sell all their assets; he also steals from wayfarers, other homes and temples. His beastly desires are no longer latent.

The tyrant either becomes a mercenary soldier sent off to war or he remains in the State and becomes the perpetrator of many evils. He soon starts gaining power and followers who flatter him, those who refute him are brutally punished and the rest have no choice but to follow. His young retainers serve under him and become rulers and masters over the state. The tyrant never experiences true friendship nor does he ever allow complete freedom. Socrates observes that just like the democratic man reflects the nature of a democratic state, the tyrant reflects the nature of a tyrannical state. Judging from the characteristics of the tyrant figure, the government led by him is most wretched and despondent like the tyrant himself.

The tyrant enslaves all the good qualities in him and in turn enslaves the State. The political tyrant is the most miserable figure. The reason for his misery is the absence of loyalty in his retainers and the constant loom of threat against his position. Socrates elaborates by placing the tyrant in two different situations. Firstly, if the tyrant and his family with all their servants were to be moved into the wilderness, there would always be in fear of rebellion. So the tyrant, against his will, would have to cajole his servants to keep them happy and save himself. Secondly, if the tyrant was located amongst neighbors who detest any form of slavery, he would be in constant fear of being overthrown and banished. The more power he gains the more wretched he becomes. The state, hence, also suffers.

Socrates, then, examines three classes of man in order to find out who is the happiest. The lover of wisdom, the lover of honour and the lover of gain all indulge in pleasure. It is the lover of wisdom, the philosopher, who has access to all three and is the most content. He also has the power of reasoning that neither the lovers of honour or gain possess. True pleasures lies in the cessation of pain and only a philosopher achieves this. Socrates calculates that out of the three political figures- the democrat, oligarch, and the tyrant- the tyrant is 729 times removed from the pursuit of true pleasure. The tyrant is only aware of bodily pleasures and this is the reason for his extreme desolation. Lastly, Socrates questions whether the figure of the tyrant was perceived to possess the ideal soul. The tyrant lets the beast in him rule and hence possesses the dual nature of an animal under the garb of normalcy. He may enjoy a sense of power for a short period of time but it is only the just and good ruler, who by adjusting according to the State and its needs, maintains a peaceful rule.

Amrita Kar
Pg-I

The Republic: Book VIII

Book VIII begins with Socrates reiterating the concept of community and citizenship in a perfect state where education,leisure and warlike activities should be held in common.He also touches upon the notion of common property.Glaucon reminds him that as he has already described the just city Socrates now defines and elaborates upon four unjust constitutions of the city and their human correspondence. He also maintains that society is formed of individuals, if there are five kinds of society then there should be five distinct human correspondences in their response. First of these constitutions is called timocracy. This arises out of aristocracy which is the “just and good” and much admired Cretan or Spartan type of governance in a perfect state. Timocracy is its slightly degraded form as it is the response to Spartan form by a contentious and ambitious man. Ideal society turns into timocracy when the ruling class becomes disunited and social strife begins. The origin of this change in the traditional order lies in the dispute over private ownership (“land and houses”) and private profit (“gold and silver”). Human attributes of a timocratic character is ambition,self will, competitive spirit and imperfect education which leads to an improper class relation skills and a false sense of superiority. A timocratic soul is vulnerable to uncertainty and inner conflict. Timocracy lies between ideal state and Oligarchy. In Oligarchy wealth is the only qualification of merit and governance. Timocracy turns into Oligarchy through the accumulation of capital into private ownership resulting in extravaganza, perversion and dishonoring of the law. Overvaluation of wealth creates undervaluation of goodness. Oligarchy divides the society into two factions : a rich ruling class which is few in numbers and a vast poor section. The number of malcontents rises in the society through a new “drone” class of wrongdoers. A timocratic character turns Oligarchic by the fear of sufferings and losing property. Ambition quickly turns into avarice. An Oligarchic man is laborious, business minded, economical but not morally virtuous, suppresses his inner desires not by reasons rather only because of the compulsion of fear.

Neglect of the poorer section extravagance of wealth and disobedience of the law creates a huge disfranchised section. Criminals and beggars multiply in numbers. Then either by external stimulus or may be even without provocation the poor revolts against the rich. Democracy arises when they defeat the rich, kill, banish or exile the losers and establish a rule of equal civil and legal rights. It can happen through an armed revolt or by a bloodless coup. According to Socrates Democracy is the “most attractive” of all societies because there is diversity,liberty and individual freedom of speech. There is no compulsion of exercising authority (even if one is capable of it) or submitting to it. Although he strictly maintains that it is a rather short sighted constitution,a diverse yet “agreeable anarchy” which treats all its citizen equally regardless of whether they hold the moral and civil qualifications to be treated equally.A democratic character has variety yet lacks moral principles. He is refined but presumptuous, indulges himself in cultivating necessary and unnecessary desires.

As Oligarchy falls due to the excessive desire for wealth, Democracy likewise becomes Tyranny due to the excessive desire for liberty and freedom, at the expense of other merits of Democracy. This eventually undermines the democratic constitution. Liberty falls under the influence of servile and contemptible leadership. Principle of liberty permeates the private sphere. The mind of the citizen becomes sensitive to this changes, citizens start disregarding the law. This is the root of Tyranny. Because supposedly every democratic society falls into three groups. The first one is energetic,freedom loving. They are considered contemptible in Oligarchy,they cannot assume governance. But in Democracy almost all the leaders of the ruling class are drawn from this group. The second group emerges from the mass but are steady enough to consistently make money and climb up the social ladder. The third group is the largest class. They seldom take interest in politics but assembled together (not without the promise of the fulfilment of their individual desires) can form a supreme force. Leaders of this faction rob the wealth of the rich, keep most of that for themselves, distribute the rest to the poor and become popular champions of the mass. A popular leader becomes a tyrant when the temptation for power and violence gets too strong. The mob will do anything he tells them to. He overthrows not only the ruling class but all forms of opposition and dissent and grasps the power of the state. He raises his own private militia. Citizens find out the nature of the “beast” they have bred when he uses violence against his own men who nurtured him. So the tyrant commits parricide.

The Republic: Book VII

Book VII of Plato’s Republic begins with the allegory of the cave. Socrates describes a situation in which men reside from their childhood in an underground cave-dwelling, their legs and necks bound in chains which prevent them from turning their heads around, enabling them to only look in front of them. At a distance, a little higher up, a fire burns, and between the fire and the prisoners, is a slightly elevated road with a wall built along it, something like a screen used by puppeteers. Men carry along this road, all kinds of articles. The prisoners in the cave can see nothing but each other, and the shadows of these various objects thrown by the fire, on the wall that they are facing. All their lives, they take these shadows to be the real things.

Then one of them is released, and forced to ascend out of the cave and into the sunlight. He is too dazed at first to see anything, and also perplexed when he is told that all these objects before him are the real objects and the shadows that he had seen in the cave were mere phantoms of the real things. Soon his eyes are able to adapt to the light, and he is able to perceive things as they really are. If, in such a situation, this person was once again compelled to return to the darkness of the cave, would he not have considerable trouble distinguishing between the dark shadows thrown on the wall, asks Socrates.

Socrates compares this upward ascent into the light as the upward journey of the soul into the world of knowledge, where the Form of the good, the beautiful, and the true can be seen. Education is therefore, the manner in which the soul is taught to turn around from the darkness to the light, from ‘that which is becoming’ to the ‘brightest blaze of being’, which Socrates declares as being the ‘true philosophy’. Thus the ideal governors of the city must be those who are willing to make the upward journey and perceive the truth; and having done so, descend again to the prisoners to share their knowledge with them. Having received a better and more thorough education, these philosophers must descend to dwell with the inhabitants of the city, and must be accustomed to see and distinguish between the objects of darkness because they have seen ‘the truth of what is beautiful and just and good’.

Socrates goes on to say that the guardians of the city must be ‘athletes of war’, and therefore the education that they receive must not be without use to warriors. In addition to gymnastics and harmonics, he suggests that the guardians be educated in Arithmetic and Calculation, Geometry (both plane and solid) and Astronomy. These subjects provide the ‘prelude to the real melody which is to be studied’, played by Dialectic. Dialectics enable the philosopher to explain the essence of things, and to define the Form of the good with intelligible reason.

These studies, according to Socrates, must be assigned to only ‘the steadiest, the bravest and, as far as possible, the best looking.’ Not only should such men have sturdy morals but they must also be suited to this scheme of education. Such a man should also have ‘a good memory, an unchangeable purpose, and an unflagging love of work.’ These preliminary studies must be introduced to the guardians when they are boys, as compulsory subjects of study, but only after they have completed the first two or three years of necessary training in Gymnastics.

It is sufficient if the student perseveres in constant study for twice the amount of time he spends in physical training, amounting to approximately five years. During this period the students will be observed and their proficiency in various fields assessed, and in their twentieth year, those who have been selected, will receive the privilege of bringing together all that they have studied, in order to achieve an understanding of their relationship with one another and with the nature of Being. And when they are past thirty, the best among them will be selected and they will be forced to take command in war and other such offices pertaining to the young, in order to acquire practical experience. After fifteen more years, at the age of about fifty, the ones who have come safely through, must devote their time towards philosophy, but when the time comes, they must also undertake the responsibility of directing politics and being rulers for the sake of their city. Socrates goes on to add that all that he has said applies no more to men than to women, ‘so long as we have women of adequate natural gifts.’

He concludes the chapter by saying that children above ten years should be taken out of their home environment and trained in the customs and laws enumerated by him.