Book VII, 1326a–1329b

But when it reaches a certain size, it will sometimes1326b1 make sailing poor through being too small, and sometimes through being excessive. Likewise, a city with too few inhabitants is not self-sufficient (and a city is something self-sufficient), while one with far too many is self-sufficient in necessities, like a nation, but5 not a city; for it is not easy for it to have a constitution. Who will be general of a vastly excessive multitude, or who its herald, unless he has the voice of Stentor? Therefore the first city must consist of a multitude large enough to be, for the first time, self-sufficient for living well in a political community. A city that10 exceeds this in numbers may also be a larger city, but this increase is not unlimited, as we have said. It is easy to see from the city's functions what the limit of the excess is. For the city's actions are those of rulers on the one hand and of the ruled on the other, and the ruler's function is command and judgment. To judge15 questions of justice and to distribute offices according to merit, the citizens must know one another's character. Where this does not happen, the distribution of offices and judgments must be poor. For in neither case is it just to proceed haphazardly, as happens20 plainly when the population is far too large. Moreover, foreigners and resident aliens can easily share in the constitution; for it is not difficult to escape notice when numbers are excessive. Clearly, then, the best limit for a city is the largest multitude sufficient for a self-sufficient life that can readily be surveyed. Let25 this, then, be our determination of the city's size.

The territory stands in much the same relation. As for its character, clearly everyone would praise the territory most self-sufficient (and such a territory must produce everything; for having everything and needing nothing1326b30 is self-sufficiency). In extent and size it should be such that the inhabitants can live at leisure, in a manner both generous and temperate. Whether we are right or wrong in stating this limit must be examined more precisely later, when property and abundance of possessions are generally35 discussed: how they should stand, and in what manner, with regard to their use. For there are many disputes about this inquiry because some draw life toward one extreme and some toward the other, some toward stinginess and others toward luxury. It is not difficult to say what the shape of the territory should be (though on some matters40 we must also follow those experienced in generalship): it should be difficult for enemies to enter but easy for its own people to leave.

1327a1Furthermore, just as we said that the number of inhabitants should be readily surveyed, so should the territory. By readily surveyed I mean that the territory can easily be defended. If the city's position is to be as we would wish, then in relation to the sea5 it should be well situated, and in relation to the territory as well. One requirement, then, is that already stated (for it should be accessible from every part of the territory for sending assistance); the remaining requirement concerns the conveyance of the crops produced, and also of timber, and of any other product that the territory happens to yield which is10 easily transported.

As for access to the sea, whether it is advantageous or harmful to well-governed cities, there is much dispute. For people say that the residence of strangers brought up under other laws is detrimental to1327a15 good government, and so is a large population. For using the sea to send and receive goods brings a multitude of merchants, and this, they say, is opposed to taking part well in public life. It is clear, then, that if these consequences do not follow, it is better, both for security and for an abundant supply of necessities, for20 the city and its territory to have access to the sea. For to endure wars more easily, those who are to be preserved must be able to receive assistance in both ways, by land and by sea. And to inflict harm on attackers, if that is not possible in both ways, it will at least be25 more possible in one of them if they have access to both. It is also necessary to import whatever they do not happen to possess themselves, and to export the surplus of what they produce. For the city should engage in trade for itself, not for others. Those who make themselves a marketplace for everyone have revenue30 as their motive; but a city that should have no share in this kind of acquisitiveness should not possess such a trading port either. Since even now we see many territories and cities with naval stations and harbors conveniently situated in relation to the city, so that they neither occupy the same urban area nor lie too far away,35 but are controlled by walls and other such defenses, it is evident that if any good results from contact with them, the city will possess that good, while if anything harmful results, it is easy to guard against it by laws specifying and defining who should not and who should associate40 with one another.

As for naval power, it is clear that it is best to possess it up to a certain strength

(for not1327b1 only for their own sake but also for that of some of their neighbors they must be formidable and able to give assistance by sea as by land). But the number and size of this force must be considered in relation to the city's way of life. For if5 it is to lead a life of leadership and public activity, this force too must be proportionate to its actions. The large population associated with the naval masses need not belong to the cities; for these men need not be any part of the city. The marines10 are free men and belong to the infantry; they have authority over and control the fleet. If there is a large population of outlying inhabitants and people farming the territory, there must also be an abundant supply of sailors. We see this even now in some places, for example in the city of the Heracleots: they man many15 triremes, although their city is more moderate in size than others.

Let this, then, be our determination concerning the territory and harbors of cities, the sea, and naval power. As for the number of citizens, we have already said what limit it should have; as for what sort of people1327b20 they should be by nature, let us now speak.

One might understand this, at least in broad outline, by looking both at the Greek cities held in high esteem and at the whole inhabited world, as it is divided among nations. The nations in cold regions and those of Europe are full of spirit; in intelligence1327b25 and skill, however, they are deficient. Therefore they remain freer, but without organized constitutions and unable to rule their neighbors. Those of Asia are intelligent and skillful in soul, but lack spirit; therefore they continue to be ruled and enslaved. The Greek race, just as it lies midway30 in geographical position, shares in both qualities. For it is both spirited and intelligent; therefore it remains free, has the best constitutions, and is capable of ruling all peoples if it obtains a single constitution. The Greek nations also have this same difference among themselves: some have35 a one-sided nature, while others are well blended with respect to both these capacities. Clearly, then, those whom the legislator is to lead readily toward virtue must be both intelligent and spirited by nature. For as to what some say the guardians should possess, namely that they should be affectionate40 toward those they know but fierce toward strangers, it is spirit that produces affection; for this is the soul's1328a1 capacity by which we love.

Here is a sign of this: spirit rises more against acquaintances and friends than against strangers when it believes it has been slighted. Therefore Archilochus, in reproaching his friends, fittingly addresses his spirit:1328a5 “For you are choked by friends.”

Rule and freedom, too, belong to everyone through this capacity; for spirit is commanding and unconquerable. But it is not right to say that they should be harsh toward strangers; for they should be so toward no one, nor are the magnanimous1328a10 fierce by nature, except toward wrongdoers. They feel this still more strongly toward acquaintances, as was said before, if they believe they are being wronged. And this happens reasonably: for from those whom they suppose to owe them kindness, they suffer not only harm but also the loss of that kindness,15 they believe. Hence the saying, “For wars between brothers are bitter,” (Eur. Fr. 965) and “Those who have loved beyond measure also beyond measure hate.” (Anon. fr. 78 (Nauck))

We have now determined in broad outline how many people should take part in public life and what sort they should be by nature, and also how large the territory should be and of what kind (for we must not seek the1328a20 same precision in arguments as in things that become known through perception).

Since, as with other things constituted by nature, those things without which the whole could not exist are not all parts of its entire constitution, it is clear that we should not count as parts of a city everything that cities must possess,1328a25 nor should we count all necessities as parts of any other community that forms a single kind (for there must be something one, common, and the same for the members, whether they share in it equally or unequally), whether this is food, an extent of territory, or something else of this sort. But when one thing is for the sake of another, and the other is that for whose sake it exists, they have nothing30 in common in these relations except that one produces and the other receives. I mean, for example, the relation of every tool and of craftsmen to the work produced. For a house and a builder have nothing that comes to be common to them; rather, the builders' art exists for the sake of the house. Therefore cities need property, but property is no part of the35 city. Yet many parts of property are living things. The city is a community of similar people, for the sake of the best life possible. Since happiness is the best thing, and this is an activity and a complete exercise of virtue, and since it so happens that some can share in it, while others share little or40 not at all, it is clear that this is the cause of the different forms of city and of the plurality of constitutions.

For in different ways and through1328b1 different means, each group pursues this and makes its ways of life and its constitutions different. We must also examine how many things there are without which a city could not exist. For among these will be the things we call parts of the city, and therefore they must exist. We must therefore establish5 the number of its functions, for from these the matter will be clear. First, then, there must be food; next, crafts (for life needs many tools); third, arms (for the members of the community must also possess arms among themselves, both to maintain rule over the disobedient and against wrongdoing by outsiders10 who attempt it); further, a certain abundance of wealth, so that they have resources both for their own needs and for those of war; fifth, and first in importance, care for the divine, which they call priestly service; and sixth in number, and most necessary of all, judgment about matters of advantage and about justice in their15 relations with one another. These, then, are the functions that virtually every city requires (for a city is not just any multitude, but one self-sufficient for life, as we say; if any of these things happens to be lacking, this community cannot be altogether self-sufficient). Therefore, in accordance with the activities20 just mentioned, the city must be constituted. There must therefore be a multitude of farmers who will provide food, craftsmen, the military element, the wealthy element, priests, and judges of matters of necessity and advantage.

With these things determined, it remains to consider whether everyone1328b25 should share in all these functions (for it is possible for the same people all to be farmers, craftsmen, deliberators, and judges), or whether different people should be assigned to each of the functions mentioned, or whether some of them must be separate and others shared. It is not the same in every constitution. For, as we have said,30 it is possible both for everyone to share in everything and for not everyone to share in everything, but some in some things. These differences also make the constitutions different: in democracies everyone shares in everything, while in oligarchies the opposite holds. Since we are investigating the best constitution, and this35 is the one under which the city would be happiest, and since it has already been said that happiness cannot exist apart from virtue, it is evident from this that in the city with the finest constitution, which possesses men just without qualification and not merely relative to a given assumption, neither the life of a mechanic nor that of a trader should be lived40 by the citizens (for such a life is ignoble and opposed to virtue); nor should anyone be a farmer who is going to1329a1 be a citizen

(for leisure is needed both for the development of virtue and for political actions).

Since the military element and the element that deliberates about matters of advantage and judges questions of justice are also present, and seem to be parts of the1329a5 city above all, should these too be assigned to different people, or should both be given to the same people? This too is clear: in one sense to the same people, and in another to different people. Insofar as each function belongs to a different prime of life, and one needs practical wisdom while the other needs strength, they should belong to different people. But insofar as it is impossible10 for those capable of using force and preventing coercion to submit to being ruled forever, they should belong to the same people. For those who have authority over arms also have authority over whether the constitution endures or not. It remains, then, to assign both functions of this constitution to the same people, but not at the same time. Just as by nature15 strength is found in younger men and practical wisdom in older men, so it seems advantageous that both functions should be distributed accordingly; and this is just, for the division accords with merit. Moreover, property too must belong to these men. For the citizens must have ample resources, and these are the citizens. The20 mechanical element has no share in the city, nor does any other class that does not produce virtue. This is clear from our assumption: happiness must exist together with virtue, and we should call a city happy not by looking at some part of it, but at all its citizens. It is25 also evident that property must belong to these men, if the farmers must be slaves or barbarian inhabitants of the outlying districts. Of the classes enumerated, the priestly class remains. Their place too is evident. Neither a farmer nor a mechanic should be appointed priest (for it is fitting that the citizens30 honor the gods). Since the citizen body has been divided into two parts, namely the armed element and the deliberative element, and since it is fitting both to offer service to the gods and for those exhausted by age to find rest in their service, the priesthoods concerned with the gods should be assigned to these men.

As for the things without which1329a35 a city is not constituted and how many parts a city has, these have now been stated (for farmers, craftsmen, and the entire laboring element must be present in cities, but the city's parts are the armed and the deliberative elements), and each of these has been separated, some permanently and others in turn.

1329a40It seems that those who philosophize about constitutions have recognized, not only now or recently, that separate classes should be distinguished1329b1 within the city, and that the military class and the farming class should be different.

For this arrangement still holds even now in Egypt, and also in Crete: in Egypt, they say, Sesostris legislated in this way, and Minos did so in1329b5 Crete. The institution of common messes also seems ancient: those in Crete originated in the reign of Minos, while those in Italy are much older than these. For the learned among the inhabitants there say that a certain Italus became king of Oenotria, from whom their name10 was changed, and they were called Italians instead of Oenotrians; and this coast of Europe received the name Italy, the part that lies within the Scylletic and Lametic gulfs. These are half a day's journey apart. They say that this Italus made the nomadic15 Oenotrians into farmers, established other laws for them, and first instituted common messes. Hence even now some of his descendants still use common messes and some of his laws. The country toward Tyrrhenia was inhabited by the Opicans, called both formerly and now20 Ausonians; that toward Iapygia and the Ionian Sea, the region called the Syrtis, by the Chonians. The Chonians too were Oenotrians by race. The institution of common messes, then, first arose here, but the division of the citizen population into classes came from Egypt; for the reign that far precedes in time25 Minos' is that of Sesostris. We should suppose that most other things, too, have been discovered many times in the long course of time, or rather infinitely many times. For need itself is likely to teach what is necessary; and once these things are present, it is reasonable that things contributing to refinement and abundance should develop.30 Therefore we must suppose that matters concerning constitutions follow the same course. That all these things are ancient is indicated by Egypt: its people seem to be the most ancient, yet they have always possessed laws and political organization. Therefore we must make adequate use of what has been discovered and, as for what has been left out,35 try to seek it.

But once it reaches a certain size, it will sometimes1326b1 sail badly because it is too small, and sometimes because it is too large. The same applies to a city. One with far too few people is not self-sufficient, while a city must be self-sufficient. One with far too many people is self-sufficient in necessities, like a nation, but5 not a city. It is not easy for it to have a constitution. Who could be general of such an enormous population? Who could be its herald without Stentor's voice? So the smallest possible city must have enough people to make it self-sufficient for living well as a political community. A city10 with a larger population than this can be larger, but, as we said, its size cannot be unlimited. It is easy to see what the upper limit is by looking at its tasks. A city's activities involve both rulers and the ruled. A ruler's job is to give orders and make judgments. To judge15 what is just and to assign offices according to worth, the citizens must know one another's character. Where this does not happen, the assignment of offices and the administration of justice are bound to go badly. Guesswork is not just in either case, and it occurs20 clearly when the population is far too large. Also, foreigners and resident aliens can easily gain a share in the constitution. With so many people, it is not hard to escape notice. So the best limit for a city is clearly this: the largest population that is self-sufficient for life and can still be readily surveyed. Let us25 settle the question of a city's size in this way.

Much the same applies to its territory. As for its character, clearly everyone would praise the territory that is most self-sufficient. Such territory must produce everything: having everything and needing nothing1326b30 is self-sufficiency. Its extent and size should allow its residents to live with leisure, generously and with moderation. We must examine later, in more detail, whether this limit is right or wrong. That will be when property and the plentiful supply of material resources are generally35 discussed, along with how we should approach their use. There are many disputes about this question. Some people pull life toward one extreme, others toward the other: some toward stinginess, others toward luxury. It is not hard to say what the shape of the territory should be. On some points we must40 also listen to people with military experience. It should be hard for enemies to enter and easy for its own people to leave.

1327a1Also, just as we said the population should be easy to survey, so should the territory. Here, being easy to survey means that help can easily reach any part of it. If we can choose the city's location as we wish, then in relation to the sea5 it should be well situated, and in relation to the territory too. One requirement is the one already mentioned: it must be a common base for sending help to every part of the territory. The other concerns the transport of harvested crops, timber, and any other products the territory happens to have. Its position should make these10 easy to transport.

There is much dispute about access to the sea, and whether it helps or harms cities with good laws. Some say that receiving visitors brought up under other laws harms1327a15 good government, and so does a large population. Using the sea to send and receive goods, they say, brings in crowds of merchants, and this works against taking part in public life well. Clearly, if these problems do not arise, it is better for both security and the supply of necessities for20 the city and its territory to have access to the sea. To bear wars more easily, people who are to survive must be able to receive help by both routes, by land and by sea. To harm their attackers, too, if they cannot do so by both routes, by one route they will have25 a better chance if they have access to both. They also need to import things they do not have at home and export their surplus products. A city should trade for its own needs, not those of others. Cities that make themselves a marketplace for everyone have revenue30 as their motive. But a city that should not share in this kind of greed should not have this kind of trading center either. Even now, we see many territories and cities with ports and harbors conveniently placed in relation to the city. They are neither part of the same urban area nor too far away,35 but are kept under control by walls and other defenses of that kind. Clearly, then, if contact with them brings any benefit, the city will have that benefit. If it brings any harm, it is easy to guard against it through laws that state and specify who should not, and who should, mix40 with one another.

As for naval power, clearly it is best to have it up to a certain size.

(A city must not1327b1 only be formidable and able to help itself, but also some of its neighbors, by sea as well as by land). But we must judge the number and size of these forces by the city's way of life. If5 it is to lead other cities and take an active part in their affairs, it must have naval power proportionate to these activities. Cities need not have the large population that comes with a mass of naval workers. These people need not be any part of the city. The marines10 are free men drawn from the infantry. They have authority and control the ship's operations. If there are plenty of people living in the surrounding area and farming the land, there must also be plenty of sailors. Even now we see this in some places, such as the city of the Heracleots. They fill many15 warships with three banks of oars, although their city is more moderate in size than others.

Let this settle the questions of cities' territory, harbors, access to the sea, and naval power. We have already said what limit there should be on the citizen population. As for what kind of people1327b20 they should be by nature, let us now speak.

We can get a fairly good idea of this by looking at the Greek cities with good reputations and at the whole inhabited world, as it is divided among nations. The nations in cold regions, and those around Europe, are full of spirit. In intelligence1327b25 and skill they are lacking. So they generally remain free, but lack political organization and cannot rule their neighbors. Those around Asia are intelligent and skillful, but lack spirit. So they remain ruled by others and enslaved. The Greek people, just as they occupy a middle position30 geographically, share in both qualities. They have both spirit and intelligence. So they remain free, have the best political organization, and could rule everyone if they had a single constitution. The same differences exist among the Greek nations themselves. Some have35 a one-sided nature, while others have a good mixture of these two abilities. Clearly, then, those whom the lawgiver can readily guide toward virtue must be both intelligent and spirited by nature. Some say that guardians should love40 the people they know and be fierce toward strangers. But spirit is what makes us love: it is the soul's1328a1 capacity for loving.

Here is evidence. When it thinks it has been treated with contempt, spirit rises more strongly against familiar people and friends than against strangers. So Archilochus, when accusing his friends, fittingly addresses his spirit:1328a5 "It is your friends who are choking you."

Everyone's capacity to rule and to be free also comes from this power. Spirit seeks to rule and will not be defeated. But it is wrong to say that people should be harsh toward strangers. They should not be like that toward anyone. People with greatness of soul are not1328a10 naturally fierce, except toward people who do wrong. They feel this even more strongly toward familiar people, as we said before, if they think they have been wronged. And this makes sense. When they think someone owes them a kindness, they suffer both harm and the loss of that kindness,15 they believe. That is why it has been said, "Brothers' wars are bitter," (Eur. Fr. 965) and "Those who have loved beyond measure also beyond measure hate." (Anon. fr. 78 (Nauck))

We have now roughly determined how many people should take part in public life and what their natural character should be, and also how large the territory should be and what its character should be. For1328a20 we must not seek the same precision in arguments as in things we observe through our senses.

In other things formed by nature, not everything without which the whole could not exist is a part of the whole structure. So clearly we should not count everything a city needs as a part of the city,1328a25 or of any other community that forms a single kind. The partners must have one thing that is common and the same for them all, whether they share it equally or unequally. It might be food, an area of land, or something else of that kind. But when one thing exists for the sake of another, and the other is its purpose, they have nothing30 in common except that one produces and the other receives. I mean, for example, the relation of any tool or craft worker to the work produced. A house has nothing in common with its builder. The builder's craft exists for the sake of the house. So cities need property, but property is not a part of the35 city. Many parts of property are living things. A city is a community of people who are alike, formed for the best life possible. Happiness is the best thing, and it is an activity and a complete use of virtue. But some people can share in it, while others can share only a little or40 not at all. Clearly, this causes the different kinds of city and the variety of constitutions.

By different ways and through1328b1 different means, each group pursues this and so makes its ways of life and constitutions different. We must also examine how many things there are without which a city could not exist. What we call parts of a city would be among these too, since they must be present. So we must list5 the tasks. They will make the matter clear. First, there must be food. Next, there must be crafts, since life needs many tools. Third, there must be arms. The members of the community must have arms themselves to maintain rule over those who disobey. They also need arms against wrongdoing by outsiders10 who attempt it. There must also be a supply of money to meet their own needs and the needs of war. Fifth, and first in importance, there must be care for the gods, which is called priestly service. Sixth in number, and most necessary of all, there must be judgment about matters of advantage and about what is just in people's15 relations with one another. These, then, are the tasks that practically every city needs. A city is not just any collection of people. As we say, it is one that is self-sufficient for life. If any of these things is missing, this community cannot be fully self-sufficient. So, around the kinds of work20 just mentioned, a city must be organized. There must therefore be a body of farmers to provide food, craft workers, a fighting force, wealthy people, priests, and judges of what is necessary and advantageous.

With these points settled, we still need to ask whether everyone1328b25 should share in all these tasks. It is possible for all the same people to be farmers, craft workers, deliberators, and judges. Or should we assign different people to each of the tasks mentioned? Or must some be separate and others shared? The answer is not the same in every constitution. As we said,30 everyone can share in everything, or not everyone in everything, but certain people in certain things. These differences also make constitutions different. In democracies everyone shares in everything; in oligarchies the opposite is true. We are examining the best constitution, and this35 is the one under which a city would be happiest. We said earlier that happiness cannot exist without virtue. This makes clear what follows for the city with the best constitution. Its men are just without qualification, not merely under a certain assumption. Neither manual work nor trading should be a way of life40 for its citizens. That kind of life is low and works against virtue. Nor should farmers be among those who are going to1329a1 be citizens

(for leisure is needed both to develop virtue and to carry out political activities).

The fighting force and the body that deliberates about matters of advantage and judges what is just are present in the city and seem to be its parts1329a5 most of all. Should these too be separate, or should both tasks be assigned to the same people? This too is clear: in one way to the same people, and in another to different people. Each task calls for a different prime of life, and one needs practical wisdom while the other needs strength. In that respect they belong to different people. But it is impossible10 for people with the power to use force and stop others to put up with being ruled forever. In that respect they belong to the same people. Those who control the arms also control whether the constitution survives or not. The only course left, then, is to assign participation in this constitution to the same people in both roles, but not at the same time. By nature,15 strength belongs to younger people and practical wisdom to older people. So it seems both advantageous and just to assign the two roles this way, since this division follows worth. Property must also belong to these people. Citizens must be well supplied with resources, and these are the citizens. The20 manual workers have no share in the city, nor does any other group that does not produce virtue. This is clear from our starting point. Happiness must go together with virtue. We should call a city happy by looking not at some part of it, but at all its citizens. Clearly,25 then, property must belong to these people, if the farmers must be slaves or non-Greek residents of the surrounding area. Of the groups we listed, the priests remain. Their place is clear too. Neither a farmer nor a manual worker should be made a priest, since it is fitting for the citizens30 to honor the gods. The citizen body has been divided into two parts, the armed force and the deliberative body. It is fitting for those worn out by age to give service to the gods and find rest in serving them. So the priestly offices should be assigned to these people.

As for the things without which1329a35 a city cannot be formed, and what its parts are, we have now stated them. Cities must have farmers, craft workers, and the whole body of hired laborers. But the parts of the city are the armed force and the deliberative body. Each of these groups is kept separate, some permanently and others in turn.

1329a40Students of constitutions seem to have known this long ago, not just now or recently: there should be separate groups1329b1 within the city, with the fighting group distinct from the farming group.

This is still the arrangement in Egypt and Crete even now. In Egypt, they say, Sesostris made laws establishing it, and Minos did so1329b5 in Crete. The system of common messes, meals eaten together, also seems to be ancient. In Crete it began in the reign of Minos, and in Italy much earlier. The learned people who live there say that a certain Italus became king of Oenotria. From him their name10 was changed from Oenotrians to Italians. This stretch of the European coast also took the name Italy: the part lying between the Scylletic and Lametic gulfs. These gulfs are half a day's journey apart. They say this Italus turned the nomadic15 Oenotrians into farmers, gave them other laws, and first established common messes. That is why some of his descendants still use common messes and some of his laws even now. The side toward Tyrrhenia was inhabited by the Opicans, called both formerly and now20 Ausonians. The side toward Iapygia and the Ionian Sea, in the area called Syrtis, was inhabited by the Chonians. The Chonians too were Oenotrians by descent. The system of common messes first came from here. The division of the citizen population into separate groups came from Egypt. This was because the reign that was much earlier than25 Minos's was that of Sesostris. We should suppose that most other things too have been discovered many times over the long course of time, or rather infinitely many times. Need itself is likely to teach people what is necessary. Once these things exist, it is reasonable that things contributing to refinement and plenty should develop.30 So we should think the same applies to constitutions. Egypt is evidence that all these things are ancient. The Egyptians are considered the oldest people, and they have always had laws and a political order. So we should make proper use of what has been discovered, and, for what has been overlooked,35 try to look for it.