________________________________________________
_ We proceed now to inquire what form of government and what manner of
life is best for communities in general, not adapting it to that
superior virtue which is above the reach of the vulgar, or that
education which every advantage of nature and fortune only can
furnish, nor to those imaginary plans which may be formed at pleasure;
but to that mode of life which the greater part of mankind can attain
to, and that government which most cities may establish: for as to
those aristocracies which we have now mentioned, they are either too
perfect for a state to support, or one so nearly alike to that state
we now going to inquire into, that we shall treat of them both as one.
The opinions which we form upon these subjects must depend upon one
common principle: for if what I have said in my treatise on Morals
is true, a happy life must arise from an uninterrupted course of
virtue; and if virtue consists in a certain medium, the middle life
must certainly be the happiest; which medium is attainable [1295b] by
every one. The boundaries of virtue and vice in the state must also
necessarily be the same as in a private person; for the form of
government is the life of the city. In every city the people are
divided into three sorts; the very rich, the very poor, and those who
are between them. If this is universally admitted, that the mean is
best, it is evident that even in point of fortune mediocrity is to be
preferred; for that state is most submissive to reason; for those who
are very handsome, or very strong, or very noble, or very rich; or, on
the contrary; those who are very poor, or very weak, or very mean,
with difficulty obey it; for the one are capricious and greatly
flagitious, the other rascally and mean, the crimes of each arising
from their different excesses: nor will they go through the different
offices of the state; which is detrimental to it: besides, those who
excel in strength, in riches, or friends, or the like, neither know
how nor are willing to submit to command: and this begins at home when
they are boys; for there they are brought up too delicately to be
accustomed to obey their preceptors: as for the very poor, their
general and excessive want of what the rich enjoy reduces them to a
state too mean: so that the one know not how to command, but to be
commanded as slaves, the others know not how to submit to any command,
nor to command themselves but with despotic power.
A city composed of such men must therefore consist of slaves and
masters, not freemen; where one party must hate, and the other
despise, where there could be no possibility of friendship or
political community: for community supposes affection; for we do not
even on the road associate with our enemies. It is also the genius of
a city to be composed as much as possible of equals; which will be
most so when the inhabitants are in the middle state: from whence it
follows, that that city must be best framed which is composed of those
whom we say are naturally its proper members. It is men of this
station also who will be best assured of safety and protection; for
they will neither covet what belongs to others, as the poor do; nor
will others covet what is theirs, as the poor do what belongs to the
rich; and thus, without plotting against any one, or having any one
plot against them, they will live free from danger: for which reason
Phocylides wisely wishes for the middle state, as being most
productive of happiness. It is plain, then, that the most perfect
political community must be amongst those who are in the middle rank,
and those states are best instituted wherein these are a larger and
more respectable part, if possible, than both the other; or, if that
cannot be, at least than either of them separate; so that being thrown
into the balance it may prevent either scale from preponderating.
It is therefore the greatest happiness which the citizens can enjoy to
possess a moderate and convenient fortune; for when some possess too
much, and others nothing at [1296a] all, the government must either be
in the hands of the meanest rabble or else a pure oligarchy; or, from
the excesses of both, a tyranny; for this arises from a headstrong
democracy or an oligarchy, but very seldom when the members of the
community are nearly on an equality with each other. We will assign a
reason for this when we come to treat of the alterations which
different states are likely to undergo. The middle state is therefore
best, as being least liable to those seditions and insurrections which
disturb the community; and for the same reason extensive governments
are least liable to these inconveniences; for there those in a middle
state are very numerous, whereas in small ones it is easy to pass to
the two extremes, so as hardly to have any in a medium remaining, but
the one half rich, the other poor: and from the same principle it is
that democracies are more firmly established and of longer continuance
than oligarchies; but even in those when there is a want of a proper
number of men of middling fortune, the poor extend their power too
far, abuses arise, and the government is soon at an end.
We ought to consider as a proof of what I now advance, that the best
lawgivers themselves were those in the middle rank of life, amongst
whom was Solon, as is evident from his poems, and Lycurgus, for he was
not a king, and Charondas, and indeed most others. What has been said
will show us why of so many free states some have changed to
democracies, others to oligarchies: for whenever the number of those
in the middle state has been too small, those who were the more
numerous, whether the rich or the poor, always overpowered them and
assumed to themselves the administration of public affairs; from hence
arose either a democracy or an oligarchy. Moreover, when in
consequence of their disputes and quarrels with each other, either the
rich get the better of the poor, or the poor of the rich, neither of
them will establish a free state; but, as the record of their victory,
one which inclines to their own principles, and form either a
democracy or an oligarchy.
Those who made conquests in Greece, having all of them an eye to the
respective forms of government in their own cities, established either
democracies or oligarchies, not considering what was serviceable to
the state, but what was similar to their own; for which reason a
government has never been established where the supreme power has been
placed amongst those of the middling rank, or very seldom; and,
amongst a few, one man only of those who have yet been conquerors has
been persuaded to give the preference to this order of [1296b] men: it
is indeed an established custom with the inhabitants of most cities
not to desire an equality, but either to aspire to govern, or when
they are conquered, to submit.
Thus we have shown what the best state is, and why. It will not be
difficult to perceive of the many states which there are, for we have
seen that there are various forms both of democracies and oligarchies,
to which we should give the first place, to which the second, and in
the same manner the next also; and to observe what are the particular
excellences and defects of each, after we have first described the
best possible; for that must be the best which is nearest to this,
that worst which is most distant from the medium, without any one has
a particular plan of his own which he judges by. I mean by this, that
it may happen, that although one form of government may be better than
another, yet there is no reason to prevent another from being
preferable thereunto in particular circumstances and for particular
purposes. _
Read next: BOOK IV: CHAPTER XII
Read previous: BOOK IV: CHAPTER X
Table of content of Treatise on Government
GO TO TOP OF SCREEN
Post your review
Your review will be placed after the table of content of this book
