[1283b]
[1]
I mean, that is, the good and the wealthy and
noble and also an additional mass of citizens, will there be a dispute, or will
there not, as to who ought to govern? It is true that under each of the forms of constitution that have been
mentioned the decision as to who ought to govern is undisputed (for the
difference between them lies in their sovereign classes—one is
distinguished by being governed by the rich men, one by being governed by the
good men, and similarly each of the others); but nevertheless we are
considering the question how we are to decide between these classes supposing
that they all exist in the state at the same period.If then the possessors of
virtue should be quite few in number, how is the decision to be made? ought we
to consider their fewness in relation to the task, and whether they are able to
administer the state, or sufficiently numerous to constitute a state? And there
is some difficulty as regards all the rival claimants to political honors. Those
who claim to rule because of their wealth might seem to have no justice in their
proposal, and similarly also those who claim on the score of birth; for it is
clear that if, to go a step further, a single individual is richer than all the
others together, according to the same principle of justice it will obviously be
right for this one man to rule over all, and similarly the man of outstanding
nobility among the claimants
[20]
on the
score of free birth. And this same
thing will perhaps result in the case of aristocratic government based on
virtue; for if there be some one man who is better than the other virtuous men
in the state, by the same principle of justice that man must be sovereign.
Accordingly if it is actually proper for the multitude to be sovereign because
they are better than the few, then also, if one person or if more than one but
fewer than the many are better than the rest, it would be proper for these
rather than the multitude to be sovereign. All these considerations therefore seem to prove the
incorrectness of all of the standards on which men claim that they themselves
shall govern and everybody else be governed by them. For surely even against
those who claim to be sovereign over the government on account of virtue, and
similarly against those who claim on account of wealth, the multitudes might be
able to advance a just plea; for it is quite possible that at some time the
multitude may be collectively better and richer than the few, although not
individually.Hence it is also possible to meet in this way the question
which some persons investigate and put forward (for some raise the
question whether the legislator desiring to lay down the rightest laws should
legislate with a view to the advantage of the better people or that of the
larger number) in cases when the situation mentioned1
occurs. And ‘right’ must be taken in the sense of
‘equally right,’ and this means right in regard to the
interest of the whole state and in regard to the common welfare of the citizens;
and a citizen is in general one who shares in governing and being governed,
1 At the end of the last sentence, 7.12.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.