[
1316a]
[1]
The subject of revolutions is discussed by Socrates in the
Republic,
1 but is not discussed
well. For his account of revolution in the constitution that is the best one and
the first does not apply to it particularly. He says that the cause is that
nothing is permanent but everything changes in a certain cycle, and that change
has its origin in those numbers ‘whose basic ratio 4 : 3 linked with
the number 5 gives two harmonies,’—meaning whenever the
number of this figure becomes cubed,—in the belief that nature
sometimes engenders men that are evil, and too strong for education to
influence—speaking perhaps not ill as far as this particular dictum
goes (for it is possible that there are some persons incapable of being
educated and becoming men of noble character), but why should this
process of revolution belong to the constitution which Socrates speaks of as the
best, more than to all the other forms of constitution, and to all men that come
into existence? and why merely by
the operation of time, which he says is the cause of change in all things, do
even things that did not begin to exist simultaneously change simultaneously?
for instance, if a thing came into existence the day before the completion of
the cycle, why does it yet change simultaneously with everything else? And in
addition to these points, what is the reason why the republic changes from the
constitution mentioned into the Spartan form
2? For
all constitutions more often change into the opposite form than into
the
[20]
one near them. And the same
remark applies to the other revolutions as well. For from the Spartan
constitution the state changes, he says, to oligarchy, and from this to
democracy, and from democracy to tyranny. Yet revolutions also occur the other
way about, for example from democracy to oligarchy, and more often so than from
democracy to monarchy. Again as to
tyranny he does not say whether it will undergo revolution or not, nor, if it
will, what will be the cause of it, and into what sort of constitution it will
change; and the reason for this is that he would not have found it easy to say,
for it is irregular; since according to him tyranny ought to change into the
first and best constitution, for so the process would be continuous and a
circle, but as a matter of fact tyranny also changes into tyranny, as the
constitution of
Sicyon3 passed from the tyranny
of Myron to that of Cleisthenes, and into oligarchy, as did that of
Antileon
4
at
Chalcis, and into democracy, as
that of the family of Gelo
5 at
Syracuse, and
into aristocracy, as that of Charilaus
6 at
Sparta
[and as at
Carthage].
7
And constitutions change from
oligarchy to tyranny, as did almost the greatest number of the ancient
oligarchies in
Sicily, at Leontini to
the tyranny of Panaetius,
8 at Gelo to that of Cleander, at
Rhegium to that of Anaxilaus,
9 and in many other cities similarly. And it is also a strange
idea that revolutions into oligarchy take place because the occupants of the
offices are lovers of money and engaged in money-making,