Aristotle, Politics

[1307a] [1] for some men being in distress because of the war put forward a claim to carry out a re-division of the land of the country）. Also if a man is great and capable of being yet greater, he stirs up faction in order that he may be sole ruler （as Pausanias who commanded the army through the Persian war seems to have done at Sparta, and Hanno¹ at Carthage）.

But the actual overthrow of both constitutional governments and aristocracies is mostly due to a departure from justice in the actual framework of the constitution. For what starts it in the case of a constitutional government is that it does not contain a good blend of democracy and oligarchy; and in the case of an aristocracy it is the lack of a good blend of those two elements and of virtue, but chiefly of the two elements （I mean popular government and oligarchy）, for both constitutional governments and most of the constitutions that are called aristocracies aim at blending these. For this² is the point of distinction between aristocracies and what are called constitutional governments, and it is owing to this that some of them³ are less and others more stable; for the constitutions inclining more towards oligarchy men call aristocracies and those inclining more to the side of the multitude constitutional governments, owing to which those of the latter sort are more secure than the others, for the greater number is the stronger, and also men are more content when they have an equal amount, whereas the owners of wealthy properties, if the constitution gives them the superior position, [20] seek to behave insolently and to gain money. And speaking broadly, to whichever side the constitution leans, that is the side to which it shifts as either of the two parties increases its own side—a constitutional government shifts to democracy and an aristocracy to oligarchy, or to the opposite extremes, that is, aristocracy to democracy （for the poorer people feeling they are unjustly treated pull it round to the opposite） and constitutional governments to oligarchy （for the only lasting thing is equality in accordance with desert and the possession of what is their own）. And the change mentioned⁴ came about at Thurii, for because the property-qualification for honors was too high, the constitution was altered to a lower property-qualification and to a larger number of official posts, but because the notables illegally bought up the whole of the land （for the constitution was too oligarchical, so that they were able to grasp at wealth） . . .⁵ And the people having been trained in the war overpowered the guards, until those who were in the position of having too much land relinquished it.

Besides, as all aristocratic constitutions are inclined towards oligarchy, the notables grasp at wealth （for example at Sparta the estates are coming into a few hands）; and the notables have more power to do what they like, and to form marriage connections with whom they like （which was the cause of the fall of the state of Locri, as a result of the marriage with Dionysius,⁶ which would not have taken place in a democracy; nor in a well-blended aristocracy）.