politics

Chapter 28 Volume (Γ) Three (8)
According to this principle of superiority, any merit should be encouraged, and there should be a common measure of each merit.If a certain quantity of the human body (such as height) is better than Ridgeway’s revision, delete “better than” (μλλον), the original sentence can be translated as “If a certain height of the human body can be compared with wealth or birth, then Any height of the human body can be compared with such things."Some collationists changed μλλον to νμιλλον, which became "If a certain quantity of the human body is a 'thing that can be compared with each other'...".Newman added the word γαθóν without deletion, which became "if a certain quantity of the human body, as a good thing, is superior to wealth or birth...".Any measure of the human body should be comparable with the quantities of wealth or birth.Therefore, if the height of person A’s body exceeds the height of person B’s character and virtue, 5 generally speaking, the quality of human character may exceed the height of human body, and we use the above statement to make everything It can be compared with each other, saying that a certain amount of this kind of thing is better than a certain number of that kind of thing, and then it can be said that a certain amount of this kind of thing must be equal to a certain amount of that kind of thing. 10 But this is impossible, because things of different qualities cannot compete with each other. .Then, like other academic arts, in political affairs, it is unreasonable to use any merit as a basis for claiming and assigning functions (power).

Some people run fast and others run slowly. This cannot be used as a reason for increasing or decreasing political rights. See Plato: "Laws" 696B, 744B.Nicolaus Damascus of Damascus: Fragments 138 (Volume 20 of Fragments of Greek History edited by Müller), contains an example of a barbarian nation electing the fastest man in the area as king. "Herodotus" iii 566, records that the Ethiopians publicly elected the tallest and strongest man as king. "Athena" 142C says that the most beautiful is the king of Ethiopia, and the example of beauty as king can also be seen in "Nicola Fragments" [-]. .The advantage of running fast should be his reward in sports competitions.

The distribution of political rights must be based on the contribution of people to the various elements that constitute the city-state. Refer to volume four chapter twelve 1296b19. . 15 Therefore, people can only use it as a reason for asking for official positions and honors (names) if they have family prestige (excellent bloodlines), free status or wealth.Of course, it is impossible to organize a city-state entirely by slaves, and it is not much better to organize it entirely by poor people. People who hold official positions must be free people and taxpayers (donors).But we must also point out that in addition to wealth and freedom, 20 moral character of justice and military habits (courage) also belong to the indispensable elements Vol. IV 1291a19-33. .If people live together in a city-state, they should each have these elements.The first two elements are the conditions for the existence of the city-state, while the latter two are the conditions for the city-state to seek and obtain a good life.

Chapter Thirteen

If the city-state needs only the contribution of all to contribute to its existence, then the elements just mentioned, or at least some of them, may indeed be regarded as legitimate grounds for assigning functions and honors. 25 But as we mentioned earlier in this volume Chapter 1281 1a10-30. , the city-state should also consider achieving a better life and thus require everyone to have culture and virtue, then these two should be the most legitimate basis.On the other hand, according to the theory we have spoken of, men who have one and only one equal to others should not demand equality of rights in all things, as the populists do; Oligarchs demand better rights to everything.We call all regimes, in which legislation is created on such principles, abnormal regimes. 1280 We have indicated 6a12-[-]. , everyone has political claims according to some contribution of his own, and although they may be said to be just in a certain sense, no one is absolutely just in all respects. (a) The rich argue that they have larger lands, because land is the common good of the city-state concerned.

Moreover, because they are rich in permanent property, they are more able to abide by the contract "Thucydides" vi 39, which records the words of the ancient Athenagoras (Athenagoras), property custody should be trusted to the rich. . (b) Free clans and nobles similarly base their birth (menwang) on ​​the basis.Citizens with higher births have a higher status than those with humble births. Noble clans (blood)35 are always more respected in a state, and this kind of superior species will be passed on. The descendants of the Bright House often show Good character. (c) Similarly, morality should of course also be a legitimate basis for claiming political rights.We think justice happens to be a social virtue Vol. 1253 17a37, 1129.Also, "Niron" volume five chapter three 25b1130-5a631.It is most beneficial to city-state groups, as long as they are people who can uphold justice, they are often Plato with many virtues: "Law" 1488C, the combination of wisdom (wisdom), temperance (ritual), and perseverance (courage) constitutes justice (righteous).Justice also has the meaning of the other three virtues, which can also be seen in "Aristotle Fragments" VII 5b40. . (d) In addition to the individual grounds of wealth, birth, or morality, the majority (mass)[-] also has grounds for their claim to political rights.Collectively, they are stronger, richer and better than the few (oligarchies).

If these people with virtue, wealth, and family status can make political demands, they form a public service group and settle down in a city, then who will rule the city-state?Can this contentious issue be resolved by agreement?Among the various political systems we have already described, Chapter VII of this volume. , and did not see the situation of endless disputes.Those city-states are different in nature because of the different people who are in charge of the main ruling institutions: one is that the wealthy oligarchy controls the supreme governance; It's like this everywhere, everyone has something they want to favor.But the problem raised here is not the same as in the above-mentioned case, where there is a dispute between people of different nature who simultaneously claim the right to rule.For example, virtuous men, if there are few in number, make their demands.So how should we answer? 1283 Shall we question them because of their small number: Can you manage the affairs of the whole state with so few of you?Are you large enough to form a city?There is another kind of question that can be asked not only to virtuous people,10 but also to all other people who make political demands.

It is likewise unjust to demand that governance be vested in a few on the grounds of greater wealth or higher status (birth).If this reason is admitted, then anyone who has more wealth than the rest can naturally rule over them; Clan of free men.And these free men are now claiming power on the basis of their birth.In a minority aristocratic regime, ρισοκραα is derived from "good people" (ρισοι), translated as "virtuous" or "aristocratic regime".Most of the virtuous and virtuous come from aristocratic families, so the Chinese version is generally translated as "aristocratic regime".According to this section, virtuous talents place more emphasis on "talent" (ρε) than "menwang" (εγενεα).The same is true of the doctrine of talents or virtues upon which they assert their grounds. 20 If in a group of virtuous (good) citizens there is one person who is superior in virtue and superior to others, then these people should follow the principles he advocates and let him rule alone.If it is believed that the majority should gain power because it is stronger than the minority, then according to this theory, if a person or a group of people is stronger than the majority,25 this person or group can replace the majority to govern .

All these analyzes can prove that none of the above-mentioned bases that are relied on in various aspects to claim the right to rule over all other people can be used as a legitimate principle (standard). 30 Just imagine, whether it is the person who claims to rule the civil body on the basis of virtue, or the person who makes the basis of wealth.The masses (majority) can compete with the two, instead of making individual comparisons, but comparing the majority collectively with the minority, then they are likely to be better than the minority in terms of morality or wealth.A difficult problem that has been occasionally involved is mentioned here.

The difficulty is this: If it is true that a smaller number of good or rich men is superior to the majority,35 then the legislator who advocates the principle of superiority, if his purpose is to make the most just laws How to choose?Should he create regimes for the benefit of the good or the rich, or of the majority?Our answer is: the so-called "justice", its real meaning mainly lies in "equality".If "equal justice" is to be followed, 40 then it should be based on the overall interests of the city-state and the common good deeds of all citizens. See Chapter VII 1279a31. The "most authentic" (ρθóαο) is the "most fair" regime, which should not favor the few (good people and wealthy households) or the majority (common people), but should take into account the interests of all citizens of the state. "Solon Fragments" 5: Solon said that the original intention of creating for Athens was to make the minority and the majority equal. .The general meaning of citizens originally refers to all the people who participate in the political life of the city-state and take turns ruling and being ruled.And in its special sense the citizens are different in different constitutions.In an ideal political system, their meaning should be those who aim at living a morally good life, who are both able to govern and are willing to be governed. . 1284ɑ
Having discussed the situation in which the "majority" is collectively superior to the "minority," let us imagine another, opposite situation.If there is one person or some people, their number is only a part of the city-state, not enough to form the entire system of the city-state. is a good man.But their virtue is so good,5 that it surpasses both the personal virtue and the political ability exhibited by any other person in the whole state, such a person or persons cannot be trapped in the corner of the city-state. It would not be fair to him or them to give him or them the same rights as everyone else.Such eminent figures are like gods among men. 10 The rule of law should only regulate people of equal birth and ability.And such a person is not bound by the law.They are laws in themselves.

Anyone who tries to win over such characters with the rule of law is foolish, and they can answer in the language of the lion in Antisthenes' fable: When the beasts gathered, 15 the hares came to the stage and asked the beasts Everyone in the world enjoys equal rights, and the lion said, "Do you have minions too?"See Han Mu: "Aesop's Fables" (Halm, Fabulae Aesopicae) 241; and Babriu: "Fables" (Babrius, Fabulae) 67.These circumstances actually explain why the city-states of the common people government created the "law of exile of pottery fragments" Athens' "law of exile of pottery fragments" was created in 500 BC. politicians into oligarchs or tyrants.When deciding who should be exiled, the citizens in the citizens' assembly wrote their names on pottery tablets and put them into clay pots. There must be 6000 pottery tablets to pass a deportation case.The period of exile was 10 years, which was later reduced to 5 years (see "Athens Regime" xxii). The function and purpose of the law of exile recorded in "Thucydides" viii73 and "Diodorus" xi55 are consistent with this section of Aristotle.But later generations of ruling parties often use this law to exclude dissidents.

Syracuse has a similar "law of exile of olive leaves" (πεαλισμó), in which the name of the exile is written on the olive leaf, and the exile period is 5 years ("Diodorus" xi87).Other city-states, such as Argus (Book 1302, 18b855), Miletus and Megara (Aristophanes; Annotation of "Knights" 20) also had the law of exile. .These city-states take "equality" as the supreme principle above everything else. According to this principle, if the people of the state are particularly rich, have too many friends, or other forces are too powerful, etc., if their political influence is enough to cause social turmoil, The city-state will use this punishment to expel him from the country and prohibit him from returning to the country for a certain number of years.In mythology, the reasons for the abandonment of Heracles by the sailors on the Argo boat are also the same. Historian of the 1290th century) works (see "Fragments of Greek History" I5 edited by Müller).

The Argo Shenzhou can speak by relying on the chopping of the waves at the bow, which is a "sacred tree" (see Apollodorus, the Athens writer in the 2nd century BC: "Book Series" [Apollodorus, Bibliotheka] Volume 919 25). .The boat of Argo ordered the boatmen to let Heracles out of the boat because Heracles was braver than the boatmen.The accusation of Beliaander's sign to Thrashublu,30 which is often ridiculed as tyranny, is not just.The story passed down from generation to generation in the past says that the tyrant Thrashublu once sent someone to ask the tyrant Beliaander of another state for advice.Beliander, who was standing among the millet fields at that time, did not answer the messenger's question, but struck down the tall ears of millet with his staff, 92 until the millets looked level and flat.The messenger didn't understand his intention, so he returned to his master in this way. After hearing the reply, Thrashublu knew in his heart that Beliaander was trying to persuade him to cut off the man from Bonnet. "Herodotus" v 1311, records The tyrant of Miletus, Thrashublu, advised the tyrant of Corinth, Beliaander, to eliminate the heroes in the state. In this festival, the two exchanged the status of guest and host.See volume V 20a[-]. .This policy is not only carried out by the tyrants as a favorable state policy, but also by the oligarchy and the populace.

(End of this chapter)