politics

Chapter 30 Volume (Γ) Three (10)
We need only examine in detail two of these five monarchical species—the Last and the Lagenspartan.The royal families of the other three species generally fall between these two genera,35 and the power they hold is generally smaller than that of the absolute monarchy ("sovereign sovereign") and greater than that of the kings of Sparta.Having clarified the species at both ends, we can roughly know the middle ones, so we can briefly put forward the thesis of these two main points here.The first topic: Regarding the Spartan monarchy as a life-long commander in chief, whether it adopts the hereditary system or other methods that stipulate rotation, 1285a15 said that the Spartan royal family is either "hereditary" or "elected" (α αρεα). "Becker School Edition" and "Newman School Edition" start from Ⅱ1P2P3, here we use "rotation" (καμρο), which is the opposite of "hereditary"; "Susmere School Edition" uses "election" from P1P6L5. "Rotation" includes elections or other methods of personnel replacement, and its meaning is broader than elections or referrals. , Whether 1286ɑ is beneficial (suitable or not) for the city-state.The second topic: whether it is beneficial (appropriate or not) for the sovereign monarch to govern the whole country's government affairs by one person.

The first topic actually belongs to the study of the legal system, not the study of the political system, because any political system may have a permanent general (commander) function.So this is not the exclusive function of the monarchy, and we can leave it alone for now and not discuss it later. . 5 Another kind of monarchy. Plenipotent monarchy is indeed a kind of government. We should do some theoretical research on this, and conduct a general inspection of various difficult problems related to it.

"Which is more favorable, the best man or the best law to govern the question here posed "Govern by the best man or by the best law?" "It is the same as the topic of the Latin idiom "Aut rex aut lex" (Wang Zhi or the rule of law). China's old "rule of man or rule of law?" "The problem is also similar to this. This topic has been frequently seen in Plato's "Utopia" and "The Statesman" earlier, and it was also involved in the "Laws". Plato despises rigid laws and advocates governance by philosopher kings. But his The "King of Philosophy" (οφλóσοφοι βασιλε σωσιν) is the majority in "Utopia" 473C and D. The focus of his argument is on wisdom (wisdom) rather than kingship. The conclusion of this chapter of Aristotle is not to obliterate the beneficial role of individual intelligence but to give a little weight to the law (see Note 1287a3).?" Our research begins with such doubts.According to those who believe that the monarchy is more favorable, the law can only establish some general rules, but when the state changes, the law itself cannot issue any orders to deal with current events.Any technology is foolish if it acts completely according to the written general principles.

10 In Egypt, the physician prescribes according to the established law, but if the treatment fails on the fourth day, he can change the medicine, but if he is eager to change the prescribed law before the fourth day, he will be responsible for himself.In the same way, a regime governed entirely by written laws is obviously not the best way.But we must also note that general principles still exist in the minds of rulers. 15 And although the will of the individual can be beneficial to the city-state, the ruler who governs without emotion is generally better than the people of temperament.The nature (soul) of human beings determines that it is inevitable for people to have feelings, but the law just has no feelings at all.Here, supporters of the monarchy can continue to emphasize the role of the individual: although individuals are inevitably prone to emotional problems, once they encounter special cases that cannot be resolved by general principles, human reason can still make a better judgment. 20 In this way, it is true that the top (most talented) people should be the rulers who make legislation and orders, but in such a city-state ruled by one person, all government affairs still need to rely on the entire law, and the law It loses its authority and allows the individual to use his reason only on matters which he cannot cover.But in reality, there are indeed problems that are not covered by the law or that are involved but not comprehensive.At this time, we must use reason, so should we seek the best of one person or the whole people? 25
According to our current system, once such a situation arises, the people should be assembled to hold a citizen assembly to perform its functions of deliberation and judgment.Here, the matters that the people deliberate and adjudicate are all special cases that are not covered or exhausted by the law.Although the individual in any assembly may not be as good as the most virtuous person, turning to the old question of people's rights repeats the arguments of Chapter XI 1281b1-6. , but because the city-state was originally a group of many people, a banquet funded by multiple people can be better than a banquet organized by one person. 30 In many cases a crowd may be better at judging than one.In addition, those who have more are more difficult to corrupt.Just like a large lake with plenty of water is inexhaustible, and a small pond with little water is perishable; the masses are less prone to corruption than a few.A single man is apt to lose his balance with rage, or some other similar emotion, which in the end impairs his judgment; but a whole people cannot be angry at the same time and misjudge.For the above-mentioned assembly,35 we assume that its attendees are free citizens, that the boundaries of the matters discussed are those areas that the law does not carefully stipulate, and that the decisions passed have never been illegal.Those who defend may say that such a large number of gatherings may not really make it strictly within this scope. The citizen assembly may exceed the scope of the law, see volume 1292 15a23, 1293 and other sections.A fourth type of plebiscite, involving many poor masses, was more prone to overstepping the law in its assemblies (1a10-701).See Plato: Republic [-] A. .

Then, we can also assume a group of people who are both good people and good citizens. How can this group of good people be compared with a single good person? Who is more prone to corruption?Isn't this already obvious? 40b A group of good people must be less prone to corruption.However, the critics can also raise another reason for objection, that is, when there are too many people, it is easy to disagree, resulting in partisan disputes, while one person can avoid internal conflicts. Freedom from partisanship was one of the justifications for Darius' "monarchy over democracy and oligarchy" view in the regime debate. .

For this reason, we do not need to give another answer. The reason is that since the hypothetical group is all good people, it is the same as a good person to do things. Even if many good people are together, there will be no internal strife.We can thus conclude this argument.Suppose a government of some good men is called an aristocracy,5 and a government of one man is called a monarchy, then, if we could find so many good men in the world, we would prefer an aristocracy to a monarchy No matter whether the rule of one king has guards or not, see lines 27-40 below for the question of whether there are guards or not.The original title of this chapter is whether the royal system is beneficial to the state. The debate has begun to show two trends: (1286) Aristotle reiterated the position of the common people in 26a35-1286; Both reflect that the monarchy is not suitable for this world. .

The monarchy (monarchy) was generally practiced in ancient states. The reason why it was applicable in ancient times was that there were few sages and sages at that time, and there were few small people in each state.Another reason is that the ancient kings had accumulated merits for the people. 10 Even a few talented people have some kindness in the world, but if a person has great merits, he will be the first to be supported.Later, more and more people with the same ability and virtue were unwilling to be controlled by one person, and they demanded to participate in governance together, thus a constitutional government was born.Later on, these virtuous and virtuous people gradually became corrupt. They invaded public property and took it as their own. From then on, the source of wealth began, and the status of the state was gradually based on property. 15 Thus, oligarchs arose. (plutocratic) regime.

Subsequently, the oligarchy first changed to tyranny and then to civilian (democratic) regime.The change of regime described in this chapter does not have the certain procedures described in this section. .The reason for this series of changes is that the politicians competed for greed by relying on their fame and status, which reduced the number of groups and people participating in the rule, and strengthened the power of the common people.Now, since the territory of each state is expanding day by day, it is difficult for other types of government to exist, or it is re-established that the city-states with a large area and many people are only suitable for civilian government, see Volume IV 1316a34, 1316b32-1293.Regrettably, the evolution of the world is different from Aristotle’s thesis: the Greek city-states and civilian regimes were gradually eliminated shortly after his death, and the junction of Europe, Asia and Africa around the Mediterranean was ruled by the three divisions of the Macedonian Alexander’s generals. , then the monarchy should also be inappropriate. 1
Returning to the comparative study of monarchy and aristocracy, here we raise the following two questions: First, even if we admit that monarchy is the best form of government for a city-state, what should be the status of royal heirs?Should the throne belong to the family?Is it true that once a person ascends the throne, his heirs are eligible to be kings one after another?If these heirs are all mediocre, it will be harmful to the state if they sit on the throne. . 1288 For this situation, advocates of the monarchy will defend themselves by saying: When the old king exercises the legal power passed down to his heirs, he can not let the mediocre inherit.But it is difficult to guarantee that the royal family will really act in this way. After all, it is not easy to pass on the goodness of the virtuous and not to the son of self-love. I still dare not make such extravagant demands on human nature.Another difficult issue is the force of the king's bodyguard.

Should the person who ascends the throne have an army to protect him, 30 which can be used to subdue these unstable forces when encountering disobedience?How could he command and rule without such force?Even if the king in the supreme position has no private intentions or extrajudicial actions, and all his actions are in accordance with the laws, there should be a guard force to ensure that he enforces these laws.This problem may not be difficult to solve in the case of a law-based king of the type referred to above.He should have a bodyguard of such a size,35 that it would be less in number than the national militia, but more than any force that any one man or men could command.In ancient times, when the people supported a so-called "popular president" or tyrant, the original text ισυμνην ραννον ("popular president or tyrant") is in the accusative case, and the two words seem to be synonymous. Some translations translate it as "popular president as a tyrant" .When describing the types of tyranny in Volume 1285, Chapter 31, it was said that the president elected by the people is one of the monarchies, and it can also be regarded as one of the tyranny.The difference between democratically elected presidents and tyrants is that tyrants are self-established by coup d’état or power, they are not elected by the people, they do not abide by established laws, and their terms of office are indefinite (Chapter 40, [-]a[-]).At that time, the people will organize for him a certain guard, which is exactly the size.When Dionysius asked the people of Syracuse to set up a guard, one of the councilors suggested that the force should be given according to this number. [-]
Chapter Sixteen

I just said that a king who follows the law in his administration and does not act out of selfishness. 1287ɑ However, for those kings who like to act according to their own wisdom, they have to conduct a discussion on the issue of "rule by man (rule by king) or rule by law" in the previous chapter, and analyze it from 1286a5 to 25. Following line 25, it is assumed that in the case of respect for the rule of law, when the law is in limbo and the rule of men is needed, another thesis is put forward: whether these cases should be decided by the wisdom of one person or the wisdom of several people.Aristotle's conclusion tends to be group wisdom, that is, monarchy is not as good as aristocratic government or civilian government.In this chapter, Aristotle returns to the issue of "rule of man, rule of king, or rule of law", and the conclusion still tends to focus on the rule of law.In the next chapter, Aristotle shows that absolute monarchy (plenary monarchy) still has a role in a certain society, so it can exist. The discussion on the issue of "rule of man (rule of king) or rule of law" continued until Chapter 17a1288 of No.32 and terminated.This chapter also answers the question of whether the monarchy is beneficial to the city-state raised in 1286a1, and reviews the foreshadowing that leads to the discussion of the monarchy at the end of Chapter 13. .The so-called "king who governs according to law" and "king who governs according to law" (κα νóμον βασιλε) are either translated as "limited kings" or "constitutional monarchs". , as stated above on chapter 1286a2.

, 5 It cannot be regarded as a form of government in itself.This kind of royal family is generally only a permanent general. In any political system, such as a civilian government or an aristocratic government, such a military leader can be installed.In terms of internal affairs, some city-states with different types of regimes have also set up personal positions with extremely high powers, but the power of such positions does not exceed the scope of the law.For example, in Epidano, there is this level of consuls, Volume 1301, Chapter 21, 25b39236-411. , There is also such a position in Orbus, but the power is smaller. Both Epidano and Orbus belong to the oligarchic city-state (see Gilbert: "Greek Political System", Volume II 1301).The official position with the highest power in the internal affairs of Orbus is "ruler" (same volume 21 12666).For Epidano, see Note 19b10 of Volume [-]; for Aubers, see Note [-]b[-] of Volume [-]. .But the so-called "sovereign monarchy" is a form of government. [-] In this form of government, the prince conducts all the public affairs of the state with his own wisdom.There are some who think that in a city of equals, it is unnatural and inappropriate for one person to stand above the rest of the people.On these views, all natural and equal beings, since all are of equal worth, should be assigned equal rights.

(End of this chapter)