Lectio 1/a Lecture 1/a Quoniam omnem civitatem videmus communitatem quandam existentem, et omnem communitatem boni alicuius institutam, eius enim quod videtur boni gratia omnia operantur omnes, manifestum quod omnes quidem bonum aliquod coniecturant. Since we see every city existing as a community of some kind, and every community is instituted for the sake of some good (for everyone always works for the sake of what seems good to them) it is clear that every city aims at some good. Maxime autem principalissimum omnium, omnium maxime principalis, et omnes alias circumplectens, haec autem est quae vocatur civitas et communicatio politica. And the most governing community aims at the most governing good of all, and embraces all others. Now this is what is called the city, and the political union. Quicumque quidem igitur existimant politicum et regale et yconomicum et despoticum idem, non bene dicunt. Anyone, therefore, who thinks that the political, the kingly, the economic and the despotic are the same does not speak well. Multitudine enim et paucitate putant differre, sed non specie horum unumquodque, puta si quidem paucorum patrem familias, si autem plurium yconomum, si autem adhuc plurium politicum aut regale; tanquam nihil differentem magnam domum et parvam civitatem, et politicum et regale; quando quidem ipse praeest regale, quando autem secundum sermones disciplinae talis secundum partem principans et subiectus, politicum. For they believe them to differ by multitude or fewness, but not in kind. For example, if over a few, it is a paterfamilias; if over more, it is economic; over a still larger number, it is political or kingly, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small city. And [they think] the difference between the political and the kingly is, when the one himself is foremost, it is kingly; when, according to a discipline's discourses, such a one is partly governor and subject, it is political. Haec autem non sunt vera. Manifestum autem erit quod dicitur intendentibus secundum subiectam methodum. Sicut enim in aliis compositum usque ad incomposita necesse dividere, haec enim minimae partes totius, sic et civitatem ex quibus componitur considerantes videbimus et de his magis quidque differunt ab invicem, et si quid artificiale contingit accipere circa unumquodque dictorum. Si quis enim ex principio res nascentes viderit, quemadmodum et in aliis et in his optime utique sic contemplabitur. Now these things are not true. And the things said will be clear to those inquiring according to the method of the subject. As in other areas, it is necessary to divide what is composite into what is not composite; for these are the smallest parts of the whole. So, also, considering those things from which the city is composed, we will see also about these things [i.e. the different kinds of rule] in what they differ from each other, and whether anything might be artfully grasped concerning each of the things that was said. For if anyone, from the beginning, will look to nascent things, then in the same way in other things and also in these, he will best contemplate both. Necesse itaque primum combinare sine invicem non possibiles esse, puta feminam et masculum generationis gratia; et hoc non ex electione, sed sicut in aliis animalibus et plantis naturale appetere quale ipsum tale derelinquere alterum. So first, it is necessary to combine what cannot exist without each other, namely, female and male, for the sake of generation. And this is not by choice, but as with the other animals and with plants, from a natural appetite to leave behind another like oneself. Principans autem et subiectum natura propter salutem. Quod quidem enim potest mente praevidere principans natura et dominans natura. Quod autem potest haec corpore facere subiectum et natura servum; propter quod domino et servo idem expedit. And the natural governor and subject are for the sake of preservation. For that which can foresee by the mind is by nature the governor and master, and that which can enact this with its body is a subject, and by nature a slave. Hence the same thing is advantageous for both master and slave. Natura quidem igitur distinguntur femina et servum. Nihil enim natura facit tale quale eris figuratores delficum gladium paupere sed unum ad unum. Sic enim utique perficiet optime organorum unumquodque non multis operibus, sed uni serviens. Now nature has distinguished between the female and the slave. For nature makes nothing as did the smith of the Delphian knife, from poverty, but for one thing; for every tool is best made when it is thus at the service of one, and not of many works. Inter barbaros autem femina et servum eundem habent ordinem. But among barbarians, women and slaves are in the same order. Causa autem quia natura principans non habent, sed fit communicatio ipsorum servae et servi; propter quod dicunt poetae: barbaris quidem Grecos principari congrue, tanquam sit idem natura barbarum et servum. The reason is because they do not have a natural governor among them, but they are a union of slaves, male and female. Because of this, the poets say, It is fitting that Greeks should govern barbarians; as though the nature of barbarian and slave were the same. Ex his quidem igitur duabus communitatibus domus prima; et recte Hesiodus dixit poetizans: domum quidem praeminentem mulieremque et bovem aratorem, bos enim pro ministro pauperibus est. Out of these two communities comes the first home, and Hesiod is correct when he says poetically, First home and wife and an ox for the plough, for the ox stands in as a servant for the poor. In omnem quidem igitur diem constituta communitas secundum naturam domus est, quos Charondas quidem vocat homosipyos, Epimenides autem okres homokapnos. Therefore, the community constituted for every day, according to nature, is the home, which indeed Charondas called homosipyos [of one dish], but Epimenides of Ocres [sic] called homokapnos [of one smoke]. Ex pluribus autem domibus communicatio prima usus non diurnalis gratia vicus. From several homes, the first union for the sake of non-daily use is the village. Maxime autem videtur secundum naturam vicus vicinia domuum esse, quos vocant quidam collactaneos puerosque et puerorum pueros. And the village that seems most according to nature seems to be a neighborhood of homes, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be suckled 'with the same milk.' Propter quod et primum rege regebantur civitates et nunc adhuc gentes, ex subiectis enim regi, omnis enim domus regitur a senissimo. Quare et viciniae propter cognationem, et hoc est quod dicit Homerus: leges statuit unusquisque pueris et uxoribus, dispersim enim et sic antiquitus habitabant. And because of this, cities were first ruled by kings, as tribes are still, from being subjected to a king; for every home is ruled by the eldest, which is why it happened in the neighborhoods on account of consanguinity. As Homer says: Each one gives law to his children and to his wives. For they lived dispersedly, as was the habit in ancient times. Et deos autem propter hoc omnes dicunt regi, quia et ipsi hii quidem adhuc et nunc, hii autem antiquitus regebantur. Sicut autem et species sibi ipsis assimilant homines, sic et vitas deorum. Wherefore men say that the gods have a king, because they themselves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For human beings project themselves not only upon the forms of the Gods, but also on their ways of life. His igitur praelibatis, sciendum est quod Aristotiles in hoc libro praemittit quoddam prohemium in quo manifestat intentionem huius scientiae; After these preliminary remarks, it should be understood that Aristotle introduces this book with a prologue in which he first clarifies the intention of this science; et deinde accedit ad propositum manifestandum, ibi quoniam autem manifestum ex quibus partibus etc. and then he proceeds to clarify what he has proposed, at: quoniam autem manifestum ex quibus partibus. Circa primum duo facit: Concerning the first point he does two things. primo ostendit dignitatem civitatis de qua est politica ex eius fine; First, he shows the dignity of the city, which political science is about, from its end; secundo ostendit comparationem civitatis ad alias communitates, ibi quicumque quidem igitur etc. second, he compares the city to the other communities, at quicumque quidem igitur. Circa primum duo intendit probare: Concerning the first point he intends to prove two things. quorum primum est quod civitas ordinetur ad aliquod bonum sicut ad finem; The first is that the city is ordered to some good as to an end. secundo quod bonum ad quod ordinatur civitas sit principalissimum inter bona humana, ibi maxime autem principalissimum etc. Second, that the good to which the city is ordered is the most governing of all human goods, at and the most governing community of all. Circa primum ponit talem rationem. Omnis communitas est instituta gratia alicuius boni; sed omnis civitas est communitas quaedam, ut manifeste videmus: ergo omnis civitas est instituta gratia alicuius boni. Quia igitur minor manifestatur, maiorem sic probat. Omnes homines omnia quae faciunt operantur gratia eius quod videtur bonum, sive sit vere bonum sive non; sed omnis communitas est instituta aliquo operante: ergo omnes communitates coniectant aliquod bonum, id est intendunt aliquod bonum sicut finem. Concerning the first, he puts forward this kind of argument. Every community has been instituted for the sake of some good. But every city is some community, as we clearly see. Therefore every city has been instituted for the sake of some good. Since, then, the minor premise is evident, he proves the major like this: all men work on all things that they do for the sake of what seems good (it may either be truly good or not). But every community is instituted by someone working. Therefore all communities aim at some good, that is, they intend some good as an end. Deinde cum dicit maxime autem etc., ostendit quod illud bonum ad quod ordinatur civitas est principalissimum inter bona humana, tali ratione. Si omnis communitas ordinatur ad bonum, necesse est quod illa communitas quae est maxime principalis maxime sit coniectatrix boni quod est inter omnia humana bona principalissimum; oportet enim quod proportio eorum quae sunt ad finem sit secundum proportionem finium. Quae autem communitas sit maxime principalis, manifestat per hoc quod addit et omnes alias circumplectens. Est enim communitas quoddam totum. In omnibus autem totis talis ordo invenitur quod illud totum quod in se includit aliud totum principalius est; sicut paries est quoddam totum, et quia includitur in hoc toto quod est domus, manifestum est quod domus est principalius totum: et similiter communitas quae includit alias communitates est principalior. Manifestum est autem quod civitas includit omnes alias communitates, nam et domus et vici sub civitate comprehenduntur; et sic ipsa communitas politica est communitas principalissima: est ergo coniectatrix principalissimi boni inter omnia bona humana. Intendit enim bonum commune, quod est melius et divinius quam bonum unius, ut dicitur in principio Ethicorum. Then, where he says and the most governing [community] of all, he shows that the good to which the city is ordered is the most governing among human goods, with the following reasoning. If every community is ordered to a good, it is necessary that the community that is the most governing would be the one that most intends the good that is the most governing good among all human goods. For the proportion between things that are each toward an end must follow the proportion between their ends. Moreover, he clarifies which community is the most governing by what he adds: and embraces all others. For a community is some whole, but in every whole is found an order such that the whole which contains another within itself is more governing—just as a wall is a certain whole, and because it is contained within the whole that is the house, it is clear that the house is the more governing whole. Likewise, the community which contains other communities is the more governing community. Moreover, it is clear that the city contains all other communities, because households and villages are bound together under the city, and in this way the political community itself is the most governing community. It is therefore the one that intends the most governing good among all human goods: for it intends the common good, which is better and more godlike than the good of one, as is said at the beginning of the Ethics. Deinde cum dicit quicumque quidem igitur etc., comparat civitatem ad alias communitates. Et circa hoc tria facit: Then, where he says quicumque quidem igitur, he compares the city to the other communities. Concerning this he does three things. primo ponit quorundam falsam opinionem; First, he puts forward the false opinion of some people. secundo ostendit quo modo positae opinionis falsitas innotescere possit, ibi haec autem non sunt vera etc.; Second, he shows how the falsity of the opinion that he put forward can be discovered, at, haec autem non sunt vera, etc. tertio secundum assignatum modum ponit veram comparationem civitatis ad alias communitates, ibi necesse itaque primum combinare. Third, in the way mentioned, he puts forward the true comparison of the city to the other communities, at: necesse itaque primum combinare. Circa primum duo facit: Concerning this he does two things. primo ponit falsam opinionem; First, he lays out a false opinion; secundo inducit eorum rationem, ibi multitudine enim et paucitate etc. second, he introduces their reasoning, at: multitudine enim et paucitate, etc. Circa primum considerandum est quod duplex est communitas omnibus manifesta, scilicet civitatis et domus. Civitas autem duplici regimine regitur, scilicet politico et regali: regale quidem est regimen quando ille qui civitati praeest habet plenariam potestatem, politicum autem regimen est quando ille qui praeest habet potestatem coartatam secundum aliquas leges civitatis. Et similiter duplex est regimen domus, scilicet yconomicum et despoticum: despota quidem vocatur omnis habens servos, yconomus autem vocatur procurator et dispensator alicuius familiae; unde despoticum regimen est quo aliquis dominus suis servis praesidet, yconomicum autem regimen est quo aliquis dispensat ea quae pertinent ad totam familiam, in qua continentur non solum servi sed etiam liberi multi. Posuerunt ergo quidam, sed non bene, quod ista regimina non differunt sed sunt omnino idem. Concerning the first of these, one should consider that the community is of two sorts, clear to everyone: that of the city and that of the household. The city, moreover, is ruled by two sorts of rule: the political and the kingly. There is a kingly rule when he who is foremost in the city has a fullness of power. There is political rule, however, when he who is foremost in the city has power that is confined by the laws of the city. And likewise, the rule of the household has two sorts, that is, the economic and the despotic. For all who have slaves are called despots, but the one who acquires and organizes [the goods] of a family is called a manager. So a despotic rule is one where a master commands his slaves; an economic rule is one where someone organizes those who belong to the whole family, which encompasses not only slaves, but also many who are free. Now some people have maintained, though not well, that such rules are not different from each other, but are entirely the same.