politics

Chapter 18 Volume (B) II (10)
The banquet system of Crete is better than that of Rageni.Citizens of Ragini each pay a meal fee,15 otherwise see 1271a35 as before. , his citizenship will be revoked.Crete's arrangements in this regard are more favorable to the common people.It requires that all the harvest and livestock on the common land and the rent in kind paid by the Beliotti (serfs) be completely stored in the public warehouse, part of which is used for worshiping gods and various social undertakings, and the other part is used for banquets, so that First, all men, women and children can eat public food Oncken's "Aristotle's Political Science Lectures" (Oncken, Die staatslehre des Aristoteles) 20, page 2 believes that the content of this section is different from Plato's The content mentioned in "Laws" 394E-the dinner between Crete and Sparta, the latter said that women and children did not participate.The meaning here may be that Crete allocated enough public grain for the men to participate in the banquet and for their wives and daughters to eat at home. .The Cretan meal system also included many clever ways of saving food for the public, as well as rules that encouraged separate housing for men and women, preventing families from having too many children.At the same time, the system also allows homosexual love between men. Of course, whether this kind of indulgence is good or bad can only be discussed later when there is an opportunity. 780
To sum up, it can be seen that the arrangements of the Cretans for banquets are indeed superior.In other cases, however, they behaved the opposite way, and the Cosmos of Crete was worse than the Eivor of Sparta.Similar to Eivor, Cosmo also pinned the selection of candidates (without proper qualification restrictions) on fate, see note 1271a11 above. , but it does not have the beneficial effect that the Eivorian system exerts on the entire political structure.Since every citizen of Rageni has the right to be elected as an Eivor, all people in the 30 states have the opportunity to hold the highest position. Therefore, see 1270b25 for the entire political system.will be supported by the will of the masses.

In Crete, the electors of Cosmos are strictly limited by clan, not everyone can be elected, and the candidates for the elders (senators) of the House of Elders (Buli) must also be limited to those who were once appointed as Cosmos. among people.The objectionable organization of the House of Elders in Crete is somewhat like that of Lacedaemon cf. 1270b37-1271a18. : There are no life constraints, 35 and no term limit, as long as you are elected, you can become a lifelong position.Yet these are privileges they do not deserve.At the same time, they often decide affairs only based on their own selfish intentions, and they will not follow the rules, which may lead to political disputes and bring disasters to the state.However, although the local people were excluded, they never complained about the Kosmo organization.Of course, this does not mean that Cosmo is perfect and everyone is satisfied with it. 40 The difference between Cosmos and Eivor is that in this institution there is a considerable degree of isolation from the temptations of the outside world, and there is no such thing as bribery for personal gain. 1272b
The Cretans remedy the shortcomings of Cosmos by very strange methods, which are not so much constitutional laws as the manipulation of elites.There are often some political sectarian groups rebelling in Crete, sometimes a few Kosmos secretly contact each other, 5 sometimes other people who are not in power secretly combine, and they try to overthrow other Cosmos or the whole Cosmos Mo organization.Cosmo is allowed to resign on his own initiative before his term of office expires.There are also laws stipulating how to punish Kosmo. After all, not following the law and allowing some people to fulfill their private wishes will become a disaster for the state.What's worse is that when some domineering nobles refused to accept the Cosmo's judgment on themselves, they announced the suspension of the Cosmo's authority instead.These examples show that although Crete’s system contains some constitutional elements, it is actually just a kind of “family politics” (δυνασεα) and “tyranny” (υρανν), which refers to a monarchy that has deteriorated through usurpation (a long regime) (vol. IV 10b1293).According to Aristotle, this is the worst form of government: a tyrant acting on his own will and breaking the law.When the meritorious or oligarchic regime (minority system) degenerates and leads to usurpation, "family politics" (oligarchic tyranny) will appear (29b1292).In Crete, a small number of "powers" (δυν οι) formed a "sectarian group" to control the state affairs for generations.Extreme civilian regimes (majority systems) can also degenerate. Aristotle believed that if a majority of people combine to exercise political control that violates the law, it should also be an arrogance (9a1298).

Plato's "Laws" 680A refers to the royal power inherited from generation to generation by the patriarch (δυνασ εα, chief), which can also be translated as "dynasty" (patriarchal kingship), but this is different from the meaning used in this book. .The nobles of Crete have always been keen on private fighting, often colluding with the same party, splitting sects, gathering the people as the wings of the sect, and supporting one person as the leader. , and even warring dynasties.In fact, such a state will eventually be broken, and the political institutions of the state are disintegrating.When a city-state faces the crisis of political disintegration, powerful neighboring countries will have the idea of ​​​​invasion. 15 But as mentioned above, Crete is an island far away from its powerful neighbors. Its superior geographical location and long distance from neighboring countries are enough to keep people away thousands of miles away. In order to prevent foreign aggression, the state issued a law prohibiting the entry of foreigners.

Unlike Helutai (Spartan serfs) who rebelled, Beliotti (serfs) in Crete generally lived a stable life. Of course, this also benefited from the isolation of the island country, and Crete The meaning of the clause that there are no subject territories abroad is unclear.The notes on page 83 of Bakker’s English translation tried to figure out the author’s meaning: When Crete fought against neighboring countries in 1269a40, because the neighboring countries also had serfs, they did not resort to inciting Cretan serfs to rebel.If the subject state betrayed the suzerain, it would not hesitate to use any means of collusion with the internal response, but Crete happened to have no subject state, so it did not use any means of collusion with the internal response. .However, in recent years, 20 foreign armies have begun to invade the island. In 345 BC, Phalaecus led his troops to invade Crete, captured the city of Lyctor, and was later captured in Cydonia. kill.In 333 BC, Agesilaus, the third younger brother of the Spartan king Adis, conquered Crete and conquered the entire island.This verse may refer to events in 345 BC. , the weaknesses of Crete's political system began to be exposed to the world.

After talking so much about the political system of Crete, now let's talk about the political system of another state.

Chapter Eleven
Everyone believes that the political system of Carthage, "Carchiton" (χαρχηδων), Latin name "Carthago", was established by the Phoenicians in 822 BC in North Africa. The colonial city, originally called "Karthadshat" (Karthadshat), which means "new city", is located in the Gulf of Uticensis (Sinus Uticensis), which is now the Gulf of Tunis, with Uticensis in the north and Tunisia in the south lake.By the 6th century BC, Carthage gradually became stronger and became a large port in the Western Mediterranean, competing with Sicily for hegemony on the sea.In the 4th century BC, Sparta and Crete were in decline. On the contrary, Carthage was on the rise, so it often competed with the Greeks for Sicily. Aristotle actually listed this non-Greek city in Sparta. It is very puzzling that after Da and Crete, it was regarded as one of the three states with a refined political system.Between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, Carthage fought with the Romans for a long time until it was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC.According to the records on page 833 of "Strebo", when Carthage was at its peak and was about to decline, the population of the suburbs was as high as 70.

(See Glotte's "History of Greece" X 542, Mommsen's "Roman History" (Mommsen, Histof Rome) II 24 note.) The city of Carthage rebuilt by the Romans was destroyed by the Arabs in 698 AD. ruins.It is a good constitution,25 which is in many respects distinct from other states, yet its gist, in some respects, is exactly like that of Ragini.Here, the political systems of the three states we describe—Crete, Rageni, and Carthage—are indeed interrelated and interlinked. Compared with other city-states, all three are quite special.In Carthage, there are many facilities that are indeed excellent.The common people in Carthage, especially the poor population, are quite large, but they have always been politically stable, which is enough to prove that their system is correct.In its history there has been no infighting to speak of, nor any incident of usurpation.Sparta's political system has several similarities with Carthage's political system: Carthage's "Haitari" banquet system "Haitari" (τν αιριν) and Sparta's Phydicia (φιδια ) together to form the Carthage banquet group.

In "Athena" 143, the Dusiada language is quoted, indicating that the "Andrea" (νδρεα) of the city of Lyktor in Crete divided the citizens of the city, grouped by Haitaili, and participated in the public dining table.The original intention of the banquet system in Sparta and Crete was for military formation and training. "Andrea" means "men's (especially warriors) public dining hall".Carthage's "Haitari" should also have a similar meaning, which is a military formation, while the political meaning of "Haitari" is "partisan" or "political group".It is similar to Sparta's "Phiticia"; 35 and the deeds of Carthage in the Greek literature of the 59th House are rare. This chapter and Volume 17, Chapter 376 are very important to later generations who study the history of Carthage.Among the Latin occupations, Livius (TLivius, 398 BC—401AD)’s “History of Rome” described the situation in Carthage more clearly than Aristotle’s chapter, but what he saw and heard has already changed. Three centuries later than Aristotle, as for other histories, even later than Livy.Although there are many doubts about the Carthage matters involved in this book, it is difficult to compare it with historical materials that are earlier than Aristotle or contemporary with it (see "Susmere School Edition" 408nd edition [-]- [-] notes and "Appendix" B on pages [-]-[-] of "Newman's Annotated Notes".

The "House of One Hundred and Four People" (ν καòν κα ερων) seems to be the "Ordojudicum" (Ordojudicum) mentioned in Li Wei's "History of Rome" volume 3346. What is done, can be examined and questioned, and its authority is similar to that of Eivor of Sparta.Justinus called them "centum judges" in "MJJustinus, Historiarum Pbilipicurum" (MJJustinus, Historiarum Pbilipicurum) XIX 25-6.Founded in the 5th century BC, the institution gradually expanded its power and played a very important role in the Carthaginian regime.However, unlike Eivor, which is a product of fate, the selection and appointment of these officials in Carthage is based on virtue (virtuous) as the standard, which is more appropriate.

In addition, Carthage also has kings comparable to Sparta. Aristotle’s so-called “kings” (οs βασιλεs) of Carthage are actually only two people. According to Livy: "History of Rome" Volume 75 Ten 24 should be called "Suffetes", translated as "judge" or "ruling", Li Wei compared it to the two "rulings" of Rome."Nicocri" 163 written by Isocrates said, "Carthage's internal affairs are ruled by oligarchs, while the battlefield is ruled by kings", which is very similar to the Spartan two-kingdom system.However, according to Aristotle's section, they are not hereditary, and they also manage internal affairs in normal times, which is different from Sparta.And the "History of Rome" volume 40 1273 written by the elder Li Wei said that the Carthage House of Elders had "thirty elders as leaders", that is to say, the total number of elders was several times that of Sparta. .Similarly, the rules of Carthage are also superior here. The succession method of the kings is different from that of Sparta. They are not limited to a certain clan and do not care about the virtue of talents. [-] The kings of Carthage were not succeeded by the eldest sons of the previous kings or the heirs in the clan, but were selected from some famous clans at that time based on their talents, virtues and talents.The kings held important powers, and if they were insignificant figures in [-], they would have done great harm to the state.In fact, the Lacedaemonians suffered greatly from it.

In the Carthaginian regime, there were instances where there were arousing criticism, and it would be considered as contrary to the purpose and deviation.These things can be seen or occur in most of the states we have mentioned. However, there is a deviation that is unique to Carthage. Its founding spirit was originally an aristocratic government or a republic (mixed) government. πολιεα, in this book, either generally refers to the general regime, or specifically refers to a certain "mixed" regime, that is, the republic (1279a39). The mixed regime should originally contain the principles of "one leader", "minority" and "majority". Here The "aristocratic regime" (ρισοκραα) using the minority principle is similar to the "mixed" regime, which is another use of the term "nobility". They are elected from all classes and are based on their merits. Such a political system is both "respecting the worthy" and "mixed (republic)" at the same time.

(End of this chapter)