BOOK III Chapter 13 The Kinds of Kingship

Chapter 13

I. Introduction: The Basis for Claims to Rule

1. Multiple Claims to Rule in the City
   • When considering the existence of a city, several groups (e.g., the wealthy, the virtuous, the well-born) can make legitimate claims to rule.
   • However, for the purpose of living a good life, education and virtue should be the primary criteria for leadership, as discussed earlier.
2. Equality and Inequality in Political Justice
   • Aristotle asserts that equality in one aspect should not automatically imply equality in all aspects.
   • Similarly, inequality in one respect does not justify inequality in all areas.
   • Consequently, political regimes that distribute power based on a single factor are considered deviations from the ideal form of government.

II. Claims of Various Groups to Rule

1. The Wealthy
   • The wealthy claim rule because they possess a larger share of the common territory.
   • Additionally, the wealthy are generally more trustworthy in keeping agreements.
2. The Well-Born (Nobility)
   • The well-born claim rule due to their noble birth, which is honorable and associated with higher status in society.
   • It is believed that better individuals often come from families with a history of virtue.
3. The Virtuous
   • Virtue also provides a just claim to rule.
   • Justice itself is considered a virtue of communities, and the other virtues necessary for good governance (e.g., justice, wisdom) follow from it.
4. The Majority
   • The majority (the general populace) also has a just claim to rule when considered collectively, as they may be superior in various aspects when viewed as a whole.

III. Disputes Over Rule in a Mixed City

1. Mixed Population and Disputes
   • Aristotle raises the issue of a city where different groups coexist: the wealthy, the virtuous, the well-born, and the general multitude.
   • How should the city determine who should rule when all these groups are present simultaneously?
2. Determining the Right to Rule
   • The right to rule is typically not disputed within specific regimes (e.g., oligarchy for the wealthy, aristocracy for the virtuous), but when multiple claims exist simultaneously, the question becomes more complicated.
   • If the virtuous are very few in number, should they still have the right to rule, or should the size and capacity of each group be considered?

IV. Evaluating the Justice of Different Claims

1. Wealth and Family Claims
   • Aristotle critiques the claims to rule based solely on wealth or birth.
   • If one person is wealthier or of better birth than the rest, by the same logic, that individual should rule over everyone else, which is clearly unjust.
2. Virtue in Aristocracies
   • In aristocracies, if one person is far superior in virtue to the other aristocrats, that individual should theoretically rule, as preeminence in virtue is a valid claim to authority.
   • Similarly, if a few individuals are superior to the majority, they should rule over the multitude.

V. None of These Claims Are Absolutely Correct

1. Limitations of the Claims to Rule
   • None of the claims—whether based on wealth, birth, or virtue—are absolutely correct in justifying rule.
   • The multitude can make a legitimate claim to rule over the wealthy or the virtuous, as it may, collectively, possess greater wealth or virtue than a few individuals.
2. Legislative Dilemmas
   • A legislator faces a dilemma: Should laws be made in favor of the elite few or for the benefit of the majority?
   • The most correct laws are those that are enacted with an equal spirit, aiming for the common good of the entire city, and promoting justice for both the elite and the majority.

VI. The Role of the Citizen in the Best Regime

1. Citizenship in the Best Regime
   • A true citizen in the best regime is one who is capable of both ruling and being ruled and chooses to do so with a view to living a virtuous life.
   • This type of citizen sees governance as a shared responsibility, contributing to both ruling and being ruled based on virtue.

VII. The Problem of the Outstanding Individual or Few

1. The Exceptional Individual or Group
   • If there is a person or a small group with such an excess of virtue that it surpasses all others, that person or group cannot be treated as equal to the rest of the citizens.
   • Such individuals would be like gods among humans, and it would be unjust to treat them as equals, as their excellence is far superior to that of ordinary citizens.
2. Law and the Exceptional Individual
   • In this case, there can be no law for such individuals because their virtue is the law.
   • Legislating for someone with such extraordinary virtue would be as absurd as legislating for Zeus. The natural course is for everyone to willingly follow and obey such individuals.

VIII. The Practice of Ostracism

1. Ostracism in Democratic Cities
   • Democracies often enact ostracism to remove individuals who are preeminent in power, wealth, or political influence, thereby maintaining equality in the city.
   • Ostracism aims to level those who exceed others in political power, similar to the tale of the Argonauts who left Heracles behind due to his superior strength.
2. Periander’s Advice and Tyranny
   • The story of Periander advising Thrasyboulus to eliminate the preeminent individuals by cutting down the tallest ears of corn is a reflection of how tyrants, as well as oligarchies and democracies, seek to eliminate those who might challenge their authority.
3. Historical Examples
   • Similar practices were observed historically, such as the Athenians reducing the power of the Samians, Chians, and Lesbians after establishing their imperial rule.
   • Persian kings also diminished the power of the Medes and Babylonians to prevent potential threats to their rule.

IX. Ostracism and Justice in Different Regimes

1. Ostracism in Deviant and Correct Regimes
   • In deviant regimes, ostracism serves the private advantage of rulers, but even in correct regimes, ostracism can be justified to maintain political stability.
   • However, the ideal situation would be to construct the regime in a way that avoids the need for such measures.
2. What to Do With the Exceptionally Virtuous?
   • In the best regime, the question arises: What should be done if someone is exceptionally virtuous, far beyond the rest of the citizens?
   • Such a person should not be banished, nor should others claim to rule over them, as doing so would be akin to claiming the right to rule over Zeus.
   • The natural course is for everyone to willingly obey and follow such an individual, making them a permanent king in the city.

In this chapter, Aristotle explores the complexity of political justice and the claims to rule based on wealth, birth, virtue, and majority rule. He critiques each claim, arguing that none are absolutely valid and that justice in the city must aim for the common good. Aristotle also addresses the problem of the exceptionally virtuous individual and how democracies use ostracism to maintain equality, concluding that such exceptional individuals should be willingly followed as natural leaders.