Chapter 4

What has been said, it follows that we should consider whether the same virtues which constitute a good man make a valuable citizen, or different; and if a particular inquiry is necessary for this matter we must first give a general description of the virtues of a good citizen; for as a sailor is one of those who make up a community, so is a citizen, although the province of one sailor may be different from another's (for one is a rower, another a steersman, a third a boatswain, and so on, each having their several appointments), it is evident that the most accurate description of any one good sailor must refer to his peculiar abilities, yet there are some things in which the same description may be applied to the whole crew, as the safety of the ship is the common business of all of them, for this is the general centre of all their cares: so also with respect to citizens, although they may in a few particulars be very different, yet there is one care common to them all, the safety of the community, for the community of the citizens composes the state; for which reason the virtue of a citizen has necessarily a reference to the state. But if there are different sorts of governments, it is evident that those actions which constitute the virtue of an excellent citizen in one community will not constitute it in another; wherefore the virtue of such a one cannot be perfect: but we say, a man is good when his virtues are perfect; from whence it follows, that an excellent citizen does not possess that virtue which constitutes a good man. Those who are any ways doubtful concerning this question may be convinced of the truth of it by examining into the best formed states: for, if it is impossible that a city should consist entirely of excellent citizens (while it is necessary that every one should do well in his calling, in which consists his excellence, as it is impossible that all the citizens should have the same [1277a] qualifications) it is impossible that the virtue of a citizen and a good man should be the same; for all should possess the virtue of an excellent citizen: for from hence necessarily arise the perfection of the city: but that every one should possess the virtue of a good man is impossible without all the citizens in a well-regulated state were necessarily virtuous. Besides, as a city is composed of dissimilar parts, as an animal is of life and body; the soul of reason and appetite; a family of a man and his wife—property of a master and a slave; in the same manner, as a city is composed of all these and many other very different parts, it necessarily follows that the virtue of all the citizens cannot be the same; as the business of him who leads the band is different from the other dancers. From all which proofs it is evident that the virtues of a citizen cannot be one and the same. But do we never find those virtues united which constitute a good man and excellent citizen? for we say, such a one is an excellent magistrate and a prudent and good man; but prudence is a necessary qualification for all those who engage in public affairs. Nay, some persons affirm that the education of those who are intended to command should, from the beginning, be different from other citizens, as the children of kings are generally instructed in riding and warlike exercises; and thus Euripides says:

From what has been said, we must ask whether the virtues of a good man also make a good citizen. Or does a good citizen need different virtues? If this question needs a separate inquiry, we must first describe the virtues of a good citizen in general. A citizen belongs to a community, just as a sailor does. Sailors have different duties. One is a rower, another a steersman, another a boatswain, and so on, each with a particular assignment. Clearly, the most precise description of a good sailor must refer to his particular skills. Yet some parts of that description apply to the whole crew. The ship’s safety is everyone’s common task, and all their efforts are directed toward that goal. The same is true of citizens. Although citizens may differ in certain respects, they all share one concern: the safety of the community. The community of citizens makes up the state. For this reason, a citizen’s virtue must be understood in relation to the state. But there are different kinds of government. Clearly, actions that make an excellent citizen in one community will not make an excellent citizen in another. Therefore, a citizen’s virtue cannot be perfect. Yet we call a man good when his virtues are perfect. It follows that an excellent citizen does not possess the virtue that makes a good man. Anyone who doubts this conclusion may be convinced by examining the best-organized states. Suppose a city cannot consist entirely of excellent citizens. Each person must nevertheless perform his own role well, since his excellence consists in doing so. Yet all citizens cannot have the same [1277a] abilities. Under these conditions, the virtue of a citizen cannot be the same as the virtue of a good man. All citizens should possess the virtue of an excellent citizen, because the city’s perfection necessarily depends on that virtue. But all citizens cannot possess the virtue of a good man unless every citizen in a well-governed state is necessarily virtuous. Besides, a city consists of different parts, just as a living creature consists of life and body. The soul consists of reason and appetite. A family consists of a man and his wife, and a property-holding household includes a master and a slave. Similarly, a city consists of all these parts and many others that differ greatly. It necessarily follows that all citizens cannot have the same virtue. In the same way, the leader of a dance has a different task from the other dancers. All these arguments show that citizens cannot have one and the same virtue. But are the virtues of a good man and an excellent citizen never united in one person? We do describe someone as an excellent magistrate and a wise and good man. Practical wisdom is a necessary qualification for everyone who takes part in public affairs. Indeed, some people say that future rulers should receive a different education from other citizens, right from the beginning. The children of kings, for example, are generally taught riding and military exercises. Thus Euripides says:

As if those who are to rule were to have an education peculiar to themselves. But if we allow, that the virtues of a good man and a good magistrate may be the same, and a citizen is one who obeys the magistrate, it follows that the virtue of the one cannot in general be the same as the virtue of the other, although it may be true of some particular citizen; for the virtue of the magistrate must be different from the virtue of the citizen. For which reason Jason declared that was he deprived of his kingdom he should pine away with regret, as not knowing how to live a private man. But it is a great recommendation to know how to command as well as to obey; and to do both these things well is the virtue of an accomplished citizen. If then the virtue of a good man consists only in being able to command, but the virtue of a good citizen renders him equally fit for the one as well as the other, the commendation of both of them is not the same. It appears, then, that both he who commands and he who obeys should each of them learn their separate business: but that the citizen should be master of and take part in both these, as any one may easily perceive; in a family government there is no occasion for the master to know how to perform the necessary offices, but rather to enjoy the labour of others; for to do the other is a servile part. I mean by the other, the common family business of the slave.

As if those who are to rule should have an education of their own. But suppose we accept that a good man and a good magistrate may have the same virtues. A citizen is someone who obeys the magistrate. It follows that a citizen’s virtue cannot generally be the same as a good man’s virtue. Although the virtues may coincide in some particular citizen, a magistrate’s virtue must differ from a citizen’s. For this reason, Jason declared that if he lost his kingdom, he would waste away with regret. He would not know how to live as a private man. But knowing how to command as well as obey deserves great praise. Doing both well is the virtue of an accomplished citizen. Suppose, then, that a good man’s virtue consists only in the ability to command. A good citizen’s virtue, however, makes him equally fit to command and obey. If so, the qualities praised in each are not the same. It seems, then, that rulers and those who obey should each learn their own duties. But a citizen should master and take part in both roles, as anyone can easily see. In managing a household, the master need not know how to perform the necessary tasks. Rather, his role is to benefit from the work of others. Performing those tasks is the role of a slave. By those tasks, I mean the ordinary household work done by slaves.

There are many sorts of slaves; for their employments are various: of these the handicraftsmen are one, who, as their name imports, get their living by the labour of their hands, and amongst these all mechanics are included; [1277b] for which reasons such workmen, in some states, were not formerly admitted into any share in the government; till at length democracies were established: it is not therefore proper for any man of honour, or any citizen, or any one who engages in public affairs, to learn these servile employments without they have occasion for them for their own use; for without this was observed the distinction between a master and a slave would be lost. But there is a government of another sort, in which men govern those who are their equals in rank, and freemen, which we call a political government, in which men learn to command by first submitting to obey, as a good general of horse, or a commander-in-chief, must acquire a knowledge of their duty by having been long under the command of another, and the like in every appointment in the army: for well is it said, no one knows how to command who has not himself been under command of another. The virtues of those are indeed different, but a good citizen must necessarily be endowed with them; he ought also to know in what manner freemen ought to govern, as well as be governed: and this, too, is the duty of a good man. And if the temperance and justice of him who commands is different from his who, though a freeman, is under command, it is evident that the virtues of a good citizen cannot be the same as justice, for instance but must be of a different species in these two different situations, as the temperance and courage of a man and a woman are different from each other; for a man would appear a coward who had only that courage which would be graceful in a woman, and a woman would be thought a talker who should take as large a part in the conversation as would become a man of consequence.

There are many kinds of slaves, because slaves do many different jobs. One kind is the craftsman, who, as the name suggests, earns a living by working with his hands. This group includes all mechanics. [1277b] For these reasons, some states once excluded such workers from any share in government, until democracies were eventually established. Therefore, no man of honor, citizen, or person involved in public affairs should learn these servile trades. The exception is when he needs such skills for his own use. Without this restriction, the distinction between master and slave would disappear. But there is another kind of government, in which people rule over free people of equal rank. We call this political government. Under political government, people learn to command by first learning to obey. A good cavalry general or commander-in-chief must learn his duties through long service under another commander. The same applies to every military post. For it is rightly said that no one knows how to command without first serving under someone else's command. The virtues of rulers and those they rule are indeed different, but a good citizen must possess both. He must know how free people should govern and how they should be governed. Knowing both is also the duty of a good man. Suppose the self-control and justice of a ruler differ from those of a free person under his rule. Then a good citizen's virtues, such as justice, cannot be the same in these two positions. Instead, those virtues must take different forms, just as self-control and courage differ between men and women. For a man would seem cowardly if he had only the courage considered admirable in a woman. And a woman would be considered too talkative if she spoke as much as would suit a prominent man.

The domestic employments of each of them are also different; it is the man's business to acquire subsistence, the woman's to take care of it. But direction and knowledge of public affairs is a virtue peculiar to those who govern, while all others seem to be equally requisite for both parties; but with this the governed have no concern, it is theirs to entertain just notions: they indeed are like flute-makers, while those who govern are the musicians who play on them. And thus much to show whether the virtue of a good man and an excellent citizen is the same, or if it is different, and also how far it is the same, and how far different.

Their household duties also differ. The man's job is to provide a livelihood, while the woman's is to manage those resources. But leadership and knowledge of public affairs are virtues specific to those who govern. All other virtues seem equally necessary for both rulers and the governed. But the governed have no part in leadership and knowledge of public affairs. Their role is to hold sound opinions. The governed are like flute-makers, while rulers are like the musicians who play those flutes. So much, then, for whether the virtue of a good man and an excellent citizen is the same or different. We have also considered how far these virtues are the same and how far they differ.