Chapter 12

Indeed an oligarchy and a tyranny are of all governments of the shortest duration. The tyranny of Orthagoras and his family at Sicyon, it is true, continued longer than any other: the reason for which was, that they used their power with moderation, and were in many particulars obedient to the laws; and, as Clisthenes was an able general, he never fell into contempt, and by the care he took that in many particulars his government should be popular. He is reported also to have presented a person with a crown who adjudged the victory to another; and some say that it is the statue of that judge which is placed in the forum.

Indeed, oligarchies and tyrannies are the shortest-lived of all governments. Admittedly, the tyranny of Orthagoras and his family at Sicyon lasted longer than any other. This was because they used their power moderately and obeyed the laws in many respects. Also, because Clisthenes was a capable general, he never lost respect. He also took care to make his government popular in many respects. Clisthenes is also said to have awarded a crown to a judge who declared someone else the winner. Some say that the statue in the forum depicts that judge.

They say also, that Pisistratus submitted to be summoned into the court of the Areopagites. The second that we shall mention is the tyranny of the Cypselidse, at Corinth, which continued seventy-seven years and six months; for Cypselus was tyrant there thirty years, Periander forty-four, and Psammetichus, the son of Georgias, three years; the reason for which was, that Cypselus was a popular man, and governed without guards. Periander indeed ruled like a tyrant, but then he was an able general. The third was that of the Pisistradidae at Athens; but it was not continual: for Pisistratus himself was twice expelled; so that out of thirty-three years he was only fifteen in power, and his son eighteen; so that the whole time was thirty-three years. Of the rest we shall mention that of Hiero, and Gelo at Syracuse; and this did not continue long, for both their reigns were only eighteen years; for Gelo died in the eighth year of his tyranny, and Hiero in his tenth. Thrasybulus fell in his eleventh month, and many other tyrannies have continued a very short time. We have now gone through the general cases of corruption and [1316a] means of preservation both in free states and monarchies. In Plato's Republic, Socrates is introduced treating upon the changes which different governments are liable to: but his discourse is faulty; for he does not particularly mention what changes the best and first governments are liable to; for he only assigns the general cause, of nothing being immutable, but that in time everything will alter [***tr.: text is unintelligible here***] he conceives that nature will then produce bad men, who will not submit to education, and in this, probably, he is not wrong; for it is certain that there are some persons whom it is impossible by any education to make good men; but why should this change be more peculiar to what he calls the best-formed government, than to all other forms, and indeed to all other things that exist? and in respect to his assigned time, as the cause of the alteration of all things, we find that those which did not begin to exist at the same time cease to be at the same time; so that, if anything came into beginning the day before the solstice, it must alter at the same time. Besides, why should such a form of government be changed into the Lacedaemonian? for, in general, when governments alter, they alter into the contrary species to what they before were, and not into one like their former. And this reasoning holds true of other changes; for he says, that from the Lacedaemonian form it changes into an oligarchy, and from thence into a democracy, and from a democracy into a tyranny: and sometimes a contrary change takes place, as from a democracy into an oligarchy, rather than into a monarchy. With respect to a tyranny he neither says whether there will be any change in it; or if not, to what cause it will be owing; or if there is, into what other state it will alter: but the reason of this is, that a tyranny is an indeterminate government; and, according to him, every state ought to alter into the first, and most perfect, thus the continuity and circle would be preserved. But one tyranny often changed into another; as at Syria, from Myron's to Clisthenes'; or into an oligarchy, as was Antileo's at Chalcas; or into a democracy, as was Gelo's at Syracuse; or into an aristocracy, as was Charilaus's at Lacedaemon, and at Carthage. An oligarchy is also changed into a tyranny; such was the rise of most of the ancient tyrannies in Sicily; at Leontini, into the tyranny of Panaetius; at Gela, into that of Cleander; at Rhegium into that of Anaxilaus; and the like in many other cities. It is absurd also to suppose, that a state is changed into an oligarchy because those who are in power are avaricious and greedy of money, and not because those who are by far richer than their fellow citizens think it unfair that those who have nothing should have an equal share in the rule of the state with themselves, who possess so much-for in many oligarchies it is not allowable to be employed in money-getting, and there are many laws to prevent it. But in Carthage, which is a democracy, money-getting is creditable, and yet their form of government remains unaltered. It is also absurd to say, that in an oligarchy there are two cities, one of the poor and another of the rich; for why should this happen to them more than to the Lacedaemonians, or any other state where all possess not equal property, or where all are not equally good? for though no one member of the community should be poorer than he was before, yet a democracy might nevertheless change into an oligarchy; if the rich should be more powerful than the poor, and the one too negligent, and the other attentive: and though these changes are owing to many causes, yet he mentions but one only, that the citizens become poor by luxury, and paying interest-money; as if at first they were all rich, or the greater part of them: but this is not so, but when some of those who have the principal management of public affairs lose their fortunes, they will endeavour to bring about a revolution; but when others do, nothing of consequence will follow, nor when such states do alter is there any more reason for their altering into a democracy than any other. Besides, though some of the members of the community may not have spent their fortunes, yet if they share not in the honours of the state, or if they are ill-used and insulted, they will endeavour to raise seditions, and bring about a revolution, that they may be allowed to do as they like; which, Plato says, arises from too much liberty. Although there are many oligarchies and democracies, yet Socrates, when he is treating of the changes they may undergo, speaks of them as if there was but one of each sort.

They also say that Pisistratus agreed to appear when summoned before the court of the Areopagites. The second tyranny we shall mention is that of the Cypselidse at Corinth. It lasted seventy-seven years and six months. Cypselus was tyrant for thirty years, Periander for forty-four, and Psammetichus, the son of Georgias, for three. The reason for this long rule was that Cypselus was popular and governed without guards. Periander did rule like a tyrant, but he was also an able general. The third tyranny was that of the Pisistradidae at Athens, but their rule was not continuous. Pisistratus himself was expelled twice. Of thirty-three years, he held power for only fifteen, and his son for eighteen. Their total time in power was therefore thirty-three years. Among the remaining tyrannies, we shall mention those of Hiero and Gelo at Syracuse. These did not last long, since their combined reigns lasted only eighteen years. Gelo died in the eighth year of his tyranny, and Hiero in his tenth. Thrasybulus fell in his eleventh month, and many other tyrannies have lasted a very short time. We have now examined the general causes of decline and [1316a] means of preservation in both free states and monarchies. In Plato's Republic, Socrates discusses the changes that different governments can undergo. But his account is flawed. He does not specifically explain what changes can affect the best and foremost form of government. He gives only the general explanation that nothing is unchanging, and that everything will change in time. [***tr.: text is unintelligible here***] He believes that nature will then produce bad men who will not accept education. In this he is probably right. Certainly, some people cannot be made good by any education. But why should this change particularly affect what he calls the best form of government? Why should it not equally affect all other forms, and indeed everything else that exists? He also identifies a particular time as the cause of change in everything. Yet we find that things which began at different times cease to exist at the same time. So if something came into existence the day before the solstice, it must change at the same time. Besides, why should the best form of government change into the Lacedaemonian form? In general, governments change into their opposites, not into forms resembling their previous ones. The same reasoning applies to the other changes he describes. He says the Lacedaemonian form changes into an oligarchy, the oligarchy into a democracy, and the democracy into a tyranny. Yet sometimes the opposite change occurs. A democracy, for example, may change into an oligarchy rather than a monarchy. As for tyranny, he does not say whether it will change at all. If it will not, he does not explain why. If it will, he does not say what form of government will replace it. The reason for this omission is that tyranny has no definite form. According to his account, every state should eventually return to the first and most perfect form. That would preserve the continuous cycle. But one tyranny has often changed into another, as at Syria, from Myron's to Clisthenes'. A tyranny may also change into an oligarchy, as Antileo's did at Chalcas, or into a democracy, as Gelo's did at Syracuse. It may change into an aristocracy, as Charilaus's did at Lacedaemon, and as happened at Carthage. An oligarchy can also change into a tyranny. Most ancient tyrannies in Sicily arose this way. At Leontini, the oligarchy became the tyranny of Panaetius. At Gela, it became that of Cleander, and at Rhegium, that of Anaxilaus. Similar changes occurred in many other cities. It is also absurd to suppose that a state becomes an oligarchy because its rulers are greedy for money. Rather, the cause is that citizens far richer than their neighbors consider equal political power unfair. They think those who own nothing should not have the same share in government as those who own so much. In many oligarchies, people are not allowed to engage in money-making, and many laws prohibit it. But in Carthage, which is a democracy, making money is respected, yet its government remains unchanged. It is also absurd to say that an oligarchy contains two cities, one poor and one rich. Why should this division be more characteristic of oligarchies than of the Lacedaemonians? Why should it be more characteristic of oligarchies than of any state with unequal wealth or unequal virtue? A democracy might become an oligarchy even if no member of the community had become poorer. This could happen if the rich became more powerful than the poor, with the poor neglectful and the rich attentive. Although these changes have many causes, he mentions only one. He says citizens become poor through luxury and interest payments, as if all or most were originally rich. But that is not so. When some leading figures in public affairs lose their fortunes, they will try to bring about a revolution. When others lose their fortunes, nothing significant will follow. Nor, when such states change, is there more reason for them to become democracies than any other form of government. Besides, some members of the community may seek revolution even though they have not spent their fortunes. They will do so if they are excluded from public honors, or mistreated and insulted. They will stir up unrest and seek revolution so that they can do as they please. Plato says this desire arises from too much liberty. Although there are many kinds of oligarchy and democracy, Socrates discusses their possible changes as if each had only one form.