Aristotle:
The Nature and Origin of
Tyranny
Politics, Book III,
Chp. 8, selections
But there are difficulties about these forms of
government, and it will therefore be necessary to
state a little more at length the nature of each of
them. For he who would make a philosophical study
of the various sciences, and does not regard
practice only, ought not to overlook or omit
anything, but to set forth the truth in every
particular. Tyranny, as I was saying, is
monarchy exercising the rule of a master over the
political society; oligarchy is when men of
property have the government in their hands;
democracy, the opposite, when the indigent, and not
the men of property, are the rulers. And here
arises the first of our difficulties, and it
relates to the distinction drawn. For democracy is
said to be the government of the many. But what if
the many are men of property and have the power in
their hands? In like manner oligarchy is said to be
the government of the few; but what if the poor are
fewer than the rich, and have the power in their
hands because they are stronger? In these cases the
distinction which we have drawn between these
different forms of government would no longer hold
good.
Suppose, once more, that we add wealth to the
few and poverty to the many, and name the
governments accordingly -- an oligarchy is said to
be that in which the few and the wealthy, and a
democracy that in which the many and the poor are
the rulers -- there will still be a difficulty.
For, if the only forms of government are the ones
already mentioned, how shall we describe those
other governments also just mentioned by us, in
which the rich are the more numerous and the poor
are the fewer, and both govern in their respective
states?
The argument seems to show that, whether in
oligarchies or in democracies, the number of the
governing body, whether the greater number, as in a
democracy, or the smaller number, as in an
oligarchy, is an accident due to the fact that the
rich everywhere are few, and the poor numerous. But
if so, there is a misapprehension of the causes of
the difference between them. For the real
difference between democracy and oligarchy is
poverty and wealth. Wherever men rule by reason of
their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is
an oligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is a
democracy. But as a fact the rich are few and the
poor many; for few are well-to-do, whereas freedom
is enjoyed by an, and wealth and freedom are the
grounds on which the oligarchical and democratical
parties respectively claim power in the state.
Book IV, Chp. 10,
selections
Of the nature of tyranny I have still to
speak, in order that it may have its place in our
inquiry (since even tyranny is reckoned by
us to be a form of government), although there is
not much to be said about it. I have already in the
former part of this treatise discussed royalty or
kingship according to the most usual meaning of the
term, and considered whether it is or is not
advantageous to states, and what kind of royalty
should be established, and from what source, and
how.
When speaking of royalty we also spoke of two
forms of tyranny, which are both according
to law, and therefore easily pass into royalty.
Among barbarians there are elected monarchs who
exercise a despotic power; despotic rulers were
also elected in ancient Hellas, called Aesymnetes
or Dictators. These monarchies, when compared with
one another, exhibit certain differences. And they
are, as I said before, royal, in so far as the
monarch rules according to law over willing
subjects; but they are tyrannical in so far as he
is despotic and rules according to his own fancy.
There is also a third kind of tyranny, which
is the most typical form, and is the counterpart of
the perfect monarchy. This tyranny is just
that arbitrary power of an individual which is
responsible to no one, and governs all alike,
whether equals or better, with a view to its own
advantage, not to that of its subjects, and
therefore against their will. No freeman, if he can
escape from it, will endure such a government.
The kinds of tyranny are such and so
many, and for the reasons which I have given.
Book V, Chp. 5,
selections
And now, taking each constitution separately, we
must see what follows from the principles already
laid down.
Revolutions in democracies are generally caused
by the intemperance of demagogues, who either in
their private capacity lay information against rich
men until they compel them to combine (for a common
danger unites even the bitterest enemies), or
coming forward in public stir up the people against
them. The truth of this remark is proved by a
variety of examples. At Cos the democracy was
overthrown because wicked demagogues arose, and the
notables combined. At Rhodes the demagogues not
only provided pay for the multitude, but prevented
them from making good to the trierarchs the sums
which had been expended by them; and they, in
consequence of the suits which were brought against
them, were compelled to combine and put down the
democracy. The democracy at Heraclea was overthrown
shortly after the foundation of the colony by the
injustice of the demagogues, which drove out the
notables, who came back in a body and put an end to
the democracy. Much in the same manner the
democracy at Megara was overturned; there the
demagogues drove out many of the notables in order
that they might be able to confiscate their
property. At length the exiles, becoming numerous,
returned, and, engaging and defeating the people,
established the oligarchy. The same thing happened
with the democracy of Cyme, which was overthrown by
Thrasymachus. And we may observe that in most
states the changes have been of this character. For
sometimes the demagogues, in order to curry favor
with the people, wrong the notables and so force
them to combine; either they make a division of
their property, or diminish their incomes by the
imposition of public services, and sometimes they
bring accusations against the rich that they may
have their wealth to confiscate.
Of old, the demagogue was also a general, and
then democracies changed into tyrannies. Most of
the ancient tyrants were originally
demagogues. They are not so now, but they were
then; and the reason is that they were generals and
not orators, for oratory had not yet come into
fashion. Whereas in our day, when the art of
rhetoric has made such progress, the orators lead
the people, but their ignorance of military matters
prevents them from usurping power; at any rate
instances to the contrary are few and slight.
Tyrannies were more common formerly than now, for
this reason also, that great power was placed in
the hands of individuals; thus a tyranny
arose at Miletus out of the office of the Prytanis,
who had supreme authority in many important
matters. Moreover, in those days, when cities were
not large, the people dwelt in the fields, busy at
their work; and their chiefs, if they possessed any
military talent, seized the opportunity, and
winning the confidence of the masses by professing
their hatred of the wealthy, they succeeded in
obtaining the tyranny. Thus at Athens
Peisistratus led a faction against the men of the
plain, and Theagenes at Megara slaughtered the
cattle of the wealthy, which he found by the river
side, where they had put them to graze in land not
their own. Dionysius, again, was thought worthy of
the tyranny because he denounced Daphnaeus
and the rich; his enmity to the notables won for
him the confidence of the people. Changes also take
place from the ancient to the latest form of
democracy; for where there is a popular election of
the magistrates and no property qualification, the
aspirants for office get hold of the people, and
contrive at last even to set them above the laws. A
more or less complete cure for this state of things
is for the separate tribes, and not the whole
people, to elect the magistrates.
These are the principal causes of revolutions in
democracies.
Book V, Chp. 10,
selections
I have still to speak of monarchy, and the
causes of its destruction and preservation. What I
have said already respecting forms of
constitutional government applies almost equally to
royal and to tyrannical rule. For royal rule is of
the nature of an aristocracy, and a tyranny
is a compound of oligarchy and democracy in their
most extreme forms; it is therefore most injurious
to its subjects, being made up of two evil forms of
government, and having the perversions and errors
of both. These two forms of monarchy are contrary
in their very origin. The appointment of a king is
the resource of the better classes against the
people, and he is elected by them out of their own
number, because either he himself or his family
excel in virtue and virtuous actions; whereas a
tyrant is chosen from the people to be their
protector against the notables, and in order to
prevent them from being injured. History shows that
almost all tyrants have been demagogues who
gained the favor of the people by their accusation
of the notables. At any rate this was the manner in
which the tyrannies arose in the days when cities
had increased in power. Others which were older
originated in the ambition of kings wanting to
overstep the limits of their hereditary power and
become despots. Others again grew out of the class
which were chosen to be chief magistrates; for in
ancient times the people who elected them gave the
magistrates, whether civil or religious, a long
tenure. Others arose out of the custom which
oligarchies had of making some individual supreme
over the highest offices. In any of these ways an
ambitious man had no difficulty, if he desired, in
creating a tyranny, since he had the power
in his hands already, either as king or as one of
the officers of state. Thus Pheidon at Argos and
several others were originally kings, and ended by
becoming tyrants; Phalaris, on the other
hand, and the Ionian tyrants, acquired the
tyranny by holding great offices. Whereas
Panaetius at Leontini, Cypselus at Corinth,
Peisistratus at Athens, Dionysius at Syracuse, and
several others who afterwards became
tyrants, were at first demagogues.
And so, as I was saying, royalty ranks with
aristocracy, for it is based upon merit, whether of
the individual or of his family, or on benefits
conferred, or on these claims with power added to
them. For all who have obtained this honor have
benefited, or had in their power to benefit, states
and nations; some, like Codrus, have prevented the
state from being enslaved in war; others, like
Cyrus, have given their country freedom, or have
settled or gained a territory, like the
Lacedaemonian, Macedonian, and Molossian kings. The
idea of a king is to be a protector of the rich
against unjust treatment, of the people against
insult and oppression. Whereas a tyrant, as
has often been repeated, has no regard to any
public interest, except as conducive to his private
ends; his aim is pleasure, the aim of a king,
honor. Wherefore also in their desires they differ;
the tyrant is desirous of riches, the king,
of what brings honor. And the guards of a king are
citizens, but of a tyrant mercenaries.
That tyranny has all the vices both of
democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy
so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by
wealth only can the tyrant maintain either
his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people,
and therefore deprive them of their arms. Both
agree too in injuring the people and driving them
out of the city and dispersing them. From democracy
tyrants have borrowed the art of making war
upon the notables and destroying them secretly or
openly, or of exiling them because they are rivals
and stand in the way of their power; and also
because plots against them are contrived by men of
this dass, who either want to rule or to escape
subjection. Hence Periander advised Thrasybulus by
cutting off the tops of the tallest ears of corn,
meaning that he must always put out of the way the
citizens who overtop the rest. And so, as I have
already intimated, the beginnings of change are the
same in monarchies as in forms of constitutional
government; subjects attack their sovereigns out of
fear or contempt, or because they have been
unjustly treated by them. And of injustice, the
most common form is insult, another is confiscation
of property.
The ends sought by conspiracies against
monarchies, whether tyrannies or royalties, are the
same as the ends sought by conspiracies against
other forms of government. Monarchs have great
wealth and honor, which are objects of desire to
all mankind. The attacks are made sometimes against
their lives, sometimes against the office; where
the sense of insult is the motive, against their
lives. Any sort of insult (and there are many) may
stir up anger, and when men are angry, they
commonly act out of revenge, and not from ambition.
For example, the attempt made upon the
Peisistratidae arose out of the public dishonor
offered to the sister of Harmodius and the insult
to himself. He attacked the tyrant for his
sister's sake, and Aristogeiton joined in the
attack for the sake of Harmodius. A conspiracy was
also formed against Periander, the tyrant of
Ambracia, because, when drinking with a favorite
youth, he asked him whether by this time he was not
with child by him. Philip, too, was attacked by
Pausanias because he permitted him to be insulted
by Attalus and his friends, and Amyntas the little,
by Derdas, because he boasted of having enjoyed his
youth. Evagoras of Cyprus, again, was slain by the
eunuch to revenge an insult; for his wife had been
carried off by Evagoras's son. Many conspiracies
have originated in shameful attempts made by
sovereigns on the persons of their subjects. Such
was the attack of Crataeas upon Archelaus; he had
always hated the connection with him, and so, when
Archelaus, having promised him one of his two
daughters in marriage, did not give him either of
them, but broke his word and married the elder to
the king of Elymeia, when he was hard pressed in a
war against Sirrhas and Arrhabaeus, and the younger
to his own son Amyntas, under the idea that Amyntas
would then be less likely to quarrel with his son
by Cleopatra -- Crataeas made this slight a pretext
for attacking Archelaus, though even a less reason
would have sufficed, for the real cause of the
estrangement was the disgust which he felt at his
connection with the king. And from a like motive
Hellonocrates of Larissa conspired with him; for
when Archelaus, who was his lover, did not fulfill
his promise of restoring him to his country, he
thought that the connection between them had
originated, not in affection, but in the wantonness
of power. Pytho, too, and Heracleides of Aenos,
slew Cotys in order to avenge their father, and
Adamas revolted from Cotys in revenge for the
wanton outrage which he had committed in mutilating
him when a child.
Many, too, irritated at blows inflicted on the
person which they deemed an insult, have either
killed or attempted to kill officers of state and
royal princes by whom they have been injured. Thus,
at Mytilene, Megacles and his friends attacked and
slew the Penthilidae, as they were going about and
striking people with clubs. At a later date
Smerdis, who had been beaten and torn away from his
wife by Penthilus, slew him. In the conspiracy
against Archelaus, Decamnichus stimulated the fury
of the assassins and led the attack; he was enraged
because Archelaus had delivered him to Euripides to
be scourged; for the poet had been irritated at
some remark made by Decamnichus on the foulness of
his breath. Many other examples might be cited of
murders and conspiracies which have arisen from
similar causes.
Fear is another motive which, as we have said,
has caused conspiracies as well in monarchies as in
more popular forms of government. Thus Artapanes
conspired against Xerxes and slew him, fearing that
he would be accused of hanging Darius against his
orders-he having been under the impression that
Xerxes would forget what he had said in the middle
of a meal, and that the offense would be
forgiven.
Another motive is contempt, as in the case of
Sardanapalus, whom some one saw carding wool with
his women, if the storytellers say truly; and the
tale may be true, if not of him, of some one else.
Dion attacked the younger Dionysius because he
despised him, and saw that he was equally despised
by his own subjects, and that he was always drunk.
Even the friends of a tyrant will sometimes
attack him out of contempt; for the confidence
which he reposes in them breeds contempt, and they
think that they will not be found out. The
expectation of success is likewise a sort of
contempt; the assailants are ready to strike, and
think nothing of the danger, because they seem to
have the power in their hands. Thus generals of
armies attack monarchs; as, for example, Cyrus
attacked Astyages, despising the effeminacy of his
life, and believing that his power was worn out.
Thus again, Seuthes the Thracian conspired against
Amadocus, whose general he was.
And sometimes men are actuated by more than one
motive, like Mithridates, who conspired against
Ariobarzanes, partly out of contempt and partly
from the love of gain.
Bold natures, placed by their sovereigns in a
high military position, are most likely to make the
attempt in the expectation of success; for courage
is emboldened by power, and the union of the two
inspires them with the hope of an easy victory.
Attempts of which the motive is ambition arise
in a different way as well as in those already
mentioned. There are men who will not risk their
lives in the hope of gains and honors however
great, but who nevertheless regard the killing of a
tyrant simply as an extraordinary action
which will make them famous and honorable in the
world; they wish to acquire, not a kingdom, but a
name. It is rare, however, to find such men; he who
would kill a tyrant must be prepared to lose
his life if he fail. He must have the resolution of
Dion, who, when he made war upon Dionysius, took
with him very few troops, saying 'that whatever
measure of success he might attain would be enough
for him, even if he were to die the moment he
landed; such a death would be welcome to him.' this
is a temper to which few can attain.
Once more, tyrannies, like all other
governments, are destroyed from without by some
opposite and more powerful form of government. That
such a government will have the will to attack them
is clear; for the two are opposed in principle; and
all men, if they can, do what they will. Democracy
is antagonistic to tyranny, on the principle
of Hesiod, 'Potter hates Potter,' because they are
nearly akin, for the extreme form of democracy is
tyranny; and royalty and aristocracy are
both alike opposed to tyranny, because they
are constitutions of a different type. And
therefore the Lacedaemonians put down most of the
tyrannies, and so did the Syracusans during the
time when they were well governed.
Again, tyrannies are destroyed from within, when
the reigning family are divided among themselves,
as that of Gelo was, and more recently that of
Dionysius; in the case of Gelo because Thrasybulus,
the brother of Hiero, flattered the son of Gelo and
led him into excesses in order that he might rule
in his name. Whereupon the family got together a
party to get rid of Thrasybulus and save the
tyranny; but those of the people who
conspired with them seized the opportunity and
drove them all out. In the case of Dionysius, Dion,
his own relative, attacked and expelled him with
the assistance of the people; he afterwards
perished himself.
There are two chief motives which induce men to
attack tyrannies -- hatred and contempt. Hatred of
tyrants is inevitable, and contempt is also
a frequent cause of their destruction. Thus we see
that most of those who have acquired, have retained
their power, but those who have inherited, have
lost it, almost at once; for, living in luxurious
ease, they have become contemptible, and offer many
opportunities to their assailants. Anger, too, must
be included under hatred, and produces the same
effects. It is often times even more ready to
strike -- the angry are more impetuous in making an
attack, for they do not follow rational principle.
And men are very apt to give way to their passions
when they are insulted. To this cause is to be
attributed the fall of the Peisistratidae and of
many others. Hatred is more reasonable, for anger
is accompanied by pain, which is an impediment to
reason, whereas hatred is painless.
In a word, all the causes which I have mentioned
as destroying the last and most unmixed form of
oligarchy, and the extreme form of democracy, may
be assumed to affect tyranny; indeed the
extreme forms of both are only tyrannies
distributed among several persons. Kingly rule is
little affected by external causes, and is
therefore lasting; it is generally destroyed from
within. And there are two ways in which the
destruction may come about; (1) when the members of
the royal family quarrel among themselves, and (2)
when the kings attempt to administer the state too
much after the fashion of a tyranny, and to
extend their authority contrary to the law.
Royalties do not now come into existence; where
such forms of government arise, they are rather
monarchies or tyrannies. For the rule of a king is
over voluntary subjects, and he is supreme in all
important matters; but in our own day men are more
upon an equality, and no one is so immeasurably
superior to others as to represent adequately the
greatness and dignity of the office. Hence mankind
will not, if they can help, endure it, and any one
who obtains power by force or fraud is at once
thought to be a tyrant. In hereditary
monarchies a further cause of destruction is the
fact that kings often fall into contempt, and,
although possessing not tyrannical power, but only
royal dignity, are apt to outrage others. Their
overthrow is then readily effected; for there is an
end to the king when his subjects do not want to
have him, but the tyrant lasts, whether they
like him or not.
The destruction of monarchies is to be
attributed to these and the like causes.
Tyranny
& Despotism Index
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy
Magazine...
|