The first two paragraphs of this chapter form a digression, perhaps inserted by an editor (there is no reason to suppose that Aristotle was not the author). It is partly an historical and geographical sketch of the early history of ‘Italy’ (i.e. what we would today call the ‘toe’ of Italy – see the map on p. 515 of Susemihl/Hicks), partly a brief defence of the value of studying antiquity and of the view that inventions are made independently and repeatedly in various places in the course of time, and are in general not traceable to a single source. As a whole, this half of the chapter is not concerned with the ideal state as such, but seems to occur here because it refers to social groups and common meals – just after Aristotle’s discussion of the former and just before his recommendations for the financing of the latter.
Many of the provisions of the second half of the chapter are reminiscent of those in Plato’s Laws (see especially 739a ff., 776b ff., 779d ff.); on the common meals see also II ix and x.
1329a40 That a division of the state into classes is necessary, and that the fighting class should be different from the agricultural, seems not to be a modern or even a recent discovery of political philosophers.1 In Egypt this pattern still exists today, and in Crete too; Sesostris is said to have introduced laws in this sense for Egypt, Minos for Crete. The system of communal feeding also appears to be ancient, and to have been introduced in Crete in the reign of Minos, but in Italy very much earlier. For the chroniclers of the settlers there tell us of a certain I talus who became king of Oenotria, after whom the people of Oenotria changed their name to Italians, and the name Italy was given to that part of the promontory of Europe which lies within the Scylletic and Lampetic gulfs, where the distance across is half a day’s journey. This Italus, they tell us, transformed the Oenotrians from a pastoral people into farmers, and in addition to other laws which he laid down for them instituted the common meals. So even to this day some of his successors keep up the common meals and follow some of his laws. On the Tyrrhenian side dwelt the Opicians, called Ausonians both in ancient and modern times; on the other side, that of Iapygia and the Ionian Sea, there was the land called Siritis; and the Chonians also were by race Oenotrians. The system of common messing, then, originated thence, whereas class-distinctions within the population of the state originated in Egypt, for the kingship of Sesostris goes back very much farther than that of Minos.
1329b25 We must, I think, regard it as fairly certain that the other institutions as well have been in the course of the ages discovered many times over, or rather infinitely often. In the first place there are things we cannot do without, and need itself probably teaches us them. Secondly, when once these are available, the process presumably goes on tending towards more comfort and greater abundance. So we should accept it as a fact that the same process takes place in the case of constitutional features too. That these are all ancient is shown by Egyptian history: the Egyptians are reputed to be the most ancient people, and they have always had laws and a constitutional system. Thus we ought to make full use of what has already been discovered, while endeavouring to find what has not.
1329b36 We stated earlier2 (a) that the land ought to be possessed by those who have arms and participate in the constitution, (b) why the cultivators should be different from them, and (c) the nature and extent of the territory required. We must speak first about the division of the land and about those who cultivate it: who should they be, and what kind of person? We do not agree with those3 who have said that property should be communally owned, but we do believe that there should be a friendly arrangement for its common use, and that none of the citizens should be without means of support.
1330a3 Next as to communal meals: it is universally agreed that this is a useful institution in a well-constructed state, and why we too are of this opinion we will say later.4 All citizens should partake of them, though it is not easy for those who are badly off to pay from their private resources the contribution fixed and to keep a household going at the same time. Another thing that should be a common charge on the whole state is the worship of the gods. Thus it becomes necessary to divide the land into two parts, one communally owned, the other privately. Each of these has to be further divided into two, and one part of the common land will support the public service of the gods, while the other will meet the expenses of the communal feeding.
1330a14 Of the privately owned land one part will be near the frontier, the other near the city, so that each man may have two estates and everyone may have a share of both localities. This is not only in accordance with justice and equality, but makes also for greater unity in the face of wars with bordering peoples. Without this dual arrangement, some underestimate the dangers of frontier quarrels, others regard them too cautiously, even sacrificing honour in order to avoid them.5 Hence in some countries it is the law that when war against a neighbour is under consideration, those who live near the border should be excluded from the discussion as being too personally involved to be able to give advice honourably. It is therefore important that the territory should for the reasons given be divided in the manner stated.
1330a25 As for those who are to till the land, the best thing (if we are to describe the ideal) is that they should be slaves. They should not be all of one stock nor men of spirit; this will ensure that they will be useful workers and no danger as potential rebels. A second best alternative to slaves is non-Greek ‘peripheral’6 people, men of the same nature as the slaves just mentioned. They fall into two groups according to whether they ought to work privately, as the private possessions of individual owners of property, or in communal ownership on the common land. I hope later on4 to say how slaves ought to be treated, and why it is a good thing that all slaves should have before them the prospect of receiving their freedom as a reward.