Politics

For one who is examining the subject of constitutions, and what each is and of what character, almost the first inquiry is to see with respect to the city, what on earth the city is. For now they dispute, some saying that the city performed the action, and others not the city but the oligarchy or the tyrant; and we see that the whole activity of the statesman and the legislator is concerned with the city, and the constitution is a certain order of those who inhabit the city. And since the city is one of the composite things, just like any other of the wholes that are constituted of many parts, it is clear that first the citizen must be sought; for the city is a certain multitude of citizens.

So we must consider whom one ought to call a citizen and who the citizen is. For indeed the citizen is often disputed; for not all agree that the same person is a citizen; for there is someone who, being a citizen in a democracy, is often not a citizen in an oligarchy. Now those who obtain this title in some other way, such as made citizens, must be left aside; and the citizen is not a citizen by inhabiting somewhere (for both resident aliens and slaves share in the habitation), nor are those who participate in legal rights in such a way as both to submit to justice and to sue (for this belongs also to those who associate on the basis of treaties; indeed in many places not even do the resident aliens participate fully in these rights, but it is necessary to assign a patron, so that they participate in such an association in some incomplete way), but just as indeed children who are not yet registered due to age and old men who have been discharged must be said to be in some way citizens, yet not in an absolute sense but adding ‘incomplete’ in the case of the former and ‘past their prime’ (or some other such term) in the case of the latter (for it makes no difference; for what is meant is clear). For we are seeking the citizen in the absolute sense and one who has no such defect needing correction, since indeed even concerning disenfranchised persons and exiles one can both raise such difficulties and solve them. A citizen in the absolute sense is defined by nothing else more than by participating in judicial decision and office. Of offices, some are divided according to time, so that for some of them it is not permitted for the same person to hold office twice at all, or only after certain defined times; but there is also the indefinite office, such as that of a juryman and a member of the assembly. Perhaps then someone might say that such persons are not even rulers, nor do they participate in office because of this; and yet it is ridiculous to deprive those who are most sovereign of office. But let it make no difference; for the discussion is about a name; for that which is common to both juryman and assemblyman is nameless, as to what one ought to call both of them. Let it indeed, for the sake of definition, be an ‘indefinite office.’ We define indeed as citizens those who participate in this way. The citizen then who would most of all apply to all those called citizens is roughly of this character; but we must not fail to notice that in things where the underlying subjects differ in species, and one of them is first, another second, and another next, there is either absolutely nothing common in them, insofar as they are such, or only weakly so. And we see that constitutions differ from one another in species, and some are subsequent and others are prior;