§3.1279bἀλλὰ μάλιστα τὴν πολεμικήν· αὕτη γὰρ ἐν πλήθει γίγνεται·
(but most of all in military virtue; for this arises in a multitude.
διόπερ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν πολιτείαν κυριώτατον τὸ προπολεμοῦν καὶ μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς οἱ κεκτημένοι τὰ ὅπλα. ) παρεκβάσεις δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων τυραννὶς μὲν βασιλείας, ὀλιγαρχία δὲ ἀριστοκρατίας, δημοκρατία δὲ πολιτείας.
Therefore, in this constitution the class that fights in defense of the state is the most sovereign, and those who possess arms share in it.) The deviations from those mentioned are tyranny from kingship, oligarchy from aristocracy, and democracy from the constitution (polity).
ἡ μὲν γὰρ τυραννίς ἐστι μοναρχία πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον τὸ τοῦ μοναρχοῦντος, ἡ δʼ ὀλιγαρχία πρὸς τὸ τῶν εὐπόρων, ἡ δὲ δημοκρατία πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων· πρὸς δὲ τὸ τῷ κοινῷ λυσιτελοῦν οὐδεμία αὐτῶν.
For tyranny is a monarchy looking to the advantage of the monarch, oligarchy to that of the wealthy, and democracy to the advantage of the needy; but none of them looks to the common benefit.
δεῖ δὲ μικρῷ διὰ μακροτέρων εἰπεῖν τίς ἑκάστη τούτων τῶν πολιτειῶν ἐστιν· καὶ γὰρ ἔχει τινὰς ἀπορίας, τῷ δὲ περὶ ἑκάστην μέθοδον φιλοσοφοῦντι καὶ μὴ μόνον ἀποβλέποντι πρὸς τὸ πράττειν οἰκεῖόν ἐστι τὸ μὴ παρορᾶν μηδέ τι καταλείπειν, ἀλλὰ δηλοῦν τὴν περὶ ἕκαστον ἀλήθειαν.
It is necessary to state at slightly greater length what each of these constitutions is; for it presents certain difficulties, and for one who philosophizes concerning each method of inquiry and does not merely look to action, it is appropriate not to overlook or leave anything out, but to make clear the truth about each.
ἔστι δὲ τυραννὶς μὲν μοναρχία, καθάπερ εἴρηται, δεσποτικὴ τῆς πολιτικῆς κοινωνίας, ὀλιγαρχία δʼ ὅταν ὦσι κύριοι τῆς πολιτείας οἱ τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντες, δημοκρατία δὲ τοὐναντίον ὅταν οἱ μὴ κεκτημένοι πλῆθος οὐσίας ἀλλʼ ἄποροι.
Tyranny is a monarchy, as has been said, which is masterly over the political community; oligarchy is when those possessing wealth are sovereign over the constitution; and democracy is the contrary, when those who do not possess a multitude of wealth but are needy are sovereign.
πρώτη δʼ ἀπορία πρὸς τὸν διορισμόν ἐστιν.
The first difficulty concerns the definition.
εἰ γὰρ εἶεν οἱ πλείους, ὄντες εὔποροι, κύριοι τῆς πόλεως, δημοκρατία δʼ ἐστὶν ὅταν ᾖ κύριον τὸ πλῆθος—ὁμοίως δὲ πάλιν κἂν εἴ που συμβαίνοι τοὺς ἀπόρους ἐλάττους μὲν εἶναι τῶν εὐπόρων, κρείττους δʼ ὄντας κυρίους εἶναι τῆς πολιτείας, ὅπου δʼ ὀλίγον κύριον πλῆθος, ὀλιγαρχίαν εἶναί φασιν—οὐκ ἂν καλῶς δόξειεν διωρίσθαι περὶ τῶν πολιτειῶν.
For if the majority, being wealthy, were sovereign over the state, while democracy is when the multitude is sovereign—and similarly, on the other hand, if it should happen somewhere that the needy are fewer than the wealthy, but being stronger are sovereign over the constitution, whereas they say that where a small multitude is sovereign, it is an oligarchy—then the constitutions would not seem to have been well defined.
ἀλλὰ μὴν κἄν εἴ τις συνθεὶς τῇ μὲν εὐπορίᾳ τὴν ὀλιγότητα τῇ δʼ ἀπορίᾳ τὸ πλῆθος οὕτω προσαγορεύῃ τὰς πολιτείας, ὀλιγαρχίαν μὲν ἐν ᾗ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχουσιν οἱ εὔποροι, ὀλίγοι τὸ πλῆθος ὄντες, δημοκρατίαν δὲ ἐν ᾗ οἱ ἄποροι, πολλοὶ τὸ πλῆθος ὄντες, ἄλλην ἀπορίαν ἔχει.
But indeed, if one, combining fewness with wealth and multitude with need, should thus designate the constitutions, calling oligarchy that in which the wealthy hold the offices, being few in magnitude, and democracy that in which the needy, being many in multitude, hold them, this presents another difficulty.
τίνας γὰρ ἐροῦμεν τὰς ἄρτι λεχθείσας πολιτείας, τὴν ἐν ᾗ πλείους οἱ εὔποροι καὶ τὴν ἐν ᾗ ἐλάττους οἱ ἄποροι, κύριοι δʼ ἑκάτεροι τῶν πολιτειῶν, εἴπερ μηδεμία ἄλλη πολιτεία παρὰ τὰς εἰρημένας ἔστιν;
For what shall we call the constitutions just mentioned—the one in which the wealthy are more numerous and the one in which the needy are fewer, each being sovereign over their constitutions—if indeed there is no other constitution besides those mentioned?
ἔοικε τοίνυν ὁ λόγος ποιεῖν δῆλον ὅτι τὸ μὲν ὀλίγους ἢ πολλοὺς εἶναι κυρίους συμβεβηκός ἐστιν, τὸ μὲν ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίαις τὸ δὲ ταῖς δημοκρατίαις, διὰ τὸ τοὺς μὲν εὐπόρους ὀλίγους, πολλοὺς δʼ εἶναι τοὺς ἀπόρους πανταχοῦ (διὸ καὶ οὐ συμβαίνει τὰς ῥηθείσας αἰτίας αἰτίας γίνεσθαι διαφορᾶς), ᾧ δὲ διαφέρουσιν ἥ τε δημοκρατία καὶ ἡ ὀλιγαρχία ἀλλήλων πενία καὶ πλοῦτός ἐστιν,
It seems, therefore, that the argument makes it clear that the fact of few or many being sovereign is accidental, the one to oligarchies and the other to democracies, because the wealthy are few and the needy are many everywhere (therefore it does not happen that the mentioned causes become the causes of the difference), and that by which democracy and oligarchy differ from one another is poverty and wealth.