one city. Besides, could we suppose a set of
people to live separate from each other, but within
such a distance as would admit of an intercourse,
and that there were laws subsisting between each party,
to prevent their injuring one another in their mutual
dealings, supposing one a carpenter, another a husbandman,
shoemaker, and the like, and that their numbers were
ten thousand, still all that they would have together
in common would be a tariff for trade, or an alliance
for mutual defence, but not the same city. And
why? not because their mutual intercourse is not near
enough, for even if persons so situated should come
to one place, and every one should live in his own
house as in his native city, and there should be alliances
subsisting between each party to mutually assist and
prevent any injury being done to the other, still they
would not be admitted to be a city by those who think
correctly, if they preserved the same customs when
they were together as when they were separate.
It is evident, then, that a city is not a community
of place; nor established for the sake of mutual safety
or traffic with each other; but that these things
are the necessary consequences of a city, although
they may all exist where there is no city: but
a city is a society of people joining together with
their families and their children to live agreeably
for the sake of having their lives as happy and as
independent as possible: and for this purpose
it is necessary that they should live in one place
and intermarry with each other: hence in ail
cities there are family-meetings, clubs, sacrifices,
and public entertainments to promote friendship; for
a love of sociability is friendship itself; so that
the end then for which a city is established is, that
the inhabitants of it may live happy, and these things
are conducive to that end: for it is a community
of families and villages for the sake of a perfect
independent life; that is, as we have already said,
for the sake of living well and happily. It is
not therefore founded for the purpose of men’s
merely [1281a] living together, but for their living
as men ought; for which reason those who contribute
most to this end deserve to have greater power in the
city than those who are their equals in family and
freedom, but their inferiors in civil virtue, or those
who excel them in wealth but are below them in worth.
It is evident from what has been said, that in all
disputes upon government each party says something
that is just.
It may also be a doubt where the supreme power ought
to be lodged. Shall it be with the majority,
or the wealthy, with a number of proper persons, or
one better than the rest, or with a tyrant? But
whichever of these we prefer some difficulty will
arise. For what? shall the poor have it because
they are the majority? they may then divide among
themselves, what belongs to the rich: nor is this
