While reading Aristotle's analysis of the various constitutions in the third book of the Politics, a discussion that took place at a distant past comes to mind. It is the discussion among Megillus of Lacedaemon, Clinias of Crete, and an Athenian Stranger, during a walk from Cnosus to the cave and temple of Zeus on Mount Ida, "on a long midsummer day". This walk is narrated in Plato's Laws. It seems that Aristotle is reflecting on the part of the discussion that occupies the fourth book of the Laws, and comes up with his own analysis and classification of the various constitutions.
I believe therefore that it is important to examine some parts of Plato's Laws, before embarking upon the interpretation of Aristotle's own analysis. We can assume that the happiness refers to the polis as a whole, but also to its constituent parts, its citizens.
The Athenian Stranger narrates a story of a polis which was ruled under the providence of the God. In the context of this story he presents the necessary preconditions that a constitution should meet so that the polis can achieve its primary goals: to provide peace (as a result of lack of factions within the polis) and happiness. We see that for Plato, if we consider the Athenian Stranger to be a spokesman for Plato, the lawgiver should establish laws that would enable the citizens of the polis to live in a peaceful environment, where justice and good laws prevail, and would cultivate modesty in them.
The Athenian Stranger is very strict about the use of the term "constitution". He holds the view that the most of the so-called constitutions should not even be called as such. He believes that tyranny, monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and democracy should not be considered as constitutions, because they divide the polis into two parts, the ruling and the ruled.
A new analysis for the study of classical ancient, Aristotelian philosophy.
