164 Notes to Pages 39–41
confusion to Aristotle where none exists: R. G. Mulgan, Aristotle’s Political Theory: An Introduction
for Students of Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 13–37.
- As Aristotle on one occasion (Eth. Nic. 1162a16–29) acknowledged, the household is
more natural than the pólıs because it is prior to and more necessary than the political community.
If he elsewhere (Pol. 1253a18–29) denies this, it is because the household lacks self-sufficiency
[autárkeıa] and can therefore survive and do its proper work in promoting virtue only as part of a
much larger unit. The confusion caused by Aristotle’s two statements is purely semantic in origin:
from the perspective of efficient causation, the household holds priority; from that of final causation,
the pólıs is first. The household is a prerequisite for life; the pólıs, for the good life. The inevitable
tension between this private community and the public community is the background for the
dramatic action of Aeschylus’ Eumenides, Sophocles’ Antigone, and Aristophanes’ Clouds. It is no
accident that Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae makes no mention of procreation: a city without house-
holds would be a city that paid little or no attention to the rearing of children. For a defense of the
household, see Aristotle’s critique (Pol. 1261a4–1264b25) of Plato’s abolition of the household in
The Republic. Note also Eth. Eud. 1242a21–26. Consider Jean-Pierre Vernant, “Marriage,” in Ver-
nant, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece, sixth edition, tr. Janet Lloyd (New York: Zone Books,
1988), 55–77, in light of Emile Benveniste, IndoEuropean Language and Society, tr. Elizabeth
Palmaer (Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, 1973), 193–97, and see Sally C. Humphreys,
“Oikos and Polis,” “Public and Private Interests in Classical Athens,” and “The Family in Classical
Athens: Search for a Perspective,” in Humphreys, The Family, Women and Death: Comparative
Studies (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983), 1–32, 58–78. - See Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of Civil Society, ed. Duncan Forbes (Edin-
burgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1966), 160–61, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du Contrat social
2.3, in Œuvres complètes de Rousseau, ed. Bernard Gagnebin and Marcel Raymond (Paris: Biblio-
thèque de Pléiade, 1959–1969), III 372. - See Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., Statesmanship and Party Government: A Study of Burke
and Bolingbroke (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), and John Brewer, Party Ideology
and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976),
55–95. - “The many” and “the few”: Pl. Resp. 6.489b–500e, Thuc. 3.82.1. “The commoners” and
“the notables”: Arist. Ath. Pol. 34.3. “The mob” and “the gentlemen both noble and good”: Thuc.
7.8.2, Pl. Resp. 8.569a4. “Those about Thucydides” and “the friends” of Pericles, Cimon, and Ly-
sander: Plut. Pe r. 10.1–3, 14.1, Lys. 17.6. See also Lys. 12.64, Xen. Hell. 6.4.18. Hetaıría: Thuc. 3.82,
Lys. 12.55, Isoc. 4.79, Pl. Resp. 2.365d, Arist. Pol. 1272b34.
13.Give and take of political struggle, fleeting factions: e.g., Thuc. 5.46.4, Plut. Lys. 17.6, Xen.
Hell. 5.4.25. Political disputation: Peter A. Brunt, “Spartan Policy and Strategy in the Archidamian
Wa r ,” Phoenix 19:4 (Winter 1965): 255–80 (at 278–80). Note Plut. Ages. 5.3–4. Citizens greedy for
honor: Arist. Pol. 1271a4. Legislator’s intention: Plut. Ages. 5.5. See Xen. Cy r. 8.2.26–28 and Dem.
20.108. For the dark side of phılotımía, see Hdt. 3.53.4; Eur. Phoen. 531–67, IA 337–42, 527; Ar.
Thesm. 383–94, Ran. 280–82, 675–85; Thuc. 2.65.7, 3.82.8, 8.89.3; Lys. 14.21; Isoc. 3.18, 12.81–82;
Pl. Resp. 8.548c–550b, 9.586c; Dem. 8.71; Arist. Eth. Nic. 1107b21–34, 1125b1–25. For an extreme
view, see Men. F620 (Koerte^3 ) = F534 (Kock). - Pindar preaches moderation: F198 (Bowra). For the source, see Plut. Mor. 457b. I have
followed Plutarch’s editors Pohlenz and Sieveking in adopting the reading hístasın—which is
found in manuscripts G, X3, and S2—rather than the more common ē` stásın. Channeling
phılotımía: Lys. 16.18–21, 19.55–57, 21.22–25, 26.3; Isoc. 2.29–30, 6.35–36, 8.93, 18.61; Isae. 7.35–
40; Pl. Symp. 178d–e, Ep. 7.338d–e; Dem. 18.257, 19.223, 20.5–6, 21.159–67, 28.22, 42.24–25,
45.66–67, 50.64, 51.22; Aeschin. 1.129, 196, 2.105, 3.19–20; Lycurg. 1.15, 140; Arist. Pol. 1324a29– - In this connection, see also Aeschin. 1.160.
- Mixed regime: Arist. Pol. 1270b17–25, 1294b13–41. See also Pl. Leg. 691d–e, Polyb.
6.3–10, Cic. Rep. 2.23. Note Xen. Hell. 7.1.32. For a general discussion, see Édouard Will, Claude
Mossé, and Paul Goukowsky, Le Monde grec et l’orient (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,
1972–75), I 438–44. See also Antony Andrewes, “The Government of Classical Sparta,” in ASI,
1–21; Stefan Link, Der Kosmos Sparta: Recht und Sitte in klassischer Zeit (Darmstadt: Wissenschaft-
liche Buchgesellschaft, 1994), 54–79; and Hodkinson, “The Imaginary Spartan Politeia,” 227–44.