238 AR1.CTOTLE‘S POLZT1C.T.
way of taking the passage, ri ripiparo T& arvrortouiov is not parallel
with Xihiois, sc. mXiruis, for which me should have expected TO;s
TWV ~~Xiov. The irregularity is not continued in the next clause.
‘We ought to distribute the qualification in
this proportion, i.e. so that 1000 shall have together as much as
,500 have together; and carry out the principle by electing an
equal number of representatives from both.’ In the previous case
Aristotle supposes a direct election, in this an election through
representatives.
If genuine, It
probably means the distribution of the citizens in classes or courts,
like 8tcXe;w in the previous sentence (dXhZ1 8d.ciw piv oZms K.T.~.).
B~hciv $u OZTOS.
The word Graipiucov in this passage is doubtful.
- hiyouui yhp &s i3 ri riw 8&$g rois nhsioui r&v aohirhv, TO^' sLai 6ti
K;ptOV K.T.h.
‘It is commonly said that the majority must prevail, but in the
majority the elements both of wealth and numbers have to be
included. Suppose for esample there are ten rich and twenty
poor, six rich are of one opinion, fifteen poor of another. Five
poor vote with the six rich, and four rich with the fifteen poor.
When both are added up, then of whichever side the qualification
exceeds, that is supreme.’
In the instance given, assuming the qualification of the poor to
be half that of :he rich then the votes of the side on which
the poor have a majority= 4 x z + 15 = 23,
the rich have a majority =6 x z + 5 = 17,
Majority of poor. ,. 6
-
The precise arithmetical expression which is given to an
imaginary problem is rather curious. It is also remarkable that
the formula which is used seems applicable to timocracy rather
than to democracy, which is now being discussed. But here as
elsewhere Aristotle is aln.ays trying to escape from democracy
pure and simple.
- 5, ~TOT~~WV oEu ri, ripqpo hsprciwri crvvapi8poupivov +$oripov IltardW
TOO K<plOV.
irtarlpois is the dative after hrprtiucr and a pleonastic explanation
of daoripov.
