Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Author(s): R. G. Mulgan
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Phronesis, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1974), pp. 66-69
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181926 .
Accessed: 07/10/2012 01:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.
http://www.jstor.org
Ruler
A NVote
onAristotle'sAbsolute
R. G. MULGAN
66
OXYV,
UVM
7B0pM 'apcOtCn6Xecdg,
11k6'OL 7vZc,OIuvCroX
&XG
v 8VOa
&pcv 7xvTh
V ?V
OC&V
V 7)LrX'tV
7%V;
OXUtG)V-r9jv7tO?XL'tLXTV
7WpO5 'LV
EE
eti 8 'X
VO
Fv &vpco'7rots
etX6;
rOtoOV.
elvoL '6v
7&
TFCOV&XXV
v
7V')v,
'6'r
8&XctLov'o6
y6vo;
etvLt
totoAO
XOI XVtPLOV
BOC:aLXLOV
7tCvmC4V,xal
va roirkov ...
o6te
yap
pasatXe 'Ov
X'reEvetv : (PUYOC8eUt)LVouA oza'poxLmLv 8' 7Ov 'o6V TOLOU'TOV
7tPe7TOV eGTLV,
ou'
r- 8i
,ro5 navmo,
pepo0;
ou y&p 7rttUXC
tZ
V7?P6XJCV
pL6os
'wv rrALXmou'71v
67reppo),%vgXowrt roDro u3mxv
'LV
(iii) 1332 b 16-23. et tu'v roWvuv
ecraov 'roaoDov &ovp6povte;
&vrpom
&cov
aov
0otu
su Uc, 7rp&'rov
tJRX-Jvf
VOLq t-V
?o06
()aTe
uo)V
Xasam
8'&pX&OCL
rv0)v5p
Qlv'flr3OV
&PX6Vt(IV,
'yoL0t4a
gXowrocg 67rep,oXv,
&C1 trov;
v 8t&9e'pLv,
erla
xwaka
ro
oCUT0oi tou0
~Vv
aOpXoXL6,iv
d pxeLv
XOCU7raOt.
Of these passages, the first gives the most precise account of the
necessary extent of superiority. Men's apetrq and 7ro0vrLxx 86voc(uX
6 See Ross' note on Metaphysics 1080 a 19 (W. D. Ross ed., Aristotle's Meta-
67
ruler's qualities are incomparablethey cannot be related even proportionately to the others' and so he cannot be expected to share his
rule with them.
Now this argument cannot be seen as an application of the summation principle. The absolute ruler's merits are not simply greater
than the sum of those of the others; they are in a class of their own.
He is like a god among men. In fact, the mathematical analogy of
incomparability is logically inconsistent with the analogy of summation which necessarily implies comparability on the same scale.
In the third passage from Book 7, the degree of superiority of the
absolute ruler is described as 6aov 'ou eou xac 'roi inp&caqruyovu,oc
T6V a'v.p(c'V 8LCprpev.This clearly recalls 'aotep ... bho?v tv ivap oLt
from the first passage and we may reasonably infer that Aristotle
has in mind the incomparability of the qualities of the superman with
those of other men.
The second passage, however, is more problematical.The statement
that the king must exceed in virtue the virtue of all the others (&aypepo,VTO... X0Cr' pq
osirvc
u7seXt
Srrjvo rXEO
Treovv
&XXwv
n'rv'rv) might seem to imply the summation principle: when
the virtue of the subjects is added up, it is still not equal to the king's.
There is certainly no explicit suggestion that the king's virtue must
be incomparable. On the other hand, Aristotle says a few lines above
that he has already described the superiority of virtue which justifies
absolute kingship8and he may therefore think that it is not necessary
to be so precisein recapitulation.
Later in the same passage he compares the relation of the king to
his subjects with that of a whole to a part. To allow the subjects
to share in the absolute king's rule would be like thinking that the
part should exceed the whole which is unnatural (oi) yap 7cp'yux? TO
PCpOpu7VpeX?1
aut6'fxev).
e 'qV qTyxaU&rv
n0r3o?nv
zovtrLTou3to
68
the summation principle, the point must be that the king is greater
than all his subjects put together just as a whole is greater than any
of its parts. On the other hand, the analogy recalls the argument of
the first passage where Aristotle says that the superman is not a part
of the city because of his incomparable qualities. Perhaps this is what
Aristotle means here. Because his virtue is incomparable, the absolute
king is not a part of his city and cannot share his rule with other
parts. Instead he is like a whole and must therefore have all the rule
to himself.
It is, perhaps, impossible to decide between these two interpretations
of this passage simply on the basis of the text. However, once it has
been recognised that the earlier passage does not imply the summation principle, it is preferable, if we can, to interpret the second
passage in the same way. Alternatively, we must admit that in recapitulating his argument, Aristotle changed his mind.9 Of course,
given the notorious nature of the Politics, such an admission is not
fatal. But at the very least we would have to accept that we had yet
another problem in Aristotle's account of absolute rule.
University of Otago
* There are other minor discrepancies between the second and the other two
passages. The latter refer to the possibility of more than one absolute ruler while
the former is restricted to the case of a single ruler (see above, note 2). Again,
the latter refer to qualities other than &pe-r necessary in the absolute ruler
&
(noMITtx' 86vacLtq1284 a 6-7; iTp.7.tovxa.Tr&T-6 C@i ... elt- xoi9v
+UXv 1332 b
18-20; cf Newman vol 1, p. 275 n. 1), while the former mentions &pErfionly.
These differences might suggest that Aristotle is presenting a different account
of the absolute ruler in the second passage. However, the omissions in the second
passage can equally well be explained as due to the brevity appropriate to the
recapitulation of a previous argument.
69