Aristotelian constitutions

One of the chief problems about discussing any aspect of Aristotle's political thought, but especially his thinking about constitutions, is the apparent disorder of the Politics. The relatively loose and dialectical nature of the argument is certainly responsible for some of its unevenness: the repetitions, the omissions of promised discussions of particular topics, and the sudden turns, perhaps as the focus changes between two opposing series of reflections. But even when all of this is taken into account, it is hard not to conclude that at least some of the larger pieces do not quite fit together. This fact is reflected in the old fashion, begun in the nineteenth century, for placing Books VII and VIII after the end of Book m. Books VII and VIII contain a treatment of the 'best constitution'; since the end of Book m , as it stands, promises one, there seem to be good grounds for allowing that promise to be fulfilled. Yet this easy solution turns out to cause as many problems as it resolves, since not only do Books IV-VI turn out to contain more backward references to in than vn and VIII, but IV-VI are a considerably more inappropriate sequel to vn-vin than they are to in. In that case, the most that can be said is that vn and VIII might once, in some different Politics, have followed Book in. A second solution, sometimes combined with the first, is to explain the anomalies of the text by introducing the hypothesis of an evolution in Aristotle's thinking about politics. According to one version of this hypothesis, Books ii-m and VII-VIII represent an early, Utopian stratum in the Politics, IV-VI a later 'empirical' one; what we call the Politics would in this case represent an uneasy combination of elements from different phases of Aristotle's philosophical career. According to this view, he moves away from a Platonic preoccupation with ideal constitutions, and becomes more interested in the kinds of issues that relate directly to the