The ideal polities of Plato and Aristotle
Disclaimer
The article below was originally written as an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2006, during a period when the author’s academic skills were still developing. Although the quality of this article does not match that of later examples of the same author’s work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information for students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.
The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author’s best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that readers consult the web for additional information on any unfamiliar words or specialised vocabulary.
The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, as required for an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work into English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.
Introduction
This article discusses two widely known political philosophies of Classical antiquity that introduced the concept of the ideal polity into Western thought for the first time. On one hand, there is Plato’s psycho-centric approach, presented in his corpus Republic circa 375 BC, where he bases his ideal government system on knowledge (episteme). On the other hand, there is Aristotle’s teleological approach, presented in his corpus Politics circa 350 BC, where he introduces the correlation between natural and political hierarchy.
This paper analyses and compares the two ideal political systems presented by Plato in Books V and VIII of the Republic and by Aristotle in Books I and III of the Politics. The discussion is structured in four sections. The first section focuses on the idea of natural succession in government systems, as presented in Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics. The second section discusses the views of both philosophers regarding their ideal polity, focusing on the similarities and differences in their approaches. The third section discusses the similarities and differences among the criteria of the two philosophers, which are supposed to define social stratification. The final section presents brief conclusions regarding the broader rationale followed by Plato and Aristotle, respectively, and how each philosopher arrives at his ideal polity.
Natural succession in the government systems
In Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, the philosopher examines the superior and inferior political systems which existed during his time. In Plato’s view, the nature of a government system matches the nature of its citizens. More specifically, the ethos of each individual citizen defines the broader ethos of the society he lives in. As there are five types of polities, there are five categories of human psychological behaviours that define the character of each political system (Plato, Republic VIII, 543A-545B).
In Plato’s theory, human actions are controlled by the nature of one’s soul, which can be translated as the deepest psychological mechanism of decision-making. The behaviour of one’s soul defines the motives of one’s actions (Dimas 2000, 130-1). Human behaviour has three basic psychological motives, which derive from the prevalence of one of the three constituent parts of the human soul. These are the desirable part (epithymeticon), the calculative part (logisticon) and the impulsive part (thymoeides) (Dimas 2000, 149). With this in mind, Plato suggests that the broader function of a polity depends on the part of the soul which dominates the behaviour of the state’s citizens. In other words, the nature of the government depends on the psychological behaviour and moral motives of the citizens who comprise the state.
Plato’s five systems of government are subject to a linear succession model. Aristocracy is placed at the top of the ladder, which, according to Plato, is the most suitable political system for kind and just citizens (Plato, Republic VIII, 545A). The dissolution of aristocracy occurs due to the physical law of growth and decay, which governs every living organism in nature and is subject to successive, periodic recycling. Plato uses Hesiod’s succession model for the human generations (gene), which is described in Theogony, and he introduces a similar succession model for his five types of human polities. In this model, the political decay of the aristocracy leads to moral decay among its citizens. At some point, a generation of corrupt rulers ascends to power and finally dissolves the aristocracy (Plato, Republic VIII, 545E-546E).
Such unsuitable rulers do not care about virtue; instead, they focus on material wealth and personal profit, which are responsible for the rise of oligarchy. Plato notes that halfway through the transition from aristocracy to oligarchy, an intermediate government system emerges, which he names timocracy. In fact, timocracy is explained as the political system of Sparta and the Dorian city-states of Crete during Plato’s era. In timocracy, there are beneficial institutions, such as a highly specialised group of warriors and a judicial system based on the application of virtue, which, in theory, function well. In reality, however, the citizens of timocracy are corrupt, greedy, immoral, prone to hedonistic pleasures and extravagant. The desires of such people are controlled by the impulsive part of their souls (Plato, Republic VIII, 547A-548D).
In timocracy, the complete dissociation of virtue and wealth in favour of the latter leads to the rise of oligarchy. In an oligarchy, the government is controlled by an unworthy group of rulers, who base their status on wealth. Furthermore, there is discord among the rulers, who are constantly after more wealth; the non-ruling social groups suffer from poverty. In oligarchic societies, citizens are controlled by the lower part of their souls; therefore, they are after wealth, pleasure, and a comfortable life (Republic VIII, 550C-553A).
The immorality of oligarchy and the growing profiteering of the rich at the expense of the poor provoke indignation among the people. The poor's reactions lead to civil conflict, and the oligarchy is overthrown by force. When the poor finally get rid of the rich, they dissolve the previous government system, which correlates power and wealth, and replace it with one based on equal voting (Plato, Republic VIII, 555B-557A). This ideal political system, in which decision-making is by public vote, is not meant to be a democracy (demokratia) but, rather, what Plato describes as a republic (politeia).
Plato is totally against democracy, at least as this was practised during his time. To him, democracy is a political system of “cute anarchy” (Plato, Republic VIII, 557B-557C), or in other words, a parody of his real republic. In an attempt to mock democracy, Plato describes it as a pleasant and colourful system of anarchy that delivers equality to those who are both equal and unequal at the same time. Due to unchecked liberty, citizens in a democracy become immoral, prodigal, and addicted to unnecessary spending, pleasures, and a comfortable lifestyle. In this context, the citizens neglect and forget every form of virtue. Plato suggests that democracy is similar to a republic, though without knowledge of real virtue in the society. Finally, the citizens in democracy are still controlled by the desirable part of their souls, which also prevails in timocracy and oligarchy (Plato, Republic VIII, 560C-561B).
At the end of this succession process, tyranny results from the increasing greed and uncontrolled liberty among the citizens. The three social groups that comprise democracy end up fighting each other for more power. A tyrant becomes the most favoured candidate of the largest and most popular social group, composed mainly of low-income citizens. In the name of the people, he asserts control over the government and neutralises all of his enemies, including those who could have been useful. At the end, the tyrant becomes the sole regulator of state politics. Although the tyrant is initially welcomed as a protector of the people, he ultimately becomes the ultimate monarch; he aims to satisfy his personal lust for profit and acts without constraints against the state and his own people (Plato, Republic VIII, 562A-569C).
Unlike Plato, Aristotle believes in the simultaneous coexistence of different political systems, which are not subject to any specific form of succession. Aristotle follows a scientific approach, collecting information on 158 types of government systems and presenting it in the first volume of his Politics (Ross 2001, 335). Aristotle examines human societies and their political systems through a methodology based on the observation of nature. This approach is likely to resemble the law of natural succession of political systems, as suggested by Plato; however, in Aristotle's approach, the diversity of forms of political power is taken for granted, just as the diversity among human beings. In relation to the latter, Plato would have agreed that political diversity is the result of psychological diversity amongst humans; however, Plato only recognises three types of behavioural diversity.
According to Aristotle, leaders and followers are character types found in every living organism; furthermore, their physical inequality is a given. In that sense, Aristotle agrees with the existence of inequality amongst men and women, or free citizens and slaves. To him, inequality operates as a physical law, which mirrors the lack of equality in nature (Aristotle, Politics I, 1252A-1252B5). Unlike Plato, Aristotle’s government systems do not depend on the psychological behaviours of their citizens; they depend on the motives of their rulers and the degree to which these motives align with private or public interests.
In Aristotle, the natural succession of government systems is neither vertical nor monodirectional. Also, it does not correspond to the decline from a superior to an intermediate, and finally to an inferior state of authority, as suggested by Plato. Instead, succession is spatial and reflects the social priorities of humans living in a household, a citadel, or a big city. Aristotle suggests that life in the city not only provides all necessary material means for survival (self-sufficiency), but it also ensures the well-being (eu zein) of the inhabitants (Aristotle, Politics I, 1252B-1253A9). Aristotle’s well-being (eu zein) is also tied to his notion of human flourishing (eudaemonia).
In the cities, Aristotle sees a natural need for a hierarchical structure and a controlling authority at the top; therefore, he proposes a horizontal scheme to diversify his systems of government based on the types of authority applied to them. In his scheme, there are three types of ‘correct’ government systems and three ‘false’ ones, which are the regressions of his original ‘correct’ three. The best form of single-ruler government is a monarchy, in which the monarch acts for the common good of all his subjects. By contrast, tyranny is the degeneration of monarchy, in which the tyrant aims to satisfy his personal interests. In a similar sense, when there is more than one ruler, aristocracy is the ideal form of government. In an aristocracy, it is only the worthy and moral men who decide on the community’s issues. By contrast, oligarchy is the degeneration of aristocracy. In an oligarchy, political power is held by a few wealthy individuals who rule solely to become wealthier. According to Aristotle, the ideal political system is called a republic (politeia). In a republic, leadership rotates by vote; power is shared among those who can offer full military service to the state. The republic is practically governed by a social group of warriors, who are regarded as the right people to pursue and protect the public interest. By contrast, democracy is the degeneration of a republic. According to Aristotle, the ruling faction in democracy is the poor, who are only interested in securing their own material benefits (Aristotle, Politics I, 1279B7-8).
In their approaches, Aristotle and Plato are sceptical of democracy and offer critiques of it. Both philosophers see democracy as the degeneration of a republic, an ideal yet theoretical system of government based on collective state management. Although Aristotle is milder in his critique, Plato’s comments against democracy are quarrelsome and deconstructive. This is most likely due to his bitterness over Socrates’s unfair trial and execution in 399 BC, which followed the protocols of Athenian democracy at the time.
The ideal polities by Plato and Aristotle
Plato and Aristotle visualise their own ideal polities based on their broader philosophical views; despite their different approaches, the ideal government systems of the two philosophers share some similarities and distinctive differences. Both philosophers agree that an ideal government system should consist of a range of political functions, which lead to human flourishing (eudaemonia). According to Plato, human flourishing is the ultimate goal in life and is achieved through the cognition of morality (ethics) (Dimas 2000, 124). Plato’s ideal government system categorises its citizens into three groups according to their psychological characteristics. The same psychological parameters determine the tasks or jobs given to citizens, which are relevant to their esoteric qualifications. Such selected tasks or jobs are meant to allow the maximum of one’s productivity. Work is meant to satisfy workers' natural talents and to produce sufficient material resources to secure the city-state’s needs (Dimas 2000, 150-1).
Following Plato, Aristotle agrees that the city-state’s role is to cover the basic material needs of its citizens, including their well-being (eu zein), which involves the practice of moral and spiritual activities. Within this social environment, every citizen can practise and develop their virtues. Furthermore, the proper assignment of intellectual and spiritual tasks to citizens offers them a different quality of life, achieved not through personal labour but through the progress of the entire community. The city-state, which is a natural (physei = by nature) administrator of the community’s functions, aims to satisfy the citizens’ well-being and their moral perfection. This function of the city-state is described as teleological, meaning it aims at the satisfaction of a communal final goal (Ross 1993, 337-8).
Plato’s Republic is divided into three social and professional groups, which are categorised according to which part of the human soul controls their actions. These groups are the rulers, the guardians and the producers. The rulers are dominated by the calculative (logistikon) part of their soul; the guardians are controlled by the impulsive (thymoeides) part of their soul; and finally, the producers and the other labourers are motivated by the desirable (epithymitikon) part of the soul. In Plato’s approach, the part of the soul that dominates one’s personality defines the motives and the actions of each individual; therefore, the selection of the appropriate group for each citizen is decided according to the most suitable job one can be assigned, based on their psychological profile (Dima 2000, 151).
Given that Plato lived in the 5th century BC, his labour division system was a revolutionary innovation in human thought for his time. In Plato’s system, wealth, descent, and gender play absolutely no part in defining one’s social position and profession. In theory, a slave can become a ruler, and the children of a ruler can become producers (labourers). It is highly likely that Plato’s scheme was seen as outrageous in 5th-century BC Athens, particularly by the elite. Again, the same scheme introduces ideas that, nowadays, would have been considered totalitarian, e.g., the lack of social mobility within the three divisions. For Plato, one’s position in a specific social group is due to one's natural talents, which describe one's real self; hence, switching social groups would have consisted of a natural anomaly (Dimas 2000, 151).
Aristotle would probably have agreed with Plato about the non-existence of social mobility within a structured political system, though for his own reasons. According to Aristotle, nature is dominated by the inequality of the species, which also defines the relationship between masters and slaves, captives and free, rulers and subjects, etc. In nature, humans continuously diversify and are classified based on their ethical and intellectual characteristics. This natural classification system automatically imposes a hierarchy that is based on subordination. For example, if a slave was given the opportunity to become a ruler in Plato’s Republic, then Aristotle would have argued that this is an unacceptable violation of natural order. Although Aristotle’s approach to slavery has attracted several questions and doubts, one cannot overlook the existence of slaves-by-nature and their use as living tools in his political scheme, which contrasts with Plato’s approach (Ross 1993, 341-3).
In Aristotle’s theoretical scheme, there are six social groups, which diversify according to nature. These are the farmers, the craftsmen, the warriors, the wealthy citizens, the priests and the judges. In a deeper analysis of this scheme, Aristotle simplifies his social divisions and concludes that there are three basic social groups. The first group consists of wealthy citizens who were initially warriors as young men. When these warriors mature, they become rulers, and when they grow old, they become priests. The second social group consists of farmers, who are directly responsible for producing food. The third group consists of craftsmen, individuals with various technical skills, who are responsible for the production of non-edible commodities (Ross 1993, 381). In Aristotle’s scheme, the social group of the wealthy citizens is the only one that can rule. Since the wealthy citizens begin their lives as warriors, it is evident that Aristotle’s republic is a society of soldiers.
A common problem in the two social models proposed by Plato and Aristotle is the lack of participation by the productive groups in the state’s political institutions and decision-making mechanisms. Plato recognises some political rights for his group of producers; however, he overlimits their political participation and sees them as obedient followers, while the actual decisions are made by the ruling group. Aristotle takes this ‘obedience’ for granted, as this is the way it happens in nature, and perhaps matches it with subordination; therefore, he grants no political rights to his farmers and craftsmen. In the theories of both philosophers, the workers are not seen as essential units of the state’s functions. By contrast, their social role is limited to securing the essential material resources, which guarantee the state’s survival (Ross 1993, 355). In both philosophies, a certain ruling fraction of the society is provided with the material means to live comfortably and govern the state. On the other hand, the providers of such material means are meant only to support the state and its leaders, without being allowed any form of political representation. Based on modern standards, one could argue that the approaches of both Plato and Aristotle promote social inequality.
In the ideal social stratification of Plato and Aristotle, there is a separate social group tasked with defending the state and protecting all its citizens. Plato names them guardians, while Aristotle names them warriors. Plato’s discussion in relation to the linear succession of government systems stresses the necessity of an independent fighting group of citizens, who act as professional full-time soldiers. This idea derives from the Spartan social organisation model, which matches Plato’s timocracy. In Sparta, there was a specialised group of professional soldiers whose job was to exercise and train for battle. Although Plato supports the idea of a militarised section of society, he also sees its disadvantages: he notes that soldiers are not properly educated, as they neglect music, dialectics, and philosophy (Plato, Republic VIII, 547B-548C). It is likely that, next to Plato, Aristotle’s warrior group follows the same example of Spartan social organisation. His warriors are described as a fully combat-capable section of society, wealthy landowners, and their only task is soldiering. One thing in common between the two political philosophies is that the ruling group always derives from the warrior group.
Land ownership and wealth are two issues on which Plato and Aristotle differ. Plato notes the corruption and the obsession with material wealth promoted in timocracy; therefore, he proposes a radical solution to protect his rulers and guardians from those two threats. He visualises the two social groups without any private possessions, including land, mobile wealth, holdings and salaries. Instead, he suggests that the rulers and guardians can be compensated only for the costs of food and drink incurred in providing services to the state (Plato, Republic VIII, 543A-543C). By contrast, Aristotle argues that citizens with full political rights, who fight and rule simultaneously, must have some form of personal property to sustain their lives (Ross 1993, 381). Of course, Aristotle is strongly opposed to excessive profit-making, particularly by the ruling groups. Such greedy behaviour would provoke the public, leading it to rebel and overthrow his ideal system of government (Ross 1993, 374).
Aristotle's ideal scenario, which balances political power and wealth, is one in which authority is exercised by a middle-income group. This approach also aligns with the broader Theory of Mediocrity proposed by the philosopher. To address the problem, Aristotle suggests that public offices be given to citizens who possess some material wealth, even though not excessively much; by contrast, citizens without income are completely excluded from exercising government duties. In relation to this point, Aristotle sees that democracy has a certain advantage over other systems of government: it is based on a broad middle-income group, which he considers the basis of his ideal polity (Ross 1993, 369-70). At the same time, Aristotle’s analysis aims to correct Plato’s approach. He suggests that ownership of any kind is compatible with nature and is a natural extension of human desires. In contrast to the shared ownership scheme proposed by Plato, Aristotle offers a milder solution: an extended form of land ownership, in which the income generated by its exploitation is commonly redistributed to the community (Ross 1993, 349-50).
In Plato’s system, shared ownership is not restricted to resources for the preservation of the rulers and guardians; it is extended to their family relations as well. In Plato’s ideal polity, the two stronger social groups are obliged to share their wives and children among them. This arrangement is intended to foster further bonding among members of the two groups, leading to a cohesive body of active citizens. Aristotle, on the other hand, strongly opposes this idea. He argues that multiplicity is inherent in nature and that the harmonic function of any society is grounded in it. Furthermore, Aristotle rejects Plato’s view from a biological and pedagogical perspective. He argues that a child cannot be shared among different parents, as this child will never be nurtured with proper maternal affection (Ross 1993, 346-7).
The criteria of social stratification
The most complicated issue in both political theories is how citizens are distributed in relevant social groups. Plato suggests that the selection process, which defines the stratification of his ideal polity, is performed by the public education system. This education system decides which social group is appropriate for each citizen. By contrast, Aristotle’s approach is more practical than Plato’s; although he sees the importance of education in the development of citizens’ character, he realises that the division of social groups is a complex process that cannot be assigned to a single state institution.
In Plato’s Republic, there is an institutionalised education system that not only aims to educate and train citizens but also serves as a social selection mechanism. The state education system psycho-analyses the citizens and discovers which part of their souls is the most dominant. This part of the soul is also the most productive; therefore, it defines the capabilities of each citizen and is used as a criterion of social grouping. Plato’s public education system has two levels. In the first level, which is compulsory for all citizens, the students are taught mathematics. At the end of this level, all students are tested for their knowledge. Those who fail the exams become members of the productive groups; those who pass the exams become members of the guardians’ group. At the second educational level, guardians are required to undergo continuous training in philosophy. At the end of this level, the guardians have to take another exam. Those who pass become members of the ruling group; those who fail remain in the guardians’ group. In this scheme, it is evident that the rulers of Plato’s ideal polity are, in the end, the philosophers (Dimas 2000, 151-2).
Plato’s approach is systematic; however, there are several problems, at least in comparison with modern public education systems. For example, one cannot be sure whether mathematics can serve as the sole criterion for human evaluation, not only in terms of capabilities but also of psychological characteristics. Furthermore, evaluating human characters within the education system may not always be accurate. Human beings' psychological motives are complex and subject to constant change in response to various circumstances. Any psychological evaluation system, particularly if applied in young age groups, is likely to be biased.
Based on the texts, it is unclear whether Aristotle recognised the problems with Plato’s approach and the broader issues in evaluating people based on psychological criteria. Whatever the case, Aristotle follows a practical approach to social stratification, which is likely to represent the popular perceptions of his time. According to Aristotle, a citizen is someone who participates in the city-state's political and judicial institutions. This definition is most likely inspired by the Athenian democracy of the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Aristotle does not believe in a structured social group of ruling philosophers. In his polity, all lawful citizens take turns in various roles in the state’s institutions. In fact, the rulers and those who are ruled are the same people, constantly alternating; they participate in voting on new laws and ensure these laws are kept. Of course, the citizens’ body in Aristotle’s republic is significantly restrained, and as noted earlier, it matches the wealthiest stratum of the society. Farmers and workers are incapable of participating in the government; therefore, their role is limited to only production (Ross 1993, 350-2).
Aristotle believes that education is crucial in his ideal polity; however, his public education system is significantly different from Plato’s. Aristotle does not accept that education is meant to classify people into specific social groups; instead, it is meant to teach virtue and keep citizens from selfishness and wickedness. This way, the education system produces citizens who manage state affairs effectively, which is beneficial for the entire society (Ross 1993, 350-1)
In Aristotle’s ideal polity, justice is the practical application of his entire scheme. The aim of justice is to secure ideal conditions for the citizens, so that they can achieve their teleological focus: the conquest of well-being through the application of virtuous social living. As opposed to Aristotle, Plato sees justice as the result of his ideal polity’s flawless function, which is based on the psychological qualifications of its citizens. In Plato’s Republic, rulers are not charged with making laws and maintaining order, as in Aristotle’s Republic; instead, their role is to oversee and guide society towards the common good. Justice is one of many virtues that are inherent in the nature of the ruling group. In Plato’s theory, the smooth function of the human soul is ideally combined by the collaboration of the three parts, which are the calculative, the desirable and the impulsive. Based on the same rationale, in Plato’s ideal polity, justice is meant to distribute the most appropriate tasks and jobs to its citizens, matching their psychological profiles. Furthermore, as the ‘ideal soul’ is controlled by its calculative part, the ideal polity is governed by the group with the strongest calculative characteristics, which ensure social justice (Dimas 2000, 152-4).
A modern critique of Plato’s approach would have suggested that a wise leader may not always be just. Perhaps there could have been an ideal combination, which might have included Plato’s psychological evaluation and Aristotle’s training in ethics. This combination might have secured an ideal group of leaders in the theoretical models of both philosophers.
Conclusions
The approaches presented by Plato and Aristotle regarding the nature and succession of government systems share several similarities and differences. Both philosophers agree that the ideal polity reflects a natural system of social inequality that mirrors the inequality among species in their natural environments. Furthermore, both philosophers agree that the state’s goal is to provide material sufficiency and a good quality of living to its citizens. The well-living (eu zein) and the well-being (eudaemonia) of the citizens are regulated by a judicial system based on ethics and the cognition of virtue.
Plato and Aristotle disagree regarding the succession of government systems within a linear evolutionary framework. Plato suggests a succession process based on the natural law of growth and decay: it leads from aristocracy to oligarchy, then to democracy, and finally to tyranny. Aristotle rejects Plato’s linear succession model; instead, he proposes six forms of government that can coexist simultaneously. Three of these, monarchy, aristocracy and republic, represent functional government models. Next to these three, there are an equal number of political regimes: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.
Following the same rationale, the ideal polities of both philosophers share similarities and differences in their structures. In Plato’s ideal polity, there is a public education system that determines the social groups to which citizens are assigned. All citizens are psychologically evaluated, and their appropriate social group and job are determined by which part of their soul is most dominant. By contrast, Aristotle accepts the social stratification models of his era. He suggests a teleological role for his ideal polity, defined by the laws of nature. In Aristotle, rulers and their subjects follow a natural selection process that reflects the natural inequality among humans.
In both Plato's and Aristotle's ideal polities, there is a special group of professional warriors connected to the ruling group. Furthermore, none of the productive groups is actively involved in, or even represented by, the government.
Plato introduces some revolutionary ideas for the time. Firstly, in his ideal polity, women and slaves have access to the government; secondly, the property and families of the ruling groups are shared among their members. By contrast, Aristotle rejects joint ownership as this is against the laws of nature. Furthermore, he insists that the rulers must have some material wealth, including property, to be sufficient to fulfil their ruling duties. Plato, on the other hand, rejects any form of personal holdings for his ruling group.
Both philosopher recognise the importance of education in their ideal polities, though for different reasons. In Plato’s polity, the public education system decides and imposes social stratification. In Aristotle’s polity, however, the education system teaches the citizens to be ethical/moral, which is of great importance to the broader flourishing (eudaemonia) of the society.
Finally, Aristotle sees that justice is the correct application of the polity’s principles by its rulers. By contrast, Plato sees that the correct function of his polity, which includes justice, is inherent in the nature of his polity’s design. In other words, although Aristotle’s ideal polity is regulated by its governors, Plato’s polity is designed with such wisdom that injustice is unnatural and unlikely to occur.
Bibliography
Dimas, P., 2000, ‘The philosophy of Plato’, in Virvidakis, S., Ierodiakonou, K. and Christianidis, G. (eds.), Greek Philosophy and Science: from Antiquity until the 20th Century, Volume 1, Greek Philosophy from Antiquity until the 20th century, Patra: Greek Open University, 121-59.
Kordatos, Y. (ed.), 1992, Aristotle: Politics, translated by P. Lekatsas, Athens: Zacharopoulos.
Papatheodorou, A. and Papa, Ph. (eds.), 1980, Plato: Republic, translated by A. Papatheodorou and Ph. Papa, Athens: Papyros.
Ross, W.D., 1993, Aristotle, translated by M. Mitsou, Athens: Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis.
Ancient Sources
Aristotle, Politics, Book I, 1252a-1253a, edited by Y. Kordatos and translated by P. Lekatsas (1992).
Aristotle, Politics, Book III, 1278b-1288b, edited by Y. Kordatos and translated by P. Lekatsas (1992).
Plato, Republic, Book V, 427B-441E, edited and translated by A. Papatheodorou and Ph. Papa (1980).
Plato, Republic, Book VIII, 543A-569C, edited and translated by A. Papatheodorou and Ph. Papa (1980).