Of all polities, however, an oligarchy and a tyranny are of the shortest duration. For the tyranny that continued for the longest time, was that of Orthagoras and his children at Sicyon; but this lasted a hundred years. But the cause of this duration was, that they used their subjects moderately, and were in many respects themselves subservient to the laws. Because Clisthenes, likewise, was skilled in military affairs, he was not subject to contempt; and in many particulars he was careful that his government might be popular. Clisthenes, therefore, is reported to have presented the judge with a crown who decided against his victory; and some say that the statue of him who thus decided, is that which is placed in the forum. It is likewise said, that Pisistratus submitted to be summoned into the court of the Areopagus. But the second tyranny was that of the Cypselidæ at Corinth; for this lasted seventy-three years and six months. For Cypselus, indeed, tyrannized thirty years; but Periander forty-four years; and Psammeticus, the son of Gordius, three years. The causes, however, of the duration of this tyranny were the same. For Cypselus, indeed, was a demagogue, and during the whole time of his government, was without guards. But Periander, though he was tyrannical, yet he was warlike. The third tyranny was that of the Pisistratidæ at Athens; but it was not continual; for Pisistratus was twice expelled from the tyranny. Hence, in the space of thirty-three years, he tyrannized only fifteen, and his children eighteen years; so that the whole time was thirty-three years. But among the remaining tyrannies was that of Hiero and Gelon at Syracuse. Neither, however, did this continue for many years; but the whole time of its duration was twenty years wanting two. For Gelon, indeed, having tyrannized seven years, ended his life in the eighth year of his tyranny; but Hiero in his tenth year. And Thrasibulus fell in the eleventh month. But many other tyrannies have continued for a very short time. And thus we have nearly related all the particulars respecting polities properly so called and monarchies, and have enumerated the causes through which they are corrupted, and again preserved.
In the Republic of Plato, however, Socrates speaks of the mutations of polities, yet what he asserts is not well said. For he does not particularly speak of the mutation of the best and first polity. For he says that the cause of its mutation is this, that nothing is immutable, but that every thing is changed in a certain period; and that the principle of these mutations is by those things, of which the sesquitertian progeny, when conjoined with the pentad, and thrice increased, affords two harmonies. He also says, that this happens when the number of this diagram becomes solid, in consequence of nature sometimes producing men of depraved dispositions, and sometimes those who are rendered better by education. This, therefore, perhaps is not asserted by him badly; for there may be some persons who cannot by education be rendered worthy men. But why should this change be more peculiar to what is called by him the best polity, than to all other polities, and all generated natures? And with respect to the time through which he says all things are changed, those things which do not begin to be generated at the same time, are changed at the same time; so that for instance, if any things were generated the day before the solstice, they would be changed at the same time. Besides, why should this republic be changed into that of the Lacedæmonians? For all polities more frequently change into a contrary form of government, than into that form which is proximate to them. And there is also the same reasoning concerning other mutations. For he says, that from the Lacedæmonian form of government, it changes into an oligarchy; but from this into a democracy; and from a democracy into a tyranny; though a contrary change also takes place; as from a democracy into an oligarchy, and this rather than into a monarchy. Farther still, he does not speak of a tyranny, nor does he say whether there is a mutation of it, or if there is not, through what cause there is not, and if there is, into what kind of polity it will be changed. The reason, however, of this is, that it was not easy for him to determine this affair; for it is indefinite; since according to him the change ought to be made into the first and best polity; for thus the change will become continued and circular. A tyranny, however, changes into a tyranny; as at Sicyon, the tyranny of Myro into that of Clisthenes. It is also changed into an oligarchy; as was that of Antilco in Chalcis. And into a democracy; as was that of Gelo at Syracuse. It is likewise changed into an aristocracy; as was the tyranny of Charilaus at Lacedæmon, and at Carthage. There is also a mutation from an oligarchy into a tyranny; as was nearly the case with most of the ancient oligarchies in Sicily; among the Leontines, the oligarchy was changed into the tyranny of Panætius; at Gela, into that of Cleander; at Rhegium, into that of Anaxilaus; and in a similar manner in many other cities. It is also absurd to suppose that a state is on this account changed into an oligarchy, because those who are in the administration are avaricious and greedy of money, and not because those who are by far richer than their fellow citizens do not think it just that those who have nothing, should have an equal share in the government with men of property. And in many oligarchies it is not allowable to be employed in money-getting, but there are laws to prevent it. In Carthage, however, which is a democratic government, money-getting is allowed, and their form of government is not yet changed. It is also absurd to say, that in an oligarchy there are two cities, one of the poor, and the other of the rich. For why should this be the case with an oligarchy, rather than with the Lacedæmonian, or any other government, in which all do not possess equal property, or where all are not similarly good men? For though no member of the community should be poorer than he was before, yet the polity would be changed from an oligarchy into a democracy, if the number of the poor should be increased; and from a democracy into an oligarchy, if the rich should be more powerful than the multitude; and the one indeed should be negligent, but the other attentive. And though there are many causes through which the mutations of polities are produced, yet he only mentions one of them, viz. that the citizens become poor by luxury, and paying interest money; as if at first all, or the greatest part of them, were rich. This, however, is false. But when some of the rulers, indeed, lose their property, they will endeavour to bring about a revolution; though when others lose their property, nothing dreadful will happen; and they will no more be changed into a democracy, than into any other polity. Again, if some of the citizens do not partake of the honours of the state, yet if they are injured, or treated with insolence, they will raise seditions, and cause a change in the polities, though they have not spent their fortunes, in order that they may be permitted to do as they please; the cause of which, Plato says, is too much liberty. And though there are many oligarchies and democracies, yet Socrates speaks of their mutations as if there was but one of each.
The lessons published on this site are freely available to read. If you wish to move from reading to formal study — with graded assessments, academic records, and the support of the Academy — you may enroll at any time. Enrollment is open year round, to students of all ages.
