Aristotle: Constitution of Sparta

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

Aristotle's views of the various types of government in Politics is one of the earliest and most thorough and balanced accounts of politics in the entire history of political thought. He discusses a range of the functions of politics, from the origin and purpose of the state to why regimes are classified in a certain way and why they ultimately fail. In doing so, Aristotle provides a model for other civilizations to live by. His critique of the Spartan constitution (a constitution that was revered in its day as one of the best) shows others how to do better by showing them what not to do.

Book 2 of Aristotle's work focuses on the various constitutions of the ancient world, citing which ones are the best and the worst. Part 9 of book 2 is about the Spartan constitution and is mostly a critique that lays out why this constitution is not ideal. Each of the ten paragraphs deals with a specific problem in the Spartan form of government. The Spartan constitution was clearly regarded in its time as one of the first forms of democracy, but Aristotle shows its failings in the hope that other societies will not make the same mistakes. Throughout, Aristotle refers to “the legislator.” His reference is to Lycurgus.

Paragraph 1

The first paragraph deals with the management of the “subject population,” or slaves. It raises two issues by comparing the governments of Lacedaemon (the term used for “Sparta” by the ancient Greeks and more commonly spelled “Lakedaimon”) and Crete. The first is whether a particular law in a constitution is good or bad when compared with the perfect state and whether the constitution or law is consistent with the character of the lawgiver. The second issue illustrates this point in reference to the Helots. Nearly 80 percent of the people in Sparta at any given time were part of the Helot class. The Helots could not own property or participate in the agoge ; thus they were not eligible to become citizens. This fed a vicious cycle in Sparta in which slaves revolted and Sparta clamped down on them with new reforms, which in turn made the slaves more likely to revolt again. Aristotle also cites the example of the Penestae in Thessaly, a region in central Greece. The position of the Penestae was almost identical to that of the Spartan Helots.

As Aristotle points out, all of Lacedaemon's neighbors were their enemies, and so they were more apt to go to war with the Lacedaemons; the Cretans, in contrast, enjoyed a more peaceful existence because Crete's neighbors warred with one another and were unable to tap into the discontent of Crete's slaves for aid. Aristotle compares the situation in Sparta to that in Thessaly, where the slaves originally revolted while the Thessalians were at war. In Sparta, it did not seem to matter whether the Helots were treated well or badly; they tended to revolt against their masters in any case. If they were not kept in check, they would become insolent and think that they were equal to their masters. If they were treated harshly, they would begin to hate their masters and plot against them in rebellion. It becomes clear that the citizens of Sparta had not found the secret to managing their slaves.

Paragraph 2

The second paragraph deals with the role of Spartan women, which Aristotle cites as a second flaw in Spartan governance. Women were revered in Sparta for their role in creating a military society. It was their job and duty to produce sons who could participate in the agoge and become strong soldiers for Sparta. Spartan women were thought to be tougher than other women and were heavily influenced by the militaristic atmosphere of their society. When Sparta went to war, the women famously told their sons and husbands to come home either with their shields or on them—that is, they were to return victorious or die on the field of battle.

Aristotle, however, singles out the behavior of Spartan women as undermining the Spartan constitution and therefore the state's well-being. Women made up 50 percent of the population of Sparta; thus, when they behaved badly, the whole state was weakened. Spartan women lived licentiously, says Aristotle, which went against the steadfast endurance of the regime. Women, he thinks, had too much power. They were given the right to rule in many situations, and their men were inclined to care more about wealth than the good of the regime. Women had achieved this status in Sparta because the men were frequently off fighting wars against the Argives, the Arcadians, and the Messenians; thus, women had gained more power than they had in other ancient Greek city-states. Aristotle appears to make a glancing reference to homosexuality among Greek warriors, who spend more time with men than with women. He also alludes to the Greek god Ares, the god of war and violence, and to Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty. Sparta was a warlike society, and the women were “utterly useless,” especially during Sparta's invasion by Thebes, and caused even more confusion for the Spartan soldiers than the Theban invaders did. Aristotle notes that Lycurgus tried to bring the women under the law, but they resisted, and he gave up trying. He cites this as a problem for Sparta, because the disorder of the women weakened the constitution and fostered avarice.

Paragraph 3

This paragraph also concerns the Spartan women, but more indirectly. According to Aristotle, it was because of the inability to rein in the women that greed was prevalent and land was concentrated in the hands of a few people in Sparta. Some citizens in the city-state had small property holdings, while others had rather large estates, raising the question of inequality. The inequality was made worse by laws concerning inheritance and dowries. Nearly 40 percent of the land in Sparta, Aristotle says, was owned by women as a result of the laws governing dowries and heiresses' ownership of land. Aristotle believes that it would have been better for Sparta to give no dowries at all or at the least make permissible dowries much smaller. As larger dowries became more common, the land was concentrated in the hands of fewer people. To be considered a “citizen” at the time, a person had to own land. If fewer people owned land, then fewer people could be considered citizens. The population of citizens, says Aristotle, had dwindled to a mere one thousand.

While the hoplite population was kept large, the lack of citizens led to the city's ruin as it was beaten in a single battle by its enemies. The fault was with the property laws. Property ownership equalization would have been the solution. The Spartans, in earlier times (“the days of the ancient kings”), had alleviated the problem by bringing in people from the outside, granting the rights of citizenship to “strangers,” or foreigners. Such was no longer the case. Exacerbating the problem were the laws governing procreation. In an effort to swell population numbers, fathers of three sons were exempted from military service and fathers with four or more sons from all “burdens of the state.” This did not help matters, because the land laws, coupled with the fact that people were encouraged to have large families, led many in Sparta to fall into poverty. Issues involving land ownership, dowries, and family size provide Aristotle with a clear example of how poorly conceived laws can lead to the weakening of a state, for the laws had unintended consequences.

Paragraph 4

This paragraph discusses one of the most important institutions in the Spartan regime, the ephorate (called the “Ephoralty” in the document). In Sparta, five ephors were elected annually by the people, and every month they swore to uphold the rule of the two kings of Sparta. This was in direct contrast to how many of them actually operated. While the ephors held an immense amount of power, they were each elected for only one year. At the end of their one-year term, they could never run for reelection.

Aristotle, though, finds the institution defective. The ephors were chosen from the entire population, so poor men were eligible, and poor men were open to bribes. Such was the case when the ephors were bribed by the Andrians. According to Aristotle, the Andrians—the people of the island of Andros, one of many in the Greek archipelago—were almost able to bring about the complete ruin of Sparta by bribing the ephors, but historians remain uncertain about the specific events Aristotle is referencing. Many of the ephors tended to be tyrannical, even to the point of forcing the kings to do their bidding. Their usurpation of power had undermined the constitution and turned the regime away from the aristocracy, making it resemble a democracy—a form of government that Aristotle found inferior to oligarchy and monarchy, for it was government for and by the needy. Still, the ephors managed to hold together the state, in that all segments of society had a stake in the status quo. Aristotle supports the democratic eligibility of all people for the post of ephor but calls the manner in which they were elected “childish.” Then, too, as ordinary men, he says, they should judge according to the law, but many tried to make judgments on their own, without reference to laws. These men did not live up to the spirit of the constitution because they cared too much for license and avarice. This type of lifestyle was in contrast to the strict military nature of the regime.

Paragraph 5

This paragraph provides a critique of the Senate, or council of elders, and the many problems of this governing body in Sparta. This council of elders, or gerousia, consisted of twenty-eight men over the age of sixty. They were elected for life and were also usually members of one of the two royal houses of Sparta. The two kings of Sparta were part of this council, making a total of thirty members. Their main job was to discuss matters of state policy and then present alternative solutions to the Demos, or general assembly, for consideration and implementation.

Aristotle starts his critique on a positive note. He sees the senators as good men who were well trained in manly virtue, an obvious advantage to the state. Their election to a life term, however, was not beneficial to the state. These men were judges of important state matters, and as they grew older, they did not always act for the good of the regime. Certain members of the council were even accused of taking bribes and showing partiality in judgments. Moreover, they were irresponsible in many affairs of state and often controlled by the ephors. Aristotle contends that those vying to be elected should not canvass for the position; instead, the most worthy person should be appointed, whether or not he wanted the position. To campaign for office, citizens must be ambitious. But ambition, combined with avarice, could be the motives for crime and thus detrimental to Spartan society. Aristotle's comments on the inherent weaknesses of Sparta's council of elders illustrates well his belief that pure democracy is problematic and that governance was best placed in the hands of the most worthy citizens, as well as in those who have the means and leisure to cultivate virtue.

Paragraph 6

This paragraph deals with the Spartan monarchy—an unusual monarchy, for there were two monarchs, with one king from each royal house in the city-state: the Agiad and Eurypontids families, which, according to tradition, were the descendants, respectively, of Eurysthenes and Procles, who in turn were the descendants of Heracles, the supposed conqueror of Sparta after the Trojan War. Again according to tradition, the Agiad family arrived in Sparta first and claimed the best land, making it the more important of the two dynastic lines. While Aristotle usually debates whether kings are beneficial or not and says here that he will take up the matter elsewhere, he states unequivocally that the kingship is not good in Sparta because the hereditary kings are usually unworthy of the position. They should be chosen with regard to their personal life and conduct, but they are not. Lycurgus did not think he could make them into good men, and he distrusted their supposed virtues. The dual kingship was ineffective, because the two kings could never agree, and the resulting tension was harmful to the overall government.

Paragraph 7

This short paragraph concerns itself with the common mess at Sparta. The common mess, or phiditia, was an important aspect of Spartan society. It was through these common meals that solidarity was created, especially among the soldiers. Only those who had completed training in the agoge could participate in the common mess. The institution was not very well regulated in Sparta. If a person was not able to contribute to the expenses of the common mess or was caught stealing to gather funds for his contribution, he would be expelled from the mess and shamed for the rest of his life. Those expelled also lost their citizenship and often the property associated with that right. Aristotle says that the entertainment should have been paid at public expense, as in Crete. In Sparta the problem was that some were too poor to contribute. Those who could not contribute could not take part in the phiditia, and those who could not take part lost their citizenship. The phiditia was supposed to be a popular institution, but again Aristotle cites the laws governing the institution as poorly crafted, creating consequences that undermined the intention of the laws. The laws pertaining to the phiditia were examples of laws that had the effect of reducing the number of citizens, weakening the state.

Paragraph 8

This short paragraph discusses the office of admirals in Sparta, though Aristotle is slightly vague. He appears to be referring to the tradition in Sparta that military commanders, whether generals or naval admirals, held the position for life. Aristotle notes that this law had often been rightly condemned, for the kings were seen as perpetual generals and the office of admiral was nothing more than a third king. Again, for Aristotle, this institution was flawed, for it left men in power who might no longer have deserved it. Further, it diffused the power of the monarchy, for it placed too much power in the hands of a military class that might often have operated independently of the government. Accordingly, laws pertaining to admirals (and generals) were examples of laws that failed to define precisely the role in government of a class and to vest power in a stable, recognized government institution.

Paragraph 9

Aristotle starts this paragraph with a criticism from Plato about Lycurgus's narrow view of virtue. The only virtue in Sparta was that exhibited by the soldiers, and this was a problem for society as a whole. When the Spartans were at war, all was well; when they were not at war, however, they tended to become idle and fall prey to too much leisure time. The state had nearly been ruined during times of peace because the Spartans did not know anything but war. Aristotle also faults them for believing that the goods acquired by virtue rather than vice were more important than the actual virtue through which the goods were obtained. Aristotle was a firm believer in virtue for its own sake. The purpose of virtue was not to gain worldly advantage but to a lead a good life. It was an end in itself, not a means to an end. Thus, Aristotle finds purely military virtues such as courage in battle inadequate for a well-ordered state, for the state that is not at war becomes unable to exercise virtue.

Paragraphs 10 and 11

The tenth paragraph deals with the finances of Sparta. The revenues of the city-state were poorly managed; there was no money in the treasury. The people of Sparta wanted to continue to wage war, but they did not want to pay the taxes required to win wars. One of the problems had to do with land ownership. Typically, in a monarchy land was held either by the king or in the name of the king. The land, then, became a source of income for the king, and that income, in the case of Sparta, could be used to finance wars. In Sparta, however, large landowners held land in their own names. Their financial affairs were independent of the king, and each landowner had little interest in the financial affairs of the others. Thus, no one in Sparta was keeping an eye on the public treasury. This state of affairs fostered greed, and by leaving the public treasury bare, it also fostered poverty. Again, these weaknesses in the law and social structure undermined the state. Aristotle ends his discussion of the Spartans with one line, constituting an eleventh paragraph, saying that all he has discussed were the major defects of the Spartan constitution.