This valuable addition to the Cambridge Companion series offers fourteen essays from distinguished scholars, twelve philosophers and two political theorists. The chapters track the Politics' eight books, allowing readers to engage the text with parallel commentaries at hand. The editors' introduction frames the Politics historically and theoretically and provides a useful and non-prejudicial road map for the volume. A comprehensive, well-organised guide for further reading, prepared by T. Lockwood, is appended.
Considerable attention is paid to the relation between Aristotle's ethical and political theories. D. Frede reads the Nichomachean Ethics as itself political. Because it is guided by a ‘grand end view’ of the human good (p. 29), Eth. Nic. embeds ruling and being ruled into its very structure. F. Miller reinforces this interdependence as he interprets Book 1's sketch of the polis' development as introducing ruling and being ruled into the text. Within household, village and city, just rule is some variation of the rule of reason, reflecting the moral psychology of Eth. Nic. (p. 62). M. Zingano sees political justice as the hinge linking Eth. Nic. and Politics and interprets the latter as completing investigations begun in the former (p. 200).
Many of these essays acknowledge the importance of nature for Aristotelian ethics and politics but do so allusively. P. Destrée's chapter focuses explicitly on the meaning of nature, especially in connection with the practical good of self-sufficiency (pp. 303–4). Though it is offered later in the collection, readers unsure about this concept might begin here.
A. Rosler, however, challenges strictly ethical readings of the Politics, arguing that much of the text depends on a distinctively political perspective (p. 145). This encourages readers to interpret the Politics in more complex ways. However, Rosler seems hasty in interpreting Aristotle's politicality largely as an acceptance of contemporary Greek practices, including political particularism and the valorisation of war (pp. 165, 167–8).
Other essays consider specific social and political foci. K.M. Neilsen examines property, emphasising that Aristotle's support for private over communal ownership is not a simple embrace of property rights. He instead relies on ‘habituation and correct laws’ to prevent social divisiveness but is too sanguine about culture's ability to foster generosity and public spirit (p. 88). P. Pellegrin's essay on natural slavery argues that Aristotle endorses the institution only within the household and that he is critical of the public slavery of most Greek cities (p. 100). Nuanced readings of the Politics' treatment of this institution are needed, but Pellegrin should comment on the slavery practised in Book 7's ‘city according to prayers’.
Going beyond the household, M. Deslauriers argues that inequality within Aristotle's polis contributes not merely to economic self-sufficiency but to education in the virtues. Like all organic entities (pp. 138–9), the city needs differences to thrive. This instructive reading may none the less call for more theorisation distinguishing social difference from political inequality. D. Morrison examines the common good, helpfully positioning Aristotle's claim within a number of alternative conceptualisations. For Morrison, the common good is the happiness (living well) of citizens related as members of a structured partnership; however, Aristotle under theorises problems arising when the common good and justice towards individuals clash (p. 193). C. Horn further explores the relation between the individual and the community in his essay on law, governance and obligation. For Horn, Aristotle endorses a ‘normative individualism’ that legitimates politics for its contribution to citizen well being. This perspective none the less accommodates civic loyalty within a system of laws avoiding arbitrary rule (p. 242). In assessing Aristotle's political theory mostly from the standpoint of modern moral philosophy, Morrison (p. 191) and Horn (p. 224) might recall Rosler. The identity of citizens within regimes is politically contentious (Pol. 3.1); the character of law depends on the character of the regime (3.11).
Recognising contention's dangers, Book 5 focuses on faction (stasis). A. Hatzistavrou reconstructs this analysis of civic collapse, tracing interactions of social and psychological causality. Like Morrison (p. 186), Hatzistavrou (p. 295) sees Aristotle as a social scientist who avoids the binary of methodological individualism versus social holism.
While commentators sometimes link Book 3's examination of the role of the multitude in governance to republican theories of democracy, M. Lane and B. Garsten urge caution. Through careful investigation of classical Greek civic practice and disciplined textual analysis, Lane argues that Aristotle's limited acceptance of the multitude's political role is really a logical argument showing that appeals to virtue or wealth as justifications for non-democratic ruling unravel when they are confronted by aggregations of those same qualifications in multitudes (pp. 263–4). In allowing the collective multitude to elect and monitor officials, however, Aristotle points towards a representative democracy that is not robustly participatory (p. 269). Garsten, too, questions whether Aristotle's understanding of political agency can be easily assimilated to the individualism of modern democratic theory (p. 327), but endorses Aristotle's more original (p. 342) theorisation of how political communities may act together when some citizens rule over others within conditions of equality.
R. Kraut's concluding essay underscores Aristotle's importance for modern political theory while returning to the political importance of Eth. Nic. Kraut finds Aristotle's ‘goodness as flourishing’ richer than J. Rawls's (Theory of Justice) ‘goodness as rationality’. Applied politically, the Aristotelian framework (informing the contemporary work of A. Sen and M. Nussbaum) focuses not on enhancing subjective satisfaction but on enabling human capabilities (p. 371).
The volume's analytic framework engages Aristotle's text as a systematic investigation of political puzzles aiming at clear resolutions (Destrée, p. 312). This challenges readers to interrogate the structure of Aristotle's political theory through their own rigorous criticism. While broadly sympathetic to Aristotle, the authors do not hesitate to detect argumentative shortcomings, inconsistencies and failures. This approach also means, however, that aspects of the text less compatible with systematic practical philosophy are sidelined. At times, the authors analyse the work that Aristotle would need to compose in order to argue systematically.
There are puzzles in Aristotle's text that cannot be attributed to argumentative inadequacy or cultural prejudice. If Aristotle depends on the purposiveness of nature (Pellegrin, p. 107; Morrison, p. 195), why does he emphasise (regarding natural slaves –1.5) nature's many failures? If kingship is the constitution that is everywhere the best (Zingano, p. 213), it is a troublingly depoliticised regime that is more like household management (3.14). The best possible city (introduction, pp. 7–8; Horn, p. 238; Destrée, p. 316) relies on unnatural slavery (7.11).
The text's politicality also includes a rhetoric, and not simply an argument, that moves across its books (pace intro, p. 6). This rhetoric assumes an audience. Is the text an authoritative statement of a ‘master-scientist in politics’ (Frede, p. 33) or is it multivocal and contentious (the aggressive claims of the pro and anti democrats of Book 3, pace Lane's logical focus)? Deslauriers's Aristotle sees integrated differences, but his political audiences may see contentious inequalities (5.1). Is every positively stated view Aristotle's? Perhaps only the committed legalist sees law as reason unaffected by desire (Horn, p. 242). Appreciating Hatzistavrou's typology, why is faction, imaged in tales of sex and violence, introduced when it is (M. Davis, The Politics of Philosophy [1996])? Are the prejudices of aristocratic Greek males (Miller, p. 62) reinforced by Book 1's poetic references? Can Euripides' Iphigenia affirm without horrible irony the superiority of free Greeks to slavish barbarians (1.2)? Does the context of Sophocles' Ajax support the claim that ‘silence becomes a woman’ (1.13)?
The analytic focus takes the volume in directions different from these. It would be churlish to be critical of that choice given the insights that the essays offer. However, the need for such choices reminds us that Aristotle's Politics has multiple sides that will continue to challenge and therefore to educate its readers.
