The Complete Aristotle (eng.)

had
conceived for him, and retired to Thebes, where the two friends
together ended their days. The inhabitants still point out their
tombs, which are in full view of one another, but one is visible
from the Corinthian territory, the other not. Tradition says the
two friends arranged them thus, Diocles out of horror at his
misfortunes, so that the land of Corinth might not be visible from
his tomb; Philolaus that it might. This is the reason why they
settled at Thebes, and so Philolaus legislated for the Thebans,
and, besides some other enactments, gave them laws about the
procreation of children, which they call the ‘Laws of Adoption.’
These laws were peculiar to him, and were intended to preserve the
number of the lots.
    In the legislation of Charondas there is nothing remarkable,
except the suits against false witnesses. He is the first who
instituted denunciation for perjury. His laws are more exact and
more precisely expressed than even those of our modern
legislators.
    (Characteristic of Phaleas is the equalization of property; of
Plato, the community of women, children, and property, the common
meals of women, and the law about drinking, that the sober shall be
masters of the feast; also the training of soldiers to acquire by
practice equal skill with both hands, so that one should be as
useful as the other.)
    Draco has left laws, but he adapted them to a constitution which
already existed, and there is no peculiarity in them which is worth
mentioning, except the greatness and severity of the
punishments.
    Pittacus, too, was only a lawgiver, and not the author of a
constitution; he has a law which is peculiar to him, that, if a
drunken man do something wrong, he shall be more heavily punished
than if he were sober; he looked not to the excuse which might be
offered for the drunkard, but only to expediency, for drunken more
often than sober people commit acts of violence.
    Androdamas of Rhegium gave laws to the Chalcidians of Thrace.
Some of them relate to homicide, and to heiresses; but there is
nothing remarkable in them.
    And here let us conclude our inquiry into the various
constitutions which either actually exist, or have been devised by
theorists.

Politics, Book III
    Translated by Benjamin Jowett
<
    div id="book3" class="book">
I
    He who would inquire into the essence and attributes of various
kinds of governments must first of all determine ‘What is a state?’
At present this is a disputed question. Some say that the state has
done a certain act; others, no, not the state, but the oligarchy or
the tyrant. And the legislator or statesman is concerned entirely
with the state; a constitution or government being an arrangement
of the inhabitants of a state. But a state is composite, like any
other whole made up of many parts; these are the citizens, who
compose it. It is evident, therefore, that we must begin by asking,
Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term? For here
again there may be a difference of opinion. He who is a citizen in
a democracy will often not be a citizen in an oligarchy. Leaving
out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have
obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may
say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a
certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;
nor is he a citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and
being sued; for this right may be enjoyed under the provisions of a
treaty. Nay, resident aliens in many places do not possess even
such rights completely, for they are obliged to have a patron, so
that they do but imperfectly participate in citizenship, and we
call them citizens only in a qualified sense, as we might apply the
term to children who are too young to be on the register, or to old
men who have been relieved from state duties. Of these we do not
say quite simply that they are citizens, but add in the one case
that they are not of age, and in the other, that they are past the
age, or something of that sort; the precise expression is
immaterial, for our meaning is clear. Similar difficulties to those
which I have mentioned may be raised and answered about deprived
citizens and about exiles. But the citizen whom we are seeking to
define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such
exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he
shares in the administration of justice, and in offices. Now of
offices some are discontinuous,