The Complete Aristotle (eng.)

judge
of the size of the city by the number of the inhabitants; whereas
they ought to regard, not their number, but their power. A city
too, like an individual, has a work to do; and that city which is
best adapted to the fulfillment of its work is to be deemed
greatest, in the same sense of the word great in which Hippocrates
might be called greater, not as a man, but as a physician, than
some one else who was taller And even if we reckon greatness by
numbers, we ought not to include everybody, for there must always
be in cities a multitude of slaves and sojourners and foreigners;
but we should include those only who are members of the state, and
who form an essential part of it. The number of the latter is a
proof of the greatness of a city; but a city which produces
numerous artisans and comparatively few soldiers cannot be great,
for a great city is not to be confounded with a populous one.
Moreover, experience shows that a very populous city can rarely, if
ever, be well governed; since all cities which have a reputation
for good government have a limit of population. We may argue on
grounds of reason, and the same result will follow. For law is
order, and good law is good order; but a very great multitude
cannot be orderly: to introduce order into the unlimited is the
work of a divine power—of such a power as holds together the
universe. Beauty is realized in number and magnitude, and the state
which combines magnitude with good order must necessarily be the
most beautiful. To the size of states there is a limit, as there is
to other things, plants, animals, implements; for none of these
retain their natural power when they are too large or too small,
but they either wholly lose their nature, or are spoiled. For
example, a ship which is only a span long will not be a ship at
all, nor a ship a quarter of a mile long; yet there may be a ship
of a certain size, either too large or too small, which will still
be a ship, but bad for sailing. In like manner a state when
composed of too few is not, as a state ought to be, self-sufficing;
when of too many, though self-sufficing in all mere necessaries, as
a nation may be, it is not a state, being almost incapable of
constitutional government. For who can be the general of such a
vast multitude, or who the herald, unless he have the voice of a
Stentor?
    A state, then, only begins to exist when it has attained a
population sufficient for a good life in the political community:
it may indeed, if it somewhat exceed this number, be a greater
state. But, as I was saying, there must be a limit. What should be
the limit will be easily ascertained by experience. For both
governors and governed have duties to perform; the special
functions of a governor to command and to judge. But if the
citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices
according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters;
where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election to
offices and the decision of lawsuits will go wrong. When the
population is very large they are manifestly settled at haphazard,
which clearly ought not to be. Besides, in an over-populous state
foreigners and metics will readily acquire the rights of citizens,
for who will find them out? Clearly then the best limit of the
population of a state is the largest number which suffices for the
purposes of life, and can be taken in at a single view. Enough
concerning the size of a state.
V
    Much the same principle will apply to the territory of the
state: every one would agree in praising the territory which is
most entirely self-sufficing; and that must be the territory which
is all-producing, for to have all things and to want nothing is
sufficiency. In size and extent it should be such as may enable the
inhabitants to live at once temperately and liberally in the
enjoyment of leisure. Whether we are right or wrong in laying down
this limit we will inquire more precisely hereafter, when we have
occasion to consider what is the right use of property and wealth:
a matter which is much disputed, because men are inclined to rush
into one of two extremes, some into meanness, others into
luxury.
    It is not difficult to determine the general character of the
territory which is required (there are, however, some points on
which military authorities should be heard); it should be difficult
of access to the enemy, and easy of egress to the inhabitants.
Further, we require that the land as well as the inhabitants of
whom we