The most forcible of the objections urged by Aristotle against the Platonic Republic, are those contained in this chapter respecting the relations between the Guardians and the rest of the community.] [Footnote 131: The oneness, which Plato proclaims as belonging to his whole city, belongs in reality only to the body of Guardians; of whom he sometimes speaks as if they were the whole city, which however is not his real intention; see Republic, v. p. 462-463 A.] [Footnote 132: [Greek: Tou\s me\n e(tai/rous ê)=gen i)/sous maka/ressi theoi=sin, Tou\s d' a)/llous ê(gei=t' ou)/t' e)n lo/gô| ou)/t' e)n a)rithmô=|.]] [Footnote 133: Plato, Republ. v. 465 D. Aristotle says (in the Nikom. Ethics, i. 5) when discussing the various ideas entertained about happiness--[Greek: Oi( me\n ou)=n polloi\ pantelô=s a)ndrapodô/deis phai/nontai boskêma/tôn bi/on proairou/menoi.] This is much the estimation which the Platonic Guardians would be apt to form respecting the Demos.] [Footnote 134: The foregoing remarks are an expansion, and a sequel, of Aristotle's objection against the Platonic Republic--That it is not One City, but two discordant cities in that which is nominally One. I must however add that the same objection may be urged against the Xenophontic constitution of a city; and also, in substance, even against the proposition of Aristotle himself for the same purpose. Xenophon, in his Cyropædia, proposes a severe, life-long drill and discipline, like that of the Spartans: from which indeed he does not formally exclude any citizens, but which he announces to be actually attended only by the wealthy, since they alone can afford to attend continuously and habitually, the poorer men being engaged in the cares of maintenance. All the functions of the state, civil and military, are performed exclusively by those who go through the public discipline. We have here the two cities in One, which Aristotle objects to in Plato; with the consequent loss of civic fraternity between them. And when we look to that which Aristotle himself suggests, we find him evading the objection by a formal sanction of the very mischief upon which the objection is founded. He puts the husbandmen and artisans altogether out of the pale of his city, which is made to include the disciplined citizens or Guardians alone. His city may thus be called One, inasmuch as it admits only homogeneous elements, and throws out all such as are heterogeneous; but he thus avowedly renounces as insoluble the problem which Plato and Xenophon try, though unsuccessfully, to solve. If there be discord and alienation among the constituent members of the Platonic and Xenophontic city--there will subsist the like feelings, in Aristotle's proposition, between the members of the city and the outlying, though indispensable, adjuncts. There will be the same mischief in kind, and probably exaggerated in amount: since the abolition of the very name and idea of fellow-citizen tends to