Democracy was a form of government which arose in cities with a large population and a large revenue: the whole of the citizens not only were theoretically admitted to a share in the work of governing, but actively and habitually exercised their powers, and those citizens who could not otherwise afford the time to attend assemblies were enabled to do so by receiving remuneration out of the state treasury. And indeed such a population had more leisure than any other for attendance at the assemblies and for serving on juries: for, as their private property was small, their time was not used up in attending to the management of it. The consequence was that under this form of government the ultimate authority in the state was not any established constitution but the mass of the poor citizens[237]. [237] Aristotle, _Politics_, Bekker IV. 6. 5, 6. Welldon, pages 270, 271. Again in another striking passage Aristotle says that there are democracies in which the ultimate authority is not the established constitution but the mass of the people and the resolutions which the people chooses to make.... In these democracies the common folk becomes a monarch, a monarch composed of many men, a multitude reigning collectively.... The common folk, being a monarch, determines to rule as a monarch owing no obedience to the constitution, so that, becoming a despot, it esteems most highly those men who flatter it the most: and this kind of democracy holds the same place among popular governments as tyranny among kingly governments. The same temper and character is found in this democracy as in tyranny: both of them are arbitrary rulers of the better citizens, only the one rules by resolutions, the other by decrees, and the one is influenced by demagogues, the other by personal adulators[238]. [238] Aristotle, _Politics_, Bekker IV. 4. 25-28. Welldon, pp. 265-267. In translating, I have taken liberties with the words but I hope not with the sense of any sentence. In yet other passages we are told that democratically governed cities are beyond all others anxious to ensure equality among their citizens, and that the use of ostracism for the expulsion of any man, who from wealth or personal popularity or from any other cause has unusual political influence, is a result of this anxiety[239]: and when we find that the practice of appointing to offices by drawing lots is democratic[240], we may observe (though Aristotle does not say so) that this also is a striking exemplification of the same guiding principle. When we read that the principle of democracy is freedom[241] we must, considering the tenor of two passages which have been already quoted, understand that the freedom that is meant is not the freedom of the individual but the freedom of the assembly to do whatever it pleases. [239] Aristotle, _Politics_ III. 13. 15. Welldon, pages 140, 141. [240] Aristotle, _Politics_ II. 11. 5-8. Welldon, pages 90, 91.