the distinction between the ancient and the modern form of State which was explained in the first chapter.
The ancient form of State was there described as a city with an adjunct of territory; the citizens being really members of a City-Community, not merely inhabitants of a territory which happens to have a convenient capital town. From this definition it follows that the true City-State should not have too large a territory; for the larger the territory, the less truly would the inhabitants realise their membership of the City-Community. Men living at a great distance from the city, which was the heart and life of the State, could not share adequately in that life, or feel the pulse-beat of the organism to which they belonged. They would be apt to develop interests of their own apart from their interests as members of the State; and thus the essential fact of the true life of the πόλις, the identification of the individual with the State, would be less completely realised in their case. It follows, too, that there must be a limit to the population of a City-State; for a large territory is necessary as a rule to a large population, and if the one is unsuited for the realisation of perfect unity, so also will the other be.
The size of its territory and population was thus a very important question for every City-State, and as we should naturally expect, Aristotle was well aware of this. When he is considering the external features of his ideal State, e.g. its geographical position, and the conditions under which it will be
