Abstract

In the early chapters of Book III of his Politics, Aristotle engages in a discussion of citizenship and it quickly becomes apparent that the issues involved in citizenship are more complex than many may realize. This discussion has led to disputes over what Aristotle's account of citizenship is and whether it leads to an incoherence in his political theory, specifically whether his account makes it impossible to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate types of constitutions. After discussing the interpretive controversy over Aristotle's account of citizenship, I consider two arguments with promising solutions regarding its alleged incoherence with Aristotle's overall political theory. I argue that neither one of these attempted solutions -- provided by Donald Morrison and David Keyt -- ultimately proves adequate. What emerges from this examination is not an alternative solution, but the surprising conclusion that Aristotle's account of citizenship, when conjoined with his classification of constitutions, does not lead to any incoherence at all