THE MEANING OF ACOSMIA IN ARISTOTLE, POLITICS II, 1272b1-16

La palabra griega acosmia, en oposición a cosmos, se refiere al desorden y a la mala conducta a nivel físico, moral o social. En Política de Aristóteles II, 1272b1-16, la palabra acosmia es usada en la descripción de las instituciones cretenses. En este contexto particular, se han dado interpretaciones contrapuestas para el término acosmia, en la medida en que Cosmos es también un título de magistrado en Creta. Examinaré aquí las cuestiones filológicas y filosóficas planteadas por este uso puntual de “acosmia”.

Aristotle, Politics, II, 1272b1-16 10 To begin with, I will present the various kinds of interruptions in the office tenure described first by Aristotle. Then I will examine the use of the term acosmia through referring in particular to the interpretations of the passage in Medieval and Renaissance translations and commentaries of Aristotle's Politics. Finally, I will conclude with the consequences of acosmia on the Cretan regime through replacing this passage within the overall perspective of Aristotle's work.

THE SUSPENSION OF THE OFFICE OF COSMI
The access to the office of Cosmi and consequently to the Council of Elders is restricted to a few prominent and ancient families thus concentrating a very great power in their hands. This very selective method of appointment is problematical. Aristotle regards it as an hamartia (ἁμαρτία, "error, mistake, defect") and presents the surprising solutions -referred to as iatreia (ἰατρεία, "remedy") -that the Cretans adopt: Ἣν δὲ ποιοῦνται τῆς ἁμαρτίας ταύτης ἰατρείαν, ἄτοπος καὶ οὐ πολιτικὴ ἀλλὰ δυναστευτική· The remedy they give to this error is strange; it is not political but dynastic.
The "remedy" consists in the suspension of the power of the Cosmi in two forms: expulsion and resignation. πολλάκις γὰρ ἐκβάλλουσι συστάντες τινὲς τοὺς κόσμους ἢ τῶν συναρχόντων αὐτῶν ἢ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν· Indeed, often some of their colleagues themselves or some private individuals form a coalition and expel the Cosmi.
A conspiracy forces the Cosmi out of power. It is fomented by Cosmi in charge or private citizens who remove Cosmi from office by force, leaving, as it seems, the city without any Cosmi. This phenomenon could be the consequence of conflicts between prominent families who share the office and/or with the families which are excluded from it. A parallel can be established with a passage in Aristotle's Athenian Constitution, XIII, 1-2. Soon after the reforms of Solon, the eponymous archon Damasias is expelled by force after two years and two months in office (ἐξηλάθη βίᾳ τῆς ἀρχῆς). 11 The lot of the other archons is not indicated.

b. The second solution: resignation
ἔξεστι δὲ καὶ μεταξὺ τοῖς κόσμοις ἀπειπεῖν τὴν ἀρχήν· But it is also possible for the Cosmi to quit their office in the meantime.
In this case, the Cosmi abandon themselves their office during the term (ἀπειπεῖν τὴν ἀρχήν). The coordinating conjunction de (δέ) that can have a contrasting function and the adverb metaxu (μεταξύ) ("but in the meantime") suggest that Cosmi under pressure prefer to desist themselves before being chased away.
One may ask if resignation could be also a way for Cosmi to escape prosecution, payment of fine or accountability at the end of term. Nevertheless, it is not, in my opinion, Aristotle's perspective, because he emphasizes in particular the incorruptibility of these magistrates (1272a40). According to W. L. Newman, 12 resignation before the completion of the mandated term of office was not usually authorized in Greece. There are indeed only rare examples and it is difficult to determine if it was a forced dismissal or a voluntary resignation. Certainly, all this would better happen according to law than men's opinion. Indeed the rule is unsafe.
Both cases mentioned previously (ταῦτα δὴ πάντα) are, according to Aristotle, arbitrary (κατ' ἀνθρώπων βούλησιν) as opposed to law (κατὰ νόμον). Law is something sure and permanent whereas men's goodwill is uncertain and changeable. The principle (ὁ κανών) which consists in following men's opinion cannot be a law (a νόμος).
The commentary resumes to confirm it, after a factual illustration, the idea expressed in the introductory sentence that presented this remedy as atopos (ἄτοπος, "out of place, strange, extraordinary"), and dynasteutikē (δυναστευτική, "dynastic, tyrannical"), that is pertaining to the goodwill of the powerful and not relying on legality (οὐ πολιτική). Indeed, the departure of the Cosmi is not legally regulated and depends upon the goodwill of some individuals. Moreover, according to Aristotle, the office of magistrate is an obligation for those who deserve it: in his analysis of the Spartan regime, he indicates that the most deserving citizen must hold office, whether he wants it or not. 13 Thus expulsion by force and voluntary resignation appear to be two remedies, which are not constitutional, to the excessively oligarchic method of appointment, by preventing the same individuals to keep a power too great for too long. But Aristotle doesn't stop there and presents a third phenomenon: the acosmia.
The worst of all is the acosmia of the powerful that they establish often when they do not want to suffer punishment. This is the text adopted by the majority of editors today 14 but three main versions of this sentence have been transmitted in manuscripts related to variations on the term tōn dunatōn (τῶν δυνατῶν) and its position, after tēs acosmias (τῆς ἀκοσμίας) or at the end of the sentence after dounai (δοῦναι). 15 ABCDE, mg of P : Πάντων δὲ φαυλότατον τὸ τῆς ἀκοσμίας τῶν δυνατῶν ἣν καθιστᾶσι πολλάκις ὅταν μὴ δίκας βούλωνται δοῦναι.
What is the meaning of acosmia? Is it another remedy or does Aristotle rephrase what he said previously? Why does he qualify this process as the worst? To give an answer to these questions, I studied the uses of the word acosmia in Greek literary sources and I traced the history of the interpretations of this passage through translations and commentaries made since the rediscovery of the Politics in the 13 th century until the 17 th century. 17 a. Acosmia as "disorder" or "misbehavior" On the one hand, acosmia has been understood as "disorder" or "misbehavior". This interpretation prevailed from the 16 th to the 19 th century.
--------------------------------------------15 Two families of medieval manuscripts have been identified by editors, transmitting a text that was already presenting several variants since Antiquity. One family (Susemihl's Π 2 ) contains various manuscripts among which the 14 th century ms A (ca 1360/80) copied in Constantinople is probably the oldest (with 13 th -15 th (?) century ms B and 15 th century mss C, D and E). The other family (Susemihl's Π 1 ) contains 3 Italian manuscripts (the older P (ca 1460/80) and the twin 15 th century mss M and S). The ms H stands apart: it seems to show a state of the tradition preceding the division between the 2 main families which was relatively late. Cf. Dreizehnter 1962, Besso & Curnis 2011. NB: ms A Dreizehnter/Curnis = Q Aubonnet = P 2 Susemihl ; ms B Dreizehnter/Curnis = R Aubonnet = P 3 Susemihl. 16 This word order is adopted by Susemihl 1894 and Goold 1932 with an emendation by Coray (οἳ ἂν instead of ὅταν): πάντων δὲ φαυλότατον τὸ τῆς ἀκοσμίας, ἣν καθιστᾶσι πολλάκις οἳ ἂν μὴ δίκας βούλωνται δοῦναι τῶν δυνατῶν. On favor of δυνατοί against δυνάσται, cf. Newman 1887, ad loc. The 13 th century Latin translations of W. of Moerbeke (cf. infra) present the same word order as Π 1 . Two translations attributed to W. of Moerbeke remain, one incomplete (Book I -II, 1273a30) dated 1260-1264 (G.i.) and a second one complete (G.). Following Besso & Curnis 2011, 36-37, G. and G.i. are correlated respectively to Π 1 and Π 2 at a moment when the differences between the two families were not as much marked as attested by manuscripts. 17   Firstly, acosmia is translated with the notions of "disorder, confusion", expressed in Latin with the words confusio, perturbatio, conturbatio and turbae. This notion is introduced in the commentary of Jacques Le Fèvre at the beginning of the 16 th century with the term turbatio. It is then found constantly in Joachim Périon, Sepulveda, Vettori, Lambin, Louis Le Roy, Montecatini, Pierre de la Ramée, Heinsius and Conringius. One should note that the complement in the genitive of perturbatio or confusio is not the powerful but the entire state (reipublicae, status reipublicae) or the public affairs in general (rerum, rerum civitatis, omnium rerum), terms that are not in Aristotle's original text.
Secondly, the term acosmia is understood with the notions of "licentiousness, intemperance, impudence, insolence, excess", expressed by the Latin words licentia, immodestia, petulantia and impotentia, so many terms that designate moral vices of the powerful. This interpretation appears in the commentary of Joachim Camerarius at the end of the 16 th century with the term licentia. It is taken up in Montecatini, Hubert von Giffen and Heinsius. In this interpretation, the complement in the genitive is potentum: it relates indeed to the misconduct of the powerful.
This interpretation is not opposing the first one, since the vices of the powerful are perceived as the cause of disorder in the respublica. It appears clearly in Montecatini's commentary which reconciles the two interpretations: immodestiam ac petulantiam potentum, ex qua turbae nascuntur, "the excess and the insolence of the powerful that give birth to troubles".
On the whole, these translations and commentaries are clearly moralizing. The phrase pantōn de phaulotaton (πάντων δὲ φαυλότατον) is most often understood, not as the worst of remedies referring to the term employed previously (Denis Lambin: omnium remediorum pessimum), but as the worst of all vices and all sins (omnium vitiorum, peccatum omnium). Sometimes the superlative phaulotaton is translated directly by vitiosissima.
How can we explain this choice of translation? The first explanation rests on the reference to ancient texts which are then rediscovered. In his commentary, Pietro Vettori supports his interpretation by referring to Aeschines' use of the term in Against Ctesiphon: the acosmia of the powerful must be understood as the misbehavior of orators disparaged by Aeschines. Their acosmia is characterized by their lack of ratio and modestia. The second explanation rests on the reference to their own time orienting their reading. Antonio Montecatini, for instance, explains the disorder of the powerful as one of the three ways that exist, in reference to his own time, to escape justice, the two others being trickery and corruption.
Is this interpretation actually corroborated by the uses of the term acosmia in Aristotle's time? The term acosmia formed with the negative prefix ἀand κόσμος can be defined above all in contrast to this last term that denotes "good order", in a material or moral sense (good behavior, discipline, propriety, decency, modesty). 30 A definition is given by Gorgias in the captatio benevolentiae of his Encomium of Helen: Κόσμος πόλει μὲν εὐανδρία, σώματι δὲ κάλλος, ψυχῆι δὲ σοφία, πράγματι δὲ ἀρετή, λόγωι δὲ ἀλήθεια· τὰ δὲ ἐναντία τούτων ἀκοσμία.
The right order for a city is being well-manned; for a body, beauty; for a soul, wisdom; for a deed, virtue; and for a speech, truth; the opposites of these are disorder.
Gorgias, Encomium of Helen, l.1-3 31 Correlatively, the concept of acosmia has a wide extension. It includes a broad range of moral defects. The examination of the term's occurrences 32 shows two main uses in Aristotle's time. On the one hand, it designates, in a philosophical and cosmological use, the material disorder of elements, chaos as opposed to the harmonious order of elements in the universe. 33 On the other hand, it designates often, in the private or social sphere, with a moral dimension, the behavior of someone who doesn't stay in his place, who doesn't respect moral values and social rules, who is immoderate, excessive, outrageous, inordinate… 34 This is the meaning within which acosmia could be understood in our passage. Besides this unique occurrence of the substantive acosmia in Aristotle's work, 35 the verb acosmō (ἀκοσμέω-ῶ) is used in the Athenian Constitution, III 6, to designate the troublemakers, those who disrupt public order because of their disrespectful and bad behavior (τοὺς ἀκοσμοῦντας). 36 Later on, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch, the term designates often the disorder of a crowd (assembly, spectators or army) combining the material and moral dimensions, in a political and military context. 37 What are the limits of this interpretation? First, the syntactic structure doesn't allow a satisfactory translation (acosmia is constructed as direct object of kathistasi (καθιστᾶσι), "the misbehavior that they established"). What's more, the context leads to consider another meaning, the one of abeyance of Cosmi, which was the common understanding in Medieval time.   Aulis,v.317;Aeschines,Against Timarchus,169,9 and 189,8,Against Ctesiphon,4,7;Plutarch,Life of Sertorius,26,9,Life of Antony,11,4 In the first Latin translation, in the 13 th century, W. of Moerbeke, who translates word by word, transliterates the Greek term without clarifying its meaning. However from the first commentaries, the term was understood as referring to the vacancy of the office. The Greek word acosmia is explained by the Latin words cessatio and vacatio, in Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas and Nicole Oresme. In the new Latin translation by Leonardo Bruni in the 15 th century, acosmia is translated into the term depositio, taken up by Jacques Le Fèvre.

b. Acosmia as vacancy of the office of Cosmi
The text commented by Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas and translated by Nicole Oresme in French, is the Latin translation by W. of Moerbeke. The latter places the term potentum at the end of the sentence. Nevertheless, the powerful are understood as the subject of constituunt: the powerful cause the departure of the Cosmi when the latter don't want to  deliver judgments on their behalf. Nicole Oresme's commentary remains unspecified with the pronouns "ils" and "on": "they establish acosmia when they do not want judgments to be pronounced against the powerful".
From the translation of Leonardo Bruni onwards, potentum appears as the complement in the genitive of acosmia. Leonardo Bruni translates potentium ab cosmatu depositio quae saepe concitant cum non sententias dare volunt ("the deposition of the powerful from the office of Cosmi that they often cause when they do not want to issue judgments"). In this translation, the powerful are equated with the Cosmi and the meaning is ambiguous, leaning towards deposition (depositio) or resignation (quae saepe concitant).
However, this sense is progressively eclipsed by the one of disorder during the 16 th century. It is only in the 19 th century that it is reintroduced in Gottlob Schneider's edition of 1809. The latter establish a parallel between acosmia and anarchia. This interpretation is then adopted by translators up to our time.
What is this interpretation by the first commentators and translators based on? On the one hand, it relies on the morphological analysis and the immediate context in which cosmos (κόσμος) designates the magistrate.
Thus, Albertus Magnus analyses the term : ab ἀ quod est sine, et κοσμία, quod est violenta cessatio Cosmorum. This analysis is resumed in the next century in the French translation by Nicole Oresme (akosme, ce est a dire estre sans kosme). On the other hand, it is based upon the general meaning of the passage. The abeyance of the power of the Cosmi is explained by the formation of a coalition (conspirantes), the violent action of the powerful who forcibly evict the Cosmi (dejiciunt) and prevent them from holding office (interdicebant, cogebantur cedere), in accordance with the above. Indeed, as Aristotle enumerates different kinds of abeyance (the clause is coordinated by de (δέ) and the superlative phaulotaton (φαυλότατον) draws an axiological comparison with the previous cases), it seems preferable to understand acosmia on the model of anarchia with the institutional sense of office vacancy.
It should be understood that the powerful, the noble Cretans who want to evade justice, establish acosmia, that is to say, suspend the office either by preventing the Cosmi from holding their office or by not proceeding to From then on, what is the difference between acosmia and the two cases aforementioned? In my opinion, the three cases have as a consequence the abeyance of Cosmi and so the possibility to escape prosecution. But, as suggested by Thomas Aquinas, non solum erat contra personas, sed contra totum officium, ex quo proveniebat multa utilitas civitati, "it was not only against individuals, but against all the magistracy, which was highly beneficial to the political community". In the third case, the very institution of the office of Cosmi is threatened. A part of the constitution is abolished giving free rein to arbitrariness and individual will. This distinctive feature is, in my opinion, the reason why Aristotle characterizes this third case as the worst and presents it as the proof that the Cretan constitution is not in its essence political but dynastic. Therefore, it is now necessary to consider the consequences of acosmia on the political regime.
That shows also that the organization has something of a constitution but is not a constitution but rather a dynastic government.
The term taxis (τάξις) is used by Aristotle in the Politics to designate the organization of the different components of the city, but especially the organization of the politeia (πολιτεία) 45 itself, that is to say, the partition of citizens and the distribution of power. 46 It determines the politeia 47 and defines it as a democracy, an oligarchy or a monarchy… 48 This order is inseparable from law (nomos, νόμος), insofar as an organization is a law, a -------------------------------------------- 44 Schütrumpf's translation, "die Amtsgewalt der Kosmoi außer Kraft setzen" (Schütrumpf 1991, 42) may imply that the Cosmi are deprived of their power but stay in place, which is, in my view, not the case. 45 On Aristotle's concept of politeia, cf. Schütrumpf 1991, p.342, Hansen 2013 Cf. Aristotle, Politics, 1253a38, 1264b31; 1268a15; 1269a10; 1271b41; 1272a4; 1272b31; 1281b39; 1289a1; 1296a40; 1297b28; 1307b18; 1309b33; 1316b32; 1318b36; 1325a3; 1329b33; 1333b7. 47 Cf. Aristotle, Politics, 1274b38, 1278b9, 1289a15, 1290a8, 1324a24, 1309b33, 1272b31. 48 Cf. Aristotle, Politics, 1265b26, 1273a21, 1273a27, 1294b21, 1298b5. law is an organization and a good organization goes along with good laws, 49 knowing that laws must be established according to the kind of politeia. 50 The Cretan practice described by Aristotle is characterized from the beginning as dunasteutikē (δυναστευτική, l.1) and allows at the end to define the regime's nature as a dunasteia (δυναστεία, l.6), 51 that is, the fourth and extreme form of oligarchy in Aristotle's classification, corresponding to the extreme form of democracy and the extreme form of monarchy, i.e. tyranny. 52 Its distinctive feature is that power is concentrated into the hands of a minority of citizens whose great power is based on wealth and friendship relations, inherited and exercised independently of laws. 53 In several passages, Aristotle explains how a dunasteia is formed. 54 Two specific explanations tally with our passage. A dunasteia appears notably either when a small group of persons holds too much power 55 or when constitutional provisions are progressively repealed and a few individuals then govern arbitrarily. 56 Aristotle also indicates that this extreme form of oligarchy, whose causes of troubles and seditions are so numerous, is the most unstable and the most difficult to preserve (cf. below the third consequence). 57 According to Aristotle, the extreme forms of government, which are tyrannical regimes of private rule, lose their constitutional value 58 because power isn't based on law anymore but on the arbitrary will of the rulers (ὅπου γὰρ μὴ νόμοι ἄρχουσιν οὐκ ἔστι πολιτεία, "indeed where law has no authority, there is no constitution at all", IV 1292a32). 59 To avoid arbitrary power and personal domination, it is necessary that law rules, defining the distribution and exercise of power and being the condition of a true politeia. Extreme forms of regime lead to the dissolution of legally established powers and thereby defined and limited. 60 As a comparison, extreme democracy, which appears when the Assembly holds a despotic power, leads to the ruin of all offices (ὥστε καταλύονται πᾶσαι αἱ ἀρχαί, IV, 1292a 29-30), including not In the Cretan regime, power is excessively concentrated in the hands of a few, being accountable to no one and following their goodwill rather than obeying the law. The officials legally appointed are very often deprived of their power and the office itself is often abolished by the powerful who then govern as masters. These practices are usual (εἰώθασι, πολλάκις repeated twice). They are therefore constitutive and characteristic of this regime and transform its nature.

SÍNTESIS
The word dunatōn (δυνατῶν) echoes dunasteia (δυναστεία) and the odd phrasing to tēs akosmias tōn dunatōn hēn kathistasi (τὸ τῆς ἀκοσμίας τῶν δυνατῶν ἣν καθιστᾶσι) is as much striking as it expresses all the paradox of this constitution that is not one, where the powerful by "establishing" acosmia, prevent the lawful exercise of power by the Cosmi and thereby abolish the politeia.

b. The second consequence: the advent of μοναρχία and στάσις
Εἰώθασι δὲ διαλαμβάνοντες τὸν δῆμον καὶ τοὺς φίλους μοναρχίαν ποιεῖν καὶ στασιάζειν καὶ μάχεσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους· It is their custom, by dividing the people and their friends, to establish a monarchy, to form factions and to fight the ones against the others.
Once the lawful government is abolished, the powerful divide the city and fight against each other. Here occurs another philological problem: the word monarchia (μοναρχία) of the manuscripts is sometimes replaced by the word anarchia (anarchy), as anarchy seems more compatible with the notions of division and civil war 61 . In my opinion, it is preferable to keep the text of the manuscripts.
This correction attributed to J. Bernays has been adopted by Susemihl 1894, Immisch 1909, Goold 1932, Ross 1957, Tricot 1962, Laurenti 1966, Pellegrin 1990, Robledo 2000. In favor of anarchia cf. Schütrumpf 1991, p.343: the establishing of a monarchia is contradictory with the idea that the politeia is abolished, moreover Aristotle doesn't usually use the verb poien to denote the establishing of a constitution. One may consider that Aristotle is not so much referring to monarchia as a constitution but to single-man powers and the "arbitrary despotism of the powerful families" (cf. Barker 1961 ("set up…as many monarchies"), Aubonnet 1960 ("susciter comme des monarchies"), Simpson 1998, p.123, Curnis & Pezzoli 2012, cf. Plato's dunasteia in Laws, III, 680b. Nevertheless Aristotle does not use a comparative term and "monarchy" is in the singular. Besides the parallel established by Newman with the narrative of Herodotus about the advent of Peisistratos' tyranny in a situation of stasis, 62 the Aristotelian context appears to be close, by its wording and idea, to the elegies of Theognis of Megara (6 th century BC). At the beginning of book I, v.39-42 and 51-52, 63 Theognis expresses the fear, in a situation of stasis, of the advent of a tyrant, to straighten the situation (ἄνδρα εὐθυντῆρα, v.39-40). The unfair and bad practices of the leaders (ἡγεμόνες, v.41) could ruin the city by engendering divisions into factions (στάσιές), murders among one's people (ἔμφυλοι φόνοι ἀνδρῶν), and monarchical powers (μούναρχοί).
When there is no more lawful established government, that is in a situation of anarchia or here of acosmia, it is the advent of a monarchical, authoritarian and arbitrary power that is feared. We can draw a parallel with Aeschylus in The Eumenides and his warnings against the double danger of anarchia and despotism when the laws are not obeyed, 64 or with Plato and his description of the transformation of democracy -presented as a regime of anarchia 65 -into tyranny in the Republic, VIII-IX.
However, how such a situation differs from the fact that for some time such a city doesn't exist anymore and the political community is dissolved? A city that stands in this way is in danger, because those who want to attack it also have the power to do it.
Newman 1887, p.359. One should note also that Aristotle establishes a close link between dunasteia and monarchia: when the powerful concentrate excessive power, fortune or friends, appears a dunasteia close to monarchia (IV, 1293a30-34) or even a monarchia (V, 1302b18). One can understand as well in a figurative way that the powerful impose their will as a monarch in the same way as the people in the extreme form of democracy govern as a monarch imposing its will without submitting to the law (IV 4 1292a11-17: ὁ δ' οὖν τοιοῦτος δῆμος, ἅτε μόναρχος ὤν, ζητεῖ μοναρχεῖν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἄρχεσθαι ὑπὸ νόμου, καὶ γίνεται δεσποτικός, such a people, as being monarch, seeks to exercise monarchic rule through not being ruled by law and he becomes despotic). In both cases, the law is abolished and the power becomes despotic; nevertheless in the case of the dunasteia it is more difficult to conceive a unity in comparison to the demos governing with one voice through decrees. 63 Carrière 1975. 64 Aeschylus, Eumenides, v.525-527, v.696-697. 65 Plato, Republic, VIII, 558c3-7, 560d3-561a4, 562c9-562e5. According to Aristotle, these periods, characterized by the acosmia, the tyrannical action of the powerful and the civil strife, equate with the annihilation of the city (μηκέτι πόλιν εἷναι) and the dissolution of the political community (λύεσθαι τὴν πολιτικὴν κοινωνίαν). Beyond the ruling class, it is the whole city as a political community that is destroyed. The city deprived of its politeia loses the bulwark of laws and magistrates ensuring their implementation 66 and becomes thereby extremely vulnerable, dunamenōn (δυναμένων) echoing in its turn dunasteia and tōn dunatōn (τῶν δυνατῶν) to designate the almighty power of brute, arbitrary and authoritarian force. Division and civil strife challenge the very idea of koinōnia (κοινωνία) uniting the citizens of the same city.

SÍNTESIS
This consequence appears all the more worrying and serious as Aristotle defines from the beginning of his work the city or the political community 67 as the highest natural community aiming the supreme good. 68 It allows not only to "live" but to "live in a good way", 69 that is to say, to achieve happiness, 70 by fulfilling one's nature of "political animal". 71 Moreover, the function of the citizen that defines its virtue is to ensure the safety of the community, that is to say, of the politeia, 72 and not to attack and annihilate it. Therefore a man who acts in such a way acts against his own nature.

CONCLUSION
Thus, after close examination, it seems to me that the meaning that should be given to acosmia in this passage by Aristotle is the one of "vacancy of the office of Cosmi". However, the fact remains that, due to the word's usual meaning, the notions of misbehavior, impropriety, licentiousness and disorder remain present in the spirit of the reader and enrich the reading of the passage at a second level. The threshold is soon crossed between the institutional meaning of "abeyance of Cosmi" and "disorder" or "disorderly conduct", all the more as the Cosmos is precisely in charge of cosmein (κοσμεῖν), that is "to put in order". The parallel with the word anarchia supports this reading on two different levels. Indeed its meaning oscillates in classical Greek sources between absence of government and disorder resulting from the absence of government, state of lawlessness. powerful in an oligarchic regime. The main difference is that anarchia in Athens happens in an exceptional situation of crisis, whereas in Crete acosmia has become according to Aristotle an usual practice of the powerful so as to escape retribution, to dominate personally and to act according to their goodwill. Consequently, it corrupts the nature of the regime and leads ultimately to the dissolution of the political community and the temporary destruction of the city.
The text variants transmitted by the manuscripts may be a testimony of the difficulties of interpretation already raised by this passage in ancient time, in particular due to the uncommon use of the word acosmia in this sense. One can wonder whether this use was forged by Aristotle on the model of anarchia or whether the word was used in the Cretan cities that had Cosmi as magistrates, use for which, as far as I know, no trace remains.