Anyone who has read the first few chapters of the Nicomachean Ethics will know that Aristotle considers his treatise on ethics as a contribution to the science of politics. The claim is stated prominently at the beginning (e. g. 1.2, 1094b10–11; cf. 1.13, 1102a7-13); we are reminded of it in the discussion of practical wisdom in book 6 (e. g. 6.8, 1141b23 ff.), and the last chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics announces the transition to the inquiry into politics proper – forms of government and the ideal state. But few scholars who have written on the Ethics pay more than passing attention to these statements. This is understandable: not only has the treatise on politics come down to us as a separate work; politics also plays hardly any role in the treatises on ethics, and after all, the two disciplines have been treated as distinct since ancient times. Furthermore, ethics has stubbornly remained a part of philosophy, while political science now officially purports to be a social science – one which seems, however, to be largely a combination of history and philosophical theory (much like Aristotle's Politics, by the way). Besides, Aristotle's Politics may come as something of a shock for readers who begin with the Ethics. It is much more obviously a product of its time in history and advocates views that are now thoroughly unacceptable: it defends slavery, assumes the natural inferiority of women to men, and argues for a rather elitist form of government.