Ethics

Of Political Constitutions there are three kinds; and equal in number are the deflections from them, being, so to say, corruptions of them.

The former are Kingship, Aristocracy, and that which recognises the principle of wealth, which it seems appropriate to call Timocracy (I give to it the name of a political constitution because people commonly do so).  Of these the best is Monarchy, and Timocracy the worst.

[Sidenote:  II6ob] From Monarchy the deflection is Despotism; both being Monarchies but widely differing from each other; for the Despot looks to his own advantage, but the King to that of his subjects:  for he is in fact no King who is not thoroughly independent and superior to the rest in all good things, and he that is this has no further wants:  he will not then have to look to his own advantage but to that of his subjects, for he that is not in such a position is a mere King elected by lot for the nonce.

But Despotism is on a contrary footing to this Kingship, because the Despot pursues his own good:  and in the case of this its inferiority is most evident, and what is worse is contrary to what is best.  The Transition to Despotism is made from Kingship, Despotism being a corrupt form of Monarchy, that is to say, the bad King comes to be a Despot.

From Aristocracy to Oligarchy the transition is made by the fault of the Rulers in distributing the public property contrary to right proportion; and giving either all that is good, or the greatest share, to themselves; and the offices to the same persons always, making wealth their idol; thus a few bear rule and they bad men in the place of the best.

From Timocracy the transition is to Democracy, they being contiguous:  for it is the nature of Timocracy to be in the hands of a multitude, and all in the same grade of property are equal.  Democracy is the least vicious of all, since herein the form of the constitution undergoes least change.

Well, these are generally the changes to which the various Constitutions are liable, being the least in degree and the easiest to make.

Likenesses, and, as it were, models of them, one may find even in Domestic life:  for instance, the Communion between a Father and his Sons presents the figure of Kingship, because the children are the Father’s care:  and hence Homer names Jupiter Father because Kingship is intended to be a paternal rule.  Among the Persians, however, the Father’s rule is Despotic, for they treat their Sons as slaves. (The relation of Master to Slaves is of the nature of Despotism because the point regarded herein is the Master’s interest):  this now strikes me to be as it ought, but the Persian custom to be mistaken; because for different persons there should be different rules. [Sidenote:  1161a] Between Husband and Wife the relation takes the form of Aristocracy, because he rules by right and in such points only as the Husband should, and gives to the Wife all that befits her to have.  Where the Husband lords it in everything he changes the relation into an Oligarchy; because he does it contrary to right and not as being the better of the two.  In some instances the Wives take the reins of government, being heiresses:  here the rule is carried on not in right of goodness but by reason of wealth and power, as it is in Oligarchies.

Timocracy finds its type in the relation of Brothers:  they being equal except as to such differences as age introduces:  for which reason, if they are very different in age, the Friendship comes to be no longer a fraternal one:  while Democracy is represented specially by families which have no head (all being there equal), or in which the proper head is weak and so every member does that which is right in his own eyes.