Probably what we have said may be
true of some persons, but not of others; for some
men are by nature formed to be under the government
of a master; others, of a king; others, to be the citizens
of a free state, just and useful; but a tyranny is
not according to nature, nor the other perverted forms
of government; for they are contrary to it. But
it is evident from what has been said, that among equals
it is neither advantageous nor [1288a] right that
one person should be lord over all where there are
no established laws, but his will is the law; or where
there are; nor is it right that one who is good should
have it over those who are good; or one who is not
good over those who are not good; nor one who is superior
to the rest In worth, except in a particular manner,
which shall be described, though indeed it has been
already mentioned. But let us next determine what
people are best qualified for a kingly government,
what for an aristocratic, and what for a democratic.
And, first, for a kingly; and it should be those who
are accustomed by nature to submit the civil government
of themselves to a family eminent for virtue:
for an aristocracy, those who are naturally framed
to bear the rule of free men, whose superior virtue
makes them worthy of the management of others:
for a free state, a war-like people, formed by nature
both to govern and be governed by laws which admit
the poorest citizen to share the honours of the commonwealth
according to his worth. But whenever a whole family
or any one of another shall happen so far to excel
in virtue as to exceed all other persons in the community,
the n it is right that the kingly power should be
in them, or if it is an individual who does so, that
he should be king and lord of all; for this, as we
have just mentioned, is not only correspondent to
that principle of right which all founders of all
states, whether aristocracies, oligarchies, or democracies,
have a regard to (for in placing the supreme power
they all think it right to fix it to excellence, though
not the same); but it is also agreeable to what has
been already said; as it would not be right to kill,
or banish, or ostracise such a one for his superior
merit. Nor would it be proper to let him have
the supreme power only in turn; for it is contrary
to nature that what is highest should ever be lowest:
but this would be the case should such a one ever be
governed by others. So that there can nothing
else be done but to submit, and permit him continually
to enjoy the supreme power. And thus much with
respect to kingly power in different states, and whether
it is or is not advantageous to them, and to what,
and in what manner.
|