But the different sorts of kingly governments may, if I may so say,
be reduced to two; which we will consider more particularly. The last
spoken of, and the Lacedaemonian, for the chief of the others are placed
between these, which are as it were at the extremities, they having less
power than an absolute government, and yet more than the Lacedaemonians;
so that the whole matter in question may be reduced to these two points;
the one is, whether it is advantageous to the citizens to have the
office of general continue in one person for life, and whether it should
be confined to any particular families or whether every one should be
eligible: the other, whether [1286a] it is advantageous for one person
to have the supreme power over everything or not. But to enter into the
particulars concerning the office of a Lacedaemonian general would be
rather to frame laws for a state than to consider the nature and utility
of its constitution, since we know that the appointing of a general is
what is done in every state. Passing over this question then, we will
proceed to consider the other part of their government, which is
the polity of the state; and this it will be necessary to examine
particularly into, and to go through such questions as may arise.
Now the first thing which presents itself to our consideration is this,
whether it is best to be governed by a good man, or by good laws? Those
who prefer a kingly government think that laws can only speak a general
language, but cannot adapt themselves to particular circumstances; for
which reason it is absurd in any science to follow written rule; and
even in Egypt the physician was allowed to alter the mode of cure which
the law prescribed to him, after the fourth day; but if he did it sooner
it was at his own peril: from whence it is evident, on the very same
account, that a government of written laws is not the best; and yet
general reasoning is necessary to all those who are to govern, and it
will be much more perfect in those who are entirely free from passions
than in those to whom they are natural. But now this is a quality which
laws possess; while the other is natural to the human soul. But some
one will say in answer to this, that man will be a better judge of
particulars. It will be necessary, then, for a king to be a lawgiver,
and that his laws should be published, but that those should have no
authority which are absurd, as those which are not, should. But whether
is it better for the community that those things which cannot possibly
come under the cognisance of the law either at all or properly should be
under the government of every worthy citizen, as the present method is,
when the public community, in their general assemblies, act as judges
and counsellors, where all their determinations are upon particular
cases, for one individual, be he who he will, will be found, upon
comparison, inferior to a whole people taken collectively: but this
is what a city is, as a public entertainment is better than one man's
portion: for this reason the multitude judge of many things better than
any one single person. They are also less liable to corruption from
their numbers, as water is from its quantity: besides, the judgment of
an individual must necessarily be perverted if he is overcome by anger
or any other passion; but it would be hard indeed if the whole community
should be misled by anger. Moreover, let the people be free, and they
will do nothing but in conformity to the law, except only in those cases
which the law cannot speak to. But though what I am going to propose may
not easily be met with, yet if the majority of the state should happen
to be good men, should they prefer one uncorrupt governor or many
equally good, is it not evident that they should choose the many? But
there may be divisions among [1286b] these which cannot happen when
there is but one. In answer to this it may be replied that all their
souls will be as much animated with virtue as this one man's.
If then a government of many, and all of them good men, compose an
aristocracy, and the government of one a kingly power, it is evident
that the people should rather choose the first than the last; and this
whether the state is powerful or not, if many such persons so alike
can be met with: and for this reason probable it was, that the first
governments were generally monarchies; because it was difficult to find
a number of persons eminently virtuous, more particularly as the world
was then divided into small communities; besides, kings were appointed
in return for the benefits they had conferred on mankind; but such
actions are peculiar to good men: but when many persons equal in virtue
appeared at the time, they brooked not a superiority, but sought after
an equality and established a free state; but after this, when they
degenerated, they made a property of the public; which probably gave
rise to oligarchies; for they made wealth meritorious, and the honours
of government were reserved for the rich: and these afterwards turned
to tyrannies and these in their turn gave rise to democracies; for
the power of the tyrants continually decreasing, on account of their
rapacious avarice, the people grew powerful enough to frame and
establish democracies: and as cities after that happened to increase,
probably it was not easy for them to be under any other government than
a democracy. But if any person prefers a kingly government in a state,
what is to be done with the king's children? Is the family also to
reign? But should they have such children as some persons usually have,
it will be very detrimental. It may be said, that then the king who
has it in his power will never permit such children to succeed to his
kingdom. But it is not easy to trust to that; for it is very hard and
requires greater virtue than is to be met with in human nature. There is
also a doubt concerning the power with which a king should be entrusted:
whether he should be allowed force sufficient to compel those who do
not choose to be obedient to the laws, and how he is to support his
government? for if he is to govern according to law and do nothing of
his own will which is contrary thereunto, at the same time it will
be necessary to protect that power with which he guards the law, This
matter however may not be very difficult to determine; for he ought to
have a proper power, and such a one is that which will be sufficient
to make the king superior to any one person or even a large part of the
community, but inferior to the whole, as the ancients always appointed
guards for that person whom they created aesumnetes or tyrant; and some
one advised the Syracusians, when Dionysius asked for guards, to allow
him such.