[1287a] We will next consider the absolute monarch that we have just
mentioned, who does everything according to his own will: for a king
governing under the direction of laws which he is obliged to follow does
not of himself create any particular species of government, as we have
already said: for in every state whatsoever, either aristocracy or
democracy, it is easy to appoint a general for life; and there are many
who entrust the administration of affairs to one person only; such is
the government at Dyrrachium, and nearly the same at Opus. As for an
absolute monarchy as it is called, that is to say, when the whole state
is wholly subject to the will of one person, namely the king, it seems
to many that it is unnatural that one man should have the entire rule
over his fellow-citizens when the state consists of equals: for nature
requires that the same right and the same rank should necessarily take
place amongst all those who are equal by nature: for as it would be
hurtful to the body for those who are of different constitutions to
observe the same regimen, either of diet or clothing, so is it with
respect to the honours of the state as hurtful, that those who are equal
in merit should be unequal in rank; for which reason it is as much
a man's duty to submit to command as to assume it, and this also by
rotation; for this is law, for order is law; and it is more proper that
law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle,
if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular
persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants
of the laws, for the supreme power must be placed somewhere; but they
say, that it is unjust that where all are equal one person should
continually enjoy it. But it seems unlikely that man should be able to
adjust that which the law cannot determine; it may be replied, that the
law having laid down the best rules possible, leaves the adjustment and
application of particulars to the discretion of the magistrate; besides,
it allows anything to be altered which experience proves may be better
established. Moreover, he who would place the supreme power in mind,
would place it in God and the laws; but he who entrusts man with it,
gives it to a wild beast, for such his appetites sometimes make him; for
passion influences those who are in power, even the very best of men:
for which reason law is reason without desire.
The instance taken from the arts seems fallacious: wherein it is said to
be wrong for a sick person to apply for a remedy to books, but that it
would be far more eligible to employ those who are skilful in physic;
for these do nothing contrary to reason from motives of friendship
but earn their money by curing the sick, whereas those who have the
management of public affairs do many things through hatred or favour.
And, as a proof of what we have advanced, it may be observed, that
whenever a sick person suspects that his physician has been persuaded by
his enemies to be guilty of any foul practice to him in his profession,
he then rather chooses to apply to books for his cure: and not only this
[1287b] but even physicians themselves when they are ill call in other
physicians: and those who teach others the gymnastic exercises,
exercise with those of the same profession, as being incapable from
self-partiality to form a proper judgment of what concerns themselves.
From whence it is evident, that those who seek for what is just, seek
for a mean; now law is a mean. Moreover; the moral law is far superior
and conversant with far superior objects than the written law; for the
supreme magistrate is safer to be trusted to than the one, though he is
inferior to the other. But as it is impossible that one person should
have an eye to everything himself, it will be necessary that the supreme
magistrate should employ several subordinate ones under him; why then
should not this be done at first, instead of appointing one person in
this manner? Besides, if, according to what has been already said, the
man of worth is on that account fit to govern, two men of worth are
certainly better than one: as, for instance, in Homer, "Let two together
go:" and also Agamemnon's wish; "Were ten such faithful counsel mine!"
Not but that there are even now some particular magistrates invested
with supreme power to decide, as judges, those things which the law
cannot, as being one of those cases which comes not properly under its
jurisdiction; for of those which can there is no doubt: since then laws
comprehend some things, but not all, it is necessary to enquire and
consider which of the two is preferable, that the best man or the best
law should govern; for to reduce every subject which can come under the
deliberation of man into a law is impossible.
No one then denies, that it is necessary that there should be some
person to decide those cases which cannot come under the cognisance of
a written law: but we say, that it is better to have many than one;
for though every one who decides according to the principles of the law
decides justly; yet surely it seems absurd to suppose, that one person
can see better with two eyes, and hear better with two ears, or do
better with two hands and two feet, than many can do with many: for we
see that absolute monarchs now furnish themselves with many eyes and
ears and hands and feet; for they entrust those who are friends to
them and their government with part of their power; for if they are not
friends to the monarch, they will not do what he chooses; but if they
are friends to him, they are friends also to his government: but a
friend is an equal and like his friend: if then he thinks that such
should govern, he thinks that his equal also should govern. These are
nearly the objections which are usually made to a kingly power.