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, then 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.