What has been now said, it seems proper to change our subject and to inquire into the nature of monarchies; for we have already admitted them to be one of those species of government which are properly founded. And here let us consider whether a kingly government is proper for a city or a country whose principal object is the happiness of the inhabitants, or rather some other. But let us first determine whether this is of one kind only, or more; [1285a] and it is easy to know that it consists of many different species, and that the forms of government are not the same in all: for at Sparta the kingly power seems chiefly regulated by the laws; for it is not supreme in all circumstances; but when the king quits the territories of the state he is their general in war; and all religious affairs are entrusted to him: indeed the kingly power with them is chiefly that of a general who cannot be called to an account for his conduct, and whose command is for life: for he has not the power of life and death, except as a general; as they frequently had in their expeditions by martial law, which we learn from Homer; for when Agamemnon is affronted in council, he restrains his resentment, but when he is in the field and armed with this power, he tells the Greeks:
After what we have said, it seems appropriate to change our subject and examine the nature of monarchies. We have already accepted monarchy as one of the legitimate forms of government. Let us now consider a city or country whose main goal is the happiness of its inhabitants. Is monarchy suitable for such a community, or would another form of government be better? But first, let us determine whether monarchy has only one form or several. [1285a] It is easy to see that monarchy has several forms, and that royal government is not the same everywhere. In Sparta, royal power seems largely governed by law, since the king does not have supreme authority in all circumstances. But when the king leaves the state's territory, he serves as its general in war. All religious affairs are also entrusted to him. Indeed, Spartan kingship is chiefly a lifelong military command, and the king cannot be held accountable for his conduct. He has no power over life and death except as a general. Generals often had this power under martial law during military campaigns, as we learn from Homer. When Agamemnon is insulted in council, he controls his anger. But when he is on the battlefield, armed with this power, he tells the Greeks:
"Whoe'er I know shall shun th' impending fight, To dogs and vultures soon shall be a prey; For death is mine...."
"Anyone I find avoiding the coming battle Will soon be food for dogs and vultures. Because death is mine...."
This, then, is one species of monarchical government in which the kingly power is in a general for life; and is sometimes hereditary, sometimes elective: besides, there is also another, which is to be met with among some of the barbarians, in which the kings are invested with powers nearly equal to a tyranny, yet are, in some respects, bound by the laws and the customs of their country; for as the barbarians are by nature more prone to slavery than the Greeks, and those in Asia more than those in Europe, they endure without murmuring a despotic government; for this reason their governments are tyrannies; but yet not liable to be overthrown, as being customary and according to law. Their guards also are such as are used in a kingly government, not a despotic one; for the guards of their kings are his citizens, but a tyrant's are foreigners. The one commands, in the manner the law directs, those who willingly obey; the other, arbitrarily, those who consent not. The one, therefore, is guarded by the citizens, the other against them.
This, then, is one kind of monarchy, in which a general holds royal power for life. The position is sometimes hereditary and sometimes elected. Another kind exists among some of the barbarians. Their kings have powers nearly equal to those of a tyrant. Yet in some respects, these kings are bound by their country's laws and customs. For barbarians are by nature more inclined to slavery than Greeks, and Asians more than Europeans. They therefore accept despotic government without complaint. For this reason, their governments are tyrannies. Yet these governments are not likely to be overthrown, because they follow custom and law. Their guards, too, are those of a monarchy, not a despotism. For their kings are guarded by their own citizens, while a tyrant's guards are foreigners. A king commands according to law, and his subjects obey willingly. A tyrant commands as he pleases, and his subjects do not consent. A king, therefore, is guarded by the citizens, while a tyrant is guarded against them.
These, then, are the two different sorts of these monarchies, and another is that which in ancient Greece they called aesumnetes; which is nothing more than an elective tyranny; and its difference from that which is to be found amongst the barbarians consists not in its not being according to law, but only in its not being according to the ancient customs of the country. Some persons possessed this power for life, others only for a particular time or particular purpose, as the people of Mitylene elected Pittacus to oppose the exiles, who were headed by Antimenides and Alcaeus the poet, as we learn from a poem of his; for he upbraids the Mitylenians for having chosen Pittacus for their tyrant, and with one [1285b] voice extolling him to the skies who was the ruin of a rash and devoted people. These sorts of government then are, and ever were, despotic, on account of their being tyrannies; but inasmuch as they are elective, and over a free people, they are also kingly.
These, then, are the two different kinds of monarchy. Another kind is what the ancient Greeks called aesumnetes. This is nothing more than an elected tyranny. It differs from the monarchy found among the barbarians, not because it is unlawful, but because it lacks ancestral custom. Some people held this power for life, others only for a particular time or purpose. For example, the people of Mitylene elected Pittacus to oppose the exiles, led by Antimenides and Alcaeus the poet. We learn this from a poem by Alcaeus. He rebukes the Mitylenians for choosing Pittacus as their tyrant. He also rebukes them for praising with one [1285b] voice the man who ruined a reckless and doomed people. These forms of government are, and always have been, despotic because they are tyrannies. But because their rulers are elected and govern a free people, they are also kingly.
A fourth species of kingly government is that which was in use in the heroic times, when a free people submitted to a kingly government, according to the laws and customs of their country. For those who were at first of benefit to mankind, either in arts or arms, or by collecting them into civil society, or procuring them an establishment, became the kings of a willing people, and established an hereditary monarchy. They were particularly their generals in war, and presided over their sacrifices, excepting such only as belonged to the priests: they were also the supreme judges over the people; and in this case some of them took an oath, others did not; they did, the form of swearing was by their sceptre held out.
A fourth type of monarchy existed in heroic times. Free people willingly accepted a king’s rule under the laws and customs of their country. The first kings had benefited people through the arts or warfare, by organizing communities, or by securing places to settle. Because of these benefits, the people willingly accepted them as kings, and they established hereditary monarchies. These kings served chiefly as military commanders and led sacrifices, except those reserved for priests. They were also the people’s highest judges. When acting as judges, some kings took an oath, while others did not. Those who swore an oath did so by holding out their sceptre.
In ancient times the power of the kings extended to everything whatsoever, both civil, domestic, and foreign; but in after-times they relinquished some of their privileges, and others the people assumed, so that, in some states, they left their kings only the right of presiding over the sacrifices; and even those whom it were worth while to call by that name had only the right of being commander-in-chief in their foreign wars.
In ancient times, kings had power over everything, including civil affairs, domestic matters, and foreign relations. But later, kings gave up some of their powers, and the people took others for themselves. As a result, in some states, kings retained only the right to preside over sacrifices. Even kings who still deserved the title had only the right to serve as commanders-in-chief in foreign wars.
These, then, are the four sorts of kingdoms: the first is that of the heroic times; which was a government over a free people, with its rights in some particulars marked out; for the king was their general, their judge, and their high priest. The second, that of the barbarians; which is an hereditary despotic government regulated by laws: the third is that which they call aesumnetic, which is an elective tyranny. The fourth is the Lacedaemonian; and this, in few words, is nothing more than an hereditary generalship: and in these particulars they differ from each other. There is a fifth species of kingly government, which is when one person has a supreme power over all things whatsoever, in the manner that every state and every city has over those things which belong to the public: for as the master of a family is king in his own house, so such a king is master of a family in his own city or state.
These, then, are the four kinds of monarchy. The first is the monarchy of heroic times. It ruled over a free people, and some of the king’s powers were clearly defined. For the king served as their general, judge, and high priest. The second is the monarchy of the barbarians, a hereditary, despotic government governed by laws. The third is what they call aesumnetic monarchy, an elected tyranny. The fourth is the Lacedaemonian monarchy. In short, it is nothing more than a hereditary military command. These are the ways the four kinds differ from one another. There is a fifth kind of monarchy, in which one person has supreme power over absolutely everything. This power is like the power every state and city has over everything belonging to the public. For just as the head of a household is king in his own home, so this king rules his city or state as a household.