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.
What we have said may be true of some people, but not of others. Some men are naturally suited to live under a master, others under a king. Others are suited to be just and useful citizens of a free state. But tyranny is not natural, nor are the other corrupt forms of government, since they are contrary to nature. What we have said makes one point clear. Among equals, it is neither beneficial nor [1288a] right for one person to rule everyone else. This holds whether there are no established laws and his will is law, or whether established laws exist. Nor is it right for one good person to rule other good people, or one bad person to rule other bad people. Even someone superior in worth should not rule, except under particular circumstances. We will describe those circumstances, though we have already mentioned them. Next, let us determine which people are best suited to monarchy, which to aristocracy, and which to democracy. First, those suited to monarchy naturally accept political rule by a family distinguished by virtue. Those suited to aristocracy naturally accept the rule of free men whose superior virtue qualifies them to govern others. Those suited to a free state are warlike people, naturally able both to govern and to be governed by laws. These laws allow even the poorest citizen to share in public honors according to his worth. But suppose a whole family, or a single member of another family, so excels in virtue that it surpasses everyone else in the community. Then it is right for that family to hold royal power. If one individual excels in this way, he should be king and ruler of all. As we have just mentioned, this agrees with the principle of justice recognized by all founders of states. This applies whether they establish aristocracies, oligarchies, or democracies. For all believe that supreme power should belong to those who excel, although they do not recognize the same excellence. This conclusion also agrees with what we have already said. It would not be right to kill, banish, or ostracize such a person because of his superior merit. Nor would it be proper for him to hold supreme power only by turns. For it is contrary to nature that the highest should ever become the lowest. Yet that would happen if such a person were ever governed by others. So the only course is to submit and allow him to hold supreme power permanently. This concludes our discussion of royal power in different states: whether it benefits them, which states it benefits, and how.