This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
View text chunked by:
- bekker page : bekker line
- book : chapter : section
Both are monarchies,
but there is a very wide difference between them: a tyrant studies his own advantage, a
king that of his subjects. For a monarch is not a king1 if he does not possess independent resources, and is
not better supplied with goods of every kind than his subjects; but a ruler so situated
lacks nothing, and therefore will not study his own interests but those of his subjects.
(A king who is not independent of his subjects will be merely a sort of titular
king.2) Tyranny is the exact opposite in
this respect, for the tyrant pursues his own good. The inferiority of Tyranny among the
perversions is more evident than that of Timocracy among the constitutions, for the
opposite of the best must be the worst.
[3]
When a change of constitution takes place, Kingship passes into Tyranny, because Tyranny
is the bad form of monarchy, so that a bad king becomes a tyrant. Aristocracy passes into
Oligarchy owing to badness in the rulers, who do not distribute what the State has to
offer according to desert, but give all or most of its benefits to themselves, and always
assign the offices to the same persons, because they set supreme value upon riches; thus
power is in the hands of a few bad men, instead of being in the hands of the best men.
Timocracy passes into Democracy, there being an affinity between them, inasmuch as the
ideal of Timocracy also is government by the mass of the citizens, and within the property
qualification all are equal. Democracy is the least bad