Nicomachean Ethics

​There are three kinds of constitution, and an equal number of deviations, which are, as it were, corruptions of them. The constitutions are kingship, aristocracy, and a third based on property assessments, which it seems appropriate to call timocracy, but which most people are accustomed to call simply “constitution” . Of these, kingship is the best, and timocracy is the worst. The deviation from kingship is tyranny; for both are monarchies, but they differ most widely. For the tyrant looks to his own advantage, but the king to that of his subjects. For he is not a king who is not self-sufficient and superior in all goods; and such a ruler needs nothing more; therefore, he would not look to his own interests, but to those of his subjects. For a king who is not of this sort would be a mere king by lot. Tyranny is the exact opposite of this; for it pursues the good for itself. And it is more obvious in the case of tyranny that it is the worst; and the opposite of the best is the worst. And transition takes place from kingship to tyranny; for tyranny is the bad form of monarchy, and the bad king becomes a tyrant. From aristocracy to oligarchy transition occurs through the wickedness of the rulers, who distribute the goods of the city contrary to worth, keeping all or most of the goods for themselves, and offices always for the same persons, making wealth their chief concern; thus a few bad men rule instead of the most decent. And from timocracy to democracy transition occurs; for these are close borders, since timocracy also aims at being a rule of the majority, and all who meet the property qualification are equal. Democracy is the least bad of the deviations; for it deviates only a little from the form of constitution. In this way, then, constitutions change most of all; for thus they change least and most easily. One might find likenesses and, as it were, models of them also in households. For the community of a father with his sons has the form of kingship; for the father cares for his children. This is why Homer addresses Zeus as “father”; for kingship aims at being a paternal rule. But among the Persians, the rule of the father is tyrannical; for they use their sons as slaves. The rule of a master over slaves is also tyrannical; for the master’s advantage is what is secured in it. Now this rule indeed seems correct, but the Persian one is mistaken; for different kinds of rule are appropriate to different kinds of people. The relation of husband and wife seems to be aristocratic; for the husband rules according to worth, and in those matters which a husband should, but whatever is suitable for a wife he assigns to her. But if the husband controls everything, he changes it into an oligarchy; for he does this contrary to worth, and not in so far as he is better. And sometimes wives rule when they are heiresses; then the rule is not based on virtue, but due to wealth and power, just as in oligarchies. The relation of brothers resembles timocracy; for they are equal, except in so far as they differ in age; wherefore, if they differ greatly in age, their friendship is no longer brotherly. Democracy is found especially in those households which have no master (for there all are on an equal footing), and in those where the ruler is weak and everyone has authority.