Politics

or is not advantageous, and another, whether it is advantageous for one person to be sovereign over all things, or is not advantageous. Now, to examine about such a generalship has more the character of laws than of a constitution (for this is capable of occurring in all constitutions); so let it be dismissed for the first; but the remaining mode of kingship is a species of constitution, so that about this we must contemplate and run over the difficulties that are inherent in it. And the starting-point of the inquiry is this: whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best man or by the best laws. Now, to those who think it is advantageous to be ruled by a king, the laws seem to speak only of the universal, but not to command for falling circumstances, so that in any art whatever, to rule according to written rules is foolish (and in Egypt, after the fourth day, it is permitted for the physicians to alter the treatment, but if earlier, at their own risk). It is manifest, therefore, that the constitution according to written rules and laws is not the best, for the same reason. Nevertheless, indeed, that reason, which is universal, must also belong to the rulers. And that to which the passionate element is not attached at all is better than that in which it is innate; now, this does not belong to the law, but every human soul must have this. But perhaps someone would say that, in compensation for this, he will deliberate about particular cases more finely. That it is necessary, therefore, for him to be a legislator is clear, and that laws must be established, but not to be sovereign where they deviate, since in all other matters they must be sovereign; but as for matters which it is impossible for the law to judge either at all or well, should one, the best, rule, or all? For even now, coming together they judge, deliberate, and decide, and these decisions are all about particular cases. Individually, therefore, whoever it may be, when compared, is perhaps inferior; but the city is made of many, and just as a feast provided by many contributors is finer than a single and simple one, for this reason also a crowd judges many things better than any single person. Moreover, the great quantity is more incorruptible; just as a larger amount of water, so also the multitude is more incorruptible than the few. But when one person is overcome by anger or some other such passion, it is necessary that his judgment be corrupted, whereas there, it is a hard task for all to become angry and err at the same time. But let the multitude be the free men, doing nothing contrary to the law except in matters where it must of necessity fail. But if indeed this is not easy among many, yet if there were several who were good both as men and as citizens, is the one more incorruptible as a ruler, or rather those who are more in number, but all of them good?