Dio Chrysostom, On Kingship 3.3

In a similar vein, Socrates' successors have spoken about government and kingship, following his most wise doctrine as closely as they might. And the very terms they use make the distinctions clear at the outset. "Government" is defined as the lawful ordering of men and as oversight over men in accordance with law; "monarchy," as an irresponsible government where the king's will is law;​"tyrant," or rather "tyranny," on the contrary, as the arbitrary and lawless exploitation of men by one regarded as having superior force on his side. 

The three most conspicuous forms of government—governments based on law and justice and enjoying the favor of heaven and fortune—are expressly named. One is the first to come into existence and the most practicable​—that which forms the subject of the present address—where we have a city, or a number of peoples, or the whole world, well ordered by one good man's judgment and virtue; second, the so‑called "aristocracy," where not one man, nor a considerable number of men, but a few, and they the best, are in control—a form of government, at length, far from being either practicable or expedient. It seems to me that Homer too had this in mind when he said: 

The rule 

Of the many is not well. One must be chief 

In war, and one the king, to whom the son

Of Cronus, crafty in counsel, the scepter doth give. 

Third, possibly the most impracticable one of all, the one that expects by the self-control and virtue of the common people someday to find an equitable constitution based on law. Men call it "democracy"—a specious and inoffensive name, if the thing were but practicable. 

To these forms of government—three in number, as I have said—are opposed three degenerate forms not based on law: The first is "tyranny," where one man's high-handed use of force is the ruin of others. Next comes oligarchy, harsh and unjust, arising from the aggrandizement of a certain few wealthy rascals at the expense of the needy masses. The next in order is a motley impulsive mob​ of all sorts and conditions of men who know absolutely nothing but are always kept in a state of confusion and anger by unscrupulous demagogues, just as a wild rough sea is whipped this way and that by the fierce blasts. 

These degenerate forms I have merely touched on in passing, though I could point to many mischances and disasters that each of them has suffered in the past, but it is my duty to discuss more carefully the happy and god-given polity at present in force. Now there are many close parallels and striking analogies to this form of government to be found in nature, where herds of cattle and swarms of bees indicate clearly that it is natural for the stronger to govern and care for the weaker. However, there could be no more striking or beautiful illustration than that government of the universe which is under the control of the first and best god.

A ruler of this character is, to begin with, highly favored of the gods, seeing that he enjoys their greatest respect and confidence, and he will give the first and chief place to religion, not merely confessing but also believing in his heart that there are gods, to the end that he too may have worthy governors under him. And he believes that his own oversight is advantageous to others just as the rule of the gods is to himself. 

Furthermore, being firmly resolved in his own heart never to receive a gift from wicked men, he believes that the gods also do not delight in the offerings or sacrifices of the unjust, but accept the gifts made by the good alone. 

Accordingly, he will be zealous to worship them with these also without stint. Of a truth he will never cease honouring them with noble deeds and just acts. Each one, indeed, of the gods he will propitiate as far as within him lies. Virtue he regards as holiness and vice as utter impiety, being firmly persuaded that not only those who rob temples or blaspheme the gods are sinners and accursed but, much more so, the cowardly, the unjust, the licentious, the fools, and, in general, those who act contrary to the power and will of the gods. 

Furthermore, he believes not only in gods but also in good spirits and demigods, which are the souls of good men that have cast off this mortal nature; and in confirming this belief he does no small service to himself as well. 

Then, the care bestowed on his subjects he does not consider an incidental thing or mere drudgery, when weighed down, let us say, by cares, but as his own work and profession. And when he is otherwise engaged, he does not feel that he is doing anything worth while or that he is attending to his own business; it is only when he helps men that he thinks he is doing his duty, having been appointed to this work by the greatest god, whom it is not right for him to disobey in aught nor yet to feel aggrieved, believing, as he does, that these tasks are his duty. 

For no one is so effeminate or enslaved to pleasure as not to like his own occupation even if it chance to be laborious. A sea captain, for example, never finds his toil at sea irksome, nor a farmer his work in tilling the soil; never is the huntsman wearied by the hardships of the chase; and yet both farming and hunting are most laborious. 

No indeed, the king does not object to toil and discomfort in behalf of others, nor does he deem his lot any the worse simply because he has to face the most tasks and have the most troubles. For he sees that the sun, too, although inferior to none of the gods, frets not because, to preserve man and life, he must accomplish all his many tasks throughout the ages.

And again, he considers courage, self-control, and prudence necessary even for those who disregard justice and wish to play the tyrant, if they are not speedily to perish; nay, he sees that they stand in need of these qualities even more than those others, and that the more such a man is beset by those who hate him and by those who plot against him, while he has no one on whom he can rely or look to for sympathy; so much the more, if he is to remain safe for any time, must he be on the alert and use his wits, guarding against defeat by his enemies and plotting to have full knowledge of the plotters, and so much the more must he abstain from pleasure and refuse to yield under any pressure to the allurement of high living, sloth, and carnal pleasure—yea, much more than the man beloved by all who has no one plotting against him.

Therefore, if the unjust ruler must have the same anxieties as the other—or even more—and much more exacting toil, if he must equally steel himself against pleasure, must equally face danger, how much better it is for him to show justice and virtue rather than wickedness and injustice in doing all this, to win credit rather than censure for his acts, to have the love of men and gods instead of their hate? 

Besides, man's present is short and uncertain; the most of his life is filled with remembrance of the past and expectation of the future. Which, therefore, of the two men do we think finds joy in remembrance, and which remorse? Which do we think is encouraged by his expectations and which dismayed? Therefore of necessity the life of the good king is more pleasant also.