In which Aristotle gets frightening (because people take this stuff very seriously):
Aristotle, Politics 1284b25-34
“But in the best state, there is an important question: what should be done when a man is conspicuous not for some other quality such as strength, wealth or networks of friends but for virtue? For, indeed, no one would claim it is right to exile or disenfranchise a man like this. Nor could you say that we should rule him. For if would be the same as if they should think it right to split up the duties and rule over Zeus. What is left, and what seems natural, is for everyone to obey a man like this happily in order to make this type of king revered in their cities.”
ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας ἔχει πολλὴν ἀπορίαν, οὐ κατὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν τὴν ὑπεροχήν, οἷον ἰσχύος καὶ πλούτου καὶ πολυφιλίας, ἀλλὰ ἄν τις γένηται διαφέρων κατ’ ἀρετήν, τί χρὴ ποιεῖν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ φαῖεν ἂν δεῖν ἐκβάλλειν καὶ μεθιστάναι τὸν τοιοῦτον· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ’ ἄρχειν γε τοῦ τοιούτου· παραπλήσιον γὰρ κἂν εἰ τοῦ Διὸς ἄρχειν ἀξιοῖεν, μερίζοντες τὰς ἀρχάς. λείπεται τοίνυν, ὅπερ ἔοικε πεφυκέναι, πείθεσθαι τῷ τοιούτῳ πάντας ἀσμένως, ὥστε βασιλέας εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους ἀιδίους ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν.
I have heard that there is a good book that tackles this subject and purports to show that it isn’t quite so scary as it might initially seem.