1. We have already spoken of a city by institution in its genus; we will now say somewhat of its species. As for the difference of cities, it is taken from the difference of the persons to whom the supreme power is committed. This power is committed either to _one man_, or _council_, or some _one court_ consisting of many men. Furthermore, a council of many men consists either of all the citizens, insomuch as every man of them hath a right to vote, and an interest in the ordering of the greatest affairs, if he will himself; or of a part only. From whence there arise three sorts of government; the one, when the power is in a council where every citizen hath a right to vote; and it is called a _democracy_. The other, when it is in a council, where not all, but some part only have their suffrages; and we call it an _aristocracy_. The third is that, when the supreme authority rests only in one; and it is styled a _monarchy_. In the first, he that governs is called δῆμος, the _people_; in the second, the _nobles_; in the third, the _monarch_. [Sidenote: Oligarchy is no state of a city distinct from aristocracy; neither is anarchy any state at all.] 2. Now, although ancient writers of politics have introduced three other kinds of government opposite to these; to wit, _anarchy_ or confusion to _democracy_; _oligarchy_, that is, the command of some few, to _aristocracy_, and _tyranny_ to _monarchy_; yet are not these three distinct forms of government, but three diverse titles given by those who were either displeased with that present government or those that bare rule. For men, by giving names, do usually not only signify the things themselves, but also their own affections, as love, hatred, anger, and the like. Whence it happens that what one man calls a _democracy_, another calls an _anarchy_; what one counts an _aristocracy_, another esteems an _oligarchy_; and whom one titles a _king_, another styles him a _tyrant_. So as we see, these names betoken not a diverse kind of government, but the _diverse opinions_ of the subjects concerning him who hath the supreme power. For first, who sees not that _anarchy_ is equally opposite to all the aforenamed forms? For that word signifies that there is no government at all, that is, not any city. But how is it possible that _no city_ should be the species of _a city_? Furthermore, what difference is there between an _oligarchy_, which signifies the command of a _few_ or _grandees_, or an _aristocracy_, which is that of the _prime_ or _chief heads_, more than that men differ so among themselves, that the same things seem not good to all men? Whence it happens that those persons, who by some are looked on as the _best_, are by others esteemed to be the _worst_ of all men. [Sidenote: That a tyranny is not a diverse state from a legitimate monarchy.]