The difference of commonwealths, consisteth in the difference of the sovereign, or the person representative of all and every one of the multitude. And because the sovereignty is either in one man, or in an assembly of more than one; and into that assembly either every man hath right to enter, or not every one, but certain men distinguished from the rest; it is manifest, there can be but three kinds of commonwealth. For the representative must needs be one man, or more: and if more, then it is the assembly of all, or but of a part. When the representative is one man, then is the commonwealth a MONARCHY: when an assembly of all that will come together, then it is a DEMOCRACY, or popular commonwealth: when an assembly of a a part only, then it is called an ARISTOCRACY. Other kind of commonwealth there can be none: for either one, or more, or all, must have the sovereign power, which I have shown to be indivisible, entire. [Sidenote: Tyranny and oligarchy, but different names of monarchy, and aristocracy.] There be other names of government, in the histories, and books of policy; as _tyranny_, and _oligarchy_: but they are not the names of other forms of government, but of the same forms misliked. For they that are discontented under _monarchy_, call it _tyranny_; and they that are displeased with _aristocracy_, call it _oligarchy_: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a _democracy_, call it _anarchy_, which signifies want of government; and yet I think no man believes, that want of government, is any new kind of government: nor by the same reason ought they to believe, that the government is of one kind, when they like it, and another, when they mislike it, or are oppressed by the governors. [Sidenote: Subordinate representatives dangerous.]