And commonly they that live under a monarch think it the fault of monarchy；and they that live under the government of democracy，or other sovereign assembly，attribute all the inconvenience to that form of Commonwealth；whereas the power in all forms，if they be perfect enough to protect them，is the same：not considering that the estate of man can never be without some incommodity or other；and that the greatest that in any form of government can possibly happen to the people in general is scarce sensible，in respect of the miseries and horrible calamities that accompany a civil war，or that dissolute condition of masterless men without subjection to laws and a coercive power to tie their hands from rapine and revenge：nor considering that the greatest pressure of sovereign governors proceedeth，not from any delight or profit they can expect in the damage weakening of their subjects，in whose vigour consisteth their own strength and glory，but in the restiveness of themselves that，unwillingly contributing to their own defence，make it necessary for their governors to draw from them what they can in time of peace that they may have means on any emergent occasion，or sudden need，to resist or take advantage on their enemies.For all men are by nature provided of notable multiplying glasses (that is their passions and self-love)through which every little payment appeareth a great grievance，but are destitute of those prospective glasses (namely moral and civil science)to see afar off the miseries that hang over them and cannot without such payments be avoided.
第一章OF THE SEVERAL KINDS OF COMMONWEALTH BY INSTITUTION，AND OF SUCCESSION TO THE SOVEREIGN POWER
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 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.
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.
It is manifest that men who are in absolute liberty may，if they please，give authority to one man to represent them every one，as well as give such authority to any assembly of men whatsoever；and consequently may subject themselves，if they think good，to a monarch as absolutely as to other representative.Therefore，where there is already erected a sovereign power，there can be no other representative of the same people，but only to certain particular ends，by the sovereign limited.For that were to erect two sovereigns；and every man to have his person represented by two actors that，by opposing one another，must needs divide that power，which (if men will live in peace)is indivisible；and thereby reduce the multitude into the condition of war，contrary to the end for which all sovereignty is instituted.And therefore as it is absurd to think that a sovereign assembly，inviting the people of their dominion to send up their deputies with power to make known their advice or desires should therefore hold such deputies，rather than themselves，for the absolute representative of the people；so it is absurd also to think the same in a monarchy.And I know not how this so manifest a truth should of late be so little observed：that in a monarchy he that had the sovereignty from a descent of six hundred years was alone called sovereign，had the title of Majesty from every one of his subjects，and was unquestionably taken by them for their king，was notwithstanding never considered as their representative；that name without contradiction passing for the title of those men which at his command were sent up by the people to carry their petitions and give him，if he permitted it，their advice.Which may serve as an admonition for those that are the true and absolute representative of a people，to instruct men in the nature of that office，and to take heed how they admit of any other general representation upon any occasion whatsoever，if they mean to discharge the trust committed to them.