It will be necessary to enlarge a little more upon the nature of each
of these states, which is not without some difficulty, for he who would
enter into a philosophical inquiry into the principles of them, and not
content himself with a superficial view of their outward conduct, must
pass over and omit nothing, but explain the true spirit of each of them.
A tyranny then is, as has been said, a monarchy, where one person has
an absolute and despotic power over the whole community and every member
therein: an oligarchy, where the supreme power of the state is lodged
with the rich: a democracy, on the contrary, is where those have it who
are worth little or nothing. But the first difficulty that arises from
the distinctions which we have laid down is this, should it happen that
the majority of the inhabitants who possess the power of the state (for
this is a democracy) should be rich, the question is, how does this
agree with what we have said? The same difficulty occurs, should it ever
happen that the poor compose a smaller part of the people than the rich,
but from their superior abilities acquire the supreme power; for this is
what they call an oligarchy; it should seem then that our definition
of the different states was not correct: nay, moreover, could any one
suppose that the majority of the people were poor, and the minority
rich, and then describe the state in this manner, that an oligarchy
was a government in which the rich, being few in number, possessed the
supreme power, and that a democracy was a state in which the poor, being
many in number, possessed it, still there will be another difficulty;
for what name shall we give to those states we have been describing? I
mean, that in which the greater number are rich, and that in which the
lesser number are poor (where each of these possess the supreme power),
if there are no other states than those we have described. It seems
therefore evident to reason, that whether the supreme power is vested
in the hands of many or few may be a matter of accident; but that it
is clear enough, that when it is in the hands of the few, it will be
a government of the rich; when in the hands of the many, it will be a
government of the poor; since in all countries there are many poor and
few rich: it is not therefore the cause that has been already assigned
(namely, the number of people in power) that makes the difference
between the two governments; but an oligarchy and democracy differ in
this from each other, in the poverty of those who govern in the one,
and the riches I28oa of those who govern in the other; for when the
government is in the hands of the rich, be they few or be they more, it
is an oligarchy; when it is in the hands of the poor, it is a democracy:
but, as we have already said, the one will be always few, the other
numerous, but both will enjoy liberty; and from the claims of wealth and
liberty will arise continual disputes with each other for the lead in
public affairs.