we shall speak more fully later on. But we may pause for a moment here to point out that in these three factors of the earliest State we see, in embryo, all possible forms of constitution. In all governments the sovereignty must be either in the hands of one, or of few, or of the many; it must be either monarchical, or aristocratic, or democratic. Each of these three forms of constitution may indeed take a different colouring, as, according to Aristotle's doctrine,[1] monarchy may become tyranny, aristocracy may, and indeed always did, pass into oligarchy, and democracy in the best sense may become democracy in the worst sense, or, as Polybius styles it, government by the mob. Or there may be transitional forms, such as are often called "mixed" constitutions, in which, for example, as at Athens after Solon, the political privileges of the few were being gradually extended to the many; or as at Sparta, where we saw that during a long period the monarchy continued to survive alongside both of oligarchic and democratic elements. But in all cases, whether the constitution be natural, or debased, or transitional, it can always be traced back to one or other of these social facts which meet us at the very outset of our study of the City-State. Even tyranny, which will at first sight appear to have no direct connection with early forms of monarchy, was really only a reaction towards a traditional concentration of authority, brought about by the many, as suiting them better than the rule of the few. The social predominance
- ↑ Pol. iii. 6 fin. and 7; 1279 A. Cf. Polybius, vi. 4, 6.
