In the last three decades of the seventeenth century the crisis of Political Aristotelianism deepened (see Dreitzel 1988 and the previous chapter in this volume). The repercussions for the debates on the respublica mixta were profound. On the European continent the traditional theory of the mixed constitution had remained vibrant in the regions and territories where the estates had retained their influence through forms of political representation. The theoretical debates reflected the various constellations of political interests. Mixed constitutions were named after the dominating element. The constitution that mixed monarchy with aristocratic elements in the form of representative assemblies was labelled monarchia sc. mixta. The long debates on the structure and possibilities of mixed constitutions featured a combination of three images. The image of various social groups having different sovereign rights and the fundamental assumption that the mixed constitution should be a balance of three possible elements, the monarchical, aristocratic and popular, led to the question whether the political system should be based on a mixture of just two or all three of these elements. The second image was one of cooperation between the various institutions, persons and groups in the division of sovereign rights. The third image was that of the division of power. It was suggested that it would be possible to distribute the individual, functional parts of sovereignty, of iura maiestatis, among various institutions and persons.