COMPAKATIVE POLITICS
 
 COMPARATIVE POLITICS 
 
 SIX LECTURES READ BEFORE THE ROYAL INSTITUTION 
 IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, 1873 
 
 THE UNITY OP HISTORY 
 
 THE REDE LECTURE READ BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF 
 CAMBRIDGE, MAY 29, 1872 
 
 EDWAKD A. FREEMAN, M.A., HON. D.C.L. 
 
 LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
 "Facies non omnibus una, 
 Nee diversa taincn, qualem decet esse sororum." 
 
 OVID, Met. ii. 13. 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 ilouticm 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD. 
 
 NEW YORK: MACMILLAN & CO. 
 18UG
 
 The Unity of History. 
 First Edition, 1872. 
 
 Comparative Politics and The Unity of History. 
 First Edition, 1873 ; Second Edition, 1896.
 
 Ollegt 
 Library 
 
 Tc 
 
 It ft 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 THE six Lectures read before the Royal Institution are 
 an attempt to make something like a systematic application 
 of a line of argument which has been often made use of 
 in particular cases both by myself and by other writers. 
 They are an attempt to claim for political institutions a 
 right to a scientific treatment of exactly the same kind 
 as that which has been so successfully applied to language, 
 to mythology, and to the progress of culture. But of course 
 they do not themselves attempt to do more than make a 
 beginning, by applying the Comparative method to some 
 of the most prominent institutions of those among the 
 Aryan nations whose history was best known to myself 
 and was likely to be best known to my hearers. Nothing 
 more than this could well be done in a course of lectures, 
 even if my own knowledge had enabled me to carry my 
 illustrations over a much wider range. But I trust that 
 others whose studies have lain in other branches of history 
 may be led to take up the subject and to carry it on further. 
 What I have done may perhaps be enough to show that 
 Greeks, Italians, and Teutons have a large common stock 
 of institutions, institutions whose likeness cannot be other- 
 wise accounted for than by the supposition of their common 
 primitive origin. It remains now to show how much of this 
 common stock is common to the whole Aryan family, how 
 much of the common Aryan stock may be common to the 
 
 1 1 539 1 7
 
 vi PREFACE 
 
 Aryan and Semitic families, how much of the possible 
 common Aryan and Semitic stock may be common to the 
 races of the eastern hemisphere or to the whole of mankind. 
 On none of these points have I even attempted to enlarge ; 
 I have merely pointed them out as questions to which my 
 own inquiries naturally lead up, and which I hope may be 
 thoroughly worked out by some of those scholars who are 
 qualified to take them in hand. 
 
 Even within the range of the three branches of the Aryan 
 family which I chose for special examination, the limits 
 and nature of a course of lectures did not allow of anything 
 more than to choose some of the more prominent instances 
 illustrating the positions laid down, and even among these 
 it was of course impossible to follow out any matter in all 
 its bearings. The really practical object of a lecture is, 
 after all, not so much direct teaching as the suggestion of 
 points for thought and study. With this view I have, 
 since the lectures were delivered, added a considerable 
 number of notes and references, in which I have gone 
 somewhat further into several points than I could do in 
 the lectures themselves. These may, I hope, set some of 
 my readers on further inquiries ; I can hardly expect that 
 in their necessarily desultory shape they can do much more. 
 
 I have no doubt that both in the lectures and in the 
 notes many things will be found which have been already 
 said both by myself and by other writers. Probably many 
 things will be found which both myself and other writers 
 may find occasion to say again, as often as it may be 
 needful to put forth correct views of matters about which 
 popular errors and confusions are afloat. There is a large 
 class of people who pay little heed to a thing that is said 
 only once, but on whom, when it is said several times and 
 put in several shapes, it at last has an effect. I believe 
 that this class is more numerous its needs are certainly
 
 PREFACE vii 
 
 better worth attending to than those fastidious persons 
 who are disgusted if they are ever called upon to hear the 
 same thing twice. Besides this, the same fact constantly 
 has to be looked at from different points of view, to be 
 used to illustrate several general propositions, to be set 
 before several classes of readers or hearers. I find also 
 that the best and most successful writers are always those 
 who have least scruple in putting forth the truths which 
 they have to enforce over and over again. And I believe 
 that their so doing is one element of their success. 
 
 To the six lectures read before the Royal Institution this 
 year I have added the Rede Lecture which I had the 
 great pleasure of being called on to give before the Uni- 
 versity of Cambridge last year. It was of course written 
 before the Royal Institution Lectures were either written 
 or designed. Without forming part of the same course, 
 it deals with a kindred subject. Both are meant as con- 
 tributions to the same object, to the breaking down of 
 the unnatural barrier between what are called " ancient " 
 and " modern " subjects in language, history, and everything 
 else. If I should ever see the establishment of a real 
 School of History and a real School of Language in the 
 University of Oxford, I shall feel, not only that the 
 principles for which I have been fighting for years have 
 been put into a practical shape, but also that a step has 
 been taken towards the advancement of really sound 
 learning greater than any that has been taken since the 
 sixteenth century. 
 
 Since these lectures were written I have fallen in with 
 the work of M. de Coulanges called La Citt Antique, at 
 least in the English form into which it has been thrown 
 by Mr. T. C. Barker in his book culled ' Aryan Civilization.' 
 It deals of course with many of the subjects with which 
 I have dealt, and those which it does deal with, arc
 
 PREFACE 
 
 of course dealt with far more fully than I have done. 
 But the book, notwithstanding its general title, is almost 
 wholly confined to Greek and Roman matters, and deals 
 hardly at all with the kindred Teutonic institutions. Nor 
 can I at all pledge myself to the author's views on all 
 matters, as he seems too anxious to account for every- 
 thing by reference to a single principle, that of religion. 
 How much I have learned from the writings of Professor 
 Max Miiller, Mr. E. B. Tylor, and Sir Henry Maine, may 
 be seen throughout the book. Among foreign writers 
 it will be seen that I have drawn most largely on the 
 great Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte of G. H. Waitz. It 
 should be a matter of rejoicing among scholars that we 
 shall soon have a companion work for our own History 
 from the hands of Professor Stubbs. 
 
 SOMERLEAZE, WELLS, 
 
 September 26tk, 1873. 
 
 NOTE. With the exception of alterations in the head-lines, 
 rendered necessary by the change of print, this edition remains 
 the same as that of 1873. 
 
 FLORENCE FREEMAN. 
 
 OXFORD, 1896.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 LECT. PAGE 
 
 I. THE RANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES ... ... 1 
 
 II. GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON ... ... ... ... 24 
 
 III. THE STATE ... ... ... ... ... ... 49 
 
 IV. THE KING ... ... ... ... ... ... 88 
 
 V. THE ASSEMBLY 122 
 
 VI. MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES ... ... ... ... 158 
 
 REDE LECTURE. THE UNITY OF HISTORY 192 
 
 NOTES TO THE LECTURES . 221
 
 COMPARATIVE POLITICS 
 
 THE RANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES 
 
 THE establishment of the Comparative Method of study 
 has been the greatest intellectual achievement of our time. 
 It has carried light and order into whole branches of human 
 knowledge which before were shrouded in darkness and con- 
 fusion. It has brought a line of argument which reaches 
 moral certainty into a region which before was given over to 
 random guess-work. Into matters which are for the most 
 part incapable of strictly external proof it has brought a 
 form of strictly internal proof which is more convincing, 
 more unerring. In one department, the first, perhaps the 
 greatest, to which it has been applied, the victory of the 
 Comparative Method may now be said to be assured. The 
 Science of Language has been placed on a firm basis, from 
 which it is impossible to believe that it can ever be dis- 
 lodged. Here and there we come across facts which show us 
 that there are two classes of men on whom its truths have 
 as yet been thrown away. There are men whom we cannot 
 exactly call scholars, far less philologers, but who often have 
 a purely literary knowledge of several languages, who seem 
 really never to have heard of the discoveries of modern 
 science, and who go on guessing and dogmatizing as if Com- 
 parative Philology had never been heard of. And there are 
 
 r
 
 2 RANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 others, a more hopeless but, I believe, a smaller class, who 
 really know what the objects and results of the scientific 
 method are, but who cast them away as delusion, who look 
 on the sure truths of science as dreams and on their own 
 fancies as the only realities. The former class, whom the 
 light has not yet reached, may possibly some day learn ; at 
 all events they will some day die out. The latter class, whom 
 the light has reached but who count the light for darkness, 
 will certainly never learn, and most likely they will never 
 die out. Such men are to be found in all branches of study. 
 There are those who have heard all that natural science 
 has to say for itself, but who still believe that the earth is 
 flat or that the moon does not go round on its axis. But 
 the numbers and importance of such men are daily lessening. 
 . Some years back there were men whose attainments in some 
 " branches of linguistic study were of real importance, but 
 who sneered at the scientific doctrine of the relations of 
 languages as the " Aryan heresy." Such men are most likely 
 no longer to be found. The disbelievers in Comparative 
 Philology, as distinguished from those who never heard of it, 
 seem now to be confined to that class of harmless lunatics 
 who put forth elaborate theories about " Man's first word," 
 or who still believe that the Irish language is derived from 
 the Phoenician. With regard to Comparative Philology the 
 battle is won. No man who has any right to be listened to 
 on such a subject doubts that the doctrine of the relations 
 of language has passed out of the stage of controversies and 
 questions into the stage of admitted truths. There is, of 
 course, still room for difference of opinion as to points of 
 minuter detail; as to the main principle and its leading 
 applications there is none. 
 
 Comparative Philology then is fully established as a 
 science. And, as for as this country is concerned, we may 
 fairly say that it was on the spot where I now stand that its 
 claims to rank as a science were established. Other applica- 
 tions of the Comparative Method are later in date, and they 
 have not yet won the same strong and unassailable position.
 
 COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY 
 
 One reason, of course, is that they are later in date, that 
 they have not had so long a time to work their way into 
 men's minds. But this is not the only cause why Compara- 
 tive Mythology and other applications of the Comparative 
 Method have not won the same complete acceptance from 
 every one qualified to judge which Comparative Philology 
 certainly has won. In no other case so at least it strikes 
 me can the application of the Comparative Method be so 
 clear and simple, so utterly beyond doubt or cavil, as it is in 
 the case of language. In the case of language the method 
 is self-convincing. It is hard to conceive that the doctrine 
 of the relations of language, if once clearly stated to a mind 
 of ordinary intelligence, can fail to be received at once. 
 When it is not so received, it can only be because of the 
 difficulty which we all more or less feel when we are called 
 on, not only to learn but to unlearn. The opposition to the 
 scientific treatment of language or of any other subject 
 always comes from teachers who find it hard to cast aside 
 an old method and to adopt a new. It never comes from 
 learners to whom all methods are alike new, and who find 
 the scientific method by far the easiest. That Comparative 
 Philology is sometimes misunderstood, even by those who 
 profess to accept its teaching, is shown by the fact that there 
 are a good number of people who believe that the great 
 result of the scientific study of language is to show that 
 Greek and English are both of them derived from Sanscrit. 
 But this kind of thing will die out of itself. No one who 
 has from the beginning been taught according to the scientific 
 method, and who has never heard of any other, will ever fall 
 into confusions of this kind. And it seems impossible that, 
 with any one whose mind is able to give a fair field and no 
 favour, Comparative Philology can fail to be accepted at 
 once. To many it will come, not as something new, but as 
 the fuller revelation of something towards which they have 
 been feeling their way of their own heads. Every one who 
 has learned any two cognate languages otherwise than as a 
 parrot, must have found out detached pieces of Grimm's Law
 
 4 EANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 for himself. When a man has got thus far, and when the 
 complete doctrine and its consequences are set before him, 
 they carry their own conviction with them. We see what 
 kind of words the various Aryan languages have in common, 
 and what kind of words each language or group of languages 
 has peculiar to itself. The inference as to the affinity of 
 those languages to one another, and as to the condition of 
 those who spoke them at the various stages of the great 
 Aryan migration, is one which it is impossible to withstand. 
 Comparative Philology has in truth revealed to us several 
 stages of the prae-historic growth of man for which we have 
 no recorded evidence, but which it makes far more certain 
 than much which professes to rest on recorded evidence. It 
 teaches us facts about which no external proof can be 
 had, but for which the internal proof, when once stated, is 
 absolutely irresistible. 
 
 With Comparative Mythology, on the other hand, the case 
 seems to be different. The mere statement of the doctrine 
 does not in the same way carry conviction with it. The 
 phenomena presented by Comparative Philology cannot 
 reasonably be explained in any other way than that in which 
 Comparative Philology professes to explain them. We find, 
 for instance, the word mill, or some word evidently the same, 
 used in the same sense in a number of different languages, 
 between some of which the process of borrowing from one 
 another is historically impossible (i). Even in the case of a 
 single word, it would be hard to believe that the likeness was 
 the result of accident. It would be hard to believe that, by 
 sheer chance, without any connexion of any kind with each 
 other, a large number of isolated nations separately made up 
 their minds to call a mill a mill. But when we find the same 
 pheenomena, not in one or two words, but in many, the 
 notion of accidental likeness becomes impossible. With such 
 facts before us, there is no withstanding the inference that 
 all those languages were once one language, that the nations 
 which speak those languages were once one nation, and that
 
 i COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY SELF-CONVINCING 5 
 
 those nations did not part asunder till they were so far 
 civilized as to have found out the use of mills, and of all 
 other objects the names of which are common to the whole 
 group of languages. But when we find a legend, or several 
 legends, which seem to be common to several distant ages 
 and nations, the doctrine of a common derivation from a 
 common stock is not in the same way the only possible 
 explanation. It may be shown by argument to be the 
 right explanation in each particular case ; but the mere 
 statement of the doctrine does not of itself convince us that 
 it must be the right explanation in any case. The alleged 
 points of likeness between legend and legend will not seem 
 so indisputable to every mind as the identity between two 
 cognate words. Some minds may refuse to see the likeness 
 at all ; others may see the likeness, but may hold that it can 
 be accounted for by some other means than that of referring 
 both to a common source. To fall back on our former 
 illustration, the art of grinding corn may have been invented 
 over and over again by any number of independent nations. 
 The point on which the Comparative Philologer takes his 
 stand is that it is inconceivable that, in such a case, they 
 should all have called the instrument of grinding a mill. In 
 the same way some of the simple stories, the obvious 
 characters, the easily imagined situations, which form the 
 staple of the legendary lore of most nations, may have been 
 invented over and over again in distant times and places. 
 There is at least nothing obviously absurd in thinking so ; 
 there is no absolute need to account for the likeness by the 
 theory that all must have come from one common source. 
 Comparative Mythology begins to be really convincing only 
 when it can call Comparative Philology to its help. When a 
 name in a Greek legend cannot be reasonably explained by 
 the Greek language, but can be explained by the Sanscrit, 
 the probability that the Greek and the Indian story really 
 do come from the same source comes very near to moral 
 certainty. Yet even here there is room for difference of 
 opinion in a way in which there is not in the case of Philology
 
 6 RANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 proper. We are told, for instance, that the Charites, the 
 Graces, in the Greek mythology are the same as the Harits, 
 the horses of the Sun, in the Indian mythology. The philo- 
 logical connexion of the two names is beyond all doubt ; the 
 Greek and the Sanscrit word both obviously come from a 
 common root, from the primitive meaning of which both have 
 wandered very far indeed. But it does not seem to follow 
 that there must be any nearer connexion between the 
 Charites and the Harits than the general connexion which 
 exists between any two words which come from a common 
 root. Some minds may refuse to see any likeness between 
 the solar horses of the Indian legend and the graceful female 
 forms of the Greek legend. They may be inclined to think 
 that the singular Charis of the ' Iliad/ the plural Charites of 
 the ' Odyssey/ may be independent creations of the Greek 
 mind, wrought out after the separation of the Greeks and 
 their immediate kindred from the common family. They 
 may deem that Charis and the Charites are as directly 
 impersonations as At6 and the Litai ; they may deem that 
 they took their name from the noun \a-pis, in the later and 
 ordinary sense of the word, after that later and ordinary sense 
 had parted off from the original root. Such a view is at 
 least not obviously absurd, nor is it at all inconsistent with 
 the acceptance of the general doctrine of Comparative 
 Mythology (2). In the case of language, any particular 
 language may develope any number of new words from the 
 old roots ; it may adopt any number of new words from 
 foreign tongues. But the invention of a new root in any 
 particular language is a thing which we cannot conceive. As 
 to mythology the case is different. We may allow that there 
 is a great stock of legend common to the whole Aryan family, 
 or common to all mankind, and yet we may hold that many 
 particular legends, Hellenic, Teutonic, or any other, are due 
 to the independent play of fancy after Hellenes, Teutons, or 
 any other branch of the common stock, had become a distinct 
 people with a distinct language. For my own part, I firmly 
 believe that Comparative Mythology really has brought to
 
 I COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY AND MYTHOLOGY 7 
 
 light a vast common stock of legend, the groundwork of 
 which is to be found in the physical phenomena of nature. 
 But I must decline to believe that the whole mythology of the 
 Aryan nations, as we find it in Greek and Teutonic literature, 
 has this origin and no other. I believe that a large part of 
 Greek and Teutonic mythology has its source in solar legends. 
 But I must decline to believe that every hero of Greek or 
 Teutonic legend must needs be the sun, save only that small 
 minority who are not the sun but the wind (3). 
 
 The difference then between Comparative Philology and 
 Comparative Mythology would seem to be this. Comparative 
 Philology is, within its own range, the absolutely universal 
 solvent : Comparative Mythology must be content to be only 
 one most important solvent among others. To admit this 
 implies no kind of undervaluing of the Comparative Method 
 as applied to mythological subjects. It is still by that 
 method that the mythology of any people must be tested. 
 That method is still the safeguard against all unscientific 
 treatment of the subject against running, for instance, to 
 Egypt, Phrenicia, or Palestine, for the explanation of 
 particular Greek legends. The scientific method is first to 
 find out what there is in the Indian, Greek, Teutonic and 
 other Aryan mythologies which can be fairly set down as 
 springing from one common stock. When this is clearly 
 made out, we are then in a position to determine what part 
 of the mythology of each people is due to independent 
 invention since the dispersion, what part, if any, is due to 
 importation from non-Aryan sources, Semitic or any other. 
 
 Besides Comparative Philology and Comparative Mytho- 
 logy, there is a third branch of knowledge to which the Com- 
 parative Method has lately been applied with much success. 
 In truth, as in the case of Comparative Philology itself, this 
 Institution has been one chief means of bringing what may 
 be fairly called a new science into general notice. I mean 
 the scientific inquiry into manners and customs, and the 
 grouping together of the wonderful analogies which they set 
 before us in times and places the most remote from one
 
 8 RANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 another. This is an inquiry which follows easily, and almost 
 necessarily, upon Comparative Philology itself. We have seen 
 that, by Comparative Philology alone, without any external 
 evidence of any kind, we can find out a great deal as to the 
 social, political, and religious state of the various branches of 
 the Aryan stock at various stages of their dispersion. We 
 can see that some of the most important steps in the march 
 of human culture were taken while the Aryan nations were 
 still a single people. We can see that other steps were taken 
 independently by different branches of the common stock, 
 after they had parted off from one another. Sometimes we 
 can go so far as to see that some invention or discovery was 
 made by a particular branch, after it had parted off from the 
 common centre, but before it had parted off again into the 
 particular nations which meet us in written history. The 
 evidence of language alone thus gives us a general notion of 
 the amount of advance which had been made by the Aryans 
 before the dispersion. It gives us also the means of tracing 
 in some degree the further advance made by the Eastern 
 and the Western Aryans after the Eastern and Western 
 branches had parted, but while the forefathers of Greeks, 
 Italians, and Teutons still kept together. We can see that 
 further steps were taken by the common forefathers of Greeks 
 and Italians, after they had parted company with the Teutons, 
 but before Greeks and Italians were parted asunder by the 
 Hadriatic. But in this line of inquiry it is to language 
 alone that the Comparative Method is directly applied. The 
 knowledge which it brings to light as to the growth of human 
 culture is most important in itself, and it is established by 
 the most certain of proofs ; still it is only an incidental result 
 of an inquiry which has another immediate object. But in 
 the third branch of inquiry of which I am speaking, the 
 Comparative Method is directly applied to the growth of 
 culture itself. The immediate object of research is no longer 
 language, it is no longer legend as legend ; it is the customs, 
 the social institutions, the religious ceremonies, of the different 
 nations of the earth into the nature and origin of which the
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF SURVIVALS 
 
 inquirer is now searching. Such a research could hardly be 
 earned on except by one to whom the studies of Comparative 
 Philology and Comparative Mythology were already familiar : 
 linguistic science gives the inquirer help at every step ; legend- 
 ary lore gives him help more precious still ; but his imme- 
 diate object is different from either. He deals with customs 
 and ceremonies, even with legends as they either spring out 
 of or give birth to customs and ceremonies, much as his 
 fellow-inquirers deal with language and with legend looked 
 at for its own sake. He traces the religious rite, the social 
 or domestic order, up to its root, just as his brethren do with 
 words and with legends. He finds perhaps that the custom, 
 civil or religious, has shrunk up into a mere superstition or 
 prejudice, which at first sight seems purely arbitrary and 
 meaningless. It seems arbitrary and meaningless, just as 
 many a word, many a legend, whose history is full of life and 
 meaning to the scientific inquirer, seems arbitrary and mean- 
 ingless to those who stand without the gate. But, by com- 
 paring together the analogous customs of various, often most 
 remote, ages and countries, the scientific inquirer is led up to 
 the root ; he is led up to the original idea of which particular 
 customs, ceremonies, and beliefs, are but the offshoots. And 
 in all these cases, as the inquiry can be carried upwards, so it 
 can be carried downwards. Here comes in the doctrine of 
 Survivals (4). It is a fascinating process by which we learn 
 to trace out the way in which a belief, a word, a legend, we 
 might add a grammatical form, survives in this or that 
 phrase or custom, whose origin has long been forgotten, and 
 which, without a knowledge of that origin, seems utterly 
 meaningless. As the Comparative Philologer shows that 
 inflexions and terminations which seem to be purely arbi- 
 trary were once whole and living words, having as true a 
 meaning as the root which they now simply serve to modify 
 as he can trace out a long history of language and of much 
 beside language in the single letter, the mere Ycs'r and 
 Yea'm, to which a short and careless utterance has cut down 
 the once sounding titles of Senior and mea Domina (5) as
 
 10 RANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 the Comparative Mythologer groups together the utterances 
 of primaeval thought on the great mysteries of nature, as he 
 traces them on, through legends of Gods and heroes, down to 
 some feeble echo in the tales of the nursery or the cottage 
 fire-side so their fellow-worker, the votary of our third 
 science which yet lacks a name, traces out the embodiments 
 of primaeval thought in ancient rites and customs ; he follows 
 the ancient belief and its utterances down to some faint and 
 forgotten shadow lingering on in some proverbial saying, in 
 some familiar gesture, it may be even in some common 
 article of dress, in some faint relic of any of these kinds 
 which we see or hear or wear or practise every day of our 
 lives, without a thought of the primaeval source from which 
 it sprang, or of the long pages of history of which it is the 
 memorial. For this science, I say, the offspring doubtless of 
 the two earlier sciences, but which has fully established its 
 right to rank side by side with either of them, we need a 
 name. Let us hope that a name may be found for it, if not 
 what may perhaps be hopeless within the stores of our 
 own mother-tongue, yet at least within the range of the 
 foreign words which have been already coined. It would be 
 a pity if a line of inquiry which has brought to light so much, 
 and from which so much more may be looked for, should end 
 by cumbering the dictionary with some fresh word of new 
 and barbarous formation (6). 
 
 This third, as yet nameless, science follows the Comparative 
 Method no less strictly than it is followed by Comparative 
 Philology and Comparative Mythology. But it is still less 
 safe in this case than in the case of Comparative Mythology 
 to argue that every instance of likeness in times and places 
 far away from one another necessarily proves that they are 
 strictly sprung from a common source. When we find either 
 a legend or a custom repeated in this way in distant times 
 and places, we may be sure that there is a connexion between 
 the several instances ; but we need not infer that there is 
 the same kind of direct connexion which we infer when we 
 find the Greek, the Teuton, and the Hindoo using the same
 
 i RELATIONS OF THE THREE SCIENCES 11 
 
 words and grammatical forms. If we find the same custom, 
 as we often do, at opposite ends of the earth or in ages far 
 away from one another, we need not infer that that custom 
 must have been handed down from a time when the fore- 
 fathers of the two nations which are found using it formed 
 one people. It may be so ; doubtless it often is so. But it 
 may also happen that the custom is in each case an inde- 
 pendent invention, the fruit of like circumstances leading to 
 like results. Or it may be that the custom, without being 
 itself in strictness a common possession, may be in each case 
 the offspring of a common idea, an idea common to all man- 
 kind or to some one of the great divisions of mankind. Or 
 again it is quite possible that a custom may have been simply 
 borrowed by one nation from another, either while its mean- 
 ing was still remembered or after it had been forgotten. 
 But, notwithstanding all these chances, the method employed 
 in this form of research, just as much as in the other two, is 
 strictly Comparative. The customs are dealt with in the 
 same way in which the words and the legends are dealt with 
 in the other cases. And all three forms of inquiry stand in 
 a close relation to one another. Comparative Mythology 
 could not get on at all without Comparative Philology ; and 
 the science of customs, ceremonies, and survivals bears on 
 both Philology and Mythology at every step. And the three 
 may be ranged in a certain order. Comparative Philology is 
 the purest science of the three : its evidence is the most 
 strictly internal ; it makes the least use of any facts beyond 
 its own range ; its argument is that which most distinctly 
 carries its own conviction with it. Comparative Mythology 
 does all this in a less degree ; the third nameless science does 
 so in a less degree still. Each depends more on facts which 
 do not come immediately within its own range than Com- 
 parative Philology does. Still all three hang together ; all 
 are branches of one inquiry ; all are applications of one 
 method, of that method the introduction of which marks the 
 nineteenth century, like the fifteenth, as one of the great 
 stages in the developement of the mind of man.
 
 1-2 RANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 My beginnings have thus far, I fear, been dry and abstract. 
 But I have been anxious to fix the exact relations between 
 the chief subjects to which the Comparative method of 
 research has as yet been applied. It was important for my 
 purpose to do this, as my object in this course of Lectures is 
 to attempt the application of the same method to another 
 subject. Or, to speak more accurately, I should perhaps not 
 so much say another subject as a special and most important 
 branch of that third class of subjects of which I have already 
 spoken. I wish that what I have to say may be looked on 
 as an attempt to follow in the same path as two inquirers 
 both of whom are well known in this place, Professor Max 
 Miiller and Mr. E. B. Tylor. With Mr. Tylor's subject I wish 
 specially to connect my own : I should indeed wish that 
 mine may be looked on as a part of his. But, as for the 
 whole, so for the part, it is not easy to find a name. My own 
 subject I wish to speak of as Comparative Politics ; but I feel 
 that that is a form of words which is not a little liable to be 
 misunderstood. But I may perhaps be allowed to make use of 
 it, after I have explained the sense which I wish the words to 
 bear. In the phrase of Comparative Politics I wish the word 
 Politics to be taken in the sense which it bears in the name 
 of the great work of Aristotle. By Comparative Politics I 
 mean the comparative study of political institutions, of forms of 
 government. And, under the name of Comparative Politics, 
 I wish to point out and bring together the many analogies 
 which are to be seen between the political institutions of 
 times and countries most remote from one another. In this 
 sense my subject is the more minute treatment of a part of 
 Mr. Tylor's subject, namely those customs, ceremonies, 
 formulae, and the like, which have to do with the political 
 institutions of different ages and nations. The analogies 
 which may be marked between the most remote ages and 
 countries as to their forms of government, their political 
 divisions, the partition of power among different bodies 
 or magistrates, are far more and far more striking than would 
 come into any one's mind who has not given special attention
 
 I POINTS OF LIKENESS AND UNLIKENESS 13 
 
 to the inquiry. In some cases the likeness is seen at the first 
 glance ; in others it lies perhaps somewhat below the surface : 
 but it needs only a little thought, backed by a little practice 
 in researches of the kind, in order easily to see the real 
 likeness which often lurks under superficial unlikeness. As 
 in Comparative Philology a small amount of practice teaches 
 the learner to mark connexions between words at which the 
 unlearned are certain to mock, so it is with this study also. 
 The most profitable analogies, the most striking cases of 
 direct derivation, are not those which are most obvious at 
 first sight. 
 
 But another warning must be given. In tracing out an 
 analogy or parallel of any kind, points of unlikeness are as 
 carefully to be studied as points of likeness ; it is in truth 
 the points of superficial unlikeness which often give us the 
 surest proofs of essential likeness. When we stop to com- 
 pare, when we mark this and that point of difference in 
 detail, it is the surest proof of a real likeness between the 
 two things which we are comparing. When we stop to 
 comment on the small differences between one human face 
 and another, it is because we recognize all alike as human 
 faces, because we see in all of them that essential likeness 
 which alone enables us to see the points of unlikeness. So it 
 is with the subject of our present inquiry. We are concerned 
 with the essential likeness of institutions, and we must never 
 allow incidental points of unlikeness to keep us from seeing 
 that essential likeness. And this caution is the more needed, 
 because points of likeness and unlikeness which, in their 
 practical results, in their bearings on later history, are of the 
 very first importance, may, in our way of looking at the 
 matter, be purely incidental. I w*ill illustrate my meaning 
 by an example. The English Parliament consists of two 
 Houses : the Assemblies of most other mediaeval European 
 states consisted of three or more. The practical importance 
 of this difference has been almost boundless in its effects 
 both on the history of England and on the history of the 
 many kingdoms and commonwealths which have copied the
 
 14 RANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 political institutions of England. The peculiar relation of 
 the two Houses of Parliament to one another depends on 
 there being two Houses and not more. The whole doctrine 
 of two branches in a legislature, the bicameral system as it is 
 called, the endless attempts, successful and unsuccessful, to 
 set up artificially in other lands what has come to us ready- 
 made through the facts of our history, all go on the principle 
 that there shall be two Houses and no more. Now, if we 
 look to the history of our own constitution, we shall find that 
 this particular number of two, as the number of the Houses 
 of our Parliament, is not owing to any conviction that two 
 Houses would work better than either one or three, but was 
 a matter of sheer accident. The Estates of the Realm are, 
 in England no less than elsewhere, three Nobles, Clergy, 
 and Commons (7). In France, we all know, the Clergy 
 remained a distinct member of the States-General as long as 
 the States-General lasted. In England the Clergy could 
 never be got permanently to act as a regular parliamentary 
 Estate (8). The causes of this difference belong to the 
 particular history of England ; the effects of it are that the 
 Parliament of England remained a Parliament of two Houses 
 only, and that a crowd of constitutions, European and 
 American, have followed the English model. The accident 
 then has, in its consequences, been one of the great facts of 
 later political history ; but, in our point of view, it is a mere 
 accident with which we are in no way concerned. How 
 these Estates grew up in nearly every European country is 
 essentially a part of our Comparative inquiry; how it 
 happened that, in one particular country, one of these 
 Estates failed to keep its distinct political being is a matter 
 of ordinary constitutional history. Still less have we anything 
 to do with the questions whether the effect of the accident, 
 that is the particular form of the English Parliament, has 
 been good or bad, or whether the attempts to reproduce the 
 same model in other countries have been wise or foolish. 
 For our present purpose we must throw ourselves into a 
 state of mind to which political constitutions seem as
 
 I TEANSPLANTATION OF INSTITUTIONS 15 
 
 absolutely colourless as grammatical forms, a state of 
 mind to which the change from monarchy to democracy or 
 from democracy to monarchy seems as little a matter of 
 moral praise or blame as the process by which the Latin 
 language changed into the French or the process by which 
 the High-German parted off from the Low. 
 
 For the purposes then of the study of Comparative Politics, 
 a political constitution is a specimen to be studied, classified, 
 and labelled, as a building or an animal is studied, classified, 
 and labelled by those to whom buildings or animals are 
 objects of study. We have to note the likenesses, striking 
 and unexpected as those likenesses often are, between the 
 political constitutions of remote times and places; and we 
 have, as far as we can, to classify our specimens according to 
 the probable causes of those likenesses. For, though the 
 genuine Comparative Method may be as strictly applied to 
 this inquiry as to any of the others, yet in this inquiry it is 
 further off than in any of the others from being the one 
 universal solvent. It is still less safe than in the case 
 of Comparative Mythology to infer that every case of likeness 
 between two political institutions is necessarily to be 
 explained by supposing that both of the two are vestiges of 
 one common stock. There are at least three causes to which 
 likenesses of this kind may be owing, and we must consider 
 to which of the three any particular case of likeness ought to 
 be referred. And, as always happens in such cases, the three 
 classes which we may thus form will be found to some extent 
 to run into one another, and there will be cases about which 
 it may be matter of doubt to which of our classes we ought to 
 refer them. 
 
 Thus the likeness between any two institutions, identity 
 of name, identity of nature, or any other point of likeness, 
 may be the result of direct transmission from one to another. 
 And this transmission may take several forms. It may be in 
 the strictest sense a direct handing on from one state of 
 things to another : or it may be simple imitation, in all the
 
 16 EANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 various shades which simple imitation may take. Thus it 
 constantly happens that the institutions of a ruling city 
 or country will appear again in its dependencies. They 
 are adopted by or forced upon its subject provinces ; 
 they are reproduced as a matter of course in the colonies 
 Avhich it plants with its own citizens. Take, for instance, 
 what so long was the greatest dependency of England, a 
 conquered province if we look to one class of its inhabitants, 
 a colonial settlement if we look to another class, the so long 
 separate but dependent kingdom of Ireland. In Ireland, as 
 an English colony, the whole machinery of English Govern- 
 ment, central and local, was reproduced as a matter of course. 
 The Houses of Parliament, the Courts of Law and their 
 Judges, the Ecclesiastical establishment in all its branches, 
 the local administration under Lords Lieutenant, Sheriffs, 
 Justices of the Peace, and the like, were all simply, as a 
 matter of course, modelled according to the English pattern. 
 Some differences may be found : thus the functions of an 
 Irish Grand Jury are not exactly the same as those of the 
 English body of the same name. But differences of this 
 kind, mere matters of the minutest detail which have grown 
 up in comparatively recent times, in no way affect the 
 general reproduction of the institutions of the mother country 
 in the colony. The English carried their whole system into 
 Ireland ; so did the Crusaders carry their whole system into 
 their conquests in the East : the most perfect system of feudal 
 law is to be found in the Assizes of the Christian Kingdom 
 of Jerusalem (9). These cases, which are the types of countless 
 others, are cases of direct handing on of names and institu- 
 tions from one country to another. It is a process which can 
 hardly be called imitation ; it is not so much the framing of 
 something after the model of something else ; it is rather the 
 actual translation of the thing itself to another soil. There 
 was most likely no thought about the matter : men who 
 settled in a new land carried with them their own institu- 
 tions and the names of those institutions as a matter of 
 course. Cases of imitation properly so called are something
 
 i DIRECT IMITATION 17 
 
 different. In them men, after thought and debate, choose 
 one model to follow, when they might have chosen another. 
 The imitative work, however closely it may reproduce the 
 likeness of the original, is not the original : it is not even 
 the transplanted original ; it is something which has a 
 distinct being and which starts from a beginning of its own. 
 Such are the cases which I have already spoken of, in which 
 the constitution of the English Parliament, a constitution 
 which in England came about as the mere result of circum- 
 stances, has been deliberately imitated in other countries. 
 Most of the legislative Assemblies of Europe have followed the 
 English model more or less closely. But the reproduction of 
 English forms in this way is quite another process from their 
 reproduction in Ireland. The difference may be likened to 
 the difference between the real kindred which springs from 
 natural parentage and the artificial kindred which springs from 
 the legal fiction of adoption. And again, wide differences may 
 be marked between different cases of simple imitation. Let 
 me take an instance from the mere use of a borrowed name. 
 There is a Capitol at Washington and there is a Capitol 
 at Toulouse. In both cases alike the name is used in mere 
 imitation of the Capitol at Rome. I say mere imitation, 
 because it is hardly likely that, even at Toulouse, the name 
 Capitolium and the magistracy of the Octoviri Capitolini were 
 strictly handed on by direct transmission from Roman days 
 (10). Yet we feel that the name Capitol is in its place at 
 Toulouse in a way in which it is not in its place at 
 Washington. In the second birth of municipal freedom 
 it was natural that the citizens of Toulouse, cleaving to the 
 memories of Rome, her laws and her language, should give to 
 their institutions names borrowed from the old stock. At 
 Washington the name of Capitol was mere imitation, it was 
 the mere calling up of a name which had been dead for ages 
 and with which those who made the new use of it had 
 no direct connexion of any kind. At Toulouse, though I 
 believe the use of the name to be imitation and not direct 
 transmission, yet it is imitation of a kind which differs as little
 
 18 EANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 as may be from direct transmission. So again, to take 
 another illustration from the same region, the city of Alby 
 kept its Consuls down to the great French Revolution (n), 
 and, before many years had passed from that Revolution, 
 Consuls were ruling, not only over Alby but over all France. 
 Both, no doubt, were cases of imitation, yet we feel that for 
 the commonwealth of Alby to give to its magistrates the 
 name of Consuls, in days when the memory of the Roman con- 
 sulship was still a living thing, was something different from 
 that mere dead imitation of times and things which had 
 utterly passed away which gave the name of Consuls to the 
 elder Buonaparte and his colleagues. We may thus dis- 
 tinguish imitation from direct transmission, and we may see 
 wide differences between different cases of imitation. But, 
 in the whole class with which we are dealing, the names and 
 institutions of one time and place are consciously transferred 
 to some other time and place. A thing which already exists 
 is moved from an old home to a new one ; the thing is done 
 openly ; there is no mystery about it ; the process needs not 
 to be searched out by inference or analogy ; it takes its place 
 among the facts of recorded history. The political institutions 
 of one people have been handed on to another people, or they 
 have been purposely imitated by another people. We find 
 analogous cases within the range of the other kindred 
 sciences. Religious beliefs and sacred legends have been 
 spread in the same way. The creed of a conquering people 
 has been spread over its subjects and neighbours, or a people 
 have of their own free will adopted a creed which arose in 
 some distant age and country. Christianity and Islam alike 
 have been spread in both of these ways, by the swords of 
 conquerors as well as by the preaching of missionaries. Open 
 and undoubted connexions of this kind between the religious 
 beliefs of different nations have nothing in common with 
 those subtler connexions which are revealed to us by 
 Comparative Mythology. So too with language itself: a 
 conquered or neighbouring people adopts the language of a 
 more powerful people. Thus the tongues of Greece, Rome,
 
 i LIKE RESULTS FROM LIKE CAUSES 19 
 
 Persia, and Arabia, to say nothing of the tongues of modern 
 Europe, have been spread over vast regions, whose nations 
 have adopted the speech of their conquerors or civilizers. 
 Or again, a people, without necessity or compulsion, may 
 adopt, if not the whole language, yet a large part of the 
 vocabulary, of another nation, just as they may adopt the 
 whole or part of its institutions. In this way the purity of 
 our own tongue has given way to a jargon drawn from every 
 quarter of the world, and even our High-Dutch kinsfolk 
 seem to be too ready to follow us in the same evil path (12). 
 Processes like these, which have their place among the 
 recorded facts of history, stand distinct from the no less 
 certain though unrecorded facts which are taught us by 
 Comparative research. 
 
 It is for the most part not very hard to know when a case 
 of likeness between political institutions ought to be referred 
 to this first class. The connexion in such cases is for the 
 most part a matter of recorded history or of immediate 
 inference from recorded history. With regard to our second 
 and third classes our course is not so clear : we no longer 
 have recorded history to help us, and it may often be a 
 question to which of the two classes any particular instance 
 belongs. When we find a likeness between the institutions 
 of any two nations, which likeness we cannot reasonably 
 attribute to conscious transmission or imitation during 
 historical times, there are two possible ways in which the 
 likeness may be explained. It may well be that there is no 
 direct connexion whatever, conscious or unconscious, between 
 the two. The likeness may be real and beyond doubt, but 
 there may be no reason to believe either that one people has 
 borrowed from the other, or that both have inherited from a 
 common source. The cause of the likeness may simply be 
 that like causes have, at however great a distance of time 
 and place, led to like results. The institutions of a people 
 are the natural growth of the circumstances under which it 
 finds itself; if two nations, however far removed they may 
 be from one another both in time and in place, find them-
 
 20 EANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 selves under like circumstances, the chances are that the 
 effect of this likeness of circumstances will show itself in the 
 likeness of their institutions. The same evils will suggest 
 the same remedies ; the same needs will suggest the same 
 means of supplying them. There can be little doubt that 
 many of the most essential inventions of civilized life have 
 been invented over and over again in distant times and 
 countries, as different nations have reached those particular 
 points of social advancement when those inventions were 
 first needed. Thus printing has been independently invented 
 in China and in mediaeval Europe ; and it is well known 
 that a process essentially the same was in use for various 
 purposes in ancient Rome, though no one took the great step 
 of applying to the reproduction of books the process which 
 was familiarly used for various meaner purposes (13). What 
 happened with printing we may believe also to have 
 happened with writing, and we may take another illustration 
 from an art of quite another kind. There can be no doubt, 
 from comparing the remains of the earliest buildings in 
 Egypt, Greece, Italy, the British Islands, and the ruined 
 cities of Central America, that the great inventions of the 
 arch and the dome have been made more than once in the 
 history of human art. And moreover, much as in the case 
 of printing, we can see in many places strivings after them, 
 and near approaches made to them, which still never reached 
 complete success (14). Nor need we doubt that many of the 
 simplest and most essential arts of civilized life, the use of 
 the mill, the use of the bow, the taming of the horse, the 
 hollowing out of the canoe, have been found out over and 
 over again in distant times and places. It is only when we 
 find the unmistakeable witness of language, or some other 
 sign of historical connexion, that we have any right to infer 
 that the common possession of inventions of this kind is any 
 sign of common derivation from one primitive source. So it 
 is with political institutions also. The same institutions 
 constantly appear very far from one another, simply because 
 the circumstances which called for them have arisen in
 
 i UNCONSCIOUS REPRODUCTION OF INSTITUTIONS 21 
 
 times and places very far from one another. The whole 
 system of historical analogies rests on this doctrine. We 
 see the same political phenomena repeating themselves over 
 and over again in various times and places, not because of 
 any borrowing or imitation, conscious or unconscious, but 
 because the like circumstances have led to the like results. 
 To master analogies of this kind, to grasp the laws which 
 regulate the essential likeness and not to be led away by 
 points either of likeness or unlikeness which are merely 
 incidental, is the true philosophy of history. Of the way in 
 which political circumstances and institutions repeat them- 
 selves, where no kind of borrowing or imitation can be 
 thought of, many instances will occur to any one who thinks 
 at all upon the matter. Let me take a most striking case 
 from very modern history. It is shown beyond doubt in the 
 writings of the founders of the Constitution of the United 
 States that they had no knowledge of the real nature of the 
 Federal Constitution of the Achaian League (15). But two 
 sets of commonwealths, widely removed from one another in 
 time and place, found themselves in circumstances essentially 
 the same. The later Federal union was therefore cast in a 
 shape which in several points presents a likeness to the elder 
 one, a likeness which is all the more striking and instructive 
 because it was most certainly undesigned. Washington and 
 Hamilton had very faint notions that they were doing the 
 same work which had been done twenty ages before them by 
 Markos of Keryneia and Aratos of Sikyon ; but they did the 
 work all the same. But, on the other hand, the Federal 
 Constitution of Switzerland is a conscious reproduction of 
 the Federal Constitution of America, with such changes as 
 were called for by the different circumstances of the two 
 commonwealths (16). A better illustration can hardly be 
 found of the difference between likenesses which are owing 
 to direct transmission or imitation and likenesses which are 
 simply owing to the law that like causes produce like 
 effects. 
 
 We have thus seen that class of likenesses which come of
 
 22 RANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES LECT. 
 
 direct and conscious reproduction or imitation, and we have 
 seen the class where the likeness is simply the natural result 
 of like circumstances. But beyond these two lies the third 
 class, the class which forms the more immediate subject of 
 our inquiry, the class of likenesses where there is, on the one 
 hand, no reproduction, no imitation, but where, on the other 
 hand, the connexion is something closer than that of mere 
 analogy. These are the cases where there is every reason to 
 believe that the likeness really is owing to derivation from a 
 common source. Where nations have been wholly cut off 
 from one another during the historic times, and where there 
 is no affinity of language to make us believe that they are 
 scattered colonies of a common stock, this explanation is not 
 to be thought of. But when we see nations which have 
 been, during the historic times, more or less widely parted 
 off from one another, but which are proved by the evidence 
 of language really to be such colonies of a common stock 
 when, among nations like these, we find in their political 
 institutions the same kind of likenesses which we find in 
 their languages and their mythology the obvious inference 
 is that the likeness in all these cases is due to the same 
 cause. That is to say, the obvious inference is that there 
 was a time when these now parted nations formed one 
 nation, and that, before they parted asunder, the common 
 forefathers of both had made certain advances in political 
 life, had developed certain common political institutions, 
 traces or developements of which are still to be seen in the 
 political institutions of the now isolated nations. At the 
 time of the dispersion each band of settlers took with it a 
 common tongue, a common mythology, a common store of 
 the arts of social life. So it also took with it certain 
 principles and traditions of political life, principles and 
 traditions common to the whole family, but which grew up, 
 in the several new homes of the scattered nations, into 
 settled political constitutions, each of which has character- 
 istic features of its own, but all of which keep enough of 
 likeness to show that they are all offshoots from one common
 
 i THE THREE CHIEF ARYAN NATIONS 23 
 
 ;stock. To trace out likenesses of this kind, to distinguish 
 those likenesses which really mark the offshoots of a common 
 stock from those which are better referred to either of the 
 other classes which I have distinguished, is the object of the 
 inquiry which I have ventured to call Comparative Politics. 
 Having thus, in this Introductory Lecture, tried to establish 
 the possibility of such an inquiry, its proper objects and its 
 proper limits, I wish to go on, in the lectures which are to 
 follow, to illustrate the subject in some detail from those 
 political institutions which were common to the races which 
 hold the highest place in the history of mankind. My 
 matter hitherto has perhaps been uninviting : it has certainly 
 been of a kind which carries with it a certain strain on the 
 mind, and which does not allow of any lively treatment. 
 The matter which I have in store for the rest of the course 
 will, I trust, be found of a more attractive kind ; and I shall 
 hope that those who have followed me thus far will not 
 refuse to follow me in tracing out the signs of original unity 
 which are to be found in the primitive institutions of the 
 Aryan nations, above all, in the three most illustrious 
 branches of the common stock the Greek, the Roman, and 
 the Teuton.
 
 24 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 II 
 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON 
 
 WE are now fairly embarked on our subject. We are 
 now in a position to trace out all that the Comparative 
 method of inquiry has to tell us of the earliest political state 
 of that branch of mankind to which we ourselves belong. 
 We are now ready to stand face to face with our own 
 immediate forefathers and kinsmen. And, along with them, 
 we are ready to look, with fresh interest and reverence, on 
 those other branches of the common stock kinsmen them- 
 selves, though kinsmen less nearly allied who went before 
 our own race in holding the first place among the nations 
 of the earth. In the pages of history truly so called in 
 the records which set man before us in his highest form 
 the records which do not simply burthen the memory with 
 the names of barbarian Kings, but which teach the mind 
 and the heart by the deeds and words of the heroes of our 
 common nature the records which set before us, not the 
 physical bigness of Eastern kingdoms but the moral greatness 
 of Western commonwealths in that long history of civilized 
 man which stretches on in one unbroken tale from the union 
 of the towns of Attica to the last measure of progress in 
 England or in Germany in this long procession of deeds 
 wrought long ago but whose effects still abide among us, of 
 men whose very memories have often been forgotten, but 
 whose works still live in lands which they never heard of- 
 in this mighty drama of European and Aryan history, three
 
 ii PROMINENCE OF THE THREE RACES 25 
 
 lands, three races, stand forth before all others, as those to 
 whom, each in its own day, the mission has been given to 
 be the rulers and the teachers of the world. The names of 
 those three races were the last words of my first lecture, and 
 the political institutions of those three races, and the relations 
 of those institutions to one another, will be the main subject 
 of my whole course. Their history has ever been the main 
 subject of my own studies ; their history I may reasonably 
 suppose to be better known than any other to most of my 
 hearers in this or in any other audience. As the Ayran 
 family of nations, as a whole, stands out above the other 
 families of the world, so the Greek, the Roman, and the 
 Teuton, each in his own turn, stands out above the other 
 nations of the Aryan family. Each in his turn has reached 
 the highest stage alike of power and civilization that was to 
 be had in his own age, and each has handed on his own 
 store to be further enriched by successors who were at once 
 conquerors and disciples. We get our glimpses of all three 
 in times when the light of authentic history is but beginning 
 feebly to struggle through the mists of legend. Yet, even 
 in those earliest glimpses, we see a people who have already 
 risen far above the state of savages, a people who already 
 enjoy the most essential inventions of civilized being, who 
 have already grasped the first principles of domestic and 
 religious life, who have already taken the first steps in the 
 growth of social order, of military discipline, and of civil 
 government. Our first glimpses of history, in its highest 
 and truest sense, show us the land which is at once the 
 border-land of Europe and Asia and the most European of 
 all European lands the land which, above all others, is the 
 land of hills and valleys, of islands and peninsulas, of harbours 
 and inland seas the land fonned by the hand of Nature to 
 be the home of those countless independent commonwealths 
 which were the earliest and the mast brilliant, if not the 
 most lasting, of all the forms of man's political life (i). 
 There, in the mother-land of Hellas, the native land of art 
 and song and wisdom, and more glorious still as the native
 
 26 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 land of law and freedom, we see the Aryan man in the first 
 form in which European history or legend shows him, already 
 possessed of all the needful arts of life, already gathered into 
 organized civil communities, already taught to obey the 
 voice of the elders of his people ; but already knowing how, 
 by the shout of applause or by yet more emphatic silence, 
 to teach the elders of his people what the will of the people 
 itself deems good. He has already Kings, but he has also 
 already Assemblies ; he has already courts where the man 
 who has suffered wrong may come and seek for right at the 
 judges' hand. Out of the common stock of the common 
 race he has already brought to perfection the noblest forms 
 of the common speech and of the common store of legend ; 
 he speaks the tongue of Homer, and bows before the Gods 
 of whom Homer sang. We see him, in these his earliest 
 days, brought face to face alike with kindred tribes and with 
 the worthiest rival of any alien stock ; we see him spreading 
 the name and arts of Hellas over all the ^Egaean and Ionian 
 coasts (2) ; here winning island after island from the grasp 
 of the men of Tyre and Sidon (3) ; here raising his laggard 
 kinsmen of Asia, of Sicily, and of Epeiros, to the level of 
 the brethren who had so far outstripped them in the race (4). 
 We see him, as time rolls on, planting his colonies, each 
 colony a centre of civilized life and political freedom, on all 
 the coasts from the Iberian to the Tauric peninsula (5). 
 We see him in his own land rearing to the service of the 
 Gods or of the State the first buildings, the first painted 
 and sculptured forms, that really deserved the name of art (6). 
 We see him bring to perfection, as in a moment, the living 
 strains of the tragic and the comic muse, and we see him 
 hand down to all who shall come after him the first-fruits of 
 man's political wisdom, the great possession for all time (7). 
 Another act of the drama shows us that a day so bright as 
 this was in truth a day too bright to last ; we see the 
 political independence of the nation, both in its own land 
 and in its plantations on foreign shores, die out step by step 
 till its very name has passed away. But it shows us too
 
 ii HISTORICAL POSITION OF ROME 27 
 
 how, in the well-known phrase, the captive land led captive 
 her conquerors; how the Macedonian who dealt the first 
 blow to her political freedom became the armed apostle of 
 her culture; how he carried her tongue, her art, and her 
 wisdom into lands which the colonists of her days of freedom 
 had never reached (8). And, yet more, we see how the 
 power which was to take her place in the world's annals 
 became her scholar in the act of becoming her conqueror 
 how, under the Roman sway, Greek became more than 
 ever the common speech of civilized man how at last the 
 throne of Rome was fixed in a Grecian city how Greek and 
 Roman came to be words of the same meaning (9) how the 
 Greek speech and the Greek creed kept its hold on one half 
 of the divided Empire and how, even under the sway 
 of the Barbarian, that speech and creed have lived on to 
 our own day. 
 
 From Greece we change the scene to Italy. Of the three 
 great peninsular lands of Southern Europe, the central one, 
 as compared with the group of islands and promontories to 
 the east of it, forms a solid and compact land, which nature 
 seems to have marked out for a single dominion. And, 
 placed in the midst of that great inland sea whose shores 
 formed the whole civilized world of early times, no other 
 land seems so clearly marked out as the destined home of 
 universal Empire. And so it was : a single city of central 
 Italy made its way, step by step, to the dominion of Italy, 
 and from the dominion of Italy to the dominion of the 
 Mediterranean world. Step by step, the ruling city called 
 in her allies and subjects to share in her own citizenship. 
 A day at last came when York and Antioch not only obeyed 
 a single ruler, but were as truly formed into a single state as 
 were the village of Romulus and the village of Tatius in the 
 first days of Roman legend (10). Greece had won the 
 intellectual dominion of the world by her arts and her 
 philosophy. Rome won the political dominion of the world 
 by her arms, and kept her hold of it by her abiding Law. 
 For the song of Homer and the lore of Aristotle -she had the
 
 2S GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 sword of Sulla and Caesar, the dooms of Servius and Justinian. 
 Her tongue and her law she has handed on to every later 
 age, and with them she handed on another gift, not, like 
 them, her own by birth, but which she had made no less her 
 own by adoption. The old creeds which had grown and 
 stiffened out of the traditions which were the common 
 heritage of the whole Aryan folk gave way to a creed which 
 arose in a distant corner of Rome's dominion, among a 
 despised people of alien blood and speech. If the Aryan 
 world of Europe has learned its arts and its law from its own 
 elder brethren, it is from the Semitic stranger that it has 
 learned its faith. But before a Semitic faith could become 
 the faith of Rome and of Europe, its dogmas had to be 
 defined by the subtlety of Grecian intellect, the constitution 
 of its organized society had to be wrought into shape by the 
 undying genius of Roman rule. This Semitic faith, banished 
 from its Semitic home, became the badge of Rome's 
 dominion : the sway of Christ and Caesar became words of 
 the same meaning ( 1 1 ). It was with a true feeling of the 
 doom which was in store for her, that the men of those ages 
 which a shallow view of history looks on as the ages of 
 Rome's decline dared to give the name of Eternal to the 
 city which was then in the childhood of her second life, 
 preparing for a new and mightier dominion over the minds 
 of men (12). Eternal indeed Rome has shown herself in 
 her tongue, in her laws, and in the borrowed faith which, 
 by her own law of adoption, she made her own. But she 
 became eternal by still working out the same law which had 
 been the law of her greatness from her earliest days. Rome 
 became mistress of the world by doing what Athens and 
 Sparta and Carthage had never done, by gathering those 
 whom she had conquered into her own bosom. And she has 
 remained the mistress of the world, because she knew how 
 to carry on the same law in what seemed to be the days of 
 her overthrow and bondage. The spell which she once threw 
 over those whom she conquered she now knew how to 
 throw over those who conquered her : she won the Goth to
 
 ii ENGLISH CONSTITUTION PURELY TEUTONIC 29 
 
 restore her material fabrics (13), and the Frank to restore 
 her political dominion. The local Rome has fallen from her 
 high estate, but she is the Eternal City none the less. 
 Wherever men speak her tongue, wherever men revere her 
 law, wherever men profess the faith which Europe and 
 European colonies have learned of her, there Rome is still. 
 We have now come to the third race, to the race of which 
 we ourselves are members, to the predominance of the 
 Teutonic nations, alike on either side of the German Ocean 
 and on either side of the Atlantic. Of that race we may, for 
 the purposes of the present inquiry, boast ourselves as the 
 truest representatives. The boast may be a startling one, 
 but, for the purposes of the present inquiry, it is a true one. 
 In purity of language indeed, our tongue, with the strong 
 Romance infusion which has crept into its vocabulary, cannot 
 compare for a moment with the speech either of our High- 
 German or of our Scandinavian kinsfolk. And, if we would 
 see the ancient Teutonic institutions still abiding in their 
 ancient form, it is not in the Teutonic island but on the 
 Teutonic mainland that we must seek for them. But those 
 well-nigh unchanged relics of the earliest times linger on 
 only in a few Alpine valleys. The Landesgemeinden of Uri 
 and Unterwalden are the truest representatives on earth 
 alike of the Germans of Tacitus and of the Achaians of 
 Homer ; but they are the Assemblies only of districts, not 
 of nations, hardly even of tribes (14). Among the great 
 nations of modern Europe, our own is, beyond all doubt, the 
 one which can claim for its political institutions the most 
 unbroken descent from the primitive Teutonic stock. The 
 very fact which for so many ages gave Germany the highest 
 place among nations at the same time cut her off from all 
 claim to be the truest representative of the oldest Teutonic 
 days. The Teutonic Kingdom, whose King was also Roman 
 Emperor, was the foremost example of that fusion which has 
 marie the modern world ; it was the foremost example alike 
 of Roman influence on the Teuton and of Teutonic influence 
 on the Roman. But, for that very reason, it could not be
 
 30 GREEK, MOHAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 the foremost example of a state whose modern institutions 
 have grown of themselves, step by step, out of the oldest 
 institutions of the common stock. The Scandinavian nations 
 have been even more out of the way of direct Roman 
 influences than ourselves ; still they too cannot lay claim to 
 the same unbroken political descent. All honour, all success, 
 to the new-born freedom of those three noble realms ; still 
 it is but a new-born freedom, a freedom which has come into 
 being within the memory of living men, a freedom whose 
 foundations could be laid only by sweeping away the 
 encroachments of despotism and oligarchy (15). But, widely 
 as our present constitution differs from the rude traditions 
 and customs of the followers of Hengest and Cerdic, there 
 still is no break between them : all is growth within the 
 same body ; there has never been any moment when the old 
 was swept away and the new was put in its stead. Alone 
 among the political assemblies of the greater states of Europe, 
 the Parliament of England can trace its unbroken descent 
 from the Teutonic institutions of the earliest times (16). 
 There is absolutely no gap between the meeting of the 
 Witan of Wessex which confirmed the laws of Alfred (17), 
 or that far earlier meeting which changed Cerdic from an 
 Ealdorman into a King (18), and the meeting of the Great 
 Council of the Nation which will come together in a few 
 days within the precincts of the home of the Confessor. 
 There are many points in which other lands have kept far 
 greater traces in detail of ancient institutions than we have 
 done ; but no other nation, as a nation, can show the same 
 unbroken continuity of political being. In this way we may 
 claim to have preserved more faithfully than any of our 
 kinsfolk the common heritage of our common fathers. 
 
 This boast we may truly make ; but the very causes which 
 enable us to make it shut us out from any claim to represent 
 the general march of the Teutonic element in European 
 affairs. Britain, like Scandinavia, was a world of its own 
 (19) : it was not, like the rest of Western Europe, a Roman 
 land overrun by Teutonic settlers who grew as it were from
 
 ii FUSION OF EOMAN AND TEUTONIC ELEMENTS 31 
 
 colonists into conquerors. It is a land which had ceased to 
 be Roman before its Teutonic conquerors set foot in it. 
 Hence we have no true Roman element in us ; we have 
 nothing which has lived on uninterruptedly from the days 
 when Severus and Constantine reigned at York, and when 
 London had for a moment changed its name for that of the 
 Roman Augusta (20). Whatever Roman element we have in 
 us we owe, not to direct transmission from the elder Empire, 
 but to our conversion by Roman missionaries, to our conquest 
 at once by Romance-speaking warriors and by Romance- 
 speaking lawyers, to the spirit of imitation which decked the 
 lords of the island world with titles borrowed from the 
 Caesars of the mainland (21). In the three homes of our 
 folk, in the oldest England by the Eider and the Slei, in the 
 newer England which we made for ourselves in the island 
 world of Britain, in that newest England of all which is 
 spread over the islands and continents of the Ocean, we have 
 of a truth had our mission, but it has been a mission apart 
 from the mission of our kinsfolk in the general course of 
 European history. On the European mainland the Teutonic 
 conquerors of Rome appear, like the Roman conquerors of 
 Greece, in a character made up of that of conquerors and of 
 disciples. The process was indeed different in the two cases. 
 No Roman ever forgot the name or the speech of Rome, or 
 merged his national being in that of his Greek subjects. 
 But the Teutonic conquerors of the Roman provinces were 
 proud to continue her dominion in their own persons ; they 
 were proud to bear the titles of her ancient rule, and step by 
 step to adopt her speech and to forget the land and the race 
 from which they sprang. Never were the three races which 
 have been foremost in European history brought more closely 
 together never did the magic power of Rome stand forth 
 more clearly never did she show herself more proudly as 
 the historic centre, binding together the times before her 
 and the times after her than in the days when Greek and 
 German, Byzantion and Aachen, disputed the heritage and 
 the titles of the dominion which the local Rome had lost,
 
 32 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 but which was Roman still, into whatever hands it fell (22). 
 Out of the union of Roman and Teutonic elements arose the 
 modern world of Europe. The other races of Europe play 
 but a secondary or a hidden part alongside of them. In 
 Eastern Europe the Slave has played over again, with less 
 brilliancy, the same part which the Teuton played in the 
 West : he too has been half conqueror, half disciple. Bul- 
 garia, Servia, Russia, are to the Eastern Empire and the 
 Eastern Church what the kingdoms of Western Europe are 
 to the Western Empire and the Western Church. The day 
 of greatness of the Slavonic nations is perhaps yet to come. 
 Their early advance was checked, and their progress was 
 thrown back for ages, by a crowd of the most opposite 
 enemies (23); and their revival in later times has placed 
 them high among the rulers of the world, but has hardly 
 placed them among its enlighteners. The other great 
 European race, the race which came before the Teuton as 
 the Slave came after him, the great Celtic race which formed 
 the vanguard of the Aryan march to the West, still lives, 
 still flourishes, still plays a foremost part in the history of 
 the world ; but he plays that part under a borrowed guise. 
 The Celt in his own person, speaking his own tongue, lingers 
 only in corners here and there, one degree only more visible 
 than the Iberian whom he dislodged. To fit himself to play 
 a foremost part in the history of Europe, the Celt has had to 
 borrow the garb of two successive conquerors. The Celt of 
 Gaul has wrought many a brilliant page in the history of 
 Europe ; but he has wrought it only as one who has taken 
 to himself the name of a German tribe, and who speaks one 
 of the many dialects of the undying tongue of Rome. 
 
 Thus much written history would teach us, that these 
 three races, the Greek, the Roman, the Teuton, have played, 
 each in his own day, the foremost part in European history, 
 foremost alike in the arts of war and peace, foremost in 
 literature and philosophy, foremost in the twofold rule over 
 the bodies and the souls of men. But written history by
 
 li ORIGINAL KIN DEED OF THE THREE RACES 33 
 
 itself could never have told us in what relation those three 
 races stood to one another. That there was something in 
 common between the men of the two great peninsulas, that 
 Greece and Italy were not foreign to one another in the way 
 in which Egypt and Carthage were foreign, could not but 
 force itself on men's minds. But for ages there were no 
 better means of explaining their undoubted likeness than by 
 dreams of primaeval and heroic colonists passing from the 
 Eastern peninsula to the Western. Herakles, Evandros, 
 Odysseus, passed from Greece to leave their mark on Italy, 
 and the Sabine Numa learned of the Samian Pythagoras the 
 sacred lore with which his infant city was to worship the 
 common Gods of Greece and Italy (24). But that Greece 
 and Italy had aught in common with the Goth, the Frank, 
 and the Saxon, perhaps never came into men's minds, unless 
 indeed we may see some shadows of the great truth in those 
 wild tales which spoke of Herakles and Odysseus as leaving 
 traces of their presence by the banks of the Rhine and the 
 Danube, as well as by those of the Tiber and the Arno (25). 
 It is to the Comparative method of research that we owe that 
 greatest discovery of modern science which puts all these 
 facts in their true order and their true relation to each other. 
 From that method we have learned that the three ruling 
 races were but tribes of one greater race, branches of one 
 common stock, detachments of one vast army, some of which 
 reached their destined quarters earlier than their comrades. 
 We see and know the relation in which the three ruling 
 races stand to each other ; we see also the relation in which 
 they stand to other members of the great family whose place 
 in the world's history has been less brilliant. It may be 
 that the Celt came too soon, that the Slave came too late, to 
 have any direct share in the work of their brethren; but 
 they are brethren none the less. We can now see the great 
 family in its primaeval home, already risen far above the 
 state of savages, furnished already with the ruling thoughts 
 and the main inventions of civilized life. We see men 
 among whom the family life, the social life, has already taken
 
 34 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 the first and greatest steps, who have already developed the 
 great conceptions of government and religion, who have 
 already learned to build let us rather say to timber houses, 
 to ear the ground, to tame the horse and the hound as their 
 helpers in warfare, either with men of other stocks or with 
 the wild deer of their own woods and wastes, with the bull 
 whose horns have been taught to sound the song of freedom, 
 with the lion whose backward path modern science has 
 mapped out from the caves of Mendip to the Kanks of the 
 Strymon (26). We see the many kindred streams flow off 
 from the common source ; one branch has already passed off 
 into the far East, again to meet in far-off ages with their 
 severed brethren, to give worthy foes to Miltiades and 
 Alexander, to Julian and Heraclius (27), and to give foes, 
 subjects, teachers, and learners, to the founders and rulers of 
 our own realm in the far-off Aryan land. They passed to 
 the land of morning ; others took another line of march, as 
 if to follow the great light whose daily course held so deep a 
 sway over their thoughts to his home or his tomb beyond 
 the stream of Ocean (28). And in that great company 
 marched together, not yet parted off into people, nations, and 
 languages, the forefathers of Camillus and of Brennus, of 
 Caesar and of Vercingetorix. There marched, as yet brethren 
 of one house and speech, the forefathers of Theseus and 
 Achilleus, the forefathers of Theodoric and Charles, the 
 forefathers of Hengest and Cerdic. And there, carrying as 
 it were the brightest destinies of the world within them, 
 marched the men of whose stock should come the great 
 champions of right and freedom, the forefathers, as yet one 
 in speech and brotherhood, of Kleisthenes the son of Mega- 
 kles, of Caius Licinius, and of Simon of Moiitfort. But 
 after a while they part company. One band leads the van 
 of the westward march, to bear the brunt of the strife 
 against the older tenants of the land, themselves as it were 
 to take their place, to live on in distant islands and penin- 
 sulas as isolated fragments of a once wide-spread and 
 unbroken people (29). While the Celtic vanguard presses
 
 ii DISPERSION OF ARYAN TRIBES IN EUROPE 35 
 
 to the Ocean, two other swarms press towards the shores of 
 the two great inland seas to whose presence it is owing that 
 Europe has not been as Africa, or even as Asia. The 
 Northern swarm lags behind for a while, husbanding its 
 strength for the days when its scattered tribes should gather 
 themselves into the nations of Germany, of Scandinavia, and 
 of England for the days when offshoots from those main 
 stems should grow into the commonwealths which have 
 guarded the source and the mouth of the great Teutonic 
 stream (30), which have planted a root of freedom even on 
 the dreary shores of Iceland, and which have called into 
 being the mightiest commonwealth of all in the new English 
 land beyond the Ocean. But our own day was not to come 
 till our kinsmen who pressed on, as it might then seem, with 
 a happier lot, to the brighter shores of the southern sea had 
 done their work and had made the way ready for us. 
 Leaving the common centre as an united band but parting off 
 into two companies at the head of the great Hadriatic Gulf, 
 the forefathers of the Hellenes and the forefathers of the 
 Italians spread themselves over the two peninsular lands 
 where the written history of Aryan man was to begin. They 
 played their part, each branch in its turn; the Western 
 branch entered into the heritage of the Eastern, till the time 
 came when our own race was to enter upon the heritage of 
 both, to become the direct inheritors of Rome, and, through 
 Rome, the indirect inheritors of Greece. 
 
 These then are the three great historic races, the races 
 which have played the foremost part among mankind, the 
 races whose history really makes up the political history of 
 man. But striking and instructive as the history of each 
 of them is in itself, it becomes more striking and instructive 
 still when we look on those three races as brethren of one 
 common stock, parted kinsmen who shared a common 
 heritage which they knew not of. And there are moments 
 in the history of the world when not only these three races, 
 but all the European branches of the great family seem as 
 it were gathered together, sometimes to do battle against a
 
 36 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 common enemy, sometimes, as it were, to meet at the hearth 
 of that abiding power which might well pass for the common 
 centre of them all. We read a casual notice that Frankish 
 and English ambassadors found their way to the court of 
 Justinian, and the utmost that we feel is a kind of languid 
 curiosity, awakened by one of the very few times when the 
 name of our nation in its earliest days is to be found in the 
 pages of writers who still spoke the tongue of Greece (31). 
 But when we think that those Frankish and English 
 ambassadors represented the two great branches of the 
 Teutonic race, that they brought with them, if not the 
 homage, at least the awe and wonder, of the conquered 
 Celtic lands of Gaul and Britain when we think that the 
 prince to whose court they went was himself a kind of 
 triple-bodied Geryon, a Roman Caesar of Slavonic birth, 
 reigning in a Greek city over all lands from the Ocean 
 to the Euphrates (32) it would seem as if representatives 
 of every European branch of the common stock had been 
 gathered together beneath the roof of the man who gave 
 the world the abicKng gift of the Imperial Law. Or take 
 another instance, not this time from a peaceful gathering, 
 but from the field of battle. On the field of Chalons every 
 European branch of the Aryan family seemed to have sent 
 its contingent to the host which was to drive back the 
 Turanian invader. Side by side, equal in might and dignity, 
 emblems of the world that was passing away and of the 
 world that was coming in its stead, marched Aetius and 
 Theodoric, the Roman and the Goth. But the Roman 
 came from the Illyrian land by the Danube ; the Goth 
 ruled over Celt and Iberian on either side of the Pyrenees 
 (33). And around their banners gathered the Frank and 
 the Saxon, representatives of the two great branches of the 
 Teutonic race, along with the Celt from his Armorican 
 peninsula and the Sarmatian from the furthest European 
 home of the common family (34). One name alone is 
 wanting. Greece and Macedonia sent no help against a 
 foe in whose presence they might well have remembered
 
 ii ARYAN AND NON- ARYAN INSTITUTIONS 37 
 
 that Xerxes and Darius were their kinsmen. All that the 
 eldest brethren of the house could give was the Hellenic- 
 sounding name borne by the Patrician who led the hosts 
 of Rome to their last victory. 
 
 Those days were the true Middle Ages, the days when 
 the Roman and Teutonic elements of modern European 
 life stood side by side, not as yet wrought together into 
 the whole which was" to come of their fusion. And the 
 history of those wonderful ages gains a fresh life if we 
 remember that when Alaric led his host from the walls of 
 Athens to the walls of Rome (35), he was marching through 
 the lands of men of the same primaeval blood and speech as 
 his own. And now what had those scattered brethren in 
 common ? What, above all, had the three great races in 
 common, the Greek, the Roman, the Teuton ? For those 
 three must, as I have already said, form the main subject 
 of our inquiry. Their own importance is higher than that 
 of any other race : I who have taken the matter in hand 
 am better able to deal with them; you who hear me will 
 most likely be better able to judge of what I say, if I keep 
 myself for the more part within the limits of the races which 
 hold the foremost place in European history. For the more 
 part, I say, not exclusively. While keeping our main 
 attention fixed on these three races, I shall still freely, as 
 occasion may serve and as my own knowledge may allow 
 me, draw illustrations from other branches of the Aryan 
 family, and even from nations which stand outside the 
 Aryan pale. In an inquiry of this kind, which as yet is 
 purely tentative, it is well to draw our illustrations from 
 as wide a range as may be. The points of likeness between 
 the primitive political institutions of the various Aryan nations 
 are beyond doubt, but we meet with striking likenesses also 
 among nations which are not Aryan. These facts suggest 
 that we should very carefully examine every case of likeness, 
 that we should see as well as we can to which of the three 
 causes of likeness which I traced out in my former lecture
 
 38 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 it may most safely be referred. One of those three causes, 
 that of direct transmission, whether taking the form of 
 conscious imitation or not, may be pretty well laid aside 
 while dealing with the primitive institutions of any nation. 
 Men who are in the state in which any of the Aryan nations 
 were at the time when we get our first glimpses of them are 
 not likely to borrow institutions from any foreign source, 
 except when they come in contact with nations in a state 
 of civilization out of all comparison with their own. The 
 Celt of Gaul was not likely to adopt the manners or institu- 
 tions of the Iberian, nor was the Iberian likely to adopt the 
 manners and institutions of the Celt. But both stood ready 
 to be moulded by the manners and institutions of the Greek 
 colonists of Massalia or of the Roman colonists of Aquae 
 Sextise (36). It is absolutely certain that the primitive 
 Greek, the primitive Teuton, and the primitive Italian 
 did not borrow from one another. We may even be certain 
 that the different tribes of the three races did not borrow 
 from one another that the Ionian did not borrow from the 
 Dorian, the Latin from the Oscan, or the Frank from the 
 Saxon. But, setting actual borrowing of any kind aside, 
 it requires close examination in each particular case to say 
 whether the likeness between the institutions of any two 
 given tribes or nations is due to the actual sharing of a 
 common heritage or to the like working of like circum- 
 stances in different times and places. Even between 
 two Aryan races, even between two tribes of the same Aryan 
 race, it is not always safe hastily to decide that the likeness 
 must be due to one or other of these causes. Greater 
 caution still is needed when we come to likenesses between 
 Aryan nations and nations of another stock. We shall 
 presently see that the Old Testament, to go no further, 
 furnishes us with several cases of striking likeness between 
 Hellenic or Teutonic institutions and the institutions of the 
 primitive Semitic tribes. Is such a likeness as this, not 
 indeed accidental but incidental ? Is it due simply to the 
 working of like circumstances bringing about like results ?
 
 ii INSTITUTIONS COMMON TO DIFFERENT RACES 39 
 
 Or are we to suppose that, beyond the common heritage of 
 the Aryan nations, there is a wider common heritage in 
 which Aryan and Semitic nations share alike (37), or even 
 a wider heritage still, common to all mankind ? I will not 
 venture to decide dogmatically in favour of any of these 
 alternatives. I do not think that the time has come in 
 which it is safe to decide dogmatically in favour of any 
 of them. In an inquiry which is still only in its infancy, 
 it is safer to mark such cases for further examination, but 
 to leave their full explanation till the inquiry itself shall 
 have reached a further stage. With our present amount 
 of knowledge, the wisest course is to collect instances from 
 all quarters, to classify them so far as we have the means 
 of doing so, but not to be hasty in such classification, not to 
 be disheartened if there are many instances which we have 
 to leave unclassified altogether. 
 
 In carrying out our inquiry as to the connexion between 
 Primitive institutions, we may apply nearly the same rules 
 as those which have been suggested in the case of Com- 
 parative Mythology. It is not safe to set down any instance 
 of likeness as being necessarily a case of an inheritance 
 from the common stock, unless we have some corroborative 
 evidence besides the likeness itself. We have the highest 
 degree of such corroborative evidence whenever Comparative 
 Philology steps in to help us. If two distinct nations of 
 the Aryan family or, by the same argument, if two distinct 
 nations of any other family have a common institution 
 called by a common name, and if the likeness is plainly 
 not a case of imitation or borrowing from one another, such 
 an institution may be set down without any kind of doubt 
 as being a clear case of common inheritance from a common 
 stock. But the negative argument the other way is by 
 no means equally strong. The caprice of language is so 
 great, words drop out of use in one tongue and are kept 
 in use in another in such a singular way, that the mere 
 fact that cognate institutions are not called by cognate 
 names is not of itself proof that they are not part of a
 
 40 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 common heritage. We must weigh all the circumstances 
 and all the different forms of evidence. Of all the forms of 
 corroborative evidence, the philological form is doubtless the 
 highest, but it is not the only one. If two nations are 
 shown by other evidence, especially by philological evidence 
 applied to other subjects, to be kindred nations, holding in 
 common a large share of the primitive common stock if 
 the nature of their political institutions, no less than of 
 their language, their mythology, their customs of other 
 kinds, naturally suggests the thought of a common deriva- 
 tion the mere fact that their institutions do not bear 
 cognate names is not enough to disprove, or even to throw 
 doubt upon, the common derivation of those institutions. 
 In many, perhaps in most, cases we shall find that the 
 kindred institutions bear names which are not philologically 
 cognate, but which translate one another, sometimes in a 
 very remarkable way. The institutions are the same; the 
 names are not the same; they may not even come from 
 a common root ; but they are the names which most 
 closely answer to one another in meaning in a later stage 
 of the two languages. This is in truth exactly what we 
 might look for. The common stock of language which the 
 undivided Aryan family possessed in common even the 
 stock which its European branches possessed in common 
 after their separation from the Eastern branch was, in 
 the nature of things, a vocabulary of the simplest kind, a 
 vocabulary consisting mainly of nouns expressing the most 
 familiar objects and verbs expressing the most familiar 
 actions. Words expressing objects or processes which are 
 at all complicated or abstract belong to a later stage. Those 
 each nation has formed for itself; it has formed them out 
 of the old common roots, but it has formed them each for 
 itself, and after its own fashion. Now this argument 
 specially applies to the names of political institutions. We 
 may believe that the primitive Aryans, before their separa- 
 tion, had already taken the first steps in political life ; that 
 they had already developed a simple form of government,
 
 ii ARYAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT 41 
 
 traces of which are still to be found among the scattered 
 members of the common family. That such is the case, 
 or is likely to be the case, is the ground-work of the whole 
 of the present inquiry. But, though we may believe that- 
 the Aryans before the dispersion had worked out for them- 
 selves something which we may fairly call common political 
 institutions, we cannot believe that they had worked out 
 for themselves any refined or exact political vocabulary. 
 The political stock which the scattered brethren carried off 
 with them at the dispersion must have consisted of a few 
 acknowledged customs, a few acknowledged simple principles ; 
 but their dictionary of political terms must have been short. 
 They may have had I firmly believe that they had among 
 them the germs of monarchy, of aristocracy, and of demo- 
 cracy, but they certainly had not names for those abstract 
 ideas. It was each nation working for itself after the 
 dispersion, which worked for itself, out of the common 
 stock of principles and customs, such more elaborate political 
 forms as suited its own circumstances. And for those forms 
 it devised names out of its own vocabulary as it stood at 
 the time. In this way, while we fully believe that there 
 is a common political heritage belonging to the whole 
 family, yet it is in no way wonderful, it is rather what we 
 should in every way expect to happen, that each nation 
 should have a political vocabulary of its own. That is to 
 say, most of the names of particular officers and the like 
 in each particular nation were independently given by each 
 nation in the particular language into which the common 
 speech had by that time grown among them. 
 
 And now let us illustrate all this by examples taken from 
 the political history and political nomenclature of the three 
 great races of which we have mainly to speak. In future 
 lectures I hope to draw out more fully in detail how, as for 
 as we can go back, by the help of history or legend, into 
 Hellenic, Italian, or Teutonic antiquity, we find in all alike 
 the germs alike of the monarchic, the aristocratic, and the 
 democratic principles of government. That union of the
 
 42 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 three which Tacitus thought, if possible, could not be lasting, 
 seems in truth to have been a common Aryan heritage 
 possibly a heritage of all mankind (38). In later times 
 conscious attempts have been made, or, without any conscious 
 attempt, men have been led by the circumstances in which 
 they found themselves, to devise forms of government after 
 this model. In so doing, as in so many other cases, they 
 have often, wittingly or unwittingly, fallen back upon the 
 earliest models that were to be found. There is one form 
 of government which, under various modifications, is set 
 before us in the earliest glimpses which we get of the 
 political life of at least all the European members of the 
 Aryan family. This is that of the single King or chief, 
 first ruler in peace, first captain in war, but ruling, not by 
 his own arbitrary will, but with the advice of a council of 
 chiefs eminent for age or birth or personal exploits, and 
 further bringing all matters of special moment for the 
 final approval of the general Assembly of the whole people. 
 I am far from saying that this form of government is 
 peculiar to the Aryan nations ; but I wish to deal with it 
 first of all as something which seems to be common to all 
 the Aryan races, and which is undoubtedly common to the 
 three great races with which we are chiefly concerned. It 
 is the form of government which we see painted in our first 
 picture of European life in the songs of Homer ; it is found 
 alike in the realm of the King of Men at Mykene" and in 
 the realm of the King of Gods and Men on Olympos. It 
 is the form of government which tradition sets before us 
 as the earliest form of that ancient Latin constitution out 
 of which grew, first the Commonwealth and then the Empire 
 of Rome. It is no less the form of government which we 
 see in the first picture of our own race drawn for us by the 
 hand of Tacitus (39), and in the glimpses given us by our 
 own native annals of the first days of our own branch of 
 that race when they made their way into this island in 
 which we dwell. Differences of detail may easily be marked 
 in the different forms of the common constitution, as it
 
 n THE KING, COUNCIL, AND ASSEMBLY 43 
 
 appears in each of the three great races and even at different 
 times and among different tribes of the same race. The 
 titles of the chief ruler, the manner of his appointment, the 
 range of his powers, differ in different cases. With these 
 differences of detail I shall have to deal in my next lecture. 
 I have now only to speak of the common element in all. 
 And in all, I think, we shall see the same general system 
 of the single head of the state, the smaller Council, and 
 the final authority of all, the general Assembly of the whole 
 people. And, when the likeness is so close between the 
 three branches of this great family which cannot possibly 
 have borrowed their institutions from one another in later 
 times, but which remained together as one people till a late 
 stage of the general dispersion of the Aryan nations, the 
 presumption surely is in favour of the belief that political 
 institutions which are so strikingly alike are in truth a 
 common heritage, a primaeval form of government under 
 which the forefathers of Greeks, Italians, and Teutons lived 
 together, before Greeks, Italians, and Teutons had parted 
 off into separate nations. This presumption may be met 
 by the objection at which I have already hinted, namely, 
 that the several powers of the State, analogous as their form 
 and powers may be, are not, as a rule, called by cognate 
 names in the three languages, Greek, Latin, and Teutonic. 
 But, if I have suggested the objection, I think I have also 
 answered it beforehand. I think that the diversities of 
 name are exactly what we ought to expect. Each race 
 carried away certain general principles of government from 
 the common stock ; but the details of each particular con- 
 stitution, still more the details of its political vocabulary, 
 were worked out by each nation for itself, or rather by eacn 
 tribe of each nation for itself, in times long after the 
 dispersion. At all events, the points of likeness and un- 
 likeness between the early political vocabulary of the three 
 races* form a part of our subject, and it is with some inquiry 
 into them that I purpose to fill up the rest of the spaoo 
 which is left me to-day. We shall find few or no cases in
 
 44 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 which the actual names of any office are akin in the three 
 languages; but we shall find that most of them can be 
 traced up to common roots, and that there are several cases 
 in which names, though they are not cognate with one 
 another, yet most certainly translate one another. 
 
 Let us begin with the familiar names of the chief of the 
 State in the three languages. It is plain at first sight that 
 the words fiaa-ihevs, Rex, and King are not words of common 
 origin. Nor is the matter mended if, instead of those three 
 familiar names, we use older or less usual names in each 
 of the three languages, if we take the older or poetic Greek 
 title ava (40), or if for the comparatively modern title of 
 King we take the older Thiudans or Drihten. But the fact 
 that Cyning, King, in all its forms, is a comparatively modern 
 title, is an important point in the argument. It shows how 
 offices which were substantially the same were called by 
 different names at different times, or by different branches 
 of the same race. The Gothic Thiudans and the English 
 Gyning must have expressed an office substantially the same, 
 because the Latin Hex and the Greek /3ao-i\evs translate 
 both of them. The names are in no way kindred in origin, 
 but they are closely kindred in meaning : Cyning from cyn 
 and Thiudans from thiuda, each called after the kin or people, 
 pretty well translate one another (41). We thus find two 
 nations so nearly allied in speech, though so widely cut off 
 in history, as the English and the Goths, nations about 
 which we can hardly doubt that their institutions came from 
 a common source, calling the head of the people by names 
 which in both cases meant the head of the people but which 
 are in no way philologically akin. There is, then, no need 
 to be surprised if, among branches of the Aryan family which 
 are less nearly akin, we do not always find cognate offices 
 called by cognate names. We shall rather be surprised to 
 find in how many cases the names are cognate. The {^atin 
 Hex and the Teutonic Cyning have nothing in common in 
 their names ; but, if we go one step beyond the titles borne
 
 n NOMENCLATURE OF KINDRED TONGUES 45 
 
 by the men themselves, we shall find that the regnum of 
 the one is the same thing as the rice of the other ; if we 
 sav of the one that he rexit, we say of the other that he 
 rixode (42). We may go farther East and West, and find 
 the same name in the Celtic both of Wales and Ireland, 
 and in the far-off Sanscrit (43). We then see that both 
 the idea of government and this particular root to express 
 government had borne fruit in the Aryan mind, not only 
 before the Latin had parted off from the Teuton, not only 
 before the Celt had parted off from both, but before the 
 great separation had happened between the European and 
 the Asiatic branches of the great^ family. It is therefore 
 owing merely to one of the accidents of language that, while 
 Latin and English had a cognate noun and a cognate verb 
 to express the kingly office, Latin had, and English had not, 
 a cognate noun to express the King himself. And if the 
 comparatively modern forms, both of English and of High- 
 German, give us no cognate name for Rex, we have in the 
 older Gothic the form Reiks, which, if it does not strictly 
 translate Rex and Cyning, is not very far removed from 
 them in meaning (44). If then we find these traces of 
 common origin in Latin, Teutonic, Celtic, and Sanscrit, we 
 may be sure that the absence of any such analogies, at all 
 events of any such palpable analogies, between races so 
 much more closely allied as the Greek and the Latin, must 
 be a mere caprice of language, though a strange one indeed. 
 I say no such palpable analogies^ because I leave it to 
 stronger philologers than myself to say whether any kindred 
 may lurk between &pxfiv and regere. However this may be, 
 it is at least plain that the most obvious words, &va and 
 fia<Ti\fvs, are in no way akin either to Rex or to Cyning. 
 But, whatever may be the origin of those names, there is 
 nothing wonderful in each tribe calling its particular officers 
 by names of later formation in its own language. That the 
 words Rex and /3a<riAm should be quite distinct is no mort- 
 wonderful than that the names given by different Italian 
 and different Greek tribes to other closely allied officers
 
 46 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 should be wholly distinct also. Latium has its Praetors and 
 Dictators, Samnium has its Imperators, while Rome has 
 Praetors, Dictators, and Imperators all at once. The only 
 difference a difference of no importance for our purpose, 
 though of great importance in a strictly philological view- 
 is that Praetor, Dictator, and Imperator are all words of easy 
 formation in Latin, while /Sao-iAeus has plenty of Greek 
 derivatives, but, as far as we can see, no Greek cognates. 
 So the Assembly is in old time the ayopr/ ; at Athens it is 
 the KKA.77<na ; at Sparta it is the d\ta. But the Spartan 
 name appears again at Athens as the name, if not of the 
 popular Assembly, yet of the popular court of justice (45), 
 and, by that cycle which in so many ways binds together 
 the last and the first days of independent Greece, the dyop?/ 
 which we have seen among the Achaians of Homer appears 
 again among the Achaians of Polybios (46). The Greek 
 ykvi] and the Latin gentes are palpably the same in name 
 as well as in substance ; but the <parpiai and </>/>aro/>es of 
 Athens have in their political use no Latin cognates, though 
 we see in them the missing Greek cognates of the names of 
 kindred, brother and f rater (47). So the Athenian fiov\4 
 answers to the Spartan ye/oowia ; but now mark that the 
 Spartan ycpova-ia translates the Latin Senatus. Mark too, 
 that the aristocratic order at Athens and at Rome are 
 respectively the lir-nfls and the Equites, words which have a 
 philological connexion in the far-off kindred of ftnros and 
 equus, but which in their actual shapes are distinct and 
 comparatively late formations (48). A whole flood of 
 analogies now pours in upon us. The yepoucria and the 
 Senate are kindred institutions, institutions which, one can 
 hardly doubt, are really part of the common heritage. But 
 the analogy of the names is simply a case of that kind of 
 analogy which springs from like causes producing like effects. 
 In an early state of society, age implies rule and rule implies 
 age; this is taught us by a whole crowd of words in all 
 languages. From the Elders of Midian and the Srjjuoye'pozres 
 of Ilios, we have not only Spartan and Roman Senators, but
 
 II NAMES WHICH TRANSLATE ONE ANOTHER 47 
 
 TrpeV/Sei?, ambassadors, whose name of age has passed into a 
 name of office: we have Christian Presbyters and English 
 Ealdormen ; we have the long string of names which spring 
 from the mediaeval use of Senior (49), Monseigneur, Monsieur, 
 Sire, Sir, and endless others. And, to end as we have begun, 
 beyond the Aryan fold, we have the Sheikhs of the Arab, 
 and among them the most famous of his class, the Old Man 
 of the Mountain (50). So again the iTrmjAarat of Homer, 
 the iTTTreis of Athens, the Equites of Rome, appear again in 
 the Caballeros, the Cavalieri, the Chevaliers, of Romance 
 Europe, and in the Ritterschaft of the Teutonic mainland. 
 Here again the names are simply analogous. Wherever, 
 as always will be in an early state of society, there is no 
 professional army, but an armed nation serves without pay, 
 if such an army uses horsemen as part of its force (51), that 
 force is sure to be made up of the noble and wealthy: 
 cavalry and chivalry will be the same. In the later days 
 of Rome the Equites ceased to be a military body; but in 
 after ages, when the same state of things came again, new 
 words were made, no longer from the now obsolete cquus, but 
 from the word cdballus which had taken its place. In 
 Germany again the same causes again called forth the word 
 Hitter, and its English equivalent comes into use in the later 
 years of our national Chronicle, when King William dubs 
 his son Henry to rider (52). No such title is heard of in 
 the earlier days of England. The Thegn, the Ealdorman, 
 the King himself, alike fought on foot ; the horse might bear 
 him to the field, but when the fighting itself came, he 
 stood on his native earth to receive the onslaught of her 
 enemies (53). 
 
 All these are instances of the way in which, especially in 
 so young a form of research as this, we must ever walk 
 warily, and most carefully distinguish cases of likeness which 
 there is every reason to believe are really owing to inherit- 
 ance from a common stock, and cases where the likeness is 
 simply the likeness of analogy, the effect of like results 
 springing from like causes. We have seen how much
 
 48 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON LECT. 
 
 is proved by the presence of cognate names of offices, how 
 little is proved by its absence. Our preliminary work is now 
 over. We have defined the nature of our method ; we have 
 traced out the limits within which it will for the present be 
 wise commonly to confine its application. In the following 
 lectures I shall try to grapple with the leading analogies to 
 be found in the great institutions of the three races with 
 whom we have mainly to deal. In my next lecture I purpose 
 to deal with the State itself, with the primitive conception 
 of the commonwealth, as we see it in our first glimpses of 
 Greek, Roman, and Teutonic political life. I shall thence 
 go on to the head of the State, the King, and to its body, 
 the Assembly. And the course may well be wound up with 
 some instances of special analogies in the institutions of the 
 three races, all helping to show, on the one hand, how truly 
 human nature is one ; how, without regard to races and times, 
 men are by like circumstances moulded to like forms ; and, on 
 the other hand, to show how great is the common heritage 
 which the tribes of the common family bore away from their 
 primaeval home, how many are the signs of ancient brother- 
 hood, which, notwithstanding distance of place and time, 
 notwithstanding mutual ignorance and mutual hatred, may 
 still be traced among them.
 
 in THE THREE ELEMENTS 49 
 
 III 
 
 THE STATE 
 
 IN my two former lectures we have, I trust, seen somewhat 
 of the general nature of that common political heritage a 
 share in which probably belongs to every member of the 
 great Aryan family, and most certainly belongs to each of 
 its three most illustrious branches. Our earliest glimpses of 
 the life of our forefathers and kinsfolk set them before us as 
 already gathered together in organized societies, as having 
 already developed the first principles of political government, 
 and, what is more, as already showing the germs of the 
 three great forms of political government, as showing the 
 germs of monarchy, of aristocracy, and of democracy. Wher- 
 ever we find, in however rude a shape, the King or other chief, 
 the Council of elders or nobles, and the general Assembly 
 of the people, the substance of all three is there. Nor must 
 we in this matter be led away by mere names. The first 
 element, that of the King or other chief, may remain after 
 the kingship in the ordinary sense has been abolished, just 
 as the forms and titles of kingship may remain after the real 
 kingly power has passed away. The aristocratic element 
 again, the Council, may or may not take the form of an 
 hereditary body. Aristocracy, I need hardly say, in its strict 
 sense, is the rule of the best : indeed aristocracy would be 
 the rule of the ideally best, those who are really wisest, 
 bravest, and most upright. Any other standard, be it that 
 of age, of birth, or of wealth, is simply a substitute which
 
 50 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 
 
 is accepted because, in an imperfect world, the rule of 
 the ideally best is something which may be talked about, 
 but which will never be found in actual being (i). In the 
 most conservative society of men that ever was, the com- 
 munity which never wholly abolished any one of its ancient 
 institutions, in the Commonwealth of Rome, we see how both 
 the kingly and the aristocratic elements of the State, in the 
 common sense of those words, might be swept away without 
 at all sweeping away the substance of either the kingly or 
 the aristocratic power. Personal kingship was swept away, 
 but the kingly power was not swept away: it was simply 
 put into commission, entrusted to two men for a year, instead 
 of to one man for life (2). Afterwards, as the needs of the 
 State called for such a change, it was further divided among 
 various magistrates of various ranks, but to all of whom 
 some portion of kingly dignity still clave (3). So again, 
 when, as the monarchy had changed into a commonwealth, 
 so the commonwealth changed into a monarchy, the change 
 was not made by abolishing old offices, or by creating new 
 ones, but by gathering all the offices of State into the hand 
 of a single man. As the separation of the various duties of 
 the King created the various magistracies of the Common- 
 wealth, so in turn the union of the various magistracies 
 of the Commonwealth created the Emperor (4). So with 
 regard to the aristocratic branch, the object of all popular 
 movements at Rome was, not to abolish the Senate, not 
 even greatly to lessen the powers of the Senate (5), but to 
 break down the distinction of old and new citizens, and 
 to throw the Great Council of the Commonwealth open 
 to all its members. In this way the three powers went on, 
 though the hands which held them might be changed. The 
 kingly power went on, though there was no longer a personal 
 King ; the aristocratic power went on, though it was no 
 longer confined to a particular order of the Commonwealth : 
 and thereby for two glorious centuries Rome came nearer to 
 being aristocratic, in the literal sense, than any other 
 government that the world ever saw. If the rule of the best
 
 m ROME THE TRUEST ARISTOCRACY 51 
 
 was ever reached in any political community upon earth, it 
 surely was in the commonwealth which strove against 
 Hannibal and overthrew him. If there ever was a time 
 when the ideal picture of the poet was to be found on earth, 
 the time when 
 
 None was for a party ; 
 When all were for the state ; 
 When the great man helped the poor, 
 And the poor man loved the great, 
 
 that time was surely to be found in those brightest days of 
 the Roman Commonwealth, when the elder distinctions of 
 patrician and plebeian had passed away, and when the later 
 distinctions of rich and poor had not begun to show them- 
 selves (6). The great idea of the State, the City, the 
 Commonwealth, the great whole in and for which each of its 
 members lived and worked and fought and died, had never 
 reached to greater sway over the minds of men than in the 
 long struggle between the first of cities and the first of men. 
 Thus it was shown that the very greatest of men, in the 
 single strength of the wisest head, the stoutest heart, and 
 the strongest arm, was, after all, a power less mighty than 
 the enduring strength of an united people (7). To show 
 how the idea of the State that is, in those days, the idea of 
 the City could rule men's heads and guide their actions, I 
 might find examples equally to the purpose in the history of 
 other commonwealths, in democratic Athens or in oligarchic 
 Venice. But Rome stands out above all, because in no 
 other commonwealth did the three primitive elements of 
 government live on so long side by side, with changed forms 
 indeed, but with the strength of all three undiminished. 
 Among the ranks of her own citizens, Rome had in those 
 days no elements of weakness : every citizen had his place, 
 and knew his place, and did his work in his place. Her one 
 element of weakness lay without her walls, in that she was a 
 city ruling over other cities (8). But here, as in all history, 
 and as pre-eminently in Roman history, the good and the
 
 52 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 bad, the strong and the weak sides, spring from the same 
 source, and can hardly be separated from one another. The 
 noblest and the vilest deeds of the true Roman went hand 
 in hand. To Rome, to the State, to the whole of which he 
 was but an unit, he was ready at any moment to sacrifice 
 himself and all that he had ; and to the State, to which he 
 was ready to sacrifice himself, he was no less ready to sacrifice 
 all that came in the way of the greatness of the Roman 
 Commonwealth. To Rome he would sacrifice the laws of 
 eternal justice, the rights of other nations and common- 
 wealths, the very faith of treaties, and what we should deem 
 the truth and honour of Rome herself. 
 
 The State then, in what is in some sort the highest con- 
 ception of it, is a City ; and it can hardly fail to be a City 
 bearing rule over other cities. Now the conception of the 
 State as a City is far from being the earliest conception of 
 the State ; still it is one which has much in common with 
 the earliest conception of the State as opposed to the con- 
 ception of it which now prevails in modern Europe. The 
 modern conception of the State is a Nation. It is perhaps 
 not very easy to define a Nation ; still the word conveys an 
 idea which, if not always very accurate in point of philosophy, 
 is at least practically intelligible. Whatever else a nation 
 may be or may not be, the word suggests to us a considerable 
 continuous part of the earth's surface inhabited by men who 
 at once speak the same tongue and are united under the 
 same government. Anything differing from this strikes us 
 as exceptional. Thus Switzerland and Scotland give us 
 examples of nations, which we feel to be nations, but which 
 are formed by the artificial union, through the circumstances 
 of their history, of parts of three adjoining nations which 
 have parted off from their natural brethren and have found 
 adoptive brethren among strangers. On the other hand, in 
 North America we see, in the United States and the adjoin- 
 ing dominions of the British Crown, a continuous territory 
 inhabited by men speaking the same language, but who, 
 being separated from one another by the circumstances of
 
 in DEFINITION OF NATIONALITY 53 
 
 their history, no longer feel themselves to be members of the 
 same nation. By a process analogous to the Roman law of 
 adoption, that law by which a man might artificially become 
 a member of a family to which he did not belong by birth, 
 those parts of the German, Burgundian, and Italian nations, 
 which have joined together to form the modern Swiss nation, 
 and those parts of the Irish, English, and British nations 
 which have joined together to form the modern Scottish 
 nation, have cast away their original nationality and have 
 made for themselves a new one (9). But the Publius 
 Cornelius Scipio who finally overthrew Carthage was, 
 /Ernilius as he was by birth, as good a Scipio as the elder 
 Publius who had given Carthage her death-blow at Zama. 
 And so the artificial Scots, the artificial Switzers, have 
 formed a nation as real and true as if it had been a nation 
 strictly answering to some linguistic or ethnological division. 
 And, in the other case, the events which have caused the 
 English settlers north and south of the great American lakes 
 to part off into two distinct nations have the character of a 
 family quarrel, which, because it is a family quarrel, is harder 
 to heal than a quarrel between strangers. But we feel that 
 all cases of this kind either way are exceptional cases, 
 accounted for by exceptional causes ; the normal nation is 
 one where the continuous speakers of a single tongue are 
 united under a single government ; such a nation forms the 
 ideal of a State, whether kingdom or commonwealth, which 
 fonns the ground of all modern political speculation. 
 
 Now this fact that we expect, as a rule, the nation to fonn 
 a single government the fact that political unity enters 
 into our general idea of a nation shows how greatly we 
 have changed in this matter from the political ideas of earlier 
 times. Take Greece for example. There was in the Greek 
 mind a distinct idea of a Greek nation, united by a common 
 origin, speech, religion, and civilization. Every Greek was 
 a brother to every other Greek, as contrasted with the 
 outside Barbarian (10). But that the whole Greek nation, 
 or to much of it as formed a continuous or nearly continuous
 
 54 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 territory, could be united into one political community, never 
 came into the mind of any Greek statesman or Greek 
 philosopher. The independence of each city was the one 
 cardinal principle from which all Greek political life started. 
 The State, the Commonwealth, was in Greek eyes a City, an 
 organized society of men dwelling in a walled town as the 
 hearth and home of the political society, and with a surround- 
 ing territory not too large to allow all its free inhabitants 
 habitually to assemble within its walls to discharge the 
 duties of citizens. During the most brilliant times of the 
 Greek Commonwealths, the City, and nothing higher or 
 lower, was the one acknowledged political unit. A scattered 
 tribe was not enough, an unwalled village was not enough : 
 while, on the other hand, no Greek of those days willingly 
 merged his city in any greater aggregate (n). And the 
 higher was the civilization, the fuller was the political 
 developement, of any branch of the Greek nation, the stronger 
 was the feeling with which it clave to the full political 
 independence of every separate city. The feelings which we 
 bear towards the Nation, the Greeks bore towards the City 
 ( 1 2). We have heard in modern times of " oppressed 
 nationalities" a form of words which, I suppose, means 
 much the same as oppressed nations. That form of words 
 implies that such nations are wronged by being put under a 
 government which is not of their own nation. With exactly 
 the same feelings did the old Greeks look upon those cases 
 in their own political world when it was not nation that was 
 subject to nation, but city that was subject to city. For one 
 city to bear rule over another was common enough, when one 
 city was stronger and another weaker ; but such a relation 
 was always deemed to be unjust, at all events in the eyes of 
 the weaker city. And in such cases it was always, in the 
 strictest sense, city bearing rule over city; the subject city 
 still kept on its being as an organized political community, 
 and it therefore felt only the more keenly the loss of its full 
 political independence (13). The theory of the independence 
 of each city, the universal doctrine of Greece, was, though as
 
 in ORIGIN OF THE CITY 55 
 
 we shall presently see in a very modified form, the political 
 doctrine of ancient Italy also. The feeling has affected 
 language in a way which makes it hard to represent some 
 familiar Greek and Latin expressions in any modern speech. 
 DarpiV, patria, may often be well enough translated by 
 country, patrie Vaterland ; but the true patria of the Greek 
 or the Roman was not a country in our sense : it was not 
 Greece but Athens, it was not Italy but Rome, which was 
 the patria of the Athenian or the Roman (14). Scipio at 
 Liternum was held to be in exile as much as if he had 
 banished himself to Spain or Syria. And when Tiberius 
 removed his dwelling from Rome to Caprea3, men wondered 
 that a Roman citizen, a Roman prince, could so long " carere 
 patria " ; a phrase which, if we translate it " to be without a 
 country," sounds strange indeed when applied to one who 
 had simply moved his dwelling from Rome to an island off 
 the coast of Campania (15). 
 
 But the idea of the City, on the face of it, marks in truth 
 a very advanced state in the political developement of any 
 people. If we look at the history of Greece only, we shall 
 find abundant signs that that political life of the city which 
 comes out with such brilliancy in the days of the Persian 
 and Peloponnesian ware, and which was already fully 
 established in the days of Homer, was far from being the 
 earliest social condition of the Greek people. The thing in 
 fact hardly needs proof: it needs no evidence to show that a 
 wandering tribe cannot build cities, nor is it likely that men 
 should gather themselves together in political societies within 
 walled towns till they have been long accustomed to the 
 practice of agriculture and of life in settled dwellings. As 
 the settled village is an advance on the wandering tribe, so 
 the walled city is an advance on the unwalled village ; its 
 origin is often to be found in the hill-fort which formed the 
 rude citadel of the village, the primaeval fortress where men 
 and cattle might seek shelter in case of a sudden inroad of 
 their enemies. The hill-fort might itself grow into the city,
 
 56 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 as so many ancient Gaulish hill-forts have grown into ancient 
 Roman and modern French cities (16), or as the greater 
 Athens of later times gathered round the holy rock of 
 Athene*, once itself the city, but now its venerable Akropolis 
 (17). Or again, as population grows and civilization advances, 
 the hill-fort may be wholly forsaken for some more tempting 
 site in the plain ; as when the lofty Dardanie made way for 
 holy Ilios, the city of articulate-speaking men (18). Greek 
 city life could not have existed as long as the forefathers of 
 the Hellenes were slowly making their way from the head of 
 the Hadriatic gulf down to the peninsula of Attica and the 
 great island of Pelops (19). The point is that even the first 
 rudiments of Greek city life could hardly have come into 
 being till the Hellenes had long been in possession of the 
 peninsular land between Mount Olympos and Cape Malea. 
 The Homeric poems contain passages which seem to contrast 
 the social state of the Achaian princes and people with other 
 races, at least not wholly alien, which were still on a lower 
 social level (20). It is worth noticing too that the familiar 
 word brj(j.os, the people, seems to have first of all meant the 
 ground, and thence to have been transferred to the inhabit- 
 ants or tillers of the ground (2 1 ). This change of meaning 
 could hardly have taken place after city life was fully 
 established. And side by side with the greatest develope- 
 ment of the later meaning of the word, side by side with the 
 Athenian Delmos himself, we see the local divisions of the 
 land, which still bore the same name, witnesses of the time 
 when Demos had meant the land itself, and not those who 
 dwelt upon it (22). But other proofs show that the state of 
 society which we see in the Homeric poems succeeded, no 
 doubt by gradual stages, to one far less advanced, which still 
 left traces of itself in historic times. In historical times the 
 cities are everything ; treaties and leagues were, in the more 
 advanced regions of Greece, made only between city and 
 city. But the most ancient of common Greek institutions, 
 the great religious union of the Amphiktyons, was not an 
 union of cities. Athens and Sparta, as Athens and Sparta.
 
 in TRIBES MORE ANCIENT THAN CITIES 57 
 
 had no part or lot in it. The Amphiktyonic body was an 
 union of races, races some of which had risen to greatness in 
 other parts of Greece, while others remained in their ancient 
 obscurity in their old seats by Thermopylai. In that great 
 religious convocation, the Dorian and the Ionian race had 
 each its equal vote alongside of Malians and Phthiotic 
 Achaians. Athens and Sparta, as severally the greatest 
 Ionic and the greatest Dorian city, might practically command 
 the Ionian and the Dorian vote ; but, as the cities of Athens 
 and Sparta, they had no formal place in the Council. This 
 feature in the Amphiktyonic body, a feature which could not 
 possibly have been introduced at any moment in the recorded 
 history of Greece, at once shows the vast antiquity of the 
 Amphiktyonic union, and it also shows that the system of 
 cities with which we are so familiar in Grecian history grew 
 out of an earlier system of tribes (23). So again, even in 
 the historic times of Greece, we find that there were large 
 districts, JEtolia, Akarnania, some parts of Arkadia, in which 
 city life was very imperfectly developed, where walled towns 
 at special points were not unknown, but where the city had 
 not wholly swallowed up the tribe and the village, in the 
 way in which it had done in the lands of Athens, Corinth, 
 or Boeotia (24). We find also in the historic times more 
 than one instance in which a Greek city Elis for example, 
 and Megalopolis in after times was formed by the union of 
 several villages, or of towns so small that they hardly 
 deserved the names of cities (25). And we see too, in the 
 case of Mantineia and of Sparta itself, a tradition so strong 
 that it can hardly have been groundless, which told that 
 those cities had themselves been formed in a like sort, in 
 days which must have been older than the Homeric catalogue 
 (26). So again, in those neighbouring nations which were 
 not strictly Greek, but to whom the true Hellenes seem to 
 have .stood in the relation of members of the same family 
 who had outstripped their brethren, among Epeirots and 
 Macedonians, we find much the same state of things as in 
 the ruder parts of Greece itself: the city is not unknown,
 
 58 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 but the tribe and the village still remain the leading 
 features of national life (27). We might have inferred 
 without historical evidence, from the very nature of the case, 
 that the Greek system of cities grew out of an earlier 
 system of tribes and villages, but there is in truth quite 
 enough of strictly historical evidence to prove the point. 
 
 The system of cities was thus, even in Greece, far from 
 being a thing which had been from the beginning. But it 
 became, as we all know, the great characteristic of Grecian 
 politics, the feature to which Greece owes at once the 
 brilliance and the shortness of its history. For the city, 
 according at least to Greek political ideas, kept on one 
 feature of the life of the tribe, even more strictly than it 
 was kept on by the tribe itself. The City, the State, the 
 commonwealth, was an assemblage of yevrj, of gentes, of natural 
 or artificial families. Citizenship was thus a matter of 
 hereditary descent : mere residence, even to the ninth and 
 tenth generation, could never confer the civic franchise (28). 
 Once or twice in the history of a city, when the original 
 citizens had shrunk up into a narrow oligarchy, a large 
 admission of the unenfranchised classes to the rights of 
 citizenship might change the commonwealth from an oligarchy 
 into a democracy (29). Now and then too citizenship might 
 be bestowed by special decree on a stranger, whether a 
 resident on the spot or a distant prince who had deserved 
 well of the commonwealth (30). But there was no way by 
 which the necessary extinction of citizen families could be, 
 as a matter of ordinary course, supplied by new blood. A 
 Greek city might hold other cities in bondage ; she might 
 have other cities united to her on terms of either equal or 
 dependent alliance; but the breaking down of the citizen 
 barrier, the admission of allies or subjects to a common 
 franchise, was, we may say, unknown in the historical times 
 of Greece. It had been done once before history began, 
 when all the Attic towns were either persuaded or constrained 
 to merge their political being in that of the one city of 
 Athens (31). It was tried once in historical times, in a
 
 in GREECE NEVER BECAME A NATION 59 
 
 feeble and unsuccessful way, when the commonwealths of 
 Argos and Corinth were for a moment thrown into one (32). 
 But, as a rule, through the most brilliant days of Greece, 
 each city clave to its separate political being. The higher 
 the political developement, the higher the material and social 
 civilization of any Grecian city, the more fervently, the more 
 obstinately, it clave to its distinct and independent being as 
 a sovereign commonwealth. It might be a ruling city, and 
 it never dreamed of granting its citizenship to its subjects ; 
 it might be a dependent city, and it dreamed perhaps of 
 throwing off the yoke of its too powerful neighbour, but 
 never of asking for its franchise. 
 
 From this cause sprang two results. Greece never became, 
 in any political sense, a nation. And those parts of Greece 
 which, in her latest days of independence, came nearest to 
 becoming a nation were not those parts which had filled the 
 foremost places in her earlier and more brilliant days. In 
 the last, the Federal, age of Greece the parts of Greece 
 which showed the fullest national life were precisely those 
 more backward districts where Greek city life had never 
 developed itself in its fulness. ^Etolia, Akarnania, even the 
 hellenized Epeiros, now show a truer national life than 
 Athens. But in those later days one great step in political 
 progress was taken. Federal principle had hitherto lurked 
 in Greece only in the parts where either city life was hardly 
 developed at all, or where the cities were small and of little 
 account in Grecian politics. It had long bound together the 
 fierce tribes of ^Etolia and the respectable but insignificant 
 towns of the original Achaia (33). It now became the 
 leading principle of Greek politics. The greater part of 
 Greece was mapped out among Federal commonwealths. 
 But the greatest cities of the olden time kept aloof from 
 a system which so greatly trenched on the separate inde- 
 pendence of each particular city. Athens never joined the 
 Achaian League ; Sparta was enrolled in it against her 
 will (34). In these last days of independent Greece a new 
 form of political life arose. But it was simply a developement
 
 60 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 or modification of her old system of independent cities. The 
 cities gave up so much of their independent political being 
 as to group themselves into Confederations, to let several 
 cities form a single State in their dealings with other States. 
 But the Confederation was still a Confederation of cities. 
 The internal constitutions of the cities remained untouched. 
 Each still remained a distinct and sovereign commonwealth 
 in all its domestic affairs. The form of a Federal Common- 
 wealth, a Bundesstaat (35), and that a Federal Common- 
 wealth formed, not of tribes or cantons but of cities, was 
 the nearest approach to national unity to which the most 
 advanced parts of Hellas in the days of her independence 
 ever reached. 
 
 Here then is one idea of the State : that in which the 
 State, the Commonwealth, the body in which a man enjoys 
 political rights and discharges political duties, the body 
 round which all his patriotic feelings centre, is not a nation, 
 not a country in our sense, but a single city. There is no 
 doubt that such a system as this calls forth the powers of 
 man to their very highest point; there has never been 
 another political society in the world in which the average 
 of the individual citizen stood so high as it did under the 
 Athenian Democracy in the days of its greatness. The weak 
 point of such a system is that it is too brilliant to last ; the 
 high-strung enthusiasm to which it owes its being, and 
 without which it cannot be kept up at the same level, is 
 not likely to last for many generations (36). Again, such 
 a system can last only as long as it forms the whole of its 
 own civilized world. Where the strength of a country is 
 cut up among a number of absolutely independent cities, 
 indifferent or even hostile to one another, they must give 
 way as soon as an united power of equal strength and equal 
 intelligence is brought to bear upon them. Greece drew 
 increased strength, and even increased union, from the 
 attacks made upon her by the brute force of Persia: she 
 could not bear up against the single power of Macedonia, 
 schooled in her own arts and discipline. The lesson did its
 
 in THE CITY SYSTEM LESS PERFECT IN ITALY 61 
 
 work in the revival of Greek independence in the Federal 
 period. But even then the degree of union that was reached 
 was simply Federal, and even that degree of union was 
 never extended over the whole land. Greece never became 
 a nation: a people whose idea of political life does not go 
 beyond the separate and independent city never can become 
 a nation ; it never can endure when the forces of a nation 
 are brought against it. But it none the less shows the 
 powers of man in & higher form than they can reach under 
 any other system ; and, although the system itself is one 
 which cannot last in its full force and glory through more 
 than a few generations of men, its history is none the less 
 rich in abiding lessons for all time. 
 
 From the idea of the State as the single independent 
 city, the idea which gave all its brilliance to the peninsula 
 east of the Hadriatic, we turn to another idea of the State, 
 or rather to a modification of the same idea, which was 
 worked out in the political history of the other great 
 Mediterranean land. Italy, no less than Greece, was from 
 the earliest times parted out into small commonwealths, or 
 rather it was occupied by distinct settlements, clans, or 
 tribes, which grew into distinct commonwealths. The idea 
 of the independent city may be said to have been the leading 
 political idea of ancient Italy, no less than of ancient Greece, 
 but it was never carried out in the same completeness. We 
 must set aside that part of Southern Italy which was in 
 after times directly colonized from Greece, and the history 
 of whose Greek cities is simply a part of the history of the 
 Greek cities elsewhere. In that much larger part of Italy 
 which was untouched by Greek colonization, though the 
 walled city seems to have been everywhere the ideal political 
 unit, yet true city-life, according to Greek notions, never 
 reached the same complete predominance. From the be- 
 ginning the towns were smaller, and they were more ready 
 to join themselves together by a Federal tie. There never 
 could have been more than a very few Italian cities, and
 
 62 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 those scattered at distances as great as that which separated 
 Rome from Capua, which could have had any claim to rank 
 alongside of the great cities which in Greece lay as near 
 together as Thebes, Athens, Corinth, Sikyon, and Argos 
 (37). Hence the history of ancient Italy is a history of 
 confederations, far more than a history of single cities ; and 
 the Italian confederations had from the beginning a closer 
 union and a nearer approach to national unity than the 
 later and more brilliant confederations of Greece. Latium, 
 Samnium, and the rest, had more in common with ^Etolia 
 and Akarnania than with the more strictly civic confeder- 
 ation of the Achaian League. The real elements of old 
 Italian life are the gens or clan and the tribe. The city 
 is rather the fortress, the place of meeting, the place of 
 shelter, of the tribe or collection of tribes, than the actual 
 home and dwelling-place which it was in Greek ideas (38). 
 At the same time it was in Italy that the idea of the city, 
 the single independent city the ruling city was carried 
 out on a scale in which it never was before or after. A 
 group of Latin villages grew together to form a border 
 fortress of Latium on the Etruscan march (39). That border 
 fortress grew step by step to be the head of Latium, the 
 head of Italy, the head of the Mediterranean world. The 
 idea of the city the ruling city gathering around it the 
 various classes of citizens, half-citizens, allies, and subjects 
 (40), all looking to the local city as the common centre, 
 whether of freedom to be exercised or dominion to be 
 endured, all this finds its greatest and mightiest develope- 
 ment in the Latin city of Rome. Rome alone among cities 
 can rightly call herself eternal; but she won her eternity 
 by casting off, more than any other city ever did, the 
 trammels which narrowed the greatness and shortened the 
 life of the other ruling cities of the world. The course by 
 which Rome rose to her dominion was set forth by one of 
 her own Caesars in her own Senate; it was by granting, 
 step by step, equal rights with her own alike to faithful 
 allies and to conquered enemies. Claudius argued, with
 
 HI EFFECTS OF EXTENSION OF ROMAN FRANCHISE 63 
 
 thorough insight into the history of the State over which 
 he ruled, that the dominion of Athens and Sparta had been 
 short, because they had failed to grant their citizenship to 
 their allies and subjects; that the dominion of Rome had 
 been lasting, because the allies and subjects of Rome had 
 been freely allowed to become Romans. The plebeian, the 
 Latin, the Italian, each in his turn, had been admitted to 
 the rights and honours of the conquering city. From Italy, 
 so Claudius argued, the same process should go on to Gaul 
 and Spain ; and so it did go on till, when the franchise of 
 the Roman city had become nothing worth, all the free 
 inhabitants of the Roman world were admitted to it (41). 
 But mark that it was to the franchise of the Roman city, 
 to the local burghership of a single town, that Latium, 
 Italy, and the world, were gradually admitted. They were 
 admitted to a body of exactly the same nature as the 
 hereditary burghers of an old Greek or a mediaeval Italian 
 city, to a body essentially the same as the freemen of a 
 modern English borough. We may, in a sense, say that 
 a city grew into a nation, or into more than a nation, when 
 its citizenship was thus extended to the whole of the then 
 civilized world. Still it was the local franchise of a city ; 
 it was a franchise which, as long as it remained any real 
 franchise at all, could be exercised nowhere except in that 
 city (42). The result was that, long before the world had 
 become Roman, even before all Italy had become Roman, 
 the municipal government of the Roman city had been tried 
 and found wanting as the government of so large a part 
 of the world. The constitution which, for its own proper 
 use, had been one of the best that the world ever saw a 
 constitution all the better because it grew up bit by bit 
 as it was wanted broke down when it was put to an use 
 for which it was utterly unfitted. The burghers of a single 
 Italian city could not govern the whole world ; they could 
 not even govern Italy. They could not even administer 
 the affairs of their own city, when they themselves were 
 numbered by hundreds of thousands. The despotism of the
 
 64 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 Caesars was the stern remedy for an incurable disease. As 
 regards the city itself, if, as Maecenas thought, life even 
 in torments is better than death (43), the disease was a 
 smaller evil than the remedy. As regards the subject lands, 
 they gained by getting one master instead of many. The 
 moral of Grecian history is that a system of independent 
 cities cannot bear up against an united kingdom or common- 
 wealth. The moral of Roman history is that, if a single 
 city aspires to universal dominion, it may indeed become 
 the seat of a power which deserves to be called eternal, but 
 it can become mistress of the world only by the sacrifice 
 of its own freedom. The distinction between citizen and 
 subject may be swept away; but it will be swept away, 
 not by raising the subject to the level of the citizen, but 
 by bringing down the citizen to the level of the subject. 
 
 We thus see that, though Greece and Italy alike took 
 the independent city as their leading political idea, the 
 results which were worked out were widely different in the 
 two cases. The earlier and fuller establishment of the 
 Federal principle in Italy, the greater readiness in com- 
 municating the franchise to allies and subjects, both worked 
 to the same end. And I suspect that both of these were 
 different results of the same cause, and that that cause was 
 that the clan feeling, the tribe feeling, had by no means so 
 wholly given way to the city feeling as it did in Greece. 
 The truth is that, if we read history as chronology requires 
 us to read it, beginning with Greece, thence going on to 
 the Roman conquerors of Greece, and thence to the Teu- 
 tonic conquerors of Rome, we are, for many purposes of this 
 inquiry, reading history backwards. We find the primitive 
 conception of the State in an earlier form among the 
 Italians than we find it among the Greeks, at all events 
 than we find it in those Greek states of which we have 
 most knowledge. And we find it in a still earlier form 
 amongst the Teutonic nations than we find it among the 
 Italians. The notion of the State as a city is, as we have
 
 in GREEK, ITALIAN, AND TEUTONIC SYSTEMS 65 
 
 seen and as it must be in the nature of things, a later notion 
 than the notion of the State as a tribe. We have seen that, 
 even in some parts of Greece, the notion of the city the 
 ruling idea of fully developed Greek political life grew 
 but slowly, and never bore the same fruits which it bore 
 in the great Greek city commonwealths. Among the Teu- 
 tonic nations we may fairly say that the city commonwealth 
 never became an essential element of political life at all. 
 The conception of the absolutely sovereign city common- 
 wealth is not a strictly Teutonic conception j it has never 
 been the ruling political idea of any Teutonic people. The 
 Greeks reached the city stage so early, they carried out its 
 leading idea to such perfection, that they never reached the 
 national stage. The Teutons passed from the tribal stage 
 into the national stage without ever going through the city 
 stage at all. The Italians followed an intermediate course ; 
 they reached the city stage, but they never carried it to 
 the same perfection to which it was carried in Greece. The 
 older ideas of the clan and the tribe kept far more power ; 
 down to the latest days of Rome's freedom they exercised 
 an influence which they lost at a far earlier stage of Athenian 
 political history. 
 
 To trace out the difference in this respect between the 
 history of the three chief races which we are comparing, we 
 must go back to the very beginnings of political life. The 
 Greek philosophers themselves saw that the original element 
 of the State of the City was to be found in the family. 
 But they perhaps did not attach its full importance to the 
 stage which comes between the family in the narrower sense 
 and the political commonwealth (44). The great practical 
 element in all early political societies is the family, but it is 
 the family, not in the narrower sense of the mere household, 
 the father and his immediate children, but in the form which 
 the family takes when it has swelled into the clan. The 
 clan may take many forms : it may long keep up the wild 
 independence, the predatory life, the attachment to the 
 hereditary chief of the race, which distinguishes the Celtic
 
 66 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 clans and septs both in Britain and in Ireland (45). In a 
 higher stage it may take the shape of the agricultural village 
 community, such as we see it in forms common to the Aryan 
 races both in East and West (46). The two things in short, 
 the clan and the village community, are the same thing, 
 influenced only by those circumstances, geographical or other- 
 wise, which allow one clan or company to adopt a more 
 settled life, while another is driven to linger in, or even to 
 fall back upon, a ruder state of things. The yeVos of Athens, 
 the gens of Rome, the mark or gemeinde of the Teutonic 
 nations, the village community of the East, and, as I have 
 said, the Irish clan, are all essentially the same thing. All 
 are parts of the common heritage ; all mark a stage in pro- 
 gress which is essentially the same, although the further 
 developements of each have branched off into such widely 
 different shapes. In each case, the community thus formed 
 is the lowest political unit it is the association next above 
 that of the mere household. It does not stand immediately 
 below the tribe, as we find between them the intermediate 
 association of the hundred or curia. Still, the tribe on the 
 one side, the clan or gens on the other, stand out in such a 
 much more marked way than the intermediate group that 
 we may venture to say that, as the commonwealth, whether 
 city or nation, is formed by an union of tribes, so the tribe is 
 formed by an union of gentes. 
 
 The names yeVos and gens at once proclaim that community 
 of blood is the idea which lies at the root of the association 
 so called. We have no English name which exactly expresses 
 the same idea (47) ; but the local nomenclature of our own 
 land makes it plain that this lowest political unit was at 
 first, here as elsewhere, formed of men bound together by 
 a tie of kindred, in its first estate natural, in a later 
 stage either natural or artificial. A large proportion -of 
 the parishes of England bear names which come directly 
 from old Teutonic patronymics. Uffmgton, Gillingham, a 
 crowd of others the same name not uncommonly repeating 
 itself in distant parts of the country point beyond all doubt
 
 in THE ORIGINAL ELEMENT OF THE STATE 67 
 
 to the Uffingas, the Gillingas, and so forth, as their original 
 Teutonic settlers (48). These names answer exactly to those 
 borne by the gentes of Athens and Rome, to the Alkmaionidai 
 and the Julii, and to those borne by the clans and septs of 
 the Scot both in his own island and in Britain (49). In all 
 these cases the name is strictly a patronymic ; the race is 
 called after a supposed forefather. But in none of these 
 cases are we bound to look for actual kindred among all the 
 members of the body (50). Still it is none the less true that 
 the idea of the family runs through all. The family is the 
 starting-point : the common patriarch, divine or human, real 
 or mythical, Alkmaion, Julus, Offa, Donald, is the tie which 
 binds together all the members of his house, whether really 
 sprung of his blood or not. The adopted son, the freedman, 
 the client, the favoured stranger, might be received in their 
 several degrees within the pale of the house, so that real 
 purity of blood would become a mere name, a simple legal 
 fiction (51) ; still it was into the house, the gens, the clan 
 that is, into the family, to its name, its rights, its sacred 
 ceremonies and traditions (52) that he was admitted. Both 
 at Rome and at Athens the gentes were joined together into 
 a higher union, that of the curia or the <f>parpia that is, the 
 brotherhood, the name which still so strangely preserves 
 the common Aryan word which the Greek tongue has lost in 
 its older and nearer meaning (53). The gathering of curice 
 or QparpCai again forms the tribe ; the gathering of tribes 
 forms the State. But alike at Rome and at Athens, tribes 
 formed of curice and gentes lost their political significance, 
 and gave way as political institutions to tribes of later origin 
 founded on another principle. In the later stages of both 
 commonwealths, the elements of which the commonwealth 
 was made up were no longer the primitive genealogical 
 tribes, but tribes which were essentially local. But the 
 smaller groups of which the tribes were immediately made 
 up, the gentes and the groups intermediate between the gentes 
 and the tribes, still lived on, though, by one of those accidents 
 which are to be found in all these histories of political growth,
 
 68 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 it happened that the element which kept most of its import- 
 ance differed in the two cases. In the later stages of the 
 Athenian commonwealth we hear far more of the (frparpia. 
 than we do of the yfvos. At Rome the curice sank into a 
 mere name at a comparatively early stage, while the gentes 
 remained and flourished, and had the most abiding influence 
 on the national character and the national history. 
 
 At Rome then the influence of the family community was 
 far stronger, far more lasting,, than it was at Athens. One 
 cause of this difference may seem a small one. There can 
 be little doubt that the fact that the gentes of Rome survived 
 longer and played a greater part in history than the Greek 
 and Teutonic unions which answer to them is largely owing 
 to an accident of Roman nomenclature, though we cannot 
 doubt that the apparent accident had itself some determining 
 cause. Megakles the Alkmaionid, or Godric the Tiffing, 
 remembered and boasted of the name of his real or mythical 
 forefather, but he did not bear it about with him as part of 
 himself, as his nomcn to which his own personal name was 
 only a prccnomen, in the way in which the names of the 
 patriarchs of their house were borne by Titus Quinctius or 
 Caius Julius (54). But other causes were doubtless also at 
 work. There can be little doubt that the genealogical 
 associations at Rome drew much of strength and perman- 
 ency from the fact that they were, more largely than at 
 Athens, local associations also. No fact in what we may call 
 mythical history seems better established than the tradition 
 that the city of Rome grew out of the union of two or more 
 village communities. So, as we have seen, did many Grecian 
 cities, Sparta itself among them (55). But at Sparta the 
 origin of the o>/3a the Spartan curice and tribes is not to 
 be looked for in the old Lacedaemonian local divisions, but in 
 the divisions which the Dorian conquerors brought with 
 them and which they established in all the Dorian cities of 
 Peloponnesos. These tribes, common to the Dorians every- 
 where, together with the &>/3ai of which they were formed, 
 lived on as divisions of the ruling Spartan people, alongside
 
 in EFFECTS OF ROMAN SYSTEM OF NOMENCLATURE 69 
 
 of the local divisions earlier than the conquest, just as, both 
 at Athens and Rome, we find the local tribes either sup- 
 planting or existing alongside of the tribes which were 
 purely genealogical (56). At Athens, if the city was formed 
 by the geographical union of earlier villages a process 
 which must not be confounded with the political union of 
 the towns of Attica it must have been at a time so early as 
 to have left no trace of itself either in legend or in tradition. 
 A prying eye may perhaps find out some slight and doubtful 
 traces of inhabitants of the soil earlier than the historic 
 Athenians, but they will hardly find traces of the fusing 
 together of neighbouring and kindred villages (57). We 
 find at Athens the four Ionic tribes, common probably to 
 the lonians everywhere ; but we have no such local 
 memories as those which connect the Ramnes with the 
 village of Romulus and the Titienses with the village of 
 Titus Tatius (58). Add to this the feeling of which I shall 
 have to speak in another lecture, the strong conservative 
 feeling which runs through the political revolutions of Rome 
 in a far higher degree than through those of Athens. It 
 thus came about that the old Ionic tribes at Athens were 
 swept away as political bodies, and that the <f>parpLai, and 
 yentes lived on only as family brotherhoods and religious 
 associations, no longer as component members of the com- 
 monwealth. The ancient genealogical tribes gave way to 
 the later tribes of the constitution of Kleistheues, tribes 
 which were mere artificial divisions, and which had no 
 real tie either of descent or of locality. The Ten Tribes 
 were indeed made up of 8j/jzoi, and the 5j)^ot were doubtless, 
 in the strictest sense, village communities ; but care was 
 specially taken that the 8fy/uoi which made up a tribe should 
 not lie geographically together (59). For such a change 
 there were good reasons in the political experience of the 
 time ; but the substitution of a new local division for one 
 purely genealogical marks a great revolution in men's ideas, 
 and shows how far real statesmanship could prevail over 
 mere traditional memories (60). The Demos often bore the
 
 70 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 name of the Gens (61). Still in the later political arrange- 
 ments of Athens the Gens had passed utterly away, and the 
 Demos was not itself a political unit, but a mere local 
 division of a new local tribe. 
 
 At Rome, on the other hand, the commonwealth, both in 
 its earlier and its later form, was made up of tribes which 
 were essentially local. Such, we can hardly doubt, were the 
 old Patrician tribes which represented the original com- 
 munities of which the city itself in its first estate was made 
 up. The settlement of Romulus and the settlement of 
 Tatius, that is the tribes of the Ramnes and the Titienses, 
 occupied two distinct hills among the famous seven (62). It 
 is more certain that the new Roman people, the Plebs, was 
 made up from the beginning of strictly local tribes ; it is 
 certain that, as the State grew, it grew by the addition of 
 fresh local tribes. When a new town or district was enfran- 
 chised, its territory formed a new tribe ; and of the thirty-five 
 tribes of the later commonwealth the local city of Rome 
 contained four only (63). And the local tribe too, like the 
 Attic bf]fj.os, was often closely connected with the clan (64). 
 And though the br^os, as an element of the State, was 
 essentially a local division, yet, as the 8r/juoi were in their 
 origin gentes or village communities, it was quite possible 
 that, at the time when the brj^oi. were mapped out, the 
 Si) pas might nearly answer to some gens and its following. 
 And in the like sort, though the 877/0101 and the new tribes were 
 local in their origin, yet, when once established, they became 
 genealogical. So it was with the local Roman tribes also. 
 Their names show that they too were often connected with a 
 gens, and the connexion is marked in a special way in one 
 case which has been preserved to us either by history or by 
 tradition. When Attus Clausus and his following moved to 
 Rome, they formed the Claudian tribe as well as the Claudian 
 gens. But the Claudian tribe had not, like an Attic Demos, 
 sunk to be a mere local division ; it was a component part of 
 the Roman commonwealth, with its independent vote in the
 
 m POSITION OF THE LOCAL ROMAN CITY 71 
 
 Assembly of the Roman tribes. Through all these causes, 
 the ideas which were at the root of every commonwealth 
 the ideas of the clan and the tribe lived on at Rome with 
 far greater strength, and with a far closer connexion with 
 the political life of the commonwealth, than they kept at 
 Athens. But, because the ideas of the clan and the tribe 
 remained more lively, the idea of the city was less perfect. 
 The Roman commonwealth was a city commonwealth, 
 because the city of Rome was the one heart and home of 
 the State. But, in this like Athens, though unlike every 
 other Greek city, the life of the commonwealth was not shut 
 up within the walls of the city. Rome was a city common- 
 wealth ; we cannot call it a mere city commonwealth, when 
 the City itself had little more than a ninth part of the 
 voting power of the State four votes only out of thirty-five. 
 In all these ways the conception of the city was less perfect 
 at Rome, less perfect in Italy generally, than it was in 
 Greece. For that very reason the political system of Rome 
 was more long-lived than that of Greece. Rome never, in 
 strictness, became a nation ; but it came far nearer to 
 becoming a nation than either Greece as a whole or any 
 particular Greek commonwealth. 
 
 We now come to the institutions of our own forefathers 
 and kinsmen to the primitive conceptions of the State as 
 held by the nations of the Teutonic race. Our own early 
 history is the true key to the early history of Greece and 
 Italy. Among the ancient Germans and Scandinavians, and 
 not least among the Teutonic settlers in our own island, we 
 see many things face to face which in Greece and Italy we 
 see but darkly; we see many things for certain which in 
 Greece and Italy we can only guess at ; we see many things 
 still keeping their full life and meaning, of which in Greece 
 and Italy we can at most spy out traces and survivals. It is 
 among the men of our own blood that we can best trace out 
 how, as in Greece and Italy, the family grew into the clan- 
 how, as in Greece and Italy, the clan grew into the tribe
 
 72 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 and how at that stage the developement of the two kindred 
 races parted company how among Teutons, on either side 
 of the sea, the tribe has grown, not into the city but into the 
 nation. But, before I try to work out this comparison and 
 contrast in any detail, I would first speak of two facts which 
 strongly illustrate the different political and social ideas of 
 those two great branches of the Aryan family, the Greek and 
 the Italian on one side, our own forefathers on the other. I 
 choose two facts, two formulae, two fashions of speech, stand- 
 ing out on the surface of those transitional ages when the 
 Roman and the Teutonic system stood side by side. They 
 will show how utterly unlike from one point of view, close as 
 is their likeness from another, are the political ideas and 
 manner of speech of those in whose minds the city is every- 
 thing, and of those with whom the city is unknown or 
 secondary, with whom the tribe grew at once into the nation. 
 Both examples come from early ecclesiastical history. When 
 Christianity gradually became the religion alike of the 
 Roman Empire and of the conquerors who embraced its 
 civilization, those who obstinately clave to the old idolatry 
 were called, both in Latin and in Teutonic speech, by names 
 which in themselves expressed, not error in religion, but 
 inferiority of social state. The worshipper of Jupiter or of 
 Woden was called in Latin mouths a pagan, in Teutonic 
 mouths a heathen. The two names well set forth the two 
 distinct standards of civilization which were held by those 
 who spoke the two languages. The paganus was the man of 
 the country, as opposed to the man of the city. The Gospel 
 was first preached in the towns, and the towns became 
 Christian while the open country around them still clave to 
 the old Gods. Hence the name of the pagan, the rustic, the 
 man who stood outside the higher social life of the city, came 
 to mean the man who stood outside the pale of the purer faith 
 of the Church (65). But in the England of the sixth 
 century, in the eastern Germany of the eighth, no ,such 
 distinction could be drawn. If all who dwelled without the 
 walls of a city had remained without the pale of the Church,
 
 in ROMAN AND TEUTONIC SYSTEMS 73 
 
 the Church would have had few votaries indeed among the 
 independent Teutons. In their ideas the opposition between 
 the higher and the lower stage was not the opposition between 
 the man of the city and the man of the country ; it was the 
 opposition between the man of the occupied and cultivated 
 land and the wild man of the wilderness. The cities, where 
 there were any, and the villages and settled land generally, 
 became Christian, while the rude men of the heath still 
 served Woden and Thunder. The worshippers of Woden 
 and Thunder were therefore called heathens (66). Pagan and 
 Heathen alike mark the misbeliever as belonging to a lower 
 social stage than the Christian. But the standard of social 
 superiority which is assumed differs in the two cases. The 
 one is the standard of a people with whom the city is the 
 centre of the whole social life ; the other is the standard of a 
 people among whom the city, if it was to be found at all, was 
 simply the incidental dwelling-place of a part of the nation 
 which was in no way privileged over those who dwelled 
 beyond its bounds. 
 
 The other instance from the same period is this. In the 
 organization of the Christian Church the ecclesiastical 
 divisions always followed the civil divisions of the time ; a 
 fact which, as they commonly outlived those divisions, makes 
 the boundaries of ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses of such 
 primary importance in historical geography. But in Roman 
 and in Celtic or Teutonic Europe for in this matter we may 
 class Celt and Teuton, Scot and Englishman, together the 
 ecclesiastical divisions represent civil divisions of quite dif- 
 ferent kinds. In Italy, Gaul, or Spain, the Bishop was 
 placed in the city ; the city was his hearth and home, the 
 chief seat of his spiritual labours ; it was from the city that 
 he drew his title, and the limits of his spiritual jurisdiction 
 were marked by the limits of the civil jurisdiction of the 
 city. In Britain and Ireland, on the other hand, either 
 there were no cities at all, or, where there were any, they 
 were not, as under the Roman system, the centres of all 
 political and social life. Hence the Bishop was not the
 
 74 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 Bishop of the city, but the Bishop of the tribe or nation : 
 the limits of his diocese were fixed by the limits of the 
 principality ; his see, his bishop-stool, was not necessarily 
 fixed in the most populous spot in his diocese, and the title 
 of the Bishop, like the title of the King, was more commonly 
 taken from the people than from any place in their territory 
 (67). Titles like Meath, Ossory, Argyll, and Galloway are 
 vestiges of the days when men spoke also of an Archbishop 
 of the English and a Bishop of the South-Saxons (68). And 
 all bear witness to a state of things when the tribe and not 
 the city, the people and not the territory, was the source and 
 limit alike of temporal and of ecclesiastical rule. 
 
 That our own forefathers and kinsmen, in the picture 
 which Tacitus gives us of their earliest state, lagged behind 
 their kinsfolk in the two southern peninsulas, as we see 
 them in the Homeric poems and in the earliest traditions 
 of Rome, is a matter neither of shame nor of regret. Our 
 political developement has been slower, but it has also been 
 surer. By never reaching to the highest civilization of one 
 age, we have been able to reach to a yet higher civilization 
 in another age. By never passing through the exclusive 
 city stage, we have been better able to reach the national 
 stage. In a word, when we compare Teutonic history with 
 the history of ancient Greece and Italy, we see that what 
 we have lost in brilliancy we have gained in permanence. 
 The commonwealths of Greece shone with a meteoric bright- 
 ness too glorious to be lasting. Her isolated cities were 
 not they could not be wrought together into a single 
 nation. Rome founded, not indeed a lasting nation, but a 
 lasting power, by bringing the whole of the then civilized 
 world under the dominion of a single ruling city. But 
 the nations of the Teutonic race, alike in Germany, in Britain, 
 and Scandinavia, grew from tribes into nations without ever 
 going through the Greek stage of a system of isolated cities. 
 The first glimpse which Tacitus gives us of the men of 
 our own race sets them before us as being still in a distinctly
 
 in TEUTONIC MARK ANSWERS TO GENS 75 
 
 lower stage of society than the Homeric Achaians. Their 
 state answers rather to the state of those races on which 
 it is plain that the Homeric Achaian looked down as being 
 in a social state inferior to his own. They had risen far 
 above the mere hunting and fishing stage, far above the 
 pastoral stage ; they have not reached the stage of the 
 city, but they have reached the stage of the village com- 
 munity. The lowest unit in the political system is that 
 which still exists under various names, as the mark, the 
 gemeinde, the commune, or the parish (69). This, as we 
 have seen, is one of the many forms of the gens or clan, 
 that in which it is no longer a wandering or a merely 
 predatory body, but when, on the other hand, it has not 
 joined with others to form one component element of a 
 city commonwealth. In this stage the gens takes the form 
 of an agricultural body, holding its common lands the 
 germ of the ager publics of Rome and of the folkland 
 of England (70). This is the markgcnossenschaft, the village 
 community of the West. This lowest political unit, this 
 gathering of real or artificial kinsmen, is made up of families, 
 each living under the rule, the mund, of its own father, 
 that patria potestas which survived at Rome to form so 
 marked and lasting a feature of Roman law (71). As the 
 union of families forms the gens, and as the gens in its 
 territorial aspect forms the markgenossenschaft, so the union 
 of several such village communities and their marks or 
 common lands forms the next higher political union, the 
 hundred, a name to be found in one shape or another in 
 most lands into which the Teutonic race has spread itself. 
 As an intermediate union between the gens and the tribe, 
 the hundred would seem to answer to the Roman curia, the 
 Athenian (ftparpia, the Lacedaemonian w/3a. But then- 
 is one Roman division, standing alongside, as it were, of tin- 
 curia, whose name, as in so many other cases, exactly 
 translates the Teutonic name of which we are speaking. 
 It seems almost impossible but that the Teutonic hundred 
 and the Latin century, in the earliest usage of each, must
 
 76 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 have answered to one another. Both names, in their actual 
 historic use, are mere survivals. Neither the hundred 
 nor the century, as we know them, answer to a real hundred 
 of anything ; but every name must have had a real meaning 
 when it was first given, and there was a time when 
 the hundred or century must have been a real hundred 
 or century of something, whether of houses, or families, 
 or fighting men (72). Above the hundred comes the pagus, 
 the gau, the Danish syssel, the English shire, that is, the 
 tribe looked at as occupying a certain territory (73). And 
 each of these divisions, greater and smaller, has its chief. 
 In a primitive society, where patriarchal ideas still live 
 on, age implies rule and rule implies age, and the Teutonic 
 chiefs, great and small, bore a name of that large class of 
 which we have already spoken, as showing how, in early 
 times, length of days was looked on as the natural source of 
 dominion. In England, at least, the chief, greater or smaller, 
 bore the common title of ealdor ; in the mere family the 
 father is at once the ealdor, without further election or 
 appointment from above or from below. We have the 
 hundredes-ealdw, the curio; but the name in its special 
 meaning belongs to the common father, the common chief, 
 of the whole tribe. He bears, in his peaceful character, 
 the long-abiding title of Ealdorman, which in war time 
 he exchanges for that of Heretoga, in later form the Herzog, 
 the Dux, the leader of the army (74). He is the highest 
 chief, the community over which he bears rule is the 
 highest political unit, which we see in our earliest glimpses 
 of Teutonic polity. For the whole history of our land and 
 our race will be read backwards, if we fail always to bear 
 in mind that the lower unit is not a division of the greater, 
 but that the greater is an aggregate of the smaller. The 
 hundred is made up of villages, marks, gemeinden, whatever 
 we call the lowest unit ; the shire, the gau, the pagus, is 
 made up of hundreds ; and in the same sort the pagus is not 
 a division of the kingdom, but the kingdom is an aggregate 
 ofpagi.
 
 in DEFINITION OF THE TRIBE 77 
 
 Of the kingdom and its growth I shall have to speak 
 more fully in my next lecture. We are now speaking 
 of the state of things in which the tribe, the gau, the 
 union of marks and of hundreds, is the highest strictly 
 political conception. In the days with which we have 
 now to deal, the tribe was the State, the gau was the 
 territory of the State. The tie of kindred between various 
 tribes of the same stock might be strongly felt, they might 
 be capable on occasion of common action, their common 
 origin and its claims might be kept in memory by the 
 recognition of a common name ; still the several tribes had 
 not been fused into the higher political unit, the nation. 
 Each tribe was a distinct commonwealth ; its union with 
 other tribes was temporary, or at the most federal ; each 
 had its own chief, its own JSaldorman or Heretoga, whose 
 rule in ordinary times did not extend beyond his own 
 tribe, though in times of danger a common Heretoga 
 the germ of the future King might be chosen to lead 
 the common forces of all the tribes which acknowledged 
 any common tie (75). A more lasting union of several 
 tribes of this kind formed the nation, the highest con- 
 ception of the State or commonwealth in Teutonic political 
 language, from whence it has become the ruling idea 
 in the political ideas and language of modern Europe. 
 The Gens, the Curia, the tribe, of Greece or Italy, each 
 has its close Teutonic parallel ; but here the lines diverge, 
 the parallelism ceases. In Greece and Italy the union of 
 tribes formed only the city ; among all the branches of 
 the Teutonic stock the union of tribes formed the nation. 
 
 I shall show in my next lecture how, as the Ealdorman 
 or Heretoga was the chief of the tribe, so the King was tht- 
 chief of the nation. And the process of the joining together 
 of tribes into nations may be best traced out by marking 
 how the rule of independent Ealdormen gave way to that 
 of a common national King. In some lands the old system 
 lingered on longer than others. Among the Continental 
 Saxons it lingered longer than it did anywhere else on
 
 78 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 so large a scale. The Old-Saxons, the long-abiding foes 
 of the Prankish power, the men who clave so stoutly to 
 their old freedom and their old Gods, never coalesced so 
 closely as to have a common King. Yet we may say that 
 they learned to become a nation by another process. They 
 contrived a form of national unity which dispensed with 
 a personal head. It was theirs to form an union which, 
 rude as it may seem beside the more finished constitutions 
 either of earlier or of later days, may fairly claim the name 
 of the earliest Teutonic confederation (76). In other lands 
 too, on the northern moorland or among the southern moun- 
 tains, by the mouths of the Elbe and the Eider or by the 
 sources of the Khine and the Reuss, smaller portions of 
 the Teutonic race either kept or won back again the old 
 freedom, the old political system, of the earliest times. 
 In Frisian Ditmarsen the old system of the mark and the 
 gau lived on from the days of Caesar and Tacitus to be 
 overthrown by the Danish Kings of the House of Oldenburg 
 (77). In the Three Lands of the Alemannian mountains, 
 in the valleys of the young Rhine and the young Rhone, 
 it was won back to live on to our own days (78). Else- 
 where tribes grew into nations, Ealdormen grew into Kings, 
 and, in some cases, nations and their kings have grown into 
 dominions and rulers greater still. 
 
 This old Teutonic constitution, the constitution once 
 common to the whole race, but which lived on longest 
 among those Continental branches of the race which were 
 most closely akin to ourselves, was brought into the Isle of 
 Britain by its Teutonic conquerors. Our forefathers, the 
 Angles and Saxons, brought over with them the divisions, 
 the institutions, the titles, of their old land into the land 
 which became their new home. This is one of the dis- 
 tinctive features of our island history, one which we share 
 with a small part only of the Teutonic lands on the main- 
 land. The change between the Germany of Tacitus and the 
 Germany which, less than a hundred years later, began to 
 send forth Franks and Saxons, Burgundians and Lombards,
 
 in TEUTONIC SYSTEM CARRIED TO BRITAIN 79 
 
 must have been a change indeed. The tribes had been 
 gathered into nations (79). But the swarms which parted 
 off from the central hive carried their own institutions with 
 them into every land where the Roman influence was not 
 too strong for them. Wherever they found or made a land 
 empty of inhabitants, wherever they really became the 
 people of the land and not merely a conquering class among 
 their Roman subjects, all the old divisions and the old 
 institutions sprang up again on the new soil (80). In our 
 own island above all, settled as it was bit by bit by small 
 parties of Teutonic invaders, before whom, in all those parts 
 of the island where they really did settle, everything British 
 and everything Roman was utterly swept away, the process 
 had to begin again from the beginning. In all that was 
 strictly England things started utterly afresh: marks grew 
 into hundreds, hundreds into shires, shires into kingdoms, 
 separate kingdoms into one united kingdom, on the soil 
 of England itself. In Britain therefore we can actually look 
 upon the process, while in Germany we can see only the 
 results. The ancient system was doubtless modified by the 
 circumstances of men who found themselves in a land where 
 they had to win and hold every inch of ground with the 
 sword's point. The mark and the gau show themselves 
 again, but they do not show themselves by the same names. 
 The village community with its common land, the joint 
 possession of a clan reverencing a supposed common ancestor 
 of the Basingas or the Wellingas, is as clearly to be marked 
 in England as in Germany. But, as in later times the marl- 
 has been almost stifled between the ecclesiastical parish and 
 the feudal manor (81), so we may suspect that from the 
 beginning it showed some points of difference from the same 
 institution on the Continent. We may suspect that the tie 
 of kindred, everywhere to some extent artificial, was more 
 largely artificial in England than it was on the mainland. 
 And we may be sure that small settlements planted in a 
 hostile land would from the beginning show a special ten- 
 dency to unite into larger wholes. Marks and hundreds
 
 80 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 planted in Kent or Sussex by the followers of Hengest and 
 ^Elle could never have been wholly independent ; they must 
 from the beginning have acknowledged the supremacy of 
 the common Heretoga under whom their settlers had made 
 their way into the land. In England therefore the system 
 must from the beginning have been touched with some 
 shadow of the coming kingship. Still the same elements 
 were there, and in England, as in Germany, the larger 
 bodies were formed by the union of the smaller. By a 
 strange chance, the group answering to the German gau, 
 the English shire, bears a name which expresses the exactly 
 opposite idea to that of union. But there is reason to 
 believe that both the name and its meaning are due to 
 events in English history some centuries later than the first 
 settlement. The later English pagi, to use the name by 
 which they appear in Latin writers, were strictly shires, 
 divisions shorn off from a large whole. But they were 
 formed in imitation of those earlier English pagi which were 
 formed by the process of union. The oldest pagi of England 
 do not, in ancient usage at least, admit the name of shire. 
 They bear strictly tribal names, whether, like the East- 
 Saxons, the pagus itself has become the kingdom, or 
 whether, as with the Sumorsaetas and Dorsaetas, several pagi 
 joined to form one larger kingdom of the West-Saxons (82). 
 The aggregate of tribes was thus able to form, what the 
 aggregate of cities never could form, a nation in the highest 
 sense. 
 
 I might go on almost for ever on the fascinating, but still 
 somewhat obscure, subject of the old Teutonic polity, whether 
 in Germany, Britain, or Scandinavia. But my main business 
 now is only to insist on the one great difference between 
 Teutonic and Hellenic politics ; the presence of the city as 
 the leading political idea in the one system and its absence 
 in the other. We see how closely the primitive elements 
 correspond ; so closely that we cannot doubt for a moment as 
 to their being portions of a common Aryan inheritance. But 
 we see also how they were modified by the one great dis-
 
 in GEOWTH OF ENGLISH NATION 81 
 
 tinction between village and city life. The Greek common- 
 wealth grew, flourished, and decayed as a city, amazing the 
 world perhaps alike by the splendour of the days of its great- 
 ness and by the long wretchedness of the days of its decay. 
 Meanwhile among the despised Barbarians, scorned by kins- 
 folk who had forgotten their kindred, slowly and obscurely, 
 shires were melting together into kingdoms and tribes into 
 nations. Thus were formed those nations of Teutonic blood 
 which settled within the Continental provinces of the Empire, 
 and foremost among them the nation to whom, in course of 
 time, the Empire itself was to come as part of their inherit- 
 ance the mighty people of the Franks (83). So too in our 
 own island we can see the steps by which the English nation 
 in Britain, and that greater English whole of which the English 
 in Britain are now but a part, grew out of those endless 
 Teutonic settlements on the British coast, of which the keels 
 of Hengest and Horsa brought the earliest. We can see, 
 though somewhat dimly, a crowd of petty States under their 
 separate chiefs, whether bearing the title of King or Ealdor- 
 man, gathered together into the great kingdoms of North- 
 umberland, Hercia, and East-Anglia. We can see more 
 clearly the confederated West-Saxon principalities fused to- 
 gether into the one West-Saxon kingdom, and we can see 
 the West-Saxon kingdom grow into the Kingdom of England 
 and into all that the Kingdom of England has added to it in 
 later times (84). All the events of our history, election, com- 
 mendation, conquest, all help in the work of fusion ; till, instead 
 of a system of isolated cities, instead of a single city bearing 
 rule over subject cities and provinces we have a political work 
 more lasting than the other, more just and free than the 
 other, the nation which knows no distinctions among its 
 members, and which gives equal rights to the dwellers in 
 every corner of its territory. 
 
 In this way we see that the Teutonic history is in some 
 sort the key to the history of the two southern peninsulas. 
 We see the institutions of the Teutonic people, domestic, 
 
 G
 
 82 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 social and strictly political, at an earlier stage than we see 
 those of the Greeks and Italians. While therefore we see 
 the general likeness, the evident common origin of all, we 
 see also something of the different steps by which these two 
 great divisions of the Aryan family shaped their several in- 
 stitutions out of the common stock. Among the Germans of 
 Tacitus we see a state of things in which the elements com- 
 mon to all have been less changed than in any other picture 
 that we have of any European people. In the Homeric 
 Achaians we see a stage somewhat more advanced in itself, 
 and still further modified, even then, by the tendency of the 
 Greeks to centre all their political life within the walls of a 
 city. Out of the state of Homeric Greece the state of his- 
 torical Greece grows by pure and natural developement. Out 
 of the old Teutonic state of things the institutions of modern 
 Europe have also grown, but not by the same unmixed course 
 of developement. Everywhere the original Teutonic stock has 
 been more or less modified by an infusion of Roman elements. 
 I speak of Western Europe in general, of the Romance-speak- 
 ing no less than of the Teutonic-speaking lands, for I am not 
 now speaking of language but of political institutions. In 
 the languages of Southern Europe, Latin is, of course, the 
 main stock ; the Teutonic element which all of them have in 
 a greater or less degree is a mere infusion, just as, in the 
 languages of Northern Europe, the Teutonic is the main 
 stock, and the greater or less Romance element is a mere 
 infusion (85). But with regard to political institutions, we 
 may, even in Southern Europe, look upon all that came from 
 a Roman source as an infusion into a Teutonic body. One 
 spot alone in Western Europe if it has any right to be 
 reckoned as part of Western Europe the island common- 
 wealth of Venice, never acknowledged a Teutonic master, 
 and kept on its unbroken connexion with the elder state 
 of things (86). Everywhere else Teutonic kingdoms were 
 founded ; and though their institutions were largely modified 
 by the laws and institutions of their Latin-speaking subjects, 
 yet, even in Gaul, Spain, and Italy, we must look on the rule
 
 in TEUTONIC INFLUENCE IN ROMANCE LANDS 83 
 
 of Gothic, Frankish, Burgundian, Lombard, and Norman 
 Kings as a rule essentially Teutonic, though largely modified 
 by the Roman traditions of the several countries. And, on 
 the other hand, there is no Teutonic country, not the Scan- 
 dinavian kingdoms themselves, which has, even in its political 
 institutions, kept wholly clear of the influence of Rome. 
 Throughout Western Europe we may set down the strictly 
 political institutions as Teutonic, but as everywhere modified, 
 in some countries very slightly, in others very largely, by the 
 traditions of Roman times, and by the influence of that 
 undying Roman Law which has been the foundation of the 
 later jurisprudence of every European nation but our own. 
 
 And, besides this general influence of the elder state of 
 things on the political institutions of the Teutonic kingdoms 
 of modern Europe, there has been one case at least in which 
 the direct continuity of Roman institutions, strengthened-by 
 that other source of likeness which brings like events out of 
 like causes, went far to bring about a revival of an elder state 
 of things. These causes made mediaeval Italy, with its system 
 of city commonwealths, a living revival of the political story 
 of ancient Greece. On the points of likeness and unlikeness 
 between the two I will not here enlarge, as it is a subject 
 which I have done my best to deal with in detail in another 
 shape (87). I will only say here that, though the Teutonic 
 political system did not, like that of Greece, assume the city 
 as the necessary starting-point of political life, yet it showed 
 itself quite able to take in the city, even the virtually inde- 
 pendent city, as one important element among others in its 
 political system. In all lands but our own the Roman cities 
 lived through the storm of Teutonic invasion ; and presently, 
 both in our own land and in the lands where the Roman 
 had never dwelled, cities of purely Teutonic birth began to 
 arise (88). In our own land, the strong feeling of national 
 unity, the strong central authority of the Crown, the work 
 which was begun by the great West-Saxon Kings, and which 
 was carried to its full perfection by the Norman Conqueror, 
 hindered English municipalities from ever growing into
 
 84 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 sovereign commonwealths. Yet it is a thought worth bearing 
 in mind, how near the Five Boroughs of Danish England once 
 were to forming an independent confederation of city com- 
 monwealths, how near Exeter once was to being, like Thebes 
 or Sparta, a city ruling over neighbouring and weaker cities 
 (89). Here, as in every other part of Western Europe, a new 
 element, unknown to the ancient Teutonic institutions, gra- 
 dually arose the element of cities which everywhere enjoyed 
 a certain measure of self-government and local independence, 
 a measure which, wherever the central government was weak, 
 came in practice very near to absolute freedom. In Italy it 
 reached its highest point, and Florence was for some ages as 
 truly an independent democracy as Athens. In the Teutonic 
 lands themselves the developement of the independent cities 
 seems less brilliant ; but it perhaps seems less brilliant only 
 because the Italian cities have a special charm of their own. 
 They have that combined charm of classical, of mediaeval, 
 and of modern associations, which appeals to a wider range 
 of sympathies than aught that attaches to the cities on the 
 Rhine or the Danube, to the Teutonic Rome girded by the 
 Aar or to the Teutonic Carthage girded by the Trave (90). 
 Yet the German cities have their history too, their history 
 artistic, social, mercantile, religious, as well as strictly political. 
 And, in their strictly political aspect, the history of the 
 League of the Northern Hansa and of the Old League of 
 Upper Germany (91) is as rich in political teaching as the 
 history of the Italian cities themselves. We may learn more 
 from the Bern of Berchthold and the Erlachs, where no King 
 or Tyrant ever dwelled, than we can learn from the Bern of 
 Theodoric and Can' Grande (92). The internal histories of 
 the Teutonic cities, their internal disputes and revolutions, 
 the origin of their exclusively patrician governments, the 
 more rare aspirings of their democracies, teach us better to 
 understand the history of Rome and Athens themselves. 
 But between the cities of the elder Greek and Italian world 
 and the cities of mediaeval Europe one great point of differ- 
 ence must always be borne in mind. In ancient Greece the
 
 in NO TRUE ROMAN ELEMENT IN ENGLAND 85 
 
 cities were everything; their territory took in the whole 
 land, they acknowledged no superiority, even of the most 
 formal kind, in any earthly power. But in Germany the free 
 cities and their dominions were always mere oases in a land 
 of princely rule ; and even in Italy the city commonwealths 
 never wholly covered the whole surface of the land, and never 
 wholly threw off the formal superiority of the King of Italy 
 and Emperor of the Romans. 
 
 In all these inquiries the question is ever suggesting itself, 
 how far we are to see in the analogies between ancient and 
 medieval city commonwealths merely the working of the law 
 that like causes should produce like effects, and how far we 
 are to see any tradition, any imitation, of Roman institutions 
 in the municipalities of the purely Teutonic parts of Europe. 
 This is a question far too wide for discussion here. In England, 
 in this as in other matters, there was no room, no opportunity, 
 for direct Roman influences. Many of our English towns 
 are simply Teutonic village communities which grew and 
 prospered so as to outstrip their neighbours. But where 
 an English town arose even after an interval of desolation 
 on the site, often even within the walls, of a fallen Roman 
 city, there was at least the memory of the past to influence 
 the history of the restored erection. Yet it is certain that 
 nothing in the institutions of any English city can really be 
 traced to a Reman source ; there is nothing Roman in the 
 municipal institutions of Bath or Chester, or even Exeter, 
 any more than there is on such purely English sites as Read- 
 ing or Northampton (93). In Italy and Southern Gaul, on 
 the other hand, whether there be any direct transmission or 
 not, there is, as we have already seen, not a little of that 
 natural and inevitable imitation which closely borders on 
 direct transmission. In Germany, on the other hand, in such 
 cases as the common use of the name Patrician for the ruling 
 families, we see imitation of another kind. It is not such 
 a dead imitation as the consulship of Buonaparte, because 
 there is a real analogy between the patricians of Rome and 
 the patricians of Bern or Nlirnberg ; but it is not the same
 
 86 THE STATE LECT. 
 
 kind of natural imitation as the consulship at Milan or Alby. 
 We may be satisfied with saying that in the mediaeval city 
 commonwealths there is a Roman element clearly shown 
 even we in England have what we may call the element of 
 suggestion but that its nature and degree varies widely in 
 different lands and times. But it is the likeness from analogy 
 between the ancient and the mediaeval cities which gives the 
 comparison of the two its real historic interest and value. 
 What amount of likeness between them may be due to direct 
 transmission is little more than a matter of antiquarian 
 research in each particular place. 
 
 We have thus traced the origin and history of the two 
 great ideas of the State, the conception of the State as a city 
 and the conception of the State as a nation. We have seen 
 how the common elements developed up to a certain point 
 side by side among the southern and northern branches of 
 the European Aryans, and how, after reaching a certain point 
 in common, the developement of the Greek and Italian nations 
 and that of the Teutonic nations branched off in different 
 directions. We have traced the course of the family, the 
 gens, the hundred, and the tribe, till they grow into the 
 Greek or Italian city and into the Teutonic nation. The 
 causes of the divergence hardly belong to our present subject. 
 Those causes are many and various, and not least among 
 them are those geographical causes which made the Mediter- 
 ranean lands take the lead in European civilization, and 
 which made Greece take the lead among Mediterranean lands. 
 In those lands a political growth, quicker, more brilliant, but 
 less lasting, led them to the developement of the city ; our 
 growth, slower, obscurer, but steadier and more lasting, led 
 us to the developement of the nation. And in this develope- 
 ment we, the great Teutonic colony in this once Celtic island, 
 have assuredly played no mean part among our brethren and 
 kinsfolk of the common stock. It is, as I have already said, 
 in our land that the old Teutonic institutions have really had 
 the freest play, that they have grown and developed with the
 
 in SUMMARY 87 
 
 most unbroken continuity down to our own day. Nowhere 
 else have both liberty and national unity received so few 
 checks. The Scandinavian nations have drawn even less 
 than ourselves directly from Roman sources ; their national 
 life has been more unbroken than our own, but their political 
 life has been far less so. Germany has split asunder, and is 
 being welded together again before our eyes. So has Italy. 
 In both cases perhaps the nation has split asunder because 
 the real power of the local kingdom was crushed between the 
 weight of the Imperial dignity which was joined to it (94). 
 We have had no such breaks : the causes of the difference 
 belong to quite other branches of historical research ; but the 
 fact is in its place here. The stages by which the Teutonic 
 tribe, by admitting tribe after tribe to equal fellowship, grew 
 into the modern European nation a process at once the 
 parallel and the contrast to that by which a single Italian 
 city came to embrace whole kingdoms and nations within the 
 pale of its municipal franchise can nowhere be so well 
 studied as in the history of our own land.
 
 88 THE KING LECT. 
 
 IV 
 THE KING 
 
 FROM the State itself we come to its head, to its chief, above 
 all to the chief in his most clearly defined and fully developed 
 form, when he holds the rank of a King. Now, what is a 
 King ? The question is far more easily asked than answered. 
 We commonly know a King when we see him ; but it is 
 quite another matter to say offhand in what his kingship 
 consists. Some Kings are hereditary; others are elective. 
 Some Kings reign with absolute power ; the power of others 
 is narrowly limited by Law. Some Kings acknowledge no 
 superior on earth ; others admit a greater or less superiority 
 in a feudal or federal chief. In some kingdoms the kingly 
 office, like most other offices, is confined to the male sex; 
 in others it is open to both sexes alike. Some Kings go 
 through an ecclesiastical ceremony of consecration ; some 
 dispense with any such rite. Yet, amidst all this unlikeness, 
 it is plain that there is a common idea of kingship, which 
 is at once recognized, however hard it may be to define it. 
 This is shown, among other things, by the fact that no 
 difficulty is ever felt as to translating the word King and the 
 words which answer to it in other languages. Between any 
 Romance and any Teutonic language, Hex and its derivatives, 
 Cyning and its cognates, are felt to answer to one another. 
 No man ever doubts as to using Rex or Roi to translate 
 King or Konig, in any of the possible changes which may be 
 rung on the two sets of words. If we go on into Greek,
 
 iv DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF KINGSHIP 89 
 
 we find that, in those stages of the language with which 
 most of us are chiefly familiar, in its classical and in its 
 modern stage, /3a<n\(vs answers to Rex and King as exactly 
 as they answer to one another. For some ages indeed 
 fiao-iXevs bore the special sense of Em-perm' ; and, to express 
 the lowlier rank of King, the word pr} was imported bodily 
 from the Latin (i). But this was a change of meaning 
 which rose out of distinct and known historical causes, and, 
 when these historical causes came to end, the usage of 
 the Greek language fell back upon what it had been before 
 they began. Even now that the constitutions of most 
 European kingdoms are so constantly verging towards a 
 common model, there is still a good deal of difference between 
 one King and another ; and within our own memories, indeed 
 within a very few years, there was a greater difference still. 
 Yet no one doubts as to who is a King and who is not. Or, 
 if any such doubt is raised, the question is always as to the 
 claim of this or that particular person to be a King, not as 
 to his right to be called a King if he can make his claim 
 good. Till 1806 the rank of Emperor of the Romans, 
 King of Germany and Jerusalem, was in theory open to 
 every baptized man (2). Till 1795 the rank of King of 
 Poland was, not only in theory but in practice, open to all 
 men of princely birth in other lands and to the whole nobility 
 of the Polish Kingdom. The Polish King often rose from a 
 private station and his children often went back to a private 
 station. His powers within his own kingdom were narrowly 
 limited, perhaps beyond those of any other single ruler that 
 ever bore the kingly title. Yet no one ever doubted that a 
 King of Poland was a King, that he was entitled to the rank 
 and style and other privileges of a King, as much as if his 
 kingship had been at once hereditary and absolute. In 
 short, wide as have been the differences between one King 
 and another in different times and places, there is still a 
 common idea which runs through all the various types 
 of kingship, and which stamps all Kings everywhere as 
 members of the same class. In modern Europe, taken alone,
 
 90 THE KING LECT. 
 
 the definition of kingship would perhaps not be very hard 
 to make. As a rule, we may set it down that the King is 
 the head of a nation, accepting the rough definition of 
 a nation which I have tried to give in a former lecture. 
 The chief exception to this definition is found in those 
 German princes who within the present century have 
 taken the kingly title. I think that we all must feel that 
 they are an exception. We somehow cannot help feeling 
 that a King of Bavaria or Saxony is hardly, in the Homeric 
 phrase, so much of a King (3) as a King of Spain or Sweden. 
 In the case of Wiirttemberg this is felt still more strongly ; 
 for Saxony and Bavaria answer, in name at least, though not 
 in boundaries, to divisions of the German nation so great and 
 ancient that they might almost pass for nations themselves 
 (4). In Italy, on the other hand, if there was any incon- 
 gruity in the separate kingdoms of Sardinia and the Two 
 Sicilies, that incongruity has come to an end (5). On the 
 whole, speaking roughly and it is only very roughly that 
 we can speak on the whole matter it certainly seems that 
 we expect a King to be the chief of a nation. It seems also 
 to belong to the idea of a King that he should be, both in 
 rank and in power, the first person in that nation. That he 
 must be the first in rank need hardly be argued, and I think 
 we may say, that, however narrowly the power of a King 
 may be limited by law, he still remains first in power. Even 
 where the royal authority had sunk to the lowest ebb, as in 
 Poland and at one time in Sweden, though the power of the 
 King was less than that of some other powers in the State, 
 yet he had no personal superior or equal. Then again, it 
 seems implied in the idea of a King that he should hold his 
 office for life, as distinguished from the President or other 
 republican magistrate who is appointed only for a fixed term 
 (6). And I think it also belongs to the idea of kingship 
 that the office should be permanent ; that is, that the King 
 should be succeeded by another King, whether the law of 
 succession be hereditary, elective, or of any other kind. Sulla 
 and Caesar, as Perpetual Dictators, held more than royal
 
 iv BELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF KINGSHIP 91 
 
 authority for life ; but, as the office was a special creation for 
 their own lives, they were not Kings, as we very clearly see 
 by Caesar's longing to be a King- (7). Again, in modern 
 conception, the King, whether his power be great or little, is 
 irresponsible. The royal command is no excuse for an illegal 
 act done by another, but there is no legal way of punishing 
 an illegal act done by the King himself. History indeed will 
 show that this last is a very modern conception (8) ; still it does 
 seem now to be part of the idea of a King which is as fully 
 recognized as any other. On the whole, we should perhaps 
 not be far wrong if we define a King as a chief of a nation, 
 first in rank and power in that nation, holding a permanent 
 office for life, and, in modern conception at least, personally 
 irresponsible for his actions. To this we must, till very 
 lately, have added that he must be admitted to his office 
 with ecclesiastical rites. I am not sure that it is not here 
 that the true mystery and dignity of kingship really lay. 
 The crowned and anointed King was something different from 
 any other mortal, however high in rank and power. A 
 divinity hedged him in which did not hedge in either the 
 republican magistrate or the hereditary prince of less than 
 kingly rank. The ecclesiastical consecration of the King 
 is the expression in a Christian shape of the same feeling 
 which, among most heathen nations, has made it essential 
 that the King should be the child of the Gods (9). In 
 either case the King is sacred in a way in which other rulers 
 are not. But this religious sanction of kingship, which was 
 its very essence a few centuries back, seems to be gradually 
 dying out in Europe. Two causes have brought this about. 
 One is the separation between ecclesiastical and temporal 
 matters which prevails in many countries, and the general 
 unwillingness in all countries to acknowledge any ecclesiastical 
 influence in temporal things. The other cause is of quite 
 another kind. When lawyers ruled that the King never died, 
 that the throne never could be vacant, that the new King 
 was King as soon as the breath was out of the last King's 
 body, they took away all the force and meaning of the
 
 92 THE KING LECT. 
 
 ancient crowning rite. Whatever a coronation is now, it is 
 no longer the actual admission to the kingly office. No 
 wonder then that in several kingdoms of Europe the rite has 
 been dispensed with altogether. 
 
 The modern or lawyers' theory of the Crown as the 
 fountain of honour, the fountain of justice, the original 
 grantor of all property in land, the source from which the 
 Assembly of the Nation itself derives its being, is, I need 
 hardly say, simply a lawyers' theory. History has nothing 
 to do with it, except, as was done long ago by the strong 
 hand of John Allen, to trace the steps by which it grew 
 up (10). The primaeval kingship, whether Greek, Latin, or 
 Teutonic, was something of quite another kind. The King 
 was not the lord of the soil, but the chieftain of the people. 
 The origin of modern kingship can easily be traced up, as 
 Allen has traced it, to the gradual infusion of doctrines 
 borrowed from Imperial Rome indirectly therefore from the 
 monarchies of the East into the simple political creed of 
 our forefathers ( 1 1 ). And it is among our forefathers and 
 kinsmen, both in our own island and on the Teutonic main- 
 land, that we can best trace the growth of kingship, the 
 chieftainship of the nation, out of the chieftainship of the 
 smaller elements out of which the nation was formed. We 
 have seen that both in Greece and in Italy the growth of 
 strictly national life was checked by the early growth of the 
 city life. The same cause equally hindered the growth of 
 kingship, according to our conception of it. In Greece and 
 Italy, when we get our first glimpses of those lands, we see 
 a fuller developement of kingly government than we see 
 among the Teutonic nations at the time when we get our 
 first glimpses of them. But the same causes which led to 
 this speedy growth of kingship in Greece and Italy also 
 brought it more speedily to an end. In Greece, above all, 
 as we see it in the Homeric picture, every settlement has its 
 own King. But then, at least in the more advanced parts 
 of Greece, every settlement is a city, and kingship in a single
 
 iv CHARACTER OF GREEK KINGSHIP 93 
 
 city is not a form of government which is likely to last. 
 The Greek King is a King in the fullest sense of the word ; 
 he is, in truth, far more of a King than either his Italian or 
 his Teutonic parallel. His claim to his throne might satisfy 
 a Court divine of the reign of Charles the First. He is no 
 mere chief, no mere magistrate, either chosen by the people 
 or responsible to the people ; the mortal King on earth is 
 the living image of the immortal King on Olympos. He is 
 at once his child and his representative among men. The 
 Homeric King is Zeus-born and Zeus-nourished ; he comes 
 of the divine stock, and he rules by the divine commission. 
 The sceptre which he wields is the gift of the God from 
 whom alone he holds his right to wield it. That sceptre 
 passes on from father to son by a right as strictly hereditary 
 as the sceptre of David or of Hugh Capet (12). The 
 succession may be disturbed by foreign conquest or, more 
 rarely, by domestic revolution ; but no Coinitia, no Gemdt, 
 was ever held in any Hellenic city, to decide, by an ordinary 
 process of the law, who should be placed by the will of the 
 people upon a vacant throne (13). The divine origin, the 
 divine authority, of the Kings of heroic Greece, stand out in 
 strange contrast with the narrow extent of their territory, 
 with the narrow range of their powers, and with the 
 unpretending simplicity of their manner of life. The King, 
 Zeus-born and Zeus-nourished as he is, does not rule by his 
 own will. We are dealing with a state of things too early 
 to speak of law and constitution, but the King can rule only 
 according to the customs and traditions of his people (14). 
 He can rule only by the help of his Council of Elders and 
 with the good will of the general Assembly of his whole 
 folk. Nothing of the pomp and circumstance either of 
 modern or of Eastern kingship surrounds him. His house 
 is accessible to all ; his personal life is spent in the same 
 way, at once simple and public, as the life of any other 
 member of the Commonwealth. Divine as he is, no wide 
 barrier parts him off from the other chiefs of his people. 
 He is perhaps only one among many bearers of the kingly
 
 94 THE KING LECT. 
 
 title. Even within the narrow bounds of Ithake, there were 
 many Kings besides the divine Odysseus (15). We have 
 the picture of this form of government only in a legendary 
 and poetical shape ; but of the reality of the state of things 
 described in the Homeric poems, and among them of the 
 real existence of the heroic kingship, I at least have never 
 entertained a doubt. 
 
 From Greece we will turn to Italy. We have there no 
 Homer to set before us a living picture of the earliest 
 civilized times of the country, but we have the universal 
 tradition of all time that there had been Kings both in 
 Rome and in other Italian cities, although, in the historical 
 days of Rome, kingly rule had, both at Rome and in other 
 Italian cities, become a thing of the past. And here I will 
 bring in another argument, in case any sceptic should be 
 found daring enough to hint that the existence of Kings, 
 whether at Rome or at Athens, rests so wholly on the 
 evidence of poetry and legend that it cannot be made a 
 matter of serious political argument or comparison. To 
 discuss the value of the sources either of old Greek or of old 
 Italian history would carry me too far away from my subject ; 
 but the existence both of the early Hellenic and the early 
 Italian kingship can be proved by a line of argument almost 
 stronger than contemporary evidence itself. The existence 
 of the early kingship can be proved by the argument from 
 survivals, from the traces which it left behind among the 
 institutions of later times. Had Rome never had Kings, the 
 names Interrex and Interregnum could never have been 
 found among her republican institutions down to the last 
 days of the Commonwealth. No one would ever have given 
 the name of Interregnum to the time which sometimes came 
 between two consulships no one would ever have given the 
 name of Interrex to the magistrate who held the chief power 
 during such an occasional vacancy unless there had been 
 a time when the Interregnum had been the time, not between 
 the terms of office of two Consuls, but between the reigns 
 of two Kings, unless there had been a time when the Interrex
 
 iv SURVIVALS OF KINGSHIP 95 
 
 really was, as his name implies, the magistrate who was to 
 preside at the election, not of Consuls, but of a King (16). 
 These names would of themselves be enough, in the absence 
 of history or tradition, to prove that Rome once had Kings. 
 And we may add that they prove, not only that Rome once 
 had Kings, but that those Kings were elective and not 
 hereditary. So again, the fact that the title of King still 
 remained at Rome as the style of one of the priests of the 
 national religion proves that there once had been Kings who 
 more truly deserved the name. There could never have 
 been a Hex sacrificulus unless he had been a survival of a 
 real Rex (17). No one would have given the kingly name 
 to a petty priestly functionary, unless the received legend 
 had been true. That title shows of itself there once had 
 been Kings who were judges and rulers and generals, as well 
 as priests. It shows that their civil and military functions 
 had been transferred to others, while some religious motive 
 made it needful that there should still be one who bore 
 the title of King, in order to do those priestly acts which 
 a King alone could do. We may be sure that, however 
 meaningless a name may become, it is never meaningless 
 in its first use, and that the words Interregnum, Interrex, 
 and Rex sacrificulus, could never have been found except in 
 a State which had once been governed by Kings. These 
 survivals of kingship under the Commonwealth prove that 
 there had been an earlier time of real kingship, just as the 
 phantom Consuls and Tribunes under the Empire would of 
 themselves be enough to prove that Consuls and Tribunes 
 had once been active powers in the State ( 1 8). Had we no 
 record of the deeds of either Caesar, the Fasti alone would 
 teach us that the Empire had grown out of an earlier 
 commonwealth. So in Greece, the Spartan Kings wen- 
 something more than survivals; they held the kingly office 
 itself, greatly shorn of its ancient powers, but keeping up 
 all its ancient religious sanctity (19). Still they are survivals 
 so far as this. It is inconceivable that the Spartan king- 
 ship, as we see it in the historic times, could ever have been
 
 96 THE KING LECT. 
 
 devised as a new thing ; the existence of Kings with such 
 small powers shows of itself that there had once been Kings 
 with greater powers. But besides the Kings of Sparta, 
 there was a King at Argos as late as the Persian War. 
 We know nothing as to the exact extent of his powers, 
 and we may suspect that his kingship had been greatly 
 cut down from the kingship of Diomedes and Temenos. 
 Still, as he is put on a level with the Spartan Kings, it 
 may seem that he still retained the functions of general 
 (20). And at Athens we have in the King Archon, the 
 /3a<riAevs of the days of the democracy, the exact parallel 
 to the Eex sacrificulus at Rome (21). No people would have 
 given the title of King to a magistrate appointed by lot for 
 a single year, if it had not once been ruled by real Kings 
 if there had not been functions which, it was held, could be 
 rightly done by no one but a King, and which the nominal 
 King of later times was appointed in order to discharge. 
 
 The existence of kingship then in the early days both of 
 Greece and of Italy may be set down as an undoubted fact. 
 But such light as we have sets before us the old Italian 
 kingship as something widely differing from the kingship 
 of the heroic days of Greece. The difference is, no doubt, 
 partly owing to the difference in the character of the two 
 nations, partly to the different nature of the evidence from 
 which we have to learn anything about their early polity. 
 And again, the difference in the nature of our evidence is, 
 in some degree at least, owing to the difference in the 
 character of the two nations. In Italy we have no Homer ; 
 we have not even such approaches to a Homer as we have 
 among our own forefathers and kinsfolk ; but it is doubtless 
 owing to the difference between the Greek and Italian 
 character that we have no Italian Homer. It is no wonder 
 then if an old Achaian King comes before us surrounded bv 
 a poetic halo, while the Roman King seems a person almost 
 as prosaic and matter-of-fact as the Consul who follows 
 after him. A desperate attempt to transfer Greek ideas 
 into Latium may call Romulus the son of a God and Numa
 
 iv ROMAN KINGSHIP ELECTIVE 97 
 
 the husband of a Goddess (22) ; but the constitution-making 
 of Ancus and of Servius is as much a matter of everyday 
 life, of everyday truth and falsehood, as the constitution- 
 making of Licinius or of Sulla (23). But on one point 
 tradition cannot well have gone astray, and on that point 
 we have seen that the unerring argument from survivals 
 steps in to confirm the tradition. The Greek kingship was 
 hereditary; the Italian, at all events the Roman, kingship 
 was elective. The Roman kingship was not confined to any 
 divine race ; it was not even confined to the citizens of the 
 Commonwealth ; it was open to the stranger, to the captive, 
 perhaps even to the slave (24). Such a system might in 
 practice give Rome much better Kings, but it swept 'away 
 all the mystery and divinity of kingship. A Roman King 
 might be the worshipper, the favourite, of Jupiter Optimus 
 Maximus; but he was not his child. Ancus and Servius 
 might be Jove-nourished, as well as Agamemnon and 
 Achilleus; but they were not Jove-born. It may be that 
 we see the Roman kingship only in a later form. It may be 
 that an earlier hereditary kingship had gone before it, and 
 that the elective kingship of our traditions was only a step 
 in that course the next step in which exchanged elective 
 Kings for Consuls. But it is just as likely that the two 
 modes of succession, the hereditary and the elective, stood, 
 each alone in its purity, in the old Achaian and in the old 
 Italian polity, while in the old Teutonic polity we find the 
 mingling together of the two. At all events, it is a thing 
 to be noted that, in a Commonwealth like Rome, where 
 family traditions, family influences, and family character 
 play so great a part, there should have been no one among 
 the proudest patricians who dared to claim a descent from 
 the first founder of the city (25). 
 
 Now the great distinction between the history of kingship 
 in ancient Greece and Italy and its history among the 
 Teutonic nations lies in this : the Teutonic kingship wont 
 on and flourished, and grew into the kingship of modern 
 Europe, while the Greek and Italian kingship for the most
 
 98 THE KING LECT, 
 
 part died out, and left only survivals such as those which I 
 have just been speaking of. This, it seems to me, was the 
 necessary fate of kingship, when the kingdom was confined 
 to a single city. The tendencies of a city community are 
 essentially republican. They may be aristocratic or they 
 may be democratic, but in either case they are opposed to 
 the government of a single person for life. The awe and 
 mystery of kingship are out of place when a King goes in 
 and out before the eyes of all his subjects, as the King of a 
 single city must do. At Rome, where the King had less 
 divinity about him, the change from Kings to Consuls was a 
 mere constitutional change ; it was hardly so great a change 
 as when the exclusive patrician government was broken 
 down, and the consulship was thrown open to plebeians. If 
 it was thought that the State would be better governed by 
 placing at its head two Consuls chosen for a year, rather 
 than a King chosen for life, there was no reason why the 
 change should not be made. In Greece, where the King 
 had a greater share of divinity about him, the change was 
 probably harder ; it was certainly more gradual. In Sparta, 
 the most conservative of Greek States, kingship always went 
 on. The power of the King might be lessened ; he might 
 cease to be the real head of the State ; he might be provided 
 with a colleague, and might be made responsible to other 
 powers in the Commonwealth ; but the kingship of the sons 
 of Herakles was something too holy to be utterly swept 
 away. Small as might be his real powers, the King, living 
 or dead, was the object of a reverence which was shared by 
 no mere elective magistrate ; and bitter was the taunt when 
 the deposed King, who had sunk to the discharge of some 
 lowlier function, was asked by his former colleague how it 
 felt to be a magistrate after being a King (26). Thus the 
 Herakleid kingship lived on, and, living on, it was able in 
 the last days of Sparta to win back its ancient powers, and 
 the last Kleomenes could stand forth in the eyes of Hellas 
 as a King indeed (27). Even in the less conservative Athens 
 kingship died out but slowly, and it is to be remarked that
 
 iv TRANSITION FROM KINGS TO ARCHONS 99 
 
 the cause which tradition gives for the abolition of kingship 
 at Athens is exactly the opposite to that which tradition 
 gives as the cause for its abolition at Rome. The Athenians 
 decreed that they would have no more Kings because Kodros 
 was so good ; the Romans decreed that they would have no 
 more Kings because Tarquinius was so evil (28). In the 
 former reason, whether it be historical or not, we can see a 
 sign of that religious reverence which belonged to kingship 
 in Greece, but which did not belong to it at Rome. The 
 Athenian tradition went on to say that the first change still 
 left the supreme power held for life by a member of the 
 ancient kingly family. But the Archon was now responsible ; 
 he was doubtless also elective ; he was chosen, like our own 
 ancient Kings, from a single royal family. Next, the post 
 was held for ten years only, but it was still confined to 
 members of the same house (29). It was not till the rule 
 of a single person was abolished, till a board of nine Archons 
 took the place of one, that other families were allowed to 
 share the supreme dignity with the house of Kodros. And, 
 when we remember that one of these nine elective magistrates 
 still held a nominal kingship, we may believe that the title 
 of fia(Ti\fvs had all along gone on, in some secondary way, 
 alongside of the vaguer name of ap\a>v (30). The rest of 
 Athenian history consists in a series of changes by which 
 the powers of the Archons were gradually transferred to 
 other bodies in the State, to the popular assembly, to the 
 popular courts of justice, to the magistracy of the Ten 
 Generals (31). The Archonship, the vestige of ancient 
 kingship, might be cut down to a shadow ; but it was too 
 holy a thing to be altogether swept away. It lived on 
 through all changes, till at last, when it was a shadow indeed, 
 it was again for a moment united with more than kingly 
 power. There came a time when Hadrian, Imperator and 
 Augustus of Rome and of the world, did not deem it beneath 
 him to be also, for a single year, the Archon by whose name 
 that year was marked in the annals of the democracy of 
 Athens (32).
 
 100 THE KING LECT. 
 
 The Roman kingship fared otherwise. The revolution 
 which swept away the thing itself swept it away far more 
 thoroughly. There were no such gradual stages to break 
 the fall of the elective kingship of Rome as broke the fall 
 of the hereditary kingship of Athens. It is a mere conjecture 
 that a special right to a share in the chief magistracy was 
 for a moment reserved to the house of the fallen King (33). 
 At all events, Rome had nothing answering to the archonship 
 for life or for ten years. Into the place of the King chosen 
 for life there at once stepped the two Consuls, or rather 
 Praetors, chosen for a single year. But the point is that 
 the Consuls did step into the place of the King, and that 
 they kept it. Where kingship had nothing specially divine 
 about it, where kingly government was put an end to, not 
 because of the virtues, but because of the crimes of the 
 King, there was no need to deal very tenderly with the 
 kingly house or with the kingly office. But, on the other 
 hand, there was not at Rome any such wish as there was 
 at Athens to do away with the kingly power. At Athens 
 the archonship went on, but its duties were gradually cut 
 down to a routine of religions and lesser judicial functions. 
 The Archons neither commanded the armies of the State 
 nor presided in its Assemblies. The Polemarch, with his 
 warlike title, became as mere a survival as the /3a<n\ev's with 
 his kingly title (34). But at Rome the kingly power 
 remained ; it was indeed put into commission, but nothing 
 was taken away from its authority, and not much from 
 its dignity. On great emergencies, the single kingship 
 rose again for a six months' space in the person of the 
 Dictator ; Prastors, Censors, Curule ^Ediles, arose by the 
 side of the Consuls : as all shared somewhat of kingly 
 power, so all shared somewhat of kingly worship. Magistrates 
 who still bore about them such badges of dignity as 
 
 "The purple gown, 
 The axes and the curule chair, the car and laurel crown ; " 
 
 magistrates who presided in the assemblies of Senate and 
 People (35), and who commanded the armies of the common-
 
 iv KINGSHIP IN MACEDONIA AND EPEIROS 101 
 
 wealth with all the authority of the ancient Kings, point 
 to a far different state of feeling from that which was ever 
 lessening the power of the Athenian Archons. Athens and 
 Rome alike abolished the kingly title and office, but at 
 Athens the kingly power was abolished as well as the kingly 
 office ; at Rome the kingly power went on, held for short 
 terms, and divided among many holders, but still never 
 wholly swept away. And mark the consequence. In Greece 
 the kingly power, and more than the kingly power, came 
 back again in many of her cities under the form of the 
 tyranny. But the tyranny was ever unlawful ; the definition 
 of the Tyrant is that he held kingly power in a common- 
 wealth where there was no King by law. But just as at 
 Sparta the lingering on of a nominal kingship made 
 Kleomenes able to change the shadow into a reality, so 
 at Rome it was found that the great powers with which 
 the magistrates of the commonwealth were clothed opened 
 the way for bringing back the rule of one under another 
 form. Had the same man at Athens been at once Archon, 
 General, and Prytanis, he would still have been far from 
 being King or Tyrant ; but at Rome, when all the great 
 powers of the State were gathered together in the hands 
 of a single man, it was found that their union made an 
 Emperor. 
 
 The heroic kingship then died out in Greece, and in 
 Italy too, if it ever existed there in its strictly heroic form. 
 But it is well to mark that it went on in those kindred and 
 neighbouring lands which had so much in common with 
 Greece, but in which the fully-developed system of Greek 
 city life was never established. The Macedonians, and 
 the people of the land vaguely called Epeiros, the Molossians, 
 Chaonians, and Thesprotians, are best looked on as unde- 
 veloped Hellenes, as Greeks among whom the tribe never 
 altogether gave way to the city. Among them then the 
 ancient kingship went on in the historic times. But we 
 may see how, as they came more and more within the range 
 of directly Hellenic influences, they gradually approached to
 
 102 THE KING LECT. 
 
 Hellenic political life. This might have happened in 
 Macedonia, if her great Kings had thought it enough to 
 become the pupils of Greece, instead of becoming at once 
 her pupils and her conquerors. In Epeiros it did happen. 
 By the time of the Peloponnesian war, kingship had been 
 done away with both in Chaonia and in Thesprotia. Chaonia 
 indeed was passing through a stage through which Athens 
 and other Greek states had passed. She chose two annual 
 chief magistrates ; but she chose them out of a single ruling 
 house (36). Among the Molossians kingship lived on, but 
 it lived on to supply, in the Epeirote Alexander and the 
 more famous Pyrrhos, Hellenic champions against the 
 Barbarians of the West. But in the end kingship was 
 swept away there also, and in the latest days of Grecian 
 freedom, Epeiros, now fully acknowledged as a Greek State, 
 holds an honourable place among the Federal Common- 
 wealths of Hellas (37). Such a national promotion was 
 well deserved by a nation among whom King and people 
 met face to face, where the King swore to obey the laws, 
 and where the people swore to preserve the kingdom to 
 him as long as he obeyed them. In Macedonia itself, 
 the kingly power was kept within bounds, if not by so 
 well-balanced a constitution as this, yet at least by the 
 frequent gathering, whether at set times or only when 
 occasion called for them, of armed assemblies of the 
 Macedonian people (38). But a Macedonian republic was 
 unheard of, till it suited the crooked policy of Rome to part 
 out the conquered kingdom into four dependent Common- 
 wealths (39). But long before that time, Macedonian Kings 
 in other lands had set themselves free from the fetters of 
 Macedonian kingship, and indeed from most of the restraints 
 of European life. In the Macedonian kingdoms of Asia and 
 Egypt we see the old limited kingship of the house of 
 Temenos strangely changed into the full despotism of the 
 East, and yet more strangely allied with the full intellectual 
 culture of Greece, though, save here and there in an outlying 
 colony (40), without any trace of her political freedom.
 
 jv GROWTH OF THE EMPEROR OF THE ROMANS 103 
 
 But, before Ptolemies and Seleukids had founded their 
 lesser thrones, an union of functions no less incongruous had 
 been seen in the person of him of whose dominion they were 
 glad to part out the fragments. Strange indeed was the 
 mixture of powers which Alexander held when he was at 
 once King of Kings on the throne of Cyrus, lawful King 
 of the free people of Macedonia, and elective chief of the 
 Hellenic confederacy by the vote of the Corinthian Synod (41). 
 Another union of functions no less strange arose in after 
 times, which leads us, in this inquiry into the forms of early 
 Aryan kingship, from one main branch of our subject to 
 another. The partition of the ancient powers of the Roman 
 Kings had formed the various magistracies of the Roman 
 Commonwealth. They formed a strong and dignified 
 Executive, alongside of which Senate and People alike 
 could hold their fitting place. In after days, when Senate 
 and People alike had shown themselves unworthy to rule, 
 the union of the various powers of the State in a single 
 hand again brought back a monarchy, though a monarchy 
 now no longer constitutional, but despotic. Caesar, Father 
 of his Country, High Pontiff of the Gods, Consul of the 
 Commonwealth, Prince of the Senate, Imperator of the 
 Army, and himself wielding also that Tribunitian power 
 which was meant to be the check on all the other powers, 
 was, in truth, master of Rome and of the world (42). By 
 his side the old magistracies went on as shadows, and the 
 Imperial Consul himself deigned to take one of his own 
 subjects as his colleague in that temporary dignity (43). 
 That dignity lingered on, till at last it was again by chance 
 united with something of real power and honour; and the 
 consulships of Theodoric (44), of Boetius (45), of Belisarius 
 (46), may at least count for more than the Athenian archon- 
 ship of Hadrian and the Athenian generalship of Constantino 
 (47). And the master of Rome and of the world could still 
 say, like Julius himself, " I am Ca'sar, not King " (48). He 
 might be /Sao-iAevy in the tongue of his Greek subjects (49) ; 
 he might clothe himself with the robes and diadem of
 
 104 THE KING user. 
 
 Eastern kingship (50); even in his own city his dominion 
 might be regnum (51), his house might be regia (52), his 
 wife might be regina (53), but he himself never dared to 
 call himself, no flatterer ever dared to call him, by the 
 forbidden and dreaded title of Rex (54). Since the Regifu- 
 ffium of the Tarquins, Rome never had a King, till a King 
 came to her from quite another stock and in quite another 
 guise. Step by step, she took Kings of Teutonic race within 
 the pale of her honours ; she had Alaric to her general (55) ; 
 she had Chlodwig to her Consul; she had Pippin to her 
 Patrician (56) ; till at last the spell of spells was broken, 
 and she had Charles to her Caesar and Augustus. The 
 Imperial style of Rome and the kingly style of Germany 
 were joined in the hands of the Emperor of the Romans, 
 the King of the Franks and Lombards. Still Rome herself 
 had not yet a King ; it was a later stage still which joined 
 into one style the powers which were as yet distinct in the 
 same hands, and which gave the world that long line of 
 Reges Romanorum which reaches from Henry of Franconia 
 to Joseph of Austria, and which there may still be some 
 living who remember (57). The Empire of Rome and the 
 Kingship of Germany were now fairly merged in one ; we 
 have traced the one to its ending ; we must now trace the 
 other from its beginning. 
 
 Nothing can be plainer, both from the description given 
 by Tacitus and from the narrative in our own English 
 Chronicles, that kingship, in the distinctive sense, was 
 not universal, and therefore we may safely infer not imme- 
 morial, among the Teutonic nations. He distinguishes those 
 tribes which had Kings from those which had none, and 
 he distinctly marks one most important difference between 
 Kings and lesser chieftains : the Kings were chosen for 
 their nobility, the lesser chieftains, the duces or principes, for 
 their personal merit (58). We here see plainly enough the 
 practice as to the appointment of Kings which was universal 
 among all the Teutonic, and, as far as I know, among the
 
 iv CHARACTER OF TEUTONIC KINGSHIP 105 
 
 Slavonic nations also, and which seems the most natural 
 in an early state of society. On the one hand there is no 
 strict law of hereditary succession ; on the other hand the 
 kingly office is not put up to indiscriminate competition 
 among the whole nation. As at Rome, the people have 
 a voice in choosing their ruler, but as in Greece, the King 
 must come of a special and a divine stock ; the ruler of men 
 must be the child of the ruler of the Gods ; the patriarch to 
 whom he traces up his pedigree must be no other than 
 Woden himself (59). Thus far our fathers felt with the 
 Achaians of the days of Homer. But they felt too with the 
 practical mind of the Roman, that the rule of men could not 
 be safely trusted to the chances of mere hereditary succession ; 
 the sentiment of kingly descent was satisfied if the King 
 came of the divine stock, while some degree of fitness for his 
 office was secured by a free choice among those in whose veins 
 the sacred blood of Woden flowed. The King was the noblest 
 among the noble ; he was, as his name speaks, the embodi- 
 ment of the kin ; he was the leader of the nation, the choice 
 of the nation, the nation, as it were, itself incarnate in the 
 person of a single man. Kingship was an office ; it was an 
 office which, like any other office, the nation gave and the 
 nation could take away (60). But it was something more than 
 an office ; it was the privilege of the chosen house which 
 extended itself beyond the actual holder of the office to all 
 the members of the cynecyn, the stock of stocks, the stock 
 from which alone Kings could be chosen, and of which every 
 member was in some sort kingly (61). A kingship which was 
 hedged in by such divinity as this might seem as if it must 
 have been in the strictest sense immemorial, as if it would 
 be wholly impossible to fix the time or the cause of its 
 beginning ; and yet, as I just before said, it is certain that 
 the Teutonic kingship, as a form of government, was not 
 immemorial. In the days of Tacitus, kingship was still the 
 exception among the German nations, .and it is quite certain 
 that among one great division of the German people kingship 
 remained unknown till national independence came to an
 
 106 THE KING LECT. 
 
 end. The Old-Saxons never had Kings till they had to 
 acknowledge one who was King of the Franks and Lombards 
 also (62). And among the Saxons who crossed over the sea 
 to Britain, as well as among their Anglian and Jutish fellows, 
 kingship was unknown till after they were firmly established 
 on British ground (63). Mighty and worshipful as was the 
 Teutonic King, clothed as he was with the mysterious 
 holiness of a child of the Gods, he and his office were still, 
 in some sort, novelties. There had been a time when 
 kingship had been unknown ; there were branches of the 
 race in which it always remained unknown. In fact there 
 can be little doubt that, wherever a Teutonic King is found, 
 his kingship had displaced an earlier government of chiefs 
 who bore the lowlier, but more ancient, titles of Ealdormen 
 or Heretogan. 
 
 The key to this seeming contradiction would seem to be 
 found in this, that the King represents the national as 
 distinguished from the tribal stage of political developement. 
 The lowlier chiefs, Ealdormen or Dukes, were the chiefs 
 of separate tribes ; as the union of tribes grew into a nation, 
 the nation chose a King as the chief of all. They chose him 
 perhaps because he was in some sort a King already. Some 
 faint signs may be seen in our glimpses of the days of our 
 earliest fathers which look as if there were kingly houses 
 before there was such a thing as kingly government. It would 
 seem that the kingly house, the cynecyn, the noblest among the 
 noble, the house which most truly embodied the w r hole being of 
 the race, was called, when the nation felt the need of a common 
 chief, to take its place at the head of all. The house which 
 was already kingly in point of descent became kingly in point 
 of political power. That is to say, kingship is the rule of the 
 noblest, the rule of those who spring from the cyTiecyn, the rule 
 of the cyn itself embodied in its highest members. In this 
 way we may say that the King became a King because he was 
 a King already. He became Rex, because he was, before all 
 men, generosus ; he became the ruler of men, because he was 
 already the highest among them. In the far-off Sanscrit a
 
 iv CHRISTIAN THEORY OF KINGSHIP 107 
 
 kindred line of thought has produced a cognate title, and we 
 see in the distant Gandka a closer approach in name to our 
 own King than in the nearer Rex and fiacriXfvs (64). The 
 Teutonic King reigned rixode over his rice, his regnum ; 
 but he took his title, not from his office, but from his 
 dignity. He was not the mere Rex, the mere ruler ; he was 
 the King, the chief of the kin on earth, the man who could 
 boast of kindred with the powers of Heaven. 
 
 With the introduction of Christianity, the King's claim to 
 reverence as the child of the Gods came to an end. The 
 pedigree of the kingly house was still traced up to Woden ; 
 but, as the Cretans showed the tomb of Zeus, so it was now 
 found out that Woden had been only a mortal man, the 
 descendant of Noah and Adam in such and such a degree 
 (65). But the King must still have a sacred character 
 of some kind about him. The Hebrew rite of anointing had 
 come into use as the inauguration ceremony of the Emperors, 
 and from them it was extended to Kings of lower degree. 
 The King's commission was still divine ; but its divinity no 
 longer consisted in descent from the false God of the 
 heathen; it was divine, because it was bestowed with 
 ecclesiastical rites by the highest ministers of the Church 
 within his kingdom. Now, how far did this change affect the 
 real nature and extent of the kingly power ? It swept away 
 one form of mystery and sanctity, but it put another form in 
 its stead. We might perhaps say that it swept away the 
 sanctity of the race, while it increased the sanctity of the 
 person. Of all doctrines the most opposed to any kind 
 of Christian teaching is that which sees any exclusive 
 virtue, which acknowledges any exclusive privilege, in 
 particular races or families. In a Christian commonwealth, 
 the law may decree hereditary succession, whether to the 
 Crown or to anything else ; but the law decrees it simply 
 because such hereditary succession is deemed to work for the 
 common good, not because there is any inherent excellence in 
 this or that particular line. Christianity has had to struggle 
 with exclusive prejudices of this kind, just as it has had
 
 108 THE KING LECT. 
 
 to struggle with the world-wide sin of slavery, itself only 
 another outgrowth of the same exclusive feeling. Under 
 Christian influences, the sentiment of birth may remain 
 as a sentiment; it may remain in the form of political 
 institutions, whether we deem them good or bad ; but its 
 inherent sanctity passes away. When ^Ethelberht plunged 
 beneath the waters of baptism, his special privileges, his 
 special sanctity, as a son of Woden were washed away for 
 ever. The sanctity of the Christian King, the Anointed of 
 the Lord, was of another kind ; it was a sanctity of person 
 and office, not of descent. The King was admitted to 
 share somewhat of the official holiness of the priest and 
 the Bishop. But that holiness was purely official ; it was 
 a holiness bestowed and measured according to an acknow- 
 ledged law ; it was bestowed by a competent authority, and 
 by a competent authority it might be taken away. The 
 change from the son of Woden to the Anointed of the Lord 
 clothed the King with even higher personal worship than 
 he had held before. But it brought out more strongly the 
 notion that the King held an office, a trust, bestowed on 
 him for the common good of his people. Christianity there- 
 fore made it easier to choose freely within the royal house ; 
 it made it easier, in case of need, to choose beyond the 
 bounds of the royal house ; it made it easier, in case of 
 need, to remove by legal form a King who had shown 
 himself unworthy of the trust which the law had bestowed 
 on him. It was by a later change again that the King 
 gradually changed from the chief of the people into the 
 lord of the land, that the notion of office began again to 
 be lost in the notion of possession, and that the kingdom 
 began to be looked on as a personal estate, which must, 
 like any other estate, pass on from father to son, according 
 to some rule of hereditary succession strictly laid down 
 beforehand. A strict law of hereditary succession, if it be 
 inconsistent with the theory of popular election of the King, 
 is no less inconsistent with the theory of his ecclesiastical 
 consecration. The object of the crowning and anointing is
 
 iv CHANGE FROM EALDORMEN TO KINGS 109 
 
 to make a man fall King who up to that moment is at 
 most only King-elect. But according to the strict doctrine 
 of hereditary right, the King is full King already, and his 
 crowning and anointing sinks into a mere pageant, empty 
 or edifying, as men choose to look upon it. 
 
 The kingship which went through these stages, heathen 
 and Christian, came in, as I have already said, gradually. 
 In some lands, the Heretogan or Ealdormen, the Diwcs, 
 Principes, Judices, Satrapa, and so forth, of the Latin 
 writers, long held their ground. Even the smallest king- 
 dom was probably formed by the union of several small 
 states of this kind. For this process we may find parallels 
 far beyond the range of the Teutonic race and even of the 
 Aryan family. The Old Testament history sets before us 
 the many Kings of Canaan, reigning each one in his own 
 city, much like the Kings of heroic Greece. But it also 
 sets before us, in the case of Gibeon, at least one city which, 
 though not ruled by a King, was a great city, as one of 
 the royal cities (66). It tells us how there were Dukes 
 of Edom before there were Kings (67); and the history of 
 Israel itself shows, perhaps more clearly than any other, 
 how a confederacy of kindred tribes might pass into an 
 united nation, and how the Judges of the Hebrews, like 
 the Judges of the West-Goths, might pass away before the 
 power of a single King over the whole folk. And not only 
 were there Dukes, Ealdormen, and Judges before there were 
 Kings, but, in some cases, nations which had already tried 
 kingly government, fell back upon the earlier rule of Dukes, 
 Ealdormen, or Judges. I leave /Egyptologers to say what 
 amount of historical truth there may be in the tale 
 told us by Herodotus, how the single kingdom of Egypt 
 was once split up among twelve confederate Kings. But 
 be the tale true or false, the state of things which it 
 describes is one that has several parallels in undoubted 
 history. The Lombards, after experience of kingly govern- 
 ment through several reigns, fell back upon the government 
 of separate Dukes, and, according to one account, the
 
 110 THE KING LECT. 
 
 same thing happened among ourselves in the West-Saxon 
 kingdom (68). This process must be distinguished from 
 another, which has something in common with it, and 
 which may be looked on as a sort of transition between 
 the government of separate Dukes or Ealdormen and the 
 fully established monarchy of later times. In the view 
 which we have taken of the origin and nature of kingship, 
 it is plain that kingship does not imply monarchy in the 
 literal sense. Indeed it should be remembered that, in 
 days when the meaning of words was strictly cared for, 
 the words "monarch" and "monarchy" were never applied 
 to the rule of ordinary Kings, but were reserved for the 
 universal dominion of the Emperor (69). Long after an 
 union of tribes had reached a feeling of national unity so 
 strong that it bore a common name and was capable of 
 something like common action a feeling strong enough to 
 lead them to forsake the rule of mere Dukes or Judges 
 for that of Kings it still did not follow that there should 
 be only one King in the nation. It was an easy result 
 from the original nature of Teutonic kingship, that, where 
 the whole house was kingly, where the kingliness of the 
 house was the source of its claim to rule, it should be held 
 that every member of it had a right to be kingly in office 
 as well as in birth. Hence came the constant subdivision 
 of a kingdom among a King's sons, either at his death 
 or during his lifetime a process which fills up nearly 
 the whole history of Frankish kingship under Merwings 
 and Karlings alike. Hence too the constitution of the 
 West-Saxon kingdom among ourselves, the confederate 
 principalities each ruled by an Under-king of the kingly 
 house, all of them admitting the superiority of the head 
 King of the whole people. The notion of a Heptarchy in 
 England has long been cast to the winds, but; had men 
 chosen to talk of a Pentarchy in Wessex, there would have 
 been something to say for the name (70). So again, in the 
 Scandinavian North, in almost every great expedition we 
 find mention of several Kings and of several Earls the
 
 iv MANY KINGS IN THE SAME NATION III 
 
 Earls of course answering to English Ealdormen or Here- 
 togan joined together as leaders of a confederate host. 
 And mark that, among the invaders who fell in the great 
 slaughter of Brunanburh, among the seven Earls and thfe 
 five Kings who stayed to feed the wolves and ravens of 
 Northumberland, we are told that the Kings were young; 
 we hear nothing of the age of the Earls. Surely this is 
 another form of the distinction drawn long before by 
 Tacitus. The Kings were chosen for their birth, for their 
 kingliness ; they might therefore well be young. The 
 Earls, we may well believe, were still chosen for their 
 personal strength and valour; they therefore might well 
 be brjfjioyfpovTfs, seniores, Ealdormen, in the literal sense of 
 the words. 
 
 In all this, in- the crowd of petty Kings who were dis- 
 placed to make room for the great kingdoms of later times, 
 be it in the very beginning of English kingship under Ida 
 in Northumberland or in its later Northern stage under the 
 fair-haired Harold of Norway (71), we see the living image 
 of the same state of things as we see in the many Kings 
 within the little isle of Ithake, or in that other royal crowd 
 whom Odysseus dealt with so tenderly in the hour of trial 
 before Ilios (72). But, while Greek kingship died out in 
 Greece itself, while even in Macedonia it lived on only to be 
 swallowed up in the dominion of Rome, the kindred Teutonic 
 kingship has gone on and flourished down to our own times. 
 It has gone on and flourished in modern Europe, while it 
 died out in old Greece, mainly because tribes could be 
 gathered into nations, while cities could not. But its fate 
 in different European lands has been widely different. In 
 all, kingship itself has been more or less affected by the 
 influences which I have already spoken of as working a 
 change in its original Teutonic character. In all it has been 
 affected by the ecclesiastical ideas which gather round the 
 ecclesiastical rite of consecration; in all it has been affected 
 by ideas borrowed from the Roman Civil Law ; in all it has 
 been affected by feudal and territorial notions which taught
 
 112 THE KING LECT. 
 
 men to look on kingship as a property rather than an office ; 
 in all it has been affected by the developement of those ideas 
 which grew out of the union of the Teutonic comitatus with 
 the Roman tenure of lands by military service (73). The 
 sacred character which the King received from the new 
 religion was perhaps only a fair exchange for the sacred 
 character which he lost by the abolition of the old. But 
 the Teutonic King was neither a despot nor a constitutional 
 abstraction ; he was not a lord of the soil, nor was he a mere 
 head of an ascending series of feudal chiefs. In different 
 ages and countries he has become all these things. In one 
 age he became an absolute master, by dint of clothing the 
 hereditary King with those attributes with which, in the 
 theory of the Civil Law, the Roman people, at each election 
 of an Emperor, clothed its Imperial Tribune (74). In 
 another age the personal relation of lord and man swallowed 
 up the relation in which each member of the commonwealth 
 stands to its head. But in all the King changed from the 
 chief of a people, wherever that people might be found, into 
 the ruler of a certain portion of the earth's surface, by 
 whomsoever that portion of the earth's surface might be 
 inhabited. New-fangled territorial titles King of England, 
 King of France, and the like displaced those ancient titles 
 of national chieftainship which were borne alike by the 
 King of the Macedonians and the King of the Medes and 
 Persians, by the Emperor of the Romans and the King of 
 the West-Goths, by the King of the English and the Duke 
 of the Normans (75). And as kingship changed from the 
 chieftainship of the people to the lordship of the soil as it 
 changed from an office to a property as the territorial 
 kingdom came to be looked on as a vast estate so men 
 began to think that it was not enough that the King should 
 have about him the sentiment which clave to the descendant 
 of former Kings, that it was not enough that he should be 
 chosen out of the one kingly house ; lawyers and courtiers 
 began to dream that the territorial property into which they 
 had changed the kingly office ought to pass, like any other
 
 iv HISTORY OF KINGSHIP IN ENGLAND 113 
 
 territorial property, according to some fixed law of hereditary 
 succession. They devised for us all those lawyers' subtleties 
 of primogeniture, representation, and the like, which gave 
 our Crown for a season to Edward of Caernarvon and 
 Richard of Bourdeaux, but which would have bidden ^Elfred 
 to stand aside, and to forbear from touching the inheritance 
 of his brother's child. All these various influences have 
 affected kingship in every European kingdom ; but it has 
 been affected by these several influences in very different 
 degrees in different lands. And, if the nature of kingship 
 itself has thus come to differ under different circumstances, 
 the degree of power attached to the kingly title has differed 
 no less. Kingship has come, in different lands, to wear all 
 the different forms with a sketch of which I began the 
 present lecture. There is still one European land where, as 
 in the days of the old Caesars, what seems good to the Prince 
 has the force of law (76). There are other lands in which 
 the law still clothes the sovereign with vast, though strictly 
 defined, powers, but where some of those powers are exercised 
 only through advisers in whose choice the sovereign has 
 hardly a personal voice, while there are other powers which 
 neither sovereign nor minister would for a moment dream of 
 exercising at all. If we look to the history of our own land, 
 we find in this matter of the developement of kingship, as in 
 most others, a stronger historical continuity than elsewhere. 
 At no stage of the process which changed the Ealdorman or 
 Heretoga of a corner of Hampshire into the King of the 
 English and Lord of the Isle of Britain did he ever wholly 
 lose the old character of the chief of the people (77). Every 
 change which in other lands affected the primitive nature 
 of Teutonic kingship was slower in reaching us, and had 
 lees effect when it did reach us, than it had elsewhere. The 
 coming of the Norman handed over the English Crown to 
 Kings of foreign speech ; but it did not wholly break the 
 continuity of English political traditions. Nay rather, it 
 was the firm hand of the great William which put the last 
 stroke to the work of Ecgberht and /Ethelstan, and which
 
 114 THE KING LECT. 
 
 made England for ever a realm which, since his day, no man 
 has thought of parting asunder. And the Conqueror, who 
 claimed the Crown by English Law, who professed to rule 
 according to English Law, handed down the tradition of 
 English Law to all those who came after him. The King 
 has been mighty, but the Law has ever been mightier. The 
 Laws of King Eadward grew into the Great Charter; the 
 Great Charter grew into the Petition of Right ; the Petition 
 of Right grew into that fuller establishment of our liberties 
 which marked the great day when Englishmen for the last 
 time chose themselves a King (78). If we look through all 
 the stages of our history, we shall, I think, see that of all 
 European nations we have fallen away the least from the old 
 heritage of our fathers, and that, when we have fallen away 
 from it, we have in many cases only come back to it in other 
 forms. We have never wholly cast aside either the hereditary 
 or the elective principle ; our sovereign is still crowned and 
 anointed with the same rites as Eadward, Harold, and 
 William, and is still clothed with those powers, ecclesiastical 
 as well as temporal, which William knew how to defend 
 against Hildebrand himself (79). Even in so small a matter 
 as the descent of the Crown among members of the old 
 kingly house, no other land can show a succession of Kings 
 so nearly unbroken. Nowhere else, even by help of female 
 succession, can any royal house trace up its descent to the 
 chiefs who, fourteen hundred years back, led the nation into 
 the land in which they still dwell. Under Cerdic and Cynric 
 the people of the West-Saxons made their first settlement 
 in the Celtic land. And ever since save when for a moment 
 the old stock gave way, twice to foreign conquest, once to 
 popular election the children of Cerdic and Cynric have 
 ruled over the people of the West-Saxons and over all into 
 which the realm of the West-Saxons has grown. Every 
 sovereign of Wessex or of England, before and since the 
 age of Cnut, of Harold, and of William, has been, at least 
 on the female side, the offspring of the first founder of the 
 nation (80).
 
 iv ENGLISH AND CONTINENTAL KINGSHIP 115 
 
 Among our kinsmen on the mainland kingship has run 
 another course. Nowhere but in our own island had the old 
 Teutonic kingship, like other old Teutonic institutions, the 
 same chance of growing and improving, of modifying itself 
 by a purely native growth, on a soil which the utter sweep- 
 ing away of an earlier state of things had made as fully 
 their own as the land from which our fathers set forth to win 
 it. In our island a world of its own the Teutonic State 
 and the Teutonic kingship could grow up undisturbed by 
 Roman influences, till Roman influences came to show them- 
 selves in their later forms, ecclesiastical and feudal. Else- 
 where, wherever the Teutonic nation and its King established 
 themselves on the conquered Roman soil, they stepped at 
 once within the magic circle of Roman influences. Some of 
 the Teutonic kingdoms which were thus founded on Roman 
 soil fell back again, like those of the Vandals in Africa and 
 the Goths in Italy, within the grasp of the reviving Roman 
 power. The Goth in Spain, himself for a while cut short by 
 the Roman revival (81), lived on to fall beneath the yoke of 
 invaders foreign alike to Aryan speech and to Christian faith. 
 Others were absorbed one by one into the dominion of a 
 kindred people mightier than themselves. Step by step, a 
 single Teutonic nation rose to the first place, and united 
 under the Frankish sceptre the ancestral land of Germany 
 and the conquered land of Gaul. But, in so doing, the 
 Frankish kingship lost the power which the English king- 
 ship still kept, of handing on the unmixed Teutonic traditions 
 of earlier times. The fact that the Frankish power never 
 became wholly Gaulish, that the Teutonic lands of the 
 Eastern Franks and of the dependent Allemani and Bavarians 
 still formed part of the Frankish dominion, saved that 
 dominion from becoming wholly Roman : it saved the Frank, 
 even on Gaulish soil, from wholly casting away the speech 
 and traditions of his fathers. Still the great territorial 
 conquest won by the Franks on Roman ground did not fail 
 to do its work. When the nation, King, nobles, freemen, sat 
 down in the new homes which they had won among a
 
 116 THE KING LECT. 
 
 conquered people whose civilization was higher than their 
 own, they could not keep their old simple social state, their 
 old simple political traditions, free from all foreign inter- 
 mixture. Mere increase of dominion cannot fail to add to 
 the kingly power (82), and it adds to it still more when 
 increase of dominion takes the form of foreign conquest. 
 The King who rules according to his own will over the 
 greater numbers of the conquered strangers will insensibly 
 take to himself a greater share of power than of old, even 
 over his own countrymen. Add to this that, in the Gaulish 
 land, the Franks found an elaborate system of law, ecclesi- 
 astical and civil, fully established ; and the Frankish King 
 lent no unwilling ear to the Roman priest or the Roman 
 lawyer who taught him that he need not look on his power 
 as bounded by the restraints put upon it by the customs of 
 his own people. The Lord of Gaul, the Advocate of the 
 Orthodox Church, might claim to himself all the powers 
 which had been exercised by Constantine and Theodosius, 
 which were still exercised before his eyes by Justinian or 
 Heraclius. At last, under a new and mightier dynasty, the 
 two natures of Roman and Teutonic rule were joined in one : 
 the Frankish King became the Roman Caesar. But, step by 
 step, the kingship of Germany was crushed in pieces beneath 
 the weight of the Imperial dignity, and the Lord of the 
 World (83) came, as Lord of the World, to have less of real 
 power than the lords of very small portions of its surface. 
 Between domestic weakness and foreign aggression, the once 
 united German Kingdom broke up into a lax Confederation, 
 and out of that lax Confederation the kingdom of Henry of 
 Saxony and Rudolf of Habsburg has again sprung to life 
 before our eyes (84). Meanwhile the Western part of the 
 old Frankish realm fell away from the common centre, and a 
 small principality by the Seine, peopled by a fragment of the 
 old Celtic race, grew, under the borrowed name of France, 
 into one of the foremost powers of the European world. 
 While in the Eastern (85), the German, realm, the Crown 
 first became purely elective and then practically hereditary
 
 iv KINGSHIP IN MODERN EUROPE 117 
 
 under elective forms (86), the Crown of the Western France 
 became more purely hereditary than that of any other 
 kingdom, because there never was lacking a male heir of the 
 first patriarch to claim it. But, perhaps partly for that very 
 reason, when the magic spell of that long succession was 
 once broken, it has been found harder than in any other land 
 to find a stable government of any kind to take the place of 
 the unbroken kingship of eight hundred years. In Germany, 
 as I have said, the royal power came to nothing, because the 
 kingdom split asunder into states which were virtually inde- 
 pendent. In France the same thing happened at an earlier 
 time ; but the Crown contrived to annex the separate 
 principalities one by one, and so to establish, step by step, 
 a despotism over the whole land. England, after its final 
 union, never split asunder. The policy of William secured 
 that, though the Crown might be weaker than the united 
 nation, yet each single man in the nation, the very highest 
 not excepted, should be weaker than the Crown (87). 
 
 In the constitutional monarchies of modern times, the 
 Crown is the Executive power ; but its free action as such is 
 more or less hampered by the conventional necessity of acting 
 by the advice of Ministers who are approved by a majority 
 of the Legislature. Kingship has lost nothing of its dignity ; 
 it has lost little of its legal powers ; what modern practice 
 does is to provide the Sovereign with a Mayor of the Palace 
 whom the Legislature can practically remove at pleasure. I 
 mention this now, because it is of some importance to 
 distinguish between kingly dignity and kingly power. We 
 have seen how, in the Roman Commonwealth, the ancient 
 powers of the Kings were not so much taken away as put 
 into commission in the hands of the Consuls and other 
 magistrates. Something of the same kind has happened in 
 some republican states in later times. It is worth noticing 
 how, in popular talk, the notion of a Republic seems natur- 
 ally to suggest the notion of a President. That is to say, it
 
 118 THE KING LECT. 
 
 is taken for granted that the State must have a personal 
 head, even though that personal head may be chosen for a 
 definite term, and may be subject to legal punishment in 
 the case of proved crime. That such a way of speaking 
 leaves out of sight most of the great Commonwealths of 
 history 7 , that it leaves out of sight the most successful 
 Commonwealth of modern times, is a slight matter. It is an 
 established maxim among political talkers that the one State 
 in Europe where republican institutions are immemorial, the 
 one State where they have been fairly tried and have 
 thoroughly succeeded, should be left out of sight in all such 
 inquiries. People who would be ashamed not to know all 
 about the political condition of every other European nation, 
 would deem it beneath them to stop and think whether the 
 Swiss Confederation or any of its Cantons is governed by 
 King, President, or Council (88). History shows that the 
 tendency of republican states in general is against vesting 
 the Executive power in any single person. There has indeed 
 commonly been a chief magistrate, under some title or other ; 
 but he has been only the chief of the Executive ; he has not 
 been himself the whole of it. He has been, like the Swiss 
 President, a mere Chairman of a Council, not, like the 
 American President, an independent power in the State. 
 The notion that a republic must have a President at its 
 head is simply a shadow of kingship. Men have been so 
 accustomed to kingly government, to a personal head of the 
 State, that it seems natural, even in getting rid of kingship, 
 to keep the personal head, and simply to make him elective 
 instead of hereditary, appointed for a fixed time instead of 
 for life. The American President, in the original conception 
 of his office, is a four years' King ; and the early Presidents 
 ruled with far more of personal kingly power than the King 
 of any kingdom where the modern theory of constitutional 
 government is fully established. The cause is obvious: 
 hereditary succession gives no guaranty for any personal 
 qualifications in the King. His power is therefore not only
 
 iv POWERS OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT 119 
 
 limited by law, but it is held that, even in the exercise of 
 his legal powers, he is bound to follow the advice of Ministers 
 who are practically appointed and removed by the popular 
 branch of the Legislature. But the President, it might be 
 thought, need be bound by no such fetters. He is chosen 
 for a fixed time : he is chosen, it might be hoped, on account 
 of his personal fitness to rule. It might therefore seem to 
 follow that, while his office lasts, his personal power ought to 
 be greater than that of a constitutional King ; it might seem 
 to follow that such authority as the law gives him he may 
 use purely according to his personal discretion, and that his 
 Ministers should be his servants, and not his masters. But 
 it is clear that there is a tendency at work to hamper the 
 personal freedom of action of the Presidents of the United 
 States, in nearly the same way, so far as the different forms 
 of the Constitution allow, in which the personal freedom of 
 action of the constitutional Kings of Europe is hampered. 
 That is to say, though the President is not a King, though 
 his position has nothing of kingly dignity, of kingly mystery, 
 or of kingly duration, yet his powers are in themselves so 
 essentially kingly that it seems an obvious thing to treat 
 him as a King, and to give him, like a King, Ministers who 
 shall control rather than obey him. The Executive Council, 
 such as we see in the Swiss Confederation, alone avoids 
 every tendency of the kind. To a body of seven men, chosen 
 by the Legislature for the term of its own being, no scrap or 
 rag of kingship can cleave (89). 
 
 There is one feature in which it might seem that the 
 modern conception, I will not say of kingship, but of royalty, 
 has gone back to the ideas of the very earliest times. In 
 fully developed constitutional States, the notion of kingship, 
 either strictly as an office or strictly as a possession, has well- 
 nigh died out. But the notion of royalty as a dignity belong- 
 ing to royal personages, as something which cleaves, not only 
 to Kings themselves, but to all their kindred and belongings
 
 120 TEE KING LECT. 
 
 the notion that such kindred and belongings form a separate 
 class or order apart from other men is stronger now than it 
 ever was since men reverenced in their Kings the son of 
 Zeus or of Woden. In no time or place was kingship, as an 
 office or possession, more highly magnified than in the days 
 of Elizabeth and her father. But the notion of royalty in 
 the modern sense could have no place where the sovereign 
 was the child of an English mother, and could trace back her 
 descent to ancient Kings through a long succession of un- 
 crowned ancestors (90). We have seen that the notion of 
 the kingliness of the race is probably older than kingship, 
 either as an office or as a possession. It would seem also to 
 be more lasting. The feeling which binds all the royal 
 houses of Europe together, as members of one class, would 
 hardly have been understood by the followers of Thomas of 
 Lancaster or Henry of Richmond. It would perhaps have 
 been more intelligible to those who, when a number of tribes 
 were welded together into a nation, placed, as a matter of 
 course, a son of Woden at its head. It would have been 
 least of all intelligible in the days when personal rule was at 
 its highest in point of real power, at its lowest in point of 
 outward dignity. Men marched off into a distant banish- 
 ment, or opened their veins to die without a thought of 
 resistance, at the mere bidding of a Caesar who, in outward 
 form, was simply the first magistrate of the Commonwealth. 
 The successors of that Csesar, Lords of the World, waited on 
 by Kings and sovereign Dukes, commanded no such obedi- 
 ence. The notion of mere rank and dignity and the notion 
 of real power are in themselves distinct. There are times 
 when the two are joined together; there are other times 
 when they would seem to be not only distinct, but actually 
 hostile. 
 
 I have now dealt with the general notions of the State 
 itself in its two great forms : as the city and as the tribe 
 growing into the nation. I have dealt with its chief, in his
 
 iv SUMMARY 121 
 
 various forms, sometimes the King sinking into the republican 
 magistrate, sometimes the republican magistrate growing 
 into the King. The next time I come before you I shall 
 have to deal no longer with the head of the State, but with 
 its body, with the Assembly of the city or nation in all its 
 forms, from the Agord of the Homeric Achaians to the 
 Parliament of the United Kingdom.
 
 122 THE ASSEMBLY 
 
 LECT. 
 
 THE ASSEMBLY 
 
 WE have now dealt with the general idea of the State, 
 whether as a tribe growing into a nation or as shut up 
 within the walls of a single city. From that general idea 
 we have passed to the head of the State, to the King. We 
 have seen in old Greece the power of the Kings of particular 
 cities vanish away, as those cities changed into common- 
 wealths, first aristocratic and then democratic. We have 
 seen the powers of the Roman Kings put, as it were, into 
 commission among the great magistrates of the Republic, 
 and then gathered together again, in far more than their old 
 strength, in the hands of the Emperors. We have traced 
 the origin and growth of Teutonic kingship; we have seen 
 how, as the tribe grew into a nation, its chief grew into 
 a King; we have seen how the various forms of modern 
 European royalty started off from this primitive source, and 
 how strangely the greatest among them became for ages 
 allied, or rather identified, with the still abiding dignity of 
 the Roman Augustus. We have now to turn from the head 
 of the State to its body, from the King to the Assembly of 
 the People. The body follows the same law as its head. 
 Where the city is the commonwealth and the commonwealth 
 never stretches beyond its walls, the Assembly may shrink 
 up into, or it may never develope itself beyond, the gather- 
 ing of a mere oligarchic body. As the highest franchise of 
 the city may be shared by all the citizens, or may be con-
 
 v NO REPRESENTATION IN CITY COMMONWEALTHS 123 
 
 fined to the members of an exclusive order, so the sovereign 
 Assembly of the commonwealth may be less or greater in its 
 numbers. The sovereign body is the Assembly of all those 
 citizens who hold the highest franchise, whether they form 
 the narrowest oligarchy or the most open democracy. In 
 either case, each member of the ruling body discharges his 
 own duty in the Assembly in his own person, and not 
 through a representative. In a city commonwealth the idea 
 of representation, of choosing certain citizens to act on 
 behalf of the whole body, is not likely to come into any 
 man's head. Where all the citizens in a democracy, or all 
 the citizens of the ruling order in an oligarchy, can 
 habitually come together in their own persons, as in a city 
 commonwealth they can, it is not likely that they will 
 willingly give up their highest right to a few members of 
 their own body. They may entrust greater or less powers to 
 smaller Councils and to individual magistrates ; and the 
 Councils and magistrates of an oligarchy will commonly be 
 entrusted with far larger and more independent powers than 
 the Councils and magistrates of a democracy. But in either 
 case the Assembly of the whole people, or of the whole 
 privileged class of the people, remains the sovereign power 
 of the commonwealth. And, as the Assembly of the city is 
 not likely to change itself into a representative body within 
 its own walls, so it is not likely to merge its own being as a 
 sovereign and independent Assembly in any body beyond its 
 own walls. If the city be connected with other cities by a 
 Federal tie, it may give up to the general Assembly of the 
 whole Confederation the right of deciding on the relations of 
 the Confederation to foreign powers, and all other such 
 matters as naturally come within the range of Federal 
 authority. But the Assemblies of the several cities did not 
 in such a case cease to exist ; they did not cease to be 
 sovereign and independent within the range of all powers 
 which they did not expressly give up to the Federal body ( I ). 
 And, stranger still to our notions, among the Confederations 
 of Greece even the Federal body itself did not assume a
 
 124 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 representative character; as every citizen of the individual 
 city had his place in the sovereign Assembly of that city, 
 so each citizen of the Confederation had his place in the 
 sovereign Assembly of the Confederation (2). Wherever 
 the independent city is the leading political idea, whether 
 the city remain absolutely independent for all purposes or 
 it is content to yield part of its sovereign rights to a Federal 
 authority whether it strictly confines its citizenship to the 
 dwellers in its own walls or freely grants it out to all the 
 inhabitants of a large country in either case alike each 
 citizen keeps his personal right to attend and vote in the 
 sovereign Assembly of the State of which he is a member. 
 It seems to be a law of its being that the primary Assembly 
 of the city should never grow into or merge itself in the 
 representative Assembly of a nation. 
 
 Where, on the other hand, the tribe and not the city is 
 the leading political idea, the case is widely different. We 
 have seen how tribes grew into nations, how, from being 
 independent political bodies, they sank into mere divisions 
 of a greater body. In this process the Assemblies of the 
 State follow the same law as the State itself. The tribe and 
 the city start from the same point, for in truth the city is 
 only a tribe, or more than one tribe, surrounded by a wall. 
 In the Assembly of the tribe, no less than in the Assembly 
 of the city, every man who enjoys the full franchise, every 
 freeman of the tribe, has the right to appear in person. 
 But, as the tribe merges itself in a greater whole far more 
 easily than the city, so the Assembly of the tribe shares a 
 like fate. As the tribe ceases to be the State, and becomes 
 a mere division of the State as the chief of the tribe 
 becomes a mere subordinate deputy of the King who is the 
 chief of the nation (3) so in the like sort the sovereign 
 Assembly of the tribe merges itself in the sovereign 
 Assembly of the nation. It may cease to exist altogether, 
 or it may go on as a purely local body ; but if so, it has 
 ceased to be sovereign; it is merely the Assembly of a 
 certain division of the State or of its territory ; it does not,
 
 v ARISTOCRATIC AND DEMOCRATIC ASSEMBLIES 125 
 
 like the several members of a Confederation, retain its 
 independent sovereignty within its own range. It is only 
 under the most exceptional of circumstances that the tribal 
 Assembly can live on through all changes, and, after having 
 sunk into the Assembly of a mere corner of a vast kingdom, 
 can come forth again as the sovereign Assembly of an 
 independent State. In one lucky corner of the world things 
 have taken this exceptional course. We cannot see the 
 Demos of Athens on his Pnyx ; we cannot see the Comitia 
 of Rome in the Forum or on the field of Mars ; but any man 
 who chooses may, on the first Sunday of next May, see the 
 Germans of Tacitus with his own eyes (4). 
 
 It must be constantly borne in mind that the true 
 difference between an aristocratic and a democratic govern- 
 ment, as those words were understood in the politics of old 
 Greece, lies in this. In the democracy all citizens, all who 
 enjoy civil rights enjoy also political rights. In the aris- 
 tocracy political rights belong to only a part of those who 
 enjoy civil rights. But, in either case, the highest authority 
 of the State is the general Assembly of the whole ruling 
 body, whether that ruling body be the whole people or only 
 a part of it. Two great examples of the aristocratic Assembly 
 went on into modern times, the Great Council of Venice 
 and those great and tumultuous comitia of the whole nobility 
 of Poland which came together for the election of a King. 
 This aristocratic Assembly, when it came together, was far 
 more truly to be called a mob than the Assembly of demo- 
 cratic Athens. But it might be argued in return that, if 
 the Polish Assembly was an oligarchy as opposed to the 
 excluded classes of the nation, the Athenian Assembly was 
 also an oligarchy, as opposed to the excluded classes of 
 slaves and strangers. It is certain that, in Athens or in 
 any other democratic commonwealth, those who enjoyed 
 the political franchise were far fewer in number than those 
 who were shut out from it. But, according to Greek ideas, 
 this in no way interfered with the democratic character 
 of the commonwealth and its Assembly. The shutting out
 
 126 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 of slaves and strangers was as much a matter of course, 
 according to Greek ideas, as the shutting out of women 
 and children is according to the ideas of nearly every State 
 in the world. The constitution of the city community, 
 whether aristocratic or democratic, rests wholly on the 
 principle of hereditary burghership. The slave of course 
 has no rights; that is involved in the very nature of 
 slavery (5); neither has the resident stranger who has not 
 been adopted into the burghership, even though he and 
 his forefathers for generations may have lived and been born 
 in the land. The answer to any claim on his part would 
 have been that he had his own hereditary burghership 
 somewhere else let him go and enjoy his civil and political 
 rights there. The slaves and strangers who were shut out 
 at Athens were, according to Greek ideas, no Athenians ; 
 but every Athenian had his place in the sovereign Assembly 
 of Athens, while every Corinthian had not his place in the 
 sovereign Assembly of Corinth. But the aristocratic and the 
 democratic commonwealth both agreed in placing the final 
 authority of the State in the general Assembly of all who 
 enjoy the highest franchise. From this point all the political 
 assemblies of the world, all at least of that part of the world 
 with which we are concerned, take their start, and the 
 democratic model is the older and purer of the two (6). 
 The ways in which distinctions arise between different classes 
 in the same State are various, and of some of them I shall 
 have to speak in my last lecture. But it is plain that, 
 whether we take the city or the tribe for our starting-point, 
 the oldest and purest model is that in which the sovereign 
 Assembly takes in all who are members of the State. That 
 it shuts out those who from any cause are not members of 
 the State must be taken for granted. We must not bring 
 in modern ideas, which belong wholly to a state of things 
 in which nations have taken the form of territorial kingdoms. 
 With us every one born in the land is of right a British 
 subject, and the rights of a British subject may be obtained 
 with very little trouble by those who are not born in the
 
 land. The like is the case in most other modern kingdoms 
 and commonwealths. This is because they have all become 
 territorial, because they have learned to put birth within 
 the land in the place of descent from the original stock. 
 In a tribe, as long as it retains the feelings of a tribe, in a 
 city, as long as it retains the principle of hereditary burgher- 
 ship, naturalization must always remain a matter of special 
 favour. No length of residence, not even birth in the land 
 of other than citizen parents, can ever give it of right. 
 
 I have wandered to some extent from the subject of 
 Assemblies, but it was not foreign to my subject to clear 
 away one or two difficulties which might arise from the 
 seemingly twofold character of some commonwealths, and 
 of their sovereign Assemblies. In the primitive conception, 
 the Assembly is the gathering of the whole people, the 
 gathering of all the men of the tribe, of all the citizens of 
 the city. Now in all primitive societies the distinction 
 between soldier and civilian is unknown. To fight when 
 called on is not the special profession of any particular class ; 
 it is the duty of all men alike who are able to bear arms. 
 And we may add that, in some states of society, fighting 
 is not merely every man's duty when called on ; it is some- 
 thing very like the chief business of life. From this it 
 follows that, in all early states of society, the army is the 
 Assembly, and the Assembly is the army (7). The same 
 body of men, if called together for a peaceful purpose, form 
 the political Assembly; if called together for a warlike 
 purpose, they form the army. But the men are the same 
 in either case, and it is not till political refinement has 
 made great advances that any distinction is drawn between 
 the members of the State in their civil and in their military 
 character. It is plain that such a distinction was likely to 
 be first drawn among the greater civilization and more 
 complicated relations of city life. As long as the tribe 
 remains the ruling idea, nay, even long after the tribe has 
 grown into, or merged itself in, the nation, the nation is 
 still the army and the army is the nation. The Assembly
 
 128 THE ASSEMBLY LEOT. 
 
 meets in arms, ready to act as an army, if need should so 
 demand ; and the army, whether under Agamemnon beneath 
 the walls of Ilios (8), under Alexander far away in Bactria 
 (9), or under our Eadward on the shores of Kent (10), can, 
 in the like case of need, discharge the duties of the Assembly. 
 But in the city commonwealth it is gradually found that, 
 though every citizen is bound to serve in arms when called 
 on, yet there is no need for every citizen to be called on 
 to serve at the same moment (n). An army, though only 
 a temporary army, is thus formed, distinct from the whole 
 body of the people. Those citizens who are in arms give 
 up for a while their full rights as citizens ; the authority 
 of the General without the city rises far above the restraints 
 which fetter the authority of the Magistrate within the city ; 
 and the citizens who form the army are content to receive 
 orders from the citizens who remain at home and can go 
 through the accustomed forms of a peaceful Assembly (12). 
 And in the case of a city commonwealth another element 
 comes in. In the city everything is local; the Assembly 
 must be held in the accustomed place, perhaps within the 
 precincts of some revered temple ; if it were held elsewhere, 
 it would lose all its virtue, and its acts might seem to be 
 of no force. Hence, while in other states of society the 
 military Assembly is common, among the settled city 
 commonwealths of Greece it is rare, and under the stern 
 discipline of a Roman army it was unknown. Alexander 
 brought his traitors before the assembly of his soldiers, but 
 Titus Manlius struck off his son's head by the sole authority 
 of the Consul and father. In Athenian history the military 
 Assembly is heard of only in cases of some desperate emer- 
 gency, when the Mede holds the soil of Athens but when 
 Athens herself is in her ships by Salamis (13), or when, in 
 the days of the Four Hundred, the fleet at Samos, cleaving 
 to the old laws and freedom, declares that the city has 
 revolted from them (14). In the Federal period we hear 
 more commonly, though still rarely, of military assemblies, 
 of the nation in arms on foreign service exercising, under
 
 v ASSEMBLIES IN HEROIC GREECE 129 
 
 the walls of a besieged city, the authority which, under 
 common circumstances, it would have exercised in the 
 regular place of Federal meeting (15). The cause of the 
 difference is obvious. The citizens of a Confederation were 
 used to exercise political powers at a distance from their 
 own homes ; the place of Federal meeting at Megalopolis or 
 Aigion could never become surrounded with the same sacred 
 and exclusive associations which to the mind of the Athenian 
 gathered round the holy rock of Athene". To discharge the 
 rights of citizens on an unusual spot, or under unusual 
 circumstances, was a slighter shock to a body of men gathered 
 together from several confederate commonwealths than it 
 was to men whose every political idea centred within the 
 walls of a single city. 
 
 But we must go back to earlier times, to the very first 
 glimpses which we get of the political life of those three 
 branches of the Aryan family with which we are now specially 
 concerned. If there is anything which we can fairly look 
 upon as a common political heritage, as something handed 
 on from the days when Greek, Latin, and Teuton were still 
 one people, it is surely to be seen in the great elements of 
 political life which are common to all three, in the general 
 Assembly of the people presided over by the King or other 
 chief, and guided rather than restrained in its deliberations 
 by the working of the smaller Council, whether of hereditary 
 nobles, of elders serving for life, or of magistrates or senators 
 clothed with a temporary authority by the Assembly itself. 
 The exact constitution, the exact limits of the authority, 
 of the three great political elements vary from time to time 
 and from place to place, but the three elements themselves 
 are always there. It may be that the Achaian King in 
 Homer exercises a greater control over the course of things 
 in the Assembly than the German King in Tacitus. Differ- 
 ences of this kind will be found everywhere, but the 
 essential elements remain the same under all varieties 
 of detail. Everywhere alike we find the general Assembly,
 
 130 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 the smaller Council, and the King himself. In those 
 states in which kingship has either not yet arisen or has 
 given way to magistrates periodically renewed, we find his 
 forerunner or his successor. In every page of the Homeric 
 poems, in every gathering which they set before us, political, 
 military, festive, or religious, the three elements come before 
 us with more or less distinctness, according to the circum- 
 stances of the case. The Zeus-born and Zeus-nurtured King 
 is ever surrounded by the chiefs, the elders, the lesser Kings, 
 who form the nearest circle round him. And these again 
 are surrounded by the wider circle of the whole body of the 
 tribe, the city, or the army. We see them, not only 
 in the mortal world of Hellas, but in the lands called 
 into being by the play of Hellenic fancy, in the mythic isle 
 of the Phaiakians and among the Gods themselves on 
 Olympos. To the mind of the Greek the Gods whom 
 he worshipped were beings who shared the nature and 
 the passions of man. They were in truth men : they were 
 mightier indeed and happier than the mortal men on earth, 
 free from the toils and pains and cares of earthly life, and 
 with no doom of coming death before their eyes (16). But 
 they were still Gods after the likeness of men, Gods 
 who shared the loves, the hates, the counsels, of their 
 worshippers, who had spots which they loved on earth, 
 and of whose blood the Kings and heroes of mortal birth 
 were sprung. The immortal people on Olympos, like 
 the mortal people in Ithake or like the confederate host 
 before Ilios, had their supreme King, their smaller Council, 
 their general Assembly of the whole divine race. The 
 will of Zeus in heaven, like the will of Agamemnon on earth, 
 may be a will which it is dangerous to disobey, but it is not 
 the will of a despot who is obeyed without dispute or criticism. 
 The great Gods and Goddesses who form the inner Council, 
 the Senate, the Gerousia, the Areiopagos of Heaven, at 
 least speak their minds freely before the Father of Gods 
 and Men. And, when need calls for such a gathering, 
 once in the course of the Homeric tale, the summons
 
 v ASSEMBLY OF THE GODS ON OLYMPOS 131 
 
 goes forth which gathers the Agore, the Comitia, the 
 Mickle Gemdt of the immortal nation, to come together to 
 share the counsels of the Lord of that triple world. From 
 that great Himmelsgemeinde, if I may coin a word in the 
 one modern speech on which the inheritance of old Hellas 
 has fallen, which came together at the summons of Themis, 
 none stay away ; the river-Gods come, and the nymphs 
 from the groves and fountains and grassy meadows, to 
 sit in council on the seats which Hephaistos has wrought 
 for them in the house of Zeus (17). The same word 
 ayopi] is used to express the divine and the human Assembly ; 
 the constitution of the two is exactly alike, unless any 
 one should argue that the importance of Here and Athen 
 in the inner Council, and the marked attendance of all 
 the Nymphs in the general Assembly, show that political 
 progress had made wider strides in Olympos than it had 
 on earth (18). But the overwhelming power of the will 
 of Zeus in the Assembly, where Poseidon alone dares to 
 question him (19), and where no one ventures a word 
 in answer to him, brings me to one point in the character 
 of the Homeric Assemblies which has given rise to a 
 good deal of discussion, and about which I myself, among 
 others, have had my own say elsewhere (20). This is the 
 alleged extreme submission of the Assembly, and even 
 of the chiefs, to the supreme King, Zeus on Olympos 
 and Agamemnon on earth. It is, I think, undoubtedly 
 true that the primitive Greek Assembly, as set before 
 us by Homer, does show far more of deference to the 
 King than is to be found in the primitive Teutonic- 
 Assembly as set before us by Tacitus. We have seen 
 that the whole conception and position of the Greek 
 King was something higher than that of the Teutonic 
 King. This is the kind of difference which we must always 
 expect to meet with between one age and people and 
 another. But we may remark that the Agamemnon of 
 the Iliad is something more than an ordinary King. The 
 King of Mykene who reigned over many islands and all
 
 132 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 Argos was, as it were, the Bretwalda of Hellas, Basileus 
 in the later as well as in the earlier sense (21). And 
 when we add that he is general of the confederate army 
 on actual service, the fact that the Assembly should 
 go on and retain any kind of independence, amid the 
 discipline of actual warfare, is in itself no small matter. 
 It surely proves more one way than is proved the other 
 way by the fact that the King's power is more arbitrary 
 in war-time than it was in time of peace. As for the 
 polity of Olympos, the poet was clearly divided between 
 two opposite ideas. Zeus the human God, who shared 
 the feelings and passions of man, who hearkened to the 
 prayer of Thetis and felt his heart moved with human sorrow 
 for the fate of Sarpedon (22), could be conceived only 
 as a human King with all the surroundings of a human 
 King. But Zeus in the elder conception, Zeus the God 
 of the sky, the power spread over all and ruling over 
 all, must speak with a voice of command which neither 
 men nor Gods can gainsay. And, again to come down 
 to earth, if the camp before Ilios might tend to give us 
 an overweening idea of the authority of the Achaian King 
 in the face of his Assembly, the Odyssey shows us, on 
 the other hand, how low Achaian kingship could fall when 
 the King himself was absent, and when his person had 
 to be represented by the old age of his father and by 
 the youth of his son. But it should be marked too that, 
 in the anarchy of IthakS, as long as the kingly power- 
 is in abeyance, the Assembly is in abeyance also (23). It 
 might seem that King and Assembly were the two essential 
 elements of lawful government, neither of which could stand 
 without the other. But, after all, I think that the submission 
 of the mass of the Achaian freemen to Agamemnon and 
 a few other great chiefs has been, if not exaggerated, at 
 least misunderstood. It is not the submission of slaves, but 
 the submission of children. It is not the submission of men 
 who wish to oppose but who dare not ; it is the submission 
 of men who have not yet formed the wish to oppose. The
 
 v GREEK ASSEMBLIES IN HOMERIC TIMES 133 
 
 speaking, to be sure, is mainly confined to a few great 
 chiefs, and the opposition speaker Thersites is roughly 
 handled. But this is, I venture to think, not altogether 
 peculiar to the military assembly of the Achaians. The 
 real thing to be marked is that there should be any 
 opposition speakers at all. There is no formal reckoning 
 of votes; but I suspect that any formal reckoning of 
 votes is a refinement belonging to a much later stage 
 of political life. To shout or to clash the arms is the 
 primitive way of declaring assent (24). Ages afterwards 
 the will of the Spartan Assembly was declared, not by a 
 formal vote, but by a shout (25); nay, down to our own day, 
 in our Houses of Parliament, in the deliberative Assemblies 
 of our Universities, the vote, the division, the scrutiny, is a 
 mere secondary refinement ; the Assembly first speaks its 
 mind in Homeric fashion by a shout, and then it is open to 
 any member to appeal for an appeal it is in the strictest 
 sense from the primitive decision by the shout to the 
 more certain test of actual voting. The Achaian King, to 
 put the powers of the Assembly at their very lowest, cannot 
 reign without gathering his people together, without 
 setting his purposes before them, without at least learning 
 whether his own will is the same as the will of his people. 
 And herein is the essence of freedom. An Assembly of 
 this kind will gather strength as it goes on ; men whom 
 their King has to persuade will some day refuse to be 
 persuaded ; men before whom Kings and chiefs speak 
 and argue will some day speak and argue for themselves. 
 The Assembly which, not in the feebleness of age but in the 
 simplicity of childhood, still cries Aye to whatever is set 
 before it will assuredly learn to cry No, whenever the time 
 for crying No shall come. 
 
 We should better understand the nature of the Greek 
 Assemblies in the Homeric times, if we had fuller accounts 
 of the internal affairs of those kindred nations among whom 
 the Homeric kingship went on after it had come to an end in
 
 134 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 Hellas itself. The Epeirot and Macedonian Assemblies, 
 assemblies which, at different stages of their growth, were 
 assemblies, first of tribes and then of nations, but never 
 strictly assemblies of cities, must have had more in common 
 with the early Teutonic Assemblies than anything to be 
 found among the proper Hellenes. But we hardly know 
 more of them than that they existed. Of the solemn pledge 
 which bound together the Molossian king and people in the 
 Assembly of Passaron I have already spoken. The Mace- 
 donian Assemblies of which we read in history are either 
 military assemblies which come together to hear charges 
 brought before them by Alexander, or else they are assemblies 
 held in the revolutionary times which followed Alexander's 
 death to accept some successful candidate for the Crown, or 
 to condemn some one whose career has been less lucky (26). 
 All that we know is that there were such Assemblies, and 
 that they did exercise a will of their own, since those whom 
 Alexander himself accused were sometimes acquitted (27). 
 But we must remember that of the internal state of Mace- 
 donia and Epeiros we know absolutely nothing. We hear of 
 their foreign relations and of their dynastic revolutions, but 
 of the ordinary working of government in those countries not 
 a word is recorded. The precious notices that we have as to 
 the political constitution of the Chaonians and Thesprotians 
 come to us only from a short and incidental notice in 
 Thucydides, which we should never have had, if he had not 
 been called on to describe a military expedition in which 
 those nations took a share. Our ignorance on these matters 
 is specially to be lamented. It is plain that in these 
 countries there was an opportunity for free government on a 
 large scale, for the political life of a nation and not of a mere 
 city, such as did not arise again for many ages. Of the local 
 institutions of those lands and of their every-day working we 
 have no account whatever. We know a great deal less of 
 the Macedonian monarchy than we should know of the 
 Frankish or the Old-English monarchy, if we had only their 
 chroniclers, and not a single word of laws, charters, or letters.
 
 v THE ASSEMBLY IN MACEDONIA 135 
 
 But without these last we should have a very vague notion 
 indeed even of our own land. We should see that there 
 were Kings and that there were Assemblies, but we should 
 not see much more. Of the every-day working of local 
 institutions we should know absolutely nothing. We are 
 therefore quite unable to say what points of likeness or 
 unlikeness the internal state of Macedonia or of Molossis 
 may have shown to that of mediaeval or of modern kingdoms. 
 But the mere facts that there was a King, and that there 
 was a national Assembly of some kind or other, are enough 
 to show that the approach to the state of things in modern, 
 or at least in mediaeval, Europe must have been far nearer 
 than anything else to be found in the early history of the 
 Greek and Italian lands. It would seem as if the first steps 
 had been taken towards a work which was only begun and 
 not finished, and which had to be begun again ages after- 
 wards. The conquests of Philip and Alexander, the close 
 relations into which they brought their kingdom alike with 
 the intellectual culture of Greece and with the political 
 despotism of the East, doubtless did much to check the 
 natural developement of national Macedonian life. The whole 
 subject is a disappointing one ; we see that something was 
 begun and never finished, and we do not see in detail what 
 was begun, or what hope there was of finishing it. But we 
 do see that Macedonia stood alone among the chief nations 
 of the ancient world, as the one which most nearly fore- 
 shadowed the political life of modem Europe, as the one 
 great nation which had Kings and which is yet allowed to 
 have been free (28). 
 
 The chance then of the developement of a constitutional 
 government for a whole nation seems to have been lost in 
 the one case in the ancient world where there was most hope 
 for it. The political civilization of the two great peninsulas 
 took the city as its ruling idea, and the political assemblies 
 of Greece and Italy were assemblies of cities, or, at most, 
 assemblies of confederations of cities. One of these, the
 
 136 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 most illustrious of all, the Assembly of the Democracy of 
 Athens, still lives before us in its minutest details. We 
 know the laws which regulated its constitution ; we know 
 the rules which were followed in its procedure. We have 
 living pictures of the course of its debates ; we can listen to 
 the very words by which it was stirred as they fell from the 
 lips of the greatest of orators and statesmen. In the 
 Ekklesia which listened to Perikles and Demosthenes we 
 feel almost as much at home as in an institution of our own 
 land and our own times. At least we ought to feel at home 
 there ; for we have the full materials for calling up the 
 political life of Athens in all its fulness, and within our own 
 times one of the greatest minds of our own or of any age has 
 given its full strength to clear away the mists of error and 
 calumny which so long shrouded the parent state of justice 
 and freedom. Among the contemporaries and countrymen 
 of Mr. Grote it is shame indeed if men fail to see in the 
 great Democracy the first state which taught mankind that 
 the voice of persuasion could be stronger than a despot's will, 
 the first which taught that disputes could be settled by a 
 free debate and a free vote which in other lands could have 
 been decided only by the banishment or massacre of the 
 weaker side. It was the Democracy of Athens which taught 
 the world that there was, in the words of its own great 
 historian, such a thing as constitutional morality. The man 
 who, in any age or in any land, does aught for the cause of 
 right or freedom, may cherish as his brightest thought that 
 he is walking in the path in which Solon, Kleisthenes, 
 Aristeides, and Perikles walked before him. They walked 
 before us, but there were none who walked before them. 
 The Assembly of Athens, called together and guided in its 
 procedure by established and written laws, grew doubtless 
 step by step out of the more irregular assemblies of the 
 heroic times ; but we now for the first time come across 
 the personal agency of living men ; we now have no longer 
 to talk vaguely about growth and tendencies and develope- 
 ments ; we stand face to face with men who, each in his own
 
 v THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY 137 
 
 day, wrought a great and noble work for his own age and for 
 all ages. That the glory of such a work was too bright to 
 last we have already seen. The life of a nation is less 
 brilliant than the life of a city, but, for that very reason, the 
 nation outlives the city. Our national life has been spread 
 over fourteen hundred years, and we trust that it is still far 
 from being run out. The real life of Athens lasted at the 
 most for two hundred years (29) ; and yet there are moments 
 in which all that we have won by the toils of so many 
 generations seems as if it would be felt to be but a small 
 thing beside a single hour of Perikles. 
 
 The Democracy of Athens was in truth the noblest fruit 
 of that self-developing power of the Greek mind which 
 worked every possession of the common heritage into some 
 new and more brilliant shape, but which learned nothing, 
 nothing of all that formed its real life and its real glory, 
 from the Barbarians of the outer world. Men tell us that 
 Greece learned this or that mechanical invention from 
 Phoenicia or Egypt or Assyria. Be it so : but stand in the 
 Pnyx ; listen to the contending orators ; listen to the 
 ambassadors of distant cities ; listen to each side as it is 
 fairly hearkened to, and see the matter in hand decided by 
 the peaceful vote of thousands here at least of a truth is 
 something which Athens did not learn from any Assyrian 
 despot or from any Egyptian priest. And we, children of 
 the common stock, sharers in the common heritage, as we 
 see man, Aryan man, in the full growth of his noblest type, 
 we may feel a thrill as we think that Kleisthenes and 
 Perikles were, after all, men of our own blood as we think 
 that the institutions which grew up under their hands and 
 the institutions under which we ourselves are living are 
 alike branches sprung from one stock, portions of one 
 inheritance in which Athens and England have an equal 
 right. In the Athenian Democracy we see a popular 
 constitution taking the form which was natural for such u 
 constitution to take when it was able to run its natural 
 course in a commonwealth which consisted only of u single
 
 138 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 city. Wherever the Assembly really remains, in truth as 
 well as in name, an Assembly of the whole people in their 
 own persons, it must in its own nature be sovereign. It 
 must, in the nature of things, delegate more or less of power 
 to magistrates and generals ; but such power will be simply 
 delegated. Their authority will be a mere trust from the 
 sovereign body, and to that sovereign body they will be 
 responsible for its exercise. That is to say, one of the 
 original elements of the State, the King or chief, now 
 represented by the elective magistracy, will lose its inde- 
 pendent powers, and will sink into a body of men who have 
 only to carry out the will of the sovereign Assembly. So with 
 another of the original elements, the Council. This body 
 too loses its independent being ; it has no ruling or checking 
 power; it becomes a mere Committee of the Assembly, 
 chosen or appointed by lot to put measures into shape for 
 more easy discussion in the sovereign body. As society 
 becomes more advanced and complicated, the judicial power 
 can no longer be exercised by the Assembly itself, while it 
 would be against every democratic instinct to leave it in the 
 arbitrary power of individual magistrates. Other Com- 
 mittees of the Assembly, Juries on a gigantic scale, with a 
 presiding magistrate as chairman rather than as Judge, are 
 therefore set apart to decide causes and to sit in judgement 
 on offenders. Such is pure Democracy, the government of 
 the whole people and not of a part of it only (30), as carried 
 out in its full perfection in a single city. It is a form of 
 government which works up the faculties of man to a higher 
 pitch than any other ; it is the form of government which 
 gives the freest scope to the inborn genius of the whole 
 community and of every member of it (31). Its weak point 
 is that it works up the faculties of -man to a pitch so high 
 that it can hardly be lasting, that its ordinary life needs an 
 enthusiasm, a devotion, too highly strung to be likely to live 
 through many generations. Athens in the days of her glory, 
 the Athens of Perikles, was truly " the roof and crown of 
 things ; " her democracy raised a greater number of human
 
 v GREEK ASSEMBLIES IX THE FEDERAL PERIOD 139 
 
 beings to a higher level than any government before or 
 since ; it gave freer play than any government before or 
 since to the personal gifts of the foremost of mankind. But 
 against the few years of Athenian glory we must set the 
 long ages of Athenian decline. Against the city where 
 Perikles was General we must set the city where Hadrian 
 was Archon. 
 
 On the Assemblies of other Grecian cities it is hardly need- 
 ful to dwell. Our knowledge of their practical working is 
 slight. We have one picture of a debate in the popular 
 Assembly of Sparta, an Assembly none the less popular in 
 its internal constitution because it was the assembly of what, 
 as regarded the excluded classes of the State, was a narrow 
 oligarchy. We see that there, as might be looked for, the 
 chiefs of the State, the Kings, and yet more the Ephors, 
 spoke with a degree of official, as distinguished from personal, 
 authority, which fell to the lot of no man in the Assembly of 
 Athens (32). Perikles reigned supreme, not because he was 
 one of Ten Generals, but because he was Perikles. From 
 another cause a greater weight of official authority was placed 
 in the hands of the magistrates of the Federal Democracy of 
 Achaia than was ever entrusted to the magistrates of the 
 .single city Democracy of Athens. The meetings of the Federal 
 Assembly were far less frequent than those of the Assembly of 
 Athens; it was therefore needful to clothe the Senate and 
 the magistrates, above all the chief magistrate, the General, 
 with far higher powers than were held at Athens by Senators, 
 Archons, or even Generals (33). And there is another differ- 
 ence which brings the later, the Federal, form of Greek 
 democracy into the closest relations with the political develope- 
 ments of modern times. The Federal democracy was as far 
 from hitting on the subtle device of* representation as the 
 city democracy was. Every citizen had a right to appear in 
 the general Assembly of the League as well as in the local 
 Assembly of his own city. But it is plain that such a right 
 as this, when applied to a League spread over all Pelopoii- 
 nesos, and some cities beyond PelojKmnesos, was a right which,
 
 140 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 by the mass of those who held it, could seldom or never be 
 exercised. The Assembly seems, as a rule, to have been 
 attended mainly by those who had wealth and leisure enough 
 to take distant journeys, and by the inhabitants of the par- 
 ticular city in which the Assembly was held. Sometimes the 
 Senate seems to have acted as the Assembly ; it might so 
 happen that an Assembly was summoned, and that none but 
 Senators came. Those who are familiar with the constitution 
 of the University of Oxford know very well that it often 
 happens that a Convocation that is, an Assembly of all 
 Doctors and Masters is really attended by none but mem- 
 bers of Congregation, the smaller resident and official body 
 (34). In cases of this kind the larger body does not lose its 
 right as long as its members take care to exercise it on 
 occasion ; but it may be easily lost, if the right is not at least 
 occasionally exercised, and, even where it is not lost, its exercise 
 is apt to be looked upon with a certain degree of jealousy on 
 the part of the smaller body. Thus we find an unusually 
 large meeting of the Achaian Assembly spoken of with a kind 
 of surprise, if not of dislike (35) ; and it is not uncommon to 
 hear an outcry against the appearance of non-resident mem- 
 bers in the academical Convocation. No pretensions of this 
 kind on the part of a smaller body could possibly arise in the 
 Assemblies of Athens or of Uri. 
 
 In fact the Federal period of Grecian history is one 
 which is richer than almost any other in analogies bearing 
 directly on the developement of our own constitution. It 
 illustrates the law by which, unless the device of repre- 
 sentation is brought in, an originally democratic constitution, 
 if it is applied to a large territory, can never keep its true 
 democratic character. Its citizens cannot come frequently 
 and regularly together, so as to carry on an orderly govern- 
 ment like that of Athens. Perhaps the Assembly becomes, 
 as that of Rome did in the end, an ungovernable multitude, 
 incapable of debate, whose meetings are always accompanied 
 by acts of violence, and are at last put an end to in the in- 
 terests of order, if not of freedom. Or perhaps the democracy
 
 v SHRINKING UP OF THE ENGLISH WITENAGEMOT 141 
 
 shrinks up, I will not say into an oligarchy, but into an aris- 
 tocracy, simply because it is impossible that the mass of the 
 nominal members of the Assembly should ever really attend 
 its meetings. The Achaian League, in its form as pure a 
 democracy as Athens or Uri, became, in its practical working, 
 the best model of a liberal aristocracy, ruling by sufferance. 
 And a process exactly the same went on in the early Assem- 
 blies of England and other Teutonic countries. As marks 
 grew into shires and shires into kingdoms, the general body 
 of freemen who had been accustomed to attend in the 
 Assemblies of the smaller body were not formally deprived 
 of their right to attend in the Assemblies of the larger 
 body. But as tribes grew into nations and Ealdormen into 
 Kings, the Assemblies of their kingdoms grew into bodies 
 which were yet more incapable of really coming together 
 than the general body of the free citizens of the Pelopon- 
 nesian cities. I can see nothing to show that the right 
 of the common freeman to take his place in the general 
 Assembly of the nation was ever formally taken away 
 in our own country. But I can see that, in the nature of 
 things, it gradually died out. I can see that, as in Achaia 
 the Federal Assembly shrank up, as a rule, into an Assembly 
 of the Senators and a few other leading men, so in England 
 the national Assembly, the Mickle Gemdt of the whole nation, 
 shrank up into a gathering of few besides the King's Thegns 
 (36). But I can see also, in both cases, that, on special 
 occasions, the Assembly again swelled into something far 
 greater. The citizens of London or Corinth, of Winchester 
 or Aigion, asserted and exercised their old right when the 
 Assembly was held within the walls of their cities. And, on 
 a few great days, when the heart of the nation was stirred to 
 its depths, we see anned multitudes which no building, no 
 city, could contain, taking part, as of old, in the election of 
 Kings, in the banishment of public enemies, in the declara- 
 tion of war and peace (37). That in our own land the right 
 was exercised only by fits and starts is simply what was to 
 be looked for from the unfixed and informal nature of our early
 
 142 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 institutions in general. But the right went on ; it cannot 
 be said to have wholly vanished, as long as the people were 
 called on to cry Yea, Yea, even though there was no thought 
 of their crying Nay, Nay, at the election and consecration of 
 Kings. It must not be forgotten that Henry the Eighth was 
 chosen King by the shout of the assembled people as truly 
 as Hengest or Cerdic could have been (38). 
 
 What took place in our own land took place also in the 
 kindred lands beyond the sea. Among the Franks, as has 
 been traced out by the great constitutional historians of Ger- 
 many, the old Assemblies, national and local, went on after 
 the Prankish conquerors had settled themselves on Gaulish 
 soil. And we see, from the language constantly used under 
 the Carolingian Emperors and Kings, that the right and 
 duty of the common freeman to attend in the general Assem- 
 bly was never formally taken away, that the great gathering 
 of the Mdrzfeld or the Mai/eld was still in theory the gather- 
 ing of the whole Frankish people, deciding the affairs of the 
 nation by the voice of the nation itself. But we can see too 
 how the general Assembly of the whole Frankish realm lost 
 step by step the real life, the practical power, the effective 
 control over the royal will, which had belonged to the mili- 
 tary Assemblies of the immediate followers of Chlodwig. 
 The right of the Assembly to say Yea or Nay is not taken 
 away by any formal act, but it sinks at the outside into 
 giving a formal Yea to what the King and his inner Council 
 have already decreed (39). In this, as in so many other 
 things, there is a real cycle in human affairs. As there is 
 an early time, an early stage, in which the Assembly has 
 not yet formed the wish to oppose, so there is a later stage in 
 which it has perhaps lost the wish and has certainly lost the 
 spirit and the power. So in the lesser Assemblies of the Grau or 
 the Hundred, the judicial functions which had once belonged 
 to the whole Assembly came gradually to be vested in a 
 select body which grew up through the sheer unwillingness 
 of the general mass of the freemen to attend and exercise 
 their rights in their own persons (40).
 
 v STARTING-POINT OF POLITICAL SOCIETIES 143 
 
 In short, experience shows that the purely democratic 
 system, which does such great things for a wandering band, 
 a single city, or a small district, becomes out of place when 
 it is applied to all the inhabitants of a large country. 
 Unless the happy device of representation is hit upon, 
 the primitive democracy, directly by the working of its 
 democratic character, shrinks up into despotism or oligarchy. 
 The primary Assembly is the natural form of free govern- 
 ment for the wandering band, for the group of households 
 settled in their mark, for the tribe gathered within the 
 walls of a city. It begins to break down when it is applied 
 even to a Gau or Canton of a larger size ; it utterly breaks 
 down when it is applied to a nation. The representative 
 Assembly is as much the natural form of free government 
 for the greater society as the primary Assembly is for the 
 smaller. 
 
 The analogies which have crowded on me in the course 
 of the present lecture have hindered me from following so 
 strict a chronological order as I have done at other times. 
 I have been dealing with Greek and Teutonic matters at 
 once. But it is my special business to point out the 
 analogies between them. And in no case is the analogy 
 more striking than in the point with which we are now 
 dealing. All European political societies start from the 
 one common possession, the Assembly of the tribe. This, 
 among a people who take to the common life within a 
 walled town, goes on as the Assembly of the city. The 
 constitution which, under these circumstances, grows out 
 of the primitive elements, may be aristocratic or democratic, 
 as may happen, but kingship in a city-commonwealth cannot 
 last long after the political instincts of the people are fully 
 awakened and sharpened. If many cities join together 
 in a League, the Federal Assembly of the League will most 
 likely be formed after the type of the Assemblies of the 
 particular cities, modified by all those consequences which 
 flow from the greater distance at which the place of meeting
 
 144 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 will now be from the mass of the citizens. So, among a 
 people who do not adopt the city-life, who at least do not 
 make it the ruling principle of their political life, the 
 old state of things goes on as long as the tribe, the mark, 
 the hundred, the shire, still keep any distinct political being. 
 As the tribes grow into a nation, the national Assembly, 
 if by no other cause, yet through the mere working of 
 the law of distance, shrinks up into a gathering of a few 
 chief men, and the smaller Assemblies go on simply as 
 subordinate local bodies, and perhaps themselves die out 
 altogether in course of time. But in the system of city- 
 commonwealths, there was one means of keeping up a greater 
 vitality in the old institutions than could be kept up in 
 the tribal or national system. In the general Assembly 
 of the Achaian League, each city had a single and equal 
 vote (41). In the later Lykian League, by a refinement 
 which forestalls some very modern political controversies, 
 the vote of each city, according to its size, counted as one, 
 two, or three (42). But in either case the vote of the city 
 had its fixed value, which was no way affected by the number 
 of its citizens which might happen to appear in any particular 
 Assembly. In the Assembly of the League Corinth had one 
 vote, whether one Corinthian or a thousand were there to 
 give it. This refinement seems never to have been adopted 
 in the Teutonic Assemblies ; it is in truth a refinement 
 far too refined for the stage of things to which they belong. 
 But it is plain that this method of voting made the 
 Assembly come as near to the nature of a representative 
 body as it could come without actually being one. When 
 Corinth had a single vote, whether few or many Corinthians 
 were there to give it, it might easily be arranged that those 
 citizens of Corinth who actually appeared in the Assembly 
 might practically be the representatives of the greater 
 number of citizens who stayed at home. The lack of 
 the real representative system would hardly be felt ; the 
 grievance, if any, would be one which experience shows that 
 the representative system does not necessarily heal, but
 
 v QUASI-FEDERAL ELEMENTS AT ROME 145 
 
 which the Lykian constitution did heal, the grievance that 
 Corinth had no greater weight in the Assembly than the 
 smallest town in the League (43). Thus, though the 
 Assembly might shrink up into a gathering of a small 
 body of chief men, those chief men might practically be 
 the delegates of the local Assemblies of their several cities 
 (44). But there is no sign that in the Teutonic Assemblies 
 any such refinement was ever thought of as that which 
 gave separate votes to the separate cities of the League. 
 It is a refinement far more likely to arise in a system of 
 cities, with the sharply-defined separate being of each, 
 than under the larger system of tribes or districts. When 
 therefore a Teutonic Assembly shrank up into an Assembly 
 of the King's Thegns and other chief men, there could 
 be no such softening of the oligarchic process as the 
 Achaian system allowed. But, for that very reason, the true 
 representative system was all the more needful, and, by 
 the process inherent in all healthy and really living con- 
 stitutions, it grew up as it was needed. 
 
 I have spoken of the allotment of separate votes to the 
 separate cities of the Achaian and Lykian Leagues as one 
 of the characteristics of the Federal period of Greece. It 
 certainly distinguishes the Federal democracy of Achaia 
 from the single city democracy of Athens. But it also 
 appears in all its fulness in the Assemblies of the Roman 
 Commonwealth. In the Comitia of the Centuries, the 
 military Assembly, where the People came together in 
 military array, where the value of each man's vote was 
 decided by the nature of his military service, and the nature 
 of his military service was decided by the amount of his 
 property, the votes taken were not the votes of individuals, 
 but the votes of the artificial units, the Centuries. So in 
 the Comitia of the Tribes, where men were ranged, not 
 according to their place in battle but according to the local 
 divisions of the State, it was again the votes of the Tribes 
 that were taken. So again, in that later form of thu Comitia
 
 146 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 in which Tribes and Centuries were intermingled, the only 
 point which concerns us is that here too the votes were the 
 votes of Tribes and Centuries, not of single citizens (45). 
 At Rome then, as in Achaia, it was perfectly possible that 
 those citizens of a distant tribe who appeared in any 
 particular Assembly may have practically been representatives 
 of their neighbours who stayed away, commissioned to vote 
 on their behalf. This is one of several points in which the 
 Roman Commonwealth, with its city franchise extended 
 over so large a territory, has more in common with the 
 Federal than with the single commonwealths of Greece. 
 Another point in which Rome bears more likeness to Achaia 
 than to Athens is to be found in the independent powers 
 which were kept to the last by the Senate and by the several 
 magistrates. Nowhere indeed did the three elements the 
 kingly power, held in commission by the curule magistrates, 
 the power of the Senate, and the power of the People stand 
 out more distinctly than they did at Rome down to the last 
 days of the Commonwealth. The forms of Roman political 
 partizanship are a witness to their vitality. At Rome we 
 hear of a Popular party and of a Senatorial party. At 
 Athens such names would have been meaningless. There was 
 doubtless at Athens an aristocratic, or more truly an 
 oligarchic, party, which would have been well pleased to 
 overthrow the popular government altogether. But such a 
 party could in no wise profess itself the champion of the 
 yearly Senate of Five Hundred, nor could it shelter itself 
 under its authority (46). A truer analogy to the Roman 
 Senate would be found in the Senate of Areiopagos, whose 
 members sat for life, and which was formed, in a manner 
 nearly the same as that in use at Rome, out of those citizens 
 who had held the highest magistracies. But, for that very 
 reason, the course of change at Athens gradually brought 
 down this ancient Senate to be little more than a venerable 
 shadow (47). Two facts distinctly show how strong the 
 traditions both of the kingly and the senatorial power 
 remained at Rome during the whole time of the common-
 
 v ATHENIAN AND ROMAN ASSEMBLIES CONTRASTED 147 
 
 wealth. A check was needed on the arbitrary powers of the 
 Consuls. Rome found the remedy, not in lessening the 
 powers of the Consuls, but in setting up an opposition 
 magistracy as the embodiment of plebeian rights, the Tribune 
 no less powerful to forbid than the Consul was powerful to 
 command. Again, it is almost more striking that the 
 Senate, made up as it was of men who had been in the first 
 instance chosen to their offices by the voice of the People 
 (48), could ever come to be looked on as a power antagonistic 
 to the People. In the later days of the Commonwealth, if 
 the Senate was an aristocratic body, it was purely by the 
 sufferance of the People that it was so. Those who had the 
 choice of Consuls, Praetors, Censors, and High Pontiffs had 
 the remedy in their own hands. A jealousy of the Senate 
 may indeed have lingered on as a mere survival from the 
 far-gone days when the Senate was a purely patrician body. 
 But I believe also that one most important cause of the 
 difference in this respect between Rome and Athens was 
 that, as I have before said, Rome was not in the same strict 
 sense a city commonwealth, but that it had in it something 
 of a Federal element. As long as the Roman Commonwealth 
 lasted, the popular Assembly remained the supreme elective 
 and legislative body, the highest and final authority of the 
 Commonwealth. But it never, like the Assembly of Athens, 
 drew to itself all the powers of the State ; it never brought 
 down the Senate to be a mere Committee of its own body, 
 and Consuls and Censors to be mere instruments of its 
 will. It was not in the nature of things that it should do 
 so. Setting aside the effect of any difference between the 
 Roman and the Athenian national character, the Roman 
 Assembly could not become what the Athenian Assembly 
 became. The free inhabitants of so large a district must 
 have formed, even in early times, a body too large either to 
 be gathered together so often as the Athenian Assembly 
 was, or in the same way to discharge the duties of a 
 deliberative Assembly when it did come together. It could 
 not allow the same free power of debate and amendment.
 
 148 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 It could not do more than say Yea or Nay to the proposals 
 of the magistrate by whom it was summoned. It could not 
 possibly exercise the same constant care over all the depart- 
 ments of the State. It could not take points of detail into 
 its consideration in the same way that the Athenian Assembly 
 did. In a word the Athenian Assembly was the Government. 
 Demos was sovereign; he was, as he rather liked to be 
 called, King or Tyrant (49). The Archons had sunk to such 
 mere routine functions as hardly to be political officers at 
 all. The Generals were the ministers of the Sovereign 
 Assembly; the Prytaneis were merely its chairmen; the 
 Senate was merely its committee. The real ruling power 
 was the Assembly itself. But at Rome, as in Achaia, the 
 Assembly was simply the power which acted for legislative 
 and elective purposes, when legislative and elective acts 
 were needed. The Senate was the Government, the body 
 which carried on the ordinary management of the State, 
 with the Consuls and other great magistrates as its 
 ministers. At Rome, as at Athens, the power of peace and 
 war rested with the Assembly. But its power in this, as in 
 other matters, did not go beyond the final power of saying 
 Yea or Nay to a definite proposition laid before it. All the 
 preliminary steps, the receiving and listening to foreign 
 ambassadors, the listening to the arguments of private 
 citizens on one side or the other, all which at Athens formed 
 such an important part of the business of the Assembly, was 
 at Rome part of the business of the Senate. Under the 
 Roman system, the great speeches of Perikles and Demo- 
 sthenes, like the great speeches of Cicero, might still have 
 been addressed to the people. But the debate between 
 Kleon and Diodotos (50), between Nikias and Alkibiades 
 (51), between Euryptolemos and the accusers of the Generals 
 (52), which at Athens were spoken to the people assembled 
 under no roof but the sky, must at Rome, like the debate 
 between Cato and Caesar, have gone on only within the walls 
 of the senate-house (53). 
 
 The Roman Assembly died of the disease of which every
 
 v ASSEMBLIES FORMED OF ESTATES 149 
 
 primary Assembly in a large country must die. It became 
 too large for its functions; it became a mob incapable of 
 debate, and in which its worst elements got the upper hand. 
 But its death-blow came from those pretended popular chiefs 
 who made use of the mutual jealousies of Senate and People 
 to trample both Senate and People under foot. Yet it is 
 to the honour alike of the Roman Senate and of the Roman 
 Assembly that the Caesars dreaded both of them. And it 
 is to the special honour of the Roman Assembly that, while 
 the Caesars kept on the Senate, which they deemed that they 
 could turn to their own ends, they found it needful utterly 
 to sweep away the Assembly (54). Be it an aristocratic 
 Senate or a democratic Assembly, there must be some good 
 thing in any institution which a despot fears. The Teutonic 
 Assemblies on the other hand simply died out ; there were 
 no Julii or Claudii to trample them out. In nearly every 
 Western country the old primary Assemblies gave way to 
 representative Assemblies founded on the principle of Estates. 
 Those Estates were in most countries three the Clergy, 
 the Nobles, and the Commons, the Commons being for the 
 most part only the citizens of the chartered towns. In some 
 cases however, where there was a numerous and independent 
 yeomanry, they also had a share in the representation. 
 Thus in Sweden, the four Estates, the House of Peasants 
 being one of them, lasted, whenever the genuine constitution 
 of the country was in force, down to within a very few years 
 past. As in all such cases, the constitution of the Estates 
 differed in different countries; there were perhaps hardly 
 any two countries where their constitution was exactly the 
 same in every detail ; but one general principle runs through 
 all, the principle that the Assembly should consist of repre- 
 sentatives of all the Estates or classes of men of which the 
 body-politic is held to consist. In England, on the other 
 hand, the course of things was somewhat different ; the 
 primitive Assembly never died out ; it never was trampled 
 out; it simply through the natural working of causes of 
 which I have already spoken shrank up into a narrow
 
 150 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 body. Through that law of shrinking up, the old democratic 
 Assembly lived on to become the aristocratic element in a 
 new form of the constitution. That is to say, I believe that 
 the primitive Assembly was, by lineal personal succession, 
 continued in the Witenagemot, and that the Witenagem6t 
 is, by lineal personal succession, continued in the House of 
 Lords. I will not here enlarge on this seeming paradox, on 
 which I have spoken at some length elsewhere (55); but I 
 think that, if we grasp this doctrine, we shall better under- 
 stand some of the points in which English history differs 
 from the history of most other European nations. The 
 doctrine is that, while elsewhere the old Assemblies actually 
 died out and the constitution of Estates arose in its stead 
 as something new, in England the Assembly, in its contracted 
 form, itself lived on to form one of the Estates. That is to 
 say, the Lords are simply those among the members of the 
 old Assembly that is, those among all free Englishmen 
 who never lost the right of personal attendance. These 
 were the Bishops and parliamentary Abbots, the Earls, and 
 such other persons as the King chose personally to summon. 
 This free right of summons in the King has been hampered 
 by the strange doctrine of lawyers that, if a man is summoned 
 once, his descendants must needs be summoned for ever 
 and ever. Alongside of the body so formed another body 
 gradually arose, in which those who had failed to keep on 
 the right of personal attendance made their appearance by 
 representation (56). Hence we better see how it came 
 about that in England there is no Nobility, no Noblesse or 
 Adel in the foreign sense. Seats in the House of Lords 
 have become either official or hereditary; but there is no 
 noble class, such as there is or has been in other lands. 
 Hence also we can better understand how it came to pass 
 that the true system of three Estates never could be 
 established in England. Besides other reasons which made 
 it hard to establish a real parliamentary Estate of the 
 Clergy, one clearly was that the highest members of that 
 estate already had official seats in another branch of the
 
 v BICAMERAL SYSTEM IN FEDERAL ESTATES 151 
 
 Parliament. Through this accident, as I said in my first 
 lecture, came the bicameral constitution of the English 
 Parliament, the fact that it is a Parliament of two Houses, 
 and not of one, three, or four. What arose in England by 
 the circumstances of our history has been reproduced in 
 other lands by direct imitation. The good or evil of such 
 a system is a question which does not belong to Comparative 
 Politics, but to the practical politics of our own day. But 
 it is not out of place to say that we have a great advantage 
 in the fact that our system has come down to us through 
 the facts of our history and has not been the invention of 
 any clever constitution-maker. No one perhaps, if he had 
 to make a constitution afresh, would invent exactly such a 
 body as our House of Lords. But the fact that our House 
 of Lords exists gives it a great advantage over Upper 
 Chambers whose constitution may be theoretically much 
 better, but which have to be artificially called into being. 
 And one thing I think is often forgotten when these matters 
 are discussed, but which cannot be too constantly borne in 
 mind. In an ordinary kingdom or commonwealth the ques- 
 tion between one and two Chambers is simply a question in 
 which way the Legislature is likely to do its duty best. In 
 a Federal State the two Chambers are absolutely necessary. 
 Where there is a twofold sovereignty, the sovereignty of the 
 united nation and the sovereignty of the States or Cantons 
 which make it up, each sovereignty must be represented in 
 the Legislature. There must; be the House of Represent- 
 atives, the Nationalrath, representing the nation, and with 
 its numbers apportioned to the numbers of the nation, and 
 there must be the Senate or Stdndcrath, representing the 
 States, and in which each State, great or small, must have 
 an equal voice. To abolish or modify the English or the 
 Prussian House of Lords might be a wise or a foolish step ; 
 but it would not be the utter overthrow of the existing 
 political system. Notwithstanding such a change, the 
 constitutional monarchy of England or of Prussia might go 
 on untouched. But to abolish, or essentially to modify, the
 
 152 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 American Senate or the Swiss Stdnderath would be the 
 utter overthrow of the existing political system of the 
 American or the Swiss Confederation. The House of 
 Representatives or the Nationalrath standing by itself would 
 represent the united nation only, without any representation 
 of the independent States. The happy device of the two 
 Federal Chambers gets rid of all the difficulties which beset 
 all the ancient confederations and the Swiss and American 
 Confederations themselves in their earlier forms. The 
 Achaian system distinctly sacrificed the greater cities to the 
 smaller. The Lykian system, wonderful step as it was, had 
 a tendency to sacrifice the smaller cities to the greater. 
 But with the two Federal Chambers, one representing the 
 sovereignty of the nation, the other representing the sove- 
 reignty of the States, numbers cannot be sacrificed to cantonal 
 rights, neither can cantonal rights be sacrificed to numbers. 
 Each element in the Federal State is a check upon the 
 other; each can throw out any measure which would hurt 
 its own interests ; neither can carry any measure which 
 would hurt the interests of the other. The American Senate,, 
 with the special executive powers which it holds apart from 
 the House of Representatives, has a further strength and 
 dignity of its own, beyond that which belongs to it as one 
 House in the Federal legislature representing one element 
 in the Federal State. The Swiss Stdnderath has no such 
 special powers ; it rests solely on its general position as one 
 necessary element of the Federal system. As such, the loss 
 of it would at once upset the balance between the two 
 elements of the State. In a word the Federal system would 
 be destroyed. 
 
 In most parts of the world the primary Assembly, 
 democratic or aristocratic, is now a thing of the past. 
 Since the kingdoms and commonwealths of Europe began 
 to settle down into something like their present shape, 
 the old primary Assemblies have gradually died out or 
 have lingered on only in the form of survivals. In this 
 form we can still point to them in our own land. It may
 
 v SURVIVAL OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE MARK 153 
 
 be held that the Scirgemdt. has come to an end by the 
 bill which takes away the ancient election by the show 
 of hands, from which the later refinement of taking the 
 poll was a mere appeal. The ancient election of the King 
 by the voice of the people at his crowning has, since the 
 sixteenth century, sunk into the mere form of an acknow- 
 ledgement. But, as long as the parish vestry ever comes 
 together, the Assembly of the Mark has not utterly died 
 away. Older than the Assembly of the Shire and of the 
 Kingdom, it has, in its primitive form, outlived both of 
 them. In other lands more important traces of the old 
 state of things may be seen. But it should be noticed 
 that, even in the free cities, though primary Assemblies 
 were by no means unknown the Parliament of Florence 
 was one famous example among many yet they never 
 played the same important part which they played in the 
 commonwealths of old Greece. No mediaeval city that I 
 know of was regularly ruled by a democratic Assembly in 
 the way that Athens was. The form which the democratic 
 principle took in most of the Italian cities was rather that 
 of making all citizens eligible for office, perhaps of giving 
 all citizens a share in the great offices in their turn, rather 
 than the Athenian principle of giving the people as a body 
 the general direction of the affairs of the Commonwealth. 
 Provided magistracies were filled by men freely chosen or 
 drawn, by men to whom the people thought that it could 
 safely trust its affairs, it did not fear to clothe them with 
 very large legal powers, and even to wink at vigorous and 
 arbitrary action beyond the letter of the law. The people 
 itself in its Parliament met only now and then, when it 
 suited those who were in power to call it together. 
 And, when it came together, its first and only act most 
 commonly was to bestow a special commission with ex- 
 traordinary powers on some corporate Pittakos or Sulla 
 (57). Where the ancient state of things lingered on 
 longest, where it lingers on still, was, not within the walls 
 of cities, but in those homes of freedom at either end of
 
 154 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 the great Teutonic realm where men never fall away from 
 the institutions of their earliest fathers. In the lowlands 
 of Friesland and on the heaths of Ditmarsen, the old 
 freedom and its embodiment, the old primitive Assemblies, 
 lived on till the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In the 
 mountain dales of Uri and on the hill-sides of Appenzell 
 they live on still. Do not suspect me of any yearning for 
 the exploded dreams which once saw in the primitive 
 Switzerland a land peopled by a separate race, enjoying 
 a separate freedom, altogether distinct from the rest of 
 their brethren around them. Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden 
 are but three small districts they hardly amount to tribes 
 of the Alemanni in which, through a strange and happy 
 combination of circumstances, the ancient freedom never 
 wholly died out. The three lands were members of the 
 Roman Empire, of the German Kingdom, of the Swabian 
 Duchy. Parts of them even were, at various times, in 
 subjection to lesser lords. For ages their highest ambition 
 was to win the Reichsfreiheit, to be released from all such 
 intermediate lords, and to be able to boast that they had 
 no King but Caesar. But allegiance to inferior lords, much 
 less allegiance to the Empire, in no way interfered with 
 the popular constitutions of the three lands within their 
 own bosoms. By a number of favouring circumstances, 
 the mere local freedom of a mark or a hundred grew into 
 the absolute freedom of a sovereign commonwealth. As 
 such it still abides, modified only by the obligations of the 
 Federal tie. Of those primitive Assemblies, which I hold 
 it as one of the great privileges of my life to have looked 
 on with my own eyes, I have often spoken elsewhere. I 
 will now only say that it is a moment when all that one 
 has read and thought comes before him as a living thing, 
 when, beneath the canopy of heaven, he hears the mighty 
 voice of an assembled people binding themselves in solemn 
 form to obey the laws which they themselves have made (58). 
 The democratic Assembly therefore to this day still remains 
 in its fulness. Of the aristocratic primary Assembly Europe
 
 v ARISTOCRATIC PRIMARY ASSEMBLIES 155 
 
 now contains no example; but we must remember that, 
 in the last century, it too existed in all its fulness. Poland 
 and Venice, no less than Sparta and Corinth, still kept 
 that form of Assembly in which, not every member of the 
 nation, but every member of a privileged body within 
 the nation, had a right to appear in his own person. The 
 great meeting of the whole Polish nobility which came 
 together to choose the Polish King, oligarchic as it was 
 with regard to the excluded classes, came, after all, nearer 
 to a primary Assembly of a whole nation than anything 
 to be found elsewhere. It was the gathering of a body 
 far greater than the whole body of citizens in the small com- 
 monwealths where alone the democratic primary Assembly 
 still lingered on. Its military character, the fierceness and 
 turbulence ascribed to it, its gathering in the open air, all 
 form a marked contrast with the otherwise kindred in- 
 stitution which formed the supreme authority of the island 
 commonwealth. The civic aristocracy, if it was narrow 
 and unscrupulous, was at least calm, regular, and orderly. 
 No contrast can more plainly point out the city life as 
 the life of the higher civilization. But neither in Venice 
 nor in Poland could the aristocratic primary Assembly 
 boast of having its roots in any remote past. Both were 
 comparatively modem ; but both were natural political 
 developements of the state of things which gradually grew 
 up in the two commonwealths (59). Both are bodies 
 which show that, as a democratic Assembly may be re- 
 presentative, so an aristocratic Assembly may be primary. 
 In fact, as I have before said, the difference between 
 aristocracy and democracy is a difference which simply 
 concerns the excluded classes. The ruling order in either 
 case, whether it consists of all the citizens or only of part 
 of the citizens, may develope every variety of political 
 institution within its own bosom. 
 
 The primary Assembly, of whatever kind, is in its own 
 nature sovereign. It is the gathering together of the whole' 
 nation, or of the whole ruling part of the nation. Tht>
 
 156 THE ASSEMBLY LECT. 
 
 whole power of the nation is therefore vested in it. It is 
 only gradually and by slow steps that there arises that dis- 
 tinction between legislative, executive, and judicial powers 
 on which such stress is laid in the refined political theories 
 of modern times. And in no country perhaps is the dis- 
 tinction fully carried out. It certainly is not so in our 
 own. The primitive Assemblies described by Tacitus were 
 courts of justice as well as deliberative bodies. So were 
 all Assemblies of the kind, great and small. In the 
 Frankish Assemblies we have seen that it was only step 
 by step, as the great mass of the freemen began to grow 
 slack in their attendance and to deem their duties a burthen, 
 that a separate class of judges arose in order to ensure that 
 there should always be some one ready to do justice between 
 man and man (60). That great offenders were called upon 
 to answer for their crimes before the general Assembly of 
 the whole realm, was a matter of course. So in our own 
 land, our ancient Witenagemots not only made laws, not 
 only chose and deposed Kings, Ealdormen, and Bishops, 
 but sat in judgement on state offenders and pronounced 
 sentences of outlawry or confiscation. And that branch of 
 our Legislature which is the personal descendant of the 
 ancient Gemot still keeps its judicial authority in matters 
 both criminal and civil (61). The newer, the more popular, 
 branch shares the judicial authority only in an indirect way. 
 It exercises it by its share in Acts which are judicial in 
 substance though legislative in form, bills of attainder and 
 of pains and penalties. It exercises it too by its share in 
 that anomalous jurisdiction by which each House under- 
 takes the defence of its own privileges. In the smaller 
 local Assemblies, after they had ceased to be sovereign, 
 the business must always have been mainly judicial. We 
 must remember that, carefully as we now distinguish the 
 functions of legislator, judge, juror and witness, it was only 
 by slow degrees that they were distinguished. All grew 
 out of the various attributes of an Assembly which, as being 
 itself the people, exercised every branch of that power which
 
 v JUDICIAL POWERS OF ASSEMBLIES 157 
 
 the people has, at sundry times and in divers manners, 
 entrusted to the various bodies which, directly or indirectly, 
 draw their authority from that one sovereign source. In 
 all times and in all places power can have no lawful origin 
 but the grant of the people. The difference between a 
 well and an ill-ordered commonwealth lies in this. Have 
 the people wisdom and self-control enough to see that, in 
 reverencing and obeying all the powers of the State in 
 their lawful exercise, they are in truth doing homage to 
 themselves and giving the fullest proof of their fitness to 
 discharge the highest right of men and citizens?
 
 158 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 VI 
 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES 
 
 I HAVE now gone through the main analogies which strike 
 us in the chief political institutions of those three great 
 branches of the Aryan family to which our inquiries have 
 been mainly given. I have dealt with the general conception 
 of the State, with the powers of the King or other chief, and 
 with those of the Assembly of the People. On all these 
 points I hope that I have made it, to say the least, probable 
 that the institutions of the several branches of the family all 
 contain traces of a common origin, relics of a common 
 primaeval stock, which have grown up into various forms 
 under the influence of diversities of time, place, and circum- 
 stance. In this last lecture I purpose to seek for some other 
 analogies in points which come under the general head of 
 politics in the wide sense, but which do not exactly come 
 under the head of political constitutions. I have now chiefly 
 to deal with the various orders and classes of men, a subject 
 which is closely connected with the varieties to be found in 
 forms of government, but which still is in idea something 
 separate from them. The idea of the smaller Council in 
 primitive times, the idea of the second or Upper Chamber in 
 the refined constitutions of later days, are both of them ideas 
 which easily blend with the idea of hereditary distinctions of 
 birth. But the two things are in their own nature separate. 
 It is quite possible, both in the earlier and in the later state 
 of things, that certain families may be acknowledged as noble
 
 vi CONSTITUTION OF COUNCILS 159 
 
 and may be entitled to whatever honours and privileges the 
 custom of the country may attach to nobility of birth, 
 without those honours and privileges taking the form of any 
 special share in the government. Men may be honoured on 
 account of their birth ; their birth may even give them legal 
 privileges; while at the same time the Council or Upper 
 Chamber may be formed of men picked out, not for their 
 birth but for their age, their personal merit, or any other 
 standard which may be chosen, not shutting out the blind 
 working of the lot. But, though the two ideas are in this 
 way perfectly distinct, they have a great tendency in practice 
 to run into one another. Wherever a noble class, whatever 
 may be its origin, is acknowledged at all, it always has a 
 tendency to win for itself, if not a legal, at least a practical, 
 preference for posts of authority. In fact, this voluntary 
 preference for certain families in the disposal of elective 
 offices is one of several ways in which nobility has grown up. 
 It is the most usual way in which what we may call a 
 secondary nobility grows up, after an earlier and immemorial 
 nobility has lost its privileges. A nobility of birth, of whose 
 origin no account can be given, but which must be accepted 
 as one of the primary facts of political history, makes way for 
 a nobility of office, which again in its turn grows into a 
 nobility of birth. Of this process history supplies many 
 cases, and the rule applies equally when the offices which are 
 the source of nobility are bestowed by the gift of the King 
 and when they are bestowed by the choice of the people. 
 Of the latter process the most illustrious example is the way 
 in which at Rome, after the legal privileges of the patricians 
 had ceased, there arose a new nobility composed of patricians 
 and plebeians alike. We see the same thing in our own 
 land in the way in which the immemorial nobility of the 
 Eorls gave way to the later official nobility of the Thegns, 
 and that in which the nobility of the Thegns gave way to 
 another form of official nobility in the modern peerage. 
 Both these cases agree in being cases of a later nobility 
 supplanting an earlier one. But exactly the same process
 
 160 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES user. 
 
 may be gone through when a nobility is formed for the first 
 time. And it was in this way that the constitutions of not a 
 few city commonwealths, that of Venice itself at their head, 
 changed step by step from democracies into oligarchies (l). 
 
 The different ways in which a noble class has arisen in 
 various nations and cities within historical times may thus 
 help us to make some probable guesses as to the origin of 
 nobility in those cases where nobility is strictly immemorial. 
 But we cannot get beyond probable guesses. In a great 
 number of cases nobility is strictly immemorial. We see a 
 distinction within the class of freemen, a distinction which 
 marks out certain families as holding a higher rank than the 
 rest of their fellows, in the very earliest glimpses which we 
 get of the political constitution of the commonwealth. It is 
 so in all the three great cases with which we are mainly 
 concerned. We cannot tell what was the origin of the 
 peculiar privileges which belonged to an Athenian Eupatrid, 
 to a Roman Patrician, or to an English Eorl. We may 
 conjecture, we may theorize, we may even infer with a high 
 degree of probability, but we cannot dogmatically assert (2). 
 All that we can say is that, in the first glimpses which we 
 get of Grecian, Italian, and Teutonic history, we see the 
 distinction between the noble and the common freeman at 
 least as clearly marked as the distinction between the 
 common freeman and the classes which were beneath him. 
 I speak thus vaguely, because, for our present purpose, we 
 may put together all who stand below the rank of the 
 common freeman, from the mere personal slave upwards. I 
 need hardly say that, in all discussions of this kind, slavery 
 is to be taken for granted. Slavery has been the common 
 law of all times and places till, within a few centuries past, 
 it has, among most of the nations of the Western Aryan 
 stock, either died out or been formally abolished (3). And 
 we must further remember what the earliest form of slavery, 
 before slavery has been aggravated by the slave trade, really 
 is. The prisoner of war who, according to the military code
 
 vi CLASSES BETWEEN THE SLAVE AND FREEMAN 161 
 
 of a rude age, might lawfully be put to death the criminal 
 who has forfeited his life to the laws of the State of which he 
 is a member is allowed, whether out of mercy or out of 
 covetousness, to exchange death for life in bondage. Then 
 the family feeling, so strong in setting up one stock, steps in 
 no less strongly for the pulling down of another, and the 
 man who has forfeited his own freedom is held to have 
 forfeited the freedom of his children also. Thus arises the 
 class of personal slaves, mere chattels either of the common- 
 wealth or of an individual master. And it is no less easy to 
 understand how, under the different circumstances of different 
 tribes and cities, other classes may arise whose condition is 
 better than that of the mere slave, but still is not equal to 
 that of the least distinguished among the class that is fully 
 free. Of course I am here speaking of personal, not of 
 political, freedom. In the sense in which I now use the 
 words " fully free," a Venetian cittadino, a Lacedaemonian 
 xepioiKos, was as fully free as if he had a voice in the govern- 
 ment of the commonwealth. He was subject to laws which 
 he had no voice in making; he had to obey magistrates 
 whom he had no voice in choosing ; but he had no personal 
 master either in the commonwealth or in any of its members. 
 I am now speaking of the various degrees of personal depend- 
 ence, freedmen, lUi, villains, and so forth, who hold a place 
 between that of the mere slave and that of the lowest full 
 freeman (4). Such classes may be formed in various ways, 
 by raising the slave, by pressing down the smaller freemen, 
 by admitting strangers or conquered enemies to a state 
 intermediate between mere bondage and full freedom. Such 
 classes have been formed in these various ways within 
 historical times, and we may reasonably conjecture that the 
 same processes went on before written history began. But 
 we cannot do more than conjecture. The threefold distinc- 
 tion between the noble, the common freeman, and the classes 
 below the common freeman is one of the primary facts with 
 which we start alike in Greece, in Italy, and among our own 
 forefathers (5). The fact is a matter of history; its causes
 
 162 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 we can at the most explain only by reasoning from analogies 
 and survivals. 
 
 A class of nobles is clearly implied in the description of 
 the Teutonic nations given by Tacitus, even though we 
 explain the word principes of elective chiefs (6), who however 
 would pretty certainly be, as a rule, chosen from among the 
 members of the noble order. And the threefold division of 
 the noble, the common freeman, and the unfree, appears, 
 sometimes drawn out in a formal manner, in many of the 
 earliest records jof our race. We find it in its most marked 
 form in the Scandinavian legend which makes the mythical 
 forefathers of the three classes, Jarl, Karl, and Thrall, the 
 offspring of three distinct acts of creation on the part of the 
 Gods (7). Among ourselves we find from the very beginning, 
 Eorl and Ceorl, gentle and simple, as an exhaustive division 
 of the free population. It is plain that the distinction was 
 thoroughly well marked and was universally understood. 
 And yet it is utterly impossible to say in what the privileges 
 of the Eorlas consisted. There is nothing to make us think 
 that they were oppressive ; they may well have been purely 
 honorary. But all analogy and probability would lead us to 
 think that the Eorlas would have a practical preference, a 
 preference which might even be practically exclusive, in the 
 choice of leaders both in peace and war, just as the noblest 
 among the noble, the kingly house, had an exclusive prefer- 
 ence for the post of the highest leader of all. The same 
 marked distinction of a noble class meets us equally in our 
 pictures of the earliest Greek society, and we find the same 
 distinction living on into the historic ages. In the Greek 
 commonwealth of which we know most, that of Athens, our 
 earliest historical picture sets before us the rule of the 
 nobles, the Eupatrids, as an exclusive and oppressive oligarchy. 
 The harshness of its rule was first modified by the reforms 
 of Solon, and all traces of ancient distinctions were swept 
 away by the later reform of Aristeide's. We have no historical 
 account of the origin of the distinction which parted off the 
 Eupatrid gentes at Athens from the excluded plebeian mass.
 
 vi BREAKING DOWN OF ARISTOCEACY AT ATHENS 163 
 
 But the whole circumstances of the story may lead us to 
 think that in this case the patriciate was a body of old 
 citizens, as opposed to the new citizens who had gradually 
 settled around them. In the history of a city, when either 
 history or legend traces it up to its first beginnings, there 
 is commonly a stage in which new comers are freely welcomed 
 to all the rights of citizenship, which is followed by a stage 
 in which those rights are found to be far too precious to be 
 thus given away at random. The first stage is well set forth 
 in the Roman story by the legend of the Asylum of Romulus. 
 The second stage is most probably marked by the exclusive 
 dominion of the Athenian Eupatrids and the Roman 
 Patricians. The original citizens have kept all privileges 
 to themselves, and have thus become an aristocratic order 
 in the midst of the unprivileged body of plebeians which 
 has gradually gathered round them. To break down, step 
 by step, all traces of this original inequality was the work 
 of the founders of the democracy. But here again we may 
 mark the characteristic difference between Athens and 
 Europe. At Athens all distinctions of the kind were utterly 
 swept away ; every trace of inequality was wiped out ; every 
 political office without exception was thrown open to every 
 citizen. The Eupatrid gentes remained as religious and 
 social unions, cherishing the sacred traditions which each 
 traced up to its legendary patriarch. Some special priestly 
 offices still remained hereditary in particular families. But 
 every office which carried with it any shred of political 
 power was open to every citizen without distinction of birth 
 and fortune. Yet it is no less true that, long after the 
 establishment of the pure and perfect democracy, the 
 Assembly, which disposed of every office according to its 
 sovereign will, did, as a rule, choose men of the ancient houses 
 to direct the counsels and command the armies of the 
 commonwealth. No more speaking proof can be found of that 
 inherent influence of birth and wealth, which survives the 
 wiping out of all legal distinctions, an influence which 
 legislation cannot give and which legislation by itself cannot
 
 164 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 take away. The people, of its own will, placed at its head 
 men of the same class as those who in the earlier state of 
 things had ruled it against its will. Perikles, Nikias, Alki- 
 biades, were men widely differing in character, widely 
 differing in their relations to the popular government. But 
 all alike were men of ancient birth, who, as men of ancient 
 birth, found their way, almost as a matter of course, to those 
 high places of the State to which Kleon found his way 
 only by a strange freak of fortune. 
 
 At Rome we find quite another story. There, no less 
 than at Athens, the moral influence of nobility survived 
 its legal privileges ; but, more than this, the legal privileges 
 of the elder nobility were never wholly swept away, and the 
 inherent feeling of respect for illustrious birth called into 
 being a younger nobility by its side. At Athens one stage 
 of reform placed a distinction of wealth instead of a distinction 
 of birth : another stage swept away the distinction of wealth 
 also. But the reform, at each of its stages, was general : 
 it affected all offices alike, save those sacred offices which 
 still remained the special heritage of certain sacred families. 
 At Rome the change was done bit by bit. No one law 
 threw open all offices to plebeians. One by one, this 
 and that office was thrown open ; but some offices were 
 never made the subject of any such special enactment ; those 
 offices therefore seemed the exclusive possession of the 
 patricians. Among the priestly offices, the Pontificate, an 
 office held for life and which was indirectly of high political 
 importance, was thrown open to plebeians, and was bestowed, 
 like the yearly magistracies, by the election of the people. 
 So the augurship, as all the world knows, was held by the 
 plebeian Cicero. But the Flamens, officers whose religious 
 sanctity was great but whose political importance was small, 
 remained to the last exclusively patrician. And among 
 temporal magistracies, Curule ^Ediles, Praetors, Consuls, 
 Censors, and Dictators, might all freely be plebeians; but 
 that occasional office in which, at moments few and far 
 between, the ancient kingship again rose visibly to light
 
 vi NEW NOBILITY OF OFFICE AT ROME 165 
 
 was never opened to the Commons. Not only was the 
 Interrex to the last an exclusively patrician officer, but 
 in his election none but the patrician Senators had a share. 
 An Interregnum was, in the fully developed commonwealth, 
 so rare an event that it perhaps never suggested itself to the 
 mind of any reformer to bring forward a special enactment 
 decreeing that a plebeian might be Interrex (8). And, in 
 default of such special enactment, the office would necessarily 
 remain confined to patricians, just as much as the consulship 
 had been before the Licinian Laws. This way of doing 
 things bit by bit, and the occasional anomalies to which 
 it gives birth, is eminently characteristic of the Roman 
 constitution, just as it is of our own. But it stands in 
 marked opposition to the symmetrical democracy of Athens. 
 At Rome again we may mark, what we have no sign of at 
 Athens, but what has a perfect parallel among ourselves, the 
 growth of a new nobility of office after the exclusive privi- 
 leges of the old patriciate had come to an end. The Roman 
 Plebs, so largely composed of the inhabitants of allied and 
 conquered cities who had been admitted in a mass to the 
 plebeian franchise, naturally contained many families which 
 were, in wealth and in nobility of descent, the equals of the 
 proudest patricians. Such a class as this could hardly have 
 existed, at least not in anything like the same degree, in a 
 Commons like that of Athens. After the union of the Attic 
 towns, the civic territory of Athens never grew, and her 
 Commons must have been mainly formed of settlers in the 
 city itself. We therefore find nothing at Athens answering 
 to the plebeian houses of Lutatius, Pompeius, and Octavius, 
 of Porcius of Tusculum and Tullius of Arpinum. When the 
 great magistracies were opened to the plebeians, it was mainly 
 by plebeians of this class that they were filled, and out of 
 them, combined with the old patricians, a new nobility arose. 
 Every descendant of a curule magistrate, whether patrician 
 or plebeian, was nobilis ; he had the jus imaginum, the right 
 of exhibiting the images of his forefathers who had held 
 high office, the number of which formed the measure of his
 
 166 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 nobility. Thus grew up a new noble class, clothed with no 
 legal privilege, but which gradually became as well marked 
 in practice as ever the old patricians had been, and which 
 looked on the great offices of the commonwealth as no less 
 its own exclusive right. In the later days of the common- 
 wealth the consulship of a new man, a man whose forefathers 
 had never held curule rank, though forbidden by no law, and 
 though the new man might be Caius Marius himself, seemed 
 as strange as the consulship of a Lutatius or a Licinius had 
 once been (9). The nobility of birth had given way to the 
 nobility of office, and the nobility of office had grown into a 
 new nobility of birth. 
 
 The parallel to this change in our own early history is to 
 be found in the way in which the old immemorial nobility of 
 the Eorlas, the origin and the nature of whose privileges are 
 both shrouded in the mist of the earliest antiquity, gave way 
 to the new nobility of office, the nobility of the Thegnas. 
 The Eorlas, a nobility patrician in the strictest sense, gave 
 way in England to a class who owed their rank to the favour 
 of the King, just as at Rome the patricians gave way to a 
 class who owed their rank to the favour of the people. But 
 the origin of the Thegns itself supplies one of our best 
 analogies, if not with Roman, at least with Achaian antiquity. 
 This analogy is one of which I have so often spoken else- 
 where that I may perhaps be forgiven if I now pass it over 
 in a few words. The Comitatus stands out in Tacitus as one 
 of the primitive institutions of our race, and the Gesiftas, 
 in later phrase the Thegnas, of Teutonic antiquity, the per- 
 sonal following of the King, Ealdorman, or other chief, form 
 the exact parallels of the trcupot and OepaTTovres of the 
 Homeric Achaians (10). The parallel here is as close as a 
 parallel can be ; only it does not seem that in early Greece 
 the institution of the Comitatus ever rose to the same 
 political importance which it reached in England. There is 
 no sign that those companions of the chiefs who stand out 
 with such prominence in Homer became the source of any 
 of the later forms of nobility which we find in the Greek
 
 vi THE COMITATUS 167 
 
 cities. There is nothing to make us think that the Eupatrid 
 Houses of Athens traced their descent in any special way 
 from the cratpot and Ofpa-ovrts of Theseus or Menestheus. 
 The comitatus is, in truth, an institution which is not well 
 suited for the atmosphere of a city life. It takes personal 
 chieftainship for granted ; it needs the personal chief to 
 gather around. But the spirit of a civic aristocracy tends to 
 equality among its own members ; it surrounds the whole 
 ruling body with a dependent class, but it does not love to 
 surround particular men with personal dependents. The 
 same causes which made kingship come so soon to an end 
 in the Greek commonwealths hindered the comitatus, the 
 natural offshoot of kingship, from filling any great place in 
 later Greek history. Among the Teutonic nations the case 
 was widely different. As kingship grew and flourished, the 
 comitatus grew and flourished with it, till in some lands the 
 King was for a season overshadowed by his own following. 
 The comitatus, in one shape or another, became the root of 
 every form of nobility in Western Europe, remembering 
 that, among the nobilities of Western Europe, one order as 
 proud as any of them, the civic patriciate of the island Rome 
 on the Venetian lagunes, is not to be reckoned. In our own 
 land the King's Thegns became really the ruling order, till 
 the older nobility of the Eorlas was forgotten, and their 
 name became confined to the rank next to the King, to the 
 great officers who in earlier days had borne the more ancient 
 title of Ealdormen ( 1 1 ). It shows how completely the notion 
 of personal service became the standard of the new nobility 
 that the word Thegn itself, in its first meaning simply servant, 
 came to have its later force of noble or gentle (12). What 
 went on in our own land went on also among our kinsfolk 
 beyond the sea. The companions, the antrustions, of the 
 Prankish Kings, changed step by step into the later nobility 
 of feudal vassals. Under the strong hand of the early 
 Karlings, the royal power kept its own, but presently, as 
 kingdoms split off from kingdoms, as offices changed into 
 fiefs, as the commonwealth changed into a society of Lords
 
 168 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 and Vassals of various ranks, the sovereign became simply 
 the highest lord among them; the new nobility not only 
 supplanted the old, but it crushed alike the body of the 
 commonwealth and its head ; it trampled King and people 
 alike under foot (13). And it is worth noticing that, just at 
 the point of transition, when the old nobility was sinking 
 and when the new nobility was as yet hardly rising, there 
 was a time when birth seems to have been less thought of 
 than it ever was before or after, and when men of lowly 
 origin seem to have risen with unusual ease (14). But when 
 the time came for the growth of the new nobility, it grew 
 faster, and it more utterly ate out all earlier and healthier 
 elements than it did in England. In England, under our 
 native Kings, the tendency was to closer union, while in 
 Gaul the tendency was to separation. And, if there had 
 been any tendencies the other way, the strong hand of the 
 Conqueror, even in the act of giving feudal ideas and feudal 
 relations a wider scope, took care that they should never 
 endanger either the power of the King or the security of the 
 Kingdom. 
 
 If we turn to Rome, we shall find there but small traces 
 of the Comitatus in its Achaian or its Teutonic shape. It may 
 be that the devotion of the Romans to the commonwealth, 
 and to the commonwealth only, hindered the growth of any 
 institution founded on a tie purely personal, at all events 
 between men of equal or nearly equal rank, like Achilleus 
 and Patroklos, like Brihtnoth and the Thegns who fell around 
 him at Maldon. Yet we may perhaps see something like it 
 in the special bodyguard of noble youths which legend places 
 around the early Kings and Dictators, around Romulus in 
 the spot which was to be Rome's comitia, and around Aulus 
 Postumius on the day of slaughter by Regillus (15). The 
 client relation too springy from the same personal tie as the 
 comitatus ; only there is the wide difference that in this case 
 the client stands at an unpassable distance of rank beneath 
 his patron. In the Hellenic and the Teutonic system advance 
 in age and exploits might raise the man to the level of his
 
 vi LATER DEVELOPEMENTS OF THE COMITATUS .169 
 
 lord ; but nothing could raise the client to the level of his 
 patron. No patrician ever stooped to the client relation ; we 
 may doubt whether, in the early days of the commonwealth, 
 any full citizen did. Yet the lowly clientage of the Roman 
 patrician and the noble following of the Hellenic or Teutonic 
 leader may really come from the same source, and may both 
 alike be parts of the common primaeval heritage. If this be 
 so, it shows how easily institutions which are in their origin 
 the same may, under different circumstances, develope in 
 different directions. There is something romantic, chivalrous, 
 sentimental none of these are good words to express the 
 idea, but I know of none better in both the early Hellenic 
 and the early Teutonic state of society. Of this there is no 
 trace in the more purely political society of Rome. It is the 
 same kind of difference as that which I have already noticed 
 between the Roman King and his Hellenic or Teutonic 
 brother. The difference is no doubt partly owing to the fact 
 that our first glimpses both of Hellenic and of Teutonic life 
 belong to an earlier stage than our first glimpses of Roman 
 life. But this is not all. The institution took utterly different 
 courses among the three nations, according to the several 
 circumstances of each. In Teutonic Europe it grew and 
 nourished ; it became the groundwork of nobility ; it became 
 one main element in producing the whole fabric of what, for 
 want of a better word, we may call feudal society. It grew 
 and flourished, because the personal chieftainship which it 
 implies grew and flourished. It reached its highest point of 
 external splendour, though its real spirit had already passed 
 away, at the coronation of a mediaeval Emperor, when Kings 
 and Electors did their personal service to the anointed Lord 
 of the World. In Greece, on the other hand, it died out as 
 kingship died out. Achilleus and Menelaos had their Tkcgnas 
 and Gesi'&as; none such surrounded Miltiades or Epamei- 
 nondas ; but we see them again in the Companions who fought 
 around the Macedonian Alexander (16). Under the stern, 
 practical, political, mind of Rome, the institution took another 
 and a worse form. The general idea which forms the ground-
 
 170- MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 work of the whole thing survived. There was still the 
 relation of faithful service on one side, of faithful protection 
 on the other ; but they appear in a shape from which all that 
 made the Comitatus the groundwork of modern society has 
 wholly passed away. The client is a true Thegn ; the patron 
 is a true Hlaford : but his thegnship is of so literal and lowly 
 a kind as to be fit only for the freedman, the stranger, or at 
 most the citizen of the very lowest rank (17). 
 
 Out of this institution of the Comitatus grew the nobility 
 of modern Europe, and specially that Old-English nobility of 
 Thegns which supplanted the older nobility of the Eorls. 
 In England, as at Rome, a nobility of office supplanted the 
 nobility of birth : only in the commonwealth of Rome it was 
 the nobility of office bestowed by the people, while in the 
 English kingdom it was the nobility of office bestowed by the 
 King. The King could not in strictness make an Eorl, because 
 he could not change a man's forefathers, but he could make a 
 Thegn, as he now can make a Duke. Now what was it that hin- 
 dered the nobility thus formed from becoming a real nobility ? 
 What saved us from a noblesse or Adel in the foreign sense ? 
 For I repeat that in England we have, in strictness, no 
 nobility ; we have no class which keeps on from generation to 
 generation in the possession of exclusive privileges, either 
 political or social. Our peerage is not a nobility in the sense 
 in which nobility is understood in foreign lands. It is not 
 only a rank to which any man may rise, but it is a rank 
 from which the descendants of the hereditary holders must 
 as a matter of course come down. Political privilege belongs 
 only to one member of a family at a time ; honorary pre- 
 cedence does not go beyond one or two generations. This is 
 not nobility in the sense which that word bears in those 
 lands where all the descendants of a noble are noble for ever. 
 Why then did not the Thegnhood of England grow into a 
 nobility such as that which in other lands grew out of the 
 same elements ? One answer doubtless is that the Norman Con- 
 quest thrust down the native Thegnhood, the growing nobility 
 of England, to a secondary place in the social and political scale.
 
 vi NATURE OF THE ENGLISH PEERAGE 171 
 
 In so doing it wrought for us one of the greatest of blessings. 
 It gave us a middle class spread over the whole country. 
 While in most continental lands it was only in the chartered 
 towns there was any class intermediate between the noble 
 and the peasant, often none between the noble and the 
 villain, in England the ancient lords of the soil, thus thrust 
 down into the second rank, formed that great body of 
 freeholders, the stout gentry and yeomanry of England, who 
 were for so many ages the strength of the land. But why 
 did not a nobility of the foreign type grow up among the 
 Norman Conquerors themselves ? That great law of William 
 which made every man in the land the man of the King had 
 much to do with it ; but paradoxical as it may sound, I con- 
 ceive that the very power and dignity of the peerage has had 
 a good deal to do with it also. Elsewhere nobility was pri- 
 marily a matter of rank and privilege, with which political 
 power might or might not be connected. But in an English 
 peerage the primary idea is political power ; rank and privi- 
 lege are a mere adjunct. The peer does not hold a mere 
 rank which he can share with his descendants ; he holds an 
 office, which passes to his next heir when he dies, but which 
 he cannot share with any man while he lives. The peer 
 then, not a mere noble, but a legislator, a counsellor, and a 
 judge, holds a distinct place in the State which his children 
 can no more share with him than any one else. Hence in 
 England we have but two classes, Peers and Commoners, 
 those who hold the office and authority of a peer and those 
 who do not. The children of a peer come under this last 
 head as much as other men ; they are therefore Commoners. 
 The very existence of the peerage of itself hinders the exist- 
 ence of a nobility in the true sense of the word. 
 
 If then the Norman Conquest had never happened, it is 
 most likely that the native Thegnhood of England would 
 have grown up into a nobility of the foreign type. If the 
 wisdom of the Norman Conqueror had not preserved our 
 ancient institutions, if it had not thus been possible that the 
 House of Lords of our later constitution could grow out of
 
 172 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 the Witenagemot of our earlier constitution, it is most likely 
 that a nobility of the foreign type would have grown up 
 among the Norman conquerors themselves. As it is, we 
 have had no nobility, but we have had a peerage ; I might 
 almost say that we have had an aristocracy. I say almost 
 and not altogether, because England is a kingdom and not a 
 republic. I once heard it said that in a republic there 
 could be no aristocracy except " an aristocracy of wealth." I 
 treasured up the saying as one of the shallowest that I ever 
 heard. I put it alongside of another saying, the saying of 
 one who argued that ancient Bern must have been a demo- 
 cracy because it was a republic. I should rather say that it 
 is only in a republic that a real aristocracy can exist. 
 Corinth and Rome, Venice and Genoa, Bern and Niirnberg, 
 bear out what I am saying. The nobles who cringed at the 
 court of the Great King at Paris, or at the lesser courts of 
 his imitators in the petty despotisms of Germany and Italy, 
 had no right to the name of an aristocracy. Aristocracy is 
 the rule of the best ; they were not the best, and they did 
 not rule. But in aristocratic commonwealths, in the proud 
 city which floats on the waves of the Hadriatic, in the 
 hardly less proud city which looks forth from her peninsula 
 on the snows of her once vassal mountains, in Byzantine 
 Venice and Teutonic Bern, there was for ages something 
 which it needed no great straining of language to call the 
 rule of the best. Morally best indeed I do not say, but best 
 so far as this, that, narrow as was the government of those 
 commonwealths, fenced in as the power of the State was 
 within a circle of exclusive houses, those houses at least 
 knew how to rule, and how to hand on the craft of the ruler 
 from generation to generation. Their rule was in itself 
 unjust, because it was exclusive, narrow, and selfish. It was 
 often oppressive ; but it was never oppressive with the 
 frantic and purposeless oppression of many a personal despot. 
 It was in some respects more galling than the yoke of a 
 despot, but it was so simply because the yoke of one master 
 is in itself less galling than the yoke of many. But, as
 
 vi NATURE OF ARISTOCRATIC COMMONWEALTHS 173 
 
 regarded the members of the ruling order, no other form of 
 government supplied such a school of rulers. The patrician 
 was born to rule ; but he was born to rule, not according to 
 his own caprice, but according to the laws of the ruling order 
 of which he was only one member among many ( 1 8). Such 
 a system tended to dwarf the powers of men of the very 
 highest order ; but it tended at once to raise and to regulate 
 the powers of all but the very highest class. It checked the 
 growth of heroes and of exceptionally great men, but it 
 fostered the growth of a succession of men who were great 
 enough for their own position, but not too great. In an 
 aristocratic commonwealth there is no room for Perikles ; 
 there is no room for the people that hearkened to Perikles ; 
 but in men of the second order, skilful conservative adminis- 
 trators, men able to work the system which they find 
 established, no form of government is so fertile. But such a 
 commonwealth, where the power of strengthening the ruling 
 order by new blood either does not exist or is but sparingly 
 exercised, commonly degenerates in the end, though the 
 causes of the degeneracy are not exactly the same as those 
 which bring about the degeneracy of democratic common- 
 wealths. The day of glory of the aristocratic commonwealth 
 may be longer than the day of glory of a democracy, but its 
 decay will be even more hopeless. As its ruling families die 
 out, as those which survive lose their strength two processes 
 which must sooner or later affect every exclusive body the 
 dregs of an oligarchy become even baser than the dregs of a 
 democracy. There was at least some difference in dignity 
 and courage between the fall of Venice and the fall of 
 Unterwalden. 
 
 I maintain then that aristocracy, in its true sense, is 
 something essentially republican, something to which a 
 monarchic state can present only a faint approach. So far 
 as a monarchic state is aristocratic, as our own country has 
 been at some times, it can only be in proportion to the 
 degree that, through the lessening of the powers both of the 
 Crown and of the people, it approaches to the nature of a
 
 174 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 commonwealth in the hands of certain ruling families. A 
 government like the old French monarchy, where a noble 
 class has hateful social and civil privileges, but where those 
 privileges carry with them no political power, is not aristo- 
 cratic in any political sense. Where an external power, that 
 of the King, can ennoble, and where that external power is 
 politically supreme, there is no aristocracy in the sense which 
 the word bore in the mouth of a Greek thinker. Poland, 
 and Sweden at some stages of its history, came nearer to 
 aristocratic government than any other states which acknow- 
 ledged a King. But a Chian or a Venetian aristocrat would 
 hardly have owned their constitutions as kindred with his 
 own. The true aristocracy, the aristocracy of a common- 
 wealth, may, as we have seen, arise in several ways. A body 
 of older citizens, like the original patriciate of Rome, may 
 keep for a time or for ever all the powers of the common- 
 wealth in their own hands to the exclusion of the Commons 
 who grow up around them. In a city of late foundation, 
 like Bern, where there is a noble element in the population 
 from the beginning, a patriciate may grow up which may 
 gradually draw all power into its own hands. Or, without 
 any reference to earlier nobility, a patriciate may, as at 
 Venice, arise among the citizens themselves, simply by the 
 process of confining office, whether by law or only in practice, 
 to the descendants of certain families which have gained 
 exclusive possession of it. But, when a patriciate has arisen 
 by any of these means, it seems essential to its being that no 
 new members can be admitted to the body except by its 
 own act. Few aristocracies have been so exclusive as never 
 to admit any new houses or individuals to a share in their 
 own privileges. The Claudian house at Rome, the house of 
 Morlot at Bern, were strangers who were received not only to 
 citizenship but to nobility. And at Venice and Nurnberg 
 new families were, down to the last days of the common- 
 wealth, received from time to time within the pale of the 
 ruling order (19). But in all these cases the aristocracy 
 enlarged itself by its own act and deed, by the exercise of its
 
 vi RIGHT OF THE AVENGER OF BLOOD 175 
 
 sovereign power. When the noble class can be enlarged by 
 the external will of a personal sovereign, it shows that the 
 noble class is not, exclusively and by itself, the ruling body 
 in the State. In a State which has a King at its head, there 
 may be a peerage ; there may be a nobility ; there cannot, if 
 words are used in their true meanings, be an aristocracy. 
 
 This last lecture must be a desultory one. I have now 
 only to point out some of the analogies which are to be 
 found among the particular institutions of the nations 
 with which we are concerned. Let us take for instance 
 the institution of the wergild, the price of blood. This 
 is one of those institutions which we have every reason 
 to believe are common to the whole Aryan family, and 
 which may indeed be traced back beyond the bounds of 
 the Aryan family. That criminal jurisprudence which in 
 highly civilized societies takes so elaborate a shape grows 
 out of that desire of private vengeance which it is one 
 of its main objects in its fully developed growth to check, 
 and even to punish. A man is slain; the passion of 
 vengeance is awakened; the right the duty, as it seems 
 in their eyes of avenging the slain man naturally falls 
 to those who have lost most by his death, to his immediate 
 kinsfolk, the men of his own family or household. As 
 the social and political circle widens, the right and the 
 duty are handed over from the mere household to the 
 gens, the tribe, and the nation. And at each stage, as 
 the right and duty of vengeance is thus handed over to 
 men who, at each stage, are less and less stirred by the mere 
 passion, vengeance loses more and more of its character 
 as vengeance, and puts on more and more of the character 
 which punishment bears in fully civilized societies, a pre- 
 ventive and corrective interference of the public authority 
 on behalf of the public good. So with other wrongs ; in 
 a state of nature each man who is wronged must right 
 himself by the strong hand ; each man has the right of 
 war and peace in his own person. Again, as the social
 
 176 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 and political circle widens, the wrong of each man becomes 
 something which does not concern himself only, but con- 
 cerns also the gens, the tribe, and the nation. Thus, by 
 slow degrees, the right of each man to defend himself 
 against a wrong-doer grows into the right of the State 
 to defend itself against the wrong doings of its own members 
 by legal punishment and against the wrong doings of other 
 states by regular war. But it is only in highly civilized 
 communities that the right of private vengeance is wholly 
 taken away, and that the right of defence that is the 
 right of private warfare is kept within the narrowest 
 bounds of undoubted necessity. Our law, the law of every 
 country, allows that there are extreme cases in which private 
 homicide in the form of self-defence is not a crime. That 
 is to say, it is the duty of the citizen to give up to the 
 Commonwealth the duty of his protection whenever the 
 Commonwealth can protect him : but, in any case where the 
 Commonwealth cannot protect him, the natural right revives, 
 and it is allowed that he may protect himself. But it 
 is only in the highest state of civilization that the natural 
 rights of private vengeance and private war can be cut 
 down within this very narrow limit. For a long time 
 the Commonwealth steps in, not so much to forbid as to 
 regulate and soften the natural right which it admits. 
 The Mosaic Law fully admits the right of the avenger 
 of blood : all that it does is to set apart certain cities of 
 refuge whither the slayer may flee and be safe. If he is 
 overtaken before he can reach the asylum, the law does 
 nothing to stay the arm of the avenger (20). Our own early 
 laws, the early laws of most nations, do not wholly forbid a 
 man to help himself with the strong hand ; they only limit 
 the right to certain extreme cases, to certain specially inexpi- 
 able wrongs, to certain cases where legal means have been 
 tried and have failed. By the law alike of Athens, of Rome, 
 and of England, a man might without crime slay the defiler 
 of the purity of his own household (21): by the law alike 
 of Athens and of Rome every citizen might slay the Tyrant
 
 vi THE WAGER OF BATTLE 177 
 
 who had trampled the Commonwealth under foot and had 
 made law powerless to defend or to avenge (22). In cases 
 of wrongs between man and man the State steps in as 
 an arbitrator before it steps in as a judge. It tries to 
 persuade the injured man to abate somewhat of his wrath 
 against the wrong-doer ; it strives to make him accept 
 something less than the full satisfaction of his vengeance ; 
 it gradually fixes the amount of compensation with which 
 the injured man shall be satisfied. But it is only when 
 civilization has reached a high pitch indeed that the 
 vengeance of the injured man is made wholly to give way to 
 the remedial interference of the State, that every crime 
 is looked on as a crime against the Commonweath, whose 
 punishment is the business of the Commonwealth and of 
 the Commonwealth alone. 
 
 The appeal of murder and of other crimes, with its 
 accompaniment the wager of battle, was an instance of the 
 regulated right of private war which, though it had long 
 fallen into disuse, was actually removed from our Statute- 
 Book only within the present century. Here the right 
 of vengeance was recognized, though it was recognized in 
 such a form as gave it somewhat of the nature of a legal 
 trial. The appeal was brought by the injured person in his 
 own name; he sought for redress for the private wrong, 
 and, as the one who had suffered for the wrong, he had 
 the right of pardoning the offender. And this mode of 
 procedure went on alongside of that with which alone we 
 are now familiar, that in which the crime is dealt with as a 
 wrong done to the King as head of the Commonwealth, in 
 which the prosecution is made in the name of the King, 
 and in which the King alone has the right of pardon (23). 
 Of that limiting of the right of private war which took the 
 form of judicial combat, and which was afterwards corrupted 
 back again into the baser form of the private duel, we find 
 few or no traces in early Greek or Roman antiquity. This 
 is probably another result of the quicker developement of 
 things in the city commonwealths of Greece and Italy, as
 
 178 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 compared with the tribal system of our own forefathers. 
 But the old Roman Law allowed the principle of talio, the 
 Mosaic doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, 
 and it recognized the right of the injured person either to 
 exact the penalty or to admit of some form of compromise 
 (24). This brings us at once to the doctrine of the wergild, 
 a doctrine common to the Greece of Homer and to the 
 Germany of Tacitus, and which, we cannot doubt, is a portion 
 of the primitive Aryan inheritance. The wergild is an 
 appeal from the passion of vengeance to a less fierce, if more 
 sordid, passion, to the love of gain. The man who has 
 forfeited his life to the vengeance of the injured kinsman 
 may perhaps stay his vengeance by offering gifts in its 
 stead; he may buy back his own life at a price. In the 
 Homeric times, the man whose son or father had been slain 
 might perhaps was bound to receive the gifts of atone- 
 ment offered by the slayer, and the slayer, when he had paid 
 those gifts, could dwell in peace among his people (25). It 
 seems here to be implied that custom at least demanded 
 that the proffered atonement should be accepted. This was 
 an advance on the kindred war-law of the same age, according 
 to which the conqueror might accept the bondage of the 
 conquered instead of his blood, but might also slay him 
 without reproach (26). 
 
 The next step plainly is for the Commonwealth to step 
 in, for the law to enforce the duty of accepting the atone- 
 ment, and perhaps, as another step, to regulate the amount 
 of the atonement, instead of leaving the injured man to 
 wring what he could out of the wrong-doer. In our earliest 
 glimpse of Teutonic law we seem to see a further advance ; 
 the crime is recognized as a wrong done to the commonwealth 
 as well as to the individual, and the King or other head of 
 the State receives his share of the atonement as well as the 
 kindred of the slain man (27). In our own ancient laws the 
 subject is gone into with the utmost minuteness. The 
 ancient talio has given way to an elaborate scale of prices, 
 according to which every form of bodily injury, small or
 
 vi THE WERGILD IN OLD-ENGLISH LAW 179 
 
 great, may be atoned for by the payment of the appointed 
 sum in money (28). And the penalty to be paid by the 
 manslayer is regulated with a minute regard to the rank 
 of the person slain and to his supposed consequent value. 
 The life of every man, like the oath of every man, was of 
 some value ; but the life and the oath of the man of higher 
 rank was of more value than the life and the oath of the 
 man of lower rank (29). The price of one Thegn was equal 
 to that of several churls, and so on in an ascending scale, 
 till we reach the mighty penalty which alone could atone for 
 the death of the King. Mark too that differences of race 
 come in as well as differences of rank ; in the lands where 
 the Englishman and the Briton dwelled side by side, the 
 blood of the Englishman was rated at a higher price than 
 the blood of the Briton of his own rank (30). Mark too 
 that care was taken that the penalty should be paid to 
 those who, in the eye of the law, had undergone the wrong ; 
 the price of the slave was paid to his master ; the price of 
 the freeman was paid to his kinsfolk; but the price of 
 kingly blood was not only heavier than the price of other 
 men, but it had to be paid twice over, to the kinsfolk who 
 had lost one of their house and to the commonwealth which 
 had lost its leader. And in this last case the payment of 
 the wergild might rise to the rank of an affair between 
 commonwealth and commonwealth. War between sovereign 
 states is simply the natural right of self-defence, which still 
 goes on in a state of things where the contending parties 
 have no common superior to decide with authority between 
 them. But the vengeance of the Commonwealth, like the 
 vengeance of the individual, may be bought off; and we 
 have at least two cases in early English history, where an 
 invader, seeking vengeance for the blood of a royal kinsman, 
 stayed his hand on the payment of the appointed wergild 
 which custom had fixed for the shedding of royal blood (31). 
 No feature of our ancient jurisprudence plays a more 
 important part than this in our earlier laws ; none has so 
 utterly vanished without leaving any trace of itself in
 
 180 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 modern legislation. As the Commonwealth, and the King 
 as its head, have taken the place of the actual sufferer or 
 his kinsman, as in criminal as distinguished from civil 
 jurisprudence the idea of compensation has given way to 
 the idea of punishment whether remedial or vindictive, the 
 notion of vengeance to be bought off by a payment has 
 utterly died away. Yet it may be well to remember that, 
 as late as the fifteenth century, a private dispute between 
 two English noblemen was decided by open warfare on a 
 battle-field in Gloucestershire, and the wrong done to the 
 wife of one of them by the slaughter of her husband was in 
 the end made up by a payment which in earlier times would 
 have passed for his wergitd (32). 
 
 In this case we have, beyond doubt, an institution which 
 is at once Hellenic and Teutonic, and which is at once 
 Hellenic and Teutonic, not by borrowing or imitation, not 
 by like causes producing like effects, but because Hellen 
 and Teuton alike inherited it as part of a common stock, 
 a stock, it would seem, not even peculiar to the Aryan 
 family. We may end our survey by looking back to some 
 points which have more connexion with the subject of the 
 early part of this lecture. We may end. with a glance at 
 some of the striking analogies which are to be seen in the 
 political relations of states in ages far distant from one 
 another, and which, there can be no doubt, are to be ex- 
 plained, not by common inheritance from a common stock, 
 but by the operation of like causes leading to like effects. 
 We have seen that there is every reason to believe that 
 the distinctions within the Commonwealth, the noble, the 
 freeman, and the slave perhaps also some of those inter- 
 mediate stages which part off the mere slave from the 
 common freeman are really part of the common Aryan 
 heritage. At least we cannot go back, by the help either 
 of history or of legend, to any stage either of Greek, of 
 Teutonic, or of Italian history in which those distinctions 
 are not to be found. But the relations which rise up
 
 .vi HEREDITARY BURGHERSHIP 181 
 
 between the Commonwealth and those, whether individuals 
 or commonwealths, which lie outside its pale, though they 
 present a series of most striking and most instructive analo- 
 gies, are necessarily the results of the circumstances under 
 which each commonwealth finds itself, and can have no 
 claim to be looked on as parts of the common heritage. 
 We have already seen that, as cities began to arise in the 
 Teutonic lands, and as, through the decline of the royal 
 power, those cities began to approach to the character of 
 independent commonwealths, many of the phenomena of 
 the old city system of Greece were called again into being. 
 Many of those analogies were to be seen in full force within 
 the memory of men now living ; some of them have lingered 
 on to our own time. There is commonly a stage in the 
 history of a city Commonwealth, that stage which in the 
 Roman legend is represented by the Asylum of Romulus, 
 in which the new-born city is liberal of its franchise to 
 strangers who are ready to throw in their lot to the new 
 community, and so to add to its strength. Then comes a 
 stage in which citizenship begins to be too highly valued 
 to be given to all who ask for it, when the original citizens 
 shrink up into an oligarchic body, with a large mass around 
 them, who share only an imperfect citizenship, or no citizen- 
 ship at all. Gradually, as at Rome, or suddenly, as at 
 Athens, the unenfranchised or half enfranchised classes win 
 for themselves equality of rights with the old citizens, and 
 the work of Kleisthenes or Licinius is done. Or perhaps 
 no such revolution takes place; perhaps a change takes 
 place the other way, and the mass of the citizens gradually 
 lose the rights which they had once enjoyed. That is to 
 say, the Commonwealth developes either in an oligarchic or 
 in a democratic direction. But, in either case, a time comes 
 when its developement seems to stop, when the idea of any 
 general extension of citizenship is an idea which is no longer 
 heard of, when the civic franchise, aristocratic or democratic, 
 becomes an hereditary privilege which is at most doled out 
 now and then as a special favour, the reward of special merit.
 
 182 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 Or perhaps, in a meaner state of things, it becomes a matter 
 of purchase and sale, and thereby of profit to the privileged 
 class. Thus there arises an excluded class, strangers in the 
 place where perhaps they were born, where their forefathers 
 may even have lived for several generations. Such a class 
 we have seen in the /zeYoiKoi of the ancient Greek cities ; 
 they might be seen, perhaps they may still be seen by way 
 of a feeble survival, in those whom many an English borough 
 distinguished from the hereditary freemen by the name of 
 foreigners (33). The two things are essentially the same, 
 differing only in the value of the franchise from which the 
 stranger is shut out. And that again depends on the differ- 
 ence between a community which forms a sovereign common- 
 wealth and one which, whatever its internal constitution 
 may be, is, as regards all national matters, merely part of a 
 greater whole. The fxeYoi/cos at Athens was shut out from 
 the privileges of a sovereign commonwealth, while he had 
 to bear burthens in which the hereditary burgher had no 
 share. He had no voice, he had no means of obtaining a 
 voice, in the affairs of the political society in which he lived. 
 But the foreigner in an English borough, whether the local 
 privileges from which he was shut out were precious or 
 worthless, lay under a disqualification which was purely 
 local. He lay under no disqualification as a member of the 
 Commonwealth at large ; if he had no share in the election 
 of the representatives of his own town, he could at any 
 moment, by buying a forty-shilling freehold, become an 
 elector of any county in England which he chose. And, 
 through later enactments, other franchises, the parliamentary 
 franchise among them, franchises dependent on residence 
 and careless about descent, have grown up by the side of 
 the old franchise of the hereditary freemen. And these new 
 franchises have become so much more valuable as to make 
 the old burghership seem contemptible. The freemen of an 
 English borough are in most places looked upon as an 
 inferior class; yet it is they who answer to the Athenian 
 Eupatrids and the Roman Patricians ; the other inhabitants
 
 vi NIEDERGELASSENEN ANSWER TO HCTOIKOI 183 
 
 are but /UC'TOIKOI or plebeians by their side. The principle 
 is the same in both cases; mere residence gives no claim 
 to admission to the civic community, whether that civic 
 community be a sovereign commonwealth or the pettiest 
 municipality. In both cases the franchise, whatever it may 
 be worth and whatever it carries with it, can be had only 
 by the appointed means, means easier doubtless in most of 
 the English cases than they were in the analogous case in 
 Greece. Still in neither case does the civic franchise belong 
 to every man who chooses to go and dwell within the civic 
 boundary. It may not always be purely a matter of birth ; 
 but it is always something which cannot be taken up at 
 the mere will of the stranger. It always requires that 
 particular qualification which is fixed by the custom of 
 the civic community, be that qualification birth, marriage, 
 servitude, special purchase, or special grant. 
 
 All distinctions of this kind have, through later English 
 legislation, lost all practical importance, and they have 
 become mere materials for inquiries such as that on which 
 we are now engaged. But in another part of Europe, in the 
 land which among all modern states preserves to us at once 
 the most precious relics of the old Teutonic world and the 
 most striking analogies with the old Hellenic and Italian 
 world, a close parallel to this feature, as to so many other 
 features of Greek political life, is still to be seen in its 
 fulness. It is naturally among those cities and districts 
 which have grown into the Confederation of Switzerland 
 that we find the most instructive illustrations which modern 
 political life can give us of the working of city in many 
 cases we should rather say of village communities. The 
 Afiedei'gelassenen in Switzerland, those Swiss citizens who 
 are settled in Gemeinden or Communes parishes or Mark- 
 genossenschaftenof which they have not the hereditary 
 burghership, answer exactly to the Greek p^roucot. And, in 
 the late debates on the reform of the Federal Constitution, 
 many proposals were brought forward to remedy a state of 
 things by which a number not far short of half of the Swiss
 
 184 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 people are, in many important respects, strangers in the 
 places where they themselves dwell, and where it may 
 happen that their forefathers have dwelt for many gener- 
 ations (34). But this state of things is the exact parallel 
 to those which we have just been speaking of in Greece and 
 in England. It is of the essence of a Gemeinde or commune, 
 of a borough or a village community, one perhaps owning 
 a considerable estate in folkland or ager publicus, that the 
 stranger should be admitted to membership of the community 
 only on such terms as the community itself may think good. 
 In a sovereign community the power thus to bind and loose 
 can be relaxed only by its own will and pleasure ; in a 
 community which forms part of a greater sovereign whole, 
 it may of course be modified or taken away by an act of the 
 supreme Legislature. In the old days of the Swiss Con- 
 federation, the days of the Staateribund, when there was no 
 common Federal Legislature or Executive, when no part of 
 the internal sovereignty of the Cantons had been given over 
 to any central power, the citizen of one Canton who settled 
 in another Canton^ must have been as strictly a fxcroiKos as 
 a Corinthian who settled at Athens. He had no voice either 
 in the cantonal or the communal affairs of the place in 
 which he lived, any more than if he had settled in a spot 
 beyond the bounds of the Confederation. The existing 
 Federal Constitution gives every Swiss citizen equal Federal 
 and Cantonal rights, in whatever part of the Confederation 
 he may settle. But communal matters are left to the 
 legislation of the Canton or of the commune itself; all that 
 the Federal Constitution provides is that the {JL&OLKOS shall 
 not be, as he was at Athens, subject to any special pcro&to?, 
 any special tax laid on the /^TGI/COS and in which the citizen 
 bears no share. The laws of different Cantons, the customs 
 of different communes, may of course differ on these points ; 
 some communes are more chary of granting or selling their 
 franchise than others; but everywhere the Niedergelassene 
 is still, in communal matters, a /xeroi/cos ; the mere fact of 
 residence and contribution to the local taxes no more gives
 
 vi NATURE OF THE PERIOIKIC RELATION 185 
 
 him the fall communal franchise than it makes him a 
 freeman of an English borough. The two higher franchises, 
 those of the Confederation and the Canton, he enjoys as 
 fully as any native ; to the lower franchise of the commune 
 he can be admitted only by special grant or by the effect 
 of some special enactment. 
 
 In the like sort, as long as the old Confederation lasted, 
 some other features of old Greek and Italian political life 
 were still to be seen in all their fulness. If there still are 
 IJ.CTOIKOI in Switzerland, down to 1798 there were irepioiKoi. 
 Of course we may see a relation equivalent to the perioikic 
 relation whenever any state, be it Venice or England, holds 
 dependencies whose inhabitants have no voice in the general 
 government, especially if they have no- means of obtaining 
 that voice, even by taking up their abode in the ruling 
 country (35). But distance makes a great difference both 
 in the appearance and in the reality of things. We may 
 question the right by which Venice bore rule over Cyprus, 
 or that by which England bears rule over India. But, 
 granting that such rule exists, it is not to be expected that 
 the inhabitants of Cyprus or of India should have a voice in 
 the affairs of Venice or of England. The full nature of the 
 perioikic relation does not come out except in a state of 
 things where the name can be applied geographically as well 
 as politically, in those cases where the subjects really dwell 
 round about or near the home of their rulers. The dominions 
 of Venice on the mainland of Italy present an approach to 
 the old perioikic relation. Still the island city always 
 remained isolated from the Continent ; Venice never became 
 part of continental Venetia in the same sense in which 
 Florence was part of Tuscany or Bern part of the Lesser 
 Burgundy. It is in mediaeval Italy, in Switzerland down to 
 1798, and, to some extent, also among the free cities of 
 Germany, that we see the perioikic relation, just as it stood 
 between Sparta and the other Laconian towns. As Sparta 
 ruled over Amyklai and Epidauros Limera, so Florence ruled 
 over Pisa and Bern ruled over Lausanne. Nay more, a very
 
 186 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 few years back, down to the last changes in Germany, the 
 cities of Liibeck and Hamburg held the small district of 
 Vierlande in Condominium (36). They held it in partner- 
 ship as a joint possession, the government of which might be 
 exercised conjointly or alternately as the ruling powers may 
 think fit. In the like sort, in the old state of things in 
 Switzerland, various districts were held, not only by this or 
 that Canton singly, but by two or more Cantons, or by all 
 the Cantons of the Confederation, in the same joint owner- 
 ship. And mark again that, in all these cases, the internal 
 constitution of the ruling State made no difference. As 
 Athens had her subjects though not strictly her we/uiotKoi 
 no less than Sparta, so democratic Uri had her own subjects, 
 and her share in the common subjects of the Confederation, 
 no less than aristocratic Bern. In all this we have a lively 
 image of the state of things in old Greece, except that I do 
 not remember that the condominium, the joint sovereignty 
 or rather the joint ownership, has its parallel there. This 
 fact is to be taken in connexion with a fact to which Mr. 
 Grote has called attention, that the acquisition of dominion 
 by purchase, so common in mediaeval history, is rare in the 
 history of Greece (37). I conceive the cause of the difference 
 to be that in old Greece and Italy the ideas of property and 
 government had not got mixed together in the way in which 
 they were mixed together in mediaeval times. The Roman 
 People might make itself the landowner of the soil of a 
 conquered commonwealth ; it might add the folkland of the 
 conquered to its own folkland, or it might part it out as 
 ~booldand among its own citizens ; but the right of govern- 
 ment remained a distinct thing from the right of property. 
 It remained something which could not be, as in mediaeval 
 times, granted, sold, or enfeoffed, along with the land. But 
 we have seen how in mediaeval times, as the feudal idea took 
 root and grew, the right of government came to be looked on 
 as a property, while the possession of landed property came 
 to be looked on as carrying with it a kind of right of 
 government. When government was thus looked on as a
 
 vi NOTION OF PROPERTY IN SOVEREIGNTY 187 
 
 possession, there seemed no reason why a rich commonwealth 
 might not buy the sovereign rights and powers of a spend- 
 thrift prince, just as it might buy his landed estate or his 
 manorial privileges. In this way, Bern and other cities 
 largely bought out the neighbouring territorial nobility, 
 besides often conquering them in warfare. The new corporate 
 lord, the Commonwealth, stepped into the place of the old 
 personal lord ; it was clothed with all his authority, and it 
 commonly contrived that the authority which thus passed to 
 it should grow, rather than lessen, in its hands. So, when 
 the same notion of property in sovereignty was fully estab- 
 lished, there was no reason why two or more commonwealths 
 might not hold the sovereignty of a town or district in 
 partnership, just as two or more personal owners might hold 
 a field or a house in partnership. In this way the purchase 
 of territory, and with it of sovereignty, and the holding of 
 sovereignty in partnership, if not absolutely unknown in the 
 elder state of things, became at least far more familiar and 
 important in the later. And, through the greater complica- 
 tion of mediaeval jurisprudence a complication which for 
 the most part grew out of this same confusion of the ideas of 
 property and sovereignty there arose an endless variety of 
 relations between princes, towns, independent and subject 
 districts, to which there is no parallel in the simpler state of 
 things in Greece and Italy (38). Still, as often as there 
 arose a system of separate towns and districts, independent 
 of, or but slightly controlled by, the central power of the 
 Emperor, we find in mediaeval Europe a lively image of the 
 relations between a Greek or Italian city and its Greek or 
 Italian subjects, an image of the relation of Sparta to her 
 Laconian TrepiWot or of Rome to her Italian allies (39). And 
 in Switzerland and the neighbouring lands this system went 
 on in all its fulness till the French invasion came to sweep 
 away the old state of things, to sweep away its worst evils 
 for ever, its good points only for a moment. The League 
 itself, its several Cantons, the allied cities and confederations,
 
 188 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 all had their subjects, their Unterthanen, in Greek phrase 
 their ire/oloucot. It was not only aristocratic Bern or Basel 
 that thus ruled, sometimes over men of their own blood and 
 language, in all cases over men who were not savages or 
 heathens, but sharers in the common faith and civilization of 
 Europe. If the Bear held a firm grasp on the lands from 
 the Aargau to the Leman Lake, if for a moment he held 
 and Europe may now sigh that he did not keep the shore 
 which so proudly fronts Lausanne and Chillon (40), the bull 
 of Uri had planted his foot no less firmly on the Levantine 
 valley. So too the confederate village communities of the 
 Upper Wallis lorded it over their Welsh neighbours lower 
 down the river, and the Three Leagues of Raetia bore a rule 
 perhaps sterner than all over the Italian valley to the south 
 of them. The Valtelina alone has failed to rise from bondage 
 to the highest freedom of all ; yet incorporation with con- 
 stitutional Italy, nay, even subjection to France and Austria, 
 was a good exchange for the rule of its former masters. In 
 all these lands, whether well or ill governed in detail, the 
 principle of government was the same. The internal state 
 of the subject district might range from something very like 
 bondage to a large amount of local self-government ; but all 
 alike were irepiomot, in so far as the sovereignty was neither 
 vested in the community itself nor in a prince whom it could 
 claim as its own. In all alike, the sovereign was a common- 
 wealth beyond their borders, a corporate lord, who, whether 
 he ruled well or ill, ruled in his own interest and not in the 
 interest of his subjects. Such a rule is not necessarily 
 oppressive, though there is every temptation to make it so. 
 But it is in any case irksome and degrading ; it is the story 
 of Rome over again ; the rule of a single despot, where there 
 is at least the chance of the personal virtues of a well- 
 disposed despot, is better than the systematically selfish rule 
 of an alien commonwealth. The rule of a single man, of a 
 man so exalted as to seem like a being of another order, is 
 less irksome than the rule of a body of men who seem to be
 
 vi COMMONWEALTHS AND THEIR SUBJECTS 189 
 
 in no way privileged above their subjects. And in one 
 respect the experience of earlier and later days has been 
 reversed. Democratic Athens was at least a better ruler of 
 dependencies than oligarchic Sparta (41). But the common 
 bailiwicks of Switzerland were always better off when the 
 bailiff, the Vogt, the htmnost, who was sent to rule them 
 came from aristocratic Bern or Zurich than when he came 
 from democratic Uri or Unterwalden. A patrician of Bern 
 was at least a man who knew men and things ; he was one 
 of a class who were taught the art of ruling from their birth. 
 The peasant harmost from a democratic Canton had too 
 often bought his office of his countrymen, and had to repay 
 and enrich himself at the cost of his temporary subjects. In 
 the Greek case we must remember that Athens wisely sent 
 no harmosts at all to her dependent allies, and the little 
 evidence that we have tends to show that the foreign 
 administration of Sparta was harsher than that of other 
 Dorian and aristocratic cities (42). But everywhere we learn 
 the same lesson, the inconsistency of commonwealths which 
 boast themselves of their own freedom and exalt themselves 
 at the cost of the freedom of others. 
 
 I have thus gone through my subject as fully, I trust, 
 as the nature and limits of the course prescribed to me 
 would allow. But that is of course very imperfectly. In 
 a course of lectures like this no subject can be dealt with 
 exhaustively ; no subject can be set forth in all its bearings : 
 nothing can be traced in detail from its beginning to its 
 end. The object of the lecturer is rather to awaken curiosity 
 than to gratify it, rather to show what is to be learned than 
 to attempt to teach it in all its fulness. All that he can 
 hope to do is to choose a few of the many aspects of his 
 subject, and to take care that his treatment of them, though 
 necessarily imperfect, shall be accurate as far as it goi-s. 
 Thus much I trust that I have done ; to some I may have 
 suggested a new line of thought ; to others I may have
 
 190 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES LECT. 
 
 suggested new illustrations of a line of thought on which 
 they had already entered. It will be enough if I can, by 
 this present line of argument, bring home to any mind the 
 great truth which it has been the chief business of all that 
 I say or write to set forth by various arguments, the truth 
 that history is one, and that every part of it has a bearing 
 on every other part. No one, I think, who has followed me 
 will deem that the institutions of ancient Greece and Italy 
 are at all lowered from their place of dignity, by being 
 shown to be the same in their origin, the same in many 
 of their details, as the institutions of our own forefathers. 
 We shall not think the less highly of the studies which 
 form the groundwork of all our studies, if we give them 
 their due place and no more, if we treat them as only 
 branches of one great study, records of one great heritage 
 in which England and Germany have their share alongside 
 of Rome and Athens. I do not shut out the other branches 
 of the common family, those who came before us, those 
 whose destiny it may be to come after us, those whom, 
 after so long a separation, we have again met in the far- 
 off Eastern world. I do not shut my eyes to the strong 
 likelihood that much that is common to the various branches 
 of the Aryan family comes from sources common to the 
 Aryans along with other divisions of mankind. But I 
 leave researches of this kind to inquirers of wider ken 
 than my own. It is enough for me to keep myself on 
 ground on which I can be sure of my footing, and to trace 
 out, at least in the form of a rough, though I would hope 
 a suggestive, sketch, the main points of political instruction 
 to be gathered from the history of the three branches of 
 the common stock which have, each in its turn, held the 
 foremost place among civilized men. It is enough if I 
 have led any to look on the earlier forms of the institutions 
 of our own people, on the kindred forms of the common 
 institutions of their kindred races, not as something which 
 is utterly passed and gone, not as something which is cut
 
 vi SUMMARY 191 
 
 off from us by an impassable barrier of time and place, but 
 as something which is still living, .something in which 
 we ourselves share, something of which we still reap the 
 fruit, as a heritage which has descended to us from un- 
 recorded times, as the still abiding work of the fathers and 
 elder brethren of our common blood.
 
 192 THE UNITY OF HISTORY UEDE 
 
 THE UNITY OF HISTORY 
 
 THE revival of learning in the fifteenth and sixteenth 
 centuries marks, as is agreed on all hands, one of the great 
 epochs in the history of the mind of man. It is easy to 
 exaggerate the extent of the revival itself; it is easy to 
 dwell too exclusively on the bright side of its results ; but 
 the undoubted fact still remains none the less. That age 
 was an age when the spirit of man cast away trammels by 
 which it had long been fettered; it was an age when men 
 opened their eyes to light against which they had been 
 closed for ages. A new world was opened ; or, more truly, 
 a world which men never had forgotten, but which had 
 become to them a world of fable, was suddenly set before 
 them in its true and living reality. The Virgil, the Aris- 
 totle, the Alexander, of legend gave way to the true Virgil, 
 the true Aristotle, the true Alexander, called up again to 
 life in their writings and in their deeds. We are indeed 
 apt greatly to exaggerate the ignorance of earlier times, 
 but in one point it is hardly possible to exaggerate the 
 importance of the change. It must have been like the 
 discovery of a new sense, like the discovery of a new world 
 of being, when the treasures of genuine Greek literature 
 were, for the first time, thrown open to the gaze of Western 
 Christendom. The twelfth century had its classical revival 
 as well as the fifteenth ; but the classical revival of the 
 twelfth century hardly ever went beyond a more accurate 
 knowledge, a more happy imitation, of the elder specimens 
 of that Latin tongue which was still the tongue of religion,
 
 LECT. THE REVIVAL OF LEARNING 193 
 
 government, and learning. To William of Malmesbury and 
 John of Salisbury the voice of Homer was dumb, and the 
 voice of Aristotle spoke only at third-hand with a Spanish 
 Saracen to his dragoman. Such knowledge of Greek as 
 fell to the lot of Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon was 
 looked on as a prodigy; and, whatever was its amount, it 
 certainly did not extend to any familiar knowledge of the 
 masterpieces of Hellenic poetry, history, or oratory (i). 
 That revival of learning which brought the men of our 
 Northern world face to face with the camp before Ilios 
 and with the Agore of Athens was indeed a revolution 
 which amounted to hardly less than a second birth of the 
 human mind. 
 
 Yet the revival of learning, rich and manifold as have 
 been its fruits, had its dark side. I speak not of its 
 immediate results, political and ecclesiastical, in its native 
 land of Italy. Better indeed by far was the honest 
 barbarism of the darkest age than the guilty splendours of 
 Lorenzo and of Leo, where all the blaze of art and poetry 
 and learning strive in vain to gloss over the overthrow 
 of freedom and the foul abuse of sacred things. I speak 
 rather of the effects of the classical revival of those days 
 directly on the pursuit of learning, on those studies of 
 Greek and Roman literature and art which became the 
 all in all of the intellect of the age. It at once opened 
 and narrowed the field of human study. It led men to 
 centre their whole powers on an exclusive attention to 
 writings contained in two languages, and for the most part 
 in certain arbitrarily chosen periods of those two languages. 
 In its first stage it devoted itself too exclusively to the 
 mere literature of those two languages, as opposed to the 
 solid lessons of their political history. But, in all its forms 
 and stages, it fostered the idea that the languages, the 
 arts, the history, of Greece and Rome, at certain stages 
 of their being, were the only forms of language, art, and 
 history which deserved the study of cultivated men. It 
 led to the belirf, not perhaps fully put forth in words, but
 
 194 THE UNITY OF HISTOEY REDE 
 
 none the less practically acted on, that those two languages, 
 and all that belonged to them, had some special privilege 
 above all others that the studies which were honoured by 
 the ambiguous name of ' classical ' were fenced off from all 
 others by some mysterious barrier that they formed a 
 sacred precinct which the initiated alone might enter, and 
 from which the profane were to be jealously shut out. 
 Such a state of feeling, a feeling which has even now far 
 from died out, could not fail to lead to mere contempt, 
 and thereby to mere ignorance, of everything beyond the 
 sacred pale. And, what is more, it hindered any knowledge 
 of the true nature of those things which were allowed a 
 place within the sacred pale. It led to a cutting off of 
 so-called ' classical ' studies from all ordinary human pursuits 
 and human interests. And of this cutting off we still feel 
 the evil effects. Men persuaded themselves, not only that 
 'classical' models in literature and art were amongst the 
 noblest and most precious works of human genius, but 
 that they were the only possible standards of excellence. 
 Whatever did not conform to their pattern was worthless 
 and barbarous; the exclusive votaries of classical art and 
 literature deemed that they were branding it with the 
 heaviest reproach when they called it Gothic. They thus 
 cut themselves off from long and stirring volumes of the 
 world's history; they cut themselves off from forms of art 
 and language no less worthy of their homage than those 
 which they deemed alone worthy to receive it. They learned 
 to look with scorn on the works of men of their own land, 
 their own blood, and their own faith. They stifled art and 
 literature by arbitrary rules drawn from models, perfect 
 indeed in their own time and place, but which were utterly 
 inappropriate when creeds and tongues and feelings had 
 altogether changed. Let any one who would thoroughly 
 take in how low the taste of Englishmen had fallen under 
 the dominion of the exclusive classical fashion turn to those 
 passages in the ' Spectator ' where Addison chances to speak 
 of the history, the manners, the art, the religious belief,
 
 LECT. EVILS OF EXCLUSIVE 'CLASSICAL' STUDY 195 
 
 of Englishmen in earlier days. Then let him turn, and 
 see how even then nature asserted her rights against the 
 deadening yoke of fashion, in those passages in which the 
 same man called on his astonished age to acknowledge an 
 outpouring of the true Homeric spirit in the English lay 
 of Chevy Chase (2). 
 
 But, more than all this, the exclusive study of ' classical ' 
 models hindered men from gaining any living knowledge of 
 the classical models themselves. It has been wittily said 
 that they believed that all ' the ancients ' lived at the same 
 time. Certain it is that the habit of constantly classing 
 together Greece and Rome that is, Greece and Rome during 
 a few arbitrarily chosen centuries of their history in opposi- 
 tion to all other times and places led to an utter forgetful- 
 ness of the wide gap by which Greece and Rome were parted 
 asunder. Men forgot the difference between the Ionian 
 singer and the Augustan laureate ; they held up Homer and 
 Virgil as poets of the same class, whose merits and defects 
 could be profitably compared together. They would have 
 been amazed indeed to be told that the true parallel for the 
 tale of the wrath of Achilleus was to be looked for in the 
 Lay of the Nibelungs or in the stirring battle-songs of 
 Saulcourt and Maldon. They would have deemed it a 
 degradation to entertain the thought that the vulgar tongues 
 of England and Germany were kindred tongues, of equal 
 birth and claiming equal^honour, with the sacred languages 
 of Latium and Attica. They would have deemed it, not 
 so much a degradation as an utterance of open madness, 
 had they heard that those sacred languages were but dialects 
 of one common mother-speech, that its elder offspring was 
 to be looked for in the tongues of lands which the Macedonian 
 conqueror had barely grazed, and, more wondrous still to 
 tell, in the fast-vanishing speech of a few men of strange 
 tongue by the Eastern shore of the Baltic Sea (3). 
 
 On us a new light has come. I do not for a moment 
 hesitate to say that the discovery of the Comparative method 
 in philology, in mythology let me add in politics and
 
 196 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 history and the whole range of human thought marks a 
 stage in the progress of the human mind at least as great 
 and memorable as the revival of Greek and Latin learning. 
 The great contribution of the nineteenth century to the 
 advance of human knowledge may boldly take its stand 
 alongside of the great contribution of the fifteenth. Like 
 the revival of learning, it has opened to its votaries a new 
 world, and that not an isolated world, a world shut up 
 within itself, but a world in which times and tongues and 
 nations which before seemed parted poles asunder, now find 
 each one its own place, its own relation to every other, as 
 members of one common primaeval brotherhood. And not 
 the least of its services is that it has put the languages and 
 the history of the so-called ' classical ' world into their true 
 position in the general history of the world. By making 
 them no longer the objects of an exclusive idolatry, it has 
 made them the objects of a worthier, because a more 
 reasonable, worship. It has broken down the middle wall 
 of partition between kindred races and kindred studies ; it 
 has swept away barriers which fenced off certain times and 
 languages as ' dead ' and ' ancient ; ' it has taught us that 
 there is no such thing as ' dead ' and ' living ' languages, as 
 ' ancient ' and ' modern ' history ; it has taught us that the 
 study of language is one study, that the study of history is 
 one study; it has taught us that no languages are more 
 truly living than those which an arbitrary barrier fences off 
 as dead ; it has taught us that no parts of history are more 
 truly modern if by modern we mean full of living interest 
 and teaching for our own times than those which the 
 delusive name of. 'ancient' would seem to brand as some- 
 thing which has wholly passed away, something which, for 
 any practical use in these later times, may safely be 
 forgotten. 
 
 My position then is that, in all our studies of history and 
 language and the study of language, besides all that it is 
 in other ways, is one most important branch of the study of
 
 LECT. DELUSIVE USE OF 'ANCIENT' AND 'MODEBN' 197 
 
 history we must cast away all distinctions of ' ancient ' and 
 < modern,' of ' dead ' and ' living,' and must boldly grapple 
 with the great fact of the unity of history. As man is the 
 same in all ages, the history of man is one in all ages. The 
 scientific student of language, the student of primitive 
 culture, will refuse any limits to their pursuits which cut 
 them off from any portion of the earth's surface, from any 
 moment of man's history since he first walked upon it. In 
 their eyes the languages and the custonis of Greece and 
 Rome have no special privilege above the languages and the 
 customs of other nations. They do but take their place 
 among their fellows, as illustrations of the universal laws 
 which bear rule over human nature and human speech. 
 But let us come to history more strictly so called, to the 
 history of man as a political being, to the history of our 
 own quarter of the globe and our own family of nations. 
 The history of the Aryan nations of Europe, their languages, 
 their institutions, their dealings with one another, all form 
 one long series of cause and effect, no part of which can be 
 rightly understood if it be dealt with as something wholly 
 cut off from, and alien to, any other part. There is really 
 nothing in certain arbitrarily chosen centuries of the history 
 of Greece and Italy which ought to cut them off, either for 
 reverence or for contempt, from any other portion of the 
 history of the kindred nations. There is nothing to make 
 the so-called 'ancient' history a separate study from the 
 history of so-called ' modern ' times. ' Ancient ' history calls 
 for no special powers for its mastery ; it calls for no special 
 method for its study. The powers which are needed for 
 the mastery of ancient history are the same as those that 
 are needed for the mastery of modern history. The method, 
 the line of thought, the habits of research and criticism, 
 which are needed for the one are equally needed for the 
 other. Knowledge is, in both cases, gained by the exercise 
 of the same faculties, and by the use of the same process 
 in their exercise. So too it is with language. There is not, 
 as the world in general seems to think, anything special or
 
 198 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 mysterious about the Greek and Latin tongues, or about 
 those particular stages of those tongues which are picked 
 out to receive the name of classical. The accurate knowledge 
 of one language can be gained only by the same means as 
 the accurate knowledge of another. It does not need two 
 sets of faculties, but one and the same set, to enable us to 
 master the inflexions of the tongue of Homer and the 
 kindred inflexions of the kindred tongue of Ulfilas. 
 
 No language, no period of history, can be understood in 
 its fulness, none can be clothed with its highest interest and 
 its highest profit, if it be looked at wholly in itself, without 
 reference to its bearing on those other languages, those other 
 periods of history, which join with it to make up the great 
 whole of human, or at least of Aryan and European, being. 
 The tie which binds together the Greek and the Latin 
 languages is doubtless closer than that which binds either 
 of them to any other member of the great family. But 
 the tie is simply closer in degree ; it is in no way different 
 in kind. We are at last learning that our scientific know- 
 ledge of the speech of Greece is imperfect unless we add to 
 it a scientific knowledge of the speech of England, and that 
 our knowledge of the speech of England is imperfect unless 
 we add to it a scientific knowledge of the speech of Greece. 
 We are learning that Greek and Roman history do not stand 
 alone, bound together by some special tie, but isolated from 
 the rest of the history of the world, even from the history of 
 the kindred nations. We are learning that European history, 
 from its first glimmerings to our own day, is one unbroken 
 drama, no part of which can be rightly understood without 
 reference to the other parts which come before and after it. 
 We are learning that of this great drama Rome is the 
 centre, the point to which all roads lead, and from which 
 all roads lead no less. It is the vast lake in which all the 
 streams of earlier history lose themselves, and from which 
 all the streams of later history flow forth again. The world 
 of independent Greece stands on one side of it; the world 
 of modern Europe stands on the other. But the history
 
 LECT. ROME THE CENTRE OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY 199 
 
 alike of the great centre and of its satellites on either side 
 can never be fully grasped, except from a point of view wide 
 enough to take in the whole group, and to mark the relations 
 of each of its members to the centre and to one another. 
 As it is with the language, so it is with the history. Our 
 knowledge of the history of Greece is imperfect without a 
 knowledge of the kindred history of England, and our 
 knowledge of the history of England is imperfect without a 
 knowledge of the kindred history of Greece. Rome is the 
 centre ; Rome is the common link which binds all together ; 
 and yet, while learning this, while learning more truly and 
 fully the place and dignity of Rome, we are learning too to 
 cast away the superstition which once looked on her language 
 as the one guide and key to all other languages and to all 
 human knowledge. We have learned that all members of 
 the great family are alike kinsfolk, entitled to stand side by 
 side on equal terms. We have learned that Angul and his 
 brother Dan (4) may march boldly and claim of right to 
 speak face to face with their cousin Helln, and have no 
 need to be smuggled in by some back-way through the 
 favour of their other cousin Latinus. 
 
 I here stop to answer one possible objection. Is it, I may 
 be asked, needful for the student of history or of language to 
 be master of all history and of all language ? Must he be 
 equally familiar with the tongue, the literature, the political 
 constitutions, the civil and military events, of all times and 
 places? Such an amount of knowledge, it may well be 
 argued, can never fall to the lot of man. And some may go 
 on to infer that any doctrine which may even seem to lead 
 to such a result must be in itself fruitless. Now to be 
 equally familiar with all history and all language is of course 
 utterly beyond human power. But it is none the less true 
 that the student of history or of language and he who is a 
 student of either must be in no small degree a student of 
 the other must take in all history and all language within 
 his range. The degrees of his knowledge of various languages,
 
 200 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 of various branches of history, will vary infinitely. Of some 
 branches he must know everything, but of every branch he 
 must know something. Each student will have his own 
 special range, the times and places which he chooses for 
 his special and minute study. Of these he will know 
 everything; he will master every detail of their history 
 in the minutest way from the original authorities. The 
 choice of such ages and countries for special study will of 
 course depend upon each man's taste and opportunities ; one 
 may choose an earlier, another a later time ; one may choose 
 the East, another the West ; one may choose a heathen, 
 another a Christian period ; but all are fellow- workers, if 
 only they all remember that, beyond the something of which 
 they must needs know everything lies the everything of 
 which they need only know something. No man can study 
 the history of all ages and countries in original authorities. 
 To the man who is most deeply versed in historic lore there 
 must still be many periods of which his knowledge is vague, 
 imperfect, and gained at second-hand. When a subject is so 
 vast, it cannot be otherwise. Some branches must in every 
 case be primary and some secondary; which are primary 
 and which are secondary will of course differ in the case of 
 each particular student. It is enough if each man, while 
 thoroughly mastering the branches of his own choice, knows 
 at least enough of the other branches to have a clear and 
 abiding conception of their relation to his own special 
 branches and to one another. And the thorough knowledge 
 of one period, the habit of minute research and criticism 
 among contemporary authorities, undoubtedly gives a man 
 a power which leads him better to see his way through the 
 periods which he has to take at second-hand, and to feel by 
 a kind of instinct where second-hand writers may be freely 
 followed and where they must be used with caution. A 
 man who is thoroughly master of the periods which to him 
 are primary will readily grasp the leading outlines and the 
 true relations of the periods which to him are secondary. 
 The one point is that of no period of history worthy of the
 
 LECT. POSITION OF GRECIAN HISTORY 201 
 
 name> of no part of the record of man's political being, can 
 he afford to know nothing. I have said that a knowledge 
 of the history of Greece is imperfect without a knowledge 
 of the history of England, and that a knowledge of the 
 history of England is imperfect without a knowledge of the 
 history of Greece. But I do not say that the knowledge 
 need be in each case the same in amount, or even the same 
 in kind. With many men one must be primary and the 
 other secondary ; one will be a study to be mastered in its 
 minutest detail, while the other will be something of which 
 it is enough to know the main outlines and to grasp the 
 true relations of each period to the others. And as it is 
 with history, so it is with language. The philologer will 
 have certain languages of which he is thoroughly master, 
 with whose literature he is familiar, and in which his tact 
 can distinguish the nicest peculiarities of dialects and periods 
 and particular writers. Of other tongues he will have no 
 such minute knowledge ; he may be unable to compose a 
 sentence in them, perhaps even to construe a sentence in 
 them ; yet he may have a very real and practical knowledge 
 of them for his own purpose. That purpose is gained if he 
 thoroughly grasps their relations to other languages, the 
 main peculiarities which distinguish them, and the position 
 which they hold in the general history of human speech. 
 
 Looking then at the history of man, at all events at the 
 history of Aryan man in Europe, as one unbroken whole, no 
 part of which can be safely looked at without reference to 
 other parts, we shall soon see that those branches of history 
 which are too often set aside as something distinct and 
 isolated from all others do not lose but gain in dignity and 
 importance, by being set free from an unnatural bondage, 
 by being brought into their natural relation to other 
 branches of the one great study of which they form a part. 
 Let us look at the history of the Greek people and the 
 Greek tongue. Some men speak as if that history came to 
 an end on the field of Chaironeia, while others will gra-
 
 202 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 ciously allow that the life of Greece lingered on to be burned 
 up for ever among the flames of Corinth. Some speak as if 
 the whole life of the Greek tongue was shut up within those 
 few centuries which, by an arbitrary distinction, we choose 
 to speak of as ' classical.' Some indeed draw the line very 
 narrowly indeed. There was one Greek historian before 
 whose eyes the history of the world was laid open as it 
 never was to any other man before or after. There was one 
 man who, in the compass of a single life, had been as it 
 were a dweller in two worlds, in two wholly different stages 
 of man's being. To the experience of Polybios the old life 
 of independent Greece, the border warfare and the internal 
 politics of her commonwealths, had been the familiar scenes 
 of his earlier days. His childhood had been brought up 
 among the traditions of the Achaian League, among men 
 who were fellow-workers with Markos and Aratos. His 
 birth would almost fall in days when Megalopolis stood, 
 under the rule of Lydiadas, as an independent unit in the 
 independent world of Hellas. The son of Lykortas, the 
 pupil of Philopoimen, may have sat as a child on the knees 
 of the deliverer of Sikyon and Corinth. He could remember 
 the times when the tale of the self-devotion of their illus- 
 trious tyrant must have still sounded like a trumpet in the 
 ears of the men of the Great City (5). He had himself 
 borne to the grave the urn of the last hero of his native 
 land, cut off, as Anaxandros or Archidamos might have 
 been, in border warfare with the rebels of Messene (6). He 
 could remember times when Macedonia, perhaps even when 
 Carthage, was still an independent and mighty power, able 
 to grapple on equal terms with the advancing, but as yet 
 not overwhelming, power of Rome. He lived to see all 
 swept away. He lived to see Africa, Macedonia, and Greece 
 itself, either incorporated with the Roman dominion or 
 mocked with a shadow of freedom which left them abject 
 dependents on the will of the conquering people. He saw 
 the dominion of the descendants of Seleukos, the truest 
 heirs of Alexander's conquests, shrink up from the vast
 
 LECT. HISTORIC POSITION OF POLYBIOS 203 
 
 empire of Western Asia into the local sovereignty of a 
 Syrian kingdom. He saw Pergamos rise to its momentary 
 greatness and Egypt begin the first steps of its downward 
 course. He saw the gem of Asiatic history, the wise Con- 
 federation of Lykia, rise into being after the model of the 
 State in which his own youth had been spent. He lived 
 to stand by the younger Scipio beside the flames of Carthage, 
 and, if he saw not the ruin of Corinth with his own eyes, 
 he lived to legislate for the helpless Roman dependency 
 into which the free Hellenic League of his youth had 
 changed (7). The man who saw all this saw changes 
 greater than the men who lived in the days of Theodoric 
 and Justinian, or the men who lived in the days of the 
 elder Buonaparte. And yet there are scholars, men devoted 
 to ' ancient ' and ' classical ' learning, who have been known 
 to cast away from them the writings of the man who saw 
 all this, because forsooth they were ' bad Greek/ because 
 they did not conform in every jot and tittle to the standard 
 of some arbitrarily chosen point in the history of a language 
 which has lived a life of well nigh three thousand years. 
 As if the form were more precious than the substance ; as 
 if the changes in a language were not the most instructive 
 part of the history of that language ; as if it were not as 
 unreasonable to call the Greek of Polybios ' bad Greek ' 
 because it is not the Greek of Thucydides as it would be 
 to call the Greek of Thucydides ' bad Greek ' because it is 
 not the Greek of Homer. But let us rise above trammels 
 such as these ; let us take a wider and a worthier view of 
 the long history of the most illustrious form of human 
 speech. Let us remember that the despised Greek of Poly- 
 bios gives us an instance of a law which has gone on from 
 his day to ours. Thucydides, Xenophon, Demosthenes, 
 wrote and harangued in the dialect which came most 
 naturally to their lips, in the dialect of their daily life. 
 The History of Polybios is as little written in the dialect 
 which came most naturally to his lips as is the History of 
 Trikoupes. The language of an Arkadian inscription is
 
 204 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 something wholly different from the language of the con- 
 temporary History (8). That is to say, the dialect of Athens 
 had already made that complete conquest of Hellenic prose 
 literature which it has kept ever since. The classical purist 
 may smile when I apply the name of Attic to the long 
 succession of writers of Macedonian, Roman, and Byzantine 
 date. But so it is ; the style and spirit may change ; the 
 vocabulary may be corrupted by strange and barbarous 
 intruders ; but the mere forms of words still remain Attic. 
 The latest Byzantine writer really differs less from Xenophon 
 than Xenophon differs from Herodotus. Even the language 
 of a modern Greek newspaper, in its vain attempts to call 
 back a form of speech which has passed away, is Attic to 
 the best of its ability. Its aim is to reproduce the Greek 
 of Plato and Xenophon, not the Greek of Herodotus or of 
 Pindar. What higher tribute can be paid to the great 
 writers of the short sunshine of Athenian glory, than that 
 the dialect of their one city should for two thousand years 
 have thus set the standard of Greek prose writing, that it 
 should thus keep up one ideal of Hellenic purity among the 
 many and shifting forms of speech which were the native 
 dialects of the men who used it ? But the full extent, the 
 full worth, of such a tribute can never be fully understood 
 by those who cast away with contempt whatever does not 
 fully come up to an ideal whose full perfection of course was 
 unattainable except in its native time and place. The man 
 who would fully take in the influence of the Greek tongue 
 and the Greek mind on the history of the world must look 
 far beyond the narrow range of time and place within which 
 classical purism would confine him. Let him see how, in 
 the earliest days of Greek colonization, the tongue and the 
 arts of Greece found themselves a home on every coast from 
 the isle of Cyprus to the peninsula of Spain. Let him look 
 on the greater isle of Sicily, twice the battle-field between 
 the East and the West, between Africa and Europe, between 
 the Semitic and the Aryan man (9). Let him see the native 
 tribes gradually absorbed by kindred conquerors and neigh-
 
 LECT. LONG DURATION OF GREEK LIFE 205 
 
 hours, till the distinction between Sikel and Sikeliot died 
 away, till the whole island was gathered into the Hellenic 
 fold, a land whose Hellenic life failed not under the rule of 
 Carthaginian, Roman, Saracen, and Norman, and where the 
 tongue in which the victories of Hieron had been sung to 
 the lyre of Pindar lived on to record the glories of the house 
 of Hauteville on the walls of the Saracenic churches of 
 Palermo (10). Look again at the Phokaian settlement in 
 Gaul; see how, among a race far more alien than the 
 kindred Sikel, the arts and letters of Greece held their place 
 for ages, and how some glimmerings from the Massalian 
 hearth may even have reached, not indeed to our own fore- 
 fathers, but to our predecessors in our own island. See the 
 long history of the Massalian commonwealth itself; how the 
 spirit of the men who sailed away from the Persian yoke 
 lived on in their kinsfolk who withstood the might of Caesar, 
 and sprang again to life in later times to withstand the 
 sterner might of Charles of Anjou (n). From the western 
 extremity of Greek colonization let us look to the eastern ; 
 let us turn our eyes from the northern shore of the Mediter- 
 ranean to the northern shore of the Inhospitable Sea. The 
 Greek kingdom of Bosporos and the Greek commonwealth 
 of Cherson have passed so utterly out of memory that we 
 may doubt whether, when, eighteen years back, those lands 
 were in every mouth, there was one among the warriors and 
 tourists and writers of a day who knew that, in compassing 
 the fortress of Sebastopol, he was treading on the ruins of 
 the last of the Greek republics. Yet it is something to 
 remember that, ages after Athens and Sparta and Thebes 
 had been swallowed up in the dominion of Rome, ages after 
 their citizens had exchanged the name of Hellenes for the 
 name of Romans, the fire once lighted at the prytaneion of 
 Megara still burned on, that one single commonwealth still 
 lived, Greek in blood and speech and feeling, the ally but 
 not the subject of the lords of the Old and the New Rome 
 (12). Thus far we have seen the free Greek settle on 
 distant shores, and carry with him the freedom of his own
 
 206 THE UNITY OF HISTORY RED 
 
 land. But we must look also to other times and lands, when 
 the Greek tongue and Greek arts were scattered through 
 the world, but without carrying Greek freedom with them. 
 Yet it was something that, before Greece yielded to her 
 Macedonian master, he had himself to become a Greek, to 
 be adopted into the great religious brotherhood of Greece, 
 and to be chosen, with at least the outward assent of her 
 commonwealths, to be their common leader against the 
 Barbarian (13). The arms which overthrew her old political 
 freedom carried her tongue and her culture through the 
 kingdoms of the East. The centres of Grecian intellectual 
 life moved from the banks of the Ilissos and the Eurotas to 
 the banks of the Orontes and the Nile. Even the barbarous 
 Gaul, the descendant of the invaders of her Delphic temple, 
 was brought in his new home within her magic range, and 
 his Asiatic land deserved to be spoken of as the Gaulish 
 Greece (14). Thus that artificial Greek nation arose, some- 
 times Greek in birth, always Greek in speech and culture, 
 which so long divided the dominion of the world, and which, 
 after ages of bondage, has again sprung to life in our own 
 day. It is something too to see how truly Greece led captive, 
 not only her Macedonian but her Roman conqueror; to 
 remember how the first Roman historians recorded Roman 
 legends in the Greek tongue, and how well nigh every 
 Roman poet went to Greece as the fount of his inspiration. 
 But our view will not stop with the Augustan or with the 
 Flavian age. If we would see how truly Greece conquered 
 Rome, we must see the two Imperial saints of heathendom, 
 Marcus in his camp by the Danube and Julian in his 
 camp by the Rhine, choosing the tongue of Greece, and not 
 of Rome, to receive the witness of the time when the prayer 
 of the wise man was answered, and when philosophers held 
 the dominion of the world. But from them we must turn 
 away to the records of the Faith which the one persecuted 
 and the other cast aside. Those conquests which made the 
 Greek tongue the literary tongue of civilized Asia caused 
 that it should be in the Greek tongue that the oracles of
 
 LECT. THE MODERN GREEK CHURCH AND NATION 207 
 
 Christianity should be given to the world, and that Greek 
 should be the speech of the earliest and most eloquent 
 preachers of the Faith. The traditions of Greece and Rome, 
 the conquests of Macedonian warriors and of Christian 
 Apostles, all came together when the throne and the name 
 of Rome were transferred to a Greek-speaking city of the 
 Eastern world, and when the once heathen colony of Megara 
 was baptized into the Christian capital of Constantine. 
 There went on that long dominion of the laws of Rome, but 
 of the speech, the learning, and the arts of Greece, the 
 dominion of the city which those who scorned and overthrew 
 her political power none the less revered as their intellectual 
 mistress. We have not gone through the history of Greece 
 till we have read the legends carved in her tongue on the 
 monumental stones of Ravenna, and blazing in all the glory 
 of the apses of Venice and Torcello (15). We have not 
 taken in how thoroughly Greece leavened the world, till we 
 read how the panegyrist of the Norman Conqueror tells us 
 that the spoils of England were of such richness that they 
 would not have disgraced the Imperial city, and that even 
 Greek eyes might have looked on them with wonder (16). 
 The Empire of Greece has passed away, but her changeless 
 Church remains, the Church which still speaks the tongue 
 of Paul and of Chrysostom, the Church which still sends up 
 her prayers in the words of the liturgies of the earliest days, 
 the Church which still keeps her Creed free from the in- 
 terpolations of later times (17), and which, alone among 
 Christian Churches, can give to her people the New Testa- 
 ment itself, and not man's interpretation of it. And now 
 again the Hellen, disguised for ages under the Roman name, 
 has once more stood forth as a nation, a nation artificial 
 indeed as regards actual blood, but a nation well defined by 
 its Greek speech and its Greek religion. And, if regenerate 
 Hellas has in some points failed, what has been the cause 
 of her failure ? Mainly because regenerate Hellas has, in 
 the zeal of her new birth, forgotten her long continuous 
 being. It is, above all things, the dream of the irrecoverable
 
 208 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 past, the dream of the exclusively classic past, which has 
 checked the progress of the ransomed nation. A Greece 
 which could utterly forget Athens and Sparta, which could 
 look on herself simply as one of the Christian races rescued, 
 or to be rescued, from the bondage of the Infidel a Greece 
 which could look on herself, and which was allowed to look 
 on herself, simply as the yoke-fellow of Servia and Bulgaria 
 would be far more likely to hold up her head among 
 the nations of Europe than a Greece that still dreams of 
 Thermopylai and Marathon, hard as the lesson must be 
 when her strife for freedom was one in which the very soil 
 of Thermopylai and Marathon was again dyed with the 
 blood of vanquished barbarians. 
 
 Surely in such a view as this we learn how truly history is 
 one ; surely such a survey teaches us how the whole drama 
 hangs together, how ill we can afford to look at any one of 
 its scenes as a mere isolated fragment, without referring to 
 the scenes before and after it. And surely too we pay the 
 highest homage to ' ancient ' days, to ' classic ' days, to the 
 nation which stood forth as the first teacher of the human 
 mind and to the tongue which was the instrument of its 
 teaching, not by shutting them up within the prison of a few 
 centuries, but by tracing out their influence on the history 
 of all time, by showing how close is the bearing of those 
 ' ancient ' times upon the modern world around us, and how 
 the language which we falsely speak of as ' dead ' has in truth 
 never died, but still lives on, as it has ever lived through the 
 revolutions of so many ages. But we shall feel the oneness 
 of history even more, if we turn from Greece and her in- 
 fluence on mankind to the influence of the other ' ancient ' 
 and ' classical ' people, to the long and abiding life of that 
 other tongue which is even more strangely spoken of as 
 ' dead.' Let us look at Rome, not the mere ' classic ' Rome 
 of a generation or two of imitative poets, but the true Eternal 
 City, the Rome of universal history. And in this view, it is 
 again no small witness to the true oneness of history that 
 much that we have already looked at as Greek we must look
 
 LECT. PERMANENCY OF THE LANGUAGE OF ROME 209 
 
 at from another point as Roman. The influence of Greece 
 on the later world, deep and lasting as it has been, has been 
 largely an indirect influence, an influence of example and 
 analogy. No modern nation is governed by the laws of 
 Lykourgos or the laws of Solon ; no modern state can directly 
 trace its political being either to Athenian democracy or to 
 Macedonian kingship. But Rome still lives in the inmost 
 life of every modern European state. Two abiding signs of 
 her rule stand out on the very surface of the modern world, 
 and need no thought, no searching into records, to bring 
 them before the eyes of every man. Three of the foremost 
 nations of Europe still speak the tongue of Rome, in forms 
 indeed which have parted off into independent languages, but 
 which are none the less living witnesses of her abiding rule, 
 as not only the conqueror but the civilizer of the Western 
 lands. And among all the nations which speak her tongue, 
 among many too to whom her tongue is strange, the city of 
 the Caesars and the Pontiffs is still looked up to as their reli- 
 gious metropolis, though no longer as their temporal capital. 
 Let us look at the history of Rome and of her language. 
 We may say of Rome, in a truer sense even than of Greece, 
 that her sound has gone out into all lands, and her words 
 unto the ends of the world. In the view of universal history, 
 the century 01 two of its ' classic ' purity seem but as a 
 moment in the long annals of the Imperial tongue. W T e 
 might indeed be tempted to wipe out altogether the days of 
 her ' classical ' that is, her imitative literature, as a mere 
 episode in the history of the undying speech of Rome. We 
 might be tempted to say that the genuine literature of Italy 
 went into a katdbothra when the Camenae wept over the 
 tomb of Naevius, and that it came out again when the 
 dominion of the stranger Muses had passed away, and when 
 the inspiration of Prudentius and Ambrose was drawn from 
 sources at least not more foreign than the well of Helikon ( 1 8). 
 The old Saturnian echoes which sang how it was the evil fate 
 of Rome which gave her the Metelli as her Consuls, ring out 
 again in those new Saturnian rimes which sing the praises of
 
 210 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 Imperial Frederick and set forth the reforming policy of Earl 
 Simon (19). The truly distinctive character of the Latin 
 tongue was not stamped on it by its poets, not even by its 
 historians and orators. The special calling of Rome, as one 
 of those poets told her, was to rule the nations ; not merely 
 to conquer by her arms, but to govern by her abiding laws. 
 Her truest and longest life is to be looked for not in the 
 triumphs of her Dictators, but in the edicts of her Praetors. 
 The most truly original branch of Latin literature is to be 
 found in what some might perhaps deny to be part of litera- 
 ture at all, in the immediate records of her rule, in the text- 
 books of her great lawyers, in the Itineraries of her provinces, 
 in the Notitia of her governments and offices. The true 
 glory of the Latin tongue is to have become the eternal 
 speech of law and dominion. It is the tongue of Rome's 
 twofold sovereignty and of her twofold legislation, the tongue 
 of the Church and the Empire, the tongue of the successors 
 of Augustus and of the successors of Saint Peter. It has 
 been, wherever King or Priest could wrap himself in any 
 shred of her Imperial or her Pontifical mantle, the chosen 
 speech alike of temporal and of religious rule. In the hymn 
 of the Fratres Arvales, in the ' lex horrendi carminis ' of the 
 earliest recorded Roman formula (20), we get the beginnings 
 of that long series of witnesses of her twofold rule, as alike 
 the temporal and the spiritual mistress of the Western world. 
 In the eyes of universal history the truest triumphs of the 
 Latin tongue are to be found in lands far away from the 
 seven hills, far away even from the shores of the Italian 
 peninsula. The tongue of Rome, the tongue of Gaius and 
 Ulpian rather than the tongue of Virgil and Horace, has 
 become the tongue of the Code and the Capitularies, the 
 tongue of the false Decretals and of the true Acts of Councils, 
 the tongue of Domesday and the Great Charter, the tongue 
 of the Missal and the Breviary, the tongue which was for 
 ages in Western eyes the very tongue of Scripture itself, 
 the tongue in which all Western nations were content to 
 record their laws and annals, the tongue for which all those
 
 LECT. (ECUMENICAL ASPECT OF ROMAN HISTORY 211 
 
 nations which came within her immediate dominion were 
 content to cast away their native speech. It is this abiding 
 and Imperial character of the speech of Rome, far more than 
 even the greatest works of one or two short periods in its 
 long b'fe, which gives it a position in the history of the world 
 which no other European tongue can share with it. But this 
 its position in the history of the world can never be grasped 
 except by those who look on the history of the world as 
 one continuous whole. It is unintelligible to those who 
 break up the unity of history by artificial barriers of ' ancient ' 
 and ' modern.' Much that in a shallow view of things passes 
 for mere imitation, for mere artificial revival, was in truth 
 abiding and unbroken tradition. Of all the languages of the 
 earth, Latin is the last to be spoken of as dead. It was but 
 yesterday the universal speech of science and learning ; it is 
 still the religious speech of half Western Europe ; it is still 
 the key to European history and law ; and, if it is tfbwhere 
 spoken in its ancient form, it still lives in the new forms into 
 which it grew in the provinces which Rome civilized as well 
 as conquered. It was a wise saying that the true scholar 
 should know, not only whence words come, but whither they 
 go (21). The history of the Latin language is imperfect if it 
 does not take in the history of the changes by which it grew 
 into the tongue of Dante and Villani, into the tongues of the 
 Provencal Troubadour and the Castilian Campeador, and into 
 that later but once vigorous speech which gave us the rimes 
 of Wace and the prose of Joinville, and which still lives in 
 so many of the statutes and records and legal formulae of our 
 own land. 
 
 In truth, as the full meaning and greatness of the Roman 
 history cannot be grasped without a full understanding of 
 history as a whole, so the history of Rome is in itself the 
 great example of the oneness of all history. The history of 
 Rome is the history of the European world. It is in Rome 
 that all the states of the earlier European world lose them- 
 selves; it is out of Rome that all the states of the later 
 European world take their being. The true meaning of
 
 212 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 Roman history as a branch of universal history, or rather the 
 absolute identity of Roman history with universal history, 
 can only be fully understood by giving special attention to- 
 those ages of the history of Europe which are commonly 
 most neglected. Men study what they call Greek and 
 Roman history ; they study again the history of the modern 
 kingdoms of England and France. But they end their 
 Roman studies at the latest with the deposition of Augus- 
 tulus ; sometimes they do not carry them beyond Pharsalia 
 and Philippi. Their study of English history they begin at 
 the point when England for a moment ceased to be England : 
 their French studies they begin at some point which teaches 
 them that the greatest of Germans was a Frenchman. In 
 every case, they begin both at some point which leaves an 
 utter gap between their ' ancient ' or ' classical ' and their 
 ' modern ' studies. To understand history as a whole, to 
 understand how truly all European history is Roman history, 
 we must see things, not only as they seem when they are 
 looked at from Rome and Athens, from Paris and London, 
 but as they seem when they are looked at from Constanti- 
 nople, from Aachen, and from Ravenna. In that last-named 
 wondrous city we stand as it were on the isthmus which 
 joins two worlds, and there, amid Roman, Gothic, and 
 Byzantine monuments, we feel, more than on any other spot 
 of the earth's surface, what the history of the Roman Empire 
 really was. It is in the days of the decline of the Roman 
 power those days which were in truth the days of its 
 greatest conquests that we see how truly great, how truly 
 abiding, was the power of Rome. When we see how 
 thoroughly the conquered Roman led captive his Teutonic 
 conqueror, we see how firm was the work of Sulla and of 
 Augustus, of Diocletian and of Constantine. We see it 
 alike when Odoacer and Theodoric shrink from assuming the 
 titles and ensigns of Imperial power, and when the Imperial 
 crown of Rome is placed upon the head of the Frankish 
 Charles. We see it in our own day as long as the cognomen 
 of a Roman family, strangely changed into the official
 
 LECT. ROMAN INFLUENCE ON TEUTONIC NATIONS 213 
 
 designation of Roman sovereignty, still remains the highest 
 and most coveted of earthly titles. To know what Rome 
 was, to feel how she looked in the eyes of other nations, it is 
 not enough to read the hireling strains in which Horace 
 sends the living Consul and Tribune to drink nectar among 
 the Gods, or those in which Virgil and Lucan bid him take 
 care on what quarter of the universe he seats himself (22). 
 Let us rather see how Rome, in the days of her supposed 
 decay, looked in the eyes of the men who overthrew her. 
 Let us listen to the Goth Athanaric, when, overwhelmed by 
 the splendours of the New Rome, he bears witness that the 
 Emperor is a God upon earth, and that he who dares to 
 withstand him shall have his blood on his own head (23). 
 Let us listen to Ataulf in the moment of his triumph, when 
 he tells how he had once dreamed of sweeping away the 
 Roman name, of putting the Goth in the place of the 
 Roman, and Ataulf in the place of Augustus, but how he 
 learned in later days that the world could not be governed 
 save by the laws of Rome, and how the highest glory to 
 which he now looked was to use the power of the Goth in 
 the defence of the Roman Commonwealth (24). And so her 
 name and power lives on, witnessed in the Imperial style of 
 every prince, from Winchester to Trebizond, who deemed it 
 his highest glory to deck himself in some shreds of her 
 purple ; witnessed too, when her name passes on not only to 
 her subjects, allies, and disciples, but to the destroyers of her 
 power and faith ; when Timour, coming forth from his 
 unknown Mongolian land, sends his defiance to the Ottoman 
 Bajazet and addresses him by the title of the Caesar of Rome 
 (25). But it is not in mere names and titles that her 
 dominion still lives. As long as the law of well-nigh every 
 European nation but ourselves rests as its groundwork on 
 the legislation of Servius and Justinian as long as the 
 successor of the Leos and the Innocents, shorn of all earthly 
 power, is still looked to by millions as holding their seat by 
 a more than earthly right so long can no man say that the 
 power of Rome is a thing of days which are gone by, or that
 
 214 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 the history of her twofold rule is the history of a dominion 
 which has wholly passed away. 
 
 In tracing out the long history of the true middle ages, 
 the ages when Roman and Teutonic elements stood as yet 
 side by side, not yet mingled together into the whole which 
 was to spring out of -their union in treading the spots 
 which hate witnessed the deeds of Roman Caesars and 
 Teutonic Kings many are the scenes which we light upon 
 which make us feel more strongly how truly all European 
 history is one unbroken tale. There are moments when 
 contending elements are brought together in a wondrous 
 sort, when strangely mingled tongues and races and states 
 of feeling meet as it were from distant lands and ages. I 
 will choose but one such scene out of many. Let us stand 
 on the Akropolis of Athens on a day in the early part of the 
 eleventh century of our aera. A change has come since the 
 days of Perikles and even since the days of Alaric. The 
 voice of the orator is silent in the Pnyx ; the voice of the 
 philosopher is silent in the Academy. Athene Promachos 
 no longer guards her city with her uplifted spear, nor do 
 men deem that, if the Goth should again draw nigh, her 
 living form would again scare him from her walls (26). 
 But her temple is still there, as yet untouched by the 
 cannon of Turk and Venetian, as yet unspoiled by the hand 
 of the Scottish plunderer. It stands as holy as ever in the 
 minds of men ; it is hallowed to a worship of which Iktinos 
 and Kallikrates never heard ; yet in some sort it keeps its 
 ancient name and use : the House of the Virgin is the 
 House of the Virgin still. The old altars, the old images, 
 are swept away ; but altars unstained by blood have risen 
 in their stead, and the walls of the cella blaze, like Saint 
 Sophia and Saint Vital, with the painted forms of Hebrew 
 patriarchs, Christian martyrs, and Roman Caesars. It is a 
 day of triumph, not as when the walls were broken down 
 to welcome a returning Olympic conqueror; not as when 
 ransomed thousands pressed forth to hail the victors of
 
 LECT. TRIUMPH OF BASIL THE SECOND AT ATHENS 215 
 
 Marathon, or when their servile offspring crowded to pay 
 their impious homage to the descending godship of 
 Demetrios (27). A conqueror comes to pay his worship 
 within those ancient walls; an Emperor of the Romans 
 comes to give thanks for the deliverance of his Empire in 
 the Church of Saint Mary of Athens. Roman in title, 
 Greek in speech boasting of his descent from the Mace- 
 donian Alexander and from the Parthian Arsakes, but 
 sprung in truth, so men whispered, from the same Slavonic 
 stock which had given the Empire Justinian and Belisarius 
 fresh from his victories over a people Turanian in blood, 
 Slavonic in speech, and delighting to deck their Kings with 
 the names of Hebrew prophets (28) Basil the Second, the 
 Slayer of the Bulgarians, the restorer of the Byzantine 
 power, paying his thank-offerings to God and the Panagia 
 in the old heathen temple of democratic Athens, seems as if 
 he had gathered all the ages and nations of the world 
 around him, to teach by the most pointed of contrasts that 
 the history of no age or nation can be safely fenced off from 
 the history of its fellows (29). Other scenes of the same 
 class might easily be brought together, but this one, perhaps 
 the most striking of all, is enough. I know of no nobler 
 subject for a picture or a poem. 
 
 We might carry out the same doctrine of the unity of 
 history into many and various applications. I have as yet 
 been speaking of branches of the study where its oneness 
 takes the form of direct connexion, of long chains of events 
 bound together in the direct relation of cause and effect. 
 There are other branches of history which proclaim the 
 unity of the study in a hardly less striking "way, in the 
 form of mere analogy. Man is in truth ever the same ; even 
 when the direct succession of cause and effect does not come 
 in, we see that in times and places most remote from one 
 another like events follow upon like causes. European 
 history forms one whole in the strictest sense, but between 
 European and Asiatic history the connexion is only
 
 216 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 occasional and incidental. The fortunes of the Roman 
 Empire had no effect on the internal revolutions of the 
 Saracenic Caliphate, still less effect had they on the 
 momentary dominion of the house of Jenghiz or on the 
 Mogul Empire in India. Yet the way in which the 
 European Empire and its several kingdoms broke in pieces 
 has its exact parallel in those distant Eastern monarchies. 
 After all real dominion in the West had passed away from 
 the New Rome, Gothic and Prankish Kings bore themselves 
 as lieutenants of the absent Emperor. It was by Imperial 
 commission that Ataulf conquered Spain and that Theodoric 
 conquered Italy, and Odoacer, Chlodwig, and Theodoric him- 
 self, bore the titles of Consul and Patrician, no less than 
 Boetius and Belisarius. So in later times we see the Duke 
 of the French at Paris owning a nominal homage to the 
 King of the Franks at Laon, and at the same time attacking, 
 despoiling, leading about as a prisoner, the King whom he 
 did not dare to deprive of his royal title (30). We see Princes 
 Aquitaine and Toulouse so far vassals of the King of 
 Laon as to date their charters by the years of his reign, but 
 not caring to speak a word for or against their master in his 
 struggle with their rebellious fellow-vassal. We see in 
 times far nearer to our own a Roman Emperor and King of 
 Germany addressed in terms of the lowliest homage, and 
 served, as by his menial servants, by princes some of them 
 mightier than himself, princes who never scrupled to draw 
 the sword against a Lord of the World who, as such, held 
 not a foot of the earth's surface. We see the parallels to 
 this when the dominion of Jenghiz is split up into endless 
 fragments which still remember the name of their lawful 
 sovereign. It is brought in all its fulness before our eyes 
 when the Emir Timour, scrupulously forbearing to take on 
 him any higher title, thus far respects the hereditary right 
 of the Grand Khan who follows him as a single soldier in 
 his army (31). We see it when every Moslem prince who 
 has grasped any fragment of the old Saracenic Empire 
 dutifully seeks investiture from the Caliph of his own sect
 
 LECT. HOW TO STUDY GREEK AND LATIN LANGUAGES 217 
 
 when Bajazet the Thunderbolt stoops to receive his patent 
 as Sultan from the trembling slave of the Egyptian Mame- 
 lukes, and when Selim the Inflexible obtains from the last 
 Abbasside a formal cession of the rank and style of Com- 
 mander of the Faithful (32). We see it in events which 
 have more nearly touched ourselves. We see it in the 
 history of our own dealings with the land where we won 
 province after province from princes who owned a formal 
 allegiance to the heir of Timour. We see it in the way in 
 which we ourselves have dealt with the heir of Timour him- 
 self, first as a pampered pensioner, lord only within the walls 
 of his own palace, and at last as a criminal and a prisoner, 
 sent to a harder exile than that of Glycerins in his bishop- 
 rick or of the last Merwing in his cloister. 
 
 One word more. The fashion of the day, by a not un- 
 natural reaction, seems to be turning against ' ancient ' and 
 ' classical ' learning altogether. We are asked, What is the 
 use of learning languages which are ' dead ' ? What is the 
 use of studying the records of times which have for ever 
 passed away? Men who call themselves statesmen and 
 historians are not ashamed to run up and down the land, 
 spreading abroad, wherever such assertions will win them a 
 cheer, the daring falsehood that such studies, and no others, 
 form the sole business of our ancient Universities. They 
 ask, in their pitiful shallowness, What is the use of poring 
 over the history of ' petty states ' ? What is the use of 
 studying battles in which so few men were killed as on the 
 field of Marathon (33) ? In this place I need not stop for a 
 moment to answer such transparent fallacies. Still even 
 such falsehoods and fallacies as these are signs of the times 
 which we cannot afford to neglect. The answer is in our 
 own hands. As long as we treat the language and the 
 history of Greece and Rome as if they were something 
 special and mysterious, something to be set apart from all 
 other studies, something to be approached and handled in 
 Home peculiar method of their own, we are playing into the
 
 218 THE UNITY OF HISTORY REDE 
 
 hands of the enemy. As long as we have ' classical ' schools 
 instead of general schools of language, as long as we have 
 schools of 'modern' history instead of general schools of 
 history (34), as long as we in any way recognize the distinc- 
 tions implied in the words 'classical' and 'ancient,' we are 
 pleading guilty to the charge which is brought against us. 
 We are acknowledging that, not indeed our whole attention, 
 but a chief share of it, is given to subjects which do stand 
 apart from ourselves, cut off from all bearing on the intellect 
 and life of modern days. The answer to such charges is to 
 break down the barrier, to forget, if we can, the whole line 
 of thought implied in the distinctions of ' ancient,' ' classical/ 
 and ' modern,' to proclaim boldly that no languages are more 
 truly living than those which are falsely called dead, that no 
 portions of history are more truly ' modern ' that is, more 
 full of practical lessons for our own political and social state 
 than the history of the times which in mere physical 
 distance we look upon as 'ancient.' If men ask whether 
 French and German are not more useful languages than 
 Latin and Greek, let us answer that, as a direct matter of 
 parentage and birth, it is an imperfect knowledge of French 
 which takes no heed to the steps by which French grew out 
 of Latin, and that it is an imperfect knowledge of Latin 
 which takes no heed to the steps by which Latin grew into 
 French. Let us answer again, not as a matter of parentage 
 and birth, but as a matter of analogy and kindred, that it is 
 an imperfect knowledge of German which takes no heed to 
 the kindred phaenomena of Greek, and that it is an imperfect 
 knowledge of Greek which takes no heed to the kindred 
 phenomena of German. If they ask what is the use of 
 studying the histories of petty states, let us answer that 
 moral and intellectual greatness is not always measured by 
 physical bigness, that the smallness of a state of itself 
 heightens and quickens the power of its citizens, and makes 
 the history of a small commonwealth a more instructive 
 lesson in politics than the history of a huge empire. If we 
 are asked what is the use of studying the events and
 
 LKCT. PRACTICAL STUDY OF ANCIENT HISTORY 219 
 
 institutions of times so far removed from our own, let us 
 answer that distance is not to be measured simply by lapse 
 of time, and that those ages which gave birth to literature, 
 and art, and political freedom are, sometimes only by analogy 
 and indirect influence, sometimes by actual cause and effect, 
 not distant, but very near to us indeed. Let us give to the 
 history and literature of Greece and Rome in their chosen 
 periods their due place in the history of mankind, but not 
 more than their due place. Let us look on the ' ancients,' 
 the men of Plutarch, the men of Homer, not as beings of 
 another race, but as men of like passions with ourselves, as 
 elder brethren of our common Aryan household. In this way 
 we can make answer to gainsayers ; in this way we can 
 convince the unlearned and unbelieving that our studies are 
 not vain gropings into what is dead and gone. Let us carry 
 about with us the thought that the tongue which we still 
 speak is in truth one with the tongue of Homer ; that the 
 Ekklesia of Athens, the Comitia of Rome, and the Parlia- 
 ment of England, are all offshoots from one common stock ; 
 that Kleisthenes, Licinius, and Simon of Montfort were 
 fellow-workers in one common cause let all this be to us a 
 living thought, as we read the records either of the earlier 
 or of the later time and we shall find that the studies of 
 our youthful days will still keep an honoured place among 
 the studies of later life, that the heroes of ancient legend, 
 the worthies of ancient history, lose not, but rather gain, in 
 true dignity by being made the objects of a reasonable 
 homage instead of an exclusive superstition.
 
 NOTES 
 
 (1) Page 4. Max Miiller, Oxford Essays, 1856, p. 27. "The 
 English name for ' mill ' is likewise of considerable antiquity, for 
 it exists not only in the O. H. G. muli, but in the Lithuanian 
 nialunas, the Bohemian mlyn, the Welsh rnelin, the Latin mola, 
 and the Greek p,v\r]." Supposing the word not to be found 
 beyond the Western branch of the Aryan family, it still seems 
 quite impossible that the word could have got into these various 
 languages by any means but that of original kindred. Examples 
 of wider range might have been found ; but this has the example 
 of being so perfectly clear, and of needing no philological practice 
 to see the likeness between the different cognate words. 
 
 (2) Page 6. The connexion between the Greek Char is and 
 (Jharites and the Sanscrit Harits is discussed by Miiller, Science 
 of Language, ii. 369-376, 381-383; Cox, Aryan Mythology, 
 i. 48, 210 ; ii. 2. Mr. Cox, as usual, goes somewhat further than 
 Professor Miiller. I can see no difficulty in looking on the Greek 
 word x ^ 15 an< ^ *ks Greek cognates as sprung from the same 
 original root ykar as the Sanscrit Harits and their Sanscrit 
 cognates, and at the same time believing that the mythological 
 CJtaris and Ckarites arose after the appellative x^P L< had received 
 its particular Greek meaning. Charis and the Charites would 
 thus be strictly personifications, like the other personifications 
 compared with them in the text. The Harits and the Charite* 
 have thus a connexion, the general connexion which exists 
 between any two words sprung from the same root. I cannot 
 see with Mr. Cox (i. 210) that we are bound to see the same kind 
 of connexion between them which there is between Dyau* and 
 Zeus.
 
 222 NOTES ON 
 
 (3) Page 7. The solar theory has undoubtedly been pressed 
 too far ; on the other hand, it has been made the subject of a 
 good deal of jesting which is much more foolish than any possible 
 vagaries of the theory itself. The true rule seenis to be this ; it 
 is not safe to set down as a solar myth every story which, by some 
 ingenious process, may be made to fit in with the requirements 
 of a solar story. I believe that this might be done with a little 
 trouble with almost every tale in history or fiction. I have myself 
 tried (see Fortnightly Review, November, 1870) to do as much 
 with the story both of Harold Hardrada and of Harold the son 
 of Godwine. One might argue that Augustus the Strong was a 
 solar hero, on the strength of the 360 children whom he is said to 
 have left behind him. These might fairly pass for the days of the 
 year, all the more so as the most famous of them was undoubtedly 
 the son of Eos or the Morning, in the person of Aurora von 
 Kb'nigsmarck. Many of the solar explanations which have been 
 put forth seriously seem to me to be of exactly the same kind as 
 these sportive ones. The case is changed when philology comes to 
 the help of mythology, and when the names and epithets of the 
 hero and his attendants show beyond doubt that the story is 
 solar. This is the distinction which is more than once drawn by 
 Professor Miiller. Thus the solar character of Phoibos-Apollon 
 runs through every detail. But I cannot see the same evidence 
 for the solar character of Achilleus and Odysseus. 
 
 (4) Page 9. For the happy name " survivals " we have to 
 thank Mr. Tylor. No line of argument can well be more con- 
 vincing, and it will be seen that in other lectures I have made a 
 large use of it for my own purposes. 
 
 (5) Page 9. Miiller, Science of Language, i. 223-226. 
 
 (6) Page 10. Let the science rather go nameless than bear the 
 burthen of such a name as, for instance, Sociology. 
 
 (7) Page 14. See Growth of the English Constitution, 92, 
 ed. ii. It can hardly be needful .to expose for the thousandth 
 time either the notion that the Three Estates are King, Lords, 
 and Commons, or the silly joke of calling the newspapers the 
 Fourth Estate.
 
 LECTURE 1 223 
 
 (8) Page 14. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 96, 98. 
 
 (9) Page 16. I must confess that I say this at second hand, 
 as I have not studied the Crusading Jurisprudence for myself. 
 But it is plain that in no other time or place was there the same 
 opportunity for bringing in a system of Feudal Law if any one 
 likes the phrase, of introducing the Feudal System which was 
 supplied by the Frank Conquest of Palestine. Elsewhere feudal 
 notions gradually grew up, and they gradually spread from one 
 country to another. Thus in England the feudal ideas, which 
 were already growing up before the Norman Conquest, were 
 greatly strengthened and put into shape through the Norman 
 Conquest. But there was nothing like the bringing in of a 
 wholly new jurisprudence at a single blow. In Palestine, on the 
 other hand, where of course Mahometan law and custom went 
 for nothing, the Crusaders had the opportunity of legislating 
 afresh from the beginning, and the most perfect of feudal codes 
 was the natural result. The lands conquered from the Eastern 
 Empire by the Crusaders and other Western adventurers, from 
 Apulia to Cyprus, offered a field for feudal legislation only one 
 degree less open than the lands conquered from the Mahometans. 
 The Assizes of Jerusalem themselves became the law of the 
 Kingdom of Cyprus, whose Kings of the House of Lusignan con- 
 tinued the nominal succession of the Kings of Jerusalem. See 
 Gibbon, c. Iviii. vol. xi. p. 91, ed. Milman. 
 
 (10) Page 17. The magistrates were called in Romance 
 Capitouls. The name Cajritolium is graven in large letters on 
 the front of the building itself, a building of no great age. I 
 have not specially studied the local history of Toulouse, but I 
 can hardly think that the Capitouls, whatever we make of the 
 Capitolium itself, can be a direct inheritance from Roman 
 times. Indeed, according to Thierry (Tiers Etat, ii. 1, Eng. 
 Trans.), the Consuls of Toulouse were only established in 1188. 
 There was also a Capitol at Ktiln, the name of which survives in 
 the church of Saint Mary Capitoline. 
 
 (n) Page 18. I learned this from an inscription in the church 
 of Saint Salvi at Alby. The style is " major et consules." On the 
 consular governments in the cities of Southern Gaul see the chapter
 
 224 NOTES ON 
 
 of Thierry just quoted. He speaks of the Mayor as an addition 
 to the original consular government which came in first in the 
 Aquitanian cities under Norman or English rule. 
 
 (12) Page 19. On the modern corruption of the German 
 language I have said something in my second series of Historical 
 Essays, p. 269. 
 
 (13) Page 20. See Forsyth, History of Ancient Manuscripts, 
 p. 25. 
 
 (14) Page 20. I said something on this matter many years 
 ago in the two first chapters of the First Book of my History of 
 Architecture; but I should not now talk about "Pelasgian." 
 
 (15) Page 21. See History of Federal Government, i. 319. 
 
 (16) Page 21. See Historical Essays, First Series, 401- 
 405.
 
 LECTURE II 
 
 II 
 
 (1) Page 25. See the remarks of Grote, ii. 289-302, on the 
 effects of the geographical character of Greece on its history. See 
 also the first chapter of Curtius, especially the remarkable passage 
 at page 13 : 
 
 "Euphrat und Nil bieten Jahr um Jahr ihren Anwohnern 
 dieselben Yortheile und regeln ihre Beschaftigungen, deren 
 stetiges Einerlei es mb'glich macht, dass Jahrhunderte iiber das 
 Land hingehen, ohne dass sich in den hergebrachten Lebensver- 
 haltnissen etwas Wesentliches andert. Es erfolgen Umwalzun- 
 gen, aber keine Entwickelungen, und mumienartig eingesargt 
 stockt im Thale des Nils die Cultur der Aegypter ; sie zahlen die 
 einformigen Pendelschlage der Zeit, aber die Zeit hat keinen 
 Inhalt ; sie haben Chronologic, aber keine Geschichte im vollen 
 Sinne des Worts. Solche Zustiinde der Erstarrung duldet der 
 Wellenschlag des agaischen Meeres nicht, der, wenn einmal 
 Verkehr und geistiges Leben erwacht ist, dasselbe ohne Stillstand 
 immer weiter fiihrt und entwickelt." 
 
 (2) Page 26. The second chapter of Curtius and the appendix 
 to the first volume should be read. But I see no reason to doubt 
 the received version, which makes European Hellas the mother- 
 land of the Asiatic Hellenes. 
 
 (3) P ft g e 26. Of the Phoenician occupation of the 
 islands there seems no doubt. See Thucydides, i. 8 ; Hero- 
 dotus, iv. 147. Thasos, with its gold mines, is a well-known 
 case ; the authorities are collected in the article on Thasos in the 
 Dictionary of Geography. I venture to think that the Homeric 
 Catalogue might enable us to draw a map of the islands as far as 
 they had been already wrested from Phoenician and other pra>
 
 NOTES ON 
 
 Hellenic occupants. It appears from vv. 645-680 that Crete, 
 Rhodes, Kos, and several other of the southern islands, were 
 already Hellenic, though the language used of Rhodes would 
 seem to imply that the Hellenic settlement had been made 
 not very long before. Chios and Samos were clearly not yet 
 Hellenic, and Lesbos is a conquest of Achilleus himself. (Iliad, 
 ix. 271.) 
 
 The Hellenes were doing in these islands in prse-historic times 
 what they afterwards did in Sicily and Cyprus. They were 
 fighting the battle of the Aryan against the Semitic man ; and 
 all the more so because the Phoenicians had doubtless established 
 themselves in all these islands, except perhaps Cyprus, at the cost 
 of Sikels, Karians, and other nations more or less akin to the 
 Greek. 
 
 (4) Page 26. See Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 90. 
 
 (5) Page 26. The exact limits of Greek colonization should be 
 noted. It spread gradually over the whole coast of the Mediter- 
 ranean Sea and its great gulfs, except when there was some mani- 
 fest hindrance. Thus, on the eastern and southern coasts of the 
 Mediterranean the Greeks were cut off from colonization by the 
 presence of Phoenicians and Egyptians, except in the lands 
 between Egypt and the Carthaginian dominions, which did 
 receive Greek colonies in the form of the Kyrenaic Pentapoli?. 
 It will be at once seen that, while no part of the Mediterranean 
 coast was more thickly set with Greek colonies than Southern 
 Italy, Northern Italy contained few or none. The Greek origin 
 of Pisse on the one coast and of Spina on the other is at best 
 doubtful, and in no case did they play any part as Greek cities 
 worthy to be compared with the famous cities which won the name 
 of Magna Grsecia. This plainly shows that, in the days of Greek 
 colonization, the occupants of Northern Italy Etruscan, Gaulish, 
 Umbrian, or Latin were much stronger than those whom the 
 Greek colonists found in the South. Another point to notice is 
 that Greek colonization succeeded best in those lands where the 
 former inhabitants were more or less closely akin to the Greeks. 
 Thus Sicily and the ^Egsean coast became really Greek countries, 
 while in Libya and on the Euxine the Greek colonies always 
 remained mere scattered settlements in a barbarian land.
 
 LECTURE II 227 
 
 (6) Page 26. Notwithstanding all that has been said about 
 Egypt and the East, I see no more reason than I did five-and- 
 twenty years ago to derive the origin of Greek architecture from 
 any barbarian source. The Ionic capital indeed may perhaps 
 come from the East. But if so, the Greeks made it thoroughly 
 their own, and they were the first to give it any form which, in 
 the words of the text, really deserved the name of art. 
 
 (?) P a g e 26. That is of course the Ki-iJ/xa es del of Thucy- 
 dides himself (i. 22). The fact that such a history as that of 
 Thucydides could be written at such an early stage of prose 
 literature is in itself one of the greatest facts in Greek or in 
 human history. The man himself was of course above his con- 
 temporaries ; but in no other contemporary society could room 
 have been found for such a man. I may refer to the third Essay 
 in my second series of Historical Essays. 
 
 (8) Page 27. I have said something on this head in the fifth 
 and sixth essays of the same series. But the real witness to the 
 lasting results of Alexander's career is to be found in the 
 Histories of Mr. Finlay. An inhabitant of modern Athens seeks 
 to trace out the causes of the state of things which he sees around 
 him and of the events in which he had himself played a part, 
 and he has to go back to the conquests of Alexander as his 
 beginning. 
 
 (9) Page 27. It must always be remembered that, till the 
 modern Hellenic revival, the name of "EXAijv was altogether 
 unknown as the name of the Greek nation. All through Byzan- 
 tine, Frank, and Ottoman times, their one name was 'Pwpaioi 
 Romans by virtue of the unrepealed law of Antoninus Caracalla. 
 
 (10) Page 27. I accept the legend so far as this, that it 
 expresses, in a legendary form, a policy by which Rome grew 
 from the beginning the policy of incorporation. 
 
 (i i ) Page 28. " The reign of Ctesar and of Christ was restored," 
 says Gibbon (c. Hi., vol. x., 86, Milman), in recording the recovery 
 of Antioch by Nikephoros Ph&kas. This exactly expresses the 
 state of the case.
 
 228 NOTES ON 
 
 (12) Page 28. The phrase of "Urbs aeterna " is common in 
 Ammianus. See xiv. 6, and a note of Lindenbrog for other 
 instances. 
 
 (13) Page 29. I believe that there are still people perhaps 
 those who talk about " Goths, Huns and Vandals " as if they 
 were all the same who fancy that the Goths were destroyers. 
 Let them study the famous passage of Cassiodorus (vii. 15) ; only 
 let them not fancy that the description there given has anything 
 to do with Gothic architecture in the technical sense. 
 
 (14) Page 29. See Growth of the English Constitution, p. 9, 
 ed. 2. 
 
 (15) Page 30. It should always be remembered that the three 
 Scandinavian kingdoms, like the two Nether-Dutch kingdoms of 
 Belgium and the Netherlands, were among the few European 
 states which passed undisturbed through the storms of 1848. 
 From 1660 to 1848 Denmark was the one country where 
 despotism was really lawful; and in 1848 Frederick the Seventh 
 had, as his first act, given his people a constitution of his own 
 free will, before revolutions had began elsewhere. The wars and 
 negotiations which have gone on since 1848 have had nothing to 
 do with the state of Denmark itself, but wholly with its relations 
 to the two border Duchies. And it should be further remarked 
 that the discontent in those Duchies came to a head at the very 
 moment of the proclamation of free institutions in Denmark. 
 The cause is obvious. Under the despotism Kingdom and 
 Duchies fared alike, and there were even times when the German 
 element seemed to be preferred to the Danish. In a Parlia- 
 ment representing both the Kingdom and the Duchies the 
 German element would always have been out-voted. The like 
 would be the case with the Romance Cantons of Switzerland, if 
 their equality as sovereign States did not protect them. Hence 
 the strong opposition of those Cantons to the proposed changes in 
 the Federal Constitution. 
 
 (16) Page 30. I assume this here; I have gone more fully 
 into the matter in my Growth of the English Constitution, of 
 which this position is the main argument.
 
 LECTURE II 
 
 (17) Page 30. For Alfred's description of the modest way in 
 which he laid his laws before his Witan, see Norman Conquest, 
 i. 51. 
 
 (18) Page 30. See Growth of the English Constitution, 34. 
 
 (19) Page 30. I have elsewhere collected some instances of 
 the notion of Britain as another world (Norman Conquest, i. 
 556). It may be well to give some more instances from earlier 
 writers. The form of speech begins with YirgiFs " Penitus toto 
 divisos orbe Britannos." (Eel. i. 67.) So Velleius (ii. 46) 
 speaks of Caesar as going into Britain, " alterum pene imperio 
 nostro ac suo quaerens orbem." Lucan probably means the same 
 thing less directly, when he speaks (ii. 294) of " diductique fretis 
 alio sub sidere reges." So Florus (iii. 10) : ''Quasi hie Romanus 
 orbis non sufficeret, alterum cogitavit." (We hear again of 
 " Romanus orbis " and even of " Imperator Romani orbis," 
 in Vopiscus, Aurelian, 26, 28.) So Jornandes (11) also speaks 
 of Csesar : " Pene omnem mundum suse ditionis subegit, omnia- 
 que regna perdomuit, adeo ut extra nostrum orbem in 
 Oceani sinu repositas insulas occuparet." So elsewhere (5) he 
 opposes " Britannia "to " noster orbis." "We find the same way 
 of speaking in Greek authors also. Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 16, 4) 
 makes Agrippa, when enlarging on the Roman power, say, 
 (TKt{f/a.(r6f Be Kal TO TSprrravwv ret^os, ol TOIS 'lepocroXv/nwv rct'^eo-t 
 7re7roi$OTs' Kal yap eKfivovs Trepi(3t(3\rjfj.fvov<; wKcavov Kal T>}S KO.&' 
 17/z.as oucov/ioo;? OVK f\d(T(rova vf)(rov oiKovvras, TrAerrraiTes eSouAoxrajro 
 'Paj/xaiot. So Plutarch, Cajsar, 23, Trpo-ujyayev e^w TT}? oiKou/AeVr/s 
 TTJV 'Pw/xaiW rjyfp.oviav. Dion, on the other hand (Ixii. 4), puts 
 language of the same kind into the mouth of Boadicea : Tocyapovv 
 vf)(Tov Tr)\iKavrr)v, paXXov 8' rpretpov Tpwrrov TWO. TTfpippvTov, ve/xd/Aevot, 
 Kal l&iav oiKOVfj.evT]v C^OITC?, Kal Tfxrovrov VJTO TOV <i>ceavoi5 atfr' 
 aTrai^rojv TWV aAAaiv dv^poi/Triov d</xjpto'/Aevot, axrre teal yrjv a\Xrjv Kal 
 ovpavov aAAov olxdv TrcrrKrrfixrOai. So, at a later time, we find 
 Orderic (723 c.) saying that the preaching of the Crusade 
 " Angliam quoque, aliasque maritimas insulas nequivit latere, 
 licet undisoni maris abyssus illas removeat ab orbe." (The monk 
 of St. Evroul, born in Shropshire, and who afterwards visited 
 Crowland, is perhaps describing his own feelings in his several 
 voyages over the abyss.) And, as the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 is several times called "alterius orbis pnpa '' or " apostolicufl," so,
 
 230 NOTES ON 
 
 in a passage of Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 1. ii. p. 422, Migne) the con- 
 viction of William Rufus that the Bishop of Rome had no 
 jurisdiction in his realm of England takes this form, " Nee enim 
 putabat apostolicum orbis posse in regno suo esse cujuslibet juris, 
 nisi permissus a se." Britain was out of the world, and the 
 " Pope of the world " had therefore nothing to say to it. 
 
 All this is much more than rhetoric ; it is more even than 
 national or territorial feeling. Our insular position has been one 
 of the greatest facts of our history ; it has caused a distinction 
 between us islanders and our neighbours on the Continent which 
 is independent of all distinctions of race, language, or religion, 
 and which is often found at cross purposes with all of them. We 
 feel at once that there are some points, great and small, in which 
 we stand by ourselves in opposition to continentals, simply as 
 continentals. This is a fact which should carefully be borne 
 in mind, because some points of difference between ourselves and 
 our kinsfolk on the mainland, which are really owing simply to 
 our geographical isolation, have been set down as proofs of 
 imaginary Roman or British influences in England. 
 
 (20) Page 31. See Norman Conquest, i. 279. 
 
 (21) Page 31. On this head see note B in the Appendix to 
 the first volume of the Norman Conquest. The particular titles 
 which the English Kings took, in order to set forth their in- 
 dependence of the continental Empire, were doubtless borrowed 
 from that Empire. But the general conception of Britain as a 
 separate Empire was the natural result of its geographical 
 position. 
 
 (22) Page 32. It will be remembered that the great moment 
 of triumph in the life of Charles the Great was when the 
 Ambassadors of the Eastern Emperor Michael addressed him 
 according to the full Imperial style (Eginhard, Annals, 812) : 
 
 " Aquisgrani, ubi ad Imperatorem venerunt more suo, 
 
 id est Grseca lingua, laudes ei dixerunt, Imperatorem eum et 
 Basikum appellantes." Charles was strong and Michael was 
 weak. Three generations later, when the tables were rather 
 turned between Basil the Macedonian and Lewis the Second who 
 reigned in Italy only, the Imperial titles became the subject of a 
 long dispute. The controversy is given at length in the Chronicle
 
 LECTURE II 231 
 
 of Salerno (Pertz, iii. 521). Basil is offended because Lewis 
 had called himself " Imperator Augustus " in a letter. The 
 Carolingian Emperor, in his answer, goes to the root of the 
 matter. His salutation runs : " Lodoguicus, divina ordinante 
 providentia, Imperator Augustus Romanorum, dilectissimo 
 spiritualique patri nostro Basilio, gloriosissimo et piissimo atque 
 Imperatori Novae Romse." He says that it does not matter what 
 either of them is called, but rather what either of them is. Still, as 
 his brother Basil has raised the question about the title of Emperor 
 ("quia de imperatorio nomine multa nobis scripsisti "), he argues 
 the point at length. The Byzantine position is "neminem 
 appellandum Basilea nisi eum quern in urbe Constantinopoli 
 Imperii tenere gubernacula contigisset." The Western Emperor 
 answers that a study of Greek books will show him that all 
 manner of Kings, good and bad, from Melchizedek to the Kings 
 of the Goths and Vandals, all bore the title of Basileus. He 
 objects to be called merely Rix a form which throws some light 
 on the difference of sound which must already have arisen between 
 the Latin Rex and the Greek prjg and then argues the point 
 minutely : 
 
 " Postremo scito, quia qui Riga quemquam appellat, quid dicat 
 nee ipse novit. Siquidem etiam si linguis omnibus more aposto- 
 lorum, immo angelorum, loquaris, cujus linguae sit Rix, vel cui 
 dignitati sonus ille barbarus congruit quod Rix dicitur, inter- 
 pretari non poteris, nihil enim est hoc, nisi forte ad idioma 
 propriae linguae tractum, Riya regem significare monstraveris. 
 Quod si ita est, quia non jam barbarum sed Latinum est, oportet 
 ut, quum ad manus vestras pervenerit, in linguam vestram fideli 
 translatione vertatur. Quod si factum fuerit, quid aliud nisi hoc 
 nomine fiaa-vXevs interpretabitur ? Quod non solum Veteris sed 
 et Novi Testamenti omnes interpretes attestantur. Unde si in 
 alienis personis hoc detestaris vocabulum, stude et omnibus tarn 
 Latinis libris quam Graecis sive Riyis sive /SaorvXct 1 ? nomen 
 eradere, nam nihil Rex in lingua Latina resonat, quam quod 
 Grteca dicitur /?ao-vA.cv?. " [The spelling of /JacrvAeus with an v is 
 another illustration of Greek pronunciation. In modern Greek 
 the two sounds are the same.] 
 
 I need hardly say that the same controversy went on in one 
 form or another for several ages. Thus John Kinnamos (lib. 
 iv. pp. 247, 248, A.D. 1652) calls Frederick Barbarossa only prj 
 ' A.\afjiavC)v, but speaks of him as wishing to be thought Emperor
 
 232 NOTES ON 
 
 (TOV 'POJ/ACU'WV avTOKpaTopos Trpocrap/Aocrcir avr<3 TO diuy 
 Tfl avroKpaTopos irdXai firoffrOaX/JLL^wv apxfj). He goes on to tell US 
 that none but the Emperor had any right to appoint the Pope 
 (ouSevt yap dAAw, on /AT) /?acrtAet 'Pco/xcuW, dp^te'pea 7rept/?/3Ar}o-^ai rjj 
 ' PW/*!? c^ctrai) ; but that, through the contempt into which the 
 Empire had fallen (e OTOV 6A.iy<opia TWV ei> BuavTi'w /Jao-iAecov TO 
 TOIOUTOV aTreo-prjKt e$os), this was now the case no longer. One of 
 the oddest forms of the dispute is when the Council of Basel in 
 1437 addresses the Emperor John Palaiologos as " Imperator 
 Romeeorum" (Letters of Thomas Beckington, ii. 19, et al.). I 
 conceive that this use of the Greek form was to avoid calling him 
 " Imperator Romemorum " ; somewhat in the same way as I 
 have known strict Anglican theologians who would not have 
 called the ecclesiastical Establishment of Scotland a Church, 
 according to the Saxon pronunciation, but who had no scruple 
 against calling it by the Anglian or Danish form Kirk. In an 
 earlier letter in the same series (i. 285) Richard the Second 
 addresses Manuel Palaiologos as " Imperator Constantinopoli- 
 tanus." 
 
 (23) Page 32. Besides the important part which the Servians 
 and Bulgarians for the Bulgarians may be practically reckoned 
 as a Slavonic people played in the affairs of the Eastern 
 Empire, the modern history of Russia is very like its history in 
 the ninth and tenth centuries acted over again. Then, as in 
 later times, Russian fleets covered the Euxine and threatened 
 Constantinople. A variety of causes, crowned by the Mogul in- 
 vasion in the thirteenth century, broke up the Russian power and 
 directed its chief energies elsewhere. The wars of the Russians 
 with their Tartar enemies, and their final recovery of the Euxine 
 coast, form the exact parallel to the advance of the Christians 
 in Spain and the recovery of Granada. And besides Russia, we 
 must remember the great European position held by Poland 
 under the House of Jagellon in the fifteenth and sixteenth 
 centuries. 
 
 (24) Page 33. All these stories are familiar from the legend- 
 ary history of Rome in the first book of Livy and elsewhere. 
 It is hard to say how far they are strictly native Italian legends, 
 how far they were devised after the Romans had become familiar 
 with Greek literature. The story which makes Numa a pupil of
 
 LECTUEE II 233 
 
 Pythagoras is of course only an unlucky guess, the chronological 
 absurdity of which is exposed by Livy himself. 
 
 (25) Page 33. Tacitus, Germania, 3 : " Fuisse apud eos et 
 Herculem memorant, primumque omnium virorum fortium ituri 
 in prcelia canunt .... Ceterum Ulyssem quidani opinantur, 
 longo illo et fabuloso errore in hunc Oceanum delatum, adisse 
 Germanise terras, Asciburgiumque, quod in ripa Rheni situm 
 hodieque incolitur, ab illo constitutum nominatunique. Aram 
 quinetiam Ulyssi consecratam, adjecto Laertaj patris nomine, 
 eodem loco olim repertam, monumentaque et tumulos quosdam, 
 Graecis litteris inscriptos, in confinio Germanic Rha?tia?que adhuc 
 exstare ; quaj neque confirmare argumentis, neque refellere in 
 animo est : ex ingenio suo quisque demat, vel addat fidem." 
 
 (26) Page 34. I have here tried to bring together a few of 
 the most obvious words which all, or many, of the Aryan lan- 
 guages have in common. On timber and ear see Miiller, Oxford 
 Essays, 1856, 25-27. The former word, in the form timbrian, 
 is the word commonly used in Old-English for building, whatever 
 be the material used. So Cnut " ferde to Assandune and let 
 timbrian ftar an mynster of stane and lime ; " and so Eadward 
 "getimbrode " the West Minster itself. (From the etymological 
 connexion of this word with timber some people have oddly 
 argued that all buildings built in England up to sunset on St. 
 Calixtus' Day, 1066, must have been made of wood.) Tame, 
 hound, deer, the two latter of which are words which have come 
 down from a wider to a more special meaning, are good examples 
 of common Aryan words. The bull I was thinking of him in 
 his noblest office, as furnishing the standard and the war-horn 
 of Uri does not appear by that name in Greek or Latin, but I 
 believe that he is to be found in the primitive speech of Lithuania. 
 One may doubt too whether the name of the lion is to be looked 
 on as wholly borrowed from the South ; the beast himself is 
 certainly a genuine European animal, whose " reti-eat " has been 
 traced out by a happy union of historical and physical evidence 
 in the hands of Mr. Dawkins. 
 
 (27) Page 34. With the words of Herodotus (ix. 62) before 
 us Xij/iiaTi fjiiv wv KOI (H>>fJ-y owe eovroves 7/<rar 01 Hipo-ai followed 
 up by the marked way in which he presently speaks of the
 
 234 NOTES ON 
 
 native Persians as the only trustworthy part of the barbarian 
 host, we may be tempted to infer that, as between Aryan and 
 Aryan, the struggle between Greek and Persian was not so 
 unequal, and that the armies of the Great King were rather 
 weakened than strengthened by the mixed multitude which 
 cumbered the action of the real men of Iran. By the time of 
 Alexander, as Mr. Grote truly says, the Persian infantry seem 
 to have lost their old personal prowess, but the cavalry still meet 
 the mounted Companions of Alexander on equal terms. The 
 regenerate Persians of the Sassanid period all the stronger 
 because their dominion was so much smaller, and therefore more 
 strictly national, than that of the Achaimenids were, as I need 
 not stop to show, the one foe that met Rome on really equal 
 terms. 
 
 (28) Page 34. The death of the sun is an obvious form of 
 the " daily tragedy " of his course. The home of the sun in the 
 West comes out in the well-known verses of Stesichoros (see 
 Mure, iii. 251) ; 
 
 'AeAios 8' 'firepioviSas Sfiras eSKarfftaive 
 Xpvcfeov, o<ppa 5' uiKfavoio irepdffas, 
 atpiicoiO' lepas irorl ffevdea vvicrbs pffj.vas' 
 irorl fiarepa KovptSiav r' &\oxov 
 ircuSar re <pi\ovs. 
 
 (29) Page 34. Setting aside the relations of language, and 
 looking only to the political and geographical state of Europe, 
 the position of the Aryan Celts and that of the non-Aryan 
 Iberians is almost exactly the same. Each forms the main 
 element in one of the great nations of Europe ; France is essen- 
 tially Celtic ; Spain is essentially Iberian. But the Celtic and 
 Iberian essence is in both cases covered over by a varnish which 
 is mainly Roman but partly Teutonic. The true Celt, unmixed 
 and unaltered, keeping his own language and his unbroken 
 national being, is to be found only in certain corners of Gaul and 
 Britain, just as the Iberian, unromanized and unteutonized, is 
 found only in certain corners of Gaul and Spain. The case of 
 the Fins is somewhat different. One independent European 
 nation, that of the Hungarians, is of Finnish descent, while the 
 other Fins linger only in corners, like the unmixed Celts and 
 Iberians. But the Hungarians are not, like the Romanized 
 Celts and Iberians of France and Spain, a nation which came
 
 LECTURE II 235 
 
 into Europe in the course of prse-historic migrations, and which 
 has exchanged its language for that of conquerors of historic 
 times. They are a race of non-Aryan conquerors, who have 
 made their way into Europe at a comparatively late time, and 
 who still keep their non- Aryan language. 
 
 (30) Page 35. On the upper course of the Rhine we find the 
 Swiss Cantons and their allies, and specially the Rsetian Con- 
 federacy of the Three Leagues, now forming part of the' greater 
 confederation as the Canton of Graubiinden. At the other end 
 of the stream we find the Confederation of the Seven United 
 Provinces, now turned into the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 
 Each confederation alike was a mere off-shoot from the Empire 
 and the Kingdom of Germany, which circumstances enabled to 
 win and keep a fuller degree of independence than the other 
 members of the Empire. The two were formally recognized as 
 independent of the Empire at the same time, namely by the 
 Peace of Westphalia. And, placed thus at the two ends of the 
 Empire, the two confederations represent severally the two great 
 branches of the Teutonic race, High and Low. The point to 
 be remembered is that neither Switzerland nor Holland was a 
 separate state from the beginning. But there is this difference 
 between them : the United Provinces became independent of the 
 Empire by virtue of the great and independent position which 
 had been won by their sovereigns the Dukes of Burgundy ; it is 
 therefore less unnatural that their republican constitution has 
 changed back again into a monarchy. But the independence of 
 the Old League of High Germany arose through the casting off 
 of all immediate princely rule, and the owning of no King but 
 Csar till the time came when Csesar himself could be cast off 
 also. Thus the republican freedom of the cities and lands 
 (Stddte und Lander) on the borders of Germany, Italy, and 
 Burgundy has lived on, under various forms, to our own day. 
 
 (31) Page 36. I have quoted the passage from Prokopios 
 which records this early English most likely Kentish 
 embassy to Constantinople at vol. i. p. 30 of the Norman 
 Conquest. 
 
 (32) Page 36. The position and extent of the Empire under 
 Justinian and his immediate successors is one of those points
 
 236 NOTES ON 
 
 which cannot be too often insisted on. People have their heads 
 so full of the vulgar confused notions about "Greeks of the 
 Lower Empire," that they find it hard to understand the fact 
 that in the sixth century the Roman Emperor Imperator 
 Caesar Flavins Justinianus Augustus though he held his court 
 in the New Rome and not in the Old, ruled in fact as well as in 
 name over the whole Mediterranean coast of Europe, Asia, and 
 Africa, saving some parts of Gaul and Spain. Gades, Carthage, 
 and Antioch again obeyed a single master. It was a great lack 
 in the old edition of Spruner's Hand- Atlas that there was no 
 general map of the Empire at this time. This defect is fully 
 made up in the new edition which is now publishing. 
 
 (33) Page 36. Of Aetius, him to whom the groans of the 
 Britons were sent, Jornandes (34) gives this account : " Aetius 
 ergo patricius tune prseerat militibus, fortissimorum Mcesiorum 
 stirpe progenitus, in Dorostina civitate, a patre Gaudentio, 
 labores bellicos tolerans, Reipublicse Romanse singulariter natus, 
 qui superbiam Suevorum Francorurnque barbariem immensis 
 csedibus servire Romano Imperio coegisset." Prokopios himself 
 also (Bell. Vand. i. 3) gives us his panegyric, along with the 
 contemporary Bonifacius : 
 
 SxpaTTTyu) Svo 'Pw/xatoi rjorrjv, 'Aertos re KOL Bovt^arto?, Kaprepta 
 TC 5 TO. //.aAiorTa cat TToAAuij' TToXe'/iwv e/A/retpo) ruiv ye KO.T fueivov TOV 
 
 ovSei/os ^(rcrov. TOVTW TW avSpe Sta0opa> fiev TO. 
 Orjv, ? TOCTOVTOV 8e p.f/a\o\l/v^ia<s re /ecu r^s aAA^s 
 wore, ef Tts avroTv e.Ka.Tfpov avSpa 'Pa)yu,aicuv VCTTCLTOV CITTOI, OVK 
 av d/Ltaprot' OVTW TVJV 'PwfJLaiwv dperr^v vfj.Tra.cra.v es TOVTCJ TO> avSpe 
 
 We are apt to look upon the West-Gothic kingdom as some- 
 thing specially Spanish. But, till the conquest of Aquitaine by 
 Chlodwig, it was at least as much Gaulish as Spanish. The 
 Gothic capital was the Gaulish Tolosa ; and there were more 
 truly " no Pyrenees " then than at any time before or since. 
 
 (34) Page 36. Jornandes, 36. "A parte vero Romanorum 
 tanta patricii Aetii providentia fuit, cui tune innitebatur respub- 
 lica Hesperise plagse, ut undique bellatoribus congregatis adversus 
 ferocem et infinitam multitudinern non impar occurreret. His 
 enim adfuere auxiliares Franci, Sarmatse, Armoritiani, Litiani, 
 Burgundiones, Saxones, Riparioli, Ibriones, quondam milites
 
 LECTURE II 237 
 
 Romani, tune vero jam in numero auxiliariorum exquisiti, alite- 
 que nonnullse Celticse vel Germanicse nationes." 
 
 There is something very strange in the appearance of the 
 Sarmatians ; but it is not for me to dispute the assertion of the 
 historian that they were there, especially as it is convenient for 
 my argument that they should have been there. 
 
 The grievous thing is that in this great struggle between 
 Aryan and Turanian men, there were Aryans, Teutons, Goths, 
 on the Turanian side. 
 
 (35) Page 37. On Alaric's march to Athens, see Zosimos, 
 v. 6. 
 
 (36) Page 38. On the influence of Massalia on the neigh- 
 bouring Gauls, see Strabo, iv. 1. His words are very strong: 
 <os#' r) iro\i<i (JiiKpia fifv TTpoTepov rots (3ap(3dpois dverro TraiSevn/piov, 
 
 Karco-Kevacre TOVS FaAaTas, wsre Kal TO. crv/i/?dAaia 
 ypd<f>fiv ' ev 8f T<3 Trapovrt Kal TOVS yva>pi/x.a>raTOvs 
 TreTrctKCV, aWl TT/S eis 'A^vas aTroS^/iias fKei&e <j>oira.v 
 <f>iXofia6ei<i ovras. He speaks no less strongly of the Roman 
 influence on the Gaulish tribes in that neighbourhood : 'ETrtxpa- 
 Tfl 8k TO TWV Kaouapwv ovo/xa, teal iravras ourw? ^8v; posayopev'ovo-i 
 TOVS Tavrrj (3apf3dpovs, ovSt /3ap/3apovs ITI ovrav, dAAa fj.fTaKfip.fvov<; 
 
 TO 7T\OV t? TOV TO)V Pw/iaiWV TVTTOV, KCU TQ y\<i)TTr) KCU Tot? ^3t'oiS, 
 TtVttS Of KO.I TTf TToXlTflO.. 
 
 Elsewhere (iii. 2) he sets forth the progress of Roman influ- 
 ences among the tribes of Southern Spain : ot /xev TOL TovpSiravoi, 
 Kal /iaAurra 01 Trep! TOV Bairiv, rcXeoo? ts TOV 'Pw/xaiW p.Ta(3ef3\.rjv- 
 Tai TpoVov, ovoe Trjs ouiAfKTOv T^S o-<^)Tepas crt p.efj.vrjfji.(voi. AaTtvot 
 T ol irX.elo~TOi ycyovao~t, Kai CTTOIKOUS ciA^^ao'i 'Pwynatovs ' w^re fUKpov 
 <iirexpvo~i TOV irovrcs etvai 'Pw/xatoi. 
 
 (37) Page 39. Any questions of this kind I should wish to 
 leave open till philologers have determined the exact degree of 
 affinity, if there be any, between the two great groups of in- 
 flexional languages, the Aryan and Semitic. Till then we shall 
 do wisely to collect and classify facts, but to abstain from theories, 
 and, above all things, we must take care not to be led away by 
 particular likenesses here and there, which may turn out to be 
 accidental. The only scientific process is to find out what is the 
 common possession of the Aryan nations, what is the common
 
 NOTES ON 
 
 possession of the (Semitic nations. When we have done this, we 
 shall be able to see what the two great families have in common, 
 but not before. 
 
 (38) Page 42. Annals, iv. 33. " Nam cunctas nationes et 
 urbes populus, aut primores, aut singuli regunt : delecta ex his 
 et consociata Reipublicae forma laudari facilius quam evenire, 
 vel, si evenit, haud diuturna esse potest." Yet a large part of 
 the argument of Aristotle, in the fourth book of the Politics, 
 goes on the assumption that the best form of government will 
 be something of a mixed kind. The ideal TroXireia described in 
 his ninth chapter is a mixture of aristocracy and democracy, and 
 he lays down (iv. 12. 6) the exactly opposite doctrine to that of 
 Tacitus, ocro> av a/xeivov r] TToXtreta fJ^x^V TOCTOVTU) 
 So, at an earlier stage of his argument (ii. 6), he says, 
 p.ev ovv Aeyovcnv o>s Set TTJV apLO-rrjv TroXtrccav e cbracraiv cTrat Ttav 
 TToXiTeitav p.fj.Lyp.fvrjv, Sio KO.I TTJV TU>V AaxeSat^ovtov hraivovcriv' and 
 he goes on to describe the way in which the three forms of 
 government were held to be united in the constitution of Sparta. 
 Isokrates too, throughout the Areiopagitic and Panathenaic dis- 
 courses, where the object is to contrast what he looks on as the 
 corrupt democracy of his own time with the truer democracy of 
 a past time (CKCIVTJV TTJV 8r/fj.oKpaTiav, r)v 2oA.<ov fj.ev 6 8?7/x,oTiK<oTaTos 
 evo//,o0er7<rev, A. 17 ; -fj /?e/3aiwTepa KOI StKaiorepa SrjfJLO- 
 ia, A. 30, &c. <kc.), which he conceives (II. 159) to have 
 lasted for a thousand years, once or twice uses the same kind 
 of formula more than once. Thus in II. 139, Kareo-Tr/o-avro yap 
 8rjfj.OKpa.Tiav ov rr)v 1/07 TroXiTevoftevr/v .... dXAa r^i' TOIOUTOIS fJ.fv 
 eTTiTi/xawrav, dptoroKpaTia oe xpu)p.evTjv, and again II. 165, he speaks 
 of Lykourgos, &c., TTJV re. Brj/jLOKpariav KaTa(TTrjcravTO<s Trap' aurois 
 TTJV apiOTOKpaTia /xe/x.iy/xei^v, ^Trcp yv Trap rjfMV, Kal ras dp^as ov 
 KX^pwras aXX' aiperas Trot^a'acTa. This last seems to be Isokrates 
 great distinction between a good democracy and a bad one. Yet 
 at Athens all the really important offices were filled by election. 
 
 On the other hand it is possible, as in the old Polish constitu- 
 tion, to make a mixed government which shall combine the bad 
 points, without the good, of all the three forms by themselves 
 a King without real power, but with large means of irregular 
 influence ; a people brought down to serfdom ; a nobility forming 
 a narrow oligarchy as regards the rest of the nation and a frantic 
 mob among themselves.
 
 LECTURE II 239 
 
 (39) Page 42. It is now hardly needful to prove that the 
 Germania of Tacitus, though it doubtless contains sarcastic 
 touches here and there, is no mere dream of a Roman dissatisfied 
 with the state of things at Rome, but an essentially faithful 
 description of the Teutonic race when it first made its appearance 
 in history. The deeper we search into Teutonic antiquities, 
 whether on our own island or on the mainland, the more fully 
 do we find the statements of the Roman historian borne out. 
 The best commentary on the Germania, is the first volume of 
 Waitz's Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte. 
 
 (40) Page 44. I do not remember finding the word dva any- 
 where in Greek prose, except in the Evagoras of Isokrates, 88. 
 where he uses 5va and avacrcra almost like the vulgar use of 
 the words prince and princess. TO>V e avrov yeyovdrtov ov&eva 
 fj.tTfXiirev iSiomKOis ovo/icuri irposayopevo/Aevov, dAAa TOV /xev /JacriAca 
 KaX.ovp.evov, TOVS oe am/eras, ras oe aVacrcras. 
 
 (41) Page 44. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 32, 171, and below. 
 
 (42) Page 45. The Old-English rice, the same as the High- 
 Dutch reich, seems now to survive only in the ending of the 
 word bis/iopric ; but in Northern English cynerice, in various 
 .spellings, went on till a very late time. Ricsian, ri&ian, is the 
 Old-English verb = reyere. 
 
 (43) Page 45. See Max Miiller, Oxford Essays, p. 24, and 
 see below, note 64 on Lecture IV. 
 
 (44) Page 45. Massmann (Ulfilas, 728) explains the Gothic 
 reiks by "ein Machtiger, Oberster, Herrscher; vornehm, angesehen, 
 machtig." 
 
 (45) Page 46. The Athenian ^Xiat'o, which Greek etymolo- 
 gists (see Suidas in ^Aiatm/s) were tempted to connect with 
 T/Aios, is of course the same word as dAt'o, connected with O.A.T/S 
 and other kindred words. 
 
 (46) Page 46. On the various names, dyopa for one of them, 
 by which the Achaian Federal Assembly is called by Polvbios, 
 see History of Federal Government, i. 263.
 
 240 NOTES ON 
 
 (47) Page 46. The Latin frater and English brother seem at 
 first sight to have no Greek cognate, as its place in the literal 
 sense has been usurped by dSeA<ds. But the word appears, in 
 the form of tf>pa.Tr)p or Qpartap, to express a member of one of 
 the union of yentes known as <j>pa.rpai or tftparpiai, of which I have 
 said more at p. 66. It might almost be in either sense that 
 Nestor (Iliad, ix. 63) uses the negative word ; 
 
 i>S iro\f/j.ov tparat 
 
 But when in ii. 362 he bids Agamemnon 
 
 Kpiv' &vSpas Kara. <j>v\a, Kara <pp-fjrpas, ' 
 
 fci <ppilTpn (j>p'tiTpri<f>iv apyyr), <f>v\a 5e <f>v\ois' 
 
 we could not better express KO.TO. <j>vXa, Kara <J>prjTpa<s, than by 
 saying "according to shires and hundreds/' 
 
 (48) Page 46. Besides ITTTTOS and eqmis, there once* was a 
 Teutonic cognate in the Old -English eoh, Old-High-Dutch ehu, of 
 which the former form is found in the song of Maldon ; but I 
 am not aware that any words answering to eques or chevalier 
 were formed from it. 
 
 (49) Page 47. On this class of words see Norman Conquest, 
 vol. i. pp. 74, 172, 582. To those there collected I may add the 
 feminine " seniorissa " from a document quoted by \Vaitz, Deutsche 
 Verfassungsgeschichte, iv. 207. See also Thirlwall, History of 
 Greece, i. 134. A most curious case of the way in which words 
 of this sort have become mere survivals is shown in the poem in 
 the English Chronicles which I have quoted at i. 625 of the 
 History of the Norman Conquest. There Eadward the Martyr 
 is spoken of in the same breath as " cild linweaxan," and as 
 "eorla ealdor." 
 
 (50) Page 47. The chief of the Assassins, "rex Accinorum, 
 id est de Assasis" (Roger of Howden, iii. 181 ; " Assisini Sara- 
 ceni," Roger of Wendover, iii. 46), appears in Brompton (1268), 
 as " Senex de monte, non pro setate sic dictus sed pro sapientia 
 et gravitate, Princeps gentis orientalis quam Hassisinos vocant ; " 
 and he is made (see also Rymer, i. 62) to write a letter beginning
 
 LECTURE II 241 
 
 " Vetus de monte Principibus Europe et omni populo Christiano 
 salutem." 
 
 (51) Page 47. Of these two forms the earlier expresses the 
 sentiment, the later the mere fact. We might compare the 
 difference between chieftain and captain. 
 
 (52) Page 47. See Norman Conquest, iv. 694. 
 
 (53) Page 47. See Norman Conquest, i. 269, ii. 388, iii. 472.
 
 242 NOTES ON 
 
 III 
 
 (i) Page 50. The definition of aristocracy given by Aristotle 
 (Pol. iv. 7. 25) TTJV yap CK T>V dptarwv a7rXu>s KCIT' dper/v 
 iroXireiav, KOL fj.i] Trpos viroOea-iv TWO. dya0a>v avSpoov, fj.6vrjv SIKCUOV 
 Trposayopeueiv dpioroKpcm'av, distinctly shuts out any such vrro^tVa? 
 dya#a>v dvSpuiv as age, wealth, or birth. But he clearly feels that 
 such a government of the actually best is something merely 
 ideal ; and he seems to hold the best form of government to 
 be that form of TroAtrcta his TroXtrcta being the same as the 
 8r)p.oKpa.Tia of Polybios and others (see Growth of the English 
 Constitution, p. 166) which leans towards aristocracy. In this 
 offices are filled by election and not by lot, and they are filled 
 with regard not to riches only but to merit : OTTOV ye fir] //.oi/ov 
 TrXovTivSrjv dXXa KCU dpiorivSr/v aipowrai ras dp^as. Aristocracy, 
 in Aristotle's idea, was something wholly distinct from oligarchy, 
 the government of the few, the government of mere wealth or 
 birth, without regard to merit. Still the tendency of even the 
 ideal aristocracy would unavoidably be to give predominance to 
 birth and wealth ; for, without ruling whether there is or is not 
 such a thing as strictly hereditary capacity, it is certain that 
 some kinds of capacity, especially political capacity, are not^ only 
 likely to be more easily recognized, but are likely really to be 
 thicker on the ground where birth and wealth afford special 
 opportunities for their culture. Aristotle's definition of evyeVeia 
 is dp^atos irXovros KCU aperr) (iv. 8, 9), and again (iii. 13, 3), 
 evyeveid eortv ape-ri] ycvovs : oligarchy, the corruption of aris- 
 tocracy, looks only to birth or wealth without regard to merit. 
 So, to turn to a writer of a time when all questions about 
 aristocracy and democracy had become mere speculative talk, 
 Dion Chrysostom, in his discourses addressed to Trajan, has his 
 definition of aristocracy and of oligarchy. He follows Aristotle in
 
 LECTURE III 243 
 
 the doctrine of the three forms of government, each of which 
 has its corruption, and he thus defines aristocracy (i. 47) : Sevrepa 
 8f dpio-TOKparia KaXovfjifvi) ovre evos ovre iroAAwv TIVMV, dAAa oAtyujv 
 TWV apiovtov -rjyovfjifvwv, TrXeiov aTre^pvcra 77877 TOV Suvarou xat TOU 
 s. He then defines oligarchy as oXtyap^i'a, (r/cX^pa KCU 
 7rA,eoveia, TrAoucriW nvuiv KCU Trovr/paiv oA,iy<DV eVi TOUS TroAAous 
 Kai aTrdpous (rvoTeKTis. Plutarch (Trepi Mor. K.T.\. 3) makes the 
 threefold division /xovap^ta, oXiyap^t'a, &rjfj.oKpa.TLa, of which the 
 corruptions are -rupawcs, Swatrma, o^AoKparia. 
 
 I need hardly say that the vulgar use of the word " aristocracy," 
 to mean, not a form of government but a class of society, has no 
 countenance from Aristotle or from any other writer who attends 
 to the meaning of the words which he uses. A kindred vulgarism 
 has lately crept in, with still less excuse, by which the word 
 " democracy " also is used to express, not a form of government 
 but a class of society. 
 
 (2) Page 50. Livy, ii. 1. " Libertatis originem inde magis, 
 quia annuum imperium consulare factum est, quam quod de- 
 minutum quidquam sit ex regia potestate, numeres. Omnia jura, 
 omnia insignia, primi consules tenuere ; id modo cautum est ne, 
 si ambo fasces haberent, duplicatus terror videretur." Diouysios 
 (iv. 73) very clearly brings out the nature of the consulship as a 
 continuation of kingship. He makes Brutus counsel the Romans 
 fj.fra.@<r()a.i rovvofJM rfjs TroXireta? .... icat TOV? /xcAAovras v 
 Tr/^ airavrtov e^ovtriav, /AT/T /Jao-iAcis In /AT/TC /Aovap^ovs KaAeiv, aAAa 
 fj.(Tpuirrfpa.v TWO. KO.L <iAav$pa>7roTpav avrots Ofa~6ai Trposrjyopiav 
 7TiTa fj.rj TTOLflv yvw/>n;v \LIOV aTravTCDV xvpiav, dAAa Sucriv tTrtTpeVeiv 
 dvSpao-i TT}V (3a.<ri\uajv dp^r/v. In c. 75 (cf. below, note 30 on 
 Lecture IV.) he distinctly calls the consular power /Sao-iAeia. I 
 see that the phrase of putting the kingly power in commission 
 has occurred also to Sir Henry Maine. 
 
 (3) Page 50. Something of this divided kingship belonged to 
 all the curule magistrates, all of whom shared in some degree 
 in the outward insignia of the kingly office. These are discussed 
 at length by Dionysios, iv. 74. The doctrine of the Imjiermm 
 and the Lex regia, handed on from the days of the Kings 
 through the whole time of the Commonwealth, undoubtedly 
 mode the transition to the Empire more easy.
 
 244 NOTES ON 
 
 (4) Page 50. Tacitus, Annals, i. 2. " Posito Triumviri no- 
 mine, consulem se ferens, et ad tuendain plebem tribunicio jure 
 contentum ; ubi militem donis, populum annona, cunctos dul- 
 cedine otii pellexit, insurgere paullatim, munia Senatus, magis- 
 tratuum, legum, in se trahere, nullo adversante." 
 
 (5) Page 50. No doubt there were cases in which the powers 
 of the Senate were purposely lessened in particular points ; as, 
 for instance, by the Lex Hortenaia of B.C. 286 (" Lex Hortensia 
 lata est, qua cautum est, ut plebiscita universum populum 
 tenerent, itaque eo modo legibus exrequata sunt," Gaius, i. 2). 
 But there was no tendency at Rome seriously to interfere with 
 the position of the Senate as the government of the Common- 
 wealth, as distinguished from its legislature. This is a marked 
 point of difference between Rome and Athens, and one of which 
 I have said something in a later lecture. See p. 147. 
 
 (6) Page 51. Arnold's Rome, ii. 388. "And thus the event 
 seems to have given the highest sanction to the wisdom of the 
 Hortensian laws : nor can we regard them as mischievous or 
 revolutionary, when we find that from the time of their enact- 
 ment the internal dissensions of the Romans were at an end 
 for a hundred and fifty years, and that during this period the 
 several parts of the constitution were all active ; it was a calm 
 not produced by the extinction of either of the contending forces, 
 but by their perfect union." 
 
 (7) Page 51. Arnold's Rome, iii. 63. " Twice in history 
 has there been witnessed the struggle of the highest individual 
 genius against the resources and institutions of a great nation, 
 and in both cases the nation has been victorious. For seventeen 
 years Hannibal strove against Rome ; for sixteen years Napoleon 
 Buonaparte strove against England. The efforts of the first 
 ended in Zama, those of the second in Waterloo." 
 
 This is the opening of the noblest historical narrative in our 
 language, Arnold's narrative of the Hannibalian War. I may 
 perhaps be doing a good service by reminding the present 
 generation that such a narrative exists. Of course the comparison 
 between Hannibal and Buonaparte applies solely to the genius 
 of the two men, not at all to their objects : Hannibal fought for 
 Carthage, Buonaparte fought for himself.
 
 LECTURE III 245 
 
 (8) Page 51. No Roman, no Latin that is, no full citizen 
 and no one who had a reasonable hope of citizenship turned 
 against Rome, though more than once both Romans and Latins, 
 individual citizens and individual colonies, seemed inclined to 
 shrink from the struggle. This is a marked contrast to the 
 state of things in the Greek cities, where a party is so constantly 
 found in league with the enemy. It is of course not fair 
 to compare the warfare between one Greek city and another 
 with the struggle of Rome against the wholly alien power 
 of Carthage. But even in the Persian War there was in most 
 Greek cities either a medizing party or, at all events, a 
 Hippias or a Demaratos ready to seek his own restoration 
 by the help of the Barbarian. The weakness of Rome lay in 
 that she was, in the words of Tiberius in Tacitus (Annals, 
 iii. 6), an " imperator populus." The subject states of Italy, to 
 say nothing of the Gauls, were naturally ready to join Hannibal. 
 
 (9) Page 53. See Norman Conquest, i. 128. 
 
 (10) Page 53. To seek for barbarian aid against fellow Greeks 
 was a thing which was often done, but it was a thing which 
 might always be turned to the discredit of those who did it. It 
 was like Francis the First and Lewis the Fourteenth joining with 
 the Turks against the Empire. And the real feeling of common 
 Greek brotherhood which underlay all occasional dealings of this 
 kind comes out very strongly on occasion. We see it through 
 the whole history of the Retreat of the Ten Thousand, both in 
 the tie which kept the army together and in the fellow-feeling 
 shown between them and the various Greek cities to which they 
 come on their march. We see it again in the Athenian decree 
 against Arthmios of Zcleia ; while it is the pervading spirit 
 of all the discourses of Lsokratt-s. Take, for instance, his oration, 
 or rather letter, to Philip, the whole tone of which assumes the 
 Greeks as forming one whole, and the Barbarians as another, 
 while the Macedonians, under their Greek King, are rightly 
 enough looked on as something between the two. One passage 
 (150) is very strong. Philip is called on to look on all Greece as 
 his country, and to risk everything on its behalf airacrav TT/V 
 'EAAu&i irarpiSa vo/Kieiv, a97rcp 6 yfWT)<ra.s [Herakles] v/xas, *ai 
 Kiv8w(Viv virip au-n/s o/zo/oxj ws ircp vrrcp &v /ioAioTd <T7rov'8acis. 
 Isokratos indeed was little more than a dreamer ; still he is a
 
 246 NOTES ON 
 
 good witness when it is a sentiment of which we are speaking. 
 But the sentiment comes out in a much more practical shape in 
 the two noble declarations of Kallikratidas, that no Greek should 
 be enslaved by his means, and that he would do his best to 
 reconcile the contending Greek powers, that they might no longer 
 cringe to the barbarian. Xen. Hell. i. 6, 7. KaAAi/cpartSas 
 TTJ avaftoXrj /cat rats eVt ras Ovpas <f>oinjo~fo~iv, opyto'fois 
 
 TTOrt' O.$AlU)TaTOUS ?V(U TOt'S "EAA^VaS, OTl f3ap(3dpOVS KoXa.KfVOVO~LV 
 
 dpyvptov, </>acr/ccov TC, rjv o-tafrf) ot/ca8e, /cara ye TO avrai ovvarov 
 ' A.&r)va.tovs /cat Aa/ceSai/jtovious, aTreVAevo'cv es MiA^rov. 
 i. 6. 14. KaAAi/cpaTi'Sas OVK *<$>?), tavrov yc ap^ovros, ovoeva 
 'EAA^vtov es TOVKCIVOV Srvarov a 
 
 (u) Page 54. The whole argument of Aristotle assumes that 
 the commonwealth will be a city, and neither more nor less 
 neither a mere village nor yet a nation. The three are 
 contrasted together in several places. Thus we read in the 
 Politics (ii. 2, 3) Sioitrci 8e TO> TOIOVTW /cat TroAts eOvovs, orav 
 fj.rj Kara /cw/xas UMTI K^wpurp-fvoi TO Tr\rjdo<s, aXX' olov 'Ap/caSs. So, 
 again (iii. 3, 5), when he is discussing the definition of TroAts, he 
 says ov yap Sr) rots Tet^ecrtv eiry yap av TleXoTrowrjcrw 7repi/3aA.tv ev 
 Tt?)(os. Toiavrr} 8' tcrws ccTTt Kat Ba^Sv Awv /cat 7ra<ra ^rt? l^et Trepiypa^rjv 
 /naAAov ZOvovs y TrdAews. And again, when he is discussing the 
 possible size of a commonwealth (vii. 4, 11) 6/iot'ws Kat TroAts yj 
 p.V l oAtywv Atav OVK avrap/ojs (17 TroAts avrap/ces), 17 8e e/c TroAAwv 
 ayav ev rots p-fv dvay/caiots avrap/cr;s, wsrrep l^vos, dAA' ov TroAts' 
 TToAtTetav yap ou paStor vTrdp-^eiv rt's yap o-Tparrjyos carat TOV Atav 
 vrrcpySaAAovTOS TrArJ^ovs, T/ Tt's Krjpv p.r) ^Tcvropeios j 
 
 The opposite idea to that of Aristotle is found in a glossary 
 of the tenth century in Eckhart (Res Franciae Orient, ii. 999), 
 where " pagus " is defined to be "provincia absque muro." 
 
 (12) Page 54. There is a certain shade of difference between 
 "oppressed nationalities" and "oppressed nations." A people 
 suffering under an oppressive government of their own race and 
 speech would no doubt be an " oppressed nation," but they would 
 not be what is called an "oppressed nationality." By an 
 " oppressed nationality " I conceive is meant a people who are 
 under a government which not only is oppressive but is oppressive 
 in a particular way. The " oppressed nationality " deems itself 
 wronged, because the government under which it finds itself
 
 LECTURE III 247 
 
 refuses its claim to count as a nation. In this sense Poland 
 is, and Hungary once was, an " oppressed nationality." But 
 though the home government of Russia or of Austria might be 
 never so bad, no one would speak of Russia or of Austria as 
 an "oppressed nationality." An "oppressed nationality" then 
 is a nation whose oppression takes the particular form of not 
 dealing with it as a nation. The distinction is a real one ; but 
 the use of the abstract word " nationality," which has quite 
 another meaning, is a very awkward way of expressing what 
 is meant. 
 
 (13) Page 54. This is one of the points in ancient politics 
 which, with our ideas, we find it hardest to understand. In 
 modern times conquest, or submission of any kind, almost always 
 involves more or less of incorporation with the conquering state. 
 The country which is conquered or otherwise annexed may be 
 allowed to retain its laws ; in the case of actual conquest it may 
 retain them as a matter of sufferance ; in the case of voluntary 
 union, like that of England and Scotland, it may retain them 
 as a matter of treaty ; but in either case the difference of law 
 is a mere local difference between two parts of the same state. 
 In modern politics there is hardly such a thing as a state which 
 retains its separate government untouched in all its branches, 
 which is capable of legislating for itself, perhaps even of changing 
 its form of government at pleasure, but which has no will of 
 its own in international concerns, which is bound at the very 
 least to follow the lead of another state in matters of peace and 
 war, perhaps is even bound to contribute men or money at the 
 bidding of the ruling state. But this was the case between 
 Athens and her allies in the fourth century B.C. ; it was the 
 relation between Rome and her Italian allies down to the Social 
 War ; and the relation between Sparta and her Peloponnesian 
 allies did not widely differ from it, though their position was 
 certainly more favourable. The state still remains a state ; it 
 is absolutely untouched in all that forms a separate state ; only 
 it is hindered from exercising the ordinary powers of a state in 
 relation to other states. Such a relation need not involve any 
 practical oppression towards any member of the inferior state, 
 though it gives occasional opportunities for such oppression on 
 the part of officers of the ruling state. A city in this cnse could 
 of course at any moment act for itself, and refuse to obey the
 
 248 NOTES ON 
 
 commands of the ruling city, at the risk of being conquered 
 afresh and being brought down to a worse bondage. We better 
 understand the case of more complete subjection, where the 
 subject state is ruled by a harmost, proconsul, satrap, bailiff, or 
 other officer of the ruling state. But, even in this case, the 
 whole machinery of the subject state often went on as something 
 more than a mere municipality ; it was still a city which was 
 subject to the ruling city. In modern ideas, the inhabitants of 
 the conquered or annexed country become subjects of the govern- 
 ment of the ruling state, fellow-subjects of its older members. 
 
 (14) Page 55. The incidental expressions of Isokrates bring 
 this out strongly. The Greeks of some unknown, and most 
 likely mythical, time were (Paneg. 90) ?8ia /xev ao-n; ras avrwv 
 irdA.i5 r)yovp.voi, KOIVVJV Se TrarpiSa Tt]V 'EAAaSa vo//.tovTes elvai. 
 So, in the discourse addressed to Philip (150; see above, note 
 10), he tells him, irpo^KU rots p.ev oAAois rots a<J> 'Hpo.KA.eous 
 7re<vKo<re KCU rots ev iroXtTcta /cai vo/xot9 cvSeSe/xevois e/ceiv^i/ TT/V TrdAiv 
 crrepyeiv ev r) riry^avovcri KaroixowTes, <j 8', wsrrep atfrerov yeyevrj/j-evov, 
 aira-crav ryv 'EAAaSa irarptSa vo/xi^civ. Harpi's, in Isokrates' own 
 day, was not the word which was commonly applied to all Hellas, 
 but only to each man's own city. He uses it in that sense in 
 several places in this same discourse (111, 121, and elsewhere) ; 
 and still more strikingly when, in his discourse to Philip (72), 
 he says that Konon TO. TCI'^J; TO. r^s TrarptSos avwp^wcrev. But 
 there had been, or ought to have been, a time when all Hellas 
 had been the irarpi? of every Greek. 
 
 (15) Page 55. Livy (xxxviii. 53), in recording the departure 
 of Scipio to Liternum, only speaks of the " necessitas aut subeundi 
 judicii aut simul cum patria deserendi." But Seneca (Epist. 
 xiii. 1) distinctly uses the word exile. " Quidni ego admirer 
 hanc magnitudinem animi, qua in exsilium voluntarium secessit 
 et civitatem exoneravit 1 Eo perducta res erat, ut aut libertas 
 Scipioni aut Scipio libertati faceret injuriam. Neutrum fas erat : 
 itaque locum dedit legibus, et se Liternum recepit, tarn suum 
 exsilium reipublicse imputaturus quam Hannibalis." So of 
 Tiberius, Tacitus (Ann. iv. 58) says, " neque enim tarn incredi- 
 bilem casum providebant, ut undecim per annos libens patria 
 careret." See Merivale, v. 251.
 
 LECTURE III 
 
 (16) Page 56. This is one of the most striking points of 
 difference between France and England, and one of the best 
 signs of the difference between the Frankish conquest of Gaul 
 and the English conquest of Britain. As a rule, the chief towns 
 of France have continued their uninterrupted existence and 
 importance from Roman and Gaulish times. They have not 
 always kept their relative position to one another; still Paris, 
 Lyons, Marseilles, Bourdeaux, Rouen, and a crowd of others, 
 have always kept up their importance as the capitals at least 
 of their surrounding districts. The older city has very seldom 
 been outstripped by a younger rival, in the way in which the 
 local capitals of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Warwickshire, and 
 Staffordshire, have been outstripped among ourselves. The old 
 Celtic post became the Roman city, and the Roman city has 
 lived on uninterruptedly to our own time as the chief place in 
 its own district. And of these cities a large proportion most 
 of those which do not, like Paris or Chalons, lie in or beside a 
 river occupy the high sites where the Gaulish hill-fort was first 
 placed. Such are Bourges, Chartres, above all, Laon. We may 
 say the same of Gaulish cities beyond the limits of the French 
 kingdom, as Geneva, Lausanne, and Sitten. In England the 
 phenomena are quite different. The Roman towns in Britain 
 do not seem to have so universally occupied Celtic sites as they 
 did in Gaul ; and it would also seem that the Celt of Britain 
 did not feel that special attachment to high places which was 
 felt by the Celt of Gaul. We have a few cities, like Lincoln 
 and Exeter, in which a lofty site has been successively occupied 
 by Briton, Roman, and Englishman ; and among these we may 
 reckon London, where the original city, with the cathedral 
 crowning the hill, is really a nearer approach, though a very 
 feeble one, to Bourges or Chartres, than is at all common in 
 England. And there are many hill sites which the Briton 
 occupied, but which did not grow into Roman cities. In Gaul 
 the great camp of Uleybury might have grown into a city like 
 Laon, and Dorchester might have been built on the top of 
 Sinodun instead of at its foot. But that the tendency to occupy 
 lower sites is not only Roman, but also British, is shown by the 
 sites of at least two of the episcopal churches of Wales. No 
 greater contrast can be thought of to Bourges and Chartres than 
 the sites of Llandaff and Saint David's. Then too, owing to the 
 destroying nature of the English Conquest, the occupation of the
 
 250 NOTES ON 
 
 English towns has scarcely ever been continuous. Some of the 
 Roman towns, like Wroxeter and Silchester, were destroyed, and 
 their sites were never again occupied. Others, like Bath and 
 Chester, were occupied afresh, after having lain waste for several 
 centuries. In everything the contrast between English and 
 French towns is one of the most striking witnesses to that utter 
 gap between one state of things and another, which was caused 
 in Britain by the character of the English conquest, but which 
 has nothing answering to it in the history of Gaul. 
 
 (17) Page 56. Thucydides, ii. 15, TO 8e -n-pb TOVTOV rj 
 
 fj vw ovo-a TroXis 3)v. On the whole subject of the change from 
 the hill-sides to lower positions, see Grote, ii. 144-148. In 
 Western Europe there cannot be a better study of the general 
 change than is to be found at Le Mans, where the Gaulish fort, 
 the Roman, and the mediaeval city, may all be traced, each being 
 an enlargement of its predecessor, and each coming lower down 
 from the top of the hill. 
 
 (18) Page 56. I have ventured to quote the well-known 
 Homeric contrast between Dardanie and Ilios, as illustrating the 
 change from Old to New Salisbury. Norman Conquest, i. 318. 
 
 (19) Page 56. Sophokles, (Ed. Col. 694. ev TO. 
 
 (20) Page 56. See Grote, ii. 147. So Maine, Ancient Law, 
 125. "It may not perhaps be an altogether fanciful idea when 
 I suggest that the Cyclops is Homer's type of an alien and less 
 advanced civilization ; for the almost physical loathing which 
 a primitive community feels for men of widely different manners 
 from its own usually expresses itself by describing them as 
 monsters, such as giants, or even (which is almost always the 
 case in Oriental mythology) as demons." Cf. Arist. Pol. i. 2-6. 
 The Kyklopes of course are an extreme case ; and the traditions 
 about them, as about other beings of the same kind, most likely 
 refer, like the stories of the Trolls of the North, to some memory 
 of the earlier non- Aryan races whom the Hellenes most likely 
 found in the land. But the references in the Homeric poems to 
 the nations on the west coast of Asia, kindred as they undoubtedly 
 were, are all tinged by a certain feeling of superiority, though
 
 LECTURE III 251 
 
 how slight that feeling is cannot be fully understood, except by 
 comparing Homer's way of speaking with that of the tragedians. 
 "We get notices also (see Odyssey, xiv. 315 ; xv. 426-452) of 
 European neighbours, the friendly Thesprotians and the hostile 
 Taphians, conceived in the same spirit. So the preface of 
 Thucydides throughout conceives the earlier state of Hellas as 
 being something lower than that described in the Homeric poems 
 (see Grote, ii. 47), but as something of which traces still 
 remained in his own time among the ruder members of the 
 Greek nation. 
 
 (21) Page 56. ATJ/AOS in Homer constantly means the land, 
 jfios and the like, and it is not uncommonly distinguished 
 from TroAts, or perhaps used as including TrdAts iroXrji re TTO.VTL TC 
 
 (22) Page 56. On the Attic Dcmoi, see below, p. 269. 
 
 (23) Page 57. See History of Federal Government, i. 133. 
 
 (24) Page 57. See the well-known notice of the Lokrians, 
 ^Etolians, and Akarnanians in Thucydides, i. 5, and cf. iii. 94. 
 
 (25) Page 57. The foundation of Megalopolis (see History 
 of Federal Government, i. 200) is a matter of history, and the 
 names of the towns which contributed inhabitants to it are given 
 at length by Pausanias, viii. 27. Xenophon (Hell. iii. 2, 27) 
 mentions that Elis in his time was still unwalled, and Diodoros 
 (xi. 54) gives the date of its foundation in the archonship of 
 Praxiergos, B.C. 471. His words are 'HAcun TrAtiovs KCU /Aucpas 
 TrdAeis olitovvTes cis p.iav truvwKicr&jo-av TJJV oVo/xa^o/te'vT/v HAiv. 
 Strabo (viii. 3) is more precise, and he extends the remark to 
 many others among the Peloponnesian cities. 'HAis 8 rj vvv 
 irdAts OUTTO) tKTurro KaO' "OfMrjpov, oXA.' rj X^P 01 K(afj.rjBov yxtlro 
 ..... o\j/f 8c TTOTC (rwrjXOov ets TT/V vvv 7rdA.iv TTJV HAcv, /utra ra 
 \\ifxriKii, fK TroAAwv fnjp.<j)v. cr^tSov Kal TOUS aAAous TOTTOVS TOVS 
 Kara H\oir6wrj<Tov irAr)v 6Aiy<ov, ous KareAe^cv 6 TTOIT/TT/S ou TroAcis, 
 clAAii \<apa.s ovo/xd^ti, a~v<m^fJ.aTa 8jjfj.wv e^ovo-av (xda-rrjv TrActto, i 
 wv vxmpov al yvwpio/tevai TroAets <ruvtaKi<rOrj(Ta.v otov TTJS 'ApKaStas 
 MavriVcta ftev IK -rrivrt &rjp.<av VTT 'Apytiwv (TvvtaKtcrOrj- Tryta 8' e 
 iwea.' (K rotrovrtav 8c Kal 'llpaia VTTO K\top.ftp6rov, rj viro
 
 252 NOTES ON 
 
 8' avTcos Atytov f CTrra 7} OKTW ST;/AO>V <rw7roA.i(r$?7' Harpou 
 8c e OKTW' OVTW 8c /cat 17 *HA.ts e/c TO 
 /-ua TovTajv. The different words used by Strabo to 
 express the earlier state of things, 8r//u.oi, Ku/jiyobv, 7repioi/a8es, are 
 worth noticing. The last at least could hardly be applicable. 
 Elis, in the Homeric Catalogue, is the name, not of the city, 
 but of the district ; nor is the word irdAts applied to the Arcadian 
 communities, but neither is x<opa. 
 
 Kemble (Saxons in England, i. 49) remarks that "generally 
 speaking in Greece the origin of the 7rdA.is lies in what may be 
 called the compression of the Kcu/xai. The dyopa is on the space 
 of neutral ground where all may meet on equal terms." He 
 makes the remark to illustrate the growth of the Teutonic Gau 
 (see below, note 72 on Lect. III.) out of component marks. He 
 also refers to the formation of Rome out of the three local tribes. 
 
 (26) Page 57. The four or five earlier communities by the 
 union of which the city of Mantineia was said to have been 
 founded were heard of again when it suited the policy of Sparta 
 to break up a powerful neighbour. Xenophon tells the story, 
 Hell. V. 2, 7. e/c 8e TOVTOV KaBrjpeOrj fj.ev TO reT^os, SIWKI'CT^T; 8' -f) 
 MaiTtveia rerpa^, KaOdirep TO dp^aiov yicow. He goes on to say 
 how each village (KW/AT;) sent its separate contingent to the 
 Lacedaemonian army, and how well the Mantineian oligarchs 
 liked the change, as delivering them from democracy and 
 demagogues. But in the Homeric Catalogue (ii. 607) both 
 Tegea and Mantineia appear as integral wholes. 
 
 Kal Teyeriv elxor, Kal VlavriVf-nv ^pa.rfivi\v. 
 
 That the same was the case with Sparta is well known from the 
 words of Thucydides, i. 10, when he speaks of Sparta as Kara 
 K<i>fj.a<s T<3 TraXata) r)s 'EAAaSos rpoTrw ot/cto-^etcra even in his own 
 day. The names of the original five villages seem to be given 
 by Pausanias, iii. 16, 9, but the words of the Catalogue (581) 
 seem rather to point to Lakedaimon and Sparte as having once 
 been separate communities. 
 
 o2 5' elxop Kol\r]v Aa.HfSaifj.ova Kiirweffffav, 
 &dpr)V Tf, 2ira.prr)v Tf, iro\vTpf)p<ava re Mfffffrfv. 
 
 All these cases, in which a city was formed by the union of 
 several villages, must be carefully distinguished from the union
 
 LECTURE III 253 
 
 of the Attic towns. Elis, Mantineia, and the rest were formed 
 either by actually joining together neighbouring villages, or by 
 causing the inhabitants of more distant places to remove their 
 dwellings to the new city. In Attica nothing of the kind 
 happened. The towns went on as they did before, only they 
 ceased to exist as political communities, and all their citizens 
 received the franchise of Athens. 
 
 (27) Page 58. That there were Macedonian cities which had 
 made progress enough in city life to be enrolled as members, 
 though perhaps in some degree as dependent members (see His- 
 tory of Federal Government, i. 193), of a Greek confederation is 
 plain from the description which Xenophun (v. 2, 1 2) gives of the 
 steps taken by Olynthos in the formation of the league which the 
 Spartans put down, CK TOVTOV 7r^ipv;o-av KCU ras TJ/S MaKeSovias 
 7roA.is e\ev0fpovv airo 'A/iuvrou rov MaKcSoVwv /SacrtAe'ws. But the 
 local divisions of Macedonia and Epeiros are all tribe divisions 
 (see Thuc. ii. 99), and the village life which went on even among 
 the purely Greek neighbours of the Epeirots was clearly the 
 ruling life in both countries. 
 
 (28) Page 58. Of the analogy between the Greek /AC'TOI/COI, 
 the Niedergehkssenen in Switzerland, and the "foreigners," as 
 they were often called, in many English boroughs, I have spoken 
 more at large in another lecture (see p. 183). The main point 
 is that mere residence in all cases goes for nothing. How little 
 it counted for in the ideas of Greek political thinkers is shown 
 by the incidental words of Aristotle (Pol. iii. 1, 3), 68c Tro/XiV^s 
 
 OV TO) OlKtlV 7TOU TToXtTT/? ffTTtV KCU yap /MCTOIKOI KCU 8ovA.Ol KOIJ'COVOVCTI 
 
 TJ/S oiK7;<rfu>s. He goes on to speak of those /UUTOIKOI who, by the 
 terms of special treaties, enjoyed special rights, the connubium 
 and commercium or any others. ov&' ol roiv SiKai 
 OITWS OJSTC Kai &IKTJV vTTC^ttv Kal 8iKaccr$ar TOVTO yap 
 rots a7ro <rvfi.p6\<i}V Koivwvown' KCU yap ravra. TOVTOIS 
 
 fitv ovv ovSi rovrtav TfA'u>s ol fu'roiKoi /xcre^orcra', uAAa 
 avdytaj irpoa-rdnjv. This last is the well-known disqualifica- 
 tion of the fjitToiKot at Athens, which forbade them from suing in 
 any court in their own names, and required them to appeal- 
 through a citizen patron. 
 
 (29) Page 58. Something of this kind happened at some 
 stage or other of the history of most Grecian cities. I quote
 
 254 NOTES ON 
 
 the most illustrious case of all (Arist. Pol. iii. 2, 3) : ocroi 
 
 p.fTa/3oXf}<; ycvofJifvrp; TroXtrctas, otov ' AOrjvrfo-LV eiroirja-f 
 
 fj.fTa TTJV TOV rvpawdiv tK^oXrfV rroAAovs yap e<f>v\cTfv(rc 
 
 /cai SovAovs jtieToiKovs. TO o dfJL<f>icr(3i^Tr]fj.a Trpos TOVTOUS ecrrtv ou rt's 
 
 7rO\tT7/S, 
 
 (30) Page 58. Take the case of the orator Lysias at Athens, 
 a yu,ToiKos who had shown himself as good an Athenian patriot 
 as if he had come in a straight line from Erechtheus, who first 
 had full citizenship voted to him, and then lost it on the ground 
 of an informality in the vote. Photios 262 (p. 490, Bekker) ; 
 ypd(f>ei fj.fv p-era TYJV itdOoSov paa"u(3ovXo<; iroXiTfiav avr<3, 6 Sc S^/xo? 
 TT/V Scopeav. 'Ap^ivos Se, 8ia TO aTrpoftovXevrov ct?a^6^vat TO 
 ypa<eTai Trapavo/^wv TTJV Stopeav KOI CTTCI KaTeyvwo-^ TO 
 TYJ<S ftev 7roA.tT6ias 6 Avo*t'as aTreXavveTai, TOV XOLTTOV 8c 
 Ka.Te/3i(a lo-oreX^s wv. That is to say, he remained a J^C'TOI/COS, 
 shut out from the political franchise, but exempted from the 
 special burthens laid upon his class, and paying only the same 
 tax as the citizens. That there could be any doubt or question 
 about granting full citizenship to such a man shows how high 
 a privilege the grant was held to be. On the other hand there 
 is an early case of the way in which grants of citizenship, which 
 must have been practically honorary, were made to foreign 
 princes in the enfranchisement of the Thracian Sadokos, son of 
 Sitalks, which is recorded by Thucydides, ii. 29. 6 
 
 TT/V T TOU SlTOtAfCOU vfJLfJLO.\iaV f.TToilf]<Tf KOL SttSoKOV TOV VLOV 
 
 ' AOrjvalov. So ii. 67, TOV SaSoxov TOV yeyevrjfjicvov 'AOrjvalov. All 
 this is made sport of by Aristophanes, Acharn. 145 : 
 
 6 5' wbf, 6v 'A.9i)vcuov 
 ijpa <payeii> a\\ai>Tos t 
 KCU TW irarep' iii>Ti/36\fi &o-r)Btiv rfi irdrpa. 
 
 We hear much more of this in later times. 
 
 In oligarchic Sparta the grant of citizenship was of course 
 far more rare and precious than in democratic Athens. Yet we 
 find an instance in Herodotus (ix. 33) where the full Spartan 
 citizenship is granted to the Eleian prophet Tisamenos and his 
 brother Hegias. But the story shows how rare such a favour 
 was, and with what difficulty the Spartans brought themselves 
 to grant it : STrapTi^rai 8 irpwra fiev aKovcravres Sciva roievvTO. 
 There is a later instance in the case of Dion of Syracuse
 
 LECTURE IIT 255 
 
 (Plutarch, Dion, 49) which shows how completely such artificial 
 citizenship, when once granted, was looked on as the same thing 
 as citizenship by birth. Herakleitos sets up Gaisylos as fitter 
 to command the Syracusan forces than Dion, on the ground 
 of his being a Spartan. Dion, who had, like Tisamenos, been 
 admitted to Spartan citizenship, answers o>s elcrlv apxovres t 
 TOIS SvpaKOWtots, et 8e 7raWa>s OCOL /cat STrap-naVou TOIS 
 avros ouros clvai Kara ro&qtrtP yeyovws 2 aprian/s. Compare also 
 the jest of Gorgias of Leontinoi (Arist. Pol. iii. 2, 2) on the ease 
 with which citizens were made at Larissa ; !<>;, KaOd-rrep oA./uous 
 eTvai TOUS VTTO Taiv 6A/AO7roitoJ' 7T7roiT7/Aevov9, orru) *cai Aapitro-at'ovs TOUS 
 VTTO Toiv 8rjfj.tovp-y<av TreTrot^/xo'ous' civat yup Tiva? AaptoxroTroiovs. 
 We cannot help contrasting all this with the ease with which 
 strangers are naturalized both in European kingdoms and 
 American commonwealths. But this is part of the difference 
 between a city and a nation. The true parallel to the citizenship 
 of Athens or Sparta is not naturalization as a British subject, but 
 admission to the local freedom of a borough. 
 
 (31) Page 58. On this wotxuris of Attica, one of the great 
 events in the history of Greece and of the world, see Historical 
 Essays, Second Series, p. 119. 
 
 (32) Page 59. On the momentary union of Argos and 
 Corinth in B.C. 393, see Xenophon, Hell. iv. 4, 6, and the remarks 
 of Grote, ix. 462. The expressions of Xenophou are remarkable, 
 even though they may express only the feelings of an oligarchic- 
 party, as they show the natural repugnance of the Greek mind 
 to any such union of separate cities. ala-Ba.vofj.tvoi. a<arto/ieVj;v 
 TWV iroXiv, out TO teal Tou? opous ttvaoTTacf^ai KCU "Apyo? avri KoptV$ov 
 rrjv irarpioa. avrtav 6vofuir0at, ical iroXirctas /xev a.vayKao/j.evoi T/S 
 ev "Apyci /xTc'vciv, rjs ovofv eSe'ovro, ev oe TIJ TroXci p.tToiK<av tXarrov 
 
 tyevovro Tires aurwv, 01 ev6p.urav OITW p.cv OVK dfioySiwroi' 
 Certainly there is no other case in Grecian history whero 
 two commonwealths were fused together in this way ; and we 
 should be glad to have some details of the process, momentary as 
 the union proved. One can hardly understand an actual union 
 of two cities so far apart from each other, and there cannot well 
 be such a thing as a confederation of two. Mark again the 
 complaint of the discontented Corinthians that they were no 
 better than /icVoocot in their own city.
 
 256 NOTES ON 
 
 (33) Page 59. I have traced out the early history of these 
 two Leagues in iny History of Federal Government. Among 
 the ^Etolians we have seen that Greek city life was hardly at all 
 developed. The Achaian League, on the other hand, was from 
 the beginning a League of cities in the strictest sense ; but then 
 they were cities so small that they had no chance of maintaining 
 their independence as perfectly independent commonwealths. 
 
 (34) Page 59. See History of Federal Government, i. 630. 
 The annexation of Sparta, which made the League take in the 
 whole of Peloponnesos, must have held out temptations too strong 
 for human nature to withstand. But from that time the history 
 of the League is largely made up of secessions, and movements 
 in the direction of secessions, on the part of Sparta, and of com- 
 plaints against the Federal power brought by Sparta before the 
 Roman protector. 
 
 (35) Page 60. The distinction in German political language 
 between Staatenlund and Bundesstaat is one which Greek itself 
 might envy. In the Staatenbund, such as the American Union 
 was up to 1789 and the Swiss Confederation up to 1848, the 
 members of the League are joined together on such terms and 
 for such purposes as may be agreed on, and their common affairs 
 are administered by a Federal Diet or Congress. Still each State 
 remains perfectly independent in all its internal concerns, and 
 each may even keep the right of separate dealing with foreign 
 Governments. There is nothing which can be strictly called a 
 Federal Government. In the Bundesstaat, on the other hand, 
 though each State remains sovereign and independent within the 
 range of such powers as it does not hand over to the Federal 
 authority, yet, within the range of those powers which are handed 
 over to the Federal authority, the whole body forms a single 
 commonwealth under a Government, with its executive, legisla- 
 tive, and judicial branches, acting as a sovereign and independent 
 power within its own range. Most of the Greek confederations 
 in the later days of Greece seem to have been fairly entitled to 
 the name of Bundesstaat. 
 
 (36) Page 60. See Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 146. 
 
 (37) Page 62. Yeii seems to have been as large as Rome, but 
 then Veii was the great march city of Etruria, just as Rome was
 
 LECTURE III 257 
 
 the great inarch city of Latium. So Megalopolis was founded on 
 the Spartan march of Arcadia. But certainly, setting Etruria 
 aside, Capua is the only Italian city at all on a level with Rome, 
 till we get down to the great Greek cities of the South. The 
 nearness of the great Greek cities to one another is brought 
 forcibly home to us by the story of Philolaos and Diokles, told 
 by Aristotle (Politics, ii. 12. 8, 9). Philolaos was buried at 
 Thebes, on a spot from which the Corinthian territory could be 
 seen. Aigina, as all the world knows, was the eyesore of Peiraieus. 
 But perhaps the clearest picture of the physical smallness that 
 is, in truth, the moral greatness of the Greek commonwealths 
 is that drawn by Servius Sulpicius in his letter to Cicero (Ep. 
 ad Div. iv. 5) "Ex Asia rediens quum ab ^gina Megaram 
 versus navigarem, ccepi regiones circumcirca prospicere. Post 
 me erat ^Egina, ante Megara, dextra Pirteeus, sinistra Corinthus." 
 His comment is "quae oppida quodam tempore florentissima 
 fuerunt, nunc prostrata et diruta ante oculos jacent." We 
 might have looked for the reflection that all had once been in- 
 dependent commonwealths, but that they now all formed parts 
 of the Roman dominion. The truth is that they did not all as 
 yet form part of the Roman dominion. See Note 40. 
 
 (38) Page 62. This is clearly set forth in the third chapter of 
 Mommsen's History of Rome. He gives a vivid picture of the 
 origin of the old Italian towns. The story is essentially the 
 same in Italy, Greece, and Gaul ; only Italy lagged behind 
 Greece, while Gaul, till the Roman civilization was brought in 
 from without, lagged behind Italy. The Latins began with a 
 Markyeiwssenscluift, and the town, like the British ojyridutn, was 
 at first a mere place of defence in case of the attacks of enemies. 
 41 Diese Platze, die natiirlich auch zugleich die heiligen Statten 
 <ler Markgenossen einschlossen und die wir uns iibrigens als 
 regelmitssig unbewohnt oder schwach bewohnt zu deuken haben, 
 begegnen uns unter den Namen der ' Berge ' (monies) und 
 4 Bauten ' (jxiyi, von panyere), der ' Burgen ' (arces, von arcere) 
 und ' Ringe ' (urbes, von urvus, ciirvus, orbis), und sie sind die 
 Grundlage der vorstadtischen Gauverfassung in Italien geworden, 
 welche in denjenigen Italischen Landschaf ten, die zuin stadtischen 
 Zusammensiedeln erst spat und zurn Theil noch bis auf den heu- 
 tigen Tag nicht vollstiindig gelangt siud, wie im Marserland und 
 
 8
 
 258 NOTES ON 
 
 in den kleinen Gauen der Abruzzen, noch einigermassen deutlich 
 sich erkennen liisst." 
 
 Even Home itself was, from the beginning, a place of meeting 
 rather than a place of dwelling to the greater part of its citizens. 
 So far Rome and Athens are alike ; but the Athenian franchise 
 could not, from a whole crowd of causes, be extended beyond the 
 original towns of Attica, while circumstances allowed the Roman 
 franchise to be, in the end, extended as far as the Roman dominion 
 was. Long before Rome had become the head even of Italy, 
 districts had been admitted to citizenship which were further 
 from Rome than any part of Attica was from Athens. 
 
 (39) Page 62. I here accept Mommsen's view as to the origin 
 of Rome. On the tendency of these border districts and states 
 to become ruling states over their neighbours and kindred, see 
 Historical Essays, First Series, p. 220. 
 
 (40) Page 62. The great legal division is into cives and pere- 
 grini. The pereyrini, up to the Social War, included, first, the 
 Latins no longer, of course, the old confederacy of that name, 
 but the communities which enjoyed the Jiis Latii in any part of 
 the Roman dominion ; these were half citizens who had a right, 
 under certain circumstances, to claim citizenship ; secondly, the 
 Socii, the allied states of Italy, of which we have already spoken, 
 and which received citizenship after the Social "War ; thirdly, 
 the Provincials, the subjects of Rome out of Italy, who were 
 placed under the rule of Roman Proconsuls or other governors, 
 and whose earlier institutions, though seldom wholly swept away, 
 remained as the institutions of mere municipalities and no longer 
 of distinct commonwealths. It must always be remembered that 
 both the full citizenship of Rome and the inferior Latin and 
 Italian franchises could be conferred either on individuals or 
 communities in any part of the Roman dominions. And we 
 should also remember how many principalities and commonwealths, 
 though surrounded by Roman territory and practically dependent 
 on Rome, retained their formal independence till very late times. 
 Thus the Lykian League lived on till the reign of Claudius, and 
 the commonwealths of Rhodes and Byzantion till the reign of 
 Vespasian. 
 
 Gaius i. 28, remarks that " Latini multis modis ad civitatem 
 Romanam perveniunt." The peculiarity of the Latin condition
 
 LECTURE HI 259 
 
 is, that the Latins, though not citizens, could, if the necessary 
 conditions were fulfilled, claim citizenship of right, while Italians 
 and Provincials, like the Greek /HC'TOIKOI, could receive it only of 
 special favour. 
 
 (41) Page 63. We have the speech of Claudius in favour 
 of a larger extension of citizenship among the Gauls, as it is 
 reported by Tacitus (Ann. xi., 25), and we have the fragments 
 of the actual speech, found on a brass tablet at Lyons, and 
 printed at the end of the eleventh book in Orelli's edition. The 
 difference between the two versions is instructive, as it helps to 
 show how far the speeches in the classical writers are to be taken 
 as real reports of what was actually said. The general drift of 
 the argument is the same ; but the language is altogether different, 
 and even the particular examples chosen are different. As the 
 genuine speech is imperfect, it may, in its complete state, have 
 contained more than it now does of the matter which is found 
 in Tacitus ; but it is singular that Tacitus should have left out 
 the very curious story which makes Servius Tullius the same 
 person as the Etruscan Mastarna, which is found in the original 
 speech. Both however alike set forth the policy of Rome in 
 gradually extending her citizenship to her allies and subjects. 
 The passage which I had specially in my eye may come from 
 Claudius; it certainly comes from Tacitus. "Quid aliud exitio 
 Lacedaemoniis et Atheniensibus fuit, quamquam armis pollerent, 
 nisi, quod victos pro alienigenis arcebant ? At conditor noster 
 Romulus tantum sapientia valuit, ut plerosque populos eodem 
 die hostes, dein cives habuerit." The last sentences in Tacitus, 
 which are also much to our purpose, are undoubtedly Claudian 
 in substance, though Tacitus has put them into much better 
 language. "Omnia, Patres Conscripti, quie mine vetustissima 
 creduntur, nova fuere ; plebei magistratus post patricios ; Latini 
 post plebeios ; ceterarum Italia? gentium post Latinos. Invete- 
 rascet hocquoque: et quod hodie exemplis tuemur, inter exempla 
 erit." 
 
 As for the edict of Antoninus Caracalla, by which all the 
 free inhabitants of the Empire became Roman citizens, I am glad 
 to find Sir Henry Maine (Ancient Law, 144) protesting against 
 the common tendency to underrate its effects. " I may be per- 
 mitted to remark that there is little foundation for the opinion 
 which represents the constitution of Antoninus Caracalla con-
 
 260 NOTES ON 
 
 ferring Roman citizenship on the whole of his subjects as a 
 measure of small importance." To Sir Henry Maine the edict 
 is of importance chiefly as having "enormously enlarged the 
 sphere of the Patria Potestas." To me it comes more home as 
 having extended the Roman name to all the inhabitants of the 
 Empire. The name Romamis, as opposed to Barbarus, in the 
 Teutonic codes, and the name of 'Pw/iatos, still the true name of 
 the people who have only latterly revived the name of "EAAv/ves, 
 are the direct results of the edict. And, but for that edict, 
 Roderic the West-Goth would not have appeared in Saracenic 
 eyes as the King of the Romans ; the Seljuk Sultans of Ikonion 
 would not have called themselves Sultans of Roum ; nor would 
 the Roman name have still remained the received name of the 
 Ottomans and their empire in the further East. That edict 
 created a territorial Romania, instead of a mere local Roma. 
 The edict, in short, is a great landmark in the history of the 
 world ; still, as far as any political privilege went, the franchise 
 bestowed by it was altogether worthless. 
 
 (42) Page 63. I need not show that, as long as the common- 
 wealth lasted, the vote of the Roman citizen, in whatever comitia 
 it was to be given, could be given nowhere but in the proper 
 place, in or close to Rome. It has been perhaps less commonly 
 remarked that, when the vote had become of very little worth, 
 Augustus devised a means by which citizens at a distance might 
 give their votes at home and have them sent them to Rome by 
 something, I suppose, like sealed voting-papers. So Suetonius tells 
 us (Aug. 46) " Italiam .... jure ac dignatione urbi quodam 
 rnodo pro parte aliqua adaequavit : excogitate genere suffragio- 
 rum, quse de magistratibus urbicis decuriones colonici, in sua 
 quisque colonia ferrent, et sub diem comitiorum obsignata Romam 
 mitterent." 
 
 Of this way of voting one would gladly have some further 
 details. One would like to know what the mechanical process 
 was, and whether any means were taken to hinder any tampering 
 with the votes on the part of the decurions. The device may 
 be looked on as a sign of the decay of public spirit ; for it is no 
 bad test of the worth of a man's vote whether he will take a 
 little trouble to give it. Still the possibility of voting about 
 laws and magistrates elsewhere than at Rome, like the discovery 
 which was made somewhat later, that it was possible to choose
 
 LECTURE III 261 
 
 an Emperor elsewhere than at Rome, is one of the signs of the 
 gradual pulling down of the supremacy of the local city. 
 
 (43) Page 64. See Historical Essays, Second Series, pp. 
 264, 321. 
 
 The verses of Maecenas are preserved by Seneca, Epistles, 
 xvii. 1. 
 
 " Debilera factito manu, 
 Debilem pede, coxa, 
 Tuber adstrue, gibberuni, 
 Lubricos quate dente : 
 Vita dum superest, bene est, 
 
 Hanc niihi, vel acuta 
 Si sedeam cruce, siistine." 
 
 The philosopher calls this " turpissimum votum," " miserrimuru," 
 " contemptissimum." The last lines, as well as the commentary 
 of Seneca which follows, should be noticed as throwing light 
 both on the familiarity and the nature of crucifixion. 
 
 (44) Page 65. Aristotle however (Pol. i. 25) fully recognizes 
 the village that is, as we shall presently see, the yevos as a 
 natural stage intermediate between the family and the city. "H 
 pcv ovv ('s Tra.<rav ^fj.epav crvveoTr/Kvia KOIVWVIO. Kara <vo*tv O?KO? 
 eoriv . . . . r) 8' (K TT\(i6v(av OIKIWV KOivwvia Trpwrrj ^p?;crea)S CVCKCV /LIT/ 
 i<f>r)[JLCpov KWfJLV)' /tioAtoTa Se Kara <f>v(rtv ZOIKCV rj Ktafjuj aTroiKia ouct'a? 
 
 eivai T; 8' K TrXetovwv K<a/j.S)v KOtvwvta rcAeio? 770X15. But 
 
 throughout his treatise in general we hardly hear so much as we 
 might have expected about the yevos as a distinct element in the 
 commonwealth. 
 
 (45) Page 66. The Celtic clans seem to be distinguished 
 from the other forms of the common institution by the strength 
 and permanence of the family and hereditary feeling. Among 
 the Teutonic nations the notion of kindred seems to have died 
 out very early, as it no doubt died out early in fact, among the 
 marks or yemeinden ; and at Rome, though the gens always 
 remained a gens, the feeling of kindred was much slighter than 
 in the Celtic clan. Above all, there was nothing at Rome which 
 in any way answered to the chief of the clan. 
 
 (46) Page 66. For village communities in the East I must 
 refer to the second and fourth lectures in Sir Henry Maine's book.
 
 262 NOTES ON 
 
 Of the Western form of the institution we shall find more to say 
 as we go on. 
 
 (47) Page 66. I know of no name for the village community, 
 either in English or in German, which at all translates the 
 Greek and Latin names. The Geschlechter of the German towns 
 of course answer admirably, in the history of those towns, to 
 the Greek JCVTJ and Latin gentes, but then they belong wholly 
 to that after-growth of Teutonic municipality of which I shall 
 have to speak towards the end of this lecture ; they have nothing 
 to do with the early state of political developement of which we 
 are now speaking. 
 
 (48) Page 67. On the patronymic names of marks in England 
 see Keinble, Saxons in England, 159, and Appendix A at the 
 end of the volume. The principle of formation is this : the epony- 
 mous hero, say Dodda, gives his name to the gens, the Doddingas, 
 exactly as Alkmaion does to the Alkmaionidai ; the Teutonic 
 patronymic ing answers exactly to the Greek 1877?. Then a 
 settlement of the Doddingas most commonly forms its name 
 by adding one of the common-place endings, as ham or tun, 
 Doddingaham, Doddingatiin, which last is actually found in the 
 various places named Doddington. Sometimes, however, as 
 Tooting, Woking (Totingas, Wocingas), <tc., the name of the 
 yens is found without any ending, just like the Greek Bpay^iSai. 
 The names which come directly from the name of an liru>wp.o<;, 
 as Finsbury (Finnesburh), are rarer. These last must of course 
 not be confounded with places which are named after mere 
 mortal owners. These are common enough, but they are not so 
 common among the original Saxon and Anglian settlements 
 as they are among the Danes of Lincolnshire and the Flemings 
 of Pembrokeshire. And, as Kemble points out, the ing form, 
 being so common, has sometimes thrust itself in where it has 
 no right; as Abira/don and Huntm^don for Abbawdun and 
 Huntrmdun. 
 
 The same patronymic ing, in various shapes, is also found in 
 many Continental names. One most interesting class is that 
 which has been worked out by Bluntschli (Stoats- und Kechts- 
 (jeschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Zurich, i. 25, referred to by 
 Mr. Grote, iii. 16), who shows, by tracing the names through 
 various forms, that the ending ikon, or iken, common in the old
 
 LECTURE III 263 
 
 Ziirichgau, is a corruption of inghoven ; as Dellikon, for Telling- 
 hoven, exactly answering to our Gillingham and Doddington. 
 Another set will be found in Dithmarschen among the gentes 
 or Gesc/tkchter by whom the land was settled. See the Chronicle 
 of Johann Adolfi, surnamed Neocorus (edited by Dahlmann, 
 Kiel, 1827), i. 224. Some of the names have the ing form, as 
 Dickbolinginanschlecht, Wittingmanschlacht, &c. 
 See also Norman Conquest, i. 562, f. 
 
 (49) Page 67. On this matter should be read the essay 
 of Mommsen, Die Rijmischen Eigennamen, in his Rinnische 
 Forschungen. But I cannot follow him when he makes the 
 addition of the name of the di'mos at Athens (A^/ioo-flo^s 
 Ar7/*oo-0evot's Ilaiaviei's, for example) equivalent to the nomen 
 or gentile name at Rome. Ilaiavievs is not a gentile name as 
 such. It may happen to be so, inasmuch as many of the d>'nioi 
 answered to gentes ; but in itself it is not gentile but local. 
 Ilaiavievs in truth is not a name at all; it is merely a 
 description, while the gentile name Claudius or Julius is 
 strictly the nomen of its bearer. Except that the membership 
 of the d''mos was strictly hereditary, A^/xocr^c'n;? A^/ioo-^cVovs 
 Ilaiavievs would exactly answer to Morgan ap Morgan of 
 Llanfihangel or to John Johnson of Beckington, at that 
 stage of nomenclature when only the son of a John could be 
 called Johnson, and when the son of Robin Johnson would be 
 called Richard Robinson. A Roman was never described by his 
 local tribe or other local description, unless through the chance 
 of a local description becoming a cognomen, such as Maluginensis 
 and such like. The Athenian again was never spoken of as 
 Ilatavtei's, except as a mere description by which he was 
 introduced. No one would go on saying that AT/^OO-^CK?/? 
 Ilaiavievs, still less that ILuavievs, did so and so ; while we 
 do say in Latin that " Caius Julius," and even that " Julius," 
 did so and so. The arrangement again of the names at Athens 
 and at Rome shows the difference. At Athens a man is AT;/IOCT- 
 6tvTjs A7;/zcKr0eVovs Tlaiavicvs. At Rome he is not " Caius 
 Lucii filius Julius," but " Caius Julius Lucii films." Then the 
 cognomen, if he have one, is added : " Caius Julius Luoii nlius 
 Cesar." It is the Casar, in short, not the Jiilint, which 
 answers to the Ilatavtcv?. The only difference is that at Athens 
 every man had a demotic name, and the demotic name was
 
 264 NOTES ON 
 
 necessarily local, while at Rome a man had not necessarily a 
 cognomen, and the cognomen was not necessarily local. The 
 difference is really implied in Mommsen's own remark (p. 7) : 
 
 " Bei den Griechen schwankt noch das gentilische Ethnikon : 
 es findet sich -evs, -t'S^s, -ios neben einander ; die Italiker, vor 
 allem mit der ihnen eigenen Strenge die Homer haben das Suffix 
 -ius im gentilischen Ethnikon ausschliesslich durchgefiihrt." 
 
 That is to say, the demotic description, not being a nomen 
 or gentile name, but a legalized local cognomen, takes various 
 endings according to the name of the demos from which it is 
 formed ; the nomen or gentile name, being strictly gentile, take* 
 always the one ending in ius, answering to the Greek i'8>/$ and 
 to the Teutonic ing. 
 
 Mommsen makes a remark just before (pp. 5, 6) which is 
 striking, and, to say the least, worth looking into. This is that, 
 in such phrases as "Marcus Marci," Arj/zoo-tfeVr/s A^oo-foVous, 
 there was at first no ellipsis olfilius or rios- The name in the 
 genitive case is simply the genitive expressing property ; it is, as 
 he calls it, a Herrenname, pointing out under whose potestas or 
 mund the person spoken of was. That which is ixnder "the potestas 
 may be wife, son, slave, ox, or field, and the formula is the same 
 for all. Ccecilia Marci, Marcus Marci, are the same form 
 (" sprachlich und rechtlich gleichartig ") as ager Marci, or, I 
 suppose, as Marci par. If it be so, it would be woi'th finding 
 out whether the formula which names the grandfather as well 
 as the father, " Caius Julius Lucii filius Sexti nepos," came 
 in through those cases where the father was himself still in the 
 potestas of the grandfather. 
 
 (50) Page 67. See the passages collected by JSiebuhr (i. 327, 
 i. 606 of the English translation), passages which undoubtedly 
 prove that there was not necessarily any real kindred among 
 all the members of a gens. So too there is force when he says 
 that, if Cicero had believed all the members of a gens to have 
 a common origin, he would hardly have thought it enough to 
 say, as he does in the Topica, 6, " Gentiles sunt qui inter se 
 eodem nomine sunt." Adoptions and enfranchisements, even 
 if the gens was never enlarged in any way but these two, would 
 be enough to hinder there being any real connexion by blood 
 among all the members of the gens. But Niebuhr is clearly 
 wrong in inferring from this that the gentes were purely artificial
 
 LECTURE III 265 
 
 divisions. Mr. Grote puts the case far better when he says (iii. 
 74) : " The basis of the whole was the house, hearth, or family 
 a number of which, greater or less, composed the gens or genos. 
 This gens was therefore a clan, sept, or enlarged, and partly 
 factitious brotherhood." The description given by Curtius, 
 G')"iechische Geschichte, i. 250, would very well describe the nature 
 of a gens, if he had not made the Stammvater and the Sipixchaft 
 alternative. He begins by saying, " Jedes Geschlecht urnfasste 
 eine Gruppe von Familien, welche entweder wirklich von einem 
 Stammvater herriihrten oder sich in alter Zeit zu einer Sippschaf t 
 vereinigt hatten." He then mentions the chief ties, religious 
 and civil, and adds, " Es war ein grosses Haus, eine enggeschlos- 
 sene heilige Lebensgemeinschaft." The well-known passage 
 of Varro, "ab ^.Emilio homine orti ^Ernilii ac gentiles," expresses 
 the idea of the whole thing, and it matters not whether the 
 supposed ^-Emilius, or rather ^Kmilus, was a real man or not 
 A (/ens may even have invented a forefather for itself, as 
 pedigree-makers do now ; but if so, they did it simply in imitation 
 of gentes which had real known forefathers. Every Julius was 
 not necessarily descended from either a real or a mythical Julus, 
 but the yens Julia had none the less for its kernel a body of real 
 kinsmen who either were, or pretended to be, descended from 
 a Julus, but who admitted, by adoption or naturalization, some 
 members who neither were nor pretended to be his descendants. 
 
 In the passage referred to in the Topica, Cicero adds to his 
 definition of (/entiles, " Qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt " and 
 " Quorum majorum nemo servitutem servivit." But this 
 definition is given simply as the definition of the gentile right 
 to inheritance. In a wider sense, the freedman who bore the 
 name of the yens was surely a member of it. Compare the 
 dispute between the patrician and plebeian Claudii in Cicero de 
 Oratore, i. 39, and the remarks of Mr. Long in the Dictionary of 
 Antiquities, 568. In other parts of the article he follows the 
 notion of Niebuhr. 
 
 (51) Page 67. On the importance of legal fictions, especially 
 in an early state of society, see the second chapter of Sir Henry 
 Maine's Ancient Law. 
 
 (52) Page 67. In the cases of adoption we commonly find 
 that the adopted son was already a kinsman of his artificial father.
 
 266 NOTES ON 
 
 a sister's son or the like. But, on the one hand, there was no need 
 that there should be any such connexion ; and, if there was, the 
 nephew or other kinsman was as much a stranger to the yens, 
 his admission to its legal and religious rites was as purely 
 artificial, as when the adopting parent chose some one who had 
 nothing to do with himself. But in either case the adopted son 
 became, as far as a fiction of law could make him, the real son 
 of his new parent. He became such for every purpose legal, 
 social, and religious. That is to say, the yens was an institu- 
 tion originally founded on community of blood, but in certain 
 cases an artificial kindred was allowed to take the place of a 
 natural one. 
 
 The orations of Isaios, the second and third, for instance, 
 throw great light on the process of adoption at Athens. In the 
 second, Ilepi TOV MevexAcous /cA^pov, the adopted son describes the 
 process (18) TTOI^O-OL/ACVOS eisayei /xc ts TOI>S <f>pa.Topa<s Trapovrwv 
 Tovruv, KOI cis TOVS 8r)p.oTa<s /u,e cyypd^et, Kai ets TOVS opyewras- So 
 in vii. 17, 20, another claimant describes his adoption ; ws e/xe 
 7ro7<raTO viov wv auros KCU Kvpiov TWV avrov Karicrrq&f. KCU eis TOV<S 
 yewT/ras KCU ets TOUS tfrparopas eveypai/'c .... KCU cTmSr; OapyijXta 
 rjv, r/yaye /ne CTTI TOVS ySw/Aovs ets TOVS yewT/ras TC KCU (j>pa.Topa<s. The 
 opyetoi/es mentioned in one of the above extracts, were the religious 
 officers of the fyparpiai. See Suidas in voce, who says, Trept TWV 
 opycwvwv yeypa^>e teal $iAo^opos' TOUS Se ^pdropa? CTruvay/ces Se'^ecr^ai 
 at rors opyeaiva? Kat TOVS o/xoyaAa/cra? ovs yewT^ras xaAovju-cv. It 
 does not seem clear whether the bodies among whom the adopted 
 son was to be admitted to membership had the power of rejecting 
 him. Probably they would have it at first, but it would sink 
 into a mere form. This, as is well known, actually happened at 
 Rome, where the adoption needed the formality of a lex curiata. 
 
 (53) Page 67. See note 47 on Lecture II. 
 
 (54) Page 68. There can be no doubt that the political 
 effects of the Roman practice of using the gentile name as 
 the real nomen were most important. The nomen stamped a man 
 as belonging to a certain gens. He could not be spoken of 
 without himself and others being reminded of the gens to which 
 he belonged. At Athens an Alkmaionid himself knew, and 
 everybody else knew, that he was an Alkmaionid, but they were 
 not in the same way reminded of it every time he was spoken of.
 
 LECTURE III 267 
 
 There can be no doubt that this had a great effect on the here- 
 ditary character which we see so strongly marked on the great 
 Roman families. We know beforehand the policy which a 
 Fabius, a Valerius, or a Claudius must follow. The same thing 
 revives in the Middle Ages, when surnames revive. The truth 
 is that there is nothing so really aristocratic as a surname. And 
 this bears on a remark which I have made in the last lecture, 
 that a real aristocracy can exist only in a republic. When the 
 title of a peer is changed in each generation (sometimes, as in 
 the case of the first Duke of Leeds, several times in the 
 same lifetime), the (/entile sentiment may possibly live on 
 within the family itself, but it is quite lost among the outer 
 world, who have to ask at each stage who he is. No doubts of 
 the kind can arise when a man, instead of a mere title, inherits 
 the name of Fabius, Erlach, or Reding. 
 
 (55) Page 68. See above, note 26. 
 
 (56) Page 69. On the Doric tribes see Grote ii. 479, 0. 
 Miiller, Dorians ii. 76 (Eng. Gr.). The point is that, as the 
 three tribes, Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and Dymanes, seem to have 
 been found in all Dorian settlements everywhere a point which 
 seems to be fully proved by Herod, v. 68 it would follow that 
 these tribes are older than the migrations which took the 
 Dorians into Peloponnesos and Crete. In this last we must 
 remember that the threefold division was recognized in the time 
 of Homer, witness the Awpts TC Tpixai/cts of the Odyssey 
 (xix. 1 74). That is to say, these tribes must be as old, or older, 
 than the occupation of the primitive northern Doris; and we 
 may be inclined to suspect that they were older, because their 
 names bear no relation to the names of the four old Dorian 
 towns. We are thus led to look upon these tribes as the oldest 
 known elements of the Dorian people, and it would seem that 
 in every Dorian settlement members of each of these tribes 
 took a share. And the name of the Pamphyloi would seem 
 to show that that tribe at least was an aggregate mixde 
 up of smaller tribes. These tribes, or at least the u>/3oi 
 of which they were formed, went on to the very latest times. 
 The local divisions, handed on from the pne-Dorian time, went 
 on alongside of them, like the Attic 8/fioi, or like the local tribes 
 of Rome alongside of the yenle*. The difference, of course, was
 
 268 NOTES ON 
 
 that in this case the divisions of the conquerors and of those 
 of the conquered went on together, while at Athens we have 
 110 sign of conquest. The w/3<u' answered to ^parptai and curice. 
 0. Miiller refers to Athenaios, iv. 19, for the use of the word 
 <j>pa.Tpia to express a Spartan <i/3a. Demetrios of Skepsis there 
 speaks of cnaaSes at the Karneian festival, each of which contained 
 three w/3ai. I do not know that this proves much. But I must 
 go with O. Miiller against Mr. Grote in holding that the famous 
 pijrpa in Plutarch, Lyk. 6, proves that the wfiai were thirty. I 
 can get no other meaning out of it. The whole passage i* 
 remarkable, as giving the technical Spartan names for the 
 different parts of the Spartan State ; <vAas <f>v\davTa KCU w/8a? 
 w/3afavTa rpiaKOvra, ycpovcriav crvv d/a^ayeVais /caracrTT/crai/Ta, wpas e 
 aipas a7reAAaeiv .... Sa/za> 8' ayopav eT/xev KOL Kparos. Plutarch 
 goes on to explain that apxayerai means the Kings, and that 
 a.TrcXXdeiv means e/cKA.7/o-iaeu/ ; but he cannot avoid the belief 
 that Lykourgos divided the Spartan people into tribes and w/3cu, 
 just as it is a common English belief that JElfred divided England 
 into shires and hundreds. 
 
 (57) Page 69. I think I can see something of the kind 
 in the story of the Pelasgian inhabitants of Attica in Herod, 
 vi. 137, Thucydides ii. 17 (where see Arnold's note), Pausanias i. 
 28, 3, Strabo ix. 1 (ii. 241). etp^rai 8' on Ka.VTo.vQa. ^atVerai TO 
 TWV TLeXaaywv $vos 'nri$T)p.r)<Ta.v' KCU on VTTO TWV 'ATTIKWV IleXapyot 
 TrposyyopevOijo-av 8ia TT)V TrXdvrjv. The use of the rare word 
 'ATTIKOI reminds one of the remarkable distinction drawn by 
 Dikaiarchos or Athenaios (Geographi Grseci Minores, i. 99) 
 between 'ATTIKOI and 'A^vatoi ; but that would not seem 
 necessarily to point to any difference in race. 
 
 (58) Page 69. On the Ionic tribes, and the question of their 
 being castes, compare Thirlwall ii. 6, Grote iii. 69. But there 
 seems nothing to connect these tribes with the local political 
 parties of which we hear in the time of Solon and Peisistratos. 
 
 (59) Page 69. See Grote iv. 177, Curtius i. 311, who ap- 
 propriately calls them Ortsgemeinden. He contends for, or 
 rather takes for granted, the strict decimal system which has 
 been inferred from the well-known passage in Herodotus v. 69, 
 8exa 8e TOVS Sryjuovs /careve/xe es ras <uAus. To me it seems
 
 LECTURE III 269 
 
 that Herodotus meant to assert a decimal system, but that lie 
 was mistaken in his fact. It is a kind of fact about which it 
 is very easy to go wrong, as in the memorable case when a 
 Parliament of Edward the Third fancied that there were fifty 
 thousand parishes in England. The point is that, though the 
 new Ten Tribes were artificial, made by Kleisthenes for the 
 occasion, yet they were made up of Demoi which were not arti- 
 ficial, but which existed already. It was the evils which had 
 arisen a little time before from prevalence of local party -divisions 
 in Attica which made Kleisthenes determine that the Tribes 
 which were now to form the component elements of the common- 
 wealth should be made up of districts which did not lie close 
 to one another. The tribes are therefore not examples of local 
 contiguity (though the Demoi of which they are formed are ; 
 see above, note 22), but as examples of the opposite principle, 
 they assume its existence. 
 
 (60) Page 69. Curtius, Griechisc/te Geschichte, i. 311. "Sie 
 [the new tribes] hatten mit Abstammung und Herkunft nichts 
 zu thun. Sie waren nichts als die Einheiten, welchen gewisse 
 Gruppen landlicher Bezirke (Demen) untergeordnet wurden. 
 Diese Bezirke oder Ortsgemeinden hatten langst bestanden : es 
 waren zum Theil alte Zwolfstadte Atticas, wie Eleusis, Kephisia, 
 Thorikos, oder sie trugen ihre Namen von den Geschlechtern, 
 welche vorzugsweise in denselben begiitert waren, wie Butadai, 
 Aithalidai, Paionidai." 
 
 (61) Page 70. That is to say, in all political arrangements 
 the Tribe formed an unit, without any reference to the Demoi 
 contained in it. The analogy of Rome would lead us to think 
 that this had not been the case with the old Tribes ; for at 
 Rome the Curia remained a political unit, with its distinct 
 vote in the Comitia of the Curite. For military purposes too 
 the Tribe formed an unit, though the men from each DOmos may 
 likely enough have been ranged together. 
 
 (62) Page 70. See Mounnsen's treatment (Rumitcfa (ies- 
 chichte, i. 33) of the traditions about the three original Roman 
 tribes, Ramnes, Titienses, and if they be original Luceres. 
 The original legend, the topography of which at least there 
 seeius no reason to doubt, coiues out in Dionv.-io- ii. 50. oi
 
 270 NOTES ON 
 
 Of. TTfpl TOV 'PdtfJLvXoV Kttt TdVlOV Tt]V Tf TToX.IV fllBvS fTTOLOW 
 
 Trposfle'vTas erepovs avrrj 8vo Xo^ovs, TOV re Kupivtov K\r)0evra *ai TOV 
 KatXtov KOLL oieX6{j.evoi Tas ot/c^o-eis x^P^ aXXrjXwv, Statrav ci/ Tots 
 
 iSlOlS fKOLTCpOl XtoplOlS eTTOtOVVTO. 'PeO/Ai;A.OS /XV TO IlaAuTtOU KttTC^WV, 
 
 KCU TO KatAtov opos' eori Se TO* IIaA,aTta> Trposc^e?. TaTios oe TO 
 
 KaTTlTOJ/XlOV, O7Tp ^ dpX^S KaTO-^C, Kttt TOV KvplVlOV O~)(6oV. It 
 
 will be remembered that the space between the two was the 
 Comitia, and that the gate of Janus was opened in time of war 
 to allow the allied communities to give help to one another. 
 
 (63) Page 70. The difference between genealogical and 
 local tribes is well brought out by Dionysios, iv. 14, when he is 
 describing the changes made by Servius : 'O 8e TvAAto? .... 
 ets Tcro-apa p-fpr] SieAwv T?)V TroXw .... TTpd(f>vXov 7rot^o-e TT/V 
 TroAtv civat, Tpi<f>v\ov ouo-av Tews, Kal TOV? avOpwirovs ra.f TOUS ev 
 eKcio-rr) fj-oipa TO>V Terrapcov oixowTa?, wo-Trep KO)yu,7;Tas, .... K<U OVK 
 ITI KttTa Tas Tpeis <f)vXa<; Tas yevtxas o-TpaTiwTt/ca, a>? irporepov, aXXa 
 Kara TO.S Tro-apas Tas TOTTIKCI?, Kat Tas v<f>' eavTou 
 
 (64) Page 70. The usual version of the coming of the 
 Claudian tribe places it a few years after the driving out of the 
 Kings. Mommsen, however (Romische Forschungen, 72), refers 
 it to a much earlier time, following the tradition preserved by 
 Suetonius, Tib. 1. " Inde [Regillis] Romam recens conditam 
 cum magna clientum manu commigravit, auctore Tito Tatio 
 consorte Romuli." Mommsen's words are : 
 
 " Das Factum selbst scheint glaubwlirdiger als die meisten 
 iibrigen Angaben in diesem alteren Theil der Annalen, aber 
 natiirlich war dasselbe urspriinglich zeitlos liberliefert und ist nur 
 von dem spa tern falschen Pragmatisrnus mit dem Sabinerkrieg 
 des Poplicola verkniipft worden die Einwanderung des claud- 
 ischen Stammes muss viel friiher fallen, dass eine der Landtribus 
 altester Einrichtung nach ihn benannt ist und das Geschlecht, 
 obwohl es in den alteren Fasten keine hervorragende Rolle spielt, 
 doch bereits im J. 259 in der Consulartafel erscheint." 
 
 It might be said in answer to this that family vanity would 
 be likely to thrust back the incorporation of the Claudii with the 
 Roman State to an earlier time, while, if the Claudii had been 
 Sabines simply in the sense of being Titienses the statement in
 
 LECTURE III 271 
 
 Suetonius, as it stands, is clearly a mixture of two stories it is 
 not easy to see how the tale of their later origin could arise. 
 Anyhow the accounts given by Livy and Dionysios set clearly 
 before us the kind of process which would happen in such a case 
 the addition at once of a Patrician gens and of a local tribe. 
 Livy (ii. 16) thus tells the story; " Attus Clausus, cui postea 
 Ap. Claudio fuit Romae nomen . . . . ab Regillo, magna clientiuni 
 comitatus manu, Romam transfugit. His civitas data agerque 
 trans Anienem ; vetus Claudia tribus, additis postea novis 
 tribulibus, qui ex eo venirent agro, appellata." The migration is 
 again refei'red to in speeches in iv. 3, x. 8. So Dionysios, v. 40, 
 O.VTJP Tts /c TOV Sa/JtVwv l$vous TroXiv O'IKWV 'PijyiXXov, evycvTjs KOI 
 Xpr)fjia.<TL Svvaros, TITOS KA.av8tos, auToyu.oA.et Trpos avrovs, 0-vyycWidV 
 re p.rya\.7]v eVayoiievos, Kai. <t'Aous KOL TreAara? crv^vovs avrois /xerava- 
 (TTavTas <c0Ttois, OVK eXarrovs 7revraKts;(tAiW TOUS OTrAa ^epciv 
 Swa/xeVovs .... avff Suv f] (3ov\r) ical 6 S^/xos e's TC TOU? Trarpi- 
 avrov iveypauj/e, KOI T^s 7rdA.ews fjiolpav ttacrev ocryv kfioi-XfTo ets 
 
 P.CTOV &i8rivTri$ Kal IltKevTias, ws x ot ^tavet/nat K^.rjpov<; aTraat rots 
 TTfpi avrov, a.<f> >v KOI <j>\)\r) TIS eyevcro (rvv ^pova), KAavSia KoXou/tcn/. 
 The other new local tribes, formed out of allies or subjects 
 admitted to citizenship, were added pretty constantly down to 
 B.C. 299, when the Tribes Aniensis and Terentina were added 
 (Livy, x. 9). There is then a gap till B.C. 241, when the last 
 two Tribes, Velina and Quirina, were added (Livy, Epit. 19). 
 This marks a stage in the history of commonwealths in general, 
 the stage when they feel that they have no further need 
 of fresh citizens, and when the selfish and exclusive feeling 
 begins to prevail (see p. 163). But in this case it should be- 
 remembered that these successive additions had made the ager 
 Rovumus reach, and indeed outstrip, the fullest extent of territory 
 which could be occupied by a single city-community. 
 
 (65) Page 72. See Norman Conquest, iv. 415. The whole 
 history of the word is drawn out by Gibbon, chap. 21 (vol. iii. p. 
 402, Milrnan). 
 
 (66) Page 73. It is a certain trial of faith to believe that 
 the word " heathen " has nothing to do with the Greek c#i 1*0? : 
 but it is, in its different forms, good English, good High-German, 
 and good Gothic ; h'H'Sno from /uli'Si.
 
 272 NOTES ON 
 
 (67) Page 74. I have discussed this elsewhere at some length. 
 Norman Conquest, ii. 587. 
 
 (68) Page 74. Even Anselm is " Angloruni Archiepi- 
 scopus," at least in the mouths of Irishmen and of the Pope. See 
 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. Lib. ii. pp. 393-414, Migne. On the speci- 
 ally territorial style of the Bishops of the South-Saxons see 
 Norman Conquest, ii. 592. 
 
 The territorial styles of many American and colonial Bishops 
 are therefore, from an English or British point of view, more 
 primitive than those which are taken from cities. 
 
 (69) Page 75. I have touched somewhat slightly on the 
 nature of the Mark in the History of the Norman Conquest, i. 
 83, and still more slightly in the Growth of the English Con- 
 stitution, p. 10. The great English authority on the subject is, 
 of course, Mr. Kemble's chapter on the Mark, in the first volume 
 of his Saxons in England. Before that, the nature of the early 
 Teutonic settlements had been worked out by various German 
 writers, from Jacob Grimm (Deutsche Rechtsalterthiimer, 495, et 
 seqq.) onwards, especially in the chapter of Waitz in the first 
 volume of his Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, Das Dorf, die 
 Gemeinde, der Gau. Since Mr. Kemble wrote, the subject has 
 been dealt with more at large, though, on the whole, from a 
 somewhat different point of view, in the great works of Maurer, 
 Einleitung zur Geschichte der Mark-, Hof- und Stadtverfassuny 
 (Miinchen, 1854), Geschichte der Markenverfassung in Deutsch- 
 Jand (Erlangen, 1856), Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutsch- 
 land (Erlangen, 1866), for which works Sir Henry Maine, in his 
 Village Communities, has become a sort of sponsor to English 
 readers. The Mark, in its strictness, is of course the boundary, 
 the strip of uncultivated land left between the land occupied by 
 one settlement and the land occupied by its neighbour. The 
 Markgenossenschaft is the body of settlers, that is, in my view, the 
 gens or clan, by whom the land was first occupied. Here we 
 have the lowest territorial and political unit, to be found alike 
 in India, Greece, Italy, Germany, and England, and out of the 
 union of which with other marks, cities, tribes, and nations 
 gradually grew. 
 
 (70) Page 75. The common occupation of land by the 
 members of the Markgenossenschaft has been the point which,
 
 LECTURE III 273 
 
 since the researches of Maurer (see Einleitung, 40), and more 
 lately of Nasse and Sir Henry Maine, has drawn to itself most 
 attention. This concerns me only as being the earliest form of 
 J'olkland a name which should never be uttered without a feeling 
 of thankfulness to the memory of John Allen of which I have 
 said a word or two in the History of the Norman Conquest, i. 
 pp. 83, 94, 589, and on the political aspect of which I have found 
 something to say at p. 139 of the Growth of the English 
 Constitution. 
 
 (71) Page 75. The original kindred between the members 
 of the Markyenosseiuchaft, allowing, of course, for adoptions and 
 admissions (on which see Maurer, Dorfverfassung, i. 175, cf. 
 Einlrittmg, 13), is strongly set forth by Mr. Kemble, i. 56. 
 
 "I represent them to myself as great family unions, com- 
 prising households of various degrees of wealth, rank, and 
 authority : some, in direct descent from the common ancestors, 
 or from the hero of the particular tribe ; others, more distantly 
 connected, through the natural result of increasing population, 
 which multiplies indeed the members of the family, but removes 
 them at every step further from the original stock ; some, 
 admitted into communion by marriage, others by adoption ; others 
 even by emancipation ; but all recognizing a brotherhood, a kins- 
 manship or sibsceaft ; all standing together as one unit in respect 
 of other, similar communities ; all governed by the same judges 
 and led by the same captains ; all sharing in the same religious 
 rites, and all known to themselves and to their neighbours by 
 one general name." 
 
 Mr. Kemble refers to the passage of Csesar, vi. 22, " Neque 
 quisquam agri modum certum, aut fines habet proprios ; sed 
 magistratus ac principes in annos singulos yentibits oognationi- 
 busque hominum qui una coierint quantum et <juo loco visum est 
 agri attribuunt, atque anno post alio transire cogunt." This 
 passage is, of course, of importance as bearing on the history of 
 the occupation of land. I am concerned with it as distinctly 
 pointing to the Markf/enotsensc/tfij't as an association founded on 
 kindred, and as actually using the word ;//<.< in what can he 
 meant only for its technical Roman sense. There is also the 
 passage of Tacitus (Germania, 7), " Non cosus, nee fortuita con- 
 globatio turrnam aut cuneum facit, sed fainilia* et propinquitates," 
 
 T
 
 274 NOTES ON 
 
 which is referred to by Waitz (Dentsc/te Verfasswigsgeschichte, i. 
 44), whose own words are : 
 
 " Doch auch innerhalb der Gemeinde konnte die Familie ihre 
 Bedeutung haben ; Nachwirkungen des altern Zustandes finden 
 wir auch noch in spiiterer Zeit. Tacitus sagt, dass iin Heer 
 der Deutschen die einzelnen Haufen sich nach Familien und 
 Yerwandtschaften bildeten ; wiihrend schon die Eintheilung 
 nach Hundertschaften bestand, die vorherrschende war, hatte 
 doch auch diese alteste natiirlichste Verbindung ihre Geltung, 
 und das war moglich, da die Familienglieder leicht zur gemein- 
 schaftlichen Ansiedelung sich verbanden, Kinder und Yettern 
 zusammenblieben, wenn sie nicht zur Auswanderung oder zum 
 Ausbauen genothigt wurden. Weiter aber werden wir auch nicht 
 gelangen ; wir werden unten sehen, dass die Familie in den 
 Yerhaltnissen des Rechts noch von grosser durchgreifender Wich- 
 tigkeit war ; aber alles nur innerhalb der Gemeinde." Waitz 
 quotes a passage from the Lex Alarnannorurn (tit. 84, col. 232, 
 Georgisch), " Si qua contentio orta fuerit inter duas genealogias 
 de termino terrse eorum," where the two " genealogise " are to 
 come before the " comes de plebe ista " (the Gaugraf V) and settle 
 the matter by single combat. In England we have the mceg*& in 
 its narrower sense, on which Lappenberg (to whom Waitz also 
 refers) has a remarkable passage (p. 583), which I must quote in 
 full in the original, because it is so strangely cut short in Mr. 
 Thorpe's Translation, ii. 328. 
 
 " Zu den iiltesten Districtsbenennungen, welche der Shire vor- 
 angingen, gehbrte noch die 'Maegthe,' ein Land, welches die 
 Genossen eines Geschlechtes oder Stammes, eine Magenschaft, 
 wie sie im Kriege zusammen gefochten und erobert hatten, so im 
 Frieden zusammen erhielten." [He here refers to the passages 
 from Caesar and Tacitus quoted above.] "Wir finden diese 
 Bezeichnung gewohnlich schon auf die grbssern siichsischen, nicht 
 aber auf die von den Angeln besetzten Provinzen angewandt, 
 doch zuweilen noch im altern Sinne, wie bei der Maegthe 
 der Meanwaren. Dass sich eine wirkliche, bei den Angel- 
 sachsen jedoch nur in seltenen Spuren noch nachzuweisende 
 Yerwandtschaft unter diesen neben einander siedelnden Gesch- 
 lechtern durch Erbrecht, Wergeld, politische Biirgschaften, 
 Naherrechte und andere mit jenen verkniipfte Einrichtungen 
 lange erhalten konnten, zeigen uns viele Beispiele, selbst noch 
 des spatern Mittelalters, in den Kluften, Vetterschaften und
 
 LECTURE III 275 
 
 ahnlichen Familienverbindungen germanischer Stamme, urn nicbt 
 auf entfernteres hinzuweisen ; woraus wir gleichfalls wahrnehmen, 
 wie zuletzt, bei grosserer Beweglichkeit der Habe und selbst des 
 Landeigenthumes, die Verwandtschaft nur als Bezeichnung einer 
 politischen Verbindung iibrigblieb." 
 
 See also the articles Mearc, Mcey'S, and MagenscJiqft, in Schinid 
 (Gesetze der Angekac/tseri), who however seems wholly to cast 
 aside Kemble's notions about the mark. But it would, I think, 
 be hard to get over Kemble's fact (i. 55, 56) that there was a 
 Mearcmot and a Mearcbeorgh, the hill where the gemot of the 
 mark was held. So Sir Henry Maine (Village Communities, 
 175) says of the marks in the East : " At the outset they seem to 
 be associations of kinsmen, united by the assumption (doubtless 
 very vaguely conceived) of a common lineage. Sometimes the 
 community is unconnected with any exterior body, save by the 
 shadowy bond of caste. Sometimes it acknowledges itself to 
 belong to a larger group or class. But in all cases the community 
 is so organized as to be complete in itself." 
 
 I need hardly enlarge on the mund of our forefathers, and its 
 analogy with the Roman potestas. But the Teutonic filius 
 familias did not, like the Roman, remain for ever under the mund. 
 of his father. When he himself became a member of the State, 
 a citizen and a soldier, emancipation took place of itself. See 
 Waitz, i. 39. 
 
 (72) Page 76. The Tithing and the Hundred are parts of the 
 ancient constitution which are much more perplexing than the 
 mark and the yau. I will only refer to Zopfl, Geschichte der 
 Deutsclien Rechts- Institute, 97, 112, 121 ; Waitz, i. 37 ; Lappen- 
 berg, i. 585 of the original, ii. 329 of the English translation ; 
 Kemble's chapter on the Tithing and Hundred ; Bhmtschli, 
 Staats- und Rechtayeschichte der Stadt und Landgc/taft Zurich, i. 
 24 ; Maurer, Einleituny, 59, and the article Hundred, in Schmid, 
 where it is strange to see him quoting the false Ingulf. Waitz 
 suggests that the passages in Caesar and Tacitus which speak of 
 centum payi have arisen out of some misconception, and I can- 
 not help fancying that where Tacitus (Germania, 12) speaks of 
 the " centeni singnli ex plebe coinites " who were attached to the 
 princes for judicial purposes, there is also some confusion, and that 
 Tacitus misunderstood a statement that there were some men 
 present from each hundred.
 
 276 NOTES ON 
 
 (73) Page 76. The gau is treated of by all our authors ; 
 Grimm, Dtutsche Rechtsalterthiimer, 496 ; Eichhorn, DeutscJie 
 Stoats- utul Rechtsgeschichte, 49 ; Zopfl, Geschichte der Deutsc/ten 
 fiechts-Institute, 95, 108, 121, 148; Maurer, Einkitung, 54 (Com- 
 parative Philology will hardly allow us to believe that gau is the 
 same as the Greek yea or yrj) and for the history of a particular 
 gau, and its breaking up into several smaller gauen, see Blunt- 
 schli, i. 20. "VVaitz (i. 49) gives the definition of a gau " Nicht 
 von dem Boden, der Vertheilung des Territoriums ist dies ausge- 
 gangen, sondern so weit die Volkerschaft wohnte, reichte ihr 
 Gau. So nothwendig wie mit dem deutschen Volk ein deutsches 
 Land, Deutschland, gegeben ist, so nothwendig entstehen mit 
 der Zertheilung des Volks nach Stammen und der Stamme in 
 Volkerschaften auch jene territorialen Abtheilungen, die wir Gaue 
 nennen." 
 
 (74) Page 76. I suppose that no one will dispute this as to 
 the formation of the gau out of marks and the kingdom out of 
 gauen. Those are the two essential elements ; about the hundred 
 the case may be less clear, and Waitz (i. 48) seems to look on it 
 as a division of the gau. Yet, as we seem everywhere to find 
 something between the gau and the tribe, it seems not unlikely 
 that the intermediate association, ^parpta, curia, or hundred, may 
 also have been strictly an association, and not a division. But I 
 do not care to insist upon this point, as long as it is understood 
 that in the other cases the greater unit is made up by the union 
 of the smaller units, and that the smaller units are not formed by 
 the division of the greater. Kemble has a vigorous passage on 
 the way in which the smaller groups grew into the larger, " a 
 process repeated and continued until the family becomes a tribe 
 and the tribe a kingdom." 
 
 (75) Page 77. On Ealdormen and Heretogan, see Norman 
 Conquest, i. 579. Cf. the note on ^Ethelred of Mercia, i. 563. 
 Ealdorman is the word used by Alfred to express the Satrapae of 
 Bseda, v. 10. There can, I think, be no doubt that Heretoga, the 
 High-Dutch Herzog, is the word which Tacitus meant to express 
 by Dux. 
 
 (76) Page 78. The well-known passage of Bseda, describing 
 the Old-Saxons, which I have quoted elsewhere (see Norman Con-
 
 LECTURE III 277 
 
 quest, i. 579), gives a vivid picture of a people who choose a 
 single chief in war-time only. The Satraps or Ealdormen put one 
 of their own body at their head in war-time " peracto auteni 
 bello, rursum jequalis potentiae omnes fiunt." I shall have to 
 speak of this state of things again in my next lecture (see p. 
 105), but I will meanwhile give a description of the Old-Saxon 
 constitution from the Life of Saint Lebuin (Pertz, ii. 361), by an 
 author of the tenth century, which, if it can be trusted, gives 
 a distinct picture of a true Federal government. But the strange 
 thing about it is that, not only the nobles and the common free- 
 men are, as we should have expected, represented in the Federal 
 Assembly, but also the class below the common freemen, a class 
 of whom I shall have to speak in a later lecture (see p. 161 and 
 note 5 on Lect. VI.). But, even if the writer should be mistaken 
 on this point, the whole picture can hardly be imaginary. It 
 will be at once noticed that we have here, what is not to be found 
 in any other contemporary assembly, a case of real representation ; 
 but this is only what we might have expected in a constitution 
 so strictly federal. The whole passage stands thus : 
 
 " Erat gens ipsa, sicuti mine usque consistit, ordine tripartite 
 divisa. Sunt denique ibi, qui illoruni lingua edlingi, sunt qui 
 frilingi, sunt qui lassi dicuntur, quod in Latina sonat lingua, 
 nobiles, ingenuiles, atque serviles. Pro suo vero libitu, consilio 
 quoque, ut sibi videbatur, prudenti singulis pagis principes pne- 
 erant singuli. Statuto quoque tempore anni semel ex singulis 
 pagis, atque ex iisdem ordinibus tripartitis, singillatiin viri duo- 
 decim electi, et in unum collecti, in media Saxonia secus flumen 
 Wiseram, et locum Marklo nuncupatuin, exercebant generale 
 concilium, tractantes, sancientes, et propalantes communis com- 
 moda utilitatis, juxta placitum a se statutaj legis. Sed etsi forte 
 belli terreret exitium, si pacis arrideret gaudium, consulebant ad 
 hsec quid sibi foret agendum." 
 
 (77) Page 78. On the kindred Frisian Seelanda and their 
 liberties, see the account in Eichhorn, 2856 (vol. iii. pp. 265 - 
 271), and on Dithmarschen itself (Maurer, Eiiileituny, p. 289). 
 It was said of its people, in good Nether-Dutch, which ought not 
 to need a translation for any Englishman, " Do Didtmar.schen 
 leven sunder Keren and Hovedt, unde dohn wadt se willen.'' 
 Dithmarschen was conquered by Frederick the Second of Den- 
 mark and his uncle Duke Adolf of Holstein, in 1559. In 1499
 
 278 NOTES ON 
 
 the free people of that land had utterly driven back the invasion 
 of King John and Duke Frederick. The history of both these 
 events may be read in the native tongue of the district in the 
 Chronicle of Johann Adolfi. Adolfi lived in the latter half of 
 the sixteenth century, so that he was contemporary or nearly so 
 with the latter of the two events with which we are concerned. 
 The heading of the book which records the victory (i. 447) runs 
 thus : "Datt Veerde Boock Dithmerscher Historischer Geschichte, 
 belangende eigentlicken uund wahrhafften Bericht der herlichen 
 unde wunderlichen Victorien der Dithmerschen, unde der erb- 
 ermlichen unde schrecklichen Nedderlage Koniiig Johans uth 
 Denemarken unde seines H. Broders Frederichen, Hertogen tho 
 Holstein." The sadder narrative of 1559 (ii. 151) is ushered 
 in thus, " Dat Soste Bock geloff- unde denkwerdiger Geschichte, 
 so sich im Ditmerschen begeven unde thogedragen, alleine de 
 lateste Beide unde Eroveringe des Landes belangende." He adds 
 the motto from Sallust, " Potior visa est periculosa libertas 
 quieto servitio," and ends with the chronogram, " DIthMarsIae 
 Libertas rUIt." 
 
 (78) Page 78. When I come to go on with my History of 
 Federal Government, I trust to deal far better than I could 
 have dealt ten years back with the traces of the old Teutonic 
 constitution as it was, partly preserved, partly won back, both in 
 the original Three Lands, and among the confederate Gemeinden 
 in Graubiinden and Wallis. These two countries, as not being 
 surrounded with such a blaze of mythical glory as the Three 
 Lands, have drawn to themselves far less attention, but their 
 political history is perhaps even more instructive. 
 
 (79) Page 79. This change makes the difference between the 
 subject of the first book of Zeuss (Die Deustclien und die Nach- 
 barstcimme), headed Das Alterthum, and the second headed Die 
 neuen Umgestaltungen. The novelty is the gathering together of 
 the various scattered branches of the Gei-man nation of which we 
 read in Csesar and Tacitus, into those greater wholes whether 
 we call them nations or confederations Franks, Allemans, 
 Saxons, &c., which play the chief part in the history of the third 
 century B.C. Zeuss's words (303) are : 
 
 " Im westlichen Germanien weichen seit dem Anfang des 
 dritten Jahrhunderts nach und nach die alten Namen der Volker
 
 LECTURE III 279 
 
 anderen wenigen, aber ausgebreiteten. Die einzelnen Theile des 
 vielgegliederten Stammes haben sich hier in griissere Korper 
 vereinigt, deren Unterschied fiir die folgende Zeit bleibend \vird. 
 Zu dieser Umgestaltung im Innern kommt ein Fortdrangen gegen 
 die ausseren Umgebungen ; die neuen Volker haben auch ihre 
 f riiheren Sitze geandert und in erweiterndem Streben nach Aussen 
 sich in neue Stellungen fortbewegt." 
 
 (80) Page 79. Besides our own island, this description would 
 apply to the lands between the Alps and the Danube, and to all 
 the Teutonic lands on the left bank of the Rhine. The Roman 
 cities lived on, and the neighbourhood of the Romance-speaking 
 lands must have had some influence ; otherwise the phenomena of 
 these lands must have been nearly the same as those of Britain. 
 
 (81) Page 79. Something has been done on this head by Sir 
 Henry Maine, in the lecture on the Process of Feudalization, the 
 fifth in the Village Communities. But the growth, both of the 
 manor and of the ecclesiastical parish, needs thoroughly working 
 out. Both of course are innovations ; but lawyers deal with the 
 mark just as they deal with the kingdom, and assume the lord, as 
 they assume the King, to be the root and source of everything, 
 instead of being a comparatively late intruder, who has crept in 
 unawares. But the process by which the parish priest came to 
 be the president of the Mearcyemot for such, one cannot doubt, 
 the parish vestry really is must be stranger still. 
 
 (82) Page 80. We have the fact that the word Gau is not 
 found in English of any date. And we have the facts that the 
 word shire, which answers to it, does not mean an association, but 
 a division (from sciran, shear"), that it is applied to other and 
 smaller divisions besides gautn or counties, and that in the sense 
 of yau, it is found as early as the Laws of Ine, 36-39. On the 
 other hand, the shire is called in Latin jxigus, the same word 
 which expresses the Continental yau; and it forms, like the yau, 
 the division out of the union of which the kingdom is made up. 
 If I rightly understand Mr. Kemble's chapter on the " Gu or 
 Scir," the yau and the shire are the same division looked at from 
 two different points of view. The yau becomes a shire when it 
 becomes ]>art of a larger whole ; or again when, as happened to 
 many of the Continental yaueu, a yau is cut up into several
 
 280 NOTES ON 
 
 smaller gauen, or has its boundaries otherwise altered. Thus, 
 when the great T/iurgau was divided, the Ziirichgau, and the 
 other smaller gauen which were made out of it, would be literally 
 shires parts shorn off from a greater whole. It is certain too 
 that, though we find the word scir as early as the time of Ine, it 
 is only from about the tenth century that we find it actually 
 added to the names of districts. It is certain also that there 
 are many English counties to which the name shire has never 
 been applied down to our own times. It is further certain, as 
 Mr. Kemble has shown, that we have traces of earlier divisions 
 divisions earlier than the tenth century which sometime!* 
 agree with, and sometimes differ from, our present divisions. (See 
 Kemble, i. 78-84.) The inference I make from all this is the 
 same which I made in Appendix E to the first volume of the 
 Norman Conquest, namely that those shires which are not called 
 after a town, but which have a territorial name of their own, 
 are strictly gauen, or, when they are mediatized kingdoms, groups 
 of gauen. Thus, in Kent and Sussex, the lathe and the rajje, 
 divisions between the hundred and the county, would answer to 
 the gnu. Elsewhere, where the county is called after a town, 
 it is strictly a shire, something shorn off or otherwise divided 
 afresh. Thus, as I have tried to show in the Appendix already 
 referred to, the Mercian counties are strictly shires, divisions 
 mapped out afresh by Eadward the Elder, after the recovery of 
 the country from the Danes. Thus again, we do not hear of 
 Yorkshire by that name till the second half of the eleventh cen- 
 tury. It was a shire, shorn off from the original Northumberland, 
 part of which still kept the elder name. And it is a shire which 
 was further shorn into smaller shires, one of which, Bichmonct- 
 shire, could not have borne that name till the foundation of Rich- 
 mond Castle after the Norman Conquest. But, on the other hand, 
 looking on Yorkshire in its older estate as the kingdom of Deira, 
 we may look on it as made up of earlier gauen, Elmet, Craven, 
 Cleveland, and so forth. The gau, in short, is a natural associa- 
 tion ; the shire is an artificial division. The two may or may not 
 coincide. But they very often do, and, in any case, the shire is 
 the division which answers to and represents the gau, even when 
 it represents it only by way of supplanting it. 
 
 In the Appendix of which I have already spoken I have said 
 something about the names of particular counties. I have not 
 mentioned there, though I think I have mentioned it elsewhere,
 
 LECTURE III 281 
 
 that in the Chronicles and in the Exchequer Domesday, Devon- 
 shire is always spoken of as a shire (Defenascir), while Somerset 
 and Dorset keep the tribal names (on Sumorscetan, on Dorscetan). 
 And this is the more remarkable, because in the Exeter Domes- 
 day we do sometimes find such a name as " Summersetae syra," so 
 that the use of the tribal form in the Exchequer Domesday has 
 the force of a correction. 
 
 Wherever, as I think really is the case in one or two instances, 
 a modern French Department exactly answers to an ancient 
 duchy or county, the distinction between the two would be exactly 
 the same as that between the gau and the shire, and in the other 
 case, when an ancient province was shorn into several depart- 
 ments, we see the creation of shires in the literal sense. 
 
 (83) Page 81. See above, note 79. 
 
 (84) Page 81. See Norman Conquest, i. 25-27. I have 
 there quoted the description given by Henry of Huntingdon of 
 the growth of East Anglia and Mercia ; but the passage of 
 William of Malmesbury (i. 44) there referred to is worth giving 
 at length : " Annis enim uno minus centum, Northanhimbri 
 duces communi habitu contenti, sub imperio Cantuaritarum pri- 
 vates agebant ; sed non postea stetit hsec ambitionis continentia, 
 sen quia semper in deteriora declivus est hum anus animus, sen 
 quia gens ilia naturaliter inflatiores anhelat spiritus. Anno itaque 
 Dominicse incarnationisquingentesimoquadragesimo septimo, post 
 mortem Heugesti sexagesimo, ducatus in regnurn mutatus, regna- 
 vitque ibi primus Ida, haud dubie nobilissiinus, letate et viribus 
 integer ; verum utrum ipse per se principatutn invaserit, an aliorum 
 consensu delatum susceperit, parum definio, quia est in abdito 
 veritas : cseterum satis constat magna et vetere pi-osapia oriun- 
 dum, puris et defwcatis moribus multum splendoris generosis con- 
 tulisse natalibus." 
 
 (85) Page 82. The truth that the Teutonic element in French 
 exactly answers to the Romance element in English is somewhat 
 disguised by the fact tliat, for some centuries past, it has been 
 the fashion for English to borrow a crowd of French or Latin 
 words, while the number of German, English, or other Teutonic 
 words which have found their way into French during the same 
 period is comparatively small. But, if we look to those words
 
 282 NOTES ON 
 
 which make up the real substance of the two languages, we shall 
 see that the analogy is a perfectly true one. There is however 
 this difference. In English we have two, perhaps three, classes 
 of Romance words which have become thoroughly naturalized 
 /xeVotKoi admitted to the full franchise while in French there is 
 only one such class of Teutonic words. The number of Teutonic 
 words which made their way into the Latin of Gaul during the 
 time of the Gothic, Burgundian, and Frankish conquests, and 
 which survive in the modern Pro verbal and French tongues, is 
 really very large, far larger than any one would think at first 
 sight, far larger than the number of Celtic words which have 
 crept in on the other side from the native languages of the 
 country. Still, large as the infusion is, it is merely an infusion, 
 and it in no way affects the essentially Latin character of the 
 two modern languages of Gaul. But this Teutonic infusion into 
 the Romance of Gaul answers to a threefold Romance infusion 
 into the Teutonic of Britain. There is, first of all, the half-dozen 
 words which the Romans left behind them, and which the 
 English took \\p, just as we now take up native names for native 
 things in India and elsewhere. Secondly, there is the larger 
 group of Latin words, either ecclesiastical or expressing some 
 foreign idea, which came in between the coming of Augustine and 
 the coming of William. These two together would be outnum- 
 bered over and over again by the Teutonic that is the Frankish 
 infusion in French. This is the natural result of the difference 
 between a destroying conquest, like that of the English in 
 Britain, and a colonizing conquest, like that of the Franks in 
 Gaul. But the tables are turned the other way by the third, the 
 Norman, infusion, under which I reckon those Romance words 
 which it needs historical or philological knowledge to recognize for 
 Romance words, as distinguished from those which, by their 
 endings or otherwise, betray their foreign origin at first sight. 
 All these three classes must be looked on as thoroughly natural- 
 ized in English, just as the Frankish words are naturalized in 
 French. But one of the gradual results of the Norman Conquest 
 and of the establishment of French for a while as the polite 
 speech in England events to which there is no parallel in 
 France after it became France has been to set a fashion of 
 bringing in Romance words, and even Romance endings, into 
 English, while nothing has ever set the fashion of bringing a 
 German or English as distinguished from an Old-Teutonic
 
 LECTURE III 283 
 
 infusion into French. For instance, we do not scruple to add a 
 Romance ending to a Teutonic root, and thus to make such a 
 mongrel word as starvation, while French adopts such a word as 
 meeting, but it does not add on the ending ing to roots of its own. 
 Still the greater Romance infusion in English, and the lesser 
 Teutonic infusion in French, both remain infusions, and do not 
 affect the substance of either language. With a little care, 
 Teutonic words may be avoided in French, and with somewhat 
 more care, Romance words may be avoided in English. The 
 opposite process in either language is impossible. 
 
 (86) Page 82. The transitional days of European history, the 
 days of the Wandering of the Nations and of the Frankish 
 dominion, will not be fully understood as regards Italy, unless 
 we bear in mind that Venice belongs, in all but geographical 
 position, to the eastern side of the Hadriatic, and not to the 
 western. The Venetian islands are the one piece of the earlier 
 Western Empire which escaped Teutonic conquest. They re- 
 mained part of the Eastern Empire fjfifis SouAot, 6i\op.v clvcu TOV 
 'PoyuuW /Jao-tAews till they were strong enough to build up a 
 dominion of their own at the expense of both Empires. 
 
 (87) Page 83. See the Essay on Ancient Greece and Mediaeval 
 Italy, in Historical Essays, Second Series. 
 
 (88) Page 83. Nomenclature alone, without any help from 
 recorded history, is commonly enough to tell us which of our 
 towns are of purely English origin. A Roman site most com- 
 monly makes itself known, if not by some corruption of its earlier 
 name, at any rate by the word Ceaster in its various shapes. Of 
 most of our purely English towns, like Bristol or Oxford, all we 
 can say is, that we first hear of them at a given time, without 
 having any record of their foundation. Of others, like Taunton 
 in the eighth century, like the long string of places fortified by 
 Eadward and ^thelflted in the tenth century, we know when 
 they became fortresses, but it does not follow that that was the 
 time when they first became dwellings of men. Another class of 
 towns grew up round some great monastery, or, more rarely, as 
 at Wells and Wnltham, round a secular church. In the cases of 
 Durham in the tenth century and New Salisbury in the thirteenth, 
 church and city were founded together. But we have few towns
 
 284 NOTES ON 
 
 in England of which we can safely say that they were called into 
 being, like the cities founded by the Successors of Alexander, at 
 the personal bidding of a King. Such however is Kingston-on- 
 Hull, the work of the great Edward, and such also are several of 
 the Welsh towns. In Bluntschli, Stoats- und Rechtsgeschickte der 
 Stadt und LandscJutft Zurich, we can trace out the steps by which 
 a city arose out of a royal house, a monastery, a church of secular 
 canons, and a primitive Markgenossenschaft, all standing side by 
 side. 
 
 (89) Page 84. On the Five Boroughs, see Norman Conquest, 
 i. 61 ; and on Lincoln, the greatest of them, iv. 208 ; on Exeter, 
 and the chance which it had in 1068 of becoming the head of 
 a confederation of boroughs, see iv. 138. 
 
 (90) Page 84. The whole history of Bern, the greatest 
 example in modern times of an inland city ruling over a great 
 collection of subject towns and districts, is throughout eminently 
 Roman. Liibeck, on the other hand, the head of the great 
 commercial confederacy, as naturally suggests Carthage. 
 
 (91) Page 84. On this phrase, the proper title of the old 
 Swiss Confederation, see Historical Essays, First Series, 352. 
 The name " Swiss " and " Switzerland," though they had long 
 been in familiar use, did not form part of the formal style 
 of the Confederation till 1803. 
 
 (92) Page 84. Verona, I need hardly say, is Dietrichsbern ; 
 and I have seen the Burgundian Bern called " Verona in monti- 
 bus." The two names must surely have the same origin. The 
 identification can hardly be so purely artificial as that which has 
 turned Bormio into Worms. But what is the real origin ] One 
 thing alone is certain, that Bern has etymologically nothing to 
 do with bears. 
 
 (93) Page 85. This is a subject which I must some day 
 find an opportunity of discussing at length. I trust that I 
 have shown, in a paper in Macmillan's Magazine (July 1870), 
 that the handing of Roman institutions to our own forefathers 
 is simply impossible ; but I find that, since then, the writer
 
 LECTURE III 2S5 
 
 against whom I then argued, Mr. H. C. Coote, has again revived 
 the notion, and supported it with the same curious plausibility 
 against Dr. Brentano, in a paper on the Ordinances of some 
 Secular Guilds of London, reprinted from the Transactions of 
 the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society. 
 
 (94) Page 87. See Historical Essays, First Series, pp. 153, 
 154.
 
 286 NOTES ON 
 
 IV 
 
 (1) Page 89. See above, note 22 on Lecture II., and Bryce, 
 Holy Roman Empire, 192. 
 
 (2) Page 89. Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, 233. 
 
 (3) Page 90. This is the way in which the comparative and 
 superlative /Jao-tXevrepos and /JaonAcvTaTos are used in the Iliad. 
 Thus, ix. 69 : 
 
 'A.Tpei$ij, ffv fj.fV &px e , ov yap 0affi\vrar6s tffffi. 
 
 Ka.1 fnol viroari\T(a, offffov 0affi\(vrfp6s el/j.i. (ix. 160.) 
 
 is yevtrjv dp6uv, /ir;5' et /3a<ri\fvTtp6s ia-riv. (x. 240.) 
 
 I do not profess to say off-hand that these forms are not to 
 be found elsewhere in Homer ; but it is certainly worth noticing 
 that these three passages all come from the undoubtedly sus- 
 picious tenth book, and from the ninth, which Mr. Grote 
 suspects, though I hold that Mr. Gladstone has made a good 
 defence for it. The Homeric phrase is copied by Tyrtaios, 
 Fragment iii. 7, ovS' el TavTaXi'Seco IleAoTros /JacriAeirrepos etrj. 
 
 (4) Page 90. Wtirtteinberg, as not being the name of any 
 nation or tribe, or territorial division, nor even, like Hannover 
 and Naples, of a city, is surely the strangest royal title that ever 
 was heard of. As for the true Saxony and Bavaria, one might 
 be inclined to call them, not so much divisions of the German 
 nation, as nations whose union went towards forming the 
 German nation. But it should always be remembered that even 
 modern Bavaria in no way answers to ancient Bavaria, while the 
 modern kingdom of Saxony has not a rood of ground in common 
 with the Saxony which was subdued by Charles the Great.
 
 LECTURE IV 287 
 
 (5) Page 90. It must be remembered that the origin of the 
 German and of the Italian kingdoms was quite different. 
 The four strictly German kingdoms, Hannover, Saxony, Bavaria, 
 and Wurttemberg, arose within living memory by the breaking 
 up of the ancient Kingdom of Germany. But the kingdoms 
 of Sardinia and the Two Sicilies, though part of what had 
 come popularly and practically to be looked on as Italy, and 
 though the continental Sicily actually contained the oldest Italy, 
 were not formed by any dismemberment of the Italian kingdom. 
 They arose in lands beyond its borders. The crowns of Sicily 
 and Sardinia, as distinct kingdoms, helped, along with those of 
 Rome, Germany, Italy, Burgundy, and Jerusalem, to make up 
 the sevenfold diadem of Frederick the Second. Sardinia and 
 Sicily answer rather to Bohemia and Prussia, kingdoms formed 
 beyond the bounds of the proper German kingdom ; and the 
 application of the Sardinian name to the continental possessions 
 of the Sardinian King, which was not uncommon before Pied- 
 mont grew into Italy, answers very closely to the process which 
 has carried the Prussian name to the shores of the Elbe and the 
 Rhine. In both cases the King's title was taken from a small 
 and outlying part of his dominions. 
 
 (6) Page 90. A King for a term seems unheard of, except 
 in the case of those mere survivals of kingship of which I have 
 spoken further on. The reason no doubt is that it is felt that 
 kingship, from the reason mentioned just below, conveys a sort 
 of character indelibilis. The King might be deposed, but his 
 deposition, though legal, was an extreme and unusual measure 
 which was not contemplated on his admission to his office. He 
 holds his office for life, subject to the unlikely chance of this 
 extreme power being exercised. Such a tenure as this is some- 
 thing different in kind from a tenure for a term, or during 
 pleasure, or even " quamdiu bene se gesserit." 
 
 (?) P a g e 91. On Ccesar's desire to be a King, see Merivale, 
 ii. 465. The dictatorships of Sulla and Ciesar would answer to 
 wliat Aristotle calls (Pol. iii. 14) auriyxirpreio, and defines as 
 alpTrj Tvpawis, and which forms one of the various kinds of 
 kingship which he reckons up : but the aia-viJLvrjTia. was not 
 necessarily held for life ; *IPX OV &' ' P-* v $ l " ftiov TT)V a.p\jjv ravrijr, 
 oi 8< fn'xP 1 Tivuiv wpuTfiirtav \povw rj irpdav. So Dionysio* (v. 73),
 
 288 NOTES ON 
 
 when he is trying to compare the Roman dictatorship to the 
 
 Greek al<rvp.vr)Tia, ol yap aia~vfJLVj)Ta.i KoAov/xevoi trap 'EAA^ou TO 
 
 dpxcuov, ws eV TOIS Trepi /3ao-iA.cias iQ-Topei eo(pa(rros, aiperot 
 
 rjtrav Ti'pawor r/povvTO 8' avrovs ai TrdXet?, OUT' ets dopio"TOV 
 
 orre crw^a)5, dAAa Trpos TOV? Kcupovs, OTTOTC 8det (TVfJ.<t>epew, KCLL ft? 
 
 iroo-ov xpoVov. I n hi next chapter he goes on to discuss other 
 
 cases of a temporary revival of kingly power under other names ; 
 
 r)vayK<iovTO Trapayeiv TraXtv Tas /3a<rtAiKas KOU Tvpawucas e^ovcrta? ei? 
 
 fif<rov, 6vo/Jt.a.<ri TTfptKaXvTTTOVTfs avTas V7rp7re(TTpots. 
 
 yap ap^ovs, [why not Tayovs ', ] AaKfSat/xdvtoi Se dp/x.oo-Tas K 
 
 voi Tvpdvvovs 77 /3ao-tA.is avrovs KaXeiv u>s ov8' oo-iov crfyicriv 
 as KaTe'Xuo-av e^ovo-tas op/cois Kal dpats CTTI^CO-TTIO-CXVTWV ^ewv 
 
 TrdAiv e^TreSow. In either case, whether the office was 
 held for a time or for life, the holder of it was not necessarily 
 succeeded by another aio-v/xvr/T^s. In truth the Roman Empire, 
 down at least to Diocletian, was in form, as being in each case 
 the subject of a special grant, a government of the same kind. 
 A regular magistracy for life, such as that of the perpetual 
 Gonfaloniere in the reformed Florentine Constitution of 1502, 
 is by no means usual. The Spartan Kings and the Venetian 
 Doge are not exceptions. The King and the Doge were not 
 mere magistrates, but princes, though cut down to the lowest 
 amount of power. Priesthoods, both at Rome and elsewhere, 
 were commonly held for life ; but that was because they were 
 not magistracies. 
 
 (8) Page 91. See Allen on the Royal Prerogative, 93-98. 
 
 (9) Page 91. Waitz, Deutsclie Verfassungsyeschichte, iii. 61. 
 " Bei den germanischen Volkern, konnte man sagen, erlangte sie 
 fur den christlichen Kb'nig eine ahnliche Bedeutung, wie in 
 heidnischen Zeit die Zuriickflihrung des koniglichen Geschlechts 
 auf die Gb'tter gehabt hatte." 
 
 (10) Page 92. Inquiry into the Rise and Growth of the 
 Royal Prerogative in England. By John Allen. New edition, 
 London, 1849. 
 
 (n) Page 92. See Allen, pp. 14, 172. 
 
 (12) Page 93. See the well-known verses in the Iliad (ii. 
 102) about the descent of the sceptre, which, if they do nothing
 
 LECTURE IV 289 
 
 else, show distinctly to my mind that the story of the Lydian 
 origin of Pelops is no real primitive legend. Cf. i. 277 : 
 
 v, Tlr}\elSri, 6e\' fpt^f^fv 
 Tjl', tirel 06 Tro6' 6/j.oirjs tp.fj.opf Ttfj.rjs 
 ovxos &affi\tvs, yrt Ztvs KvSos tStaKfv. 
 
 ii. 205 : 
 
 els /3afft\fvs, y fSwKf Kp6vov irats ayKv\ofj. j fiTftt>. 
 [ffieriirTp6v r' r/Se Offniffras, ?KX tr<pi<riv f)aai\fvr).] 
 
 But the whole Iliad is full of such passages. 
 
 It is curious to read the comments of Dion Chrysostom on the 
 Homeric words. They are thoroughly characteristic of an age 
 when Homer and everything else had become a subject of mere 
 rhetorical display. His words (i. 3) are : Trdw yap ovv KaAws trvv 
 aAAots irXfiocriv "Ofirjpos, (fiol So/cetv, /cat TOVTO t<^>ry, ws ov% aTravras 
 Trapa TOU Aios l^ovra? TO (TKrfTnpov ov8c TT/V dp^ryv Tavnrjv, aAAa p.6vov<; 
 TOVS ayaOovs. He goes on with a description of what a King ought 
 to be. When one finds the Homeric doctrine of the transmission 
 of the royal authority from Zeus confined to good Kings only, 
 one is tempted to wonder at finding the Wickliffite tenet of 
 dominion being founded on grace already set forth in a discourse 
 addressed to Trajan. 
 
 I need hardly add that the succession of Jewish Kings from 
 father to son, from David to the sons of Josiah, and of French 
 Kings from Hugh Capet to Lewis the Tenth, are the most 
 striking examples in history of direct succession in any royal 
 house. 
 
 (13) Page 93. It is worth while to read the account which 
 Plutarch (Theseus, 32) gives of the accession of Menestheus at 
 Athens, and how he stirred the people up during the absence of 
 Theseus. He was himself sprung from the stock of Erechtheus ; 
 but he was, according to Plutarch's story, the earliest demagogue ; 
 Trporros, w? <a<riv, dvOponruiV c;ri^/Lievov T<S S^/xaywyciv Kai 7iy>os 
 X<*p iv ox^V 8iaAc'yeo-0ai. Cf. Pausanias, i. 16, 5, 6. But in 
 the Homeric Catalogue (ii. 552, and in iv. 328) he appears as 
 a &iarp<f>i)<i pauTtXtv? no less than anylxnly else. Presently 
 we find another break in the hereditary succession of the Attic 
 Kings through the accession of Melanthos ; but here too the 
 reigning King Thymoitcs is described as being deposed or drivon 
 out (Paus. ii. 18, 9 : Me'Aavtfos T//V /Jao-iAttuv t<r\cv, d^eXu/utevos 
 
 u
 
 200 NOTES Oti 
 
 V/AOITT/V rov 'OVITOV). In both cases the break in the suc- 
 cession seems to be irregular or revolutionary. I know of no 
 case of orderly election of a Greek King in the Roman fashion. 
 
 (14) Page 93. Aristotle (Pol. iii. 13) describes the heroic 
 monarchies as cKovo'iai re KOL ira-fpiai yiyvo/xevat KOTO, vofiOv, and 
 directly after (14), avrr) o' T;V CKOVTWV fiev, CTTI rtcri 8' aJpKf/xevots, 
 crrpaTT7yo9 yap rjv KOL SiKadrrys 6 /3ao-iAev>9, ai rtav 7rpo9 TOV Otovg 
 Ktynos. 
 
 (15) Page 94. Odyssey, i. 394. 
 
 &AA' T^roi Pa(Ti\T)fS 'A^oiWP e/oi Kttl &AAol 
 n-oAAol V d./j.<f>id\(f! 'WaKfi, vtoi 7)5t TraAatof. 
 
 Bo amongst the Phaiakians (Odyssey, viii. 390) : 
 
 ScaSfKO. yap KOTck STJ/J.OV ctpcn-ptWes Ba<Ti\rjft 
 apxol Kpaloovai, rpiffKaitittcaTO* 5' ryo> ourjj. 
 
 And they had already been spoken of as (fKrjirfov\oL patfiXfjet;, 
 viii. 40. Hesiod too (Works and Days, 200, 246, 259, 261) 
 speaks of /3a<nA.?}es rather as a class of whom there would be 
 several in one state, than as holding a monarchy in the strict 
 sense. 
 
 (16) Page 95. We get the account of the Interrex, and of 
 his special mode of election by the patrician Senators, in Livy, 
 iv. 43. He does not use the' name in describing the first election 
 of Consuls, but Dionysios (iv. 75, 76) gives the title to SpuriuS 
 Lucretius, who, according to the story, presided at the Oomitia. 
 The words which he puts into the mouth of Brutus are remark- 
 able : /xe<ro/3ao-iAe'a iXov/Jiai rov ctTroSei^ovf a rovg TrdpaA^i/'o/AtVovs Tot 
 /coiva, /cat auros a.7ro6rj(fo/Mii. rrjv TWV KeXeptW apxijv) o $e KaTa(fra6fl<i 
 VTT' e/xou //,eo'o/3ao'iAevs, a"wayaya>v rrjv A-o^mv e/c/cA^criav, oi/o/Aacrarw 
 re TOV? yae'AAovTas eeiv rrjv ft&httvff&v (3a<ri\iav. On this last word 
 see above, p. 243. 
 
 (17) Page 95. Livy, ii. 2. " Rerum deinde divinarum 
 habita cura ; et quia qusedam publica sacra per ipsos reges 
 factitata erant, ne ubiubi regum desiderium esset, regem sacrifi- 
 culum creant. Id sacerdotium poritifici subjecere, ne additus 
 nomini honos aliquid libertati, cujus tune prima erat cura, 
 officeret." He appears also aa " rex sacrificulus " in Livy vi. 41, 
 and as " rex sacrificus " in xl. 42 ; but that his real title was 
 " rex sacrorum," appears from Livy himself (xxvii. 6), from
 
 LECTURE IV 291 
 
 dellius (xv. 27), and Cicero (Pro Douio Sua, 14)," who shows 
 also that the " rex sacrorum," like the luterrex, always remained 
 a patrician. That is to say, as the magistracies were thrown 
 open to the plebeians one by one (see above, p. 164), it did not 
 occur to any particular reformer to propose a law to throw open 
 the office of " rex sacrorum," which was of no political import- 
 ance. Dionysios (iv. 74) is emphatic on this last head. Iva. 8e KCU 
 TovvofJM. TYfi /3acriAuo}s eovcrtas Trdrpiov irrrdp^ov T//AU/, KCU ervv otwvots 
 aicriois OeCiv eTri/rupuxravTUJV TrapeA^Au^os cis TT/V TTO\LV, arrijs eWca 
 nys otrias <vAuTT77Tai, tepaiv diroSciKviKT^w TIS dei ySatriAevs, 6 TT/V 
 TifJirjv ravTrjv 2tov Sta /3tov, TTUOT/S uTroAtAv^teVos TroAe/xiK^s dtr^oAias, 
 ev TOVTO fiovov l^wv epyov, wsrrep 6 ySatrtAei's, TT^I* 1/yffi.ovia.v raiv 
 ^.T/TToAiwv, aAAo 8' ovSev. So Plutarch, Qurest. Kom. 63 : Sia rt 
 TUJ KoAov/xtva) prjyi a-aKpwpovfJ. (ovros Se ecrri /Sao-tAev? upwv) aTrftprjrat, 
 KOL ap^av KOL Sijp.oyopflv ; r) TOTraAatov ot y3ttcr(Ais TO. TrActtrra Kai 
 fj.fyi(TTa Toiv itpwv fSpwv, KOL ras ^uaias <L6vov avroi fj-tra. riav iepetar ; 
 (TTel 8' OUK ffitrpiai^ov, dAA' iy(rav VTrepijffiavoL KOL ySapeis, TOV /xei' 
 'EAATyva>v ol TrActerroi TT/V c^ovat'av aurwv irepieAo/ttvot, /JLOVOV TO 
 ^t'tiv rots foots direAiTrov. 'Pw/xaioi 8e TravTaTracri TOVS /3ao-iAei 
 s, aAAov c^-l ras Qvaias Ira^av, oi/r' dp^eiv a<ravrcs, ovrc 
 OTTU? /novov ev TOIS Upoi9 ySao'tAevetr^ai BoKwm, KOI 
 fiav 8ta Tois ^eovs vrro/ze'veiv. OTi yovv TIS cv dyopa Ova-La 
 T<3 Aeyofieva) KO/ZT/TIO) Trurpios, r/v ^uVa? 6 /^acriAei's, Kara 
 aTrcttri favytov e dyopa?. 
 
 A more instructive case of political survival can hardly be 
 conceived. A King is so needful for the religious part of his 
 office, while a King clothed with any shred of political power is 
 so hateful, that a King is made whose kingship seems to shut 
 him out from the common rights and duties of citizens. (Cf. 
 Livy, xli. 42.) A more speaking symbol of his exclusion could 
 hardly have been devised than his offering his sacrifice, and then 
 running from the Forum as from a place with which he had no 
 further concern. We have a parallel to such a King in the 
 Bishops who were kept at lona and other Scottish monasteries, 
 for the sole purpose of ordination, Bishops without any shadow 
 of authority, and who were under the command of their 
 ecclesiastical superior the Abbot. 
 
 Aristotle (Pol. iii. 14) speaks of this practice of cutting down 
 the King to purely priestly functions as something usual in the 
 Greek commonwealths : wmpov 8c TO. p.(v aurutv impicvrtav rwr 
 , TU 8< Tittv o^Awv Trupuipou/AfYwv, cV n-tv TUI clAAats 7ToAc<;
 
 292 XOTES ON 
 
 Ova-Lai KaT(Xft<f)Oi](Tav TOI? /JacrtAerfn p.6vov, QTTOV 8' aiov cnreiv cival 
 /?aoriA'av, ev TOIS t'Trep opiois TWV 7roAe/xta>v T/)v r/ye/toviav /xovov eT^ov. 
 On this last clause see below, note 20. 
 
 (18) Page 95. A still stronger proof would be that the 
 Emperors themselves so constantly held the actual consulship, 
 always once at least in each reign, and often much oftener ; that, 
 when they were not Consuls, they were invested with consular 
 power; and that though they could not be actual Tribunes 
 because of the adoption of the plebeian Octavius into the patrician 
 gens Julia they not only held the tribunician power, but they 
 looked on it as the main source of their authority. See below, 
 note 42. 
 
 (19) Page 95. -The Spartan kingship was, in the ideas of 
 Aristotle (Pol. iii. 14), a real kingship, not a mere survival, like 
 the priestly kingships already mentioned. It is rather, in his 
 eyes, the best example of a lawful kingship : fj yap ev ry AaKaJvi/o) 
 TroAtrei'a Soicet p.ev etvat /Jao'jAei'a /AaXwrra TWV Kara v6fj.ov, OVK ecrri 8e 
 Kvpia TraiTwv, aAX' OTO.V e^eXOr] rrjv -^(apav, fjyefjuav cart TWV Trpos rov 
 fl-dXc/Aov, In Se ra Trpos row? $eovs obroSe'SoTai TOIS ^SacriAeSo-tv. avrq 
 l*.lv ovv TI fiacfiXeia. otov a-Tpa-rrjyia TIS avroKpaToptov icai dfStos TTIV. 
 Afterwards he calls it (rTparrjyia 8ia (3tov, and o>s flirelv a7rAa>5 
 a-Tpa-rrjyia Kara yevos diSios. But, on the other hand, there is 
 something remarkable in the way in which Herodotus (vi. 
 56-58) sums up the privileges of the Spartan Kings, without 
 noticing that they do not take in anything which comes 
 under the ordinary idea of government. Thucydides, on the 
 other hand (i. 131), notices it as something strange that the 
 Ephors had the power of arresting the King (es p.ev rrjv eipxTT/v 
 csTrnrrei TO irpuirov VTTO rutv l(f)6p(av' fe<TTi 8e ToTs e<opois TOV 
 (3a<TL\(a Spacrai rovro), a comment which is the more remarkable 
 as Pausanias Was not King, but P^egent. Xenoph&n too looks 
 on the Spartan kingship as a real, though limited, kingship. 
 Thus, at the beginning of the Agosilaos (i. 1), he speaks of it as 
 the only government which had really lasted, and that (see 
 Growth of the English Constitution, p. 228) because the Kings 
 did not seek for more power than the law gave them : 17 yap 
 froXiS Ou^euTTOTe <f>6ovr)(racra TOV TpoTeTL/j.rjo'Oai aurous, erre^ei'/DT^o'e 
 KaTaAvom T^V apxrjv avriav, oi Tf. (3a(TiXti<z ouSeTrwTrore yuei^ovtov 
 
 17 l<f>' otsTrtp e^ ap^9 rrjv j3aa-L\elav Trape'AaySov. TOiyapow
 
 LECTURE IV 293 
 
 ovoffjiia. apxn fawtpo- tern Siayeyeir^evTi dSiacrTrcwrTos ovrt 
 or)/j.oKpaTia ovrc o\(.yap^ia ovre Tvpavvis ovrc y8a<rtA.t<r avr?/ Se //.dvr; 
 Sta/ieVci o-wexr/9 fiao-iXeta. The same fact is also insisted on in 
 the treatise on the Lacedaemonian Commonwealth (15) which 
 goes by his name, and he adds the custom of the monthly oath 
 like that of the Molossians exchanged between the Kings and 
 the Ephors on behalf of the city ; 6 Se opKos ccrrl, r<3 /nev /3ao-iAcI 
 Kara TOUS TT/S TroXews /cet/ie'vous vo/xous /JatrtAeveiv, TT) oe TrdXet 
 e/AireSopKOWTOs e/cetVou aurnxfrfXiKTov TTJV (3a.criXua.v Trape'fetv. He 
 adds avreu /xtv ouv al rt/xal oucot [as opposed to his military 
 command] WVTI [as opposed to the extravagant honours which 
 be received after death.] /Jao-tAeT Bf8ovrat, owSeV TI TroAu U7rep<^- 
 poucreu TWV iStwrocaiv' ou yap f.f$o\)\r)6ri ovrf TOIS ftacriXfvarL rvpawiKov 
 rapaa'Trja'aL ovrc rots TroXirais <f>66vov e/i,7rot^crai T^S 
 Dionysios, in the speech assigned to Brutus, which 
 I have quoted several times, makes the deliverer speak of the 
 consulship as following the model of the Spartan kingship. The 
 power of the Roman Consul was certainly greater than that of 
 the Spartan Kings. But an hereditary office is essentially 
 different- from one held by yearly election. The Spartan 
 kingship was real kingship with its powers cut very short : the 
 consulship was the kingly power put into perpetual commission. 
 
 (20) Page 96. We have several notices of the Argeian 
 Kings. Pausanias (ii. 19, 1) mentions that, from the reign of 
 a certain King Medon, the royal power became merely nominal, 
 and that after Meltas, who is placed (Clinton. Fast. Hell. i. 249) 
 in the days of Kleisthenes of Sikyon, kingship was abolished 
 altogether ; 'Apyctoi Sc, are lirrjyopiu.v KCU TO avrovofiov dyaTroirre? 
 CK TraXa.iora.Tov, TO. TTJS e^ovcrias TOJV ftao-tXetav cs eXa^icrTov 7rpo7/yayov, 
 vi TO Kturou KCU rols aTroydvot? TO oVo/xa Aei^>^vai TT}S 
 p-ovov. Me'A.Tuv 8e TOV AaKi'8ou TUV aTrdyovoi' M7/8wi'os TO 
 irapdirav fira.vo~fv ap^5 /caTuyvovs o 8^/109. It is plain however 
 that kingship went on much longer. There is a story told by 
 Plutarch 'in his treatise irtpl TT}? 'A\fdvopov n'^? T/ upeT?}? 
 (ii. 8), according to which kingship had such a hold at Argos 
 that, when the old Herakleid line died out, another King was 
 chosen, in obedience of course to divine signs ; t^e'AiTrev 'Apyti'ois 
 TTOT TO 'llf*u(\fio<av ycvo?, i ov /JurTiActW&u TraTpiov t]V atTot?. 
 ot Kal oia.Trvv6avofj.wots o 6io<; t^njo-tv U.ITOV n<.iav xal 
 7y/ic'pas oAtyas UCTOS uTrtp^avtU xal KaTypus eVt TIJV Aiywi'os oimav
 
 294 NOTES ON 
 
 fKaOure, KOL )8aoriAevs >jp'#7 Atywv. He has another reference 
 to this election of Aigon in his treatise on the Pythian oracles 
 (5), where he speaks casually of ^p^cr/Aou TIVOS e/x/xcVpou Xe^^tVro?, 
 ot/tat, Trepl TT/S Aiywvos TOU 'Apyeiou /JeuriAeias. But the most 
 important, notice is that in the well-known passage of Herodotus 
 (vii. 148, 149), where he tells us how, on the coming of Xerxes, 
 the Argeians claimed, if they joined in the defence of Greece, 
 to have an equal share in the command with the Lacedaemonians. 
 The Lacedaemonians answered that, as they had two Kings, 
 while the Argeians had only one, the command could not be 
 equally divided. Neither of the Spartan Kings could be deprived 
 of his vote, but they were ready to allow the Argeian King a 
 third vote along with their own two (Aeyeiv <r<f>l p*v elvat 8vo 
 /3aortA.Tja.9, 'Apyeiouri Se era* OVKWV Swarov elvat TOIV ( 
 
 TOV 'Apyeiav tlvai KtoXveii/ ouSev). It would seem from this passage 
 that the Argeian King, whatever his position may have been 
 in other ways, at least retained the military command. The 
 Spartans would never have proposed to give an equal vote 
 with their own Kings to a magistrate whose functions were 
 merely civil or priestly. The Argeian King would thus be 
 one of the class spoken of by Aristotle in the extract in Note 17. 
 
 (21) Page 96. We get a vivid mention of the King-archon 
 at Athens and his functions in the opening of the oration of 
 Lysias against Andokides. He puts the possible case of so 
 impious a person as Andokidos drawing the successful lot for 
 this archonship : av vwl 'AvSoja'S?;? o.$uk>9 aTroAAayrJ fjfjuov /c -roSSe 
 TOU dyaivos KOL eXOrj /cXiypwcro/xevos Ttov ewe'a dp^ovrwv KOU Xa^r; 
 /SacrtXev?. He goes on to speak of a great number of religious 
 duties which the King had to discharge. But presently he has 
 to bring in the word in its more usual sense ; for he goes on to 
 say that Andokides, in the course of his travels, had been a 
 flatterer of many Kings, among which class Dionysios of Syracuse 
 is reckoned by implication (/SacrtXeas TroAAors KcoA.aKi;/cev, u> av 
 (vyyfVTjTcu, irX.i)v TOV 'Svpa.Kovcrtov Aioia-o-t'ov). Dionysios, according 
 to the orator, was a match for AndokidOf, and would not be 
 taken in by him. 
 
 The wife of the King-archon was /?ao-t'A.wr0-a, as the wife 
 of the Eoman " rex sacrorum " was called " regina." (Cf. 
 Pseudo-Dem, c. Neser. 98.)
 
 LECTURE IV 295 
 
 Besides the King-archon, there was another survival of 
 kingship at Athens in the form of the Phylobasileis, who seem 
 to be the same as the fiaaiXeis spoken of in the law of Solon 
 quoted by Plutarch (Solon, 19). Plutarch seems directly after- 
 wards to speak of them as Trpirraveis. Very little seems to be 
 known about the nature of their duties, but it is with their 
 kingly title alone that we are now concerned. They must, one 
 would think, have been the Kings of the four Ionic tribes before 
 they were thoroughly fused into one commonwealth, something 
 like the local Under-kings of the West-Saxons. In any case, 
 they are another instance of the kingly title continuing to be 
 held after all kingly power bad passed away, and that by 
 magistrates who held no very important place in the common- 
 wealth. 
 
 (22) Page 97. Mommsen, probably with truth, looks on the 
 whole legend of Romulus as comparatively late. The real 
 ancient name of the city lurks in that of the Ramnes, and the 
 (TT(aw(jM<i betrays his late origin by having his name formed 
 from the later name of the city. However this may be, the 
 legend which makes Romulus the son of Mars clearly shows an 
 intermixture of Greek ideas. In the genuine Italian religion, 
 not only is no man the son of a God, but there does not seem to 
 be anything like generation or birth among the Gods themselves. 
 The deities appear in pairs, male and female, and that is all ; 
 they are called " Patres " and " Matres " directly in their divine 
 character. See Preller, Rihnische Myt/ioloyie, 50. The story of 
 Numa and Egeria probably comes from the same hellenizing 
 mint as the story of his having been a pupil of Pythagoras. 
 
 (23) Page 97. I mean that there is nothing strictly mythical 
 about these stories ; the institutions of Ancus and Servius are 
 real ; their authors, and the dates assigned to them, may be 
 fabulous, but there is nothing of divine or heroic legend about 
 the story. We know, from the example of undoubtedly real 
 lawgivers like Solon and Alfred, that such lawgivers constantly 
 draw, as it were, to themselves all mariner of institutions, both 
 earlier and later than their own times. On this ground we 
 distrust the accounts of the legislations of Ancus and Servius ; 
 but, though they may not bo historical, they are at least yitasi- 
 hitorical. See Historical Essays, First Series, p. I.
 
 296 NOTES ON 
 
 (24) Page 97. Whatever we make of the historical value 
 of the stories of the Tarquinii and Servius, to say nothing of 
 Numa, it is plain that they could have arisen only among a 
 people who paid no regard whatever to birth in the appointment 
 of their Kings, and among whom the choice of a stranger, or 
 even of a slave, was at least theoretically not impossible. It 
 will of course be remembered that Claudius got hold of an 
 altogether different account of the origin of Servius ; still, 
 though he is not described as a slave, he is described as a 
 stranger. 
 
 (25) Page 97. There was a gens Romilia at Rome, but it was 
 of little eminence and never produced a curule magistrate. I do 
 not know that there is any evidence that its members claimed 
 descent from the founders of the city. 
 
 (26) Page 98. See the account in Herodotus (vi. 67) of the 
 bitterness of the taunt addressed by Leotychides to Demaratos, 
 when he asks him OKOLOV TL firj TO ap^eiv (JLCTO. TO fiaa-iXeveiv. 
 
 (27) Page 98. See Fed. Gov. i. 433. 
 
 (28) Page 99. I am not able to lay my hand on any better 
 authority than that of Justin (ii. 7) : " Post Codrum nemo 
 Athenis regnavit, quod memorise nominis ejus tributum est." 
 If any such motive was avowed, it must have been a mere 
 pretext, as the abolition of kingship was a step which was 
 unavoidable sooner or later. Still we have the fact that the 
 Roman story represents the last King as a hateful tyrant who 
 was driven out for his crimes, while the Athenian story repre- 
 sents the last King as one who devoted his life for the safety of 
 his country, and whose memory was ever after cherished with 
 the deepest reverence. In short, the civic kingship was so 
 impossible to last that neither a good nor a bad King could 
 save it, and either the crimes or the virtues of a King might 
 be assigned as a reason for getting rid of it. 
 
 (29) Page 99. I see no reason to doubt the common story 
 as to the gradual fall of the archonship at Athens from the old 
 hereditary kingship to a magistracy needing so little either of 
 personal qualification or of the charm of illustrious ancestry that
 
 LECTURE IV 297 
 
 any citizen of decent character was held to be fit to hold it. 
 First we have the single Archon for life out of the old royal 
 family ; then the single Archon for ten years, still out of the 
 old royal family ; then the board of nine yearly Archons, aristo- 
 cratic or democratic, chosen or taken by lot, according to the 
 gradual stages in the developement of the commonwealth. The 
 interposition of a Suvcurma, a single family from which 
 magistrates were chosen, seems to have been a common stage 
 between kingship and the fully developed commonwealth, first 
 aristocratic, then democratic. The Corinthian Bacchiads are a 
 well-known instance ; but perhaps the most interesting example is 
 that of the Chaonians in Epeiros (see below, note 36). We might 
 also compare the tendency, even where there are no legal 
 distinctions, to keep the great magistracies in certain dis- 
 tinguished families, as was formerly the case with the Swiss 
 democracies (see Growth of the English Constitution, p. 27). 
 The difference, of course, is that in this last case the Swowrreta 
 had no acknowledged existence. Tschudi or Attinghausen might 
 practically be an dp^tKov yeVos ; but this was simply because 
 the electors habitually chose from among them : they had no 
 privilege by law. 
 
 (30) Page 99. In the Parian Chronicle (Boeckh, ii. 301) the 
 Archons for life appear as Kings. It is only when the archon- 
 ship becomes annual that the style is changed. The 48th entry 
 stands thus : fiaa-iXcvovros 'A.OrjvS)v Aio^'Aou ITOUS CIKOO-TOU KO.I 
 vos, a<f>' ov KO.T ivuivTov ^px^ apx^v' while in the 49th we 
 have the usual form, apxovros 'Adrjvrja-i TAt/o-ia. So Pausanias 
 (vii. 2, 1) describes the sons of Kodros as disputing about the 
 succession after his death, and uses the word ftao-iXevtiv OVK 
 <t<jxi<TKfv 6 NtiAti's ave((r6ai /3ao-iA.vo/ivo5 VTTO TOV Mt'Soiros. 
 What then was the difference between the Archon who was 
 still called a King and the undoubted Kings who had gone 
 before him ? I conceive it to be that the King or Archon 
 now became strictly responsible, as we have seen (see note 19) 
 that the Spartan Kings were. In Greek ideas, the lack of 
 responsibility seems to have been the essence of true kingship. 
 Thus in the Persians of ^schylus (213), Atossa s{>eaks of her 
 son Xerxes as ofy wrtv6wo<t TroAci, and we find this responsibility 
 given as the actual definition of kingship by two later writers. 
 H, for instance, under the word /?uonAeitt, thus defines it
 
 298 NOTES ON 
 
 y8a(riA.6a eortv awircvOvvos apX 1 !' ^ povov oe e\ev6epov<i civai roixs 
 s aAAa KCU ^acriXeas. ^ yap /Jao-iAeta ap;^ dvvTrev'^wos, 
 Trepi JMOVOVS av TOVS tro<ous (nwrraw/. So Dion Chrysostom 
 (i. 46) : /?a(riA.ia Se aiarTreu^uvos dp^r), ^* vd/xos /3acriA.o>9 8oy/xa. 
 In this last we have a forestalling of the great doctrine of the 
 Civil Law, though the Greek rhetorician does not stop to trouble 
 himself with any theories about the " lex regia." I conceive 
 that, though the King or Archon was still appointed for life, 
 yet he became subject, like the magistrates who came after him, 
 to the obligations of the formal SoKipao-ia and evOvvrj. This is 
 quite another thing from a possible power of deposition, which, 
 even if legally recognized, must always be something extra- 
 ordinary and unusual. Some confusion between this state of 
 things and the King-archon of the confirmed democracy may 
 be traced in the words of the Pseudo-Demosthenes against Neaira 
 (98) : eirfiSrj 8c &TJ(TV<S crvvwKicrev avrous /cat SrjiJ.OKpa.Tiav eirotrjcrf KOU 
 rj TroXis 7roAvav#pa>7ros eyevero, TOV /aev /JacriAe'a ouSev ^TTOV 6 8^/ios 
 r/pciro TrpOKpiYwv /car' av8paya#tav ^ciporovwv. This last state- 
 ment leaves out of sight the fact that the kingship or archonship 
 was confined to the single house of Kodros. In fact, at this 
 stage of the Athenian constitution, the King or Archon, hereditary 
 or at most chosen out of a single family, holding his office for 
 life, but responsible for its administration, must have been 
 exactly like the Spartan King, except that he had no colleague. 
 
 (31) Page 99. See Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 126. 
 
 (32) Page 99. Dion Cassius (Ixix. 16). 'ASpiavos .... TO, 
 Atovucrta, TT)V //.eyiOTT/v Trap' avrots ap^rjv apas, ev TT/ e<rOfjri TTJ 
 cTrt^wpia) Aa/tTrpais eVere/Vecre. That is to say, he was the ap^wv 
 (Tr<i)vvfj.o<s of the year. 
 
 (33) Page 100. See Kiebuhr, RiJmische Geschichte, i. 544, 
 i. 509 of the English translation. 
 
 (34) Page 100. See Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 127. 
 
 (35) Page 100. The Presidency of the Senate and of the 
 Assembly, the right of putting the question and deciding points 
 of order, forms of itself an important distinction between the 
 Roman Consuls and the Athenian Archons. The Archons, at all
 
 LECTURE IV 299 
 
 events after the establishment of the full-grown democracy, never 
 presided in the Assembly. That function belonged to the 
 Prytaneis of the tribes in turn, as comes out strongly in the 
 famous case of the presidency of Sok rates in the debates after 
 Arginousai. At Sparta, on the other hand, the debate recorded 
 by Thucydides (i. 87) shows that this power was vested in the 
 Ephors. It is plain that, if the powers of the Prytaueis and of 
 the Archons had been in the same hands, the position of the 
 magistrates who held those conjoint powers would have been 
 far higher than that of either Prytaneis or Archons separately. 
 It would have been inconvenient to place it in the hands of the 
 Generals, the really highest executive magistrates of the Common- 
 wealth, because it was perhaps already beginning to be felt that 
 the position of Speaker and that of Leader of the House ought 
 to be distinct. This came out still more strongly in the Achaiun 
 Assembly, where the Domiourgoi acted as Speakers, while the 
 General acted as Leader of the House. See History of Federal 
 Government, i. 296. I may perhaps be allowed to add that 
 some remarks on this matter will be found in a letter from Sir 
 George Lewis, the last which I had from him, which appears at 
 p. 427 of his published Letters. My answer to that letter led 
 to some changes in Sir George Lewis' views, which were 
 embodied in the last thing which he wrote, the article on the 
 Presidency of Deliberative Assemblies, which is referred to at 
 p. 430 of the Letters. I could have wished that all three, his 
 letter and mine and that article, had appeared together. 
 
 The Roman magistrate also, the Consul in his Assembly and 
 the Tribune in his, had a right of yet further importance, 
 namely that he alone could make proposals to the Assembly. 
 This, perhaps more than anything else, marks the far greater 
 power of the Roman magistrates as compared with those of 
 Athens. 
 
 (36) Page 102. Thnc. ii. 8. Xdoves d/?uo-i'A.eim>i, wv rjyom-ro 
 trr in/trua Trpooraertlji <c TOV ap^iKov yeVous 'bwmw; KCU XiKui'uip. Seo 
 above, note 29. 
 
 (37) Page 102. On the Epeirot League, see Hist. Fed. Gov. 
 i. 150. I have there spoken of the oatli of the Molossinu Kings, 
 as also in the Growth of the English Constitution, p. liL'D.
 
 300 NOTES ON 
 
 (38) Page 102. Of the Macedonian Assemblies I shall have 
 more to say in the next lecture. 
 
 (39) Page 102. On the four Macedonian Commonwealths, 
 see Hist. Fed. Gov. 661. 
 
 (40) Page 102. Seleukeia, as the chief Eastern outpost of 
 Western civilization, remained a free city with a republican 
 constitution till a very late time. The decline and fall of the 
 Seleukid monarchy no doubt did much to strengthen its inde- 
 pendence. In the time of Tiberius, Tacitus (Annals, vi. 42) 
 speaks of Seleukeia as a free commonwealth, with a Senate of 
 three hundred and a popular Assembly. But usually the two 
 orders did not agree, and the Parthian Kings sometimes stepped 
 in to support the oligarchic interest. " Seleucenses, civitas 
 potens, septa muris, neque in barbarum corrupta, sed conditoris 
 Seleuci retinens. Trecenti, opibus aut sapientia delecti, ut 
 Senatus ; sua populo vis : et, quoties Concordes agunt, spernitur 
 Parthus ; ubi dissensere, dum sibi quisque contra semulos subsi- 
 dium vocant, accitus in partem, adversum omnes valescit. 
 Id nuper acciderat, Artabano regnante, qui plebem primoribus 
 tradidit ex suo usu : nam populi imperium juxta libertatem ; 
 paucorum dominatio regies libidini propior est." Pliny too 
 (Hist. Nat. vi. 30) speaks of it as " libera hodie ac sui juris 
 Macedonumque moris." 
 
 (41) Page 103. See Historical Essays, Second Series, pp. 
 180, 184. 
 
 (42) Page 103. On the importance of the " potestas tribunitia " 
 Tacitus speaks strongly, when he says (Annals, iii. 56) : " Id 
 summi fastigii vocabulum Augustus repperit, ne Regis aut 
 Dictatoris nomen adsumeret, ac tamen adpellatione aliqua cetera 
 imperia praemineret." He goes on to explain that the grant of 
 the tribunitia potestas to Drusus was the same thing as naming 
 him successor to the Empire. On the way in which the union 
 of all powers grew into a power greater than any of them, 
 compare the words put into the mouth of Tiberius himself a 
 little before (iii. 53), " quia non ^Edilis, aut Prsetoris, aut 
 Consulis partes sustineo : majus aliquid et excelsius a Principe 
 postulatur."
 
 LECTURE IV 301 
 
 There is a most curious discussion in John Lydus (De Magis- 
 tratibus, i, 3) of the distinction between Tvpawos, ^3ao-iA.vs> and 
 avTOKptiVwp, and (in ii. 1-3) there is also a description of the 
 powers granted to both the elder and the younger Caesar. The 
 passages are much too long to quote in full ; but it should be 
 noted that this writer, writing in Greek in the sixth century 
 but in a thoroughly Roman character, distinctly denies the 
 power of the Emperors to be either y3ao-tA.a or rvpawi'?. eo-ri 
 yap j8atrtA.u>$ p.ev TpoTTOs 6 vd/tov, rvpdwov Se vd/ios 6 TpoTnos. TO 
 yap rtav Kat(rapa)v ^yow avroKpardpcuv 7ra)w/)tov ouSc fia.<ri\(ia<;, aXX' 
 ouSe Tupawi'Sos COT! (nj/iavrucoV, avrap^tas Be /JLaXXov KOI avOevria<; 
 You StotKety TOUS e^avuTTafAfvovi Kara. TO>V /cotvuiv $opv/8ous TTI TO 
 
 KoAAlOV. 7TtTaTTCtV T TW O-TpaTV/AttTt 7TW? ttV Scot flO.^(fa-&a.L TOIS 
 
 tvavrtol?- imperare yap TO eTriTciTTetv Trap' 'iTaXots Xc'yeTai, IvOtv lp.ire- 
 parajp. All this has the force of a protest, when we remember how 
 familiarly the name of /SatriAeus had for ages been applied to the 
 Emperors. Lydus very naturally sets down Marius and Sulla as 
 Tyrants : but, what we should hardly have looked for, he sets 
 down Romulus as a Tyrant also, and argues at some length that 
 the Latin Rex answers to the Greek Tvpawos. There is not a 
 glimmei'ing to be seen of the great dispute about pry and 
 three hundred years later. 
 
 (43) Page 103. See above, note 18. 
 
 (44) Page 103. -Theodoric was undoubtedly Consul, though 
 his patriciate stands out more conspicuously in history. Both 
 he and Odoacer were Patricians by Imperial commission. For 
 the patriciate of Odoacer see the fragment of Malchos in the 
 Bonn edition, p. 235. The Senate asks Z<-n6n to bestow that 
 rank on Odoacer ; Trorpuaou T aur<S d7roo-T<iXai aiav, KOI TT/K Taiv 
 'iTaAwv Tovrta a<f>tiva.L BioiKTjo-iVj and the Emperor does so accord- 
 ingly, (3a<fi\tiov ypdfifjLa irepl >v r)f3ov\tTO TrtfiirMV T<3 'O8oa^w, 
 jrarpiKiov tv Tovrta Tu5 ypdff.fta.Ti C7r<ovo/ia(re. Of Theodoric the 
 anonymous writer printed at the end of Ammianus (717) says ; 
 " Zeno recompensans Theodoricum, quern fecit patricium et 
 consulera, donans ei multum et mittens eum ad Italiam." He 
 goes on calling him M Patricius " in a marked way. But 
 Jornandes (57) emphatically brings out the consulship of 
 Theodoric; " factus est consul ordinarius, quod sumnium bonuui 
 priinumquv in muudo decus edicitur."
 
 302 NOTES ON 
 
 (45) Page 103. It was held to be the peculiar good luck 
 of Boiitius that he was not only Consul himself but saw his sons 
 Consuls. See the Consolatio, ii. 3, 4. 
 
 (46) Page 103. Jornandes (60) tells us pointedly how " Justin- 
 ianus luiperator per fidelissimum Consulem vicit Belisarium, et 
 perductum Witigim Constantinopolim Patricii honore donavit." 
 So Prokopios (Bell. Goth. i. 5) pointedly marks that he was still 
 Consul at the time of his conquest of Sicily, and that his year 
 of office came to an end on the very day on which he entered 
 Syracuse. TO) Si BeXwrapiw Tore Kpeuro-ov \6yov cvru^/xa (vvrjvf^Or) 
 yeve'<r$ai. T}s yap vTraretas Aa/?a>v TO dito/z,a. CTTI TO> Ba.vSiA.ovs 
 vevi/cr/Kevai, ravn/5 In e^o/xevos, eTreiS?) Trapetrr^craTO 2,iK\ia.v oArjv, 
 r V T '? s VTraTeias ^<T\d.Tr] ^epa cs ra? SvpaKovcras es^Aafre. He goes 
 on to say, OVK e^eTrtrr/Ses /U.CVTOI aur<3 TreTrotiyro TOVTO, dAAd TIS TW 
 avOpwiria ^vvtftr) TV^T/ Tracrav dvacrcocra/xeVa) rryv v^crov 'Pa)//.ai'ois C 
 
 rrj rjpepa. es ra9 SvpaKovVas eseAT/Aa/ceVai, TT;V re TWV V7ra.T(av a 
 ov*c Tp"ep clo'iOfi cv T<3 Bu^avTiov ftovXevTrjpiw, dAA' evravOa Ka 
 e^ UTTCITWV yeve'cr^ai. 
 
 (47) Page 103. That Constantino held the office of General 
 at Athens is recorded by his nephew Julian in his first oration, 
 addressed to Constantius (8) : /3u<riAfus yap wv, KO.I /cvpios TTO.VTWV, 
 crrpaTT/yos e/cetVcov rj^LOv KaXtLcrOat, Kal TOiavr^s CIKOVOS Tiry^avwv /ACT' 
 7riypa)u,/AaTos, eyawirro TrXc'ov T; rwr /xeyto-rwv Tt/xaiv d^iw^ei's. He 
 goes on to speak of the gifts of corn which Constantino made to 
 the Athenians, a/m/^o/xevos e?r' airw T^V *dAtv. See Finlay, 
 Greece under the Romans, 340. . 
 
 (48) Page 103. Plutarch, Caesar, 60. c/ceti/os OVK Z<j>r) ySao-tXcv? 
 dAAa KaTo-ap KaXei(r6ai. 
 
 (49) Page 103. It is hardly needful to collect examples of 
 this usage from the New Testament onwards, and indeed one or 
 two have come incidentally in the extracts which I have already 
 given. But it is worth noticing how completely the orations of 
 Dion Chrysostom addressed to Trajan assume the dominion of 
 the Emperors to be a /SacrtAeia, though (BacriXeia is throughout 
 pointedly opposed to rvpawi's. In one place in the third oration 
 (i. 46), after describing the oppressive ruler, Dion says, OVK av 
 
 TOV TOLOVTOV up^ovTa rj avTOKpdropa r/ ftaariXfa, TroXv &t
 
 LECTURE IV 303 
 
 rvpawov Kal Xevcrr^pa, ws TTOTC Trposewrev 6 ATroAAtov TOV 
 Tvpawov. In another place in the second oration (i. 37), 
 he incidentally brings out that solitary position of the Roman 
 ruler Which was so strikingly enforced by Mr. Goldwin Smith at 
 the end of his famous review of Mr. Congreve. The good King 
 is to do this and that for the public good, Trpos 8e TOUS oAAov? 
 /focriAeas, ef rives otpa etev, d/uAAao'&JU ircpl r^s aperies. The 
 difference between this writer and one so much later as John 
 Lydus is the difference between a Greek rhetorician speaking in 
 a loose way of things as he practically found them, and a Roman 
 lawyer, Who happened to write in Greek, but who still dealt with 
 the legal and historical side of things from a purely Roman point 
 of view. 
 
 (50) Page 104. John Lydus (i. 4) points out the wearing of 
 the diadem and the royal robes as an innovation of Diocletian, 
 adding that he thereby lirl TO /3ao*iAtxov rj tdXrjOcs cltrflv CTTI TO 
 rpci/fev. Compare Aurelius Victor, Caesares, 39. 
 
 (51) Page 104. The word regnum is applied to the imperial 
 rule, even by Tacitus, though it would seem always with some- 
 what of sarcasm. Thus in the Annals (xii. 66) Locusta is said 
 to have been " diu inter instrumenta regni habita," and again 
 (xiii. 14) it is said of Pallas that "velut arbitrum regni agebat." 
 But much earlier (Annals, i. 4) Tacitus speaks of the house of 
 Augustus as " domus regnatrix " seemingly without any sarcastic 
 meaning. 
 
 (52) Page 104. The name regia is more than once applied by 
 Tacitus to the Imperial dwelling. Thus in the Annals (xi. 29) 
 Callistus, the former favourite of Cains, is described under 
 Claudius as " prioris quoque regies peritus," and in xiv. 13 it is 
 Raid of the palace of Nero " deterrimus quisque, quorum non 
 alia regia fecundior exstitit." Here again there probably is 
 sarcasm, but we must remember that the house of the Emperor 
 was formally regia in his character of High Pontiff. If we leap 
 from Tacitus to the next Latin writer who deserves the name of 
 historian, we find, in the very first chapter of Ammiumis which 
 i preserved to us, the word regia, and pretty well every other 
 derivative of rtx, used as a matter of course, but re* itself never.
 
 304 NOTES ON 
 
 (53) Page 104. In the opening chapter of Ammianus (xiv. 1) 
 the name regina is twice applied to the Empress Eusebia. So 
 again xvi. 10. So in xiv. 1 we read of " regia stirps," and in 
 xix. 11 of " sella regalis." 
 
 (54) Page 104. It is quite certain that no Emperor is ever 
 called rex by any Latin writer. That the title was given to 
 Hannibalianus the nephew of Constantino is also quite certain 
 (see the opening chapter of Ammianus and the Article in the 
 Dictionary of Biography). At any time before the decree of 
 Antoninus Caracalla, one would have said that he was meant to 
 be King, not over Rome or Romans, but, like the sons of the 
 Triumvir Antonius, over some of the provinces of the Roman 
 Empire. But this seems hardly to apply, now that all the 
 subjects of the Empire were alike Romans. Still this title stands 
 quite by itself, and it is most striking to find the word rex never 
 applied to the Emperor, though all its derivatives are so freely 
 applied to his belongings. 
 
 (55) Page 104. For the Roman appointments of Alaric see 
 Zosimos, v. 5, 31, vi. 7. 
 
 (56) Page 104. The consulship of Chlodwig comes from 
 Gregory of Tours, ii. 38. " Igitur Chlodovechus ab Anastasio 
 imperatore codicillos de consulatu accepit, et in basilica beati 
 Martini tunica blatea indutus est et chlamyde, imponens vertici 
 diadema." He was saluted by the people " tanquam consul aut 
 Augustus." The confusion between Consul and Augustus, in 
 the mind either of Chlodwig or of Gregory, may remind one of 
 the like confusion in the mind of Rienzi, when he called himself 
 " candidatus Spiritus Sancti miles, Nicolaus severus et clemens, 
 Liberator Urbis, Zelator Italiae, amator Orbis, et Tribunus 
 Augustus." Cronica Sanese, 1347. Muratori, xv. 118. Chron- 
 icon Estense, ib. 441. 
 
 (57) Page 104. SeeBryce, Holy Roman Empire, 404. Joseph 
 the Second was the last who bore this title, having been elected 
 in 1764, during the lifetime of his father, and becoming Emperor- 
 elect on his death the next year. 
 
 (58) Page 104. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 17, 169.
 
 LECTURE IV 305 
 
 (59) Page 105. So the Peterborough Chronicle, 449. " Fram 
 fan Wodne awoc eall ure cynecynn, and Su^Sanhymbra eac." 
 The contrary process seems to be set forth by King Alfred when 
 he tells the story of Odysseus and Kirke ; " J>a wees Jjaer Apollines 
 dohtor, lobes suna, se lob wses hiora cyning, and licette Jjset he 
 sceolde bion se hehsta god, and ]?aet dysige folc him gelyfde, 
 forj?am ^Se he wses cyne-cynnes, and hi nyston nsenne ojjerne god 
 on Jjaene timan, buton hiora cyningas hi weorpodon for godas. 
 Da sceolde fses lobes feeder bion eac god, J>ses nama waes Saturnus, 
 and his swa ilce sel cine hi haefdon for god." 
 
 (60) Page 105. See Norman Conquest, i. 593. 
 
 (61) Page 105. See \Vaitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, i. 
 68, 166. 
 
 (62) Page 106. See above, note 76 on Lecture III. 
 
 (63) Page 106. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 34, 171. 
 
 (64) Page 107. All people, save those who fancy that the 
 name King has something to do with a Tartar KJian or with a 
 " canning " or " cunning " man, are agreed that the English 
 Cyning and the Sanscrit Ganaka both come from the same root, 
 from that widely spread root whence comes our own cyn or kin 
 and the Greek yo/os. The only question is whether there is any 
 connexion between cyning and ganaka closer than that which is 
 implied in their both coming from the same original root. That 
 is to say, are we to suppose that cyning and ganaka are strictly 
 the same word, common to Sanscrit and Teutonic, or is it enough 
 to think that cyning is an independent formation, made after the 
 Teutons had separated themselves from the common stock 1 The 
 former view is maintained by Professor Max Miiller, in the later 
 editions of the Science of Language (ii. 285), with an array of 
 German scholarship which it is hard to resist. On the other 
 hand it is equally hard for an Englishman, looking to his own 
 language only, to resist the obvious derivation of cyning as the 
 direct offspring of cyn. See Norman Conquest, i. 583, Growth 
 of the English Constitution, 171. The difference between the 
 two derivations is not very remote, as the cyn is the ruling idea 
 
 x
 
 306 NOTES ON 
 
 in either case ; but if we make the word immediately cognate 
 with ganaka, we bring in a notion about "the father of his 
 people," which has no place, if we simply derive cyning from 
 cyn. 
 
 (65) Page 107. See the pedigrees of ^Ethelwulf in the 
 Chronicles under the year 855. They go straight up to Woden, 
 and thence to Noah and Adam ; but Woden is not made to 
 spring from Shem, Ham, or Japheth, but from Sceaf the son of 
 Noah, who was born in the ark. 
 
 (66) Page 109. Joshua ix. 2. 
 
 (67) Page 109. Genesis xxxvi. 14. The Hebrew *VlvH, from 
 S gens, answers however better to cyning than to Jwretoga. 
 
 (68) Page 110. See the instances which I have collected in 
 Note K in the Appendix to the first Volume of the Norinan 
 Conquest, and at page 172 of the Growth of the English Con- 
 stitution. Another passage about the Goths will be found in 
 Zosimos, iv. 34. Frithigern is ^ye/xwv, while he speaks of 
 ' A.0a.vapi\6v T TTOIVTOS TOV /SacrtXfiov TUV ^KvOtav ap^ovra 
 
 (69) Page 110. This is the argument assumed throughout 
 Dante's great treatise De Monarchia. See Historical Essays, 
 First Series. 
 
 (70) Page 110. See Norman Conquest, i. 26. Compare for 
 Mercia also the account of the battle of Winfield, where Penda 
 fell " and xxx cynebearna mid him, and fa wseron sume ciningas." 
 This last notice comes from the Peterborough Chronicler only. 
 We may again compare the description given by Ammianus (xvi. 
 12) of the Alemanni at the battle of Strassburg. Chnodomarius, 
 the Bretwalda, so to speak, comes first ; then some other chiefs 
 by name ; " Hos sequebantur potestate proximi Keges numero 
 quinque, Regalesque [probably ^Ethelings] decem." The Batavians 
 also in the same account have several Kings. 
 
 (71) Page 111. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 172. 
 
 (72) Page 111. See the famous passage in the Iliad, ii. 188.
 
 LECTURE IV 307 
 
 (73) Page 112. I shall have to speak more fully of this in 
 my last lecture. 
 
 (74) Page 112. According to the famous doctrine of the Civil 
 Law (Inst. i. 2. 6.) " quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem ; 
 quum lege regia, quae de ejus imperio lata est, populus ei in 
 eum omne imperium suum et potestatem concedat." With this 
 lawyers' theory of the origin of the Empire one may well com- 
 pare the pithy account given by Tacitus (Ann. i. 2) of its real 
 origin : " Caesar dux reliquus, posito Triumviri nomine, Consulem 
 se ferens et ad tuendam plebem tribunicio jure contentum ; ubi 
 militem donis, populum annona, cunctos dulcedine otii pellexit, 
 insurgere paullatim, munia Senatus, magistratuum, legum, in se 
 trahere, nullo adversante." 
 
 (75) Page 112. See Norman Conquest, i. 584. It is worth 
 while to compare the definition given by Suidas under the word 
 /3aeriA.evs. BatrtAcvs /tey as 6 TWV Ilepcraiv. TOVS Se aAAovs irposcri- 
 Beo-av KO.I TW ap^ofifvwv TO. ovd/xara, oiov AaKcSai/idvioi, Ma/ceSdvcs. 
 He then goes on to distinguish /3ao-tA.evs and rvpawos, and to 
 point out how Pindar and others had applied the name (3acriX.fv<i 
 to tyrants. 
 
 (76) Page 113. I suppose that Russia is now the only 
 European State to which this description would apply, the only 
 one where the sovereign can legislate by himself, without even 
 the form of consulting a national assembly of any kind. 
 
 (77) Page 113. See Norman Conquest, i. 23, 78, and Growth 
 of the English Constitution. 37. 
 
 (78) Page 114. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 153. 
 
 (79) Page 114. See Norman Conquest, iv. 430. 
 
 (80) Page 114. See Norman Conquest, i. 24. 
 
 (81) Page 115. The recovery of Southern Spain to the Empire 
 in the wars of Belisarius must always be borne in mind, if we 
 wish to have an accurate notion either of the map of Europe or 
 of the position of the Empire in the sixth and seventh centuries. 
 See above, note 32 on Lecture II.
 
 308 NOTES ON 
 
 (82) Page 116. See Norman Conquest, i. 78. 
 
 (83) Page 116. "Mundi Dominus" was always the title of 
 the mediaeval Emperors. Take for instance the poem on Frederick 
 Barbarossa published by Grimm (9), which begins " Salve, mundi 
 domine ; Csesar noster, ave." 
 
 (84) Page 116. The kingdom of Henry of Saxony and Rudolf 
 of Habsburg, the greatest among the German Kings who never 
 received the Imperial crown ; not, in any strictness, the Empire 
 of Charles and Otto. Yet the use of the title of Emperor by the 
 head of a confederation of princes can hardly be wondered at. 
 
 (85) Page 116. On the various names of the kingdoms which 
 sprang up out of the divisions of the Frankish Empire, see 
 Appendix T in the first volume of the History of the Norman 
 Conquest, " Names of Kingdoms and Nations." 
 
 (86) Page 117. I mean that, up to the extinction of the 
 Hohenstaufen, the Empire followed that mixture of election 
 and hereditary descent which was the law of all the Teutonic 
 kingdoms. Then came a time during which birth was hardly 
 regarded at all, though there was some faint approach to a 
 dynasty in the Liizelburg Kings of Bohemia. Then came the 
 long period which begins in the middle of the fifteenth century, 
 during which, though other candidates were often talked of, yet 
 the Electors always chose an Austrian prince, commonly the heir 
 of the Austrian Duchy, or, as in the case of Charles the Seventh, 
 an unsuccessful claimant of that Duchy, or, as in the case of 
 Francis the First, the husband of its Archduchess. 
 
 (87) Page 117. See Norman Conquest, iv. 1695. 
 
 (88) Page 118. I cannot be said to be speaking too strongly 
 on this point, when it is remembered that, in a book on Italy 
 by Lord Chief Justice Whiteside, Switzerland was spoken of as 
 " a Confederation of small Kingdoms." It matters very little 
 whether the writer really believed that there were twenty-two 
 or twenty-five Kings in Switzerland, or whether he merely 
 thought that the difference between kingdoms and common- 
 wealths was of so little consequence that either word might be
 
 LECTURE IV 309 
 
 used indiscriminately for the other. In either case it is an 
 extreme illustration of the common ignorance and carelessness 
 .about such matters. In the common notices of Swiss matters in 
 the newspapers, the cantonal Government of Geneva because 
 it is from Geneva that the telegrams come seems always to be 
 confounded with the Federal Government. Would the same 
 writers mistake the Governor of the State of New York for the 
 President of the United States 1 
 
 Besides the Commonwealths of Switzerland, we must not 
 forget the Commonwealth of Andorra, now looking calmly, as a 
 steady elder sister, on the commotions of the younger and less 
 successful commonwealths on either side of her. 
 
 (89) Page 119. On all these matters I would refer to the 
 Essay on Presidential Government which stands last in my First 
 Series of Historical Essays. 
 
 (90) Page 120. The legitimate descent of Queen Elizabeth 
 from Edward the Third through the house of York takes in nine 
 generations of ancestors, two only of whom, her father and his 
 grandfather Edward the Fourth, were Kings. And of them, 
 only Henry himself came in by quiet succession. Her descent 
 by the other line, that of Henry the Seventh, through the legiti- 
 mated children of John of Gaunt, is still less kingly.
 
 310 NOTES ON 
 
 (1) Page 123. On the relations of the Achaian cities. to the 
 League, see History of Federal Government, i. 256. 
 
 (2) Page 124. On the constitution of the Achaian Federal 
 Assembly, see History of Federal Government, i. 263. 
 
 (3) Page 124. We may see this process in England, as the 
 small independent Kings and Ealdormen in Mercia sink into 
 Ealdormen named by the central King of the Mercians, and 
 again as the West-Saxon Under-kings of the royal house are also 
 supplanted by Ealdormen. And the same process goes on as the 
 several kingdoms are merged in one kingdom. The stages of 
 this process are well marked in the cases of Mercia. From 
 independent and conquering Kings like Penda and Offa, we 
 come, in the days of Alfred, to a King like Burhred, who is the 
 man of the King of the West-Saxons ; and then, between this 
 sort of kingship and absolute incorporation, comes the stage 
 represented by ^Ethelred and ^Ethelflsed. See Appendix F in the 
 first volume of the Norman Conquest. 
 
 (4) Page 125. The first Sunday in May is always the day of 
 meeting for the Landesgemeinde of Uri, and the regular days of 
 meeting for all the other Landesgemeinden come at the same 
 time of the year. The distinctive peculiarities of all the Landes- 
 gemeinden of which I have seen those only of Uri and Appenzell- 
 Ausserrhoden are described at length by M. Rambert in an 
 article in the Bibliotheque Unlverselle in the course of 1872. 
 
 (5) Page 126. The mere slave, the servus, SoCAos, or Ipeow, 
 has, by the nature of the case, no political rights, because he has
 
 LECTURE V 311 
 
 not even the common rights of humanity. But, besides the 
 actual slave and the free /tterotKo? who is a citizen of some other 
 commonwealth, there is the large class of the unfree, filling up 
 in various degrees the space between the mere slave and the full 
 citizen. At Sparta we might reckon the Trcpi'oucot, burghers of 
 a subject township, and the Helots, slaves of the commonwealth 
 but not slaves of individual masters, as representing severally 
 a high and a low stage of this intermediate position. The 
 Thessalian ireveorat, perhaps the Roman clients, would be other 
 examples. So in the Teutonic system we find the liberti of 
 Tacitus (Germ. 25), that is the Lcetas, Liten or Lazzen (see page 
 161), on whom see Waitz (i. 179) and the chapter in Kemble on 
 the Unfree. The class revives again at a later time in England 
 in the form of the villeins regardant of our lawyers, a class formed 
 on the one hand by raising the mere slave, the \eow, the servus 
 of Domesday, and on the other hand by lowering the free ce<w7, 
 the villanus of Domesday. 
 
 One would have thought that it was inherent in this class to 
 be without political rights, yet we have the strange statement 
 about the Federal Diet of the Old-Saxons which I have quoted 
 above. 
 
 Kemble (i. 185) defines slavery as " dependence, the being in 
 the mund of another, and represented by him in the folcmot." 
 This of course would take in classes much better off than the 
 mere \eow. 
 
 (6) Page 126. That is to say, the aristocratic commonwealth 
 was democratic at its first starting. The Roman patricians, the 
 populua or old citizens, of course began as a democracy among 
 themselves, and their democratic character would not be affected 
 by the presence of any class of the unfree, whether clients or 
 mere slaves. They became an aristocracy, as there grew round 
 them, in the form of the plebs, a body of men personally as free 
 as themselves, but possessing only a lower political franchise. 
 
 (7) Page 127. Waitz i. 36. " Wie das Heer nur das im 
 Kriege befindliche Volk darstellt, so sind auch alle militarischen 
 Verhaltnis.se nirgends von den Ubrigen Zustanden des Lebens 
 zu trennen ; immer befinden sich kriegerische und richterliche 
 Gewalt in Einer Hand ; wie das Volk Heer ist, die Versainrnlung
 
 312 NOTES ON 
 
 des Volks Gericht, so 1st der Bichter auch Heerfiihrer. Erne 
 Eintheilung des Heers setzt daher stets eine gleiche des Volks 
 voraus, die des Volks muss mit der des Landes identisch sein." 
 
 (8) Page 128. It is hardly needful to point out that the famous 
 Assembly of the Achaians in the second book of the Iliad is, in 
 the nature of the case, a military assembly. But it is worth 
 marking that it is ayoprj in verse 51, 93, 96, Xaos in 97-100, 
 and ayoprj both, in 207, and TrXrjOvs in 278. 
 
 (9) Page 128. The Macedonian military assembly is spoken 
 of by Arrian, iii. 27, 2, 27, 3, as irX^os and MaxeSdvcs, in 27, 
 
 4, it is CKK\rj(j-ia. 
 
 (10) Page 128. See Norman Conquest, ii. 103. 
 
 (n) Page 128. I mean the Athenian process by which the 
 Generals chose IK KaraXoyov, from the list of citizens of the 
 military age, such as they thought good to call upon for the 
 particular expedition. 
 
 (12) Page 128. This comes out very strongly in the history 
 of the Athenian siege of Syracuse. The army in Sicily, though 
 forming so large a part of the Athenian people, waits for and 
 obeys the orders of the citizens who remained at home as sub- 
 missively as the subjects of a despot could do. 
 
 (13) Page 128. See the action of the Athenian Senate and 
 People at Salamis in Herodotus, ix. 4 et seq. It is worth noting 
 that the violence done to the Senator Lykidas, who proposed- 
 submission to the Persians, and still more the violence done 
 by the Athenian women to his wife and children, are things 
 altogether without parallel within the city itself. 
 
 (14) Page 128. Thucydides, viii. 76, where the army at 
 Samos acts for itself, and maintains the democracy after the 
 oligarchic revolution in the city. Thrasyboulos and Thrasylos 
 are made to say is ov Set aOvp-elv OTI f] TrdAis avrwv a.<J>f(n~r)Ke. They 
 had just been elected Generals by the army, much as Camillus 
 (Livy v. 46) is elected Dictator by the Boman Assembly at Veii, 
 though the circumstances of the Boman migration to Veii are 
 more like those of the Athenian migration to Salamis.
 
 LECTURE V 313 
 
 (15) Page 129. For the ^Etolian Federal Assembly held 
 under the walls of the besieged city of Medeon in B.C. 231, see 
 History of Federal Government, i. 413. 
 
 (16) Page 130. In the Teutonic mythology a God might die, 
 as appears from the famous case of Balder. In the Greek 
 mythology there is no case of the death of a God, though the 
 possibility of such a thing seems implied in one passage of the 
 Iliad (v. 388), where Ares is spoken of as running a chance of 
 being killed by the sons of Aloeus. 
 
 Kdl vv Kfv iv6' iir6\oiTO 'Ap'jjy, OTOS voAe/xoto, 
 
 Cl ,UT7 /ATlTpVlT], TTplKa\\7]S 'Hfpi&OlO., 
 
 -iiyyti\tv, & 8' itK\(\f/ 
 rap6fj.(vov' xaXeiros 5e I 5e<ruor 
 
 In the same speech both Here and Aides are spoken of as being 
 wounded by Herakles, and in the same book both Aphrodite and 
 Ares are wounded by Diomedes (336, 855). 
 
 (17) Page 131. Iliad, xx. 10. 
 
 8' is 5iuo Ai&s vpe\i}ytptrao, 
 Ooi'ffijffiv ttyifavov, &y Ait irarpl 
 iSviriffi irpatciSffffftv. 
 
 It was as needful in the divine as in the human Assembly 
 that its members should be seated ; when men began to stand 
 up, there was then, as now, an end to all order. Iliad, xviii. 
 246. 
 
 opOuv 8' iffra6ruv ayop^i yivtr', oii8 TJI tr\T) 
 fr0cu, Trdvrat yitp Ix* Tp<$/ioj. Cf. ii. 96-100. 
 
 (18) Page 131. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 168. 
 
 (19) Page 131. Iliad, xx. 13. 
 
 (20) Page 131. See Historical Essays, Second Series, 83. 
 
 (21) Page 132. For this comparison I might quote no less 
 an authority than King Alfred, who looked on Odysseus as a 
 King under the Emperor Agamemnon. " Hit gebyrede gio 
 on Troiana gewinne J>tet j>rer wees an cyning Jws nama Aulixes, 
 se hiefde twa )>ioda under J>am kasere. )5a Sioda wwron hatena 
 ISacige and Retie, and Jues kaseres nama wies Agamemnon."
 
 314 NOTES ON 
 
 (22) Page 132. Iliad, xvi. 434. 
 
 (23) Page 132. Odyssey, ii. 26. 
 
 ovli iro0' fifitrtpri ayop^i yfvtr' ot>8 &&UIKOS, 
 i ov 'OSvfffffvs Slos t&i\ Kol\s iv\ rnvai. 
 
 (24) Page 133. Tacitus, Germania, 11. "Si displicuit sen- 
 tentia, fremitu adspernantur ; sin placuit, frameas concutiunt. 
 Honoratissimum adsensus genus est, armis laudare." 
 
 (25) Page 133. Thucydides, i. 87. Kptvovcri yap (3ay Kal ov 
 
 (26) Page 134. I will refer only to two examples, one of 
 an Assembly which was held, and another of one which was 
 not held, but which proves almost more than any of those 
 which were held. Kassandros, having Olympias in his power, 
 but having promised to spare her life, first holds an Assembly 
 in which she is condemned to death in her absence ; then, when 
 she still demands a public trial, he shrinks from the effect which 
 he knew that her presence would have upon the Assembly, 
 and causes her to be put to death privately. Diod. xix. 51. 
 6 8e KacrcravSpos .... irpoeTp&j/aTO TOVS oucetovs Ttov a.VTfjpijfJi.ev(av vrr 
 'OXv/x,7ria8os (V Kowr) TUV MaKtSovwv fKKXrja-ia Karrjyopelv TT}S 
 Trpocipr]p.fvr]s yuvaiKos. a>v Trot^o-avrwv TO Trposra^^ev, KCU T^S 'OAv/i- 
 TriaSos ovTf irapova-rjs ovrc e^ovcn/s TOUS aTroXoy^croficvovs, ot /xev 
 MaxeSdves KarfyivuKTKOV avTrjs Oavarov .... v\a(3eiTO yap afjuj. KOL 
 TO TTfpl avnjv aiu>p.a. Kal TO rwv MaxcSovtuv ev/AtTa/JoAov. T^? 8' 
 'O\v/X7ria8os ov <f>ap.vr]<; <f>euf(r6ai, Tovvavri'ov 8' tTot^s OVOT;S fv 
 TTOLCTL Ma>cc8do-i KpiO^vai, 6 Kao-o*av8pos <f>o(3r)6fi<i /XT/TTOTC TO TrA^os 
 eucovov T^S /?ao-tAio-o-r;s aTroAoyov/ievT/s Kal TWV 'AXedv8pov Kal 
 4>tAi7T7rou 7T/3OS a7rav TO l^vos fvfpyf(rL<av avap.ifJLVri<TKOp.(vov fJicravoycTY), 
 
 K.T.A. 
 
 (27) Page 134. Thus in Arrian, iii. 26, Philotas is accused 
 by Alexander before the Macedonian Assembly and is con- 
 demned, while in the next chapter Amyntas and several others 
 are accused and acquitted. 
 
 (28) Page 135. See Historical Essays, Second Series, 189.
 
 LECTURE V 315 
 
 (29) Page 137. If we reckon from the legislation of 
 Kleisthenes in B.C. 508 to the narrowing of the franchise by 
 Antipatros in B.C. 322, the time is less than two hundred years ; 
 if we go back as far as Solon in 594, we are still a good way 
 under three hundred. 
 
 (30) Page 138. See the definition of democracy given by 
 Athenagoras in Thucydides, Growth of the English Constitution, 
 158. Most of the characteristics of democracy of which I have 
 spoken in the text I have worked out more fully in the Essay 
 on the Athenian Democracy in my Second Series of Historical 
 Essays. 
 
 (31) Page 138. One of the merits of democracy, according 
 to Perikles in the Funeral Oration (Thuc. ii. 37), was the room 
 which it gave to the developement of individual character and 
 ability, as opposed to the unvarying routine to which every man 
 had to submit at Sparta, ovo/xa /icv 8ia TO \JCT\ e? oAtyovs aXX' 4s 
 irAetovas otxetv 8nrjp.OKpa.Tia. KfK\r]Tai, fJ.fTfo~ri Se Kara p.fv TOUS vd/^ous 
 Trpos TO. I8ia 8ui<f>opa TTCUTI TO urov, icaTa 8f TTJV dft'wcriv, d>s c/caoTO? 
 v TO) fv8oKLfj.fi . . . cA.ev$epa)s 8f ra, re Trpos TO KOIVOV 
 
 Kol is TTJV Trpos aAA^Aovs Toiv Ka0' fjfJLfpav tTriTT/Scv/xaTwv vTT 
 ou Si 1 opy^s TOV 7reA.as, i KaO' rjoovT)v TL Spa, l^ovrcs, ovof 
 /icv \VTrtjpas Of Trj oi^ei a\0rjo6va^ 7rposri$/xevoi. He then goes 
 on to speak of obedience to the laws and magistrates as one 
 of the consequences of popular government. Modern writers 
 very often charge democracy with doing the exact opposite 
 to all these things, and especially with moulding all men accord- 
 ing to one pattern. But it is commonly very hard to make 
 out what modern writers mean by democracy, and it seems likely, 
 on the whole, that Perikles knew best. 
 
 (32) Page 139. I have referred to the debate in the Spartan 
 Assembly recorded by Thucydides, i. 67-88. The body debating 
 is the general Assembly of the Spartan citizens (t'AAoyos o-<j>wv 
 avrwv 6 cio>0w), as distinguished both from the smaller bodies 
 in the Spartan Commonwealth and from the general Assembly 
 of the Lacedaemonian allies which appears in c. 119. The 
 Corinthians and others are heard, and the Athenian Ambassadors 
 are heard in answer. Then the Spartans debate among them- 
 selves ; but the narrative seems to imply that no one spoke
 
 316 NOTES ON 
 
 except the two great official persons, the King Archidamos 
 and the Ephor Sthenelaidas, and the latter seems to wind up the 
 debate somewhat suddenly by his official authority. It should 
 be noticed that, after the cry of Aye and Nay (see above, note 
 25) the Ephor professed the historian hints that he merely 
 professed (/JouAo/zevos aurovs <J>av(pw<5 aTroScocw/xe'vovs r-rjv yvtapyv 4s 
 TO TToAt/xeiv fj.a\Xov opp.rj(r<u) to be unable to distinguish which 
 side "had it," and therefore he made the House divide. The 
 words which I have quoted in the original should be noticed. 
 Before the Ballot became law, one used sometimes to hear shallow 
 people ask why, if electors were to vote by ballot, members of 
 Parliament should not vote by ballot also. They forgot that 
 it does not concern either of two electors to know how the other 
 votes, while it does concern both of them to know how their 
 representative votes. But in a primary Assembly there can be 
 no objection to secret voting, if it be thought good on other 
 grounds. And the story sounds as if Sthenelaidas had somewhat 
 unfairly made men vote openly, in order to carry his own purpose. 
 It should be remembered that secret voting is the theory of the 
 Oxford Convocation, that again being a primary Assembly. 
 
 In all our accounts of Athenian Assemblies we hear of 
 many more speakers than in this at Sparta, and we never 
 hear of any magistrates stepping in in the authoritative way as 
 Sthenelaidas did. 
 
 (33) Page 139. On the powers of the Achaian General see 
 History of Federal Government, i. 287. 
 
 (34) Page 140. I have quoted this analogy and one or two 
 others at p. 308 of the same work. In one of the cases there 
 referred to, that of the non-residentiary members of the Cathedral 
 Chapters, there is a clear tendency at work to bring about a 
 better state of things. 
 
 (35) Page 140. See History of Federal Government, i. 263. 
 
 (36) Page 141. See Norman Conquest, i. 100-102. 
 
 (37) Page 141. See History of Federal Government, i. 698. 
 Norman Conquest, i. 592, ii. 330. 
 
 (38) Page 142. See Norman Conquest, iii. 623.
 
 LECTURE V 317 
 
 (39) Page 142. The changes in the Frankish Assemblies 
 under the Merwings and Karlings are set forth in two chapters 
 of Waitz, one in the second volume, headed Die Gerichts-, Heer- 
 und Reicfo-Veraammlungen, the other in the third volume, headed 
 Der Hofund die Reicfo-Versammlung. The general result seems 
 to be that the Assemblies greatly decayed under the Merwings, 
 but that a new life was put into them by the Teutonic revival 
 under the Austrasian Mayors and Kings. But, even under 
 the Merwings, the old local assemblies seem to have gone on 
 in their full vigour among the dependent nations (ii. 419 ; 439 ; 
 444 ; 455). That under the Karlings the Assembly retained, 
 in theory at least, its old popular character is plain from a crowd 
 of passages collected by Waitz, iii. 468 et seq. ; and his general 
 conclusion (iii. 486) is : " Man kann nicht zweifeln, dass es 
 ein allgemeines Recht der Freien blieb, sich auf der grossen 
 Jahresversammlung einzufinden : eben darum heisst sie die 
 allgemeine, und von der Gesammtheit oder Menge des Volks ist 
 bfter die Rede." 
 
 (40) Page 142. Among the Bavarians and Allemans we find 
 provisions enforcing attendance at the Assemblies. But these 
 were not unknown even at Athens, as we see from the graphic 
 description of Aristophanes in the opening scene of the 
 Acharnians 
 
 us vvv, diror' oCffys xvpias eKK\r)ffias 
 twOivTis tprifios r) Tlvv^ ourijf, 
 ol 8' iv ayopa \a\ovffi, K&via KO.\ Kara 
 rb 
 
 The appointment of special Sc1utffen t Scabini, Echevint, seems 
 to have arisen from the necessity of insuring that some one 
 should be ready to discharge the duties of the Assembly. See 
 Waitz, iii. 487, iv. 325, and especially the chapter headed Die 
 Sc/u'iffen in Savigny's Geschichte des Ri'nnischen Rechts. Savigny's 
 distinct conclusion (i. 197) is that " der Unterschied lag nur 
 darin, dass die Scabinen, als b'ffentliche Personen, die Verp- 
 flichtung hatten, als Schb'ffen den Gerichten beyzuwolmen, 
 wiihrend es in der Willkuhr der iibrigen Freyen stand, zu 
 erscheinen wenn sie wollten, nur mit Ausnahme der drey 
 grossen Versammlungstage im Jahr, an welchen alle erscheinen 
 mussten." 
 
 In the first page of Domesday, we find that in Kent those
 
 318 NOTES ON 
 
 who were summoned to the Scirgemot and failed to appear were 
 liable to forfeiture, provided the Assembly was held in the 
 ancient place on Pennenden Heath. They were not bound to go 
 further. " Si fuerint prjemoniti ut coiiveniant ad sciram, ibunt 
 usque ad Pinnedennam, non longius. Et si non venerint, de hac 
 forisfactura et de aliis omnibus rex c. solidos habebit." 
 
 (41) Page 144. See History of Federal Government, i. 211, 
 271. So Thucydides (i. 125) remarks that in the Assembly 
 of the Lacedaemonian Confederacy which, though not a true 
 confederation, made some approach to it as being an Assembly of 
 independent states each city great and small had an equal 
 vote. i/r7<ov f-n-qyayov rots fv/i/td^ots <x7ra<riv oVoi Trap^crav e^rjs, 
 KCU /et'ovt KCU eXdcrcrovi TroAet, KO.I TO TrXfjdos 
 
 (42) Page 144. This fact is preserved to us by Strabo and 
 quoted in History of Federal Government, i. 209. 
 
 (43) Page 145. See Hist. Fed. Gov. i. 272 and compare the 
 enfranchisement of the smaller Arcadian towns by Philopoimen, 
 i. 626. 
 
 (44) Page 145. Compare Hist. Fed. Gov. i. 270. 
 
 (45) Page 146. So Livy (i. 43) remarks of the Comitia 
 Centuriata of Servius : " non, ut ab Romulo traditum cseteri 
 servaverant reges, viritim suffragium eadem vi eodemque jure 
 promiscue omnibus datum est ; sed gradus facti, ut neque 
 exclusus quisquam suffragio videretur, et vis omnes penes 
 primores civitatis esset." This passage takes for granted that 
 the votes given in the Assembly will not be the votes of indi- 
 viduals but those of tribes or centuries, otherwise the word 
 viritim might be misunderstood. In the Comitia of the local 
 Tribes one man's vote was as good as another's within the tribe. 
 So in the Comitia of the Centuries one man's vote was as good 
 as another's within the century. But in the local tribes there 
 was no distinction of birth or rank ; while in the Comitia of 
 Centuries care was taken that the vote of the few rich men 
 who formed one century should be equal to the vote of the 
 many poor men who formed another century. In this way 
 it might be said that in the Assembly of the Tribes and in that
 
 LECTURE V 319 
 
 of the Curice also votes were taken viritim; one man's vote 
 was as good as another's in a sense in which it was not so in the 
 Assembly of the Centuries. One man's vote really did count 
 for as much as another's, except so far as one tribe or curia might 
 contain more citizens than another, a distinction which had 
 nothing to do with birth or wealth. 
 
 (46) Page 146. On the other hand, the yearly Senate is 
 always spoken of as one of the specially democratic institutions 
 of Athens, and, when the Four Hundred take possession of the 
 government, one of their first acts is to turn out the Senate 
 by force. See Thucydides, viii. 69. 
 
 (47) Page 146. On the lessening of the powers of the Areio- 
 pagos see Grote, v. 480 et seqq. The truth is that, in a body 
 elected for life, a feeling which may be called aristocratic, though 
 not necessarily oligarchic, can hardly fail to grow up. Each 
 member, as he enters it, is gradually brought within the influence 
 of the general sentiment. 
 
 (48) Page 147. The Censors named the Senators, but it was 
 usual for them at each census to place on the roll of Senators 
 those whom the people had chosen to magistracies since the 
 last census. The people thus indirectly chose the Senate. 
 
 (49) Page 148. See the passages collected in a note at i. 264 
 of the History of Federal Government. 
 
 (50) Page 148. Thuc. iii. 36-49. 
 
 (51) Page 148. Thuc. vi. 8-28. 
 
 (52) Page 148. Xen. Hell. i. 7. 
 
 (53) Page 148. Sallust, Bell. Cat. 50-53. 
 
 (54) Page 149. Under Augustus and Tiberius the comitia 
 gradually became a mere name. Caius professed to restore the 
 Assembly to its old powers, but after a while he took away his 
 own gift. The words in which Dion Cassius (lix. 20) describes 
 this change are worth quoting ; a7rc'8u>Kc p.iv yap ru? 
 
 are 8 IK(IV<DV rt apyartpiav VTTO TOV TroAAw
 
 320 NOTES ON 
 
 cs TO 8pav TJ. T>V irpo^rjKovrtav cr^tVtv oWtov, 
 KCU TWV oTrovSap;(iu>VTfc>v fjM\L<rra p.ev p.r] TrXeiovwv 77 ocrovs aipeto-$ai 
 I8ei cTrayycAAdvrwv, et Se TTOTC KO! vrrep TOV apiQp.ov yfvoivro, Sio/xoXo- 
 yov/tevwv Trpos aXA^Aous, TO fj.(V o-^jfia -nys 8rjfj,OKparia<i eo-<oeTo, 
 Ipyov 8' ouSev avr^s eyiyveTO, *cal Sia TOVTO VTT' avrou avdis TOV Fcuou 
 KCIK TOITTOV Ta /xev aAAa Ka.9d.TTfp /cat CTTI TOT) Ttftepiov 
 
 (55) Page 150. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 162. 
 
 (56) Page 150. Ib. 82. Norman Conquest, i. 102. 
 
 (57) Page 153. Such for instance as the Parliaments which 
 appointed the Balie which banished and restored Cosmo de' 
 Medici. Sismondi, ix. 39, 44. 
 
 (58) Page 154. See Norman Conquest, ii. 339. Growth of 
 the English Constitution, 7. 
 
 (59) Page 155. On the steps by which the Great Council of 
 Venice, from its foundation in 1172, finally became, between 
 1286 and 1319, the primary Assembly of an aristocratic body, 
 see Sismondi, iii. 289; Daru, Histoire de Venise, vi. 11-14. 
 After this process, called serrar del consiglio, the Council con- 
 sisted of all who were then members and their descendants. 
 By this means several ancient families were shut out. As this 
 oligarchic body grew, the older democratic Assembly, without 
 being formally abolished, gradually went out of use. 
 
 I do not know enough of the history of Poland to be able 
 to trace out in detail the steps by which the election of the King 
 became vested in the general Comitia of the nobles, to the 
 exclusion both of the Diet and of the rest of the nation. But 
 it certainly was so from the extinction of the house of Jagellon. 
 
 (60) Page 156. See above, note 40. 
 
 (61) Page 156. The most important branches of the judicial 
 power of the House of Lords seem likely to come to an end. 
 That is to say, the separation between the legislative and the 
 judicial branches of the Government will at last be fully 
 carried out.
 
 LECTURE VI 321 
 
 VI 
 
 (1) Page 160. See note 59 on Lecture V. 
 
 (2) Page 160.^1 do not mean that I have any doubt that 
 both the Eupatrids at Athens and the Patricians at Rome really 
 had their origin in a body of old citizens, because there is quite 
 proof enough in the way of inference and analogy to make it 
 plain that such was the case. I mean that it is only from 
 inference and analogy that we can say anything about the 
 matter, that we have no records, such as we have of later times, 
 nor even the witness of an intelligent observer from outside, 
 such as we have in the case of the early days of our own 
 forefathers. 
 
 (3) Page 160. It should not be forgotten that both actual 
 slavery, the state of the tyeow, and the milder state of the villain 
 died out in England, and was never formally abolished. Every- 
 body knows this in the case of villainage, but I suspect that 
 many people do not fully understand that actual slavery ever 
 existed in England. When the Judges in the last century 
 declared that there could not be a slave on English ground, 
 they made an excellent piece of legislation, but it was essentially 
 a piece of legislation, and its authors would perhaps have been 
 amazed to hear of the Bristol slave-trade in the eleventh century 
 and of Saint "Wulf stan's labours to put it down. 
 
 (4) Page 161. On the liti or lazzi see note 5 on Lecture V. 
 
 (5) Page 161. See the description of the Old-Saxons quoted 
 in note 76 on Lecture III., and compare the earlier description 
 of the same people in Nithard, iv. 2 : " Quae gens omnis in tribus 
 ordinibus divisa consistit ; sunt enim inter illos qui edhilingi, 
 
 v
 
 322 NOTES ON 
 
 sunt qui frilingi, sunt qui lazzi illorum lingua dicuntur ; latina 
 vero lingua hoc sunt : nobiles, ingenuiles, atque serviles." He 
 goes on to speak of " frilingi lazzique, quorum infinita multi- 
 tude est." 
 
 (6) Page 162. This is the view of Waitz, i. 86 : " Die 
 Fiirsten sind von dem Adel durchaus verschieden. Ich setze 
 das deutsche Wort, wo Tacitus ' principes ' nennt. ' Nobiles ' 
 
 habe ich Adlige, ' nobilitas ' Adel iibersetzt Die Fiirsten 
 
 (principes) werden in den Volksversammlungen gewiihlt." 
 
 (7) Page 162. See Norman Conquest, i. 81. 
 
 (8) Page 165. On the Interrex, see above, p. 94. 
 
 (9) Page 166. I have referred to this story in Historical 
 Essays, Second Series, ii. 92. The whole description in Sallust 
 (Bell. Jug. 63, 64) is most remarkable. Fully to take it in, 
 three things must be borne in mind. First, that the Consulship 
 was in the free gift of the people themselves. Secondly, that 
 Metellus was a plebeian. Thirdly, that Marius had risen from 
 one post to another till he had reached the Prsetorship, the 
 office next in rank to the Consulship itself. Also it should 
 be noticed that Sallust uses the word Plebes, no longer in 
 opposition to Patricii, but in opposition to Nobilitas. Sallust 
 tells us how Marius was elected to the post of military tribune 
 and then goes on : " Deinde ab eo magistratu, alium post aliuni 
 sibi peperit : semperque in potestatibus eo modo agitabat ut 
 ampliore quam gerebat dignus haberetur ; tamen is ad id locorum 
 tails vir (nam postea ambitione prseceps datus est) consulatum 
 appetere non audebat. Etiam turn alios magistratus plebes, 
 consulatum nobilitas, inter se per manus tradebat. Novus nemo 
 tarn clarus neque tarn egregiis factis erat, quin is indignus illo 
 honore et quasi pollutus haberetur." He then goes on to tell 
 how Metellus tried by friendly remonstrances to persuade Marius 
 not to stand for the Consulship : " ne tarn prava inciperet, neu 
 super fortunam animum gereret, non omnia omnibus cupienda 
 esse, debere illi res suas satis placere : postremo caveret id petere 
 a populo Romano quod illi jure negaretur." At last he is be- 
 trayed into an insult : it would be time enough for Marius to 
 stand for the Consulship when his own son the young Metellus 
 could be his colleague ; " Saepius eadem postulanti fertur dixisse,
 
 LECTURE VI 323 
 
 ne f estinaret abire ; satis mature ilium cum filio suo consulatum 
 petiturum. Is eo tempore in contubernio patris ibidem mili- 
 tabat, anuos natu circiter xx." 
 
 This language, in the mouth of one who was himself a plebeian, 
 shows how thoroughly the new notion of nobility had supplanted 
 the old. Metellus speaks to Marius as Appius Claudius might 
 have spoken to a forefather of Metellus. It shows also how com- 
 pletely a mere customary prescription often seems to some minds 
 to have more than the force of law, to be almost part of the 
 order of nature. 
 
 (to) Page 166. See Norman Conquest, i. 85 et seqq. Growth 
 of the English Constitution, 42 et seqq. 
 
 (n) Page 167. Eorl or Jarl is now held to be a contraction 
 of Ealdor (see Max Miiller, Science of Language, ii. 280, 7th ed.). 
 It is quite in agreement with this that the shorter form should 
 prevail among the Danes, among whom names commonly appear 
 in a shorter form than they do in English. And it would seem 
 to follow from this derivation that the familiar jingle between 
 Eorl and Ceorl is simply a jingle. But this is one of those facts 
 which are simply philological. Historically, Eorl that is, as 
 the name of a particular office, as distinguished from the general 
 sense of noble is a distinct title from Ealdorman, the place of 
 which it took. We first hear of Eorlas in the Danish hosts 
 against which Alfred fought. Then the title was borne, as 
 might be expected, by the Danish chiefs who settled in North- 
 umberland ; lastly, under Cnut, it was extended to all England 
 and supplanted Ecddorman. See Norman Conquest, i. 76, 277, 
 405, 646. 
 
 The word T/ieyn, as far as we are concerned, starts from the 
 meaning of servant, and thence rises to its higher political and 
 social meaning. But it would seem that the primary meaning 
 of all was rather mnn. and thence servant, much like the word 
 man itself in its relation to lord. Other cases are our knave, 
 Knabe, and the Greek ireus ; or again cniht, kneht, which, starting 
 from the notion of youth, has passed through that of service into 
 the opposite meanings of the modern German Knecht and the 
 English knight. Though Thegn seems never on the Continent 
 to have received the same fixed meaning as it did in England, 
 yet the word in various forms is familiar enough, as we see from
 
 324 NOTES ON 
 
 the Degene in the second stanza of the Nibelungen-Lied. A. 
 number of forms and uses of the word are collected in the old 
 Thesaurus of Schilter (1738) under the word Diu. 
 
 (12) Page 167. This meaning perhaps comes out most strongly 
 in the use of the adjective ^eyenlic. Thus in the Song of Maldon 
 (see Growth of English Constitution, p. 46) Offa is said to lie 
 thane-like by his lord Brihtnoth ; 
 
 He Iseg fcegenlice 
 fceodne gehencle. 
 
 And in a very remarkable document in Kemble's Codex Diplo- 
 maticus (iv. 54), describing the doings in a Scirgemot in Here- 
 fordshire, a woman named Eiinwene, whose son Eadwine was 
 trying to dispossess her of some lands, says to three Thegns who 
 are sent to her, "Doft fegenlice and wel." That is, in modern 
 language, " Act like gentlemen." 
 
 (13) Page 168. The word vassal is, according to Waitz (iv. 
 205), of Celtic origin, and it seems to have started from the 
 same point, and to have risen in much the same way, as our 
 word thegn. In some cases (Waitz, iv. 229) " serviens," " servi- 
 tium," and other cognate words are used as equivalents to it. 
 But I must venture wholly to dissent from this great scholar 
 when he says (210) that the vassalage of the Carolingian age 
 had nothing whatever to do with the old comitatus. 
 
 "Mit der alten Gefolgschaft hat die Yassallitat nichts zu 
 thun ; ohne Grund hat man in alterer und neuerer Zeit beide 
 zusammengeworfen oder doch an einander gekniipft. Die Vas- 
 sallitat wird anders begriindet, hat andere Folgen, hat zugleich 
 eine viel weitere Ausdehnung als jene." 
 
 To me it seems that the difference between the two things 
 is exactly the same as the difference between the Frankish king- 
 ship, while the Franks were still a wandering people, and the 
 Frankish kingship, when its Kings held a territorial dominion 
 over a large part of Europe and had begun to deck themselves 
 with the Imperial titles of Rome. The character of the institution 
 has in each case greatly changed, but it is still the same in- 
 stitution modified by change of circumstances. Indeed Waitz 
 himself says pretty much what I mean when he says (198) : 
 " Dariiber kann nach allem was vorliegt kein Zweifel sein, dass
 
 LECTURE VI 325 
 
 der Empfang von Beneficium an sich ein Verhaltniss naher 
 persbnlicher Verbindung, von Verpflichtung und Ergebenheit 
 begriindete, dem Konig gegenliber den allgemeinen Pflichten dev 
 Staatsangehorigen ein engeres persb'nliches Band hinzufiigte. 
 Dies aber erhielt in dieser Zeit seinen bestimmten Ausdruck, 
 seine feste Form durch die Commendation oder den Eintritt in 
 die Vassallitat, die, urspriinglich auf andern Grundlagen er- 
 wachsen, jetzt in die engste Verbindung mit den Beneficien ge- 
 treten, ja zu dem eigentlich charakteristischem Merkmal f iir diese 
 geworden ist." I had not read this later part of Waitz's work 
 when I wrote the second chapter of the History of the Norman 
 Conquest, and, though it supplies a vast mass of illustration in 
 detail, I see no reason to give up the view which I have there 
 set forth after Palgrave and Kemble. 
 
 Waitz remarks (iv. 242) that the system of vassalage grew 
 much faster in the Romance than in the purely Teutonic lands. 
 This would naturally follow if, as I hold, the fully developed 
 feudal relation arose by the union of a Roman and a Teutonic 
 relation in the same person. 
 
 The way in which the feudal idea, the personal relation of 
 lord and vassal, supplanted the strictly political notion of duty 
 to the Commonwealth and to the King as its head is well put 
 forth by Waitz, iv. 241. He quotes a variety of phrases showing 
 how the King gradually came to be looked on chiefly in his 
 character of lord. He might have added our old phrase of 
 Cynehlaford and our modern phrase of " our Lord the King." 
 
 (14) Page 168. I have said something on this head in the 
 second volume of the Norman Conquest, p. 270. Compare also 
 the remarks of Palgrave, Normandy, ii. 11. 
 
 (15) Page 168. We seem to see a trace of the comitatus in 
 the "globus ferocissimorum juvenum" who surround Romulus 
 in Livy, i. 12, and in the "delecta manus prtesidii causa" who 
 surround the Dictator Aulus Postumius in ii. 20. 
 
 (16) Page 169. We seem to be at Ilios or at Maldon, when 
 we read how, in the fight by the Granikos, the companion 
 Demaratos (Arrian, i. 15, 9) gives his spear to Alexander when 
 his own is broken : A?//xaparo 8i, avrfp KoptV$ios TWV a.p.<j> O.VTW 
 iraiptav StSoxriv avrcj) TO avrov Sopv.
 
 326 NOTES ON 
 
 (17) Page 170. The Roman clients would be in old English 
 phrase not so much tfiegns as loaf-eaters. The relation of the 
 loaf-eater was surely a variety, though a very low variety, of the 
 comitatits ; and even a churl might have his loaf -eaters, as appears 
 from the 25th law of u^thelberht : " Gif man ceorlses hlaf-setan 
 ofslsehS, vi scillingum gebete." 
 
 (18) Page 173. At Bern the young patrician was literally 
 apprenticed to political life by the singular institution of the 
 Ausserstand, a copy of the real commonwealth with councils and 
 magistrates of its own. The SchultJieiss or chief magistrate of 
 the mimic republic was commonly elected a member of the Great 
 Council of the real one. See the account in Coxe's Travels in 
 Switzerland, ii. 231. In his day, as in the earlier days of Bishop 
 Burnet, travellers did not disdain to study the institutions of 
 the country. 
 
 (19) Page 174. I have before me, in a Geograplmclues statis- 
 tisch-topograpliiscJies Lexicon von Franken (Ulm, 1801), iv. 46, 
 a list of the twenty-three patrician families of Niirnberg, three 
 of them had been admitted as lately as 1788, but none of these 
 " novi homines " seem to have actually held seats in the Senate. 
 
 (20) Page 176. Numbers xxxv. 9 ; Deuteronomy iv. 41 ; 
 xix. 2 ; Joshua xx. 2. The right is however by the Hebrew 
 law strictly confined to the slayer who hated not in times past 
 the man whom he slew. It would therefore not cover the case 
 of the old Teutonic Fcehde. 
 
 (21) Page 176. The laws of Alfred (42) set forth the general 
 principle that no man is to appeal to force till he has tried legal 
 means ; " Eac we be6daS, se mon se J>e his gefan ham-sittendne 
 wite, ]?et he ne feohte per j?am J>e him ryhtes bidde.'"' Then 
 follow a number of rules regulating the cases in which private 
 war is allowed, the last of which is, if he finds a man with his 
 wife, daughter, sister, or mother ; " And mon mot feohtan 
 orwige, gif he gemete'S b'Serne set his tewum wife betynedum 
 durum oft'Se under anre reon, o'S'Se set his dehter sewumborenre, 
 oftfte set his swister [sewum]-borenre, o^SSe set his medder, }e 
 wjere t6 {fewum wife forgifen his f seder." The Athenian law on 
 this subject comes out in the First Oration of Lysias, where the 
 slayer of Eratosthenes defends himself on the ground of the
 
 LECTURE VI 327 
 
 adultery of the slain man with his wife. The case is more 
 remarkable because Eratosthenes offered money, which the 
 husband refused, determining, as he said, to carry out the law ; 
 OVK r)fj.<f>ia-{$rJTt, u> dvSpes, aXX.' w/toAoyci dStKCtv, /cat OTTCDS p.tv fir) 
 aTroOdvy rjvriftoXfL KCU IKCTCUCV, aTTOTiVeiv S' CTTOI/XOS rjv xp?;/xaTa. eyw 
 Sc TU> fifv fKfivov Tip.rma.Ti ov (rvve^wpow, TOV 8e TT/S TrdXews vop.ov 
 rj^iow eivai Kvpiwrfpov, KO.L Tavrrfv IAa/3ov T^V SIKTJV, rjv v/tets SiKaiora- 
 TT;V etvat rryr]<Ta.p.fvoi TOIS TO. roiairra 7rm/8evou(nv cTaare. 
 
 The Roman law on this head comes out in the Lex Julia, 
 which gives the power of slaying the adulterer to either the 
 husband or the father. See Huschke, Jurisprudentise Antejus- 
 tiniana, 560 et seqq. There in the " Mosaicarum et Romanarum 
 Legum Collatio " the rights of the father and the husband are 
 carefully distinguished according to the rescripts of the Emperors 
 and the opinions of the great lawyers. 
 
 (22) Page 177. See History of Federal Government, i. 381. 
 
 (23) Page 177. On all this see Allen's note on the Judicial 
 Power, Royal Prerogative, 88. 
 
 (24) Page 178. Leviticus xxiv. 19. See the article Talio in 
 the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. 
 
 (25) Page 178. See the well-known passage, Iliad ix. 628. 
 
 vi\\4)s' iced nfv rlt ft Ka.ffiyvi]Toio <f>6voio 
 ttoiv^v, fi ov -xaitibs I8{|aro TtOrttwTos' 
 ical p 6 fjitv fv S'fi/j.tf yucVet ai''Tof<, iroAX' airoricraj, 
 TOV 8t T" ipTfrvfTtu cpo5i7j Kal 6vfj.us i 
 
 (26) Page 178. In Iliad, vi. 45, Adrostos craves his life of 
 Menelaos and offers a ransom cru 8' aia 8c'ai aTroiva Menelaos 
 is inclined to spare him, but Agamemnon steps in and slays 
 Adrcstos himself, and the poet approves the act. 
 
 Sis tiirwv Xrpftytv a$f\<ptiov <pptvat ripens, 
 alffipa 
 
 Compare the slaughter of Lykaim by Achilleus, Iliad xxi. 
 341-34. Achilleus, in the same spirit, refuses the ransom. 
 
 (27) Page 178. Tacitus (Germania, 12), after mentioning the 
 severer punishments awarded to traitors and imitators of southern
 
 328 NOTES ON 
 
 vices, adds: " Sed et levioribus delictis " [Mr. Kemble, i. 271, 
 remarks that among these lesser crimes homicide must be 
 reckoned], " pro rnodo, poena ; equorum pecorumque numero 
 convicti multantur, pars multae Regi, vel civitati pars ipsi, qui 
 vindicating vel propinquis ejus exsolvitur." So 21: " Suscipere 
 tam inimicitias, seu patris, seu propinqui, quani amicitias, necesse 
 est : nee implacabiles durant. Luitur eniin etiam homicidium 
 certo armentorum ac pecorum numero, recipitque satisfactionem 
 universa domus ; utiliter in publicum ; quia periculosiores sunt 
 iniruicitise juxta libertatem." On the growth of legislation on 
 these matters, see Mr. Tylor on "Primitive Society" in the 
 Contemporary Review, May, 1873. 
 
 (28) Page 179. There is an elaborate scale of this kind in 
 the earliest monument of English jurisprudence, the Laws of 
 ^Ethelberht ; but we find the degrees of bodily injury drawn out 
 with no less care in the Laws of Alfred three hundred years 
 later. The series begins at No. 45 and goes on to the end of 
 the collection of Laws. Schmid, 98. 
 
 (29) Page 179. See the scale of Wergilds in the Laws of 
 Alfred, 27 et seqq. (Schmid, 86), and on the whole subject see 
 Kemble' s chapter on " Fsehde and Wergyld." 
 
 (30) Page 179. See the Laws of Ine, 23, 24; 32, 33 (Schmid, 
 30, 34). We do not find this distinction in the Laws of ^Ethel- 
 berht, from whose realm the Britons had been swept away, nor 
 in the Laws of Alfred, by whose time the Britons under West- 
 Saxon rule had become English, but we do find it in the Laws 
 of Ine, in whose time all Somerset from the Axe south-westward 
 was a recent conquest within which Englishman and Briton were 
 still distinguished. 
 
 (31) Page 179. On the royal wergild, and the payment made 
 by the Kentishmen for the blood of Mul and by the Mercians 
 for the blood of ^Elfwine of Northumberland, see Kemble, i. 
 279-287. 
 
 (32) Page 180. In the time of Edward the Fourth, the then 
 Lord Berkeley with his followers met his neighbour and kinsman 
 Lord Lisle with his followers at Nibley Green. A battle followed, 
 in which Lord Lisle was defeated and slain. Lord Berkeley had
 
 LECTURE VI 329 
 
 in the end to compromise the matter by a money payment to the 
 widow of the slain man. This is, as far as I know, the last 
 example in England either of private war or of the payment of 
 the wergild. 
 
 (33) P a g e 182. In the choir of Brecon Priory church is the 
 monument of a local worthy, one of whose merits is said to have 
 been that he was a "zealous defender of the rights of the 
 inhabiting burgesses against foreigners." 
 
 (34) Page 184. See the article on Swiss Federal Reform in 
 the British Quarterly Review, April, 1873. 
 
 (35) Page 185. The relation of a British dependency to Great 
 Britain is, even in the case of a colony enjoying the largest 
 measure of self-government, perioikic in two points. The colony 
 may be involved in a war in which it has no concern, and to 
 which its consent is not asked, even in that indirect way in 
 which the consent of the mother-country may be said to be 
 asked to a war. It also receives a Governor whatever may be 
 the real amount of his powers whom it does not choose and 
 whom it cannot dismiss, while it has not, as Parliament and the 
 constituencies have at home, any means of controlling those 
 who appoint him. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, 
 dependencies which possess full internal self-government, but 
 which still are liable to be legislated for by a Parliament in 
 which they are not represented, are, by their geographical 
 nearness to us, brought much more within the strict notion 
 of irtpioutoi. But such a dominion as India stands of course in 
 a relation which is rather provincial than perioikic. Still there 
 is a wide difference between the inhabitants of British depend- 
 encies of any kind and the subjects of Venice, Rome, or any 
 other ruling city. The subjects of Rome or Venice, and in 
 exactly the same way the subjects of Bern or Uri, were strictly 
 subjects (Unterthanen) ; they not only had no voice in the affairs 
 of the ruling state, but they had no means of obtaining any. 
 But, in the case of British dependencies, the inhabitants are 
 British subjects (Gives) ; their country may be said to be in a 
 perioikic or provincial relation, but they themselves are not 
 personally provincials or irtpioutoi, because they are British sub- 
 jects, and, if they take up their abode in the United Kingdom, 
 they can at once exercise all the rights of British subjects'.
 
 330 NOTES ON 
 
 (36) Page 186. I have before me a pamphlet called Verfas- 
 simgs-Skizzen der freien und Hamestiidte Lubeck, Bremen und 
 Hamburg, by Professor C. J. Wurm (Hamburg, 1841), where 
 (p. 115) I find this comment: "Das beiderstiidtische (Lubeck 
 und Hamburg gemeinsam angehorende) Gebiet 1st eine Anomalie, 
 aber eben keine grossere als das Verhaltniss der Herrschaft 
 Kniphausen im deutschen Bunde." In the Low-Dutch of the 
 Hanse Towns the subjects were called Uiidersaten. 
 
 (37) Page 186. See History of Federal Government, i. 
 582-638. 
 
 (38) Page 187. I forbear from enlarging minutely upon 
 mediaeval Swiss history, because I trust to have opportunities 
 of doing so more thoroughly, both in a longer and a shorter 
 form. There is hardly any other part of the world which 
 supplies such varied forms of political knowledge. 
 
 (39) Page 187. It would call for more minute knowledge 
 than we have to say what were the exact points of likeness and 
 unlikeness between the Lacedaemonian ireptoi/coi and the Italian 
 allies of Rome. The Italian allies no doubt retained full local 
 self-government, subject only to any occasional interferences 
 which the policy of Rome might deem called for. On the whole, 
 their position might seem much better than that of the Laconian 
 TTcpibiKoi. At the same time we must remember that the TreptoiKoi 
 had towns of their own, and there is one most remarkable 
 passage in Herodotus, where they seem to be put much more 
 nearly on a level with Sparta than any one would have expected. 
 I mean where Demaratos (vii. 234) tells Xerxes that there are 
 many cities of the Lacedaemonians, of which Sparta is the chief, 
 and her men the bravest. Mr. Grote also remarks that we have 
 no right to assume that the condition of all the perioikic towns 
 was exactly the same. Some, like Amyklai, seem to have been 
 favoured above others. 
 
 (40) Page 188. It should not be forgotten that, during 
 several years of the sixteenth century, Bern held the southern 
 side of the Lake as well as the northern. These districts of 
 Northern Savoy probably did not lose much at the time unless 
 we are to bring in theological controversies by being given
 
 LECTURE VI 331 
 
 back from the rule of the Bernese aristocracy to that of their 
 own Duke, but, had they then shared the fate of their brethren 
 on the northern shore, they would probably share it still. 
 
 (41) Page 189. See Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 143. 
 
 (42) Page 189. Corinth at least could boast (Thucydides, 
 i. 38) of the good terms on which she stood with all her colonies 
 except Korkyra : ^/tcts Se ouS' avrot <a/xev CTTI rui VTTO TOVTCOV 
 v(3pifcrOa.t /caToiKtcrat, dAA' CTTI T<3 fjytp.6vf.<s Tf. clvai xal TO, CIKOTO, 
 
 at youv dAAcu a.7roi/ctat Ti/ttocriv 'fjp-o.'s, Kal /xaXtcrra VTTO 
 (rrfpyofj-eOa. And it is to be noticed that this language 
 seems to imply a certain political authority on the part of Corinth 
 over her colonies, which comes out more clearly when we find 
 that the Corinthian colony of Potidaia received certain yearly 
 magistrates from the mother-city (Thuc. i. 56 : TOVS cTrtS^/Aiorp- 
 yovs . . . ovs Kara CTOS CKCWTTOV KoptV$toi ITTCWTTOV), and that even 
 while Potidaia was a dependent ally of Athens. So little did 
 Athens meddle with the internal constitutions of her depend- 
 encies.
 
 332 NOTES ON 
 
 REDE LECTURE 
 
 (i) Page 193. It is plain however that something like Com- 
 parative Philology began with Roger Bacon, and even before 
 him, with Giraldus Cambrensis. One could hardly ask for a 
 better setting forth of the relation in which the Romance 
 languages stand to the Latin than is given by the great friar 
 in his Opus Tertium, c. 25 (p. 90, Brewer). " Et hoc videmus 
 in idiomatibus diversis ejusdem linguae; nam idioma est pro- 
 prietas alicujus linguae distincta ab alia ; ut Picardicum, et 
 Gallicum, et Provinciale, et omnia idiomata a finibus Apulia? 
 usque ad fines Hispanise. Kam lingua Latina est in his omnibus 
 una et eadem, secundum substantiam, sed variata secundum 
 idiomata di versa." In the next page he speaks of the Greek 
 knowledge of Robert Grosseteste. 
 
 Giraldus, one may fairly say, noticed several of the points 
 of likeness among all the Aryan languages of ,which he had any 
 chance of coming across, and the British element in him gave 
 him a wider field of observation than most of his contemporaries. 
 There are two passages on this subject in the Itinerarium 
 Kambrise. In the former (i. 8, p. 75, Dimock) he had just 
 told a wonderful story about a boy who had learned the language 
 of the Elves, which was very like Greek. He goes on to remark 
 the analogies between Greek and Bret- Welsh, and his legendary 
 explanation of them is at least not worse than the theory which 
 explained the likeness between Sanscrit and Greek by the Indian 
 expedition of Alexander. 
 
 "Erant autem verba . . . Grseco idiomati valde conformia. 
 Cum enim aquam requirebant, dicebant Ydor ydorum ; quod 
 Latine sonat, aquam offer. Ydor enim aqua eorum lingua, sicut 
 et Graeca, dicebatur : unde et vasa aquatica Ydriw dicuntur : et 
 Duur lingua Britannica similiter aqua dicitur. Item salem
 
 REDE LECTURE 333 
 
 requirentes dicebant, Halgein ydorum ; id est, salein affer. Hal 
 vero Greece sal dicitur, et Jialeyn Britannice. Lingua namque 
 Britannica, propter diutinam quam Britones, qui tune Trojani, 
 et postea Britones a Bruto eorum duce sunt vocati, post Trojae 
 excidium moram in Grsecia fuerant, in multis Graeco idiomati 
 conformis invenitur." 
 
 He then goes on to remark the interchange between the 
 initial s and the aspirate. " Hie autem mihi notabile videtur, 
 quod in uno verbo tot linguas convenire non invenio, sicut in 
 isto. Hal enim Greece, Halein Britannice, Halein similiter 
 Hibernice; Hetlgew, g interposita, lingua praedicta. Item sal 
 Latine, quia, ut ait Priscianus, in quibusdam dictionibus pro 
 aspiratione ponitur a ; ut Hal Greece, sal Latine ; fomi, semi ; 
 Jiepta, septem, Sel Gallice, mutatione a vocalis in e, a Latino ; 
 additione t literae, salt Anglice, sout Teutonice. Habetis ergo 
 septem linguas, vel octo, in hac una dictione plurimum con- 
 cordantes." "Teutonice" here must mean some form of the 
 Low-Dutch. 
 
 In the other passage (i. 15, p. 194, Dimock) he notices other 
 likenesses between Bret- Welsh and Latin and Greek, several of 
 the numerals being among his instances, 
 
 " Notandum etiam, quod verba linguae Britannica? omnia 
 fere vel Grseco conveniunt vel Latino. Greeci Ydor aquam 
 vocant, Britones Duur ; salem Hal, Britones Halein ; Mis, Tis 
 pro ego et tu, Britones autem Mi, Ti ; Onoma, Enou, Pent*, Deca, 
 Pimp, Dec. Item Latini frenum dicunt, et tripodein, gladium, 
 et loricam ; Britones froin, trebeth, cledhif , et Ihuric ; unico unig, 
 cane can, belua beleu." 
 
 I do not undertake to vouch for Giraldus' Bret-Welsh, but 
 Mr. Dimock gives the British words in their modern shape. He 
 says that he does not understand where Giraldus found his mi 
 and tis as Greek for eyo and tu. I conceive that what Giraldus 
 had got hold of was the modern plurals /ms and <reis. We 
 must remember that in those centuries, setting aside men of 
 exceptional learning like Roger Bacon, a man who wanted to 
 pick up a few words of Greek would have more chance of getting 
 them from an Italian sailor than from any scholar of Paris or 
 new-born Oxford. 
 
 (2) Page 195. I have collected a few passages of the way in 
 which Addison speaks of these matters. The name "Gothic,"
 
 334 NOTES ON 
 
 glorious to us in one way from the memory of Ulfilas and 
 Theodoric, and no less glorious in another way from its applica- 
 tion, however strange, to the national architecture of England, 
 Germany, and France, is with Addison always a word of 
 contempt. In No. 63 the " heathen temple consecrated to the 
 God of Dulness " is described as " a monstrous fabric built after 
 the gothic manner, and covered with innumerable devices in 
 that barbarous kind of sculpture." He goes in and sees "the 
 deity of the place dressed in the habit of a monk." In No. 70 
 he has something to say about "the Gothic manner in writing," 
 which, it seems, " pleases only such as have formed to themselves 
 a wrong artificial taste upon little fanciful authors and writers 
 of epigram." It is by a sort of Nemesis that we are told in the 
 same paper that Homer wrote his poems " in order to establish 
 among the Greeks an union which was so necessary for their 
 safety " in times when their " collection of many governments " 
 "gave the Persian Emperor, who was their common enemy, 
 many advantages over them by their mutual jealousies and 
 animosities." It is however in this paper that he first calls 
 attention to the real power of Chevy Chase, though in the next 
 paper (74), when he speaks of it, he winds up his criticisms with 
 saying : " If this song had been written in the Gothic manner, 
 which is the delight of all our little wits whether writers or 
 readers, it would not have hit the taste of so many ages." One 
 would be curious to know what epithet Addison would have 
 given to the "manner" of the songs of Brunanburh and Maldon. 
 In No. 98, not unfittingly following a paper about " Pharamond 
 King of the Gauls " who in another paper (480) has courtiers 
 with French names we find some strange kind of head-dress 
 spoken of as a " Gothic building." To be sure in No. 329 Sir 
 Roger is, one degree more respectfully, compared to " the figure 
 of an old Gothic king." 
 
 Two graver passages are worth referring to, one (No. 415) 
 where Addison compares the Pantheon at Home with a " Gothic 
 cathedral," and says "how little" any one, "in proportion, is 
 affected with the inside of the mediaeval building, though it be 
 five times larger than the other ; which can arise from nothing 
 else but the greatness of the manner in the one, and the mean- 
 ness in the other." So, in No. 201, he takes upon himself to 
 explain the origin of ecclesiastical vestments and ceremonies, 
 which he accounts for in this fashion :
 
 EEDE LECTURE 335 
 
 " A Gothic bishop, perhaps, thought it proper to repeat such 
 a form in such particular shoes or slippers ; another fancied it 
 would be very decent if such a part of public devotions was 
 performed with a mitre on his head, and a crosier in his hand. 
 To this a brother Vandal, as wise as the others, adds an antic 
 dress, which he conceived would allude very aptly to such and 
 such mysteries, till by degrees the whole office has degenerated 
 into an empty show." 
 
 Did Addison really fancy Ulfilas sitting down to devise a 
 particular kind of shoe ? 
 
 (3) Page 195. " It is not long ago that one of them, [English 
 travellers] half unconsciously becoming the mouth-piece of a 
 Russo-Scandinavian theory of history, talked with an odd air of 
 spontaneous contempt of ' that mushroom nation the Lithuan- 
 ians.' This is like talking of 'those parvenu families the 
 Courtenays and the Derings ' ; and it is a singularly unfortunate 
 hit, because every other word of the Lithuanian's speech happens 
 to be a genuine and remarkable voucher of the very hoariest 
 Aryan antiquity, sometimes pre-Homeric, and even pre-Vedic. 
 One is almost tempted to wish the writer up to his neck in a 
 Lithuanian swamp, banished to the Lithuanian backwoods to 
 keep company with the last living verb in -mi, the last old-world 
 bison, and perhaps the last patriot." Selected Writings of 
 Viscount Strangford, i. 6. 
 
 (4) Page 199. I take my parable from the opening sentence 
 of Saxo Grammaticus ; " Dan et Angul, a quibus Danorum coepit 
 origo, patre Humblo procreati, non solum conditores gent is 
 nostrae, verum etiam rectores fuere." He goes on to tell how 
 Angul gave his name to a province, and how his descendants 
 afterwards passed into Britain, while Dan staid at home. His 
 wife, it may be noticed, was " Grytha, summaj inter Theutones 
 dignitatis matrona." 
 
 A West-Saxon may perhaps kick at this genealogy, but it 
 ought to pass for orthodox in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. 
 
 (5) Page 202. See Hist, of Fed. Government, i. 404, 451. 
 
 (6) Page 202. See Plutarch, PhilopoimSn, 21. 
 
 (7) Page 203. See Hist, of Fed. Government, i. 226.
 
 336 NOTES ON 
 
 (8) Page 204. While the language of Poly bios is Attic so far 
 as the forms of the words are concerned, the Arcadian and 
 Eleian inscriptions in Boeckh (i. 705 et seqq.) have all more or 
 less of a Doric tinge, and in some the digamma is kept on till 
 a wonderfully late time. Thus in the inscription numbered 
 1520, one so late as to contain the name of Lucius Mummius, 
 we find the name Fa<rcrruo;(os written in very ancient letters, and 
 Mr. Warren (Greek Federal Coinage, 45) quotes FALEION as the 
 legend on the coins of the city which in high-polite Attic was 
 called 5 HXis, but which seems, even in the second century B.C., 
 to have still called itself FaXis. 
 
 (9) Page 204. The first stage of this struggle was between 
 the Greek colonists and the Carthaginians, the second between 
 the Eastern Emperors and the Saracens. In each case both the 
 contending parties were swallowed up by the lords of the neigh- 
 bouring part of Italy, in the first case by the Romans, in the 
 second by the Normans. 
 
 (10) Page 205. See Knight's Normans in Sicily, 244, 334. 
 
 (u) Page 205. On the conquest of Marseilles by Charles of 
 Anjou and the fearful vengeance taken on the defenders of 
 the commonwealth, see the narrative of William of Nangis in 
 D'Achery, Spicilegium, iii. 40, 
 
 (12) Page 205. On the history of the Commonwealth of 
 Cherson see Finlay, Byzantine Empire, i. 415. He refers to the 
 fragment published by Hase in his notes to Leo the Deacon, p. 
 503. But it is well to give the description in full, because I do 
 not see where Mr. Finlay found the words " cherish the institu- 
 tions of Hellas," though I do not doubt that they are borne out 
 by the facts. The exact words of the Byzantine writer are : ot 
 8e, eiT ws /u/^SeTTOTC /3acriXiK?7S euvoias aTroXeXa/UKOTes, p-i]^ 
 Tepa>v rpoTTcov f.Tnp.f\ovp.fvoi, auTovoyuwv Se p-dXicrra epywv 
 VOL, fire op.opoi ovres Trpos TOV Kara TO. fioptia TOV "IOT/DOV 
 p.(Ta TOV orpaTw iayyew TroXXw KOI Swtxynci /-ta^s 7ratpecr$ai, fjOeai 
 
 Tf. ToTs Kt TO. TTCLpO. (T<f)C)V O.VTWV OVK a7ro8ta.<^>pOl'TeS, Kt'vWV KO.I 
 
 <77Ticra<r$at /cat TrapaSwo-etv (7<as iW0cvro. This is at the time 
 of the submission of the city to the Russian Wladimir. The 
 anonymous writer speaks of course from a purely Byzantine
 
 EEDE LECTURE 337 
 
 point of view. But it is odd to find him using the word ' 
 at all, as in those days the word "EAA.rji' and its derivatives 
 commonly meant pagan, as opposed to Christian. There is an 
 example in page 464 of the same volume. 
 
 (13) Page 206. On the exact position of Philip and Alexander 
 with regard to Greece, I have said what I have to say in the 
 Essay on Alexander in the Second Series of Historical Essays. 
 But I will here quote the words of Bishop Thirlwall, v. 479. 
 "The honour of a seat in the Amphictyonic council, though 
 conferred on the king, reflected upon his people ; it was equiva- 
 lent to an act of naturalisation, which wiped off the stain of its 
 semi-barbarian origin : the Macedonians might henceforward be 
 considered as Greeks." 
 
 (14) Page 206. See Strabo, v. 112; Appian, Mitlir. 114. 
 There is something strange in the look of the forms 
 
 and 
 
 (15) Page 207. Some one may ask why I speak of " monu- 
 mental stones " in a city of brickwork like Ravenna. It is 
 because the great brick churches of Ravenna, even those which 
 were built or finished after the Byzantine reconquest, were built 
 too early to have any Greek inscriptions. In Justinian's time 
 Latin was still, at all events at Ravenna, the speech of the 
 Roman Empire. The Greek inscriptions, including the epitaph 
 of the Armenian Isaac at Saint Vital and those which are 
 collected in a room in the Archbishop's palace, belong to a later 
 period of the Exarchate. But both at Torcello and at Saint 
 Mark's the Greek legend MP Y, if nothing else, is clear enough 
 in the mosaics of the apses. 
 
 (16) Page 207. See the passage of William of Poitiers which 
 I have quoted and commented upon at vol. iv. p. 86 of the 
 History of the Norman Conquest. 
 
 (17) Page 207. I do not presume to go into the theology of 
 the matter, but I conceive that historically the insertion of the 
 " Filioque " in the Nicene Creed is to be looked on like any 
 other interpolation in any other document. 
 
 (18) Page 209. The epitaph of Nvius, written by himself 
 and preserved by Aulus Gellius, i. 24, 
 
 z
 
 338 NOTES ON 
 
 " Mortales immortales flere si foret fas, 
 Flerent Divse Camenie Naevium poetam ; 
 Itaque, postquam est Orcino traditus thesauro 
 Obliti sunt Romas loquier Latina lingua " 
 
 must be compared with the fragment of Ennius preserved by 
 Cicero, De Claris Oratoribus, 18, 
 
 " Quos olim Fauni vatesque canebant, 
 Cum neque Musarum scopulos quisquam superarat, 
 Nee tlicti studiosus erat ..." 
 
 The Roman Camense and the Greek Musse are here carefully 
 distinguished and opposed. On the revival of the real Latin 
 literature with the Christian poets, see Mr. J. M. Neale in the 
 History of Roman Literature, in the Encyclopaedia Metropoli- 
 tana, 214. "It is a curious thing that, in rejecting the foreign 
 laws in which Latin had so long gloried, the Christian poets were in 
 fact merely reviving, in an inspired form, the early melodies of 
 republican Rome ; the rhythmical ballads which were the delight 
 of the men that warred with the Samnites, and the Volscians, 
 and Hannibal." 
 
 (19) Page 210. The Saturnian line of Nfevius, 
 
 " Fato Metelli Romae fiunt consules," 
 and the answer to it, 
 
 "Dabunt malum Metelli Naevio poetae," 
 
 have surely much more in common with inedifeval than with 
 classical metres (See the song in honour of the Emperor Frederick 
 in note 82 on Lecture IV.). The great poem on the battle of 
 Lewes, the manifesto of the Liberal party in the thirteenth 
 century, will be found in the Political Songs of England, pub- 
 lished by the Camden Society, p. 72. 
 
 (20) Page 210. See Livy, i. 26. 
 
 (21) Page 211. I have somewhere seen these words put into 
 the mouth of Queen Christina of Sweden. 
 
 (22) Page 213. Compare Horace, Odes, iii. 3, 11 ; Virgil, 
 Georg. i. 24-36 ; Lucan, i. 45-59. We are commonly called 
 on to believe that the flattery of Lucan was sarcastic ; but see 
 Merivale, vi. 99.
 
 REDE LECTURE 339 
 
 (23) Page 213. The visit of Athanaric to Constantinople is 
 recorded by Ammianus (xxvii. 5) and Zosimos (iv. 34), but it is 
 only in Jornandes (28) that we find this remarkable speech put 
 into his mouth : " Regiam urbem ingressus est, miransque, ' En/ 
 inquit, ' cerno quod ssepe incredulus audiebam, famam videlicet 
 tantse urbis,' et, hue illuc oculos volvens, nunc situm urbis 
 commeatumque navium, nunc mcenia clara prospectans, miratur, 
 populosque diversarum gentium, quasi fonte in uno e diversis 
 partibus scaturiente unda, sic quoque militem ordinatum aspiciens : 
 ' Deus,' inquit, ' sine dubio terrenus est Imperator, et quisquis 
 adversus eum manum moverit, ipse sui sanguinis reus exsistit.'" 
 
 (24) Page 213. Orosius, at the very end of his work, records 
 this famous declaration of Ataulf : " Nam ego quoque ipsi virum 
 quendam Narbonensem, illustris sub Theodosio rnilitiae, etiam 
 religiosum, prudentem, et gravem, apud Bethleem oppidum 
 Paljestinae beatissimo Hieronymo prsesbytero ref erentem audivi se 
 familiarissimum Atthaulfo apud Narbonum fuisse, ac de eo srepe 
 sub testificatione didicisse quod ille, quum esset animo, viribus, 
 ingenioque nimius referre solitus esset se in primis ardenter 
 inhiasse ut, obliterate Romano nomine, Romanum omne solum 
 Gothorum imperium et faceret et vocaret, essetque, ut, vulgariter 
 loquar, Gothia quod Romania f uisset, fieret nunc Atthaulf us quod 
 quondam Caesar Augustus. At xibi multa experientia probavisset 
 neque Gothos ullo modo parere legibus posse propter effrenatam 
 barbariam, neque reipublicse interdici leges oportere, sine quibus 
 respublica non est respublica, elegisse se saltern ut gloriam sibi de 
 restituendo in integrum augendoque Romano nomine Gothorum 
 viribus qusereret, habereturque apud posteros Romanse restitutionis 
 auctor, postquam esse non poterat inmutator." 
 
 (25) Page 213. See Gibbon, c. Ixv. (xli. 21, Milman). 
 
 (26) Page 214. See the account of the repulse of Alaric from 
 the walls of Athens by the appearance of Athene and Achilleus, 
 Zosimos, V. 6. iiruav 'AXapi^os TravcrrpaTia 177 iroXci TO /ACV rct^os eiopa 
 Trepivoorowav rrjv irpofua.\ov 'A&jvav, u>s rrtv avnjv opav iv rot? 
 dyaA/iao-iv, wTrXwr/xeviTV KoCplov rots tTTiovtriv eviOTatr^at /x.e'AAov(rav, rots 
 
 TrpocoTwra rov 'A^iAAc'a TOV ^pai TOIOITOV otov airrov TOIS 
 cSct^cv "O/xr;p<K,*oT KO.T opyrjv TO) Oavdrta TOV IlaTpdicXov 
 
 CTToXcflCt. TaVTTJV 6 'AXlIpl^G? TTjV Ol/'tV OVK VCy*CWV TTaOT/S /itV 
 
 xara T9 woA.a>s c<rca)5, (TrtiaVKevfTO oi.
 
 340 NOTES ON 
 
 (27) Page 215. See Plutarch, Demetrios, 10, for the title of 
 Karat/San;? given to Demetrios at Athens, and the altar 
 dedicated to him under that name, and, still more, the account of 
 the flatteries offered to him given by Demochares and the ithy- 
 phallics of Douris of Samos, in Athenaios, vi. 62, 63. 
 
 (28) Page 215. Most of the Bulgarian Kings bear Hebrew 
 names, as Simeon, Gabriel, and, above all, Samuel, whose power it 
 was the great exploit of the Emperor Basil to break down. 
 
 (29) Page 215. For the whole scene see Finlay, Byzantine 
 Empire, i. 452. 
 
 (30) Page 216. For the dealings of Hugh the Great with 
 King Lewis from-beyond-Sea, see Norman Conquest, i. 217-220. 
 
 (31) Page 216. See Gibbon, c. Ixv. 12, 8, Milman. 
 
 (32) Page 217. See Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, i. 
 241. 
 
 (33) Page 217. In an Inaugural Address delivered to the 
 University of Saint Andrews, March 19th, 1869, by James 
 Anthony Froude, M.A., Rector of the University (London, 
 Longmans and Co., 1869), the writer says (page 17) that " a young 
 man going to Oxford learns the same things which were taught 
 there two centuries ago." In page 18, he speaks of "the old 
 Latin and Greek which the schools must keep to while the 
 Universities confine their honours to these," and in page 28 he 
 says: 
 
 " The training of clergymen is, if anything, the special object 
 of Oxford teaching. All arrangements are made with a view to- 
 it. The heads of Colleges, the resident Fellows, Tutors, Pro- 
 fessors, are, with rare exceptions, ecclesiastics themselves." See 
 Saturday Review, April 3rd, 1869. 
 
 The year before the Right Honourable Robert Lowe made a 
 peech in Lancashire in the same romantic vein. 
 
 ' Speak to any man who has gone through the ordinary routine 
 of education in a public school or university, or to any man of 
 sense, and is he of opinion that he sees things through the 
 medium of prejudice, or is he satisfied when he leaves those 
 places of education that he is fairly equipped and armed for the-
 
 REDE LECTURE 341 
 
 combat of life ? . . . . It is because that, at a time when there 
 really was nothing to learn and nothing to know, a number of 
 foundations were made for the purpose of teaching Latin and 
 Greek, and these foundations exist up to the present day, and 
 attract to them a number of scholars to the public schools. All 
 manner of knowledge, science, language, and literature, have come 
 into existence since then, but these foundations, like their 
 original deeds,, have remained perfectly immovable." See Sat. 
 Kev. February 8, 1868. 
 
 Again, at a dinner given by the Institution of Civil Engineers 
 in April 1871, Mr. Lowe, according to the Times, said : 
 
 " My own education, and I had the happiness of receiving it at 
 one of our public schools and Universities, was directed mainly to 
 learning something of the literature and the language of a people 
 who have long since passed away, people who knew very little 
 of nature, very little of the world in which they lived, very 
 little, indeed, of anything except the squabbles and quarrels in 
 which they engaged with one another, and which they carried on 
 upon a scale the most minute. (A laugh.) When I think of 
 the celebrated battle of Marathon and all our school-boy en- 
 thusiasm about the 192 persons who perished on that occasion on 
 the side of the victorious (a laugh), and compare it with the 
 grand drama which has been enacted in another part of Europe 
 within the last seven or eight months, I cannot help feeling how 
 small were the matters to which our early attention was directed. 
 Why, a good colliery accident, under the auspices of these 
 professional gentlemen whom I see around me, would throw one 
 of these great events of ancient times completely into the shade. 
 (A laugh.)" See Sat. Rev. April 29, 1871. 
 
 I suppose that things like these may be safely said in the 
 University of Saint Andrews, at the Institution of Civil 
 Engineers, or at some Institution at Liverpool. But it would be 
 curious to see what would happen, if Mr. Froude or Mr. Lowe 
 were to venture to repeat them in the presence of any Oxford 
 man who has taken his degree or has lived in the University 
 within the last twenty years, or as they exclude mathematics, no 
 less than modern history and natural science in the presence of 
 any Cambridge man of any standing. 
 
 (34) Page 218. I have been myself striving for years to bring 
 about the foundation of a reasonable School of History at Oxford,
 
 342 
 
 instead of the absurd system by which certain periods of History 
 are yoked to questions about the Objective and the Unconditioned, 
 while other periods were till lately yoked to professional Law, and 
 now stand apart from the periods which are still kept in bondage. 
 Ten thousand statutes may be made, but all will be useless till 
 Thucydides, Tacitus, Eginhard, the Chronicles, and Clarendon are 
 taken up in a single school. In the like sort, there should be a 
 School of Philology in which English and German should be taken 
 up in their natural relations to Greek and Latin. While I have 
 been striving in vain at Oxford, a real School of History seems 
 likely to arise at Cambridge, and that largely, I would hope, 
 through the labours of Mr. A. W. Ward.
 
 INDEX 
 
 AcJiaian League, analogy between 
 its constitution and that of the 
 United States, 21 ; its origin and 
 character, 59, 256 ; modification of 
 democracy under, 139 ; nature of 
 its assembly, 139-141 ; way of 
 voting in, 144-145 ; analogies with 
 Rome, 146, 148 ; legislation of 
 Polybios' for, 203 ; annexation of 
 Sparta by, 256. 
 
 Addison, his use of the word Gothic, 
 333, 334. 
 
 Adolfi, Johann, his Chronicle of 
 Dithmarschen, 277. 
 
 Adoption, working of the Roman law 
 of, 53, 265-266 ; its influence on 
 the gens, 67 ; nature of at Athens, 
 266. 
 
 Adrlstos, his slaughter by Aga- 
 memnon, 327. 
 
 Adulterer, lawfully slain, 326, 327. 
 
 Alfred, laws of, 229, 326, 328. 
 
 sElfirine, wergild paid for, 328. 
 
 sEthtlberht, effects of his baptism, 
 108 ; his laws, 328. 
 
 Ae'tius, history of, 236 ; nations in 
 his army, ib. 
 
 sEtolia, city life never fully deve- 
 loped in, 57 ; its importance in 
 later times, 59 ; character of its 
 League, 256. 
 
 Africit, kingdom of the Vandals in, 
 115. 
 
 Agamemnon, his imperial position, 
 131 ; his relation to the Assembly, 
 132. 
 
 ANCUS. 
 
 Age, names of office expressive of, 46. 
 
 Ager publicus, the same as Folk- 
 land, 75. 
 
 ''Ayopfi, use of the word, 46 ; applied 
 to the divine assembly, 131. 
 
 Pdffvp.virTfla. compared with Roman 
 dictatorship, 288. 
 
 Akarnania, city life never fully de- 
 veloped in, 57 ; its importance in 
 later times, 59. 
 
 Alarie, his march from Athens to 
 Rome, 37 ; his Roman offices, 
 104, 304 ; his repulse from Athens, 
 339. 
 
 Alby, consuls at, 18. 
 
 Alexander of Epeiros, 102. 
 
 Alexander the Great, position of, 
 103. 
 
 Allen, John, his explanation of the 
 growth of kingship, 92 ; quoted, 
 273, 288. 
 
 Allies, Italian, compared with the 
 Lacedaemonian nploucoi, 330. 
 
 America, British, its relation to the 
 United States, 52. 
 
 Amphiktyonic League, its constitu- 
 tion, 56 ; its witness to the early 
 state of Greece, 57. 
 
 Amyntas, acquitted by the Mace- 
 donian assembly, 314. 
 
 Analogies, different classes of, 13. 
 
 "A-vat, use of the word by Isokrates, 
 239. 
 
 Ancient and Modern .Studies, no real 
 distinction l>etween, 196- 19S. 
 i, value of his legend, 295.
 
 344 
 
 INDEX 
 
 ANDOKIDfeS. 
 
 Andokides, speech of Lysias against, 
 332. 
 
 Andorra, commonwealth of, 309. 
 
 Angul and Dan, legend of, 335. 
 
 Anointing, introduction of the cere- 
 mony, 107 ; its political effect, 
 108. 
 
 Antioch, recovered by Nikephoros, 
 227. 
 
 Antoninus Caracalla, effect of his 
 edict, 259. 
 
 Animations', Frankish, answer to 
 the English Thegnas, 167. 
 
 Appeal of murder, its origin and 
 abolition, 177. 
 
 Aquce Sexticc, its influence in Gaul, 
 38. 
 
 Arch, invented more than once, 
 20. 
 
 Architecture, Greek, origin of, 227. 
 
 Archons at Athens, their origin and 
 history, 96, 99, 100, 296; called 
 kings, 297 ; not presidents of the 
 assembly, 298. 
 
 Apxa>v &a<rt\evs at Athens, his ori- 
 gin, 96. 
 
 Areiopagos, compared with the Roman 
 Senate, 146 ; its temper, 319. 
 
 Ares, his wounds and possible death, 
 313. 
 
 Argos, its union with Corinth, 59, 
 255 ; history of kingship at, 96, 
 293. 
 
 Aristeides, reforms of, 162. 
 
 Aristocracy, primitive traces of, 41 ; | 
 meaning of the word, 49, 125, 242, j 
 243 ; peculiarly republican, 172 ;] 
 nature of in ruling cities, 172- 
 173 ; fertile in able administra- 
 tors, 172 : compared with demo- 
 cracy, 173 ; inconsistent with 
 kingship, 174-175 ; different forms 
 of its growth, ib. ; admission of 
 strangers to, 174 ; government 
 of dependencies by, 189 ; misuse 
 of the word, 243 ; growth of at 
 Rome, 311. 
 
 Aristotle, knowledge of in the 
 
 ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Middle Ages, 193 ; his doctrine 
 of mixed governments, 238 ; his 
 definition of aristocracy, 242 ; of 
 the city, 246. 
 
 Arkadia, language of, 203, 336. 
 
 Army, the same as the assembly, 
 
 127 ; growth of, in cities, ib. 
 Arnold, Dr., quoted, 244. 
 
 Aryan nations, their three chief 
 races, 24 ; their relations explained 
 only by the comparative method, 
 33 ; their primitive state, ib. ; 
 dispersion of their tribes in 
 Europe, 35 ; their primitive in- 
 stitutions not borrowed from one 
 another, 38 ; their common origin, 
 39, 40, 43 ; their early vocabulary, 
 40 ; their primitive form of 
 government, 42, 129. 
 
 Assembly, various names for, 46, 
 312 ; nature of in Macedonia, 102, 
 134, 314 ; sovereign nature of, 
 122, 138, 155, 156 ; action of each 
 citizen in, 123 ; representation 
 unknown in those of cities, 124 ; 
 history of among tribes, ib. ; 
 distinction between aristocratic 
 and democratic, 125, 126 ; its 
 identity with the army, 127 ; 
 instances of military assemblies, 
 
 128 ; character of in heroic Greece, 
 130 ; on Olympos, ib. ; relation of 
 the kings to, 131-133 ; abeyance of 
 in Ithake, 132 ; way of voting in, 
 133 ; nature of in Molossis, 134. 
 144, 145 ; origin and character of 
 at Athens, 136, 137 ; its relation 
 to the other powers of the state, 
 138 ; character of at Sparta, 139, 
 315 ; under the Achaian League, 
 141 ; in England, ib. ; shrinks up 
 where representation is not intro- 
 duced, 141, 143; history of among 
 the Franks, 142, 317 ; nature of 
 local assemblies, 143 ; nature of 
 in Federal states, ib. ; different 
 forms of at Rome, 145, 146 ; its 
 relations to the Senate, 147, 148 ;
 
 INDEX 
 
 345 
 
 comparison of Roman and Athenian 
 assemblies, 148 ; extinction of 
 under the Empire, ib. ; change in 
 the character of in mediaeval 
 Europe, 149, 150 ; formed of 
 estates, ib. ; traces of primary 
 assemblies in England, 152, 153 ; 
 at Florence, 153 ; in Friesland 
 and Dithmarschen, 154; in the 
 Forest Cantons, ib. ; aristocratic 
 primary assemblies in Poland and 
 Venice, 155 ; presidency of in 
 different states, 298, 299 ; Athen- 
 ian, held away from Athens, 312 ; 
 Roman, held at Veii, ib. ; seats in, 
 313 ; attendance enforced in, 317, 
 318. 
 Asylum, meaning of the Roman 
 
 legend of, 163. 
 
 Ataulf, change in his purpose, 213, 
 339 ; his conquests in Spain, 
 216. 
 Athanaric, effect of Roman greatness 
 
 on, 213, 339. 
 
 Athens, origin of, 55, 56, 69 ; its in- 
 significance in later Greek history, 
 59 ; traces of earlier inhabitants 
 at, 69 ; character of the later 
 tribes at, ib. ; origin of the STJ/KOI, 
 70 ; history of kingship at, 95, 
 96, 99, 289, 296 ; cases of military 
 assemblies in her history, 128 ; 
 true character of her democracy, 
 135-139 ; shortness of her real 
 life, 137, 315 ; contrasted with the 
 later Greek democracies, 139 ; 
 with Rome, 146-148 ; the people 
 called king or tyrant, 148 ; history 
 of nobility at, 160, 162-164 ; law 
 of private vengeance, 176 ; tyran- 
 nicide lawful at, ib. ; its state in 
 the eleventh century, 214 ; grants 
 of citizenship, 254 ; origin of the 
 archonship, 297 ; presidency of 
 assemblies at, 298 ; Constantino ' 
 general at, 302 ; military levies at, i 
 312 ; submission of its armies to ' 
 the assembly, ib. 
 
 BERN. 
 
 Attic dialect of Greek, its perman- 
 ence, 203, 204. 
 
 Attica, union of its towns, 58, 253, 
 256 ; remains of earlier inhabitants 
 in, 269 ; party divisions in, ib. 
 
 Attus Clausus, his migration to 
 Rome, 70. 
 
 Aiupistus, Chlodwig so called, 304. 
 
 Ausserstand, nature of at Bern, 326. 
 
 Austria, House of, later Emperors 
 chosen from, 308. 
 
 B. 
 
 Bajazet described as Cajsar by Tini- 
 our, 213 ; invested by the nominal 
 caliph, 217. 
 
 Balder, death of, 313. 
 
 Ballot, fallacies about, 316. 
 
 Barbarians opposed to Greeks, 53 ; 
 alliance with, how looked on in 
 Greece, 245. 
 
 Barbarus, use of the word in the 
 Teutonic codes, 260. 
 
 Basil tfte Macedonian, his corre- 
 spondence with Lewis the Second, 
 230. 
 
 Basil the Second, his triumph at 
 Athens, 215. 
 
 Bafft\fvs, origin of the word, 45 ; 
 its use, 89, 286 ; its meaning at 
 Athens, 96, 99 ; applied to the 
 Emperors, 103, 302 ; dispute about 
 the title, 230-232; its use by 
 Hesiod, 290 ; by John Lydus, 301 ; 
 distinguished from Tvpavvos, 307. 
 
 Baffl\tffffa, wife of the king-archon 
 
 so called, 294. 
 
 Belisarnis, consulship of, 103, 302. 
 Berkeley, Lord, pays the wergild of 
 
 Lord Lisle, 329. 
 
 Bern, lessons of its history, 84 ; 
 character of its government, 172, 
 173, 189 ; origin of its aristocracy, 
 174 ; its dominion over its sub- 
 ject states, 185, 187 ; extends its 
 dominion by purchase, 187 ; its 
 analogy with Rome, 284; origin
 
 340 
 
 INDEX 
 
 of the name, ib. ; Ausscrstand at, 
 326. 
 
 Bern, Dietrichs-, or Verona, 84. 
 
 Bicameral system, its origin, 14, 151 ; 
 necessary in a federal state, 151, 
 152. 
 
 Bishops, their position and titles in 
 southern Europe, 73 ; among Celts 
 and Teu tons, 73, 74, 272 ; position 
 of at lona, 291. 
 
 Bluntschli, Dr. ft, quoted, 262, 284. 
 
 Boetius, consulship of, 103, 302. 
 
 Bosporos, Greek kingdom of, 205. 
 
 Brecon, inscription at, 329. 
 
 Britain, character of its history, 30 ; 
 spoken of as another world, 229 ; 
 effect of its insular position, 230. 
 
 Briton, wergild of lower than that 
 of an Englishman, 179, 328. 
 
 Brunanburh, battle of, 111. 
 
 Bulgarians, their history, 232 ; He- 
 brew names of their- kings, 340. 
 
 Bundesstaat, distinguished from 
 Staatenbnnd, 256. 
 
 Burghership, hereditary, the found- 
 ation of the ancient common- 
 wealths, 126, 181 ; forms of, in 
 England, 182. 
 
 Bur-net, Bishop, his travels in Swit- 
 zerland, 326. 
 
 C. 
 
 Caesar, his desire to be king, 287. 
 
 Cains, Emperor, restores the comitia, 
 319. 
 
 Caliphate, its analogy with the Em- 
 pire, 216-217. 
 
 Camewje, opposed to the Muses, 338. 
 
 Canaan, kings of, 109. 
 
 Canterbury, archbishops of, spoken 
 of as popes, 229. 
 
 Capitol, use of the name at Toulouse, 
 17, 223 ; at Koln, ib. 
 
 Capitouls, magistrates of Toulouse, 
 223. 
 
 Cavalry, connexion of the word with 
 chivalry, 47 
 
 Celts, character of their history, 32 ; 
 
 the vanguard of Aryan migration 
 
 westward, 34 ; their position in 
 
 Europe, 234. 
 Century, equivalent to the hundred, 
 
 75 ; assembly of centuries at Rome* 
 
 145. 
 
 Ceorl, opposed to Eorl, 162. 
 Cerdic, permanence of his house, 1 14. 
 Chdlons, battle of, branches of the 
 
 Aryan family engaged at, 36. 
 Chaonia, abolition of kingship in, 
 
 101. 
 
 Chapters, growth of oligarchy in, 316. 
 Charis, Charites, origin of the word, 
 
 5, 6, 221. 
 Charles of Anjou, his conquest of 
 
 Marseilles, 205, 336. 
 Charles the Great, his union of the 
 
 Roman Empire and the German 
 
 kingship, 104 ; his imperial titles, 
 
 230. 
 Cherson, Greek commonwealth of, 
 
 205. 
 Chevy Chase, notice of, by Addison,. 
 
 334. 
 
 Chlodwig, consulship of, 104, 304. 
 Christianity, its Semitic origin, 28 ; 
 
 the religion of the Roman Empire, 
 
 ib. ; opposed to exclusive privileges 
 
 of birth, 107 ; influence of the 
 
 Greek tongue on, 206. 
 Cicero, plebeian augur, 164. 
 did, use of the word, 240. 
 Cities, formed by the union of villages, 
 
 57, 251-253 ; their history in 
 
 England and elsewhere, 83, 129 ; 
 
 French and English, compared, 
 
 249, 250. 
 Citizenship, nature of, in Greece, 58 ; 
 
 first freely, then sparingly granted,. 
 
 to strangers, 181 ; grants of at 
 
 Athens, 253 ; at Sparta, 254. 
 Cittadini at Venice, their position, 
 
 161. 
 City, one form of the state, 52 ; 
 
 Greek conception of, 53, 54; 
 
 formed of gentes, 58 ; idea of,.
 
 INDEX 
 
 347 
 
 never fully developed among the 
 
 Teutonic nations, 60. 
 
 Clans, nature of among the Celts, 
 
 65-66 ; compared with the Romai 
 
 gentes, 261. 
 
 Classical, bad effects of the distinction 
 
 implied in the name, 194-195. 
 ' ' Classical " languages, true way oi 
 
 studying, 217-219. 
 Claudia gens, its origin, 70. 
 Claudii, their admission at Rome, 
 
 174 ; their migration, 270. 
 
 Claudius, Emperor, his speech on 
 
 the gradual extension of Roman 
 
 citizenship, 62, 63, 259. 
 
 Clergy, their position as an estate of 
 
 the realm, 14. 
 Clientage, its nature at Rome, 168- 
 
 169. 
 
 Colonies, Greek, their extent, 204, 
 205 ; their relation to the mother 
 country, 329, 331. 
 
 Comitatus, its Teutonic form modified 
 by Roman ideas, 112; a common 
 Aryan institution, 166 ; its history 
 among Greeks and Teutons, 167; 
 groundwork of modern nobility, 
 167, 170; slighter traces of at 
 Rome, 168 ; its connexion with 
 clientage, 168, 170, 326; nature 
 of in Macedonia, 169; implies a 
 king or personal leader, ib. ; its 
 connexion with vassalage, 324. 
 Comitia at Rome, forms of, 145 ; way 
 of voting in, 145, 318; restored 
 by Cains, 319. 
 
 Commons, House of, origin of, 150. 
 Commune, equivalent to the mark, 
 75; its position in Switzerland, 
 183-185. 
 Comparative method, its results, 
 
 196. 
 
 Condominium, instances of in Ger- 
 many and Switzerland, 186. 
 Confederation, German, springs out 
 
 of the kingdom, 116. 
 Confederations, their nature in later 
 Greece, 60; nature of their as- 
 
 semblies, 124; military assemblies 
 more usual in, 128 ; bicameral 
 system needed in, 151, 152. 
 Constantine, general at Athens, 103, 
 
 302. 
 
 Constantinople, its origin, 207 ; posi- 
 tion of in mediaeval imagination, 
 ib. 
 
 Consul, Consulship, uses of the names, 
 18; at Alby, 18, 223; origin of at 
 Rome, 98 ; kingly powers of, 100, 
 243; consulship held by the 
 emperors, 103 ; its revived dignity 
 in later times, ib. ; checks on its 
 power, 147 ; definition of by 
 Dionysios, 243 ; origin of at Tou- 
 louse, 223; held by Theodoric, 
 301 ; by Boetius and Belisarius, 
 302. 
 Cootc, Mr. H. C. , his view of Roman 
 
 institutions in England, 284. 
 Corinth, its union with Argos, 58-59, 
 255; oligarchy of the Bacchiadsat, 
 297 ; her relations to her colonies, 
 331. 
 Coronation, meaning and effect of the 
 
 rite, 91. 
 Councils, not necessarily formed with 
 
 regard to birth, 158. 
 Ccx, Mr. G. IV., quoted, 221. 
 Coxc, Archdeacon, his travels in 
 
 Switzerland, 326. 
 Crusaders, their jurisprudence in the 
 
 East, 223. 
 Culture, application of the compara- 
 tive method to, 8 ; name wanted 
 for its study, 10 ; its relations 
 to the other sciences, 1 1. 
 (.'nriit, an union of ijcnti*, 67 ; answers 
 to the Spartan <i)84j, 68 ; and the 
 Teutonic hundred, 75. 
 < 'in -tint, Ernst, quoted, 225, 265, 268, 
 
 269. 
 
 Cyn, kin, cyntcyn, connexion of the 
 '>nls with cyniny, king, 44, 105, 
 106, 305. 
 
 Cynehlaford, 325. 
 ';i nitty, Icing, origin and cognates of
 
 348 
 
 INDEX 
 
 CYPRUS. 
 
 the name, 44, 105, 106 ; its con- 
 nexion with (janaka, 305. 
 Cyprus, Frank kingdom of, 223. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dante, his treatise De Monarchid, 
 306. 
 
 Daiclcins, Mr. W. ., quoted, 233. 
 
 Dead languages, no such thing, 196. 
 
 D&metrios Poliorketes, Athenian 
 flattery of, 215, 340. 
 
 Democracy, primitive, traces of, 41- 
 42 ; definition of, 125, 138 ; form 
 taken by, in Mediaeval Italy, 153 ; 
 government of dependencies by, 
 189 ; description of by Perikles, 
 315 ; its history and character at 
 Athens, 136-139 ; compared with 
 later Greek democracies, 139 ; 
 modified under the Achaian 
 League, 141 ; pure democracy not 
 applicable to a large state, 140-143. 
 
 ATJ/UOJ, at Athens, originally village 
 communities, 69, 268 ; their local 
 character, 70. 
 
 ATJ/KOS, uses of the word, 56, 251. 
 
 Denmark, despotism lawful in, 228 ; 
 its relations to the Duchies, ib. 
 
 Dependencies repeat the institutions 
 of the mother country, 16 ; govern- 
 ment of, 189, 247 ; their relations 
 to the mother country, 329. 
 
 Diadem, use of, 103 ; introdxiced by 
 Diocletian, 303. 
 
 Dictatorship, nature of at Rome, 100, 
 287 ; perpetual, distinguished from 
 kingship, 90. 
 
 Dietrichsbern, name of Verona, 284. 
 
 Dimock, Mr. J. F., quoted, 333. 
 
 Diocletian introduces the diadem, 
 303. 
 
 Di6n Chrysostom, his definition of 
 aristocracy, 242 ; his theory of 
 kingship, 289, 302. 
 
 Dithmarschen, retention of the old 
 freedom in, 78, 154 ; local nomen- 
 clature of, 263 ; its history, 277. 
 
 EMPIRE. 
 
 Dominion, looked on as property, 
 
 186, 187. 
 Dorians, antiquity of their three 
 
 tribes, 267. 
 Auvairrefa, nature and instances of, 
 
 297. 
 
 E. 
 
 Ealdor, Ealdorman, origin of the 
 title, 76 ; chiefs of the tribe, 76, 
 106 ; give way to kings, 106 ; 
 return to their government, 109. 
 
 Earl, Eorl, Jarl, Scandinavian, 110, 
 111 ; history and meaning of the 
 word, 167, 323 ; immemorial 
 nobility of the Eorlas. 159, 162 ; 
 give way to the Thegns, 166, 170. 
 
 Edoni, Dukes of, 109. 
 
 Ehu, Eoh, cognate with equus, 240. 
 
 'HXmia, origin of the word, 239. 
 
 Elis, foundation of, 57, 251 ; language 
 of its inscription, 336. 
 
 Elizabeth, Quzcn, her English descent, 
 309. 
 
 "EAA.TJV, use of the name, 227. 
 
 Emperors, origin of their powers, 50, 
 112, 288 ; union of the various 
 magistracies in their hands, 103 ; 
 kingly language how far applied 
 to, 103-104 ; alone called monarchs, 
 110 ; contrast between the earliest 
 and latest, 120 ; their dealings 
 with the senate and assembly, 149 ; 
 retention and imitation of their 
 titles, 213 ; their consulships, 292 ; 
 their tribunician power, 292, 300 ; 
 their solitary position, 303. 
 
 Empire, its effect on the city and the 
 provinces, 63, 64 ; its effects in 
 Germany and Italy, 87 ; open to 
 all baptized men, 89 : united with 
 the German kingship, 104 ; effects 
 of its union with the Frankish 
 kingdom, 116; lawyers' theory of 
 its origin, 307 ; becomes purely 
 elective, 308 ; then practically 
 hereditary, ib.
 
 INDEX 
 
 349 
 
 England, continuity of its political 
 history, 30 ; no true Roman ele- 
 ment in, 31, 85 ; ambassadors 
 from at the court of Justinian, 
 36 ; the Teutonic constitution 
 begins afresh in, 79 ; modification 
 of the mark and the gau in, 80 ; 
 union of its several kingdoms, 81, 
 113, 117; growth of the cities 
 hindered by stronger national 
 unity, 83 ; position of in general 
 Teutonic history, 86 ; origin or 
 history of kingship in, 106, 113; 
 continuity of the royal succession 
 in, 1 14 ; continuity of assemblies 
 in, 149, 150 ; no true nobility in, 
 150 ; powers of Parliament in, 156 ; 
 effect of feudal ideas in, 168 ; its 
 relation to India, 185. 
 
 English, their relation to other Teu- 
 tonic nations, 29 ; their three 
 homes, 31 ; the Teutonic constitu- 
 tion brought by them into Britain, 
 78. 
 
 English language, Romance elements 
 in, 282. 
 
 Epeiros, the older condition of Greece 
 continued in, 57, 102 ; its import- 
 ance in later times, 59 ; history 
 of kingship in, ib. ; becomes a ' 
 Greek commonwealth, 102. 
 
 Ephors, presidents of the Spartan i 
 assembly, 299. 
 
 Estates, their nature in England and I 
 France, 14 ; representation of, 
 149, 150 ; system of, broke down 
 in England, 150. 
 
 'Eroupot, answers to the English 
 gesfens, 166, 169. 
 
 Eternal, title of Rome, 28. 
 
 Eupatrids, Athenian, their nobility 
 immemorial, 160 ; its probable , 
 origin, 162, 321 ; loss of their 
 political power, 163; still preferred 
 for high offices, 165. 
 
 Exeter, position of in English history, 
 84, 85, 284. 
 
 FROUDE. 
 
 Fcehdc , feud, right of, 326. 
 Feudalism, its origin and working in 
 
 France and England, 168 ; growth 
 
 of, 223. 
 
 Filioque, interpolation of, 337. 
 Finlay, Mr., origin of his history* 
 
 227 ; quoted, 336. 
 Fins, position of, in Europe, 234. 
 Five Boroughs, confederacy of, 84. 
 Flamens at Rome, always patrician, 
 
 164. 
 
 Florence, parliaments of, 153. 
 Falkland, the same as ager publicus^ 
 
 75. 
 Foreigner, meaning of the word in 
 
 English boroughs, 182. 
 Forest Cantons, retention of the old 
 
 freedom in, 78. 
 France, its origin, 116 ; strictly 
 
 hereditary character of its crown, 
 
 117, 289 ; effect of feudal ideas in, 
 
 168. 
 
 Franchise, various forms of in Eng- 
 land, 182, 183; how attained in 
 
 boroughs, 183. 
 Franks, their place among Teutonic 
 
 nations, 81 ; history and division 
 
 of their kingdom, 110, 115 ; growth 
 
 of the power of their kings, 1 16 ; 
 
 union of their kingdom with the 
 
 Empire, ib. 
 Freeman, various classes below, 160, 
 
 161. 
 Freemen, their history in English 
 
 boroughs, 182. 
 
 French, Kings and Dukes of, 216. 
 French language, Teutonic element 
 
 in, 281. 
 Friesland, retains its primitive 
 
 assemblies, 154. 
 Frithigern, his titles, 306. 
 Fronde, Mr. J. A., his account of 
 
 university studies, 340.
 
 350 
 
 INDEX 
 
 G. 
 
 Galatia, Greek influence on, 206. 
 
 Ganaka, connexion of the word with 
 king and cyning, 106, 107, 305. 
 
 Gau, its relation to the shire, 76, 
 279 ; the territory of the tribe, 
 76 ; authorities on, 276 ; name not 
 known in England, 279. 
 
 Gaul, Teutonic character of its later 
 political institutions, 82 ; Greek 
 and Roman civilization in, 237. 
 
 (femeinde, equivalent to the mark, 
 75- ; their position in Switzerland, 
 183-185. 
 
 Generals, powers of, at Athens, 99 ; 
 their special power in war times, 
 128. 
 
 Ttvos, ge'/is, or dan, use of the word, 
 46 ; its special importance in 
 ancient Italy, 62, 65 ; its various 
 forms, 65, 66 ; community of blood 
 its original idea, 66, 264 ; modifi- 
 cations in later times, 67 : its 
 abiding importance in Rome, 68 ; 
 its connexion with tribes and 
 5f)/uoi, 70 ; names of gcntes in 
 England, 66 ; its form as a village 
 community, 75 ; at Rome, com- 
 pared with the Celtic clans, 261 ; 
 with the German gcscMechter, 262 ; 
 hereditary character of, 267. 
 
 Geniilis, Cicero's definition of, 264. 
 
 Germany, its history modified by its 
 connexion with the Empire, 29 ; 
 changes in after the time of Tacitus, 
 78 ; history of the cities in, 84 ; 
 growth of the modern kingdoms 
 of, 90, 286, 287 ; its kingdom sinks 
 into a confederation, 116; modern 
 Empire a revival of the kingdom, 
 116, 308. 
 
 Geschlechter, German, answer to the 
 Roman gentes, 262. 
 
 GesV&as, answer to the Greek traipot, 
 166. 
 
 Gibbon, quoted, 227. 
 
 i l:l.l. k LANGUAGE. 
 
 Gibeon, a free city, 109. 
 
 Giraldus Cambrensis, germs of com- 
 parative philology in, 332, 333. 
 
 Gladstone, Mr., his defence of the 
 ninth book of the Iliad, 286. 
 
 Goddesses, presence of, in the divine 
 council and assembly, 130, 131. 
 
 Gods, children of, unknown in the 
 Italian mythology, 96, 295 ; con- 
 ception of in Greece, 130 ; their 
 council and assembly, 130 ; death 
 of in Scandinavia and Greece, 
 313. 
 
 Gothic, use of the word, 194. 
 
 Goths, history of their kingdom in 
 Spain, 115 ; preservers of Roman 
 monuments, 228. 
 
 Graubiinden, retention of the old 
 freedom in, 78 ; dominion of, 
 over the Valtelina, 188. 
 
 Greece, its physical character, 25, 
 225 ; common origin of its in- 
 habitants with those of Italy, 33, 
 35 ; early political institutions of, 
 42 ; its pre-historic state, 55, 56 ; 
 growth of city life in, 56 ; federal 
 period in, 59 ; no true national life 
 in, 60, 61 ; effect of the Persian 
 wars on, 60; its colonies, 61, 
 203, 205, 226; connexion of its 
 mythical and its historic state, 
 82; nature of early kingship in, 
 92, 130, 131-132; its influence 
 on the East, 205, 206 ; on Rome, 
 206 ; on Christianity, 206, 207 ; 
 on the Byzantine Empire, 207 ; 
 its modern revival, 207, 208 ; its 
 indirect influence on modern 
 times, 209 ; motherland of the 
 Asiatic Greeks, 225 ; traditions 
 of non-Aryan nations in, 250 ; 
 nearness of its great cities, 257. 
 
 Greek church, its character and per- 
 manence, 207. 
 
 Greek language, ignorance of, in the 
 middle ages, 193 ; its special con- 
 nexion with Latin, 204 ; its rela- 
 tion to modern languages, 198 ;
 
 INDEX 
 
 351 
 
 GREEK NATION. 
 
 its history, 203-207 ; permanence 
 of its Attic dialect, 203, 204 ; its 
 use in Sicily, 205 ; in the East, 
 206 ; at Rome, ib. ; its relation to 
 Christianity, 206, 207 ; knowledge 
 of, in the thirteenth century, 333. 
 
 Greek nation, modern, origin of, 206 ; 
 its difficulties, 207, 208. 
 
 Greeks, their progress and history, 
 25-27 ; a nation as contrasted 
 with barbarians, 53 ; feeling of 
 brotherhood among, 245. 
 
 Grimm, Jacob, quoted, 272. 
 
 Grote, Mr., his defence of Athenian 
 democracy, 136, 250, 251 ; quoted, 
 265,268. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hadrian, his archonship at Athens, 
 
 99, 298. 
 
 Hannibal, compared with Buona- 
 parte, 244. 
 
 Hannibalianus, called Rex, 304. 
 Harits, etymology of the word, 6, 
 
 221. 
 Harold Harfagra, Norway united 
 
 under, 111. 
 
 Heathen, origin of the name, 73, 271. 
 Hebrews, judges of, 109. 
 Henry 111., Emperor, first king of 
 
 the Romans, 104. 
 Henry VIII., of England, an elective 
 
 king, 142. 
 Heptarchy, name and thing un- 
 known, 110. 
 
 Hereditary succession, its introduc- 
 tion, 108. 
 
 Heretoga, Herzog, equivalent to eal- 
 donnan, 76 ; answers to the Dux 
 of Tacitus, 276. 
 Hesitxl, his language as to kings, 
 
 290. 
 Hill-forts, growth of, into cities, 55, 
 
 249, 250. 
 History, how to be studied, 199-201, 
 
 217-219. 
 Homer, his true parallels, 195. 
 
 ITALY. 
 
 Horse, titles formed from its various 
 
 names, 46, 47. 
 House of Lords, its judicial power, 
 
 320. 
 Hundred, equivalent to the curia 
 
 and the ijSjj, 75 ; made up of 
 
 marks, 76 ; authorities on, 275 : its 
 
 nature, 276. 
 Hungarians, their history, 234. 
 
 Iberians, position of, in Europe, 
 
 234. 
 
 Ida begins kingship in Northum- 
 berland, 111. 
 
 Iliad, question of the genuineness 
 of its ninth and tenth books, 286. 
 Ilios, foundation of, 56. 
 Imperium, effect of the doctrine of, 
 
 243. 
 India, its relation to England, how 
 
 ttrperioikic, 185. 
 Inc, laws of, 328. 
 
 Ing, Teutonic patronymic ending, 
 .262. 
 
 Intcrrcx, interregnum, origin of the 
 names, 94 ; office always patri- 
 cian, 165, 291. 
 
 Inventions, cases of their independ- 
 ent occurrence, 20. 
 lona, abbots and bishops of, 291. 
 Ionic Tribes, nature of, 268. 
 Ireland, repetition of English in- 
 stitutions in, 16. 
 
 Isokratis, his definition of demo- 
 cracy, 238 ; his exhortations to 
 Philip, 245, 248. 
 
 //'///, common origin of its inha- 
 bitants with those of Greece, 33 ; 
 early political institutions of, 42 ; 
 city life less develojxjd in, than in 
 Greece, 61 ; its history largely 
 federal, 62, 63 ; its institutions 
 more primitive than those of 
 Greece, 64 ; influence of the gtna 
 in, 65 ; Teutonic character of its 
 mediaeval polity, 82, 83: its
 
 352 
 
 INDEX 
 
 parallel with ancient Greece, 83 ; 
 developement of the cities in, 84 ; 
 modern kingdoms in, 90, 282 ; 
 nature of its mediaeval democracies, 
 153 ; extent of Greek colonization 
 in, 226 ; comparative rarity of 
 great cities in, 257 ; origin of its 
 ancient towns, ib. 
 
 Ithakt, many kings in, 94, 111 ; no 
 assembly held in, during the 
 absence of Odysseus, 132. 
 
 J. 
 
 Jarl, Karl, and Thrall, legend of 
 
 their creation, 162. 
 Jerusalem, assizes of, 16. 
 Joseph the Second, last king of the 
 
 Romans, 104, 304. 
 Judah, hereditary succession of its 
 
 kings, 289. 
 Jvdges among the Hebrews and 
 
 Goths, 109. 
 Judicial Power, gradually separated 
 
 from the legislative, 156, 157. 
 Julian, his use of the Greek lan- 
 guage, 206. 
 
 Jupiter, Alfred's account of, 305. 
 Jus imaginum, at Rome, 165. 
 Jus Latii, meaning of, 258. 
 Justinian, his historical position, 
 
 36 ; extent of his empire, 235. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kallikratidas, Greek patriotism of, 
 
 246. 
 Kcmble, F. M., quoted, 252, 262, 272, 
 
 273, 276, 280, 311. 
 Kent, assembly of, at Pennenden 
 
 Heath, 317. 
 
 King Archon at Athens, 294. 
 King of the Ramans, history of the 
 
 title, 104. 
 Kingdom, made up of shires or pagi, 
 
 76 ; formed by the union of smaller 
 
 states, 109 ; division of, 1 10 ; 
 
 territorial theory of, 1 12 ; German, 
 
 KINGSHIP. 
 
 its revival, 1 16 ; growth of, in 
 Germany and Italy, 286, 287. 
 Kings, represent the national stage 
 of growth, 90, 106 ; difficulty of 
 defining, 88 ; Romance and Teu- 
 tonic names of, ib. ; their position 
 in ancient Greece, 92, 289 ; limi- 
 tation on their authority, 93 ; 
 their position at Sparta, Argos 
 and Athens, 95, 96, 98 ; their 
 oath in Molossis, 102 ; their posi- 
 tion in Macedonia, ib. ; at Rome 
 not divine, ib. ; Teutonic kings, 
 Roman offices held by, 104 ; how 
 chosen, 104-105; description of, 
 by Tacitus, ib. ; descendants of 
 Woden, 105 ; origin of the name, 
 105, 106-107 ; unknown among 
 the Old-Saxons, 106 ; ecclesiastical 
 coronation of, 107 ; its political 
 effects, 108 ; beginning of heredi- 
 tary succession among, ib. ; great 
 numbers of in early times, 109- 
 111, 306; clothed with imperial 
 ideas, 112; changed into terri- 
 torial lords, ib. ; changes in their 
 titles, 112, 307 ; difference of their 
 powers, 113; their relation to 
 their ministers, 113, 117 ; English, 
 subject to the law, 114 ; growth 
 of their power, 116; traces of 
 their election in England, 153 ; 
 election of in Poland, 155 ; prose- 
 cute crimes in the name of the 
 commonwealth, 177, 180 ; imperial 
 titles borne by in England, 230 ; 
 their sacred character, Christian 
 and heathen, 288 ; their power 
 granted by Zeus, 289 ; succession 
 of in Judsea and France, ib. ; how 
 spoken of by Hesiod, 290 ; cut 
 down to priestly functions, 291 ; 
 name applied to the Athenian 
 archons, 297. 
 
 Kingship, distinction between its 
 power and its titles, 49, 117 ; put 
 into commission at Rome, 117 ; 
 general idea of, 90 ; its religious
 
 INDEX 
 
 353 
 
 character, 91, 107 ; lawyers' 
 theory of, 91-92 ; its original 
 character, 92 ; evidence of its 
 existence at Rome, 94, 96 ; its 
 elective character, 97 ; modifica- 
 tion of in city states, 98 ; history 
 of at Sparta, 98, 292, 293; at 
 Athens, 99 ; opposite reasons for 
 its abolition at Rome and at 
 Athens, 99, 296 ; continued in 
 Epeiros and Macedonia, 101 ; its 
 German form united with the 
 Roman Empire, 104 ; displaces 
 the earlier rule of Ealdormen, 
 106 ; its origin and continuity 
 in England, 106, 111, 113, 114; 
 modifications of in later times, 
 112 ; its various shapes, 113, 287 ; 
 modified by the settlement of the 
 Teutonic nations within the Em- 
 pire, 115; in Germany absorbed 
 by the Empire, 116; its elective 
 character in Germany, ib. ; 
 strictly hereditary in France, 117 ; 
 its position in modern times, ib. ; 
 survival of in the American 
 president, 118; distinguished from 
 royalty, 119 ; inconsistent with 
 aristocracy, 174 ; why not held 
 for a term, 287 ; temporary re- 
 vivals of, 288 ; survivals of in 
 Greece, 291 ; duration of at Argos, 
 293 ; Greek definition of, 297 ; 
 decline of in Mercia, 310. 
 
 Kirk, Anglian form of church, 232. 
 
 AV. />///. //.\, his arrangement of 
 tribes and Demoi, 269. 
 
 Kltmnenta restores the Spartan 
 kingship, 98. 
 
 Klf&n, accident of his promotion, 
 164. 
 
 Kiidros, the archonship continued in 
 his family, 99. 
 
 A'tiln, capitol at, 223. 
 
 Knrkyra, her relations to Corinth, 
 881. 
 
 Kykl6i>cs, traditions of, 250. 
 
 LEX REGIA. 
 
 Lacedcemonian Confederacy, way of 
 voting in its Assembly, 318. 
 
 Laconia, position of the irtploiKot in, 
 161. 
 
 Landesgemeinden, in Uri and other 
 cantons, 29 ; time of balding, 310. 
 
 Languages, various ways of spread- 
 ing, 18-19. 
 
 Lappcnberg, J. M., quoted, 274. 
 
 Latin language, its special connexion 
 with Greek, 132 ; its place in 
 universal history, 209-211 ; its 
 early, its classical, and its me- 
 diaeval forms, 209, 210 ; the tongue 
 of law and dominion, 210 ; its 
 ecclesiastical position, 210, 211 ; 
 continued in the Romance lan- 
 guages, 211-218; how to be 
 studied, 218. 
 
 Latins, position of, 259. 
 
 Law, power of, in England, 114. 
 
 Law, Roman, abiding influence of, 
 83 ; its influence on Teutonic king- 
 ship, 111, 116; the great work of 
 Rome, 210, 211. 
 
 Lawyers, their theory of kingship, 
 112. 
 
 Learning, Revival of, in the fifteenth 
 century, 192 ; its good and bad 
 side, 192-195. 
 
 Legends of Greek heroes in Italy and 
 Germany, 33 ; value of at Rome, 
 295, 296. 
 
 LeMans, growth of the city, 250. 
 
 Lcotychid&i, his taunt to Demaratos, 
 296. 
 
 Iscwtx, l>attle of, poem on, 338. 
 
 Lewis, Sir G. U., on the Presidency 
 of Deliberative Assemblies, 299. 
 
 Lewis the Second, Emperor, his argu- 
 ment about /Wj and 0aat\ivs, 
 231. 
 
 Lfx Hortfnsia, ita effect, 244. 
 
 Lex regia, effect of the doctrine of, 
 243. 
 
 A A
 
 354 
 
 INDEX 
 
 LIKENESSES. 
 
 Likenesses, different classes of, 15, 
 
 19. 
 
 Lincoln, history of, 284. 
 Lion, name and history of, 233. 
 Lithuania, antiquity of its language, 
 
 195, 335. 
 
 Liti, position of, 161, 311. 
 Loaf-eaters, compared with clients, 
 
 326. 
 
 Lombards, fall back on the govern- 
 ment of dukes, 109. 
 Long, Mr. G., quoted, 265. 
 Lords, House of, its origin, 150, 151 ; 
 
 its judicial powers, 156. 
 Lowe, Mr. E., his view of University 
 
 studies, 341. 
 Lilbeck, its analogy with Carthage, 
 
 284. 
 
 Lucan, his flattery of Nero, 213. 
 Lyiiadas, his history, 202. 
 Lydus, John, his distinction of Em- 
 peror, King, and Tyrant, 301. 
 Lyka6n, slain by Achilleus, 327. 
 Lykia, way of voting in, 144, 145 ; 
 history of its confederation, 202, 
 258. 
 Lysias, his position at Athens, 254. 
 
 M. 
 
 Macedonia, the older condition oi 
 Greece continued in, 57 ; consti 
 tution of, 102, 135 ; its historica 
 position, 101 ; history of kingship 
 in, 102 ; character of Macedonian 
 kingdoms in Asia, ib. ; imperfec 
 tion of its history, 135 ; influenci 
 of Greece on, 206 ; growth of city 
 life in, 253 ; names and working o 
 the Assembly in, 312, 314. 
 
 Maecenas, his verses, 261. 
 
 Mceg&, nature of, 274. 
 
 Magistrates, greater power of, in 
 aristocratic states, 139 ; in federa 
 states, ib. ; powers of in Italian 
 cities, 153. 
 
 Maine Sir H. S., quoted, 243, 250 
 259, 261, 265, 272, 275, 279. 
 
 MIXED GOVERNMENTS. 
 
 fanor, its connexion with the mark, 
 
 279. 
 \fantineia, foundation and history of, 
 
 57, 252, 253. 
 Marciis Aurelius, his use of the 
 
 Greek language, 206. 
 Marius, Caius, 166 ; his election to 
 
 the consulship, 166, 322. 
 Mark, Markgenossenschaft, Teutonic 
 form of the gens, 75, 273 ; its 
 history and nomenclature in Eng- 
 land, 79, 262 ; its assembly con- 
 tinued in the parish vestry, 153 ; 
 authorities on, 272 ; common occu- 
 pation of land in, ib. ; cases of in 
 the East, 275 ; lost in the parish 
 and the manor, 279. 
 Marzfeld, its working, 142. 
 Massalia, its influence in Gaul, 38, 
 205, 237 ; conquest of, by Charles 
 of Anjou, 205, 336. 
 Maurer, G. L., quoted, 273. 
 Mayor, introduction of the title, 224. 
 Mede&n, JEtolisai assembly held 
 
 before, 313. 
 
 Megalopolis, foundation of, 57, 251. 
 Menestheus, the first demagogue, 
 
 289. 
 Mercia, its gradual incorporation 
 
 with Wessex, 310. 
 Mctellus, his language to Marius, 
 
 322. 
 
 MS'TOJKOI, Greek, their position, 126, 
 182, 253; answer to English 
 foreigners, ib. ; to Swiss nieder- 
 gelassenen, 183-185 ; their special 
 tax, 254. 
 Michael, Emperor, addresses Charles 
 
 the Great as Basileus, 230. 
 Middle Class, specially English, 171. 
 Military service, universal duty of, 
 
 in early times, 127. 
 Mill, history and cognates of the 
 
 word, 4, 221. 
 Ministers, their relation to the 
 
 Crown, 117. 
 
 Mixed Governments, views of ancient 
 writers on, 238.
 
 INDEX 
 
 355 
 
 Moguls, analogy of their empire with 
 
 that of Rome, 216. 
 Molossis, position of the kings in, 102. 
 Momrnsen, Th., quoted, 257, 263, 
 
 269, 270, 295. 
 
 Monarch, use of the word, 110. 
 Monarchy, primitive traces of, 41 ; 
 
 distinguished from kingship, 110. 
 Morlot family, their admission at 
 
 Bern, 174. 
 
 Mosaic Law, right of private venge- 
 ance limited by, 177 ; principle 
 
 of talio recognized by, 178. 
 MvJ,, wergild paid for, 328. 
 Miiller, Max, quoted, 12, 221, 222, 
 
 233, 239 ; his view of the word 
 
 cyning, 305. 
 
 Matter, 0., quoted, 268. 
 Mund, answers to the Roman Po- 
 
 testas, 75, 275. 
 Mundi Dominus, title of mediaeval 
 
 Emperors, 308. 
 Municipalities, Roman, influence on 
 
 mediaeval Europe, 85-86. 
 Mythology, scientific and unscientific 
 
 treatment of, 7. 
 Mythology, Comparative, its relation 
 
 to comparative philology, 4, 7 : 
 
 to the study of culture, 11. 
 
 N. 
 
 Ntevius, his epitaph, 337 ; his posi- 
 tion in the history of the Latin 
 language, 209 ; his Saturnian lines, 
 338. 
 
 Nation, one form of the State, 52. 
 
 Nationality, definition of, 53, 54 ; 
 oppressed nationalities, 246. 
 
 Nationalrath, Swiss, its constitution, 
 152. 
 
 Naturalization, contrast as to, be- 
 tween different ages, 126-127. 
 
 Neale, Mr. J. Af., quoted, 338. 
 
 Niblcy Green, battle of, 328. 
 
 Niebuhr, his view of the gentes, 264. 
 
 Nicdcrgelassenen, Swiss, answer to 
 the Greek utrontot, 183-185. 
 
 Nub i I is, meaning of, at Rome, 105. 
 
 OLIGARCHY. 
 
 Nobility, none in England, 150, 170- 
 171 ; various origins of, 159, 160 ; 
 nobility of office supplants nobility 
 of birth, 159, 165, 166; im- 
 memorial among the Teutonic 
 nations, 162 ; history of at Athens, 
 162-164 ; at Rome, 164-165 ; ple- 
 beian form of at Rome, 165, 166 ; 
 modern, its origin in the Comi- 
 tatus, 170 ; nature of in France, 
 172, 173. 
 
 Nomen, use of at Rome, 68 ; its 
 political importance, 266. 
 
 Nomenclature, diversities of in kin- 
 dred tongues, 43 ; analogies in, 
 46, 47 ; Roman and Athenian 
 compared, 263, 266. 
 
 Non-Aryan Races, analogies of their 
 institutions, 37. 
 
 Norman Conquest of England, its 
 effects, 113. 
 
 Northumberland, formation of the 
 kingdom of, 111, 281. 
 
 Norway, united under Harold Har- 
 fagra, 111. 
 
 Nomis Homo, at Rome, 166. 
 
 Numa, Greek element in his legend, 
 96 ; its value, 295, 296. 
 
 Niirnbcrg, patrician families at, 326. 
 
 O. 
 
 'nfSai, their nature and duration at 
 Sparta, 68, 268. 
 
 Odoacer, his patriciate, 301. 
 
 Odysseus, his dealings with the 
 
 . kings before Ilios, 111 ; legends 
 of in Germany, 233 ; how de- 
 scribed by Alfred, 313. 
 
 Offices, various names of in kindred 
 tongues, 45-46. 
 
 Old Man of the Mountain, his de- 
 scription, 47, 241. 
 
 Old-Saxons, their retention of the 
 old freedom, 78 ; their federal 
 union, 78, 276 ; kingship unknown 
 among, 106 ; three orders among, 
 321. 
 
 Oligarch y, growth of at Venice, 320.
 
 856 
 
 INDEX 
 
 OLYMPIAS. 
 
 Olympias, claims a trial before the 
 
 Macedonian Assembly, 314. 
 Opposition speakers, existence of in 
 
 the Homeric Assembly, 133. 
 "O/yewj/fs at Athens, 266. 
 Ottomans, called Romans in the East, 
 
 260. 
 Oxford University, way of voting in 
 
 Convocation, 316. 
 
 P. 
 
 Pagan, origin of the name, 72. 
 Pagus, equivalent to Gau or Shire, 
 
 76 ; mediaeval definition of, 248. 
 Papacy, its witness to Roman per- 
 manence, 213. 
 Parish, its connexion with the Mark, 
 
 75, 279. 
 Parliament, its origin and growth 
 
 in England, 13, 149, 150 ; action 
 
 of at Florence, 153, 320. 
 Parthentin, its use as a Christian 
 
 church, 214. 
 
 Patria, use of the word, 55. 
 Patria Potestas, its connexion with 
 
 the Mund, 75. 
 Patricians, use of the name in the 
 
 (lerman cities, 85 ; origin of their 
 
 privileges at Rome, 160, 163, 321 ; 
 
 gradual loss of them, 164, 165. 
 Patriciate of Theodoric, 301 ; of 
 
 Odoacer, ib. 
 
 Tlarpis, use of the word, 55, 248. 
 Patronymics, use of in English local 
 
 nomenclature, 66, 262 ; practical 
 
 effect of their use, 68. 
 Peerage, English, its origin and 
 
 nature, 170-171 ; its existence in- 
 consistent with nobility, 170, 171. 
 Pclops, no authority in Homer for 
 
 his Lydian origin, 288. 
 Pembrokeshire, local nomenclature 
 
 of, 262. 
 I\tvtari, Thessalian, position of, 
 
 311. 
 Perc.yriiii, distingushed from Gives, 
 
 258. 
 
 POSEIDON. 
 
 Pergamos, rise of, 203. 
 Perikles, nature of his influence, 
 139 ; his description of demo- 
 cracy, 315. 
 
 IlepiotKot, their position, 161 ; in- 
 stances of, in mediaeval and 
 modern Europe, 185-188; differ- 
 ences in their practical position, 
 188, 189; compared with the 
 Italian allies, 330. 
 
 Persians, their military powers, 234. 
 Philology, Comparative, its relations 
 to the other comparative sciences, 
 2, 7, 11 ; germs of in Giraldus 
 and Roger Bacon, 332, 333. 
 Philotas, condemned by the Mace- 
 donian Assembly, 314. 
 Qparpa, tpparpta, <f>pdru>p, use of the 
 words, 46 ; answer to the Latin 
 curia, 67 ; and the Teutonic hun- 
 dred, 75 ; cognate words, 240. 
 $v\o&u<n\f'is, origin of their office, 
 
 295. 
 
 Pippin, patriciate of, 104. 
 Plcbs, at Rome, its origin, 70, 165 ; 
 offices gradually thrown open to, 
 164 ; origin of plebeian nobility, 
 165 ; opposed by Sallust to no- 
 bilitas, 322. 
 
 Poland, nature of kingship in, 89 ; 
 aristocratic primary assembly in, 
 125, 155, 320 ; approach to aristo- 
 cracy in, 174 ; its position under 
 the Jagellons, 232 ; character of 
 its constitution, 238. 
 Polenutrch, his position at Athens, 
 
 100. 
 
 IloAiTio, use of the word by Aris- 
 totle, 238, 242. 
 Politics, Comparative, definition of, 
 
 12 ; its object, 23. 
 
 Polybios, his special position and 
 experience, 202-203 ; his legis- 
 lation, 203 ; his language, ib. 
 Pontificate at Rome opened to Ple- 
 beians, 164. 
 
 Poseidon, his position in the divine 
 assembly, 131.
 
 INDEX 
 
 357 
 
 POT1DAIA. 
 
 Fotidaia, her relations to Athens 
 and Corinth, 331. 
 
 Presidents of republics, modern no- 
 tion of, 117 ; position of, in the 
 United States, 118; tendency to 
 lessen their powers, 119. 
 
 Printing, invented more than once, 
 20. 
 
 Provincials, position of, 258. 
 
 Prudenlius, his position in the his- 
 tory of the Latin language, 209. 
 
 Prussia, its analogy with Sardinia, 
 287. 
 
 Tlpvravfis, use of the name, 295 ; 
 their presidency of the Assembly, 
 298. 
 
 Purchase of territory, rare in ancient 
 Greece, 186 ; cases of, in mediieval 
 Europe, 186, 187. 
 
 Pyrrhos of Epeiros, 102. 
 
 R. 
 
 Rcetia, confederations of, 232. 
 
 Rambert, M., quoted, 310. 
 
 Ramnes, their origin, 70 ; oldest 
 name of the Romans, 295. 
 
 Ravenna, historical position of the 
 city, 212 ; Greek inscriptions at, 
 336. 
 
 Rcgia, applied to the house of the 
 Emperor, 104, 303. 
 
 Rcgintt, applied to wives of Empe- 
 rors, 104, 303 ; to the wife of the 
 Rex sacrorum, 294. 
 
 Regnum, applied to the Empire, 104, 
 303. 
 
 Reiks, force of the word in Gothic, 
 239. 
 
 Religions, various ways of spreading, 
 18. 
 
 Representation, necessary in a large 
 state, 143 145. 
 
 Reprttentativet, House of, its consti- 
 tution, 151. 
 
 Residence, counts for nothing in city 
 commonwealth*, 253. 
 
 RupffnsQnHty, distinguishes king 
 and magistrate, 297. 
 
 Rex, origin and cognates of the 
 name, 44 ; Emperors never so 
 called, 104, 304. 
 
 Rex sacrorum, Rex sacrificuhis, ori- 
 ginal nature of his office, 95, 291. 
 
 'PTJ, use of the title, 231. 
 
 Rhodes, duration of its independ- 
 ence, 258. 
 
 Rice, its cognates, 239. 
 
 Rienzi, titles taken by, 304. 
 
 Roderick, called King of the Romans, 
 260. 
 
 Roger Bacon, his account of the 
 Romance languages, 332. 
 
 Ronuei, meaning of the form, 232. 
 
 'PwfjMios, use of the name, 227, 260. 
 
 Romance Languages, their origin, 
 82-83. 
 
 Romans, connexions of their good 
 and bad points, 52. 
 
 Rome, her progress, 27 ; source of 
 her greatness, 28 ; in what sense 
 eternal, ib. ; her relation to the 
 Teutonic kingdoms, 31, 83, 212 ; 
 conservative character of her 
 history, 50 ; the greatest example 
 of the city-commonwealth, 62 ; 
 gradual extension of her citizen- 
 ship, 62, 63, 227 ; failure of her 
 municipal system, 63, 149 ; im- 
 portance of the gentes at, 67 ; 
 local nature of her tribes, 70 ; 
 more nearly a nation than Greece, 
 71 ; history and nature of king- 
 ship at, 94, 96, 97 ; change 
 from kings to consuls at, 98, 97 : 
 power of magistrates at, 100, 103 : 
 abiding influence of her law, S3 ; 
 growth of the Emperors, 103 : re- 
 storation of kingship at, 104 : mili- 
 tary assemblies unknown at, 12K ; 
 way of voting in the assemblies at, 
 145; analogies with the Federal 
 period in Greene, 146 ; character 
 of her political parties, 147 ; re- 
 lation of the {towers of the state
 
 358 
 
 INDEX 
 
 ROMILIA. 
 
 in, 147, 148 ; origin of the patri- 
 cians at, 160, 162, 311, 321 ; 
 gradual loss of their privileges, 
 164, 165 ; their nobility gives way 
 to that of office, 165, 166 ; slight 
 traces of the comitatus at, 168 ; 
 clientage at, 168-170; law of 
 private vengeance at, 176 ; tyran- 
 nicide lawful at, ib. ; law of 
 talio at, 178 ; her true position in 
 universal history, 198, 209, 212; 
 influence of Greece on, 206 ; 
 special nature of her influence, 
 210, 213 ; Eastern parallels of its 
 later history, 216 ; long retention 
 of her titles, 216, 260 ; character 
 of her early legends, 232 ; feelings 
 of her citizens and subjects during 
 the Hannibalian war, 245 ; its 
 origin, 258 ; growth of aristocracy 
 at, 311. 
 
 Romilia gens, its insignificance, 296. 
 
 Romulus, Greek element in his 
 legend, 96, 295. 
 
 Root, a new one impossible, 6. 
 
 Roi',m, Sultans of, 260. 
 
 Royalty, modern notion of, 119. 
 
 Ru-ssia, cycle in its history, 232 ; 
 absolute power in, 307. 
 
 S.' 
 
 Salamis, Athenian senate and as- 
 sembly at, 312. 
 
 Samos, action of the Athenian fleet 
 at, 312. 
 
 Sardinia, its analogy with Prussia, 
 287. 
 
 Sarmfttians, their alleged presence 
 at Chalons, 237. 
 
 Saturnian metre, mediaeval revival 
 of, 209. 
 
 Samgny, F. C., quoted, 317. 
 
 Savoy, Northern, its conquest by 
 Bern, 188, 330. 
 
 Scabini, Schd/cn, growth of, 317. 
 
 Scandinavia, character of its his- 
 tory, 30, 87 ; its kingdoms un- 
 touched by late revolutions, 228. 
 
 SLESWICK. 
 
 Sceaf, son of Noah, 306. 
 
 Schmid, Dr. R., his views on the 
 mark, 275. 
 
 School of History, needed at Oxford, 
 341. 
 
 Science of Language, its results, 8. 
 
 Scipio, an exile at Liternum, 55, 248. 
 
 Scirgemtit, traces of, 153. 
 
 Scotland, growth of, as an artificial 
 nation, 52. 
 
 Snclands, Frisian, 277. 
 
 Seleukia, its history and constitu- 
 tion, 300. 
 
 Semitic languages, their relation to 
 the Aryan, 38, 237. 
 
 Senate, Achaian, often acts as the 
 Assembly, 140. 
 
 Senate, Athenian, a specially demo- 
 cratic body, 319. 
 
 Senate, Roman, history of, 50 ; com- 
 parison of Rome and Athens, 
 146 ; mode of appointment to, 
 147 ; its relations to the Assem- 
 bly, 147-148 ; its position under 
 the Empire, 149, 319. 
 
 Senate in the United States, its con- 
 stitution, 151 ; its special powers, 
 152. 
 
 Seniorissa, title, 240. 
 
 Servius, value of his legend, 295. 
 
 Shire, its relation to the Gau or 
 Pagus, 76, 277, 278 ; made up of 
 hundreds, 76 ; origin of the name, 
 80, 279 ; nomenclature of, in 
 England, 279, 280. 
 
 Sicily, battle-field of East and West, 
 204 ; permanence of the Greek 
 language in, 205 ; no part of the 
 Italian kingdom, 287. 
 
 Slavery, nature of, 126, 310 ; its 
 origin and character in early 
 times, 161 ; history of, in Eng- 
 land, 321. 
 
 Slavonic nations, their relation to 
 the Eastern Church and Empire, 
 32 ; their past and future, ib. 
 
 Sleswick, its relations to Denmark, 
 228.
 
 INDEX 
 
 SMITH. 
 
 Smith, Mr. Goldwin, quoted, 303. 
 
 Soeii, position of, 258. 
 
 Solar theory, how far sound, 7, 
 222. 
 
 Soldiers, no distinct profession in 
 early times, 127. 
 
 Solon, effect of his legislation, 162. 
 
 Spain, Teutonic character of its 
 political institutions, 82 ; Gothic 
 kingdom in, 1 15 ; speedy growth 
 of Roman civilization in, 237 ; re- 
 covery of its southern part by 
 Justinian, 308. 
 
 Sparta, formed out of villages, 57, 
 252 ; its unwilling union with 
 the Achaian League, 59 ; history 
 of kingship at, 95, 98, 292; 
 grants of citizenship at, 254 ; 
 its kings compared with the Ro- 
 man consuls, 293 ; classes of the 
 unfree at, 311 ; proceedings of 
 the Assembly at, 315. 
 
 Speeches, how far trustworthy in 
 classical history, 259. 
 
 Staatenbund, distinguished from 
 Bundesstaat, 256. 
 
 Standerath, Swiss, its constitution, 
 151 ; its necessity, 152. 
 
 State, conception of as a city, 52 ; as 
 a nation, ib. ; Greek conception of, 
 54. 
 
 SMsichorus, quoted, 234. 
 
 Sthenelaldas, Ephor, puts the vote 
 in the Spartan Assembly, 316. 
 
 Stranqford, Viscount, quoted, 335. 
 
 Summons, right of, how dealt with 
 by lawyers, 150. 
 
 Survivals, doctrine of, 9, 222 ; of 
 kingship, 94, 97. 
 
 Sweden, four estates in, 149 ; ap- 
 proach to aristocracy in, 174. 
 
 Switzerland, ita constitution copied 
 from that of the United States, 
 21 ; growth of as an artificial 
 nation, 52 ; common neglect of 
 ita history, 118; form of the 
 Federal executive in, 1 19 ; con- 
 stitution of the two Houses of the 
 
 TEUTONS. 
 
 Assembly, 151 ; freedom of the 
 Forest Cantons, 154 ; their 
 assemblies, ib. ; working of the 
 present constitution, 184 ; in- 
 stances of irtpiotKoi in, 18(> ; effects 
 of the French invasion of, 187 ; 
 treatment of the common baili- 
 wicks, 189 ; position of the Ro- 
 mance cantons in, 228 ; origin of 
 the confederation, 235 ; use of 
 the name, 284 ; importance of its 
 history, 330. 
 
 Sysscl, equivalent to Gau or Shire, 
 76. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tacitus, his views as to mixed 
 government, 42, 238 ; his picture 
 of the early Germans, 42, 104 ; 
 trustworthiness of his Germania, 
 239 ; his report of Claudius' 
 speech, 259. 
 
 Talio, recognized by the Mosaic and 
 Roman law, 178 ; how regulated 
 in England, 178, 179. 
 
 Territorial idea of kingship, 112; 
 titles, ib. 
 
 Teutonics, use of the word by Giral- 
 dus, 333. 
 
 Teutons, their separation from the 
 other Aryan stocks in Europe, 
 35 ; their institutions more pri- 
 mitive than those of Greece and 
 Italy, 64 ; the idea of the city 
 never fully developed among, 
 65, 73 ; relations of their history 
 to that of Greece and Italy, 71, 
 82 ; their tribes grow into na- 
 tions, 72, 79 ; their slower but 
 surer growth, 74 ; first descrip- 
 tion of them by Tacitus, 74, 
 75 ; carry their institutions into 
 the conquered countries, 78, 79 ; 
 their institutions the groundwork 
 of modern European society, 82 ; 
 modification of their institutions 
 through Roman influences, 82,
 
 800 
 
 INDEX 
 
 }>EGENL1C. 
 
 83, 115 ; position of cities among, 
 83. 
 
 Bcgenlic, use of the word, 324. 
 
 Thcgn, analogies with, in other na- 
 tions, 166 ; origin and growth of 
 the order, 166, 167 ; change in 
 the meaning of the word, 167, 
 323 ; supplant the Eorls, 156, 170. 
 
 Theodoric, his consulship and patri- 
 ciate, 103, 301. 
 
 SfpdirovTfs, answer to the English 
 tygnas, 166. 
 
 Thcrsit&s, how dealt with in the 
 Homeric Assembly, 133. 
 
 Thierry, Augustin, quoted, 223. 
 
 Thirlwall, Bishop, quoted, 337. 
 
 Thiudans, origin and cognates of the 
 name, 44. 
 
 Three Estates, popular error about, 
 222. 
 
 Thucydides, character of his history, 
 227 ; witness of his Preface, 251. 
 
 Tiberius at Capreae, 55. 
 
 Timbrian, use of the word, 233. 
 
 Tithing, authorities on, 275. 
 
 Titienses, their origin, 70. 
 
 Toulouse, its capitol and magistrates, 
 17, 223. 
 
 Towns, various classes of, in Eng- 
 land, 283. 
 
 Tribes, Dorian, 68, 69 ; local origin 
 of at Rome, 69, 70, 269, 270 ; 
 their later character at Athens, 
 70, 269 ; formation of new tribes 
 at Rome, 70, 271 ; their relation 
 to the Gau, 77 ; temporary union 
 of, ib. ; assembly of, at Rome, 
 145. 
 
 Tribunes, their power at Rome, 
 147. 
 
 Tribunitia potestas, chief source of 
 the imperial power, 103, 300. 
 
 Tylor, Mr. E. ., quoted, 12, 222, 
 328. 
 
 Tyrannicide, lawful at Rome and 
 Athens, 176. 
 
 Tyrant, meaning of the name, 101. 
 
 VIEKLASUK. 
 
 U. 
 
 Undersatcn, use of the word, 330. 
 
 Unfree, position of, 311. 
 
 United States, analogy between its 
 constitution and that of Achaia, 
 21 ; their relation to British 
 America, 52 ; constitution of the 
 two Houses of Congress, 151. 
 
 United Provinces, origin of their 
 confederation, 235. 
 
 Unterthanen answer to icepioiKoi, 188. 
 
 Urbs Sterna, use of the name, 228. 
 
 Uri, its possession of dependencies, 
 188 ; bull of, 233. 
 
 V. 
 
 Valtelina, its history, 188. 
 
 Vandals, history of their kingdom, 
 115. 
 
 Vassal, origin of the word, 324. 
 
 Vassalage, origin and growth of, 167; 
 its connexion with the old comita- 
 tus, 324, 325. 
 
 Veii, Roman assembly held at, 312. 
 
 Vengeance, private, origin of crimi- 
 nal jurisprudence, 175 ; gradually 
 regulated by the commonwealth, 
 176 ; Hebrew, Greek, Roman, and 
 English legislation on, 326, 327 ; 
 regulated by the wergild, 178- 
 180. 
 
 Venice, its unbroken connexion with 
 ancient times, 82, 283 ; Great 
 Council of, 125, 188, 320 ; position 
 of the cittadini at, 161 ; origin and 
 character of its nobility, 167, 
 174 ; nature of its government, 
 172-173 ; its relation to its subject 
 states, 185. 
 
 Verona, name of, 284. 
 
 Vestry, parish, represents the 
 assembly of the Mark, 153. 
 
 Vierlande, district of, held in con- 
 dominium by Liibeck and Ham- 
 burg, 186.
 
 INDEX 
 
 361 
 
 Village, a stage between the family 
 and the oity, 261. 
 
 Village communities, a form of the 
 Gens, 66, 75, 262; first recorded 
 state of the Teutonic nations, 75. 
 
 Villains, position of, 161, 311. 
 
 Voting, early ways of, 133. 
 
 Voting-papers, use of at Rome, 260. 
 
 W. 
 
 Wager of battle, its origin and aboli- 
 tion, 177. 
 
 Waitz, O. H., quoted, 239, 240, 274, 
 275, 276, 288, 311, 317, 322, 324. 
 
 Wallis, retention of the old freedom 
 in, 78 ; dominion of Upper over 
 Lower, 188. 
 
 War, private, gradually limited by 
 law, 176-180 ; late case of in 
 England, 180. 
 
 Ward, Mr. A. W., 342. 
 
 Warren, Mr. J. L., quoted, 336. 
 
 Washington, Capitol of, 17. 
 
 Werglld, a common Aryan institu- 
 tion, 175, 178 ; grows out of the 
 right of private vengeance, 175- 
 178 ; notices of in Homer, 178 ; 
 Old-English legislation on, 178, 
 179 ; between nation and nation, 
 179 ; late instance of, in England, 
 180. 
 
 Wtti-Gotiis, extent of their kingdom, 
 23J. 
 
 ZURICHGATT. 
 
 West-Saxons, growth of their king- 
 dom, 81 ; fall back on the govern- 
 ment of Ealdormen, 109 ; con- 
 federate Under-kings among, 1 10 ; 
 permanence of their royal house, 
 114. 
 
 Whiteside, Chief Justice, his views 
 on Switzerland, 308. 
 
 William the Conqueror finally unites 
 the English kingdom, 113 ; effects 
 of his legislation, 170, 171. 
 
 William Unfits, his theory of the 
 royal supremacy, 230. 
 
 W-itenayemot, an assembly of all 
 freemen, 141 ; shrinks into a small 
 body, 141, 145 ; continued in the 
 House of Lords, 150 ; its ancient 
 powers, 156. 
 
 Woden, forefather of the Teutonic 
 kings, 105, 305, 306 ; looked on 
 as a man in Christian times, 107. 
 
 Wunn, C. /., quoted, 330. 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zeus, his power in the Assembly of 
 the Gods, 130, 131 ; tM'ofold con- 
 ception of him, 132. 
 
 Zeuss, K., quoted, 278. 
 
 Zurich, origin of the city, 284. 
 
 Zurich'jau, local nomenclature of, 
 263. 
 
 Till: END
 
 RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED, 
 LONDON & BUNUAY.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, LOS ANGELES 
 
 COLLEGE LIBRARY 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Book Slip-25m-9,'60(.B2<936s4)4280
 
 UCLA-College Library 
 
 JC 21 F87C 1896 
 
 i 005 690 837 9 
 If 
 
 College 
 Library 
 
 JC 
 21 
 
 F8?c 
 1896 
 
 5> > 
 
 >> > 
 g> - 
 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIO^L LIBRARY FAaUT. 
 
 TTooi 037 663 o 
 
 -* > 
 
 >a 
 
 > , :