CAWTHQHN & HUTT, 
 
 24,. COCKSPUR STREET, 
 
 CHARING CEOSS. S.W,
 
 - 8

 
 COMPARATIVE POLITICS. 
 
 SIX LECTURES READ BEFORE THE ROYAL INSTITUTION 
 IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, 1873. "Cl 
 
 THE UNITY OF HISTORY 
 
 THE REDE LECTURE READ BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, 
 MAY 29, 1872. 
 
 EDWARD A. FREEMAN, M.A., HON. D.C.L., 
 
 LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 " Fades non omnibus nna, 
 Xec diversa tamen, qualem decet esse sororum." 
 
 OVID, Met. ii. 13. 
 
 LONDON: 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 1873.
 
 LONDON: 
 PK1NTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, 
 
 STAMFOHD STItKKT AKD CHABING CROSS.
 
 JC 
 
 F7 
 
 PEEFACE. 
 
 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 my- 
 self 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 mytho- 
 logy, 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
 
 iv Preface. 
 
 of history may be led to take up the subject and to 
 carry it on farther. What I have done may perhaps 
 be enough to show that Greeks, Italians, and Teutons 
 have a large common stock of institutions, institu- 
 tions whose likeness cannot be otherwise accounted 
 for than by the supposition of their common primi- 
 tive 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 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 examina- 
 tion, 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 posi- 
 tions 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 sug-
 
 Preface. v 
 
 gestion 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 neces- 
 sarily 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 my- 
 self 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 
 better worth attending to than those fastidious per- 
 sons 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
 
 vi Preface. 
 
 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 Insti- 
 tution this year I have added the Rede Lecture 
 which I had the great pleasure of being called on to 
 give before the University 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 contributions 
 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 establish- 
 ment 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 Cite
 
 Preface. vii 
 
 Antique, at least in the English form into which it 
 has been thrown by Mr. T. C. Barker in his book 
 called i Aryan Civilization.' It deals of course with 
 many of the subjects with which I have dealt, and 
 those which it does deal with, are 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 everything 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 through- 
 out the book. Among foreign writers it will be seen 
 that I have drawn most largely on the great Deutsche 
 Verfassungsgeschichte of Gr. 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 26th, 1873.
 
 \ 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 40, heading, read " Rise and Fall of." 
 
 43, 1. 1, dde comma after " own." 
 
 65, 1. 9 from bottom, for " These " read " This." 
 
 78, 1. 10 from bottom, for " any member " read " all its members." 
 
 89, 1. 6, dele comma after " done." 
 
 95, 1. 3 from bottom, for " true-city life " read " true city-life." 
 
 117, 1. 6, dele comma after "community." 
 
 118, 1. 6, for " must have been " read " was." 
 
 162, 1. 14, for " yet " read " as yet." 
 
 191, 1. 1 from bottom, for " do " read " did." 
 
 194, 1. 5, dele comma after " rights." 
 
 202, 1. 9, for " blood " read " birth." 
 
 214, 1. 3, for " body," read " body of men." 
 
 287, I. 12, for " extent also," read " extent, also." 
 
 311, 1. 1, for " the " read " an." 
 
 334 1. 4, for " dare " read " dare to." 
 
 , 352, 1. 10 from bottom, for " apostolicum orbis " read " apostolicum orbit.' 
 
 362, 1. 6, for " men " read " man."
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTUKE I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE RANGE OF THE COMPARATIVE SCIENCES.. .. 1 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTONIC 37 
 
 LECTUEE HI. 
 THE STATE w 76 
 
 LECTUEE IV. 
 THE KING .. .. -, .'" .. 137 
 
 LECTUEE V. 
 
 THE ASSEMBLY .. .. ^ , .. : .. 189 
 
 LECTUEE VI. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES.. .. .. .. 244 
 
 EEDE LECTUEE. 
 THE UNITY OF HISTORY 296 
 
 NOTES TO THE LECTURES .. .. .. /'. 341
 
 COMPARATIVE POLITICS. 
 
 LECTUKE I. 
 THE EANGE OF THE COMPAEATIVE 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 confusion. It has 
 brought a line of argument which reaches moral cer- 
 tainty 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 im- 
 possible to believe that it can ever be dislodged. 
 Here and there we come across facts which show us 
 
 B
 
 2 Tlie Comparative Method. [LECT. 
 
 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 philo- 
 logers, but who often have a purely literary know- 
 ledge 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 Compara- 
 tive Philology had never been heard of. And there 
 are 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 impor- 
 tance, but who sneered at the scientific doctrine of
 
 L] Comparative Philology. 3 
 
 the relations of languages as the " Aryan heresy." 
 Such men are most likely no longer to be found. 
 The disbelievers in Comparative Philology, as distin- 
 guished 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 far as this country is con- 
 cerned, 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 applications of the Com- 
 parative Method are later in date, and they have not 
 yet won the same strong and unassailable position. 
 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 Comparative Mythology and other applications 
 
 B 2
 
 4 Comparative Philology [LECTV 
 
 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 ordi- 
 nary 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.
 
 
 
 I.] and Comparative Mythology. 5 
 
 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 ac- 
 cepted 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 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 prse-historic growth of man for which 
 we have no recorded evidence, but which it makes 
 far more certain than much which professes to rest
 
 6 Comparative Philology [LECT.. 
 
 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 r 
 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 ex- 
 plained 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 phenomena, 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
 
 I.] self -convincing . 
 
 were once one language, that the nations which 
 speak those languages were once one nation, and 
 that 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 he 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 ex- 
 planation in any case. The alleged points of like- 
 ness 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
 
 8 Mutual Relation of Comparative Philology [LECT. 
 
 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 ex- 
 plained 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 Philo- 
 logy proper. We are told, for instance, that the 
 Charites, the Graces, in the Greek mythology are 
 the same as the Hants', the horses of the Sun, in the 
 Indian mythology. The philological 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
 
 I.] and Comparative Mythology. 9 
 
 connexion between the Cliarites 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 Charlies 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 Charlies are as 
 directly impersonations as Ate and the Lltal ; they 
 may deem that they took their name from the 
 noun xa/H9, 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 Compara- 
 tive 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 lan- 
 guage 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
 
 10 Distinctions between Comparative Philology [LECTV 
 
 Aryan family, or common to all mankind, and yet we 
 may hold that many particular legends, Hellenic, Teu- 
 tonic, 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 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 Philo- 
 logy 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
 
 I.] and Comparative Mythology. 11 
 
 people must be tested. That method is still the 
 safeguard against all unscientific treatment of the 
 subject against running, for instance, to Egypt, Phoe- 
 nicia, 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 
 Mythology, there is a third branch of knowledge to 
 which the Comparative Method has lately been ap- 
 plied 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 cus- 
 toms, and the grouping together of the wonderful 
 analogies which they set before us in times and 
 places the most remote from one another. This is 
 .an inquiry which follows easily, and almost neces- 
 sarily, upon Comparative Philology itself. We have 
 seen that, by Comparative Philology alone, without
 
 12 The Comparative Method Applied [LECT. 
 
 any external evidence of any kind, we can find 
 out a great deal as to the social, political, and reli- 
 gious 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 dis- 
 covery 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
 
 I.] to Customs and Ceremonies. 13 
 
 the Hadriatic. But in this line of inquiry it is to lan- 
 guage 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 inquirer is now searching. Such 
 a research could hardly be carried on except by one 
 to whom the studies of Comparative Philology and 
 Comparative Mythology were already familiar : lin- 
 guistic science gives the inquirer help at every step ; 
 legendary lore gives him help more precious still; 
 but his immediate 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 reli- 
 gious rite, the social or domestic order, up to its
 
 14 The Doctrine [LECT. 
 
 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 meaningless to those who stand 
 without the gate. But, by comparing 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 down- 
 wards. 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 Com- 
 parative Philologer shows that inflexions and ter- 
 minations which seem to be purely arbitrary were 
 once whole and living words, having as true a mean- 
 ing as the root which they now simply serve to 
 modify as he can trace out a long history of Ian-
 
 I.] of Survivals. 15 
 
 guage and of much beside language in the single 
 letter, the mere Yes V and Yes 'm, to which a short 
 and careless utterance has cut down the once sound- 
 ing titles of Senior and mea Domina (5) as the Com- 
 parative 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 ges- 
 ture, 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 pri- 
 maeval 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
 
 16 delations of [LECT. 
 
 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 Com- 
 parative Method no less strictly than it is followed 
 by Comparative Philology and Comparative Mytho- 
 logy. 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 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 
 forefathers of the two nations which are found using it 
 formed one people. It may be so ; doubtless it often
 
 I.] the Three Sciences. 17 
 
 is so. But it may also happen that the custom is in 
 each case an independent 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 mankind 
 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 meaning 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 
 
 c
 
 18 Definition of [LECT. 
 
 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 Comparative 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. 
 
 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
 
 I.] Comparative Politics. 19 
 
 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 treat- 
 ment of a part of Mr. Tylor's subject, namely those 
 customs, ceremonies, formula, 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 
 
 c 2
 
 20 Different Causes of [LECT. 
 
 not given special attention 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 un- 
 learned 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 compare, 
 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
 
 I.] Likeness and Unlikeness. 21 
 
 with the subject of our present inquiry. We are 
 concerned with the essential likeness of institutions, 
 and we must never allow incidental points of unlike- 
 ness 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 will 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 dif- 
 ference 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 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 par-
 
 22 Cases of [LECT. 
 
 ticular 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 par-
 
 I.] Direct Imitation. 23 
 
 ticular 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 absolutely colourless as gram- 
 matical 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 un- 
 expected 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
 
 24 Cases of Transplantation [LECT.. 
 
 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 insti- 
 tutions 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 trans- 
 mission 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 
 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 which it plants with its own
 
 I.] of Institutions. 25- 
 
 citizens. Take for instance, what so long was the 
 greatest dependency of England, a conquered pro- 
 vince 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 Government, central and local, was repro- 
 duced as a matter of course. The Houses of Par- 
 liament, 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 compa- 
 ratively 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-
 
 26 Different kinds of [LECT. 
 
 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 institutions and 
 the names of those institutions as a matter of course. 
 Cases of imitation properly so called are something 
 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 con- 
 stitution of the English Parliament, a constitution 
 which in England came about as the mere result of 
 circumstances, 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 repro- 
 duction in Ireland. The difference may be likened 
 to the difference between the real kindred which 
 springs from natural parentage and the artificial
 
 I.] Direct Imitation. 27 
 
 kindred which springs from the legal fiction of adop- 
 tion. 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 Eome. I 
 say mere imitation, because it is hardly likely that, 
 even at Toulouse, the name Capitollum and the magis- 
 tracy 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 Eome, 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 trans- 
 mission, yet it is imitation of a kind which differs as 
 little 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
 
 28 Transmission of [LECT.. 
 
 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 consulship 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 Buona- 
 parte and his colleagues. We may thus distinguish 
 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 con- 
 sciously 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. "VVe 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
 
 I.J Creeds and Languages. 29 
 
 has been spread over its subjects and neighbours, 
 or a people have of their own free will adopted a 
 oreed 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, 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 con- 
 querors 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
 
 30 Like Results springing [LECTV 
 
 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 con- 
 nexion 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
 
 L] from like Causes. 31 
 
 they may be from one another both in time and in 
 place, find themselves under like circumstances, the 
 chances are that the effect of this likeness of circum- 
 stances will show itself in the likeness of their in- 
 stitutions. 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 print- 
 ing 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
 
 32 Unconscious Reproduction [LECT. 
 
 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 in- 
 ventions of this kind is any sign of common deriva- 
 tion 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 
 times and places very far from one another. The 
 whole system of historical analogies rests on this 
 doctrine. We see the same political phsenomena re- 
 peating 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
 
 1.1 of Institutions. 33 
 
 which are merely incidental, is the true philosophy of 
 history. Of the way in which political circumstances 
 and institutions repeat themselves, where no kind of 
 borrowing or imitation can be thought of, many in- 
 stances 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 Con- 
 stitution of Switzerland is a conscious reproduction 
 of the Federal Constitution of America, with such 
 changes as were called for by the different circum- 
 stances of the two commonwealths (16). A better 
 illustration can hardly be found of the difference 
 
 D
 
 34 Common Political Heritage [LECT. 
 
 between likenesses which are owing to direct trans- 
 mission 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 direct and conscious reproduction or imita- 
 tion, 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 like- 
 ness 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 like- 
 nesses which we find in their languages and their
 
 L] of the Aryan Nations. 35 
 
 mythology the obvious inference is that the like- 
 ness 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 as- 
 under, the common forefathers of both had made cer- 
 tain advances in political life, had developed certain 
 common political institutions, traces or developements 
 of which are still to be seen in the political insti- 
 tutions 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 constitu- 
 tions, each of which has characteristic features of its 
 own, but all of which keep enough of likeness to show 
 that they are all offshoots from one common 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 distin- 
 guished, is the object of the inquiry which I have 
 ventured to call Comparative Politics. Having thus, 
 in this Introductory Lecture, tried to establish the 
 
 D 2
 
 36 The three chief Aryan Nations. [LECT. I. 
 
 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 illus- 
 trious branches of the common stock the Greek T 
 the Koman, and the Teuton.
 
 LECTURE II. 
 GREEK, EOMAN, AND TEUTON. 
 
 WE are now fairly embarked on our subject. We 
 are now in a position to trace out all that the Com- 
 parative 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 
 themselves, 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
 
 38 Prominence of the Greek, [LECTV 
 
 records which set before us, not the physical big- 
 ness 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 his- 
 tory, three 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 
 Aryan family of nations, as a whole, stands out 
 above the other families of the world, so the Greek, 
 the Eoman, and the Teuton, each in his own turn,, 
 stands out above the other nations of the Aryan
 
 II.] Roman, and Teutonic Races. 3 9 
 
 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 civi- 
 lized 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 penin- 
 sulas, of harbours and inland seas the land formed 
 by the hand of Nature to be the home of those count- 
 less independent commonwealths which were the ear- 
 liest and the" most 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
 
 40 Rise and Fall [LECT. 
 
 native 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
 
 II.] of the Greek Nation. 41 
 
 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 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 civil- 
 ized man how at last the throne of Rome was fixed
 
 42 Historical Position |_LECIV 
 
 in a Grecian city how Greek and Eoman 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 Ro- 
 mulus 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.
 
 II.] of Rome. 43 
 
 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 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 (n). 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
 
 44 Relations between Rome [LECT. 
 
 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 con- 
 quered 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 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 predomi-
 
 II.] and the Teutonic Nations. 45 
 
 nance 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 pur- 
 poses of the present inquiry, it is a true one. In 
 purity of language indeed, our toDgue, 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 Scan- 
 dinavian 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 ear- 
 liest 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 insti- 
 tutions 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
 
 46 England the representative [LECT. 
 
 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 made the modern world ; it was the fore- 
 most example alike of Roman influence on the Teu- 
 ton and of Teutonic influence on the Roman. But, for 
 that very reason, it could not be 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 influ- 
 ences 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 encroach- 
 ments of despotism and oligarchy (15). But, widely 
 as our present constitution differs from the rude tradi- 
 tions 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 Parlia- 
 ment of England can trace its unbroken descent from
 
 II.j Teutonic Constitution. 47 
 
 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 Eoman land over- 
 run by Teutonic settlers who grew as it were from 
 colonists into conquerors. It is a land which had 
 ceased to be Eoman 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
 
 48 Fusion of Roman [LECT, 
 
 Constantino 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 pro- 
 cess 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 sub- 
 jects. 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
 
 II. J and Teutonic Elements. 49 
 
 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 heen foremost in European history 
 brought more closely together never did the magic 
 power of Eome 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, 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. Bulgaria, 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 
 
 E
 
 50 Original Kindred [LECT.. 
 
 later times has placed them high among the rulers of 
 the world, but has hardly placed them among its en- 
 lighteners. 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 per- 
 son, 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 itself could
 
 II.] of the Three Paces. 51 
 
 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. He- 
 rakles, 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 com- 
 mon 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 
 
 E 2
 
 52 Early State of [LECT. 
 
 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 rela- 
 tion 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 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
 
 II.] the European Aryans. 53 
 
 Mendip to the banks of the Strymon (2,6). 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 (2,7), 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 Yercingetorix. There marched, as yet 
 brethren of one house and speech, the forefathers 
 of Theseus and Achilleus, the forefathers of Theod- 
 oric 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 cham- 
 pions of right and freedom, the forefathers, as yet 
 one in speech and brotherhood, of Kleisthenes the 
 son of Megakles, of Caius Licinius, and of Simon of 
 Montfort. But after a while they part company. One 
 band leads the van of the westward march, to bear the
 
 54 Branching off of the [LEGT. 
 
 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 peninsulas as isolated frag- 
 ments of a once wide-spread and unbroken people (2,9). 
 While the Celtic vanguard presses 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, hus- 
 banding 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 common- 
 wealth 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 com- 
 panies at the head of the great Hadriatic Gulf, 
 the forefathers of the Hellenes and the forefathers
 
 IT. J Northern and Southern Swarms. 55 
 
 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 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
 
 56 The scattered Branches [LECT.. 
 
 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 Eoman 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 abiding 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 r 
 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
 
 II.] brought face to face. 57 
 
 either side of the Pyrenees (33). And around their 
 banners gathered the Frank and the Saxon, repre- 
 sentatives 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 re- 
 membered that Xerxes and Darius were their kins- 
 men. 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
 
 58 Primitive Institutions [LECT. 
 
 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 atten- 
 tion 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 
 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
 
 II.] not borrowed from each oilier. 59 
 
 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 Sextiee (36). It is abso- 
 lutely 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 borrow- 
 ing 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 circumstances 
 in different times and places. Even between two
 
 60 Institutions common to [II-ECT- 
 
 Aryan races, even between two tribes of the same 
 Aryan race, it is not always safe bastily 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 ? 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
 
 II.J Aryans and other Races. 61 
 
 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 un- 
 classified 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 Comparative Mythology. It is not 
 safe to set down any instance of likeness as being 
 necessarily a case of an inheritance from the com- 
 mon stock, unless we have some corroborative evi- 
 dence besides the likeness itself. We have the 
 highest degree of such corroborative evidence when- 
 ever 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
 
 62 Distinct Vocabularies [LECT. 
 
 names is not of itself proof that they are not part 
 of a common heritage. We must weigh all the cir- 
 cumstances 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 evi- 
 dence applied to other subjects, to be kindred 
 nations, holding in common a large share of the 
 primitive common stock if the nature of their poli- 
 tical institutions, no less than of their language, their 
 mythology, their customs of other kinds, naturally sug- 
 gests the thought of a common derivation 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 an- 
 other, 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
 
 n.] ' among kindred Nations. 63 
 
 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 pro- 
 cesses 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 separation, had already taken the first steps 
 in political life ; that they had already developed a 
 simple form of government, 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 
 themselves something which we may fairly call com- 
 mon 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
 
 4 Primitive Aryan [LECT. 
 
 the dispersion must have consisted of a few acknow- 
 ledged customs, a few acknowledged simple prin- 
 ciples ; 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 democracy, but they 
 certainly had not names for those abstract ideas. It 
 was each nation working for itself after the disper- 
 sion, 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 voca- 
 bulary 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 
 ach 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 nomen- 
 clature 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 far as we can go back,
 
 II.] Form of Government. G5 
 
 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 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 man- 
 kind (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. There 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 
 
 F
 
 66 The King, the Council, [LECT. 
 
 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 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
 
 II.] and the Assembly. 67 
 
 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 like- 
 ness 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 
 G-reeks, 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, ana- 
 logous 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 
 ha ve^ 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 go- 
 vernment from the common stock ; but the details 
 of each particular constitution, still more the details 
 of its political vocabulary, were worked out by each 
 
 F 2
 
 68 Various Titles [LECT, 
 
 nation for itself, or rather by each tribe of each 
 nation for itself, in times long after the dispersion. 
 At all events, the points of likeness and unlikenes& 
 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 space which is left me to-day. "We shall 
 find few or no cases in 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 /3a<n\eu?, JRex, 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 
 ai/a (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
 
 IJ.] of Kingship. 69 
 
 at different times, or by different branches of the 
 same race. The Gothic Thiudans and the English 
 Cyning must have expressed an office substantially 
 the same, because the Latin Rex and the Greek /3a- 
 <jf\eu9 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 then- 
 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 Latin Rex and the Teu- 
 tonic Cyning have nothing in common in their names ; 
 but, if we go one step beyond the titles borne 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 say of the one that he rexit, we say of the other 
 that he rixode (42). We may go further East and
 
 70 Cases of Cognate [LECT. 
 
 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 separa- 
 tion 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
 
 II.] Names of Offices. 71 
 
 may lurk between apx^" and regere. However this 
 may be, it is at least plain that the most obvious 
 words, ai/a and fiaatXevs, 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<n\evs should be quite distinct is no more 
 wonderful than that the names given by different 
 Italian and different Greek tribes to other closely 
 allied officers should be wholly distinct also. Latium 
 has its Praetors and Dictators, Samniurn has its Ln- 
 perators, while Rome has Pra?tors, Dictators, and 
 Imperators all at once. The only difference a dif- 
 ference of no importance for our purpose, though of 
 great importance in a strictly philological view is 
 that Pr&tor, Dictator, and Imperator are all words of 
 easy formation in Latin, while (3aai\evs 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 ev/fX^a/a ; at Sparta it is 
 the aXla. 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 ay op >'/ 
 which we have seen among the Achaians of Homer
 
 72 Cases of names which L LECT - 
 
 appears again among the Achaians of Poly bios (46). 
 The Greek <yeVt/ and the Latin gentes are palpably 
 the same in name as well as in substance ; but the 
 (f)parpMi and (frpa-ropes of Athens have in their political 
 use no Latin cognates, though we see in them the miss- 
 ing Greek cognates of the names of kindred, brother 
 and frater (47). So the Athenian pov\rj answers to 
 the Spartan ^epovata ; but now mark that, the Spartan 
 jepovffia translates the Latin Senatus. Mark too, that 
 the aristocratic order at Athens and at Rome are 
 respectively the tTnrer? and the Equites, words which 
 have a philological connexion in the far-off kindred 
 of iTnros 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 yepovaia 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 ^/icyyepoj/re? of Ilios, we have not 
 only Spartan and Eoman Senators, but Trpeafieis, 
 ambassadors, whose name of age has passed into a 
 name of office : we have Christian Presbyters and
 
 II.] translate one another. 73 
 
 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 
 l7T7rrj\arai of Homer, the iTTTrer? of Athens, the 
 Equites of Home, 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 equus, but from 
 the word caballus 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 Chro- 
 nicle, when King William dubs his son Henry to
 
 74 Plan of the [LECT. 
 
 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 on- 
 slaught 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 inheritance 
 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 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 follow- 
 ing 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 common- 
 wealth, as we see it in our first glimpses of Greek, 
 Eoman, and Teutonic political life. I shall thence
 
 II.] following Lectures. 75 
 
 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 primseval home, how many are the 
 signs of ancient brotherhood, which, notwithstanding 
 distance of place and time, notwithstanding mutual 
 ignorance and mutual hatred, may still be traced 
 among them.
 
 LECTURE 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. Wherever 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
 
 LECT. III.] The Three Elements. 77 
 
 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 up- 
 right. Any other standard, be it that of age, of birth, 
 or of wealth, is simply a substitute which 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 aristo- 
 cratic 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
 
 78 Rome the nearest approach [LECT. 
 
 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 magis- 
 tracies of the Commonwealth created the Em- 
 peror (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 any 
 member. 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 was ever reached in any political com-
 
 III.] to true Aristocracy. 79 
 
 munity upon earth, it surely was in the common- 
 wealth 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 rich 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 themselves (6). The 
 great idea of the State, the City, the Common- 
 wealth, 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
 
 80 Conception of the State [LECT. 
 
 Kome 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 ele- 
 ment 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 bad, the strong and the weak sides, 
 spring from the same source, and can hardly be sepa- 
 rated 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 him- 
 self 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 commonwealths, 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 conception of it, is a City ; and it can hardly
 
 in.] as a Nation. 81 
 
 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 
 conception of it which now prevails in modern Eu- 
 rope. 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 
 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 go- 
 vernment. 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 ter- 
 ritory inhabited by men speaking the same language, 
 but who, being separated from one another by the cir- 
 
 G
 
 82 Definition of [LECT, 
 
 cumstances of their history, no longer feel themselves 
 to be members of the same nation. By a process 
 analogous to the Eoman 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 na- 
 tions, 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, jEmilius 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 con-
 
 III.] Nationality. 83 
 
 tinuous 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 
 forms the ground of all modern political speculation. 
 Now this fact that we expect, as a rule, the nation 
 to form 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 
 G-reek nation, or so much of it as formed a con- 
 tinuous or nearly continuous territory, could be 
 united into one political community, never came 
 into the mind of any Greek statesman or Greek phi- 
 losopher. 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 surrounding ter- 
 ritory 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 
 
 G 2
 
 84 Conception of the State [LECT. 
 
 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 (12). 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 sub- 
 ject city still kept on its being as an organized poli-
 
 III.j as a City. 85 
 
 tical 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 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, narpt?, patria, may often be 
 well enough translated by country, patrie, Vaterland ; 
 but the true patria of the Greek or the Eoman 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 Caprese, 
 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 develope- 
 ment of any people. If we look at the history of
 
 86 Early State [LECT. 
 
 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 Pelopon- 
 nesian wars, 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 vil- 
 lage 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, 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
 
 III.] of Greece. 87 
 
 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 rudi- 
 ments of G-reek city life could hardly have come 
 into being till the Hellenes had long been in posses- 
 sion of the peninsular land between Mount Olympos 
 and Cape Malea. The Homeric poems contain pas- 
 sages 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 (2,0). It is worth noticing too that the 
 familiar word 8^09, the people, seems to have first 
 of all meant the ground, and thence to have been 
 transferred to the inhabitants or tillers of the 
 ground (21). This change of meaning could hardly 
 have taken place after city life was fully established. 
 And side by side with the greatest developement of 
 the later meaning of the word, side by side with the 
 Athenian Demos 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
 
 Tribes more ancient [LECTV 
 
 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 y 
 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 Thermopylae 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 pos- 
 sibly have been introduced at any moment in the 
 recorded history of Greece, at once shows the vast an- 
 tiquity 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
 
 III.] than Cities. 89- 
 
 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 Bceotia (24). We 
 find also in the historic times more than one instance 
 in which a Greek city Elis for example, and Mega- 
 lopolis in after times was formed by the union of 
 several villages, or of towns so small that they hardly 
 deserved the name 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 them- 
 selves 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, 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,
 
 90 Nature of [LECT. 
 
 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 short- 
 ness 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 ^ei/*/, 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 (2,8). Once or twice in the 
 history of a city, when the original citizens had 
 shrunk up into a narrow oligarchy, a large ad- 
 mission of the unenfranchised classes to the rights 
 of citizenship might change the commonwealth from 
 an oligarchy into a democracy (2,9). 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 common- 
 wealth (30). But there was no way by which the
 
 III.J Greek Citizenship. 91 
 
 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 feeble and unsuccessful way, when the 
 oommonwealths 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
 
 92 Greece never [LECT, 
 
 became, in any political sense, a nation. And those 
 parts of Greece which, in her latest days of inde- 
 pendence, 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 r 
 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, Akar- 
 nania, 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. The 
 Federal principle had hitherto lurked in Greece only 
 in the parts where either city life was hardly deve- 
 loped 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 independence 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
 
 III.] became a Nation. 93 
 
 simply a developement 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 Confedera- 
 tion 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 Commonwealth, a 
 Bundesstaat (35), and that a Federal Commonwealth 
 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
 
 94 The City System [LJ.CT. 
 
 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 in- 
 telligence 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 work in the revival of Greek inde- 
 pendence 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 a 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
 
 III.] not lasting. 95 
 
 of men, its history is none the less rich in abiding 
 lessons for all time. 
 
 From the idea of the State as the single indepen- 
 dent 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 else- 
 where. 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 predomi- 
 nance. From the beginning the towns were smaller,
 
 "96 The City System [ LECT - 
 
 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 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 Akar- 
 nania than with the more strictly civic confederation 
 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,
 
 III.]. less perfect in Italy. 97 
 
 the head of Italy, the head of the Mediterranean 
 world. The idea of the city the ruling city gather- 
 ing 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 developement 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 thorough insight into the his- 
 tory 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 ; 
 
 H
 
 98 Effects of the Extension [LECT. 
 
 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 essen- 
 tially 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 constitu- 
 tion 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
 
 HI.] of the Roman Franchise. 99 
 
 world ; they could not even govern Italy. They 
 could not even administer the affairs of their own 
 city, when they themselves were numbered by hun- 
 dreds of thousands. The despotism of the Csesars 
 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 commonwealth. 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 poli- 
 tical idea, the results which were worked out 
 were widely different in the two cases. The earlier 
 and fuller establishment of the Federal principle in 
 
 H 2
 
 100 Greater Importance of [LECT. 
 
 Italy, the greater readiness in communicating 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 Koman conquerors of Greece, and 
 thence to the Teutonic conquerors of Rome, we are, for 
 many purposes of this inquiry, reading history back- 
 wards. 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 r 
 as we have 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 Teutonic nations we may fairly say that
 
 III.] the Clan or Gens in Italy. 101 
 
 the city commonwealth never became an essential 
 element of political life at all. The conception of the 
 absolutely sovereign city commonwealth is not a 
 strictly Teutonic conception ; 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
 
 102 Nature of the Clan, [LECT.. 
 
 is the family, but it is the family, not in the nar- 
 rower sense of the mere household, Uae 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 clans and septs both in 
 Britain and in Ireland (45). In a higher stage it 
 may take the shape of *he agricultural village com- 
 munity, 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 cir- 
 cumstances, geographical or otherwise, 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 essen- 
 tially the same thing. All are parts of the" common 
 heritage ; all mark a stage in progress'which is essen- 
 tially 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
 
 III.] Gens, or Mark. 103 
 
 above that of the mere household. It does not 
 stand immediately below the tribe, as we find be- 
 tween 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 ^yeVoy 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 of kindred natural or artificial. A 
 large proportion of the parishes of England bear 
 names which come directly from old Teutonic patro- 
 nymics. Uffington, Gillingham, a crowd of others 
 the same name not uncommonly repeating itself in 
 distant parts of the country point beyond all 
 doubt 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
 
 104 Community of Blood [LECT. 
 
 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 fyparpia that is, the brother- 
 hood, 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 curios or fyparpiai again forms the tribe ; 
 the gathering of tribes forms the State. But alike at
 
 III.] the Primitive Idea. 105 
 
 Rome and at Athens, tribes formed of curice and gentes 
 lost their political significance, and gave way as poli- 
 tical institutions to tribes of later origin founded on 
 another principle. In the later stages of both com- 
 monwealths, the elements of which the commonwealth 
 was made up were no longer the primitive genea- 
 logical 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, 
 it happened that the element which kept most of its 
 importance differed in the two cases. In the later 
 stages of the Athenian commonwealth we hear far 
 more of the <f>parpLa than we do of the yeVos. At 
 Home the curice sank into a mere name at a compa- 
 ratively early stage, while the gentes remained and 
 flourished, and had the most abiding influence on the 
 national character and the national history. 
 
 At Eome then the influence of the family com- 
 munity 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 Eome survived longer and 
 played a greater part in history than the Greek and 
 Teutonic unions which answer to them is largely
 
 106 Effects of the Eoman [LECTV 
 
 owing to an accident of Roman nomenclature, though 
 we cannot doubt that the apparent accident had 
 itself some determining cause. Megakles the Alk- 
 maionid, or Godric the Uffing, remembered and 
 boasted of the name of his real or mythical fore- 
 father, but he did not bear it about with him as part 
 of himself, as his nomen to which his own personal 
 name was only a prcenomen, 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 permanency 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>/3at the Spartan curia and tribes is not to ba 
 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 everywhere, together with 
 the o>/3cu of which they were formed, lived on as-
 
 III.] System of Nomenclature. 107 
 
 divisions of the ruling Spartan people, alongside of 
 the local divisions earlier than the conquest, just as, 
 both at Athens and Rome, we find the local tribes 
 either supplanting 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 con- 
 founded 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 tra- 
 dition. 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 neigh- 
 bouring 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 feel- 
 ing 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>paTpiaL and gentes lived on only as family brother-
 
 108 Local Character of Roman [LECT. 
 
 hoods and religious associations, no longer as com- 
 ponent members of the commonwealth. The ancient 
 genealogical tribes gave way to the later tribes of the 
 constitution of Kleisthenes, 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 SI?/A(H, and the Srj/ioi were doubtless, in 
 the strictest sense, village communities ; but care was 
 specially taken that the ST}/AOI which made up a tribe 
 should not lie geographically together (59). For such 
 a change there were good reasons in the political ex- 
 perience 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 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 communities of which the 
 city itself in its first estate was made up. The
 
 III.] Tribes and Attic A%ot. 109 
 
 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 Plebsj 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 enfranchised, 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 STJJUOS, was often closely connected with 
 the clan (64). And though the 877/^09, as an element 
 of the State, was essentially a local division, yet, 
 as the SrjfjLOL were in their origin gentes or village 
 communities, it was quite possible that, at the 
 time when the Srj/jiOL were mapped out, the STJ/AO? 
 might nearly answer to some gens and its following. 
 And in the like sort, though the Srjjaot and the new 
 tribes were local in their origin, yet, when once esta- 
 blished, 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
 
 110 Smaller Importance [LECT. 
 
 tribe as well as the Claudian gens. But the Claudiau 
 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 
 Assembly of the Roman tribes. Through all these 
 causes, the ideas which were at the root of every com- 
 monwealth 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
 
 TIL] of -the Local Roman City. Ill 
 
 becoming a nation than either Greece as a whole or 
 any particular Greek commonwealth. 
 
 We now come to the institutions of our own fore- 
 fathers 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 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
 
 112 Illustration of Teutonic Policy [LECT, 
 
 Italian on one side, our own forefathers on the other. 
 I choose two facts, two formulas, two fashions of speech, 
 standing 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 everything, 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 them- 
 selves 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 dis- 
 tinct 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 out-
 
 III.] from Ecclesiastical Nomenclature. 113 
 
 iside 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, 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 
 
 I
 
 114 Slower Developement [LECT. 
 
 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 different 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 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
 
 III.] of Teutonic Institutions. 115 
 
 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 terri- 
 tory, was the source and limit alike of temporal and 
 of ecclesiastical rule. 
 
 f y-A r !?f;'r .: .'/ .' J 1 ' .'i-vnT 
 
 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 per- 
 manence. The commonwealths of Greece shone 
 
 i 2
 
 116 The Teutonic Mark [LECT. 
 
 with a meteoric brightness too glorious to be lasting. 
 Her isolated cities were not they could not be 
 wrought together into a single nation. Eome 
 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 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 community. 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
 
 III.] answers to the Gens. 117 
 
 component element of a city commonwealth. In 
 this stage the gens takes the form of an agricul- 
 tural body, holding its common lands the germ 
 of the ager publicus of Rome and of the folkland 
 of England (70). This is the markgenossenschaft, 
 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 ^parpia, 
 the Lacedaemonian &>/3a. But there is one Roman 
 division, standing alongside, as it were, of the curice, 
 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 have answered to one
 
 118 The Gau or Shire [LECT. 
 
 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 must have been 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 terri- 
 tory (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-ealdor, 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 Ealdor- 
 man, which in war time he exchanges for that of
 
 III.] and its Ealdorman, 119 
 
 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 hun- 
 dreds ; and in the same sort thepagus is not a division 
 of the kingdom, but the kingdom is an aggregate of pagi. 
 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 gaUj 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 recogni- 
 tion 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 ;
 
 120 Retention of the old [LECT, 
 
 its union with other tribes was temporary, or at the 
 most federal ; each had its own chief, its own Ealdor- 
 man 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 conception- 
 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 the 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.
 
 III.] System in certain Districts. 121 
 
 anywhere else on so large a scale. The Old-Saxons, 
 the long-abiding foes of the Frankish 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 constitu- 
 tions either of earlier or of later days, may fairly claim 
 the name of the earliest Teutonic confederation (76). 
 In other lands too, 011 the northern moorland or 
 among the southern mountains, by the mouths of the 
 Elbe and the Eider or by the sources of the Rhine 
 and the Eeuss, 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 gait- 
 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 Ale- 
 mannian mountains, in the valleys of the young Rhine 
 and the young Rhone, it was won back to live 
 on to our own days (78). Elsewhere tribes grew 
 into nations, Ealdormen grew into Kings, and, in 
 some cases, nations and their kings have grown into- 
 dominions and rulers greater still.
 
 122 The Teutonic System brought [LECT. 
 
 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 mainland. The change between the Ger- 
 many of Tacitus and the Germany which, less than 
 a hundred years later, began to send forth Franks 
 and Saxons, Burgundians and Lombards, must have 
 been a change indeed. The tribes had been gathered 
 into nations (79). But the swarms which parted ofi 
 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
 
 III.] into Britain by t/ie English. 123 
 
 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, sepa- 
 rate 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 ihegau 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 mark 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
 
 124 Growth of English [LECT. 
 
 may be sure that small settlements planted in a 
 hostile land would from the beginning show a special 
 tendency to unite into larger wholes. Marks and 
 hundreds planted in Kent or Sussex by the followers- 
 of Hengest and JElle 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
 
 III.] Shires and Kingdoms. 125 
 
 pagus itself lias become the kingdom, or whether, 
 as with the Sumorssetas and Dorssetas, 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 Teu- 
 tonic polity, whether in Germany, Britain, or Scan- 
 dinavia. 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 por- 
 tions of a common Aryan inheritance. But we see 
 also how they were modified by the one great 
 distinction between village and city life. The 
 Greek commonwealth grew, flourished, and decayed 
 as a city, amazing the world perhaps alike by the 
 splendour of the days of its greatness and by the 
 long wretchedness of the days of its decay. Mean- 
 while among the despised Barbarians, scorned by 
 kinsfolk who had forgotten their kindred, slowly and 
 obscurely, shires were melting together into kingdoms 
 and tribes into nations. Thus were formed those
 
 126 Teutonic History the Key [LECTV 
 
 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 
 inheritance 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 
 Northumberland, Mercia, and East-Anglia. We- 
 can see more clearly the confederated West- 
 Saxon principalities fused together 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, commendation, 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
 
 III.] to Greek and Italian History. 127 
 
 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, social and strictly political, at an 
 earlier stage than we see those of the Greeks and 
 Italians. While therefore we see the general like- 
 ness, 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 institutions out of the common stock. Among 
 the Germans of Tacitus we see a state of things in 
 which the elements common 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 historical 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
 
 128 Teutonic Influence [LECT. 
 
 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-speaking no less than of the 
 Teutonic-speaking lands, for 1 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 commonwealth of Venice, never acknowledged 
 a Teutonic master, and kept on its unbroken con- 
 nexion with the elder state of things (86). Every- 
 where 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 of Gothic, Frankish, Bur- 
 gundian, Lombard, and Norman Kings as a rule 
 essentially Teutonic, though largely modified by
 
 III.] in the Romance Lands. 129 
 
 the Koman traditions of the several countries. 
 And, on the other hand, there is no Teutonic 
 country, not the Scandinavian kingdoms them- 
 selves, which has, even in its political institu- 
 tions, kept wholly clear of the influence of Eome. 
 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 un- 
 dying 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, 
 
 K
 
 130 Growth of the [LECT. 
 
 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 
 independent 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 
 sovereign commonwealths. Yet it is a thought 
 worth bearing in mind, how near the Five Boroughs 
 of Danish England once were to forming an inde- 
 pendent confederation of city commonwealths, 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, gradually arose the element 
 of cities which everywhere enjoyed a certain 
 measure of self-government and local independence,
 
 III.] Teutonic Cities. 131 
 
 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 them- 
 selves 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 revolu- 
 tions, the origin of their exclusively patrician 
 
 K 2
 
 132 Roman Elements on the Continent [LECT, 
 
 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 difference must always be borne in mind. 
 In ancient Greece the 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 suggest- 
 ing itself, how far we are to see in the analogies 
 between ancient and mediaeval 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 oppor- 
 tunity, for direct Roman influences. Many of our
 
 III.J and in England. 133 
 
 English towns are simply Teutonic village com- 
 munities 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 Eoman 
 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 
 Reading or Northampton (93). In Italy and Southern 
 G-aul, 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 imita- 
 tion which closely borders on direct transmission. 
 In G-ermany, 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 Niirnberg ; but 
 it is not the same kind of natural imitation as the 
 consulship at Milan or Alby. We may be satisfied 
 with saying that in the media3val city-commonwealths 
 there is a Roman element clearly shown even we in
 
 134 General Comparison [LECT.. 
 
 England have what we may call the element of sug- 
 gestion 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 G-reek 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 Mediterranean lands take the lead in
 
 HI.] of the several Ideas of the State. 135 
 
 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 developement 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 most un- 
 broken 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 Eoman sources ; 
 their national life has been more unbroken than our 
 own, but their political life has been far less so. Ger- 
 many 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 be- 
 tween 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
 
 136 Summary. [LECT. III. 
 
 its place here. The stages by which the Teutonic 
 tribe, by admitting tribe after tribe to equal fellow- 
 ship, 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.
 
 ( 137 ) 
 
 LECTUKE IV. 
 THE KING. 
 
 FROM the State itself we come to its head, to its 
 chief, above all to the chief in his most clearly de- 
 fined 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 cere- 
 mony of consecration ; some dispense with any such 
 rite. Yet, amidst all this unlikeness, it is plain that
 
 138 Different Conceptions [LECT. 
 
 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 Eomance and any Teu- 
 tonic language, Rex 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 Kb'nig, in any of the possible changes which 
 may be rung on the two sets of words. If we go on 
 into Greek, we find that, in those stages of the lan- 
 guage with which most of us are chiefly familiar, in 
 its classical and in its modern stage, jScunAeu? answers 
 to Rex and King as exactly as they answer to one 
 another. For some ages indeed paviXevs bore the 
 special sense of Emperor ; and, to express the lowlier 
 rank of King, the word pfe was imported bodily 
 from the Latin (i). But this was a change of mean- 
 ing 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 con- 
 stantly 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
 
 IV.] of Kingship. 139 
 
 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, per- 
 haps 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 en- 
 titled 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, 
 the definition of kingship would perhaps not be very
 
 140 Modern Definition [LECT. 
 
 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 incongruity 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.
 
 IV.] of a King. 141 
 
 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 per- 
 sonal superior or equal. Then again, it seems im- 
 plied 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 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
 
 142 Religious Character [LECT. 
 
 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 coun- 
 tries, 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
 
 IV.] of Kingship. 143 
 
 was King as soon as the breath was out of the last 
 King's body, they took away all the force and mean- 
 ing of the ancient crowning rite. Whatever a coro- 
 nation 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 
 Eome indirectly therefore from the monarchies of 
 the East into the simple political creed of our fore- 
 fathers (n). And it is among our forefathers and 
 kinsmen, both in our own island and on the Teutonic 
 mainland, that we can best trace the growth of king-
 
 144 Character of [LECT, 
 
 ship, the chieftainship of the nation, out of the chief- 
 tainship 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 king- 
 ship, 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 govern- 
 ment 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 king- 
 ship 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 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..
 
 IV.] The Greek Kingship. 145 
 
 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 G-od 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 Comitia, no Gemot, was 
 ever held in any Hellenic city, to decide, by an ordi- 
 nary 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 
 
 L
 
 146 Early Kingship [LECT. 
 
 once simple and public, as the life of any other mem- 
 ber 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 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 Home 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
 
 IV.] in Italy. 147 
 
 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 Eome never 
 had Kings, the names Interrex and Interregnum 
 could never have been found among her republican 
 institutions down to the last days of the Common- 
 wealth. 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 really was, as his name implies, the magis- 
 trate 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 Eome once had Kings. 
 And we may add that they prove, not only that 
 
 L 2
 
 148 Survivals of Kingship [LECT. 
 
 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 
 Rex 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 sacrificuluSj 
 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
 
 IV.] at Home and elsewhere. 149 
 
 the State (18). 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 common- 
 wealth. So in Greece, the Spartan Kings were 
 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 kingship, as 
 we see it in the historic times, could ever have been 
 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 /SaatXeus- of 
 the days of the democracy, the exact parallel to the 
 Rex sacrificulus at Eome (2,1). 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
 
 150 Distinctions between [LECT. 
 
 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 be- 
 fore 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 by 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 de- 
 sperate attempt to transfer Greek ideas into Latium 
 may call Eomulus the son of a God and Numa the 
 husband of a Goddess (22) ; but the constitution- 
 making of Ancus and of Servius is as much a matter of
 
 IV.] Greek and Italian Kingship. 151 
 
 everyday life, of everyday truth and falsehood, as the 
 constitution-making of Licinius or of Sulla (2,3). 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 Eoman, kingship was elec- 
 tive. 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 Home much better 
 Kings, but it swept away all the mystery and divinity 
 of kingship. A Eoman King might be the wor- 
 shipper, 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 Eoman 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
 
 152 Kingship in a single City 
 
 mingling together of the two. At all events, it is 
 a thing to be noted that, in a Commonwealth like 
 Borne, 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 his- 
 tory among the Teutonic nations lies in this : the 
 Teutonic kingship went on and nourished, and grew 
 into the kingship of modern Europe, while the 
 Greek and Italian kingship for the most part died 
 out, and left only survivals such as those which I 
 have just been speaking of. This, it seems to me r 
 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
 
 IV.] not likely to be lasting. 153 
 
 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,
 
 154 Transition from Kings [LECT. 
 
 and it is to be remarked that the cause which tra- 
 dition 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 Athe- 
 nians decreed that they would have no more Kings 
 because Kodros was so good ; the Romans decreed 
 that they would have no more Kings because Tar- 
 quinius 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 
 paai\evs had all along gone on, in some secondary 
 way, alongside of the vaguer name of u-p-^wv (30). The
 
 IV.] to Archons at Athens. 155 
 
 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 
 he 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 Eome 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). 
 
 The Roman kingship fared otherwise. The re- 
 volution 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 king- 
 ship of Eome 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 an- 
 swering to the archonship for life or for ten years. 
 Into the place of the King chosen for life there at
 
 156 Difference between Athenian [LECT, 
 
 once stepped the two Consuls, or rather Prastors, 
 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 archon- 
 ship went on, but its duties were gradually cut down 
 to a routine of religious and lesser judicial functions. 
 The Archons neither commanded the armies of the 
 State nor presided in its Assemblies. The Polemarch r 
 with his warlike title, became as mere a survival as 
 the /3aoAeus 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 ; 
 Praetors, 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
 
 IV.] and Roman Magistrates. 157 
 
 " 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 commonwealth 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 conse- 
 quence. 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 common- 
 wealth 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
 
 158 Kingship in Macedonia [LECTV 
 
 King or Tyrant ; but at Kome, 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 
 undeveloped 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 Hellenic 
 political life. This might have happened in Mace- 
 donia, 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
 
 IV.] and Epeiros. 159 
 
 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 Commonwealths 
 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 Eome to part out the conquered 
 kingdom into four dependent Commonwealths (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
 
 160 Union of all Roman Magistracies [LECT 
 
 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 out- 
 lying colony (40), without any trace of her political 
 freedom. 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 enquiry into 
 the forms of early Aryan kingship, from one main 
 branch of our subject to another. The partition of 
 the ancient powers of the Eoman Kings had formed 
 the various magistracies of the Roman Commonwealth. 
 They formed a strong and dignified Executive, along- 
 side 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
 
 IV.] in the Roman Emperor. 161 
 
 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 Eome 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 
 archonship of Hadrian and the Athenian general- 
 ship of Constantine (47). And the master of Rome 
 and of the world could still say, like Julius himself, 
 " I am Cassar, not King" (48). He might be paaiXevs 
 in the tongue of his Greek subjects (49) ; he might 
 clothe himself with the robes and diadem of 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 Irimself never 
 dared to call himself, no flatterer ever dared to call 
 him, by the forbidden and dreaded title of Rex (54). 
 
 M
 
 162 Kingship not Immemorial [LECTV 
 
 Since the Regifugium 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 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
 
 IV.] among the Teutonic Nations. 163 
 
 infer not immemorial, 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 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 Grods ; 
 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 
 
 M 2
 
 164 Origin of [LBCT. 
 
 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 Bangs 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 end. The Old-Saxons never had Kings till 
 they had to acknowledge one who was King of the
 
 IV.] Teutonic Kingship. 165 
 
 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, king- 
 ship 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 govern- 
 ment 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, Ealdor- 
 men 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
 
 166 Change from Heathen [LECT. 
 
 the kingly house, the cynecyn, the noblest among the 
 noble, the house which most truly embodied the 
 whole 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 
 cynecyn, 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 kindred line of thought has produced a 
 cognate title, and we see in the distant GanaJca a 
 closer approach in name to our own King than in the 
 nearer Rex and /Sao-tXey? (64). The Teutonic King 
 reigned rixodeover 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
 
 IV.] to Christian Kingship. 167 
 
 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 parti- 
 cular 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
 
 168 Effects of the Christian [LECT. 
 
 inherent excellence in this or that particular line. 
 Christianity has had to struggle with exclusive pre- 
 judices of this kind, just as it has had 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 JEthelberht 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 acknowledged law ; it was 
 bestowed by a competent authority, and by a com- 
 petent 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 therefore made it easier
 
 IV.] Tlieory of Kingship. 169 
 
 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 suc- 
 cession 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 to make a man full 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
 
 170 Change from Ealdormen [LECT. 
 
 Ealdormen, the Duces, Principes, Judices, Satrapce, 
 and so forth, of the Latin writers, long held their 
 ground. Even the smallest kingdom 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
 
 IV.] to Kings. 171 
 
 Egypt was once split up among twelve con- 
 federate 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 Lom- 
 bards, after experience of kingly government through 
 several reigns, fell back upon the government of 
 separate Dukes, and, according to one account, 
 the 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 mon- 
 archy 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 " mon- 
 archy " 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
 
 172 Many Kings at once [LECT. 
 
 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 Earls of course answering to English Ealdor- 
 men or Heretogan 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 the five
 
 IV.] in the same Nation. 173 
 
 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 kingli- 
 ness ; they might therefore well be young. The Earls, 
 we may well believe, were still chosen for their per- 
 sonal strength and valour ; they therefore might well 
 be fyfj.&yepovT6s, seniores, Ealdormen, in the literal sense 
 of the words. 
 
 In all this, in the crowd of petty Kings who were 
 displaced 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 king- 
 ship died out in Greece itself, while even in Mace- 
 donia it lived on only to be swallowed up in the 
 dominion of Eome, 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
 
 174 Change from National to [LECT, 
 
 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 men to look on king- 
 ship 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 comi- 
 tatus 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 cloth- 
 ing 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
 
 IV.] Territorial Kingship. 175 
 
 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 ter- 
 ritorial 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 Eomans 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 territorial property, according 
 to some fixed law of hereditary succession. They
 
 176 History of Kingship [LECT. 
 
 devised for us all those lawyers' subtleties of 
 primogeniture, representation, and the like, which 
 gave our Crown for a season to Edward of Caer- 
 narvon 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 king- 
 ship 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 sove- 
 reign 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,
 
 IV.] in England. 177 
 
 a stronger historical continuity than elsewhere. At 
 no stage of the process which changed the Eald- 
 orman 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 less 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 jEthelstan, and which 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 Bight ; the Petition of 
 Eight grew into that fuller establishment of our 
 liberties which marked the great day when English- 
 men for the last time chose themselves a King (78). 
 
 N
 
 178 Comparison between English [LECT. 
 
 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 sove- 
 reign 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
 
 IV.] and Continental Kingship. 179 
 
 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). 
 
 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 themselves by a purely 
 native growth, on a soil where the utter sweeping away 
 of an earlier state of things had made as fully their own 
 as the land from which they 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 Eoman influences, till Roman influences came to 
 show themselves in their later forms, ecclesiastical 
 and feudal. Elsewhere, 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 Yandals in Africa 
 and the Groths in Italy, within the grasp of the 
 reviving Roman power. The Goth in Spain, him- 
 self 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 
 
 N 2
 
 180 The Prankish Kingship [LECT. 
 
 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 kingship 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 be- 
 coming wholly Roman : it saved the Frank, even on 
 Gaulish soil, from wholly casting away the speech 
 and traditions of his fathers. Still the great terri- 
 torial 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 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 intermixture. 
 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
 
 IV.] and Empire. 181 
 
 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, eccle- 
 siastical and civil, fullv established ; and the Frankish 
 j 
 
 King lent no unwilling ear to the Eoman priest or 
 the Eoman 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 Eoman and Teutonic 
 rule were joined in one : the Frankish King became 
 the Eoman 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 King- 
 dom broke up into a lax Confederation, and out of 
 that lax Confederation the kingdom of Henry of 
 Saxony and Eudolf of Habsburg has again sprung 
 to life before our eyes (84). Meanwhile the
 
 182 Kingship in [LECT. 
 
 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 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 king- 
 ship 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 vir- 
 tually independent. In France the same thing 
 happened at an earlier time ; but the Crown con- 
 trived 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
 
 IV.] Modern Europe. 183 
 
 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 naturally to suggest the notion 
 of a President. That is to say, it 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 punish- 
 ment in the case of proved crime. That such a
 
 1 84 Headship of [LECT. 
 
 way of speaking leaves out of sight most of the 
 great Commonwealths of history, 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 na- 
 tion, would deem it beneath them to stop and think 
 whether the Swiss Confederation or any of its Can- 
 tons 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 in- 
 dependent 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
 
 IV.] Republican States. 185 
 
 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 quali- 
 fications in the King. His power is therefore not 
 only 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 Legis- 
 lature. 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
 
 186 Return to the Idea [LECTV 
 
 Presidents of the United States, in nearly the same 
 way, so far as the different forms of the Constitu- 
 tion 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 belonging 
 to royal personages, as something which cleaves, not 
 only to Kings themselves, but to all their kindred 
 and belongings the notion that such kindred and 
 belongings form a separate class or order apart from
 
 IV.] of Kingliness in the Race. 187 
 
 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 banishment, or opened their veins to die 
 without a thought of resistance, at the mere bidding 
 of a Csesar who, in outward form, was simply the
 
 188 Summary. [LECT. IV. 
 
 first magistrate of the Commonwealth. The suc- 
 cessors of that Csesar, Lords of the World, waited 
 on by Kings and sovereign Dukes, commanded no 
 such obedience. The notion of mere rank and 
 dignity and the notion of real power are in them- 
 selves 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 various forms, sometimes the 
 King sinking into the republican magistrate, some- 
 times 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 Agore of the Homeric Achaians 
 to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
 
 ( 189 ) 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 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 commonwealths, 
 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
 
 190 Representation unknown [LECT. 
 
 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 gathering of a mere oligarchic body. As the 
 highest franchise of the city may be shared by all 
 the citizens, or may be confined 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 de- 
 mocracy, 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
 
 V.] in City Commonwealths. 191 
 
 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 Coun- 
 cils and magistrates of an oligarchy will commonly 
 be entrusted with far larger and more independent 
 powers than the Councils and magistrates of a de- 
 mocracy. 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 common- 
 wealth. 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 Con- 
 federation 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 do 
 not cease to be sovereign and independent within the 
 range of all powers which they do 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 
 representative character ; as every citizen of the
 
 192 Tribal and National [LECT, 
 
 individual city had his place in the sovereign 
 Assembly of that city, so each citizen of the Con- 
 federation 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. Tt 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
 
 V.] Assemblies. 193 
 
 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, 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 excep- 
 tional 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). 
 
 o
 
 1 94 Primary Assemblies both [LECT.. 
 
 It must be constantly borne in mind that the true 
 difference between an aristocratic and a democratic 
 government, 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 aristocracy 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 aristo- 
 cratic Assembly went on into modern times, the 
 Great Council of Venice and those great and tumul- 
 tuous 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 democratic 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 fran- 
 chise 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
 
 V.] Aristocratic and Democratic. 195 
 
 of the common weath and its Assembly. The shutting 
 out 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 demo- 
 cratic, 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 G-reek 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 common- 
 wealth 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, 
 
 o 2
 
 196 Principle of [LECT. 
 
 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 ter- 
 ritorial 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 be- 
 come 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 burghership, 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.
 
 V.] Hereditary Burghership. 197 
 
 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 something 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 dis- 
 tinction 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 com-
 
 198 Identity of the [LECT. 
 
 plicated 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 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 tem- 
 porary 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 ele- 
 ment comes in. In the city everything is local ; the 
 Assembly must be held in the accustomed place,
 
 T.] Assembly and the Army. 199 
 
 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 Eoman 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 emergency, 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, cleav- 
 ing 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 mili- 
 tary assemblies, of the nation in arms on foreign 
 service exercising, under 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 Megalo- 
 polis or Aigion could never become surrounded
 
 200 Assemblies in [LECIV 
 
 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 cir- 
 cumstances, was a slighter shock to a body of men 
 gathered together from several confederate common- 
 wealths 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 As- 
 sembly itself. The exact constitution, the exact 
 limits of the authority, of the three great political 
 elements vary from time to time and from place
 
 V.] Heroic Greece. 201 
 
 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. Differences 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, 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 dis- 
 tinctness, according to the circumstances of the case. 
 The Zeus-born and Zeus-nurtured King is ever sur- 
 rounded 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
 
 202 Assembly of the Gods [LECT. 
 
 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 (i 6). 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 blood 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 Aga- 
 memnon on earth, may be a will which it is dan- 
 gerous 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 goes forth which gathers the 
 Agore, the Comitia, the Mickk Gemot of the im- 
 mortal 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
 
 Y.] on Olympos. 203 
 
 one modern speech, on which the inheritance of old 
 Hellas has fallen, which came together at the sum- 
 mons 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 a^opy 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 
 Athene in the inner Council, and the marked attend- 
 ance 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 over- 
 whelming 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
 
 204 Greater Power of the Kings T [Lixnv 
 
 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 Myken who reigned over many islands and 
 all 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 con- 
 federate army on actual service, the fact that the 
 Assembly should go on and retain any kind of inde- 
 pendence, 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 (2-2,), 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
 
 Y.] in Greece than in Germany. 205 
 
 the sky, the pqwer 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 Ithak, 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 sub- 
 mission 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 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
 
 206 Working of the [LECT, 
 
 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 pur- 
 poses 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
 
 V.] Greek Assemblies. 207 
 
 argue for themselves. The Assembly which, not in 
 the feebleness of age but in the simplicity of child- 
 hood, 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 
 G-reek 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 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 Pas- 
 saron I have already spoken. The Macedonian 
 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
 
 208 Assemblies in Macedonia [LECT. 
 
 some one whose career has been less lucky (2,6). 
 All that we know is that there were such Assem- 
 blies, 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 Macedonia 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 everyday 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. But without these last we should
 
 V.J and Epeiros. 209 
 
 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 unlike- 
 ness 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 afterwards. 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 
 
 p
 
 210 The Athenian [LECT. 
 
 alone among the chief nations of the ancient world, 
 as the one which most nearly foreshadowed the 
 political life of modern Europe, as the one great 
 nation which had Kings and which is yet allowed 
 to have been free (2,8). 
 
 The chance then of the developement of a consti- 
 tutional 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 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 constitu- 
 tion; 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
 
 V.] Democracy. 211 
 
 fullness, 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 consti- 
 tutional 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, Klei- 
 sthenes, 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 ; 
 
 p 2
 
 212 Native Growth of [LECT. 
 
 we now have no longer to talk vaguely about 
 growth and tendencies and developements ; we stand 
 face to face with men who, each in his own 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
 
 V.] Athenian Institutions. 213 
 
 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 a 
 constitution to take when it was able to run its 
 natural course in a commonwealth which consisted 
 only of a single 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 dele- 
 gated. 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
 
 214 Athenian and other [LECT, 
 
 chief, now represented by the elective magistracy, 
 will lose its independent powers, and will sink into a 
 body who have only to carry out the will of the sove- 
 reign Assembly. So with another of the original 
 elements, the Council. This body too loses its inde- 
 pendent 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 in- 
 stinct to leave it in the arbitrary power of individual 
 magistrates. Other Committees 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,
 
 V.] Greek Assemblies. 215 
 
 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 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 needful 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 con- 
 stitution 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
 
 216 Greek Assemblies [LECT. 
 
 was placed in the hands of the magistrates of the 
 Federal Democracy of Achaia than was ever en- 
 trusted to the magistrates of the single city De- 
 mocracy 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 dif- 
 ference which brings the later, the Federal, form of 
 Greek democracy into the closest relations with the 
 political developements 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 Assem- 
 bly 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 Peloponndsos and some cities beyond Pelopon- 
 nesos, was a right which, 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 particular city in which the Assembly was held. 
 Sometimes the Senate seems to have acted as the
 
 V.] in the Federal Period. 217 
 
 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 members 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 
 members in the academical Convocation. No pre- 
 tensions of this kind on. the part of a smaller body 
 could possibly arise in the Assemblies of Athens or 
 ofUri. 
 
 In fact the Federal period of Grecian history is 
 one which is richer than almost any other in ana- 
 logies bearing directly on the developement of our 
 own constitution. It illustrates the law by which, 
 unless the device of representation is brought in, an
 
 218 Shrinking up of the [LECT. 
 
 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 be- 
 comes, 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 interests of order, if not of 
 freedom. Or perhaps the democracy shrinks up, 
 I will not say into an oligarchy, but into an aristo- 
 cracy, 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 
 Assemblies of England and other Teutonic coun- 
 tries. 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 r 
 the Assemblies of their kingdoms grew into bodies 
 which were yet more incapable of really coming
 
 V.] English Witenagemot. 21 & 
 
 together than the general body of the free citizens of 
 the Peloponnesian 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 Gemot of 
 the whole nation, shrank up into a gathering of few 
 besides the King's Thegns (36). But I can see also r 
 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 armed 
 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 declaration 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 institutions in general. But the right 
 went on ; it cannot be said to have wholly vanished,
 
 220 History of the [LECT. 
 
 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 consti- 
 tutional historians of Germany, the old Assemblies, 
 national and local, went on after the Frankish con- 
 querors had settled themselves on Graulish 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 
 Assembly was never formally taken away, that 
 the great gathering of the Mdrzfeld or the Maifeld 
 was still in theory the gathering 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 military 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
 
 V.] Frankisli Assemblies. 221 
 
 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 Gau 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). 
 
 In short, experience shows that the purely demo- 
 cratic 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 
 government 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
 
 222 Single Votes of [LECT. 
 
 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 ana- 
 logies between them. And in no case is the ana- 
 logy 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 ele- 
 ments, 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
 
 V.] Tribes and Cities. 223 
 
 distance at which the place of meeting 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 al- 
 together 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 par- 
 ticular Assembly. In the Assembly of the League 
 Corinth had one vote, whether one Corinthian or 
 a thousand were there to give it. This refinement
 
 224 Approach to Representation [LECT, 
 
 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 repre- 
 sentative 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 which the Lykian consti- 
 tution 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 Assem- 
 blies 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
 
 V.] in the Federal Period. 225 
 
 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 soften- 
 ing of the oligarchic process as the Achaian system 
 allowed. But, for that very reason, the true repre- 
 sentative system was all the more needful, and, by 
 the process inherent in all healthy and really living 
 constitutions, it grew up as it was needed. 
 
 1 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 G-reece. 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 Common- 
 wealth. In the Comitia of the Centuries, the military 
 Assembly, where the People came together in mili- 
 tary 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 
 
 Q
 
 226 Quasi-Federal [LECIV 
 
 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 the Comitia 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 par- 
 ticular Assembly may have practically been repre- 
 sentatives of their neighbours who stayed away, 
 commissioned to vote on their behalf. This is- 
 one of several points in which the Roman Common- 
 wealth, 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 in- 
 dependent 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
 
 V.] Elements at Rome. 227 
 
 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 alto- 
 gether. 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 Eoman 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 gra- 
 dually brought down this ancient Senate to be little 
 more than a venerable shadow (47). Two facts dis- 
 tinctly show how strong the traditions both of the 
 kingly and the senatorial power remained at Rome 
 during the whole time of the commonwealth. 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 
 
 Q 2
 
 228 Contrast between Athenian [LECT. 
 
 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 legis- 
 lative 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 Com- 
 mittee 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 Assem- 
 bly could not become what the Athenian Assembly
 
 V.] and Roman Assemblies. 229 
 
 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 dis- 
 charge the duties of a deliberative Assembly when 
 it did come together. It could not allow the same 
 free power of debate and amendment. 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 
 departments 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 sove- 
 reign ; 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 Eome, 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 magis-
 
 230 Different Fate of Roman [LECT. 
 
 trates 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 pre- 
 liminary steps, the receiving and listening to foreign 
 ambassadors, the listening to the arguments of pri- 
 vate citizens on one side or the other, all which at 
 Athens formed such an important part of the busi- 
 ness of the Assembly, was at Rome part of the busi- 
 ness of the Senate. Under the Roman system, the 
 great speeches of Perikles and Demosthenes, 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 Alki- 
 biades (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 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
 
 Y.] and Teutonic Assemblies. 231 
 
 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 Eoman 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, the Assembly they found it needful utterly 
 rto sweep away (54). Be it an aristocratic Senate or a 
 democratic Assembly, there must be some good thing 
 in any institution which a despot fears. The Teu- 
 tonic 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
 
 .232 Continuity of [LECTV 
 
 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 representatives 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 primi- 
 tive 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 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 Witenagemot 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 understand some of the points in which 
 English history differs from the history of most other 
 European nations. The doctrine is that, while else- 
 where 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..
 
 V.] English Assemblies. 233" 
 
 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 appear- 
 ance 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 Parliament. Through this 
 accident, as I said in my first lecture, came the
 
 234 The Bicameral System [LECT. 
 
 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 Eng- 
 land 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 
 question 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
 
 V.] in Federal States. 235 
 
 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 Representatives, the Nationalrath, 
 representing the nation, and with its numbers 
 apportioned to the numbers of the nation, and there 
 must be the Senate or Standerath, 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 un- 
 touched. But to abolish, or essentially to modify, 
 the American Senate or the Swiss Standerath 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, won-
 
 236 Traces of Primary Assemblies [LECT, 
 
 derful 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 th& 
 nation, the other representing the sovereignty 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 Repre- 
 sentatives, 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 Standerath 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.
 
 V.] in Modern Europe. 237 
 
 In this form we can still point to them in our own 
 land. It may be held that the Scirgemot 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 cen- 
 tury, sunk into the mere form of an acknowledgement. 
 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 pri- 
 mary Assemblies were by no means unknown the 
 Parliament of Florence was one famous example 
 among many yet they never played the same im- 
 portant part which they played in the common- 
 wealths 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
 
 238 Democratic Primary Assemblies [LECT, 
 
 body the general direction of the affairs of the Com- 
 monwealth. 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 extraordinary 
 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 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 em- 
 bodiment, 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 ,.
 
 V.] in Friesland and Switzerland. 
 
 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 sub- 
 jection to lesser lords. For ages their highest am- 
 bition 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 alle- 
 giance to inferior lords, much less allegiance to the 
 Empire, in no way interfered with the popular con- 
 stitutions 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
 
 "240 Aristocratic Primary Assemblies [LECT. 
 
 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 pri- 
 mary Assembly Europe now contains no example ; 
 but we must remember that, in the last century, it 
 too existed in all its fulness. Poland and Yenice, 
 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 commonwealths where 
 alone the democratic primary Assembly still lingered 
 on. Its military character, the fierceness and turbu- 
 lence ascribed to it, its gathering in the open air, all 
 form a marked contrast with the otherwise kindred 
 institution 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
 
 V.] at Venice and in Poland. 241 
 
 point out the city life as the life of the higher 
 civilization. But neither in Yenice nor in Poland 
 could the aristocratic primary Assembly boast of 
 having its roots in any remote past. Both were 
 comparatively modern ; but both were natural poli- 
 tical 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 representative, 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. The whole power of the nation is there- 
 fore vested in it. It is only gradually and by 
 slow steps that there arises that distinction 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 
 distinction fully carried out. It certainly is not so in 
 our own. The primitive Assemblies described by 
 
 R
 
 242 Judicial Powers [LECT. 
 
 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 attend- 
 ance 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 pro- 
 nounced sentences of outlawry or confiscation. And 
 that branch of our Legislature which is the personal 
 descendant of the ancient G-emot 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 undertakes the defence of its own 
 privileges. In the smaller local Assemblies, after
 
 V.] of the Teutonic Assemblies. 243 
 
 they had ceased to be sovereign, the business must 
 always have been mainly judicial. We must re- 
 member that, carefully as we now distinguish the 
 functions of legislator, judge, juror and witness, it 
 was only by slow degrees that they were dis- 
 tinguished. All grew out of the various attri- 
 butes of an Assembly which, as being itself the 
 people, exercised every branch of that power which 
 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 sove- 
 reign 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 ? 
 
 B 2
 
 ( 244 ) 
 
 LECTURE 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 
 circumstance. 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
 
 LECT. VI.] Constitution of Councils. 245 
 
 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 and may be entitled to what- 
 ever 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
 
 246 Different ways in which [LECT, 
 
 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 dis- 
 posal 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 sup- 
 planting an earlier one. But exactly the same process-
 
 VI.] Nobility arises. 247 
 
 may be gone through when a nobility is formed for 
 the first time. And it was in this way that the con- 
 stitutions of not a few city commonwealths, that of 
 Venice itself at their head, changed step by step 
 from democracies into oligarchies (i). 
 
 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 
 Bornan 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 dogmati- 
 cally 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
 
 248 Classes between the Slave [LECT. 
 
 noble arid 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 
 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 commonwealth or of an individual master.
 
 VI.J and the Freeman. 249 
 
 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 Yenetian cittadino, 
 a Lacedaemonian irepioiKos, was as fully free as if he 
 had a voice in the government 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 
 dependence, freedmen, liti, 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 inter- 
 mediate between mere bondage and full freedom. 
 Such classes have been formed in these various ways 
 within historical times, and we may reasonably con- 
 jecture that the same processes went on before written 
 history began. But we cannot do more than conjec- 
 ture. The threefold distinction between the noble, the
 
 250 Immemorial Nobility, [LECT. 
 
 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 we can at the most explain only by reasoning 
 from analogies and survivals. 
 
 A class of nobles is clearly implied in the descrip- 
 tion 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 of 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
 
 VI.] Greek, Italian, and Teutonic. 251 
 
 have been purely honorary. But all analogy and 
 probability would lead us to tbink 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 preference 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 his- 
 torical 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 dis- 
 tinctions were swept away by the later reform of 
 Aristeides. We have no historical account of the 
 origin of the distinction which parted off the Eu- 
 patrid gentes at Athens from the excluded plebeian 
 mass. 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
 
 252 Breaking down of Aristocracy [LECT. 
 
 welcomed to all the rights of citizenship, which is fol- 
 lowed 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 ex- 
 clusive 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 ex- 
 ception 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
 
 YL] at Athens. 253 
 
 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 dis- 
 tinctions, an influence which legislation cannot give- 
 and which legislation by itself cannot 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, Alkibiades, 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 Eome 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.
 
 254 Breaking down of the [LECT. 
 
 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 there- 
 fore 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, Prae- 
 tors, 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 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
 
 VI.] Roman Patriciate. 255 
 
 Interregnum was, in the fully developed common- 
 wealth, 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 Eome 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 privileges of the old patri- 
 ciate had come to an end. The Roman Plebs, so 
 largely composed of the inhabitants of allied and con- 
 quered 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
 
 256 Growth of a new Nobility [LECT. 
 
 mainly formed of settlers in the city itself. We there- 
 fore 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 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 commonwealth 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
 
 VI.] at Rome and in England. 257 
 
 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 Tliegnas. 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 elsewhere 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 Gr&tSas, in 
 later phrase the Thegnas, of Teutonic antiquity, the 
 personal following of the King, Ealdorman, or other 
 -chief, form the exact parallels of the eralpoi and Qepd- 
 TTOVTCS of the Homeric Achaians (10). The parallel 
 here is as close as a parallel can be ; only it does not 
 seem that in early G-reece 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 cities. There is nothing to make us think
 
 258 The Comitatus [LECT. 
 
 that the Eupatrid Houses of Athens traced their 
 descent in any special way from the iraipoi and 
 Qepdirovres 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 chief- 
 tainship for granted ; it needs the personal chief ta 
 gather around. But the spirit of a civic aristocracy 
 tends to equality among its own members ; it sur- 
 rounds 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 over- 
 shadowed 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 Yenetian lagunes, is not to be 
 reckoned. In our own land the King's Thegns be- 
 came really the ruling order, till the older nobility 
 of the Eorlas was forgotten, and their name became
 
 VI.] Greek and Teutonic. 259 
 
 confined to the rank next to the King, to the great 
 officers who in earlier days had borne the more ancient 
 title of Ealdormen (n). 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 Frankish 
 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 pre- 
 sently, as kingdoms split off from kingdoms, as offices 
 changed into fiefs, as the commonwealth changed 
 into a society of Lords and Yassals 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 
 
 s 2
 
 260 Clientship the Roman [LECT. 
 
 it more utterly ate out all earlier and healthier ele- 
 ments than it did in England. In England, under 
 our native Kings, the tendency was to closer union, 
 while in Graul 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 
 springs 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
 
 VI.] Form of the Comitatus. 261 
 
 advance in age and exploits might raise the man to 
 the level of his 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 dif- 
 ferent 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
 
 262 No true Nobility [LECT. 
 
 it grew and flourished ; 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 Em- 
 peror, 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 Thegnas 
 and Gesiftas; none such surrounded Miltiades or 
 Epameindndas ; but we see them again in the Com- 
 panions who fought around the Macedonian Alex- 
 ander (i 6). Under the stern, practical, political, mind 
 of Rome, the institution took another and a worse 
 form. The general idea which forms the groundwork 
 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 ground- 
 work 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).
 
 YI.J in England. 263 
 
 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 Eome 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 strict- 
 ness 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
 
 264 Nature of the [LECT, 
 
 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 ele- 
 ments? One answer doubtless is that the Norman 
 Conquest thrust down the native Thegnhood, the 
 growing nobility of England, to a secondary place in 
 the social and political scale. 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 conceive that the 
 very power and dignity of the peerage has had a good 
 deal to do with it also. Elsewhere nobility was 
 primarily a matter of rank and privilege, with which 
 political power might or might not be connected.
 
 VI.] English Peerage. 265 
 
 But in an English peerage the primary idea is poli- 
 tical power ; rank and privilege 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 existence 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 Eng- 
 land would have grown up into a nobility of the 
 foreign type. If the wisdom of the Norman Con- 
 queror 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 the Witena- 
 gemot 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
 
 266 True Aristocracy [LECT. 
 
 it is, we have had no nobility, but we have had a 
 peerage ; I might almost say that we have had an aris- 
 tocracy. 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 democracy because it was a re- 
 public. 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
 
 VI.] exclusively Republican. 267 
 
 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 gall- 
 ing 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 regarded the mem- 
 bers of the ruling order, no other form of govern- 
 ment 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 (18). 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
 
 268 Character of [LECT. 
 
 second order, skilful conservative administrators, 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 commonwealths. 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 commonwealth in the
 
 VI.] Aristocratic Commonwealths. 269 
 
 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 aristocratic 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 G-reek thinker. Poland, and 
 Sweden at some stages of its history, came nearer to 
 aristocratic government than any other states which 
 acknowledged 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 commonwealth, 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 commonwealth 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,
 
 270 Right of the Avenger [LECTV 
 
 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 Yenice and Niirnberg new families were r 
 
 down to the last days of the commonwealth, 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 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
 
 VI.] of Blood. 271 
 
 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 preventive and corrective inter- 
 ference of the public authority on behalf of the public 
 good. So with other wrongs ; in a state of nature each
 
 272 Right of [LECT. 
 
 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 and political circle 
 widens, the wrong of each man becomes something 
 which does not concern himself only, but concerns 
 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 un- 
 doubted 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 Common-
 
 VI.] Private War. 273 
 
 wealth 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 (2,0). 
 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 inexpiable 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 Borne 
 every citizen might slay the Tyrant who had trampled 
 the Commonwealth under foot and had made law 
 powerless to defend or to avenge (2,2). 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 satis- 
 faction of his vengeance ; it gradually fixes the 
 amount of compensation with which the injured man 
 shall be satisfied. But it is only when civilization 
 
 T
 
 274 Origin of [LECT. 
 
 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 Common- 
 wealth, 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 cen- 
 tury. 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 Common- 
 wealth, in which the prosecution is made in the name 
 of the King, and in which the King alone has the 
 right of pardon (2,3). 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
 
 VI.] the Wergild. 275 
 
 traces in early Greek or Roman antiquity. This is 
 probably anotber result of the quicker developement 
 of things in the city commonwealths of G-reece and 
 Italy, as 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 ven- 
 geance 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 atonement 
 offered by the slayer, and the slayer, when he had 
 paid those gifts, could dwell in peace among his 
 people (2,5). 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 
 
 T 2
 
 276 The Wergild in [LECT. 
 
 which the conqueror might accept the bondage of 
 the conquered instead of his blood, but might also- 
 slay him without reproach (2,6). 
 
 The next step plainly is for the Commonwealth to- 
 step in, for the law to enforce the duty of accepting 
 the atonement, 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 (2,7). 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 great, may be 
 atoned for by the payment of the appointed sum in 
 money (28). And the penalty to be paid by the man- 
 slayer 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 (2,9). The 
 price of one Thegn was equal to that of several
 
 VI.J Old-English Law. 277 
 
 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
 
 278 Analogies not springing [LECTV 
 
 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 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 pay- 
 ment 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 Glouces- 
 tershire, 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 wergild (32,). 
 
 In this case we have, beyond doubt, an insti- 
 tution 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
 
 VI.] from a Common Stock. 279 
 
 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 explained, not by com- 
 mon 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 intermediate 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 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 analogies, 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
 
 280 Working of [LKCT. 
 
 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 phsenomena 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 com- 
 monly a stage in the history of a city Common- 
 wealth, 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
 
 VI.] Hereditary Burgher ship. 281 
 
 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. 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 gene- 
 rations. Such a class we have seen in the ^TOIKOI 
 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 essen- 
 tially the same, differing only in the value of the 
 franchise from which the stranger is shut out. And 
 that again depends on the difference between a com- 
 munity which forms a sovereign commonwealth and 
 one which, whatever its internal constitution may be, 
 is, as regards all national matters, merely part of a
 
 282 Greek Merot/cot and [LECTV 
 
 greater whole. The /xerot/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 worth- 
 less, 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 fran- 
 chise 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 Eoman 
 Patricians ; the other inhabitants are but ^TOLKOL or 
 plebeians by their side. The principle is the same in 
 both cases ; mere residence gives no claim to admis-
 
 VI.] English Foreigners. 283 
 
 sion to the civic community, whether that civic com- 
 munity 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 enquiries 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 pre- 
 cious 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
 
 284 Greek MeVoiKot and [LECT. 
 
 cities and districts which have grown into the Con- 
 federation 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 
 Niedergelassenen in Switzerland, those Swiss citizens 
 who are settled in Gemeinden or Communes parishes 
 or Markgenossenschaften of which they have not 
 the hereditary burghership, answer exactly to the 
 Greek ^eroiKoi. And, in the late debates on the 
 reform of the Federal Constitution, many pro- 
 posals were brought forward to remedy a state of 
 things by which a number not far short of half of 
 the Swiss 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 generations (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
 
 VI.] Smss Niedergelassenen. 285 
 
 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- 
 Confederation, the days of the Staatenbund, when 
 there was no common Federal Legislature or Execu- 
 tive, 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 /xeroi/cos 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 Con- 
 federation. 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 ^erotKos shall not be, as he was at Athens, 
 subject to any special peroiKiov, any special tax laid 
 on the fieToi/co? 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 every- 
 where the Niedergelassene is still, in communal
 
 286 ne/oioiKoi in Greece and [LECT. 
 
 matters, a jueVot/cos ; the mere fact of residence and 
 contribution to the local taxes no more gives him the 
 full 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 /xerot/cot in Switzerland, down to 
 1798 there were irepioiKoi. Of course we may see a 
 relation equivalent to the perioikic relation when- 
 ever 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 
 Yenice 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 inha- 
 bitants of Cyprus or of India should have a voice in 
 the affairs of Yenice or of England. The full nature 
 of the perioikic relation does not come out except in
 
 VI.] in Mediceval Europe. 287 
 
 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 Yenice 
 on the mainland of Italy present an approach 
 to the old perioiJcic relation. Still the island city 
 always remained isolated from the Continent ; Yenice 
 never became part of continental Yenetia 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 G-ermany, 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 few years back, down 
 to the last changes in G-ermany, the cities of Liibeck 
 and Hamburg held the small district of Yierlande in 
 Condominium (36). They held it in partnership 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 ownership. And
 
 288 Notion of Property [LECT. 
 
 mark again that, in all these cases, the internal con- 
 stitution of the ruling State made no difference. As 
 Athens had her subjects though not strictly her 
 TrepioiKOL no less than Sparta, so democratic Uri had 
 her own subjects, and her share in the common sub- 
 jects 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 remem- 
 ber 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 acquisi- 
 tion of dominion by purchase, so common in mediaeval 
 history, is rare in the history of Greece. (37) I con- 
 ceive the cause of the difference to be that in old 
 Greece and Italy the ideas of property and govern- 
 ment 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 f 
 or it might part it out as bookland among its own 
 citizens ; but the right of government 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
 
 VI.] in Sovereignty. 289 
 
 idea took root and grew, the right of government 
 came to be looked on as a property, while the posses- 
 sion 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 possession, 
 there seemed no reason why a rich commonwealth 
 might not buy the sovereign rights and powers of 
 a spendthrift 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 established, 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 un- 
 known in the elder state of things, became at least far 
 more familiar and important in the later. And, 
 through the greater complication of mediaeval juris- 
 
 u
 
 290 Greek Tre/Dtot/cot [LECT- 
 
 prudence a complication which for the most part 
 grew out of this same confusion of the ideas of pro- 
 perty 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 rela- 
 tions between a Greek or Italian city and its Greek 
 or Italian subjects, an image of the relation of Sparta 
 to her Laconian Treptot/cot or of Rome to her Italian 
 allies (39). And in Switzerland and the neighbour- 
 ing lands this system went on in all its fullness 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 con- 
 federations, all had their subjects, their Unterthanm, 
 in Greek phrase their TrepioLKou. 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
 
 VI.] and Mediceval Unterthanen. 29 1 
 
 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 Rsetia bore a rule perhaps sterner than all over 
 the Italian valley to the south of them. The Yalte- 
 lina 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-govern- 
 ment ; but all alike were -rre/ototKoi, 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 commonwealth 
 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 tempta- 
 tion to make it so. But it is in any case irksome and 
 
 u 2
 
 292 . Commonwealths and [LECT.. 
 
 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 r 
 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 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 harmost, who was sent 
 to rule them came from aristocratic Bern or Zurich 
 than when he came from democratic Uri or Unter- 
 walden. 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 tempo- 
 rary 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
 
 VI.] their Subjects. 293 
 
 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 pre- 
 scribed 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 fullness. 
 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 goes. Thus much I 
 trust that I have done; to some I may have sug- 
 gested a new line of thought; to others I may have 
 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,
 
 294 Summary of [LECT. 
 
 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 shewn 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 Eome 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 conies 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
 
 VI.] the whole Subject. 295 
 
 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 insti- 
 tutions 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 off from us by an impass- 
 able 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 unrecorded 
 times, as the still abiding work of the fathers and 
 elder brethren of our common blood.
 
 ( 296 ) 
 
 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 Aristotle, the Alexander, 
 of legend gave way to the true Virgil, the true 
 Aristotle, fhe 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 
 imes, but in one point it is hardly possible to
 
 REDE LECT.] The Revival of Learning. 297 
 
 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 Grreek 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, 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 Grrosseteste 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
 
 298 Evils of the exclusively [REDE 
 
 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 belief, 
 not perhaps fully put forth in words, but none the 
 less practically acted on, that those two languages, 
 and all that belonged to them, had some special
 
 LECT.] Classical Taste. 299* 
 
 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 excel- 
 lence. Whatever did not conform to their pattern 
 was worthless and barbarous ; the exclusive vota- 
 ries 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
 
 300 Its Inconsistency with real [EEDE 
 
 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, 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 out- 
 pouring of the true Homeric spirit in the English lay 
 of Chevy Chace (2). 
 
 But, more than all this, the exclusive study of 
 l 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
 
 LECT.] Knowledge of " Classical " Antiquity. 301 
 
 opposition to all other times and places led to an 
 utter forgetfulness 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 Yirgil 
 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
 
 302 Results of [EEDE 
 
 Comparative method in philology, in mythology 
 let me add in politics and 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 '
 
 LECT.] Comparative Philology. 303 
 
 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 i ancient ' 
 would seem to brand as something 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 im- 
 portant branch of the study of history we must cast 
 away all distinctions of ' ancient ' and ' modern,' of 
 4 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 lan- 
 guages and the customs of Greece and Rome have 
 no special privilege above the languages and the
 
 304 No real Distinction between [EEDE 
 
 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 in- 
 stitutions, 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 some- 
 thing 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 r 
 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
 
 LECT.] " Ancient" and " Modern" Studies. 305 
 
 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 mysterious about 
 the Greek and Latin tongues, or about those par- 
 ticular stages of those tongues which are picked out 
 to receive the name of classical. The accurate know- 
 ledge 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 under- 
 stood 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 knowledge of the 
 speech of Greece is imperfect unless we add to it a 
 
 x
 
 306 Position of Greece and Rome [REDE 
 
 scientific knowledge of the speech of England, and 
 that our knowledge of the speech of England is im- 
 perfect 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 to- 
 gether 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 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
 
 LECT.] in Universal History. 307 
 
 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 know- 
 ledge. 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 Hellen, 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 
 
 x 2
 
 308 Primary and Secondary [REDK 
 
 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, of various branches of history, will vary 
 infinitely. Of some branches he must know every- 
 thing, 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 every- 
 thing ; 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 oppor- 
 tunities ; 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
 
 LECT.] Study of History. 309 
 
 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 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
 
 310 Position of [REDE 
 
 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 re- 
 lations 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 know- 
 ledge; 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 prac- 
 tical knowledge of them for his own purpose. 
 That purpose is gained if he thoroughly grasps 
 their relations to other languages, the main pecu- 
 liarities 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
 
 Grecian History. 311 
 
 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 im- 
 portance, by being set free from the 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 graciously 
 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 * clas- 
 sical.' 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
 
 312 Position of Polybios [RKDB 
 
 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 r 
 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 illustrious 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). Ha 
 could remember times when Macedonia, perhaps even 
 when Carthage, was still an independent and mighty 
 power, able to grapple on equal terms with the ad- 
 vancing, 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,.
 
 LECF.] in Universal History. 313 
 
 the truest heirs of Alexander's conquests, shrink up 
 from the vast 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 Confederation 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 un-
 
 314 Permanence of the Attic 
 
 reasonable 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 Polybios 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 something wholly different 
 from the language of the contemporary 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
 
 LECT.] Dialect of Greek. 315 
 
 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
 
 316 Long Duration of Greek Life [EEDE 
 
 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- 
 bours, 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 
 Haute ville 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 
 G-reece held their place for ages, and how some 
 glimmerings from the Massalian hearth may even 
 have reached, not indeed to our own forefathers, 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 Csesar, and sprang again to 
 life in later times to withstand the sterner might of 
 Charles of Anjou (i i). From the western extremity 
 of Greek colonization let us look to the eastern ; let 
 us turn our eyes from the northern shore of the
 
 LECT.] in Sicily and at Cher son. 317 
 
 Mediterranean to the northern shore of the Inhos- 
 pitable 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 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 brother- 
 hood of Greece, and to be chosen, with at least the
 
 318 Spread of Greek Civilization [REDE 
 
 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 G-aul, 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, sometimes 
 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 Ma- 
 cedonian 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
 
 LECT.] in Macedonian and Byzantine Times. 319 
 
 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 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 Eome, the conquests of 
 Macedonian warriors and of Christian Apostles, all 
 came together when the throne and the name of 
 Eome 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
 
 320 The Modern Greek [REDE 
 
 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 interpolations of later times (i 7), and which, 
 alone among Christian Churches, can give to her 
 people the New Testament 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 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
 
 LECT.] Church and Nation. 321 
 
 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 instru- 
 ment 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 
 
 Y
 
 322 Comparison of Greek [EEDE 
 
 through, the revolutions of so many ages. But we 
 shall feel the oneness of history even more, if we 
 turn from Greece and her influence 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, hut 
 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 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
 
 and Roman Influences. 323 
 
 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 religious 
 metropolis, though no longer as their temporal capital. 
 Let us look at the history of Rome and of her 
 language. "We may say of Eome, in a truer sense 
 ven 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 
 or two of its ' classic ' purity seem but as a moment in 
 the long annals of the Imperial tongue. We 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 katabothra 
 when the Camenae wept over the tomb of Nsevius, 
 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 (18). 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 
 
 Y 2
 
 324 Permanency of the Laws [REDE 
 
 those new Saturnian rimes which sing the praises 
 of 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 Eome, 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 literature 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 Em- 
 pire, the tongue of the successors of Augustus and 
 of the successors of Saint Peter. It has been, wher- 
 ever 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 (2,0),.
 
 LECT.] and Language of Rome. 325 
 
 we get the beginnings of that long series of wit- 
 nesses 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 Yirgil 
 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 nations which came within her 
 immediate dominion were content to cast away their 
 native speech. It is this abiding and Imperial cha- 
 racter of the speech of Rome, far more than even the 
 greatest works of one or two short periods in its long 
 life, 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
 
 326 (Ecumenical Aspect [REDE 
 
 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 nowhere spoken in its ancient form, it still lives in 
 
 the new forms into which it grew in the provinces 
 
 which Kome 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 Proven9al 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-
 
 LECT.] of Roman History. 327 
 
 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 themselves ; 
 it is out of Rome that all the states of the later 
 European world take their being. The true meaning 
 of 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 Augustulus ; 
 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
 
 328 Influence of Rome on [REDE 
 
 they are looked at from Constantinople, 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 Byzan- 
 tine 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 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
 
 LECT.] the Teutonic Nations. 329 
 
 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 ad- 
 dresses him by the title of the Caesar of Rome (25). 
 But it is not in mere names and titles that her
 
 330 Visit of Basil the Second [EEDE 
 
 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 Jus- 
 tinian 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 
 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 have 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 dis- 
 tant 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 88ra. A change has come since the days of
 
 LECT.] to the Athenian Akropolis. 331 
 
 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 up- 
 lifted spear, nor do men deem that, if the G-oth 
 should again draw nigh, her living form would again 
 scare him from her walls (2,6). 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 con- 
 queror; not as when ransomed thousands pressed 
 forth to hail the victors of 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
 
 332 Analogies between European [REDE 
 
 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 Macedonian 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 vic- 
 tories over a people Turanian in blood, Slavonic in 
 speech, and delighting to deck their Kings with the 
 names of Hebrew prophets (2,8) Basil the Second, 
 the Slayer of the Bulgarians, the restorer of the 
 Byzantine power, paying his thank-offerings to Glod 
 and the Panagia in the old heathen temple of demo- 
 cratic 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 con-
 
 LECT.] and Eastern History. 333 
 
 nexion, 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 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 king- 
 doms 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 Frankish Kings bore themselves as lieu- 
 tenants of the absent Emperor. It was by Imperial 
 commission that Ataulf conquered Spain and that 
 Theodoric conquered Italy, and Odoacer, Chlodwig, 
 jand Theodoric himself, 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
 
 334 Analogies between the Empire [KKDE 
 
 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 deprive of his royal title (30). 
 We see Princes of 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 Eoman 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 frag- 
 ments 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 when 
 Bajazet the Thunderbolt stoops to receive his patent
 
 LECT.] and the Caliphate. 335 
 
 as Sultan from the trembling slave of the Egyptian 
 Mamelukes, and when Selim the Inflexible obtains 
 from the last Abbasside a formal cession of the rank 
 and style of Commander of the Faithful (32). We 
 see it in events which have more nearly touched our- 
 selves. 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 
 ihe walls of his own palace, and at last as a criminal 
 and a prisoner, sent to a harder exile than that of 
 Grlycerius in his bishoprick or of the last Merwing in 
 his cloister. 
 
 One word more. The fashion of the day, by a 
 not unnatural reaction, seems to be turning against 
 4 ancient ' and l 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
 
 336 Distinctions of " Ancient "and " Modern " [EEDB 
 
 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 
 Marath6n (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 some 
 peculiar method of their own, we are playing into the 
 hands of the enemy. As long as we have ' classical r 
 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 distinctions 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, tut 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
 
 LECT.] to be broken down. 337 
 
 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 his- 
 tory 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 phenomena 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 intel- 
 lectual greatness is not always measured by phy- 
 sical 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 
 
 z
 
 338 Practical Study of [EEDE 
 
 instructive lesson in politics than the history of a 
 huge empire. If we are asked what is the use of 
 studying the events and 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 in- 
 deed. 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 our- 
 selves, as elder brethren of our common Aryan 
 household. In this way we can make answer to 
 gainsayers ; in this way we can convince the un- 
 learned 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 Parliament 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
 
 LECT.] " Ancient" History. 339 
 
 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 hon- 
 oured 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 hy 
 being made the objects of a reasonable homage in- 
 stead of an exclusive superstition. 
 
 z 2
 
 ( 341 ) 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 (1) Page 6. Max Muller, Oxford Essays, 1856, p. 27. 
 " The English name for ' mill ' is likewise of considerable 
 antiquity, for it exists not only in the 0. H. G. muli, but in 
 the Lithuanian mcdunas, the Bohemian rnlyn, the Welsh 
 melin, the Latin mota, and the Greek /AuA/??." 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 9. The connexion between the Greek Chans 
 and Charites and the Sanscrit Harits is discussed by Muller, 
 Science of Language, ii. 369-376, 381-383 ; Cox, Aryan 
 Mythology, i. 48, 210 ; ii. 2. Mr. Cox, as usual, goes some- 
 what further than Professor Muller. I can see no difficulty 
 in looking on the Greek word %dpis and its Greek cognates 
 as sprung from the same original root ghar as the Sanscrit 
 Harits and their Sanscrit cognates, and at the same time
 
 342 Notes on 
 
 believing that the mythological Charts and Charites arose 
 after the appellative %api? 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 Charites 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 Dyaus and Zeus. 
 
 (3) Page 10. 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 seems 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 Keview, 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 Konigsmarck. 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.
 
 Lecture I. 343 
 
 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 14. For the happy name " survivals " we have 
 to thank Mr. Tylor. No line of argument can well be more 
 convincing, and it will be seen that in other lectures I have 
 made a large use of it for my own purposes. 
 
 (5) Page 15. Miiller, Science of Language, i. 223-226. 
 
 (6) Page 16. Let the science rather go nameless than 
 bear the burthen of such a name as, for instance, Sociology. 
 
 (7) Page 22. 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. 
 
 (8) Page 22. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 96, 98. 
 
 (9) Page 25. 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
 
 344 Notes on 
 
 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 continued the nominal succession of the Kings of 
 Jerusalem. See Gibbon, c. Iviii. vol. xi. p. 91, ed. Milman. 
 
 (10) Page 27. The magistrates were called in Komance 
 Capitouls. The name Capitolium 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 Tou- 
 louse, but I can hardly think that the Capitoids, whatever 
 we make of the CapitoUwm itself, can be a direct inheritance 
 from Koman 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 Koln, the 
 name of which survives in the church of Saint Mary Capito- 
 line. 
 
 (11) Page 28. 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 of Thierry just quoted. He
 
 Lecture 1. 345 
 
 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 29. On the modern corruption of the German 
 language I have said something in my second series of 
 Historical Essays, p. 269. 
 
 \ 
 
 (13) Page 31. See Forsyth, History of Ancient Manu- 
 scripts, p. 25. 
 
 (14) Page 32. 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 33. See History of Federal Government, i. 
 319. 
 
 (16) Page 33. See Historical Essays, First Series, 401- 
 405.
 
 ( 346 ) 
 
 LECTUEE II. 
 
 (1) Page 39. 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 Vortheile und regeln ihre Beschaftigungen, deren 
 stetiges Einerlei es moglich macht, dass Jahrhunderte iiber 
 das Land hmgehen, ohne dass sich in den hergebrachten 
 Lebensverhaltnissen etwas Wesentliches andert. Es erfolgen 
 Umwalzungen, 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 Chronologie, aber keine 
 Geschichte im vollen Sinne des Worts. Solche Zustande der 
 Erstarrung duldet der Wellenschlag des agaischen Meeres 
 nicht, der, wenn einmal Verkehr und geistiges Leben erwacht 
 ist, dasselbe ohne Stillstand imnier weiter fiihrt und ent- 
 wickelt." 
 
 (2) Page 40. 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) Page 40. Of the Phoenician occupation of the ^Egaean
 
 Notes on Lecture II. 347 
 
 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 prse-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 Ehodes 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 prae-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 40. See Historical Essays, Second Series, 
 p. 90. 
 
 (5) Page 41. The exact limits of Greek colonization 
 should be noted. It spread gradually over the whole coast 
 of the Mediterranean Sea and its great gulfs, except when 
 there was some manifest 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 Car- 
 thaginian dominions, which did receive Greek colonies in 
 the form of the Kyrenaic Pentapolis. It will be at once
 
 348 Notes on 
 
 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 Graecia. 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 
 v/ere more or less closely akin to the Greeks. Thus Sicily 
 and the JEgsean coast became really Greek countries, while 
 in Libya and on the Euxine the Greek colonies always re- 
 mained mere scattered settlements in a barbarian land. 
 
 (6) Page 41. 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 archi- 
 tecture 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. 
 
 (7) Page 41. That is of course the Krrj/^a e'$ aet of 
 Thucydides 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 contemporaries; but in no other contemporary 
 society could room have been found for such a man. I may
 
 Lecture II. 349 
 
 refer to the third Essay in my second series of Historical 
 
 Essays. 
 
 (8) Page 41. 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 42. It must always be remembered that, till 
 the modern Hellenic revival, the name of "EXT^y was 
 altogether unknown as the name of the Greek nation. All 
 through Byzantine, Frank, and Ottoman times, their one 
 name was 'Pco/j,aioi Komans by virtue of the unrepealed 
 law of Antoninus Caracalla. 
 
 (10) Page 42. 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. 
 
 (11) Page 43. "The reign of Caesar and of Christ was 
 restored," says Gibbon (c. lii., vol. x., 86, Milman), in re- 
 cording the recovery of Antioch by Nikephoros Phokas. 
 This exactly expresses the state of the case. 
 
 (12) Page 44. The phrase of " Urbs aeterna " is common 
 in Ammianus. See xiv. 6, and a note of Lindenbrog for 
 other instances.
 
 350 Notes on 
 
 (13) Page 44. 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 45. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 p. 9, ed. 2. 
 
 (15) Page 46. 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 revolu- 
 tions 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 Parliament representing both the King- 
 dom and the Duchies the German element would always 
 have been out-voted. The like would be the case with 
 the Eomance Cantons of Switzerland, if their equality as 
 sovereign States did not protect them. Hence the strong
 
 Lecture II. 351 
 
 opposition of those Cantons to the proposed changes in the 
 Federal Constitution. 
 
 (16) Page 47. I assume this here; I have gone more 
 fully into the matter in my Growth of the English Con- 
 stitution, of which this position is the main argument. 
 
 (17) Page 47. For Alfred's description of the modest 
 way in which he laid his laws before his Witan, see Norman 
 Conquest, i. 51. 
 
 (18) Page 47. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 34. 
 
 (19) Page 47. I have elsewhere collected some in- 
 stances of the notion of Britain as another world (Nor- 
 man Conquest, i. 556). It may be well to give some more 
 instances from earlier writers. The form of speech begins 
 with Virgil's "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 or- 
 bem." 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 Eomanus orbis 
 non sufficeret, alterum cogitavit." (We hear again of 
 "Eomanus orbis" and even of "Imperator Komani orbis," 
 in Vopiscus, Aurelian, 26, 28.) So Jornandes (11) also speaks 
 of Caesar: "Pene omnem mundum suaB ditionis subegit, 
 omniaque 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
 
 352 Notes on 
 
 the Koman power, say, a/ctyacrde Se KOI TO ^perravwv 
 
 ot rot? 'lepo<rdXv/j,(t)v re/^etu TreTrot^ore?' /cal 7<zp Kivov<; 
 
 \d(T(rova vrjaov oltcovvTas, TrXevaaines e8ov\(t)<ravTO ' 
 So Plutarch, Cgesar, 23, Trpoij'yayev e|&> r?}? oiKoviiewjs rrjv 
 'Pw/Maiav r)ye/j,bvtav. Dion, on the other hand (Ixii. 4), 
 puts language of the same kind into the mouth of Boadicea : 
 roiyapovv vf)<rov rrj^iKavrrjv, pa\\ov S' rpreipov rpoTrov Tiva 
 irepippvrov, ve^o^evoi, Kai ISiav olKovjjLeyrjv e^oyre?, Kal 
 TOO-OVTOV VTTO Tov wKcavov a<f> cnrairrwv rwv aXXtoV av- 
 OpcoTTtov a<J3O>pL(TfjLevoi, &(TT Kal ^fjv aXkrjv Kal ovpavov aX- 
 \ov OIKCIV 7reirurTV(r0ai. 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 papa " or " apostolicus," so, in a 
 passage of Eadmer (Hist. Nov. 1. ii. p. 422, Migne) the 
 conviction of William Kufus that the Bishop of Eome had 
 no jurisdiction in his realm of England takes this form, 
 "Nee enim putabat aposiolicum orbis posse in regno suo 
 esse cujuslibet juris, nisi pennissus 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
 
 Lecture II. 353 
 
 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 conti- 
 nentals. This is a fact which should carefully be borne 
 in mind, because some points of difference between our- 
 selves 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 48. See Norman Conquest, i. 279. 
 
 (21) Page 48. 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 independence 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 49. 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 (Egin- 
 hard, Annals, 812) : " Aquisgrani, ubi ad Imperatorem vene- 
 
 runt more suo, id est Grseca lingua, laudes 
 
 ei dixerunt, Imperatorem eum et Basileum appellantes." 
 Charles was strong and Michael was weak. Three genera- 
 tions 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 
 of Salerno (Pertz, iii. 521). Basil is offended because Lewis 
 
 2 A
 
 354 Notes on 
 
 had called himself " Imperator Augustus " in a letter. The 
 Carolingian Emperor, in his answer, goes to the root of the 
 -matter. His salutation runs : " Lodoguieus, divina ordinante 
 providentia, Imperator Augustus Eomanorum, dilectissimo 
 spiritualique patri nostro Basilio, gloriosissimo et piissimo 
 seque Imperatori Novae Romae." 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- 
 nornine multa nobis scripsisti "), he argues the point at 
 length. The Byzantine position is " neminem appellandum 
 Basilea nisi eum quern in urbe Constantinopoli Imperil 
 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 p^ and then argues the point minutely : 
 
 " Postremo scito, quia qui Riga quemquam appellat, quid 
 dicat nee ipse novit. Siquidem etiarn si linguis omnibus more 
 apostolorum, immo angelorum, loquaris, cujus linguae sit Rix,. 
 vel cui dignitati sonus ille barbarus congruit quod Rix di- 
 citur, interpretari non poteris, nihil enim est hoc, nisi forte 
 ad idioma propriae linguae tractum, Riga 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 j3aav\u<; interpre- 
 tabitur ? Quod non solum Veteris sed et Novi Testament! 
 omnes interpretes attestantur. Unde si in alienis personis 
 hoc detestasrivoca bulum, stude et omnibus tarn Latinis libris
 
 Lecture II. 355 
 
 quam Grsecis sive Higis sive /3ao-u\eu9 nomen eradere, nam 
 nihil Bex in lingua Latina resonat, quam quod Grseca 
 dicitur /3ao-uXeus." [The spelling of /3ao-uXey? 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 pijg 'AXapavwv, but speaks of him as 
 wishing to be thought Emperor (rov 'Pw/^atW avroKpdropo<s 
 Trpoaap/jioo-eiv aur&> TO af/wyna oirjOels . . . . Ty avTOKpdropos 
 iraXat, e7ro<f>da\fj,i%(av apyrj). He goes on to tell us that 
 none but the Emperor had any right to appoint the Pope 
 (ovSevl yap aXXw, ori fj,r) /3acri\6i 'Pw/jLalmv, dp^iepea irepi- 
 f3e/3\ij<r0ai, ry 'P&yw? e^etrat) ; but that, through the con- 
 tempt into which the Empire had fallen (e orov b\i*/wpta 
 TMV ev Buaz/T/&> /3a<7t\ea)y TO TOLOVTOV aTreafiijice ^09), 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 Rom^eoram " 
 (Letters of Thomas Beckington, ii. 19, et al.). I con- 
 ceive that this use of the Greek form was to avoid calling 
 him " Imperator Eomaworum ;" 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) 
 Eichard the Second addresses Manuel Palaiologos as " Im- 
 perator Constantinopolitanus." 
 
 (23) Page 49. Besides the important part which the Ser- 
 vians and Bulgarians for the Bulgarians may be practically
 
 356 Notes on 
 
 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 invasion 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 51. All these stories are familiar from the 
 legendary 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 Pythagoras is of course 
 only an unlucky guess, the chronological absurdity of which 
 is exposed by Livy himself. 
 
 (25) Page 51. Tacitus, Germania, 3 : " Fuisse apud 
 eos et Herculem memorant, primumque omnium virorum 
 fortium ituri in proelia canunt .... Ceterum Ulyssem 
 quidam opinantur, longo illo et fabuloso errore in hunc 
 Oceanum delatum, adisse Germanise terras, Asciburgiumque, 
 quod in ripa Rheni situm hodieque incolitur, ab illo con- 
 stitutum nominatumque. Aram quinetiam Ulyssi conse- 
 cratam, adjecto Laertas patris nomine, eodem loco olim reper- 
 tam, monumentaque et tumulos quosdam, Graecis litteris 
 inscriptos, in confinio Germanise Rhastiseque adhuc exstare ;
 
 Lecture II. 357 
 
 quae neque confirmare argamentis, neque refellere in animo 
 est : ex ingenio suo quisque demat, vel addat fidem." 
 
 (26) Page 53. I have here tried to bring together a few 
 of the most obvious words which all, or many, of the Aryan 
 languages 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 "Sar 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 butt 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 " retreat " has been traced out by a, happy union 
 of historical and physical evidence in the hands of Mr. 
 Dawkins. 
 
 (27) Page 53. With the words of Herodotus (ix. 62) 
 before us \^/j,an /u,ez> vvv /cat pcoftr) ovtc eWo^e? rfa-av ol 
 Ilepcrat followed up by the marked way in which he 
 presently speaks of the native Persians as the only trust- 
 worthy part of the barbarian host, we may be tempted
 
 358 Notes on 
 
 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 \vere, 
 as I need not stop to show, the one foe that met Kome on 
 really equal terms. 
 
 (28) Page 53. 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 Stesicho- 
 ros (see Mure, iii. 251) ; 
 
 'AeXios 8' 'YTrepioviSas SeTras csxaTe/Jaive 
 XpTxreov, o<pa 8' w/ceavoto Trepao-as, 
 atpiKoiO' Upas TTOTI /3ev0ea WKTOS epe//,vas' 
 TTOTI p.arepa Kovpi8tav T 
 TC 
 
 (29) Page 54. 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 essentially 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
 
 Lecture II. 359 
 
 liis 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 into Europe in 
 the course of pree-historic migrations, and which has ex- 
 changed 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 54. On the upper course of the Ehine we find 
 the Swiss Cantons and their allies, and specially the Raetian 
 C/onfederacy of the Three Leagues, now forming part of the 
 greater confederation as the Canton of Graubunden. 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 re- 
 membered is that neither Switzerland nor Holland was a 
 separate state from the beginning. But there is this dif- 
 ference between them : the United Provinces became inde-
 
 360 Notes on 
 
 pendent of the Empire by virtue of the great and independent 
 position which had been won by their sovereigns the Dukes 
 of Burgundy ; it t 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 Ca3sar till 
 the time came when Caesar himself could be cast off also. 
 Thus the republican freedom of the cities and lands (Stadte 
 und Lander) on the borders of Germany, Italy, and Bur- 
 gundy has lived on, under various forms, to our own day. 
 
 (31) Page 56. 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 56. The position and extent of the Empire 
 under Justinian and his immediate successors is one of those 
 points 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 Cassar Flavius Justinianus Augustus 
 though he held his court in the New Home 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^
 
 Lecture II. 361 
 
 (33) Page 57. Of Aetius, him to whom the groans of the 
 Britons were sent, Jornandes (34) gives this account : 
 " Aetius ergo patricius tune praerat militibus, fortissimorum 
 Mo3siorum stirpe progenitus, in Dorostina civitate, a patre 
 Gaudentio, labores bellicos tolerans, Eeipublicse Eomanae 
 singulariter natus, qui superbiain Suevorum Francorumque 
 barbariem immensis caedibus servire Eomano Imperio 
 coegisset." Prokopios himself also (Bell. Vand. i. 3) gives 
 us his panegyric, along with the contemporary Bonifacius : 
 
 ^TpaTvjycb bvo 'Pa)fj,alot fymjv, 'Aerto? re KOI 
 tcaprepo) re e? ra jj,d\i(rra Kal TroXXcoi/ 7roA,e/i&)i> 
 TWV <ye Karf e/ceivov rbv j(f>6vov ovSevbs rja-crov. TOVTOJ TO> 
 avbpe Bia(f)6pa) pev ra 7ro\m,tca ^evecrdriv, e? roaovrov Be 
 fAeydX-o-fyvxias re Kal TT}<? a\\rj^ apeirjs f)K.irriv wcrre, et 
 rt<? auTOiv eKarepov avBpa 'Pco/ia/wi/ vaTarov eiTroi, OVK av 
 a/jLaprot' ovro) rr)v 'Pco/iatW dpeTrjv %v/j,7raaav eV rovra) TO> 
 av&pe aTroKefcplcrdai rerv^rjKe. 
 
 We are apt to look upon the West-Gothic kingdom as 
 something 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. 
 
 (3i) Page 57. Jornandes, 36. "A parte vero Rorna- 
 norum tanta patricii Aetii providentia fuit, cui tune inni- 
 tebatur respublica Hesperiae plagaa, ut undique bellatoribus 
 congregatis adversus ferocem et infinitam multitudinem non 
 impar occurreret. His enim adfuere auxiliares Franci, 
 Sarmataa, Armoritiani, Litiani, Burguudiones, Saxones, 
 Eiparioli, Ibriones, quondam milites Eomani, tune vero jam 
 in numero auxiliariorum exquisiti, aliaeque nonnullas Celtica& 
 vel GermanicaB nationes."
 
 362 Notes on 
 
 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 con- 
 venient 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 57. On Alaric's march to Athens, see Zosimos, 
 v. 6. 
 
 (36) Page 59. On the influence of Massalia on the 
 neighbouring Gauls, see Strabo, iv. 1. His words are very 
 strong: w9#' 77 71-0X49 fMKpw pv rcporepov rot? @ap/3dpoL<; 
 aveiro rrai&evrrjpiov, teal <J3L\e\\r)va<i Karea-tcevaa-e rov? 
 FaXara?, wsre Kal ra o~vfi/36\aia 'EXA/^z/to-T 
 
 ev Be rm rrapovn KOI rov<; yvapifjiardrovs 
 
 dvrl rrjs et? 'Adrfvas d7ro8r}/j,la<f e/celo-e <f>oirav 
 6Wa9. He speaks no less strongly of the Eoman 
 influence on the Gaulish tribes in that neighbourhood : 
 t Be TO r&v Kaovdpcov ovo/ju, fcal Trdvras oyrco? 
 Trposaryopevovcri TOU? ravry fiapftdpovs, ovBe /3ap/3dpov<; 
 ert ovras, aXXa /Aera/cet/iei/ou? TO TrXeov ei? rov rwv 
 'Pa)/j,aia)v TVTTOV, Kal rfj <^\caTTrj KOL Tot9 y3tot9, TM>a9 Be 
 Kal TTJ TroXtreia. 
 
 Elsewhere (iii. 2), he sets forth the progress of Eoman 
 influences among the tribes of southern Spain : 01 fiev TOI 
 TovpBnavol, Kal p,aki<rra ol vrepl rbv T&airiv, TeXe&)9 ei9 
 rov 'PcofJMicov jjLTa(3e{3\r)VTcu rpoirov, ovBe rrjs BiaXefcrov 
 T^9 o"06Tepa9 ert fj,efj,vi]fAevot,. Aarlvol, re 
 ryeyovcuri, Kal errodcovs etX^ao-t c P<u/u,atbu9 * <U9T6 
 rov ream '9 elvai 
 
 (37) Page 60. Any questions of this kind I should wish
 
 Lecture II. 363 
 
 to leave open till philologers have determined the exact 
 degree of affinity, if there be any, between the two great 
 groups of inflexional 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 pos- 
 session of the Aryan nations, what is the common 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 65. Annals, iv. 33. "Nam cunctas nationes 
 et urbes populus, aut primores, aut singuli regunt : delecta 
 ex his et consociata Beipublicse 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 TroXtreta 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, oaw av 
 apeivov r\ iro\i,reia luyQy roaovra) /jLovi/JLcorepa. So, at an 
 earlier stage of his argument (ii. 6), he says, evtoi JJLCV 
 ovv \eyovcriv a>? Bel rrjv aplcrrtjv yn\lfTUU> e dircta-cav elvai 
 TWV 7ro\iTeia)v ftfUfffthnjVf Sio Kal rrjv TWV A.a,K$aifj,ovia)v 
 eTTcuvova-iv 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 discourses, 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
 
 364 Notes an 
 
 (etceivyv Tr)V &r)/jiOKpaTLav, rjv 
 
 evofAoOerrjcrev, A. 17; 17 /3e/3ato)Tepa ical Sifcaiorepa 
 {a, A. 30, &c. &c.), which he conceives (IT. 159) to 
 have lasted for a thousand years, once or twice uses the 
 same kind of formula more than once. Thus in II. 139, 
 yap Bt]fj,OKparlav ov rrjv el/cr) 7ro\iTevofj,evr)v 
 dXXa rrjv Toiovroi? fiev eVm/it<wo-ai>, apia-roKparia Se 
 , and again II. 165, he speaks of Lykourgos, &c^ 
 TIJV re SijiAo/cpariav Karacrrricravro<i Trap aurot? Trjv apicrro- 
 Kparia f^efiij/jievijv, r)7rep f]v Trap rjfjulv, Kal ra9 ap%5 ou 
 Kh.ijpaTas a\\* aipera? Troi^a-avra. This last seems to be 
 Isokrates' great distinction between a good democracy and a 
 bad one. Yet at Athens all the really important offices 
 v ere filled by election. 
 
 On the other hand it is possible, as in the old Polish con- 
 stitution, 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. 
 
 (36) Page 66. 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 
 Koman dissatisfied with the state of things at Borne, 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 Koman historian borne out. The best commentary 
 on the Germania is the first volume of "Waitz's Deutsche 
 Verfassunysgeschiclite.
 
 Lecture II. 365 
 
 (40) Page 68. I do not remember finding the word 
 anywhere in Greek prose, except in the Evagoras of 
 
 Isokrates, 88, where he uses ava% and avaaaa almost like 
 the vulgar use of the words prince and princess. TWV eg 
 avTOv yeyovorwv ovSeva /jLereXtTrev ISiwriKois 6v6/j,acrt. 
 7rposcvyopev6/j(,evov, d\\a TOV jj,ev /3a(7tXea Ka\ovfievov, rovs Be 
 avatcras, ra? 8e avacrcras. 
 
 (41) Page 69. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 32, 171, and below. 
 
 (42) Page 69. The Old-English rice, the same as the 
 High-Dutch reich, seems now to survive only in the ending 
 of the word bishopric ; but in Northern English cynerice, in 
 various spellings, went on till a very late time. Ricsian, 
 rixian, is the Old-English verb = regere. 
 
 (43) Page 70. See Max Miiller, Oxford Essays, p. 24, 
 and see below, note 64 on Lecture IV. 
 
 (44) Page 70. Massmann (Ulfilas, 728) explains the 
 Gothic reiks by " ein Machtiger, Oberster, Herrscher ; 
 vornehm, angesehen, machtig." 
 
 (45) Page 71. The Athenian r)\t,ala, which Greek 
 etymologists (see Suidas in ^Xtacrr^?) were tempted to 
 connect with 77X409, is of course the same word as d\la, 
 connected with d\r)s and other kindred words. 
 
 (46) Page 72. On the various names, dyopd for one of 
 them, by which the Achaian Federal Assembly is called 
 by Polybios, see History of Federal Government, i. 263. 
 
 (47) Page 72. The Latin frater and English brother
 
 366 Notes on 
 
 seem at first sight to have no Greek cognate, as its place 
 in the literal sense has been usurped by aSeX^o?. But the 
 word appears, in the form of <f>pdrrjp or typdrwp, to express 
 a member of one of the union of gentes known as <j>pdrpai 
 or </>parpwu, of which I have said more at p. 103. It might 
 almost be in either sense that Nestor (Iliad, ix. 63) uses the 
 negative word ; 
 
 dippr/Tap, dOefjuaros, aveanos l<rriv 
 05 7r6\(j,ov eparai CTrtS^/uo 
 
 But when in ii. 362 he bids Agamemnon 
 
 Kplv avSpas Kara <pv\a, Kara <f)ptfrpa<>, ' 
 o>9 (frprjrpr) (frptfrpyfav dprf^rj, fyvka Se 
 
 we could not better express Kara <J>v\a, Kara <j>pijrpa<;, than by 
 saying " according to shires and hundreds." 
 
 (48) Page 72. Besides ITTTTO? and equus, 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 73. 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 Waitz, Deutsche VerfassungsgescTiichte, 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 unweaxan," and 
 as " eorla ealdor."
 
 Lecture II. 367 
 
 (50) Page 73. The chief of the Assassins, "rex Ac- 
 cinorum, id est de Assasis " (Roger of Howden, iii. 181 ; 
 " Assisini Saraceni," Eoger of Wendover, iii. 46), appears in 
 Brompton (1268), as "Senex de monte, non pro aetate sic 
 dictus sed pro sapientia et gravitate, Princeps gentis 
 orientalis quam Hassisinos vocant ; " and he is made (see also 
 Bymer, i. 62) to write a letter beginning " Vetus de morite 
 Principibus Europse et omni populo Christiano salutem." 
 
 (51) Page 73. 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 74. See Norman Conquest, iv. 694. 
 
 (53) Page 74. See Norman Conquest, i. 269, ii. 388, 
 iii. 472.
 
 ( 368 ) 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 (1) Page 77. The definition of aristocracy given by 
 Aristotle (Pol. iv. 7. 25) rrjv yap e/c rwv apiarw a-TrX&i? 
 /car' dperrjv TroXireiav, KOI firj 717)09 virodecriv rtva d<ya0a)v 
 avftpwv, /Jiovriv Blicaiov Trposayopeveiv dpiaroKpaTiav, dis- 
 tinctly shuts out any such u7ro#ecret? dyadwv dvbpwv as age, 
 wealth, or birth. But he clearly feels that such a govern- 
 ment of the actually best is something merely ideal ; and he 
 seems to hold the best form of government to be that form 
 of 7ro\ireia his TroXtre/a being the same as the Sij/jLOKparia 
 of Polybios and others (see Growth of the English Constitu- 
 tion, 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 prj 
 /AOVOV TrXovrlvSirjv a\\a KOI apia-rlvSrjv aipovvrai ra? ap^d<f. 
 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
 
 Notes on Lecture III. 369 
 
 where birth and wealth afford special opportunities for their 
 culture. Aristotle's definition of evyeveia is ap^aio? TrXov- 
 TO? KOI aperrf (iv. 8, 9), and again (iii. 13, 3), evyeveid e<mv 
 dperrj yevovs : oligarchy, the corruption of aristocracy, 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 the doctrine of the three forms of government, 
 each of which has its corruption, and he thus defines aristo- 
 cracy (i. 47) : Bevrepa Se apicnoKparia KaXov^ivrj ovre evbs 
 ovre TroXXwy TWCOV, d\\a oXijcov rwv apicrrwv qyov/Aevcov, 
 TrXelov aTre^ovaa tjSr) rov Bvvarov teal rov (rvjufrepovro?. He 
 then defines oligarchy as oXijap^La, cncXrjpa /cat aoucos TrXeo- 
 ve^ia, irXovcriwv TIVWV KOI Troinypcav o\vya>v eTrl TOU? TroXXou? 
 KOI aTTopovs <rv<ncuns. Plutarch (frepl Mov. K.T.\. 3) makes 
 the threefold division /jbovap%la, o\t^ap"^ia, Srj/jLO/cparia, of 
 which the corruptions are rvpavvls, Swaa-reia, o-x\oKparia. 
 
 I need hardly say that the vulgar use of the word " aristo- 
 cracy," 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 77. Livy, ii. 1. "Libertatis originem inde 
 inagis, quia annuum imperium consulare factuni est, quam 
 quod deminutum quidquam sit ex regia potestate, numeres. 
 Omnia jura, omnia insignia, primi consules tenuere ; id 
 niodo cautum est ne, si ambo fasces haberent, duplicatus 
 terror videretur." Dionysios (iv. 73) very clearly brings out 
 
 2 B
 
 370 Notes on 
 
 the nature of the consulship as a continuation of kingship. 
 He makes Brutus counsel the Romans ^eraOeadac Tovvopa 
 TT)? 7roXtT6i'a9 .... teal Tot>9 /j,e\XovTa$ eeiv TTJV airdvrwv 
 egovatav, fjujre /3aa-i\.ei<; en firfTG fiovdpxpvs KaXelv, a\\a 
 rtva Kai <f>i\av0pa)7roTepav avrol? Oea-dai 7T/309- 
 eTretra pr) iroieiv ^vm^v jiiav airdvrwv /cvpiav, dXXa 
 Sv<rlv eTTirpeTreiv avftpdai rrjv /3a<ri\iKr)v apyffv. In C. 75 
 (cf. below, note 30 on Lecture IV.) he distinctly calls the 
 consular power fia<n\eia. I see that the phrase of putting 
 the kingly power in commission has occurred also to Sir 
 Henry Maine. 
 
 (3) Page 78. Something of this divided kingship be- 
 longed 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 Imperium and the Lex regia, handed on 
 from the days of the Kings through the whole time of 
 the Commonwealth, undoubtedly made the transition to the 
 Empire more easy. 
 
 (4) Page 78. Tacitus, Annals, i. 2. "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." 
 
 (5) Page 78. No doubt there were cases in which the 
 powers of the Senate were purposely lessened in particular 
 points ; as, for instance, by the Lex Hortensia of B.C. 286 
 (" Lex Hortensia lata est, qua cautum est, ut plebiscita 
 universum populum tenerent, itaque eo modo legibus exae- 
 quata sunt," Gaius, i. 2). But there was no tendency at
 
 Lecture III. 371 
 
 Borne seriously to interfere with the position of the Senate 
 as the government of the Commonwealth, 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. 228. 
 
 (6) Page 79. Arnold's Eome, 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 enactment 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 79. 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. 
 
 2 B 2
 
 372 Notes on 
 
 (8) Page 80. 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 Bar- 
 barian. 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 82. See Norman Conquest, i. 128. 
 
 (10) Page 83. 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 be- 
 tween them and the various Greek cities to which they come 
 on their march. We see it again in the Athenian decree 
 against Arthmios of Zeleia ; while it is the pervading spirit
 
 Lecture III. 373 
 
 of all the discourses of Isokrates. 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' aTraaav rrjv 'EXXaSa vrarpiBa vofj,%eiv, wsTrep 6 
 'yevvrjo'as [Herakles] t///.a?, ical KivBvveveiv vTrep avrfjs ofiouos 
 <M9 trep virep &v //.aXtcrra (nrovBd^eis. Isokrates indeed 
 was little more than a dreamer ; still he is a 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. KaXXt/epaT(.'8a9 a^$ecr#ei9 rf) dva/3o\f) /cat rafc eVt 
 Ta9 6vpa$ (froirija-ecriv, 6p*yi(rdel<> Kal eliratv a&\iwrdrov<; 
 elvai TOV? "EXX^ra?, ore /Sap/3apov9 KO\aKevovcriv eve/ca 
 ap<yvpiov, fydcricwv re, rjv awdfj ot/ca8e, Kara <ye TO avrw 
 Svvarbv Bia\\d^eiv ' A.6r]vaiov<i Kal Aa/ceSat/Ltoi/ioi'9, aire- 
 TrXevaev 69 M/X^Toy. i. 6. 14. KaXXi/cpart8a9 ovtc (pr), 
 eavrov <ye ap'xpvros, ovBeva 'EXXf^Wz/ 69 rovKeivov Bvvarov 
 
 (11) Page 84. 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) Sioto-et Be ru> roiovra xal 7roXi9 
 orav pr] Kara K(t)fj,a<; wart Ke^wpicrpivcH, TO 7rX?}$o9, 
 olov 'A/j/ca8e9. So, again (iii. 3, 5), when he is dis-
 
 374 Notes on 
 
 cussing the definition of TroX.49, he says ov yap Brj rot? 
 
 ret'X&mf eli; jap av HeXoTrovvrfa-m irepifiaXelv ev 
 
 Totavrr) 8' iao><j ea-rl Kal Ba/9iA,a>y fcal iraa-a r/rt? 
 
 irepiypaffiv /u-aAAov edvovs ij TroXetw?. And again, when he 
 
 is discussing the possible size of a commonwealth (vii. 4, 11) 
 
 o/Wo>9 fcal TroXfc? f) JJLGV eg o\iycov \lav ovtc 
 
 (77 Se 7roXfc9 avTaptces), -fj Se GK 7ro\\wv ayav ev rot? 
 
 avaytcaiois avrapKijf, wsirep Wvos, a\\' ov TroXt?' 
 
 yap ov paStov virdp^eiv' Tt9 yap arrpaTrjyo<; ecrrai rov \iav 
 
 v7rep(3d\\ovTOS irXtfOovs, rj rfc Krjpvl; pr) ^Tevropeios ; 
 
 The opposite idea to that of Aristotle is found in a glos- 
 sary of the tenth century in Eckhart (Kes Francise Orient, 
 ii. 999), where " pagus " is defined to be " provincia absque 
 muro." 
 
 (12) Page 84. There is a certain shade of difference 
 between " oppressed nationalities " and " oppressed na- 
 tions." A people suffering under an oppressive govern- 
 ment 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 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 Eussia 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,"
 
 Lecture III. 375 
 
 which has quite another meaning, is a very awkward way 
 of expressing what is meant. 
 
 (13) Page 85. This is one of the points in ancient 
 politics which, with our ideas, we find it hardest to under- 
 stand. 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 Eome 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 abso- 
 lutely 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
 
 376 Notes on 
 
 such oppression on the part of officers of the ruling state. 
 A city in this case could of course at any moment act 
 for itself, and refuse to obey the commands of the ruling 
 city, at the risk of being conquered afresh and being 
 brought down to a worse bondage. We better under- 
 stand the case of more complete subjection, where the sub- 
 ject 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 government of the ruling state, 
 fellow-subjects of its older members. 
 
 (14) Page 85. The incidental expressions of Isokrates 
 bring this out strongly. The Greeks of some unknown, and 
 most likely mythical, time were (Paneg. 90) iSia /j,ev aarrj 
 r<z9 avrwv TroXei? r)yovfjivoi, Kotvrjv Se TrarplSa rrjv 'EXXaSa 
 vopifyvTes elvai. So, in the discourse addressed to Philip 
 (150; see above, note 10), he tells him, Trporficei TO<? p,ev 
 aXXot? rot? d(j> 'Hpa/cXeoi9 Trefyvicbcri /cal rot? ev TroXtreta /cat 
 vofjiois evBeSefjLevoif efcelvrjv TTJV TroXiv crrepyeiv ev $ Tvy%d- 
 vovcri KaToucovvres, <re S', wsirep a<f>erov <y<yevr)fj,vov, airaa-av 
 rrjv VEXXaSa Trar/n'Sa vo/Ai^eiv. Harpk, in IsokrateV 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 dis- 
 course to Philip (72), he says that Konoii ra rei^r) ra rijs 
 7rar/)tSo9 dvwpdwa-ev. But there had been, or ought to have 
 been, a time when all Hellas had been the -rrarpk of every 
 Greek.
 
 Lecture III. 377 
 
 (15) Page 85. Livy (xxxviii. 53), in recording the de- 
 parture of Scipio to Literatim, 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? Eo 
 perducta res erat, ut aut libertas Scipioni aut Scipio liber- 
 tati faceret injuriam. Neutrum fas erat : itaque locum dedit 
 legibus, et se Liternum recepit, tarn suura exsilium reipublicae 
 imputaturus quam Hannibalis." So of Tiberius, Tacitus 
 (Ann. iv. 58) says, " neque enim tam incredibilem casuni 
 providebant, ut undecim per annos libens patria careret." 
 See Merivale, v. 251. 
 
 (16) Page 86. 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, Eouen, 
 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 Koman city, and the Koman city has lived on unin- 
 terruptedly 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
 
 378 Notes on 
 
 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 phasnomena 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, Eoman, and English- 
 man ; 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 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
 
 Lecture III. 379 
 
 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 86. Thucydides, ii. 15, TO Se irpo rovrov 17 
 aKpo7ro\i$ rj vvv ovaa TroXn? r\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 Koman, 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 87. I have ventured to quote the well-known 
 Homeric contrast between Dardanie and Ilios, as illustrating 
 the change from Old to New Salisbury. Norman Con- 
 quest, i. 318. 
 
 (19) Page 87. Sophokles, (Ed. Col. 694. eV ra 
 vd-2,a) 
 
 (20) Page 87. 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
 
 380 Notes on 
 
 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 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 neigh- 
 bours, 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 87. A?}/i09 in Homer constantly means the 
 land, irlwv Brj/w^ and the like, and it is not uncommonly 
 distinguished from 7r6Xt9, or perhaps used as including TTO\I<; 
 770X171 re TTCIVTI re S^/ieo. 
 
 (22) Page 87. On the Attic Demoi, see below, p. 403. 
 
 (23) Page 88. See History of Federal Government, i. 133. 
 
 (24) Page 89. See the well-known notice of the Lokrians, 
 jJEtolians, and Akarnanians in Thucydides, i. 5, and c iii. 
 94. 
 
 (25) Page 89. The foundation of Megalopolis (see 
 History of Federal Government, i. 200) is a matter of 
 history, and the names of the towns which contributed
 
 Lecture III. 381 
 
 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 'HXetot 7rXeiou9 KCU /zt/c/ja? 7r6\a<? OIKOVVT<; et? piav 
 crvva>Kicrdr)a-av Trjv ovofjba^ofj^evrjv *HX/. Strabo (viii. 3) is 
 more precise, and he extends the remark to many others 
 among the Peloponnesian cities. *HXt? Se 17 vvv TroXt? OVTTO> 
 
 e Be TTore crvvrj\,6ov ei9 rrjv vvv TroXiv rrjv 'HXtr, fj,era ra 
 a, etc TroXkwv Sijficov. <r%eS6v Se real TOU9 aXXou? TOTTOI;? 
 TOV? Kara TLekoTrovvricrov 7r\r)v o\vya)v, ou? 
 ov TroXet?, aXXa ^copa? oyo/ia^et, crvcmj/jLaTa 
 etcda-TrjV ir\eiw, e% wv v&Tepov at yvwpi^o/juevat TroXet? crvvw- 
 /cicrd'rjerav olov rijs 'Ap/ca8ia? MairtWta fjiev etc irevre 
 I/TT' 'ApyeLdJV crvvwicicrOri' Teyea S' e evvea' e/c roaovrcov 8e 
 'Hpa/a VTTO KXeo/i/Sporov, tj VTTO K.\covvfj,ov' a>9 S' avTws 
 e| eTrra rj o/crai Bijfjuov o-vve7ro\i<rOr}' Hdrpai Se e| eTrra, 
 Se e% OKT(I)' OVTCO Be /cal 77 'HXt9 e'/c TWV TrepioitclSwv <7vveiro\icr6'rf 
 p,ia TOVTWV. The different words used by Strabo to express the 
 earlier state of things, Sf)iJ,oi, KW^^OV, TrepioirciSes, 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 77-0X19 applied to the 
 Arcadian communities, but neither is %&>/>. 
 
 Kemble (Saxons in England, i. 49) remarks that " gene- 
 rally speaking in Greece the origin of the 7roXt9 lies in what 
 may be called the compression of the KM/ACII. The ayopd 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 Home 
 out of the three local tribes.
 
 382 Notes on 
 
 (26) Page 89. 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. etc Be rovrov Kadrjpedij pev TO 
 T64%09, BiyKia-dt] S' 77 Mcw/TWta rerpa^rj, KadaTrep TO ap%aiov 
 <J>KOVV. He goes on to say how each village (/eco/w/) 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. 
 
 real Teyerjv el%pv, ical ^/Lavriveijv epareivijv. 
 
 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 KWJMIS TO> 7ra\aia> r^9 'EXXaSo? rpoTrw oiKiaOelcra 
 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. 
 
 oi e%ov 
 
 3>dpr)v re, ^Trdprrjv re, 7ro\vrpijpo)va re 
 
 All these cases, in which a city was formed by the union of 
 several villages, must be carefully distinguished from the 
 union 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.
 
 Lecture III. 383 
 
 (27) Page 89. 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 History of Federal Government, i. 193), of 
 a Greek confederation is plain from the description which 
 Xenophon (v. 2, 12) gives of the steps taken by Olynthos 
 in the formation of the league which the Spartans put down. 
 K TOVTOV 7re^elpr]crav ical TO.? TT}<? Ma/ceBozna? -rroXet? eXev- 
 Oepovv CLTTO 'AfAvvrov TOV Ma/ceSoyow /rJacrtXeot)?. 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 90. Of the analogy between the Greek fie 
 the Niedergelassenen 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. 284). 
 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 Ari- 
 stotle (Pol. iii. 1, 3), o Se TroXtr^? ov ra> olKelv irov 
 <TTIV Kal yap fAeroiKOi Kal SovXofc Kowwvovcn T^ 
 He goes on to speak of those jjueroncot, who, by the terms of 
 special treaties, enjoyed special rights, the connubium and 
 commercium or any others. ovS' ol TWV Sucauav //.ere^ovTe? 
 W9T6 Kal BiKfjv VTre^civ teal BiKa^ea-Bat, ' rovro yap 
 /col rols OTTO o-f/^ySoXeoy KOIVWVOVO-I ' Kal yap ravra 
 V7rdp%i. 7ro\\a^ov /lev ovv ovSe rovroav reXeco? ol 
 /jLere^ovcrtv, a\\a vefietv dvdyKij Trpoa-Tdrtjv. This last 
 is the well-known disqualification of the /ierot/cot at Athens, 
 which forbade them from suing in any court in their own 
 names, and required them to appear through a citizen patron.
 
 384 Notes on 
 
 (29) Page 90. Something of this kind happened at some 
 stage or other of the history of most Grecian cities. I 
 quote the most illustrious case of all (Arist. Pol. iii. 2, 3) : 
 oaroi //.erecryw fj,Ta(3o\fj<> 761/0/461/779 TroXtreta?, olov 'A.6rjwr)(riv 
 eTTOtrjcre KXetaQevrjs fiera rrjv rfav rvpdvvwv eicf3o\r)V TroXXow 
 jap e(j)v\Tvcr evov<> /cal Sov\ov<$ fueToi/covs. TO 6" a/j,<f>io'j3ij- 
 T77/40. 737)09 TOUTOU9 e'cruy oy r/9 ifOMTifi, dXXa irorepov aoY/c&>9 
 fj 
 
 (30) Page 90. Take the case of the orator Lysias at 
 Athens, a peroiicos who had shown himself as good an Athe- 
 nian patriot as if he had come in a straight line from Erech- 
 theus, 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) ; ypdfat pev pera rrjv tcdQoSov paav- 
 ySouXo? TroXiretav avry, 6 Se 877/409 eicvpwo-e rrjv Scopedv. 
 Se, Sia TO a7rpo/3ov\evTOv el^a^drjvai, TO 
 irapavofjicov rrjv Swpeav' KOI eirel KaTeyvaxrOr) TO 
 
 6 A.v(ria<; aireXavveTai, rbv \oi7rbv Be yjpovov 
 to-oTeX^9 &>y. That is to say, he remained a /J,TOIKO<;, 
 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 Sitalkes, which is recorded by 
 Thucydides, ii. 29. 6 Niy*06&wpo9 njv re TOV 
 ^vf^/jLa-^Lav 7roir](76 /cat ^d&ofcov rbv vlbv avrov 
 So ii. 67, rbv ^dootcov TOV yeyevrj/nevov 'AOyvcuov. All this 
 is made sport of by Aristophanes, Acharn. 145 :
 
 Lecture III. 385 
 
 d S' mo9, bv 'AOqvaiov 
 ijpa (frayeiv d\\avTos e 
 Kal rov Trarep rjvril36\et jSoqdelv 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 Eleiau prophet Tisame- 
 nos 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 : ^TrapTirjrat, Be irpwra pev 
 aKovaavres Seivd eiroievvro. There is a later instance in the 
 case of Dion of Syracuse (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. Di6n, who had, like Tisamenos, been admitted to 
 Spartan citizenship, answers o>9 elalv apxpvres i/cavol rot? 
 el &e TrdvTws Beoi KOI ^irapndrov rot? irpdj- 
 auro9 oSro? elvcu Kara Troirjcriv 76701/609 ^Trapndr^. 
 Compare also the jest of Gorgias of Leontinoi (Arist. Pol. 
 iii. 2, 2) on the ease with which citizens were made at Larissa ; 
 e<f>7), KaOdirep 6'X./iou9 elvai rou9 VTTO TWV o\fj,07roiwv TreTroir)- 
 s, OUTGO teal Kapuraaiovs TOW VTTO T&V SijfjMovpywv Tre- 
 ' elvai ydp riva? \apiacro7roiovs. We cannot help 
 contrasting all this with the ease with which strangers are 
 naturalized both in European kingdoms and American com- 
 monwealths. 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. 
 
 2 c
 
 386 Notes on 
 
 (31) Page 91. On this gwotieia-i,? 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 91. 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 Xenophon 
 are remarkable, even though they may express only the feel- 
 ings of an oligarchic party, as they show the natural repug- 
 nance of the Greek mind to any such union of separate cities. 
 aladavofj^evot, d(f)av^opevr)v rrjv vroXiv, Sia TO /cat rovs opovs 
 dva,<nrda-0at, Ka,r'Ap<yo<! dvrl KopivOov rrjv TrarpiBa avrwv ovofid- 
 %a0cu, fcal 7ro\t,reta<; fiev dva^Ka^ofjievoi rf)<; ev "Apyei /Mere^eiv, 
 179 ovSev eSeovro, ev Be rfj TroXei /uLeroifcatv e\arrov Svvd/Aevoi, 
 eyevovro rives avrwv, oi evo/JLLa-av OVTQJ [tev OVK dfyoftiwrov 
 ewai. Certainly there is no other case in Grecian history 
 where 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 ^GTOLKOL in their own city. 
 
 (33) Page 92 . I have traced out the early history of 
 these two Leagues in my 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 in- 
 dependent commonwealths. 
 
 (34) Page 92. See History of Federal Government,
 
 Lecture III. 387 
 
 i. 630. The annexation of Sparta, which made the League 
 take in the whole of Peloponnesos, must have held out temp- 
 tations 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 complaints against the 
 Federal power brought by Sparta before the Koman pro- 
 tector. 
 
 (35) Page 93. The distinction in German political lan- 
 guage between Sfaateribund 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 common- 
 wealth under a Government, with its executive, legislative, 
 and judicial branches, acting as a sovereign and independent 
 power within its own range. Most of the Greek confedera- 
 tions in the later days of Greece seem to have been fairly 
 entitled to the name of Bundesstaat. 
 
 (36) Page 94. See Historical Essays, Second Series, 
 p. 146. 
 
 2 o 2
 
 388 Notes on 
 
 (37) Page 96. Veil seems to Lave been as large as 
 Rome, but then Veil was the great march city of Etruria r 
 just as Rome was the great march city of Latium. So 
 Megalopolis was founded on the Spartan march of Arcadia. 
 But certainly, setting Etraria 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 common- 
 wealths is that drawn by Servius Sulpicius in his letter to 
 Cicero (Ep. ad Div. iv. 5) "Ex Asia rediens quum ab 
 jEgina Megaram versus navigarem, coepi regiones circumcirca 
 prospicere. Post me erat jJEgina, ante Megara, dextra 
 Piraseus, sinistra Coriuthus." His comment is " quae oppida 
 quodam teinpore florentissima fuerunt, nunc prostrata et 
 diruta ante oculos jacent." We might have looked for the 
 reflexion that all had once been independent common- 
 wealths, 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 96. 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 Markgenossenschqft, and
 
 Lecture III. 389 
 
 the town, like fhe British oppidum, was at first a mere 
 place of defence in case of the attacks of 'enemies. 
 '"Diese Platze, die natiirlich auch zugleich die heiligen 
 Statten der Markgenossen einschlossen und die wir uns 
 ubrigens als regelmassig unbewohnt oder schwach bewohnt 
 zu denken haben, begegnen uns unter den Namen der 
 f Berge ' (monies) und ' Bauten ' (pagi, von pangere), der 
 * Burgen ' (arees, von arcere) und ' Einge ' (urbes, von urvus, 
 curvus, orbis), und sie sind die G-rundlage der vorstadtischen 
 Gauverfassung in Italien geworden, welche in denjenigen 
 Italischen Landschaften, die zum staitischen Zusammen- 
 siedeln erst spat und zum Theil noch bis auf den heutigen 
 Tag nicht vollstandig gelangt sind, wie im Marserland und in 
 den kleinen Gauen der Abruzzen, noch einigermassen deut- 
 lich sich erkennen lasst." 
 
 Even Borne itself was, from the beginning, a place of 
 meeting rather than a place of dwelling to the greater part 
 of its citizens. So far Home 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 96. I here accept Mornmsen'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.
 
 390 Notes on 
 
 (40) Page 97. The great legal division is into cives and 
 peregrrini. The peregrini, 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 Jus Latii in any 
 part of the Roman dominion ; these were half citizens who 
 had aright, 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 Home out of 
 Italy, who were placed under the rule of Eoman Proconsuls or 
 other governors, and whose earlier institutions, though sel- 
 dom 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 citizen- 
 ship of Eome 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 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 /Lterot/cot, could receive it only of special favour. 
 
 (41) Page 98. 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
 
 Lecture III. 391 
 
 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 alto- 
 gether 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 1 
 had specially in my eye may come from Claudius ; it certainly 
 comes from Tacitus. "Quid aliud exitio Lacedsemoniis 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, qua3 nunc vetustissima 
 creduntur, nova fuere ; plebei magistratus post patricios ; 
 Latini post plebeios ; ceterarum Italiae gentium post Latinos. 
 Inveterascet hoc quoque : 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) pro- 
 testing against the common tendency to underrate its effects. 
 " I may be permitted to remark that there is little foundation
 
 392 Notes on 
 
 for the opinion which represents the constitution of Antoni- 
 nus Caracalla conferring 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 
 Romanus, as opposed to Barbarus, in the Teutonic codes, and 
 the name of ' P/iato9, still the true name of the people who 
 have only latterly revived the name of "EAA^i/e?, 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 land- 
 mark in the history of the world ; still, as far as any political 
 privilege went, the franchise bestowed by it was altogether 
 worthless. 
 
 (42) Page 98. J need not show that, as long as the 
 commonwealth 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 modo pro 
 parte aliqua adaequavit: excogitato genere suffragiomm,
 
 Lecture III. 393 
 
 quae de magistratibus urbicis decuriones colonici, in sua 
 quisque colonia ferrent, et sub diem comitiorum obsignata 
 Komam 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 tamper- 
 ing 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 Home, like the 
 discovery which was made somewhat later, that it was possible 
 to choose an Emperor elsewhere than at Eome, is one of 
 the signs of the gradual pulling down of the supremacy of 
 the local city. 
 
 (43) Page 99. See Historical Essays, Second Series, pp. 
 264, 321. 
 
 The verses of Maecenas are preserved by Seneca, Epistles, 
 
 xvii. 1. 
 
 " Debilem factito manu, 
 
 Debilem pede, coxa, 
 Tuber adstrue, gibberum, 
 
 Lubricos quate dente : 
 Vita dum superest, bene est, 
 
 Hanc mihi, vel acuta 
 Si sedeam cruce, sustine." 
 
 The philosopher calls this " turpissimum votum," " miserri- 
 mum," " 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 101. Aristotle however (Pol. i. 25) fully re- 
 cognizes the village that is, as we shall presently see, the
 
 394 Notes on 
 
 761/0? as a natural stage intermediate between the family 
 and the city. r/ H [lev ovv et? iraaav rj^epav 
 
 KOTO, (bvaiv OIKOS e<rrtv . . . . r) 8' etc 
 KOivwvia irpfOTrj ^prf crews eveicev fir) e(fyr)/j,epou 
 ra Be Kara (f>vcnv eoi/cev r) KQ>IU(} aTroiKia ol/cias etvai. 
 
 f) 6 etc 7T\ei6va)v KW/AWV /coivwvia re\eto9 TroXt?. But 
 
 throughout his treatise in general we hardly hear so much a& 
 we might have expected about the 761/05 as a distinct 
 element in the commonwealth. 
 
 (45) Page 102. 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 gemeinden; and at Borne, though the gem 
 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 102. For village communities in the East I 
 must refer to the second and fourth lectures in Sir Henry 
 Maine's book. Of the Western form of the institution we 
 shall find more to say as we go on. 
 
 (47) Page 103. I know of no name for the village com- 
 munity, either in English or in German, which at all translates- 
 the Greek and Latin names. The Gesehlechter of the German 
 towns of course answer admirably, in the history of those 
 towns, to the Greek yevrj 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.
 
 Lecture III. 395 
 
 (48) Page 103. On the patronymic names of marks in 
 England see Kemble, Saxons in England, 159, and Appen- 
 dix A. at the end of the volume. The principle of formation 
 is this : the eponymous hero, say Dodda, gives his name to the 
 gens, the Doddingas, exactly as Alkmaion does to the Alkmai- 
 onidai ; the Teutonic patronymic ing answers exactly to the 
 Greek t,&v)$. Then a settlement of the Doddingas most com- 
 monly forms its name by adding one of the common-place end- 
 ings, as ham or tun, Doddingaham, Doddingatiin, which last is 
 actually found in the various places named Doddington. Some- 
 times, however, as Tooting, Woking (Totingas, Wocingas), &c., 
 the name of the gens is found without any ending, just like the 
 Greek Epay^lBat. The names which come directly from 
 the name of an eV&W/io?, 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 
 Abandon and Huntingdon for Abbawdun and Huntawdun. 
 
 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 (Staats- und 
 Eechtsgeschichte 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 Ziirichgau, is a corruption of inghoven ; 
 as Dellikon, for Tellinghoven, exactly answering to our 
 Gillingham and Doddington. Another set will be found in 
 Dithmarsehen among the gentes or Geschlechter by whom the 
 land was settled. See the Chronicle of Johann Adolfi, sur-
 
 396 Notes on 
 
 named Neocorus (edited by Dahlmann, Kiel, 1827), i. 224, 
 Some of the names have the ing form, as DicJcbolingmanschlecht, 
 Wittingmanschlacht, &c. 
 See also Norman Conquest, i. 562, f. 
 
 (49) Page 104. On this matter should be read the essay 
 of Mommsen, Die Romisehen Eigennamen, in his Romische 
 Forsehungen. But I cannot follow him when he makes the 
 addition of the name of the demos at Athens (Ai^oo-flei^? 
 &T)/M)(rdevov<; Haiavtev?, for example) equivalent to the 
 nomen or gentile name at Rome. Haiaviev<; is not a gentile 
 name as such. It may happen to be so, inasmuch as many 
 of the demoi answered to gentes ; but in itself it is not gentile 
 but local. Tlaiavievs 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 demos was strictly hereditary, Ay/wo-Bevr)? Arjfjioo-Oevovs 
 Tlaiaviv<; 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 Eobin 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 
 Hcuavieix;, except as a mere description by which he was 
 introduced. No one would go on saying that kripoaOevris 
 Haiavievs, still less that Hcuavievs, 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 
 &r)fj,oo-0evris A^/ioo^ei/ow TLcuavievs. At Rome he is not 
 " Caius Lucii filius Julius," but " Caius Julius Lucii filius."
 
 Lecture III. 397 
 
 Then the cognomen, if he have one, is added : " Caius Julius 
 Lucii filius Caesar." It is the Csesar, in short, not the Julius, 
 which answers to the Hatavtevs. The only difference is that at 
 Athens every man had a demotic name, and the demotic name 
 was necessarily local, while at Eome 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 Eth- 
 nikon : es findet sich -ew, -t&79, -to? neben einander ; die 
 Italiker, vor allem rait der ihnen eigenen Strenge die Homer 
 haben das Suffix -ius im gentilischen Ethnikon ausschliess- 
 lich 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^ 
 takes always the one ending in ius, answering to the Greek 
 iSr]<? 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," ^^oadevr]^ A^/to- 
 adevovs, there was at first no ellipsis of filius or u/d?. 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 under the potestas may be wife, son, slave, ox r 
 or field, and the formula is the same for all. Csecilia Marci, 
 Marcus Marci, are the same form (" sprachlich und rechtlich 
 gleichartig ") as ager Marci, or, I suppose, as Marci por. If it 
 be so, it would be worth 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.
 
 398 Notes on 
 
 (50) Page 104. See the passages collected by Niebuhr 
 (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 enfranchise- 
 ments, 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 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, Griechische Geschichte, i. 250, 
 would very well describe the nature of a gens, if he had not 
 made the Stammvater and the Sippschaft alternative. He 
 begins by saying, " Jedes Geschlecht umfasste eine Gruppe 
 von Familien, welche entweder wirklich von einem Stamm- 
 vater herruhrten oder sich in alter Zeit zu einer Sippschaft 
 vereinigt hatten." He then mentions the chief ties, religious 
 and civil, and adds, " Es war ein grosses Haus, eine eng- 
 geschlossene heilige Lebensgemeinschaft." The well known 
 passage of Varro, "ab .ZEmilio homine orti ^Emilii ac 
 gentiles," expresses the idea of the whole thing, and it 
 matters not whether the supposed ^Emilius, or rather 
 .ZEmilus, was a real man or not. A gens 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
 
 Lecture III. 399 
 
 ^descended from either a real or a mythical Julus, but the 
 gens 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 naturaliza- 
 tion, 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 gentiles, " 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 gens was surely a member of it. Com- 
 pare 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 104. On the importance of legal fictions, espe- 
 -cially in an early state of society, see the second chapter of 
 Sir Henry Maine's Ancient Law. 
 
 (52) Page 104. In the cases of adoption we commonly 
 find that the adopted son was already a kinsman of his arti- 
 ficial father, 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 gens, 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 gens was an institution originally founded
 
 400 Notes on 
 
 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, ITept rov Mez/e/eXeoi/9 K\rjpov, the adopted son 
 describes the process (18) ; Troirja-dfAevos elsdyei /j,e et9 
 (frpdropas TrapoiTcov TOVTCOV, /cal et9 roy? 877/1,6x09 /ie e 
 /col et9 Tot? opyewvas. So in vii. 17, 20, another claimant 
 describes his adoption ; o>9 e'/ne eVo^o-oxo viov %wv ayro9 KCU 
 Kvpiov TWV avrov KaTecm)(re teal els roi9 761/1/7^09 Kal et9 roi>9 
 
 (jjpdropas eveypa-^re KCU, eTreiSr) 0apy^\ia rjv, 777076 fie 
 
 /S&)/iou9 et9 TOU9 76^1^77x09 re Kal ^)paropo9. The 
 mentioned in one of the above extracts, were the 
 religious officers of the fyparpiai. See Suidas in voce, who 
 says, Trepl TWV opyecovav <yeypa<j)e Kal ^4X0^0/309 roi'9 Se 
 eTrdvasytces Se^crOai Kal rou9 0/376001/09 Kal Toy? 
 01)9 761/1/77x09 Ka\ov/jiv. 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 
 Eome, where the adoption needed the formality of a lex 
 curiata. 
 
 (53) Page 104. See note 47 on Lecture II. 
 
 (54) Page 106. There can be no doubt that the political 
 effects of the Koman 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,
 
 Lecture III. 401 
 
 but they were not in the same way reminded of it every time 
 he was spoken of. There can be no doubt that this had a 
 great effect on the hereditary 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 
 <:ase of the first Duke of Leeds, several times in the same 
 life-time), the gentile 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 Eeding. 
 
 (55) Page 106. See above, note 26. 
 
 (56) Page 107. On the Doric tribes see Grote ii. 479, 
 *O. 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 Arapte'e? re rp^d'Cxes of the 
 Odyssey (xix. 174). 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 
 
 2 D
 
 402 Notes on 
 
 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 made up of smaller tribes. These tribes, or 
 at least the wfiai of which they were formed, went on to the 
 very latest times. The local divisions, handed on from the 
 prse-Dorian time, went on alongside of them, like the Attie 
 $fj[M>i, or like the local tribes of Kome 'alongside of the genies. 
 The difference, of course, was that in this case the divisions 
 of the conquerors and of those of the conquered went on 
 together, while at Athens we have no sign of conquest. The 
 &>/3ai answered to typarplai and curias. 0. Miiller refers to 
 Athenaios iv. 19, for the use of the word (j)parpia to express 
 a Spartan o>/3a. Demetrios of Skepsis there speaks of 
 o-KidSes at the Karneian festival, each of which contained 
 three a>{3aL I do not know that this proves much. But 
 I must go with 0. Miiller against Mr. Grote in holding that 
 the famous prfrpa in Plutarch, Lyk. 6, proves that the coySat 
 were thirty. I can get no other meaning out of it. The 
 whole passage is remarkable, as giving the technical Spartan 
 names for the different parts of the Spartan State ; <uXa?- 
 d>v\davTa KCU a>/3a<? (aQd^avra Tpidtcovra, yepovcriav critv 
 
 8' dyopav elpev Kal tcpdros. Plutarch goes on to ex- 
 plain that ap^efyerat means the Kings, and that a7reX\ae/ 
 means eKK\ija-i,d%eiv; but he cannot avoid the belief that 
 Lykourgos divided the Spartan people into tribes and d>/3a/, 
 just as it is a common English belief that ^Elfred divided 
 England into shires and hundreds. 
 
 (57) Page 107. I think T can see something of the kind in
 
 Lecture III. 403 
 
 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). eip^rai S' ort Kavravda $ai- 
 verai TO rwv Tle\acrywv 0vos eTriSr^firjcrav KOI on VTTO rwv 
 'ArriKwv He\apyol TrpovrjyopevOrja-av Sia rrjv r jr\avi]v. The 
 use of the rare word 'Am/col reminds one of the remarkable 
 distinction drawn by Dikaiarchos or Athenaios (Geographi 
 Grseci Minores, i. 99) between 'A-m/coi and 'AOyvaioi ; but 
 that would not seem necessarily to point to any difference 
 in race. 
 
 (58) Page 107. 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 108. 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, 
 Be/ca Be TOVS S^/iou? tcareve/jie e? ra9 <j>v\d$. To me it seems 
 that Herodotus meant to assert a decimal system, but that 
 he 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 
 artificial, 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 
 
 2 D 2
 
 404 Notes on 
 
 elements of the commonwealth should be made up of dis- 
 tricts 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 108. Curtius, Grieehische Geschiclite, i. 311. 
 " Sie [the new tribes] hatten mit Abstammung imd 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 Atlicas, wie 
 Eleusis, Kephisia, Thorikos, oder sie trugen ihre Nam en 
 von den Geschlechtern, welche vorzugsweise in denselben 
 begutert waren, wie Butadai, Aithalidai, Paionidai." 
 
 (61) Page 108. 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 Eome would lead us to think 
 that this had not been the case with the old Tribes ; for at 
 Eome the Curia remained a political unit, with its distinct 
 vote in the Comitia of the Curiae. For military purposes 
 too the Tribe formed an unit, though the men from each 
 Demos may likely enough have been ranged together. 
 
 (62) Page 109. See Mommsen's treatment (Romische 
 Geschichte, i. 33) of the traditions about the three original 
 Roman tribes, Eamnes, Titienses, and if they be original 
 Luceres. The original legend, the topography of which at least 
 there seems no reason to doubt, comes out in Dionysios ii. 50. 
 ol Be Trepl rbv 'Pa)fji,v\ov Kal Tdrtov rtfv re rrokw ev6v<; erroiovv 
 [tel^ova, rrposdevras erepovs avrfj Bvo Xo<ou9, rov re K.vpivu>V 
 K\r)6evra KOI rbv KatXiW' KOI Sie\6/j,evoi, r
 
 Lecture III. 405 
 
 rot? toi9 eKarepoi 
 
 ' Pct>//.vXo9 //,ey TO IlaXaTiov Kare%cav, Kal TO KaiXtov 0/309 ' ec 
 Se TOO IIaXaTia> 7rpo9e^e?. TaT409 &e TO 
 e^ dp%?79 Karea-'xe, Kal rbv Kvptviov o%0ov. It will be remem- 
 bered 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 109. The difference between genealogical and 
 local tribes is well brought out by Dionysios, iv. 14, when he is 
 describing the changes made by Servius : C O 8e TuX7uo9 .... 
 et9 T6<r<rapa pepr) BieXow rrjv 7ro\tv .... 
 rr)V 7ro\iv elvai, rpi(f>v\ov ovcrav Te&)9, KOI 
 era^e TOVS ev eKaarr) [Aoipa rwv Terrdpwv olKovvras, &<nrp 
 Kal OVK CTL Kara T9 Tpet9 </>uXa9 T9 yevucas 
 a, 0)9 irporepov, aXXa Kara Ta9 Tecrcrapa9 Ta? 
 T07rt/ca9, Kal Ta9 v<j) eavrov Siaraxdeicras eTrotetTo, r/yefAovas 
 
 rj 
 
 (64) Page 109. The usual version of the coming of the 
 Claudian tribe places it a few years after the driving out of the 
 Kings. Mommsen, however (Edmische Forschungen, 72), refers 
 it to a much earlier time, following the tradition preserved by 
 Suetonius, Tib. 1. "Inde [Regillis] Romam recens con- 
 ditam cum magna clientum manu commigravit, auctore Tito 
 Tatio consorte Bomuli." Mommsen's words are : 
 
 " Das Factum selbst scheint glaubwiirdiger als die meisten 
 iibrigen Angaben in diesem alteren Theil der Annalen, aber 
 naturlich war dasselbe urspriinglich zeitlos iiberliefert und 
 1st nur von dem spatern falschen Pragmatismus mit dem 
 Sabinerkrieg des Poplicola verknupft worden die Einwan- 
 derung des claudischen Stammes muss viel fruher fallen,
 
 406 Notes on 
 
 daes erne der Landtribus altester Einrichtung nach ihn 
 benannt ist und das Geschlecht, obwohl es in den alteren 
 Fasten keine hervorragende Kolle 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 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 Eomas nomen . . . . ab Regillo, magna clientium comi- 
 tatus manu, Romam transfugit. His civitas data agerque 
 trans Anienem ; vetus Claudia tribus, additis postea novis 
 tribulibus, qui ex eo venirent agro, appellata." The migra- 
 tion is again referred to in speeches in iv. 3, x. 8. So Dio- 
 nysios, v. 40, avrjp Tt9 ex rov 'Zaflivcov e6vov<s iro\iv ol/cwv 
 'Pif/i\\ov, evyevr]? KOI ^rj^acri Swarbs, Ttro? KXaySto?, avro- 
 /ioXet 777309 avroix;, avyyeveidv re p,eyd\r)v eTrayofievos, KOI <i\ot>9 
 
 iot9, ovtc e\dr- 
 
 &v r) @ov\r) teal 6 8r)/A09 et? re 
 Kal T7/9 7roXeci)9 polpav etacrev oarjv eftovXero et9 Karaa/cevrjv 
 ' X&pav T aura) TrposeOrjicev etc rrf^ Sr)fj,o(ria<; rrjv fjiera- 
 9 Kal IIi/c6i/Tta9, 9 e%ot Siavetfiai, K\tfpov<; airacri 
 T0i9 irepl avrbv, dfi wv Kal <f>v\rj 779 eyeveTO GVV 
 
 The other new local tribes, formed out of allies or sub- 
 jects admitted to citizenship, were added pretty constantly
 
 Lecture III. 407 
 
 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 Jhey feel that they 
 have no further need of fresh citizens, and when the selfish and 
 exclusive feeling begins to prevail (see pp. 251,^252). But 
 in this case it should be remembered that these successive 
 additions had made the ager Romanus reach, and indeed 
 outstrip, the fullest extent of territory which could be 
 occupied by a single city-community. 
 
 (65) Page 113. See Norman Conquest, iv. 415. The 
 whole history of the word is drawn out by Gibbon, chap. 21 
 (vol. iii. p. 402, Milman). 
 
 (66) Page 113. It is a certain trial of faith to believe 
 that the word " heathen " has nothing to do with the Greek 
 edvitcos : but it is, in its different forms, good English, good 
 High-German, and good Gothic ; hdi&no faomjidifti. 
 
 (67) Page 115. I have discussed this elsewhere at some 
 length. Norman Conquest, ii. 587. 
 
 (68) Page 115. Even Anselm is "Anglorum Archiepi- 
 scopus," at least in the mouths of Irishmen and of the Pope. 
 See Eadmer, Hist. Nov. Lib. ii. pp. 393^14, Migne. On 
 the specially territorial style of the Bishops of the South- 
 Saxons see Norman Conquest, ii. 592. 
 
 i 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 116. I have touched somewhat slightly on the
 
 408 Notes on 
 
 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 Eechts- 
 alterthumer, 495 et seqq.) onwards, especially in the chapter 
 of Waitz in the first volume of his Deutsche Verfassungs- 
 geschichte, 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-, Sof- und Stadtverfassung (Miinchen, 1854), 
 Geschichte der Markenverfassung in Deutschland (Erlangen,. 
 1856), Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutschland (Erlan- 
 gen, 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 
 MarTcgenossenschaft 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 117. The common occupation of land by the 
 members of the Markgenossenschaft has been the point which, 
 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
 
 Lecture III. 409 
 
 of folkland 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 Nor- 
 man 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 117. The original kindred between the members 
 of the MarTtgenossenschaft, allowing of course, for adoptions 
 and admissions (on which see Maurer, Dorfverfassung, i. 175, 
 cf. Einleitung, 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 kinsmanship or sib- 
 sceaft; 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 Caesar, vi. 22, 
 "Neque quisquam agri modum certum, aut fines habet 
 proprios ; sed magistratus ac principes in annos singulos 
 gentibus cognationibusque hominum qui una coierint quantum 
 et quo 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
 
 410 Notes on 
 
 concerned with it as distinctly pointing to the MarJc- 
 genossenschaft as an association founded on kindred, and as 
 actually using the word gens in what can be meant only for 
 its technical Eoman sense. There is also the passage of 
 Tacitus (Germania, 7), " Non casus, nee fortuita conglobatio 
 turmam aut cuneum facit, sed families et propinquitates," 
 which is referred to by Waitz (Deutsche Verfassungsgeschickte, 
 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 spaterer Zeit. Tacitus sagt, dass im 
 Heer der Deutschen die einzelnen Haufen sich nach 
 Familien und Verwandtschaften bildeten; wahrend schon 
 die Eintheilung nach Hundertschaften bestand, die 
 vorherrschende war, hatte doch auch diese alteste natiir- 
 lichste Verbindung ihre Geltung, und das war moglich, da 
 die Familienglieder leicht zur gemeinschaftlichen Ansiede- 
 lung sich verbanden, Kinder und Vettern 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 
 Verhaltnissen des Eechts noch von grosser durchgreifender 
 Wichtigkeit war ; aber alles nur innerhalb der Gemeinde." 
 Waitz quotes a passage from the Lex Alamannorum (tit. 
 84, col. 232, Georgisch), " Si qua contentio orta fuerit inter 
 duas genealogias de termino terrae eorum," where the two 
 " genealogies " are to come before the " comes de plebe ista " 
 (the Gaugraf ?) and settle the matter by single combat. In 
 England we have the mcegrS 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 Trans- 
 lation, ii. 328.
 
 Lecture III. 411 
 
 " Zu den altesten Districtsbenennungen, welche der Shire 
 vorangingen, gehorte noch die ' Maegthe,' ein Land, welches 
 die Genossen eines Geschlechtes oder Stammes, eine Magen- 
 schaft, 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 grossern sachsischen, nicht aber auf die von den 
 Angeln besetzten Provinzen angewandt, doch zuvveilen noch 
 im altern Sinne, wie bei der Maegthe der Meanwaren. Dass 
 sich eiue wirkliche, bei den Angelsachsen jedoch nur in 
 seltenen Spuren noch nachzuweisende Verwandtschaft unter 
 diesen neben einander siedelnden Geschlechtern durch 
 Erbrecht, Wergeld, politische Biirgschaften, Naherrechte 
 und andere mit jenen verkniipfte Einrichtungen lange er- 
 halten konnten, zeigen uns viele Beispiele, selbst noch des 
 spatern Mittelalters, in den Kluften, Vetterschaften und 
 ahnlichen Familienverbindungen germanischer Stamme, 
 um nicht auf entfernteres hinzuweisen ; woraus wir gleich- 
 falls 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, Mdegft, and Magenschqft, 
 in Schmid (G-esetze der Angelsachsen), 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
 
 412 Notes on 
 
 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 Koman potestas. But the Teutonic 
 filius familias did not, like the Koman, 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 118. The Tithing and the Hundred are parts 
 of the ancient constitution which are much more perplexing 
 than the mark and the gau. I will only refer to Zopfl, 
 Gesehichte der Deutschen Rechts- Institute, 97, 112, 121 ; Waitz,, 
 i. 37; Lappenberg, i. 585 of the original, ii. 329 of the 
 English translation ; Kemble's chapter on the Tithing and 
 Hundred ; Bluntschli, Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte der Stadi 
 und Landschaft Zurich, i. 24 ; Maurer, Einleitung, 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 pagi have arisen 
 out of some misconception, and I cannot help fancying that 
 where Tacitus (Germania, 12) speaks of the "centeni singuli 
 ex plebe comites" 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. 
 
 (73) Page 118. The gau is treated of by all our authors ; 
 Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthumer, 496 ; Eichhorn, Deutsche 
 Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, 49 ; Zopfl, Gesehichte der Deut- 
 schen Rechts-Institute, 95, 108, 121, 148 ; Maurer, Einleitung, 54 
 (Comparative Philology will hardly allow us to believe that
 
 Lecture III. 413 
 
 gau is the same as the Greek <yka or 777) and for the history 
 of a particular gau, and its breaking up into several smaller 
 gauen, see Bluntschli, i. 20. Waitz (i. 49) gives the defini- 
 tion of a gau " Nicht von dem Boden, der Vertheilung des 
 Territoriums ist dies ausgegangen, 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 119. 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, typarpia, 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 120. On Ealdormen and Heretogan, see Nor- 
 man Conquest, i. 579. Of. the note on JEthelred of Mercia, 
 i. 563. Ealdorman is the word used by Alfred to express 
 the Satrapse of Bseda, v. 10. There can, I think, be no 
 doubt that Heretogra, the High-Dutch Herzog, is the word 
 which Tacitus meant to express by Dux.
 
 414 Notes on 
 
 (76) Page 121. The well-known passage of Baeda, describing- 
 the Old-Saxons, which I have quoted elsewhere (see Norman 
 Conquest, 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 "peracta 
 autem bello, rursum aequalis potentiae omnes fiunt." I shall 
 have to speak of this state of things again in my next Lecture 
 (see p. 164), but I will meanwhile give a description of the 
 Old-Saxon constitution from the Life of Saint Lebuin (Pertz, iu 
 361), by an author of the tenth century, which, if it can be 
 trusted, gives a distinct picture of a true Federal govern- 
 ment. But the strange thing about it is that, not only 
 the nobles and the common freemen 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 pp. 249, 458). 
 But, even if the writer should be mistaken on this point r 
 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 repre- 
 sentation ; but this is only what we might have expected in 
 a constitution so strictly federal. The whole passage stands 
 thus : 
 
 " Erat gens ipsa. sicuti nunc usque consistit, ordine tripar- 
 tite divisa. Sunt denique ibi, qui illorum 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 praeerant singuli. Statute quoque tempore 
 anni semel ex singulis pagis, atque ex iisdem ordinibus 
 tripartitis, singillatim viri duodecim electi, et in unum 
 collecti, in media Saxonia secus flumen Wiseram, et locum
 
 Lecture III. 415 
 
 Marklo nuncupatum, exercebant generate concilium, trac- 
 tantes, sancientes, et propalantes communis commoda utili- 
 tatis, juxta placitum a se statutae legis. Sed etsi forte belli 
 terreret exitium, si pacis arrideret gaudium, consulebant ad 
 haec quid sibi foret agendum." 
 
 (77) Page 121. On the kindred Frisian Seelands and 
 their liberties, see the account in Eichhorn, 2856 (vol. iii. 
 pp. 265-271), and on Dithmarschen itself (Maurer, Eirileitung, 
 p. 289). It was said of its people, in good Nether-Dutch, 
 which ought not to need a translation for any English- 
 man, "De Didtmarschen leven sunder Heren and Hovedt, 
 unde dohn wadt se willen." Dithmarschen was conquered by 
 Frederick the Second of Denmark and his uncle Duke 
 Adolf of Holstein, in 1559. In 1499 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 Yeerde Boock Dithmerscher Historischer 
 Geschichte, belangende eigentlicken uund wahrhafften 
 Bericht der herlichen unde wunderlichen Yictorien der 
 Dithmerschen, unde der erbermlichen unde schrecklichen 
 Nedderlage Koning 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
 
 416 Notes on 
 
 quieto servitio," and ends with the chronogram " DIthMarsIae 
 LIbertas rUIt" 
 
 (78) Page 121. 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 con- 
 federate Gemeinden in Graubimden and Wallis. These two 
 countries, as not being surrounded with such a blaze of 
 mythical glory as the Three Lands, have drawn to them- 
 selves far less attention, but their political history is perhaps 
 even more instructive. 
 
 (79) Page 122. This change makes the difference 
 between the subject of the first book of Zeuss (Die Deutschen 
 und die NacJibarstdmme), headed Das Alterthum, and the 
 second headed Die neuen Umgestaltungen. The novelty is 
 the gathering together of the various scattered branches of 
 the German 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 anderen wenigen, aber ausgebreiteten. Die einzelnen 
 Theile des vielgegliederten Stammes haben sich hier in 
 grossere Korper vereinigt, deren Unterschied fur die 
 folgende Zeit bleibend wird. Zu dieser Umgestaltung im 
 Innern kommt ein Fortdrangen gegen die ausseren Um- 
 gebungen ; die neuen Volker haben auch ihre friiheren Sitze 
 geandert und in erweiterndem Streben nach Aussen sich in 
 neue Stellungen fortbewegt."
 
 Lecture III. 417 
 
 (80.) Page 122. 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 
 Bhine. The Eoman cities lived on, and the neighbourhood 
 of the Eomance-speaking lands must have had some in- 
 fluence ; otherwise the phsenomena of these lands must have 
 been nearly the same as those of Britain. 
 
 (81) Page 123. 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 compa- 
 ratively late intruder, who has crept in unawares. But the 
 process by which the parish priest came to be the president 
 of the Mearegennot for such, one cannot doubt, the parish 
 vestry really is must be stranger still. 
 
 (82) Page 125. 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 associa- 
 tion, but a division (from seiran, shear), that it is applied to 
 other and smaller divisions besides gauen or counties, and that 
 in the sense of gau, it is found as early as the Laws of Ine, 36- 
 39. On the other hand, the shire is called in Latin pagus, the 
 same word which expresses the Continental gau ; and it forms, 
 like the gau, the division out of the union of which the 
 kingdom is made up. If I rightly understand Mr. Kemble's 
 chapter on the " Ga or Scir," the gau and the shire are the 
 same division looked at from two different points of view. 
 
 2 E
 
 418 Notes on 
 
 The gau becomes a shire when it becomes part of a larger 
 whole ; or again when, as happened to many of the Con- 
 tinental gauen, a gau is cut up into several smaller gauen, or 
 has its boundaries otherwise altered. Thus, when the great 
 Thurgau was divided, the Zurichgau, and the other smaller 
 gauen which were made out of it, would be literally sliires 
 parts shorn off from a greater whole. It is certain too that, 
 though we find the word seir 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 sometimes 
 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 rape, divisions between the hundred 
 and the county, would answer to the gau. Elsewhere, where 
 the county is called after a town, it is strictly a shire, some- 
 thing 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 century. 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, Kichmond-
 
 Lecture III. 419 
 
 shire, could not have borne that name till the foundation of 
 Richmond Castle after the Norman Conquest. But, on the 
 other han r l, 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 association ; the shire is an artificial division. The two 
 may or may not coincide. But they very often do, and, in any 
 ase, the shire is the division which answers to and represents 
 the gau, even when it represents it only by way of supplant- 
 ing 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, that in the Chronicles and in the Exchequer 
 Domesday, Devonshire is always spoken of as a shire (De- 
 fenascir), while Somerset and Dorset keep the tribal names 
 (on Sumorssetan, on Dorsdstan). And this is the more 
 remarkable, because in the Exeter Domesday we do some- 
 times 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 pro- 
 vince was shorn into several departments, we see the creation 
 of shires in the literal sense. 
 
 (83) Page 126. See above, note 79. 
 
 (84) Page 126. 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 
 
 2 E 2
 
 420 Notes on 
 
 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 
 privates agebant ; sed non postea stetit hsec ambitionis con- 
 tinentia, seu quia semper in deteriora declivus est humauus- 
 animus, seu quia gens ilia naturaliter inflatiores anhelat spi- 
 ritus. Anno itaque Dominica3 incarnationis quingentesimo- 
 quadragesimo septimo, post mortem Hengesti sexagesimo, 
 ducatus in regnum mutatus, regnavitque ibi primus Ida, 
 haud dubie nobilissimus, aetate et viribus integer; verum 
 ntrum ipse per se principatum invaserit, an aliorum consensu 
 delatum susceperit, parum definio, quia est in abdito veritas : 
 caeterum satis constat magna et vetere prosapia oriundum, 
 puria et defgecatis moribus multum splendoris generosis 
 contulisse natalibus." 
 
 (85) Page 128. The truth that the Teutonic element in- 
 French exactly answers to the Komance element in English is 
 somewhat disguised by the fact that, 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 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 Komance words which 
 have become thoroughly naturalized /Aeroctcoi, 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 Provenpal and French tongues,
 
 Lecture III. 421 
 
 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 Eomance of Gaul answers to a threefold 
 Bomance infusion into the Teutonic of Britain. There is, first 
 of all, the half-dozen words which the Bomans left behind 
 them, and which the English took up, 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 outnumbered over and over again 
 by the Teutonic that is the Frankish infusion in French. 
 This is the natural result of the difference between a de- 
 stroying 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 
 Eomance 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 
 naturalized in English, just as the Frankish words are natu- 
 ralized 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 Eomance words, and even 
 Eomance endings, into English, while nothing has ever set 
 the fashion of bringing a German or English as distin-
 
 422 Notes on 
 
 guished from an Old-Teutonic infusion into French. For 
 instance, we do not scruple to add a Eomance 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 Eomance 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, Eomance words may be avoided in 
 English. The opposite process in either language is im- 
 possible. 
 
 (86) Page 128. 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 
 remained part of the Eastern Empire T^uet? SoOXot 0eXo/iez/ 
 elvai rov 'Pw/ieuW /3ao-tXe'o><? till they were strong enough 
 to build up a dominion of their own at the expense of both 
 Empires. 
 
 (87) Page 129. See the Essay on Ancient Greece and 
 Medieval Italy, in Historical Essays, Second Series. 
 
 (88) Page 130. Nomenclature alone, without any help 
 from recorded history, is commonly enough to tell us which 
 of our towns are of purely English origin. A Eoman site most 
 commonly makes itself known, if not by some corruption 
 of its earlier name, at any rate by the word Ceaster in its-
 
 Lecture III. 423 
 
 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 founda- 
 tion. Of others, like Taunton in the eighth century, like 
 the long string of places fortified by Eadward and -/Ethelflssd 
 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 
 Waltham, 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 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, Staats- 
 und Rechtsgeschiehte der Stadt und Landsehaft 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 Markgenossenschqft, all standing side by side. 
 
 (89) Page 130. On the Five Boroughs, see Norman Con- 
 quest, 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 131. 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 Koman. Liibeck, on the other hand, the head of 
 the great commercial confederacy, as naturally suggests 
 Carthage.
 
 424 Notes on Lecture 111. 
 
 (91) Page 131. 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 131. Verona, I need hardly say, isDietrichs- 
 Tjern ; and I have seen the Burgundian Bern called " Verona 
 in montibus." 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 133. 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 Eoman institutions to our own forefathers is 
 simply impossible ; but I find that, since then, the writer 
 against whom I then argued, Mr. H. C. Coote, has again re- 
 vived the notion, and supported it with the same curious 
 plausibility against Dr. Brentano, in a paper on the Ordi- 
 nances of some Secular Guilds of London, reprinted from 
 the Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archa3ological 
 Society. 
 
 (94) Page 135. See Historical Essays, First Series, pp. 
 153, 154.
 
 ( 425 ) 
 
 LECTUKE IV. 
 
 (1) Page 138. See above, note 22 on Lecture II., and 
 Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, 192. 
 
 (2) Page 139. Bryce, Holy Koman Empire, 233. 
 
 (3) Page 140. This is the way in which the comparative 
 and superlative ftao-iXevrepos and /SacrtXeyraro? are used in 
 the Iliad. Thus, ix. 69 : 
 
 (TV fJ,V 
 KOI pol VTTOCTTrjTO), QVGOV /3aa-l\VTep6$ l/U. (ix. 160.) 
 
 ? yeveqv opocov, fvr)B' ft /3a<ri\VTep6s ecmv. (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 un- 
 doubtedly suspicious 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, ouS' el TavraXtSe HeXoTro? 
 
 (4) Page 140. Wiirttemberg, 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
 
 426 Notes an 
 
 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. 
 
 (5) Page 140. 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 con- 
 tinental 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 Home, 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 con- 
 tinental possessions of the Sardinian King, which was not 
 uncommon before Piedmont 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 141. A King for a term seems unheard of,
 
 Lecture IV. 427 
 
 except in the case of those mere survivals of kingship of 
 which I have spoken further on. The reason no doubt i& 
 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 of this is something different in 
 kind from a tenure for a term, or during pleasure, or even 
 " quamdiu bene se gesserit." 
 
 (7) Page 141. On Caesar's desire to be a King, see 
 Merivale, ii. 465. The dictatorships of Sulla and Csesar 
 would answer to what Aristotle calls (Pel. iii. 14,) aiavfjivr)- 
 reia, and defines as alperr) rvpavvk, and which forms one- 
 of the various kinds of kingship which he reckons up : but 
 the ala-vpvrjTela was not necessarily held for life ; ^p%oi> 
 S' ol p,ev Sia ySiov rrjv apyj]V ravTijv, ol Be pvxpi rivcov wpta- 
 fj,evav 'xpovwv r\ Trpdjfewv. So Dionysios (v. 73), when he is 
 trying to compare the Koman dictatorship to the Greek 
 aicrvfAVijTeia, ol yap ala-v/JivrJTai, Ka\ovp,evci irap 'EXX^crt TO 
 ap^alov, o>9 ev rot? Trepl (3acri\ias laropel eo<paaTO<?, alperol 
 rives rjcrav rvpavvot ' rjpovvro 8' avrou? at 7roXet9, oiJr' et? 
 aopicTTOV xpovov, ovre crwe^co?, a\\a ?rpo9 TOV? /caipovs, oTrore 
 Sof eie av^epeiv, fcal et? TTOCTOV %povov. In his next chapter 
 he goes on to discuss other cases of a temporary revival of 
 kingly power under other names ; yvaytcdZovro Traparyetv 
 7rd\iv ra? /3acr6\4/ca9 /cat rvpavvifcas 
 fj,acn 7repiKa\v7rTovTe<; avra 
 jap a/o^ou9, why not rayovs ;] AaKeBai^ovioi Se apyu.o<rra9 
 Ka\o>VT<>, (j>o{3ov/j,evoi, rvpdvvovs r) /3*<rtXet9 
 009 ou8' oeiov cr<f)l<ri,v vTrdpxpv, a9 Kare\vcrav
 
 428 Notes on 
 
 Kal apais 7ri0<T7TicrdvTa>v 6ewv ravras iroiXiv efiTreSovv. In 
 Cither case, whether the office was held for a time or for life, 
 the holder of it was not necessarily succeeded by another 
 ala-vpvrjTris. In truth the Eoman 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 Home and elsewhere, 
 were commonly held for life ; but that was because they 
 were not magistracies. 
 
 (8) Page 141. See Allen on the Eoyal Prerogative, 
 53-98. 
 
 (9) Page 142. Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, iii. 
 61. "Bei den germanischen Volkern, konnte man sagen, 
 erlangte sie fur den christlichen Konig eine ahnliche Be- 
 deutung, wie in heidnischen Zeit die Zunickfuhrung des 
 koniglichen Geschlechts auf die Gotter gehabt hatte." 
 
 (10) Page 143. Inquiry into the Eise and Growth of 
 the Eoyal Prerogative in England. By John Allen. New 
 edition, London, 1849. 
 
 (11) Page 143. See Allen, pp. 14, 172. 
 
 (12) Page 145. See the well-known verses in the Iliad (ii. 
 102) about the descent of the sceptre, which, if they do nothing 
 else, show distinctly to my mind that the story of the Lydian 
 origin of Pelops is no real primitive legend. Of. i. 277 :
 
 Lecture IV. 429 
 
 crv 
 
 kjV, eVel oviroO' d/ioi-j;? e/i/tope 
 
 ii. 205 : 
 
 Kpovov 
 
 /a a-<j>i<Ttv 
 
 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 sub- 
 ject of mere rhetorical display. His words (i. 3) are : irdvv 
 <yap ovv /caXw? crvv a\\oi<> irKeiocriv " 0/^77/305, e/iol SOKCIV, KCU 
 TOVTO ^>T], to? oy% a-Trai/ra? Trapa TOV Ato? e%ovras TO crKrJTr- 
 rpov ovSe rrjv apxyv Tavrijv, aXXa //.ovou? TOV<; a<yadov<?. 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 145. 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 ; Trpcoro?, ok ^ao-tv, avdpcbircav
 
 430 Notes on 
 
 /cat 
 
 Cf. Pausanias, i. 16, 5, 6. But in the Homeric Catalogue 
 (ii. 552, and in iv. 328) he appears as a Storpe^?)? /3a<rtXeu9 no 
 less than anybody 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 
 Thymoites is described as being deposed or driven out 
 (Paus. ii. 18, 9 : MeXaz;009 Trjv fiacrCkeiav ea-)(v, a</>eXoyu,>09 
 &vfjLOiTT)v rbv 'Of UI/TOU). 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 Koman 
 fashion. 
 
 (14) Page 145. Aristotle (Pol. iii. 13) describes the 
 heroic monarchies as eKoixriai re ical frdrpuu yvyvojtevai KOTO, 
 , and directly after (14), avrrj 8' rjv e/covrajv /j,ev, ziri 
 
 jcal TWV Trpos TOU9 Oeovs Kv 
 
 (15) Page 146. Odyssey, i. 394. 
 
 ea 
 
 TroXXot ev dfJ,<f)id\w 'Wd/crj, veot rjBe 7ra\aio(. 
 So amongst the Phaiakians (Odyssey, viii. 390) : 
 
 Ba)8eica yap Kara Sfjfjiov dpiTrpeTrees /3<xcriX7}e9 
 ap'xpl Kpaivovcri, T/3(9/catSe/caro9 8' ey<i> ayro9. 
 
 And they had already been spoken of as a-K^irrov'Xpi fiacri- 
 X^69, viii. 40. Hesiod too (Works and Days, 200, 246, 
 259, 261), speaks of /3ao-tX?}e9 rather as a class of whom 
 there would be several in one state, than as holding a 
 monarchy in the strict sense. 
 
 (16) Page 147. We get the account of the Interrex, and
 
 Lecture IV. 431 
 
 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, pre- 
 sided at the Comitia. The words which he puts into the 
 mouth of Brutus are remarkable: /Aeo-oySacrtXea 
 TOV aTroBei^oiTa TOVS 7rapa\r)^lro/Avov<> rd icowd, Kal 
 a-jrodrjcrofjuai, rrjv TWV KeXeptW dp-^v, 6 Be /caracrraOel^ VTT 
 fj,ov /jt,e(ro/3acri\evs, avvayayonv TTJV Xo^my KK\r)(riav, OVO/JLO,- 
 a-droj re Tot/9 //,eX\ofTa9 ef eiv rrjv /j,e\\ovcrav f3acn\eiav. On 
 this last word see above, p. 370. 
 
 (17) Page 148. Livy, ii. 2. " Eerum deinde divinarum 
 habita cura ; et quia quaedam publica sacra per ipsos reges 
 factitata erant, ne ubiubi regum desiderium esset, regem 
 sacrificulum creant. Id sacerdotium pontifici subjecere, ne 
 additus nomini honos aliquid libertati, cujus tune prima erat 
 cura, officeret." He appears also as "rex sacrificulus" 
 in Livy vi. 41, and as " rex sacrificus " in xl. 42 ; but that 
 his real title was " rex sacrorum," appears from Livy him- 
 self (xxvii. 6), from Gellius (xv. 27), and Cicero (Pro Domo 
 Sua, 14), who shows also that the "rex sacrorum," like 
 the Interrex, always remained a patrician. That is to say, 
 as the magistracies were thrown open to the plebeians one by 
 one (see above, p. 254), it did not occur to any particular re- 
 former to propose a law to throw open the office of " rex sacro- 
 rum," which was of no political importance. Dionysios (iv. 74) 
 is emphatic on this last head, iva Be /cal rovvopa T>}<? fiacri- 
 e^ovaias Trarpiov iiirdp^ov rjpZv, Kal crvv olwvols alaiois 
 TTiKVpwcrdvTcov 7rape\rj\.v6o<> et9 rrjv iro\Lv, avrfjs eveica 
 Tr)$ 6crta9 (frvXdTTrjTat,, lepwv dTroSeiKvvcrOo) T49 del 
 o rrjv Tiftrjv ravrr/v e^ajv Sid fitov, Trdarjs dTro\e\vpevos 
 ev TOVTO povov e%a)v epyov,
 
 432 Notes on 
 
 Trjv rjyeaoviav rwv 0vi)7ro\iwv, aXXo S' ovSev. So Plutarch, 
 Quaest. Rom. 63 : St<z ri T&> Ka\ovpevw pijyi a-axpcopovfj, 
 (ovro9 8e eari y3acrtXev9 lepwv) aTreip^rai Kal ap^eiv Kal 
 &r]/j,oyopelv ; rf TOiraXcubv ol /3acrtXet9 ra TrXeurra Kal fj,eyt(rra 
 rwv lepwv eSpwv, Kal ra? ^ucria? edvov avrol //.era rwv lepeatv ; 
 ' OVK efjierpla^ov, a\X' rjcrav vTreprjtyavoi Kal /3apet9, rwv 
 EXX^i/wi' ol 7r\t(rrot rrjv e^ovalav ain&v 7repi\6/j.evoi, 
 /j,6vov TO dveiv Tot9 0eot5 cLTTeXwov. *Pa>//-atoi Be TravraTracri 
 acrtXei? e/cySaXoyr9, a\\ov evrl ra9 6v<ria<s era^av, ovr 
 edaavre 1 ?, ovre SijfjLayoyyeiv, O7T&)9 JJLOVOV ev rot9 iepols 
 j3ao-i\evea-0ai BOK&O-I, Kal (3a(rC\.eiav Bta roi9 
 e<7Tt 7oOv Ti9 ey ajopa 6vaia 7T/D09 r 
 7raTpto9, ^y Ovaas 6 /3a<74\eu9, /cara ra^;o9 aTreicri favycav eg 
 ayopas. 
 
 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. 
 (Of. 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: v<rrepov Se ra n-ev avrwv 
 irapievrwv rwv ^acn\ea)V^ ra Se rwv o'^Kwv irapaipovpevwv, ev 
 fjuev Tai9 aX\at9 TroXetrt dvariat Kare\ei(^6ir]crav rot9 /3a(ri\ev<Ti 
 fjiovov, OTTOV S' af tov elTreiv elvat, ftacrikeiav, ev roi9 virep oplois
 
 Lecture IV. 433 
 
 TCOV 7roXe/zt/cwv rrjv fjyepoviav p,6vov el^pv. On this last clause 
 see below, note 20. 
 
 (18) Page 149. 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 tribu- 
 nician power, but they looked on it as the main source of 
 their authority. See below, note 42. 
 
 (19) Page 149. 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 : f) <yap ev rfj 
 ActKcovucrj TToXtreia So/cet /j,ev elvcu /3a<nXei'a /iaXiOTa TWV Kara 
 vopov, OVK ecrrt Se Kvpia TTCIVTCOV, aXX' orav ej;e\dr) rrjv xcbpav, 
 
 wv 737)09 rov TroXeytiov, eVi Se ra ?rpo9 roi9 6eov<j 
 rot? ySacrtXevo'ty. avrij fj,ev ovv f) ySacrtXeta olov 
 crrparrjjia rt<? avTo/cparopwv teal dtSios ecrnv. Afterwards he 
 calls it a-rpaTrjjia Sia /3tbu, and &>9 elTrelv a?rXw9 (rrpaTyyia 
 tcara yevos ai'8to9. 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 (e'9 /*ez/ rrjv elpKrrjv for&TQf 
 TO TT/HOTOZ; VTTO T)V ecfropojv ' e^ecTTi Se ro?9 e06poi9 TOV /3acri\ea 
 Spda-cu TOVTO), a comment which is the more remarkable asPau- 
 sanias was not King, but Kegent. Xenophon too looks on the 
 
 2 F
 
 434 Notes on 
 
 Spartan kingship as a real, though limited, kingship. Thus, at 
 the beginning of the Agesilaos (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 : 
 TI yap TroXt? ovSeTrcaTrore tfrdoinjo-aaa rov 7rporert/j,f)crdat, 
 avrovs, eTrexeipvjo-e Kara\v<rai rrjv dp^rjv avrwv, 01 re fiacriXei? 
 ov&7ra>7rore [leitpvav oDpe^dtja-av r) e<$> olsirep ef a/r^r}? rrjv 
 /3aon,\iav 7rapeXa/3oz>. roiyapovv a\\tj fjuev ouSe/ua ap%rj 
 <f>avepd e&ri Sia<yeyev7)[Ajrr) dBidcnrcurros ovre SyfAoteparia ovre 
 a ovre rvpavvis ovre /3acn\eia ' avrij Se /j,6w) &ia/j,evei, 
 fhur&efa. 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 opo<? eVrt, 
 TO) fiev /3a<rtXet Kara roi9 TT)? 7roXea>9 Keipevovs vopovs ftaai- 
 \eveiv, rf} Se TroXei e/ATreSop/eoviro? eicelvov aa-TV<J3e\iKTov rrjv 
 /3acri\etav Trape^eiv. He adds avrai, p,ev ovv ai Tiftal OIKOL 
 [as opposed to his military command] %WVTI [as opposed to- 
 the extravagant honours which he received after death.] 
 ySacrtXet SeSovrai, ovSev rt, TTO\V V7rep<f>epova-cu TWV I 
 oil <yap e/3ov\ijdr) ovre rot9 Paai\evai rvpawitcov 
 Trapaarrjcrcu ovre rot9 VoXtrat? (j>66vov efiTroiijcrai rrjs 
 Dionysios, in the speech assigned to Brutus, which I have 
 quoted several times, makes the deliverer speak of the con- 
 sulship as following the model of the Spartan kingship. The 
 power of the Eoman 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.
 
 Lecture IV. 435 
 
 (20) Page 149. 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 nomi- 
 nal, and that after Meltas, who is placed (Clinton. Fast. Hell. 
 i. 249) in the days of Kleisthenes of Sikyon, kingship was 
 abolished altogether ; 'Apyeiot, Be, are icrrjyopiav ical TO avro- 
 vopov dyaTTcbvres etc TraXatorarou, ra T?}9 ej;ov(ria<; TOM/ j3a<rL- 
 \eojv e<f \d%ifrTov Trporfycvyov, a>9 MrjSwvi T&> KetVov teal rot? 
 aTToyovoft TO ovofjia, \et(j)dijvat T^? /3ao-tXeta9 novov. M.e\rav 
 Be rbv Aa/ciBov rov djroyovov MijBwvos TO irapdirav eirava-ev 
 apxfjs /carcvyvovs 6 877/409. It is plain however that king- 
 ship went on much longer. There is a story told by Plutarch 
 in his treatise irepl rrjs 'A\%dvBpov Tirxys r\ dperijs (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; e^e\Lirev 
 'Apyeiois irore TO 'Hpa/cXeiSwy ryevos, e ov ftacn\evecrOai, 
 Trdrpiov r)v avrols. fyjTovat, Be Kal Bia7rvv0avofj,evoi<; 6 #eo<? 
 expycrev derov Bei^eiv' /cal peO' rjfAepa? oXt/ya? aeTo? VTTfptya- 
 vei<; ical Kardpa? eVt rrjv Alryeoi/o? oiiciav eKaOicre, /cal {3ao-i\ev<; 
 ypeOij Al/y&ji/. He has another reference to this election of 
 Aigon in his treatise on the Pythian oracles (5), where he 
 speaks casually of xprja-fAov TWOS e/iyu,erpou Xe^0ez/T09, ot/iat, 
 Trept T^9 Ai7&)i/09 TOU 'Apyeiov /3ao-i\eta<;. But the most 
 important notice is that in the well-known passage of Hero- 
 dotus (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 Lace- 
 daemonians. 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 (\eyeiv 
 
 2 F 2
 
 436 Notes on 
 
 cr<f)l fiev elvai Bvo /SacrA/^a?, 'Apyeioicri Be eva ' OVKCOV Bvvarbv 
 elvat, rwv etc ^7rdprr)<; ovBerepov Trava-at TT}<? rf/efiovitj 
 Be Bvo TWV cr(j)Tepa)v 6/j,6-^nj<f)ov rbv 'A.p<yeiov elvat 
 ovBev). It would seem from this passage that the Argeian 
 lung, 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 149. 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 Andokides drawing the successful lot for 
 this archonship : av vvvl 'A.vBoKiBi)<; ad<ao<s airaXkcvyfi r)/j,wv ev 
 rovBe rov dywvo? KOI e\6y K\T)p(0a6fj,evo<; rwv evvea ap-^ovrcov 
 ical ^a-xv /3a<ri\ev<;. 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 
 (/SocrtXea? TroXXoy? /ce/cdXafcevfcev, <a av gvyyewjTai, TrXrjv rov 
 "ZvpaKovcrtov Atoiaxrtbu). Dionysios, according to the orator, 
 was a match for Andokides, and would not be taken in by 
 him. 
 
 The wife of the King-archon was yScw/Xto-o-a, as the wife 
 of the Koman " rex sacrorum " was called " regina." (Cf. 
 Pseudo-Dem, c. Neser. 98.) 
 
 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 /ScwiXefc spoken of in the law of Solon
 
 Lecture IV. 437 
 
 quoted by Plutarch (Solon, 19). Plutarch seems directly 
 afterwards to speak of them as Trpvrdveis. 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 common- 
 wealth, 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 had passed 
 away, and that by magistrates who held no very important 
 place in the commonwealth. 
 
 (22) Page 150. Mommsen, probably with truth, looks on 
 the whole legend of Eomulus as comparatively late. The real 
 ancient name of the city lurks in that of the Hamnes, and the 
 eiravv/jios 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, 
 Edmische Myihologie, 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 151. 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
 
 438 Notes on 
 
 of undoubtedly real lawgivers like Solon and Alfred, that 
 such lawgivers constantly draw, as it were, to themselves all 
 manner 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 be historical, they are at least quasi-historical. See 
 Historical Essays, First Series, p. 4. 
 
 (24) Page 151. 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 152. There was a gens RomUia at Eome, but it 
 was of little eminence and never produced a curule magis- 
 trate. I do not know that there is any evidence that its 
 members claimed descent from the founders of the city. 
 
 (26) Page 153. See the account in Herodotus (vi. 67) of 
 the bitterness of the taunt addressed by Leotychides to 
 Demaratos, when he asks him otcoiov Tt eirj TO ap%eiv pera TO 
 
 (27) Page 153. See Fed. Gov. i. 433. 
 
 (28) Page 154. I am not able to lay my hand on any 
 better authority than that of Justin (ii. 7): "Post Codrum
 
 Lecture IV. 439 
 
 nemo Athenis regnavit, quod memoriae 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 
 represents 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 154. 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 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, aristocratic or democratic, 
 chosen or taken by lot, according to the gradual stages in 
 the developement of the commonwealth. The interposition of 
 a Swacrreia, a single family from which magistrates were 
 chosen, seems to have been a common stage between king- 
 ship 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
 
 440 Notes on 
 
 in certain distinguished families, as was formerly the 
 case with the Swiss democracies (see Growth of the Eng- 
 lish Constitution, p. 27). The difference, of course, is 
 that in this last case the Swao-reia had no acknowledged 
 existence. Tschudi or Attinghausen might practically be 
 an apxucov 761/09 ; but this was simply because the electors 
 habitually chose from among them : they had no privilege 
 by law. 
 
 (30) Page 154. In the Parian Chronicle (Boeckh, ii. 301) 
 the Archons for life appear as Kings. It is only when the 
 archonship becomes annual that the style is changed. The 
 48th entry stands thus: ftacriXevovTos 'AOijvwv 
 erof 9 eiKoarov KOI evos, a<p* ov tear* eviavrbv rip'X.ev 6 
 while in the 49th we have the usual form, apxovros ' 
 T\,tja-la. So Pausanias (vii. 2, 1) describes the sons of 
 Kodros as disputing about the succession after his death, and 
 uses the word (3aa-t\eviv OVK efyaa-icev 6 NetXev9 ave^eadat 
 f3a<ri\ev6fivo<; VTTO TOV Me8oiro9. What then was the dif- 
 ference 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 respon- 
 sible, 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 JEschylus (213), Atossa speaks of her son Xerxes as ou% 
 irrrevQwos TroXet, and we find this responsibility given as the 
 actual definition of kingship by two later writers. Suidas, for 
 instance, under the word /3a<rtXe/a, thus defines it 
 ecrrlv avvTrevOvvos ap^r) ' ov p,6vov 8e eXevOepovs elvai 
 o-TTOuSaioi;? aXXa /cat /3ao-tXea<?. rj yap /3acrt\eia dp^r) awTrev- 
 6vvo<$, ijris Trepl fAovovs av Tou9 aofov? crvcrTaIr). So Dion Chry- 
 sostom (i. 46) : /SacriXeta Se avvTrevQvvos ap^r], 6 8e VO/JL&;
 
 Lecture IV. 441 
 
 /3acrtXe'&>9 Boy/ia. 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 magis- 
 trates who came after him, to the obligations of the formal 
 &MU/MMT& and evOvvij. This is quite another thing from a pos- 
 sible power of deposition, which, even if legally recognized, 
 must always be something extraordinary 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) : eVetS?) Be 
 a-vvwKHrev aurou? teal Brj^oKpariav eVoi^cre fcal rj TroXt? 
 dvdpa>7ro<s eyeveTO, TOV fJ>ev /3a<rtXea ovBev rfrrov 6 877/409 ri 
 etc irpoKpLTwv icar avBpayaOlav %eipoTov(H)v. 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 administra- 
 tion, must have been exactly like the Spartan King, except 
 that he had no colleague. 
 
 (31) Page 155. See Historical Essays, Second Series, 
 p. 126. 
 
 (32) Page 155. Dion Cassius (Ixix. 16). ' 
 TO. Aiovvcna, rrjv fjueyiarrjv Trap ai/rot? ap'X'nv ap%a<;, ev rfj 
 caQrJTt, Trj eiri^wplo) Xa/ATrpeu? eTrereXeae. That is to say, he 
 was the ap^cov eVcoi/u/Ao? of the year. 
 
 (33) Page 155. See Niebuhr, Edmische Geschichte, i. 544> 
 i. 509 of the English translation.
 
 442 Notes on 
 
 (34) Page 156. See Historical Essays, Second Series, 
 p. 127. 
 
 (35) Page 157. 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 be- 
 tween the Koman Consuls and the Athenian Archons. The 
 Archons, at all events after the establishment of the fullgrown 
 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 Sokrates 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 Prytaneis 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 Achaian Assembly, where the Demiourgoi 
 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 pub- 
 lished 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
 
 Lecture IV. 443 
 
 the Letters. I could have wished that all three, his letter 
 and mine and that article, had appeared together. 
 
 The Eoman magistrate also, the Consul in his Assembly 
 and the Tribune in his, had a right of yet further import- 
 ance, namely that he alone could make proposals to the 
 Assembly. This, perhaps more than anything else, marks 
 the far greater power of the Koman magistrates as compared 
 with those of Athens. 
 
 (36) Page 159. Thuc. ii. 8. Xaore? dfiacr'tXevroi, &v 
 rjyovvro ITT errj(7iq) TrpoaTaaiq etc Toy dp%itcov <yevovs 
 teal NiKavvp. See above, note 29. 
 
 (37) Page 159. On the Epeirot League, see Hist. Fed. 
 Gov. i. 150. I have there spoken of the oath of the Molos- 
 sian Kings, as also in the Growth of the English Constitution, 
 p. 229. 
 
 (38) Page 159. Of the Macedonian Assemblies I shall 
 have more to say in the next lecture. 
 
 (39) Page 159. On the four Macedonian Commonwealths, 
 see Hist. Fed. Gov. 661. 
 
 (40) Page 160. Seleukeia, as the chief Eastern outpost 
 of Western civilization, remained a free city with a repub- 
 lican constitution till a very late time. The decline and fall 
 of the Seleukid monarchy no doubt did much to strengthen 
 its independence. 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
 
 444 Notes on 
 
 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 subsidium 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 regiae 
 libidini propior est." Pliny too (Hist. Nat. vi. 30) speaks 
 of it as " libera hodie ac sui juris Macedonumque moris." 
 
 (41) Page 160. See Historical Essays, Second Series, 
 pp. 180, 184. 
 
 (42) Page 161. 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 
 jEdilis, aut Praetoris, aut Consulis partes sustineo : majus 
 aliquid et excelsius a Principe postulatur." 
 
 There is a most curious discussion in John Lydus (De Magis- 
 tratibus, i. 3) of the distinction between rvpavvos, /3ao-iXeu?, 
 and avTOKpaTwp, 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
 
 Lecture IV. 445 
 
 but in a thoroughly Eoman character, distinctly denies the 
 power of the Emperors to be either ftaa-tXeia or rvpavvk. 
 <TTI <yap /3a<rtXe&>9 fj,ev TJOOTTO? o 1/0/409, Tvpdvvov 8e VOJAOS 
 o Tp6?ro9. TO yap TWV Kaicrdpwv tfyovv avrotcpaTOpcav eVa>- 
 ovBe /3a<rtXeta9, aXX' ov8e TvpavvtSos ecrri 
 
 Be jj,a\\ov Kai avOevrias TOV Sioiiceiv rovs e 
 Kara rwv KOIVWV 0opv/3ov<; eiri TO Ka\\iov. 
 re ra> a-Tparev/jLcni TTCO? av Beot fjid^eadai, rot? 
 imperare jap TO eiriTdTTetv Trap' 'IraXoi? \eyeTai, evOev Ifj,- 
 TrepaTcop. All this has the force of a protest, when we 
 remember how familiarly the name of /Sao-tXeu? 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 Eomulus as a Tyrant 
 also, and argues at some length that the Latin Bex answers 
 to the Greek rupawo?. There is not a glimmering to be seen 
 of the great dispute about ptfj; and /Sao-tXeu? three hundred 
 years later. 
 
 (43) Page 161. See above, note 18. 
 
 (44) Page 161. 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 
 Zenon to bestow that rank on Odoacer]; iraTpiKiov Te 
 aTTOO-retXat d%lav, Kal Trjv TWV 'IraXwy TOVTW dfalvai 
 and the Emperor does so accordingly, fiatrtXeiov ypd^a Trepl 
 wv r)(3ov\eTo TrepTrow Tat 'OSoa^w, "iraTpiKLov ev TOVTO) roa 
 <ypd/j,/jbo.Ti TT(ov6fiaa-. Of Theodoric the anonymous writer 
 printed at the end of Ammianus (717) says ; " Zeno recompen- 
 sansTheodoricum, quern fecit patricium et consul em, donans
 
 446 Notes on 
 
 ei multum et mittens eum ad Italiam." He goes on calling 
 him "Patricius" in a marked way. But Jornandes (57) 
 emphatically brings out the consulship of Theodoric ; " factus 
 est consul ordinarius, quod summum bonum primumque in 
 mundo decus edicitur." 
 
 (45) Page 161. It was held to be the peculiar good luck 
 of Boetius that he was not only Consul himself but saw his 
 sons Consuls. See the Consolatio, ii. 3, 4. 
 
 (46) Page 161. Jornandes (60) tells us pointedly how 
 " Justinianus Imperator 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. r&5 Se BeXtcrapt'w rare 
 Kpelffaov \6yov eyrv^/za ^vvrjve^Or] yeveadai. rf)<; yap VTTCL- 
 ret'a? \a(3(0v TO d^lmpa e?rt T&> Bai>cHXou9 veviKij/cevai, 
 
 en e^o/iei/09, eTreiBr) irapearrri&aTO ^iKe\iav O\T)V, rfj r 
 reia9 eo-^drr) rj/jiepa e? ra9 ^vpaKovcras e$r)\acre. He goes on 
 to say, OVK e^eiriTY]^^ ftevToi, avrw ireiroi^To rovro, a\\d rt? 
 TO) avQpwTra) %vve/3r) rv%r) Tracrav ava<ra)<Tafj,evq> rrjv vfj<rov 
 *P<w/iaiot9 etceivrj rrj rjf^epa 9 ra9 ^vpaKovcras e 
 T TWV inrarwv dpxfjv, OVK yirep elcaOei ev TOJ 
 iq), d\\' evravda tcaradepeva) % vTrdrtav 
 
 (47) Page 161. That Constantine held the office of 
 General at Athens is recorded by his nephew Julian in his 
 first oration, addressed to Constantius (8) : y3ao-t\eu9 yap &v t 
 Kal Kvpios Trdvrcov, arpaTrjjb^ etceivcw rj^iov KakelaOai, teal 
 TOiavrrjs eircovos rirfxdvwv per' Triypdfjt,fj,aTos, eydwvro TrXeov 
 rj T&V fj,eyia'T(i)v TI/JL&V a^toj^et9. He goes on to speak of the
 
 Lecture IV. 447 
 
 gifts of corn which Constantino made to the Athenians, 
 d/4et/36/iez/o9 eV avTot rrjv TroXw. See Finlay, Greece under 
 the Eomans, 340. 
 
 (48) Page 161. Plutarch, Caesar, 60. e/eew/o? ovtc $77 
 u9 dXXa 
 
 (49) Page 161. 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 fiaa-tXeta, though /3a<ri\ela 
 is throughout pointedly opposed to rvpavvk. In one place 
 in the third oration (i. 46), after describing the oppressive 
 ruler, Dion says, ovrc av Trore etTrot/zi rbv TOIOVTOV ap-^ovra rj 
 avroKpdropa rj /SacrtXea, TroXu 8e //.aXXoy rvpavvov /cat \evcr- 
 Trjpa, o>? TTore TrposeiTrev 6 A7r6\\u>v rov ^IKVOIVLOV rvpavvov. 
 In another place in the second oration (i. 37), he incidentally 
 brings out that solitary position of the Koman 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, Trpo? Be rou? aXXou? 
 /3a<rtXea9, el' rti/e? a pa elev, aytuXXacr&u Trepl TT}? aper?}?. 
 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 Koman lawyer, who happened to write in Greek, 
 but who still dealt with the legal and historical side of things 
 from a purely Koman point of view. 
 
 (50) Page 161. John Lydus (i. 4) points out the wearing 
 of the diadem and the royal robes as an innovation of Dio-
 
 448 Notes on 
 
 cletian, adding that he thereby eVt TO ftaaiXLicov 17 
 
 elirelv eVt TO rvpavvtKov erpe-^rev. Compare Aurelius Victor, 
 
 Caesares, 39. 
 
 (51) Page 161. The word regnum is applied to the im- 
 perial- rule, even by Tacitus, though it would seem always 
 with somewhat 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 regna- 
 trix " seemingly without any sarcastic meaning. 
 
 (52) Page 161. The name regia is more than once ap- 
 plied by Tacitus to the Imperial dwelling. Thus in the Annals 
 (xi. 29) Callistus, the former favourite of Caius, is described 
 under Claudius as " prioris quoque regias peritus " and in 
 xiv. 13 it is said 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 Ammianus which is preserved to us, the word 
 regia, and pretty well every other derivative of rex, used as a 
 matter of course, but rex itself never. 
 
 (53) Page 161. 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 161. It is quite certain that no Emperor is
 
 Lecture IV. 449 
 
 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 Koine or Eomans, but, 
 like the sons of the Triumvir Antonius, over some of the 
 provinces of the Eoman 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 162. For the Eoman appointments of Alaric 
 see Zosimos, v. 5, 31, vi. 7. 
 
 (56) Page 162. The consulship of Chlodwig conies from 
 Gregory of Tours, ii. 38. "Igitur Chlodovechus ab Ana- 
 stasio imperatore codicillos de consulatu accepit, et in basilica 
 beati Martini tunica blatea indutus est et chlamyde, impo- 
 nens vertici diadema." He was saluted by the people " tan- 
 quam 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 Eienzi, 
 when he called himself "candidatus Spiritus Sancti miles, 
 Nicolaus severus et clemens, Liberator Urbis, Zelator 
 Italise, amator Orbis, et Tribunus Augustus." Cronica 
 Sanese, 1347. Muratori, xv. 118. Chronicon Estense, ib. 
 441. 
 
 (57) Page 162. See Bryce, Holy Eoman Empire, 404. 
 Joseph the Second was the last who bore this title, having 
 
 2 a
 
 450 Notes on 
 
 been elected in 1764, during the lifetime of his father, and 
 becoming Emperor-elect on his death the next year. 
 
 (58) Page 163. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 17, 169. 
 
 (59) Page 163. So the Peterborough Chronicle, 449. 
 "Fram J?an Wodne awoc eall ure cynecynn, and SuSan- 
 hymbra eac." The contrary process seems to be set forth 
 by King Alfred when he tells the story of Odysseus and 
 Kirke ; " J?a wses peer Apollines dohtor, lobes suna, se lob 
 waes hiora cyning, and licette J>set he sceolde bion se hehsta 
 god, and J?aet dysige folc him gelyfde, forj?am $e he wse& 
 cyne-cynnes, and hi nyston nsenne operne god on paene- 
 timan, buton hiora cyningas hi weor]?odon for godas. Da 
 sceolde J?ses lobes faeder bion eac god, pses nama wees- 
 Saturnus, and his swa ilce sel cine hi haefdon for god." 
 
 (60) Page 164. See Norman Conquest, i. 593. 
 
 (61) Page 164. See Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichfe, 
 i. 68, 166. 
 
 (62) Page 165. See above, note 76 on Lecture III. 
 
 (63) Page 165. See Growth of the English Constitution 
 34, 171. 
 
 (64) Page 166. All people, save those who fancy that 
 the name King has something to do with a Tartar Khan or 
 with a " canning " or " cunning " man, are agreed that the 
 English Cyning and the Sanscrit GanaJca both come from 
 the same root, from that widely spread root whence comes-
 
 Lecture IV. 451 
 
 our own cyn or kin and the Greek 761/09. 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 sup- 
 pose 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 ? 
 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 deriva- 
 tion 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 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 167. 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 170. Joshua ix. 2. 
 
 (67) Page 170. Genesis xxxvi. 14. The Hebrew BjsfeN, 
 from e^iSt gens, answers however better to cyning than to 
 Tieretoga. 
 
 (68) Page 171. See the instances which I have collected 
 
 2 G 2
 
 452 Notes on 
 
 in Note K in tlie Appendix to the first Volume of the 
 Norman Conquest, and at page 172 of the Growth of the 
 English Constitution. Another passage about the Goths will 
 be found in Zosimos, iv. 34. Frithigern is ^ejjbwv, while he 
 speaks of 'KQdvapvxpv re Travro? rov ftaaiXeiov TWV 
 
 (69) Page 171. This is the argument assumed throughout 
 Dante's great treatise De Monarehia. See Historical Essays, 
 First Series. 
 
 (70) Page 172. 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 jm waeron 
 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 seque- 
 bantur potestate proximi Eeges numero quinque, Regalesque 
 [probably JEthelings] decem." The Batavians also in the 
 same account have several Kings. 
 
 (71) Page 173. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 172. 
 
 (72) Page 173. See the famous passage in the Iliad, 
 ii. 188. 
 
 (73) Page 174. I shall have to speak more fully of this 
 in my last lecture. 
 
 (74) Page 175. According to the famous doctrine of the 
 Civil Law (Inst. i. 2. 6.) " quod principi placuit, legis habct 
 vigorem; quum lege regia, quee de ejus imperio lata est,
 
 Lecture IV. 453 
 
 populus ei in eum omne imperium suum et potestatem 
 concedat." With this lawyers' theory of the origin of the 
 Empire one may well compare the pithy account given by 
 Tacitus (Ann. i. 2) of its real origin : " Csesar dux reliquus, 
 posito Triumviri nomine, Consulem se ferens et ad tuendam 
 plebem tribunicio jure contentum ; ubi militem donis, popu- 
 lum annona, cunctos dulcedine otii pellexit, insurgere paul- 
 latim, munia Senatus, magistratuum, legum, in se trahere, 
 nullo adversante." 
 
 (75) Page 175. See Norman Conquest, i. 584. It is worth 
 while to compare the definition given by Suidas under the 
 word /3acrt\ev9. Bao-tXew /^eya?, 6 TWV TLeparwv. rovs 8e 
 Trposerffleaav /cal rwv ap%pfi,eva)V ra ovo/iara, olov 
 Ma/eeSoz/e?. He then goes on to distinguish 
 and Tvpawos, and to point out how Pindar and 
 others had applied the name /Sao-tXeifc to tyrants. 
 
 (76) Page 176. I suppose that Eussia is now the only 
 European state to which this description would apply, the 
 only one where the sovereign can legislate by himself, with- 
 out even the form of consulting a national assembly of any 
 kind. 
 
 (77) Page 177. See Norman Conquest, i. 23, 78, Growth 
 of the English Constitution, 37. 
 
 (78) Page 177. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 153.- 
 
 (79) Page 178. See Norman Conquest, iv. 430. 
 
 (80) Page 179. See Norman Conquest, i. 24. 
 
 (81) Page 179. The recovery of southern Spain to the
 
 454 Notes on 
 
 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. 
 
 (82) Page 180. See Norman Conquest, i. 78. 
 
 (83) Page 181. " 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 ; Caesar noster, ave." 
 
 (84) Page 181. 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 182. On the various names of the kingdoms 
 which sprang up out of the divisions of the Frankish Em- 
 pire, see Appendix T in the first volume of the History of 
 the Norman Conquest, " Names of Kingdoms and Nations." 
 
 (86) Page 182. 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 Luzelburg Kings of Bohemia. Then came the 
 long period which begins in the middle of the fifteenth cen- 
 tury, during which, though other candidates were often talked 
 of, yet the Electors always chose an Austrian prince, com-
 
 Lecture IV. 455 
 
 monly 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 183. See Norman Conquest, iv. 1695. 
 
 (88) Page 184. 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 commonwealths was of so little consequence that either 
 word might be used indiscriminately for the other. In 
 either case it is an extreme illustration of the common igno- 
 rance 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 cornea-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 ? 
 
 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 186. On all these matters I would refer to the 
 Essay on Presidential Government which stands last in my 
 rst Series of Historical Essays. 
 
 (90) Page 187. The legitimate descent of Queen Eliza-
 
 456 Notes on Lecture IV. 
 
 beth 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 suc- 
 cession. Her descent by the other line, that of Henry the 
 Seventh, through the legitimated children of John of Gaunt, 
 is still less kingly.
 
 ( 457 ) 
 
 LECTUEE Y. 
 
 (1) Page 191. On the relations of the Achaian cities to 
 the League, see History of Federal Government, i. 256. 
 
 (2) Page 192. On the constitution of the Achaian Federal 
 Assembly, see History of Federal Government, i. 263. 
 
 (3) Page 193. 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 incorpora- 
 tion, comes the stage represented by ^Ethelred and 2Ethel- 
 flsed. See Appendix F in the first volume of the Norman 
 Conquest. 
 
 (4) Page 193. 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
 
 458 Notes on 
 
 all the Landesgemeinden of which I have seen those only of 
 Uri and Appenzell-Ausserrhoden are described at length by 
 M. Kambert in an article in the Bibliotheque Universelle in 
 the course of 1872. 
 
 (5) Page 195. The mere slave, the servus, 8oOXo9, or 
 ]>eow, has, by the nature of the case, no political rights, be- 
 cause he has not even the common rights of humanity. But, 
 besides the actual slave and the free /^TOI/CO? 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 Treptoifcot, 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 
 Treveo-Tai, perhaps the Koman clients, would be other examples. 
 So in the Teutonic system we find the liberti of Tacitus 
 (Germ. 25), that is the Lsstas, Liten or Lazzen (see page 249), 
 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 Ipeow, 
 the servus of Domesday, and on the other hand by lowering 
 the free ceorl, 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 state- 
 ment 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 folc- 
 mot." This of course would take in classes much better off 
 than the mere ]>eow.
 
 Lecture V. 459 
 
 (6) Page 196. That is to say, the aristocratic common- 
 wealth was democratic at its first starting. The Koman 
 patricians, the populus 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 197. Waitz i. 36. " Wie das Heer nur das im 
 Kriege befindliche Volk darstellt, so sind auch alle mili- 
 tarischen Yerhaltnisse nirgends von den iibrigen Zustanden 
 des Lebens zu trennen; immer befinden sich kriegerische 
 und richterliche Gewalt in Einer Hand ; wie das Yolk 
 Heer ist, die Versammlung des Volks Gericht, so ist der 
 Eichter auch Heerfiihrer. Eine Eintheilung des Heers setzt 
 daher stets eine gleiche des Volks voraus, die des Yolks muss 
 mit der des Landes identisch sein." 
 
 (8) Page 198. 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 ayoprf in verse 51, 
 93, 96, Xao<? in 97-100, crrparof and asyoprj both, in 207, and 
 
 in 278. 
 
 (9) Page 198. The Macedonian military assembly is 
 spoken of by Arrian, iii. 27, 2, 27, 3, as TrXr/flo? and Ma/ceSoi/e?, 
 in 27, 4, it is e/e/eX?7<na. 
 
 (10) Page 198. See Norman Conquest, ii. 103. 
 
 (11) Page 198. I mean the Athenian process by which
 
 460 Notes on 
 
 the Generals chose IK Kardko^ov, from the list of citizens of 
 the military age, such as they thought good to call upon for 
 the particular expedition. 
 
 (12) Page 198. 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 submissively as the subjects of a 
 despot could do. 
 
 (13) Page 199. 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 vio- 
 lence done by the Athenian women to his wife and children, 
 are things altogether without parallel within the city itself. 
 
 (14) Page 199. Thucydidef, 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 &><? ou Set aQvptiv ori rj iroX^ avrwv d<f>- 
 ea-rrjKe. They had just been elected Generals by the army, 
 much as Camillus (Livy v. 46) is elected Dictator by the 
 Roman Assembly at Veii, though the circumstances of 
 the Eoman migration to Veii are more like those of the 
 Athenian migration to Salamis. 
 
 (15) Page 199. For the -ffitolian 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 202. In the Teutonic mythology a God might
 
 Lecture V. 461 
 
 -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 Ars is spoken of as running a 
 <jhance of being killed by the sons of Aloeus. 
 
 Kai vv Kv v8' d-TroXotTO "Ap?79, arc? 7roXe//.oto, 
 4 fir) fj,r)rputrj, 7repiKaX\r)<; ' 
 
 ijy<yei\ev, 6 &' e 
 reipo/jievov ' ^aXeTTo? Be e Seoyio? eSdf 
 
 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 203. Iliad, xx. 10. 
 
 69 
 aWova-ycriv <f>i 
 
 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. 
 
 opdwv 8' earaorwv ayoprj jever', ovBe rt9 erX?; 
 
 e^eadai, Trdvras yap e^e rpoyu.09. Cf. ii. 96-100. 
 
 (18) Page 203. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 168. 
 
 (19) Page 203. Iliad, xx. 13. 
 
 (20) Page 203. See Historical Essays, Second Series, 83. 
 
 (21) Page 204. For this comparison I might quote no
 
 462 Notes on 
 
 less an authority than King Alfred, who looked on Odysseus 
 as a King under the Emperor Agamemnon. " Hit gebyrede 
 gio on Troiana gewinne J>set J>ser waes an cyning J?a3s nama 
 Aulixes, se haefde twa J>ioda under pam kasere. Pa Sioda 
 waeron hatena PSacige and Eetie, and paes kaseres nama 
 wses Agamemnon." 
 
 (22) Page 204. Iliad, xvi. 434. 
 
 (23) Page 205. Odyssey, ii. 26. 
 
 ovSe Trod' r/fMerepij ajoprj ryever 1 ovSe 06a>KOS, 
 e ov 'OSuo-creu? Sto? e/3r) #01X779 evl vr)V<ri. 
 
 (24) Page 206. Tacitus, Germania, 11. " Si displicuit sen- 
 tentia, fremitu adspernantur ; sin placuit, frameas concutiunt. 
 Honoratissimum adsensus genus est, armis laudare." 
 
 (25) Page 206. Thucydides, i. 87. tcpivovcri yap /3oy teal 
 
 ov 
 
 (26) Page 208. 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. o Se Kacnrai/Spo? .... Trpoerpe-^rarc rot"? 
 olicelovs ru>v dvr)pr)/J<ev(i)V VTT 'OXuyUTTtaSo? ev KOIVTJ rwv Ma/ee- 
 
 <yvvaitco<;. <bv
 
 Lecture V. 463" 
 
 TO TrposTa^dev, KOI rr)$ 'OXu//,7ria8o5 ovre Trapov- 
 0-771? ovre e'%oucr77<? TOW? aTrdX-ojrja-o^evov^, ol fj,ev Ma/ceSo^e? 
 KareyivwcTKov avrf}*; Odvarov .... evKajBeiro yap a/j,a KCU TO 
 irepl avrrjv dt;ia>/j,a real TO TWV Ma/ceS6wyz> ev/ui6Td(3o\ov. rfj<; 
 S' 'OXi///.7Tta8o9 ov <f)a/j,evrjs (frev^ea'dat, rovvavriov S' 
 
 TO 7r\f]0o<; CLKOVOV rrj^ /Sao'tXicra-iy? drrdKo^ov^evr]^ /cal 
 rb)v 'A.\%dvSpov real ^tX^jnrot; Trpo? o/rrav TO e0vo<? evepyecnwv 
 fj,Tavoi]O"r), /c.T.X. 
 
 (27) Page 208. 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 210. See Historical Essays, Second Series, 
 189. 
 
 (29) Page 212. 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 214. See the definition of democracy given by 
 Athenagoras in Thucydides, Growth of the English Constitu- 
 tion, 165. 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 214. One of the merits of democracy, accord- 
 ing to Perikles in the Funeral Oration (Thuc. ii. 37), was
 
 464 Notes on 
 
 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. oVoyua /*/ Sia 
 TO fJirj 9 0X4701"? aXX' e? 7rXeiWa9 olicelv BrjfioKparia Ke/cXrjrai, 
 fjierecrri Be Kara pev roixj vo/j,ov<; TT/OOS ra iBia Bid(f>opa Traai 
 TO taw, Kara Be rrjv d^lcocnv, a>9 etcac-ros ev rq> evBoKifj,ei . . . 
 \v0epa><> Be rd re 7rpo9 TO KOWOV rro\Lrevop,ev xal 69 rrjv ?rpo9 
 a\\7;Xoi'9 rwv KaO' rj^epav 7nrr)Bev/Jidra>v VTrotyiav, ov Be 1 
 rbv 7reXa9, el Kad' rjSovijv rt Bpa, e%ovrS, ovBe dr)/j,iov$ 
 Xu7T^pa9 Be ry otyei d%6r)B6vas 7rpo<>rt0efj,voi. 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 
 according 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 215. 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 
 (f yXXo709 a<j)a)v avrwv 6 eltoddis), 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 themselves; but the narrative 
 seems to imply that no one spoke except the two great 
 official persons, the King Archidamos and the Ephor Sthene- 
 la'idas, 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
 
 Lecture V. 465 
 
 (j>avepa)<> aTroSettcvvf^evovf rr)i> yvoa^v e<? TO 
 op/jur/crai) 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 Sthenela'idas did. 
 
 (33) Page 216. On the powers of the Achaian General 
 see History of Federal Government, i. 287. 
 
 (34) Page 217. 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 217. See History of Federal Government, i. 
 263. 
 
 (36) Page 219. See Norman Conquest, i. 100-102. 
 
 2 H
 
 466 Notes on 
 
 (37) Page 219. See History of Federal Government, i. 
 698. Norman Conquest, i. 592, ii. 330. 
 
 (38) Page 220. See Norman Conquest, iii. 623. 
 
 (39) Page 221. The changes in the Frankish Assemblies 
 under the Mer wings and Karlings are set forth in two 
 chapters of Waitz, one in the second volume, headed Die 
 Gerichts-, Seer- und Reichs-Versammlungen, the other in 
 the third volume, headed Der Hof und die Reichs- Versamm- 
 lung. 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 Aus- 
 trasian 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 Kecht der Freien blieb, sich auf der grossen 
 Jahresversammlung einzufinden: eben darum heisst sie die 
 allgemeine, und von der Gesammtheit oder Menge des Volks 
 ist ofter die Eede." 
 
 (40) Page 221. 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 
 
 o>9 vvv, OTTOT ov<rrjs icvpas 
 
 IwOivfjs eprj/jios 17 Hvvf; avrrjt, 
 
 ol S' ev asyopa \a\ovcn, Kavto KCU Kara 
 
 TO ffYpar&V favyovai TO
 
 Lecture V. 467 
 
 / 
 "The appointment of special Schoffen, Scabini, Echevins, seems 
 
 to have arisen from the necessity of insuring that some 
 one should be ready to discharge the duties of the As- 
 sembly. See Waitz, iii. 487, iv. 325, and especially the 
 chapter headed Die Schoffen in Savigny's GescMchte des Ro- 
 mischen Eechts. Savigny's distinct conclusion (i. 197) is that 
 " der Unterschied lag nur darin, dass die Scabinen, als offent- 
 liche Personen, die Yerpflichtung hatten, als Schoffen den 
 Gerichten beyzuwohnen, wahrend es in der Willkiihr der 
 librigen 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 
 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 praemoniti ut conveniant 
 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 223. See History of Federal Government, 
 i. 211, 271. So Thucydides (i. 125) remarks that in the 
 Assembly of the Lacedemonian 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. -^rff^ov eirrjycvyov rofc ^v^dj(o^ ajraaiv 
 Traprjaav 6^779, KOI fielfyvi, /cal eXda'crovi TroXet, Kai TO 
 
 (42) Page 223. This fact is preserved to us by Strabo 
 and quoted in History of Federal Government, i. 209. 
 
 (43) Page 224. See Hist. Fed. Gov. i. 272 and compare 
 
 2 H 2
 
 468 Notes on 
 
 the enfranchisement of the smaller Arcadian towns by Philo- 
 poimen, i. 626. 
 
 (44) Page 224. Compare Hist. Fed. Gov. i. 270. 
 
 (45) Page 226. So Livy (i. 43) remarks of the Comitia 
 Centuriata of Servius : " non, ut ab Komulo 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 individuals 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 of the Curias also votes were 
 taken viritim ; one man's vote was as good as another in 
 a sense in which it was not so in the Assembly of the Cen- 
 turies. 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 227. On the other hand, the yearly Senate is 
 always spoken of as one of the specially democratic institu- 
 tions of Athens, and, when the Four Hundred take possession
 
 Lecture V. 469 
 
 of the government, one of their first acts is to turn out the 
 Senate by force. See Thucydides, viii. 69. 
 
 (47) Page 227. On the lessening of the powers of the 
 Areiopagos see G-rote, v. 480 et seqq. The truth is that, in a 
 body elected for life, a feeling which may be called aristo- 
 cratic, 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 228. 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 229. See the passages collected in a note at 
 i. 264 of the History of Federal Government. 
 
 (50) Page 230. Thuc. iii. 36-49. 
 <51) Page 230. Thuc. vi. 8-28. 
 
 (52) Page 230. Xen. Hell. i. 7. 
 
 (53) Page 230. Sallust, Bell. Cat. 50-53. 
 
 (54) Page 231. 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 ; aireSa/cc pey yap 
 T9 ap^aipecia^ avrots ' are Be exeivav re apyorepav viro rov
 
 470 Notes on 
 
 7ro\A,e3 yjpovfp /j,r)Sev e\ev0epa)<> Ke'Xprj/MiTiKevai e<? TO Spdv 
 T(av TrposTjKOVTWV <T<f)Lcnv ovTwv, Kol 
 p,d\i(rra p,ev pr) ir\eLova)v f) ocrovs aipeia-Oai eSei eT 
 \6vTa>v, el Be irore KOI virep rbv dptdfjiov yevoiirro, Bioji,o\oyov- 
 pevtov TTpo? aXX^Xov?, TO /iev cr^/ia T^? o^/iO/cpaTta? eV&j^eTO,. 
 epyov 8' ovSev avrfjs eyfyvero, teal Sta rovro vir avrov avdif 
 rov Tatov KareXvdrjcrav ' KCLK rovrov ra fiev a\\a KaOdirep 
 Kal 7rl TOV Tt/3eptou 
 
 (55) Page 232. See Growth of the English Constitution, 
 162. 
 
 (56) Page 233. Ib. 82. Norman Conquest, i. 102. 
 
 (57) Page 238. Such for instance as the Parliaments 
 which appointed the Balie which banished and restored 
 Cosmo de' Medici. Sismondi, ix. 39, 44. 
 
 (58) Page 240. See Norman Conquest, ii. 339. Growth 
 of the English Constitution, 7. 
 
 (59) Page 241. 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 Yenise, 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-
 
 Lecture V. 471 
 
 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 242. -See above, note 40. 
 
 (61) Page 242. 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.
 
 ( 472 ) 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 (1) Page 247. See note 59 on Lecture V. 
 
 (2) Page 247. I 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 248. 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. 
 Everybody 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 Wulfstan's labours to 
 put it down.
 
 Notes on lecture VI. 473 
 
 (4) Page 249. On the liti or lazzi see note 5 on Lecture V. 
 
 (5) Page 250. 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 : " Quse gens 
 omnis in tribus ordinibus divisa consistit; sunt enim inter 
 illos qui edhilingi, sunt qui frilingi, sunt qui lazzi illorum 
 lingua dicuntur; latina vero lingua hoc sunt: nobiles, in- 
 genuiles, atque serviles." He goes on to speak of "frilingi 
 lazzique, quorum infinita multitude est." 
 
 (6) Page 250. This is the view of Waitz, i. 86: "Die 
 Fursten sind von dem Adel durchaus verschieden. Ich 
 setze das deutsche Wort, wo Tacitus 'principes' nennt. 
 'Nobiles' habe ich Adlige, 'nobilitas' Adel iibersetzt. 
 
 Die Fursten (principes) werden in den Volksver- 
 
 sammlungen gewahlt." 
 
 (7) Page 250. See Norman Conquest, i. 81. 
 
 (8) Page 255. On the Interrex, see above, p. 147. 
 
 (9) Page 256. I have referred to this story in His- 
 torical Essays, Second Series, ii. 92. The whole descrip- 
 tion 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 
 Patrieii, but in opposition to Ndbilitas. Sallust tells us how 
 Marius was elected to the post of military tribune and then 
 goes on : " Deinde ab eo magistratu, alium post alium sibi
 
 474 Notes on 
 
 peperit: semperqne in potestatibus eo modo agitabat ut 
 ampliore quam gerebat dignus haberetur; tamen is ad id 
 locoruin talis vir (nam postea ambitione prasceps datus est) 
 consulatum appetere non audebat. Etiam turn alios magis- 
 trates plebes, consulatum nobilitas, inter se per manus tra- 
 debat. Novus nemo tam clarus neque tarn egregiis factis 
 erat, quin is indignus illo honore et quasi pollutus ha- 
 beretur." He then goes on to tell how Metellus tried by 
 friendly remonstrances to persuade Marius not to stand for 
 the Consulship : " ne tam prava inciperet, neu super fortu- 
 nam animum gereret, non omnia omnibus cupienda esse, 
 debere illi res suas satis placere : postremo caveret id petere 
 a populo Komano quod illi jure negaretur." At last he is 
 betrayed 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, ne festinaret abire; satis mature ilium cum 
 filio suo consulatum petiturum. Is eo tempore in contubernio 
 patris ibidem militabat, annos 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 completely 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. 
 
 (10) Page 257. See Norman Conquest, i. 85 et seqq. 
 Growth of the English Constitution, 42 et seqq. 
 
 (11) Page 259. Eorl or Jar2 is now held to be a contrac- 
 tion of Edldor (see Max Miiller, Science of Language, ii. 280, 
 7th ed.). It is quite in agreement with this that the shorter
 
 Lecture VI. 475 
 
 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 ^Elfred 
 fought. Then the title was borne, as might be expected, 
 by the Danish chiefs who settled in Northumberland ; lastly, 
 under Cnut, it was extended to all England and supplanted 
 Ealdorman. See Norman Conquest, i. 76, 277, 405, 646. 
 
 The word Thegn, as far as we are concerned, starts from 
 the meaning of servant, and thence rises to its higher poli- 
 tical and social meaning. But it would seem that the 
 primary meaning of all was rather man, and thence servant, 
 much like the word man itself in its relation to lord. Other 
 cases are our knave, Kndbe, and the Greek mu? ; or again 
 cniht, Jcneht, 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 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 259. This meaning perhaps comes out most 
 strongly in the use of the adjective tyegenlie. Thus in the 
 Song of Maldon (see Growth of English Constitution, p. 46) 
 Offa is said to lie thane-like by his lord Brihtnoth ;
 
 476 Notes cm, 
 
 He leeg iSegenlice 
 Seodne gehende. 
 
 And in a very remarkable document in Kemble's Codex 
 Diplomaticus (iv. 54), describing the doings in a Scirgemot 
 in Herefordshire, a woman named Eanwene, whose son Ead- 
 wine was trying to dispossess her of some lands, says to three 
 Thegns who are sent to her, " Do$ pegenlice and wel." That 
 is, in modern language, " Act like gentlemen." 
 
 (13) Page 259. 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," 
 " % servitium," 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 Caro- 
 lingian age had nothing whatever to do with the old comitatus. 
 
 " Mit der alten Gefolgschaft hat die Vassallitat nichts zu 
 thun ; ohne Grund hat man in alterer und neuerer Zeit beide 
 zusammengeworfen oder doch an einander gekniipft. Die 
 Vassallitat wird anders begrundet, 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 
 kingship, 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 institution modified by change of circumstances. 
 Indeed Waitz himself says pretty much what I mean when 
 he says (198 ) : "Daruber kann nach allem was vorliegt kein 
 Zweifel sein, dass der Empfang von Beneficium an sich ein
 
 Lecture VI. 477 
 
 Verhaltniss naher personlicher Verbindung, von Verpflich- 
 tung und Ergebenheit begriindete, dem Konig gegeniiber 
 den allgemeinen Pflichten der Staatsangeh5rigen ein engeres 
 personliches 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 erwachsen, jetzt in die 
 engste Verbindung mit den Beneficien getreten, ja zu dem 
 eigentlich charakteristischem Merkmal fiir 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 Con- 
 quest, 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 Komance 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 Koman 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 259. I have said something on this head in 
 the second volume of the Norman Conquest, p. 270. Com- 
 pare also the remarks of Palgrave, Normandy, ii. 11. 
 
 (1 5) Page 260. We seem to see a trace of the comitatus
 
 478 Notes on 
 
 in the " globus ferocissimorum juvenum " who surround 
 Eomulus in Livy, i. 12, and in the " delecta manus praesidii 
 ausa " who surround the Dictator Aulus Postumius in ii. 20. 
 
 (16) Page 262. We seem to be at Ilios or at Maldon, 
 when we read how, in the fight by the Granikos, the com- 
 panion Demaratos (Arrian, i. 15, 9) gives his spear to Alex- 
 ander when his own is broken : A^aparo? Se, avrjp 
 dfj,(j> avrov eraipwv, SiSaxriv airrw TO avrov 86pv. 
 
 (17) Page 262. The Koman clients would be in old 
 English phrase not so much thegns as loaf-eaters. The 
 relation of the loaf -eater was surely a variety, though a very 
 low variety, of the eomitatus ; and even a churl might have 
 his loaf-eatery as appears from the 25th law of .^Ethelberht : 
 " Gif man ceorlaBs hlaf-aetan ofsl^hS, vi scillingum ge- 
 bete." 
 
 (18) Page 267. 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 coun- 
 cils and magistrates of its own. The Schultlieiss 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 270. I have before me, in a Geographisches 
 statistisch-topographisches Lexicon von Franken (Ulm, 1801), 
 iv. 46, a list of the twenty-three patrician families of Nurn- 
 berg, 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.
 
 Lecture VI. 479 
 
 (20) Page 273. 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 Fsehde. 
 
 (21) Page 273. 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 bebda'S, se mon se pe his 
 gefan ham-sittendne wite, J?aet he ne feohte aer Jrarn 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 gemeteS 
 b'Serne ast his sbwum wife betynedum durum o$3e under 
 anre rebn, ofrSe aet his dehter aewumborenre, o33e set his 
 swister [aewum]-borenre, o$$e set his medder, J?e waere to 
 ewum wife forgifen his feeder." 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 
 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 rifj,(j>i<r(3iJT6i, w avSpe?, aXX' Q)jj,o\oyet, dSucelv, teal 
 07TC09 pev (J,r) aTroddvy rjwnfBoXet, /cat ifcerevev, aTrorivew 8' eroi- 
 /iO9 rfv ^ptj/jLara. e<yw Se TO) //-ey ercetvov TifArjjAaTi ov crvv- 
 %(bpovv, rbv Be rrjs TroXe&j? vopov r/iovv elvai Kvpuorepov, KOI 
 ravrrjv ekaftov rrjv BLKIJV, fjv vyu-et? SiKaioTaTijv elvai rjyrjcrd- 
 }ievoi rot? ra roiavra eTriTrjSevovcnv erd^are. 
 
 The Eoman 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, Jurisprudentiae 
 Antejustiniana, 560 et seqq. There in the " Mosaicarum et
 
 480 Notes on 
 
 Komanarum 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 273. See History of Federal Government, 
 i.381. 
 
 (23) Page 274. On all this see Allen's note on the 
 
 Judicial Power, Royal Prerogative, 88. 
 \ 
 
 (24) Page 275. Leviticus xxiv. 19. See the article 
 Talio in the Dictionary of Greek and Eoman Antiquities. 
 
 (25) Page 275. See the well-known passage, Iliad ix. 
 
 628. 
 
 vrj\tj<; * teal jj,ev r/9 re Kaa-iyvijTOio <j>6voio 
 
 Troivrjv, rj ov TraiSb? eSe^aro 
 xal p 6 fiev ev Sijfjiq) fievei avrov, 
 rov Se r' eprjTverai KpaSirj fcal 
 Troivrjv 
 
 (26) Page 276. In Iliad, vi. 45, Adrestos craves his life 
 of Menelaos and offers a ransom a-v S' a^ia Se^at a-n-oiva 
 Menelaos is inclined to spare him but Agamemnon steps in 
 and slays Adrestos himself, and the poet approves the act. 
 
 0)9 eiTTQiv erpe^ev a8e\<f>eiov <f>peva<; 
 
 Compare the slaughter of Lykaon by Achilleus, Iliad 
 xxi. 341-31. Achilleus, in the same spirit, refuses the 
 ransom. 
 
 (27) Page 276. Tacitus (Germania, 12), after men- 
 tioning the severer punishments awarded to traitors and
 
 Lecture VI. 481 
 
 imitators of southern vices, adds : " Sed et levioribus delictis " 
 [Mr. Kemble, i. 271, remarks that among these lesser crimes 
 homicide must be reckoned], "pro modo, pcena; equorum 
 pecoramque numero convicti multantur, pars multa? Regi, 
 vel civitati pars ipsi, qui vindicatur, vel propinquis ejus 
 exsolvitur." So 21 : " Suscipere tarn inimicitias, seu patris, 
 seu propinqui, quam amicitias, necesse est : nee implacabiles 
 durant. Luitur enim etiam homicidium certo armentorum ac 
 pecorum numero, recipitque satisfactionem universa domus ; 
 utiliter in publicum ; quia periculosiores sunt inimicitiae 
 juxta libertatem." On the growth of legislation on these 
 matters, see Mr. Tylor on " Primitive Society " in the Con- 
 temporary Review, May, 1873. 
 
 (28) Page 276. There is an elaborate scale of this kind 
 in the earliest monument of English jurisprudence, the Laws 
 of JEthelberht ; but we find the degrees of bodily injury 
 drawn out with no less care in the Laws of^Elfred 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 276. See the scale of Wergilds in the Laws 
 of .ZElfred, 27 et seqq. (Schmid, 86) and on the whole subject 
 see Kemble's chapter on " Fsehde and Wergyld." 
 
 (30) Page 277. See the Laws of Ine, 23, 24 ; 32, 33 
 (Schmid, 30, 34). We do not find this distinction in the 
 Laws of 2Ethelberht, 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. 
 
 2 i
 
 482 Notes on 
 
 (31) Page 278. On the royal wergild, and the payment 
 made by the Kentishmen for the blood of Mul and by the 
 Mercians for the blood of .zElfwine of Northumberland, see 
 Kemble, i. 279-287. 
 
 (32) Page 278. 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 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) Page 281. 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 284. See the article on Swiss Federal Eeform 
 in the British Quarterly Keview, April, 1873. 
 
 (35) Page 286. 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 con- 
 cern, 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
 
 Lecture VI. 483 
 
 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 Treploitcoi. 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 in- 
 habitants of British dependencies of any kind and the sub- 
 jects of Venice, Borne, or any other ruling city. The subjects 
 of Borne or Venice, and in exactly the same way the subjects 
 of Bern or Uri, were strictly subjects ( UntertJianen) ; 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 
 (Cives) ; their country may be said to be in a perioikic or 
 provincial relation, but they themselves are not personally 
 provincials or Trepioucoi, because they are British subjects, 
 and, if they take up their abode in the United Kingdom, they 
 can at once exercise all the rights of British subjects. 
 
 (36) Page 287. I have before me a pamphlet called Ver- 
 fassungs-Skizzen der freien und Hansestddte LubecJc, Bremen 
 und Hamburg, by Professor C. J. Wurm (Hamburg, 1841), 
 where (p. 115) I find this comment : " Das beiderstadtische 
 (Liibeck und Hamburg gemeinsam angehorende) Gebiet ist 
 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 
 Undersaten. 
 
 (37) Page 288. See History of Federal Government, i. 
 582-638. 
 
 (38) Page 290. I forbear from enlarging minutely upon 
 mediaeval Swiss history, because I trust to have opportunities 
 
 2 i 2
 
 484 Notes on 
 
 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 a varied form of political knowledge. 
 
 (39) Page 290. It would call for more minute knowledge 
 than we have to say what were the exact points of likeness 
 and unlikeness between the Lacedaemonian Treplot/coi and the 
 Italian allies of Kome. 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 TreptoiKoi. At the same time we 
 must remember that the Trepioitcoi, 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 291. 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 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 292. See Historical Essays, 2nd Series, p. 143.
 
 Lecture VI. 485 
 
 (42) Page 293.- Corinth at least could boast (Thucydides, 
 i. 38) of the good terms on which she stood with all her 
 colonies except Korkyra ; rjfieis Se ovB' avroi <f)afiev eVt T&> 
 VTTO TOVTWV vfipi^eaOdi KaToiKicrai, aXA,' eVt ra> yyeftoves re 
 elvai KOI ra eiKora Oavfid^eaOai. al <yovv aX\.cu aTroitciai, 
 ri/AWcriv 77yu,a<?, teal /iaXicrra VTTO airoiicwv arep^ofMeOa. 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 (Time. i. 56 : TOW eVt- 
 &r)/jiiovpyov$ . . . 01)9 Kara ero? e/caa-rov Koplvdioi, eVe/i/Troy), 
 and that even while Potidaia was a dependent ally of Athens. 
 So little did Athens meddle with the internal constitutions 
 of her dependencies.
 
 ( 486 ) 
 
 EEDE LECTURE. 
 
 (1) Page 297. It is plain however that something like 
 Comparative Philology began with Eoger Bacon, and even 
 before him, with Giraldus Cambrensis. One could hardly 
 ask for a better setting forth of the relation in which the 
 Komance 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 proprietas alicujus linguae distincta ab alia ; 
 ut Picardicum, et Gallicum, et Provinciale, et omnia idiom ata 
 a finibus Apuliee usque ad fines Hispaniae. Nam lingua 
 Latina est in his omnibus una et eadem, secundum substan- 
 tiam, sed variata secundum idiomata diversa." In the next 
 page he speaks of the Greek knowledge of Kobert 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 .... Graeco idiomati valde conformia.
 
 Notes on Rede Lecture. 487 
 
 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 Ydrise 
 dicuntur : et Duur lingua Britannica similiter aqua dicitur. 
 Item salem requirentes dicebant, Halgein ydorum; id est, 
 salem affer. Hal vero Greece sal dicitur, et lialeyn Britan- 
 nice. Lingua namque Britannica, propter diutinam quam 
 Britones, qui tune Trojani, et postea Britones a Bruto eorum 
 duce sunt vocati, post Trojse excidium moram in Graecia 
 fuerant, in multis Graeco idiomati conformis invenitur." 
 
 He then goes on to remark the interchange between the 
 initial 8 and the aspirate. "Hie autem mihi notabile 
 videtur, quod in uno verbo tot linguas convenire non invenio, 
 sicut in isto. Hal enim Graece, Halein Britannice, Halein 
 similiter Hibernice ; Halgein, g interposita, lingua praedicta. 
 Item sal Latine, quia, ut ait Priscianus, in quibusdam 
 dictionibus pro aspiratione ponitur s ; ut Hal Grace, sal 
 Latine ; Tiemi, semi ; Tiepta, septem, Sel Gallice, mutatione a 
 vocalis in e, a Latino ; additione t literae, salt Anglice, sout 
 Teutonice. Habetis ergo septein linguas, vel octo, in hac 
 una dictione plurimum concordantes." " 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 Britannicae omnia 
 fere vel Graeco conveniunt vel Latino. Graeci Ydor aquam 
 vocant, Britones Duur; salem Hal, Britones Haleiu; Mis, 
 Tis pro ego et tu, Britones autem Mi, Ti ; Onoma, Enou 
 Penta, Deca, Pimp, Dec. Item Latini frenum dicunt, et 
 tripodem, 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,
 
 488 Notes on 
 
 but Mr. Dimock gives the British words in their modern 
 shape. He says that he does not understand where Giraldus 
 found his mis and Us as Greek for ego and tu. I conceive 
 that what Giraldus had get hold of was the modern plurals 
 /Ltefc and creZ?. We must remember that in those centuries, 
 getting 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 300. I have collected a few passages of the 
 way in which Addison speaks of these matters. The name 
 " Gothic," glorious to us in one way from the memory of 
 Ulfilas and Theodoric, and no less glorious in another way 
 from its application, however strange, to the national archi- 
 tecture 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 mon- 
 strous 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, " w r hich, 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
 
 Rede Lecture. 489 
 
 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 Bru- 
 nanburh 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 build- 
 ing." 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 Eome with a 
 " Gothic cathedral " and says " how little " any one " in pro- 
 portion, 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 meanness 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 : 
 
 "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 sucli 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 ?
 
 490 Notes on 
 
 (3) Page 301. " 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 Lithuanians.' 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 307. I take my parable from the opening 
 sentence of Saxo G-rammaticus ; " Dan et Angul, a quibus 
 Danorum coepit origo, patre Humblo procreati, non solum 
 conditores gentis nostrse, 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, 
 summse 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 312. See Hist, of Fed. Government, i. 404, 
 451. 
 
 (6) Page 312. See Plutarch, Philopoimen, 21. 
 
 (7) Page 313. See Hist, of Fed. Government, i. 226.
 
 Rede Lecture. 491 
 
 (8) Page 314. While the language of Polybios 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 ^aa-cnvo^o^ written 
 in very ancient letters, and Mr. Warren (Greek Federal 
 Coinage, 45) quotes FALEIHN as the legend on the coins 
 of the city which in high-polite Attic was called *HXt9, but 
 which seems, even in the second century B.C., to have still 
 called itself 
 
 (9) Page 316. The first stage of this struggle was be- 
 tween 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 neighbouring part of Italy, in the first case 
 by the Eomans, in the second by the Normans. 
 
 (10) Page 316. See Knight's Normans in Sicily, 244, 
 334. 
 
 (11) Page 316. 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, Spicilosrium, iii. 40. 
 
 (12) Page 317. 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
 
 492 Notes on 
 
 "cherish the institutions of Hellas," though I do not 
 doubt that they are borne out by the facts. The exact 
 words of the Byzantine writer are: ol Se, etVe o>? yu/^Se- 
 7TOT6 /3ao-iXi/c?7<? evvota? aTroXeXau/core?, ^778' f EXX?7i/i/ca)- 
 repwv rpoTTwv eVi/ieXovyu-eyot, avTovo^wv Se /iaXt<rra epyoiv 
 avrnroiovfAevoi, eire opopoi 6We9 7T/309 Toy /cara TO. ftopeia rov 
 "Icrrpou /SacrtXeiWra, /iera roO crrpaTw tcr^vetz/ TroXXoS /cat 
 eTraipecrOai, r)6ecrl re Tot? e/cet ra Trapa cr<j)(t)v 
 OVK aTToSta^e/Jovre?, eiceivwv fcal cnreicracrdai, /cat rrrapa- 
 Baxreiv cr^>a9 %vveQevro. This is at the time of the submission 
 of the city to the Kussian Wladimir. The anonymous writer 
 speaks of course from a purely Byzantine point of view. But 
 it is odd to find him using the word 'EXX-^t/co? at all, as in 
 those days the word "EXX^z; and its derivatives commonly 
 meant pagan, as opposed to Christian. There is an example 
 in page 464 of the same volume. 
 
 (13) Page 318. On the exact position of Philip and Alex- 
 ander with regard to Greece, I have said what I have to say 
 in the Essay on Alexander in the Second Series of His- 
 torical Essays. But I will here quote the words of Bishop 
 Thirlwall, v. 479. "The honour of a seat in the Amphi- 
 ctyonic council, though conferred on the king, reflected upon 
 his people ; it was equivalent 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 318. See Strabo, v. 112 ; Appian, Mithr. 114. 
 There is something strange in the look of the forms 
 
 and Ta\\o<ypai,tcia. 
 
 (15) Page 319. Some one may ask why I speak of " monu- 
 mental stones " iu a city of brickwork like llavenna. It is
 
 Rede Lecture. 493 
 
 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 Eavenna, the 
 speech of the Roman Empire. The Greek inscriptions, in- 
 cluding 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 @T, 
 if nothing else, is clear enough in the mosaics of the 
 apses. 
 
 (16) Page 320. 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 320. 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 323. The epitaph of Nsevius, written by him- 
 self and preserved by Aulus Gellius, i. 24, 
 
 " Mortales immortales Here si foret fas, . 
 Flerent Divas Camense Ntevium poetam ; 
 Itaque, postquam est Orcino traditus thesauro 
 Obliti stint Komas 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 dicti studiosus erat . . ." 
 
 The Eoman Camenae and the Greek Musse are here care-
 
 494 Notes on 
 
 fully 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 Encyclo- 
 paedia Metropolitan^, 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 in- 
 spired 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 324. The Saturnian line of Naevius, 
 
 " Fato Metelli Komas fiunt consules," 
 
 and the answer to it, 
 
 " Dabunt malum Metelli Naavio poetae," 
 
 have surely much more in common with mediaeval 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, published by the Camden Society, p. 72. 
 
 (20) Page 324. See Livy, i. 26. 
 
 (21) Page 326. I have somewhere seen these words put 
 into the mouth of Queen Christina of Sweden. 
 
 (22) Page 329. 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.
 
 Reae Lecture. 495 
 
 (23) Page 329. The visit of Athanaric to Constantinople 
 is recorded by Ainmianus (xxvii. 5) and Zosimos (iv. 34), but 
 it is only in Jornandes (28) that we find this remarkable 
 speech put into his mouth : " Begiam urbem ingressus est, 
 miransque, * En,' inquit, ' cerno quod saepe incredulus audie- 
 bam, famaui videlicet tantse urbis,' et, hue illuc oculos volvens, 
 nunc situm urbis commeatumque navium, nunc moania clara 
 prospectans, miratur, populosque diversarum gentium, quasi 
 fonte in uno e diversis partibus scaturiente unda, sic quoque 
 militem ordinatum aspiciens : ' Deus,' inquit, ' sine dubio ter- 
 renus est Imperator, et quisquis ad versus eum nianum moverit, 
 ipse sui sanguinis reus exsistit.' " 
 
 (24) Page 329. Orosius, at the very end of his work, 
 records this famous declaration of Ataulf : " Nam ego quoque 
 ipsi virum quendam Narbonensem, illustris sub Theodosio 
 militiae, etiam religiosum, prudentem, et gravem, apud Beth- 
 leem oppidum Palaestinae beatissimo Hieronymo praesbytero 
 referentem audivi se familiarissimum Atthaulfo apud Nar- 
 bonum fuisse, ac de eo saepe sub testificatione didicisse quod 
 ille, quum esset animo, viribus, ingenioque nimius referre 
 solitus esset se in primis ardenter inhiasse ut, obliterato 
 Eomano nomine, Eomanum omne solum Gothorum imperium 
 et faceret et vocaret, essetque, ut, vulgariter loquar, Gothia 
 quod Eomania fuisset, fieret nunc Atthaulfus quod quondam 
 Caesar Augustus. At ubi multa experientia probavisset 
 neque Gothos ullo modo parere legibus posse propter effre- 
 natam barbariam, neque reipublicae interdici leges oportere, 
 sine quibus respublica non est respublica, elegisse se saltern 
 ut gloriam sibi de restituendo in integrum augendoque 
 Komano nomine Gothorum viribus quaereret, habereturque 
 apud posteros Romanae restitutionis auctor, postquam esse 
 non poterat inmutator."
 
 496 Notes on 
 
 (25) Page 329. See Gibbon, c. Ixv. (xli. 21, Milmau). 
 
 (26) Page 331. See the account of the repulse of Alaric 
 from the walls of Athens by the appearance of Athene and 
 Achilleus, Zosimos, V. 6. eiritov 'AXapt^o? Travcrrpana rrj 
 
 TO /iev ret^o? ewpa Trepivocrrova-av rr)i> irpo^a-^ov 
 , ft)? ecrriv avrrjv opdv ev rot? asyd\ijbacnv, u>7r\io-/jiev / rjv 
 KOL olov rot? einovaiv evicrraadat /xeXXovcrav, rot? Se repeat, 
 TrpoeaT&Ta TOV 'A^tXXea rov ripa> TOLOVTOV olov avrov rot? 
 Tpaxrlv eoei^ev "O/jt,r)pos, ore tear* opyrjv TW Oavdrw rov 
 Tlarp6/c\ov rtfAatpwv liroKe^ei,. Tavrrjv o 'AXapi^o? rrjv o-^riv 
 ov/c eveyfcwv Trdarj? /j,ev d-TreaTi) Kara T^? TroXew? ey^eip^a-eca^, 
 7reKtjpvKvero Be. 
 
 (27) Page 331. See Plutarch, Demetrios, 10, for the title 
 of KaTai/3aTr;<? 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 
 ithyphallics of Douris of Samos, in Athenaios, vi. 62, 63. 
 
 (28) Page 332. 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 332. For the whole scene see Finlay, Byzan- 
 tine Empire, i. 452. 
 
 (30) Page 334. For the dealings of Hugh the Great with 
 King Lewis from-beyond-Sea, see Norman Conquest, i. 
 217-220. 
 
 (31) Page 334. See Gibbon, c. Ixv. 12, 8, Milman.
 
 Rede Lecture. 497 
 
 (32) Page 335. See Creasy, History of the Ottoman 
 Turks, i. 241. 
 
 (33) Page 336. In an Inaugural Address delivered to 
 the University of Saint Andrews, March 19th, 1869, by James 
 Anthony Froude, M.A., Eector 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, 
 Professors, are, with rare exceptions, ecclesiastics themselves." 
 See Saturday Eeview, April 3rd, 1869. 
 
 The year before the Eight Honourable Eobert Lowe made 
 a speech 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 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. Eev. February 8, 1868. 
 
 2 K
 
 498 Notes on 
 
 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 any- 
 thing 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 enthusiasm 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. Kev. April 29, 1871. 
 
 I suppose that things like these may be safely said in the 
 University of Saint Andrews, at the Institution of Civil Engi- 
 neers, or at some Institution at Liverpool. But it would be 
 curious to see what would happen, if Mr. Fronde 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 ex- 
 clude mathematics, no less than modern history and natural 
 science in the presence of any Cambridge man of any 
 standing.
 
 Rede Lecture. 499 
 
 (34) Page 336. I have been myself striving for years to 
 bring about the foundation of a reasonable School of History 
 at Oxford, 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. 
 
 2 K 2
 
 ( 501 ) 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ACHAIAN. 
 
 Achaian League, analogy between 
 its constitution and that of the 
 United States, 33 ; its origin and 
 character, 92, 386; modification 
 of democracy under, 216 ; nature 
 of its assembly, 216-219 ; way of 
 voting in, 223-224 ; analogies 
 with Eome, 226, 229 ; legislation 
 of Polybios for, 313 ; annexation 
 of Sparta by, 387. 
 
 Addison, his use of the word Gothic, 
 488, 489. 
 
 Adolfi, Johann, his Chronicle of 
 Dithmarschen, 415. 
 
 Adoption, working of the Eoman 
 law of, 82, 399 ; its influence on 
 the gens, 104; nature of at Athens, 
 400. 
 
 Adrtstos, his slaughter by Aga- 
 memnon, 480. 
 
 Adulterer, lawfully slain, 479. 
 
 Alfred, laws of, 351, 479, 481. 
 
 JElfwine, wergild paid for, 482. 
 
 jflthelberht, effects of his baptism^ 
 168 ; his laws, 481. 
 
 Aetius, history of, 361 ; nations in 
 his army, ib. 
 
 jEtolia, city life never fully deve- 
 loped in, 89; its importance in 
 later times, 92; character of its 
 League, 386. 
 
 AMERICA. 
 
 Africa, kingdom of the Vandals in, 
 
 179. 
 Agamemnon, his imperial position, 
 
 204 ; his relation to the Assembly, 
 
 205. 
 Age, names of office expressive of, 
 
 72. 
 
 Ayer publicus, the same as Folk- 
 land, 117. 
 'Ayopjj, use of the word, 71 ; applied 
 
 to the divine assembly, 203. 
 Ato-u/m/reia compared with Eoman 
 
 dictatorship, 428. 
 
 Akarnania, city life never fully de- 
 veloped in, 89 ; its importance in 
 
 later times, 92. 
 Alaric, his march from Athens to 
 
 Eome, 57 ; his Eoman offices, 
 
 162, 449; his repulse from Athens, 
 
 496. 
 
 Ally, consuls at, 27. 
 Alexander of Epeiros, 159. 
 Alexander the Great, position of, 
 
 160. 
 Alltn, John, his explanation of the 
 
 growth of kingship, 143 ; quoted, 
 
 409, 428. 
 Allies, Italian, compared with the 
 
 Lacedaemonian rrepi'oiKot, 484. 
 America, British, its relation to the 
 
 United States, 81.
 
 502 
 
 Index. 
 
 AMPHIKTYOSIC. 
 
 Amphiklyonic League, its constitu- 
 tion, 88 ; its witness to the early 
 state of Greece, ib. 
 
 Amyntas, acquitted by the Mace- 
 donian assembly, 463. 
 
 Analogies, different classes of, 20. 
 
 *Afa|, use of the word by Isokrates, 
 365. 
 
 Ancient and Modern Studies, no real 
 distinction between, 303-305. 
 
 Ancus, value of his legend, 437. 
 
 Andokides, speech of Lysias against, 
 486. 
 
 Andorra, commonwealth of, 455. 
 
 Angul and Dan, legend of, 490. 
 
 Anointing, introduction of the cere- 
 mony, 167; its political effect, 
 168. 
 
 Antioch, recovered by Nikephoros, 
 349. 
 
 Antoninus Caracalla, effect of his 
 edict, 391. 
 
 Antrustions\ Frankish, answer to 
 the English Thegnas, 259*. 
 
 Appeal of murder, its origin and 
 abolition, 274. 
 
 Aguce Sextice, its influence in Gaul, 
 59. 
 
 Arch, invented more than once, 
 31. 
 
 Architecture, Greek, origin of, 348. 
 
 Archons at Athens, their origin and 
 history, 149, 154, 156, 439 ; called 
 kings, 440 ; not presidents of the 
 assembly, 442. 
 
 "A.pxa>v jSatrtXev? at Athens, his ori- 
 gin, 149. 
 
 Areiopagos compared with the 
 Eoman Senate, 227 ; its temper, 
 469. 
 
 Ares, his wounds and possible 
 death, 461. 
 
 Argos, its union with Corinth, 91, 
 
 ASSEMBLY. 
 
 386 ; history of kingship at, 149, 
 435. 
 
 Aristeides, reforms of, 251. 
 
 Aristocracy, primitive traces of, 65 ; 
 meaning of the word, 77, 194, 368, 
 369; peculiarly republican, 266; 
 nature of in ruling cities, 266- 
 267; fertile in able administra- 
 tors, 267 ; compared with demo- 
 cracy, 268; inconsistent with 
 kingship, 269-270; different 
 forms of its growth, 269-270; 
 admission of strangers to, 270; 
 government of dependencies by, 
 292; misuse of the word, 369; 
 growth of at Eome, 459. 
 
 Aristotle, knowledge of in the 
 Middle Ages, 297 ; his doctrine 
 of mixed governments, 363; his 
 definition of aristocracy, 368; 
 of the city, 373. 
 
 Arkadia, language of, 314, 491. 
 
 Army, the same as the assembly, 
 197 ; growth of, in cities, ib. 
 
 Arnold, Dr., quoted, 370. 
 
 Aryan nations, their three chief 
 races, 38; their relations ex- 
 plained only by the comparative 
 method, 51 ; their primitive 
 state, 52; dispersion of their 
 tribes in Europe, 54; their pri- 
 mitive institutions not borrowed 
 from one another, 59; their 
 common origin, 61, 63, 67 ; their 
 early vocabulary, 63 ; their pri- 
 mitive form of government, 65, 
 200. 
 
 Asstmbly, various names for, 71, 
 459 ; nature of in Macedonia, 159, 
 207, 208, 462, 4t3; sovereign 
 nature of, 190, 213, 241, 243; 
 action of each citizen in, 190, 191 ; 
 representation unknown in those
 
 Index. 
 
 503 
 
 ASYLUM. 
 
 of cities, 192 ; history of among 
 tribes, 193 ; distinction between 
 aristocratic and democratic, 194, 
 195 ; its identity with the army, 
 197 ; instances of military assem- 
 blies, 198, 199; character of in 
 heroic Greece, 201 ; on Olympos, 
 202 ; relation of the kings to, 203- 
 206 ; abeyance of in Ithake, 205 ; 
 way of voting in, 206 ; nature of 
 in Molossis, 207, 223, 224, 225; 
 origin and character of, at Athens, 
 211, 212, 213 ; its relation to the 
 other powers of the state, 214; 
 character of at Sparta, 215, 464 ; 
 under the Achaian League, 218 ; 
 in England, 218, 219 ; shrinks up 
 where representation is not intro- 
 duced, 219, 222 ; history of among 
 the Franks, 220, 466 ; nature of 
 local assemblies, 221; nature of 
 in Federal states, 222 ; different 
 forms of at Eome, 225, 226 ; its 
 relations to the Senate, 228, 
 230; comparison of Eoman and 
 Athenian assemblies, 229 ; ex- 
 tinction of under the Empire, 
 230; change in the character of 
 in mediaeval Europe, 231, 233 ; 
 formed of estates, 231, 232 ; traces 
 of primary assemblies in England, 
 236, 237; at Florence, 237, 238; 
 in Friesland and Dithmarschen, 
 238 ; in the Forest Cantons, 238, 
 240 ; aristocratic primary assem- 
 blies in Poland and Venice, 240, 
 241 ; presidency of in different 
 states, 442, 443; Athenian, held 
 away from Athens, 460 ; Eoman, 
 held at Veii, ib.; seats in, 461; 
 attendance enforced in, 466, 467. 
 Asylum, meaning of the Eoman 
 legend of, 252. 
 
 AUSTRIA. 
 
 Ataulf, change in his purpose, 329, 
 495; his conquests in Spain, 
 333. 
 
 Athanaric, effect of Eoman greatness 
 on, 329, 495. 
 
 Athens, origin of, 86, 107; its in- 
 significance in later Greek history, 
 92 ; traces of earlier inhabitants 
 at, 107; character of the later 
 tribes at, 108; origin of the 
 8fjfj.oi, 109; history of kingship 
 at, 149, 154, 430, 439; cases 
 of military assemblies in her 
 history, 199; true character of 
 her democracy, 210-215; short- 
 ness of her real life, 212, 463; 
 contrasted with the later Greek 
 democracies, 216; with Eome, 
 227-230 ; the people called king 
 or tyrant, 229 ; history of nobility 
 at, 247, 251-253 ; law of private 
 vengeance, 273 ; tyrannicide law- 
 ful at, ib. ; its state in the eleventh 
 century, 331; grants of citizen- 
 ship, 384; origin of the archon- 
 ship, 439; presidency of assem- 
 blies at, 442 ; Constantino general 
 at, 446 ; military levies at, 460 ; 
 submission of its armies to the 
 assembly, ib. 
 
 Attic dialect of Greek, its perman- 
 ence, 313, 314. 
 
 Attica, union of its towns, 91, 382, 
 386; remains of earlier inhabitants 
 in, 403 ; party divisions in, ib. 
 
 Attus Clausus, his migration to 
 Eome, 109. 
 
 Augustus, Chlodwig so called, 449. 
 
 Ausserstand, nature of at Bern, 478. 
 
 Austria, House of, later Emperors 
 chosen from, 454.
 
 450 
 
 Index. 
 
 BAJAZET. 
 
 B. 
 
 Bajazet described as Caesar by 
 Timour, 329; invested by the 
 nominal caliph, 335. 
 
 Balder, death of, 461. 
 
 Ballot, fallacies about, 465. 
 
 Barbarians opposed to Greeks, 83 ; 
 alliance with, how looked on in 
 Greece, 372. 
 
 Barbarus, use of the word in the 
 Teutonic codes, 392. 
 
 Basil the Macedonian, his corre- 
 spondence with Lewis the Second, 
 353. 
 
 Basil the Second, his triumph at 
 Athens, 332. 
 
 Bao-iXfvs, origin of the word, 71; 
 its use, 138, 425 ; its meaning at 
 Athens, 149, 154 ; applied to the 
 Emperors, 161,447; dispute about 
 the title, 353-355; its use by 
 Hesiod, 430; by John Lydus, 
 445 ; distinguished from Tvpawos, 
 453. 
 
 Bao-iXto-cra, wife of the king-archon 
 so called, 436. 
 
 Belisarius, consulship of, 161, 446. 
 
 Berkeley, Lord, pays the wergild of 
 Lord Lisle, 482. 
 
 Bern, lessons of its history, 131; 
 character of its government, 266, 
 267, 292 ; origin of its aristocracy, 
 269; its dominion over its sub- 
 ject states, 287,290; extends its 
 dominion by purchase, 289 ; its. 
 analogy with Home, 423; origin 
 of the name, 424 ; Ausserstand 
 at, 478. 
 
 Btrn, Dietrichs-, or Verona, 131. 
 
 Bic'imeral system, its origin, 21, 
 234 ; necessary in a federal state, 
 234, 2?5. 
 
 CELTS. 
 
 Bishops, their position and titles in 
 southern Europe, 114; among 
 Celts and Teutons, 114, 115, 407 ; 
 position of at lona, 432. 
 
 Bluntschli, Dr. C., quoted, 395, 423. 
 
 Boetius, consulship of, 161, 446. 
 
 Bosporos, Greek kingdom of, 317. 
 
 Brecon, inscription at, 482. 
 
 Britain, character of its history, 47 ; 
 spoken of as another world, 351 ; 
 effect of its insular position, 352. 
 
 Briton, wergild of lower than that 
 of an Englishman, 277, 481. 
 
 Brunariburh, battle of, 172. 
 
 Bulgarians, their history, 355 ; He- 
 brew names of their kings, 496. 
 
 Bundesstaat, distinguished from 
 Staatenbund, 387. 
 
 Burghership, hereditary, the foun- 
 dation of the ancient common- 
 wealths, 195, 281 ; forms of, in 
 England, 282. 
 
 Burnet, Bishop, his travels in Swit- 
 zerland, 478. 
 
 C. 
 
 Ccesar, his desire to be king, 427. 
 Caius, Emptror, restores the co- 
 
 mitia, 469. 
 
 Caliphate, its analogy with the Em- 
 pire, 333-335. 
 
 Camence, opposed to the Muses, 493. 
 Canaan, kings of, 170. 
 Canterbury, archbishops of, spoken 
 
 of as popes, 352. 
 Capitol, use of the name at Toulouse, 
 
 27,344; at Koln, ib. 
 Capitouls, magistrates of Toulouse, 
 
 344. 
 Cavalry, connexion of the word with 
 
 chivalry, 73. 
 Celts, character of their history, 50 ; 
 
 the vanguard of Aryan migration
 
 Index. 
 
 505 
 
 CEOEL. 
 
 westward, 53; their position in 
 Europe, 358. 
 
 Ceorl, opposed to Eorl, 250. 
 
 C'erdic, permanence of his house, 
 178. 
 
 Century, equivalent to the hundred, 
 117; assembly of centuries at 
 Kome, 225. 
 
 Chalons, battle of, branches of the 
 Aryan family engaged at, 56. 
 
 Chaonia, abolition of kingship in, 
 158 ; its constitution, 443. 
 
 Charix, Charites, origin of the word, 
 8, 9, 341. 
 
 Charles of Anjou, his conquest of 
 Marseilles, 316, 491. 
 
 Clinrles the Great, his union of the 
 Eoman Empire and the German 
 kingship, 162 ; his imperial titles, 
 353. 
 
 Chapters, growth of oligarchy in, 
 465. 
 
 Cherson, Greek commonwealth of, 
 317. 
 
 Chevy Chase, notice of, by Addison, 
 489. 
 
 Chlodwig, consulship of, 162, 449. 
 
 Christianity, its Semitic origin, 43 ; 
 the religion of the Eoman Empire, 
 ib. ; opposed to exclusive privi- 
 leges of birth, 167 ; influence of 
 the Greek tongue on, 319. 
 
 Cicero, plebeian augur, 254. 
 
 Gild, use of the word, 366. 
 
 Cities, formed by the union of vil- 
 lages, 89, 380-382; their history 
 in England and elsewhere, 130, 
 200 ; French and English, com- 
 pared, 377, 379. 
 
 Citizenship, nature of, in Greece, 90 ; 
 first freely, then sparingly granted, 
 to strangers, 280 ; grants of at 
 Athens, 384; at Sparta, 385. 
 
 COMITIA. 
 
 City, one form of the state, 80; 
 Greek conception of, 83; formed 
 of gentes, 90; idea of, never 
 fully developed among the Teu- 
 tonic nations, 101. 
 
 Cittadini at Venice, their position, 
 249. 
 
 Clans, nature of among the Celts, 
 102; compared with the Eoman 
 gentes, 394. 
 
 Classical, bad effects of the distinc- 
 tion implied in the name, 299- 
 301. 
 
 "Classical" languages, true way of 
 studying, 336-339. 
 
 Claudia gens, its origin, 110. 
 
 Claudii, their admission at Eome, 
 270 ; their migration, 405. 
 
 Claudius, Emperor, his speech on 
 the gradual extension of Eoman 
 citizenship, 97, 390. 
 
 Clergy, their position as an estate 
 of the realm, 22. 
 
 Clientage, its nature at Eome, 260- 
 262. 
 
 Colonies, Greek, their extent, 315, 
 317 ; their relation to the mother 
 country, 482, 485. 
 
 Comitatus, its Teutonic form modi- 
 fied by Eoman ideas, 174; a 
 common Aryan institution, 257 ; 
 its history among Greeks and 
 Teutons, 258; groundwork of 
 modern nobility, 258, 263; slighter 
 traces of at Eome, 260; its con- 
 nexion with clientage, 260, 262, 
 478; nature of in Macedonia, 
 262 ; implies a king or personal 
 leader, 262; its connexion with 
 vassalage, 476. 
 
 Comitia at Eome, forms of, 225 ; way 
 of voting in, 225, 468 ; restored by 
 Caius, 469.
 
 506 
 
 Index. 
 
 COMMONS. 
 
 Commons, Tlouse of, origin of, 233. 
 
 Commune, equivalent to the mark, 
 116 ; its position in Switzerland, 
 284-286. 
 
 Comparative method, its results, 302. 
 
 Condominium, instances of in Ger- 
 many and Switzerland, 287, 483. 
 
 Confederation, German, springs out 
 of the kingdom, 181. 
 
 Confederations, their nature in later 
 Greece, 93; nature of their as- 
 semblies, 192 ; military assemblies 
 more usual in, 199; bicameral 
 system needed in, 234, 235. 
 
 Consul, Consulship,usesofihe names, 
 28 ; at Alby, 28, 344 ; origin of at 
 Eome, 153; kingly powers of, 
 156, 369 ; consulship held by the 
 emperors, 161 ; its revived dignity 
 in later times, ib. ; checks on its 
 power, 227; definition of by 
 Dionysios, 370 ; origin of at Tou- 
 louse, 344; held by Theodoric, 
 445; by Boetius and Belisarius, 
 446. 
 
 Constantine, general at Athens, 161, 
 446. 
 
 Constantinople, its origin, 319 ; posi- 
 tion of in mediaeval imagination, 
 320. 
 
 Corinth, its union with Argos, 91, 
 386 ; oligarchy of the Bacchiads 
 at, 439 ; her relations to her 
 colonies, 485. 
 
 Coronation, meaning and effect of 
 the rite, 142. 
 
 Councils, not necessarily formed 
 with regard to birth, 245. 
 
 Coote, Mr. H. C., his view of Eoman 
 institutions in England, 424. 
 
 Cox, Mr. a. W., quoted, 341. 
 
 Coxe, Archdeacon, his travels in 
 Switzerland, 478. 
 
 DEMOCRACY. 
 
 Crusaders, their jurisprudence in 
 the East, 343. 
 
 Culture, application of the com- 
 parative method to, 13 ; name 
 wanted for its study, 16 ; its re- 
 lations to the other sciences, 17. 
 
 Curia, an union of gentes, 104; 
 answers to the Spartan u>prj, 106 ; 
 and the Teutonic hundred, 117. 
 
 Curtius, Ernst, quoted, 346, 398, 
 403, 404. 
 
 Cyn, kin, cynecyn, connexion of the 
 words with cyning, king, 69, 164, 
 166, 451. 
 
 CynMaford, 477. 
 
 Cyning, king, origin and cognates 
 of the name, 69, 164, 166 ; its 
 connexion with ganaka, 450. 
 
 Cyprus, Frank kingdom of, 344. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dante, his treatise De Monarchid, 452. 
 
 Dawkins, Mr. W. B., quoted, 357. 
 
 Dead languages, no such thing, 
 302. 
 
 Demttrios Poliorketes, Athenian 
 flattery of, 331, 496. 
 
 Democracy, primitive, traces of, 65 ; 
 definition of, 194, 214 ; form taken 
 by, in Mediaeval Italy, 237 ; go- 
 vernment of dependencies by, 
 292; description of by Perikles, 
 464 ; its history and character at 
 Athens, 210-215 ; compared with 
 later Greek democracies, 216 ; 
 modified under the Achaian 
 League, 218 ; pure democracy not 
 applicable to a large state, 218- 
 221. 
 
 t, at Athens, originally village 
 communities, 108, 403 ; their 
 local character, 109.
 
 Index. 
 
 507 
 
 Ar)/Lio?, uses of the word, 87, 380. 
 
 Diadem, use of, 161 ; introduced by 
 Diocletian, 447. 
 
 Denmark, despotism lawful in, 350 ; 
 its relations to the Duchies, ib. 
 
 Dependencies repeat the institutions 
 of the mother country, 24; go- 
 vernment of, 292, 375 ; their rela- 
 tions to the mother country, 482, 
 483. 
 
 Dictatorship, nature of at Rome, 
 156, 427 ; perpetual, distinguished 
 from kingship, 141. 
 
 Dietrichsbern, name of Verona, 424. 
 
 Dimock, Mr. J. F., quoted, 488. 
 
 Diocletian introduces the diadem, 
 447. 
 
 Dion Chrysostom, his definition of 
 aristocracy, 369 ; his theory of 
 kingship, 429, 447. 
 
 DUhmarschen, retention of the old 
 freedom in, 121, 238; local nomen- 
 clature of, 395; its history, 415. 
 
 Dominion, looked on as property, 
 289. 
 
 Dorians, antiquity of their three 
 tribes, 401. 
 
 Atwaoreia, nature and instances of, 
 439. 
 
 E. 
 
 Ealdor, Ealdorman, origin of the 
 title, 118 ; chiefs of the tribe, 119, 
 165 ; give way to kings, 165 ; re- 
 turn to their government, 170. 
 
 Earl, Eorl, Jarl, Scandinavian, 172, 
 173 ; history and meaning of the 
 word, 259, 474, 475 ; immemorial 
 nobility of the Eortas, 246, 250 ; 
 give way to the Thegns, 257, 
 263. 
 
 Edom, Dukes of, 170, 451. 
 
 ENGLAND. 
 
 Ehu, Eoh, cognate with equus, 
 366. 
 
 'HXia/a, origin of the word, 365. 
 
 Mis, foundation of, 89, 381; lan- 
 guage of its inscription, 491. 
 
 Elizabeth, Queen, her English de- 
 scent, 456. 
 
 "EXXqi/, use of the name, 349. 
 
 Empire, its effect on the city and 
 the provinces, 99; its effects in 
 Germany and Italy, 135 ; open to 
 all baptized men, 139 ; united 
 with the German kingship, 162 ; 
 effects of its union with the 
 Frankish kingdom, 181 ; lawyers' 
 theory of its origin, 453 ; becomes 
 purely elective, 454 ; then practi- 
 cally hereditary, ib. 
 
 Emperors, origin of their powers, 
 78, 174, 428 ; union of the various 
 magistracies in their hands, 161 ; 
 kingly language how far applied 
 to, 161 ; alone called monarchs, 
 171 ; contrast between the earliest 
 and latest, 187, 188 ; their deal- 
 ings with the senate and as- 
 sembly, 231 ; retention and imi- 
 tation of their titles, 329 ; their 
 consulships, 433; their tribuni- 
 tian power, 433, 444; their soli- 
 tary position, 447. 
 
 England, continuity of its political 
 history, 46 ; no true Eoman ele- 
 ment in, 47, 133; ambassadors 
 from at the court of Justinian, 
 55; the Teutonic constitution 
 begins afresh in, 123; modifica- 
 tion of the mark and the yau in, 
 124; union of its several king- 
 doms, 126, 177, 182; growth of 
 the cities hindered by stronger 
 national unity, 130 ; position of 
 in general Teutonic history, 135 ;
 
 508 
 
 Index. 
 
 ENGLISH. 
 
 origin or history of kingship in, 
 165, 177; continuity of the royal 
 succession in, 178; continuity of 
 assemblies in, 231, 233 ; no true 
 nobility in, 233 ; powers of Par- 
 liament in, 242 ; effect of feudal 
 ideas in, 260; its relation to 
 India, 286. 
 
 English, their relation to other 
 Teutonic nations, 45 ; their three 
 homes, 48; the Teutonic consti- 
 tution brought by them into 
 Britain, 122. 
 
 English language, Eomance elements 
 in, 421. 
 
 Epeiros, the older condition of 
 Greece continued in, 89, 158 ; its 
 importance in later times, 92; 
 history of kingship in, ib. ; be- 
 comes a Greek commonwealth, 
 159. 
 
 Ephors, presidents of the Spartan 
 assembly, 442. 
 
 Estates, their nature in England and 
 France, 22 ; representation of, 
 231, 232 ; system of, broke down 
 in England, 233. 
 
 'Eratpot, answers to the English 
 gesftas, 257, 262. 
 
 Eternal, title of Eome, 44. 
 
 Eupatrids, Athenian, their nobility 
 immemorial, 247; its probable 
 origin, 251, 472; loss of their 
 political power, 252; still pre- 
 ferred for high offices, 255. 
 
 Exeter, position of in English his- 
 tory, 130, 133, 423. 
 
 F. 
 
 Fcuhde, feud, right of, 479. 
 Feudalism, its origin and working 
 
 FROTJDE. 
 
 in France and England, 260; 
 growth of, 344. 
 
 Filioque, interpolation of, 493. 
 
 Finlay, Mr., origin of his history, 
 349; quoted, 491. 
 
 Fins, position of, in Europe, 359. 
 
 Five Boroughs, confederacy of, 130. 
 
 Flamens at Eome, always patrician, 
 254. 
 
 Florence, parliaments of, 237, 238. 
 
 Falkland, the same as a ger public us, 
 117. 
 
 Foreigner, meaning of the word in 
 English boroughs, 281. 
 
 Forest Cantons, retention of the old 
 freedom in, 121. 
 
 France, its origin, 182 ; strictly 
 hereditary character of its crown, 
 182, 429 ; effect of feudal ideas 
 in, 260. 
 
 Franchise, various forms of in Eng- 
 land, 282, 283 ; how attained in 
 boroughs, 283. 
 
 Franks, their place among Teutonic 
 nations, 126; history and divi- 
 sion of their kingdom, 172, 180 ; 
 growth of the power of their 
 kings, 181 ; union of their king- 
 dom with the Empire, ib. 
 
 Freeman, various classes below, 248, 
 249. 
 
 Freemen, their history in English 
 boroughs, 282. 
 
 French, Kings and Dukes of, 333, 
 334. 
 
 French language, Teutonic element 
 in, 420. 
 
 Friesland, retains its primitive as- 
 semblies, 238. 
 
 Frithigern, his titles, 452. 
 
 Froude, Mr. J. A., his account of 
 university studies, 497.
 
 Index. 
 
 509 
 
 GAL ATI A. 
 
 G. 
 
 Galatia, Greek influence on, 318. 
 
 Ganaka, connexion of the word 
 with king and cyning, 166, 450. 
 
 Oau, its relation to the shire, 118, 
 418; the territory of the tribe, 
 118; authorities on, 412; name 
 not known in England, 417. 
 
 Gaul, Teutonic character of its 
 later political institutions, 128; 
 Greek and Eoman civilization in, 
 362. 
 
 Gemeinde, equivalent to the mark, 
 116; their position in Switzer- 
 land, 284-286. 
 
 Generals, powers of, at Athens, 155 ; 
 their special power in war times, 
 198. 
 
 Tevos, gens, or clan, use of the word, 
 72; its special importance in 
 ancient Italy, 96, 101 ; its various 
 forms, 102 ; community of blood 
 its original idea, 103, 398; mo- 
 difications in later times, 104 ; its 
 abiding importance in Kome, 
 106; its connexion with tribes 
 and Srifjioi, 109 ; names of gentes 
 in England, 103 ; its form as a 
 village community, 116 ; at Koine, 
 compared with the Celtic clans, 
 394; with the German geschlech- 
 ter, ib.; hereditary character of, 
 401. 
 
 Gentilis, Cicero's definition of, 398. 
 Germany, its history modified by its 
 connexion with the Empire, 46 ; 
 changes in after the time of 
 Tacitus, 122 ; history of the cities 
 in, 131; growth of the modern 
 kingdoms of, 140, 425, 426 ; its 
 kingdom sinks into a confedera- 
 
 GREEOK. 
 
 tion, 181; modern Empire a re- 
 vival of the kingdom, 181, 454. 
 
 Geschlechter, German, answer to the 
 Koman gentes, 394. 
 
 GesiZas, answer to the Greek eratpoi, 
 257. 
 
 Gibbon, quoted, 349. 
 
 Gibeon, a free city, 170. 
 
 Giraldus Cambrensis, germs of com- 
 parative philology in, 486, 487. 
 
 Gladstone, Mr., his defence of the 
 ninth book of the Iliad, 425. 
 
 Goddesses, presence of, in the divine 
 council and assembly, 202, 203. 
 
 Gods, children of, unknown in the 
 Italian mythology, 150, 437 ; con- 
 ception of in Greece, 201, 202 ; 
 their council and assembly, 202 ; 
 death of in Scandinavia and 
 Greece, 461. 
 
 Goths, history of their kingdom in 
 Spain, 179 ; preservers of Eoman 
 monuments, 349. 
 
 Gothic, use of the word, 299. 
 
 Graubunden, retention of the old 
 freedom in, 121; dominion of, 
 over the Valtelina, 291. 
 
 Greece, its physical character, 39, 
 346; common origin of its in- 
 habitants with those of Italy, 51, 
 54 ; early political institutions of, 
 66; its pre-historic state, 86; 
 growth of city life in, 87 ; federal 
 period in, 92 ; no true national life 
 in, 94 ; effect of the Persian wars 
 on, ib. ; its colonies, 95, 314, 
 317, 347, 348; connexion of its 
 mythical and its historic state, 
 127 ; nature of early kingship in, 
 144, 201, 203-205; its influence 
 on the East, 317, 318 ; on Rome, 
 318; on Christianity, 319, 320 
 on the Byzantine Empire, 319
 
 510 
 
 Index. 
 
 GKEEK. 
 
 its modern revival, 320, 321 ; its 
 indirect influence on modern 
 times, 322; motherland of the 
 Asiatic Greeks, 346; traditions 
 of non-Aryan nations in, 380; 
 nearness of its great cities, 388. 
 
 Greek language, ignorance of, in the 
 middle ages, 297 ; its special con- 
 nexion with Latin, 315 ; its rela- 
 tion to modern languages, 306 ; its 
 history, 314-319 ; permanence of 
 its Attic dialect, 314, 315 ; its use 
 in Sicily, 316; in the East, 318 ; 
 at Eome, ib. ; its relation to 
 Christianity, 319 ; knowledge of, 
 in the thirteenth century, 488. 
 
 Greek church, its character and per- 
 manence, 320. 
 
 Greek nation, modern, origin of, 318 ; 
 its difficulties, 320, 321. 
 
 Greeks, their progress and history, 
 39-42 ; a nation as contrasted 
 with barbarians, 83; feeling of 
 brotherhood among, 372. 
 
 Grimm, Jacob, quoted, 408. 
 
 Grote, Mr., his defence of Athenian 
 democracy, 211; quoted, 379,380, 
 398, 402. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hadrian, his archonship at Athens, 
 155, 441. 
 
 Hannibal, compared with Buona- 
 parte, 371. 
 
 Hannibalianus, called Bex, 449. 
 
 Harits, etymology of the word, 8, 
 341. 
 
 Harold Harfagra, Norway united 
 under, 173. 
 
 Heathen, origin of the name, 113, 407. 
 
 Hebrews, judges of, 170. 
 
 Henry III., Emperor, first king of 
 the Eomans, 162. 
 
 INTERREX. 
 
 Henry VII 7., of England, an elective 
 king, 220. 
 
 Heptarchy, name and thing un- 
 known, 172. 
 
 Hereditary succession, its introduc- 
 tion, 169. 
 
 Heretnga, Hcrzog, equivalent to eal- 
 dorman, 119 ; answers to the Dux 
 of Tacitus, 413. 
 
 Hesiod, his language as to kings, 
 430. 
 
 Hill-forts, growth of, into cities, 86, 
 378, 379. 
 
 History, how to be studied, 307- 
 310, 336-339. 
 
 Homer, his true parallels, 301. 
 
 Horse, titles formed from its various 
 names, 72, 73. 
 
 House of Lords, its judicial power, 
 470. 
 
 Hundred, equivalent to the curia 
 and the mfBrj, 117; made up of 
 marks, 119; authorities on, 412; 
 its nature, 413. 
 
 Hungarians, their history, 359. 
 
 I. 
 
 Iberians, position of, in Europe, 358. 
 
 Ida begins kingship in Northumber- 
 land, 173. 
 
 Iliad, question of the genuineness 
 of its ninth and tenth books, 425. 
 
 llios, foundation of, 87. 
 
 Imperium, effect of the doctrine of, 
 370. 
 
 India, its relation to England, how 
 far perioikic, 286. 
 
 Ine, laws of, 481. 
 
 Ing, Teutonic patronymic ending, 
 395. 
 
 Interrex, interregnum, origin of the
 
 Index. 
 
 511 
 
 INVENTIONS. 
 
 names, 147; office always patri- 
 cian, 255, 431. 
 
 Inventions, cases of their independ- 
 ent occurrence, 31. 
 
 lona, abbots and bishops of, 432. 
 
 Ionic Tribes, nature of, 403. 
 
 Ireland, repetition of English in- 
 stitutions in, 25. 
 
 Isokrates, his definition of demo- 
 cracy, 363; his exhortations to 
 Philip, 373, 376. 
 
 Italy, common origin of its inha- 
 bitants with those of Greece, 51 ; 
 early political institutions of, 66 ; 
 city life less developed in, than in 
 Greece, 95; its history largely 
 federal, 97 ; its institutions more 
 primitive than those of Greece, 
 100 ; influence of the gens in, 101 ; 
 Teutonic character of its medi- 
 seval polity, 128 ; its parallel with 
 ancient Greece, 129 ; develop- 
 ment of the cities in, 131; mo- 
 dern kingdoms in, 140, 421 ; 
 nature of its mediaeval demo- 
 cracies, 237, 238 ; extent of Greek 
 colonization in, 348 ; comparative 
 rarity of great cities in, 388 ; ori- 
 gin of its ancient towns, ib. 
 Ithake, many kings in, 146, 173, 
 430 ; no assembly held in, during 
 the absence of Odysseus, 205. 
 
 J. 
 
 Jarl, Karl, and Thrall, legend of 
 
 their creation, 250. 
 Jerusalem, assizes of, 25. 
 Joseph the Second, last king of the 
 
 Komans, 162, 449. 
 Judah, hereditary succession of its 
 
 kings, 429. 
 
 KINGS. 
 
 Judges among the Hebrews and 
 Goths, 170. 
 
 Judicial Power, gradually separated 
 from the legislative, 242, 243. 
 
 Julian, his use of the Greek lan- 
 guage, 318. 
 
 Jupiter, Alfred's account of, 450. 
 
 Jus imaginum, at Eome, 256. 
 
 Jus Latii, meaning of, 390. 
 
 Justinian, his historical position, 
 56 ; extent of his empire, 360. 
 
 K 
 
 Kallikratidas, Greek patriotism of, 
 373. 
 
 Kemble, F. M., quoted, 381, 395, 
 408, 409, 413, 418, 458. 
 
 Kent, assembly of, at Pennenden 
 Heath, 467. 
 
 King Archon at Athens, 436. 
 
 King of the Romans, history of the 
 title, 162. 
 
 Kingdom, made up of shires or 
 pagi, 119; formed by the union 
 of smaller states, 170; division 
 of, 172 ; territorial theory of, 175 ; 
 German, its revival, 181 ; growth 
 of, in Germany and Italy, 425, 
 426. 
 
 Kings, represent the national stage 
 of growth, 140, 165; difficulty of 
 defining, 137 ; Romance and 
 Teutonic names of, 138; their 
 position in ancient Greece, 144, 
 430; limitation on their autho- 
 rity, 145 ; their position at Sparta, 
 Argos and Athens, 149, 153; 
 their oath in Molossis, 159 ; their 
 position in Macedonia, ib.; at 
 Eome not divine, ib. ; Teutonic 
 kings, Eoman offices held by, 
 162; how chosen, 163; descrip- 
 tion of, by Tacitus, ib. ; descend-
 
 512 
 
 Index. 
 
 KINGSHIP. 
 
 ants of Woden, ib. ; origin of the 
 name, 164, 166 ; tmknown among 
 the Old-Saxons, 164; ecclesias- 
 tical coronation of, 167; its poli- 
 tical effects, 168; beginning of 
 hereditary succession among, 169 ; 
 great numbers of in early times, 
 170-173, 452; clothed with im- 
 perial ideas, 174; changed into 
 territorial lords, 175 ; changes in 
 their titles, 175, 453; difference 
 of their powers, 176; their rela- 
 tion to their ministers, 176, 183 ; 
 English, subject to the law, 177 ; 
 growth of their power, 180 ; 
 traces of their election in Eng- 
 land, 237 ; election of in Poland, 
 240 ; prosecute crimes in the name 
 of the commonwealth, 274, 278; 
 imperial titles borne by in Eng- 
 land, 353 ; their sacred character, 
 Christian and heathen, 428 ; their 
 power granted by Zeus, 429 ; suc- 
 cession of in Judaea and France, 
 ib. ; how spoken of by Hesiod, 430 ; 
 cut down 1 to priestly functions, 
 432; name applied to the Athe- 
 nian archons, 440. 
 Kingship, distinction between its 
 power and its titles, 77, 183 ; put 
 into commission at Borne, 183; 
 general idea of, 140, 141 ; its re- 
 ligious character, 142, 167; law- 
 yers' theory of, 143 ; its original 
 character, ib. ; evidence of its 
 existence at Borne, 146, 150 ; its 
 elective character, 151 ; modifica- 
 tion of in city states, 152 ; history 
 of at Sparta, 153, 433, 434 ; at 
 Athens, 154 ; opposite reasons for 
 its abolition at Borne and at 
 Athens, 154, 439; continued in 
 Epeiros and Macedonia, 158 ; its 
 
 LACONIA. 
 
 German form united with the 
 Boman Empire, 162; displaces 
 the earlier rule of Ealdormen, 
 165 ; its origin and continuity 
 in England, 165, 173, 177, 178; 
 modifications of in later times, 
 174 ; its various shapes, 176, 427 ; 
 modified by the settlement of the 
 Teutonic nations within the Em- 
 pire, 179; in Germany absorbed 
 by the Empire, 181 ; its elective 
 character in Germany, 182; 
 strictly hereditary in France, ib. ; 
 its position in modern times, 183 ; 
 survival of in the American 
 president, 184 ; distinguished 
 from royalty, 186; inconsistent 
 with aristocracy, 269; why not 
 held for a term, 427 ; temporary 
 revivals of, ib. ; survivals of in 
 Greece, 432; duration of atArgos, 
 435; Greek definition of, 440; 
 decline of in Mercia, 457. 
 
 Kirk, Anglian form of church, 355. 
 
 Kleisthenes, his arrangement of 
 tribes and Demoi, 403. 
 
 Kleomenfs restores the Spartan 
 kingship, 153. 
 
 Kleon, accident of his promotion, 
 253. 
 
 Kodros, the archonship continued 
 in his family, 154. 
 
 Koln, capitol at, 344. 
 
 Korkyra, her relations to Corinth, 
 485. 
 
 Kyklopes, traditions of, 379. 
 
 L. 
 
 Lacedaemonian Confederacy, way of 
 voting in its Assembly, 467. 
 
 Laconia, position of the ireptontoi in, 
 249.
 
 Index. 
 
 513 
 
 LANDESGEMEINDEN. 
 
 Landesgemeindtn, in Uri and other 
 cantons, 45 ; time of holding, 457. 
 
 Languages, various ways of spread- 
 ing, 29. 
 
 Lappenberg, J. M., quoted, 411. 
 
 Latin language, its special connexion 
 with Greek, 205; its place in 
 universal history, 323-326 ; its 
 early, its classical, and its me- 
 diaeval forms, 323, 324; the tongue 
 of law and dominion, 324, 325; 
 its ecclesiastical position, 325, 326 ; 
 continued in the Komance lan- 
 guages, 326-337; how to be 
 studied, 337. 
 
 Latins, position of, 390. 
 
 Law, power of, in England, 177. 
 
 Law, Roman, abiding influence of, 
 129; its influence on Teutonic 
 kingship, 174, 181; the great 
 work of Eome, 324, 325. 
 
 Lawyers, their theory of kingship, 
 175. 
 
 Learning, Revival of, in the fifteenth 
 century, 296; its good and bad ! 
 side, 297-301. 
 
 Legends of Greek heroes in Italy and 
 Germany, 51; value of at Eome, 
 437, 438. 
 
 Le Mans, growth of the city, 379. 
 
 Leoty chides, his taunt to Demaratos, 
 438. 
 
 Lewes, battle of, poem on, 494. 
 
 Lewis, Sir O. C., on the Presidency 
 of Deliberative Assemblies, 442. 
 
 Lewis the Second, Emperor, his argu- 
 ment about pjj and f3a<n\evs, 
 354. 
 
 Lex rtgia, effect of the doctrine of, 
 370. 
 
 Lex Hortensia, its effect, 370, 371. 
 
 likenesses, different classes of, 24, 
 30. 
 
 MAGISTRATES. 
 
 Lion, name and history of, 357. 
 
 Lincoln, history of, 423. 
 
 Lithuania, antiquity of its language, 
 301, 490. 
 
 Liti, position of, 249, 458. 
 
 Loaf-eaters, compared with clients, 
 478. 
 
 Lombards, fall back on the govern- 
 ment of dukes, 171. 
 
 Long, Mr. O., quoted, 398. 
 
 Lords, House of, its origin, 233, 234 ; 
 its judicial powers, 242. 
 
 Lowe, Mr. P., his view of University 
 studies, 498. 
 
 Liibeck, its analogy with Carthage, 
 423. 
 
 Lucan, his flattery of Nero, 329. 
 
 Lydus, John, his distinction of Em- 
 peror, King, and Tyrant, 444. 
 
 Lydiadas, his history, 312. 
 
 LyJcaon, slain by Achilleus, 480. 
 
 Lykia, way of voting in, 223, 224 ; 
 history of its confederation, 312, 
 390. 
 
 Lysias, his position at Athens, 384. 
 
 M. 
 
 Macedonia, the older condition of 
 Greece continued in, 89; consti- 
 tution of, 159, 210 ; its historical 
 position, 158 ; history of kingship 
 in, 159 ; character of Macedonian 
 kingdoms in Asia, 160 ; imperfec- 
 tion of its history, 209 ; influence of 
 Greece on, 317 ; growth of city 
 life in, 383 ; names and working of 
 the assembly in, 459, 462, 463. 
 
 Maecenas, his verses, 393. 
 
 McegK, nature of, 410. 
 
 Magistrates, greater power of, in 
 aristocratic states, 215; in federal 
 2 L
 
 514 
 
 Index. 
 
 MAINE. 
 
 states, 216 ; powers of in Italian 
 
 cities, 238. 
 Maine, Sir H. 8., quoted, 370, 379, 
 
 391, 394, 399, 408, 411, 417. 
 Manor, its connexion with the 
 
 mark, 417. 
 Mantineia, foundation and history 
 
 of, 89, 382. 
 Marcus Aurelius, his use of the 
 
 Greek language, 318. 
 Marius, Gains, 256 ; his election to 
 
 the consulship, 256, 473, 474. 
 Mark, Markgenossenschaft, Teutonic 
 
 form of the gens, 116, 117, 409 ; 
 
 its history and nomenclature in 
 
 England, 123, 395; its assembly 
 
 continued in the parish vestry, 
 
 237 ; authorities on, 408 ; common 
 
 occupation of land in, ib. ; cases 
 
 of in the East, 411 ; lost in the 
 
 parish and the manor, 417. 
 Marzfeld, its working, 220. 
 Massalia, its influence in Gaul, 59, 
 
 316, 362 ; conquest of, by Charles 
 
 of Anjou, 316, 491. 
 Maurer, O. L., quoted, 408. 
 Mayor, introduction of the title, 345. 
 Medeon, ^Etolian assembly held 
 
 before, 460. 
 
 Megalopolis, foundation of, 89, 380. 
 Menestheus, the first demagogue, 
 
 429. 
 Mercia, its gradual incorporation 
 
 with Wessex, 457. 
 Metellus, his language to Marius, 
 
 474. 
 M/roiKot, Greek, their position, 195, 
 
 281, 383; answer to English 
 
 foreigners, il.; to Swiss nieder- 
 
 gelassenen, 284-286 ; their special 
 
 tax, 384. 
 Michael, Emperor, addresses Charles 
 
 the Great as Basileus, 353. 
 
 K^JVIUS. 
 
 Middle Class, specially English, 264. 
 Military service, universal duty of, 
 
 in early times, 197. 
 Mill, history and cognates of the 
 
 word, 6, 341. 
 Ministers, their relation to the 
 
 Crown, 183. 
 Mixed Governments, views of ancient 
 
 writers on, 363, 364. 
 Moguls, analogy of their empire with 
 
 that of Eome, 333, 334. 
 Molossis, position of the kings in, 159. 
 Mommsen, Th., quoted, 388, 396, 
 
 404, 405, 437. 
 
 Monarch, use of the word, 171. 
 Monarchy, primitive traces of, 65; 
 
 distinguished from kingship, 171. 
 Morlot family, their admission at 
 
 Bern, 270. 
 
 Mosaic Law, right of private ven- 
 geance limited by, 274 ; principle 
 
 of talio recognized by, 275. 
 Mul, wergild paid for, 482. 
 Mailer, Max, quoted, 18, 341, 343, 
 
 357, 365; his view of the word 
 
 cyning, 451. 
 Mutter, 0., quoted, 402. 
 Mund, answers to the Eoman Po- 
 
 testas, 117, 412. 
 Mundi Dominus, title of mediaeval 
 
 Emperors, 454. 
 Municipalities, Eoman, influence on 
 
 mediaeval Europe, 132-134. 
 Mythology, scientific and unscientific 
 
 treatment of, 11. 
 Mythology, Comparative, its relation 
 
 to comparative philology, 6, 10; 
 
 to the study of culture, 17. 
 
 N. 
 Na'vius, his epitaph, 493 ; his posi-
 
 Index. 
 
 515 
 
 NATION. 
 
 tion in the history of the Latin 
 language, 323; his Saturnian lines, 
 494. 
 
 Nation, one form of the State, 81. 
 
 Nationality, definition df, 82, 84; 
 oppressed nationalities, 374. 
 
 Nutionalrath, Swiss, its constitution, 
 235. 
 
 Naturalization, contrast as to, be- 
 tween different ages, 196. 
 
 Neale, Mr. J. M., quoted, 494. 
 
 Nilley Green, battle of, 482. 
 
 Niebulir, his view of the Gentes, 
 398. 
 
 Niedergelassenen, Swiss, answer to 
 the Greek /teVoiKoi, 284-286. 
 
 Nobilis, meaning of, at Eome, 256. 
 
 Nobility, none in England, 233 ; 263- 
 265 ; various origins of, 246, 247 ; 
 nobility of office supplants 
 nobility of birth, 246, 256; im- 
 memorial among the Teutonic 
 nations, 250 ; history of at Athens, 
 251-253; at Eome, 253-255; ple- 
 beian form of at Eome, 255, 256 ; 
 modern, its origin in the Comi- 
 tatus, 263 ; nature of in France, 
 266, 268. 
 
 Nomen, use of at Eome, 106 ; its 
 political importance, 400. 
 
 Nomenclature, diversities of in kin- 
 dred tongues, 67; analogies in, 
 72, 73; Eoman and Athenian 
 compared, 396, 400. 
 
 Non-Aryan Races, analogies of their 
 institutions, 58. 
 
 Norman Conquest of England, its 
 effects, 177. 
 
 Northumberland, formation of the 
 kingdom of, 173, 420. 
 
 Norway, united under Harold Har- 
 fagra, 173. 
 
 Novus Homo, at Eome, 256. 
 
 PARISH. 
 
 Numa, Greek element in his legend, 
 
 150; its value, 437, 438. 
 Nurnberg, patrician families at, 478. 
 
 0. 
 
 'Qftai, their nature and duration at 
 Sparta, 106, 402. 
 
 Odoacer, his patriciate, 445. 
 
 Odysseus, his dealings with the 
 kings before Ilios, 173; legends 
 of in Germany, 356; how de- 
 scribed by Alfred, 462. 
 
 Offices, various names of in kindred 
 tongues, 71. 
 
 Old Man of the Mountain, his 'de- 
 scription, 73, 367. 
 
 Old-Saxons, their retention of the 
 old freedom, 121; their federal 
 union, 121, 413; kingship un- 
 known among, 164 ; three orders 
 among, 473. 
 
 Oligarchy, growth of at Venice, 470. 
 
 Opposition speakers, existence of in 
 the Homeric Assembly, 206. 
 
 Olympias, claims a trial before the 
 Macedonian Assembly, 462. 
 
 'Opyeuves at Athens, 400. 
 
 Ottomans, called Eomans in the 
 East, 392. 
 
 Oxford University, its constitutional 
 analogies with the Achaian 
 League, 21; way of voting in 
 Convocation, 465. 
 
 P. 
 
 Pagan, origin of the name, 112. 
 Pagus, equivalent to Gau or Shire, 
 
 118 ; mediaeval definition of, 374. 
 Parish, its connexion with the Mark, 
 
 116,417. 
 
 2 L 2
 
 516 
 
 Index. 
 
 PARLIAMENT. 
 
 Parliament, its origin and growth 
 in England, 21, 232, 233; ac- 
 tion of at Florence, 237, 238, 
 470. 
 
 Papacy, its witness to Koman per- 
 manence, 330. 
 
 Parthenon, its use as a Christian 
 church, 331. 
 
 Patria, use of the word, 85. 
 
 Patria Potestas, its connexion with 
 the Mund, 117. 
 
 Patricians, use of the name in the 
 German cities, 133; origin of 
 their privileges at Koine, 247, 
 
 252, 472; gradual loss of them, 
 
 253, 256. 
 
 Patriciate of Theodoric, 445; of 
 Odoacer, ib. 
 
 Uarpis, use of the word, 85, 376. 
 
 Patronymics, use of in English local 
 nomenclature, 103, 395 ; practical 
 effect of their use, 106. 
 
 Peerage, English, its origin and 
 nature, 263-265 ; its existence 
 inconsistent with nobility, 264, 
 265. 
 
 Pelops, no authority in Homer for 
 his Lydian origin, 428. 
 
 Pembrokeshire, local nomenclature 
 of, 395. 
 
 Hej/eo-rat, Thessalian, position of, 458. 
 
 Peregrini, distinguished from Gives, 
 390. 
 
 Pergamos, rise of, 313. 
 
 UepioiKoi, their position, 249; in- 
 stances of, in mediaeval and 
 modern Europe, 287-290; differ- 
 ences in their practical position, 
 291, 292; compared with the 
 Italian allies, 484. 
 
 PeriMes, nature of his influence, 
 215; his description of demo- 
 cracy, 464. 
 
 PHESEDENTS. 
 
 Persians, their military powers, 357, 
 358. 
 
 Philology, Comparative, its relations 
 to the other comparative sciences, 
 3, 10, 17; germs of in Giraldus 
 and Eoger Bacon, 486, 487. 
 j Philutas, condemned by the Mace- 
 donian Assembly, 463. 
 
 &pdrpa, (pparpia, (ppdrmp, US6 of the 
 
 words, 72 ; answer to the Latin 
 curia, 104; and the Teutonic hun- 
 dred, 117 ; cognate words, 366. 
 
 *i/XojSao-tXetf, origin of their office, 
 437. 
 
 Pippin, patriciate of, 162. 
 
 Plebs, at Rome, its origin, 109, 255 ; 
 offices gradually thrown open to, 
 254; origin of plebeian nobility, 
 256; opposed by Sallust to no- 
 bilitas, 473. 
 
 Poland, nature of kingship in, 139 ; 
 aristocratic primary assembly 
 in, 194, 240, 470; approach to 
 aristocracy in, 269; its position 
 under the Jagellons, 356 ; charac- 
 ter of its constitution, 364. 
 
 Polemarch, his position at Athens, 
 156. 
 
 HoXireia, use of the word by Aris- 
 totle, 363, 368. 
 
 Politics, Comparative, definition of, 
 19 ; its object, 35. 
 
 Potybios, his special position and 
 experience, 311-313 ; his legis- 
 lation, 313 ; his language, 314. 
 
 Pontificate at Rome opened to Ple- 
 beians, 254. 
 
 Poseidon, his position in the divine 
 assembly, 203. 
 
 Potidaia, her relations to Athens 
 and Corinth, 485. 
 
 Presidents of republics, modern no- 
 tion of, 183; position of, in the
 
 Index. 
 
 517 
 
 PBOVINCIALS. 
 
 United States, 185; tendency to 
 
 lessen their powers, 186. 
 Provincials, position of, 390. 
 Printing, invented more than once, 
 
 31. 
 
 Prudentius, his position in the his- 
 tory of the Latin language, 323. 
 Prussia, its analogy with Sardinia, 
 
 426. 
 npvrdveis, use of the name, 437; 
 
 their presidency of the Assembly, 
 
 442. 
 Purchase of territory, rare in ancient 
 
 Greece, 288 ; cases of, in mediaeval 
 
 Europe, 288, 289. 
 Pyrrhos of Epeiros, 159. 
 
 E. 
 
 Rcetia, confederations of, 355. 
 
 Humbert, M., quoted, 458. 
 
 Ramnes, their origin, 109 ; oldest 
 name of the Eomans, 437. 
 
 Ravenna, historical position of the 
 city, 328; Greek inscriptions at, 
 491. 
 
 Regia, applied to the house of the 
 Emperor, 161, 448. 
 
 Regina, applied to wives of Empe- 
 rors, 161, 448 ; to the wife of the 
 Rex sacrorum, 436. 
 
 Regnum, applied to the Empire, 161, 
 448. 
 
 Reiks, force of the word in Gothic, 
 365. 
 
 Religions, various ways of spread- 
 ing, 29. 
 
 Representation, necessary in a large 
 state, 221-225. 
 
 Representatives, House of, its consti- 
 tution, 235. 
 
 Residence, counts for nothing in 
 city commonwealths, 383. 
 
 HOME. 
 
 Responsibility, distinguishes king 
 and magistrate, 440. 
 
 Rex, origin and cognates of the 
 name, 69 ; Emperors never so 
 called, 161, 449. 
 
 Rex sacrorum, Rex sacrificulus, ori- 
 ginal nature of his office, 148, 431. 
 
 'Pi7, use of the title, 354. 
 
 Rice, its cognates, 365. 
 
 Rienzi, titles taken by, 449. 
 
 Rhodes, duration of its indepen- 
 dence, 390. 
 
 Roderick, called Bang of the Eomans, 
 392. 
 
 Roger Bacon, his account of the 
 Eomance languages, 486. 
 
 Romcei, meaning of the form, 355. 
 
 'Pco/iczloj, use of the name, 349, 392. 
 
 Romance Languages, their origin, 
 128. 
 
 Romans, connexions of their good 
 and bad points, 80. 
 
 Rome, her progress, 42; source of 
 her greatness, 44 ; in what sense 
 eternal, ib. ; her relation to the 
 Teutonic kingdoms, 48, 129, 328 ; 
 conservative character of her 
 history, 77 ; the greatest example 
 of the city-commonwealth, 97; 
 gradual extension of her citizen- 
 ship, 97, 98, 349 ; failure of her 
 municipal system, 98, 230; im- 
 portance of the gentes at, 104; 
 local nature of her tribes, 108; 
 more nearly a nation than Greece, 
 110 ; history and nature of king- 
 ship at, 146, 150, 151 ; change 
 from kings to consuls at, 152, 439 ; 
 power of magistrates at, 156, 160 ; 
 abiding influence of her law, 129 ; 
 growth of the Emperors, 161 ; re- 
 storation of kingship at, 162; mili- 
 tary assemblies unknown at, 199 ;
 
 518 
 
 Index. 
 
 EOMILIA. 
 
 way of voting in the assemblies 
 at, 225; analogies with the Federal 
 period in Greece, 226 ; character 
 of her political parties, 227 ; re- 
 lation of the powers of the state 
 in, 228, 230 ; origin of the patri- 
 cians at, 247, 250, 459, 472; 
 gradual loss of their privileges, 
 253, 255 ; their nobility gives way 
 to that of office, 255, 256 ; slight 
 traces of the comitatus at, 260; 
 clientage at, 260-262; law of 
 private vengeance at, 273 ; tyran- 
 nicide lawful at, 273; law of 
 talio at, 275 ; her true position in 
 universal history, 306, 322, 327 ; 
 influence of Greece on, 318; 
 special nature of her influence, 
 324, 330 ; eastern parallels of its 
 later history, 333 ; long retention 
 of her titles, 333, 392 ; character 
 of her early legends, 356 ; feelings 
 of her citizens and subjects during 
 the Hannibalian war, 372; its 
 origin, 389 ; growth of aristocracy 
 at, 459. 
 
 Romilia gens, its insignificance, 438. 
 
 Romulus, Greek element in his 
 legend, 150, 437. 
 
 Root, a new one impossible, 9. 
 
 Roum, Sultans of, 392. 
 
 Royalty, modern notion of, 186. 
 
 Russia, cycle in its history, 356; 
 absolute power in, 453. 
 
 S. 
 
 Salamis, Athenian senate and as- 
 sembly at, 460. 
 
 Samos, action of the Athenian fleet 
 at, 460. 
 
 Sardinia, its analogy with Prussia, 
 426. 
 
 BHIEE. 
 
 Sarmatians, their alleged presence 
 at Chalons, 362. 
 
 Saturnian metre, mediaeval revival 
 of, 324. 
 
 Savigny, F. C., quoted, 467. 
 
 Savoy, Northern, its conquest by 
 Bern, 291, 484. 
 
 Scabini, Scho/en, growth of, 467. 
 
 Scandinavia, character of its his- 
 tory, 46, 135 ; its kingdoms un- 
 touched by late revolutions, 350. 
 
 Sceaf, son of Noah, 451. 
 
 Sehmid, Dr. E., his views on the 
 mark, 411. 
 
 School of History, needed at Oxford, 
 499. 
 
 Science of Language, its results, 12. 
 
 Scipio, an exile at Liternum, 85, 
 377. 
 
 Scirgemot, traces of, 237. 
 
 Scotland, growth of, as an artificial 
 nation, 81. 
 
 Seelands, Frisian, 415. 
 
 Seleukia, its history and constitu- 
 tion, 443. 
 
 Semitic languages, their relation to 
 the Aryan, 59, 363. 
 
 Senate, Achaian, often acts as the 
 Assembly, 216. 
 
 Senate, Athenian, a specially demo- 
 cratic body, 468. 
 
 Senate, Roman, history of, 78 ; com- 
 parison of Eome and Athens, 
 227; mode of appointment to, 
 228 ; its relations to the Assem- 
 bly, 228-230; its position under 
 the empire, 231, 469. 
 
 Senate in the United States, its con- 
 stitution, 235 ; its special powers, 
 236. 
 
 Seniorissa, title, 366. 
 
 Servius, value of his legend, 438. 
 
 Shire, its relation to the Gau or
 
 Index. 
 
 519 
 
 SICILY. 
 
 Pagus, 118, 415, 416 ; made up of 
 hundreds, 119 ; origin of the name, 
 124, 417; nomenclature of, in 
 England, 418, 419. 
 
 Sicily, battle-field of East and West, 
 316; permanence of the Greek 
 language in, ib. ; no part of the 
 Italian kingdom, 426. 
 
 Slavery, nature of, 195, 458; its 
 origin and character in early 
 times, 248 ; history of, in Eng- 
 land, 472. 
 
 Slavonic nations, their relation to 
 the Eastern church and Empire, 
 49 ; their past and future, 49, 50. 
 
 Sleswick, its relations to Denmark, 
 350. 
 
 Smith, Mr. Goldwin, quoted, 447. 
 
 Socii, position of, 390. 
 
 Solar theory, how far sound, 10, 
 342. 
 
 Soldiers, no distinct profession in 
 early times, 197. 
 
 Solon, effect of his legislation, 251. 
 
 Spain, Teutonic character of its 
 political institutions, 128'; Gothic 
 kingdom in, 179 ; speedy growth 
 of Eoman civilization in, 362 ; re- 
 covery of its southern part by 
 Justinian, 454. 
 
 Sparta, formed out of villages, 89, 
 382; its unwilling union with 
 the Achaian League, 92 ; history 
 of kingship at, 149, 153, 433; 
 grants of citizenship at, 384; 
 its kings compared with the Ko- 
 man consuls, 434 ; classes of the 
 unfree at, 458; proceedings of 
 the assembly at, 464. 
 
 Speeches, how far trustworthy in 
 classical history, 391. 
 
 Staatenbund, distinguished from 
 Bundesstaat, 387. 
 
 TACITUS. 
 
 Standerath, Swiss, its constitution, 
 235 ; its necessity, 236. 
 
 State, conception of as a city, 80 ; as 
 a nation, 81 ; Greek conception of, 
 83. 
 
 Stesichorus, quoted, 358. 
 
 Sthenela'idas, Ephor, puts the vote 
 in the Spartan assembly, 464. 
 
 Strangford, Viscount, quoted, 489. 
 
 Summons, right of, how dealt with 
 by lawyers, 233. 
 
 Survivals, doctrine of, 14, 343 ; of 
 kingship, 147, 151. 
 
 Sweden, four estates in, 231 ; ap- 
 proach to aristocracy in, 269. 
 
 Switzerland, its constitution copied 
 from that of the United States, 
 33; growth of as an artificial 
 nation, 81; common neglect of 
 its history, 184 ; form of the 
 Federal executive in, 186; con- 
 stitution of the two Houses of the 
 assembly, 235; freedom of the 
 Forest Cantons, 238, 239; their 
 assemblies, 239 ; working of the 
 present constitution, 285 ; in- 
 stances of rrfpioiKoi in, 287; effects 
 of the French invasion of, 290 ; 
 treatment of the common baili- 
 wicks, 292; position of the Eo- 
 mance cantons in, 350 ; origin of 
 the confederation, 359, 360; use 
 of the name, 424 ; importance of 
 its history, 484. 
 
 Syssel, equivalent to Oau or Shire, 
 118. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tacitus, his views as to mixed 
 government, 65, 363 ; his picture 
 of the early Germans, 66, 162; 
 trustworthiness of his German ia,
 
 520 
 
 Index. 
 
 TALIO. 
 
 364 ; his report of Claudius' 
 speech, 391. 
 
 Talio, recognized by the Mosaic and 
 Eoman law, 275; how regulated 
 in England, 276. 
 
 Teutonic*, use of the word by Giral- 
 dus, 487. 
 
 Teutons, their separation from the 
 other Aryan stocks in Europe, 
 54; their institutions more pri- 
 mitive than those of Greece and 
 Italy, 100; the idea of the city 
 never fully developed among, 
 101, 113 ; relations of their history 
 to that of Greece and Italy, 111, 
 127; their tribes grow into na- 
 tions, 111, 123 ; their slower but 
 surer growth, 115, 116 ; first de- 
 scription of them by Tacitus, 
 116 ; carry their institutions into 
 the conquered countries, 122; 
 their institutions the groundwork 
 of modern European society, 127; 
 modification of their institutions 
 through Eoman influences, 128, 
 129, 179 ; position of cities among, 
 130. 
 
 Territorial idea of kingship, 175; 
 titles, ib. 
 
 Degenlic, use of the word, 475, 476. 
 
 Thegn, analogies with, in other na- 
 tions, 257 ; origin and growth of 
 the order, 257, 258; change in 
 the meaning of the word, 259, 475 ; 
 supplant the Eorls, 246, 263. 
 
 Theodoric, his consulship and patri- 
 ciate, 161, 445. 
 
 Qepdnovres, answer to the English 
 \>egnas, 257. 
 
 Thersites, how dealt with in the 
 Homeric Assembly, 205. 
 
 Thierry, Augustin, quoted, 344. 
 
 Thirlwall, Bishop, quoted, 492. 
 
 UNITED. 
 
 Thiudans, origin and cognates of the 
 name, 69. 
 
 Three Estates, popular error about, 
 343. 
 
 Thucydides, character of his history, 
 348; witness of his Preface, 380. 
 
 Tiberius at Caprese, 85. 
 
 Timbrian, use of the word, 357. 
 
 Tithing, authorities on, 412. 
 
 Titienses, their origin, 109. 
 
 Toulouse., its capitol and magistrates, 
 27,344. 
 
 Towns, various classes of, in England, 
 423. 
 
 Tribes, Dorian, 106, 107 ; local origin 
 of at Eome, 107, 109, 404, 405; 
 their later character at Athens, 
 108,403,404; formation of new 
 tribes at Eome, 109, 407; their 
 relation to the Gau, 119; tem- 
 porary union of, 120; assembly 
 of, at Eome, 225. 
 
 Tribunes, their powers at Eome, 
 227. 
 
 Tribunitia potestas, chief source of 
 the imperial power, 161, 444. 
 
 Tylor, Mr. E. B., quoted, 18, 343, 
 
 481. 
 Tyrannicide, lawful at Eome and 
 
 Athens, 273. 
 Tyrant, meaning of the name, 157. 
 
 u. 
 
 Under saten, use of the word, 483. 
 
 Unfree, position of, 458. 
 
 United States, analogy between its 
 constitution and that of Achaia, 
 33 ; their relation to British 
 America, 81 ; constitution of the 
 two Houses of Congress, 235. 
 
 United Provinces, origin of their 
 confederation, 359, 360.
 
 Index. 
 
 521 
 
 UNTEKTHANEN. 
 
 Unterthanen answer to Tr 
 
 290. 
 
 Urbs JEterna, use of the name, 349. 
 Uri, its possession of dependencies, 
 
 291 ; bull of, 357. 
 
 V. 
 
 Valtelina, its history, 291. 
 
 Vandals, history of their kingdom, 
 179. 
 
 Vassal, origin of the word, 476. 
 
 Vassalage, origin and growth of, 
 259; its connection with the old 
 comitatus, 476, 477. 
 
 Veii, Eoman assembly held at, 460. 
 
 Vengeance, private, origin of crimi- 
 nal jurisprudence, 271 ; gradually 
 regulated by the commonwealth, 
 272 ; Hebrew, Greek, Eoman, and 
 English legislation on, 273, 479 ; 
 regulated by the wergild, 275-278. 
 
 Venice, its unbroken connection with 
 ancient times, 128, 422 ; Great 
 Council of, 194, 291, 470 ; position 
 of the cittadini at, 249 ; origin and 
 character of its nobility, 258, 269 ; 
 nature of its government, 266- 
 268; its relation to its subject 
 states, 286, 287. 
 
 Verona, name of, 424. 
 
 Vestry, parish, represents the as- 
 sembly of the Mark, 237. 
 
 Vierlande, district of, held in con- 
 dominium by Liibeck and Ham- 
 burg, 287. 
 
 Village, a stage between the family 
 and the city, 394. 
 
 Village communities, a form of the 
 <?es,102,117,394; first recorded 
 state of the Teutonic nations, 
 116. 
 
 Villains, position of, 249, 458. 
 
 WILLIAM. 
 
 Voting, early ways of, 206. 
 Voting-papers, use of at Kome, 392. 
 
 w. 
 
 Wager of battle, its origin and aboli- 
 tion, 274. 
 
 Waitz, O. H., quoted, 364, 366, 410, 
 412, 413, 428, 459, 466, 473, 476. 
 
 Wallis, retention of the old freedom 
 in, 121 ; dominion of Upper over 
 Lower, 291. 
 
 War, private, gradually limited by 
 law, 272-278 ; late case of in Eng- 
 land, 278. 
 
 Ward, Mr. A. W., 499. 
 
 Warren, Mr. J. L., quoted, 491. 
 
 Washington, Capitol of, 27. 
 
 Wergild, a common Aryan institu- 
 tion, 271, 275 ; grows out of the 
 right of private vengeance, 271- 
 275; notices of in Homer, 275; 
 Old-English legislation on, 276, 
 277 ; between nation and nation, 
 277 ; late instance of, in England, 
 278. 
 
 West- Goths, extent of their kingdom, 
 361. 
 
 West-Saxons, growth of their king- 
 dom, 126; fall back on the go- 
 vernment of Ealdormen, 171; con- 
 federate Under-kings among, 172 ; 
 permanence of their royal house, 
 178. 
 
 Whiteside, Chief Justice, his views 
 on Switzerland, 455. 
 
 William the Conqueror finally unites 
 the English kingdom, 77 ; effects 
 of his legislation, 264, 265. 
 
 William Rvfus, his theory of the 
 royal supremacy, 352. 
 
 2 M
 
 522 
 
 Index. 
 
 WITENAGEMOT. 
 
 Witenagcmot, an assembly of all 
 freemen, 219 ; shrinks into a 
 small body, 219, 225 ; continued 
 in the House of Lords, 232 ; its 
 ancient powers, 242. 
 
 Woden, forefather of the Teutonic 
 kings, 163, 450, 451 ; looked on 
 as a man in Christian times, 167. 
 
 Wurm, C. J., quoted, 483. 
 
 ZURICHGAU. 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zeus, his power in the Assembly of 
 the Gods, 202, 203 ; twofold con- 
 ception of him, 204, 205. 
 
 Zeuss, K., quoted, 416. 
 
 Zurich, origin of the city, 423. 
 
 Ziirichgau, local nomenclature of 
 395. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 UWDOS : l-UIXTEO BV WILLIAM CLOWES AXD SONS, STAMFORD STREET 
 AXD CHAUINU CROSS.
 
 OtL 
 
 <*/ 
 
 F7 
 
 of California 
 
 ss 
 
 from which it was borrowed 
 
 Series 9482
 
 A'"miiillilllilllll!|[||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 
 001 031 595 o