lect03-第3章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！








be　seen　in　the　official　style　of　kings。　Of　our　own　kings；　King






John　was　the　first　who　always　called　himself　King　of　England。






（Freeman；　'Norman　Conquest；'　I。　82；　84。）　His　predecessors






commonly　or　always　called　themselves　Kings　of　the　English。　The






style　of　the　king　reflected　the　older　tribal　sovereignty　for　a






much　longer　time　in　France。　The　title　of　King　of　France　may　no






doubt　have　come　into　use　in　the　vernacular　soon　after　the






accession　of　the　dynasty　of　Capet；　but　it　is　an　impressive　fact






that；　even　at　the　time　of　the　Massacre　of　St。　Bartholomew；　the






Kings　of　France　were　still　in　Latin　'Reges　Francorum；'　and　Henry






the　Fourth　only　abandoned　the　designation　because　it　could　not　be






got　to　fit　in　conveniently　on　his　coins　with　the　title　of　King　of






Navarre；　the　purely　feudal　and　territorial　principality　of　the






Bourbons。　（Freeman；　loc。　cit。）　We　may　bring　home　to　ourselves　the






transformation　of　idea　in　another　way。　England　was　once　the






country　which　Englishmen　inhabited。　Englishmen　are　now　the　people






who　inhabit　England。　The　descendants　of　our　forefathers　keep　up






the　tradition　of　kinship　by　calling　themselves　men　of　English






race；　but　they　tend　steadily　to　become　Americans　and　Australians。






I　do　not　say　that　the　notion　of　consanguinity　is　absolutely　lost；






but　it　is　extremely　diluted；　and　quite　subordinated　to　the　newer






view　of　the　territorial　constitution　of　nations。　The　blended






ideas　are　reflected　in　such　an　expression　as　'Fatherland；'　which






is　itself　an　index　to　the　fact　that　our　thoughts　cannot　separate






national　kinship　from　common　country。　No　doubt　it　is　true　that　in






our　day　the　older　conception　of　national　union　through






consanguinity　has　seemed　to　be　revived　by　theories　which　are






sometimes　called　generally　theories　of　Nationality；　and　of　which






particular　forms　are　known　to　us　as　Pan…Sclavism　and






Pan…Teutonism。　Such　theories　are　in　truth　a　product　of　modern






philology；　and　have　grown　out　of　the　assumption　that　linguistic






affinities　prove　community　of　blood。　But　wherever　the　political






theory　of　Nationality　is　distinctly　conceived；　it　amounts　to　a






claim　that　men　of　the　same　race　shall　be　included；　not　in　the






same　tribal；　but　in　the　same　territorial　sovereignty。






　　　　We　can　perceive；　from　the　records　of　the　Hellenic　and　Latin






city…communities；　that　there；　and　probably　over　a　great　part　of






the　world；　the　substitution　of　common　territory　for　common　race






as　the　basis　of　national　union　was　slow；　and　not　accomplished






without　very　violent　struggles。　'The　history　of　political　ideas






begins；'　I　have　said　elsewhere；　'with　the　assumption　that　kinship






in　blood　is　the　sole　possible　ground　of　community　in　political






functions；　nor　is　there　any　of　those　subversions　of　feeling　which






we　emphatically　term　revolutions　so　startling　and　so　complete　as






the　change　which　is　accomplished　when　some　other　principle　






such　as　that；　for　instance；　of　local　contiguity　　establishes






itself　for　the　first　time　as　the　basis　of　common　political






action。'　The　one　object　of　ancient　democracies　was；　in　fact；　to






be　counted　of　kin　to　the　aristocracies；　simply　on　the　ground　that






the　aristocracy　of　old　citizens；　and　the　democracy　of　new；　lived






within　the　same　territorial　circumscription。　The　goal　was　reached






in　time　both　by　the　Athenian　Demos　and　by　the　Roman　Plebs；　but






the　complete　victory　of　the　Roman　popular　party　was　the　source　of






influences　which　have　not　spent　themselves　at　the　present　moment；






since　it　is　one　of　the　causes　why　the　passage　from　the　Tribal　to






the　Territorial　conception　of　Sovereignty　was　much　more　easy　and






imperceptible　in　the　modern　than　in　the　older　world。　I　have






before　stated　that　a　certain　confusion；　or　at　any　rate






indistinctness　of　discrimination；　between　consanguinity　and






common　subjection　to　power　is　traceable　among　the　rudiments　of






Aryan　thought；　and　no　doubt　the　mixture　of　notions　has　helped　to






bring　about　that　identification　of　common　nationality　with　common






allegiance　to　the　King；　which　has　greatly　facilitated　the






absorption　of　new　bodies　of　citizens　by　modern　commonwealths。　But






the　majesty　with　which　the　memory　of　the　Roman　Empire　surrounded






all　kings　has　also　greatly　contributed　to　it；　and　without　the






victory　of　the　Roman　Plebeians　there　would　never　have　been；　I






need　hardly　say；　any　Roman　Empire。






　　　　The　new　knowledge　which　has　been　rapidly　accumulating　of　late






years　enables　us　to　track　precisely　the　same　transmutation　of






ideas　amid　the　smaller　groups　of　kinsmen　settled　on　land　and






forming；　not　Commonwealths；　but　Village…Communities。　The






historian　of　former　days　laboured　probably　under　no　greater






disadvantage　than　that　caused　by　his　unavoidable　ignorance　of　the






importance　of　these　communities；　and　by　the　necessity　thus






imposed　upon　him　of　confining　his　attention　to　the　larger






assemblages　of　tribesmen。　It　has　often；　indeed；　been　noticed　that






a　Feudal　Monarchy　was　an　exact　counterpart　of　a　Feudal　Manor；　but






the　reason　of　the　correspondence　is　only　now　beginning　to　dawn






upon　us；　which　is；　that　both　of　them　were　in　their　origin　bodies






of　assumed　kinsmen　settled　on　land　and　undergoing　the　same






transmutation　of　ideas　through　the　fact　of　settlement。　The






history　of　the　larger　groups　ends　in　the　modern　notions　of






Country　and　Sovereignty；　the　history　of　the　smaller　in　the　modern






notions　of　Landed　Property。　The　two　courses　of　historical






development　were　for　a　long　while　strictly　parallel；　though　they






have　ceased　to　be　so　now。






　　　　The　naturally　organised；　self…existing；　Village…Community　can






no　longer　be　claimed　as　an　institution　specially　characteristic






of　the　Aryan　races。　M。　de　Laveleye；　following　Dutch　authorities；






has　described　these　communities　as　they　are　found　in　Java；　and　M






Renan　has　discovered　them　among　the　obscurer　Semitic　tribes　in






Northern　Africa。　But；　wherever　they　have　been　examined；　the






extant　examples　of　the　group　suggest　the　same　theory　of　its






origin　which　Mr　Freeman　（'Comparative　Politics；'　p。　103）　has






advanced　concerning　the　Germanic　village…community　or　Mark；　'This






lowest　political　unit　was　at　first；　here　（i。　e。　in　England）　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。'　The　evidence；　however；　is　now　quite　ample






enough　to　furnish　us　with　strong　indications　not　only　of　the　mode






in　which　these　communities　began；　but　of　the　mode　in　which　they






transformed　themselves。　The　world；　in　fact；　contains　examples　of






cultivating　groups　in　every　stage；　from　that　in　which　they　are






actually　bodies　of　kinsmen；　to　that　in　which　the　merest　shadow　of






consanguinity　survives　and　the　assemblage　of　cultivators　is　held






together　solely　by　the　land　which　they　till　in　common。　The　great






steps　in　the　scale　of　transition　seem　to　me　to　be　marked　by　the






Joint　Family　of　the　Hindoos；　by　the　House…Community　of　the






Southern　Sclavonians；　and　by　the　true　Village…Community；　as　it　is