BOOKS.
FREEMAN'S " COMPARAIIVE POLITICS."*
IN this volume Mr. Freeman attempts to apply to politics the com- parative method which has already given great results as to lan- guage, religion, and manners. He wishes to show that all branches of the Aryan race inherited from their common ancestors a certain political organisation, out of which the later forms known to us historically have sprung. Such a conclusion would be interesting, if proved, but we cannot say that Mr. Freeman has made it clear to us. We have our doubts as to whether the application of the comparative method is possible, and we are quite sure Mr. Free- man has not employed it. The method has but little value, unless the matters with which it has to deal are settled in an arbitrary way. As soon as you have to do with things which have an evi- dent reason, comparison can tell little as to origin. Like needs may have produced like results in a dozen different places. Thus it is in language, which (at least after a very early stage) is purely arbitrary, that the greatest success of the comparative method has been obtained. Again with regard to myths and folk-lore, many re- semblances might result from the limited number of imaginable situa- tions and the natural coincidences of different fancies. But there are also combinations so peculiar that we cannot think it likely they would have repeated themselves, and these lead to the hypothesis of a common origin for many of the popular stories. If we turn to the comparative treatment of customs, we find the same rule. From the existence of marriage, of the family, and of other great facts of life, we can infer nothing ; it is only from details which are useless, and perhaps meaningless to those who act in them, that we can hope to establish any derivation. In all branches of comparison, any practice which has a visible purpose is useless to the inquirer.
Mr. Freeman is perfectly aware of this, and warns his renders against hasty inferences from analogies that may have other grounds than derivation. But having eased his mind by giving the warning, he proceeds to disregard it altogether. He does not, with regard to primitive government, attempt to trace out any of the smaller accidents of political organisation, but occupies himself in showing that in all early Aryan-speaking races there were, at least in germ, the three powers, King, Nobles, and Com- mons. He is able to show that in some branches the constitution did exist which he looks upon as typical, namely, government by a King, who consults with a select body of chiefs, and on some occasions appeals to the whole people to ratify his decisions. Now we have little doubt that not only some, but all branches of the race have passed through this stage. Given a King, the rest follows as a matter of course. In later stages of political growth a king may gain power enough to disregard the opinions of the nation, but the king of a tribe who lives always among his people must pay attention to their wishes, and is sure to find it convenient sometimes to consult them formally. So, too, the " council of chiefs, eminent for age, or birth, or personal exploits," is an institution so natural as to show itself in Central Africa at
Comparatire Politics: Six Lectures read before the Royal Institution in January and February. 1873. With The unity of History: the Bede Lecture, read before the University of Cambridge. May 29, 1872. By E. A. Freeman, ALA., lion. D.C.L. London: Macmillan and Co. 1873.
the present day as much as in old Germany or Homeric Greece_ Mr. Freeman himself points out that we find in Old-Testament history, among Semitic tribes, a state of things extremely like that which he is pleased to trace in so many branches of the Aryans.
When we have dismissed these parallels as insufficient for our- purpose, and look for the smaller points which are most to be trusted as indications of kinship, there is a sad lack of them. We naturally turn first to language. If the king, nobles, and commons: are older than the separation of the Aryan peoples, we may fairly- expect some trace of them in the common tongue. Even if nobles and commons, council and assembly, are too abstract or too. shifting not to have varied in name, the king's office would at least be known, and the primitive word for it might be expected to survive. As Mr. Freeman says, " we commonly know a king when we see him," and " it is plain that there is a common idea of kingship which is at once recognised, however hard it may be to define it." But this common idea has by no means a commons name. To quote Mr. Freeman again :— " It is plain at first sight that the words Barixas, Rex, and King are- not words of common origin. Nor is the matter mended if, instead of those three familiar names, we use older or less usual names in each of the three languages ; if we take the older or poetic Greek title "Arai;, or if, for the comparatively modern title of King, we take the older. Thindans or Drihten. But the fact that Cyning, King, in all its forms is- a comparatively modern title, is an important point in the argument. It shows how offices which were substantially the same were called by different names at different times, or by different branches of the same race."
We think it rash to draw any conclusion from the ' comparative '- modernness of a word like King,' which seems to have been used by our forefathers as fir back as we have any knowledge of their language. From the fact that different branches of the same race had different titles for an office so well recognised, the most natural inference would be that they had not reached the stage of kingship before separating, even if there were no historical evidence in favour of that view. Mr. Freeman goes on to say :—
" The Latin Rex and the Teutonic 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 resit, we say of the other that he rixode. We may go further east and west, and find the same name in the Celtic both of Wales and Ireland, and in the far- off Sanscrit. We then see that both the idea of government and thin 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."
This evidence proves the idea of government to have been present to the Aryan mind before separation, but almost as strongly does= itdisprove the supposition that the form of government was. kingly. It is all but impossible to believe that if rule had then. been embodied in a king, one only dialect of the common speech should have retained a connection between the two words. So far- from agreeing with Mr. Freeman when he says, " We have seem how much is proved by the presence of cognate names of offices, how little is proved by its absence," we should say that the absence here is very significative, while it would have required a wide use- to prove the word primitive, since it might be expected that more than one people would name the King "Ruler," even if the office- were of later growth.
When Mr. Freeman comes to a rather later period, he is more successful in the application of his method. His third_ lecture, which is chiefly on the State as a city and as a nation,. is full of matter. He shows how the family, or rather the clan, is the germ of organisation, both in town and country, and how this developed itself in different ways under varying conditions.. Here, in his treatment of the growth of the civic spirit in Greece- and Rome, we have a genuine bit of comparative politics. Thus, when in the gentes of Rome and Athens, and the 4f3ici of Sparta, he notes the signs of an earlier local and clannish tie, or remark& that the existence of the Rex Sacrificulus at Rome and the King Archon at Athens are signs that both cities had passed through the stage of kingly government, he is working on the lines which his title would lead us to expect. But here a question arises which deserves investigation, but which Mr. Freeman does not attempt to solve. Why is it that the different branches of the same race followed such different lines ; that the Greek tribe• grew into the city, while the German grew through the village into the nation ? The prevalence of the Idea of the City (a frequently-recurring phrase here) must be a result rather than a.
cause.
Are we to seek an explanation in the different aptitudes of the race, or in the influence of soil, climate, and situation'? If, as we suppose, we are to look to the latter influences, it is worth while to inquire closely what are the conditions which bring about such various results. Here is a field for the labours of the comparative historian which Mr. Freeman has left untouched.
We are glad that Mr. Freeman has included in this book his lecture delivered at Cambridge on "The Unity of History." No doubt it is marked by some of his characteristic defects, especially by his apparent incapacity to take any other view than the his- torical and political. The literary passion, which loves to feed itself only on the best work of the best times, and contents itself with continually finding new beauties in a small number of masterpieces, meets only with dislike or contempt from him. The question which he regards as of paramount, almost of exclusive, importance, is how a nation grew to be what it was, and in what way it exercised influence on the world. Even granting the purely historical point of view, it may be said that he puts his ease too strongly ; that, in spite of the enduring traditions of Rome, the spread of Christianity and the conquest of Western Europe by the Teutonic nations mark a real break, the beginning of a new development. Moreover, it may be urged that Mr. Freeman asks more than any man can do. It is true he confines himself to Europe, and so goes back only to Rome and Greece ; but if we are to carry out his principles fully, the history of Palestine, of Egypt, and of the whole East must be added to the curriculum. Yet it would be unfair to complain because an ideal standard is beyond our reach, and no student can read the lecture without being the better for it. Scholars are always tempted to concentrate attention too much on their especial subject, and forget its place in the general scheme of things. Many crotchets would be killed, if we could always bear in mind the complexity of the matter with which we have to deal ; and reflect how many and how distant causes have worked to produce results which we are apt to explain by some pet theory, as insufficient as it is delightfully simple.
Previous page
