the origin of the distinction of ranks-第33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！


ppen　that　the　latter；　instead　of　prosecuting　a　uniform　plan　for　aggrandizing　their　own　order；　should　be　occupied　with　private　quarrels　and　dissensions　among　themselves；　so　that　the　king；　who　is　ready　to　improve　every　conjuncture　for　extending　his　power；　may　often　employ　and　assist　the　great　lords　in　destroying　each　other；　or　take　advantage　of　those　occasions　when　they　have　been　weakened　by　their　continued　struggles；　and　are　in　no　condition　to　oppose　his　demands。　　　　　According　as　the　real　influence　and　authority　of　the　crown　are　extended；　its　prerogatives　are　gradually　augmented。　When　the　king　finds　that　the　original　chiefs　have　become　in　a　great　measure　dependent　upon　him；　he　is　not　solicitous　about　consulting　them　in　the　management　of　public　affairs；　and　the　meetings　of　the　national　council；　being　seldom　called；　or　being　attended　only　by　such　members　as　are　entirely　devoted　to　the　crown；　dwindle　away　from　time　to　time；　and　are　at　last　laid　aside　altogether。　The　judicial　power　of　the　heads　of　different　tribes　is　gradually　subjected　to　similar　encroachments；　and　that　jurisdiction；　which　they　at　first　held　in　virtue　of　their　own　authority；　is　rendered　subordinate　to　the　tribunal　of　the　monarch；　who；　after　having　established　the　right　of　appeal　from　their　courts　to　his　own　court；　is　led　to　appoint　the　judges　in　each　particular　district。　The　power　of　making　laws；　as　well　as　that　of　determining　peace　and　war；　and　of　summoning　all　his　subjects　to　the　field；　may　come　in　like　manner　to　be　exercised　at　the　discretion　of　the　prince。　This　progress　of　government；　towards　monarchy；　though　it　seem　to　hold　universally；　is　likely　to　be　accompanied　with　some　diversity　of　appearances　in　different　countries；　and；　in　particular；　is　commonly　more　rapid　in　a　small　state　than　in　a　large　one；　in　which　point　of　view　the　ancient　Greek　and　Romans　are　most　remarkably　distinguished　from　the　greater　part　of　the　feudal　kingdoms　in　Europe。　　　　　The　Roman　and　Greek　states　were　originally　of　small　extent；　and　the　people　belonging　to　each　of　them　being；　for　the　most　part；　collected　in　one　city；　were　led　in　a　short　time　to　cultivate　an　acquaintance。　The　police　which　was　easily　established　in　such　a　limited　territory；　put　a　stop　to　the　divisions　so　prevalent　among　neighbouring　tribes　of　barbarians。　Those　who　belonged　to　different　families　were　soon　restrained　from　injuring　one　another；　and　lived　in　security　under　the　protection　of　the　government。　By　conversing　together　almost　every　day；　their　ancient　prejudices　were　eradicated；　and　their　animosities；　being　no　longer　cherished　by　reciprocal　acts　of　hostility；　were　allowed　to　subside；　and　left　no　traces　behind。　The　whole　people；　being　early　engaged　in　violent　struggles　with　the　petty　states　around　them；　were　obliged　to　hold　an　intimate　correspondence；　and　acquired　an　high　sense　of　public　interest。　In　proportion　as　they　were　thus　incorporated　in　a　larger　community；　they　lost　all　inferior　distinctions。　The　members　of　each　particular　tribe　had　no　reason　to　maintain　their　peculiar　connexions；　or　to　preserve　their　primitive　attachment　to　their　respective　chiefs。　The　power　of　the　nobility；　therefore；　which　depended　upon　those　circumstances；　was　quickly　destroyed；　and　the　monarch；　who　remained　at　the　head　of　the　nation　without　a　rival　to　counterbalance　his　influence；　had　no　difficulty　in　extending　his　influence　over　the　whole　of　his　dominions。　　　　　For　this　reason；　the　ancient　jurisdiction　and　authority　of　the　chiefs　is　not　very　distinctly　marked　in　the　early　history　of　those　nations；　among　whom　it　was　in　a　great　measure　destroyed　before　they　were　possessed　of　historical　records。　At　Rome；　so　early　as　the　reign　of　Servius　Tullius；　the　practice　of　convening　the　people　according　to　their　tribes；　or　curiae；　was　almost　entirely　laid　aside；　and　the　public　assemblies　were　held　in　such　a　manner；　that　every　individual　was　classed　according　to　his　wealth。　　　　　The　great　extent；　on　the　other　hand；　of　those　modern　kingdoms　which；　upon　the　downfall　of　the　Roman　empire；　were　erected　in　the　western　part　of　Europe；　was　formerly　mentioned；　and　the　political　consequences；　which　appear　to　have　been　immediately　derived　from　that　circumstance；　were　likewise　taken　notice　of。　The　numerous　tribes；　or　separate　families；　that　were　associated　under　a　sovereign；　far　from　being　collected　in　a　single　town；　were　spread　over　a　large　territory；　and　living　at　a　distance　from　each　other；　were　for　a　long　time　prevented　from　having　much　intercourse；　or　from　acquiring　the　habits　of　polished　society。　Strangers　to　regular　government；　and　little　restrained　by　the　authority　of　the　public　magistrate；　they　were　devoted　to　their　several　chiefs；　by　whom　they　were　encouraged　to　rob　and　plunder　their　neighbours；　and　protected　from　the　punishment　due　to　their　offences。　Mutual　depredations　became　the　source　of　perpetual　animosity　and　discord　among　neighbouring　barons；　who；　from　jealousy；　from　an　interference　of　interest；　or　from　resentment　of　injuries；　were；　for　the　most　part；　either　engaged　in　actual　hostilities；　or　lying　in　wait　for　a　favourable　opportunity　to　oppress　and　destroy　one　another。　Thus　every　kingdom　was　composed　of　a　great　variety　of　parts；　loosely　combined　together；　and　for　several　centuries　may　be　regarded　as　a　collection　of　small　independent　societies；　rather　than　as　one　great　political　community。　The　slow　advances　which　were　afterwards　made　by　the　people　towards　a　more　complete　union；　appear　to　have　been　productive　of　that　feudal　subordination　which　has　been　the　subject　of　so　much　investigation　and　controversy。　　　　　In　those　times　of　license　and　disorder；　the　proprietors　of　small　estates　were　necessarily　exposed　to　many　hardships　and　calamities。　Surrounded　by　wealthier　and　more　powerful　neighbours；　by　whom　they　were　invaded　from　every　quarter；　and　held　in　constant　terror；　they　could　seldom　indulge　the　hope　of　maintaining　their　possessions；　or　of　transmitting　them　to　their　posterity。　Conscious　therefore　of　their　weakness；　they　endeavoured　to　provide　for　their　future　safety；　by　soliciting　the　aid　of　some　opulent　chief；　who　appeared　most　capable　of　defending　them；　and；　in　order　to　obtain　that　protection　which　he　afforded　to　his　ancient　retainers　or　vassals；　they　were　obliged　to　render　themselves　equally　subservient　to　his　interest；　to　relinquish　their　pretensions　to　independence；　to　acknowledge　him　as　their　leader；　and　to　yield　him　that　homage　and　fealty　which　belonged　to　a　feudal　superior。　　　　　The　nature　of　these　important　transactions；　the　solemnities　with　which　they　were　accompanied；　and　the　views　and　motives　from　which　they　were　usually　concluded；　are　sufficiently　explained　from　the　copies　or　forms　of　those　deeds　which　have　been　collected　and　handed　down　to　us。　The　vassal　promised　in　a　solemn　manner　to　submit　to　the　jurisdiction　of　the　superior；　to　reside　within　his　domain；　and　to　serve　him　in　war；　whether　he　should　be　engaged　in　prosecuting　his　own　quarrels；　or　in　the　common　cause　of　the　nation。　The　superior；　on　the　other　hand；　engaged　to　exert　all　his　power　and　influence；　in　protecting　the　vassal；　in　defending　his　possessions；　or　in　avenging　his　death；　in　case　he　should　be　assassinated。　In　consequence　of　these　mutual　engagements；　the　vassal；　by　certain　symbols　expressive　of　the　agreement；　resigned　his　property；　of　which　he　again　received　the　investiture　from　the　hands　of　the　superior。（7*）　　　　　It　is　probable；　however；　that　the　extension　of　particular　baronies；　by　the　voluntary　submission　of　allodial　proprietors；　contributed　to　ascertain　the　right　of　the　vassal；　and　to　limit　that　property　with　which　the　superior　was　originally　invested。　The　ancient　military　tenants；　who　were　the　kindred　and　relations　of　the　superior；　and　who　had　received　their　lands　as　a　pure　gratuity；　never　thought　of　demanding　to　be　secured　in　the　future　possession；　and　while　they　continued　to　support　the　interest　of　the　family；　which　they　looked　upon　as　inseparable　from　their　own　interest；　they　had　no　apprehension　that　they　should　ever　be　deprived　of　their　estates。　Thus；　according　to　the　more　accurate　ideas　of　later　times；　they　were　merely　tenants　at　will；　though　from　the　affection　of　their　master；　and　from　their　inviolable　fidelity　to　him；　they　were　commonly　permitted　to　enjoy　their　lands　duri