the origin of the distinction of ranks-第36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！
y of one； while the multitude is subjected to slavery and oppression。 A chief； who has the title of king； or sultan； issues his commands to his great vassals； who obey when they think proper。 These have inferiour vassals； who often act in the same manner with regard to them。 A small part of the nation live independent； under the title of Oram鏰y； or noble； and sell their services to those who pay them best； while the body of the nation is composed of slaves； and lives in perpetual servitude。 With these laws； the Malais are restless； fond of navigation； war； plunder； emigrations； colonies； desperate enterprises； adventures； and gallantry。 They talk incessantly of their honour； and their bravery； while they are universally regarded； by those with whom they have intercourse； as the most treacherous ferocious people on the face of the globe； and yet； what appeared to me extremely singular； they speak the softest language of Asia。 What the Count de Forbin has said； in his Memoirs； is exactly true； and is the reigning characteristic of all the Malay nations。 More attached to the absurd laws of their pretended honour； than to those of justice or humanity； you always observe； that among them； the strong oppress the weak： their treaties of peace and friendship never subsisting beyond that self…interest by which they were induced to make them。 They are almost always armed； and either at war among themselves； or employed in pillaging their neighbours。（12*） The remains of this feudal policy are also to be found in Turkey。 The Zaims and Timariots； in the Turkish empire； are a species of vassals； who possess landed estates upon condition of their upholding a certain number of soldiers for the service of the grand seignior。 The Zaims have lands of greater value than the Timariots； and are obliged to maintain a greater number of soldiers。 The estates of both； are； in some cases； held during pleasure； and in others hereditary。 It was computed； in the last century； that the whole militia maintained in this manner； throughout the Turkish empire； amounted to an hundred thousand men。 In the history of the ancient Persians； during the wars which they carried on with the Roman emperors； we may also discover some traces of a similar constitution of government； for it is observed that this nation had no mercenary troops； but that the whole people might be called out to war by the king； and upon the conclusion of every expedition； were accustomed to return； with their booty； to their several places of residence。 When a great and polished nation begins to relapse into its primitive rudeness and barbarism； the dominions which belong to it are in danger of falling asunder； and the same institutions may become necessary for preventing the different parts of the kingdom from being separated； which had been formerly employed in order to unite the several members of an extensive society。 This was the case among the Romans in the later periods of the empire。 When the provinces became in a great measure independent； and the government was no longer able to protect them from the repeated invasions of the barbarians； the inhabitants were obliged to shelter themselves under the dominion of particular great men in their neighbourhood； whom the emperor put in possession of large estates； upon condition of their maintaining a proper armed force to defend the country。 Thus； in different provinces； there arose a number of chiefs； or leaders； who enjoyed estates in land； as a consideration for the military service which they performed to the sovereign。 The Abb？Du Bos has thence been led to imagine that the feudal policy of the German nations was copied from those regulations already established in the countries which they subdued。 But it ought to be considered； that the growth and decay of society have； in some respects； a resemblance to each other； which independent of imitation； is naturally productive of similar manners and custom。 NOTES： 1。 Odyss。 lib。 8； v。 390。 2。 Pope's Odyss。 book 2； l。 19。 3。 See the account which is given of the forum originis； by the author of the historical law…tracts Kames； whose acute and original genius has been employed in uniting law with philosophy； and in extending the views of a gainful profession to the liberal pursuits of rational entertainment。 Historical law…tracts； chap。 of courts。 4。 'In every Gallic tribe； in every subdivision of the tribe； ind almost； one might say； in every household； there are rival factions controlled by men who are popularly supposed to be most influential with the group； and who therefore enjoy the last word in determining all questions of policy。 This ancient practice seems to have originated in a desire to give the common folk protection against powerful individuals； for no leader will tolerate the oppression or defrauding of his supporters： if he does； his authority is gone。 The same principle holds good for Gaul as a whole； for all the tribes are grouped in two factions or parties。' Caesar； de bell。 Gall。 lib。 6； 1。 See Treasurie of auncient and moderne Times； pub； 1619。 5。 Different authors have entertained very different opinions concerning the primitive state of landed property； and the origin of feudal tenures； in the modern nations of Europe。 The antiquaries who first turned their attention to researches on this subject； those of France in particular； living under an absolute monarchy； appear to have been strongly prepossessed by the form of government established in their own times； and their conjectures； with regard to the early state of the feudal institutions； were for a long time almost implicitly followed by later writers。 They suppose that； when any of the German nations settled in a Roman province； the king seized upon all the conquered lands： that； retaining in his own possession what was sufficient to maintain the dignity of the crown； he distributed the remainder among the principal officers of his army； to be held precariously upon condition of their attending him in war。 and that these officers afterwards bestowed part of their estates upon their dependents or followers； under similar conditions of military service。 This account seems liable to great objections。 First； it may be asked how the king came to possess so much power as would enable him； at once； to acquire the entire property of the conquered lands？ For it must be remembered that the conquest extended over the ancient inhabitants of the county； not over his own followers； and with respect to these last； the accounts given by Caesar and Tacitus of the German nations represent their princes as possessing a very limited authority。 2dly； Upon the supposition that all the conquered lands were originally held of the king during pleasure； his authority； immediately upon the settlement of these nations； must have been rendered altogether despotical。 If the king had a power of dispossessing all his subjects of their landed estates； he must have been more absolute than any monarch at present upon the face of the earth。 But the early history of the modern European nations gives an account of their government very different from this； and informs us that the nobility of each kingdom enjoyed great independence； and a degree of opulence； in many cases； little inferior to that of the monarch。 The idea that the king became originally proprietor of all the conquered lands seem now； upon a fuller examination of facts； to be in a great measure relinquished； and several writers of late have made it at least extremely probable that the land in the conquered provinces was at first occupied； according to circumstances； by different individuals； or distributed by lot among the warriors of each victorious tribe； and that each possessor became the full proprietor of that portion of land which had fallen to his share。 See Le droit publique de France； eclairci par les monumens de l'antiquit？ Par M。 Bouquet。 See also Observations sur l'histoire de France。 Par M。 L'Abb？de Mably。 It is true that； in the Modern kingdom of Europe； the proprietors of lands were early understood to be under an obligation of going out to war as often as the public interest required it。 But this was a duty which they owed to the community as
