the commonwealth of oceana-第28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！
ng else but nobility； by which； whatever their estates suck from the people； especially if it comes equally； is digested into the better blood of that commonwealth； which is all； or the greatest； benefit they can have by accumulation。 For how unequal soever you will have them to be in their incomes； they have officers of the pomp； to bring them equal in expenses； or at least in the ostentation or show of them。 And so unless the advantage of an estate consists more in the measure than in the use of it； the authority of Venice does but enforce our agrarian； nor shall a man evade or elude the prudence of it； by the authority of any other commonwealth。 〃For if a commonwealth has been introduced at once； as those of Israel and Lacedaemon； you are certain to find her underlaid with this as the main foundation； nor； if she is obliged more to fortune than prudence； has she raised her head without musing upon this matter； as appears by that of Athens； which through her defect in this point； says Aristotle； introduced her ostracism； as most of the democracies of Greece。 But； not to restrain a fundamental of such latitude to any one kind of government； do we not yet see that if there be a sole landlord of a vast territory； he is the Turk？ that if a few landlords overbalance a populous country； they have store of servants？ that if a people be in an equal balance； they can have no lords？ that no government can otherwise be erected； than upon some one of these foundations？ that no one of these foundations （each being else apt to change into some other） can give any security to the government； unless it be fixed？ that through the want of this fixation； potent monarchy and commonwealths have fallen upon the heads of the people； and accompanied their own sad ruins with vast effusions of innocent blood？ Let the fame； as was the merit of the ancient nobility of this nation； be equal to or above what has been already said； or can be spoken； yet have we seen not only their glory but that of a throne； the most indulgent to and least invasive for so many ages upon the liberty of a people that the world has known； through the mere want of fixing her foot by a proportionable agrarian upon her proper foundation； to have fallen with such horror as has been a spectacle of astonishment to the whole earth。 And were it well argued from one calamity； that we ought not to prevent another？ Nor is Aristotle so good a commonwealths man for deriding the invention of Phaleas as in recollecting himself； where he says that democracies； when a less part of their citizens overtop the rest in wealth； degenerate into oligarchies and principalities； and； which comes nearer to the present purpose； that the greater part of the nobility of Tarentum coming accidentally to be ruined； the government of the few came by consequence to be changed into that of the many。 〃These things considered； I cannot see how an agrarian； as to the fixation or security of a government； can be less than necessary。 And if a cure be necessary； it excuses not the patient； his disease being otherwise desperate； that it is dangerous； which was the case of Rome； not so stated by Machiavel； where he says； that the strife about the agrarian caused the destruction of that commonwealth。 As if when a senator was not rich （as Crassus held） except he could pay an army； that commonwealth could expect nothing but ruin whether in strife about the agrarian； or without it。 'Of late；' says Livy； 'riches have introduced avarice； and voluptuous pleasures abounding have through lust and luxury begot a desire of lasting and destroying all good orders。' if the greatest security of a commonwealth consists in being provided with the proper antidote against this poison； her greatest danger； must be from the absence of an agrarian； which is the whole truth of the Roman example。 For the Laconic； I shall reserve the further explication of it； as my lord also did； to another place； and first see whether an agrarian proportioned to a popular government be sufficient to keep out monarchy。 My lord is for the negative； and fortified by the people of Israel electing a king。 To which I say that the action of the people therein expressed is a full answer to the objection of that example； for the monarchy neither grew upon them； nor could； by reason of the agrarian； possibly have invaded them； if they had not pulled it upon themselves by the election of a king。 Which being an accident； the like whereof is not to be found in any other people so planted； nor in this till； as it is manifest； they were given up by God to infatuation （for says he to Samuel； 'They have not rejected thee； but they have rejected me； that I should not reign over them；）； has something in it which is apparent； by what went before； to have been besides the course of nature； and by what followed。 〃For the King having no other foundation than the calamities of the people； so often beaten by their enemies； that despairing of themselves they were contented with any change； if he had peace as in the days of Solomon； left but a slippery throne to his successor； as appeared by Rehoboam。 And the agrarian； notwithstanding the monarchy thus introduced； so faithfully preserved the root of that commonwealth； that it shot forth oftener and by intervals continued longer than any other government； as may be computed from the institution of the same by Joshua； 1；465 years before Christ； to the total dissolution of it； which happened in the reign of the emperor Adrian； 135 years after the incarnation。 A people planted upon an equal agrarian； and holding to it； if they part with their liberty； must do it upon good…will； and make but a bad title of their bounty。 As to instance yet further in that which is proposed by the present order to this nation； the standard whereof is at ？；000 a year； the whole territory of Oceana being divided by this proportion； amounts to 5；000 lots。 So the lands of Oceana being thus distributed； and bound to this distribution； can never fall to fewer than 5；000 proprietors。 But 5；000 proprietors so seized will not agree to break the agrarian； for that were to agree to rob one another； nor to bring in a king； because they must maintain him； and can have no benefit by him； nor to exclude the people； because they can have as little by that； and must spoil their militia。 So the commonwealth continuing upon the balance proposed； though it should come into 5；000 hands； can never alter； and that it should ever come into 5；000 hands is as improbable as anything in the world that is not altogether impossible。 〃My lord's other considerations are more private； as that； this order destroys families； which is as if one should lay the ruin of some ancient castle to the herbs which usually grow out of them； the destruction of those families being that indeed which naturally produced this order。 For we do not now argue for that which we would have； but for that which we are already possessed of； as would appear if a note were but taken of all such as have at this day above ？；000 a year in Oceana。 If my lord should grant （and I will put it with the most） that they who are proprietors in land； exceeding this proportion； exceed not 300； with what brow can the interest of so few be balanced with that of the whole nation？ or rather； what interest have they to put in such a balance？ they would live as they had been accustomed to do； who hinders them？ they would enjoy their estates； who touches them？ they would dispose of what they have according to the interest of their families； it is that which we desire。 A man has one son； let him be called； would he enjoy his father's estate？ it is his； his son's； and his son's son's after him。 A man has five sons； let them be called； would they enjoy their father's estate？ It is divided among them； for we have four votes for one in the same family； and therefore this must be the interest of the family； or the family knows not its own interest。 If a man shall dispute otherwise； he must draw his arguments from custom and from greatness； which was the interest of the monarchy； not of the family； and we are now a commonwealth。 If the monarchy could not bear with such divisions because they tendered to a commonwealth； neither can a co
