Rights in Civil Society - Part Three
Chapter 4
The origins of civil governments in history
1848. Publicists like Pufendorf, Montesquieu, Sonnenfels and others, who
make States pass successively from anarchy to democracy, aristocracy and
monarchy, err only in the desire to apply to history what is perfectly
acceptable in theory. Euclid first presupposed the point from which he posited
the line, from which he posited the surface, from which he posited the solid -
an excellent order for science, but contrary to the order of nature. The order
of ideas is always opposite to the order of facts; confusion in their
relationship causes error.
Even if we identify all the theoretical elements and arrange them according to
the order of concepts, we see that in history these different elements are
modified and altered without any apparent regularity according to
circumstances.
1849. So far we have dealt with the titles which could have initiated civil government among human beings in the state of nature. It is untrue that no trace of any of these titles is visible in history. On the contrary, history reveals traces of them all, but not in the order which we have given them according to the law of concepts. They are historically mixed with every expression of human passion and vice: justice is found next to violence, beneficence in the midst of the horrors of cruelty. Before I discuss the titles of second acquisition, I shall make some observations on the historical order of the titles already dealt with.
1850. The first historical question is: `Of what kind was the first civil government to exist on earth?'
We have already answered: it was civil government joined with ownership; it was divine, paternal, seigniorial, proprietary government.
1851. The second question is: `Was the first civil government pure, that is, separate from dominion and ownership?' The answer seems of little importance because it depends on the circumstances and the opportunities which made families associate.
1852. Two things must be distinguished in the progress of the human race:
1. The ordinary, continuous course of growth in perfection.
2. The extraordinary accidents which affect this course by accelerating or
delaying it.
These two forces, one ordinary, the other extraordinary, are also evident in
the establishment of civil societies, which are formed through either regular,
almost natural progress, or precipitous, irregular movement.(101)
1853. Although the ordinary course of things is continuous, we cannot infer that it is always more powerful than the extraordinary accidents, or that it obtains its end more quickly. Sometimes extraordinary accidents find things so disposed that extraordinary interventiion accomplishes in a short time what the ordinary process would accomplish only imperfectly and after a long time. Sometimes they delay interminably what the ordinary process would have obtained without them.
1854. The ordinary, developing course of humanity results from the active qualities common to all human beings; this is the course of the masses. The extraordinary course is due to the extraordinary abilities and activities of certain individuals, and to their vices and virtues.
1855. Civil society, formed by consent and by contract amongst family heads, must be seen as the effect of the ordinary course of things; civil society subjugated by a conqueror, whether just or unjust, can only be considered as the effect of an extraordinary accident. Because extraordinary accidents cannot be foreknown, it is possible for civil societies to be produced by some extraordinary event which precedes the slow course of nature. We find undoubtable traces of this in the giants mentioned in Scripture, who were violent men, conquerors and founders of governments, or more exactly, of seigniories. After the Flood, the race of Ham evidently spread wide and for a short time ruled on the earth. Later they were conquered and dispersed in every direction, particularly by the Japhites.
1856. Nevertheless, the slow course of natural development continued amidst
this violence. The number of families had to increase before they could unite
in civil society. Although they all originated from one father, their
characteristics were different; they had something proper to themselves and
something common to the paternal family. These two elements mingled in varying
measure; sometimes the common element dominated, sometimes the proper element.
With the passage of time, one of two things had to happen: either a violent man
would appear who would subject his brethren — the extraordinary case
— or families would continue to multiply, and events follow their ordinary
course.
1857. The ordinary course of the multiplication of families could be
conceived as follows. First, families needed to feel the discomfort of living
together in the same area. Then, because of the shortage of food and material
comforts, disputes and quarrels arose. It was then natural for them to discuss
means of remedying this unsatisfactory state, as Scripture says: `They said to
one another.'(102) But these
discussions did not produce a civil society, nor did time render such society
indispensable; the people were able to provide for their needs in other ways.
Hence, we must believe that civil society, in common with all other spontaneous
humans operations, was formed only when need forced it on the people.
Certainly, the first remedy for excessive multiplication must have been
separation, which was suggested by the people a hundred years after the Flood.
Before separating, however, they united to build the tower of Babel.
The mutual withdrawal of families kept them in a state of domestic society for a further period. The fathers themselves preferred to emancipate their children rather than exercise civil rule over them; the strong will of the offspring for development and extension aroused their need for independence. Sometimes their insubordination, their ferocity, forced their fathers to exercise a very gentle government even in the home, and to bear and deplore their mistakes silently rather than correct them severely. Sometimes they had to be dying before they could punish or reward their children by calling down curses and blessings, as Jacob did with Ruben, Simeon and Levi. If the children grew more insubordinate or upset the domestic peace for any reason whatsoever, the fathers preferred to expel them outright from the home, giving them full independence. Abraham acted in this way with Ishmael, whose character was similar to that of Esau, Isaac's son. Noah evidently did the same thing earlier, like his three sons, who lived a long time after the Babel dispersion. The father possibly went west, the children spread to the east. The fathers therefore, instead of maintaining civil government over all their children, took the way of general peace offered by vast, unoccupied territory. They let them separate to found new families independent of each other.
The first dispersion, and the most impressive, was that of Babel, but it was not the only one; similar separations had probably occurred many times. We see that Abraham and Lot separated: `The land could not support both of them dwelling together,' Scripture tells us, `for their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together, and there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle... Then Abram said to Lot, "Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen; for we are kinsmen. Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left".'(103) Lot chose the well-watered lands of Sodom and Gomorrah, and separated from Abraham.
As long as lands were extensive and spacious, and people were few, there was
naturally no place for civil society. This was the time for acquiring
rights, not for regulating their modality. Arguments and disputes
were avoided by families moving away from each other. Luxury was not known, and
every family lived in peace and abundance.
Not long after the dispersion of Babel, the Hamite, Nimrod, established a
kingdom. A violent man, he upset the natural course of events. Assur, who gave
his name to the Assyrian monarchy, is possibly the son of Sem, conqueror of the
tyrannical descendants of Ham.
1858. New irritations must have been experienced, as human beings continued
to multiply. Emigration became more difficult and troublesome, especially for
those who had turned to agriculture and had already formed the first concept of
a fatherland. Unoccupied land became ever further away, and mountains, rivers,
deserts and sea obstructed progressive dispersion. The effort of transporting
oneself with all one's possessions and leaving one's native land made a fixed
habitation pleasant, while the discovery of various skills rendered such
movement intolerable and impossible. The necessity now arose of discovering how
best to stay together and regulate the modality of everybody's rights, so that
the land could hold a greater number of peaceful persons supplied with what was
necessary.
Two means of solving the difficulties were now tried: weapons and
law, that is, tyranny and the establishment of equable civil societies.
The first wars aimed at establishing settlements; swarms left the hive to
search for somewhere to settle and feed themselves. The Israelites, for
example, drove the Canaanites out of Palestine: of these some were destroyed,
others took flight, and some, Newton suggests, went either into Egypt where
they found other Hamites, descendants of Mesraim, already settled, or made
their home on the African coast.
Many civil societies must have had a peaceful foundation. In Abraham's time we
see communities subject to kings, and to priests, whatever the means the latter
had used to occupy the royal dignity. However, the smallness of these kingdoms,
the names of cities taken from the family heads and the peaceful, domestic
disposition of the priestly dignity indicate the separation of families from
each other.
1859. During this time, when people tended to disperse rather than establish a fixed dwelling, progress in founding civil societies must have been slow and haphazard. The period can be considered as extending as far as the death of Jacob, five and a half centuries after the dispersion of Babel. It is an age of uncertainty, not reported in profane history precisely because civil societies do not exist; for the whole of its duration, human life was long.
1860. In the following period, when the fathers lived much shorter lives, civil government became more necessary to preserve general peace and happiness; dispersion was too difficult. The profane history that has come down to us with dates is almost entirely Greek and begins nine or more centuries after the death of Jacob — centuries of legend, full of unreliable traditions. The search for profane records of the historical origins of civil society at most produces origins of societies that appeared late in a corner of the world. Greece itself is very small compared with so many nations of the earliest times whose reliable history is almost entirely lacking. The error of authors who over-generalise Greek history, substituting it and Roman history for humanity, has often been pointed out. A great number of publicists who considered the golden age of the Greek poets as the state of nature based many of their useless theories on it.
1861. Whenever one or more families settled in new territory, they started a new world. Their transformation into nations involved experiences similar to those of the first family of Noah. I say `similar' and not `equal' because, as we have noted, every family possesses a proper element in addition to the common element. Furthermore, each is subject to the action of a different climate and has to procure its means of sustenance in different ways. The children who come afterwards also bring to the world their own element which, although accidental relative to us who cannot foresee it, is predisposed by Providence with infinite wisdom. In this way new challenges arise, and all the possible origins of civil society become a reality one after the other.
1862. We can note generally that the origins of civil society among the
nations springing from the families of Noah's three sons exhibit in some way
the character inherent in lineages.
The Hamites, more wicked and sensual than the others, widespread in Africa,
were destined to be bond-servants. The Semites, a very intuitive race
who spread through Asia, aspired to absolute domination. The Japhites,
among whom reasoning prevailed over intuition, settled in Europe and showed
themselves most apt for civil society. All this accorded with the will of their
father.(104)
Among the Hamites, civil societies must have been almost non-existent due to
dissipated living and brutality. They could be violent, were always
superstitious and, after material prosperity of short duration, were destroyed
and subjected to base servitude.
The Semites must have been conquerors; the seigniory they practised was the
origin of civil societies.
Only the Japhites were able to separate civil society from ownership and
dominion, and conceive the idea of pure, abstract, civil government. The
Hamites, having a debased intelligence and enslaved by the tyranny of material
imagination, could not rise to abstraction; their debased intelligence
prevented their having a calm, just spirit. The Semites, a people of sublime,
contemplative intellect, which they devoted to the faculty of thought, made
very slow progress with the faculty of abstraction. Only the descendants of
Japhet were characterised by their skill and ease in using their intelligence
to separate one thing from another, to distinguish and to abstract.
The ability to conceive divine things without being able to abstract and divide them certainly elevates and perfects concepts. It disposes human beings to become enthusiastic, to open themselves to great and sublime designs, and to be capable of executing them. The simplicity of their ideas is matched by the absoluteness of their wishes; the means used for their enterprises are now complete and full. But the same manner of mental conception, when applied to limited, human things, is very defective, with the consequent loss of many a good, which abstraction could have saved. Using our intelligence to divide one thing from another does reduce our energy for thinking, and slows our activity, but it compensates by goading us on to find remedies and solve difficulties. This may indeed make us fussy, dull and content with indifferent solutions, but it also renders us patient, persevering in our tasks and happy in the most complex undertakings. Neither virtue in all its simplicity nor pure vice is normally found in people endowed with prompt abstraction. Our action varies according to the partiality of our vision; we are not controlled by enthusiasm, but guided by cold reason. This is the character of the Japhite; it is more mobile, more developed than that of the Semite; it is able to rise from decline and, to some degree, from corruption itself. This explains why among Europeans the origins of civil governments were laid down and perfected in the ordinary course of events, whereas among Asiatics they arose almost solely in the extraordinary case of conquest, and never became perfect.
The Semite conquests were directed against the violent Hamites whom Josuah drove into western Asia where they still remain. The Semite, Mohammed, attacked them in Africa. The Japhites, despite their humanity, searched them out and exterminated them in America, where Japhet spread widely, three thousand years after Noah's prophecy. The Asiastics themselves became subject to the Europeans, but were not destroyed — the descendants of Japhet did not destroy those they conquered but associated with them in a single civil commonalty. The political mission of Japhet therefore is to found PURE civil societies. Who knows how much harm the refugees from Canaan did to Carthage, or what harm Egyptian and Phoenician blood may have brought to Greece?
1863. We must also note, when discussing the origin of civil societies, how historians record one form of government more easily than another. When a monarchy is established, civil society undoubtedly exists. This is not the case with popular government that exercises only little action. Thus nearly all historians say that the first form of government was monarchic,(105) without considering what form preceded it. Homer's description of the isolated Sicilian families, who had neither common laws nor assemblies, presupposes that the custom, practised by family heads, of uniting and deliberating matters of mutual utility was found among other peoples. We have here a trace of very ancient popular government preceding the age of the Cyclops. Homer does not say they had no king but that they did not meet together, that is, they had no civil society.
1864. In the ordinary course of events a head is usually constituted for a military need only. Aristotle, who sees the origin of the king in paternal rule, clearly states that in the absence of a father the eldest of the family took command. He also says that the growth of the family gave rise to the town, and that four towns united to make the city.(106) This can only be a special case. Granted the very tenacity of paternal traditions,(107) this case cannot explain the origin of all civil societies; it is a case proper to peaceful families, all of whose children follow a regular course. A more frequent origin of the monarchic form seems to be that of the choice of a commander-in-chief when a multitude needs to defend itself or wishes to conquer. If that commander-in-chief makes himself the stable governor of the people whom he leads, it is natural to say that civil society began with him; under him the society begins to have strong, visible influence, and takes on regular, solemn forms — prior to him, there was little organisation and few formalities.
1865. Among the Hebrews, we cannot really say that an external, executive government existed for the four hundred years from the time of Moses to the first king, Saul. A commander-in-chief was chosen according to need. Because Hebrew theocracy had a popular form prior to a royal form, popular governments existed before the kings. These governments however are nascent rather than perfect civil societies; they supply contingent needs and restrain the few disorders which arise when life is simple.
1866. Civil society grows and becomes perfect in proportion to needs. This is precisely why popular governments naturally become ever more restricted and eventually monarchic. On the other hand, internal vice increases, and, even without the need of defence against external enemies, necessitates a stronger, more organised government. This probably explains why God complained about the Hebrews who requested a king. In Deuteronomy,(108) foreseeing the time when they would need a king, he had already decreed what this king would have to observe. Evidently, the complaint did not so much concern the request for a king, but the need motivating the request, that is, the increase of vice. Hence God's words to Samuel: `They have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.'(109)
Notes
(101) Authors divided these two ways in which civil associations, considered in themselves, arose. Some declared the origin of civil society to be natural. Horn writes: `The City is the work of nature, produced in a natural order and sequence, that is, out of the family and the abundance of offspring' (De Civit., bk. 1, 4, 6). Others declared the origin to be the work of violence and tyranny, etc.
(102) Gen 11: [3].
(103) Gen 13: [6-9].
(104) For the story of Noah's three sons, cf. Mons. Marchetti's La felicità in problema etc., Imola, 1823.
(105) Aristotle, Polit., 1: 1; Cicero, De Legibus, 3; Sallust, Jugurtha; Pausanias, bk. 9; Justin, bk. 1; Tacitus, Ann., bk. 1.
(106) Aristotle's observation that the city was originally composed of four towns seems a very ancient tradition. In the formation of the first historically known civil societies the number four is constantly before us. Scripture states that four places formed the kingdom of Nimrod (Gen 10: [10 Douai]). The rabbis claim that every leader of the peoples had four places to govern. The royal palace at Nineveh is thought to have been divided into four towns, minor cities, just as Jerusalem was divided into four small cities. Cicero says that the metropolis of Sicily was composed of four great cities (bk. 6, in Verr.). According to the artist, Fabius, Romulus divided Rome into four cities (Varrone, bk. 4, De ling. lat.); the same is claimed for the Etruscans. An author has observed that the Trojans were divided into four parts, and that the Indian castes were four. The use of the word `tetrapolis' also seems to prove the fact. A fragment of Xenophon says that in ancient times a country city was called a monopolis, a rich city a dipolis, the principal city of a province a tripolis, and the royal palace that presided over the others a tetrapolis. Julius Caesar also says: `Every Helvetic city has four towns' (bk. 1, De Bel. Gal.).
(107) Among the Tartars, family government was constant (the same can be said about other Asian peoples). Consequently they guarded their genealogies like treasure, and used them to see who was head or mursa of the lineage. This head represented their first father and exercised the authority of judge in time of peace, and champion in time of war. Eventually the family of Genghis ruled the others.
(108) Deut 17.
(109) 1 Sam 8: 7.