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！
r upon it； monarchy would degenerate into despotic government。
8。 Why the Ancients had not a clear Idea of Monarchy。 The ancients had no notion of a government founded on a body of nobles； and much less on a legislative body composed of the representatives of the people。 The republics of Greece and Italy were cities that had each their own form of government； and convened their subjects within their walls。 Before Rome had swallowed up all the other republics； there was scarcely anywhere a king to be found； no； not in Italy； Gaul； Spain； or Germany； they were all petty states or republics。 Even Africa itself was subject to a great commonwealth： and Asia Minor was occupied by Greek colonies。 There was； therefore； no instance of deputies of towns or assemblies of the states； one must have gone as far as Persia to find a monarchy。
I am not ignorant that there were confederate republics； in which several towns sent deputies to an assembly。 But I affirm there was no monarchy on that model。
The first plan； therefore； of the monarchies we are acquainted with was thus formed。 The German nations that conquered the Roman empire were certainly a free people。 Of this we may be convinced only by reading Tacitus On the Manners of the Germans。 The conquerors spread themselves over all the country； living mostly in the fields； and very little in towns。 When they were in Germany； the whole nation was able to assemble。 This they could no longer do when dispersed through the conquered provinces。 And yet as it was necessary that the nation should deliberate on public affairs； pursuant to their usual method before the conquest； they had recourse to representatives。 Such is the origin of the Gothic government amongst us。 At first it was mixed with aristocracy and monarchy a mixture attended with this inconvenience； that the common people were bondmen。 The custom afterwards succeeded of granting letters of enfranchisement； and was soon followed by so perfect a harmony between the civil liberty of the people； the privileges of the nobility and clergy； and the prince's prerogative； that I really think there never was in the world a government so well tempered as that of each part of Europe； so long as it lasted。 Surprising that the corruption of the government of a conquering nation should have given birth to the best species of constitution that could possibly be imagined by man！
9。 Aristotle's Manner of Thinking。 Aristotle is greatly puzzled in treating of monarchy。＇14＇ He makes five species； and he does not distinguish them by the form of constitution； but by things merely accidental； as the virtues and vices of the prince； or by things extrinsic； such as tyranny usurped or inherited。
Among the number of monarchies he ranks the Persian empire and the kingdom of Sparta。 But is it not evident that the one was a despotic state and the other a republic？
The ancients； who were strangers to the distribution of the three powers in the government of a single person； could never form a just idea of monarchy。
10。 What other Politicians thought。 To temper monarchy； Arybas； king of Epirus；＇15＇ found no other remedy than a republic。 The Molossi； not knowing how to limit the same power； made two kings；＇16＇ by which means the state was weakened more than the prerogative； they wanted rivals； and they created enemies。
Two kings were tolerable nowhere but at Sparta； here they did not form； but were only a part of the constitution。
11。 Of the Kings of the heroic Times of Greece。 In the heroic times of Greece； a kind of monarchy arose that was not of long duration。＇17＇ Those who had been inventors of arts； who had fought in their country's cause； who had established societies； or distributed lands among the people； obtained the regal power； and transmitted it to their children。 They were kings； priests； and judges。 This was one of the five species of monarchy mentioned by Aristotle；＇18＇ and the only one that can give us any idea of the monarchical constitution。 But the plan of this constitution is opposite to that of our modern monarchies。
The three powers were there distributed in such a manner that the people were the legislature；＇19＇ and the king had the executive together with the judiciary power； whereas in modern monarchies the prince is invested with the executive and legislative powers； or at least with part of the legislative； but does not act in a judiciary capacity。
In the government of the kings of the heroic times； the three powers were ill…distributed。 Hence those monarchies could not long subsist。 For as soon as the people got the legislative power into their hands； they might； as they everywhere did； upon the very least caprice； subvert the regal authority。
Among a free people possessed of the legislative power； and enclosed within walls； where everything tending towards oppression appears still more odious； it is the masterpiece of legislation to know where to place properly the judiciary power。 But it could not be in worse hands than in those of the person to whom the executive power had been already committed。 From that very instant the monarch became terrible。 But at the same time as he had no share in the legislature； he could make no defence against it； thus his power was in one sense too great； in another too little。
They had not as yet discovered that the true function of a prince was to appoint judges； and not to sit as judge himself。 The opposite policy rendered the government of a single person insupportable。 Hence all these kings were banished。 The Greeks had no notion of the proper distribution of the three powers in the government of one person； they could see it only in that of many； and this kind of constitution they distinguished by the name of Polity。＇20＇
12。 Of the Government of the Kings of Rome； and in what Manner the three Powers were there distributed。 The government of the kings of Rome had some relation to that of the kings of the heroic times of Greece。 Its subversion； like the latter's； was owing to its general defect； though in its own particular nature it was exceedingly good。
In order to give an adequate idea of this government； I shall distinguish that of the first five kings； that of Servius Tullius； and that of Tarquin。
The crown was elective； and under the first five kings the senate had the greatest share in the election。
Upon the king's decease the senate examined whether they should continue the established form of government。 If they thought proper to continue it； they named a magistrate＇21＇ taken from their own body； who chose a king； the senate were to approve of the election； the people to confirm it； and the augurs to declare the approbation of the gods。 If any of these three conditions was wanting； they were obliged to proceed to another election。
The constitution was a mixture of monarchy； aristocracy； and democracy； and such was the harmony of power that there was no instance of jealousy or dispute in the first reigns。 The king commanded the armies； and had the direction of the sacrifices： he had the power of determining＇22＇ civil and criminal＇23＇ causes； he called the senate together； convened the people； laid some affairs before the latter； and regulated t