summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/51544-h/51544-h.htm
blob: e3ebb9c04137fdad701700efe29c97624a85e8d9 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380
8381
8382
8383
8384
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8441
8442
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
8493
8494
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
8554
8555
8556
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580
8581
8582
8583
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
8607
8608
8609
8610
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
8660
8661
8662
8663
8664
8665
8666
8667
8668
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
8693
8694
8695
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719
8720
8721
8722
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
8780
8781
8782
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806
8807
8808
8809
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
8833
8834
8835
8836
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
8861
8862
8863
8864
8865
8866
8867
8868
8869
8870
8871
8872
8873
8874
8875
8876
8877
8878
8879
8880
8881
8882
8883
8884
8885
8886
8887
8888
8889
8890
8891
8892
8893
8894
8895
8896
8897
8898
8899
8900
8901
8902
8903
8904
8905
8906
8907
8908
8909
8910
8911
8912
8913
8914
8915
8916
8917
8918
8919
8920
8921
8922
8923
8924
8925
8926
8927
8928
8929
8930
8931
8932
8933
8934
8935
8936
8937
8938
8939
8940
8941
8942
8943
8944
8945
8946
8947
8948
8949
8950
8951
8952
8953
8954
8955
8956
8957
8958
8959
8960
8961
8962
8963
8964
8965
8966
8967
8968
8969
8970
8971
8972
8973
8974
8975
8976
8977
8978
8979
8980
8981
8982
8983
8984
8985
8986
8987
8988
8989
8990
8991
8992
8993
8994
8995
8996
8997
8998
8999
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
9007
9008
9009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033
9034
9035
9036
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9059
9060
9061
9062
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
9097
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
9106
9107
9108
9109
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
9119
9120
9121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9136
9137
9138
9139
9140
9141
9142
9143
9144
9145
9146
9147
9148
9149
9150
9151
9152
9153
9154
9155
9156
9157
9158
9159
9160
9161
9162
9163
9164
9165
9166
9167
9168

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
    <title>
      The Project Gutenberg eBook of The State, by Franz Oppenheimer.
    </title>
    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
    <style type="text/css">

body {
    margin-left: 40px;
    margin-right: 40px;
}

h1,h2, h3 {
    text-align: center;
    clear: both;
    margin-top: 2.5em;
    margin-bottom: 1em;
}

h1 {line-height: 1;}

h2.chap {margin-bottom: 0;}
h2+p {margin-top: 1.5em;}
h2+h3 {margin-top: 1.5em;}
h2 .subhead {display: block; margin-top: .5em; margin-bottom: 1em;}

.transnote h2 {
    margin-top: .5em;
    margin-bottom: 1em;
}

.subhead {
    text-indent: 0;
    text-align: center;
    font-size: 75%;
}


p {
    text-indent: 1.75em;
    margin-top: .51em;
    margin-bottom: .24em;
    text-align: justify;
}
p.center {text-indent: 0;}

.p0 {margin-top: 0em;}
.p1 {margin-top: 1em;}
.p2 {margin-top: 2em;}
.p4 {margin-top: 4em;}
.vspace {line-height: 1.5;}

.in0 {text-indent: 0;}
.in2 {padding-left: 2em;}

.small   {font-size: 70%;}
.smaller {font-size: 85%;}
.larger  {font-size: 125%;}
.large   {font-size: 150%;}

.center   {text-align: center;}

.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
.smcap.smaller {font-size: 75%;}

.bold {font-weight: bold;}

hr {
    width: 33%;
    margin-top: 4em;
    margin-bottom: 4em;
    margin-left: 33%;
    margin-right: auto;
    clear: both;
}

table {
    margin-left: auto;
    margin-right: auto;
    max-width: 80%;
    border-collapse: collapse;
}

.tdl {
    text-align: left;
    vertical-align: top;
    padding-right: 1em;
    padding-left: 2.75em;
    text-indent: -1.5em;
}
.tdl.in2 {padding-left: 2em;}

.tdr {
    text-align: right;
    vertical-align: bottom;
    padding-left: 0;
    white-space: nowrap;
}
tr.chap .tdr.first {
    vertical-align: top;
    font-size: 110%;
    padding-top: .5em;
    padding-right: .75em;
}
tr.chap .tdl {font-size: 110%; padding-top: .5em;}
tr.chap .tdl {padding-left: 1.5em;}
.tdl.chap+.tdr {padding-top:.75em;}

.pagenum {
  position: absolute;
  right: 4px;
  text-indent: 0em;
  text-align: right;
  font-size: 70%;
  font-weight: normal;
  font-variant: normal;
  font-style: normal;
  letter-spacing: normal;
  line-height: normal;
  color: #acacac;
  border: 1px solid #acacac;
  background: #ffffff;
  padding: 1px 2px;
}

.figcenter   {
    margin: 2em auto 2em auto;
    text-align: center;
    page-break-inside: avoid;
    max-width: 100%;
}

.footnotes {
    border: thin dashed black;
    margin: 4em 5% 1em 5%;
    padding: .5em 1em .5em 1.5em;
}


.footnote {font-size: .95em;}
.footnote p {text-indent: 1em;}
.footnote p.in0 {text-indent: 0;}
.footnote p.fn1 {text-indent: -.7em;}
.footnote p.fn2 {text-indent: -1.1em;}
.footnote p.fn3 {text-indent: -1.5em;}

.footnote.inline {
    border: thin dashed black;
    margin: 1.5em 10%;
    padding: .5em;
}

.fnanchor {
    vertical-align: 80%;
    line-height: .7;
    font-size: .75em;
    text-decoration: none;
}
.footnote .fnanchor {font-size: .8em;}
.fnanchor.smaller {font-size: .5em; vertical-align: text-top;}

blockquote {
    margin-left: 5%;
    margin-right: 5%;
    font-size: 95%;
}

.poem-container {
    text-align: center;
    font-size: 98%;
}

.poem {
    display: inline-block;
    text-align: left;
    margin-left: 0;
}

.poem br {display: none;}

.poem .stanza{padding: 0.5em 0;}

.poem span.iq     {display: block; margin-left: -.5em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;}
.poem span.i0     {display: block; margin-left: 0em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;}
.poem span.i2     {display: block; margin-left: 1em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;}


.transnote {
    background-color: #EEE;
    border: thin dotted;
    font-family: sans-serif, serif;
    color: #000;
    margin-left: 5%;
    margin-right: 5%;
    margin-top: 4em;
    margin-bottom: 2em;
    padding: 1em;
}
.covernote {visibility: hidden; display: none;}

.sigright {
     margin-right: 2em;
     text-align: right;}

.gesperrt {
    letter-spacing: 0.2em;
    margin-right: -0.2em;
}
.wspace {word-spacing: .3em;}

.bbox {margin: 4em 20% 1em 20%; border: thin solid black; padding: 1em;}

@media print, handheld
{
    h1, .chapter, .newpage {page-break-before: always;}
    h1.nobreak, h2.nobreak, .nobreak {page-break-before: avoid; padding-top: 0;}

    p {
        margin-top: .5em;
        text-align: justify;
        margin-bottom: .25em;
    }

    table {width: 100%; max-width: 100%;}

}

@media handheld
{
    body {margin: 0;}

    hr {
        margin-top: .1em;
        margin-bottom: .1em;
        visibility: hidden;
        color: white;
        width: .01em;
        display: none;
    }

    blockquote {margin: 1.5em 3% 1.5em 3%;}

    .poem-container {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%;}
    .poem {display: block;}
    .poem .stanza {page-break-inside: avoid;}

    .transnote {
        page-break-inside: avoid;
        margin-left: 2%;
        margin-right: 2%;
        margin-top: 1em;
        margin-bottom: 1em;
        padding: .5em;
    }
    .covernote {visibility: visible; display: block; text-align: center;}

    .bbox {margin: 1em 5% 1em 5%;}

}
  </style>
  </head>

<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 51544 ***</div>

<div class="transnote covernote">
<p class="center">Transcriber’s Note<br />
Text on the original cover was added by the Transcriber and placed in the Public Domain.</p>
</div>



<h1><span class="large wspace">THE STATE</span></h1>

<p class="center larger"><i>ITS HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT VIEWED
SOCIOLOGICALLY</i></p>

<p class="p2 center large"><i>By</i> FRANZ OPPENHEIMER, M.D., <span class="smcap">Ph.D.</span><br />
<span class="small">Professor of Political Science in the University of Frankfort-on-Main</span></p>

<p class="p2 center"><i>Authorized Translation</i><br />
<span class="larger"><i>By</i> JOHN M. GITTERMAN, <span class="smcap">Ph.D.</span>, LL.B.</span><br />
<span class="smaller">(Of the New York County Bar)</span></p>

<div class="p2 figcenter" style="width: 119px;">
<img src="images/tp.jpg" width="119" height="145" alt="Publisher’s logo" />
</div>



<p class="p2 center vspace"><span class="smcap">New York</span><br />
<span class="larger gesperrt">VANGUARD PRESS</span>
</p>


<hr />

<p class="newpage p4 center">
<i>Copyright</i>, 1914<br />
<span class="smcap">The Bobbs-Merrill Company</span><br />
<br />
<i>Copyright</i>, 1922<br />
<span class="smcap">B. W. Huebsch, Inc.</span></p>

<p class="p2 center vspace">VANGUARD PRINTINGS<br />
<i>First&mdash;August, 1926</i><br />
<i>Second&mdash;February, 1928</i></p>

<p class="p2 center smaller">PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</p>

<hr />

<div class="chapter">
<p class="in0 larger bold">THE MAN (1864&mdash;):</p>

<blockquote>

<p><i>Franz Oppenheimer</i>, one of a fairly large number
of British, French and German physicians who abandoned
their medical pursuits and rose to fame as
political economists, was born in Berlin. He studied
and practiced medicine, became private Lecturer of
Economics at the Berlin University in 1909, and Professor
of Sociology at the Frankfort University in
1919. His libertarian views made him, for many
years, the target of academic persecutions, until the
growing fame of his masterpiece, <cite>The State</cite>, effectively
silenced his detractors.</p></blockquote>


<p class="in0 p2 larger bold">THE BOOK (1908):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The organic history of the State is a long and exciting
adventure, usually rendered dull in learned
accounts. Not so in Oppenheimer’s <cite>The State</cite> which
extracts that history, in a highly stimulating manner,
from the sharp necessities and homicidal conflicts of
all sorts and conditions of men, from the Stone Age
to the Age of Henry Ford. The easy flow of important
information derivable from this German volume
has rendered it highly acceptable to American readers.</p></blockquote>
</div>

<div class="chapter">
<div class="newpage p4 bbox">
<p class="center larger vspace">OTHER BOOKS BY<br />
DOCTOR FRANZ OPPENHEIMER</p>



<table class="p1" summary="Author’s other books">
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl">Die Siedlungsgenossenschaft</td>
    <td class="tdr">1896</td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl">Grossgrundeigentum und Soziale Frage</td>
    <td class="tdr">1898</td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl">Das Grundgesetz der Marxschen Gesellschaftslehre</td>
    <td class="tdr">1903</td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl">Robertus’ Angriff auf Ricardos Renten-theorie und der Lexis-Diehl’sche Rettungsversuch</td>
    <td class="tdr">1908</td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl">David Ricardos Grundrententheorie</td>
    <td class="tdr">1909</td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl">Theorie der Reinen und Politischen Ökonomie</td>
    <td class="tdr">1910</td></tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_iii">iii</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter p4">
<h2><a id="AUTHORS_PREFACE"></a>AUTHOR’S PREFACE<br />

<span class="subhead">TO THE SECOND AMERICAN EDITION</span></h2>


<p>This little book has made its way. In addition to
the present translation into English, there are authorized
editions in French, Hungarian and Serbian. I am
also informed that there are translations published in
Japanese, Russian, Hebrew and Yiddish; but these, of
course, are pirated. The book has stood the test of
criticism, and has been judged both favorably and unfavorably.
It has, unquestionably, revived the discussion
on the origin and essence of the State.</p>

<p>Several prominent ethnologists, particularly Holsti,
the present Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Finnish
Free State, have attacked the basic principle formulated
and demonstrated in this Work, but they have failed,
because their definition of the State assumed the very
matter that required to be proven. They have brought
together a large array of facts in proof of the existence
of some forms of <em>Government</em> and <em>Leadership</em>, even
where no classes obtained, and to the substance of these
forms they have given the name of “The State.” It is
not my intention to controvert these facts. It is self-evident,
that in any group of human beings, be it ever
so small, there must exist an authority which determines
conflicts and, in extraordinary situations, assumes
the leadership. But this authority is not “The State,”<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_iv">iv</a></span>
in the sense in which I use the word. The State may
be defined as an organization of <em>one class</em> dominating
over the other classes. Such a class organization can
come about in one way only, namely, through conquest
and the subjection of ethnic groups by the dominating
group. This can be demonstrated with almost mathematical
certainty. Not one of my critics has brought
proofs to invalidate this thesis. Most modern sociologists,
among whom may be named Albion Small, Alfred
Vierkandt and Wilhelm Wundt, accept this thesis.
Wilhelm Wundt, in particular, asserts in unmistakable
language, that “the political society (a term identical
with the State in the sense employed in this book)
first came about and could originate only in the period
of migration and conquest,” whereby the subjugation of
one people by another was effected.</p>

<p>But even some of my opponents are favorably inclined
to my arguments, as in the case of the venerable
Adolf Wagner, whose words I am proud to quote. In
his article on “The State” in the <cite>Handwörterbuch der
Staatswissenschaften</cite>, he writes: “The sociologic concept
of the State, to which I have referred, particularly
in the broad scope and treatment of it given by Oppenheimer,
deserves careful consideration, especially
from political economists and political historians. The
vista opened out, from this point of view, of the economic
development of peoples and that of the State during
historic times, should be attractive even to the opponents
of the concept itself.”</p>

<p>The “sociologic concept of the State,” as Ludwig
Gumplowicz termed it, is assured of ultimate general
acceptance. Its opponents are strenuous and persevering,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_v">v</a></span>
and I once called them “the sociologic root of all
evil;” but the concept, none the less, is the basic principle
of “bourgeoisie” sociology, and will be found of
value in the study, not only of economics and history,
but in that of Law and Constitutional History. I permit
myself to make a few remarks on this point.</p>

<p>The earliest evidence of the recognition of the idea
underlying the <em>law of previous accumulation</em>, may be
traced back, at the latest, to the period of the decay of
classical civilization, at the time when the capitalistic
slave economy brought the city states to ruin as though
their peoples had suffered from a galloping consumption.
As in our modern capitalistic age, which resembles
that period in many respects, there occurred a
breach in all those naturally developed relations in
which the individual has found protection. What Ferdinand
Toennies calls the “community bonds” were
loosened. The individual found himself unprotected,
compelled to rely on his own efforts and on his own
reason in the seething sea of competition which followed.
The collective reason, the product of the wisdom
of thousands of years of experience, could no
longer guide or safeguard him. It had become scattered.
Out of this need for an individual reason, there arose
the idea of <em>nationalism</em>. This idea had its justification
at first, as a line of development and a method in the
newly born science of social government; but when
later it became what Rubenstein (in his work <cite>Romantic
Socialism</cite>) calls a “tendency,” it was not justified. The
community, to use Toennies’ term, changed into a “society.”
“Contract” seemed to be the only bond that held
men together&mdash;the contract based on the purely rationalistic<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_vi">vi</a></span>
relation of service for service, the <i xml:lang="de" lang="de">do ut des</i>, the
“Contrat Social” of Rousseau. A “society” would
thus appear to be a union of self-seeking individuals
who hoped through combination to obtain their personal
satisfactions. Aristotle had taught that the State
had developed, by gradual growth, from the family
group. The Stoics and Epicureans held that individuals
formed the State&mdash;with this difference, that the
former viewed the individual as being socially inclined
by nature, and the latter that he was naturally anti-social.
To the Stoics, therefore, the “State of Nature”
was a peaceful union; to the Epicureans it was a war
of each against the other, with Society as a compelling
means for a decent modus vivendi. With the one a
Society was conditioned “physei” (by nature); with the
other it was “nomo” (by decree).</p>

<p>In spite, however, of this fundamental difference between
these schools, both assumed the premise that, at
the beginning, individuals were <em>free</em>, <em>equal</em> politically
and economically, and that it was from such an original
social order there had developed, through gradual differentiation,
the fully developed State with its class
hierarchy. This is the <em>law of previous accumulation</em>.</p>

<p>But we should err if we believed that this thesis was
originally intended as a historical account. Rationalism
is essentially unhistoric, even anti-historic. On the
contrary, the thesis was originally put forward as a
“fiction,” a theory, a conscious unhistorical assumption.
In this form it acquired the name of <em>natural law</em>. It
was under this name that it came into modern thought,
tinctured stoically in Grotius and Puffendorf, and epicureanally
in Hobbes. It became the operative<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_vii">vii</a></span>
weapon of thought among the rising third estate of the
capitalists.</p>

<p>The capitalists used the weapon, first against the
feudal state with its privileged class, and, later against
the fourth estate, with its class theory of Socialism.
Against the feudal domination it argued that a “Law
of Nature” knows and permits no privileges. After its
victories in the English Revolution of 1648, and the
great French Revolution of 1789, it justified, by the
same reasoning, its own <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">de facto</i> pre-eminence, its own
social and economic class superiority, against the claims
of the working classes. According to Adam Smith,
the classes in a society are the results of “natural” development.
From an original state of equality, these
arose from no other cause than the exercise of the economic
virtues of industry, frugality and providence.
Since these virtues are pre-eminently those of a bourgeoisie
society, the capitalist rule, thus sanctioned by
natural law, is just and unassailable. As a corollary
to this theorem the claims of Socialism cannot be admitted.</p>

<p>Thus, what originally was put forward as a “fiction,”
became first, a hypothesis and finally the <em>axiom</em> of all
bourgeoisie sociology. Those who support it accept the
axiom as self-evident, as not requiring proof. For
them, class domination, on this theory, is the result of
a gradual differentiation from an original state of general
equality and freedom, with no implication in it of
any extra-economic power. Robert Malthus applied
this alleged law to the future, in his attempt to demonstrate
any kind of Socialism to be purely Utopian. His
celebrated <cite>Law of Population</cite> is nothing but the <em>law of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_viii">viii</a></span>
original accumulation</em> projected into the future. He
claims that if any attempt were made to restore the
state of economic equality, the workings of the law
would have the effect&mdash;because of the difference in
economic efficiency&mdash;of restoring modern class conditions.
All orthodox sociology begins with the struggle against
this supposed law of class formations. Yet every step
of progress made in the various fields of the science of
sociology, has been made by tearing up, one by one, the
innumerable and far-spreading roots which have proceeded
from this supposed axiom. A sound sociology
has to recall the fact that class formation in historic
times, did not take place through gradual differentiation
in pacific economic competition, but was the result
of violent conquest and subjugation.</p>

<p>As both Capitalism and Socialism had their origins
in England, these new ideas were certain to find their
first expression in that country. So that we find Gerrard
Winstanley, the leader of the “true levellers” of
Cromwell’s time, arraying the facts of history against
this anti-historical theoretical assumption. He showed
that the English ruling class (the Squirearchy) was
composed essentially of the victorious conquerors, the
Normans, and that the subject class were the conquered
English Saxons. But his demonstration had little influence.
It was only when the great French Revolution
brought the contrast out sharply that the thought sunk
in. No less a person than Count St. Simon, acknowledged
as the founder of the science of modern sociology,
and the no less scientific Socialism, discovered in the
dominant class of his country the Frankish and Burgundian
conquerors, and in its subject population, the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_ix">ix</a></span>
descendants of the Romanized Celts. It was the publication
of this discovery that gave birth to Western
European sociology. The conclusions drawn from it
were carried further by St. Simon’s disciple, August
Comte, in his <cite>Philosophy of History</cite>, and by the Saint
Simonists, Enfantin and Bazard. These thinkers had
great influence on the economic development of the next
century; but their chief contribution was the elaboration
of the sociologic idea of the State.</p>

<p>Among the peoples of Western Europe, the new sociology
found a readier acceptance than it did among
those of Eastern Europe. The reason for this can
easily be seen when it is remembered that in the East
the contrast between the “State” and “Society,” had not
been so definitely realized, as it had been in the West.
Even in the West, this contrast was only fully appreciated,
as a social fact, in England, France, the Netherlands
and Italy, because in these countries only the class
of mobile wealth which had worked its way up as the
third estate, had succeeded in ousting the feudal
“State.” In France, the league of the capitalists with
the Crown against the then armed and active nobility
had succeeded in subjecting the Frondeurs under the
absolute power of the King. From this time on, this
new estate represented itself as the Nation, and the
term “National Economy” takes the place of the older
term “Political Economy.” The members of this third
estate felt themselves to be those subjects of the State
whose rights and liberties had been curtailed by the
privileges of the two dominant estates of the nobility
and the clergy. Henceforth, the Third Estate proclaims
the rights of “Society” and against the “State,”<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_x">x</a></span>
opposes the eternal Law of Nature&mdash;that of original
equality and freedom&mdash;against the theoretic-historical
rights of the Estates. The concept of Society as a contrast
to the concept of the State, first appears in Locke,
and from his time on this contrast was more and more
defined, especially in the writings of the physiocrat
school of economists.</p>

<p>In this struggle between classes and ideas, neither
Middle nor Eastern Europe played any important part.
In Germany there had once developed a Capitalist class
(in the period of the Fuggers of Augsburg) which attained
to almost American magnitude. But it was
crushed by the Religious Wars and the various French
invasions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
which left Germany a devastated, depopulated desert.
At the end of the period there remained a few cities and
small states under the absolute domination of princes.
Within the cities the artisans were bound together in their
craft-leagues, and the rest consisted of those of educational
pursuits and academic officials. In a large degree
all these were dependent on the State&mdash;the members
of the craft-guilds because they accepted a privileged
condition, the officials because they were servants
of the State, and the professional men, because they belonged
to the upper estate of the society. For this reason
there was no economic or social movement of the
third estate in Germany; there was only a literary movement
influenced by the flow of ideas from the West.
This explains why the contrast between the two ideas of
the State and of Society was not present in the minds
of the German people. On the contrary, the two terms<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xi">xi</a></span>
were used as synonyms, both connotating an essentially
necessary conformity to nature.</p>

<p>But there is still another cause for this difference in
the mental attitude between Western and Eastern Europe.
In England and France, from the time of Descartes,
the problems and inquiries of science were set
by men trained in mathematics and the natural sciences.
Especially in the new study of the philosophy of history,
the beginning of our modern sociology, did these men
act as guides. In Germany, on the contrary, it was the
theologians and especially the Protestant theologians
who were the leaders of thought. In their hands the
State came to be looked upon as an instrument of Divine
fashioning, and, indeed, of immanent divinity. This
thought resulted in a worship of the State, which
reached its height in the well-known Hegelian system.
It thus happened that two rivers of thought flowed for
a time side by side&mdash;the Sociology of Western Europe,
and the philosophy of History of Germany&mdash;with occasional
intercommunicating streams, such as Althusios
and Puffendorf into the French, English and Dutch
teaching of natural law, and that of Rousseau into
Hegel. In 1840, however, a direct junction was effected
through Lorenz Stein, one of Hegel’s most gifted
pupils who, later, became the leading German teacher
of administrative law, and influenced generations of
thinkers. He came to Paris, as a young man, for the
purpose of studying Socialism at the fountain head. He
became acquainted with the celebrated men of that
heroic time&mdash;with Enfintin and Bazard, with Louis
Blanc, Reybaud, and Proudhon.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xii">xii</a></span></p>

<p>Lorenz Stein absorbed the new thought with enthusiasm,
and in his fertile mind there was precipitated the
creative synthesis between the Western Europe scientific
sociological thought and the metaphysical German philosophy
of history. The product was called by him the
Science of Society (<i xml:lang="de" lang="de">Gesellschaftswissenschaft</i>). It is
from the writings of Stein that almost all the important
developments of German sociologic thought received
their first impulses. Karl Marx, especially (as Struve
has shown), as well as Schaeffle, Othmar Spann and
Gumplowicz are largely indebted to him.</p>

<p>It is not my purpose to develop this historical theme.
I am concerned only in tracing the development of the
sociologic idea of the State. The first effect of this
meeting of the two streams of thought was a mischievous
confusion of terminology. The writers in Western
Europe had long ago lost control of the unification of
expressions in thinking. As stated above, the Third Estate
began by thinking itself to be “Society,” as opposed
to the State. But when the Fourth Estate grew
to class consciousness and became aware of its own theoretic
existence, it arrogated to itself the term “Society”
(as may be seen from the selection of the word Socialism),
and it treated the Bourgeoisie as a form of the
“State,” of the class state. There were thus two widely
differing concepts of “Society.” Yet here was an underlying
idea common to both Bourgeoisie and Socialist,
since they conceived the State as a collection of privileges
arising and maintained <em>in violation</em> of natural law,
while Society was thought of as the prescribed form of
human union in <em>conformity</em> with natural law. They differed
in one essential only, namely, that while the Third<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xiii">xiii</a></span>
Estate declared its capitalistic Society to be the result
of the processes of natural law, the Socialists regarded
their aims as not yet attained, and proclaimed that the
ideal society of the future which would really be the
product of the processes of natural law, could only be
realized by the elimination of all “surplus value.”
Though both were in conflict with regard to fundamentals,
both agreed in viewing the “State” as <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">civitas diaboli</i>
and “Society” as <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">civitas dei</i>.</p>

<p>Stein, however, reversed the objectives of the two
concepts. As an Hegelian, and pre-eminently a worshipper
of the State, he conceived the State as <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">civitas
coelestis</i>. Society, which he understood to mean only
the dominant bourgeoisie Society, he viewed through the
eyes of his Socialist friends and teachers, and conceived
it as <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">civitas terrena</i>.</p>

<p>What in Plato’s sense is the “pure idea,” the “ordre
naturel” of the early physiocrats and termed by Frenchmen
and Englishmen “Society,” was to Stein, the
“State.” What had been contaminated and made impure
by the admixture of coarse matter, they termed the
“State,” while the German called it “Society.” In reality,
however, there is little difference between the two.
Stein realized with pain, that Hegel’s pure concept of
a State based on right and freedom, was bound to remain
an “idea” only. Eternally fettered, as he assumed
it must be, by the forces of property and the culture
proceeding from them, it could never be a fact. This is
his conclusion regarding “Society,” so that its effective
development is obstructed by the beneficent association
of human beings, as Stein conceived that association.</p>

<p>Thus was attained the very pinnacle of confused<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xiv">xiv</a></span>
thinking. All German sociologists, with the single exception
of Carl Dietzel, soon realized that the Hegelian
concept of the State was impotent, existing only in the
“Idea.” In no point did it touch the reality of historical
growth, and in no sense could it be made to stand
for what had always been considered as the State.
Long ago both Marx and Bakunin&mdash;respectively the
founders of scientific collectivism and practical anarchism&mdash;and
especially Ludwig Gumplowicz, abandoned
the Hegelian terminology and accepted that of Western
Europe and this has been generally accepted everywhere.</p>

<p>In this little book I have followed the Western European
terminology. By the “State,” I do not mean the
human aggregation which may perchance <em>come about to
be</em>, or, as it properly <em>should be</em>. I mean by it that summation
of privileges and dominating positions which are
brought into being by extra-economic power. And in
contrast to this, I mean by Society, the totality of concepts
of all purely natural relations and institutions between
man and man, which will not be fully realized until
the last remnant of the creations of the barbaric “ages
of conquest and migration,” has been eliminated from
community life. Others may call any form of leadership
and government or some other ideal, the “State.”
That is a matter of personal choice. It is useless to
quarrel about definitions. But it might be well if those
other thinkers were to understand that they have not
controverted the sociologic idea of the “State,” if a concept
of the “State” grounded on a different basis, does
not correspond to that which they have evolved. And
they must guard themselves particularly against the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xv">xv</a></span>
danger of applying any definition other than that used
in this book to those actual historical products which
have hitherto been called “States,” the essence, development,
course and future of which must be explained by
any true teaching or philosophy of the State.</p>

<p class="sigright"><span class="smcap">Franz Oppenheimer.</span></p>

<p class="p0 in0">Frankfort-on-Main, April 1922.</p>
</div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xvi">xvi</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter">
<h2><a id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS</h2>



<table summary="Contents">
  <tr class="small">
    <td class="tdl in2" colspan="2">CHAPTER</td>
    <td class="tdr">PAGE</td></tr>
  <tr class="chap">
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Author’s Preface</span></td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_iii">iii</a></td></tr>
  <tr class="chap">
    <td class="tdr first">I</td>
    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Theories of the State</span></td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h1">1</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">The Sociological Idea of the State</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h15">15</a></td></tr>
  <tr class="chap">
    <td class="tdr first">II</td>
    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Genesis of the State</span></td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h22">22</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(a) Political and Economic Means</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h24">24</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(b) Peoples Without a State: Huntsmen and Grubbers</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h27">27</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(c) Peoples Preceding the State: Herdsmen and Vikings</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h33">33</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(d) The Genesis of the State</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h51">51</a></td></tr>
  <tr class="chap">
    <td class="tdr first">III</td>
    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Primitive Feudal State</span></td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h82">82</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(a) The Form of Dominion</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h82">82</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(b) The Integration</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h89">89</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(c) The Differentiation: Group Theories and Group Psychology</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h92">92</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(d) The Primitive Feudal State of Higher Grade</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h105">105</a></td></tr>
  <tr class="chap">
    <td class="tdr first">IV</td>
    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Maritime State</span></td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h121">121</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(a) Traffic in Prehistoric Times</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h122">122</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(b) Trade and the Primitive State</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h135">135</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(c) The Genesis of the Maritime State</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h140">140</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(d) Essence and Issue of the Maritime States</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h155">155</a></td></tr>
  <tr class="chap">
    <td class="tdr first">V</td>
    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Development of the Feudal State</span></td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h174">174</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(a) The Genesis of Landed Property</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h174">174</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(b) The Central Power in the Primitive Feudal State</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h182">182</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(c) The Political and Social Disintegration of the Primitive Feudal State</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h191">191</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(d) The Ethnic Amalgamation</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h213">213</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(e) The Developed Feudal State</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h221">221</a></td></tr>
  <tr class="chap">
    <td class="tdr first">VI</td>
    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Development of the Constitutional State</span></td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h229">229</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(a) The Emancipation of the Peasantry</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h231">231</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(b) The Genesis of the Industrial State</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h236">236</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(c) The Influences of Money Economy</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h243">243</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl">(d) The Modern Constitutional State</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h257">257</a></td></tr>
  <tr class="chap">
    <td class="tdr first">VII</td>
    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Tendency of the Development of the State</span></td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h274">274</a></td></tr>
  <tr class="chap">
    <td> </td>
    <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Notes</span></td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#h293">293</a></td></tr>
</table>
</div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_1">1</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter">
<h2><a id="THE_STATE"></a><span class="larger">THE STATE</span></h2>



<hr />
<h2 id="h1" class="nobreak p2 vspace"><a id="CHAPTER_I"></a>CHAPTER I<br />

<span class="subhead">THEORIES OF THE STATE</span></h2>


<p>This treatise regards the State from the
sociological standpoint only, not from the
juristic&mdash;sociology, as I understand the word,
being both a philosophy of history and a theory
of economics. Our object is to trace the development
of the State from its socio-psychological
genesis up to its modern constitutional
form; after that, we shall endeavor to present
a well-founded prognosis concerning its future
development. Since we shall trace only the
State’s inner, essential being, we need not concern
ourselves with the external forms of law
under which its international and intra-national
life is assumed. This treatise, in short,
is a contribution to the philosophy of State development;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_2">2</a></span>
but only in so far as the law of development
here traced from its generic form
affects also the social problems common to all
forms of the modern State.</p>

<p>With this limitation of treatment in mind,
we may at the outset dismiss all received doctrines
of public law. Even a cursory examination
of conventional theories of the State is
sufficient to show that they furnish no explanation
of its genesis, essence and purpose.
These theories represent all possible shadings
between all imaginable extremes. Rousseau
derives the State from a social contract, while
Carey ascribes its origin to a band of robbers.
Plato and the followers of Karl Marx endow
the State with omnipotence, making it the absolute
lord over the citizen in all political and
economic matters; while Plato even goes so
far as to wish the State to regulate sexual relations.
The Manchester school, on the other
hand, going to the opposite extreme of liberalism,
would have the State exercise only needful
police functions, and would thus logically
have as a result a scientific anarchism which<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_3">3</a></span>
must utterly exterminate the State. From
these various and conflicting views, it is impossible
either to establish a fixed principle,
or to formulate a satisfactory concept of the
real essence of the State.</p>

<p>This irreconcilable conflict of theories is
easily explained by the fact that none of the
conventional theories treats the State from
the sociological view-point. Nevertheless, the
State is a phenomenon common to all history,
and its essential nature can only be made plain
by a broad and comprehensive study of universal
history. Except in the field of sociology,
the king’s highway of science, no treatment
of the State has heretofore taken this
path. All previous theories of the State have
been class theories. To anticipate somewhat
the outcome of our researches, every State has
been and is a class State, and every theory of
the State has been and is a class theory.</p>

<p>A class theory is, however, of necessity, not
the result of investigation and reason, but a
by-product of desires and will. Its arguments
are used, not to establish truth, but as weapons<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_4">4</a></span>
in the contest for material interests. The result,
therefore, is not science, but nescience.
By understanding the State, we may indeed
recognize the essence of theories concerning the
State. But the converse is not true. An understanding
of theories about the State will
give us no clue to its essence.</p>

<p>The following may be stated as a ruling concept,
especially prevalent in university teaching,
of the origin and essence of the State. It
represents a view which, in spite of manifold
attacks, is still affirmed.</p>

<p>It is maintained that the State is an organization
of human community life, which
originates by reason of a social instinct implanted
in men by nature (Stoic Doctrine);
or else is brought about by an irresistible impulse
to end the “war of all against all,” and
to coerce the savage, who opposes organized
effort, to a peaceable community life in place
of the anti-social struggle in which all budding
shoots of advancement are destroyed (Epicurean
Doctrine). These two apparently irreconcilable
concepts were fused by the intermediation<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_5">5</a></span>
of mediæval philosophy. This,
founded on theologic reasoning and belief
in the Bible, developed the opinion that
man, originally and by nature a social creature,
is, through original sin, the fratricide of
Cain and the transgression at the tower of
Babel, divided into innumerable tribes, which
fight to the hilt, until they unite peaceably
as a State.</p>

<p>This view is utterly untenable. It confuses
the logical concept of a class with some subordinate
species thereof. Granted that the
State is <em>one</em> form of organized political cohesion,
it is also to be remembered that it is a
form having <em>specific</em> characteristics. Every
state in history was or is a <em>state of classes</em>, a
polity of superior and inferior social groups,
based upon distinctions either of rank or of
property. This phenomenon must, then, be
called the “State.” With it alone history occupies
itself.</p>

<p>We should, therefore, be justified in designating
every other form of political organization
by the same term, without further differentiation,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_6">6</a></span>
had there never existed any other than
a class-state, or were it the only conceivable
form. At least, proof might properly be
called for, to show that each conceivable political
organization, even though originally it did
not represent a polity of superior and inferior
social and economic classes, since it is of necessity
subject to inherent laws of development,
must in the end be resolved into the specific
class form of history. Were such proof forthcoming,
it would offer in fact only one form
of political amalgamation, calling in turn for
differentiation at various stages of development,
viz., the preparatory stage, when class
distinction does not exist, and the stage of
maturity, when it is fully developed.</p>

<p>Former students of the philosophy of the
State were dimly aware of this problem. And
they tried to adduce the required proof, that
because of inherent tendencies of development,
every human political organization must gradually
become a class-state. Philosophers of
the canon law handed this theory down to
philosophers of the law of nature. From<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_7">7</a></span>
these, through the mediation of Rousseau, it
became a part of the teachings of the economists;
and even to this day it rules their views
and diverts them from the facts.</p>

<p>This assumed proof is based upon the concept
of a “primitive accumulation,” or an original
store of wealth, in lands and in movable
property, brought about by means of purely
economic forces; a doctrine justly derided by
Karl Marx as a “fairy tale.” Its scheme of
reasoning approximates this:</p>

<p>Somewhere, in some far-stretching, fertile
country, a number of free men, of equal status,
form a union for mutual protection. Gradually
they differentiate into property classes.
Those best endowed with strength, wisdom,
capacity for saving, industry and caution,
slowly acquire a basic amount of real or
movable property; while the stupid and less
efficient, and those given to carelessness
and waste, remain without possessions. The
well-to-do lend their productive property to
the less well-off in return for tribute, either
ground rent or profit, and become thereby continually<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_8">8</a></span>
richer, while the others always remain
poor. These differences in possession gradually
develop social class distinctions; since
everywhere the rich have preference, while
they alone have the time and the means to devote
to public affairs and to turn the laws administered
by them to their own advantage.
Thus, in time, there develops a ruling and
property-owning estate, and a proletariate, a
class without property. The primitive state
of free and equal fellows becomes a class-state,
by an inherent law of development, because in
every conceivable mass of men there are, as
may readily be seen, strong and weak, clever
and foolish, cautious and wasteful ones.</p>

<p>This seems quite plausible, and it coincides
with the experience of our daily life. It is not
at all unusual to see an especially gifted member
of the lower class rise from his former surroundings,
and even attain a leading position
in the upper class; or conversely, to see some
spendthrift or weaker member of the higher
group “lose his class” and drop into the
proletariate.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_9">9</a></span></p>

<p>And yet this entire theory is utterly mistaken;
it is a “fairy tale,” or it is a class theory
used to justify the privileges of the upper
classes. The class-state never originated in
this fashion, and never could have so originated.
History shows that it did not; and
economics shows deductively, with a testimony
absolute, mathematical and binding, that it
could not. A simple problem in elementary
arithmetic shows that the assumption of an
original accumulation is totally erroneous, and
has nothing to do with the development of the
class-state.</p>

<p>The proof is as follows: All teachers of
natural law, etc., have unanimously declared
that the differentiation into income-receiving
classes and propertyless classes can only take
place when all fertile lands have been occupied.
For so long as man has ample opportunity to
take up unoccupied land, “no one,” says Turgot,
“would think of entering the service of
another;” we may add, “at least for wages,
which are not apt to be higher than the earnings
of an independent peasant working an<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_10">10</a></span>
unmortgaged and sufficiently large property;”
while mortgaging is not possible as long as
land is yet free for the working or taking, as
free as air and water. Matter that is obtainable
for the taking has no value that enables
it to be pledged, since no one loans on things
that can be had for nothing.</p>

<p>The philosophers of natural law, then, assumed
that complete occupancy of the ground
must have occurred quite early, because of the
natural increase of an originally small population.
They were under the impression that
at their time, in the eighteenth century, it had
taken place many centuries previous, and they
naïvely deduced the existing class aggroupment
from the assumed conditions of that long-past
point of time. It never entered their
heads to work out their problem; and with few
exceptions their error has been copied by sociologists,
historians and economists. It is
only quite recently that my figures were
worked out, and they are truly astounding.<a id="FNanchor_A" href="#Footnote_A" class="fnanchor">A</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_11">11</a></span></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_A" href="#FNanchor_A" class="fnanchor">A</a> Franz Oppenheimer, <cite>Theorie der Reinen und Politischen
Œkonomie</cite>. Berlin, 1912.&mdash;<i>Translator.</i></p></div>

<p>We can determine with approximate accuracy
the amount of land of average fertility
in the temperate zone, and also what amount
is sufficient to enable a family of peasants to
exist comfortably, or how much such a family
can work with its own forces, without engaging
outside help or permanent farm servants.
At the time of the migration of the barbarians
(350 to 750 A.&nbsp;D.), the lot of each
able-bodied man was about thirty morgen
(equal to twenty acres) on average lands, on
very good ground only ten to fifteen morgen
(equal to seven or ten acres), four morgen being
equal to one hectare. Of this land, at
least a third, and sometimes a half, was left uncultivated
each year. The remainder of the
fifteen to twenty morgen sufficed to feed and
fatten into giants the immense families of these
child-producing Germans, and this in spite of
the primitive technique, whereby at least half
the productive capacity of a day was lost.
Let us assume that, in these modern times,
thirty morgen (equal to twenty acres) for the
average peasant suffices to support a family.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_12">12</a></span>
We have then assumed a block of land sufficiently
large to meet any objection. Modern
Germany, populated as it is, contains an agricultural
area of thirty-four million hectares
(equal to eighty-four million, fifteen thousand,
four hundred and eighty acres). The agricultural
population, including farm laborers and
their families, amounts to seventeen million;
so that, assuming five persons to a family and
an equal division of the farm lands, each
family would have ten hectares (equal to
twenty-five acres). In other words, not even
in the Germany of our own day would the
point have been reached where, according to
the theories of the adherents of natural law,
differentiation into classes would begin.</p>

<p>Apply the same process to countries less
densely settled, such, for example, as the Danube
States, Turkey, Hungary and Russia, and
still more astounding results will appear. As
a matter of fact, there are still on the earth’s
surface, seventy-three billion, two hundred
million hectares (equal to one hundred eighty
billion, eight hundred eighty million and four<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_13">13</a></span>
hundred sixteen thousand acres); dividing into
the first amount the number of human beings
of all professions whatever, viz., one billion,
eight hundred million, every family of five
persons could possess about thirty morgen
(equal to eighteen and a half acres), <em>and still
leave about two-thirds of the planet unoccupied</em>.</p>

<p>If, therefore, purely economic causes are
ever to bring about a differentiation into
classes by the growth of a propertyless laboring
class, the time has not yet arrived; and
the critical point at which ownership of land
will cause a natural scarcity is thrust into the
dim future&mdash;if indeed it ever can arrive.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact, however, for centuries
past, in all parts of the world, we have had a
class-state, with possessing classes on top and
a propertyless laboring class at the bottom,
even when population was much less dense
than it is to-day. Now it is true that the class-state
can arise only where all fertile acreage
has been <em>occupied</em> completely; and since I have
shown that even at the present time, all the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_14">14</a></span>
ground is not occupied economically, this must
mean that it has been preëmpted politically.
Since land could not have acquired “natural
scarcity,” the scarcity must have been “legal.”
This means that the land has been preëmpted
by a ruling class against its subject class, and
settlement prevented. Therefore the State,
as a class-state, can have originated in no other
way than through conquest and subjugation.</p>

<p>This view, the so-called “sociologic idea of
the state,” as the following will show, is supported
in ample manner by well-known historical
facts. And yet most modern historians
have rejected it, holding that both groups,
amalgamated by war into one State, before
that time had, each for itself formed a “State.”
As there is no method of obtaining historical
proof to the contrary, since the beginnings of
human history are unknown, we should arrive
at a verdict of “not proven,” were it not that,
deductively, there is the absolute certainty
that the State, as history shows it, the class-state,
could not have come about except
through warlike subjugation. The mass of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_15">15</a></span>
evidence shows that our simple calculation excludes
any other result.</p>


<h3 id="h15"><span class="smcap smaller">THE SOCIOLOGICAL IDEA OF THE STATE</span></h3>

<p>To the originally, purely sociological, idea
of the State, I have added the economic phase
and formulated it as follows:</p>

<p>What, then, is the State as a sociological
concept? The State, completely in its genesis,
essentially and almost completely during
the first stages of its existence, is a social institution,
forced by a victorious group of men on
a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating
the dominion of the victorious group
over the vanquished, and securing itself against
revolt from within and attacks from abroad.
Teleologically, this dominion had no other
purpose than the economic exploitation of the
vanquished by the victors.</p>

<p>No primitive state known to history originated
in any other manner.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">1</a> Wherever a reliable
tradition reports otherwise, either it
concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed
primitive states into one body of more<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_16">16</a></span>
complete organization; or else it is an adaptation
to men of the fable of the sheep which
made a bear their king in order to be protected
against the wolf. But even in this latter case,
the form and content of the State became precisely
the same as in those states where nothing
intervened, and which became immediately
“wolf states.”</p>

<p>The little history learned in our school-days
suffices to prove this generic doctrine. Everywhere
we find some warlike tribe of wild men
breaking through the boundaries of some less
warlike people, settling down as nobility and
founding its State. In Mesopotamia, wave
follows wave, state follows state&mdash;Babylonians,
Amoritans, Assyrians, Arabs, Medes,
Persians, Macedonians, Parthians, Mongols,
Seldshuks, Tartars, Turks; on the Nile, Hyksos,
Nubians, Persians, Greeks, Romans,
Arabs, Turks; in Greece, the Doric States are
typical examples; in Italy, Romans, Ostrogoths,
Lombards, Franks, Germans; in Spain,
Carthaginians, Visigoths, Arabs; in Gaul,
Romans, Franks, Burgundians, Normans; in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_17">17</a></span>
Britain, Saxons, Normans. In India wave
upon wave of wild warlike clans has flooded
over the country even to the islands of the Indian
Ocean. So also is it with China. In the
European colonies, we find the selfsame type,
wherever a settled element of the population
has been found, as for example, in South
America and Mexico. Where that element is
lacking, where only roving huntsmen are
found, who may be exterminated but not subjugated,
the conquerors resort to the device of
importing from afar masses of men to be exploited,
to be subject perpetually to forced
labor, and thus the slave trade arises.</p>

<p>An apparent exception is found only in
those European colonies in which it is forbidden
to replace the lack of a domiciled indigenous
population by the importation of slaves.
One of these colonies, the United States of
America, is among the most powerful state-formations
in all history. The exception
there found is to be explained by this, that the
mass of men to be exploited and worked without
cessation <em>imports itself</em>, by emigration in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_18">18</a></span>
great hordes from primitive states or from
those in higher stages of development in which
exploitation has become unbearable, while liberty
of movement has been attained. In this
case, one may speak of an infection from afar
with “statehood” brought in by the infected of
foreign lands. Where, however, in such colonies,
immigration is very limited, either because
of excessive distances and the consequent
high charges for moving from home, or
because of regulations limiting the immigration,
we perceive an approximation to the final
end of the development of the State, which we
nowadays recognize as the necessary outcome
and finale, but for which we have not yet found
a scientific terminology. Here again, in the
dialectic development, a change in the quantity
is bound up with a change of the quality.
The old form is filled with new contents. We
still find a “State” in so far as it represents the
tense regulation, secured by external force,
whereby is secured the social living together of
large bodies of men; but it is no longer the
“State” in its older sense. It is no longer the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_19">19</a></span>
instrument of political domination and economic
exploitation of one social group by another;
it is no longer a “State of Classes.” It
rather resembles a condition which appears to
have come about through a “social contract.”
This stage is approached by the Australian
Colonies, excepting Queensland, which after
the feudal manner still exploits the half enslaved
Kanakas. It is almost attained in New
Zealand.</p>

<p>So long as there is no general assent as to
the origin and essence of states historically
known or as to the sociological meaning of the
word “State,” it would be futile to attempt to
force into use a new name for these most advanced
commonwealths. They will continue
to be called “states” in spite of all protests,
especially because of the pleasure of using
confusing concepts. For the purpose of this
study, however, we propose to employ a new
concept, a different verbal lever, and shall
speak of the result of the new process as a
“Freemen’s Citizenship.”</p>

<p>This summary survey of the states of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_20">20</a></span>
past and present should, if space permitted, be
supplemented by an examination of the facts
offered by the study of races, and of those
states which are not treated in our falsely
called “Universal History.” On this point, the
assurance may be accepted that here again our
general rule is valid without exception.
Everywhere, whether in the Malay Archipelago,
or in the “great sociological laboratory of
Africa,” at all places on this planet where the
development of tribes has at all attained a
higher form, the State grew from the subjugation
of one group of men by another. Its basic
justification, its raison d’être, was and is the
economic exploitation of those subjugated.</p>

<p>The summary review thus far made may
serve as proof of the basic premise of this
sketch. The pathfinder, to whom, before all
others, we are indebted for this line of investigation
is Professor Ludwig Gumplowicz of
Graz, jurist and sociologist, who crowned a
brave life by a brave self-chosen death. We
can, then, in sharp outlines, follow in the sufferings
of humanity the path which the State<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_21">21</a></span>
has pursued in its progress through the ages.
This we propose now to trace from the primitive
state founded on conquest to the “freemen’s
citizenship.”</p>
</div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_22">22</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter">
<h2 id="h22" class="vspace"><a id="CHAPTER_II"></a>CHAPTER II<br />

<span class="subhead">THE GENESIS OF THE STATE</span></h2>


<p>One single force impels all life; one force developed
it, from the single cell, the particle of
albumen floating about in the warm ocean of
prehistoric time, up to the vertebrates, and then
to man. This one force, according to Lippert,
is the tendency to provide for life, bifurcated
into “hunger and love.” With man, however,
philosophy also enters into the play of these
forces, in order hereafter, together with “hunger
and love, to hold together the structure of
the world of men.” To be sure, this philosophy,
this “idea” of Schopenhauer’s, is at its
source nothing else than a creature of the provision
for life called by him “will.” It is an
organ of orientation in the world, an arm in the
struggle for existence. Yet in spite of this,
we shall come to know the desire for causation<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_23">23</a></span>
as a self-acting force, and of social
facts as coöperators in the sociological process
of development. In the beginning of
human society, and as it gradually develops,
this tendency pushes itself forward in various
bizarre ideas called “superstition.” These are
based on purely logical conclusions from
incomplete observations concerning air and
water, earth and fire, animals and plants, which
seem endowed with a throng of spirits both
kindly and malevolent. One may say that in
the most recent modern times, at a stage attained
only by very few races, there arises also
the younger daughter of the desire for causation,
namely science, as a logical result of complete
observation of facts; science, now required
to exterminate widely branched-out
superstition, which, with innumerable threads,
has rooted itself in the very soul of mankind.</p>

<p>But, however powerfully, especially in the
moment of “ecstasy,”<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">2</a> superstition may have
influenced history, however powerfully, even in
ordinary times, it may have coöperated in the
development of human communal life, the principal<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_24">24</a></span>
force of development is still to be found
in the necessities of life, which force man to
acquire for himself and for his family nourishment,
clothing and housing. This remains,
therefore, the “economic” impulse. A sociological&mdash;and
that means a socio-psychological&mdash;investigation
of the development of history
can, therefore, not progress otherwise than by
following out the methods by which economic
needs have been satisfied in their gradual unfolding,
and by taking heed of the influences of
the causation impulse at its proper place.</p>


<h3 id="h24">(a) <span class="smcap smaller">POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC MEANS</span></h3>

<p>There are two fundamentally opposed
means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is
impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying
his desires. These are work and robbery,
one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation
of the labor of others. Robbery!
Forcible appropriation! These words convey
to us ideas of crime and the penitentiary, since
we are the contemporaries of a developed civilization,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_25">25</a></span>
specifically based on the inviolability
of property. And this tang is not lost when
we are convinced that land and sea robbery is
the primitive relation of life, just as the warriors’
trade&mdash;which also for a long time is only
organized mass robbery&mdash;constitutes the most
respected of occupations. Both because of
this, and also on account of the need of having,
in the further development of this study, terse,
clear, sharply opposing terms for these very
important contrasts, I propose in the following
discussion to call one’s own labor and the
equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the
labor of others, the “economic means” for the
satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation
of the labor of others will be called
the “political means.”</p>

<p>The idea is not altogether new; philosophers
of history have at all times found this contradiction
and have tried to formulate it. But no
one of these formulæ has carried the premise to
its complete logical end. At no place is it
clearly shown that the contradiction consists<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_26">26</a></span>
only in the <em>means</em> by which the <em>identical purpose</em>,
the acquisition of economic objects of consumption,
is to be obtained. Yet this is the
critical point of the reasoning. In the case of
a thinker of the rank of Karl Marx, one may
observe what confusion is brought about when
economic purpose and economic means are not
strictly differentiated. All those errors, which
in the end led Marx’s splendid theory so far
away from truth, were grounded in the lack of
clear differentiation between the means of economic
satisfaction of needs and its end. This
led him to designate slavery as an “economic
category,” and force as an “economic force”&mdash;half
truths which are far more dangerous than
total untruths, since their discovery is more difficult,
and false conclusions from them are inevitable.</p>

<p>On the other hand, our own sharp differentiation
between the two means toward the same
end, will help us to avoid any such confusion.
This will be our key to an understanding of the
development, the essence, and the purpose of
the State; and since all universal history heretofore<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_27">27</a></span>
has been only the history of states, to an
understanding of universal history as well.
All world history, from primitive times up to
our own civilization, presents a single phase,
a contest namely between the economic and
the political means; and it can present only this
phase until we have achieved free citizenship.</p>


<h3 id="h27">(b) <span class="smcap smaller">PEOPLES WITHOUT A STATE: HUNTSMEN AND GRUBBERS</span></h3>

<p>The state is an organization of the political
means. No state, therefore, can come into
being until the economic means has created a
definite number of objects for the satisfaction
of needs, which objects may be taken
away or appropriated by warlike robbery.
For that reason, primitive huntsmen are without
a state; and even the more highly developed
huntsmen become parts of a state structure
only when they find in their neighborhood an
evolved economic organization which they can
subjugate. But primitive huntsmen live in
practical anarchy.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_28">28</a></span></p>

<p>Grosse says concerning primitive huntsmen
in general:</p>

<p>“There are no essential differences of fortune
among them, and thus a principal source
for the origin of differences in station is lacking.
Generally, all grown men within the
tribe enjoy equal rights. The older men,
thanks to their greater experience, have a certain
authority; but no one feels himself bound
to render them obedience. Where in some
cases chiefs are recognized&mdash;as with the Botokude,
the Central Californians, the Wedda and
the Mincopie&mdash;their power is extremely
limited. The chieftain has no means of enforcing
his wishes against the will of the rest.
Most tribes of hunters, however, have no chieftain.
The entire society of the males still
forms a homogeneous undifferentiated mass,
in which only those individuals achieve prominence
who are believed to possess magical
powers.”<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">3</a></p>

<p>Here, then, there scarcely exists a spark
of “statehood,” even in the sense of ordinary<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_29">29</a></span>
theories of the state, still less in the sense
of the correct “sociologic idea of the state.”</p>

<p>The social structure of primitive peasants
has hardly more resemblance to a state than
has the horde of huntsmen. Where the peasant,
working the ground with a grub, is living
in liberty, there is as yet no “state.” The
plow is always the mark of a higher economic
condition which occurs only in a state; that is to
say, in a system of plantation work carried on
by subjugated servants.<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">4</a> The grubbers live
isolated from one another, scattered over the
country in separated curtilages, perhaps in villages,
split up because of quarrels about district
or farm boundaries. In the best cases,
they live in feebly organized associations, bound
together by oath, attached only loosely by the
tie which the consciousness of the same descent
and speech and the same belief imposes upon
them. They unite perhaps once a year in the
common celebration of renowned ancestors or
of the tribal god. There is no ruling authority
over the whole mass; the various chieftains of
a village, or possibly of a district, may have<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_30">30</a></span>
more or less influence in their circumscribed
spheres, this depending usually upon their personal
qualities, and especially upon the magical
powers attributed to them. Cunow describes
the Peruvian peasants before the incursion of
the Incas as follows: “An unregulated living
side by side of many independent, mutually
warring tribes, who again were split up into
more or less autonomous territorial unions, held
together by ties of kinship.”<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">5</a> One may say
that all the primitive peasants of the old and
new world were of this type.</p>

<p>In such a state of society, it is hardly conceivable
that a warlike organization could
come about for purposes of attack. It is
sufficiently difficult to mobilize the clan, or
still more the tribe, for common defense. The
peasant is always lacking in mobility. He is
as attached to the ground as the plants he cultivates.
As a matter of fact, the working of
his field makes him “bound to the soil” (<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">glebæ
adscriptus</i>), even though, in the absence of law,
he has freedom of movement. What purpose,
moreover, would a looting expedition effect in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_31">31</a></span>
a country, which throughout its extent is occupied
only by grubbing peasants? The peasant
can carry off from the peasant nothing
which he does not already own. In a condition
of society marked by superfluity of agricultural
land, each individual contributes only a
little work to its extensive cultivation. Each
occupies as much territory as he needs. More
would be superfluous. Its acquisition would
be lost labor, even were its owner able to conserve
for any length of time the grain products
thus secured. Under primitive conditions,
however, this spoils rapidly by reason of change
of atmosphere, ants, or other agencies. According
to Ratzel, the Central African peasant
must convert the superfluous portion of his
crops into beer as quickly as possible in order
not to lose it entirely!</p>

<p>For all these reasons, primitive peasants are
totally lacking in that warlike desire to take the
offensive which is the distinguishing mark of
hunters and herdsmen: war can not better their
condition. And this peaceable attitude is
strengthened by the fact that the occupation of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_32">32</a></span>
the peasant does not make him an efficient warrior.
It is true his muscles are strong and he
has powers of endurance, but he is sluggish
of movement and slow to come to a determination,
while huntsmen and nomads by their
methods of living develop speed of motion and
swiftness of action. For this reason, the primitive
peasant is usually of a more gentle disposition
than they.<a id="FNanchor_B" href="#Footnote_B" class="fnanchor">B</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_B" href="#FNanchor_B" class="fnanchor">B</a> This psychological contradiction, though often expressly
stated, is not the absolute rule, Grosse, <cite>Forms of the Family</cite>,
says (page 137): “Some historians of civilization place the
peasant in opposition to the warlike nomads, claiming that
the peasants are peace-loving peoples. In fact one can not
state that their economic life leads them to wars, or educates
them for it, as can be said of stock raisers. Nevertheless, one
finds within the scope of this form of cultivation a mass of
the most warlike and cruel peoples to be found anywhere.
The wild cannibals of the Bismarck archipelago, the blood-lusting
Vitians, the butchers of men of Dahome and Ashanti&mdash;they
all cultivate the ‘peaceable’ acres; and if other peasants
are not quite as bad, it seems that the kindly disposition
of the vast mass appears to be, at least, questionable.”</p></div>

<p>To sum up: within the economic and social
conditions of the peasant districts, one finds
no differentiation working for the higher
forms of integration. There exists neither the
impulse nor the possibility for the warlike subjection
of neighbors. No “State” can therefore<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_33">33</a></span>
arise; and, as a matter of fact, none ever
has arisen from such social conditions. Had
there been no impulse from without, from
groups of men nourished in a different manner,
the primitive grubber would never have
discovered the State.</p>


<h3 id="h33">(c) <span class="smcap smaller">PEOPLES PRECEDING THE STATE: HERDSMEN AND VIKINGS</span></h3>

<p>Herdsmen, on the contrary, even though
isolated, have developed a whole series of the
elements of statehood; and in the tribes which
have progressed further, they have developed
this in its totality, with the single exception
of the last point of identification which completes
the state in its modern sense, that is to
say, with exception only of the definitive occupation
of a circumscribed territory.</p>

<p>One of these elements is an economic one.
Even without the intervention of extra-economic
force, there may still develop among
herdsmen a sufficiently marked differentiation
of property and income. Assuming that, at
the start, there was complete equality in the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_34">34</a></span>
number of cattle, yet within a short time, the
one man may be richer and the other poorer.
An especially clever breeder will see his herd
increase rapidly, while an especially careful
watchman and bold hunter will preserve his
from decimation by beasts of prey. The element
of luck also affects the result. One of
these herders finds an especially good grazing
ground and healthful watering places; the
other one loses his entire stock through
pestilence, or through a snowfall or a sandstorm.</p>

<p>Distinctions in fortune quickly bring about
class distinctions. The herdsman who has lost
all must hire himself to the rich man; and sinking
thus under the other, become dependent on
him. Wherever herdsmen live, from all three
parts of the ancient world, we find the same
story. Meitzen reports of the Lapps, nomadic
in Norway: “Three hundred reindeer sufficed
for one family; who owned only a hundred
must enter the service of the richer, whose
herds ran up to a thousand head.”<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">6</a> The same
writer, speaking of the Central Asiatic Nomads,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_35">35</a></span>
says: “A family required three hundred
head of cattle for comfort; one hundred
head is poverty, followed by a life of debt.
The servant must cultivate the lands of the
lord.”<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">7</a> Ratzel reports concerning the Hottentots
of Africa a form of “commendatio”:
“The poor man endeavors to hire himself to the
rich man, his only object being to obtain cattle.”<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">8</a>
Laveleye, who reports the same circumstances
from Ireland, traces the origin and
the name of the feudal system (<i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">système
féodal</i>) to the loaning of cattle by the rich to
the poor members of the tribe; accordingly, a
“fee-od” (owning of cattle) was the first feud
whereby so long as the debt existed the magnate
bound the small owner to himself as “his
man.”</p>

<p>We can only hint at the methods whereby,
even in peaceable associations of herdsmen, this
economic and consequent social differentiation
may have been furthered by the connection of
the patriarchate with the offices of supreme and
sacrificial priesthood if the wise old men used
cleverly the superstition of their clan associates.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_36">36</a></span>
But this differentiation, so long as it is
unaffected by the political means, operates
within very modest bounds. Cleverness and
efficiency are not hereditary with any degree
of certainty. The largest herd will be split
up if many heirs grow up in one tent, and fortune
is tricky. In our own day, the richest
man among the Lapps of Sweden, in the shortest
possible time, has been reduced to such complete
poverty that the government has had to
support him. All these causes bring it about
that the original condition of economic and
social equality is always approximately restored.
“The more peaceable, aboriginal, and
genuine the nomad is, the smaller are the tangible
differences of possession. It is touching
to note the pleasure with which an old prince
of the Tsaidam Mongols accepts his tribute or
gift, consisting of a handful of tobacco, a piece
of sugar, and twenty-five kopeks.”<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">9</a></p>

<p>This equality is destroyed permanently and
in greater degree by the political means.
“Where war is carried on and booty acquired,
greater differences arise, which find their expression<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_37">37</a></span>
in the ownership of slaves, women,
arms and spirited mounts.”<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">10</a></p>

<p>The ownership of <em>slaves</em>! The nomad is the
inventor of slavery, and thereby has created the
seedling of the state, the first economic exploitation
of man by man.</p>

<p>The huntsman carries on wars and takes
captives. But he does not make them slaves;
either he kills them, or else he adopts them into
the tribe. Slaves would be of no use to him.
The booty of the chase can be stowed away
even less than grain can be “capitalized.”
The idea of using a human being as a labor
motor could only come about on an economic
plane on which a body of wealth has developed,
call it capital, which can be increased only with
the assistance of dependent labor forces.</p>

<p>This stage is first reached by the herdsmen.
The forces of one family, lacking outside assistance,
suffice to hold together a herd of very
limited size, and to protect it from attacks of
beasts of prey or human enemies. Until the
political means is brought into play, auxiliary
forces are found very sparingly; such as the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_38">38</a></span>
poorer members of the clan already mentioned,
together with runaways from foreign tribes,
who are found all over the world as protected
dependents in the suite of the greater owners
of herds.<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">11</a> In some cases, an entire poor clan
of herdsmen enters, half freely, into the service
of some rich tribe. “Entire peoples take positions
corresponding to their relative wealth.
Thus the Tungusen, who are very poor, try to
live near the settlements of the Tschuktsches,
because they find occupation as herdsmen of
the reindeer belonging to the wealthy Tschuktsches;
they are paid in reindeer. And the
subjection of the Ural-Samojedes by the Sirjaenes
came about through the gradual occupation
of their pasturing grounds.”<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">12</a></p>

<p>Excepting, however, the last named case,
which is already very state-like, the few existing
labor forces, without capital, are not sufficient
to permit the clan to keep very large
herds. Furthermore, methods of herding
themselves compel division. For a pasture
may not, as they say in the Swiss Alps, be
“overpushed,” that is to say, have too many<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_39">39</a></span>
cattle on it. The danger of losing the entire
stock is reduced by the measure in which it is
distributed over various pastures. For cattle
plagues, storms, etc., can affect only a part;
while even the enemy from abroad can not drive
off all at once. For that reason, the Hereros,
for example, “find every well-to-do owner
forced to keep, besides the main herd, several
other subsidiary herds. Younger brothers or
other near relatives, or in want of these, tried
old servants, watch them.”<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">13</a></p>

<p>For that reason, the developed nomad spares
his captured enemy; he can use him as a slave
on his pasture. We may note this transition
from killing to enslaving in a customary rite
of the Scythians: they offered up at their
places of sacrifice one out of every hundred
captured enemies. Lippert, who reports this,
sees in it “the beginning of a limitation, and
the reason thereof is evidently to be found in
the value which a captured enemy has acquired
by becoming the servant of a tribal herdsman.”<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">14</a></p>

<p>With the introduction of slaves into the tribal<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_40">40</a></span>
economy of the herdsmen, the state, in its
essential elements, is completed, except that it
has not as yet acquired a definitely circumscribed
territorial limit. The state has thus
the <em>form</em> of dominion, and its economic basis
is the exploitation of human labor. Henceforth,
economic differentiation and the formation
of social classes progress rapidly. The
herds of the great, wisely divided and better
guarded by numerous armed servants than
those of the simple freemen, as a rule, maintain
themselves at their original number:
they also increase faster than those of the freemen,
since they are augmented by the greater
share in the booty which the rich receive, corresponding
to the number of warriors (slaves)
which these place in the field.</p>

<p>Likewise, the office of supreme priest creates
an ever-widening cleft which divides the
numbers of the clan, all formerly equals; until
finally a genuine nobility, the rich descendants
of the rich patriarchs, is placed in juxtaposition
to the ordinary freemen. “The redskins
have also in their progressive organization developed<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_41">41</a></span>
no nobility and no slavery,<a id="FNanchor_C" href="#Footnote_C" class="fnanchor">C</a> and in
this their organization distinguishes itself most
essentially from those of the old world. Both
arise from the development of the patriarchate
of stock-raising people.”<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">15</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_C" href="#FNanchor_C" class="fnanchor">C</a> This statement of Lippert is not quite correct. The higher
developed domiciled huntsmen and fishermen of Northwest
America have both nobles and slaves.</p></div>

<p>Thus we find, with all developed tribes of
herdsmen, a social separation into three distinct
classes: nobility (“head of the house of
his fathers” in the biblical phrase), common
freemen and slaves. According to Mommsen,
“all Indo-Germanic people have slavery as a
jural institution.”<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">16</a> This applies to the
Arians and the Semites of Asia and Africa as
well as to the Hamites. Among all the Fulbe
of the Sahara, “society is divided into princes,
chieftains, commons and slaves.”<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">17</a> And we
find the same facts everywhere, as a matter of
course, wherever slavery is legally established,
as among the Hova<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">18</a> and their Polynesian
kinsmen, the “Sea Nomads.” Human psychology
under similar circumstances brings<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_42">42</a></span>
about like conditions, independent of color or
race.</p>

<p>Thus the herdsman gradually becomes accustomed
to earning his livelihood through warfare,
and to the exploitation of men as servile
labor motors. And one must admit that his
entire mode of life impels him to make more
and more use of the “political means.”</p>

<p>He is physically stronger and just as adroit
and determined as the primitive huntsman,
whose food supply is too irregular to permit
him to attain his greatest natural physical development.
The herdsman can, in all cases,
grow to his full stature, since he has uninterrupted
nourishment in the milk of his herds
and an unfailing supply of meat. This is
shown in the Arian horse nomad, no less than
in the herdsman of Asia and Africa, e. g., the
Zulu. Secondly, tribes of herdsmen increase
faster than hordes of hunters. This is so, not
only because the adults can obtain much more
nourishment from a given territory, but still
more because possession of the milk of animals
shortens the period of nursing for the mothers,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_43">43</a></span>
and consequently permits a greater number of
children to be born and to grow to maturity.
As a consequence, the pastures and steppes of
the old world became inexhaustible fountains,
which periodically burst their confines letting
loose inundations of humanity, so that they
came to be called the “<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">vaginæ gentium</i>.”</p>

<p>Moreover we find a much larger number of
armed warriors among herdsmen than among
hunters. Each one of these herdsmen is
stronger individually, and yet all of them together
are at least as mobile as is a horde of
huntsmen; while the camel and horse riders
among them are incomparably more mobile.
This greater mass of the best individual elements
is held together by an organization only
possible under the ægis of a slave-holding
patriarchate accustomed to rule, an organization
prepared and developed by its occupation,
and therefore superior to that of the young
warriors of the huntsmen sworn to the service
of one chief.</p>

<p>Hunters, it may be observed, work best alone
or in small groups. Herdsmen, on the other<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_44">44</a></span>
hand, move to the best advantage in a great
train, in which each individual is best protected;
and which is in every sense an armed
expedition, where every stopping place becomes
an armed camp. Thus there is developed
a science of tactical maneuvers, strict
subordination, and firm discipline. “One does
not make a mistake,” as Ratzel says, “if one
accounts as the disciplinary forces in the life
of the nomads the order of the tents which, in
the same form, exists since most ancient times.
Every one and everything here has a definite,
traditional place; hence the speed and order in
setting up and in breaking camp, in establishment
and in rearrangement. It is unheard
of that any one without orders, or without the
most pressing reason, should change his place.
Thanks to this strict discipline, the tents can
be packed up and loaded away within the space
of an hour.”<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">19</a></p>

<p>The same tried order, handed down from
untold ages, regulates the warlike march of
the tribe of herdsmen while on the hunt, in war
and in peaceable wandering. Thus they become<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_45">45</a></span>
professional fighters, irresistible until
the state develops higher and mightier organizations.
Herdsman and warrior become
identical concepts. Ratzel’s statement concerning
the Central Asiatic Nomads applies
to them all: “The nomad is, as herdsman, an
economic, as warrior, a political concept. It
is easy for him to turn from any activity to
that of the warrior and robber. Everything
in life has for him a pacific and war-like, an
honest and robber-like, side; according to circumstances,
the one or the other of these phases
appears uppermost. Even fishing and navigation,
at the hands of the East Caspian
Turkomans, developed into piracy.... The
activities of the apparently pacific existence
as a herdsman determine those of the warrior;
the pastoral crook becomes a fighting implement.
In the fall, when the horses return
strengthened from the pasture and the second
cropping of the sheep is completed, the nomads’
minds turn to some feud or robbing expedition
(<i>Baranta</i>, literally, to make cattle, to lift cattle),
adjourned to that time. This is an expression<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_46">46</a></span>
of the right of self help, which in contentions
over points of law, or in quarrels affecting
dignity, or in blood feuds, seeks both
requital and surety in the most valuable things
that the enemy possesses, namely, the animals
of his herd. Young men who have not been
on a <i>baranta</i> must first acquire the name <i>batir</i>,
hero, and thus earn the claim to honor and respect.
The pleasure of ownership joined to
the desire for adventure develops the triple
descending gradation of avenger, hero and
robber.”<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">20</a></p>

<p>An identical development takes place with
the sea nomads, the “Vikings,” as with the land
nomads. This is quite natural, since in the
most important cases noted in the history of
mankind, sea nomads are simply land nomads
taking to the sea.</p>

<p>We have noted above one of the innumerable
examples which indicate that the herdsman
does not long hesitate to use for marauding
expeditions, instead of the horse or the
“ship of the desert,” the “horses of the sea.”
This case is exemplified by the East Caspian<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_47">47</a></span>
Turkomans.<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">21</a> Another example is furnished
by the Scythians: “From the moment when
they learn from their neighbors the art of navigating
the seas, these wandering herdsmen,
whom Homer (<cite>Iliad</cite>, XIII, 3) calls ‘respected
horsemen, milk-eaters and poor, the most just
of men,’ change into daring navigators like
their Baltic and Scandinavian brethren.
Strabo (<cite>Cas.</cite>, 301) complains: ‘Since they
have ventured on the sea, carrying on piracy
and murdering foreigners, they have become
worse; and associating with many peoples,
they adopt their petty trading and spendthrift
habits.’”<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">22</a></p>

<p>If the Phœnicians really were “Semites,”
they furnish an additional example of incomparable
importance of the transformation of
land into “sea Bedouins,” i. e., warlike robbers;
and the same is probably true for the
majority of the numerous peoples who looted
the rich countries around the Mediterranean,
whether from the coast of Asia Minor, Dalmatia,
or from the North African shore.
These begin from the earliest times, as we see<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_48">48</a></span>
from the Egyptian monuments (the Greeks
were not admitted into Egypt),<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">23</a> and continue
to the present day: e. g., the Riff pirates.
The North African “Moors,” an amalgamation
of Arabs and of Berbers, both originally
land nomads, are perhaps the most celebrated
example of this change.</p>

<p>There are cases in which sea nomads&mdash;that
is to say, sea robbers&mdash;arise immediately
from fishermen, with no intermediate herdsman
stage. We have already examined the causes
which give the herdsmen their superiority over
the peasantry: the relatively numerous population
of the horde, combined with an activity
which develops courage and quick resolution
in the individual, and educates the mass as a
whole to tense discipline. All this applies also
to fishermen dwelling on the sea. Rich fishing
grounds permit a considerable density of population,
as is shown in the case of the Northwest
Indians (Tlinkit, etc.); these permit also
the keeping of slaves, since the slave earns
more by fishing than his keep amounts to.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_49">49</a></span>
Thus we find, here alone among the redskins,
slavery developed as an institution; and we
find, therefore, along with it, permanent
economic differences among the freemen, which
result in a sort of plutocracy similar to that
noted among herdsmen. Here, as there, the
habit of command over slaves produces the
habit of rule and a taste for the “political
means.” This is favored by the tense discipline
developed in navigation. “Not the
least advantage of fishing in common is found
in the discipline of the crews. They must
render implicit obedience to a leader chosen in
each of the larger fishing boats, since every success
depends upon obedience. The command
of a ship afterward facilitates the command
of the state. We are accustomed to
reckon the Solomon Islanders as complete savages,
and yet their life is subject to one solitary
element, which combines their forces, namely,
navigation.”<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">24</a> If the Northwest Indians did
not become such celebrated sea robbers as their
likes in the old world, this is due to the fact<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_50">50</a></span>
that the neighborhoods within their reach had
developed no rich civilization; but all more developed
fishermen carry on piracy.</p>

<p>For this reason, the Vikings have the same
capacity to choose the political means as the
basis of their economic existence as have the
cattle raiders; and similarly they have been
founders of states on a large scale. Hereafter,
we shall distinguish the states founded
by them as “sea states,” while the states
founded by herdsmen&mdash;and in the new world
by hunters&mdash;will be called “land states.” Sea
states will be treated extensively when we discuss
the consequences of the <em>developed feudal
state</em>. As long, however, as we are discussing
the development of the state, and the <em>primitive</em>
feudal state, we must limit ourselves to the
consideration of the land state and leave the
sea state out of account. This treatment is
convenient, since in all essential things the sea
state has the same characteristics, but its development
can not be followed through the
various typical stages as can the development
of the land state.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_51">51</a></span></p>


<h3 id="h51">(d) <span class="smcap smaller">THE GENESIS OF THE STATE</span></h3>

<p>The hordes of huntsmen are incomparably
weaker, both in numbers and in the strength of
the single fighters, than are the herdsmen with
whom they occasionally brush. Naturally
they can not withstand the impact. They flee
to the highlands and mountains, where the
herdsmen have no inclination to follow them,
not only because of the physical hardships involved,
but also because their cattle do not find
pasturage there; or else they enter into a form
of cliental relation, as happened often in
Africa, especially in very ancient times.
When the Hyksos invaded Egypt, such dependent
huntsmen followed them. The huntsmen
usually pay for protection an inconsiderable
tribute in the form of spoils of the chase,
and are used for reconnoitering and watching.
But the huntsman, being a “practical anarchist,”
often invites his own destruction rather
than submit to regular labor. For these reasons,
no “state” ever arose from such contact.</p>

<p>The peasants fight as undisciplined levies,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_52">52</a></span>
and with their single combatants undisciplined;
so that, in the long run, even though they are
strong in numbers, they are no more able than
are the hunters to withstand the charge of
the heavily armed herdsmen. But the peasantry
do not flee. The peasant is attached to
his ground, and has been used to regular work.
He remains, yields to subjection, and pays
tribute to his conqueror; <em>that is the genesis of
the land states in the old world</em>.</p>

<p>In the new world, where the larger herding
animals, cattle, horses, camels, were not indigenous,
we find that instead of the herdsman
the hunter is the conqueror of the peasant,
because of his infinitely superior adroitness in
the use of arms and in military discipline. “In
the old world we found that the contrast of
herdsmen and peasants developed civilization;
in the new world the contrast is between the
sedentary and the roving tribes. The Toltecks,
devoted to agriculture, fought wild
tribes (with a highly developed military
organization) breaking in from the north, as
endlessly as did Iran with Turan.”<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">25</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_53">53</a></span></p>

<p>This applies not only to Peru and Mexico,
but to all America, a strong ground for the
opinion that the fundamental basis of civilization
is the same all over the world, its development
being consistent and regular under the
most varied economic and geographical conditions.
Wherever opportunity offers, and man
possesses the power, he prefers political to
economic means for the preservation of his
life. And perhaps this is true not alone of
man, for, according to Maeterlinck’s <cite>Life of
the Bees</cite>, a swarm which has once made the
experiment of obtaining honey from a foreign
hive, by robbery instead of by tedious building,
is thenceforth spoiled for the “economic
means.” From working bees, robber bees have
developed.</p>

<p>Leaving out of account the state formations
of the new world, which have no great significance
in universal history, the cause of the
genesis of all states is the contrast between
peasants and herdsmen, between laborers and
robbers, between bottom lands and prairies.
Ratzel, regarding sociology from the geographical<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_54">54</a></span>
view-point, expresses this cleverly:
“It must be remembered that nomads do not
always destroy the opposing civilization of the
settled folk. This applies not only to tribes,
but also to states, even to those of some might.
The war-like character of the nomads is a
great factor in the creation of states. It finds
expression in the immense nations of Asia controlled
by nomad dynasties and nomad armies,
such as Persia, ruled by the Turks; China,
conquered and governed by the Mongols and
Manchus; and in the Mongol and Radjaputa
states of India, as well as in the states on
the border of the Soudan, where the amalgamation
of the formerly hostile elements has
not yet developed so far, although they are
joined together by mutual benefit. In no
place is it shown so clearly as here on the
border of the nomad and peasant peoples, that
the great workings of the impulse making for
civilization on the part of the nomads are not
the result of civilizing activity, but of war-like
exploits at first detrimental to pacific work.
Their importance lies in the capacity of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_55">55</a></span>
nomads to hold together the sedentary races
who otherwise would easily fall apart. This,
however, does not exclude their learning much
from their subjects.... Yet all these industrious
and clever folk did not have and
could not have the will and the power to rule,
the military spirit, and the sense for the order
and subordination that befits a state. For this
reason, the desert-born lords of the Soudan rule
over their negro folk just as the Manchus rule
their Chinese subjects. This takes place pursuant
to a law, valid from Timbuctoo to
Pekin, whereby advantageous state formations
arise in rich peasant lands adjoining a wide
prairie; where a high material culture of
sedentary peoples is violently subjugated to
the service of prairie dwellers having energy,
war-like capacity, and desire to rule.”<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">26</a></p>

<p>In the genesis of the state, from the subjection
of a peasant folk by a tribe of herdsmen or
by sea nomads, six stages may be distinguished.
In the following discussion it should not be
assumed that the actual historical development
must, in each particular case, climb the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_56">56</a></span>
entire scale step by step. Although, even
here, the argument does not depend upon bare
theoretical construction, since every particular
stage is found in numerous examples, both in
the world’s history and in ethnology, and there
are states which have apparently progressed
through them all. But there are many more
which have skipped one or more of these stages.</p>

<p>The first stage comprises robbery and killing
in border fights, endless combats broken
neither by peace nor by armistice. It is
marked by killing of men, carrying away of
children and women, looting of herds, and
burning of dwellings. Even if the offenders
are defeated at first, they return in stronger
and stronger bodies, impelled by the duty of
blood feud. Sometimes the peasant group
may assemble, may organize its militia, and
perhaps temporarily defeat the nimble enemy;
but mobilization is too slow and supplies to be
brought into the desert too costly for the peasants.
The peasants’ militia does not, as does
the enemy, carry its stock of food&mdash;its herds&mdash;with
it into the field. In Southwest Africa the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_57">57</a></span>
Germans recently experienced the difficulties
which a well-disciplined and superior force,
equipped with a supply train, with a railway
reaching back to its base of supply, and with
the millions of the German Empire behind it,
may have with a handful of herdsmen warriors,
who were able to give the Germans a
decided setback. In the case of primitive
levies, this difficulty is increased by the narrow
spirit of the peasant, who considers only his
own neighborhood, and by the fact that while
the war is going on the lands are uncultivated.
Therefore, in such cases, in the long run, the
small but compact and easily mobilized body
constantly defeats the greater disjointed mass,
as the panther triumphs over the buffalo.</p>

<p>This is the first stage in the formation of
states. The state may remain stationary at
this point for centuries, for a thousand years.
The following is a thoroughly characteristic
example:</p>

<p>“Every range of a Turkoman tribe formerly
bordered upon a wide belt which might be
designated as its ‘looting district.’ Everything<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_58">58</a></span>
north and east of Chorassan, though
nominally under Persian dominion, has for
decades belonged more to the Turkomans,
Jomudes, Goklenes, and other tribes of the
bordering plains, than to the Persians. The
Tekinzes, in a similar manner, looted all the
stretches from Kiwa to Bokhara, until other
Turkoman tribes were successfully rounded
up either by force or by corruption to act as
a buffer. Numberless further instances can
be found in the history of the chain of oases
which extends between Eastern and Western
Asia directly through the steppes of its central
part, where since ancient times the
Chinese have exercised a predominant influence
through their possession of all important
strategic centers, such as the Oasis of Chami.
The nomads, breaking through from north
and south, constantly tried to land on these
islands of fertile ground, which to them must
have appeared like Islands of the Blessed.
And every horde, whether laden down with
booty or fleeing after defeat, was protected by
the plains. Although the most immediate<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_59">59</a></span>
threats were averted by the continued weakening
of the Mongols, and the actual dominion of
Thibet, yet the last insurrection of the Dunganes
showed how easily the waves of a mobile
tribe break over these islands of civilization.
Only after the destruction of the nomads, impossible
as long as there are open plains in
Central Asia, can their existence be definitely
secured.”<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">27</a></p>

<p>The entire history of the old world is replete
with well-known instances of mass expeditions,
which must be assigned to the first stage of
state development, inasmuch as they were
intent, not upon conquest, but directly on looting.
Western Europe suffered through these
expeditions at the hands of the Celts, Germans,
Huns, Avars, Arabs, Magyars, Tartars, Mongolians
and Turks by land; while the Vikings
and the Saracens harassed it on the waterways.
These hordes inundated entire continents far
beyond the limits of their accustomed looting
ground. They disappeared, returned, were
absorbed, and left behind them only wasted
lands. In many cases, however, they advanced<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_60">60</a></span>
in some part of the inundated district directly
to the sixth and last stage of state formation,
in cases namely, where they established a permanent
dominion over the peasant population.
Ratzel describes these mass migrations excellently
in the following:</p>

<p>“The expeditions of the great hordes of
nomads contrast with this movement, drop by
drop and step by step, since they overflow
with tremendous power, especially Central
Asia and all neighboring countries. The
nomads of this district, as of Arabia and
Northern Africa, unite mobility in their way of
life with an organization holding together their
entire mass for one single object. It seems to
be a characteristic of the nomads that they
easily develop despotic power and far-reaching
might from the patriarchal cohesion of the
tribe. Mass governments thereby come into
being, which compare with other movements
among men in the same way that swollen
streams compare with the steady but diffused
flow of a tributary. The history of China,
India, and Persia, no less than that of Europe,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_61">61</a></span>
shows their historical importance. Just as
they moved about on their ranges with their
wives and children, slaves and carts, herds and
all their paraphernalia, so they inundated the
borderlands. While this ballast may have deprived
them of speed it increased their momentum.
The frightened inhabitants were
driven before them, and like a wave they rolled
over the conquered countries, absorbing their
wealth. Since they carried everything with
them, their new abodes were equipped with all
their possessions, and thus their final settlements
were of an ethnographic importance.
After this manner, the Magyars flooded Hungary,
the Manchus invaded China, the Turks,
the countries from Persia to the Adriatic.”<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">28</a></p>

<p>What has been said here of Hamites, Semites
and Mongolians, may be said also, at least
in part, of the Arian tribes of herdsmen. It
applies also to the true negroes, at least to
those who live entirely from their herds:
“The mobile, warlike tribes of the Kafirs possess
a power of expansion which needs only
an enticing object in order to attain violent<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_62">62</a></span>
effects and to overturn the ethnologic relations
of vast districts. Eastern Africa offers such
an object. Here the climate did not forbid
stock raising, as in the countries of the interior,
and did not paralyze from the start, the power
of impact of the nomads, while nevertheless
numerous peaceable agricultural peoples found
room for their development. Wandering
tribes of Kafirs poured like devastating
streams into the fruitful lands of the Zambesi,
and up to the highlands between the Tanganyika
and the coast. Here they met the
advance guard of the Watusi, a wave of
Hamite eruption, coming from the north.
The former inhabitants of these districts were
either exterminated, or as serfs cultivated the
lands which they formerly owned; or they still
continued to fight; or again, they remained undisturbed
in settlements left on one side by the
stream of conquest.”<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">29</a></p>

<p>All this has taken place before our eyes.
Some of it is still going on. During many
thousands of years it has “jarred all Eastern
Africa from the Zambesi to the Mediterranean.”<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_63">63</a></span>
The incursion of the Hyksos,
whereby for over five hundred years Egypt
was subject to the shepherd tribes of the eastern
and northern deserts&mdash;“kinsmen of the
peoples who up to the present day herd their
stock between the Nile and the Red Sea”<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">30</a>&mdash;is
the first authenticated foundation of a state.
These states were followed by many others
both in the country of the Nile itself, and
farther southward, as far as the Empire of
Muata Jamvo on the southern rim of the central
Congo district, which Portuguese traders
in Angola reported as early as the end of the
sixteenth century, and down to the Empire
of Uganda, which only in our own day has
finally succumbed to the superior military organization
of Europe. “Desert land and
civilization never lie peaceably alongside one
another; but their battles are all alike and full
of repetitions.”<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">31</a></p>

<p>“Alike and full of repetitions”! That may
be said of universal history on its basic lines.
The human ego in its fundamental aspect is
much the same all the world over. It acts uniformly,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_64">64</a></span>
in obedience to the same influences of
its environment, with races of all colors, in all
parts of the earth, in the tropics as in the temperate
zones. One must step back far enough
and choose a point of view so high that the
variegated aspect of the details does not hide
the great movements of the mass. In such a
case, our eye misses the “mode” of fighting,
wandering, laboring humanity, while its “substance,”
ever similar, ever new, ever enduring
through change, reveals itself under uniform
laws.</p>

<p>Gradually, from this first stage, there develops
the second, in which the peasant,
through thousands of unsuccessful attempts at
revolt, has accepted his fate and has ceased
every resistance. About this time, it begins
to dawn on the consciousness of the wild herdsman
that a murdered peasant can no longer
plow, and that a fruit tree hacked down will
no longer bear. In his own interest, then,
wherever it is possible, he lets the peasant live
and the tree stand. The expedition of the
herdsmen comes just as before, every member<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_65">65</a></span>
bristling with arms, but no longer intending
nor expecting war and violent appropriation.
The raiders burn and kill only so far as is
necessary to enforce a wholesome respect, or
to break an isolated resistance. But in general,
principally in accordance with a developing
customary right&mdash;the first germ of the
development of all public law&mdash;the herdsman
now appropriates only the surplus of the peasant.
That is to say, he leaves the peasant his
house, his gear and his provisions up to the
next crop.<a id="FNanchor_D" href="#Footnote_D" class="fnanchor">D</a> The herdsman in the first stage
is like the bear, who for the purpose of robbing
the beehive, destroys it. In the second stage
he is like the bee-keeper, who leaves the bees
enough honey to carry them through the
winter.</p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_D" href="#FNanchor_D" class="fnanchor">D</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, page 393, in speaking of the Arabs says:
“The difficulty of nourishing slaves makes it impossible to
keep them. Vast populations are kept in subjection and deprived
of everything beyond the necessaries for maintaining
life. They turn entire oases into demesne lands, visited at the
harvest time in order to rob the inhabitants; a domination
characteristic of the desert.”</p></div>

<p>Great is the progress between the first stage
and the second. Long is the forward step,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_66">66</a></span>
both economically and politically. In the beginning,
as we have seen, the acquisition by
the tribe of herdsmen was purely an occupying
one. Regardless of consequences, they destroyed
the source of future wealth for the enjoyment
of the moment. Henceforth the acquisition
becomes economical, because all
economy is based on wise housekeeping, or in
other words, on restraining the enjoyment of
the moment in view of the needs of the future.
The herdsman has learned to “capitalize.” It
is a vast step forward in politics when an utterly
strange human being, prey heretofore
like the wild animals, obtains a value and is
recognized as a source of wealth. Although
this is the beginning of all slavery, subjugation,
and exploitation, it is at the same time
the genesis of a higher form of society, that
reaches out beyond the family based upon
blood relationship. We saw how, between the
robbers and the robbed, the first threads of a
jural relation were spun across the cleft which
separated those who had heretofore been only
“mortal enemies.” The peasant thus obtains<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_67">67</a></span>
a semblance of <em>right</em> to the bare necessaries of
life; so that it comes to be regarded as <em>wrong</em>
to kill an unresisting man or to strip him of
everything.</p>

<p>And better than this, gradually more delicate
and softer threads are woven into a net
very thin as yet, but which, nevertheless, brings
about more human relations than the customary
arrangement of the division of spoils.
Since the herdsmen no longer meet the peasants
in combat only, they are likely now to
grant a respectful request, or to remedy a well
grounded grievance. “The categorical imperative”
of equity, “Do to others as you
would have them do unto you,” had heretofore
ruled the herdsmen only in their dealings with
their own tribesmen and kind. Now for the
first time it begins to speak, shyly whispering
in behalf of those who are alien to blood relationship.
In this, we find the germ of that
magnificent process of external amalgamation
which, out of small hordes, has formed nations
and unions of nations; and which, in the future
is to give life to the concept of “humanity.”<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_68">68</a></span>
We find also the germ of the internal unification
of tribes once separated, from which, in
place of the hatred of “barbarians,” will come
the all comprising love of humanity, of Christianity
and Buddhism.</p>

<p><em>The moment when first the conqueror
spared his victim in order permanently to exploit
him in productive work, was of incomparable
historical importance. It gave birth
to nation and state, to right and the higher
economics, with all the developments and ramifications
which have grown and which will
hereafter grow out of them.</em> The root of
everything human reaches down into the dark
soil of the animal&mdash;love and art, no less than
state, justice and economics.</p>

<p>Still another tendency knots yet more closely
these psychic relations. To return to the comparison
of the herdsman and the bear, there are
in the desert, beside the bear who guards the
bees, other bears who also lust after honey.
But our tribe of herdsmen blocks their way,
and protects its beehives by force of arms.
The peasants become accustomed, when danger<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_69">69</a></span>
threatens, to call on the herdsmen, whom
they no longer regard as robbers and murderers,
but as protectors and saviors. Imagine
the joy of the peasants when the returning
band of avengers brings back to the village the
looted women and children, with the enemies’
heads or scalps. These ties are no longer
threads, but strong and knotted bands.</p>

<p>Here is one of the principal forces of that
“integration,” whereby in the further development,
those originally not of the same blood,
and often enough of different groups speaking
different languages, will in the end be
welded together into <em>one</em> people, with <em>one</em>
speech, <em>one</em> custom, and <em>one</em> feeling of nationality.
This unity grows by degrees from common
suffering and need, common victory
and defeat, common rejoicing and common
sorrow. A new and vast domain is open when
master and slave serve the same interests; then
arises a stream of sympathy, a sense of common
service. Both sides apprehend, and
gradually recognize, each other’s common humanity.
Gradually the points of similarity<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_70">70</a></span>
are sensed, in place of the differences in build
and apparel, of language and religion, which
had heretofore brought about only antipathy
and hatred. Gradually they learn to understand
one another, first through a common
speech, and then through a common mental
habit. The net of the psychical inter-relations
becomes stronger.</p>

<p>In this second stage of the formation of
states, the ground work, in its essentials, has
been mapped out. No further step can be
compared in importance to the transition
whereby the bear becomes a bee-keeper. For
this reason, short references must suffice.</p>

<p>The third stage arrives when the “surplus”
obtained by the peasantry is brought by them
regularly to the tents of the herdsmen as “tribute,”
a regulation which affords to both
parties self-evident and considerable advantages.
By this means, the peasantry is relieved
entirely from the little irregularities
connected with the former method of taxation,
such as a few men knocked on the head, women
violated, or farmhouses burned down. The<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_71">71</a></span>
herdsmen on the other hand, need no longer
apply to this “business” any “expense” and
labor, to use a mercantile expression; and they
devote the time and energy thus set free toward
an “extension of the works,” in other
words, to subjugating other peasants.</p>

<p>This form of tribute is found in many well-known
instances in history: Huns, Magyars,
Tartars, Turks, have derived their largest income
from their European tributes. Sometimes
the character of the tribute paid by the
subjects to their master is more or less blurred,
and the act assumes the guise of payment for
protection, or indeed, of a subvention. The
tale is well known whereby Attila was pictured
by the weakling emperor at Constantinople
as a vassal prince; while the tribute he
paid to the Hun appeared as a fee.</p>

<p>The fourth stage, once more, is of very great
importance, since it adds the decisive factor in
the development of the state, as we are accustomed
to see it, namely, the union on one strip
of land of both ethnic groups.<a id="FNanchor_E" href="#Footnote_E" class="fnanchor">E</a> (It is well<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_72">72</a></span>
known that no jural definition of a state can
be arrived at without the concept of state territory.)
From now on, the relation of the two
groups, which was originally international,
gradually becomes more and more intra-national.</p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_E" href="#FNanchor_E" class="fnanchor">E</a> There is apparently in the case of the Fulbe, a transition
stage between the first three stages and the fourth, in which
dominion is exercised half internationally and half intranationally.
According to Ratzel (l. c. II, page 419):
“Like a cuttle-fish, the conquering race stretches numerous
arms hither and thither among the terrified aborigines, whose
lack of cohesion affords plenty of gaps. Thus the Fulbe
are slowly flowing into the Benue countries and quite gradually
permeating them. Later observers have thus quite rightly
abstained from assigning definite boundaries. There are many
scattered Fulbe localities which look to a particular place as
their center and as the center of their power. Thus Muri
is the capital of the numerous Fulbe settlements scattered
about the Middle Benue, and the position of Gola is similar
in the Adamawa district. As yet there are no proper kingdoms
with defined frontiers against each other and against
independent tribes. Even these capitals are in other respects
still far from being firmly settled.”</p></div>

<p>This territorial union may be caused by
foreign influences. It may be that stronger
hordes have crowded the herdsmen forward, or
that their increase in population has reached
the limit set by the nutritive capacity of the
steppes or prairies; it may be that a great
cattle plague has forced the herdsmen to exchange<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_73">73</a></span>
the unlimited scope of the prairies for
the narrows of some river valley. In general,
however, internal causes alone suffice to bring
it about that the herdsmen stay in the neighborhood
of their peasants. The duty of protecting
their tributaries against other “bears”
forces them to keep a levy of young warriors in
the neighborhood of their subjects; and this
is at the same time an excellent measure of defense
since it prevents the peasants from giving
way to a desire to break their bonds, or to
let some other herdsmen become their overlords.
This latter occurrence is by no means
rare, since, if tradition is correct, it is the means
whereby the sons of Rurik came to Russia.</p>

<p>As yet the local juxtaposition does not mean
a state community in its narrowest sense; that
is to say, a unital organization.</p>

<p>In case the herdsmen are dealing with utterly
unwarlike subjects, they carry on their
nomad life, peaceably wandering up and down
and herding their cattle among their perioike
and helots. This is the case with the light-colored
Wahuma,<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">32</a> “the handsomest men of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_74">74</a></span>
the world” (Kandt), in Central Africa, or the
Tuareg clan of the Hadanara of the Asgars,
“who have taken up their seats among the Imrad
and have become wandering freebooters.
These Imrad are the serving class of the Asgars,
who live on them, although the Imrad
could put into the field ten times as many warriors;
the situation is analogous to that of the
Spartans in relation to their Helots.”<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">33</a> The
same may be said of the Teda among the
neighboring Borku: “Just as the land is divided
into a semi-desert supporting the nomads,
and gardens with date groves, so the
population is divided between nomads and settled
folk. Although about equal in number,
ten to twelve thousand altogether, it goes without
saying that these latter are subject to the
others.”<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">34</a></p>

<p>And the same applies to the entire group of
herdsmen known as the Galla Masi and Wahuma.
“Although differences in possessions
are considerable, they have few slaves, as a
serving class. These are represented by
peoples of a lower caste, who live separate and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_75">75</a></span>
apart from them. It is herdsmanship which is
the basis of the family, of the state, and along
with these of the principle of political evolution.
In this wide territory, between Scehoa
and its southernmost boundaries, on the one
hand, and Zanzibar on the other, there is found
no strong political power, in spite of the highly
developed social articulation.”<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">35</a></p>

<p>In case the country is not adapted to herding
cattle on a large scale&mdash;as was universally
the case in Western Europe&mdash;or where a less
unwarlike population might make attempts at
insurrection, the crowd of lords becomes more
or less permanently settled, taking either steep
places or strategically important points for
their camps, castles, or towns. From these
centers, they control their “subjects,” mainly
for the purpose of gathering their tribute, paying
no attention to them in other respects.
They let them administer their affairs, carry
on their religious worship, settle their disputes,
and adjust their methods of internal economy.
Their autochthonous constitution, their local
officials, are, in fact, not interfered with.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_76">76</a></span></p>

<p>If Frants Buhl reports correctly, that was
the beginning of the rule of the Israelites in
Canaan.<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">36</a> Abyssinia, that great military
force, though at the first glance it may appear
to be a fully developed state, does not, however,
seem to have advanced beyond the fourth
stage. At least Ratzel states: “The principal
care of the Abyssinians consists in the
tribute, in which they follow the method of
oriental monarchs in olden and modern times,
which is not to interfere with the internal management
and administration of justice of their
subject peoples.”<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">37</a></p>

<p>The best example of the fourth stage is
found in the situation in ancient Mexico before
the Spanish conquest: “The confederation
under the leadership of the Mexicans had
somewhat more progressive ideas of conquest.
Only those tribes were wiped out that offered
resistance. In other cases, the vanquished
were merely plundered, and then required to
pay tribute. The defeated tribe governed itself
just as before, through its own officials.
It was different in Peru, where the formation<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_77">77</a></span>
of a compact empire followed the first attack.
In Mexico, intimidation and exploitation were
the only aims of the conquest. And so it came
about that the so-called Empire of Mexico at
the time of the conquest represented merely a
group of intimidated Indian tribes, whose federation
with one another was prevented by
their fear of plundering expeditions from some
unassailable fort in their midst.”<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">38</a> It will be
observed that one can not speak of this as a
state in any proper sense. Ratzel shows this
in the note following the above: “It is certain
that the various points held in subjection by
the Warriors of Montezuma were separated
from one another by stretches of territory not
yet conquered. A condition very like the rule
of the Hova in Madagascar. One would not
say that scattering a few garrisons, or better
still, military colonies, over the land, is a mark
of absolute dominion, since these colonies, with
great trouble, maintain a strip of a few miles
in subjection.”<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">39</a></p>

<p>The logic of events presses quickly from the
fourth to the fifth stage, and fashions almost<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_78">78</a></span>
completely the full state. Quarrels arise between
neighboring villages or clans, which the
lords no longer permit to be fought out, since
by this the capacity of the peasants for service
would be impaired. The lords assume the
right to arbitrate, and in case of need, to enforce
their judgment. In the end, it happens
that at each “court” of the village king or chief
of the clan there is an official deputy who exercises
the power, while the chiefs are permitted
to retain the appearance of authority.
The state of the Incas shows, in a primitive
condition, a typical example of this arrangement.</p>

<p>Here we find the Incas united at Cuzco
where they had their patrimonial lands and
dwellings.<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">40</a> A representative of the Incas, the
Tucricuc, however, resided in every district at
the court of the native chieftain. He “had
supervision over all affairs of his district; he
raised the troops, superintended the delivery
of the tribute, ordered the forced labor on
roads and bridges, superintended the administration<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_79">79</a></span>
of justice, and in short supervised
everything in his district.”<a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">41</a></p>

<p>The same institutions which have been developed
by American huntsmen and Semite
shepherds are found also among African
herdsmen. In Ashanti, the system of the Tucricuc
has been developed in a typical fashion;<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">42</a>
and the Dualla have established for their subjects
living in segregated villages “an institution
based on conquest midway between a
feudal system and slavery.”<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">43</a> The same
author reports that the Barotse have a constitution
corresponding to the earliest stage of
the mediæval feudal organization: “Their villages
are ... as a rule surrounded by a circle
of hamlets where their serfs live. These
till the fields of their lords in the immediate
neighborhood, grow grain, or herd the
cattle.”<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">44</a> The only thing that is not typical
here consists in this, that the lords do not live
in isolated castles or halls, but are settled in
villages among their subjects.</p>

<p>It is only a very small step from the Incas to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_80">80</a></span>
the Dorians in Lacedæmon, Messenia, or
Crete; and no greater distance separates the
Fulbe, Dualla and Barotse from the comparatively
rigidly organized feudal states of the
African Negro Empires of Uganda, Unyoro,
etc.; and the corresponding feudal empires of
Eastern and Western Europe and of all Asia.
In all places, the same results are brought
about by force of the same socio-psychological
causes. The necessity of keeping the subjects
in order and at the same time of maintaining
them at their full capacity for labor, leads step
by step from the fifth to the sixth stage, in
which the state, by acquiring full intra-nationality
and by the evolution of “Nationality,” is
developed in every sense. The need becomes
more and more frequent to interfere, to allay
difficulties, to punish, or to coerce obedience;
and thus develop the habit of rule and the
usages of government. The two groups, separated,
to begin with, and then united on one
territory, are at first merely laid alongside one
another, then are scattered through one another
like a mechanical mixture, as the term is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_81">81</a></span>
used in chemistry, until gradually they become
more and more of a “chemical combination.”
They intermingle, unite, amalgamate to unity,
in customs and habits, in speech and worship.
Soon the bonds of relationship unite the upper
and the lower strata. In nearly all cases the
master class picks the handsomest virgins from
the subject races for its concubines. A race
of bastards thus develops, sometimes taken
into the ruling class, sometimes rejected, and
then because of the blood of the masters in
their veins, becoming the born leaders of the
subject race. In form and in content the
primitive state is completed.</p>
</div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_82">82</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter">
<h2 id="h82" class="vspace"><a id="CHAPTER_III"></a>CHAPTER III<br />

<span class="subhead">THE PRIMITIVE FEUDAL STATE</span></h2>


<h3>(a) <span class="smcap smaller">THE FORM OF DOMINION</span></h3>

<p>Its form is domination; the dominion of a
small warlike minority, interrelated and
closely allied, over a definitely bounded territory
and its cultivators. Gradually, custom
develops some form of law in accordance with
which this dominion is exercised. This law
regulates the rights of primacy and the claims
of the lords, and the duty of obedience and of
service on the part of the subjects, in such wise
that the capacity of the peasants for rendering
service is not impaired. This word, <i xml:lang="de" lang="de">praestationsfaehigkeit</i>,
dates from the reforms of
Frederick the Great. The “bee-keepership,”
therefore, is governed by the law of custom.
The duty of paying and working on the part
of the peasants corresponds to the duty of protection<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_83">83</a></span>
on the part of the lords, who ward off
exactions of their own companions, as well as
defend the peasants from the attacks of foreign enemies.</p>

<p>Although this is one part of the content of
the state concept, there is another, which in the
beginning is of much greater magnitude; the
idea of economic exploitation, the political
means for the satisfaction of needs. The
peasant surrenders a portion of the product of
his labor, without any equivalent service in return.
“<em>In the beginning was the ground
rent.</em>”</p>

<p>The forms under which the ground rent is
collected or consumed vary. In some cases,
the lords, as a closed union or community, are
settled in some fortified camp and consume as
communists the tribute of their peasantry.
This is the situation in the state of the Inca.
In some cases, each individual warrior-noble
has a definite strip of land assigned to him: but
generally the produce of this is still, as in
Sparta, consumed in the “syssitia,” by class
associates and companions in arms. In some<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_84">84</a></span>
cases, the landed nobility scatters over the
entire territory, each man housed with his
following in his fortified castle, and consuming,
each for himself, the produce of his dominion
or lands. As yet these nobles have not
become landlords, in the sense that they administer
their property. Each of them receives
tribute from the labor of his dependents,
whom he neither guides nor supervises. This
is the type of the mediæval dominion in the
lands of the Germanic nobility. Finally, the
knight becomes the owner and administrator
of the knight’s fee.<a id="FNanchor_F" href="#Footnote_F" class="fnanchor">F</a> His former serfs develop
into the laborers on his plantation, and
the tribute now appears as the profit of the
entrepreneur. This is the type of the earliest
capitalist enterprise of modern times, the exploitation
of large territories in the lands east
of the Elbe, formerly occupied by Slavs and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_85">85</a></span>
later colonized by Germans. Numerous transitions
lead from one stage to the other.</p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_F" href="#FNanchor_F" class="fnanchor">F</a> <i xml:lang="de" lang="de">Rittergutsbesitz</i> is the ultimate molecule of the German
feudal system, a non-urban territory, approximating the
concept of knight’s fee in the Angevin fiscal legislation; in
modern Germanic law, the possession of an acreage, alienable
only as an entity, and by recent legislation, alienable to non-nobles,
but subject to and capable of certain exceptions in
law not inhering in other forms of real estate.&mdash;<i>Translator.</i></p></div>

<p>But always, in its essence, is the “State” the
same. Its purpose, in every case, is found to
be the political means for the satisfaction of
needs. At first, its method is by exacting a
ground rent, so long as there exists no trade
activity the products of which can be appropriated.
Its form, in every case, is that of
dominion, whereby exploitation is regarded as
“justice,” maintained as a “constitution,” insisted
on strictly, and in case of need enforced
with cruelty. And yet, in these ways,
the absolute right of the conqueror becomes
narrowed within the confines of law, for
the sake of permitting the continuous acquisition
of ground rents. The duty of furnishing
supplies on the part of the subjects is limited
by their right to maintain themselves in good
condition. The right of taxation on the part
of the lords is supplemented by their duty to
afford protection within and without the state&mdash;security
under the law and defense of the
frontier.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_86">86</a></span></p>

<p>At this point, the primitive state is completely
developed in all its essentials. It has
passed the embryonic condition; whatever follows
can be only phenomena of growth.</p>

<p>As compared with unions of families, the
state represents, doubtless, a much higher
species; since the state embraces a greater mass
of men, in closer articulation, more capable
of conquering nature and of warding off
enemies. It changes the half playful occupations
of men into strict methodic labor, and
thus brings untold misery to innumerable generations
yet unborn. Henceforth, these must
eat their bread in the sweat of their brow,
since the golden age of the free community of
blood relations has been followed by the iron
rule of state dominion. But the state, by discovering
labor in its proper sense, starts in this
world that force which alone can bring about
the golden age on a much higher plane of ethical
relation and of happiness for all. The
state, to use Schiller’s words, destroys the untutored
happiness of the people while they
were children, in order to bring them along<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_87">87</a></span>
a sad path of suffering to the conscious happiness
of maturity.</p>

<p>A higher species! Paul von Lilienfeld, one
of the principal advocates of the view that society
is an organism of a higher kind, has
pointed out that in this respect an especially
striking parallel can be drawn between ordinary
organisms and this super-organism. All
higher beings propagate sexually; lower beings
asexually, by partition, by budding and
sometimes by conjugation. We have shown
that simple partition corresponds exactly to
the growth and the further development of the
association based on blood relationship, which
existed before the state. This grows until it
becomes too large for cohesion; it then loses its
unity, divides, and the separate hordes, if they
associate at all, remain in a very loose connection,
without any sort of closer articulation.
The amalgamation of exogamic groups is comparable
to conjugation.</p>

<p><em>The state, however, comes into being
through sexual propagation.</em> All bisexual
propagation is accomplished by the following<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_88">88</a></span>
process: The male element, a small, very active,
mobile, vibrating cell&mdash;the spermatozoön&mdash;searches
out a large inactive cell without
mobility of its own&mdash;the ovum, or female principle&mdash;enters
and fuses with it. From this
process, there results an immense growth; that
is to say, a wonderful differentiation with
simultaneous integration. The inactive peasantry,
bound by nature to their fields, is the
ovum, the mobile tribe of herdsmen the spermatozoön,
of this sociologic act of fecundation;
and its resultant is the ripening of a higher social
organism more fully differentiated in its
organs, and much more complete in its integrations.
It is easy to find further parallels.
One may compare the border feuds to the
manner in which innumerable spermatozoa
swarm about the ovum until finally one, the
strongest or most fortunate, discovers and conquers
the micropyle. One may compare the
almost magical attraction which the ovum has
for the spermatozoön, to the no less magical
power by which the herdsmen from the steppes
are drawn into the cultivated plains.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_89">89</a></span></p>

<p>But all this is no proof for the “organism.”
The problem, however, has been pointed out.</p>


<h3 id="h89">(b) <span class="smcap smaller">THE INTEGRATION</span></h3>

<p>We have followed the genesis of the state,
from its second stage onward, in its objective
growth as a political and jural form with economic
content. But it is far more important
to examine its subjective growth, its socio-psychological
“differentiation and integration,”
since all sociology is nearly always social
psychology. First, then, let us discuss integration.</p>

<p>We saw in the second stage, as set forth
above, how the net of psychical relations becomes
ever tighter and closer enmeshed, as the
economic amalgamation advances. The two
dialects become one language; or one of the
two, often of an entirely different stock from
the other, becomes extinct. This, in some
cases, is the language of the victors, but
more frequently that of the vanquished.
Both cults amalgamate to one religion, in
which the tribal god of the conquerors is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_90">90</a></span>
adored as the principal divinity, while the
old gods of the vanquished become either
his servants, or, as demons or devils, his adversaries.
The bodily type tends to assimilate,
through the influence of the same climate and
similar mode of living. Where a strong difference
between the types existed or is maintained,<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">45</a>
the bastards, to a certain extent, fill
the gap&mdash;so that, in spite of the still existing
ethnic contrast, everybody, more and more, begins
to feel that the type of the enemies beyond
the border is more strange, more “foreign”
than is the new co-national type. Lords and
subjects view one another as “we,” at least as
concerns the enemy beyond the border; and at
length the memory of the different origin
completely disappears. The conquerors are
held to be the sons of the old gods. This, in
many cases, they literally are, since these gods
are nothing but the souls of their ancestors
raised to godhead by apotheosis.</p>

<p>Since the new “states” are much more aggressive
than the former communities bound
together by mere blood relationship, the feeling<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_91">91</a></span>
of being different from the foreigner beyond
the borders, growing in frequent feuds and
wars, becomes stronger and stronger among
those within the “realm of peace.” And in the
same measure there grows among them the
feeling of belonging to another; so that the
spirit of fraternity and of equity, which formerly
existed only within the horde and which
never ceased to hold sway within the association
of nobles, takes root everywhere, and more
and more finds its place in the relations between
the lords and their subjects.</p>

<p>At first these relations are manifested only
in infrequent cases: equity and fraternity are
allowed only such play as is consistent with the
right to use the political means; but that much
is granted. A far stronger bond of psychical
community between high and low, more potent
than any success against foreign invasion, is
woven by legal protection against the aggression
of the mighty. “<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">Justitia fundamentum
regnorum.</i>” When, pursuant to their own
ideals of justice, the aristocrats as a social
group execute one of their own class for<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_92">92</a></span>
murder or robbery, for having exceeded the
bounds of permitted exploitation, the thanks
and the joy of the subjects are even more heartfelt
than after victory over alien foes.</p>

<p>These, then, are the principal lines of development
of the psychical integration. Common
interest in maintaining order and law and
peace produce a strong feeling of solidarity,
which may be called “a consciousness of belonging
to the same state.”</p>


<h3 id="h92">(c) <span class="smcap smaller">THE DIFFERENTIATION: GROUP THEORIES AND GROUP PSYCHOLOGY</span></h3>

<p>On the other hand, as in all organic growth,
there develops <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">pari passu</i> a psychic differentiation
just as powerful. The interests of the
group produce strong group feelings; the
upper and lower strata develop a “class consciousness”
corresponding to their peculiar interests.</p>

<p>The separate interest of the master group
is served by maintaining intact the imposed
law of political means; such interest makes for
“conservatism.” The interest of the subject<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_93">93</a></span>
group, on the contrary, points to the removal
of the prevailing rule, to the substitution for
it of a new rule, the law of equality for all inhabitants
of the state, and makes for “liberalism”
and revolution.</p>

<p>Herein lies the tap root of all class and
party psychology. Hence there develop, in
accordance with definite psychological laws,
those incomparably mighty forms of thought
which, as “class theories,” through thousands of
years of struggle guide and justify every social
contest in the consciousness of contemporaries.</p>

<p>“When the will speaks reason has to be
silent,” says Schopenhauer, or as Ludwig
Gumplowicz states the same idea, “Man acts
in accordance with laws of nature, as an afterthought
he thinks humanly.” Man’s will
being strictly “determined,” he must act according
to the pressure which the surrounding
world exerts upon him; and the same law is
valid for every community of men: groups,
classes, and the state itself. They “flow from
the plane of higher economic and social pressure<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_94">94</a></span>
to that of lower pressure, along the line
of least resistance.” But every individual and
each community of men believe themselves free
agents; and therefore, by an unescapable
psychical law they are forced to consider the
path they are traversing as a freely chosen
means, and the point toward which they are
driven as a freely chosen end. And since man
is a rational and ethical being, that is, a social
entity, he is obliged to justify before reason
and morality the method and the objective
point of his movement, and to take account of
the social consciousness of his time.</p>

<p>So long as the relations of both groups were
simply those of internationally opposed border
enemies, the exercise of the political means
called for no justification, because a man of
alien blood had no rights. As soon, however,
as the psychic integration develops, in any degree,
the community feeling of state consciousness,
as soon as the bond servant acquires
“rights,” and the consciousness of essential
equality percolates through the mass, the political
means requires a system of justification;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_95">95</a></span>
and there arises in the ruling class the group
theory of “legitimacy.”</p>

<p>Everywhere, the upholders of legitimacy
justify dominion and exploitation with similar
anthropological and theological reasoning.
The master group, since it recognizes bravery
and warlike efficiency as the only virtues of a
man, declares itself, the victors,&mdash;and from its
standpoint quite correctly&mdash;to be the more efficient,
the better “race.” This point of view
is the more intensified, the lower the subject
race is reduced by hard labor and low fare.
And since the tribal god of the ruling group
has become the supreme god in the new amalgamated
state religion, this religion declares&mdash;and
again from its view-point quite correctly&mdash;that
the constitution of the state has been decreed
by heaven, that it is “tabu,” and that
interference with it is sacrilege. In consequence,
therefore, of a simple logical inversion,
the exploited or subject group is regarded
as an essentially inferior race, as unruly,
tricky, lazy, cowardly and utterly incapable
of self-rule or self-defense, so that any uprising<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_96">96</a></span>
against the imposed dominion must necessarily
appear as a revolt against God Himself
and against His moral ordinances. For
these reasons, the dominant group at all times
stands in closest union with the priesthood,
which, in its highest positions, at least, nearly
always recruits itself from their sons, sharing
their political rights and economic privileges.</p>

<p>This has been, and is at this day, the class
theory of the ruling group; nothing has been
taken from it, not an item has been added to it.
Even the very modern argument by which, for
example, the landed nobility of old France and
of modern Prussia attempted to put out of
court the claims of the peasantry to the ownership
of lands, on the allegation that they had
owned the land from time immemorial, while
their peasants had only been granted a life
tenure therein,&mdash;is reproduced among the Wahuma,
of Africa,<a id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">46</a> and probably could be
shown in many other instances.</p>

<p>Like their class theory, their class psychology
has been, and is, at all times the same.
Its most important characteristic, the “aristocrat’s<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_97">97</a></span>
pride,” shows itself in contempt for the
lower laboring strata. This is so inherent,
that herdsmen, even after they have lost their
herds and become economically dependent, still
retain their pride as former lords: “Even the
Galla, who have been despoiled of their wealth
of herds by the Somali north of the Tana, and
who thus have become watchers of other men’s
herds, and even in some cases along the Sabaki
become peasants, still look with contempt upon
the peasant Watokomo, who are subject to
them and resemble the Suaheli. But their attitude
is quite different toward their tributary
hunting peoples, namely, the Waboni, the
Wassanai, and the Walangulo (Ariangulo)
who resemble the Galla.”<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">47</a></p>

<p>The following description of the Tibbu
applies, as though it had been originally told
of them, to Walter Havenaught and the rest of
the poor knights who, in the crusades, looked
for booty and lordly domain. It applies no
less to many a noble fighting cock from Germany
east of the Elbe, and to many a ragged
Polish gentleman. “They are men full of self-<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_98">98</a></span>consciousness.
They may be beggars, but
they are no pariahs. Many a people under
these circumstances would be thoroughly
miserable and depressed; the Tibbu have steel
in their nature. They are splendidly fitted
to be robbers, warriors, and rulers. Even their
system of robbery is imposing, although it is
base as a jackal’s. These ragged Tibbus,
fighting against extreme poverty and constantly
on the verge of starvation, raise the
most impudent claims with apparent or real
belief in their validity. The right of the
jackal, which regards the possessions of a
stranger as common property, is the protection
of greedy men against want. The insecurity
of an all but perpetual state of war
brings it about that life becomes an insistent
challenge, and at the same time the reward of
extortion!”<a id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">48</a> This phenomenon is in nowise
limited to Eastern Africa, for it is said of the
Abyssinian soldier: “Thus equipped he
comes along. Proudly he looks down on
every one: his is the land, and for him the peasant
must work.”<a id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">49</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_99">99</a></span></p>

<p>Deeply as the aristocrat at all times despises
the economic means and the peasants who employ
it, he admits frankly his reliance on the
political means. Honest war and “honest
thievery”<a id="FNanchor_G" href="#Footnote_G" class="fnanchor">G</a> are his occupation as a lord, are his
good right. His right&mdash;except over those who
belong to the same clique&mdash;extends just as far
as his power. One finds this high praise of the
political means nowhere so well stated as in
the well-known Doric drinking song:</p>

<div class="poem-container">
<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="iq">“I have great treasures; the spear and the sword;<br /></span>
<span class="i2">Wherewith to guard my body, the bull hide shield well tried.<br /></span>
<span class="i0">With these I can plough, and harvest my crop,<br /></span>
<span class="i2">With these I can garner the sweet grape wine,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">By them I bear the name ‘Lord’ with my serfs.<br /></span>
</div><div class="stanza">
<span class="iq">“But these never dare to bear spear and sword,<br /></span>
<span class="i2">Still less the guard of the body, the bull hide shield well tried.<br /></span>
<span class="i0">They lie at my feet stretched out on the ground,<br /></span>
<span class="i2">My hand is licked by them as by hounds,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">I am their Persian king&mdash;terrifying them by my name.”<a id="FNanchor_50" href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">50</a><br /></span>
</div></div>
</div>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_G" href="#FNanchor_G" class="fnanchor">G</a> Compare this with the prevalent justification of “honest
graft” in municipal or political contracts.&mdash;<i>Translator.</i></p></div>

<p>In these wanton lines is expressed the pride<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_100">100</a></span>
of warlike lords. The following verses, taken
from an entirely different phase of civilization,
show that the robber still has part in the warrior
in spite of Christianity, the Peace of God,
and the Holy Roman Empire of the German
Nation. These lines also praise the political
means, but in its most crude form, simple robbery:</p>

<div class="poem-container">
<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="iq">“Would you eke out your life, my young noble squire,<br /></span>
<span class="i2">Follow then my teaching, upon your horse and join the gang!<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Take to the greenwood, when the peasant comes up,<br /></span>
<span class="i2">Run him down quickly, grab him then by the collar,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Rejoice in your heart, taking from him whatever he has,<br /></span>
<span class="i2">Unharness his horses and get you away!”<a id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">51</a><br /></span>
</div></div>
</div>

<p>“Unless,” as Sombart adds, “he preferred
to hunt nobler game and to relieve merchants
of their valuable consignments.” The nobles
carried on robbery as a natural method of supplementing
their earnings, extending it more
and more as the income from their property no
longer sufficed to pay for the increasing demands
of daily consumption and luxury. The
system of freebooting was considered a
thoroughly honorable occupation, since it met<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_101">101</a></span>
the demand of the essence of chivalry, that
every one should appropriate whatever was
within reach of his spear point or of the blade
of his sword. The nobles learned freebooting
as the cobbler was brought up to his trade.
The ballad has put this in merry wise:</p>

<div class="poem-container">
<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="iq">“To pillage, to rob, that is no shame,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">The best in the land do quite the same.”<br /></span>
</div></div>
</div>

<p>Besides this principal point of the “squire-archical”
psychology, a second distinguishing
mark scarcely less characteristic is found in the
piety of these folk whether it be of conviction
or merely strongly accentuated in public.</p>

<p>It seems as though the same social ideas
always force identical characteristics on the ruling
class. This is illustrated by the form under
which God, in their view, appears as their
special National God and preponderatingly as
a God of War. Although they profess God
as the creator of all men, even of their enemies,
and since Christianity, as the God of Love, this
does not counteract the force with which class
interests formulate their appropriate ideology.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_102">102</a></span></p>

<p>In order to complete the sketch of the psychology
of the ruling class, we must not forget
the tendency to squander, easily understood
in those “ignorant of the taste of toil,” which
appears sometimes in a higher form as generosity;
nor must we forget, as their supreme
trait, that death-despising bravery, which is
called forth by the coercion imposed on a minority,
their need to defend their rights at any
time with arms, and which is favored by a freedom
from all labor which permits the development
of the body in hunting, sport and feuds.
Its caricature is combativeness, and a supersensitiveness
to personal honor, which degenerates
into madness.</p>

<p>At this point a small digression: Cæsar
found the Celts just at that stage of their development,
in which the nobles had obtained
dominion over their fellow clansmen. Since
that time, his classic narrative has stood as a
norm&mdash;their class psychology appears as the
race psychology of all Celts. Not even
Mommsen escaped this error. The result is
that now, in every book on universal history or<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_103">103</a></span>
sociology, one may read the palpable error, repeated
until contradiction is of no avail, although
a mere glance would have sufficed to
show that all peoples of all races, in the same
stage of their development, have showed the
same characteristics; in Europe, Thessalians,
Apulians, Campanians, Germans, Poles, etc.
Meanwhile the Celts, and specifically the
French, in different stages of their development,
have showed quite different traits of
character. The psychology belongs to the
stage of development, not to the race!</p>

<p>Whenever, on the other hand, the religious
sanctions of the “state” are weak, or become so,
there develops as a group theory on the part of
the subjects, the concept, either clear or
blurred, of <em>Natural Law</em>. The lower class regards
the race pride and the assumed superiority
of the nobles as presumptuous, claims to
be of as good race and blood as the ruling
class&mdash;and from their standpoint again quite
correctly, since according to their views, labor,
efficiency and order are accounted the only
virtues. They are skeptical also as to the religion<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_104">104</a></span>
which is the helper of their adversaries;
and are as firmly convinced as are the nobles of
the directly opposite opinion, namely, that the
privileges of the master group violate law as
well as reason. Later development is not able
to add any essential point to the factors originally
given.</p>

<p>Under the influence of these ideas, now
clearly, now obscurely brought out, the two
groups henceforth fight out their battles, each
for its own interests. The young state would
be burst apart under the strain of such centrifugal
forces, were it not for the centripetal
pull of common interests, of the still more
powerful state-consciousness. The pressure
of foreigners from without, of common enemies,
overcomes the inner strain of conflicting
class interests. An example may be found
in the tale of the secession of the “Plebs” and
the successful mission of Menenius Agrippa.
And so the young state would, like a planet,
swing through all eternity in its predetermined
orbit, in accordance with the parallelogram of
forces, were it not that it and its surrounding<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_105">105</a></span>
world is changed and developed until it produces
new external and inner energies.</p>


<h3 id="h105">(d) <span class="smcap smaller">THE PRIMITIVE FEUDAL STATE OF HIGHER GRADE</span></h3>

<p>Growth in itself conditions important
changes; and the young state must grow. The
same forces that brought it into being, urge
its extension, require it to grasp more power.
Even were such a young state “sated,” as
many a modern state claims to be, it would
still be forced to stretch and grow under
penalty of extinction. Under primitive social
conditions Goethe’s lines apply with absolute
truth: “You must rise or fall, conquer or
yield, be hammer or anvil.”</p>

<p>States are maintained in accordance with
the same principles that called them into being.
The primitive state is the creation of warlike
robbery; and only by warlike robbery can it be
preserved.</p>

<p>The economic want of the master group has
no limits; no man is sufficiently rich to satisfy
his desires. The political means are turned on<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_106">106</a></span>
new groups of peasants not yet subjected, or
new coasts yet unpilfered are sought out. The
primitive state expands, until a collision takes
place on the edge of the “sphere of interests”
of another primitive state, which itself originated
in precisely the same way. Then we
have for the first time, in place of the warlike
robbery heretofore carried on, true war
in its narrower sense, since henceforth equally
organized and disciplined masses are hurled at
one another.</p>

<p>The object of the contest remains always
the same, the produce of the economic means
of the working classes, such as loot, tribute,
taxes and ground rent; but the contest no
longer takes place between a group intent on
exploiting and another mass to be exploited,
but between two master groups for the possession
of the entire booty.</p>

<p>The final result of the conflict, in nearly all
instances, is the amalgamation of both primitive
states into a greater. This in turn,
naturally and by force of the same causes,
reaches beyond its borders, devours its smaller<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_107">107</a></span>
neighbors, and is perhaps in its turn devoured
by some greater state.</p>

<p>The subjected laboring group may not take
much interest in the final issue of these contests
for the mastery; it is a matter of indifference
whether it pays tribute to one or the
other set of lords. Their chief interest lies in
the course of the particular fight, which is,
in any case, paid for with their own hides.
Therefore, except in cases of gross ill treatment
and exploitation, the lower classes are
rightly governed by their “state-consciousness”
when, with all their might they aid their
hereditary master group in times of war. For
if their master group is vanquished, the subjects
suffer most severely from the utter
devastation of war. They fight literally for
wife and children, for home and hearth, when
they fight to prevent the rule of foreign masters.</p>

<p>The master group is involved completely
in the issue of this fight for dominion. In extreme
cases, it may be completely exterminated,
as were the local nobility of the Germanic<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_108">108</a></span>
tribes in the Frankish Empire. Nearly
as bad, if not worse, is the prospect of being
thrust into the group of the serfs. Sometimes
a well-timed treaty of peace preserves
their social position as master groups of subordinate
rank: e. g., the Saxon nobility in
Norman England, or the Suppans in German
territory taken from the Slavs. In other
cases, where the forces are about equal, the
two groups amalgamate into one master group
with equal rights, which forms a nobility whose
members intermarry. This, for instance, was
the situation in the Slavic Territories, where
isolated Wendish chieftains were treated as
the equals of the Germans, or in mediæval
Rome, in the case of prominent families from
the Alban Hills and Tuscany.</p>

<p>In this new “primitive feudal state of higher
grade,” as we shall call it, the ruling group
may, therefore, disintegrate into a number of
more or less powerful and privileged strata.
The organization may show many varieties
because of the well-known fact, that often the
master group separates into two subordinated<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_109">109</a></span>
economic and social layers, developed as we
saw them in the herdsmen stage: the owners
of large herds and of many slaves, and the ordinary
freemen. Possibly the less complete
differentiation into social ranks in the states
created by huntsmen in the new world, is to
be assigned to the circumstance that in the
absence of herds, the concomitants of that
form of ownership, and the original separation
into classes, were not introduced into the state.
We shall, later, see what force was exerted on
the political and economic development of
states in the old world by the differences in
rank and property of the two strata of rulers.</p>

<p>Similarly, as in the case of the ruling group,
a corresponding process of differentiation divides
the subject group in the “primitive feudal
state of a higher grade” into various strata
more or less despised and compelled to render
service. It is only necessary to recall the very
marked difference in the social and jural position
occupied by the peasantry in the Doric
States, Lacedæmon and Crete, and among
the Thessalians, where the perioiki had clear<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_110">110</a></span>
rights of possession and fairly well protected
political rights, while the helots, in the latter
case the <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">penestai</i>, were almost unprotected in
life and property. Among the old Saxons also
we find a class, the liti, intermediate between
the common freemen and the serfs.<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">52</a> These
examples could be multiplied; apparently they
are caused by the same tendencies that brought
about the differentiation among the nobility
mentioned above. When two primitive feudal
states amalgamate, their social layers stratify
in a variety of ways, which to a certain extent
are comparable to the combinations resulting
from mixing together two packs of cards.</p>

<p>It is certain that this mechanical mixture
caused by political forces, influences the development
of <em>castes</em>, that is to say, of hereditary
professions, which at the same time form a
hierarchy of social classes. “Castes are
usually, if not always, consequences of conquest
and subjugation by foreigners.”<a id="FNanchor_53" href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">53</a> Although
this problem has not been completely
solved, it may be said that the formation of
castes has been very strongly influenced by<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_111">111</a></span>
economic and religious factors. It is probable
that castes came about in some such way
as this: state-forming forces penetrated into
existing economic organizations, and vocations
underwent adaptation, and then became petrified
under the influence of religious concepts,
which, however, may also have influenced
their original formation. This seems to follow
from the fact that even as between man
and woman there exist certain separations of
vocation, which, so to say, are taboo and impassable.
Thus among all huntsmen, tilling
the ground is woman’s work, while among
many African shepherds, as soon as the ox-plow
is used, agriculture becomes man’s
work, and then women may not, under pain
of sacrilege, use the domestic cattle.<a id="FNanchor_H" href="#Footnote_H" class="fnanchor">H</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_H" href="#FNanchor_H" class="fnanchor">H</a> Similarly there are North Asiatic tribes of huntsmen,
where women are definitely forbidden to touch the hunting
gear or to cross a hunting trail.&mdash;Ratzel I, page 650.</p></div>

<p>It is likely that such religious concepts may
have brought it about that a vocation became
hereditary, and then compulsorily hereditary,
especially where a tribe or a village carried on<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_112">112</a></span>
a particular craft. This happens with all
tribes in a state of nature, where intercourse
is easily possible, especially in the case of
islanders. When some such group has been
conquered by another tribe, the subjects, with
their developed hereditary vocations, tend to
form within the new state entity a pure
“caste.” Their caste position depends partly
upon the esteem they had heretofore enjoyed
among their own people, and partly upon the
advantage which their vocation affords their
new masters. If, as was often the case, waves
of conquest followed one another in series, the
formation of castes might be multiplied, especially
if in the meantime economic development
had worked out many vocational classes.</p>

<p>This development is probably best seen in
the group of smiths, who, in nearly all cases,
have occupied a peculiar position, half feared
and half despised. In Africa especially, since
the beginning of time, we find tribes of expert
smiths, as followers and dependents of shepherd
tribes. The Hyksos brought such tribes
with them into the Nile country, and perhaps<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_113">113</a></span>
owed their decisive victory to arms made by
them; and until recent times the Dinka kept
the iron working Djur in a sort of subject relation.
The same applied also to the nomads
of the Sahara; while our northern sagas are
filled with the tribal contrast to the “dwarfs”
and the fear of their magical powers. All the
elements were at hand in a developed state
for the formation of sharply differentiated
castes.<a id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">54</a></p>

<p>How the coöperation of religious concepts
affects the beginning of these formations may
be well illustrated by an example from Polynesia.
Here, “although many natives have
the ability to do ship-building, only one privileged
class may exercise the craft, so closely is
the interest of the states and the societies
bound up in this art. All over the archipelago
formerly, and to this day in Fiji, the carpenters,
who are almost exclusively ship-builders,
form a special caste, bear the high sounding
title of ‘the king’s workmen,’ and enjoy the
prerogative of having their own chieftains....
Everything is done in accordance with<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_114">114</a></span>
ancient tradition; the laying the keel, the completion
of the ship, and the launching, all
take place amidst religious ceremonies and
feasts.”<a id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">55</a></p>

<p>Where superstition has been strongly developed,
a genuine system of castes may come
about, based partly on economic and partly
on ethnic foundations. In Polynesia, for example,
the articulation of the classes, through
the operation of the taboo, has brought about
a state of affairs very like a most thoroughgoing
caste system.<a id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">56</a> Similar results may be
seen in Southern Arabia.<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">57</a> It is unnecessary
at this place to enlarge on the important place
which religion had in the origin and maintenance
of separate castes in ancient Egypt and
in modern India.<a id="FNanchor_I" href="#Footnote_I" class="fnanchor">I</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_I" href="#FNanchor_I" class="fnanchor">I</a> Besides, it seems that the rigidity of the Indian caste-system
is not so harsh in practise. The guild seems as often to
break through the barriers of caste as the converse.&mdash;Ratzel
II, page 596.</p></div>

<p>These are the elements of the primitive
feudal state of higher grade. They are more
manifold and more numerous than in the lower<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_115">115</a></span>
primitive state; but in both, legal constitution
and political-economic distribution are fundamentally
the same. The products of the
economic means are still the object of the group
struggle. This remains now as ever the moving
impulse of the domestic policy of the state,
while the political means continues now as ever
to constitute the moving impulse of its foreign
policy in attack or in defense. Identical
group theories continue to justify, both for
the upper classes and the lower, the objects
and means of external and domestic struggles.</p>

<p>But the development can not remain stationary.
Growth differs from mere increase
in bulk; growth means a constantly heightening
differentiation and integration.</p>

<p>The farther the primitive feudal state extends
its dominion, the more numerous its subjects,
and the denser its population, the more
there develops a political-economic division of
labor, which calls forth new needs and new
means of supplying them; and the more there
come into sharp contrasts the distinctions of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_116">116</a></span>
economic, and consequently of social, class
strata, in accordance with what I have called
the “law of the agglomeration about existing
nuclei of wealth.” This growing differentiation
becomes decisive for the further development
of the primitive feudal state, and still
more for its conclusion.</p>

<p>This conclusion is not meant to be, in any
sense, the physical end of such a state. We
do not mean the death of a state, whereby such
a feudal state of the higher type disappears,
in consequence of conflict with a more powerful
state, either on the same or on a higher
plane of development, as was the case of the
Mogul states of India or of Uganda in their
conflicts with Great Britain. Neither does it
mean such a stagnation as that into which
Persia and Turkey have fallen, which represents
for a time only a pause in development,
since these countries, either of their own force
or by foreign conquest, must soon be pushed
on the way of their destiny. Neither have we
meant the rigidity of the gigantic Chinese Empire,
which can last only so long as foreign<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_117">117</a></span>
powers refrain from forcing its mysterious
gates.<a id="FNanchor_J" href="#Footnote_J" class="fnanchor">J</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_J" href="#FNanchor_J" class="fnanchor">J</a> Had we the space, a detailed exposition of this exceptional
development of a feudal state would be tempting. China
would be well worth a more detailed discussion, since, in many
aspects it has approached the condition of “free citizenship”
more closely than any people of Western Europe. China
has overcome the consequences of the feudal system more thoroughly
than we Europeans have; and has made, early in its
development, the great property interests in the land harmless,
so that their bastard offspring, capitalism, hardly came
into being; while in addition, it has worked out to a considerable
degree the problems of coöperative production and of
coöperative distribution.</p></div>

<p>The outcome here spoken of means the
further development of the primitive feudal
state, a matter of importance to our understanding
of universal history as a <em>process</em>.
The principal lines of development into which
this issue branches off are twofold and of
fundamentally different character. <em>But this
polar opposition is conditioned by a like contrast
between two sorts of economic wealth
each of which increases in accordance with the
“law of agglomeration about existing nuclei.”</em>
In the one case, it is movable property; in
the other, landed property. Here it is the
capital of commerce, there property in land,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_118">118</a></span>
accumulating in the hands of a smaller and
smaller number, and thereby overturning radically
the articulation of classes, and with it the
whole State.</p>

<p>The maritime State is the scene of the development
of movable wealth; the territorial
State is the embodiment of the development of
landed property. The final issue of the first
is <em>capitalistic exploitation</em> by slavery, the outcome
of the latter is, first of all, the <em>developed
feudal State</em>.</p>

<p>Capitalistic exploitation by slavery, the
typical result of the development of the so-called
“antique States” on the Mediterranean,
does not end in the death of states, which is of
no importance, but in the death of peoples, because
of the consumption of population. In
the pedigree of the historical development of
the State, it forms a side branch, from which
no further immediate growth can take place.</p>

<p>The developed feudal State, however, represents
the principal branch, the continuation of
the trunk; and is therefore the origin for the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_119">119</a></span>
further growth of the State. Thence it has
developed into the State governed by feudal
systems; into absolutism; into the modern constitutional
State; and if we are right in our
prognosis, it will become a “free citizenship.”</p>

<p>So long as the trunk grew only in one direction,
i. e., to include the primitive feudal
State of higher grade, our sketch of its growth
and development could and did comprise both
forms. Henceforth, after the bifurcation,
our story branches and follows each branch to
its last twig.</p>

<p>We begin, then, with the maritime states,
although they are not the older form. On
the contrary, as far back as the dawn of history
clears the fog of prehistoric existence,
the first strong states were formed as territorial
states, which then, by their own powers,
attained the scale of developed feudal States.
But beyond this stage, at least as regards those
States most interesting to our culture, most of
them either remained stationary or fell into
the power of maritime states; and then, infected<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_120">120</a></span>
with the deadly poison of capitalistic
exploitation through slavery, were destroyed
by the same plague.</p>

<p>The further progress of the expanded feudal
states of higher grade could take place only
after the maritime states had run their course:
mighty forms of domination and statescraft
these became, and they subsequently influenced
and furthered the conformation of the territorial
states that grew from their ruins.</p>

<p>For that reason the story of the fate of maritime
states must be first traced, as these are
the introduction to the higher forms of state
life. After first tracing the lateral branch,
we shall then return to the starting point, the
primitive feudal State, follow the main trunk
to the development of the modern constitutional
State, and anticipating actual history,
sketch the “free citizenship” of the future.</p>
</div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_121">121</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter">
<h2 id="h121" class="vspace"><a id="CHAPTER_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV<br />

<span class="subhead">THE MARITIME STATE</span></h2>


<p>The course of life and the path of suffering
of the State founded by sea nomads, as has
been stated above, is determined by commercial
capital; just as that of the territorial
State is determined by capital vested in realty;
and, we may add, that of the modern constitutional
State by productive capital. The
sea nomad, however, did not invent trade or
merchandising, fairs or markets or cities; these
preëxisted, and since they served his purpose,
were now developed to suit his interests. All
these institutions, serving the economic means,
the barter for equivalents, had long since been
discovered.</p>

<p>Here for the first time in our survey we find
the economic means not the object of exploitation
by the political means, but as a coöperating
agent in originating the State, one might<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_122">122</a></span>
call it the “chain” passing into the “lift”
created by the feudal state to bring forth a
more elaborate structure. The genesis of the
maritime State would not be thoroughly intelligible,
were we not to premise a statement
concerning traffic and interchange of wares in
prehistoric times. Furthermore, no prognosis
of the modern state is complete, which does
not take into account the independently
formed economic means of aboriginal barter.</p>


<h3 id="h122">(a) <span class="smcap smaller">TRAFFIC IN PREHISTORIC TIMES</span></h3>

<p>The psychological explanation of barter has
brought forth the theory of the marginal utility,
its greatest merit. According to this
theory, the subjective valuation of any economic
good decreases in proportion to the number
of objects of the same kind possessed by the
same owner. When even two proprietors meet,
each having a number of similar articles, they
will gladly barter, provided political means are
barred, i. e., if both parts are apparently
equally strong and well-armed, or in the very
early stage, are within the sacred circle of relationship.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_123">123</a></span>
By barter, each one receives property
of very high subjective value, in place of
property of very low subjective value, so that
both parties are gainers in the transaction.
The desire of primitive people for bartering
must be stronger than that of cultured ones.
For at this stage man does not value his own
goods, but covets the things belonging to
strangers, and is hardly affected by calculated
economic considerations.</p>

<p>On the other hand, we must not forget that
there are primitive peoples for whom barter
has no attraction whatever. “Cook tells of
tribes in Polynesia, with whom no intercourse
was possible, since presents made absolutely
no impression on them, and were afterward
thrown away; everything shown them they regarded
with indifference, and with no desire
to own it, while with their own things they
would not part; in fact, they had no conception
of either trade or barter.”<a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">58</a> So Westermarck
is of the opinion that “barter and traffic are
comparatively late inventions.” In this he
stands in opposition to Peschel, who would<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_124">124</a></span>
have it that man in the earliest known stage
of development engaged in barter. Westermarck
states that there is no proof “that the
cave-dwellers of Périgord from the reindeer
period obtained their rock-crystals, their shells
from the Atlantic, and the horns of the Saiga
antelope from (modern) Poland by way of
barter.”<a id="FNanchor_59" href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">59</a></p>

<p>In spite of these exceptions, which admit
other explanations&mdash;perhaps the natives feared
sorcery&mdash;the history of primitive peoples shows
that the desire to trade and barter is a universal
human characteristic. It can, however,
take effect only when these primitive men on
meeting with strangers are offered new enticing
objects, since in the immediate circle of
their own blood kinsmen every one has the
same kinds of property, and in their natural
communism, on the average about the same
amount.</p>

<p>Yet even then, barter, the beginning of all
regular trading, can take place only when the
meeting with foreigners is a peaceable one.
But is there any possibility for peaceable meeting<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_125">125</a></span>
with foreigners? Is not primitive man,
through his entire life, and especially at the
period when barter begins, still under the apprehension
that every one of a different horde
is an enemy to be feared as the wolf?</p>

<p>After trade is developed, it is, as a rule,
strongly influenced by the “political means,”
“trade generally follows robbery.”<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">60</a> But its
first beginnings are chiefly the result of the
economic means, the outcome of pacific, not
warlike, intercourse.</p>

<p>The international relations of primitive
huntsmen with one another must not be confused
with those existing either between the
huntsmen or herdsmen and their peasants, or
amongst the herdsmen themselves. There
are, undoubtedly, blood-feuds, or feuds because
of looted women, or possibly because of
violation of the districts set aside for hunting
grounds; but these lack that strong incentive,
which is the consequence of avarice alone, of
the desire to despoil other men of the products
of their labor. Therefore, the “wars” of primitive
huntsmen are scarcely real wars, but<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_126">126</a></span>
rather scuffles and single combats, carried on
frequently&mdash;as are the German student duels&mdash;according
to an established ceremonial, and
prolonged only up to the point of incapacity to
fight, as one might say, “until claret has been
drawn.”<a id="FNanchor_61" href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">61</a> These tribes, numerically very
weak, wisely limit bloodshed to the indispensable
amount&mdash;e. g., in case of a blood vendetta
feud&mdash;and thus avoid starting new vendetta
blood feuds.</p>

<p>For this reason, pacific relations with their
neighbors on an equal economic scale are much
stronger, and also freer from the incentive to
use political means, both among huntsmen and
among primitive peasants, than among herdsmen.
There are numerous examples where
the former meet peaceably to exploit natural
resources in common. “While yet in primitive
stages of civilization, great masses of
people gather together, from time to time, at
places where useful objects may be found.
The Indians of a large part of America made
regular pilgrimages to the flint grounds;
others assembled annually at harvest time at<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_127">127</a></span>
the Zizania swamps of the lakes of the Northwest.
The Australians, living scattered in the
Barku district, assemble from all directions for
the harvest festivals at the swamp beds of
the corn bearing Marsiliacae. When the
bonga-bonga trees in Queensland produce a
superabundant crop, and a greater store is on
hand than the tribe can consume, foreign tribes
are permitted to share therein.”<a id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">63</a> “Various
tribes agree on the common ownership of definite
strips of territory, and likewise of the
quarries of phonolite for hatchets.”<a id="FNanchor_64" href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">64</a> Numerous
Australian tribes have common consultations
and sessions of the elders for judgment.
In these, the remainder of the population
form the bystanders, a custom similar to
the Germanic “<i xml:lang="de" lang="de">Umstand</i>” in the primitive folkmoot.<a id="FNanchor_65" href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">65</a></p>

<p>It is but natural that such meetings should
bring about barter. Perhaps this explains the
origin of those “weekly fairs held by the Negroes
of Central Africa in the midst of the
primæval forest <em>under special arrangements
for the peace</em>,”<a id="FNanchor_66" href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">66</a> and likewise the great fairs,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_128">128</a></span>
said to be very ancient, of the fur hunters of
the extreme north of the Tschuktsche.</p>

<p>All these things presuppose the development
of pacific forms of intercourse between neighboring
groups. These forms are to be found
almost universally. They could very easily be
developed at this period, since the discovery
had not yet been made that men can be utilized
as labor motors. At this stage, the stranger is
treated as an enemy only in doubtful cases.
If he comes with apparently peaceable intent,
he is treated as a friend. Therefore, a whole
code of public law ceremonies grew up, intended
to demonstrate the pacific intent of the
newcomer.<a id="FNanchor_K" href="#Footnote_K" class="fnanchor">K</a> One puts aside one’s arms and
shows one’s unarmed hand, or one sends heralds
in advance, who are always inviolable.</p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_K" href="#FNanchor_K" class="fnanchor">K</a> In this category must be reckoned the salutation, still
in use in some parts, “Peace Be With You.” It is expressive
of the perversity of Tolstoi’s later years that he misapprehends
this characteristic mark of a time when war was the
normal state of affairs, as the remnant of a golden age of
peace. <cite>The Importance of the Russian Revolution</cite> (German
translation by A. Hess, p. 17).</p></div>

<p>It is clear that these forms represent some
kind of claim to hospitality, and in fact it is by
this guest-right that peaceful trade is first<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_129">129</a></span>
made possible. The exchange of guest-gifts
precedes, and appears to introduce, barter
proper. It becomes, therefore, important to
investigate the source of hospitality.</p>

<p>Westermarck, in his recent monumental
work (1907), <cite>Origin and Development of
Moral Concepts</cite>,<a id="FNanchor_68" href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">68</a> states that the custom of
hospitality results from two causes, curiosity
for news from the stranger from afar, and still
more from the fear that the stranger may be
endowed with powers of sorcery, imputed to
him just because he is a stranger.<a id="FNanchor_L" href="#Footnote_L" class="fnanchor">L</a> In the
Bible, hospitality is recommended for the reason
that one can not know that the stranger
may not be an angel. The superstitious race
fears his curse (the Erinys of the Greeks)
and hastens to propitiate the stranger. Having
been accepted as a guest he is inviolable
and enjoys the sacred right of the blood-related
group, and is regarded as belonging to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_130">130</a></span>
it during his stay. Therefore he partakes of
the benefits of the aboriginal communism
reigning in the group, and shares its property.
The host demands and receives whatever he
claims, the stranger obtains in turn what he
asks for. When the peaceable intercourse becomes
more frequent, the mutual giving of
guest-presents may develop into a trading
arrangement, because the trader gladly returns
to the spot where he found good entertainment
and a profitable exchange and where
he is protected by the laws of hospitality, instead
of seeking new places, where, often with
danger to his life, he would first have to acquire
the right to hospitality.</p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_L" href="#FNanchor_L" class="fnanchor">L</a> This may account for the use made of old women as
heralds. They are doubly available for that purpose, since
they are worthless for warfare, and are supposed to be endowed
with specific powers of sorcery (Westermarck), even
more than old men, who also are treated cautiously, since they
may soon become “ghosts.”</p></div>

<p>The existence of an “international” division
of labor is, of course, presupposed before the
development of a regular trade relation can
begin. Such a division of labor exists much
earlier and to a greater extent than is generally
believed. “It is quite erroneous to suppose
that the division of labor takes place only
on a high scale of economic development.
There are in the interior of Africa villages of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_131">131</a></span>
iron-smiths, nay, of such as only turn out dart-knives;
New Guinea has its villages of potters,
North America its arrow-head makers.”<a id="FNanchor_69" href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">69</a>
From such specialties there develops trade,
whether through roving merchants, or by gifts
to one’s hosts, or by peace-gifts from tribe to
tribe. In North America, the Kaddu trade
in bows. “Obsidian was universally employed
for arrow heads and knives; on the Yellowstone,
on the Snake River, in New Mexico, but
especially in Mexico. Thence the precious
article was distributed all over the entire
country as far as Ohio and Tennessee, a distance
of nearly two thousand miles.”<a id="FNanchor_70" href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">70</a></p>

<p>According to Vierkandt: “From the
purely home-made products of primitive peoples,
there results a system of trade totally
distinct from that prevailing under modern
conditions.... Each separate tribe has developed
special aptitudes, leading to interexchange.
Even among the comparatively uncivilized
Indian tribes of South America, we
find such differentiations.... By such a
trade, products may be distributed over extraordinary<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_132">132</a></span>
distances, not in any direct way
through professional traders, but through a
gradual passing along from tribe to tribe.
The origin of such a trade, as Buecher has
shown, is to be traced back to the exchange of
guest-gifts.”<a id="FNanchor_71" href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">71</a></p>

<p>Besides this exchange of guest-gifts, a trade
may grow from the peace offerings which adversaries
after a fight exchange as a sign of
reconciliation. Sartorius reports on Polynesia:
“After a war between different
islands, the peace offerings for each group
were something novel; and if the present and
return present pleased both parties, a repetition
took place, and thus again the way for
exchange of products was opened. But, these,
in contrast to guest-gifts, were the bases of
continuing intercourse. Here, in place of the
contact of individuals, tribes and peoples met.
Women are the first object of barter; they
form the connecting link between strange
tribes, and according to evidence from many
sources, women are exchanged for cattle.”<a id="FNanchor_72" href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">72</a></p>

<p>We meet here an object of trade, exchangeable<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_133">133</a></span>
even without “international division of
labor.” And it appears as though the <em>exchange
of women</em> had, in many ways, smoothed
the way for the traffic in merchandise, as
though it had been the first step toward the
<em>peaceable</em> integration of tribes, which accompanied
the <em>warlike</em> integration of the formation
of the State. Lippert, however, believes that
the peaceful <em>exchange of fire</em> antedates this
barter.<a id="FNanchor_73" href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">73</a> Conceding that this custom is very
ancient, he can nevertheless trace it only from
rudiments of observances and of law; and since
proof is no longer accessible, we shall not pursue
the question further in this place.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the exchange of women
is observed universally, and doubtless exerts an
extraordinarily strong influence in the development
of peaceable intercourse between
neighboring tribes, and in the preparation for
barter of merchandise. The story of the Sabine
women, who threw themselves between
their brothers and their husbands, as these were
about to engage in battle, must have been an
actuality in a thousand instances in the course<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_134">134</a></span>
of the development of the human race. All
over the world, the marriage of near relatives
is considered an outrage, as “incest,” for
reasons not within the scope of this book.<a id="FNanchor_74" href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">74</a>
This directs the sexual longing toward the
women of neighboring tribes, and thus makes
the loot of women a part of the primary intertribal
relations; and in nearly all cases, unless
strong feelings of race counteract it, the violent
carrying off of women is gradually commuted
to barter and purchase, the custom resulting
from the relative undesirability of the women
of one’s own blood in comparison to the wives
to be had from other tribes.<a id="FNanchor_75" href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">75</a>*</p>

<p>Where division of labor made at all possible
the exchange of goods, the relations among the
various tribes would thereafter be made serviceable
to it; the exogamic groups gradually
become accustomed regularly to meet on a
peaceful basis. The peace, originally protecting
the horde of blood relations, thereafter
comes to be extended over a wider circle. One
example from numberless instances: “Each
of the two Camerun tribes has its own ‘bush<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_135">135</a></span>
countries,’ places where its own tribesmen
trade, and where, by intermarriage, they have
relatives. Here also exogamy shows its tribe-linking
power.”</p>

<p>These are the principal lines of growth of
peaceful barter and traffic; from the right to
hospitality and the exchange of women, perhaps
also from the exchange of fire, to the
trade in commodities. In addition to this,
markets and fairs, and perhaps also traders,
were almost uniformly regarded as being under
the protection of a god who preserved peace
and avenged its violation. Thus we have
brought the fundamentals of this most important
sociological factor to the point where the
political means enters as a cause to disturb, rearrange,
and then to develop and affect the
creations of the economic means.</p>


<h3 id="h135">(b) <span class="smcap smaller">TRADE AND THE PRIMITIVE STATE</span></h3>

<p>There are two very important reasons why
the robber-warrior should not unduly interfere
with such markets and fairs as he may find
within his conquered domain.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_136">136</a></span></p>

<p>The first, which is extra-economic, is the
superstitious fear that the godhead will avenge
a breach of the peace. The second, which is
economic, and probably is the more important&mdash;and
I think I am the first to point out this
connection&mdash;is that the conquerors can not well
do without the markets.</p>

<p>The booty of the primitive victors consists
of much property which is unavailable for their
immediate use and consumption. Since valuable
articles at that period exist in but few
forms, while these few occur in large quantity,
the “marginal utility” of any one kind is held
very low. This applies especially to the most
important product of the political means,
slaves. Let us first take up the case of the
herdsman: his need of slaves is limited by the
size of his herds; he is very likely to exchange
his surplus for other objects of greater value to
him: for salt, ornaments, arms, metals, woven
materials, utensils, etc. For that reason, the
herdsman is not only at all times a robber, always
in addition he is a merchant and trader
and he protects trade.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_137">137</a></span></p>

<p>He protects trade coming his way in order
to exchange his loot against the products of
another civilization&mdash;from the earliest times,
nomads have convoyed the caravans passing
through their steppes or deserts in consideration
of protection money&mdash;but he also protects
trade even in places conquered by him in prehistoric
times. Quite the same sort of consideration
which influenced the herdsmen to
change from bear stage to bee-keeper stage,
must have influenced them to maintain and
protect ancient markets and fairs. One
single looting, in this case, would mean killing
the hen that lays the golden eggs. It is more
profitable to preserve the market and rather to
extend the prevailing peace over it, since there
is not only the profit to be had from an exchange
of foreign wares against loot, but also
the protection money, the lords’ toll, to be collected.
For that reason princes of feudal
states of every stage of development extended
over markets, highways and merchants, their
especial protection, the “king’s peace,” often
indeed reserving to themselves the monopoly<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_138">138</a></span>
of foreign trade. Everywhere we see them
busily engaged in calling into being new fairs
and cities by the grant of protection and immunity.</p>

<p>This interest in the system of fairs and markets
makes it thoroughly credible that tribes
of herdsmen respected existing market places
in their sphere of influence to such an extent
that they suspended the exertion of the political
means so completely as not even to exercise
“dominion” over them. The story told by
Herodotus is inherently probable, though he
was astonished that the Argippæans had a
sacred market amidst the lawless Scythian
herdsmen, and that their unarmed inhabitants
were effectively protected through the hallowed
peace of their market place. Many similar
phenomena make this the more easily believable.</p>

<p>“No one dare harm them, since they are considered
<em>holy</em>; and yet they have no arms; but it
is they who allay the quarrels of their neighbors,
and whoever has escaped to them as a<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_139">139</a></span>
runaway may not be touched by any other
man.”<a id="FNanchor_76" href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">76</a> Similar instances are found frequently:
“It is always the same story of the
Argippæans, the story of the ‘holy,’ ‘unarmed,’
‘just,’ bartering, and strife-settling tribelet in
the midst of a Bedouin-like, nomadic population.”<a id="FNanchor_77" href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">77</a>
Cære may be taken as an example of
a higher type. Strabo says of its inhabitants:
“The Greeks thought highly of their bravery
and justice, because although powerful in a
great degree, they abstained from robbery.”
Mommsen, who quotes this passage, adds:
“This does not exclude piracy, which was engaged
in by the merchants of Cære as well as
by all other merchants, but rather that Cære
was a sort of free harbor for the Phœnicians as
for the Greeks.”<a id="FNanchor_78" href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">78</a></p>

<p>Cære is not like the fair of the Argippæans,
a market place in the interior <em>of a district of
land nomads, but is in the midst of a domain of
sea nomads, a port endowed with its own peace</em>.
This is one of those typical formations whose
importance, in my estimation, has not been appreciated<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_140">140</a></span>
at its real value. They have, it
seems to me, exercised a mighty influence on
the genesis of maritime states.</p>

<p>Those reasons by which we saw the land nomads
forced to preserve, if not to create,
market places, must with even more intensity,
have coerced the sea nomads to similar demeanor.
For the transportation of loot, especially
of herds and of slaves, is difficult and
dangerous on the trails across the desert or the
steppes: the slow progress invites pursuit.
But with war-canoe and “dragon-ship” this
transportation is easy and safe. For that reason,
the Viking is even much more a trader
and merchant than is the herdsman. As is
said in <cite>Faust</cite>, “War, Commerce, and Piracy
are inseparable.”</p>


<h3 id="h140">(c) <span class="smcap smaller">THE GENESIS OF THE MARITIME STATE</span></h3>

<p>In many cases, I believe, trade in the loot of
piracy is the origin of those cities around which,
as political centers, the city-states of the antique
or Mediterranean civilization grew up;
while in very many other cases, the same trade<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_141">141</a></span>
coöperated to bring them to the same point of
political development.</p>

<p>These harbor markets developed from probably
two general types: they grew up either as
piratical fortresses directly and intentionally
placed in hostile territory, or else as “merchant
colonies” based on treaty rights in the harbors
of foreign primitive or developed feudal states.</p>

<p>Of the first type, we have a number of important
examples from ancient history which
correspond exactly to the fourth stage of our
scheme, where an armed colony of pirates
plants itself down at a commercially and strategically
defendable point on the seacoast of a
foreign state. The most notable instance is
Carthage; and in like manner, the Greek sea
nomads, Ionians, Dorians and Achæans, settled
in their sea castles on the Adriatic and
Tyrrhenian coasts of Southern Italy, on the
islands of these seas, and on the gulfs of Southern
Gaul. Phœnicians, Etruscans,<a id="FNanchor_M" href="#Footnote_M" class="fnanchor">M</a> Greeks,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_142">142</a></span>
and according to modern investigation, Carians,
all about the Mediterranean, founded their
“States” after the same type, with identical
class division into masters and servile peasantry
of the neighboring territory.<a id="FNanchor_79" href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">79</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_M" href="#FNanchor_M" class="fnanchor">M</a> Whether the Etruscans were immigrants into Italy by land
who took up piracy after having made war successfully on
land, or whether as sea nomads they had already settled the
country along the sea named after them, has not been determined.</p></div>

<p>Some of these states on the coast developed
into feudal states of the type of the territorial
states; and the master class then became a
landed aristocracy. The factors in this change
were: first, geographical conditions, lack of
good harbors, and a wide stretch of <em>hinterland</em>
cultivated by peaceful peasants; and secondly,
very probably, the acquired organization into
classes taken with them from their original
homes. In many cases, they were fugitive
nobles, the vanquished of domestic feuds, or
younger sons, sometimes an entire generation
of youth of both sexes, who thus started “on
the viking,” and having at home had lands and
serfs, as petty lords, they again sought in foreign
lands what they regarded as their due.
The occupation of England by the Anglo-<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_143">143</a></span>Saxons,
and of Southern Italy by the Normans,
are examples of this method; so too are
the Spanish and Portuguese colonizations of
Mexico and of South America. The Achæan
colonies of Greater Greece in Southern Italy
furnish additional and very important instances
of this development of territorial feudal
states by sea nomads: “This Achæan
League of cities was a true colonization. The
cities were without harbors&mdash;Croton only had
a fair roadstead&mdash;<em>and were without any trade
of their own</em>; the Sybarite could boast of his
growing gray in his water town between his
home bridges, while buying and selling were
carried on by Milesians and Etruscans. On
the other hand, the Greeks in this region not
only controlled the fringe of the shore, but
ruled from sea to sea; ... the native agricultural
inhabitants were forced into a relation of
clientage or serfdom, and were required to
work the farms of their masters or to pay tribute
to them.”<a id="FNanchor_80" href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">80</a> It is probable that most of
the Doric colonies in Crete were similarly organized.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_144">144</a></span></p>

<p>But in the course of universal history these
“territorial states,” whether they arose more
or less frequently, did not acquire any such
importance as did those maritime cities which
devoted their principal energies to commerce
and to privateering. Mommsen contrasts in
distinct and well chosen sentences the Achæan
landed squire with the “royal merchants” of
the Greek Colonies in Southern Italy: “In
no way did they spurn agriculture or the increase
of territory; the Greeks were not satisfied,
at least not after they became powerful, to
remain within the confined space of a fortified
commercial factory in the midst of the country
of the barbarians, as the Phœnicians had done.
Their cities were founded primarily and exclusively
for purposes of trade, and unlike the
Achæan colonies, were universally situated at
the best harbors and landing places.”<a id="FNanchor_81" href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">81</a> We
are certain, in the case of the Ionic colonies,
and may well assume it for the other cases, that
the founders of these cities were not landed
squires, but seafaring merchants.</p>

<p>But such maritime states or cities, in the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_145">145</a></span>
strict sense, came into being not only through
warlike conquest, but also through peaceable
beginnings, by a more or less mixed <i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">pénétration
pacifique</i>.</p>

<p>Where, however, the Vikings did not meet
peaceable peasants, but feudal states in the
primitive stage, willing to fight, they offered
and accepted terms of peace and settled down
as colonies of merchants.</p>

<p>We know of such cases from every part of
the world, in harbors and on markets held on
shore. To take the instances with which Germans
are most conversant, there are the settlements
of North German merchants in
countries along the German ocean and the
Baltic Sea, the German Steel Yard in London,
the Hansa in Sweden and Norway, on the
Island of Schönen, and in Russia, at Novgorod.
In Wilna, the capital of the Grand
Dukes of Lithuania, there was such a colony;
and the Fondaco dei Tedeschi in Venice is another
example of a similar institution. The
strangers in nearly every instance settle down
as a compact mass, subject to their own laws<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_146">146</a></span>
and their own jurisdiction. They often acquire
great political influence, sometimes extending
to dominion over the state. One
would think the following tale of Ratzel, concerning
the coast and islands of the Indian
Ocean, were a contemporaneous narrative of
the Phœnician or Greek invasion of the Mediterranean
at about 1,000 B.&nbsp;C.: “Whole nations
have, so to say, been liquefied by trade,
especially the proverbially clever, zealous, omnipresent
Malays of Sumatra; as well as the
treacherous Bugi of Celebes. These can be
met with at every place from Singapore to
New Guinea. Latterly, especially in Borneo,
they have immigrated in masses on the call of
the Borneo chieftains. Their influence was so
strong that they were permitted <em>to govern
themselves according to their own laws</em>, and
they felt themselves so strong <em>that repeatedly
they attempted to achieve independence</em>. The
Achinese formerly occupied a similar position.
Malacca had been made the principal mart by
Malays from Sumatra, and after its decline,
Achin became the most frequented harbor of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_147">147</a></span>
this distant east, especially for the first quarter
of the seventeenth century, the pivotal period
of the development of that corner of the
world.”<a id="FNanchor_82" href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">82</a> The following, from among numberless
instances, demonstrate the universality
of this form of settlement: “In Urga, <em>where
they politically dominate</em>, the merchants are
crowded together into a separate Chinese
Town.”<a id="FNanchor_83" href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">83</a> In the Jewish States there were
“small colonies of foreign merchants and mechanics,
set apart in distinct quarters of the
cities. Here, under the king’s protection, they
could live according to their own religious customs.”<a id="FNanchor_84" href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">84</a>
We may also compare with this,
First Kings XX, 34. “King Omri of Ephraim
was forced by the military success of his opponent,
the King of Damascus, to grant to the
Aramaic merchants the use of certain parts of
the city of Samaria, where under royal protection
they could trade. Later, when the turn of
war favored his successor, Ahab, the latter demanded
the same privilege for the Ephraimitic
merchants in Damascus.”<a id="FNanchor_85" href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">85</a> “The inhabitants
of Italy, wherever they were, held together as<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_148">148</a></span>
solid and organized masses, the soldiers as legionaries,
the merchants of all large cities as
corporations; while the Roman citizens domiciled
or dwelling in the various provincial <em>circuits</em>,
were organized as a ‘convention of
Roman citizens’ with their own communal government.”<a id="FNanchor_86" href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">86</a>
We may recall the mediæval
Ghettos, which, before the great persecution of
the Jews in the Middle Ages, were similar
merchant colonies. The settlements of Europeans
in the ports of strong foreign empires
at the present time show similar corporate organizations,
having their own constitution and
(consular) jurisdiction. China, Turkey and
Morocco must continue to bear this mark of
inferiority, while recently Japan has been able
to rid herself of that badge.</p>

<p>The most interesting point about these colonies,
at least for our study, consists in their
general tendency to extend their political
influence into complete domination. And
there is good reason for this. Merchants have
a mass of movable wealth, which is likely to be
used as a decisive factor in the political upheavals<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_149">149</a></span>
constantly disturbing all feudal states,
be it in international wars between two neighboring
states, or in intra-national fights, such
as wars of succession. In addition to this
the colonists, in many cases, may rely on
the power of their home state, basing their
claim on ties of blood and on uncommonly
strong commercial interests; while there is
besides, the fact that in many cases they
have in their warlike sailor-folk and their numerous
slaves an effective and compact force
of their own, capable of accomplishing much
in a limited sphere.</p>

<p>The following story of the rôle played by
Arab merchants in East Africa appears to me
to show a historical type heretofore not sufficiently
appreciated: “When Speke, as the
first European, made this trip in 1857, the
Arabs were merchants, living as aliens in the
land. When in 1861 he passed the same way,
the Arabs resembled great landed proprietors
with rich estates and were waging war with
the native territorial ruler. This process, repeatedly
found in many other regions in the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_150">150</a></span>
interior of Africa, is the necessary consequence
of the balance of power. The foreign merchants,
be they Arabs or Suaheli, ask the privilege
of transit and pay tribute for it; they
establish warehouses, which the chiefs favor,
as these seem both to satisfy their vanity and
to extend their connections; then incurring the
suspicion, oppression and persecution of the
chiefs, the merchants refuse to pay the rack
tolls and dues, which have grown with their
increased prosperity. At last, in one of the
inevitable fights for the succession, the Arabs
take the side of one pretender if he is pliable
enough, and are thus brought into internal
quarrels of the country and take part in the
often endless wars.”<a id="FNanchor_87" href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">87</a></p>

<p>This political activity of the merchant denizens
(<em>metoikoi</em>) is a constantly recurring type.
“In Borneo there developed from the settlements
of Chinese gold diggers separate
states.”<a id="FNanchor_88" href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">88</a> Properly speaking, the entire history
of colonization by Europeans is a series
of examples of the law that, with any superior
force, the factories and larger settlements of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_151">151</a></span>
foreigners tend to grow into domination, unless
they approximate to the primal type of simple
piracy, such as the Spanish and Portuguese
conquests, or the East India Companies, both
the English and the Dutch. “There lies a
robber state beside the ocean, between the
Rhine and the Scheldt,” are the accusing words
of the Dutch Multatuli. All East Asiatic,
American and African colonies of all European
peoples arose as one or the other of these
two types.</p>

<p>But the aliens do not always obtain unconditional
mastery. Sometimes the host state
is too strong, and the newcomers remain politically
powerless but protected aliens; as, for
example, the Germans in England. Sometimes
the host state, although subjugated, becomes
strong enough to shake off the foreign
domination; so, for instance, Sweden drove out
the Hanseats who had imposed on her their
sovereignty. In some cases, a conqueror overcomes
both merchants and host state, and
subjugates both; as happened to the republics
of Novgorod and Pskov, when the Russians<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_152">152</a></span>
annexed them. In many cases, however, the
rich foreigners and the domestic nobility amalgamate
into one group of rulers, following the
type of the formation of territorial states, in
which we saw this take place whenever two
about equally strong groups of rulers came
into conflict. It seems to me that this last
named situation is the most probable assumption
for the genesis of the most important city
states of antiquity, for the Greek maritime
cities, and for Rome.</p>

<p>Of Greek history, to use the terms of Kurt
Breysig, we know only the “Middle Ages,”
of Roman history, only its “Modern Times.”
For the matters that preceded, we must be
extremely careful in drawing deductions from
fancied analogies. But it seems to me that
enough facts are proved and admitted to permit
the conclusion that Athens, Corinth,
Mycenæ, Rome, etc., became states in the manner
already set forth. And this would follow,
even if the data from all known demography
and general history were not of such universal
validity as to permit the conclusion in itself.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_153">153</a></span></p>

<p>We know accurately from the names of
places (Salamis: Island of Peace, equivalent
to Market-Island), from the names of heroes,
from monuments, and from immediate tradition,
that in many Greek harbors there existed
Phœnician factories, while the <em>hinterland</em> was
occupied by small feudal states with the typical
articulation of nobles, common freemen,
and slaves. It can not seriously be disputed
that the development of the city states was
powerfully advanced by foreign influences;
and this is true, though no specific evidence can
be adduced to show that any of the Phœnician,
or of the still more powerful Carian merchants
were either allowed to intermarry with the
families of the resident nobility, or were made
full citizens, or finally even became princes.</p>

<p>The same applies to Rome, concerning which
Mommsen, a cautious author, states: “Rome
owes its importance, if not its origin, to these
commercial and strategic relations. Evidence
of this is found in many traces of far greater
value than the tales of historical novels pretending
to be authentic. Take an instance of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_154">154</a></span>
the primæval relations existing between Rome
and Cære, which was for Etruria what Rome
was for Latium, and thereafter was its nearest
neighbor and commercial friend; or the uncommon
importance attributed to the bridge over
Tiber and the bridge building (Pontifex Maximus)
in every part of the Roman State; or
the galley in the municipal coat of arms. To
this source may be traced the primitive Roman
harbor dues to which, from early times, only
those goods were subject which were intended
for sale (<em>promercale</em>) and not what entered
the harbor of Ostia, for the proper use of the
charterer (<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">usuarium</i>), and which constituted
therefore an impost on trade. For that reason
we find the comparatively early use of minted
money, and the commercial treaties of states
oversea with Rome. In this sense, then,
Rome may, as the story of its origin states,
have been rather a created than a developed
city, and among the Latin cities rather the
youngest than the eldest.”<a id="FNanchor_89" href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">89</a></p>

<p>It would require the work of a lifetime of
historical research to investigate these possibilities,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_155">155</a></span>
or rather these probabilities; and then
to write the constitutional history of these preëminently
important city states, and to draw
thence the very necessary conclusions. It
seems to me that along this path there would
be found much information on many an
obscure question, such as the Etruscan dominion
in Rome, or the origin of the rich families
of Plebeians, or concerning the Athenian
<em>metoikoi</em>, and many other problems.</p>

<p>Here we can only follow the thread which
holds out the hope of leading us through the
labyrinth of historical tradition to the issue.</p>


<h3 id="h155">(d) <span class="smcap smaller">ESSENCE AND ISSUE OF THE MARITIME STATES</span></h3>

<p>All these are true “States” in the sociologic
sense, whether they arose from the fortresses
of sea-robbers, or from harbors of original land
nomads as merchant colonies which obtained
dominion or which amalgamated with the dominating
group of the host people. For they
are nothing but the organization of the political
means, their form is domination, their content<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_156">156</a></span>
the economic exploitation of the subject
by the master group.</p>

<p>So far as the principle is concerned, they
are not to be differentiated from the States
founded by land nomads; and yet they have
taken a different form, both from internal and
external reasons, and show a different psychology
of classes.</p>

<p>One must not believe that class feeling was
at all different in these and in the territorial
states. Here as there the master class looks
down with the same contempt on the subjects,
on the “<em>Rantuses</em>,” on the “man with the blue
fingernails,” as the German patrician in the
Middle Ages looked on a being with whom,
even when free born, no intermarriage or
social intercourse was permitted. Little indeed
does the class theory of the καλοκἀγαθοί
(well-born) or of the patricians
(children of ancestors) differ from that of the
country squires. But other circumstances
here bring about differences, consonant,
naturally, with class interests. In any district
ruled by merchants, highway robbery can not<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_157">157</a></span>
be tolerated, and therefore it is considered, e. g.,
among the maritime Greeks, a vulgar
crime. The tale of Theseus would not in a
territorial state have been pointed against
the highwaymen. On the other hand, “piracy
was regarded by them, in most remote times, as
a trade nowise dishonorable ... of which
ample proof may be found in the Homeric
poems; while at a much later period Polycrates
had organized a well developed robber state
on the Island of Samos.” “In the <cite>Corpus
Juris</cite>, mention is made of a law of Solon in
which the association of pirates (ἐπὶ λείαν οἰχόμενοι)
is recognized as a permissible company.”<a id="FNanchor_90" href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">90</a></p>

<p>But quite apart from such details, mentioned
only because they serve to cast a clear
light on the growth of the “ideologic superstructure,”<a id="FNanchor_N" href="#Footnote_N" class="fnanchor">N</a>
the basic conditions of existence
of maritime states, utterly different from those
of territorial states, called into being two exceedingly
important phenomena, which are of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_158">158</a></span>
universal historical importance, viz., the
growth of a <em>democratic constitution</em>, whereby
the gigantic contest between the sultanism of
the Orient and the civic freedom of the West
was to be fought out (according to Mommsen
the true content of universal history); and in
the second place the development of <em>capitalistic
slave-work</em>, which in the end was to annihilate
all these states.</p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_N" href="#FNanchor_N" class="fnanchor">N</a> How characteristic of these relations it is that Great
Britain, the only “maritime state” of Europe, even at this
present day will not surrender the right to arm privateers.</p></div>

<p>Let us first consider the inner or socio-psychological
causes of this contrast between the
territorial and the maritime state.</p>

<p>States are maintained by the same principle
from which they arise. Conquest of land and
populations is the <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ratio essendi</i> of a territorial
state; and by the repeated conquest of lands
and populations it must grow, until its natural
growth is checked by mountain ranges, desert,
or ocean, or its sociological bounds are determined
by contact with other states of its
own kind, which it can not subjugate. The
maritime state, on the other hand, came into
being from piracy and trade; and through
these two means, it must strive to extend its<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_159">159</a></span>
power. For this purpose, no extended territory
need be absolutely subjected to its sway.
There is no need to carry its development beyond
the first five stages. The maritime states
rarely, and only when compelled, proceed beyond
the fifth stage, and attain to complete
intra-nationality and amalgamation. Usually,
it is enough if other sea nomads and traders
are kept away, if the monopoly of robbery and
trade is secured, and if the “subjects” are kept
quiet by forts and garrisons. Important
places of production are, of course, actually
“dominated”; and this applies especially to
mines, to a few fertile grain belts, to woods
with good lumber, to salt works, and to important
fisheries. Domination here, therefore,
means permanent administration, by
making the subjects work these for the ruling
class. It is only later in the development, that
there arises a taste for “lands and serfs” and
large domains for the ruling class <em>beyond the
confines of the narrow and original limits of
the State</em>. This happens when the maritime
state by the incorporation of subjugated territories<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_160">160</a></span>
has become a mixture of the territorial
and the maritime forms. But even in that case,
and in contradistinction to territorial states,
large landed properties are merely a source
of money rentals, and are in nearly all cases
administered as absentee-property. This we
find in Carthage and in the later Roman Empire.</p>

<p>The interests of the master class, which in
the maritime state as well as in every other
state, governs according to its own advantage,
are different from those in the territorial state.
In the latter the feudal territorial magnate is
powerful because of his ownership of lands and
people; while conversely, the patrician of the
maritime city is powerful because of his wealth.
The territorial magnate can dominate his
“State” only by the number of men-at-arms
maintained by him, and in order to have as
many of these as possible, he must increase his
territory as much as possible. The patrician,
on the other hand, can control his “state” only
by movable wealth, with which he can hire
strong arms or bribe weak souls; such wealth<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_161">161</a></span>
is won faster by piracy and by trade than by
land wars and the possession of large estates
in distant territories. Furthermore, in order
thoroughly to use such property, he would be
obliged to leave his city to settle down on it,
and to become a regular squire; because in a
period when money has not yet become general,
where a profitable division of labor between
town and country has not yet come
about, the exploitation of large estates can
only be carried on by actually consuming their
products, and absentee ownership as a source
of income is inconceivable. Thus far, however,
we have not reached that portion of the
development. We are still examining primitive
conditions. No patrician of any city-state
would, at this time, think of leaving his lively
rich home, in order to bury himself among barbarians,
and thus with one move cut himself
off in his state from any political rôle. All his
economic, social and political interests impel
him with one accord toward maritime ventures.
Not landed property, but movable capital, is
the sinew of his life.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_162">162</a></span></p>

<p>These were the moving causes of the actions
of the master class in the maritime cities; and
even where geographical conditions permitted
an extensive expansion beyond the adjoining
<em>hinterland</em> of these cities, they turned the
weight of effort toward sea-power rather than
toward territorial growth. Even in the case
of Carthage, its colossal territory was of far
less importance to it than its maritime interests.
Primarily it conquered Sicily and
Corsica more in order to check the competition
of the Greek and Etruscan traders than for
the sake of owning these islands; it extended
its territories toward the Lybians largely to
insure the security of its other home possessions;
and finally, when it conquered Spain, its
ultimate reason was the need of owning the
mines. The history of the <em>Hansa</em> shows many
points of similarity to the above. The majority
of these maritime cities, moreover, were not
capable of subjugating a large district. Even
had there been the will to conquer, there were
extraneous, geographical conditions that hindered.
All along the Mediterranean, with the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_163">163</a></span>
exception of some few places, the coastal plain
is extremely narrow, a small strip fenced off
by high mountain ranges. That was one
cause which prevented most of the states
grouped about some trading harbor from growing
to anything like the size we should naturally
assume to be probable; while in the
open country, ruled by herdsmen, and this very
early, immense realms came into being. The
second cause for the small beginnings of these
states is found in this, that the <em>hinterland</em>
whether in the hills or on the few plains of the
Mediterranean was occupied by warlike tribes.
These tribesmen, either hunters or warlike
herdsmen, or else primitive feudal states of the
same master race as the sea nomads, were not
likely to be subjugated without a severe contest.
Thus in Greece the interior was saved
from the maritime states.</p>

<p>For these reasons the maritime State, even
when most developed, always remains centralized,
one is tempted to say centered, on its
trading harbor; while the territorial State,
strongly decentralized from the start, for a<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_164">164</a></span>
long time continues to develop as it expands
a still more pronounced decentralization.
Later, we shall see how this is affected by the
adoption of those forms of government and of
economic achievement which first were perfected
in the “city-state,” and which thus
obtained the strength to counteract the centrifugal
forces, and to build up the central organization
which is characteristic of our modern
states. This is the first great contrast between
the two forms of the State.</p>

<p>No less decisive is the second point of contrast,
whereby the territorial State remains
tied up to natural economies as opposed to
money economies, toward which the maritime
State quickly turns. This contrast grows
also out of the basic conditions of their existence.</p>

<p>Wherever a State lives in natural economy,
money is a superfluous luxury&mdash;so superfluous
that an economy developed to the use of money
retrogrades again into a system of payments
in kind as soon as the community drops back
into the primitive form. Thus after Charlemagne<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_165">165</a></span>
had issued good coins, the economic
situation expelled them. Neustria&mdash;not to
mention Austrasia&mdash;under the stress of the
migration of the peoples reverted to payment in
kind. Such a system can well do without
money as a standard of values, since it is without
any developed intercourse and traffic. The
lord’s tenants furnish as tribute those things
that the lord and his followers consume immediately;
while his ornaments, fine fabrics, damascened
arms, or rare horses, salt, etc., are
procured in exchange with wandering merchants
for slaves, wax, furs and other products
of a warlike economic system of exchange in
kind.</p>

<p>In city life, at any advanced stage of development,
it is impossible to exist without a
common measure of values. The free mechanic
in a city can not, except in rare cases,
find some other craftsman in need of the special
thing which he produces, prepared to consume
it immediately. Then, too, in cities
the inevitable retail trade in food products,
where every one must purchase nearly everything<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_166">166</a></span>
required, makes the use of coined
money quite inevitable. It is impossible
to conduct trade in its more limited sense,
not between merchant and customers, but
between merchant and merchant, without having
a common measure of value. Imagine
the case of a trader entering a port with a
cargo of slaves, wishing to take cloth as a return
cargo, and finding a cloth merchant who
at the time may not want slaves but iron, or
cattle, or furs. To accomplish this exchange,
at least a dozen intermediate trades would
have to take place before the object could be
achieved. That can be avoided only if there
exists some one commodity desired by all. In
the system of payment in kind of the territorial
states this may be taken by cattle or
horses, since they may be used by any one at
some time; but the ship owner can not load
with cattle as a means of payment, and
thus gold and silver become recognized as
“money.”</p>

<p>From centralization and from the use of
money, which are the necessary properties of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_167">167</a></span>
the maritime or the <em>city State</em>, as we shall hereafter
call it, its fate follows of necessity.</p>

<p>The psychology of the townsman, and especially
of the dweller in the maritime commercial
city, is radically different from that
of the countryman. His point of view is freer
and more inclusive, even though it be more
superficial; he is livelier, because more impressions
strike him in a day than a peasant in a
year. He becomes used to constant changes
and news, and thus is always <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">novarum rerum
cupidus</i>. He is more remote from nature and
less dependent on it than is the peasant, and
therefore he has less fear of “ghosts.” One
consequence of this is that an underling in a
city State is less apt to regard the “taboo” regulations
imposed on him by the first and second
estates of rulers. And as he is compelled to
live in compact masses with his fellow subjects,
he early finds his strength in numbers, so that
he becomes more unruly and seditious than the
serf who lives in such isolation that he never
becomes conscious of the mass to which he belongs
and ever remains under the impression<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_168">168</a></span>
that his overlord with his followers would have
the upper hand in every fight.</p>

<p>This in itself brings about an ever progressive
dissolution of the rigid system of subordinated
groups first created by the feudal state.
In Greece the territorial states alone were able
to keep their subjects for a long time in a state
of subjection: Sparta its Helots, Thessaly its
<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">Penestæ</i>. In all the city States, on the other
hand, we early find an uprising of the proletariat
against which the master class was unable
to oppose an effective resistance.</p>

<p>The economic situation tends toward the
same result as the conditions of settlement.
Movable wealth had far less stability than
landed property: the sea is tricky, and the fortunes
of maritime war and piracy not less so.
The rich man of to-day may lose all by a turn
of Fortune’s wheel; while the poorest man
may, by the same swing, land on top. But in
a commonwealth based entirely on possessions,
loss of fortune brings with it loss of rank and
of “class,” just as the converse takes place.
The rich Plebeian becomes the leader of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_169">169</a></span>
mass of the people in their constitutional fight
for equal rights and places all his fortune at
risk in that struggle. The position of the patricians
becomes untenable; when coerced they
have ever conceded the claims of the lower
class. As soon as the first rich Plebeian has
been taken into their ranks, the right of rule
by birth, defended as a holy institution, has forever
become impossible. Henceforth it follows
that what is fair for one is fair for the
other; and the aristocratic rule is followed first
by the plutocratic, then by the democratic,
finally by the ochlocratic régime, until either
foreign conquest or the “tyranny” of some
“Savior of the Sword” rescues the community
from chaos.</p>

<p>This end affects not only the State, but in
most cases its inhabitants so profoundly that
one may speak of a literal <em>death of the peoples</em>,
caused by the <em>capitalistic exploitation of slave
labor</em>. This latter is a social institution inevitably
bound to exist in every state founded on
piracy and maritime ventures and thus coming
to use money as a means of exchange. In the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_170">170</a></span>
primitive stages of feudalism, whence it was
derived, slavery was harmless, as is true in all
economic systems based on exchange and use
in kind, only to become an ulcerating cancer,
utterly destructive of the entire life of the
State as soon as it is exploited by the “capitalist”
method, i. e., as soon as slave labor is
applied, not to be used in a system of a feudal
payment in kind, but to supply a market paying
in money.</p>

<p>Numberless slaves are brought into the
country by piracy, privateering, or by the commercial
wars. The wealth of their owners permits
them to work the ground more intensively,
and the owners of realty within the confines
of the city limits draw ever increasing revenues
from their possessions, and become more and
more greedy of land. The small freeholder in
the country, overburdened by the taxes and
military service of wars waged in the interests
of this great merchant class, sinks into debt,
becomes a slave for debt, or migrates into the
city as a pauper. But even so there is no hope
for him, since the removal of the peasants has<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_171">171</a></span>
damaged the craftsmen and small traders, for
the peasants were wont to purchase in the city,
while the great estates, constantly increasing
by the removal of the peasantry, supply their
own needs by their own slave products. The
evil attacks other parts of the body politic.
The remaining trades are gradually usurped
by masters exploiting slave labor, which is
cheaper than free labor. The middle class
thus goes to pieces; and a pauper, good-for-nothing
mob, a genuine “bob-tail proletariat”
comes into being, which, by reason of the democratic
constitution achieved in the interim, is
the sovereign of the commonwealth. The full
course, political as well as military, is then a
mere question of time. It may take place
without a foreign invasion; which, however,
usually sets in, when by reason of the physical
breakdown caused by the immense depopulation,
by the consumption of the people in its
literal sense, the final stage is attained. This
is the end of all these states. Within the scope
of this treatise we can not dilate on this phase.</p>

<p>Only one city State was able to maintain itself<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_172">172</a></span>
throughout the centuries, because it was
the ultimate conqueror of all the others, and
because it was enabled to counteract the consumption
of population by the only method of
sanitation possible; by extensive recreations of
middle class populations, both in cities and in
country districts, as well as by vast colonizations
of peasants on lands taken from the
vanquished.</p>

<p>The Roman Empire was that state. But
even this gigantic organism finally succumbed
to the consumption of population, caused by
capitalistic slave exploitation. In the interval,
however, it had created the first <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">imperium</i>, i. e.,
the first tensely centralized state on a large
scale, and had overcome and amalgamated all
territorial states of both the Mediterranean
shores and its neighboring countries, and had
thereby for all time set before the world the
model of such an organized dominion. In addition
to this it had developed the organization
of cities and of the system of money economy
to such an extent that they never were utterly
destroyed, even in the turmoil of the barbarian<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_173">173</a></span>
migration. In consequence of this, the feudal
territorial states that occupied the territory of
the former Roman Empire either directly or
indirectly received those new impulses which
were to carry them beyond the condition of the
normal primitive feudal State.</p>
</div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_174">174</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter">
<h2 id="h174" class="vspace"><a id="CHAPTER_V"></a>CHAPTER V<br />

<span class="subhead">THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEUDAL STATE</span></h2>


<h3>(a) <span class="smcap smaller">THE GENESIS OF LANDED PROPERTY</span></h3>

<p>We now return, as stated above, to that
point where the primitive feudal State gave
rise to the city State as an offshoot, to follow
the upward growth of the main branch. As
the destiny of the city State was determined by
the agglomeration of that form of wealth about
which the State swung in its orbit, so the fate
of the territorial State is conditioned by that
agglomeration of wealth which in turn controls
its orbit, the <em>ownership of landed property</em>.</p>

<p>In the preceding, we followed the economic
differentiation in the case of the shepherd
tribes, and showed that even here the law of the
agglomeration about existing nuclei of wealth
begins to assert its efficacy, as soon as the political
means comes into play, be it in the form<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_175">175</a></span>
of wars for booty or still more in the form of
slavery. We saw that the tribe had differentiated
nobles and common freemen, beneath
whom slaves, being without any political
rights, are subordinated as a third class.
This differentiation of wealth is introduced
into the primitive state, and sharpens very
markedly the contrast of social rank. It becomes
still more accentuated by settlement,
whereby private ownership in lands is created.
Doubtless there existed even at the time when
the primitive feudal state came into being,
great differences in the amount of lands possessed
by individuals, especially if within the
tribe of herdsmen the separation had been
strongly marked between the prince-like
owners of large herds and many slaves, and the
poorer common freemen. These princes
occupy more land than do the small freemen.</p>

<p>At first, this happens quite harmlessly, and
without a trace of any consciousness of the fact
that extended possession of land will become
the means of a considerable increase of social
power and of wealth. Of this, there is at this<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_176">176</a></span>
time no question, since at this stage the common
freemen would have been powerful
enough to prevent the formation of extended
landed estates had they known that it would
eventually do them harm. But no one could
have foreseen this possibility. Lands, in the
condition in which we are observing them, have
no value. For that reason the object and the
spoils of the contest were not the possession of
<em>lands</em>, but of <em>the land and its peasants, the latter
being bound to the soil</em> (<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">glebæ adscripti</i> of
our later law) as labor substrat and labor motors,
from the conjunction of which there
grows the object of the political means, viz.,
ground rent.</p>

<p>Every one is at liberty to take as much of
<em>the uncultivated land</em> existing in masses as he
needs and will or can cultivate. It is quite as
unlikely that any one would care to measure
off for another parts of an apparently limitless
supply, as that any one would apportion the
supply of atmospheric air.</p>

<p>The princes of the noble clans, probably
from the start, pursuant to the usage of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_177">177</a></span>
tribe of herdsmen, receive more “lands and
peasants” than do the common freemen. That
is their right as princes, because of their position
as patriarchs, war lords, and captains
maintaining their warlike suites of half-free
persons, of servants, of clients, or of refugees.
This probably amounts to a considerable difference
in the primitive amounts of land ownership.
But this is not all. The princes need a
larger surface of the “<em>land without peasants</em>”
than do the common freemen, because they
bring with them their servants and slaves.
These have, however, no standing at law, and
are incapable, according to the universal concepts
of folk law, of acquiring title to landed
property. Since, however, they must have
land in order to live, their master takes it for
them, so as to settle them thereon. In consequence
of this, the richer the prince of the nomad
tribe the more powerful the territorial
magnate becomes.</p>

<p>But this means that wealth, and with it
social rank, is consolidated more firmly and
more durably than in the stage of herdsman<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_178">178</a></span>
ownership. For the greatest herds may be
lost, but landed property is indestructible; and
men bound to labor, bringing forth rentals, reproduce
their kind even after the most terrible
slaughter, even should they not be obtainable
full grown in slave hunts.</p>

<p>About this fixed nucleus of wealth, property
begins to agglomerate with increasing rapidity.
Harmless as was the first occupation, men must
soon recognize the fact that rental increases
with the number of slaves one can settle on the
unoccupied lands. Henceforth, the external
policy of the feudal state is no longer directed
toward the acquisition of land and peasants,
but rather of peasants without land, to be carried
off home as serfs, and there to be colonized
anew. When the entire state carries on the
war or the robbing expedition, the nobles
obtain the lion’s share. Very often, however,
they go off on their own account, followed only
by their suites, and then the common freeman,
staying at home, receives no share in the loot.
Thus the vicious circle constantly tends rapidly
to enlarge with the increasing wealth of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_179">179</a></span>
lands owned by the nobles. The more slaves a
noble has, the more rental he can obtain.
With this, in turn, he can maintain a warlike
following, composed of servants, of lazy freemen,
and of refugees. With their help, he
can, in turn, drive in so many more slaves, to
increase his rentals.</p>

<p>This process takes place, even where some
central power exists, which, pursuant to the
general law of the people, has the right to dispose
of uncultivated lands; while it is, in many
cases, not only by sufferance, but often by the
express sanction of that authority. As long as
the feudal magnate remains the submissive vassal
of the crown, it lies in the king’s interest to
make him as strong as possible. By this means
his military suite, to be placed at the disposal
of the crown in times of war, is correspondingly
increased. We shall adduce only one illustration
to show that the necessary consequence
in universal history is not confined to
the well-known effect in the feudal states of
Western Europe, but follows from these premises
even under totally different surroundings:<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_180">180</a></span>
“The principal service in Fiji consisted in war
duty; and if the outcome was successful it
meant new grants of lands, including therein
the denizens, as slaves, and thus led to the assumption
of new obligations.”<a id="FNanchor_91" href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">91</a></p>

<p>This accumulation of landed property in
ever increasing quantity in the hands of the
landed nobility brings the primitive feudal
state of a higher stage to the “finished feudal
state” with a complete scale of feudal ranks.</p>

<p>Reference to a previous work by the author,
based on a study of the sources, will show the
same causal connection for German lands;<a id="FNanchor_92" href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">92</a>
and in that publication it was pointed out that
in all the instances noted a process takes place,
identical in its principal lines of development.
It is only on this line of reasoning that one can
explain the fact, to take Japan as an example,
that its feudal system developed into the precise
details which are well known to the students
of European history, although Japan is
inhabited by a race fundamentally different
from the Arians; and besides (a strong argument
against giving too great weight to the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_181">181</a></span>
materialistic view of history) the process of
agriculture is on a totally different technical
basis, since the Japanese are not cultivators
with the plow, but with the hoe.</p>

<p>In this instance, as throughout this book, it
is not the fortune of a single people that is investigated;
it is rather the object of the author
to narrate the typical development, the universal
consequences, of the same basic traits of
mankind wherever they are placed. Presupposing
a knowledge of the two most magnificent
examples of the expanded feudal state,
Western Europe and Japan, we shall, in general,
limit ourselves to cases less well known,
and so far as possible give the preference to
material taken from ethnography, rather than
from history in its more restricted sense.</p>

<p>The process now to be narrated is a change,
gradually consummated but fundamentally
revolutionary, of the political and social articulation
of the primitive feudal state: <em>the central
authority loses its political power to the territorial
nobility, the common freeman sinks from
his status, while the “subject” mounts</em>.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_182">182</a></span></p>


<h3 id="h182">(b) <span class="smcap smaller">THE CENTRAL POWER IN THE PRIMITIVE FEUDAL STATE</span></h3>

<p>The patriarch of a tribe of herdsmen, though
endowed with the authority which flows from
his war-lordship and sacerdotal functions, generally
has no despotic powers. The same may
be said of the “king” of a small settled community,
where, generally speaking, he would
exercise very limited command. On the other
hand, as soon as some military genius manages
to fuse together numerous tribes of herdsmen
into one powerful mass of warriors, despotic
centralized power is the direct, inevitable consequence.<a id="FNanchor_93" href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">93</a>
As soon as war exists, the truth of
the Homeric</p>

<div class="poem-container">
<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">οὐκ ἀγαθὴ πολυκοιρανιὴ εἶς κοίρανος ἔστω<br /></span>
<span class="i0">εἶς βασιλεύς,<a id="FNanchor_O" href="#Footnote_O" class="fnanchor">O</a><br /></span>
</div></div>
</div>

<p class="in0">is admitted by the most unruly tribes, and becomes
a fact to be acted on. The free primitive
huntsmen render to their elected chief unconditioned
obedience, while on the war-path;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_183">183</a></span>
the free Cossacks of the Ukraine, recognizing
no authority in times of peace, submit to their
<em>hetman’s</em> power of life and death in times of
war. This obedience toward their war-lord is
a trait common to every genuine warrior
psychology.</p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_O" href="#FNanchor_O" class="fnanchor">O</a> “The rule of the many is not a good thing, over the many
there should be one king.”</p></div>

<p>The leaders of the great migrations of nomads
are all powerful despots: Attila, Omar,
Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Mosilikatse,
Ketchwayo. Similarly, we find that whenever
a mighty territorial state has come into being
as the result of the welding together of a number
of primitive feudal states, there existed in
the beginning a strong central authority. Examples
of this may be seen in the case of Sargon
Cyrus, Chlodowech, Charlemagne, Boleslaw
the Red. Sometimes, especially as long
as the main state has not yet reached its geographical
or sociologic bounds, the centralized
authority is maintained intact in the hands of a
series of strong monarchs, which degenerates,
in some instances, to the maddest despotism
and insanity of some of the Cæsars: especially
do we find flagrant examples of this in Mesopotamia<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_184">184</a></span>
and in Africa. We shall merely
touch on this phase: the more so, as it has little
general effect on the final development of the
forms of government. This point should,
however, be stated, that the development of the
form of government of a despotism depends
in the main, on what the <em>sacerdotal</em> status of
the rulers may be, in addition to their position
as war-lords, and whether or not they hold the
monopoly of trade as an additional regalian
right.</p>

<p>The combination of Cæsar and Pope tends
in all cases to develop the extreme forms of despotism;
while the partition of spiritual and
temporal functions brings it about that their
exponents mutually check and counterbalance
one another. A characteristic example may
be found in the conditions prevailing among
the Malay states of the East Indian Archipelago,
genuine “maritime states,” whose genesis
is an exact counterpart of that of the Greek
maritime states. Generally speaking, the
prince has just as little power among these, as,
shall we say, the king at the opening of the history<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_185">185</a></span>
of the Attic states. The chieftains of the
clans (in Sulu the Dato, in Achin the Panglima),
as in the case of Athens, have the real
power. But where, “as in Tobah, religious
motives endow the rulers with the position of
a Pope in miniature, an entirely different
phase is found. The Panglima then depend
entirely on the Rajah, and are merely officials.”<a id="FNanchor_94" href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">94</a>
To refer to a well-known fact,
when the aristocrats and chiefs of the clans in
Athens and in Rome abolished the kingdom,
they preserved at least the old <em>title</em>, and
granted its use to a dignitary otherwise politically
impotent, in order that the gods might
have their offerings presented in the accustomed
manner. For the same reason, in many
cases, the descendant of the former tribal king
is preserved as a dignitary, otherwise totally
powerless, while the actual power of government
has long since been transferred to some
war chief; as in the later Merovingian Empire,
the Carolingian Mayors of the palace (Majordomus)
ruled alongside a “long locked king,”
<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">rex crinitus</i>, of the race of Merowech, so, in<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_186">186</a></span>
Japan, the Shogun ruled beside the Mikado,
and in the Empire of the Incas, the commander
of the Inca beside the Huillcauma, who had
been gradually limited to his sacerdotal functions.<a id="FNanchor_P" href="#Footnote_P" class="fnanchor">P</a><a id="FNanchor_95" href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">95</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_P" href="#FNanchor_P" class="fnanchor">P</a> In Egypt we find a similar state of affairs, beside the
bigoted Amenhotep IV., the Majordomus of the palace
Haremheb, who “managed to unite in his hands the highest
military and administrative functions of the empire, until he
exercised the powers of a regent of the state.” Schneider,
<cite>Civilization and Thought of the Ancient Egyptians</cite>. Leipzig,
1907, page 22.</p></div>

<p>In addition to the office of supreme pontiff,
the power of the head of the state is frequently
increased enormously by the trading monopoly,
a function exercised by the primitive
chieftains as a natural consequence of the
peaceful barter of guest-gifts. Such a trade
monopoly, for example, was exercised by King
Solomon; and latterly by the Roman Emperor
Friedrich II.<a id="FNanchor_Q" href="#Footnote_Q" class="fnanchor">Q</a><a id="FNanchor_96" href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">96</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_Q" href="#FNanchor_Q" class="fnanchor">Q</a> Cf. <cite>Acta Imperii</cite>, or <cite>Huillard-Breholles, H.&nbsp;D.
Fred. II.</cite>&mdash;<i>Translator.</i></p></div>

<p>As a rule, the negro chieftains are “monopolists
of trading”;<a id="FNanchor_97" href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">97</a> as is the King of Sulu.<a id="FNanchor_98" href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">98</a>
Among the Galla, wherever the supremacy of
a head chief is acknowledged, he becomes “as<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_187">187</a></span>
a matter of course, the tradesman for his tribe;
since none of his subjects is allowed to trade
with strangers directly.”<a id="FNanchor_99" href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">99</a> Among the Barotse
and Mabunda, the king is “according to
the strict interpretation of the law, the only
trader of his country.”<a id="FNanchor_100" href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">100</a></p>

<p>Ratzel notes, in telling language, the importance
of this factor: “In addition to his
witchcraft, the chief increases his power by a
<em>monopoly of trading</em>. Since the chief is the
sole intermediary in trade, everything desired
by his subjects passes through his hands, and
he becomes the donor of all longed-for gifts,
the fulfiller of the fondest wishes. In such a
system, there lie certainly the possibilities of
great power.”<a id="FNanchor_101" href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">101</a> If, in conquered districts,
where the power of government is apt to be
more tensely exercised, there is added the monopoly
of trade, the royal power may become
very great.</p>

<p>It may be stated as a general rule, that even
in the apparently most extreme cases of <em>despotism</em>,
no monarchical <em>absolutism</em> exists. The
ruler may, undeterred by fear of punishment,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_188">188</a></span>
rage against his subject class; but he is checked
in no small degree by his feudal followers.
Ratzel, in speaking of the subject generally,
remarks: “The so-called ‘court assemblage’
of African or of ancient American chiefs is
probably always a council.... Although we
meet with traces of absolutism with all peoples
on a low scale, even where the form of government
is republican, the cause of absolutism is
not in the strength of either the state or of the
chieftain, but in the moral weakness of the individual,
who succumbs without any effective
resistance to the powers wielded over him.”<a id="FNanchor_102" href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">102</a>
The kingdom of the Zulu is a limited despotism,
in which very powerful ministers of state
(Induna) share the power; with other Caffir
tribes it is a council, sometimes dominating
both people and chieftains.<a id="FNanchor_103" href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">103</a> In spite of this
control “under Tshaka every sneezing or
hawking in the presence of the tyrant, as well
as every lack of tears at the death of some royal
kinsman, was punished with death.”<a id="FNanchor_104" href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">104</a> The
same limitation applies to the West African
kingdoms of Dahomy and Ashanti, notorious<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_189">189</a></span>
because of their frightful barbarities. “In
spite of the waste of human life, in war, slave
trade, and human sacrifices, there existed at no
place absolute despotism.... Bowditch remarks
on the similarity of the system prevailing
in Ashanti, with its ranks and orders, with
the old Persian system as described by Herodotus.”<a id="FNanchor_105" href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">105</a></p>

<p>One must be very careful, and this may
again be insisted upon, not to confuse despotism
with absolutism. Even in the feudal states
of Western Europe, the rulers exercised, in
many cases, power of life and death, free from
the trammels of law; but nevertheless such a
ruler was impotent as against his “magnates.”
So long as he does not interfere with the privileges
of the classes, he need not restrain his
cruelty, and he may even occasionally sacrifice
one of the great men; but woe to him were he
to dare to touch the economic privileges of his
magnates. It is possible to study this very
characteristic phase, completely free, from the
standpoint of law, and yet closely hemmed in
by political checks, in the great East African<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_190">190</a></span>
empires: “The government of Waganda and
Wanyoro is, in theory, based on the rule of the
king over the whole territory; but in reality this
is only the semblance of government, since, as a
matter of fact, the lands belong to the supreme
chieftains of the empire. It was they who represented
the popular opposition to foreign influences,
in the time of Mtesa; and Muanga
did not dare, for fear of them, to carry out any
innovations. Although the kingship is limited
in reality, yet in form it occupies an imposing
position in unessentials. The ruler is absolute
master over the lives and limbs of his subjects,
the mass of the people, and feels himself restrained
only in the narrowest circle of the
chief courtiers.”<a id="FNanchor_106" href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">106</a></p>

<p>Precisely the same statement applies to the
inhabitants of Oceania, to mention the last of
the great societies that created states: “At no
place does one find an entire absence of a representative
mediation between prince and people....
The aristocratic principle corrects
the patriarchal. Therefore, the extremes of
<em>despotism</em> depend more on class and caste<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_191">191</a></span>
pressure than on the overpowering will of any
individual.”<a id="FNanchor_107" href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">107</a></p>


<h3 id="h191">(c) <span class="smcap smaller">THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DISINTEGRATION OF THE PRIMITIVE FEUDAL STATE</span></h3>

<p>Space forbids our detailing the innumerable
shadings under which the patriarchal-aristocratic
(in some cases plutocratic) mixture of
form of government in the primitive feudal
state is shown in either an ethnographic, historical
or juristic survey. This is likewise of
the greatest importance for the subsequent development.</p>

<p>It is indifferent how much power the ruler
may have had at the beginning, an inevitable
fate breaks down his power in a short while;
and does this, one may say, the faster, the
greater that power was, i. e., the larger the
territory of the primitive feudal state of higher
grade.</p>

<p>Taking into account the process already set
forth, which, through the occupation and settlement
of unused lands by means of newly
acquired slaves, made for the increase of power<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_192">192</a></span>
of the separate nobles, a result came about
which might prove uncomfortable for the central
power. Mommsen in speaking of the
Celts says: “When in a clan numbering about
eighty thousand armed men, a single chieftain
could appear at convocation with ten thousand
followers, exclusive of his serfs and debtors, it
becomes clear that such a noble was rather an
independent prince than a mere citizen of his
clan.”<a id="FNanchor_108" href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">108</a> And the same may apply to the
“Heiu” of the Somali, where a great landed
proprietor maintained hundreds of families in
dependence on his lands, “so that conditions
in Somaliland tend to recall those existing
in mediæval Europe during feudal times.”<a id="FNanchor_109" href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">109</a></p>

<p>Although such a preponderance of isolated
territorial magnates can come about in the feudal
state of low development, it nevertheless
reaches its culmination in the feudal state of
higher grade, the great feudal state; this happens
by reason of the increased power given
to the landlords by the bestowal of <em>public official
functions</em>.</p>

<p>The more the state expands, the more must<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_193">193</a></span>
official power be delegated by the central government
to its representatives on the borders
and marches, who are constantly threatened by
wars and insurrectionary outbreaks. In order
to preserve his bailiwick in safety for the state,
such an official must be endowed with supreme
military powers, joined with the functions of
the highest administrative officials. Even
should he not require a large number of civil
employees, he still must have a permanent military
force. And how is he to pay these men?
With one possible exception, to be noted hereafter,
there are no taxes which flow into the
treasury of the central government and then
are poured back again over the land, since
these presuppose an economic development
existing only where money is employed. But
in communities having a system of payments
in kind, such as these “territorial states” all are,
there are no taxes payable in money. For that
reason, the central government has no alternative
but to turn over to the counts, or border
wardens, or satraps, the income of its territorial
jurisdiction. Such an official, then, receives<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_194">194</a></span>
the dues of the subjects, determines
when and where forced labor is to be rendered,
receives the deodands, fees and penalties payable
in cattle, etc.; and in consideration of these
must maintain the armed force, place definite
numbers of armed men at the disposal of the
central government, build and maintain highways
and bridges, feed and stable the ruler and
his following, or his “royal messengers,” and
finally, furnish a definite “Sergeantry” consisting
of highly valuable goods, easily transported
to the court, such as horses, cattle, slaves, precious
metals, wines, etc.</p>

<p>In other words, he receives an immensely
large fief for his services. If previously he
was not, he now becomes the greatest man in
his country, though before he probably was the
most powerful landlord in his official district.
He will hereafter do exactly what his equals
in rank are doing, although they may not have
his official position; that is to say, he will, only
on a larger scale, continue to settle new lands
with ever newly recruited serfs. By this he
increases his military strength; and this must<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_195">195</a></span>
be wished for and aided by the central government.
For it is the fate of these states, that
they must fatten those very local powers, that
are to engulf them.</p>

<p>Conditions arise which enable the warden
of the marches to impose the terms of his military
assistance, especially in the inevitable
feuds which arise over the right of succession
to the central government. Thereby he obtains
further valuable concessions, especially
the formal acknowledgment of the heritability
of his official fief, so that office and lands come
to be held by an identical tenure. By this
means, he gradually becomes almost independent
of the central authority, and the complaint
of the Russian peasant, “The sky is high up
and the Tsar is far off,” tends to become of universal
application. Take this characteristic example
from Africa: “The empire of Lunda is
an absolute feudal state. The chieftains (Muata,
Mona, Muene) are permitted independent
action in all internal affairs, so long as it
pleases the Muata Jamvo. Usually, the great
chieftains, living afar, send their caravans with<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_196">196</a></span>
their tribute once a year to the Mussumba; but
<em>those living at too great a distance, sometimes
for long periods omit making any payments of
their tribute</em>; while similar chiefs in the neighborhood
of the capital forward tribute many
times a year.”<a id="FNanchor_110" href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">110</a></p>

<p>Nothing can show more plainly than this report,
how, because of inadequate means of
transportation, extent of distance becomes politically
effective in these states loosely held
together and in a state of payment in kind.
One is tempted to say that the independence
of the feudal masters grows in proportion to
the square of their distance from the seat of the
central authority. The crown must pay more
and more for their services, and must gradually
confirm them in all the sovereign powers of the
state, or else permit their usurpation of these
powers after they have seized them one after
the other. Such are heritability of fiefs, tolls
on highways and commerce, (in a later stage
the right of coinage), high and low justice, the
right to exact for private gain the public
duties of repair of ways and bridges (the old<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_197">197</a></span>
English <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">trinodis necessitas</i>) and the disposal
of the military services of the freemen of the
country.</p>

<p>By these means, the powerful frontier
wardens gradually attain an ever greater, and
finally a complete, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">de facto</i> independence, even
though the <em>formal</em> bond of feudal suzerainty
may for a long time apparently keep together
the newly developed principalities. The
reader, of course, recalls instances of these typical
transitions; all mediæval history is one
chain of them; not only the Merovingian and
Carolingian Empires, not only Germany, but
also France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Bohemia,
Hungary, as well as Japan and China,<a id="FNanchor_111" href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">111</a> have
passed through this process of decomposition,
not only once, but repeatedly. And this is no
less true of the feudal states of Mesopotamia:
great empires follow each other, acquire power,
burst asunder time after time, and again are
re-united. In the case of Persia, we are expressly
told: “Separate states and provinces,
by a successful revolt, obtained freedom for a
longer or shorter time, and the ‘great king’<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_198">198</a></span>
at Susa did not always have the power to
force them to return to their obedience; in
other states, the satraps or warlike chieftains
ruled arbitrarily, carrying on the government
faithlessly and violently, either as independent
rulers or tributary under-kings of the king of
kings. The Persian world-empire went to its
disintegration an agglomeration of states and
lands, without any general law, without ordered
administration, without uniform judicial
system, without order and enforcement of law,
and without possibility of help.”<a id="FNanchor_112" href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">112</a></p>

<p>A similar fate overtook its neighbor in the
valley of the Nile: “Princes spring from
the families of the usurpers, free landlords, who
pay land-taxes to nobody but to the king, and
rule over certain strips of land, or districts.
These district princes govern a territory specifically
set apart as pertaining to their official
position, and separate from their family possessions.</p>

<p>“Later successful warlike operations, perhaps
filling in the gap between the Ancient and
the Middle (Egyptian) Empire, <em>together with<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_199">199</a></span>
the gathering in of captives of the wars, who
could be utilized as labor motors</em>, brought a
more stringent exploitation of the subjects, a
definite determination of the tributes. During
the Middle Empire, the power of the
princes of the clans rose to an enormous height,
they maintained great courts, imitating the
splendor of the royal establishment.”<a id="FNanchor_113" href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">113</a>
“With the decline of the royal authority during
a period of decay, the higher officials use
their power for personal aims, in order to make
their offices hereditary within their families.”<a id="FNanchor_R" href="#Footnote_R" class="fnanchor">R</a><a id="FNanchor_114" href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">114</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_R" href="#FNanchor_R" class="fnanchor">R</a> Maspero says, <cite>New Light on Ancient Egypt</cite>, pp. 218&ndash;9:
“Until then, in fact, the high priest had been chosen and nominated
by the king; from the time of Rameses III. he was always
chosen from the same family, and the son succeeded his
father on the pontifical throne. From that time events marched
quickly. The Theban mortmain was doubled with a veritable
seigniorial fief, which its masters increased by marriages with
the heirs of neighboring fiefs, by continual bequests from one
branch of the family to the other, and by <em>the placing of cadets
of each generation at the head of the clergy of certain secondary
towns</em>. The official protocol of the offices filled by their
wives shows that a century or a century and a half after
Rameses III., almost the whole of the Thebaid, about a third
of the Egyptian territory was in the hands of the High Priest
of Ammon and of his family.”&mdash;<i>Translator’s Note (and italics).</i></p></div>

<p>But the operation of this historical law is<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_200">200</a></span>
not restricted to the “historical” peoples. In
speaking of the feudal states of India, Ratzel
states: “Even beyond Radshistan, the nobles
often enjoyed a great measure of independence,
so that even in Haiderabad, after the
Nizam had acquired the sole rule over the
country, the Umara or Nabobs maintained
troops of their own, independently of the army
of the Nizam. These smaller feudatories did
not comply with the increased demands of
modern times as regards the administration of
Indian states as often as did the greater
princes.”<a id="FNanchor_115" href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">115</a></p>

<p>In Africa finally, great feudal states come
and pass away, as do bubbles arising and bursting
from the stream of eternally similar
phenomena. The powerful Ashanti empire,
within one and a half centuries, has shriveled
to less than one-fifth of its territory;<a id="FNanchor_116" href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">116</a> and
many of the empires that the Portuguese encountered
have since disappeared without
leaving a trace of their existence. And yet
these were strong feudal powers: “Stately
and cruel negro empires, such as Benin,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_201">201</a></span>
Dahomy or Ashanti, resemble in many respects
ancient Peru or Mexico, having in their
vicinity politically disorganized tribes. The
hereditary nobility of the Mfumus, sharply
separated from the rest of the state, had mainly
the administration of the districts, and together
with the more transitory nobility of
service, formed in Loango strong pillars of
the ruler and his house.”<a id="FNanchor_117" href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">117</a></p>

<p>But whenever such a state, once powerful,
has split into a number of territorial states
either <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">de facto</i> or juristically independent, the
former process begins anew. The great state
gobbles up the smaller ones, until a new empire
has arisen. “The greatest territorial
magnates later become emperors,” says Meitzen
laconically of Germany.<a id="FNanchor_118" href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">118</a> But even this
great demesne vanishes, split up by the need
of equipping warlike vassals with fiefs. “The
Kings soon found that they had donated
away all their belongings; their great territorial
possessions in the Delta had melted away,”
says Schneider (l. c. page 38) of the Pharaohs
of the sixth dynasty. The same causes<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_202">202</a></span>
brought about like effects in the Frankish Empire
among both Merovingians and Carolingians;
and later in Germany in the case of the
Saxon and Hohenstaufen Emperors.<a id="FNanchor_119" href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">119</a> Additional
references are unnecessary, as every
one is familiar with these instances.</p>

<p>In a subsequent part of this treatise, we
shall examine into the causes that finally
liberated the primitive feudal state from this
witch’s curse, this circling from agglomeration
to disintegration without end. Our present
task is to take up the <em>social</em> side of the process,
as we have already taken up the historical
phase of it. It changes the articulation of
classes in the most decisive manner.</p>

<p>The common freemen, the lower strata of
the dominating group, are struck with overpowering
force. They sink into bondsmenship.
Their decay must go along with that of
the central power; since both, allied one might
say, by nature, are menaced simultaneously
by the expanding power of the great territorial
lords. The crown controls the landed magnate
so long as the levy of the common freemen<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_203">203</a></span>
of the district is a superior force to his
guards, to his “following.” But a fatal need,
already set forth, impels the crown to deliver
over the peasants to the landed lordling, and
from the moment when the county levy has
become weaker than his guards, the free peasants
are lost. Where the sovereign powers of
the state are delegated to the territorial magnate,
i. e., where he has developed more or less
into an independent lord of the region, the overthrow
of the liberties of the peasants is carried
out, at least in part, under the color of law,
by forcing excessive military services, which
ruin the peasants, and which are required the
more often as the dynastic interests of the
territorial lord require new lands and new
peasants, or by abusing the right to compulsory
labor, or by turning the administration of public
justice into military oppression.</p>

<p>The common freemen, however, receive the
final blow either by the formal delegation or by
the usurpation of the most important powers
of the crown, the disposition of unoccupied
lands or “commons.” Originally, this land belonged<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_204">204</a></span>
to all the “folk” in common; i. e., to the
freemen for common use; but in accordance
with an original custom, probably universal,
the patriarch enjoys disposal of it. This right
of disposition passes to the territorial
magnate with the remaining royal privileges&mdash;and
thus he has obtained the power
to strangle any few remaining freemen. He
now declares all unoccupied lands his property,
<em>and forbids their settlement by free peasants</em>,
while those only are permitted access who
recognize his superior lordship; i. e., who have
commended themselves to him, or are his serfs.</p>

<p>That is the last nail in the coffin of the common
freemen. Heretofore their equality of
possessions has been in some way guaranteed.
Even if a peasant had twelve sons, his patrimony
was not split up, because eleven of them
broke new hides of land in the commons of
the community, or else in the general land not
yet distributed to other villages. That is
henceforth impossible; hides tend to divide
where large families grow up, others are
united when heir and heiress marry: henceforth<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_205">205</a></span>
there come into existence “laborers,” recruited
from the owners of half, a quarter, or
even an eighth of a hide who help work a larger
area. Thus the free peasantry splits into rich
and poor; this begins to loosen the bond which
hitherto had made the bundle of arrows unbreakable.
When, therefore, some comrade is
overwhelmed by the exactions of the lord and
has become his liegeman, or if bond peasants
are settled among the original owners, either
to occupy some hide vacated by the extinction
of the family or fallen into the hands of the
lord because of the indebtedness of its occupant,
then every social cohesion is loosened;
and the peasantry, split apart by class and by
economic contrasts, is handed over without
power of resistance to the magnate.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the result is the same
where the magnate has no usurped regalian
powers of the state. In such cases, open
force and shameless violation of rights accomplish
the same ends. The ruler, far off
and impotent, bound to rely on the good will
and help of the violators of law and order, has<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_206">206</a></span>
neither the power nor the opportunity of interference.</p>

<p>There is hardly any need of adducing instances.
The free peasantry of Germany were
put through the process of expropriation and
declassification at least three times. Once it
happened in Celtic times.<a id="FNanchor_120" href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">120</a> The second overthrow
of the free peasants of the old German
Empire took place in the ninth and tenth
centuries. The third tragedy of the same form
began with the fifteenth century, in the countries
formerly Slavic, which they had conquered
and colonized.<a id="FNanchor_121" href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">121</a> The peasants fared worse
in those lands, in the “republics of nobles,”
where there was no monarchical central authority,
whose community of interests with
their subjects tended to deprive oppression of
its worse features. The Celts in the Gaul of
Cæsar’s time are one of the earliest examples.
Here “the great families exercised an economic,
military and political preponderance.
They monopolized the leases of the lucrative
rights of the state. They forced the common
freemen, overwhelmed by the taxes which they<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_207">207</a></span>
had themselves imposed, to borrow of them, and
then, first as their debtors, afterward legally
as their serfs, to surrender their liberty. For
their own advantage they developed the system
of followers: i. e., the privilege of the nobility
to have about them a mass of armed servants
in their pay, called <i>ambacti</i>, with whose
aid they formed a state within a state. Relying
on these, their own men-at-arms, they defied
the lawful authorities and the levies of the
freemen, and thus were able to burst asunder
the commonwealth.... The only protection
to be found was in the relation of serfdom,
where personal duty and interest required the
lord to protect his clients and to avenge any
wrong to his men. Since the state no longer
had the power to protect the freemen, these in
growing numbers became the vassals of some
powerful noble.”<a id="FNanchor_122" href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">122</a> We find these identical
conditions fifteen hundred years later in Kurland,
Livonia, in Swedish Pomerania, in Eastern
Holstein, in Mecklenburg, and especially
in Poland. In the German territories the
petty nobles subjugated their peasantry, while<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_208">208</a></span>
in Poland their prey was the formerly free and
noble Schlachziz. “Universal history is monotonous,”
says Ratzel. The same procedure
overthrew the peasantry of ancient Egypt:
“After a warlike <i>intermezzo</i>, there follows a
period in the history of the Middle Empire,
which brings about a deterioration of the position
of the peasantry in Lower Egypt. The
number of landlords decreases, while their territorial
growth and power increases. The
tribute of the peasants is hereafter determined
by an exact assessment on their estates, and
definitely fixed by a sort of Doomsday Book.
Because of this pressure, many peasants soon
enter the lord’s court or the cities of the local
rulers, and take employment there either as
servants, mechanics, or even as overseers in the
economic organization of these manors or
courts. In common with any available captives,
they contribute to the extension of the
prince’s estates, and to further the general expulsion
of the peasantry from their holdings.”[128]</p>

<p>The example of the Roman Empire shows,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_209">209</a></span>
as nothing else can, how inevitable this process
becomes. When we first meet Rome in history
the conception of serfdom or bondage has already
been forgotten. When the “modern
period” of Rome opens, only slavery is known.
And yet, within fifteen centuries, the free
peasantry again sink into economic dependence,
after Rome has become an overextended,
unwieldy empire, whose border districts have
more and more dissolved from the central control.
The great landed proprietors, having
been endowed with the lower justice and police
administration on their own estates have “reduced
their servants, who may originally have
been free proprietors of the ‘<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ager privatus
vectigalis</i>’ to a state of servitude, and have
thus developed a sort of actual <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">glebæ adscriptus</i>,
within the boundaries of their ‘immunities.’”<a id="FNanchor_124" href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">124</a>
The invading Germans found this
feudal order worked out in Gaul and the other
provinces. At this particular time, the immense
difference formerly existing between
slaves and free settlers (<em>coloni</em>) had been completely
obliterated, first in their economic position,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_210">210</a></span>
and then, naturally, in their constitutional
rights.</p>

<p>Wherever the common freemen sink into
political and economic dependence on the great
territorial magnates, when, in other words,
they become bound either to the court or to
the lands, the social group formerly subject
to them tend in a corresponding measure to
improve their status. Both layers tend to
meet half-way, to approximate their position,
and finally to amalgamate. The observations
just made concerning the free settlers and the
agricultural slaves of the later Roman Empire
hold true everywhere. Thus in Germany,
freemen and serfs together formed, when
fused, the economic and legally unital
group of <em>Grundholde</em>, or men bound to the
soil.<a id="FNanchor_125" href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">125</a></p>

<p>The elevation of the former “subjects,”
hereafter for the sake of brevity to be called
“plebs,” flows from the same source as the debasement
of the freeman, and arises by the
same necessity from the very foundations on
which these states are themselves erected, viz.,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_211">211</a></span>
the agglomeration of the landed property in
ever fewer hands.</p>

<p>The plebs are the natural opponents of the
central government&mdash;since that is their conqueror
and tax imposer; while they naturally
oppose the common freemen, who despise them
and oppress them politically, besides crowding
them back economically. The great magnate
also is the natural opponent of the central government&mdash;an
impediment in his path toward
complete independence, and he is at the same
time also a natural enemy of the common freemen,
who in turn not only support the central
government; but also block with their possessions
his path toward territorial dominion,
while with their claims to equality of political
rights they annoy his princely pride. Since
the political and social interests of the territorial
princes and of the plebs coincide, they
must become allies; the prince can attain complete
independence only if, in his fight for
power against the crown and the common freemen,
he controls reliable warriors and acquiescent
taxpayers; the plebs can only then be<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_212">212</a></span>
freed from their pariah-like declassification,
both economically and socially, if the hated
and proud common freemen are brought down
to their level.</p>

<p>This is the second time that we have noted
the identity of interest between the princes and
their subjects. The first time we found a
weakly developed solidarity in our second stage
of state formation. This causes the semi-sovereign
prince to treat his dependent tenants as
kindly as he ill-treats the free peasants of his
territory; in consequence, they will fight the
more willingly for him and contribute taxes,
while the more readily will the oppressed freemen
succumb to the pressure, especially as their
share of political power in the state, coincident
with the decline of the central power, has become
only a meaningless phrase. In some
cases, as in Germany toward the end of the
tenth century, this was done with full consciousness
of its effects<a id="FNanchor_126" href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">126</a>&mdash;some prince exercises
a particularly “mild” rule, in order to
draw the subjects of a neighboring potentate
into his lands, and thus to increase his own<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_213">213</a></span>
strength in war and taxation, and to weaken
his opponent’s. The plebs come to possess,
both legally and actually, constantly increasing
rights, enlarged privileges of the law of
ownership, perhaps self-government in common
affairs, and their own administration of
justice; thus they rise in the same degree
as the common freemen sink, until the two
classes meet and they are amalgamated into
one body on approximately the same jural
and economic plane. Half serfs, half subjects
of a state, they represent a characteristic formation
of the feudal state, which does not as
yet recognize any clear distinction between
public and private law; in its turn an immediate
consequence of its own historical genesis,
<em>the dominion in the form of a state for the sake
of economic private rights</em>.</p>


<h3 id="h213">(d) <span class="smcap smaller">THE ETHNIC AMALGAMATION</span></h3>

<p>The juristic and social amalgamation of the
degraded freemen and the uplifted plebs
henceforth inevitably tends toward ethnic interpenetration.
While at first the subject<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_214">214</a></span>
peoples were not allowed either to intermarry
or to have social intercourse with the freemen,
now no such obstacles can be maintained; in
any single village the social class is no longer
determined by descent from the ruling race,
but rather by wealth. And the case may frequently
arise where the pure-blooded descendant
of the warrior herdsman must earn his living
as a field hand in the hire of the equally
pure-blooded descendant of the former serfs.
The social group of the subjects is now composed
of a part of the former ethnic master
group and a part of the former subject group.</p>

<p>We say from a part only, because the other
part has by this time been amalgamated with
the other part of the old ethnic master group
into a unital social class. In other words, a
part of the plebs has not only attained the position
to which the mass of the common freemen
have sunk, but has climbed far beyond it, in
that it has been completely received into the
dominating group, which in the meantime, has
not only risen enormously, but has been as
greatly diminished in numbers.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_215">215</a></span></p>

<p>And that, too, is a universal process found
in all history; because everywhere it follows
with equally compelling force from the very
premises of feudal dominion. The <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">primus
inter pares</i>, whether the holder of the central
power or some local potentate, taking the rank
of a prince, requires more supple tools for his
dominion than are to be found among his
“peers.” The latter represent a class whom
he must put down if he wants to rise&mdash;and that
is and must be the aim of every one, since in
this stage aiming for power is identical with
the aim of self-preservation. In this effort he
is opposed by his obnoxious and stiff-necked
cousins and by his petty nobles&mdash;and for this
reason, we find at every court, from that of the
sovereign king of a mighty feudal empire down
to the lord of what is hardly more than a big
estate, men of insignificant descent as confidential
officials alongside representatives of
the master group, who in many cases under
the mask of officials of the prince, as a matter
of fact, are “ephors,” sharers of the power of
the prince as the plenipotentiaries of their<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_216">216</a></span>
group. Let us but recall the Induna at the
court of the Bantu kings. There is no wonder,
then, that the prince rather places confidence
in his own men than in these annoying
and pretentious advisers, in men whose position
is indissolubly bound up with his own, and
who would be ruined by his fall.<a id="FNanchor_S" href="#Footnote_S" class="fnanchor">S</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_S" href="#FNanchor_S" class="fnanchor">S</a> One of the most notable instances may be found in the
case of Markward of Annweiler, Marquis of Ancona and Duke
of Ravenna, seneschal of Henry VI., who after the death
of the Emperor Henry VI. disputed the power of the Regent
Constance acting for her son, Frederick II. (See Boehmer-Ficker,
<cite>Regesta Imperii</cite>, V, vol. 1, No. 511. v. ad. annum
1197.)&mdash;<i>Translator.</i></p></div>

<p>Here, too, historical references are nearly
superfluous. Every one is familiar with the
fact that at the courts of the Western European
feudal kingdoms, besides the relatives of
the king and some noble vassals, there were
also elements from the lower groups, occupying
high positions, clerics and great warriors
of the plebeian class. Among the immediate
following of Charlemagne all the races and
peoples of his empire were represented. Also
in the tales of Theodoric the Goth in the
Dietrich Saga of the <i xml:lang="de" lang="de">Niebelungen Lied</i>, this<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_217">217</a></span>
rise of brave sons of the subject races finds
its reflection. In addition to these, there follow
some less well-known instances.</p>

<p>In Egypt, as far back as the Old Empire,
there is found alongside the royal officials of
the feudal nobility, who are the descendants of
the Shepherd conquerors, administering their
districts as representatives of the crown, with
plenary powers as deputies, “<em>a mass of court
officials</em> trusted with determined functions of
government.” It “originated with the <em>servants</em>
employed at the courts of the princes,
<em>such as prisoners of war, refugees etc.</em>”<a id="FNanchor_127" href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">127</a>
The fable of Joseph shows a state of affairs
known at that time to be a usual occurrence, of
the rise of a slave to the position of an all
powerful minister of state. At the present
day such a career is within the realm of possibility
at any oriental court, such as Persia,
Turkey, or Morocco, etc. In the case of old
Marshal Derflinger, in the time of Friedrich
Wilhelm I., the Great Elector, at a much
later date, we have an example from the transition
of the developed feudal state to a more<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_218">218</a></span>
modern form of the state, which might be multiplied
by the examples of innumerable other
brave swordsmen.</p>

<p>Let us add a few instances from the peoples
“disregarded by history.” Ratzel tells of the
realm of Bornu: “The freemen have not lost
the consciousness of their free descent, in contrast
with the slaves of the sheik; but the rulers
place more confidence in their slaves than in
their own kinsmen and free associates of their
tribe. They can count on the devotion of the
former. Not only positions at court, but the
defense of the country was from ancient times
preferably confided to slaves. The brothers
of the prince, as well as the more ambitious or
more efficient sons, are objects of suspicion;
and while the most important places at court
are in the hands of slaves, the princes are put
at posts far from the seat of government.
Their salaries are paid from the incomes of the
offices and the taxes from the provinces.”<a id="FNanchor_128" href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">128</a></p>

<p>Among the Fulbe “society is divided into
princes, chieftains, commons and slaves. The
slaves of the king play a great rôle as soldiers<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_219">219</a></span>
and officials, and may hope for the highest
offices in the state.”<a id="FNanchor_129" href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">129</a></p>

<p>This nobility of the court’s creation may,
in certain cases, be admitted to the great imperial
offices, so that according to the method
stated above, it may achieve the sovereignty
over a territory. In the developed feudal
state, it represents the high nobility; and
usually manages to preserve its rank, even
when some more powerful neighbor has
mediatized it by incorporating the state. The
Frankish higher nobility certainly contains
such elements from the original lower group;<a id="FNanchor_130" href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">130</a>
and since from its blood the entire upper
nobility of the European civilized states has
been descended at least in direct line by
marriage, we find an ethnic amalgamation,
both in the present day group of subjects and
in the highest order of the ruling class. And
the same applies to Egypt: “With the sinking
of the royal authority in the time of the
decay, the higher officials abuse their power for
personal ends, to make their offices hereditary
in their families, and thereby to call into existence<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_220">220</a></span>
an official nobility not differentiated from
the rest of the population.”<a id="FNanchor_131" href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">131</a></p>

<p>And finally, the same process, from the same
causes, takes hold of the present middle class,
the lower stratum of the master class,
the officials and officers of the great feudatories.
At first there still exists a social difference
between, on the one hand, the free vassals,
the subfeudatories of the great landlord,
kinsmen, younger sons of other noble families,
impoverished associates from the same district,
in isolated cases freeborn sons of peasants, free
refugees and professional ruffians of free
descent; and on the other, if the term may be
allowed, the subalterns of the guards of
plebeian descent. But lack of freedom advances,
while freedom sinks in social value;
and here too the ruler places more reliance on
his creatures than on his peers. Here also,
sooner or later, the process of amalgamation
becomes complete. In Germany, as late as
1085, the non-free nobility of the court ranks
between “<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">servi et litones</i>” while a century
afterward it is placed with the “<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">liberi et<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_221">221</a></span>
nobiles</i>.” In the course of the thirteenth century,
it has been completely absorbed, along
with the free vassals, into the nobility by
chivalry. The two orders in the meantime
tend to become equal economically; both
have subinfeudations, fiefs on the obligation of
service in warfare, and the service feuds of the
bondsmen; while all the fiefs of the “ministerials”
or sergeants have in the meantime become
as heritable as are those of the free vassals, as
much so as are the patrimonies of the few surviving
smaller territorial lords belonging to
the original nobility, who may still have escaped
the grasp of the great territorial principalities.</p>

<p>In ways quite analogous to this the development
went on in all other feudal states of
Western Europe; while its exact counterpart
is found in the extremest Orient on the edge of
the Eurasian continent, in Japan. The daimio
are the higher nobility; the samurai, the
chivalry, the nobility of the sword.</p>


<h3 id="h221">(e) <span class="smcap smaller">THE DEVELOPED FEUDAL STATE</span></h3>

<p>With this the feudal state has reached its
pinnacle. It forms, politically and socially, a<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_222">222</a></span>
hierarchy of numerous strata; of which, in all
cases, the lower is bound to render service to
the next above it, and the superior is bound to
render protection to the one below. The
pyramid rests on the laboring population, of
whom the major part are as yet peasants; the
surplus of their labor, the ground rental, the
entire “surplus value” of the economic means
is used to support the upper strata of society.
This ground rent from the majority of estates
is turned over to the small holders of fiefs, except
where these estates are still in the immediate
possession of the prince or of the
crown and have not as yet been granted as
fiefs. The holders of them are bound in return
to provide the stipulated military service,
and also, in certain cases, to render labor of
an economic value. The larger vassal is in
turn bound to serve the great tenants of the
crown; who in their turn are, at least at strict
law, under similar obligation toward the bearer
of the central power; while emperor, king,
sultan, shah, or Pharaoh in their turn, are regarded
as the vassals of the tribal god. Thus<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_223">223</a></span>
there starts from the fields, whose peasantry
support and nourish all, and mounts up to the
“king of heaven” an artificially graded order
of ranks, which constricts so absolutely all the
life of the state, that according to custom and
law neither a bit of land nor a man can be understood
unless within its fold. Since all
rights originally created for the common freemen
have either been resumed by the state, or
else have been distorted by the victorious
princes of territories, it comes about that a person
not in some feudal relation to some superior
must in fact be “without the law,” be
without claim for protection or justice, i. e.,
be outside the scope of that power which alone
affords justice. Therefore the rule, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">nulle
terre sans seigneur</i>, appearing to us at first
blush as an ebullition of feudal arrogance, is as
a matter of fact the codification of an existing
new state of law, or at the very least the clearing
away of some archaic remnants, no longer
to be tolerated, of the completely discarded
<em>primitive</em> feudal state.</p>

<p>Those philosophers of history who pretend<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_224">224</a></span>
to explain every historic development from the
quality of “races,” give as the center of their
strategic position the alleged fact, that only
the Germans, thanks to their superior “political
capacity,” have managed to raise the artistic
edifice of the developed feudal state.
Some of the vigor of this argument has departed,
since the conviction began to dawn on
them that in Japan, the Mongol race had accomplished
this identical result. No one can
tell what the negro races might have done, had
not the irruption of stronger civilizations
barred their way, and yet Uganda does not
differ very greatly from the empires of the
Carolingians or of Boleslaw the Red, except
that men did not have in Uganda any “values
of tradition” of mediæval culture: and these
values were not any merit of the Germanic
races, but a gift wherewith fortune endowed
them.</p>

<p>Shifting the discussion from the negro to
the “Semites,” we find the charge made that
this race has absolutely no capacity for the
formation of states. And yet we find, thousands<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_225">225</a></span>
of years ago, this same feudal system developed,
by Semites, if the founders of the
Egyptian kingdom were Semites. One would
think the following description of Thurnwald
were taken from the period of the Hohenstaufen
emperors: “Whoever entered the
following of some powerful one, was thereafter
protected by him as though he had been the
head of the family. This relation ...
betokens a fiduciary relation similar to vassalage.
This relation of protection in return
for allegiance tends to become the basis of the
organization of all Egyptian society. It is
the basis of the relations of the feudal lord to
his sergeants and peasants, as it is that of the
Pharaoh to his officials. The cohesion of the
individuals in groups subject to common protecting
lords, is founded on this view, even up
to the apex of the pyramid, to the king himself
regarded as ‘the vicar of his ancestors,’ as
the vassal of the gods on earth.... Whosoever
stands without this social grasp, a ‘man
without a master,’ is without the pale of protection
and therefore without the law.”<a id="FNanchor_133" href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">133</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_226">226</a></span></p>

<p>The hypothesis of the endowment of any
particular race has not been used by us, and
we have no need of it. As Herbert Spencer
says, it is the stupidest of all imaginable attempts
to construct a philosophy of history.</p>

<p>The first characteristic of the developed
feudal state is the manifold gradation of
ranks built up into the one pyramid of mutual
dependence. Its second distinctive mark
is the amalgamation of the ethnic groups,
originally separated.</p>

<p>The consciousness formerly existent of difference
of <em>races</em> has disappeared completely.
There remains only the <em>difference of classes</em>.</p>

<p>Henceforth we shall deal only with social
classes, and no longer with ethnic groups.
The social contrast is the only ruling factor
in the life of the state. Consistently with
this the ethnic group consciousness changes to
a class consciousness, the theories of the group,
to the theories of the class. Yet they do
not thereby change in the least their essence.
The new dominating classes are just as full of
their divine right as was the former master<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_227">227</a></span>
group, and it soon is seen that the new nobility
of the sword manages to forget, quickly
and thoroughly, its descent from the vanquished
group; while the former freemen now
declassed, or the former petty nobles sunk in
the social scale, henceforth swear just as firmly
by “natural law” as did formerly only the subjected
tribes.</p>

<p>The developed feudal state is, in its essentials,
exactly the same thing as it was when
yet in the second stage of state formation. Its
form is that of dominion, its reason for being,
the political exploitation of the economic
means, limited by public law, which compels
the master class to give the correlative protection,
and which guarantees to the lower class
the right of being protected, to the extent that
they are kept working and paying taxes, that
they may fulfil their duty to their masters. In
its essentials government has not changed, it
has only been disposed in more grades; and
the same applies to the exploitation, or as the
economic theory puts it, “the distribution”
of wealth.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_228">228</a></span></p>

<p>Just as formerly, so now, the internal policy
of these states swings in that orbit prescribed
by the parallelogram of the centrifugal thrust
of the former group contests, now class wars,
counteracted by the centripetal pull of the
common interests. Just as formerly, so now,
its foreign policy is determined by the striving
of its master class for new lands and serfs,
a thrust for extension caused at the same time
by the still existing need of self-preservation.
Although differentiated much more minutely,
and integrated much more powerfully, the developed
feudal state is in the end nothing more
than the primitive state arrived at its maturity.</p>
</div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_229">229</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter">
<h2 id="h229" class="vspace"><a id="CHAPTER_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI<br />

<span class="subhead">THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATE</span></h2>


<p>If we understand the outcome of the feudal
state, in the sense given above, as further organic
development either forward or backward
conditioned by the power of inner forces, but
not as a physical termination, brought about
or conditioned by outside forces, then we may
say that the outcome of the feudal state is determined
essentially by the independent development
of social institutions called into being
by the economic means.</p>

<p>Such influences may come also from without,
from foreign states which, thanks to a
more advanced economic development, possess
a more tensely centralized power, a better
military organization, and a greater forward
thrust. We have touched on some of these
phases. The independent development of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_230">230</a></span>
Mediterranean feudal states was abruptly
stopped by their collision with those maritime
states, which were on a much higher plane of
economic growth and wealth, and more centralized,
such as Carthage, and more especially
Rome. The destruction of the Persian
Empire by Alexander the Great may be instanced
in this connection, since Macedonia
had at that time appropriated the economic
advances of the Hellenic maritime states.
The best example within modern times is the
foreign influence in the case of Japan, whose
development was shortened in an almost incredible
manner by the military and peaceful
impulses of Western European civilization.
In the space of barely one generation it
covered the road from a fully matured feudal
state to the completely developed modern constitutional
state.</p>

<p>It seems to me that we have only to deal
with an abbreviation of the process of development.
As far as we can see&mdash;though henceforth
historical evidence becomes meager, and
there are scarcely any examples from ethnography&mdash;the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_231">231</a></span>
rule may be stated that forces
from within, even without strong foreign influences,
lead the matured feudal state, with
strict logical consistency, on the same path to
the identical conclusion.</p>

<p>The creators of the economic means controlling
this advance are the cities and their
system of money economy, which gradually supersedes
the system of natural economy, and
thereby dislocates the axis about which the
whole life of the state swings; in place of
landed property, mobile capital gradually becomes
preponderant.</p>


<h3 id="h231">(a) <span class="smcap smaller">THE EMANCIPATION OF THE PEASANTRY</span></h3>

<p>All this follows as a natural consequence
of the basic premise of the feudal state. The
more the great private landlords become a
landed nobility, the more in the same measure
must the feudal system of natural economy
break to pieces. The more great landed
property rights become vested in and nurtured
by the princes of territorial states, the
more is the feudal system based on payments<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_232">232</a></span>
in kind bound to disintegrate; one may say
that the two keep step in this development.</p>

<p>So long as the ownership of great estates is
comparatively limited, the primitive principle
of the bee-keeper, allowing his peasants barely
enough for subsistence, can be carried out.
When, however, these expand into territorial
dimensions, and include, as is regularly the
case, accretions of land which are the results of
successful warfare, or by the relinquishment
and subinfeudation through heritage or political
marriages of smaller land owners, scattered
widely about the country and far from the
master’s original domains, then the policy of
the bee-keeper can no longer be carried out.
Unless, therefore, the territorial magnate
means to keep in his pay an immense mass of
overseers, which would be both expensive and
politically unwise, he would have to impose
on his peasants some fixed tribute, partly
rental and partly tax. The economic need of
an administrative reform unites, therefore,
with the political necessity, to elevate the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_233">233</a></span>
“plebs,” in the way which has already been
discussed.</p>

<p>The more the territorial magnate ceases to
be a private landlord, the more exclusively he
tends to become a subject of public law, viz.,
prince of a territory, the more the solidarity
mentioned above, between prince and people
grows. We saw that some few magnates
even as far back as the period of transition
from great landed estates to principalities,
found it to their greatest interest to carry on
a “mild” government. This accomplished the
result, not only of educating their plebs to a
more virile consciousness toward the state, but
also had the effect of making it easy for the
few remaining common freemen to give up
their political rights in return for protection;
while it was still more important, in that it deprived
their neighbors and rivals of their precious
human material. When the territorial
prince has finally reached complete <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">de facto</i>
independence, his self interest must prompt
him steadfastly to persevere in the path thus
begun. Should he, however, again invest his<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_234">234</a></span>
bailiffs or officers with lands and peasants, he
will still have the most pressing political interest
to see to it that his subjects are not delivered
over to them without restraint. In order
to retain his control, the prince will limit
the right of the “knights” to incomes from
lands to definite payments in kind and limited
forced labor, reserving to himself that required
in the public interests, such as forced labor on
highways or on bridges. We shall soon come
to see that the circumstance that in all developed
feudal states the peasants have at least
two masters claiming service, is decisive for
their later rise.</p>

<p>For all these reasons, the services to be required
of peasants in a developed feudal state
must in some fashion be limited. Henceforth,
all surplus belongs to him free from the control
of the landlord. With this change, the
character of landed property has been utterly
revolutionized. Heretofore the landlord, as
of right, was entitled to the entire revenue saving
only what was absolutely necessary to permit
his peasants to subsist and continue their<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_235">235</a></span>
brood; while hereafter, the total product of
his work, as of right, belongs to the peasant,
saving only a fixed charge for his landlord as
ground rent. The possession of vast landed
estates has developed into (<em>manorial</em>) <em>rights.
This completes the second important step
taken by humanity toward its goal.</em> The
first step was taken when man made the
transition from the stage of bear to that of
the bee-keeper, and thereby discovered slavery;
this step abolishes slavery. Laboring humanity,
heretofore only <em>an object</em> of the law, now
for the first time becomes an entity capable
of enjoying rights. The <em>labor motor</em>, without
rights, belonging to its master, and without
effective guarantees of life and limb, has
now become the taxpaying subject of some
prince. Henceforth the economic means, now
for the first time assured of its success,
develops its forces quite differently. The
peasant works with incomparably more industry
and care, obtains more than he needs,
and thereby calls into being the “city” in the
economic sense of the term, viz., the industrial<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_236">236</a></span>
city. The surplus produced by the peasantry
calls into being a demand for objects not produced
in the peasant economy; while at the
same time, the more intensive agriculture
brings about a reduction of those industrial
by-products heretofore worked out by the
peasant house industry.</p>

<p>Since agriculture and cattle-raising absorb
in ever increasing degrees the energies of the
rural family, it becomes possible and necessary
to divide labor between original production
and manufacture; the village tends to become
primarily the place of the former, the
industrial city comes into being as the seat of
the latter.</p>


<h3 id="h236">(b) <span class="smcap smaller">THE GENESIS OF THE INDUSTRIAL STATE</span></h3>

<p>Let there be no misunderstanding: we do
not maintain that the city comes thus into being,
but only the <em>industrial city</em>. There has
been in existence the real historical city, to be
found in every developed feudal state. Such
cities came into being either because of a purely
political means, as a stronghold,<a id="FNanchor_134" href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">134</a> or by the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_237">237</a></span>
coöperation of the political with economic
means, <em>as a market place</em>, or because of some
religious need, as the environs of some temple.<a id="FNanchor_T" href="#Footnote_T" class="fnanchor">T</a>
Wherever such a city in the historical sense
exists in the neighborhood, the newly arising
industrial city tends to grow up about it;
otherwise it develops spontaneously from the
existing and matured division of labor. As a
rule, it will in its turn grow into a stronghold
and have its own places of worship.</p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_T" href="#FNanchor_T" class="fnanchor">T</a> “Every place of worship gathers about it dwellings of the
priests, schools, and rest-houses for pilgrims.”&mdash;Ratzel, l. c. II.,
p. 575.
</p>
<p>
Naturally, every place toward which great pilgrimages proceed
becomes an extended trade center. We may see the remembrances
thereof in the fact that the great wholesale markets,
held at stated times in Northern Europe, are called
<em>Messen</em> from the religious ceremony.</p></div>

<p>These are but accidental historical admixtures.
In its strict economic sense “city”
means the place of the economic means, or the
exchange and interchange for equivalent
values between rural production and manufacture.
This corresponds to the common use
of language, by which a stronghold however
great, an agglomeration of temples, cloisters<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_238">238</a></span>
and places of pilgrimage however extensive,
were they conceivable without any place for
exchange, would be designated after their external
characteristics as “like a city” or “resembling
a city.”</p>

<p>Although there may have been few changes
in the exterior of the historical city, there has
taken place an internal revolution on a magnificent
scale. <em>The industrial city is directly
opposed to the state.</em> As the state is the developed
political means, <em>so the industrial city
is the developed economic means</em>. The great
contest filling universal history, nay its very
meaning, henceforth takes place between city
and state.</p>

<p>The city as an economic, political body undermines
the feudal system with political and
economic arms. With the first the city
<em>forces</em>, with the second it <em>lures</em>, their power
away from the feudal master class.</p>

<p>This process takes place in the field of politics
by the interference of the city, now a
center of its own powers, in the political
mechanism of the developed feudal state, between<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_239">239</a></span>
the central power and the local territorial
magnates and their subjects. The cities
are the strongholds and the dwelling places of
warlike men, as well as depots of material for
carrying on war (arms, etc.); and later they
become central supply reservoirs for money
used in the contests between the central government
and the growing territorial princes,
or between these in their internecine wars.
Thus they are important strategic points or
valuable allies; and may by far-sighted policy
acquire important rights.</p>

<p>As a rule, the cities take the part of the
crown in fights against the feudal nobles, from
social reasons, because the landed nobles refuse
to recognize the social equality, demanded
as of right by their more wealthy citizens;
from political reasons, because the central government,
thanks to the solidarity between
prince and people, is more apt to be influenced
by common interests than is the territorial
magnate, who serves only his private interests;
and finally from economic reasons, because
city life can prosper only in peace and safety.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_240">240</a></span>
The practises of chivalry, such as club law, and
private warfare, and the knights’ practise of
looting caravans are irreconcilable with the
economic means; and therefore, the cities are
faithful allies of the guardians of peace and
justice, first to the emperor, later on, to the
sovereign territorial prince; and when the
armed citizenship breaks and pillages some
robber baron’s fortress, the tiny drop reflects
the identical process happening in the ocean
of history.</p>

<p>In order successfully to carry this political
rôle the city must attract as many citizens as
possible, an endeavor also forced on it by
purely economic considerations, since both divisions
of labor and wealth increase with increased
citizenship. Therefore cities favor
immigration with all their powers; and once
more show in this the polar contrast of their
essential difference from the feudal landlords.
The new citizens thus attracted into the cities
are withdrawn from the feudal estates, which
are thereby weakened in power of taxation and
military defense in proportion as the cities are<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_241">241</a></span>
strengthened. The city becomes a mighty
competitor at the auction, wherein the serf is
knocked down to the highest bidder, to the
one, that is to say, who offers the most rights.
The city offers the peasant <em>complete liberty</em>,
and in some cases house and courtyard. The
principle, “city air frees the peasant” is successfully
fought out; and the central government,
pleased to strengthen the cities and to
weaken the turbulent nobles, usually confirms
by charter the newly acquired rights.</p>

<p><em>The third great move in the progress of universal
history is to be seen in the discovery
of the honor of free labor</em>; or better in its rediscovery,
it having been lost sight of since
those far-off times in which the free huntsman
and the subjugated primitive tiller enjoyed
the results of their labor. As yet the peasant
bears the mark of the pariah and his rights are
little respected. But in the wall-girt, well-defended
city, the citizen holds his head high.
He is a freeman in every sense of the word,
free even at law, since we find in the grants of
rights to many early enfranchised cities<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_242">242</a></span>
(<i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">Ville-franche</i>) the provision that a serf residing
therein “a year and a day” undisturbed
by his master’s claim is to be deemed free.</p>

<p>Within the city walls there are still various
ranks and grades of political status. At first
the old settlers, the men of rank equal with
the nobles of the surrounding country, the
ancient freemen of the burgh, refuse to the
newcomers, usually poor artisans or hucksters,
the right of sharing in the government.
But, as we saw in the case of the maritime
cities, such gradations of rank can not be maintained
within a business community. The majority,
intelligent, skeptical, closely organized
and compact, forces the concession of equal
rights. The only difference is that the contest
is longer in a developed feudal state, because
now the fight concerns not only the parties
at interest. The great territorial magnates
of the neighborhood and the princes hinder
the full development of the forces by their
interference. In the maritime states of the
ancient world, there was no <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">tertius gaudens</i>
who could derive any profit from the contests<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_243">243</a></span>
within the city, since outside the cities there
existed no system of powerful feudal lords.</p>

<p>These then, are the political arms of the
cities in their contest with the feudal state: alliances
with the crown, direct attack, and the
enticing away of the serfs of the feudal lords
into the enfranchising air of the city. Its economic
weapons are no less effective, the change
from payments in kind to the system of <em>money
as a means of exchange</em> is inseparably connected
with civic methods, is the means
whereby the method of payment in kind is utterly
destroyed, and with it the feudal state.</p>


<h3 id="h243">(c) <span class="smcap smaller">THE INFLUENCES OF MONEY ECONOMY</span></h3>

<p>The sociological process set into motion by
the system of money economy is so well known
and its mechanics are so generally recognized,
that a few suggestions will suffice.</p>

<p>Here, as in the case of the maritime states,
the consequence of the invading money system
is that the <em>central government becomes almost
omnipotent, while the local powers are reduced
to complete impotence</em>.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_244">244</a></span></p>

<p>Dominion is not an end in itself, but merely
the means of the rulers to their essential object,
the enjoyment without labor of articles
of consumption as many and as valuable as
possible. During the prevalence of the system
of natural economy there is no other way
of obtaining them save by dominion; the wardens
of the marches and the territorial princes
obtain their wealth by their political power.
The more peasants who are owned, the greater
is the military power and the larger the scope
of the territory subjected, and thus the greater
are the revenues. As soon, however, as the
products of agriculture are exchangeable for
enticing wares, it becomes more rational for
every one primarily a private man, i. e., for
every feudal lord not a territorial prince&mdash;and
this now includes the knights&mdash;to decrease as
far as possible the number of peasants, and to
leave only such small numbers as can with the
utmost labor turn out the greatest product
from the land, and to leave these as little as
possible. The net product of the real estate,
thus tremendously increased, is now taken to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_245">245</a></span>
the markets and sold for goods, and is no
longer used to keep a fencible body of guards.
Having dissolved this following, the knight
becomes simply the manager of a knight’s
fee.<a id="FNanchor_U" href="#Footnote_U" class="fnanchor">U</a> With this event, as with one blow,
the central power, that of king or territorial
prince, is without a rival for the dominion, and
has become politically omnipotent. The unruly
vassals, who formerly made the weak
kings tremble, after a short attempt at joint
rule during the time of the government of the
feudal estates, have changed into the supple
courtiers, begging favors at the hands of some
absolute monarch, like Louis XIV. And he
furthermore has become their last resort, since
the military power, now solely exercised by
him as the paymaster of the forces, alone can
protect them from the ever-immanent revolt
of their tenants, ground to the bone. While
in the time of natural economy the crown was
in nearly every instance allied with peasants
and cities against nobility, we now have the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_246">246</a></span>
union of the absolute kings, born from the
feudal state, with their nobility, against the
representatives of the economic means.</p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_U" href="#FNanchor_U" class="fnanchor">U</a> See reference as to the meaning of <i xml:lang="de" lang="de">Rittergutsbesitz</i>, ante,
page 84.&mdash;<i>Translator.</i></p></div>

<p>Since the days of Adam Smith it has been
customary to state this fundamental revolution
in some such form, as though the foolish
nobles had sold their birthright for a mess of
pottage, when they traded their dominion for
foolish articles of luxury. No view can be
more erroneous. Individuals often err in the
safe-guarding of their interests: <em>a class for any
prolonged period never is in error</em>.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is, that the system
of money payments strengthened the central
power so mightily and immediately, that even
without the interposition of the agrarian upheaval,
any resistance of the landed nobility
would have been senseless. As is shown in
the history of antiquity, the army of a central
government, financially strong, is always
superior to feudal levies. Money permits the
armament of peasant sons, and the drilling of
them into professional soldiers, whose solid organization
is always superior to the loose confederation<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_247">247</a></span>
of an armed mass of knights.
Besides, at this stage, the central government
could also count on the aid of the well-armed
squares of the urban guilds.</p>

<p>Gunpowder did the rest in Western Europe.
Firearms, however, are a product that
can be turned out only in the industrial establishments
of a wealthy city. Because of these
technical military reasons, even that feudal
landlord who might not care for the newly
established luxuries and who might only be
desirous of maintaining or increasing his independent
position, must subject his territories
to the same agrarian revolution; since,
in order to be strong, he now before all else
must have <em>money</em>, which in the new order of
things, has become the <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">nervus rerum</i>, either to
buy arms or to engage mercenaries. A
second capitalistic wholesale undertaking,
therefore, has come into being through the
system of payments in money; besides the
wholesale management of landed estates, war
is carried on as a great business enterprise&mdash;the
condottieri appear on the stage. The market<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_248">248</a></span>
is full of material for armies of mercenaries,
the discharged guards of the feudal
lords and the young peasants whose lands have
been taken up by the lords.</p>

<p>There are instances where some petty noble
may mount to the throne of some territorial
principality, as happened many a time in
Italy, and as was accomplished by Albrecht
Wallenstein, even as late as the period of the
Thirty Years’ War. But that is a matter of
individual fate, not affecting the final result.
The local powers disappear from the contest
of political forces as independent centers of
authority and retain the remnant of their
former influence only so long as they serve the
princes as a source of supplies; that is, the
state composed of its feudal estates.</p>

<p>The infinite increase in the power of the
crown is then enhanced by a second creation
of the system of payment in money, by
<em>officialdom</em>. We have told in detail of the
vicious circle which forced the feudal state into
a cul-de-sac between agglomeration and dissolution,
as long as its bailiffs had to be paid<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_249">249</a></span>
with “lands and peasants” and thereby were
nursed into potential rivals of their creator.
With the advent of payments in money, the
vicious circle is broken. Henceforth the central
government carries on its functions
through paid employees, permanently dependent
on their paymaster.<a id="FNanchor_135" href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">135</a> Henceforth
there is possible a permanently established,
tensely centralized government, and empires
come into being, such as had not existed since
the developed maritime states of antiquity,
which also were founded on the payments in
money.</p>

<p>This revolution of the political mechanism
was everywhere put into motion by the development
of the money economy&mdash;with but
one exception, as far as I can see, viz., Egypt.</p>

<p>Here, according to the statement of experts,
no definite information is to be had, and it
seems that the system of money exchanges appears
as a matured institution only in Greek
times. Until that time, the tribute of the
peasants was paid in kind;<a id="FNanchor_136" href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">136</a> and yet we find,
shortly after the expulsion of the Shepherd<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_250">250</a></span>
Kings, during the New Empire (<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">circa</i> sixteenth
century B.&nbsp;C.), that the absolutism of
the kings was fully developed: “The military
power is upheld by foreign mercenaries, the
administration is carried on by a <em>centralized
body of officials</em> dependent on the royal
favor, <em>while the feudal aristocracy has disappeared</em>.”<a id="FNanchor_137" href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">137</a></p>

<p>It may seem that this exception proves the
rule. Egypt is a country of exceptional
geographic conformation. Jammed into a
narrow compass, between mountains and the
desert, a natural highway, the River Nile,
traverses its entire length, and permits the
transportation of bulky freight with much
greater facility than the finest road. And
this highway made it easy for the Pharaoh to
assemble the taxes of all his districts in his own
storehouses, the so-called “houses”<a id="FNanchor_138" href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">138</a> and
from them to supply his garrisons and civil
employees with the products themselves <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">in
natura</i>. For that reason Egypt, after it has
once become unified into an empire, stays centralized,
until foreign powers extinguish its<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_251">251</a></span>
life as a “state.” “This circumstance is the
source of the enormous and plenary power exercised
by the Pharaoh where payments are
still made in kind; the exclusive and immediate
control of the objects of daily consumption
are in his hand. The ruler distributes to his
employees only such quantities of the entire
mass of goods as appears to him good and
proper; and since the articles of luxury are
nearly all exclusively in his hands, he enjoys
on this account also an extraordinary plenitude
of power.”<a id="FNanchor_139" href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">139</a></p>

<p>With this one exception, where a mighty
force executes the task, the power of circulating
money seems in all cases to have dissolved
the feudal state.</p>

<p>The cost of the revolution fell on peasants
and cities. When peace is made, the crown
and the petty nobles mutually sacrifice the
peasantry, dividing them, so to say, into two
ideal halves; the crown grants to the nobility
the major part of the peasants’ common lands,
and the greatest part of their working powers
that are not yet expropriated; the nobility<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_252">252</a></span>
concedes to the crown the right of recruiting
and of taxing both peasantry and cities. The
peasant, who had grown wealthy in freedom,
sinks back into poverty and therefore into
social inferiority. The former feudal powers
now unite as allies to subjugate the cities, except
where, as in Upper Italy, these become
feudal central powers themselves. (And even
in that case they for the most part all fall into
the power of captains of mercenaries, condottieri.)
The power of attack of the adversaries
has become stronger, the power of
the cities has diminished. For with the decay
of the peasantry, their purchase power diminishes
and with it the prosperity of the
cities, based thereon. The small cities in the
country stagnate and become poorer, and being
now incapable of defense, fall a prey to the
absolutist rule of the territorial princes; the
larger cities, where the demand for the luxuries
of the nobles has brought into being a strong
trading element, split up into social groups and
thus fritter away their political strength.
The immigration now pouring into their walls<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_253">253</a></span>
is composed of discharged and broken mercenaries,
dispossessed peasants, pauperized mechanics
from the smaller towns; it is in other
words a <em>proletarian</em> immigration. For the
first time there appears, in the terminology of
Karl Marx, the “free laborer,” in masses, competing
with his own class in the labor markets
of the cities. And again, the “law of agglomeration”
enters to form effective class and
property distinctions, and thus to tear apart
the civic population. Wild fights take place
in the cities between the classes; through which
the territorial prince, in nearly every instance,
again succeeds in gaining control. The only
cities that can permanently escape the deadly
embrace of the prince’s power are the few genuine
“maritime states,” or “city states.”</p>

<p>As in the case of the maritime states, the
pivot of the state’s life has again shifted over to
another place. Instead of circling about wealth
vested in landed estates, it now turns about
capitalized wealth, because in the meantime
property in real estate has itself become “capital.”
<em>Why is it that the development does<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_254">254</a></span>
not, as in the case of the maritime states, open
out into the capitalistic expropriation of slave
labor?</em></p>

<p>There are two controlling reasons, one internal,
the other external. The external reason
is to be found in this, that slave hunting on
a profitable scale is scarcely possible at this
time in any part of the world, since nearly all
countries within reach are also organized as
strong states. Wherever it is possible, as for
instance, in the American colonies of the West
European powers, it develops at once.</p>

<p>The external reason may be found in the circumstance
that the peasant of the interior
countries, in contrast to the conditions prevailing
in the maritime states, is subject, not to one
master, but to at least two<a id="FNanchor_V" href="#Footnote_V" class="fnanchor">V</a> persons entitled
to his service, his prince and his landlord.
Both resist any attempt to diminish their peasants’
capacity for service, since this is essential
to their interests. Especially strong princes
did much for their peasants, e. g., those of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_255">255</a></span>
Brandenburg-Prussia. For this reason, the
peasants, although exploited miserably, yet retained
their personal liberty and their standing
as subjects endowed with personal rights
in all states where the feudal system had been
fully developed when the system of payments
in money replaced that of payments in kind.</p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_V" href="#FNanchor_V" class="fnanchor">V</a> In mediæval Germany the peasants pay tribute in many
cases not only to the landlord and to the territorial prince, but
also to the provost and to the bailiff.</p></div>

<p>The evidence that this explanation is correct
may be found in the relations of those states
which were gripped by the system of exchange
in money, before the feudal system had become
worked out.</p>

<p>This applies especially to those districts of
Germany formerly occupied by Slavs, but
particularly to <em>Poland</em>. In these districts, the
feudal system had not yet been worked out as
thoroughly as in the regions where the demand
for grain products in the great western industrial
centers had changed the nobles, the
subjects of public law, into the owners of a
<i xml:lang="de" lang="de">Rittergut</i>,<a id="FNanchor_W" href="#Footnote_W" class="fnanchor">W</a> the subjects of private economic interests.
In these districts, the peasants were
subject to the duty of rendering service only to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_256">256</a></span>
<em>one</em> master, who was both their liege lord and
landlord; and because of that, there came into
being the republics of nobles mentioned above,
which, as far as the pressure of their more progressed
neighbors would permit, tended to approach
the capitalistic system of exploiting of
slave labor.<a id="FNanchor_140" href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">140</a></p>

<div class="footnote inline">

<p><a id="Footnote_W" href="#FNanchor_W" class="fnanchor">W</a> See <a href="#Footnote_F">foot-note</a> on page 84.</p></div>

<p>The following is so well known that it can
be stated briefly. The system of exchange by
means of money matures into capitalism, and
brings into being new classes in juxtaposition
to the landowners; the capitalist demands
equal rights with the formerly privileged
orders, and finally obtains them by revolutionizing
the lower plebs. In this attack on the
sacredly established order of things, the capitalists
unite with the lower classes, naturally
under the banner of “natural law.” But as
soon as the victory has been achieved, the class
based on movable wealth, the so-called middle
class, turns its arms on the lower classes, makes
peace with its former opponents, and invokes in
its reactionary fight on the proletarians, its late
allies, the theory of legitimacy, or makes use<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_257">257</a></span>
of an evil mixture of arguments based partly
on legitimacy and partly on pseudo-liberalism.</p>

<p>In this manner the state has gradually matured
from the primitive robber state, through
the stages of the developed feudal state,
through absolutism, to the modern constitutional
state.</p>


<h3 id="h257">(d) <span class="smcap smaller">THE MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL STATE</span></h3>

<p>Let us give the mechanics and kinetics of
the modern state a moment’s time.</p>

<p>In principle, it is the same entity as the
primitive robber state or the developed feudal
state. There has been added, however, one
new element&mdash;<em>officialdom</em>, which at least will
have this object, that in the contest of the various
classes, it will represent the common interests
of the state as a whole. In how far this
purpose is subserved we shall investigate in another
place. Let us at this time study the state
in respect to those characteristics which it has
brought over from its youthful stages.</p>

<p>Its <em>form</em> still continues to be domination, its
content still remains the exploitation of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_258">258</a></span>
economic means. The latter continues to be
limited by public law, which on the one hand
protects the traditional “distribution” of the
total products of the nation; while on the other
it attempts to maintain at their full efficiency
the taxpayers and those bound to render service.
The internal policy of the state continues
to revolve in the path prescribed for it by the
parallelogram of the centrifugal force of class
contests and the centripetal impulse of the common
interests in the state; and its foreign policy
continues to be determined by the interests
of the master class, now comprising besides the
landed also the moneyed interests.</p>

<p>In principle, there are now, as before, only
two classes to be distinguished: one a ruling
class, which acquires more of the total product
of the labor of the people&mdash;the economic means&mdash;than
it has contributed, and a subject class,
which obtains less of the resultant wealth than
it has contributed. Each of these classes, in
turn, depending on the degree of economic development,
is divided into more or fewer sub-classes
or strata, which grade of according to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_259">259</a></span>
the fortune or misfortune of their economic
standards.</p>

<p>Among highly developed states there is
found introduced between the two principal
classes a transitional class, which also may be
subdivided into various strata. Its members
are bound to render service to the upper class,
while they are entitled to receive service from
the classes below them. To illustrate with an
example, we find in the ruling class in modern
Germany at least three strata. First come
the great landed magnates, who at the same
time are the principal shareholders in the
larger industrial undertakings and mining companies:
next stand the captains of industry
and the “bankocrats,” who also in many cases
have become owners of great estates. In consequence
of this they quickly amalgamate with
the first layer. Such, for example, are the
Princes Fugger, who were formerly bankers of
Augsburg, and the Counts of Donnersmarck,
owners of extensive mines in Silesia. And
finally there are the petty country nobles, whom
we shall hereafter term <i xml:lang="de" lang="de">junker</i> or “squires.”<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_260">260</a></span>
The subject class, at all events, consists of petty
peasants, agricultural laborers, factory and
mine hands, with small artisans and subordinate
officials. The “middle classes” are the
classes of the transition: composed of the
owners of large and medium-sized farms, the
small manufacturers, and the best paid mechanics,
besides those rich “bourgeois,” such as
Jews, who have not become rich enough to overcome
certain traditional difficulties which oppose
their arrival at the stage of intermarriage
with the upper class. All these render unrequited
service to the upper class, and receive
unrequited service from the lower classes.
This determines the result which occurs either
to the stratum as a whole or to the individuals
in it; that is to say, either a complete acceptance
into the upper class, or an absolute sinking
into the lower class. Of the (German)
transitional classes, the large farmers and the
manufacturers of average wealth have risen,
while the majority of artisans have descended
to the lower classes. We have thus arrived at
the kinetics of classes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_261">261</a></span></p>

<p>The interests of every class set in motion an
actual body of associated forces, which impel
it with a definite momentum toward the attainment
of a definite goal. All classes whatever
have the same goal; viz., the total result of the
productive labor of all the denizens of a given
state. Every class attempts to obtain as large
a share as possible of the national production;
and since all strive for identically the same object,
the <em>class contest</em> results. This contest of
classes is the content of all history of states,
except in so far as the interest of the state as
a whole produces common actions. These we
may at this point disregard, since they have
been given undue prominence by the traditional
method of historical study, and lead to one-sided
views. Historically this class contest is
shown to be a <em>party fight</em>. A party is originally
and in its essence nothing save an organized
representation of a class. Wherever
a class, by reason of social differentiation, has
split up into numerous sub-classes with varied
separate interests, the party claiming to represent
it disintegrates at the earliest opportunity<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_262">262</a></span>
into a mass of tiny parties, and these will either
be allies or mortal enemies according to the degree
of divergence of the class interests.
Where on the other hand a former class contrast
has disappeared by social differentiation,
the two former parties amalgamate in a short
time into a new party. As an example of the
first case we may recall the splitting off of the
artisans and Anti-Semite parties from the
party of German Liberalism, as a consequence
of the fact that the first represented descending
groups, while the latter represented ascending
ones. A characteristic example of the
second category may be found in the political
amalgamation which bound together into the
farmers’ union the petty landed squires of the
East Elbian country with West Elbian rich
peasants on large plantations. Since the petty
squire sinks and the farmer rises, they meet
half-way. All party policy can have but one
meaning, viz., to procure for the class represented
as great a share as is possible of the total
national production. In other words, the preferred<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_263">263</a></span>
classes intend to maintain their share, at
the very least, at the ancient scale, and if possible,
to increase it toward such a maximum
as shall permit the exploited classes just a bare
existence, to keep them fit to do their work,
just as in the bee-keeper stages. Their object
is to confiscate the entire surplus product of the
economic means, a surplus which increases
enormously as population becomes more dense
and division of labor more specialized. On the
other hand, the group of exploited classes
would like to reduce their tribute to the zero-point,
and to consume the entire product themselves;
and the transitional classes work as much
as possible toward the reduction of their tribute
to the upper classes, while at the same time they
strive to increase their unrequited income from
the classes underneath.</p>

<p>This is the aim and the content of all party
contests. The ruling class conducts this fight
with all those means which its acquired dominion
has handed down to it. In consequence
of this, the ruling class sees to it that<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_264">264</a></span>
legislation is framed in its interest and to serve
its purpose&mdash;class legislation. These laws are
then applied in such wise that the blunted back
of the sword of justice is turned upward, while
its sharpened edge is turned downward&mdash;class
justice. The governing class in every state
uses the administration of the state in the interest
of those belonging to it under a twofold
aspect. In the first place it reserves to its
adherents all prominent places and all offices
of influence and of profit, in the army, in the
superior branches of government service, and
in places on the bench; and secondly, by these
very agencies, it directs the entire policy of the
state, causes its class-politics to bring about
commercial wars, colonial policies, protective
tariffs, legislation in some degree improving
the conditions of the laboring classes, electoral
reform policies, etc. As long as the nobles
ruled the state, they exploited it as they would
have managed an estate; when the bourgeoisie
obtain the mastery, the state is exploited as
though it were a factory. And the class-religion
covers all defects, as long as they can be<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_265">265</a></span>
endured, with its “don’t touch the foundation
of society.”</p>

<p>There still exist in the public law a number
of political privileges and economic strategic
positions, which favor the master class: such as,
in Prussia, a system of voting which gives the
plutocrats an undue advantage over the less
favored classes, a limitation of the constitutional
rights of free assembly, regulations for
servants, etc. For that reason, the <em>constitutional
fight</em>, carried on over thousands of years
and dominating the life of the state, is still uncompleted.
The fight for improved conditions
of life, another phase of the party and class
struggle, usually takes place in the halls of
legislative bodies, but often it is carried on by
means of demonstrations in the streets, by general
strikes, or by open outbreaks.</p>

<p>But the plebs have finally and definitely
learned that these remnants of feudal strategic
centers, do not, except in belated instances,
constitute the final stronghold of their opponents.
It is not in political, but rather in
economic conditions that the cause must be<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_266">266</a></span>
sought, which has brought it about that even in
the modern constitutional state, the “distribution
of wealth” has not been changed in principle.
Just as in feudal times, the great mass of
men live in bitter poverty; even under the
best conditions, they have the meager necessities
of life, earned by hard, crushing, stupefying
forced labor, no longer exacted by right
of political exploitation, but just as effectively
forced from the laborers by their economic
needs. And just as before in the un-reformed
days, the narrow minority, a new master class,
a conglomerate of holders of ancient privileges
and of newly rich, gathers in the tribute, now
grown to immensity; and not only does not
render any service therefor, but flaunts its
wealth in the face of labor by riotous living.
The class contest henceforth is devoted more
and more to these economic causes, based on
vicious systems of distribution; and it takes
shape in a hand-to-hand fight between exploiters
and proletariat, carried on by strikes,
coöperative societies and trades unions. The
economic organization first forces recognition,
and then equal rights; then it leads and finally<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_267">267</a></span>
controls the political destinies of the labor
party. In the end therefore the trade union
controls the party. Thus far the development
of the state has progressed in Great Britain
and in the United States.</p>

<p>Were it not that there has been added to the
modern state an entirely new element, its
<em>officialdom</em>, the constitutional state, though
more finely differentiated and more powerfully
integrated, would, so far as form and
content go, be little different from its prototypes.</p>

<p>As a matter of principle, the state officials,
paid from the funds of the state, are removed
from the economic fights of conflicting interests;
and therefore it is rightly considered unbecoming
for any one in the service of the
government to be taking part in any money
making undertaking, and in no well ordered
bureaucracy is it tolerated. Were it possible
ever thoroughly to realize the principle, and
did not every official, even the best of them,
bring with him that concept of the state held by
the class from which he originated, one would
find in officialdom, as a matter of fact, that<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_268">268</a></span>
moderating and order making force, removed
from the conflict of class interests, whereby the
state might be led toward its new goal. It
would become the fulcrum of Archimedes
whence the world of the state might be moved.</p>

<p>But the principle, we are sorry to say, can
not be carried out completely; and furthermore,
the officials do not cease being real men,
do not become mere abstractions without class consciousness.
This may be quite apart from
the fact that, in Europe at least, a participation
in a definite form of undertakings&mdash;viz.,
handling large landed estates&mdash;is regarded as
a favorable means of getting on in the service
of the state, and will continue to be so as long
as the landed nobility preponderates. In consequence
of this, many officials on the Continent,
and one may even say the most influential
officials, are subject to pressure by
enormous economic interests; and are unconsciously,
and often against their will, brought
into the class contests.</p>

<p>There are factors, such as extra allowances
made by either fathers or fathers-in-law, or<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_269">269</a></span>
hereditary estates, and affinity to the persons
in control of the landed and moneyed interest
or allied with them, whereby the solidarity of
interest among the ruling class is if anything
increased from the fact that these officials,
practically without exception, are taken from
a class with whom since their boyhood days
they have been on terms of intimacy. Were
there, however, no such unity of economic interests
the demeanor of the officials would be
influenced entirely by the pure interests of the
state.</p>

<p>For this reason, as a rule, the most efficient,
most objective and most impartial set of
officials is found in poor states. Prussia, for
example, was formerly indebted to its poverty
for that incomparable body of officials who
handled it through all its troubles. These employees
of the state were actually, in consonance
with the rule laid down above, dissociated
completely from all interests in money making,
directly or indirectly.</p>

<p>This ideal body of officials is a rare occurrence
in the more wealthy states. The plutocratic<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_270">270</a></span>
development draws the individual more
and more into its vortex, robbing him of his objectivity
and of his impartiality. And yet the
officials continue to fulfil the duty which the
modern state requires of them, to preserve the
interests of the state as opposed to the interests
of any class. And this interest is preserved
by them, even though against their will,
or at least without clear consciousness of the
fact, in such manner that the economic means,
which called the bureaucracy into being, is in
the end advanced on its tedious path of victory,
as against the political means. No one
doubts that the officials carry on class politics,
prescribed for them by the constellation of
forces operating in the state; and to that extent,
they certainly do represent the master
class from which they sprang. But they do
ameliorate the bitterness of the struggle, by opposing
the extremists in either camp, and by
advocating amendments to existing law, when
the social development has become ripened for
their enactment, without waiting until the contest
over these has become acute. Where an<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_271">271</a></span>
efficient race of princes governs, whose momentary
representative adopts the policy of
King Frederick, which was to regard himself
only as “the first servant of the state,” what has
been said above applies to him in an increased
degree, all the more so as his interests, as the
permanent beneficiary of the continued existence
of the state, would before all else prompt
him to strengthen the centripetal forces and to
weaken the centrifugal powers. In the course
of the preceding we have in many instances
noted the natural solidarity between prince
and people, as an historic force of great value.
In the completed constitutional state, in which
the monarch in but an infinitesimally small degree
is a subject of private economic interests,
he tends to be almost completely “an official.”
This community of interests is emphasized here
much more strongly than in either the feudal
state or the despotically governed state, where
the dominion, at least for one-half its extent, is
based on the private economic interests of the
prince.</p>

<p>Even in a constitutional state, the outer form<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_272">272</a></span>
of government is not the decisive factor; the
fight of the classes is carried on and leads to
the same result in a republic as in a monarchy.
In spite of this, it must be admitted that there
is more probability, that, other things being
equal, the curve of development of the state in
a monarchy will be more sweeping, with less
secondary incurvity, because the prince is less
affected by momentary losses of popularity, is
not so sensitive to momentary gusts of disapproval,
as is a president elected for a short
term of years, and he can therefore shape his
policies for longer periods of time.</p>

<p>We must not fail to mention a special form
of officialdom, the scientific staffs of the universities,
whose influence on the upward development
of the state must not be underestimated.
Not only is this a creation of the
economic means, as were the officials themselves,
but it at the same time represents an
historical force, <em>the need of causality</em>, which
we found heretofore only as an ally of the conquering
state. We saw that this need created
superstition while the state was on a primitive<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_273">273</a></span>
stage; its bastard, the taboo, we found in all
cases to be an effective means of control by
the master class. From these same needs then,
<em>science</em> was developed, attacking and destroying
superstition, and thereby assisting in
preparation of the path of evolution. That is
the incalculable historical service of science and
especially of the universities.</p>
</div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_274">274</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter">
<h2 id="h274" class="vspace"><a id="CHAPTER_VII"></a>CHAPTER VII<br />

<span class="subhead">THE TENDENCY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE</span></h2>


<p>We have endeavored to discover the development
of the state from its most remote
past up to present times, following its course
like an explorer, from its source down the
streams to its effluence in the plains. Broad
and powerfully its waves roll by, until it disappears
into the mist of the horizon, into unexplored
and, for the present-day observer, undiscoverable
regions.</p>

<p>Just as broadly and powerfully the stream of
history&mdash;and until the present day all history
has been the history of states&mdash;rolls past our
view, and the course thereof is covered by the
blanketing fogs of the future. Shall we dare
to set up hypotheses concerning the future
course, until “with unrestrained joy he sinks
into the arms of his waiting, expectant father”?<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_275">275</a></span>
(Goethe’s <cite>Prometheus</cite>.) Is it possible to establish
a scientifically founded prognosis in
regard to the future development of the state?</p>

<p>I believe in this possibility. The tendency<a id="FNanchor_141" href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">141</a>
of state development unmistakably
leads to one point: seen in its essentials the
state will cease to be the “developed political
means” and will become “a freemen’s citizenship.”
In other words, its outer shell will
remain in essentials the form which was developed
in the constitutional state, under which
the administration will be carried on by an
officialdom. But the content of the states heretofore
known will have changed its vital element
by the disappearance of the economic exploitation
of one class by another. And since
the state will, by this, come to be without either
classes or class interests, the bureaucracy of
the future will truly have attained that ideal
of the impartial guardian of the common interests,
which nowadays it laboriously attempts
to reach. The “state” of the future
will be “society” guided by self-government.</p>

<p>Libraries full of books have been written<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_276">276</a></span>
on the delimitation of the concepts “state” and
“society.” The problem, however, from our
point of view has an easy solution. The
“state” is the fully developed political means,
society the fully developed economic means.
Heretofore state and society were indissolubly
intertwined: in the “freemen’s citizenship,”
there will be no “state” but only “society.”</p>

<p>This prognosis of the future development of
the state contains by inclusion all of those famous
formulæ, whereby, the great philosophical
historians have endeavored to determine the
“resulting value” of universal history. It contains
the “progress from warlike activity to
peaceful labor” of St. Simon, as well as
Hegel’s “development from slavery to freedom”;
the “evolution of humanity” of Herder,
as well as “the penetration of reason through
nature” of Schleiermacher.</p>

<p>Our times have lost the glad optimism of the
classical and of the humanist writers; sociologic
pessimism rules the spirit of these latter days.
The prognosis here stated can not as yet claim
to have many adherents. Not only do the persons<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_277">277</a></span>
obtaining the profits of dominion, thanks
to their obsession by their class spirit, regard
it as an incredible concept; those belonging to
the subjugated class as well regard it with the
utmost skepticism. It is true that the proletarian
theory, as a matter of principle, predicts
identically the same result. But the adherents
of that theory do not believe it possible
by the path of evolution but only through revolution.
It is then thought of as a picture of a
“society” varying in all respects from that
evolved by the progress of history; in other
words, as an organization of the economic
means, as a system of economics without competition
and market, as collectivism. The anarchistic
theory makes form and content of the
“state” as inseparable as heads and tails of the
coin; no “government” without exploitation!
It would therefore smash both the form and
the content of the state, and thus bring on a
condition of anarchy, even if thereby all the
economic advantages of a division of labor
should have to be sacrificed. Even so great
a thinker as the late Ludwig Gumplowicz, who<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_278">278</a></span>
first laid the foundation on which the present
theory of the state has been developed, is a
sociological pessimist; and from the same reasons
as are the anarchists, whom he combated
so violently. He too regards as eternally inseparable
form and content, government and
class-exploitation; since he however, and I
think correctly, does not consider it possible
that many people may live together without
some coercive force vested in some government,
he declares the class-state to be an “immanent”
and not only an historical category.</p>

<p>Only a small fraction of social liberals, or of
liberal socialists, believe in the evolution of a
society without class dominion and class exploitation
which shall guarantee to the individual,
besides political, also economic liberty
of movement, within of course the limitations
of the economic means. That was the <em>credo</em>
of the old social liberalism, of pre-Manchester
days, enunciated by Quesnay and especially
by Adam Smith, and again taken up in modern
times by Henry George and Theodore
Hertzka.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_279">279</a></span></p>

<p>This prognosis may be substantiated in two
ways, one through history and philosophy, the
other by political economy, as a tendency of the
development of the state, and as a tendency of
the evolution of economics, both clearly tending
toward <em>one</em> point.</p>

<p>The tendency of the <em>development of the
state</em> was shown in the preceding as a steady
and victorious combat of economic means
against political means. We saw that, in the
beginning, the right to the economic means,
the right to equality and to peace, was restricted
to the tiny circle of the horde
bound together by ties of blood, an endowment
from pre-human conditions of society;<a id="FNanchor_142" href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">142</a>
while without the limits of this isle of
peace raged the typhoon of the political means.
But we saw expanding more and more the circles
from which the laws of peace crowded out
their adversary, and everywhere we saw their
advance connected with the advance of the
economic means, of the barter of groups for
equivalents, amongst one another. The first
exchange may have been the exchange of fire,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_280">280</a></span>
then the barter of women, and finally the exchange
of goods, the domain of peace constantly
extending its borders. It protected the
market places, then the streets leading to them,
and finally it protected the merchants traveling
on these streets.</p>

<p>In the course of this discussion it was shown
how the “state” absorbed and developed these
organizations making for peace, and how in
consequence these drive back ever further right
based on mere might. Merchants’ law becomes
city law; the industrial city, the developed
economic means, undermines the feudal
state, the developed political means; and
finally the civic population, in open fight, annihilates
the political remnants of the feudal
state, and re-conquers for the entire population
of the state freedom and right to equality,
<em>urban</em> law becomes public law and finally international
law.</p>

<p>Furthermore, on no horizon can be seen any
force now capable of resisting effectively this
heretofore efficient tendency. On the contrary,
the interference of the past, which temporarily<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_281">281</a></span>
blocked the process, is obviously
becoming weaker and weaker. The international
relations of commerce and trade acquired
among the nations a preponderating importance
over the diminishing warlike and political
relations; and in the intra-national sphere,
by reason of the same process of economic development,
movable capital, the creation of the
right to peace, preponderates in ever increasing
measure over landed property rights, the creation
of the right of war. At the same time
superstition more and more loses its influence.
And therefore one is justified in concluding
that the tendency so marked will work out to
its logical end, excluding the political means
and all its works, until the complete victory of
the economic means is attained.</p>

<p>But it may be objected that in the modern
constitutional state all the more prominent
remnants of the antique law of war have already
been chiseled out.</p>

<p>On the contrary, there survives a considerable
remnant of these institutions, masked it is
true in economic garb, and apparently no<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_282">282</a></span>
longer a legal privilege but only economic
right, <em>the ownership of large estates&mdash;the first
creation and the last stronghold of the political
means</em>. Its mask has preserved it from undergoing
the fate of all other feudal creations.
And yet this last remnant of the right of war
is doubtless the last unique obstacle in the pathway
of humanity; and doubtless the <em>development
of economics</em> is on its way to destroy it.</p>

<p>To substantiate these remarks I must refer
the reader to other books, wherein I have given
the detailed evidence of the above and can not
in the space allotted here repeat it at large.<a id="FNanchor_143" href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">143</a>
I can only re-state the principal points made
in these books.</p>

<p>There is no difference in principle between
the distribution of the total products of the
economic means among the separate classes of
a constitutional state, the so-called “capitalistic
distribution,” from that prevailing in the feudal
state.</p>

<p>All the more important economic schools
coincide in finding the cause in this, that the
supply of “free” laborers (i. e., according to<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_283">283</a></span>
Karl Marx politically free and economically
without capital) perpetually exceeds the demand,
and that hence there exists “the social
relation of capital.” There “are constantly
two laborers running after one master for
work, and lowering, for one another, the
wages”; and therefore the “surplus value” remains
with the capitalist class, while the laborer
never gets a chance to form capital for himself
and to become an employer.</p>

<p>Whence comes this surplus supply of free
laborers?</p>

<p>The explanation of the “bourgeois” theory,
according to which this surplus supply is
caused by the overproduction of children by
proletarian parents, is based on a logical
fallacy, and is contradicted by all known
facts?<a id="FNanchor_144" href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">144</a></p>

<p>The explanation of the proletarian theory
according to which the capitalistic process of
production itself produces the “free laborers,”
by setting up again and again new labor-saving
machines, is also based on a logical fallacy and
is likewise contradicted by all known facts.<a id="FNanchor_145" href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">145</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_284">284</a></span></p>

<p>The evidence of all facts shows rather, and
the conclusion may be deduced without fear of
contradiction, <em>that the oversupply of “free laborers”
is descended from the right of holding
landed property in large estates</em>; and that emigration
into towns and oversea from these
landed properties are the causes of the capitalistic
distribution.</p>

<p>Doubtless there is a growing tendency in
economic development whereby the ruin of vast
landed estates will be accomplished. The system
is their bleeding to death, without hope of
salvation, caused by the freedom of the former
serfs&mdash;the necessary consequence of the development
of the cities. As soon as the peasants
had obtained the right of moving about
without their landlords’ passport (German
<i xml:lang="de" lang="de">Freizuegigkeit</i>), there developed the chance
of escape from the countries which formerly
oppressed them. The system of emigration
created “the competition from oversea,” together
with the fall, on the Continent, of prices
for farm products, and made necessary perpetually
rising wages. By these two factors<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_285">285</a></span>
ground rent is reduced from two sides, and
must gradually sink to the zero point, since
here too no counterforce is to be recognized
whereby the process might be diverted.<a id="FNanchor_146" href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">146</a>
Thus the system of vast territorial estates falls
apart. When, however, it has disappeared,
there can be no oversupply of “free laborers.”
On the contrary “two masters will run after
one laborer and must raise the price on themselves.”
There will be no “surplus value” for
the capitalist class, because the laborer himself
can form capital and himself become an employer.
By this the last remaining vestige of
the political means will have been destroyed,
and economic means alone will exercise sway.
The <em>content</em> of such a society is the “pure economics”<a id="FNanchor_147" href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">147</a>
of the equivalent exchange of commodities
against commodities, or of labor force
against commodities, and the political <em>form</em> of
this society will be the “freemen’s citizenship.”</p>

<p>This theoretical deduction is moreover confirmed
by the <em>experience of history</em>. Wherever
there existed a society in which vast estates
did not exist to draw an increasing rental,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_286">286</a></span>
there “pure economics” existed, and society
approximated the form of the state to that of
the “freemen’s citizenship.”</p>

<p>Such a community was found in the Germany
of the four centuries<a id="FNanchor_148" href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">148</a> from about A.&nbsp;D.
1000, when the primitive system of vast estates
was developed into the socially harmless dominion
over vast territories, until about the
year 1400, when the newly arisen great properties,
created by the political means, the robber
wars in the countries formerly Slavic, shut
the settlers from the westward out of lands
eastward of the Elbe.<a id="FNanchor_149" href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">149</a> Such a community
was the Mormon state of Utah, which has not
been greatly changed in this respect, where a
wise land legislation permitted only small and
moderate sized farm holdings.<a id="FNanchor_150" href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">150</a> Such a community
was to be found in the city and county
of Vineland, Iowa, U.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;A.,<a id="FNanchor_151" href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">151</a> as long as every
settler could obtain land, without increment of
rent. Such a commonwealth is, beyond all
others, New Zealand, whose government favors
with all its power the possession of small and
middle-sized holdings of land, while at the same<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_287">287</a></span>
time it narrows and dissolves, by all means at
its command the great landed properties, which
by the way, owing to lack of surplus laborers,
are almost incapable of producing rentals.<a id="FNanchor_152" href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">152</a></p>

<p>In all these cases there is an astoundingly
equalized well-being, not perhaps mechanically
equal; but there is no wealth. <em>Because well-being
is the control over articles of consumption,
while wealth is the dominion over
mankind.</em> In no such cases are the means of
production, “capital,” “producing any surplus
values”; there are no “free laborers” and no
capitalism, and the political form of these communities
approximates very closely to a “freemen’s
citizenship,” and tends to approximate
it more and more, so far as the pressure of
the surrounding states, organized from and
based on the laws of war, permit its development.
The “state” decomposes, or else in
new countries such as Utah or New Zealand,
it returns to a rudimentary stage of development;
while the free self-determination of
free men, scarcely acquainted with a class fight
constantly tends to pierce through ever more<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_288">288</a></span>
thoroughly. Thus in the German Empire
there was a parallel development between the
political rise of the unions of the imperial free
cities, the decline of the feudal states, the
emancipation of the crafts, then still comprising
the entire “plebs” of the cities, and
the decay of the patrician control of the city
government. This beneficent development
was stopped by the erection of new primitive
feudal states on the easterly border of the
former German Empire, and thus the economic
blossom of German culture was ruined. Whoever
believes in a conscious purpose in history
may say that the human race was again required
to pass through another school of suffering
before it could be redeemed. The
Middle Ages had discovered the system of free
labor, but had not developed it to its full capacity
or efficiency. It was reserved for the
new slavery of capitalism to discover and develop
the incomparably more efficient system of
coöperating labor, the division of labor in the
workshops, in order to crown man as the ruler
of natural forces, as king of the planet.<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_289">289</a></span>
Slavery of antiquity and of modern capitalism
was once necessary; now it has become superfluous.
According to the story, every free
citizen of Athens disposed of five human
slaves; but we have supplied to our fellow citizens
of modern society a vast mass of enslaved
power, slaves of steel, that do not suffer in creating
values. Since then we have ripened
toward a civilization as much higher than the
civilization of the time of Pericles, as the population,
power and riches of the modern communities
exceeds those of the tiny state of
Athens.</p>

<p>Athens was doomed to dissolution&mdash;by reason
of slavery as an economic institution, by
reason of the political means. Having once
entered that pathway, there was no outlet except
death to the population. Our path will
lead to life.</p>

<p>The same conclusion is found by either the
historical-philosophical view, which took into
account the tendency of the <em>development of the
state</em>, or the study of political economy, which
regards the tendency of <em>economic development</em>;<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_290">290</a></span>
viz., that the economic means wins along
the whole line, while the political means disappears
from the life of society, in that one of
its creations, which is most ancient and most
tenacious of life; capitalism decays with large
landed estates and ground rentals.</p>

<p>This has been the path of suffering and of
salvation of humanity, its Golgotha and its
resurrection into an eternal kingdom&mdash;from
war to peace, from the hostile splitting up of
the hordes to the peaceful unity of mankind,
from brutality to humanity, from the exploiting
State of robbery to the Freemen’s Citizenship.</p>
</div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_293">293</a></span></p>


<div class="chapter">
<div class="footnotes">
<h2 id="h293" class="nobreak p2"><a id="NOTES"></a>NOTES</h2>


<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="fnanchor">1</a> “History is unable to demonstrate any one people,
wherein the first traces of division of labor and of agriculture
do not coincide with such agricultural exploitations,
wherein the efforts of labor were not apportioned
to one and the fruits of labor were not appropriated by
some one else, wherein, in other words, the division of
labor had not developed itself as the subjection of one
set under the others.”&mdash;Robertus-Jagetzow, <cite>Illumination
on the social question</cite>, second edition. Berlin, 1890, p.
124. (Cf. <em>Immigration and Labor. The economic
aspects of European Immigration to the United States</em>,
by Dr. Isaac A. Hourwich. Putnam’s, N.&nbsp;Y., 1912.&mdash;<i>Translator.</i>)</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="fnanchor">2</a> Achelis, <cite>Die Ekstase in ihrer kulturellen Bedeutung</cite>,
vol. 1 of <cite>Kulturprobleme der Gegenwart</cite>, Berlin,
1902.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="fnanchor">3</a> Grosse, <cite>Formen der Familie</cite>. Freiburg and Leipzig,
1896, p. 39.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="fnanchor">4</a> Ratzel, <cite>Völkerkunde</cite>. Second Edition. Leipzig
and Wien, 1894&ndash;5, II, p. 372.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="fnanchor">5</a> <cite>Die Soziale Verfassung des Inkareichs.</cite> Stuttgart,
1896, p. 51.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="fnanchor">6</a> <cite>Siedlung und Agrarwesen der Westgermanen, etc.</cite>
Berlin, 1895, I, p. 273.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="fnanchor">7</a> l. c. I, p. 138.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="fnanchor">8</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 702.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_294">294</a></span></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="fnanchor">9</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 555.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="fnanchor">10</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 555.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="fnanchor">11</a> For example with the Ovambo according to Ratzel,
l. c. II, p. 214, who in part “seem to be found in slavelike
status,” and according to Laveleye among the ancient
Irish (<cite>Fuidhirs</cite>).</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="fnanchor">12</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 648.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="fnanchor">13</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 99.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="fnanchor">14</a> Lippert, <cite>Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit</cite>. Stuttgart,
1886, II, p. 302.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="fnanchor">15</a> Lippert, l. c. II, p. 522.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="fnanchor">16</a> <cite>Römische Geschichte.</cite> Sixth Edition. Berlin,
1874, I, p. 17.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="fnanchor">17</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 518.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="fnanchor">18</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 425.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="fnanchor">19</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 545.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="fnanchor">20</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 390&ndash;1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="fnanchor">21</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 390&ndash;1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="fnanchor">22</a> Lippert, l. c. I, p. 471.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="fnanchor">23</a> Kulischer, “The history of the development of interest
from capital.” <cite>Jahrbücher für National Œkonomie.</cite>
III series, vol. 18, p. 318, Jena, 1899: (Says
Strabo: “Plunderers and from the scant supplies of
their native land covetous of the lands of others.”)</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="fnanchor">24</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 123.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="fnanchor">25</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 591.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="fnanchor">26</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 370.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="fnanchor">27</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 390&ndash;1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="fnanchor">28</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 388&ndash;9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="fnanchor">29</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 103&ndash;04.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="fnanchor">30</a> Thurnwald, <cite>Staat und Wirtschaft im altem
Ægypten. Zeitschrift für Soz. Wissenchaft</cite>, vol. 4
1901, pp. 700&ndash;01.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_295">295</a></span></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="fnanchor">31</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 404&ndash;05. (Gumplowicz, <cite>Rassenkampf</cite>,
p. 264: “Egypt, rich and self-sufficient,
says Ranke, invited the avarice of neighboring tribes,
who served other gods. Under the name of the Shepherd
peoples, foreign dynasts and foreign tribes ruled
Egypt for centuries.
</p>
<p>
“Truly, the summary of universal history could not
be begun with more characteristic words than those of
Ranke. For in the words applied to Egypt the quintessence
of the whole history of mankind is summed up.”&mdash;<i>Translator.</i>)</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="fnanchor">32</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 165.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="fnanchor">33</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 485.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="fnanchor">34</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 480.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="fnanchor">35</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 165.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="fnanchor">36</a> Buhl, <cite>Soziale Verhältnisse der Israeliten</cite>, p. 13.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="fnanchor">37</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 455.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="fnanchor">38</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 628.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="fnanchor">39</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 625.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="fnanchor">40</a> Cieza de Leon, “Seg. parte de la crónica del
Peru.” P. 75, cit. by Cunow, <cite>Inkareich</cite> (p. 62, note 1).</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="fnanchor">41</a> Cunow, l. c. p. 61.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="fnanchor">42</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 346.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="fnanchor">43</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 36&ndash;7.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="fnanchor">44</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 221. (Cf. remarks by Hon.
A.&nbsp;J. Sabath, M.&nbsp;C., <cite>Sociological Argument on Workman’s
Compensation Bill</cite>, p. 498, Senate Document
338, Sixty-second Congress, Second Session, Volume I.
See also <cite>Congressional Record</cite> for March 1, 1913, Sixty-second
Congress, Third Session, pp. 4503, 4529, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et
seq.</i>&mdash;<i>Translator.</i>)</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="fnanchor">45</a> “Among the Wahuma women occupy a higher position
than among the negroes, and are watched carefully
by their men. This makes mixed marriages difficult.
The mass of the Waganda even to-day would not have
remained a genuine negro tribe ‘of dark chocolate colored
skin and short wool hair’ were it not that the two peoples
are strictly opposed to one another as peasants and herdsmen,
rulers and subjects, as despised and honored, in
spite of the relations entered into among the upper
classes. In this peculiar position, they represent a
typical phenomenon, which is found repeated at many
other points.”&mdash;Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 177.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_296">296</a></span></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_46" href="#FNanchor_46" class="fnanchor">46</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 178.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_47" href="#FNanchor_47" class="fnanchor">47</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 198.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_48" href="#FNanchor_48" class="fnanchor">48</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 476.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_49" href="#FNanchor_49" class="fnanchor">49</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 453.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_50" href="#FNanchor_50" class="fnanchor">50</a> Kopp, <cite>Griechische Staatsaltertümer</cite>, 2, <cite>Aufl.</cite>
Berlin, 1893, p. 23.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_51" href="#FNanchor_51" class="fnanchor">51</a> Uhland, <cite>Alte hoch und niederdeutsche Volkslieder</cite>
I (1844), p. 339 cited by Sombart: <cite>Der moderne Kapitalismus</cite>,
Leipzig, 1902, I, pp. 384&ndash;5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_52" href="#FNanchor_52" class="fnanchor">52</a> Inama-Sternegg, <cite>Deutsche Wirtsch.-Gesch.</cite> I,
Leipzig, 1879, p. 59.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_53" href="#FNanchor_53" class="fnanchor">53</a> Westermarck, <cite>History of Human Marriage</cite>, London,
1891, p. 368.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_54" href="#FNanchor_54" class="fnanchor">54</a> Cf. Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 81.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_55" href="#FNanchor_55" class="fnanchor">55</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 156.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_56" href="#FNanchor_56" class="fnanchor">56</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, pp. 259&ndash;60.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_57" href="#FNanchor_57" class="fnanchor">57</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 434.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_58" href="#FNanchor_58" class="fnanchor">58</a> I. Kulischer, l. c., p. 317, where other examples
may be found.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_59" href="#FNanchor_59" class="fnanchor">59</a> Westermarck, <cite>History of Human Marriage</cite>, p.
400, which contains a number of ethnographical examples.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_297">297</a></span></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_60" href="#FNanchor_60" class="fnanchor">60</a> Westermarck, l. c., p. 546.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_61" href="#FNanchor_61" class="fnanchor">61</a> Cf. Ratzel, l. c. I, pp. 318, 540.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">62</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 106.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_63" href="#FNanchor_63" class="fnanchor">63</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 335.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_64" href="#FNanchor_64" class="fnanchor">64</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 346.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_65" href="#FNanchor_65" class="fnanchor">65</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 347.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_66" href="#FNanchor_66" class="fnanchor">66</a> Buecher, <cite>Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft</cite>, Second
Edition, Tübingen, 1898, p. 301.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">67</a> Cf., Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 271, speaking of the
islanders of the Pacific Ocean: “Intercourse from tribe
to tribe is carried on by inviolable heralds, preferably old
women. These act also as intermediary agents in
trades.” See also page 317 for the same practises among
the Australians.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_68" href="#FNanchor_68" class="fnanchor">68</a> German Translation by L. Katscher. Leipzig,
1907.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_69" href="#FNanchor_69" class="fnanchor">69</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 81.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_70" href="#FNanchor_70" class="fnanchor">70</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, pp. 478&ndash;9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_71" href="#FNanchor_71" class="fnanchor">71</a> A. Vierkandt, <cite>Die wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse
der Naturvölker. Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft</cite>,
II, pp. 177&ndash;8.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_72" href="#FNanchor_72" class="fnanchor">72</a> Kulischer, l. c. pp. 320&ndash;1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_73" href="#FNanchor_73" class="fnanchor">73</a> Lippert, l. c. I, p. 266, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_74" href="#FNanchor_74" class="fnanchor">74</a> Cf. Westermarck, <cite>History of Human Marriage</cite>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">75</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 27.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_76" href="#FNanchor_76" class="fnanchor">76</a> Herodotus IV, 23, cited by Lippert, l. c. I, p.
459.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_77" href="#FNanchor_77" class="fnanchor">77</a> Lippert, l. c. II, p. 170.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_78" href="#FNanchor_78" class="fnanchor">78</a> Mommsen, l. c. I, p. 139.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_79" href="#FNanchor_79" class="fnanchor">79</a> Similar conditions may be observed among the
islanders near India. Here the Malays are vikings.
“Colonization is an important factor, as conquest and
settlement oversea ... reminding one of the great
rôle played in ancient Hellas by the roving tribes....
Every strip of coast line shows foreign elements, who
enter uncalled for and in most instances spreading damage
among the natives. The right of conquest was
granted by the rulers of Tornate to noble dynasts, who
later on became semi-sovereign viceroys on the islands of
Buru, Serang, etc.”</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_298">298</a></span></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_80" href="#FNanchor_80" class="fnanchor">80</a> Mommsen, l. c. I, p. 132.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_81" href="#FNanchor_81" class="fnanchor">81</a> Mommsen, l. c. I, p. 134.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_82" href="#FNanchor_82" class="fnanchor">82</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 160.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_83" href="#FNanchor_83" class="fnanchor">83</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 558.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_84" href="#FNanchor_84" class="fnanchor">84</a> Buhl, l. c., p. 48.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_85" href="#FNanchor_85" class="fnanchor">85</a> Buhl, l. c., pp. 78&ndash;79.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_86" href="#FNanchor_86" class="fnanchor">86</a> Mommsen, l. c. II, p. 406.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_87" href="#FNanchor_87" class="fnanchor">87</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 191; cf. also pp. 207&ndash;8.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_88" href="#FNanchor_88" class="fnanchor">88</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 363.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_89" href="#FNanchor_89" class="fnanchor">89</a> Mommsen, l. c., p. 46.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_90" href="#FNanchor_90" class="fnanchor">90</a> Both cited by Kulischer, l. c., p. 319, from:
Buechsenschuetz, <cite>Besitz und Erwerb im grieschischen
Altertum</cite>; and Goldschmidt, <cite>History of the Law of Commerce</cite>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_91" href="#FNanchor_91" class="fnanchor">91</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 263.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_92" href="#FNanchor_92" class="fnanchor">92</a> F. Oppenheimer’s <cite>Grossgrundeigentum und soziale
Frage</cite>. Book Two, Chapter I. Berlin, 1898.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_93" href="#FNanchor_93" class="fnanchor">93</a> Nomadism is exceptionally characterized by the
facility with which, from patriarchal conditions, despotic
functions are developed with most far-reaching powers.
Ratzel, l. c. Vol. II, pp. 388&ndash;9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_94" href="#FNanchor_94" class="fnanchor">94</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 408.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_299">299</a></span></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_95" href="#FNanchor_95" class="fnanchor">95</a> Cunow, l. c. pp. 66&ndash;7. Similarly among the inhabitants
of the Malay Islands numerous examples are
found in Radak (Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 267).</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_96" href="#FNanchor_96" class="fnanchor">96</a> Buhl, l. c., p. 17.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_97" href="#FNanchor_97" class="fnanchor">97</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 66.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_98" href="#FNanchor_98" class="fnanchor">98</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 118.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_99" href="#FNanchor_99" class="fnanchor">99</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 167.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_100" href="#FNanchor_100" class="fnanchor">100</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 218.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_101" href="#FNanchor_101" class="fnanchor">101</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 125.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_102" href="#FNanchor_102" class="fnanchor">102</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 124.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_103" href="#FNanchor_103" class="fnanchor">103</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 118.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_104" href="#FNanchor_104" class="fnanchor">104</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 125.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_105" href="#FNanchor_105" class="fnanchor">105</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 346.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_106" href="#FNanchor_106" class="fnanchor">106</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 245.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_107" href="#FNanchor_107" class="fnanchor">107</a> Ratzel, l. c. I. pp. 267&ndash;8.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_108" href="#FNanchor_108" class="fnanchor">108</a> Mommsen, l. c. III, pp. 234&ndash;5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_109" href="#FNanchor_109" class="fnanchor">109</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 167.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_110" href="#FNanchor_110" class="fnanchor">110</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 229.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_111" href="#FNanchor_111" class="fnanchor">111</a> Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 128.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_112" href="#FNanchor_112" class="fnanchor">112</a> Weber’s <cite>Weltgeschichte</cite>, III, p. 163.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_113" href="#FNanchor_113" class="fnanchor">113</a> Thurnwald, l. c., pp. 702&ndash;3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_114" href="#FNanchor_114" class="fnanchor">114</a> Thurnwald, l. c., p. 712; cf. Schneider, <cite>Kultur
und Denken der alten ÆEgypter</cite>, Leipzig, 1907, p. 38.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_115" href="#FNanchor_115" class="fnanchor">115</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 599.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_116" href="#FNanchor_116" class="fnanchor">116</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 362.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_117" href="#FNanchor_117" class="fnanchor">117</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 344.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_118" href="#FNanchor_118" class="fnanchor">118</a> Meitzen, l. c. II, p. 633.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_119" href="#FNanchor_119" class="fnanchor">119</a> Inama-Sternegg, l. c. I, pp. 140&ndash;1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_120" href="#FNanchor_120" class="fnanchor">120</a> Mommsen, l. c. V, p. 84.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_121" href="#FNanchor_121" class="fnanchor">121</a> Cf. the detailed exposition of this in F. Oppenheimer’s
<cite>Grossgrundeigentum und die soziale Frage</cite>,
Book II, Chap. 3.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_300">300</a></span></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_122" href="#FNanchor_122" class="fnanchor">122</a> Mommsen, l. c. III, pp. 234&ndash;5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">123</a> Thurnwald, l. c., p. 771.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">124</a> Meitzen, l. c. I, pp. 362f.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">125</a> Inama-Sternegg, l. c. I, pp. 373, 386.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">126</a> Cf. F. Oppenheimer’s <cite>Grossgrundeigentum</cite>, p.
272.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">127</a> Thurnwald, l. c., p. 706.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_128" href="#FNanchor_128" class="fnanchor">128</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 503.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_129" href="#FNanchor_129" class="fnanchor">129</a> Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 518.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_130" href="#FNanchor_130" class="fnanchor">130</a> Meitzen, l. c. I, p. 579: “At the time of the
compilation of the Lex Salica, the ancient racial nobility
had been reduced to common freemen or else had been
annihilated. The officials, on the other hand, are rated
at threefold wergeld, 600 solidi, and if one be ‘<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">puer
regis</i>’ 300 solidi.”</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_131" href="#FNanchor_131" class="fnanchor">131</a> Thurnwald, l. c. p. 712.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">132</a> Inama-Sternegg, l. c. II, p. 61.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_133" href="#FNanchor_133" class="fnanchor">133</a> Thurnwald, l. c., p. 705.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_134" href="#FNanchor_134" class="fnanchor">134</a> “The larger camps of the army of the Rhine
obtained their municipal annexes partly through army
suttlers and camp followers, and particularly through
the veterans, who after the completion of their services
remained in their accustomed quarters. Thus there
arose distinct from the military quarters proper, a distinct
town of cabins (<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">Canabæ</i>). In all parts of the
Empire, and especially in the various Germanias, there
arose in the course of time, from these camps of the
legionaries, and particularly from the headquarter stations,
cities in the modern sense.”&mdash;Mommsen, l. c. V,
p. 153.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_135" href="#FNanchor_135" class="fnanchor">135</a> Eisenhardt, <cite>Gesch. der National Oekonomie</cite>, p.
9: “Aided by the new and more liquid means of payment
in cash, it became possible to call into being a new
and more independent establishment of soldiers and of
officials. As they were paid only periodically it became
impossible for them to make themselves independent (as
the feudatories had done) and then to turn on their paymaster.”</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_301">301</a></span></p></div>
<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_136" href="#FNanchor_136" class="fnanchor">136</a> Thurnwald, l. c., p. 773.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_137" href="#FNanchor_137" class="fnanchor">137</a> Thurnwald, l. c., p. 699.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_138" href="#FNanchor_138" class="fnanchor">138</a> Thurnwald, l. c., p. 709.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_139" href="#FNanchor_139" class="fnanchor">139</a> Thurnwald, l. c., p. 711.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_140" href="#FNanchor_140" class="fnanchor">140</a> Cf. with this F. Oppenheimer’s <cite>Grossgrundeigentum
etc.</cite>, Book II, Chap. 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_141" href="#FNanchor_141" class="fnanchor">141</a> “Tendency, i. e., a law, whose absolute execution
is checked by countervailing circumstances, or
is by them retarded, or weakened.” Marx, <cite>Kapital</cite>, vol.
III, p. 215.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_142" href="#FNanchor_142" class="fnanchor">142</a> Cf. the excellent work of Peter Kropotkin, <cite>Mutual
Aid in its Development</cite>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_143" href="#FNanchor_143" class="fnanchor">143</a> Cf. F. Oppenheimer, <cite>Die Siedlungsgenossenschaft
etc.</cite>, Berlin, 1896, and his <cite>Grossgrundeigentum
und soziale Frage</cite>, Berlin, 1898.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_144" href="#FNanchor_144" class="fnanchor">144</a> Cf. F. Oppenheimer, <cite>Bevölkerungsgesetz des
T.&nbsp;R. Malthus</cite>. <cite>Darstellung and Kritik</cite>, Berlin-Bern,
1901.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_145" href="#FNanchor_145" class="fnanchor">145</a> Cf. F. Oppenheimer, <cite>Grundgesetz der Marxschen
Gesellschaftslehre, Darstellung und Kritik</cite>, Berlin, 1903.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_146" href="#FNanchor_146" class="fnanchor">146</a> Cf. F. Oppenheimer, <cite>Grundgesetz der Marxschen
Gesellschaftslehre</cite>, Part IV., particularly, the twelfth
chapter: “Tendency of the Capitalistic Development.”</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_147" href="#FNanchor_147" class="fnanchor">147</a> Cf. F. Oppenheimer, <cite>Grossgrundeigentum und
soziale Frage</cite>, Berlin, 1898. Book I, Chapter 2, Section
3, “Philosophy of the Social Body,” pp. 57 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i></p>


<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_302">302</a></span></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_148" href="#FNanchor_148" class="fnanchor">148</a> Cf. F. Oppenheimer, <cite>Grossgrundeigentum</cite>, Book
II, Chap. 2, Sec. 3, p. 322.</p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_149" href="#FNanchor_149" class="fnanchor">149</a> Cf. F. Oppenheimer, <cite>Grossgrundeigentum</cite>, Book
II, Chap. 3, Sec. 4, especially pp. 423 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_150" href="#FNanchor_150" class="fnanchor">150</a> Cf. F. Oppenheimer, “Die Utopie als Tatsache,”
<cite>Zeitschrift für Sozial-Wissenschaft</cite>, 1899, Vol. II, pp.
190 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_151" href="#FNanchor_151" class="fnanchor">151</a> Cf. F. Oppenheimer, <cite>Siedlungsgenossenschaft</cite>,
pp. 477 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote">

<p class="fn3"><a id="Footnote_152" href="#FNanchor_152" class="fnanchor">152</a> Cf. André Siegfried, <cite>La démocratie en Nouvelle
Zelande</cite>, Paris, 1904.</p></div>

</div></div>


<div class="chapter">
<div class="transnote">
<h2 class="nobreak p1"><a id="Transcribers_Notes"></a>Transcriber’s Notes</h2>


<p>Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.</p>

<p>The spelling of non-English words was not checked.</p>

<p>Simple typographical errors were corrected.</p>

<p>Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_100">100</a>: Closing quotation mark added after “valuable consignments.”</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_126">126 or 127</a>: Missing footnote anchor “62”.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_128">128 or 129</a>: Missing footnote anchor “67”.</p>

<p>Pages <a href="#Page_134">134&ndash;138</a>: Missing footnote anchor “75”.</p>

<p>Pages <a href="#Page_207">207&ndash;208</a>: Missing footnote anchors “123” through “127”.</p>

<p>Pages <a href="#Page_220">220&ndash;225</a>: Missing footnote anchor “132”.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_254">254</a>: Paragraph beginning “The external reason” probably
should be “The internal reason”.</p>
</div></div>

<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 51544 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-06-17 06:48:04 +0000