Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 11.djvu/21

Rh either its own advantage or the advantage of the whole state, and the government is bad or good accordingly. In all states the governing power is one man, or a few men, or many men. Hence six varieties of government, three of which are bad and three good. Each excellent form has a corresponding depraved form, thus&thinsp;:&mdash; The good government of one (Monarchy) corresponds to the depraved form (Tyranny). The good government of few (Aristocracy) corresponds to the depraved form (Oligarchy). The good government of many (Commonwealth) corre sponds to the depraved form (Democracy). The fault of the depraved forms is that the governors act unjustly where their own interests are concerned. The worst of the depraved forms is tyranny, the next oligarchy, and the least bad democracy. 1 Each of the three leading types exhibits a number of varieties. Thus in monarchy we have the heroic, the barbaric, the elective dictatorship, the Lacedemonian (hereditary generalship, crrpar^yta), and absolute monarchy. So democracy and oligarchy exhibit four corresponding varieties. The best type of democracy is that of a community mainly agricultural, whose citizens, therefore, have not leisure for political affairs, and allow the law to rule. The best oligarchy is that in which a considerable number of small proprietors have the power ; here, too, the laws prevail. The worst democracy consists of a larger citizen class having leisure for politics ; and the worst oligarchy is that of a small number of very rich and influential men. In both the sphere of law is reduced to a minim im. A good government is one in which as much as possible is left to the laws, and as little as possible to the will of the governor. The Politics of Aristotle, from which these principles are taken, presents a striking picture of the variety and activity of political life in the free communities of Greece. The king and council of heroic times had disappeared, and self- government in some form or other was the general rule. It is to be noticed, however, that the Governments of Greece were essentially unstable. The political philosophers could lay down the law of development by which one form of government gives birth to another. Aristotle devotes a large portion of his work to the consideration of the causes of revolutions. The dread of tyranny was kept alive by the facility with which an over-powerful and unscrupulous citizen could seize the whole machinery of government. Communities oscillated between some form of oligarchy and some form of democracy. The security of each was constantly imperilled by the conspiracies of the opposing factions. Hence, although political life exhibits that exu berant variety of form and expression which characterizes all the intellectual products of Greece, it lacks the quality of persistent progress. Then there was no approximation to a national government, even of the federal type. The varying confederacies and hegemonies are the nearest approach to anything of the kind. What kind of national government would ultimately have arisen if Greece had not been crushed it is needless to conjecture ; the true interest of Greek politics lies in the fact that the free citizens were, in the strictest sense of the word, self- governed. Each citizen took his turn at the common busi ness of the state. He spoke his own views in the agora, and from time to time in his own person acted as magis trate or judge. Citizenship in Athens was a liberal educa tion, such as it never can be made under any representative system.

The Government of Rome.&mdash;During the whole period of freedom the government of Rome was, in theory at least, municipal self-government. Each citizen had

1 Aristotle elsewhere speaks of the error of those who think that any one of the depraved forms is better than any other.

a right to vota laws in his own person in the comitia of the centuries or the tribes. The administrative powers of government were, however, in the hands of a bureau cratic assembly, recruited from the holders of high public office. The senate represented capacity and experi ence rather than rank and wealth. Without some such instrument the city government of Rome could never have made the conquest of the world. The gradual extension of the citizenship to other Italians changed the character of Roman government. The distant citizens could not come to the voting booths ; the device of representation was not discovered; and the comitia fell into the power of the town voters. In the last stage of the Roman republic, the inhabitants of one town wielded the resources of a world wide empire. We can imagine what would be the effect of leaving to the people of London or Paris the supreme con trol of the British empire or of France, irresistible temp tation, inevitable corruption. The rabble of the capital learn to live on the rest of the empire. 2 The favour of the effeminate masters of the world is purchased by panem ft circenses. That capable officers and victorious armies should long be content to serve such masters was impossible. A conspiracy of generals placed itself at the head of affairs, and the most capable of them made himself sole master. Under Ca3sar, Augustus, and Tiberius, the Roman people became habituated to a new form of government, which is best described by the name of CaBsarism. The outward forms of republican government remained, but one man united in his own person all the leading offices, and used them to give a seemingly legal title to what was essentially military despotism. There is no more interesting constitu tional study than the chapters in which Tacitus traces the growth of the new system under the subtle and dissimulat ing intellect of Tiberius. The new Roman empire was as full of fictions as the English constitution of the present day. The master of the world posed as the humble servant of a menial senate. Deprecating the outward symbols of sovereignty, he was satisfied with the modest powers of a consul or a tribunus plebis. The reign of Tiberius, little capable as he was by personal character of captivating the favour of the multitude, did more for imperialism than was done by his more famous predecessors. Henceforward free government all over the world lay crushed beneath the military despotism of Rome. Coesarism remained true to the character imposed upon it by its origin. The Ca?sar was an elective not an hereditary king. The real founda tion of his power was the army, and the army in course of time openly assumed the right of nominating the sovereign. The characteristic weakness of the Roman empire was the uncertainty of the succession. The nomination of a Caesar in the lifetime of the emperor was an ineffective remedy. Rival emperors were elected by different armies; and nothing less than the force of arms could decide the question between them.

Modern Governments&mdash;Feudalism.&mdash;The Roman empire bequeathed to modern Europe the theory of universal dominion. The nationalities which grew up after its fall arranged themselves on the basis of territorial sove reignty. Leaving out of account the free municipalities of the Middle Ages, the problem of government had now to be solved, not for small urban communities, but for large territorial nations. The mediaeval form of government was feudal. One common type pervaded all the relations of life. The relation of king and lord

2 None of the free states of Greece ever made extensive or permanent conquests ; but the tribute sometimes paid by one state to another (as by the ^Hginetans to the Athenians) was a manifest source of corruption. Compare the remarks of Hume (Essays, part i. 3, That Politics may be reduced to a Science), &quot; free governments are the most ruinous and oppressive for their provinces.&quot; 