lect03-第2节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！








Chief。　I　do　not　affect　to　give　any　simple　explanation　of　the






subjection　of　the　various　assemblages　of　kindred　to　forms　of






power　of　which　the　patriarchal　power　of　the　head　of　the　family　is






the　type。　Doubtless　it　is　partly　to　be　accounted　for　by






deep…seated　instincts。　But　Mr　Morgan's　researches　seem　to　me　to






have　supplied　another　partial　explanation。　He　has　found　that






among　rude　and　partially　nomad　communities　great　numbers　of






kindred；　whom　we　should　keep　apart　in　mind；　and　distinguish　from






one　another　in　language；　are　grouped　together　in　great　classes






and　called　by　the　same　general　names。　Every　man　is　related　to　an






extraordinary　number　of　men　called　his　brothers；　to　an






extraordinary　number　called　his　sons；　to　an　extraordinary　number






called　his　uncles。　Mr　Morgan　explains　the　fact　in　his　own　way；






but　he　points　out　the　incidental　convenience　served　by　this






method　of　classification　and　nomenclature。　Though　the　point　may






not　at　first　strike　us；　kinship　is　a　clumsy　basis　for　communities






of　any　size；　on　account　of　the　difficulty　which　the　mind；　and






particularly　the　untutored　mind；　has　in　embracing　all　the　persons






bound　to　any　one　man　by　tie　of　blood；　and　therefore　（which　is　the






important　matter）　connected　with　him　by　common　responsibilities






and　rights。　A　great　extension　and　considerable　relaxation　of　the






notion　of　kinship　gets　over　the　difficulty　among　the　lower　races；






but　it　may　be　that；　among　the　higher；　Patriarchal　Power　answers






the　same　object。　It　simplifies　the　conceptions　of　kinship　and　of






conjoint　responsibility；　first　in　the　Patriarchal　Family　and






ultimately　　in　the　Clan　or　Tribe。






　　　　We　have　next　to　consider　the　epoch；　reached　at　some　time　by






all　the　portions　of　mankind　destined　to　civilisation；　at　which






tribal　communities　settle　down　upon　a　definite　space　of　land。　The






liveliest　account　which　I　have　read　of　this　process　occurs　in　an






ancient　Indian　record　which　has　every　pretension　to　authenticity。






In　a　very　interesting　volume　published　by　the　Government　of






Madras；　and　called　'Papers　on　Mirasi　Right'　（Madras；　1862）；　there






are　printed　some　ancient　Memorial　Verses；　as　they　are　called；






which　describe　the　manner　in　which　the　Vellalee；　a　possibly　Aryan






tribe；　followed　their　chief　into　Tondeimandalam；　a　region　roughly






corresponding　with　a　state　once　famous　in　modern　Indian　history；






Arcot。　There　the　Vellalee　conquered　and　extirpated；　or　enslaved；






some　more　primitive　population　and　took　permanent　possession　of






its　territory。　The　poetess　　for　the　lines　are　attributed　to　a






woman　　compares　the　invasion　to　the　flowing　of　the　juice　of　the






sugar…cane　over　a　flat　surface。　（'Mirasi　Papers；'　p。　233。）　The






juice　crystallises；　and　the　crystals　are　the　various






village…communities。　In　the　middle　is　one　lump　of　peculiarly　fine






sugar；　the　place　where　is　the　temple　of　the　god。　Homely　as　is　the






image；　it　seems　to　me　in　one　respect　peculiarly　felicitous。　It






represents　the　tribe；　though　moving　in　a　fused　mass　of　men；　as






containing　within　itself　a　principle　of　coalescence　which　began






to　work　as　soon　as　the　movement　was　over。　The　point　is　not　always






recollected。　Social　history　is　frequently　considered　as　beginning






with　the　tribal　settlement；　and　as　though　no　principles　of　union






had　been　brought　by　the　tribe　from　an　older　home。　But　we　have　no






actual　knowledge　of　any　aboriginal　or　autochthonous　tribe。






Wherever　we　have　any　approximately　trustworthy　information






concerning　the　tribes　which　we　discern　in　the　far　distance　of






history；　they　have　always　come　from　some　more　ancient　seat。　The






Vellalee；　in　the　Indian　example；　must　have　been　agriculturists






somewhere；　since　they　crystallised　at　once　into






village…communities。






　　　　It　has　long　been　assumed　that　the　tribal　constitution　of






society　belonged　at　first　to　nomad　communities；　and　that；　when






associations　of　men　first　settled　down　upon　land；　a　great　change






came　over　them。　But　the　manner　of　transition　from　nomad　to






settled　life；　and　its　effects　upon　custom　and　idea；　have　been　too






much　described；　as　it　seems　to　me；　from　mere　conjecture　of　the






probabilities；　and　the　whole　process；　as　I　have　just　observed；






has　been　conceived　as　more　abrupt　than　such　knowledge　as　we　have






would　lead　us　to　believe　it　to　have　been。　attention　has　thus　been






drawn　off　from　one　assertion　on　this　subject　which　may　be　made；　I






think；　upon　trustworthy　evidence　　that；　from　the　moment　when　a






tribal　community　settles　down　finally　upon　a　definite　space　of






land；　the　Land　begins　to　be　the　basis　of　society　in　place　of　the






Kinship。　The　change　is　extremely　gradual；　and　in　some　particulars






it　has　not　even　now　been　fully　accomplished；　but　it　has　been






going　on　through　the　whole　course　of　history。　The　constitution　of






the　Family　through　actual　blood…relationship　is　of　course　an






observable　fact；　but；　for　all　groups　of　men　larger　than　the






Family；　the　Land　on　which　they　live　tends　to　become　the　bond　of






union　between　them；　at　the　expense　of　Kinship；　ever　more　and　more






vaguely　conceived。　We　can　trace　the　development　of　idea　both　in






the　large　and　now　extremely　miscellaneous　aggregation　s　of　men






combined　in　States　or　Political　Communities；　and　also　in　the






smaller　aggregations　collected　in　Village…Communities　and　Manors；






among　whom　landed　property　took　its　rise。　The　barbarian　invaders






of　the　Western　Roman　Empire；　though　not　uninfluenced　by　former






settlements　in　older　homes；　brought　back　to　Western　Europe　a　mass






of　tribal　ideas　which　the　Roman　dominion　had　banished　from　it；






but；　from　the　moment　of　their　final　occupation　of　definite






territories；　a　transformation　of　these　ideas　began。　Some　years






ago　I　pointed　out　（'Ancient　Law；'　pp。　103　et　seq。）　the　evidence






furnished　by　the　history　of　International　Law　that　the　notion　of






territorial　sovereignty；　which　is　the　basis　of　the　international






system；　and　which　is　inseparably　connected　with　dominion　over　a






definite　area　of　land；　very　slowly　substituted　itself　for　the






notion　of　tribal　sovereignty。　Clear　traces　of　the　change　are　to






be　seen　in　the　official　style　of　kings。　Of　our　own　kings；　King






John　was　the　first　who　always　called　himself　King　of　England。






（Freeman；　'Norman　Conquest；'　I。　82；　84。）　His　predecessors






commonly　or　always　called　themselves　Kings　of　the　English。　The






style　of　the　king　reflected　the　older　tribal　sovereignty　for　a






much　longer　time　in　France。　The　title　of　King　of　France　may　no






doubt　have　come　into　use　in　the　vernacular　soon　after　the






accession　of　the　dynasty　of　Capet；　but　it　is　an　impressive　fact






that；　even　at　the　time　of　the　Massacre　of　St。　Bartholomew；　the






Kings　of　France　were　still　in　Latin　'Reges　Francorum；'　and　Henry






the　Fourth　only　abandoned　the　designation　because　it　could　not　be






got　to　fit　in　conveniently　on　his　coins　with　the　title　of　King　of






Navarre；　the　purely　feudal　and　territorial　principality　of　the






Bourbons。　（Freeman；　loc。　cit。）　We　may　bring　home　to　ourselves　the






transformation　of　idea　in　another　way。　England　was　once　the






country　which　Englishmen　inhabited。　Englishmen　are　now　the　people






who　inhabit　England。　The　descendants　of　our　forefathers　keep　up






the　tradition　of　kinship　by　calling　themselves　men　of　English






race；　but　they　tend　steadily　to　become　Americans　and　Australians。






I　do　not　say　that　the　notion　of　consanguinity　is　absolutely　lost；






but　it　is　extremely　diluted；　and　quite　subordinated　to　the　newer






view　of　the　territorial　constitution　of　nations。　The　blended






ideas　are　reflected　in　such　an　expression　as　'Fatherland；'　which






is　itself　an　index　to　the　fact　that　our　thoughts　cannot　separate






national　kinship　from　common　country。　No　doubt　it　is　true　that　in






our　day　the　older　conception　of　national　union　through






consanguinity　has　seemed　to　be　revived　by　theories　which　are






sometimes　called　generally　theories　of　Nationality；　and　of　which