87 CHAPTER XVI. ON PARTIAL THEORIES, OR PRINCIPLES OF § 1 TE have, in the previous chapter, investigated the circumstances under which universal propositions and theories of general or unlimited application can be laid down in politics; and we had occasion to remark that, in affirming the general tendency of any political cause-such as a form of government, or other political institution-it was difficult to establish any true theorem respecting its operation, which should be applicable under all variations of circumstances, and be independent of race, religion, manners, climate, social and intellectual state of the people, state of the useful arts, and other similar extraneous and variable influences. It was shown, for example, that setting aside all attempts to predicate absolute or invariable causation, the number of true propositions which can be laid down respecting the general or prevailing tendency of monarchy, or aristocracy, or democracy, in all countries and at all times, is very limited. The same may be said of any other political institution, such as imperial government, slavery, the use of standing armies in time of peace, laws respecting the succession to land, the use of paper money, &c. But if we narrow the field of observation-if we confine our view to political communities possessing many attributes in common, communities having a certain resemblance to, and affinity with, one another, and agreeing in race, religion, language, climate, manners, arts, arms, dress, or several at least of these circumstances, and if we exclude from our attention all communities whose circumstances, other than the one point of comparison, differ widely from those which are under consideration, then the number of general propositions which we can lay down respecting the past operation and future tendency of the cause in question becomes much greater. If, for example, in examining the operation of despotic monarchy, we confine ourselves to the Oriental despotisms—or if, in examining the operation of aristocracy and democracy, we confine ourselves to the Greek and Italian republics of antiquity, we shall find that the number of characteristic influences of the form of government which can be truly predicated is far more numerous, than if we include in the one case the despotic monarchies of Greece and Rome and of modern Europe, and, in the other, the aristocratic and democratic governments of modern Europe and America. In proportion, too, as the propositions are more numerous, they become less abstract and more individual; their intensity increases as their extent diminishes; they have a closer bearing upon action, and are both more instructive, and more available for purposes of practice. § 2 When, however, limitations of this kind are made, it is right that they should be made avowedly. The historian, or speculative writer, ought to announce that his generalization is meant to be comprehended within certain bounds, and that the inductive extension of the particulars on which his inference rests is not intended to go beyond a certain area. He ought not, as is the too common practice, to imply a limitation, and, while he enounces an universal proposition, to leave the reader to annex for himself the restrictions with which it is meant to be understood. Thus Plato, in his sketch of a purely ideal state, conceives it is applicable only to an Hellenic community; while Aristotle's masterly analysis of oligarchical and democratic governments is necessarily limited to the small city-communities on the shores of the Mediterranean-the only republican or non-monarchical governments which the world had at that time seen. Machiavel, according to Hume's just remark, derived his views upon monarchy from the despotisms of antiquity, and of Italy in the middle age; and thus his precepts respecting monarchical government rest on too narrow a foundation.(') Montes (1) See Essays, part i. essay 12. quieu, in like manner, as we have already seen, in speaking of despotisms and monarchies, generally understands the Oriental despotisms and the European monarchies, especially the French monarchy of his own time. His character of courtiers, though declared by him to be applicable to all times and places, is manifestly painted from the French court of the eighteenth century. And M. de Tocqueville, in his theorems on democracy, means, not democratic government generally, but the particular democratic government of the United States, with all its accidental and complex accessories. Upon a close scrutiny of these unlimited expressions, we shall find that the character of scientific generality which they profess to bear disappears, and collapses into the single instance or narrow class which they in fact represent; just as the plaster with the false inscription dropped off the Egyptian Pharos, and exhibited underneath the permanent record of the true architect, engraven in the solid stone. In the speculations of modern European and American writers respecting legislation and political economy, it may be generally observed that they tacitly assume, as the basis of their reasonings, the existence of a modern civilized Christian community, with its numerous peculiarities, intellectual, moral, religious, political, and social. The ancient heathen communities of Greece and Italy, the despotically-governed nations of Asia, both ancient and modern, and, still more, the widely-spread savage communities, are excluded from the import of their general propositions, and, when referred to, are for the most part expressly mentioned as examples, for the sake of contrast. Sometimes even a writer silently assumes the existence of a state of things peculiar to his own country-thus, an English political economist, in his theoretical discussions, may assume that the persons interested in the land are divided into the three classes of landlords, tenants, and labourers, a division which rarely exists out of England. (2) (2) See Mill's Pol. Ec. ii. 3, § 2. r L Human society (as we have already remarked) is essentially political, and political society is essentially national. Government implies constant communication between the governors and the governed, and great space renders such communication impossible. Hence, political societies consist of nations occupying areas of manageable dimensions, and dwelling within those limits. Each of these nations possesses an independent government, and acquires by its separation from all other independent states certain peculiarities, which are its prominent characteristics.(3) 3 One large classification of communities for the purpose of a common predication is-1, those communities which are in a wild and unsettled state, such as the African and Indian savages, the Bedouin Arabs, the Nomad Tartars; 2, those Oriental communities which live under a regular political government, but whose social state is nevertheless fixed and unprogressive, such as the Turks, the Persians, the Hindus, the Chinese, the Japanese; 3, Christian communities partaking of the modern European civilization. In framing general predications respecting the operation and tendency of forms of government and political institutions, a limitation made expressly to either of these three classes will often assist the historical theorist, and enable him to move with greater ease and safety. As the material upon which a law or measure of the government operates is more similar, its effects can be more securely comprehended within a general expression. The social and moral state of savage nations, their manners and customs, the state of their intelligence, their knowledge of the useful arts, their mode of procuring food, of treating their wives, of rearing and training their children, of constructing their habitations, of waging war, and other similar facts, admit of a general description, as may be seen in the faithful pictures of savage life drawn by M. Charles Comte, in his Traité de Législation. Savage nations are, however, in general destitute of any (3) See Story's Conflict of Laws, p. 1, on the division of the world into independent nations; and above, ch. ii. §§ 6, 7. regular and stable government; they are communities, but scarcely political communities: whatever political institutions they may from time to time possess, exist only in a shapeless and rudimentary state. Hence, in considering political data, savage nations may be conveniently omitted: and in order to illustrate the manner in which several communities, having certain attributes in common, may be classified together, and compared with other communities, having different but common attributes, we will adduce the Oriental and European countries, and specify the characteristic peculiarities of each class. The following may be regarded as the principal points of opposition. ORIENTAL. 1. Despotism. EUROPEAN. All the Oriental states, from the dawn of history to the present time, have been governed by despotic princes. Simple despotism, in the most unmitigated shape, has been the unvarying rule. Both in its form and its practice, every Oriental government has been despotic. On the other hand, from the Greek republics downwards, many European states have had a free government; that is to say, the supreme power has been shared by several rulers.(") Throughout Europe, free government has alternated (4) διὰ τὸ δουλικώτεροι εἶναι τὰ ἤθη φύσει οἱ μὲν βάρβαροι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οι δὲ περὶ τὴν ̓Ασίαν τῶν περὶ τὴν Εὐρώπην, ὑπομένουσι τὴν δεσποτικὴν ἀρχὴν ovdèv dvoxepaívovtes.—Aristot. Pol. iii. 14. With respect to the despotic character of the Asiatic governments and their deadening effect, see Hippocrat. de Aëre, Aquis et Locis, c. 16. The absoluteness of the Persian despotism is briefly characterized by Herod. iii. 31; its character and effects are described by Plato, Leg. iii. 13, p. 697. The antithesis of the Persian principle of despotism and absolute submission to the king, and the Greek principle of civil freedom and equality, is clearly and simply expressed in Plutarch, Themist. c. 27. On the Oriental veneration for absolute kings, see Curtius, v. 10. 'Servirent Syria Asiaque et suetus regibus Oriens,' is the remark of Civilis, in Tac. Hist. iv. 17. Also Virgil, Georg. iv. 210-2. 'Præterea regem non sic Egyptos et ingens Lydia, nec populi Parthorum, aut Medus Hydaspes Speaking of a Persian, Gibbon says: His language afforded not words Le gouvernement de Perse est monarchique, despotique, et absolu, |