CHAPTER III

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

HISTORIANS

WHILE the evidence to be gathered from seventeenth century literature is mostly negative in character, relating to the present subject by significant omission rather than by any pronouncement on the point, the case is different with the great historians who appeared in the eighteenth century. By that time the controversial temper of the preceding age had declined so that the ascertainment of truth was now considered to be more important than triumph over an adversary, and philosophic composure was regarded as the proper attitude of the historian. A series of great writers appeared whose studies were devoted to the origin of European institutions of government, a task which involved inquiry into the source of English parliamentary institutions.

In sheer magnitude of achievement the historians of the eighteenth century have never been surpassed, and the vast erudition displayed in their works has secured for them a permanent place in historical literature. Since their time

intensive study of particular periods or episodes has been the most important development in that field, but there are signs that it has been pursued to an extent injurious to imagination and constructive power. If it be no more than a correct record of events history is as tedious and unprofitable as an old wives' tale. It is only as history is able to elucidate the significance of events with respect to the fortunes of nations and the welfare of society that it becomes really worth while.

Voltaire regarded the primitive institutions of Europe as a scene of barbaric disorder and violence of which Poland had preserved the main lineaments. "In Poland both the manners and the government were, as they now are, nearly the same as those of the ancient Goths and Franks. The crown was elective; the nobles had a share in the supreme authority; the people were slaves. Voltaire held that the foundations of modern institutions could not be traced farther back than the feudal period. Referring to the second half of the fifteenth century, he observed:

"England, in the midst of her divisions, began to lay the foundation of that extraordinary govern

1 His general history was published in 1756, with the title "Essays upon the Manners and Spirit of Nations, and upon the Principal Facts of History from Charlemagne to Louis

ment, which through the most violent and bloody opposition, has in the course of ages produced that happy mixture of liberty and royalty which is the admiration of all nations."

Hume, although he was born seventeen years later than Voltaire, died before him. His early studies were pursued in France and he was familar with Voltaire's writings.

In an appendix to chapter III of his History of England Hume gave an elaborate dissertation upon "the Anglo-Saxon government and manners." He held that the German tribes were distinguished by their free institutions, and that by their invasion of the Roman Empire they had spread free principles of government through Europe. This opinion might be cited in support of the Teutonic polity theory, but he went on to say that the freedom of which he speaks was a privilege confined to a ruling class. "The leaders and their military companions were maintained by the labor of their slaves, or by that of the weaker and less warlike part of the community whom they defended." He pointed out that there is no evidence of any representation of the common people in the national councils. "The members are almost always called principes, satrapae, optimates, magnates, proceres; terms which seem to suppose an aristocracy, and to exclude the Commons."

As to whether in its original form parliament had a representative character, Hume observed:

"This question was once disputed in England with great acrimony; but such is the force of time and evidence, that they can sometimes prevail, even over faction; and the question seems by general consent, . . . to be at last determined. It is agreed that the commons were no part of the grand council, till some ages after the Conquest; and that the military tenants alone of the crown composed that supreme and legislative assembly."

Hume held that the system of government introduced by the Teutonic invasions was more a confederacy of independent warriors than a civil subjection." But in this confederacy were distinctions of rank and office, from which the feudal system emerged by a natural, indeed an inevitable, development. The account which Hume gave of the rise and growth of feudal institutions is marked by great learning and sound judgment. In its general tenor it is now confirmed by the conclusions reached in our own times through the labors of specialists in that field.

A work which promptly took classic rank was Robertson's History of the Reign of the Emperor, Charles V. Although the title might seem to indicate that it was a topical history it was

really planned as a general history. The author explained that the age of Charles V had been selected for particular consideration because it was "the period at which the political state of Europe began to assume a new form," and that it was his purpose to make his account "an introduction to the history of Europe." In pursuance of this design the first volume was entitled: "A View of the Progress of Society in Europe from the Subversion of the Roman Empire to the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century." This volume long served as the chief manual of general European history, a position which it fully merited by the extent of its information, the discernment of its views, and its sober and well-considered judgments. Until the case system of instruction was introduced Robertson was considered to be as indispensable as Blackstone in the study of the law.

Robertson was in agreement with Voltaire and Hume as to the character of the Teutonic tribes that overran western Europe during the decline of the Roman Empire. Their political institutions he held to have been then in about the same stage of development as those of "the various tribes and nations of North America." He sustained this opinion by a detailed comparison between the manners and customs of the Germans as described by Caesar and Tacitus and