divisions, an examination will next be made of the account which Tacitus gives of the different ranks into which the people were divided; and of the general structure of their social, military, and political institutions. tions of men, freed slaves. 6. The whole fabric of Teutonic society rested upon two Distinc fundamental conceptions: the possession of land, and dis- rank: notinctions of rank. These two ideas are so interlaced that bles, freethey can hardly be severed from each other. As the man men, and who was not free could, at first, hold no land within the limits of the village-community; so the man who held no land in the community was not entitled to the full measure of freedom, however high may have been his rank or station.1 According to Tacitus, Teutonic society was divided into four ranks or classes: the nobles, nobiles; simple freemen, ingenui, freedmen, liberti; and slaves, servi. the annual The simple land-owning freeman, though not of the high- The simple est order in the state in respect to privileges, may be justly freeman regarded as the base upon which rested the whole structure of social and political life. Such a freeman was certainly endowed with every political right which the state could bestow. As a fully qualified member of the local community shares in he was entitled to his due portion of land in the annual allot- allotment; ment, and to the enjoyment of all common rights incident thereto. As such land-owner he had also the right to be present and to participate in all public assemblies, great or small, where his own interests, and those of the community of which he was a part, were discussed and determined. He was endowed with the right to bear arms, and to wear them his right to on all occasions, public and private, and with them to defend his life and his honor. He possessed the right of private war, either alone or with the aid of his kindred. the long hair which floated over his shoulders he wore the In 1 Kemble, Saxons in England, vol. Northern Sea." -Green, Hist. English i. p. 35. Tac., Germ., cc. 7, 24, 25. 8 "The base of Roman society here as everywhere throughout the Roman world was the slave, the peasant who had been crushed by tyranny, political and social, into serfdom. The base of the new English society was the freeman whom we have seen tilling, judg ing, or fighting for himself by the People, vol. i. p. 32. "The ingenuus or simple freeman is in every point, except descent, the equal of the noble."- Stubbs, Const. History, vol. i. p. 22. 5 G. L. von Maurer, Dorfverfassung, i. pp. 61-65; Markenverfassung, pp. 59-62; Einleitung, PP. 93, 97. 6 Tac., Germ., cc. II, 13. bear arms; his wergild. badge of his freedom. By his wergild his social position was measured.1 In peace he had his place in the public assemblies in war he was a member of the host, a defender of the The noble. state. Emancipation of youths. Freedmen. The unfree: The noble was simply a freeman with certain special privileges which accrued to him by virtue of his blood. His political status was in nowise superior to that of a simple freeman, but his personal status was certainly attended with great dignity and advantage.2 In the monarchical states the kings were chosen on account of their nobility of blood. In honor of illustrious birth the son of a famous father was often called to the dignity of prince or chief; and even the comitatus was based in its arrangements upon different degrees of rank and station. Upon the life of the noble, a higher price was set than upon that of an ordinary freeman. The youth upon attaining his majority, whether the son of a noble or of a simple freeman, did not pass into the full possession of freedom until he had been first emancipated by the state. Until he reached the proper age he was considered simply as a member of the household. When the proper time arrived he was introduced in the state assembly, and there invested, either by a magistrate or by some near relative, with shield and spear. Thus endowed with the right to bear arms, he ceased to be a mere member of the family, - he became a member of the state. It is not likely, how. ever, that such a youth, even after his emancipation, entered into the full enjoyment of all political rights until he had become the possessor of rights in land." The freedmen were not of much higher consideration than actual slaves. They obtained no rank in their master's family; and, if we except that part of Germany in which monarchy was established, they never participated in public affairs. It is not to be presumed that this class enjoyed the possession of political rights. i. Among the Germans the unfree, the servi, were divided this ceremony, see Sohm, R.- und G. V., Beilage I. 1 Kemble, Saxons in England, vol. 2 Ibid., vol. i. p. 135. 8 Tac., Germ., c. 7. Ibid., c. 13. In debate a noble was entitled to precedence. Ibid., c. 11. Ibid., c. 13. For a full account of Waitz, D. V. G., i. pp. 323, 324; Sohm, Fränkische Reichs- und Gerichtsverfassung, pp. 545-558; Stubbs, Const. Hist., vol. i. p. 22. 7 Tac., Germ., c. 25. into two classes which represented two distinct grades of servitude. The higher class were mere agrarian dependents agrarian dependents. who were obliged to furnish their masters a certain quantity of grain, cattle, or clothing. Such dependents, however, were allowed their own separate homes, and their management. They obeyed their masters, but it was an unusual thing for them to be whipped or punished in any way. It sometimes happened that the master, in his rage, killed his dependent, and then it seems that the crime passed unpunished, and without compensation to any one. This class, no doubt, resulted in the main from conquest, especially in those cases in which the conquerors occupied the land of the conquered, and reduced the original possessors of the soil to a condition of dependence, in which they might still maintain themselves while they toiled for their lords.3 The condition of the lowest class of the unfree repre- Slaves. sented the full measure of abject servitude. This class seems to have been composed of those who had fallen victims to the national vice of gambling. When the German had lost his all at play, he would put even his person and his liberty at stake. If he lost, he yielded himself up to a slavery in which he could be chained and exposed for sale. To the victims of play may be added such prisoners of war as were reduced to a state of predial or menial servitude; and to these may possibly be added slaves by reason of crime.5 of land: 7. The results of recent investigation into the early history Ownership of institutions, and into the primitive forms of ancient law, the villagehave been fruitful indeed. By the light of the knowledge community. thus attained it is now possible to define the primary forms of political union and of land-ownership prevalent among archal theory. those races with whose legal history we are at all concerned. It seems to be clear that the earliest tie which bound men together in communities was the tie of kinship, the earliest form of social and political organization, that of the family,1 whose members were either actually united by blood relationThe patri- ship, or assumed to be so. The first form of authority which existed in such a community was vested in its patriarchal head or chief. The first idea, therefore, of sovereignty which existed in the family, or in the clan into which the family widened, was a personal or tribal sovereignty as distinguished from a territorial one. It is assumed that this tribal constitution of society first prevailed among nomad communities; and it is probable that its original principles entered upon a gradual process of change so soon as the tribal community finally settled down upon a definite area of land. From that time the land begins to be the basis of society instead of the kinship. The theory seems to be well settled that this Collective archaic form of organization and of collective land-ownership land owner- by groups of men, united by the family tie, was common to all the races which compose the Aryan family.5 The traces of such a system have been established from Ireland to Hindoostan. Such a type of organization could only continue to exist in its primitive form among a people whose yields to in- social condition was stationary. With the first advance in ownership. the path of civilization the principle of collective land-ownership naturally gave way to the principle of individual ownership. And such has been the transition through which the village-community in most countries has passed. The first step was taken when each man became the individual possessor of his homestead; the next, when the arable land ceased to be held in common subject to allotment; the last, when the pasture lands were finally divided. In this way the ship dividual t lands the sian mir. waste lands alone remained the common property of the Waste community.1 From the evidence which has been recently last to be brought to light in the different countries in which this divided. system has been examined, it is now possible to study its history in every stage of development and decay. In those countries in which the progress of civilization has been most marked, its traces are the faintest; in those of which the contrary is true, its form is most distinct. In Russia 2 and The Rus in India the structure of this system can still be viewed in its integrity. Wherever the village-community has existed among the races of the Aryan family it is possible to trace the existence of the village council, the organ, which, in its The village archaic form, corresponds to what is now called the legislature. To this embryo can be traced the origin of the most famous senates of the world. The history of the village council is closely interlaced with the early history of institutions in Germany and in England. council. Tacitus tells us that the Germans did not dwell in cities. Teutonic villages: Some dwelt in villages, vici, but not after the Roman fashion, the mark with a series of connected buildings, for every homestead system. stood detached, with a vacant space of ground about it. Others dwelt apart from the villages in isolated homesteads, wherever a grove, meadow, or spring happened to attract them. In another and famous passage, which has given rise German to a vast amount of learned discussion, is described the German agriculture method of agriculture: "The fields are alternately occupied by the whole body of cultivators according to their number, and these they afterwards divide among themselves according to their individual dignity." The extent of the waste lands 1 Maine, Early Hist. of Institutions, p. 81; Stubbs, Const. History, vol. i. p. 52. 2 In a recent work, entitled Russia, by Mr. D. Mackenzie Wallace, is contained a very interesting chapter (viii.) in which is described the present condition of the Russian "mir or villagecommunity. 8 "From this embryo have sprung all the most famous legislatures of the world, the Athenian Ekklesia, the Roman Comitia, Senate, and Prince, and our own Parliament, the type and parent of all the collegiate sovereignties' (as Austin would call them) of method of |