The statement of Thucydides with respect to Greece, contains, it may be seen, no mention of any period of

archies in Greece were

instances of the as

The heroic more aristocratical government; but describes the cendancy of nobility. transition as taking place from limited hereditary monarchies to tyrannies: it may appear, therefore, to a superficial observer that nobility enjoyed no such ascendancy as I have imagined, and that the very first case to which I apply my theorem disproves its truth. But the old Homeric monarchies were, in fact, an instance of power depending on blood, and, therefore, of the ascendancy of nobility. They were like the feudal monarchies of modern Europe, essentially aristocracies, in which the separation of all the chiefs or nobles from the inferior people was far more strongly marked than the elevation of the king above his nobles. Nay, if we consider Greece as a whole, and remember the small space included within the limits of the several kingdoms in the heroic ages, the kings, as they are called, resemble the feudal vassals of France and Germany, each supreme over a dominion as extensive as the Greek kingdoms, and forming together a body widely separated from the commons, and whose members were felt to belong to the same class, and to be on a level with each other in purity of blood, however great might have been the differences between them in power and connections. It was virtually then, the ascendancy of nobility, when all power and distinction were confined to the class of nobles, whether there was one individual elevated above the rest of his class with still higher power and distinction, or whether all the members of it exercised the sovereignty jointly and alterIt existed generally nately. So in other countries the same

in other countries,

dinate varieties of form.

though under subor state of society has varied more or less in its subordinate relations, and yet, if carefully examined, will be found everywhere to retain its essential character, and to mark the first period, or youth, of political existence. Some of these varieties it

may not

G 2

offices of priest and

the same persons.

be uninstructive to notice, and to trace the causes which have led to them. The simplest, and probably the 1st form-where the earliest form, was that in which the offices chief were united in of chief and priest were united in the same persons, as in the heroic times in Greece, and in the wellknown instance of Melchizedek, king of Salem, at a far more remote period. This is the first transition from domestic or patriarchal to something like civil society; and if the several sons of a patriarch established themselves in separate habitations, they would each become the chiefs and priests of their immediate followers. But in the course of a few generations, if the united body of these little societies happened to settle in another country, and the dangers of their new situation forced them to choose some one chief for their common leader, yet still the other chiefs would remain as widely distinguished as before from the mass of the people, and would still retain their sacred and sovereign character, although its exercise was limited to their own particular tribe, and somewhat obscured by the greater elevation of the king of the whole nation. Nay, even when the posterity of these original nobles was so multiplied that many of them were necessarily excluded from an active share in the government, still they did not lose the distinction of their birth: they were naturally eligible to public offices, to priesthoods, and to commands in war, if they did not actually enjoy them; and their equality was maintained by their right of meeting in a general assembly, to control, if need were, those of their body to whom the executive authority had been delegated, and by being exempt from any judicial sentence of the greater chiefs, or kings, unless the free voices of their own equals, or peers, had first declared them guilty. This first form of aristocracy, in which civil and military command were united with the office of priest, existed, besides the instances already noticed, in Rome and in Etruria; in the former along with the habitual appointment of a king; in

the latter, the purely aristocratic form generally prevailed, and a king, or chief of the whole nation, was only chosen in seasons of peculiar difficulty.

Another and later form of the ancient aristocracies was that in which the offices of priest and chief were distinct

offices of priest and

-1st, from the con

ple.

2d form-where the from one another, as in India, in Persia, in chief were distinct. Egypt, in ancient Gaul, and in the feudal kingdoms of modern Europe. The origin of this separation of powers, was probably various. In some instances Its various origin: it may have been produced by the invasion quest of a ruder peo- of a ruder people, who, while they took to themselves the possession of the land and the civil and military government, yet learned to respect the superior knowledge of the old inhabitants, and left to their chiefs the dignity and influence of the priesthood, while they deprived them of their actual power as rulers and leaders in war. This was the case in the foundation of the modern feudal kingdoms; the Gaulish or Roman clergy a preserved and increased their rank and influence under the Frank invaders, while the property of the soil, the sceptre, and the sword, were transferred almost entirely to the conquerors. Thus also the Median magi continued to enjoy their religious pre-eminence and immunities under the Persian kings, while all other classes of the Median nation were shorn of their supremacy, and held an inferior 2nd, from the low rank under the Persians. In other cases gion and the barba- the separation of the two powers arose from the character of the national religion. In a rude people, religion, unless supported by the art of its ministers, holds but a low place in public estimation: he who was chief and priest would value himself upon the former character much more than upon the latter: his priestly duties would be in time devolved upon persons of an inferior class, to

character of the reli

rism the people.

a See Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. i. p. 146, ed. 8vo. Thierry, Conquête de l'Angleterre par les Normands, tome i. p. 32, &c.

b As in the story of the Potitii of Rome, whose family was supposed to have become extinct as a punishment for their profane

spare himself the trouble of performing them; or, if retained, would be used as mere engines of state craft for the maintenance of his own civil superiority. Thus among the ancient Scythians we read of no priests at all; that is, the chiefs either performed the sacrifices themselves, or devolved them, as a menial duty, upon their servants: among the Anglo-Saxons there were priests, but as they formed no order in the state, as they were not allowed to carry arms, or to ride but on a mare, it should seem that they were only an inferior class, the mere ministers at the sacrifices, on whom the chiefs had thrown the performance of a duty which they disdained to execute themselves. The existence of prophets among both the Scythians and Saxons, as of certain prophetic families among the ancient Greeks, must not be mistaken for a priesthood. The priestly and prophetic character were not necessarily connected with one another; and the latter was not, like the former, held to be communicable only by descent. Besides, that impatience to penetrate into futurity, which has in every age and country encouraged pretensions to prophecy, is quite distinct from those feelings of reverence and devotion which are the salt of religion, even in its worst corruptions. Prophets or fortune-tellers might exist among a people too brutish to have any conceptions of religion, as they have peculiarly marked the lowest tribes of negroes, and the degraded race of the gypsies. In these instances, then, the separation of the offices of priest and chief would arise from the rudeness of the people, and the want of any external or internal recommendations in the religion itself. But the

er character of the re

ligion, and the great

3rd, from the high- more common form of separation arose from veneration paid to it. the very opposite cause. In proportion as religion was valued; as its ceremonies were more imposing; as the necessity of fixing the period of its festivals led to the study of astronomy; 'and as men's minds, thus saved from ness in devolving their hereditary priesthood upon public slaves. Livy, i. 7.

sinking into barbarism, retained the traditions of older times, and preserved in their devotions something more worthy of Him who is the true object of all worship; so would the priest-chiefs of the people esteem their priesthood above their civil and military authority, and would especially prefer their peaceful and sacred duties to the exercises and combats of arms. Hence, whilst they ministered at the temples of the gods, presided at festivals, and perhaps awarded punishments and settled differences between man and man, as the representatives of the gods, they appointed persons less distinguished and less sacred to lead out the people to battle, and sometimes would fix upon some warlike stranger, whose adventures in arms had spread his renown, and who, living by his sword, was ready to offer his services to any who could hold out a worthy recompense. Military command thus conferred was sure to become ere long political sovereignty; but the king thus raised could not venture to invade the old privileges, or diminish the ancient dignity of the priestly order; the priests still remained the highest class in the state", and the military leaders and soldiers, who received for their services grants of land from the sovereign, on the tenure of joining his standard whenever he should summon

a It appears that one of the principal reasons which made the Israelites change their earlier government into a monarchy, was a wish that the leader of their armies should be the first man in the state, and not, as had been hitherto the case, subordinate to the religious authorities. For although Samuel was not a priest, yet still in his government the religious character predominated over the civil and military, as was naturally the case where the religion was so pure and elevated in its principles as amongst the Israelites.

b As in India, Egypt, Gaul, and Attica. The military caste in Egypt held their lands from the sovereign. (Compare Herodot. ii. 168, and Genesis xlvii. 20-22.) In Attica the Eupatride and Geomori corresponded to the priests and military class of Egypt; whereas in the colonies which were founded when society was more advanced, and when the distinctions of blood had yielded to those of property, the Geomori, or military landowners, formed the first and most aristocratical class. Compare Herodot. vii. 155. Thucyd. viii. 21.