liarity of German tactics the custom of mingling and combining horsemen and foot-soldiers together; every horseman was accompanied by a light-armed foot-soldier, who in battle was always at hand, and assisted him in every way. Cæsar, a great observer, found in the then prevailing mode of arming and fighting this arrangement very advantageous, and introduced it into his own army. It was principally to it, as well as to his German auxiliaries, that he believed himself indebted for victory at the battle of Pharsalia, when the sovereignty of the world was fought for. Does not this old Germanic custom remind us of that part in the tactics of the middle age, in which the heavy-armed knights were accompanied by footsoldiers to serve and assist them? From the nature of the case, it may perhaps be inferred that the warrior on horseback had precedence over his assistant on foot, so that the serving on horseback may have been even at that time, as it was afterwards, chiefly, if not exclusively, the distinction and privilege of the nobles. More in such privileges, and in the glory of their race, in the memory of distinguished and celebrated ancestors, than in greater wealth, did their preeminence consist.

Princely families, evidently with hereditary rights, are mentioned at a very early period among the Germans. The supposition that an hereditary royalty, which at a later period was universally introduced, existed even in early times, is confirmed by the right of primogeniture being generally predominant in the German law of succession. Yet in the beginning this may not always have been exclusively the case among the kings and princes, but the right of electing one out of several members of the royal or princely house may have prevailed. The power of the elected dukes also may often have set limits to the hereditary privileges of the princes. The position of the freemen can best be understood by calling to mind the institutions of the Swiss mountain cantons, or rather, as their freedom is also compatible with an hereditary nobility and royalty, those of the Swedish Dalecarlians, and generally of those countries in which the peasantry constitute an order of the state, have the right of bearing arms, and of taking part in the deliberations of the national diets. This holds good, however, only of the independent householders and landowners, who have some at

NOBILITY, CLERGY, AND FREEMEN.

31

least, if not many, day-labourers to aid them in the cultivating of their lands. This was precisely the state of things among the primitive Germans. The relation of the inhabitants of a whole district to a single lord as his vassals or serfs, we must not here introduce; this system was not developed till a much later period. We may safely assume also, that among the Germans the lot of this third and last class of men was infinitely milder than that of the slaves among the Greeks and Romans. The warlike frontier nations on this side the Rhine supplied themselves with agricultural labourers chiefly by prisoners of war.

Thus nobility and freedom were the foundation of the primitive Germanic constitution,—an order of nobles and an order of freemen, under elected dukes or hereditary princes; these embrace the whole extent of the German state. But what a nobility and what a freedom, compared with the despotic, oppressive, avaricious nobility of Sparta or ancient Rome, and with the tumultuous freedom of the petty Grecian states! A nobility based upon a precedency not harsh, and on universal freedom, a freedom founded upon honour, virtue, and loyalty! In no nation do we find the nobility, that first of all orders, that foundation of every institution of estates, that first and most essential and natural element of the true estate, characterized by such grand and striking qualities, and placed in such perfect relations with the other classes, as among the Germans. For this reason is their primitive history so instructive. How the clergy were afterwards added as a second estate, and then how the third became developed; and how, finally, in modern times, various divisions and artificial relations have arisen,-all this is unfolded in the course of history. In this respect, it may be said, that German history, from the oldest to the most modern times, is a natural and most instructive theory of the true state; that is, of the constitution of the three estates. Instead of an imaginary state of nature, we find in the mixed constitution of the Germans, a polity really based upon nature; for altogether simple and natural were their institutions of state and legislation. Every freeman had the right of self-protection against others, nay, if a quarrel terminated in the death of one of the parties, vengeance was not only the right, but even the duty, of the nearest male heir or armed relative. The state, and in its

name, the court, only interfered as umpire as it were, between the contending parties, to prevent further misfortune, and to restore concord by means of a compensatory fine, or some other expiation as law, custom, or tradition might direct. From this primitive right of self-defence sprang the many petty feuds of the middle age, and hence the custom of duelling, unknown to the ancients, has been perpetuated even to our own times in most European countries.

This freedom of individuals, it must be admitted, became often injurious to the peace and unity of the nation. Whilst we readily acknowledge, however, the existence of those. abuses, which the legislature has been unable in the course of centuries to root out, or even to mitigate, yet must we not forget that the development of the high sentiments of honour, under the control of law, is one of the noblest and most essential characteristics of modern European civilization. It is precisely the most difficult problem in statesmanship, to combine order and unity of strength in the state, with the greatest possible amount of individual freedom.

We must not think, however, that by reason of this individual freedom, in respect to each other, all was in a state of lawless anarchy. In one case the laws were very stringent; namely, in whatever related to the state and to the general confederacy. Here the principle "each for all, and all for each," was carried out even to life and death. Any disloyalty or breach of duty to the state, was punished with death, and so was cowardice. Whoever lost his shield was outlawed, put out of the pale of honour and law. National and state unity sprang out of a league actually contracted, and not supposititious only. Each people constituted a confederation, as we would now term it. It happened in those olden times, precisely as in Switzerland in modern times, where the people entered into a free association for mutual defence and protection, and by that very league first became a nation. The Romans call us a multitude of separate German tribes; by such are often meant only the inhabitants of a particular district, of one or more provinces. The names of the more remote tribes in the interior, learned only by hearsay, are not a little corrupted, and, save national names, were given merely from misunderstanding and from ignorance of the language. When

MEANING OF THE WORD GERMAN.

33

ever the Romans, however, speak from personal observation, and with more accurate knowledge, and especially when they describe the more considerable Germanic nations in their own neighbourhood on the Rhenish frontier; then, it is easy to perceive that by these so-called nations leagues and confederacies are to be understood. Thus the Suabian confederacy was very powerful, and at first formidable to the Romans, and not less so the league of the Hessians. Both remain to this day; for the most part too in the very same seats, as distinct German races, distinguishable by many characteristics from the others. The league of the Cherusci in northern Germany was rendered remarkable by their prince and duke Arminius (Herrmann). Even the name of Germans is derived from this system, for the Romans extended the name from the tribe among whom they first heard it, to several others, and ultimately to all. In modern times historians have applied to these primitive leagues, and this Germanic custom of confederation, the word "heermannia," in reference to the appellation "Germani." It would be more fit and accurate, however, to render in our present language the word German by "Wehrmann." Our "wehr" signifying defence and arms, is originally the same word as the English "war," from which the French and Italian " guerre and "guerra' are only distinguished by a different mode of pronunciation; it is indisputably the root from which "German is derived. Thus the word Germans signifies the Wehr-men, that is to say, not only warriors, but allies for mutual defence and protection, a confederate community. The only thing wanting in these national leagues, was that all the peoples of Gerinany were not united, not one great confederacy. This could not be accomplished at once; for the Germans indeed, like all other European nations, were originally split into a great number of petty tribes and states. The necessities incurred in their more extensive military enterprises, and more especially in their arduous struggle with the Romans, led to a more comprehensive national combination.

"

The gradual union of the different German nations, the realization at last of a grand German national unity, its maintenance for a thousand years, and its restoration more than once after temporary disruptions ;-this it is that constitutes our modern history.

D

Besides these national confederacies, the real essence and foundation of the state, another species of association existed among the Germans, which was freer, and more adapted to individuals. This was that singular brotherhood in arms, the enthusiastic fidelity in which the Romans describe with admiration and no little astonishment. Out of friendship, warriors would pledge themselves to live and die together— to share victory or death.

Men eager for fame would connect themselves in particular with powerful and princely heroes, as their free associates and honourable attendants. Their fidelity was so great, that scarcely an instance was known of a retinue of vassals surviving the death of their brother in arms or their chief. From this military friendship and association proceeded the whole feudal constitution. The princely chief was bound to promote the welfare of his followers; and hence the German conquerors divided and distributed whole countries among their attendants, on condition of the same fidelity and honourable service. The love of warlike enterprise was thereby not a little excited; and hence by nothing more than this institution was the spirit of chivalry itself developed; for in these cases war was not the result of any decree of the assembled nobles and people. Even when the confederate state was at peace, if the chief had the courage and inclination to undertake some petty military enterprise, he could fearlessly begin and carry on the adventure. The feudal constitution in its degeneracy was attended by many and great abuses; but we must not on that account overlook its first and noble origin, any more than the great and glorious effects which the spirit of chivalry produced. Effects which are not yet altogether effaced, and which we cannot well wish ever wholly to dis

appear.

Together with this enthusiastic brotherhood in arms, nothing seems to have excited the attention and astonishment of the Romans more than the relations of the female sex among the Germans; the high consideration which their women enjoyed, the honour and the liberty in which they lived. In this respect also we find among the primitive Germans the first origin of what so favourably distinguishes the manners and civilization of the moderns;-the spiritual love, the freer and more polished intercourse, the higher refinement of the female sex.