227 



Again, a late American writer. Dr. Mulford,* deliberately adopts the 

 term, "nation," in place of the term " State," and in this he is followed 

 by the authors of the work on Politics already referred to. (6) This, of 

 course, would be unobjectionable were it intended simply to distinguish 

 the nation as one kind of State, instead of using — as seems to be their in- 

 tention — the former term in the place of the latter as belter expressing 

 the conception denoted by it. But this is, in effect, though perhaps un- 

 consciously, to exclude from the definition of the State, not only the vil- 

 lage and the tribe, but also the city, which, with the Greeks and Ro- 

 mans, was for a long time the only form of State existing. But obviously 

 this conception of the State, as well as that of Mr. Fowler, is too re- 

 stricted. For though in modern times, when we use the term, the form 

 of State we generally have in view is the modern national European 

 Stale, yet we also habitually apply the term more extensively ; and to 

 give it the more restricted meaning would be in conflict with Aristotle's 

 principle, now almost universally accepted, and which is undoubtedly 

 the fuadamental fact of political science, that "man is a political ani- 

 mal," and therefore necessarily always a citizen or member of a State, 

 or, in other words, that he cannot exist in a stateless condition ; for ac- 

 cording to this notion before the city there was no State. We must, 

 therefore, regard all autonomous human societies as constituting States, 

 and include in the definition all the several kinds of such societies enu- 

 merated above, except the single family. This we exclude simply be- 

 cause, in no period of history known to us, has the single family existed 

 independently ; but even with regard to the family in its simplest form, 

 as consisting merely of man and woman, this also, if we could conceive 

 of it existing independently — as, for instance, in the case of Adam and 

 Eve in Paradise — might, with propriety, be called a State, or at least a 

 State in embryo. 



Again, it is a very common error, resulting from the general reception 

 of the delusive doctrine of sovereignty, that a society in order to consti- 

 tute a Stale, must be entirely independent of all external control ; and 

 this absolute independence is regai'ded as an essential element of the 

 definition. But this is certainly opposed to common usage, according to 

 which we speak of subject, as well as of independent Stales, and of sov- 

 ereign, and semi-sovereign States. 



And though, of course, within certain limits, men are at liberty to vary 

 in their definitions, yet the definition contended for would be, not only in- 

 convenient, but unscientific. For history, in the past, and in the present, 

 presents us with numerous examples of subject Stales — societies in which 

 the dependence is so slight as not materially to afiect the character of the 

 society as a Stale — as, for example, the several States once wholly subject 

 to Turkey, but afterwards independent in all respects, except in that of 

 paying tribute. The definition I have given would, therefore, seem to be 

 not only more in accordance with usage, but in all respects preferable. 



* The Nation, passim. 



