| NATURE 265 
THURSDAY, JANUARY 1904. 
| 
AN EVOLUTIONARY STUDY OF EUROPEAN 
ROEM: 
The Development of European Polity. By Henry 
| Sidgwick. Pp. xxvi+454. (London: Macmillan 
and Co., Ltd. ; New York : the Macmillan Company, 
| 1903.) Price ros. net. 
| ENRY SIDGWICK’S exposition of the theory of 
politics was published in two editions in his life- 
time, as is well known to all English students of the 
subject. These posthumous lectures are the historical 
complement, “an evolutionary study of the develop- 
' ment of polity within the historic period in Europe,”’ as 
Mrs. Sidgwick says in her preface. The author con- 
ceived, as the final part of the work, a comparative 
study of living modern constitutions, founded so far 
as possible on personal observation. He did not live, 
unhappily, to carry out any substantial portion of that 
design. Everyone who knew Sidgwick or was 
acquainted with his work would expect his account of 
any period or aspect of European history to be sound 
and careful, notwithstanding that he was not a pro- 
fessed historian. Everyone who knows anything of 
the difference between finished and not quite finished 
work is aware of the difficulties that commonly attend 
the posthumous publication of an author’s materials, 
even if he has not had the experience of being charged 
with such a production himself. General observations 
of this kind prepare the way, in many cases, for an 
appreciation more or less apologetic in tone. 
On this occasion there is no question of apologies. 
We are not surprised that Mrs. Sidgwick’s intimate 
knowledge and sympathy have given us a book in 
which not only there is no jarring contrast between 
the author’s and the editor’s hand, but the difference 
is barely discernible. We do confess to a little surprise 
at the comprehensive grasp of the matter, and the 
almost invariable sureness of judgment, disclosed in 
these lectures. Historical students who have no taste 
for philosophy (a mistaken frame of mind in our 
opinion, but common) may well be tempted to regret 
that Henry Sidgwick was not a historian altogether. 
We do not know of any book in English that covers 
the same ground as this; among those which intersect 
its lines it would be possible to find more wealth of 
learning and greater brilliance of style, but very hard 
to find so safe and impartial a guide. 
As the topics dealt with range from the patriarchal 
family to modern cabinet government, and _ the 
treatment—even without the author’s last hand—is by 
no means diffuse, it would be idle to attempt a 
summary. We may note, however, that the book is 
provided, as every book of its kind should be, with an 
excellent analytical table of contents as well as an 
index. In the earlier part there is a refreshing freedom 
from mere antiquarianism. Such a quietly humorous 
note as this on the Homeric banquets :—‘ Political 
dinners are very primitive institutions,’’ is more 
NO. 1786, VOL. 69] 
| 
effective than many solemn paragraphs to make the 
learner understand that even archaic history is con- 
cerned with real human nature. 
The short chapter on the patriarchal theory partly 
follows and partly criticises Maine, and leads to the 
conclusion that 
“there is no reason to regard the father’s power, in 
the patriarchal family, as the original type of political 
power; but doubtless the firm establishment of the 
patriarchal type of family contributed importantly to 
the stability and strength of tribal headship.” 
Indeed, Maine’s own perfectly just view that the 
units of archaic society are not individuals but families 
requires us to ask, in the first instance, not how king- 
ship, but how the primacy of one family or clan in the 
tribe is accounted for. Sidgwick’s task was somewhat 
lightened here by the clear consciousness that he was 
trying to account only for European and not (for ex- 
ample) Mongol or Polynesian institutions. If Maine 
himself had more plainly disclaimed any intention of 
dogmatising on anthropology at large, some not very 
prcfitable controversy might have been spared. 
A word of special criticism on Maine occurs in a later 
chapter :— 
“I cannot agree with Maine that codes [in early 
Greek and Roman history] generally included no new 
law.”’ 
This, no doubt, is sound in itself, but we cannot find 
that Maine really committed himself to any such state- 
ment, though he dwells mainly on the consolidating 
function of ancient codes. Farther on we have a more 
substantial amendment. Sidgwick declines to con- 
ceive the Roman jus gentium as formed by a process 
of deliberate selection from the customs of different 
Italian (or Mediterranean) communities. 
“Tt is clear,’’ he says, ‘* that the development of the 
kind of law afterwards known as jus gentium was 
entirely due to practical needs; and we may connect it 
with the development of Roman trade.”’ 
It is right to point out that Maine himself, in his 
later work, did suggest a connection with market law. 
The present writer is disposed to go farther, and to 
regard the incipient jus gentium as having been, in 
fact, the custom of merchants. Without some general 
customs trade could not have gone on at all, and if 
they existed it was an obvious course for the Roman 
jurisdiction to adopt them. Sidgwick rightly notes in 
the same chapter the theoretical divergence between 
jus naturae and jus gentium on the point of slavery. 
The medizval section is remarkably good, although 
Henry Sidgwick’s particular tastes and studies did not 
lie that way. Medizvalists, as well as ordinary 
historical students, will find profitable matter in the 
treatment of Italian and German autonomy with re- 
gard to the general political development of Europe. 
The contrast between Continental feudalism, leading 
first to wild particularism and then to a reaction to- 
wards absolute monarchy, and the stronger central 
government which saved England from despotism, by 
an apparently despotic but really popular system, is not 
in itself new, but is thoroughly well brought out. 
N 
