But besides this, the primitive religion, as I have already observed, in its original purity admitted only a simple and reasonable worship, and one sole, principal deity, who was invisible and almighty. One may then suppose, with a good deal of likelihood, that this religion was not by length of time so much defaced, but that some traces of it still remained in the memory of sensible persons, and in the soundest part of the nation. Indeed we see appear at intervals in ancient Scandinavia, some men of this stamp endued with a real strength of mind, who not only trampled under foot all the objects of the credulity and idle superstition of the multitude, (an effort which pride renders easy, and sometimes alone produces,) but who even raised their minds to the invisible master of every thing we see; "the father of the sun, and of all nature.' In an Icelandic saga, a person named Giest says to his nephew, who is just ready to embark for Greenland*: " I beseech and conjure him who made the sun to give success to thy undertaking." A celebrated Norwegian warrior, named Thorstein, says, speaking of his father, "He will receive upon this account a recompense from him who made the heaven and the universe, whoever he be: and, upon another occasion, he makes a vow to the same being, "who made the sun," for, adds he, "his power must needs have been excessive to produce such a work.' All his family entertained the same sentiments, and it is expressly noted in many places of the same saga, that it was their religion to believe in him, "who was creator of the sun." Torkill, a supreme judge of Iceland, a man of unblemished life, and distinguished among the wisest magistrates of that island during the time that it was governed in form of a republic, seeing his end draw near, ordered himself to be set in the open air, with his face turned towards the sun, and having rested there some moments in a kind of ecstasy, expired, recommending his soul to him among the gods who had created the sun and the stars t. But of all the strokes of this kind, none is more remarkable than what a modern Icelandic historian relates in his manuscript supplement to the history of Norway. Harold Hárfagra, the first

king of all Norway, says this author, being yet but young, held the following discourse in a popular assembly:-" I swear and protest in the most sacred manner, that I will never offer sacrifice to any of the gods adored by the people, but to him only who hath formed this world, and every thing we behold in it." Harold lived in the middle of the ninth century, at a time when the Christian religion had not yet penetrated into Norway.

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT WHICH FORMERLY

PREVAILED IN THE NORTH.

THE character of the ancient northern nations is, in some measure, laid open in the former book. It is the nature of every religion which is the handiwork of men, always to carry marks of the weakness of its authors, and to breathe forth the same spirit with which they themselves were animated. Their government and laws are another faithful mirror wherein that spirit may be seen with no less advantage. It is obvious that the laws cannot long be contrary to the genius of a nation. Sooner or later they will be impressed with its character, or they will give it theirs. These are two streams very different in their sources, but which as soon as they unite in the same channel, have but one force and one direction. The importance of this subject makes it incumbent on me to treat it with some extent, and to bring together with the utmost care all the feeble and scattered rays which throw any light upon it amid the obscurity of so many dark ages.

In the first place, let us consult Tacitus, that excellent historian of ancient Germany, who in his little compendious narrative has given in a few pages a most striking picture of the inhabitants of this vast country. His words ought to be given here entire, and weighed with care. Among this people, he says, the chiefs, or princes, determine some affairs of less importance; all the rest are reserved for the

66

*De minoribus rebus Principes consultant; de majoribus Omnes. Tacit. Germ. c. 11, 12, 13, 14, &c.

general assembly yet even these, the decision of which is vested in the people, are beforehand discussed by the chiefs.... At these assemblies they take their seats all of them armed. Silence is commanded by the priests, whose business it is at such times to maintain order. Then the king or chief speaks first; afterwards the great men are heard in their turns with that attention which is due to their age, to their nobility, their reputation in war, their eloquence; greater deference being paid to their power of persuasion, than to their personal authority. If their advice displeases, the people reject it with a general murmur; if it is approved of, they clash their lances. It is the most honourable way of expressing their assent, or of conferring praise, to do it by their arms. . . . . Criminal causes may also be brought before this great_council of the nation. . In the same assemblies are elected the chiefs or princes, whose business it is to distribute justice through the towns and villages. To each of these are joined a hundred assessors chosen out of the people, who assist the chief with their advice and authority *. The kings are chosen for their noble birth; the leaders or generals for their personal valour. The power of the kings is not arbitrary, but limited. The leaders are not so much to give orders as examples: they must signalize themselves by their courage and activity, and their authority must be founded on esteem and admiration. Extreme youth does not exclude from the rank of prince or chief, those whom their noble birth, or the distinguished merit of their fathers, entitle to this dignity. As they advance in age and acquire esteem, other young warriors attach themselves to them and swell their retinue. Nor does any one blush to be seen among these attendants or followers. Yet they have different degrees of rank, which are regulated by the chief's own judgment. Among the followers is great emulation who shall stand highest in the chief's or prince's favour; among the princes who shall have the most numerous and valiant attendants. This is their dignity, their strength, to be always surrounded with a body of chosen youths. This is their glory in peace, their security in war. And not only in their own nation, but among neighbouring states, they acquire a name and reputation, in

• Reges ex nobilitate; Duces cx virtute sumunt. Tacit. c. 7.

proportion to the number and valour of their attendants. Then is their friendship sought after by embassies, and cultivated by presents. In battle, it would be a disgrace to the chief to be excelled in courage by any of his followers; a disgrace to his followers not to equal their chief. Should he perish, they would be exposed to the highest infamy through life if they should survive him, and escape from battle. . . The chiefs fight for victory-they for their chief.

To

retain their followers in their service, no prince or chief has any other resource but war. They require of him one while a horse trained for war; one while a victorious and bloody lance. His table rudely served, but with great abundance, serves them instead of pay."

All the most distinguished circumstances which characterize the ancient Teutonic form of government are contained in this remarkable passage. Here we see kings, who owe their advancement to an illustrious extraction, presiding, rather than ruling, over a free people. Here we see the nation assembling at certain stated times, and making resolutions in their own persons on all affairs of importance, as to enact laws, to choose peace or war, to conclude alliances, to distribute justice in the last resort, and to elect magistrates. Here also we distinguish a body of the chiefs of the nation, who prepare and propose the important matters, the decision of which is reserved for the general assembly of all the free men: that is, we trace here the first lineaments, if I may so say, of what was afterwards named in different countries, "the council of the nation," 'the senate,' 66 'the house of peers," &c. Here we discover the origin of that singular custom, of having an elective general, under an hereditary king; a custom received among most of the nations of German extraction, who had either mayors of the palace, or grand marshals, or constables, or counts: for all these different names only expressed the same thing in different countries. Lastly, if we examine with attention the words of Tacitus, we cannot doubt but vassalage and the feudal tenure had already taken footing among this people before ever they left their native forests. For although perhaps they did not in those early times give lands in fee, and although their fees or fiefs were then perhaps nothing but arms, war-horses, and banquets; what we read of the reciprocal engagements between the

66

princes or chiefs and their followers evidently contains whatever was essential to the nature of vassalage, and all the changes which were afterwards made in it were only slight and accidental, occasioned by the conquests and new establishments which followed from it.

If we consider after this the character of these nations, as it is sketched out by Tacitus, we shall not be surprised to see them wedded to institutions which they found so suitable to their situation and temper; for being the most free and warlike people upon earth, they must have had a natural aversion to the authority of a single person; and if they placed themselves under leaders, it was only because war cannot be conducted in any other form. As free men they would only obey from choice, and be less influenced by personal authority than by reason; as warriors they conceived no other duty to be owing to a prince than to be ready to shed their blood for his

cause.

But how came these men to preserve themselves in so great a degree of liberty? This was owing to their climate and manner of life, which gave them such strength of body and mind as rendered them capable of long and painful labours, of great and daring exploits. "Accordingly we have since found liberty to prevail in North America, but not in the south;" for the bodily strength of the northern warriors kept up in them that courage, that opinion of their own valour, that impatience of affronts and injuries, which makes men hate all arbitrary government and despise those who submit to it. Being less sensible of pain than the more southern nations, less easily moved by the bait of pleasure, less susceptible of those passions which shake the soul too violently, and weaken it by making it dependent on another's will, they were the less a prey to ambition, which flatters and intimidates by turns in order to gain the ascendant. Their imagination more constant and lively, their conception more steady than quick, naturally resisting novelties, kept them from falling into those snares out of which they would not have known how to escape.

They were free because they inhabited an uncultivated

*Montesquieu, L'Esprit des Lois, tom. 2.