And

called synonymous. There are whole families of nations, with which a high respect for absolute power seems to be a natural tendency, which submit to it willingly and without reserve. It is not simply the lower races of negroes which have submitted to an absolute ruler. The Mongolian race and the superior Semitic peoples even, favored an absolute form of government. And though the noblest nations, the Aryan, did not willingly submit to this form of government, and were jealous of it, they still have shown similar tendencies, both in theory and practice. The democratic Greeks sought the most perfect political freedom in an absolute government of the people. The aristocratic Romans, the first in the science of law, adhered, in the principles underlying their private and public laws, and by way of national preference, to the idea of absolute power. Individuals of great energy and superior intellect, when at the head of the government, are most apt to be provoked to resistance by any limit imposed to their universal authority, and seek to justify their action whenever they overstep the limit imposed, by an appeal to the necessity of absolute power. Instances of a leaning toward absolute power are, therefore, frequently met with in the history of modern European states, and were the causes provocative of a great many political events. it is not always bad men who incline toward absolutism.-What is the meaning of absolute power? Absolute, in the full sense of the word, means freedom from all limitation. Really, there is nothing absolute but what is without beginning and end; a beginning and an end are limitations. The truly absolute, therefore, can be predicated only of a being unlimited and infinite, that is, only of God. Hence, absolute power, in the real sense of the word, can be conceived only as divine omnipotence. Absolute law is the law of God.All human law, on the other hand, is necessarily limited, because its condition precedent, what it supposes, man, is a limited being. Absolute power can not be attributed to man, because the limits of human nature render it impossible to attribute such power to him.-In this extreme sense men have but seldom understood absolute power, and hardly ever claimed it. They understood and claimed this power in that extreme sense only when they regarded their ruler in the light of a divine being. A great many rulers of antiquity were worshiped as gods, and many of them may have felt themselves gods. Wherever polytheism prevailed, the people took little umbrage at this deification of man. And even where polytheism did not prevail, a people in clined to pantheism might worship certain heroes and princes as a temporary incarnation of the Deity. Even in our day such ideas have not totally disappeared. But as far as the more civilized nations and European nations are concerned, we need not fear that they will thus mistake the eternal God for man.

The fiction of human omnipotence is, in our opinion, too ludicrous to serve as the basis of any political right. We

know, indeed, that possessors of power, be they king or people, have a broader vision and exercise greater power than private persons, since they can command the services of many. But we know too well that the perception of those in power is subject to the limits of human vision; that there are some things it can not reach, and that they are subject in all their action to the same limitations as other men, and can neither change God's creation in any essential particular, nor even create the smallest organic being.-All human law or rights, and consequently the absolute power which man can claim, is necessarily limited : (a) By the divine law. Since man, as a creature, supposes the Creator, and always depends on God, he must recognize the divine law as superior to him, and as conditioning human law. The divine law is really absolute, because it proceeds from the absolute Spirit and is infinite. Man can not even think of the divine law as non-existing; still less can he break its power. Whether he will or not, he remains subject to the great law of nature, and to the law of the divine guidance of the world. He can not do away with the order of the world any more than with the elements, nor withdraw himself from the irresistible power of time. (b) By the limited physical nature of man, from which human law, because it pertains to the visible, earthly order of things, can not be separated. These limits may be disregarded in individual cases, but they can not be removed nor argued away. When, therefore, as in recent times, it is claimed that absolute power is necessary, those who approve it seek to introduce it into the state in a covert manner, and to moderate it by the recognition of the above limits. They admit that absolute law or right is not of human origin, and they give it a divine source. God, according to this view, has invested man with the right of absolute rule for the purpose of securing and maintaining social order, and has raised human rulers to the dignity of his representatives and plenipotentiaries. To this extent, therefore, they claim that man may properly exercise absolute power. This view is a dangerous one in this age, because it mixes the true and the false so adroitly that it may easily mislead the unthinking. While maintaining an appearance of reverence for God, who alone possesses absolute power, it seeks to secure to the sovereign the most unlimited power possible. It protests against human assumption, and still would reap the fruits of that assumption. It will not allow a ruler to make himself a god, but puts him in the place of God, and encourages him to entertain the strange delusion that his thoughts and actions are under divine control, in a manner different from the thoughts and actions of other men. It derives the absolute power of man from God, and, with due humility, recognizes the dependence of man on his Maker, while it encourages, in the mind of the ruler, the insolent idea that he only exercises the power possessed by God before He delegated it to him. In the actual exercise of his powers the sovereign is thus raised

to a level with the Deity, infinitely above the rest of mankind who are certainly his equals and not his creatures. The errors of this view are therefore essentially the same as if divine power were ascribed to man. Man can have rights and exercise power only within the limits of his nature. -To the extent that God confides the exercise of divine right to man, He, by confiding it to him, confides it to a being with all the limitations of human nature, and hence the right so confided is changed from one absolute and divine into one human and limited.

If this be not admitted, the human ruler arrogates to himself a power which can be but a source of evil to him, for the reason that it is not in human nature to exercise such power. By giving his limited freedom the dimensions of divine power, he becomes the plaything of his own caprices; and the person who knows how to influence these, has the ruler under his control.Absolute power, as thus defined, is most frequently advocated in Europe by absolutist parties, and there is a close relationship between such absolutism and these parties. Yet this idea of absolutism is not peculiar to absolutists, nor is it held by all absolutists. Neither is the political character of absolutism fully described by this definition. But the term absolute power is frequently used to express limited power wielded by man. We call those forms of government absolute in which the sovereign is the sole source, representative and dispenser of power-though that power may be limited in its nature-and not obliged to secure, by virtue of a constitutional provision, the co-operation and consent of others to his measures (especially of legislative bodies, ministers and counselors), nor limited in the exercise of his power by the rights—those of a political nature at least-of others. It is evident that of such absolute power there are different grades. In proportion as the recognized limitations of absolute power are increased, the absolutism of that power itself diminishes. It is admitted that this power is political in its nature, and hence is subject to the same limitations as the state itself. And just here we notice, with increasing civilization and the growing maturity of the human race, a deeper insight into the natural limitations of the state, its functions and its laws, an insight which has in no way weakened the power of the state. To the limitations already noticed we may add the following: (1) The limitation, unknown to the Romans, which is represented by the Church, whose religious authority is independent of the state, and which is freely recognized as an independent institution by all civilized governments. (2) The limitation of international law, which sees to it that the different states may co-exist side by side a limitation the extent of which increases in proportion to the increasing solidarity of mankind. (3) Private law, which defines the rights of individuals, of the family, and of corporations, and which, though it is the duty of the government to regulate and protect it, is not in its nature the product of the will of the state, and whose changes

are determined by the freedom of private indi viduals. (4) By the special nature and history of the people living in a state, and of the country they control. There have been, and still are, states in which, though all these limitations were recognized, absolute power was claimed for the central organ of government. And such was the case, not in absolute monarchies only, but also in absolute aristocracies and in absolute democracies. It can not be said that this idea of absolute power is so monstrous as the idea of absolute power spoken of in the first place above. A peaceful observance and a just administration of the law are reconcilable with the present idea of absolute power. The sovereign is not imagined to be a god or a fetich; he may be conscious of his own human nature and its limitations, and have an honest intention of faithfully discharging his duties to God and his fellow-men.-We are obliged to admit, indeed, that in certain cases such a close concentration of all the powers of government in the hands of one man may be needful, and hence justifiable. Nations of inferior races need the absolute rule of a superior prince, or of nobler races, in order to enjoy life in peace, or to attain a higher grade of civilization. Such inferior races frequently have neither the desire nor the means of limiting the power of their rulers. Most of the Asiatic and African nations, and those in the northeast of Europe, are subject to this sort of absolute governmental power, and the doctrinarian introduction of constitutional limitations would render their condition worse rather than improve it.-But to the more masculine and energetic people of a higher type, among whom there is also an aristocratic element, and among whom even the lower classes have a sense of justice and honor, the absolute form of government is, as a rule, unsuitable and intolerable. They can not bear the thought that all political rights accorded them are simply the gifts of royal grace. Having a knowledge of their own moral worth, and of the fact that they contribute to the welfare and share the fortunes of the state to which they belong, they can not understand why they should have political duties without also having political rights. And although they admit that the sovereign is entitled to share the highest prerogatives, and such a degree of political power as the unity of the state requires, they do not admit that the sovereign should enjoy all rights, and that the rest of the body politic should have none. They know that in an organism every one of its members, be it ever SO inferior, has a significance of its own, and hence certain rights; and that, though the head may control the hands and feet, its control is limited by the power inherent in the latter, and that its rule over them can not, therefore, be absolute.— The humane state, in harmony with what is noblest in human nature-the civilized statethough it requires an efficient central power, has no tendency toward absolute, that is, unlimited, political power, as against which the political

ation of a state, power, unrestricted by law, is limited in various ways. On the one hand, by manners, customs and traditions; on the other, by religion; still again, by the fear of revolt or the vengeance of the injured. In the most enlightened countries, public opinion exercises, at times, an influence which can not be gainsaid. It is so difficult to rise above: "What will they say?"Thus far we have discussed absolute power in the hands of a monarch, but it may also be exercised by collective governing bodies, either aristocratic or democratic. When absolute power is the attribute of an aristocracy, it becomes odious sooner than in any other form of government. First of all, because it enters more quickly into the period of abuse, and because, if in an absolute monarchy the sovereign with his favorites and devoted servants may commit much wrong, they can not do so much in this direction as aristocratic families with their hangers-on and partisans. It is often the case that these dominant families are descended from conquerors belonging to another nationality and a different religion, that they are distinguished by the color of their skin or other external marks. In this case, these families have, on the one hand, a greater tendency to abuse their power and become tyrants, and on the other, the subject populations are less inclined to give them credit even for the good they receive from their government. An aristocracy as a collective body is less influenced by the restraints which limit the excesses of absolute monarchs; they fear the loss of power less.-In a democracy, absolute power seems to be the just and natural attribute of government. Is not this government the result of election? Does it not perfectly represent the will of the nation? Is it not theoretically, at least, responsible to the nation?—Still, absolute power is, in every case, too weighty a burden to be easily borne by men. While a despot may allow the reins of power to drop from his feeble hands to see them picked up by some favorite, a representative assembly may often be led into excess by even a generous sentiment, and thereby still further increase the burden on its shoulders. Absolute power in democratic governments is not altogether rational except when the government is elected unanimously. that case each man would be the subject of his own will or of the power which he himself created. In practice, this never takes place, for majorities govern and often oppress minorities. They oppress them with the less scruple since they are the majority and have the letter of the law on their side. The question may be put whether the nation itself has absolute power over one of its own members. The assertion, pure and simple, of such a principle would seem revolting in our day, although eminent men have upheld a doctrine which favors this view. To admit the absolute power of a nation is to justify religious persecution, slavery, and many other horrors with which humanity has stained its annals. From deduction to deduction we have

In

come implicitly to the question whether laws can command absolute obedience. We shall not give a definite answer to this question here, for we are not writing a treatise on casuistry. We have not to seek for the special cases in which a nation uses or abuses its power, nor in what cases the abuse should be submitted to and suffered. We shall say, simply, that we owe some sacrifice to society in exchange for the benefits which we receive from it. But the measure of the sacrifice must be found by each man in his own conscience. (See DESPOTISM, TYRANNY.)

MAURICE BLOCK.

ABSTENTION. This word was formerly employed in the civil law, and was synonymous with renunciation of the right of inheritance. It is now used only in a political sense, and means the renunciation of the exercise of one's rights.— Abstention is resorted to by political parties in a minority. These parties, sometimes, seeing that their efforts to bring about the triumph of their views are fruitless, feel loath to allow their adversaries to witness their defeat. Sometimes they propose to protest against oppression, real or imag inary. At such times they think that by voting they recognize the rightfulness of the act or of the government which they oppose.-Abstention is likewise resorted to in cases arising from a conflict of duties, feelings or interests.-We would call attention only to the case in which persons abstain from voting through neglect. An abstention so causeless and even so culpable can not be justified. Can abstention by a political party be justified? We think not. In the first place, it is a species of self-annulment, a kind of political suicide, which can no more be excused than the act of taking one's own life. Besides, by retiring from the field, a party loses the chance of gaining an advantage by a sudden change in public opinion. By taking a part in political movements, by mingling with his fellow-citizens at election times, and by presenting himself as a candidate for their votes, a man may expect to propagate his political views with more or less success, and to exercise some influence on the destiny of his country. One owes his country not only his blood, but his self-devotion and his talent.To the orator who remains silent, we might say: If you had spoken, we should perhaps have yielded to your arguments. You have no right to question the intelligence, the loyalty and the patriotism of your fellow-citizens, even when they profess opinions opposed to your own. What right have you to consider yourself infallible? Are you very sure that our reply would not have convinced you of your error, and converted you to our way of thinking?-We might remind those who practice abstention-which generally happens in special cases-on account of a conflict of duties or interests, of the law of Solon, which provided that every citizen should decide in favor of one or other of the parties of the country, because abstention often prolongs in