NATIONALITY
273
as a basis for the reconstruction of civil society, as medicine cannot serve for food; but they may influence it with advantage, because they point out the direction, though not the measure, in which reform is needed. They oppose an order of things which is the result of a selfish and violent abuse of power by the ruling classes, and of artificial restriction on the natural progress of the \vorld, destitute of an ideal element or a moral purpose. Practical extremes differ from the theoretical extremes they provoke, because the first are both arbitrary and violent, whilst the last, though also revolutionary, are at the same time remedial. In one case the wrong is voluntary, in the other it is inevitable. This is the general character of the contest between the existing order and the subversive theories that deny its legiti- macy. There are three principal theories of this kind, impugning the present distribution of power, of property, and of territory, and attacking respectively the aristocracy, the middle class, and the sovereignty. They are the theories of equality, communism, and nationality. Though sprung from a common origin, opposing cognate evils, and con- nected by many links, they did not appear simultane- ously. Rousseau proclaimed the first, Babæuf the second,
- J\1azzini the third; and the third is the most recent in its
appearance, the most attractive at the present time, and the richest in promise of future power. In the old European system) the rights of nationalities were neither recognised by governments nor asserted by the people. The interest of the reigning families, not those of the nations) regulated the frontiers; and the administration \vas conducted generally without any reference to popular desires. Where all liberties \vere suppressed) the claims of national independence were necessarily ignored) and a princess, in the words of Fénelon, carried a monarchy in her wedding portion. The eighteenth century acquiesced in this oblivion of corporate rights on the Continent, for the absolutists cared only for the State, and the liberals only for the individual. The Church, the nobles) and the nation had no place in the popular theories of the age j T
