238 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
The evolution of primitive communities in a military and authoritative direction, through consequent inequality, sufficiently explains the fact that the original identification of the community with the territory was, from the property point of view, trans- formed into an identification of sovereignty and of the right of sovereignty, in the same way as property with the right of prop- erty. This identification was categorically formulated in a strik- ing way by Hobbes in these terms: "One succeeds to the kingdom in the same manner as to the right of inherited prop- erty." In saying this, Hobbes was only formulating in theory the practical regime in vogue common to property and to sover- eignty, and of which the numerous wars of succession in Europe as well as in Asia were the manifestation. In the theory of abso- lutism of which he was the champion, the population and terri- tory, in fact as in law, belonged to the sovereign, whereas in the original forms the territory and population were confounded in a single combination.
This evolution of sovereignty and property, always in corre- lation with the boundaries, is observed equally in Asia, America, and wherever great military and inequality societies arise, by reason of circumstances and by being substituted for the previous, partly peaceful and equal, communal forms. The development, not being possible through peaceful understanding, was realized by authority and coercion, by forced co-operation, which was a special form of understanding a cohesion by compression.
We see the development being effected in this direction in cer- tain societies which are veritable stages of transition between tribes and great kingdoms or historical empires. For instance, Yucatan was an intermediate type between the savage tribes of America and the empire of Peru. We are able thus to follow the evolution in America as well as in Europe in its complete and similar enchainment, from the primitive forms up to the little barbaric monarchies and to the great empires either feudal or unified. The theory of the frontiers follows step by step that of property. The frontiers are inscribed in the facts and institutions, which are much less capable of leading us into error than the
- De Civ*., chap ix.
