Thomas Paine · Complete work
Part II: Chapter II
Part II: Chapter II of 41. Read it here for reference, or continue through the entire work without leaving the reader.
Open the complete readerOriginal 18th-century English
It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle sacred and moral. The obscurity in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniquity and disgrace with which they began. The origin of the present government of America and France will ever be remembered, because it is honourable to record it; but with respect to the rest, even Flattery has consigned them to the tomb of time, without an inscription.
It could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages of the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending flocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and lay it under contributions. Their power being thus established, the chief of the band contrived to lose the name of Robber in that of Monarch; and hence the origin of Monarchy and Kings.
The origin of the Government of England, so far as relates to what is called its line of monarchy, being one of the latest, is perhaps the best recorded. The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew-bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.
Those bands of robbers having parcelled out the world, and divided it into dominions, began, as is naturally the case, to quarrel with each other. What at first was obtained by violence was considered by others as lawful to be taken, and a second plunderer succeeded the first. They alternately invaded the dominions which each had assigned to himself, and the brutality with which they treated each other explains the original character of monarchy. It was ruffian torturing ruffian. The conqueror considered the conquered, not as his prisoner, but his property. He led him in triumph rattling in chains, and doomed him, at pleasure, to slavery or death. As time obliterated the history of their beginning, their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power originally usurped, they affected to inherit.
From such beginning of governments, what could be expected but a continued system of war and extortion? It has established itself into a trade. The vice is not peculiar to one more than to another, but is the common principle of all. There does not exist within such governments sufficient stamina whereon to engraft reformation; and the shortest and most effectual remedy is to begin anew on the ground of the nation.
What scenes of horror, what perfection of iniquity, present themselves in contemplating the character and reviewing the history of such governments! If we would delineate human nature with a baseness of heart and hypocrisy of countenance that reflection would shudder at and humanity disown, it is kings, courts and cabinets that must sit for the portrait. Man, naturally as he is, with all his faults about him, is not up to the character.
Can we possibly suppose that if governments had originated in a right principle, and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, the world could have been in the wretched and quarrelsome condition we have seen it? What inducement has the farmer, while following the plough, to lay aside his peaceful pursuit, and go to war with the farmer of another country? or what inducement has the manufacturer? What is dominion to them, or to any class of men in a nation? Does it add an acre to any man's estate, or raise its value? Are not conquest and defeat each of the same price, and taxes the never-failing consequence?—Though this reasoning may be good to a nation, it is not so to a government. War is the Pharo-table of governments, and nations the dupes of the game.
If there is anything to wonder at in this miserable scene of governments more than might be expected, it is the progress which the peaceful arts of agriculture, manufacture and commerce have made beneath such a long accumulating load of discouragement and oppression. It serves to show that instinct in animals does not act with stronger impulse than the principles of society and civilisation operate in man. Under all discouragements, he pursues his object, and yields to nothing but impossibilities.
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the complete English text of Parts I and II with Paine’s preface, appendix and author’s notes (Conway’s edition, 1894) for fidelity, the author’s force and cadence, and modern clarity.
It is impossible that governments such as those the world has known until now could have begun by any means other than a total violation of every sacred and moral principle. The darkness surrounding the origins of all present old governments betrays the injustice and disgrace of their beginnings. The founding of the present governments of America and France will always be remembered, because their origins deserve to be recorded; but the rest have been consigned, even by Flattery, to the tomb of time without an inscription.
In the early, sparsely peopled ages of the world, when tending flocks and herds was humanity's chief occupation, it could hardly have been difficult for a gang of ruffians to overrun a country and exact tribute from it. Once their power was established, the leader of the gang contrived to shed the name Robber and take that of Monarch; such was the origin of monarchy and kings.
The origin of England's government, so far as its so-called line of monarchy is concerned, is perhaps the best documented, being among the most recent. The hatred bred by the Norman invasion and its tyranny must have been deeply rooted in the nation to survive the schemes meant to erase its memory. Though no courtier will speak of the curfew bell, no village in England has forgotten it.
Once those gangs of robbers had parceled out the world and divided it into dominions, they began, naturally enough, to quarrel among themselves. What one had first seized by force, another considered it lawful to seize in turn, and a second plunderer followed the first. They invaded one another's self-appointed domains by turns, and the savagery of their treatment of each other reveals monarchy's original character. Ruffian tortured ruffian. The conqueror regarded the conquered not as his prisoner but as his property. He paraded him in triumph, chains rattling, and condemned him at will to slavery or death. As time effaced the history of their beginnings, their successors adopted new appearances to sever themselves from their inherited disgrace; their principles and aims, however, remained the same. What began as plunder took the gentler name of revenue; the power they had originally usurped they pretended to inherit.
From beginnings such as these, what could be expected but a continuing system of war and extortion? It has become a trade. The vice belongs no more to one such government than to another; it is the principle common to them all. Within such governments there is not enough strength on which reform can be grafted; the quickest and most effective remedy is to begin anew, on the foundation of the nation itself.
What scenes of horror, what consummate injustice, confront us when we examine the character and history of such governments! If we wished to portray human nature with a baseness of heart and a hypocritical face that would make reflection recoil and humanity refuse to recognize itself, kings, courts, and cabinets would have to sit for the portrait. Human beings as they naturally are, with all their faults, do not rise to that character.
Can we possibly suppose that, had governments begun on a just principle and had no interest in pursuing an unjust one, the world would have reached the miserable, quarrelsome condition in which we have seen it? What would induce a farmer at his plow to abandon his peaceful labor and go to war with the farmer of another country? What would induce a manufacturer? What does dominion mean to them, or to any class of people in a nation? Does it add an acre to anyone's land or increase its value? Do conquest and defeat not come at the same cost, with taxes the inevitable result of either?—Though such reasoning may serve a nation, it does not serve a government. War is the faro table of governments, and nations are the dupes at the game.
If there is anything in this wretched scene of governments more astonishing than we might expect, it is the progress that the peaceful arts of agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce have made under so long-accumulated a burden of discouragement and oppression. This shows that instinct moves animals no more powerfully than the principles of society and civilization move humanity. In spite of every discouragement, a person pursues his purpose and yields only to the impossible.
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the complete English text of Parts I and II with Paine’s preface, appendix and author’s notes (Conway’s edition, 1894).
Governments like those that have existed until now could only have begun by completely violating every sacred and moral principle. The beginnings of all the old governments still in existence are hidden from view. That obscurity points to the injustice and disgrace of their origins. People will always remember how the present governments of America and France began, because those beginnings deserve to be recorded. As for the others, even flattery has buried them in time without an inscription.
In the world's early ages, people lived far apart and spent much of their time tending flocks and herds. It would not have been hard for a gang of robbers to overrun a country and force its people to pay them. Once their power was established, the gang's leader found a way to exchange the name robber for monarch. This is how monarchy and kings began.
The origins of England's line of monarchs are among the most recent and perhaps the best recorded. The Norman invasion and the tyranny that followed stirred such deep hatred in the country that even efforts to erase its memory could not outlast it. No courtier may speak of the curfew bell, but no English village has forgotten it.
After these gangs of robbers divided the world into their own territories, they naturally began quarreling with one another. What one man had seized by force, another thought he could lawfully seize in turn. A second plunderer replaced the first. They took turns invading one another's territories. Their brutal treatment of each other shows what monarchy was like at its start: one thug torturing another. A conqueror regarded the man he defeated not as a prisoner but as property. He paraded him in chains and, whenever he wished, condemned him to slavery or death. As time erased the history of their beginnings, their successors took on a different appearance to escape the disgrace they had inherited. But their principles and aims stayed the same. Plunder acquired the gentler name of revenue. They pretended that the power first seized by force was theirs by inheritance.
What could come from governments with such beginnings except constant war and extortion? Those activities have become a trade. This vice does not belong to any one of these governments more than another. It is a principle they all share. Such governments lack the strength within themselves to support reform. The quickest and most effective answer is for a nation to start again from the ground up.
What horrifying scenes and fully developed injustices appear when we consider what these governments are like and look back over their histories! Suppose we wanted to portray human nature as so mean at heart and so false in appearance that any thoughtful person would shudder and humanity itself would reject the portrait. We would have to use kings, courts, and governing ministers as our models. Ordinary people, with all their natural faults, do not sink that low.
If governments had begun on a just principle and had no interest in pursuing an unjust one, could the world possibly have become as miserable and quarrelsome as we have seen it? Why would a farmer leave his plow and his peaceful work to fight a farmer from another country? Why would a manufacturer do it? What does control of another country mean to them, or to any group of people in a nation? Does it add an acre to anyone's land or increase its value? Don't victory and defeat cost them the same, with taxes sure to follow either way? This reasoning may suit a nation, but it does not suit a government. To governments, war is a gambling table, and nations are the people fooled into playing.
If anything about this miserable history of governments is more surprising than we might expect, it is how much farming, manufacturing, and trade have advanced in peace despite such a long buildup of obstacles and oppression. This shows that the human drive to form a civilized society is at least as strong as instinct in animals. People keep pursuing their aims despite every discouragement. Only impossibility stops them.