But I find it impossible to admit that the origin of our Germanic nations is to be found in any such solitary households or families; were it true, as Möser appears to argue[200], of some parts of Westphalia, it would not be so of other districts in southern Germany, as he indeed admits[201], and, particularly, it would not be true of England. In these two cases there can be no doubt that some kind of military organization preceded the peaceful settlement, and in many respects determined its mode and character[202]. But, even if we admit to the fullest extent, the doctrine of solitary settlements, we must still contend that these are, in their very nature, temporary; that they contain no possible provision for stability, in short that they are excluded by the very idea itself of a state; yet it is as a member of a state that man exists, that he is intended to exist[203], and unless as a member of a state, he is incapable of existing as a man. He can as little create a language as create a state: he is born to both, for both, and without both he cannot exist at all. ----- Footnote 200: Osnab. Gesch. i. § 2. Footnote 201: Ibid. i. §. 7. Footnote 202: There cannot be any doubt respecting England, where the Germanic race are not autochthonous. The organization of the Suevi may be learnt from Caesar (Bell. Gall. iv. 1, 2, 3), and Möser very justly observes that the Swabian law must necessarily have differed from the Saxon. Osnab. Gesch. i. § 7. So, to a certain degree, must the Anglosaxon from both. Footnote 203: Aristotle’s Politics, book i. cap. 1. Dahlmann, Politik, § 1, 2, 3. ----- Each single family then is a state: two, three or four families are a state, under larger conditions. How are these last to be settled? Where a number of independent households are thinly dispersed over a portion of the country, their reciprocal relations and position will probably be more or less of the following kind. Some arrangement will exist for the regulation of the terms on which the use of the woods, waters and common uncultivated land may be enjoyed by all the settlers: it is even possible that they may have some common religious ceremonies as the basis of this arrangement[204]. But further than this there need be no union or mutual dependence; each solitary homestead is a state by itself, possessing the _jus belli_; in no federal relation to, and consequently in a state of war with, every other household, even though this right of war should not be in active operation at any given moment[205]. ----- Footnote 204: It is of course extremely difficult to conceive this apart from the existence of a common priesthood; but such a priesthood is already the commencement of a regular state. Footnote 205: