Tinta was a good-hearted man, very cautious in his manner, and most faithfully attached to his gaitah, Sahale Selassee, than whom, in his eyes, there could not be a better or a greater monarch. For several days he remained in Aliu Amba, and on some pretence or other always came accompanied with Sheik Tigh as his interpreter to spend the afternoon with me. I soon perceived that the real object of these visits was to learn the motive that had induced so many Europeans to visit Shoa of late. About this time, it must be observed, information had arrived of the approach of M. Rochet de Hericourt bearing presents from the King of France to Sahale Selassee. I scarcely knew how to answer Tinta, except by complimenting him upon the able character of the Negoos, of which we had heard in our country, and, induced us to desire a more intimate acquaintance with a monarch of whom report spoke so highly. This not appearing satisfactory, cupidity, the national vice of Abyssinia, I thought might be excited favourably for the explanation desired; so I entered largely upon the great commercial benefits that would accrue to the Shoans by a communication being kept up between their country and the sea-coast. The very supposition of a road being opened for this purpose seemed, however, to astound Tinta, who, with a deal of sincerity in his manner, begged of me, if I wished to remain on good terms with the Negoos, not to mention such a thing; for “how would Sahale Selassee,” he asked, “be able to preserve his people, if they could escape to countries so rich as yours.” To remove the Adal and Galla tribes, Tinta considered would be to break down the “hatta,” or fence, that alone secured the Shoans at home, for they dare not leave their country under present circumstances, except with the greatest danger to their lives.
This subject-preserving principle appears to be the most important one in the home policy of the government of Sahale Selassee, It also appears to have been the foundation of many ancient systems of social communities, and the representatives of which, preserved in their original purity, have yet to be discovered in the unknown oases that stud with desert-surrounded islands intertropical Africa.
In Shoa this principle is carried out for the sole benefit of the monarch, and Paley’s metaphor of the lording pigeon, over the productive wealth of the whole dovecote, typifies exactly the respective conditions of the Shoans and their Negoos. The strictly selfish and monopolizing rule, established by the sagacious monarch, has reduced all his people to the most abject state of submission, dependent upon him for every kind of property they possess. Most fortunately for them, he is a just and good man, for he can give and take away at pleasure; and thus holding wealth and honour in one hand, and poverty and wretchedness in the other, he has made himself the point upon which turns human happiness; and that kind of demon worship which propitiates spirits supposed to have the power of inflicting evil is, in consequence, paid to Sahale Selassee, who could at any moment reduce to a beggar the richest, and most powerful of his slaves.
It is no fiction of the Shoan law, that everything in the country is the positive property of the monarch. He can, without assigning any reason, dispossess the present holder and confer his wealth upon another, or retain it for his own use. He can demand the services of all his people at all times, who must perform everything required of them, to build palaces, construct bridges, till the royal demesnes, or fight his enemies. They are, from first to last, both rich and poor, the mere slaves of one sole lord and master, and scarcely a day passes over but in some way or other the most wealthy are obliged to confess it, or run the risk of being denounced as an enemy to the sovereign, which would be followed by confiscation of all property, or incarceration in Guancho, the State prison, with a heavy fine imposed. Nor do the Shoans, born and educated in this servile condition, consider such exercises of power as acts of tyranny; on the contrary, with loud protestations of their own loyalty, all the neighbours and late friends of the unfortunate individual so punished would with one accord ejaculate, “Our good King! Our good King! alas! alas! to have such an ungrateful servant!” meaning the dispossessed man of course.
Samuel’s expostulation with the Jews[9] when they demanded a King, often recurred to me at the various instances of what I at first considered to be undue demands for ploughing, or gathering in the harvest, or building store-houses for the Negoos, which were made upon the people whilst I was in the country, and who, at the bidding of the overseers appointed to see the required work done, were obliged to leave their own business, find their own tools, material, and cattle, to perform whatever was required.
“And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive-yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your King which ye shall have chosen; and the Lord shall not hear you in that day.”
Samuel very probably spoke from a knowledge of the customs and practices of the kingly courts in the countries surrounding Judea; and in that case the principles of home policy which direct the Sovereign of Shoa in governing his people, appear to have come down to him from a very remote time; nor can the unfair balance of power we observe between him and his people be charged to his own cunning and selfish intrigues. With the prejudices inseparable from his education as a king, he always feels jealous of his prerogative and of his power, and the threatened diminishment in the extent of either arouses his attention immediately. He is perfectly aware that man’s nature will not allow him to submit entirely to the arbitrary rule of even the most just superior, and that some spirits will always be springing up among his subjects, the more numerous the greater the opportunities may be, and who will endeavour to escape from the bondage to which they have been born.
It is just possible to conceive the relation between the monarch of Shoa and his people by comparison with the state and condition of the household of some rich and powerful nobleman in England; with this difference, that in the latter case it is optional on the part of the dependents to continue their servitude; whilst the Negoos possesses the stronger hold upon the services and property of his subjects, and consequently a greater power of exercising his will, because they have no means of removing themselves away from his power. If opportunities of escaping from this authority were afforded by allowing free intercourse with other countries, this would at once destroy that principle of dependence which is the foundation of the kingly power in Shoa, and which is perfectly understood to be so by the Negoos, and every Shoan is also well aware of the fact.
It can never be expected, therefore, that any freedom of intercourse will be encouraged by Sahale Selassee that is not connected with an increase of his dominion. Give to him the ancient empire, and he is our intelligent and useful ally; but this clever prince of a petty kingdom will never afford facilities for its being absorbed in any other empire. The proffered friendship of a lion will always be suspected by a sagacious old antelope.
A stranger, at first annoyed with the petty restraints upon unlimited personal freedom, readily excuses it when he finds this to be, part of the cautious policy dictated by the exigences of a government so constituted; and another thing which leads him to feel more satisfied with his situation in Shoa is, that he soon perceives Sahale Selassee to be superior to the temptation of abusing that power which he possesses. The contemplation of such a prince in his own country is worth the trouble and risk of visiting it. During a reign of thirty years, save one or two transient rebellions of ambitious traitors, who have led, not the subjects of Sahale Selassee, but those of his enemies, nothing like internal dissension or civil war have by their ravages defaced his happy country; whilst gradually his character for justice and probity has spread far and wide, and the supremacy of political excellence is without hesitation given to the Negoos of Shoa throughout the length and breadth of the ancient empire of Ethiopia. To be feared by every prince around, and loved by every subject at home, is the boast of the first government of civilized Europe; and strangely enough this excellence of social condition is paralleled in the heart of Africa, where we find practically carried out the most advantageous policy of a social community that one of the wisest of sages could conceive—that of arbitrary power placed in the hands of a really good man.