Posted on 04/15/2023 5:13:14 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
"…if a foreigner shall contract with a Citizen, he shall be bound by the laws of that City, as if he were, for that time, a Subject of that Nation."
Well that implies that they are absolutely not the same thing. That the one is very different from the other.
Under the city state system citizens were in the cities and subjects were in the rest of the nation.
Switzerland is a prime example.
Au contraire, mon frère.
I've spent some time studying the history of Switzerland, and it was formed out of eight independent cities that became bonded together in a confederacy. Their initial charter was Charte des prêtres, written in 1370.
It says this:
N'importe qui, étranger ou indigène, hôte ou citoyen d'une ville ou d'un pays, quel que soit son titre, doit pouvoir voyager dans tous nos districts et territoires, et aussi dans ceux des gens qui dépendent de nous, sans danger aucun pour sa personne et ses biens, et nul ne doit l'inquiéter, l'arrêter ou lui causer un dommage.
The bolded part means "citizen of a city, or country". It refers to people of the land as "citizen." All other nations used the word "Subject" as it was understood in their language. Only Switzerland took the word "Citizen" and applied it to the entire nation, and why not? The bulk of their population were city dwellers in the eight cities that formed the Swiss Confederacy. Makes sense to refer to the inhabitants of the nation as "citizens", because most of them were "city denizens."
And indeed, if you look at Etymology online, you will find that the modern sense of the word comes from Switzerland in the late 14th century. (i.e. 1370)
"Sense of "freeman or inhabitant of a country, member of the state or nation, not an alien" is late 14c. "
So Switzerland pretty much stood alone in using the word "citizen" to describe the members of it's nation.
The examples you provided reinforce my point that the word "citizen" in the English of this period meant "city dweller" not something analogous to "Subject" or member of a nation.
Yes, the word "citizen" meant "City Denizen" in the English of 1750. That is exactly my point. It did not mean "subject". It was not yet analogous to subject at this point.
“…the finishing stroke to their independency, was given by the statute 27 Hen. VIII. c. 26. which at the same time gave the utmost advancement to their civil prosperity, by admitting them to a thorough communication of laws with the subjects of England. Thus were this brave people gradually conquered into the enjoyment of true liberty ; being insensibly put upon the same footing, and made fellow-citizens with their conquerors.”
Years ago I searched the complete works of Blackstone, and if I recall properly, I saw "citizen" only mentioned 5 times, and in each the context was that of "city dweller."
This quote you have given me here looks like it might be referring to a meaning beyond city dweller, but I think I would like to see it in a better context.
“It would indeed be extremely improper, that any number of subjects should have the power of binding the supreme magistrate, and putting him against his will in a state of war. Whatever hostilities therefore may be committed by private citizens, the state ought not to be affected thereby”
In this quote, you cannot discern from the context what they mean by "private citizens." England had no "citizens" but what they considered inhabitants of a city, and that may be the exact context meant for both of these quotes.
“III And that no Citizen of London, or the King’s Subjects …”
Again, "citizen" is referring to someone who lives in London, not someone who lives in England.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.