lect06-第4节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！








the　history　of　Metayer　tenancy　is　so　obscure　that　I　certainly






cannot　undertake　to　say　that　practices　answering　to　those　I　have






described　had　not　in　some　countries　something　to　do　with　its






primitive　form。　But　the　distinctions　between　the　ancient　and　the






modern　tenancies　are　more　important　than　the　analogies。　In






Metayer　tenancy　a　landlord　supplies　the　land　and　stock；　a　tenant






the　labour　only　and　the　skill；　but　in　Saer　and　Daer…stock　tenancy






the　land　belonged　to　the　tenant。　Again；　the　effect　of　the　ancient






Irish　relation　was　to　produce；　not　merely　a　contractual






liability；　but　a　status。　The　tenant　had　his　social　and　tribal






position　distinctly　altered　by　accepting　stock。　Further；　the






acceptance　of　stock　was　not　always　voluntary。　A　tribesman；　in　one






stage　of　Irish　custom　at　all　events；　was　bound　to　receive　stock






from　his　own　'King；'　or；　in　other　words；　from　the　Chief　of　his






tribe　in　its　largest　extension；　and　everywhere　the　Brehon　laws






seem　to　me　to　speak　of　the　acceptance　of　stock　as　a　hard






necessity。　Lastly；　the　Tribe　to　which　the　intending　tenant






belonged　had　in　some　cases　a　Veto　on　his　adoption　of　the　new






position；　which　was　clearly　regarded　as　a　proceeding　invasive　of






tribal　rights　and　calculated　to　enfeeble　them。　In　order　to　give






the　Tribe　the　opportunity　of　interposing　whenever　it　had　legal






power　to　do　so；　the　acceptance　of　stock　had　to　be　open　and






public；　and　the　consequences　of　effecting　it　surreptitiously　are






elaborately　set　forth　by　the　law。　It　seems　to　me　clear　that　it






was　discouraged　by　the　current　popular　morality。　One　of　those






rules；　frequent　in　ancient　bodies　of　law；　which　are　rather　moral






precepts　than　juridical　provisions；　declares　that　'no　man　should






leave　a　rent　on　his　land　which　he　did　not　find　there。'






　　　　The　system　which　I　have　been　describing　must　have　contributed






powerfully　to　dissolve　the　more　ancient　tribal　and　family






organisation。　If　the　Chief　who　gave　and　the　Ceile　who　accepted






stock　belonged　to　the　same　Tribe；　the　effect　of　the　transaction






was　to　create　a　relation　between　them；　not　indeed　altogether






unlike　that　of　tribal　connection；　but　still　materially　different






from　it　in　many　respects　and　much　more　to　the　advantage　of　the






chieftain。　But　the　superior　from　whom　a　man　took　stock　was　not






always　the　Chief　of　his　own　Sept　or　Tribe。　So　far　as　the　Brehon






law　can　be　said　to　show　any　favour　to　the　new　system　of






vassalage；　it　encourages　it　between　natural　chief　and　natural






tribesman；　and；　on　the　other　hand；　it　puts　difficulties　in　its






way　when　there　is　an　attempt　to　establish　it　between　a　tribesman






and　a　strange　Chief。　But　there　seem　to　be　abundant　admissions






that　freemen　did　occasionally　commend　themselves　in　this　way　to






superiors　other　than　their　Chiefs。　avery　nobleman；　as　I　said






before；　is　assumed　to　be　as　a　rule　rich　in　cattle；　and　it　appears






to　have　been　an　object　with　everyone　to　disperse　his　herds　by　the






practice　of　giving　stock。　The　enriched　peasant　who　was　on　his　way






to　be　ennobled；　the　Bo…Aire；　seems　to　have　had　Ceiles　who






accepted　stock　from　him；　as　well　as　had　the　nobles　higher　in






degree。　Accordingly；　the　new　groups　formed　of　the　Lord　and　his






Vassals　　if　we　may　somewhat　antedate　these　last　words　　were






sometimes　wholly　distinct　from　the　old　groups　composed　of　the






Chief　and　his　Clan。　Nor；　again；　was　the　new　relation　confined　to






Aires；　or　noblemen；　and　Ceiles；　or　free　but　non…noble　tribesmen。






The　Bo…Aire　certainly；　and　apparently　the　higher　Chiefs　also；






accepted　stock　on　occasion　from　chieftains　more　exalted　than






themselves；　and　in　the　end　to　'give　stock'　came　to　mean　the　same






thing　as　to　assert　feudal　superiority；　and　to　'accept　stock'　the






same　thing；　which　in　the　language　of　other　societies　was　called






'commendation。'　It　is　strong　evidence　of　the　soundness　of　the






conclusions　reached　of　late　years　by　historical　scholars　（and；






among　others；　by　Mr　Bryce）；　as　to　the　deep　and　wide　influence






exercised　by　the　Roman　Empire；　even　in　its　later　form；　that　（of






course　by　a　fiction）　the　Brehon　law　represents　the　King　of






Ireland　as　'accepting　stock'　from　the　Emperor。　'When　the　King　of






Erin　is　without　opposition'　　that　is；　as　the　explanation　runs；






when　he　holds　the　ports　of　Dublin；　Waterford；　and　Limerick；　which






were　usually　in　the　hands　of　the　Danes　　'he　receives　stock　from






the　King　of　the　Romans'　（S。　M。；　ii。　225）。　The　commentary　goes　on






to　say　that　sometimes'　it　is　by　the　successor　of　Patrick　that　the






stock　is　given　to　the　King　of　Erin；　'and　this　remarkable　passage






seems　to　show　that　an　Irish　writer　spoke　of　the　successor　of　St






Patrick；　where　a　writer　of　the　same　approximate　period　in　England






or　on　the　European　Continent　would　assuredly　have　spoken　of　the






Pope。






　　　　I　hope　it　is　unnecessary　for　me　to　insist　on　the　interest






which　attaches　to　this　part　of　the　Brehon　law；　it　has　been　not






uncommon；　upon　the　evidence　furnished　by　the　usages　of　the






Scottish　Highlanders；　sharply　to　contrast　Celtic　tribal　customs






with　feudal　rules；　and　doubtless　between　these　customs　and






feudalism　in　its　perfected　state　there　are　differences　of　the






greatest　importance。　Yet；　if　the　testimony　of　the　Brehon　tracts






may　be　trusted；　such　differences　arose；　not　from　essential






distinctions；　but；　in　some　measure　at　all　events；　from






distinctions　of　degree　in　comparative　social　development。　The






germs　of　feudalism　lay　deep　in　the　more　ancient　social　forms；　and






were　ready　to　assert　their　vitality　even　in　a　country　like






Ireland；　which；　after　it　was　once　Christianised；　can　have






borrowed　next　to　no　institutions　from　its　neighbours；　cut　off　as






it　was　from　the　Continent　by　distance；　and　from　England　by






stubborn　national　repulsion。　It　is　also　worthy　of　observation






that　this　natural　growth　of　feudalism　was　not；　as　some　eminent






recent　writers　have　supposed；　entirely　distinct　from　the　process






by　which　the　authority　of　the　Chief　or　Lord　over　the　Tribe　or






Village　was　extended；　but　rather　formed　part　of　it。　While　the






unappropriated　waste…lands　were　falling　into　his　domain；　the






villagers　or　tribesmen　were　coming　through　natural　agencies　under






his　personal　power。






　　　　The　Irish　practice　of　'giving　stock'　seems　to　me　also　to






connect　itself　with　another　set　of　phenomena　which　have　generally






been　thought　to　belong　to　a　very　different　stage　of　history。　We






obtain　from　the　law…tracts　a　picture　of　an　aristocracy　of　wealth






in　its　most　primitive　form；　and　we　see　that　the　possession　of






this　wealth　gave　the　nobles　an　immense　power　over　the　non…noble






freemen　who　had　nothing　but　their　land。　Caesar　seems　to　me　to　be






clearly　referring　to　the　same　state　of　relations　in　the　Celtic






sister　society；　when　he　speaks　of　the　Gaulish　chiefs；　the






Equites；　having　one　principal　source　of　their　influence　in　the






number　of　their　debtors。　（B。　G。；　i。　4；　B。　G。；　vi。　13。）　Now；　you






will　remember　how　uniformly；　when　our　knowledge　of　the　ancient






world　commences；　we　find　plebeian　classes　deeply　indebted　to






aristocratic　orders。　At　the　beginning　of　Athenian　history　we　find






the　Athenian　commonalty　the　bondslaves　through　debt　of　the






Eupatrids；　at　the　beginning　of　Roman　history　we　find　the　Roman






Commons　in　money　bondage　to　the　Patricians。　The　fact　has　been






accounted　for　in　many　ways；　and　it　has　been　plausibly　suggested






that　it　was　the　occurrence　of　repeated　bad　seasons　which　placed






the　small　farmers　of　the　Attic　and　Roman　territory　at　the　mercy






of　wealthy　nobles。　But　the　explanation　is　imperfect　unless　we






keep　in　mind　the　chief　lesson　of　these　Brehon　tracts；　and






recollect　that　the　relative　importance　of　Land　and　Capital　has






been　altering　throughout　history。　The　general　proposition　that






Land　is　limited　in　quantity　and　is　distinguished　by　this






limitation　from　all　other　commodities　which　are　practically






capable　of　indefinite　multiplic