lect06-第7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！
ownership； had been violently and unnaturally replaced by a
system of far more modern stamp based upon absolute property in
land。 But； by the end of the sixteenth century； our evidence is
that the Chiefs had already so much power over their tenants that
any addition to it is scarcely conceivable。 'The Lords of land；'
says Edmund Spenser； writing not later than 1596； 'do not there
use to set out their land to farme； for tearme of years； to their
tenants； but only from yeare to yeare； or during pleasure；
neither indeed will the Irish tenant or husbandman otherwise take
his land than so long as he list himselfe。 The reason thereof in
the tenant is； for that the landlords there use most shamefully
to racke their tenants； laying upon them coin and livery at
pleasure； and exacting of them besides his covenants what he
pleaseth。 So that the poore husbandman either dare not binde
himselfe to him for longer tearme； or thinketh； by his continuall
liberty of change； to keepe his landlord the rather in awe from
wronging of him。 And the reason why the landlord will no longer
covenant with him is； for that he dayly looketh after change and
alteration； and hovereth in expectation of new worlds。' Sir John
Davis； writing rather before 1613； used still stronger language：
'The Lord is an absolute Tyrant and the Tennant a very slave and
villain； and in one respect more miserable than Bond Slaves。 For
commonly the Bond Slave is fed by his Lord； but here the Lord is
fed by his Bond Slave。'
There is very little in common bet ween the miserable
position of the Irish tenant here described and the footing of
even the baser sort of Ceiles； or villeins； who had taken stock
from the Chief。 If the Brehon law is to be trusted； the Daer
Ceile was to be commiserated； rather because he had derogated
from his rights as a free tribesman of the same blood with the
Chief； than because he had exposed himself to unbridled
oppression。 Besides paying dues more of the nature of modern
rent； he certainly stood under that unfortunate liability of
supplying periodical refection for his Chief and his followers。
But not only was the Mount of his dues settled by the law； but
the very size of the joints and the quality of the ale with which
he regaled his Chief were minutely and expressly regulated。 And；
if one provision of the law is clearer than another； it is that
the normal period of the relation of tenancy or vassalage was not
one year； but seven years。 How； then； are we to explain this
discrepancy ？ Is the explanation that the Brehon theory never in
reality quite corresponded with the facts ？ It may be so to some
extent； but the careful student of the Brehon tracts will be
inclined to think that the general bias of their writers was
rather towards exaggeration of the privileges of Chiefs than
towards Overstatement of the immunities of tribesmen。 Is it； on
the other hand； likely that； as some patriotic Irishmen have
asserted； Spenser and Davis were under the influence of English
prejudice； and grossly misrepresented the facts of Irish life in
their day？ Plenty of prejudice of a certain kind is disclosed by
their writings； and I doubt not that they were capable of
occasionally misunderstanding what they saw。 Nothing； however；
which they have written suggests that they were likely wilfully
to misdescribe facts open to their observation。 I can quite
conceive that some things in the relations of the Chiefs and
tenants escaped them； possibly a good deal of freely…given
loyalty on one side； and of kindliness and good humoured
joviality on the other。 But that the Irish Chief had in their day
the power or right which they attribute to him cannot seriously
be questioned。
The power of the Irish Chiefs and their severity to their
tenants in the sixteenth century being admitted； they have been
accounted for； as I before stated； by supposing that the Norman
nobles who became gradually clothed with Irish chieftainships
the Fitzgeralds； the Burkes； and the Barrys abused an
authority which in native hands would have been subject to
natural limitations； and thus set an evil example to all the
Chiefs of Ireland。 The explanation has not the antecedent
improbability which it might seem to have at first sight； but I
am not aware that there is positive evidence to sustain it。 I owe
a far more plausible theory of the cause of change to Dr
Sullivan； who； in his Introduction （p。 cxxvi）； has suggested that
it was determined by the steady multiplication of Fuidhir
tenants。 It must be recollected that this class of persons would
not be protected by the primitive or natural institutions
springing out of community of blood。 The Fuidhir was not a
tribesman but an alien。 In all societies cemented together by
kinship the position of the person who has lost or broken the
bond of union is always extraordinarily miserable。 He has not
only lost his natural place in them； but they have no room for
him anywhere else。 The wretchedness of the outcast in India；
understood as the man who has lost or been expelled from caste；
does not arise from his having been degraded from a higher to a
lower social standing； but from his having no standing whatever；
there being no other order of society open to receive him when he
has descended from his own。 It was true that the Fuidhir； though
he had lost the manifold protection of his family and tribe； was
not actually exposed to violent wrong。 From that he was protected
by the new Chief to whom he had attached himself； but between him
and this Chief there was nothing。 The principle would always be
that he was at the mercy of the Chief。 At the utmost； some usages
favourable to him might establish themselves through lapse of
time； but they would have none of the obligatory force belonging
to the rules which defined the rights of the Chief in respect of
his Saer…stock and Daerstock tenants。 We can see that several of
the duties corresponding to these rights were of a kind to invite
abuse； much more certainly would obligations analogous to them；
but wholly imposed by the pleasure of the Chief； become cruelly
oppressive。 The 'refections' of the Brehon law would； by a
miserable degradation； become （to borrow the language of Spenser
and Davis） coin and livery； cuttings； cosherings； and spendings；
in the case of the Fuidhirs。 Meanwhile there were causes at work；
powerfully and for long periods of time； to increase the numbers
of this class。 Even those Irishmen who believe that in the
distant past there was once a tolerably well…ordered Ireland
admit that for many centuries their country was racked with
perpetual disturbance。 Danish piracies； intestine feuds；
Anglo…Norman attempts at conquest never consistently carried out
or thoroughly completed； the very existence of the Pale； and
above all the policy directed from it of playing off against one
another the Chiefs beyond its borders； are allowed by all to have
distracted the island with civil war； how ever the responsibility
for it is to be apportioned。 But the process is one which must
have broken up tribes far and wide； and broken tribes imply a
multitude of broken men。 Even in brief intervals of peace the
violent habits produced by constant disorder would bring about
the frequent expulsion by families of members for whom they
refused to remain responsible； and in the commoner eventuality of
war whole fragments would be from time to time torn away from
tribes and their atoms scattered in every part of Ireland。 it is
therefore； a conjecture possessing a very high degree of
plausibility； that the tenantry of the Irish Chiefs whose
sufferings provoked the indignation of Spenser and Davis
consisted largely of Fuidhirs。
The explanation may； howeve
