lect08- 第2部分

The　Tribe　avowedly　included　a　number　of　persons；　mostly　refugees


from　other　Tribes；　whose　only　connection　with　it　was　common


allegiance　to　its　Chief。　Moreover　the　Tribe　in　its　largest


extension　and　considered　a　political　as　well　as　a　social　unit


might　have　been　absorbed　with　others　in　a　Great　or　Arch　Tribe；


and　here　the　sole　source　of　the　kinship　still　theoretically


maintained　is　Conquest。　Yet　all　these　groups　were　in　some　sense


or　other　Families。


　　　　Nor　does　the　artificiality　solely　consist　in　the　extension　of


the　sphere　of　kinship　to　classes　known　to　have　been　originally


alien　to　the　true　brotherhood。　An　even　more　interesting　example


of　it　presents　itself　when　the　ideas　of　kinship　and　the


phraseology　proper　to　consanguinity　are　extended　to　associations


which　we　should　now　contemplate　as　exclusively　founded　on


contract；　such　as　partnerships　and　guilds。　There　are　no　more


interesting　pages　in　Dr　Sullivan's　Introduction　（pp。　ccvi　et


seq。）　than　those　in　which　he　discusses　the　tribal　origin　of


Guilds。　He　claims　for　the　word　itself　a　Celtic　etymology；　and　he


traces　the　institution　to　the　grazing　partnerships　common　among


the　ancient　Irish。　However　this　may　be；　it　is　most　instructive　to


find　the　same　words　used　to　describe　bodies　of　co…partners；


formed　by　contract；　and　bodies　of　co…heirs　or　co…parceners　formed


by　common　descent。　Each　assemblage　of　men　seems　to　have　been


conceived　as　a　Family。　As　regards　Guilds；　I　certainly　think；　as　I


thought　three　years　ago；　that　they　have　been　much　too　confidently


attributed　to　a　relatively　modern　origin；　and　that　many　of　them；


and　much　which　is　common　to　all　of　them；　may　be　suspected　to　have


grown　out　of　the　primitive　brotherhoods　of　co…villagers　and


kinsmen。　The　trading　guilds　which　survive　in　our　own　country　have


undergone　every　sort　of　transmutation　which　can　disguise　their


parentage。　They　are　artificial　to　begin　with；　though　the


hereditary　principle　has　a　certain　tendency　to　assert　itself。


They　have　long　since　relinquished　the　occupations　which　gave　them


a　name。　They　mostly　trace　their　privileges　and　constitution　to


some　royal　charter；　and　kingly　grants；　real　or　fictitious；　are


the　great　cause　of　interruption　in　English　History。　Yet　anybody


who；　with　a　knowledge　of　primitive　law　and　history；　examines　the


internal　mechanism　and　proceedings　of　a　London　Company　will　see


in　many　parts　of　them　plain　traces　of　the　ancient　brotherhood　of


kinsmen；　'joint　in　food；　worship；　and　estate；'　and　I　suppose　that


the　nearest　approach　to　an　ancient　tribal　holding　in　Ireland　is


to　be　found　in　those　confiscated　lands　which　are　now　the　property


of　several　of　these　Companies。


　　　　The　early　history　of　Contract；　I　need　scarcely　tell　you；　is


almost　exclusively　to　be　sought　in　the　history　of　Roman　law。　Some


years　ago　I　pointed　to　the　entanglement　which　primitive　Roman


institutions　disclose　between　the　conveyance　of　property　and　the


contract　of　sale。　Let　me　now　observe　that　one　or　two　others　of


the　great　Roman　contracts　appear　to　me；　when　closely　examined；　to


afford　evidence　of　their　having　been　gradually　evolved　through


changes　in　the　mechanism　of　primitive　society。　You　have　seen　how


brotherhoods　of　kinsmen　transform　themselves　into　alliances


between　persons　whom　we　can　only　call　partners；　but　still　at


first　sight　the　link　is　missing　which　would　enable　us　to　say　that


here　we　have　the　beginning　of　the　contract　of　partnership。　Look；


however；　at　the　peculiar　contract　called　by　the　Romans　'societas


omnium　（or　universorum）　bonorum。'　It　is　commonly　translated


'partnership　with　unlimited　liability；'　and　there　is　no　doubt


that　the　elder　form　of　partnership　has　had　great　effect　on　the


newer　form。　But　you　will　find　that；　in　the　societas　omnium


bonorum；　not　only　were　all　the　liabilities　of　the　partnership　the


liabilities　of　the　several　partners；　but　the　whole　of　the


property　of　each　partner　was　brought　into　the　common　stock　and


was　enjoyed　as　a　common　fund。　No　such　arrangement　as　this　is


known　in　the　modern　world　as　the　result　of　ordinary　agreement；


though　in　some　countries　it　may　be　the　effect　of　marriage。　It


appears　to　me　that　we　are　carried　back　to　the　joint　brotherhoods


of　primitive　society；　and　that　their　development　must　have　given


rise　to　the　contract　before　us。　Let　us　turn　again　to　the　contract


of　Mandatum　or　Agency。　The　only　complete　representation　of　one


man　by　another　which　the　Roman　law　allowed　was　the　representation


of　the　Paterfamilias　by　the　son　or　slave　under　his　power。　The


representation　of　the　Principal　by　the　Agent　is　much　more


incomplete；　and　it　seems　to　me　probable　that　we　have　in　it　a


shadow　of　that　thorough　coalescence　between　two　individuals　which


was　only　possible　anciently　when　they　belonged　to　the　same


family。


　　　　The　institutions　which　I　have　taken　as　my　examples　are


institutions　of　indigenous　growth；　developed　probably　more　or


less　within　all　ancient　societies　by　the　expansion　of　the　notion


of　kinship。　But　it　sometimes　happens　that　a　wholly　foreign


institution　is　introduced　from　without　into　a　society　based　upon


assumed　consanguinity；　and　then　it　is　most　instructive　to　observe


how　closely；　in　such　a　case；　material　which　antecedently　we


should　think　likely　to　oppose　the　most　stubborn　resistance　to　the


infiltration　of　tribal　ideas　assimilates　itself　nevertheless　to


the　model　of　a　Family　or　Tribe。　You　may　be　aware　that　the　ancient


Irish　Church　has　long　been　a　puzzle　to　ecclesiastical　historians。


There　are　difficulties　suggested　by　it　on　which　I　do　not　pretend


to　throw　any　new　light；　nor；　indeed；　could　they　conveniently　be


considered　here。　Among　perplexities　of　this　class　are　the


extraordinary　multiplication　of　bishops　and　their　dependence；


apparently　an　almost　servile　dependence；　on　the　religious　houses


to　which　they　were　attached。　But　the　relation　of　the　various


ecclesiastical　bodies　to　one　another　was　undoubtedly　of　the


nature　of　tribal　relation。　The　Brehon　law　seems　to　me　fully　to


confirm　the　account　of　the　matter　given；　from　the　purely


ecclesiastical　literature；　by　Dr　Todd；　in　the　Introduction　to　his


Life　of　St　Patrick。　One　of　the　great　Irish　or　Scotic


Missionaries；　who　afterwards　nearly　invariably　reappears　as　a


Saint；　obtains　a　grant　of　lands　from　some　chieftain　or　tribe　in


Ireland　or　Celtic　Britain；　and　founds　a　monastery　there；　or　it


may　be　that　the　founder　of　the　religious　house　is　already　himself


the　chieftain　of　a　tribe。　The　House　becomes　the　parent　of　others；


which　again　may　in　their　turn　throw　out　minor　religious


establishments；　at　once　monastic　and　missionary。　The　words


signifying　'family'　or　'tribe'　and　'kinship'　are　applied　to　all


the　religious　bodies　created　by　this　process。　Each　monastic


house；　with　its　monks　and　bishops；　constitutes　a　'family'　or


'tribe；'　and　its　secular　or　servile　dependants　appear　to　be


sometimes　included　under　the　name。　The　same　appellation　is　given


to　the　collective　assemblage　of　religious　houses　formed　by　the


parent　monastery　and　the　various　churches　or　monastic　bodies


sprung　from　it。　These　make　up　together　the　'tribe　of　the　saint；'


but　this　last　expression　is　not　exclusively　employed　with　this


particular　meaning。　The　abbot　of　the　parent　house　and　all　the


abbots　of　the　minor　houses　are　the　'comharbas'　or　co…heirs　of　the


saint；　and　in　yet　another　sense　the　'family'　or　'tribe'　of　the


saint　means　his　actual　tribesmen　or　blood…relatives。　Iona；　or　Hy；


was；　as　you　know；　the　famous　religious　house　founded　by　St


Columba　near　the　coast　of　the　newer　Scotia。　'The　Abbot　of　Hy'；


says　Dr　Todd；　'or　Co…arb　of　Columba；　was　the　common　head　of


Durrow；　Kells；　Swords；　Drumcliff；　and　other　houses　in　Ireland


founded　by　Columba；　as　well　as　of　the　parent　monastery　of　Hy；　and


the　〃family　of　Colum…kille〃　was　composed　of　the　congregations　or


inmates　and　dependants　of　all　those　monasteries。　The　families；


therefore；　of　such　monasteries　as　Clomacnois　or　Durrow　might


muster　a　very　respectable　body　of　fighting　men。'　Let　me　add；　that


there　is　very　good　evidence　that　these　'families　of　the　saints'


were　occasionally　engaged　in　sanguinary　little　wars。　But；　'in


general'　（I　now　quote　again　from　Dr　Todd）；　'the　〃family〃　meant


only　the　monks　or　religious　of　the　house。'


　　　　It　will　be　obvious　to　you　that　this　application　of　the　same


name　to　all　these　complicated　sets　of　relations　is　every　now　and


then　extremely　perplexing；　but　the　key　to　the　difficulty　is　the


conception　of　the　kindred　branching　off　in　successive　generations


from　the　common　stock；　planting　themselves　occasionally　at　a


distance；　but　never　altogether　breaking　the　bond　which　connected


them　with　their　original　family　and　chief。　Nothing；　let　me


observe；　can　be　more　curious　than　the　way　in　which；　throughout


these　artificial　structures；　the　original　natural　principle　upon


which　they　were　modelled　struggles　to　assert　itself　at　the


expense　of　the　imitative　system。　In　all　the　more　modern　guilds；


membership　always　tended　to　become　hereditary；　and　here　we　have


the　Brehon　law　striving　to　secure　a　preference；　in　elections　to


the　Abbacy；　to　the　actual　blood…relatives　of　the　sainted　founder。


The　ecclesiastical　rule；　we　know；　required　election　by　the　monks；


but　the　Corus　Bescna　declares　that；　on　a　vacancy；　the　'family　of


the　saint'　（which　here　means　the　founder's　sept）；　if　there　be　a


qualified　monk　among　them；　ought　to　be　preferred　in　elections　to


the　Abbacy　　'though　there　be　but　a　psalm…singer　of　them；　if　he


be　fit；　he　shall　have　it。'　And　it　proceeds　to　say　that；　if　no


relative　or　tribesman　of　the　saint　be　qualified；　the　Abbacy　shall


go　to　some　member　of　the　tribe　which　originally　granted　the　land。


　　　　A　very　mo