Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

restored to the governship of Wexford.

One after another the Irish princes came in to offer their submission, as Henry's arrival became known; the kings of Desmond and Thomond recognised his authority, Cork and Limerick were given into his hand, the princes of South Ireland, of Leinster and Oriel, and at last, even Roderick of Connaught, tendered their allegiance, and when at Christmastide, Henry feasted his new subjects in state at his Court, holden at Dublin, he could boast that all Ireland except Ulster alone, had acknowledged him as overlord.

On the first invaders Henry kept a tight rein. A new comer, Robert Fitz-Barnard, was placed in command at Waterford, Miles Fitz-Stephen and Miles Fitz-David, were kept under some sort of surveillance; Hugh de Lacey replaced the brave Miles de Cogan as governor of Dublin; while Ulster was granted as an earldom to John de Courcy, a new arriver, if he could conquer it. Winter storms detained Henry sorely against his will, until Mid Lent, 1172, but the remainder of his stay was in no way eventful, except perhaps for the fact that an Irish synod was held at Cashel, at which the Abbot of Buildwas, and the Archdeacon of Llandaff, represented the king.

At Christmastide then, with Henry keeping Court at Dublin, surrounded by the princes of Ireland, I may fittingly close this account of the invasion; henceforward, in English eyes, the struggle was to subjugate rebels, rather than to wage war against enemies, and although the conquest had scarcely begun, the Invasion of Ireland was already a thing of the past.

[blocks in formation]

THE practical end of the study of the history and the life of Cities is to ascertain what are their social, moral, and political functions, that we may learn what the Government of a City can do for the general welfare, and what are the duties of individuals which can facilitate, and what the faults which can retard, the realization of the possible good. Dr. Vaughan says of the Greek Cities, that in them "we see the nearest approach made in the ancient world towards an equal diffusion of human intelligence and of human rights:" and Grote points to the attempt to impose upon men such restraints either of law or of opinion as are requisite for the security and comfort of society, but to encourage rather than repress the free play of individual impulse subject to those limits, as an ideal more cared for in Athens than in any modern society. But we shall not find that in the study of any department of history, any more than in the pursuit of other sciences we can arrive at trustworthy conclusions by restricting our enquiries and examinations to any particular period or any one set of circumstances. The future possibilities of institutions are governed not by the desires or the knowledge of the present, but by the inherited power, customs and traditions of the past. We are to look for future progress not to intermittent acts of creative skill, but to natural and orderly growth. The conditions which have governed past development must be understood before we can make anything like a practical scientific prediction of what we can rationally expect or hopefully strive for hereafter.

The study of the place and function of City life in society and politics is no exception to this rule. City life is an important, perhaps the most important, organ in the constitution of the social organism; but it marks neither its primary nor its ultimate development. There was a time when society existed without that close association of persons, and that necessary postponement of individual to communal interests, which city life involves. There was a later time in which the activity of the most cultured minds had not gone beyond the interests, the possibilities and the practice of city life in forming the ideal of a political community. Speaking of the old Greek notions Grote says "While no organisation less than the City can satisfy the exigencies of an intelligent freeman, the City is itself a perfect and self-sufficient whole, admitting no incorporation into any higher political unity." The family and the tribe preceded the City as social organs; the nation is a subsequent result of development, but we must remember that the functions of each still persist, and that the higher and more complicated the main organism, the more and not the less important become the powers of the special organs.

The place of the formation of cities in the history of social development is sufficiently well defined. We must give certain limits to our enquiries and assume that our interest is confined to those two divisions of the Aryan race which settled, the one in Italy and the other in Greece. If we learn what the story of these two stocks has to teach we shall have obtained indeed great historie lessons. The drawing of this limit does us no injury by excluding the early history of other than agricultural tribes, for as Professor Mommsen says it is inconsistent to represent a pastoral and hunting people as founding a city. It is the more desirable to make the limitation for another reason. A most important part of such an inquiry as that which I am suggesting rather than undertaking, would be to examine how far the moral and the social elements coincide, how far that is, the advance in public morality is affected by the same causes, and follows the general line of progress which influence, and is taken by, the social growth of the people.

The family; the tribe or clan; the canton or group of clans the city; these seem in broad terms to be the order of the early growth of the Social Organism. History supposes the first step to have been taken. Mommsen says "Industrial tribes, or in other words, races or stocks are the constituent elements of the earliest history." And again "On the household was based the clan, that is the community of the descendants of the same progenitor; and out of the clan, among the Greeks as well as the Italians, arose the State." We have to bear in mind that the ideas of communal relationship, of subordination and of government, preceded the formation of cities. Mommsen says "The association in communities of families under patriarchial chiefs, which we may conceive to have prevailed in the Græco-Italian period, may appear different enough from the later forms of Italian and Hellenic politics; yet it must have already contained the germs out of which the future laws of both nations were moulded. The laws of King Italus ' which were still applied in the time of Aristotle, may denote such institutions essentially common to both. These laws must have provided for the maintenance of peace and the execution of justice within the community, for military organisation and martial law in reference to its external relations, for its government by a patriarchial chief, for a council of elders, for assembling of the freemen capable of bearing arms, and for some sort of constitution. Judicial procedure, expiation, retaliation, are Græco-Italian ideas.” Among an agricultural people these aggregated families or clans would form and live in villages or groups of houses upon or near the communal cultivated land. They formed parts of a larger political community, which Mommsen says "first presents itself as an aggregate of a number of clan villages of the same stock, language and manners, bound to mutual compliance with law and mutual legal redress, and to make common cause in aggression and in defence." From these Cantons the more fully developed City arose, either by the actual union of the existing villages, or by the selection of a common site for purposes of consultation, celebrations or occasional defence. Professor Mommsen traces

the origin of Rome from sources of this kind, insisting upon its gradual formation, "the founding of a City, in the strict sense, such as the legend assumes, being of course to be reckoned altogether out of the question."

Grote gives an interesting account of the growth of Greek Cities from the same family or tribal root. He describes at great length the social groups which were thus formed, and says "all these phratric and gentile associations, the larger as well as the smaller, were founded upon the same principles and tendencies of the Grecian mind- a coalescence of the idea of worship with that of ancestry or of communion in certain special religious rites with communion of blood real or supposed." There was "a successive subordination in the scale of the families to the gens-the gentes to the phratry-the phratries to the tribe." The formation of the City proper arose, by gradual and not definitely traceable growth, either from the increase of the original cantons or by the union of different village communities anxious to acquire the advantages and the dignities derivable from City life. "In the village there was no room for that expansion of the social and political feelings to which protected intra mural residence and increased numbers gave birth : there was no consecrated acropolis, or agora---no ornamental temples and porticos, exhibiting the continued offerings of successive generations-no theatre for music or recitation-no gymnasium for athletic exercises-none of those fixed arrangements for transacting public business with regularity and decorum, which the Greek citizen with his powerful sentiment of locality deemed essential to a dignified existence."

The establishment and the growth of Cities marks therefore the action of an important element in human progress, involving on the one side benefits conferred by society on individuals, and on the other side new moral duties to be performed by the individual. Looking at City life at the time when it was the highest and furthest development of the social and political wants and tendencies of mankind, this double influence is of all-absorbing interest. What the City could do was, first to afford the

« ForrigeFortsett »