of　the　Chief；　they　are　plainly　growing；　not　merely　through　the
  introduction　of　alien　principles　and　ideas；　but　from　natural
  causes；　more　or　less　operative　all　over　Europe。　The　general
  character　of　these　causes　is　very　much　the　same　as　in　the
  Germanic　countries。　The　power　of　the　Chief　grows　first　through
  the　process　which　is　called　elsewhere　'commendation；'　the　process
  by　which　the　free　tribesman　becomes　'his　man；'　and　remains　in　a
  state　of　dependence　having　various　degrees。　It　farther　grows　from
  his　increasing　authority　over　the　waste…lands　of　the　tribal
  territory　and　from　the　servile　or　semi…servile　colonies　he　plants
  there；　and　lastly；　it　augments　from　the　material　strength　which
  he　acquires　through　the　numbers　of　his　immediate　retainers　and
  associates；　most　of　whom　stand　to　him　in　more　or　less　servile
  relations。　But　the　Brehon　law　tells　us　much　that　is　novel　and
  surprising　concerning　the　particular　course　of　these　changes　and
  their　nature　in　detail。　It　furnishes　us　with　some　wholly　new
  ideas　concerning　the　pas　sage　of　society　from　inchoate　to
  complete　feudalism；　and　helps　us　to　complete　the　account　of　it
  derived　from　Germanic　sources。　In　this；　as　it　seems　to　me；　the
  greatest　part　of　its　interest　consists。
  With　the　Chieftaincy　of　the　Tribe　the　early　history　of　modern
  Aristocracy　and　modern　Kingship　begins。　These　two　great
  institutions　had；　in　fact；　at　first　the　same　history；　and　the
  Western　world　long　continued　to　bear　the　marks　of　their　original
  identity。　The　Manor　with　its　Tenemental　lands　held　by　the　free
  tenants　of　the　Lord；　and　with　its　Domain　which　was　in　immediate
  dependence　on　him；　was　the　type　of　all　the　feudal　sovereignties
  in　their　complete　form；　whether　the　ruler　acknowledged　a　superior
  above　him　or　whether　he　at　most　admitted　one　in　the　Pope；　or　the
  Emperor；　or　God　himself。　In　every　County；　or　Dukedom；　or　Kingdom
  there　were　great　tenants　holding　directly　of　its　head　and　on　some
  sort　of　parity　with　him；　and　there　was　a　Domain　under　his　more
  immediate　government　and　at　his　immediate　disposal。　There　is　no
  obscurer　and　more　difficult　subject　than　the　origin　of　the　class
  whose　power　was　the　keystone　of　all　these　political　and
  proprietary　constructions；　and　none　on　which　the　scantiest
  contributions　to　our　knowledge　are　more　welcome。
  There　is　one　view　of　the　original　condition　of　privileged
  classes　which；　though　held　by　learned　men；　has　been　a　good　deal
  weakened　of　late　by　German　research；　and　seems　to　me　still
  farther　shaken　by　portions　of　the　Brehon　law。　This　is　the
  impression　that　they　always　constituted；　as　they　practically　do
  now；　a　distinct　class　or　section　of　the　community；　each　member　of
  the　class　standing　in　a　closer　relation　to　the　other　members　than
  to　the　rest　of　the　national　or　tribal　society　to　which　all
  belong。　It　cannot　be　doubted　that　the　earliest　modern
  aristocracies　have　as　a　fact；　when　they　are　first　discerned；　this
  particular　aspect。　Mr　Freeman　（'Norman　Conquest；'　i。　88）　says
  that　the　'difference　between　eorl　and　ceorl　is　a　primary　fact
  from　which　we　start。'　Tacitus　plainly　distinguished　the　noble
  from　the　non…noble　freeman　in　the　Germanic　societies　which　he
  observed；　and　Caesar；　as　I　stated　in　another　Lecture；　divides　all
  the　Continental　Celtic　tribes　into　the　Equites　and　the　Plebs。　We
  can　understand　that　a　spectator　looking　at　a　set　of　tribal
  communities　from　the　outside　would　naturally　class　together　all
  men　visibly　exalted　above　the　rest；　but　nevertheless　this　is　not
  quite　the　appearance　which　early　Germanic　society　wears　in　the
  eyes　of　enquirers　who　follow　the　method　of　Von　Maurer　and　Landau。
  Each　Chief　or　Lord　appears　to　them　to　have　been　noble　less　with
  reference　to　other　noblemen　than　with　reference　to　the　other　free
  tribesmen　comprised　in　the　same　group　with　himself。　Nobility　has
  many　diverse　origins；　but　its　chief　source　seems　to　have　been　the
  respect　of　co…villagers　or　assemblages　of　kinsmen　for　the　line　of
  descent　in　which　the　purest　blood　of　each　little　society　was
  believed　to　be　preserved。　Similarly；　the　Brehon　law　suggests　that
  the　Irish　Chiefs　were　not　the　class　by　themselves　which　the
  corresponding　order　among　the　Continental　Celts　appeared　to
  Caesar　to　be；　but　were　necessarily　the　heads　of　separate　groups
  composed　of　their　kindred　or　of　their　vassals。　'Every　chief；'
  says　the　text　which　I　quoted　before；　'rules　over　his　land；
  whether　it　be　great　or　whether　it　be　small。'　And　while　the　Irish
  law　describes　the　way　（as　I　shall　point　out）　in　which　a　common
  freeman　can　become　a　chief；　it　also　shows　that　the　position　to
  which　he　attains　is　the　presidency　of　a　group　of　dependants。
  Nevertheless　the　persons　thus　elevated　undoubtedly　tend　to
  become；　from　various　causes；　a　class　by　themselves　and　a　special
  section　of　the　general　community；　and　it　is　very　probable　that
  the　tendency　was　at　work　from　the　earliest　times。　It　is　farther
  to　be　remarked　that　some　aristocracies　were　really　a　section　of
  the　community　from　the　very　first。　This　structure　of　society　is
  produced　where　one　entire　tribal　group　conquers　or　imposes　its
  supremacy　upon　other　tribal　groups　also　remaining　entire；　or
  where　an　original　body　of　tribesmen；　villagers；　or　citizens；
  gradually　gathers　round　itself　a　miscellaneous　assemblage　of
  protected　dependants。　There　are　many　known　instances　of　both
  processes；　and　the　particular　relation　of　tribal　groups　which　the
  former　implies　was　certainly　not　unknown　to　the　Celtic　societies。
  Among　the　Scottish　Highlanders　some　entire　septs　or　clans　are
  stated　to　have　been　enslaved　to　others；　and　on　the　very　threshold
  of　Irish　history　we　meet　with　a　distinction　between　free　and
  rent…paying　tribes　which　may　possibly　imply　the　same　kind　of
  superiority　and　subordination。
  The　circumstance　of　greatest　novelty　in　the　position　of　the
  Chief　which　the　Brehon　law　appears　to　me　to　bring　out　is　this：
  Whatever　else　a　Chief　is；　he　is　before　all　things　a　rich　man；
  not；　however；　rich；　as　popular　assoCiations　would　lead　us　to
  anticipate；　in　land；　but　in　live　stock　　in　flocks　and　herds；　in
  sheep；　and　before　all　things　in　oxen。　Here　let　me　interpose　the
  remark；　that　the　opposition　commonly　set　up　between　birth　and
  wealth；　and　particularly　wealth　other　than　landed　property；　is
  entirely　modern。　In　French　literature；　so　far　as　my　knowledge
  extends；　it　first　appears　when　the　riches　of　the　financial
  officers　of　the　French　monarchy　　the　Superintendents　and
  Farmers　General　　begin　to　attract　attention。　With　us　it　seems
  to　be　exclusively　the　result　of　the　great　extension　and
  productiveness　of　industrial　undertakings　on　the　largest　scale。
  But　the　heroes　of　the　Homeric　poems　are　not　only　valiant　but
  wealthy　（Odyss。　xiv。　96…106）；　the　warriors　of　the　Nibelungen…Lied
  are　not　only　noble　but　rich。　In　the　later　Greek　literature　we
  find　pride　of　birth　identified　with　pride　in　seven　wealthy
  ancestors　in　succession；　epta　pappoi　plonsioi；　and　you　are　well
  aware　how　rapidly　and　completely　the　aristocracy　of　wealth
  assimilated　itself　in　the　Roman　State　to　the　aristocracy　of
  blood。　Passing　to　the　Irish　Chief；　we　find　the　tract　called　the
  'Cain…Aigillne'　laying　down　（p。　279）　that　'the　head　of　every
  tribe　should　be　the　man　of　the　tribe　who　is　the　most　experienced；
  the　most　noble；　the　most　wealthy；　the　most　learned；　the　most
  truly　popular；　the　most　powerful　to　oppose；　the　most　steadfast　to
  sue　for　profits　and　to　be　sued　for　losses。'　There　are　many　other
  passages　to　the　same　effect；　and　on　closely　examining　the　system
  （as　I　propose　to　do　presently）　we　can　perceive　that　personal
  wealth　was　the　principal　condition　of　the　Chief's　maintaining　his
  position　and　authority。
  But　while　the　Brehon　laws　suggest　that　the　possession　of
  personal　wealth　is　a　conditi