Hollywood And Hitler 1933 1939

Order now at alibris.com

( 4.4/5.0 ★ | 429 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
539780231163934&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780231163934
Hollywood And Hitler 1933 1939

ISBN: 9780231163934
Category: Media > Books
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 5.7 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Good Connecting readers with great books since
1972! Used textbooks may not include companion materials such as
access codes, etc. May have some wear or writing/highlighting. We ship
orders daily and Customer Service is our top priority!

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26539780231163934&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780231163934
 Hollywood And Hitler 1933
1939

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653978023116393

4&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780231163934 to do
latest version of Hollywood And Hitler 1933 1939 in multiple formats such as PDF, EPUB, and more.

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
greatest boon ever bestowed upon men who have to work for their
living. He enjoined the discharge of church duties and the payment
of church dues. All these things, however, belong to the history of
England.
On the death of Cnut a Witenagemot was held at Oxford for the
election of his successor. How the kingdom was partitioned between
Harold and Hardacnut; how the partition was found impossible; how
Harold ruled over all England; how evil was his rule and how
disastrous—these things belong to English history. London, which
suffered from Harold’s misrule with the rest of the kingdom, had
been mainly instrumental in the election of that king. She was
represented at Oxford by her “lithsmen,” i.e. her sea-going men.
Were they the merchants? or were they the Danes—men of the sea
—who formed a considerable part of her population? Freeman thinks
they were the latter; there seems, however, no reason for adopting
that view, or for supposing that in a general parliament of the
kingdom the Danes of London should be called upon to send special
representatives. Why were not the Danes of Leicestershire, or of
Norfolk, where there were so many, also called? There is, however, a
passage in the laws of Athelstan which seems to clear up this point.
Athelstan conferred the rank of Thane on every merchant who made
three voyages over the sea with a vessel and cargo of his own.
Therefore, in calling the Witenagemot these navigators—men of the
sea—who had in this manner obtained the rank of Thane were
summoned by right. The “lithsmen” were not the merchants; they
were not the Danes; they were simply the merchant adventurers
who had traded outre mer, beyond the seas and back for three
voyages, and claimed for that service the rank of Thane.
The reign of Harold is only important to us for these reasons—
First, the part played by London in the election of the king. Next, the
illustration of the savagery which still remained among the Danes,
and was shown in their horrible treatment of the Etheling Alfred and
his men. Alfred, the son of Ethelred, thought that the death of Cnut
would give him a chance of succession. He therefore came over,
accompanied by a small following. But “Godwin, the earl, would not
allow him.” His fate is recorded in the A.S. Chronicle:—
“But Godwin him then let,
and him in bonds set;
and his companions he dispersed;
and some divers ways slew;
some they for money sold,
some cruelly slaughtered,
some they did bind,
some they did blind,
some they did mutilate,
some did they scalp;
nor was a bloodier deed
done in this land
since the Danes came,
and here accepted peace.
Now is our trust in
the beloved God,
that they are in bliss,
blithely with Christ.
The etheling still lived,
who were without guilt
so miserably slain.
Every ill they him vowed,
until it was decreed
that he should be led
to Ely-bury,
thus bound.
Soon as he came to land,
in the ship he was blinded;
and him thus blind
they brought to the monks;
and he there abode
the while that he lived.
After that him they buried,
as well was his due
full worthily,
 as he worthy was,
at the west end,
the steeple well-nigh,
in the south aisle.
His soul is with Christ.”

And lastly, the fact that Harold was buried at Westminster, the first
of our kings buried there. His half-brother, Hardacnut, had the body
exhumed and thrown into the mud of the marsh round Thorney
—“into a fen,” says the Chronicle. Thorney stood in a fen, and it is
not likely that the new king would desire his savage deed—yet, was
it more savage than the acts of Charles II. at the Restoration?—to
be concealed. One knows not how many tides ebbed and flowed
over the body of the dead king as it lay among the reeds; but
presently some—perhaps the monks—taking pity on the poor
remains put them into a boat, carried them down the river, and
buried them in the little church of St. Clement’s, which, like Thorney,
stood on the rising ground of the Strand. And there his dust lies still.
Hardacnut fell down in a fit—“as he stood at his drink”—at
Kennington Palace, having crossed over from Westminster to attend
a wedding feast. He was buried at Winchester with his father. But
before he was well buried the people had chosen, at London, his
half-brother, Edward, as king.
The Plan of BORSTAL.
KING EDWARD THE CONFESSOR’S PALACE AT BORSTAL (BRILL)
From Archæologia, vol. iii.
 The reign of Edward the Confessor brought little change to
London. The Danish pirates renewed their attacks, but there was
now a fleet well equipped to meet them. The head-quarters of the
fleet were at London, or at Westminster. It is said that when Earl
Godwin made his demonstration, which threatened rebellion, he
passed through the south arches of London Bridge, designing to
meet and attack the royal fleet of fifty sail lying at Westminster. It is
noticeable that he first assured himself of the goodwill of the City.
A statute of Edward the Confessor (forty-sixth chapter of his laws),
in which he appoints the time for holding the hustings, thus speaks
of London, and is quoted in the Liber Albus:—
“Therefore in London, which is the head of the realm and of the
laws, and always the Court of his lordship the king, the Hustings
ought to sit and be holden on the Monday in each week. For it was
formerly founded after the pattern and manner, and in
remembrance, of Great Troy, and to the present day contains within
itself the laws and ordinances, dignities, liberties, and royal customs,
of an ancient Greek Troy. In this place therefore are kept the
intricate accounts, and the difficult pleas of the Crown, and the
Courts of his lordship the King for all the realm aforesaid. And she
alone ever doth invariably preserve her own usages and customs,
wherever such King may be, whether upon an expedition or
elsewhere, by reason of the tumults of the nations and peoples of
the realm: in accordance with the ancient customs of our good
forefathers and predecessors, and of all the princes, nobles, and
wise seniors of all the realm aforesaid.”
In the year 1065 King Edward the Confessor sets forth the history
of Westminster as he understood it:—

“Wherefore”—after a general introduction—“I, by the Grace of

God King of the English, make it known to all generations to
come of time after me, that, by instruction of Pope Leo for
penitence and the remission of my sins I have renewed and
improved the Basilica of Saint Peter which is situated near the
 walls of London, the chief city of the English, and on the west
side of it, is called Westminster. It was built anciently by
Mellitus, first bishop of London, companion and friend of Saint
Augustus, first bishop of Canterbury, and by Saint Peter, himself
performing an angelic task, and was dedicated by the
impression of the Holy Cross and the smearing of the Holy
Chrism: but by frequent invasions of barbarians and especially
of the Danes (who in the lifetime of my father Ethelred had
made an irruption into the kingdom, and after his death divided
the kingdom with my brother Eadmund and captured and killed
my brother Alfred miserably) was neglected and nearly
destroyed.”

I do not know how long a time was necessary for the complete
absorption of the Danes among the general population: but there
are memories of Danish settlements around St. Clement Danes and
outside Bishopsgate Street—perhaps the existence of such a
settlement may account for the burial of King Harold in the church of
St. Clement.
The Danes, therefore, occupied London first for a period of twelve
years. We do not expect to find any remains of that brief occupation:
and indeed there are none. When Cnut and his sons were kings they
ruled, but did not occupy, the City for some five-and-twenty years.
We might expect some remains of that period. If Cnut built the
King’s House at Westminster, then the vaults and crypts which were
filled with cement when the Houses of Parliament were built were
probably his work, and the Painted Chamber destroyed by fire in
1835 was also his work. Otherwise there is nothing, not a stone or a
fragment, which we can recognise as Danish work. One little relic
alone remains. During excavations for a warehouse in the south side
of St. Paul’s Churchyard there was found a Danish gravestone
inscribed with Runic characters, probably of the tenth or eleventh
century. It is now in the Guildhall Museum.
 CHAPTER VI
TOWN AND PEOPLE

A SOLAR
From Turner’s Domestic Architecture.

Such is the history of London from the beginning of the seventh

century to the third quarter of the eleventh century. We have next to
consider—
1. The appearance of the town and the nature of the buildings.
2. The trade of the town.
3. The religious foundations.
4. The temporal government.
 5. The manners and customs of the people.
I. The Appearance of the Town

BUILDING A HOUSE
Cædmon’sMetrical Paraphrase (10th cent.), Bodleian.

If there had been any persons living to remember Augusta when

the army of King Alfred took possession of the place, then, indeed,
they would have shed tears, while standing on the rickety wooden
bridge, to behold the shrunken and mean town which had taken the
place of that stately City: to consider the ruins of noble houses; to
see how trees grew upon the crumbling wall; to mark how great
gaps showed the site of City gates; how broad stretches of ground
lay waste, where once had stood the Roman villas. After a year or
two, when the wall was repaired, and people flocked again to the
“mart of all nations,” the aspect of the City improved. The stones of
old erections—those above ground—had been used to repair the City
wall; new gates had been built and the old gates had been restored;
the quay was once more covered with merchandise, and the river
was again filled with shipping—among the vessels was the king’s
fleet maintained to keep off the Danes. The town behind the quays
was rebuilt of wood—within two hundred years it was five times
either wholly, or in great part, destroyed by fire. There were no
palaces or great houses; some few had the great hall for the living-
room and for the sleeping-room of servants and children, with the
“Solar” or the chamber of the lord and lady, the Lady’s Bower, and
the kitchens (see also p. 224).
After the time of Alfred, London rapidly advanced in prosperity and
wealth. The restoration of the wall was recognised as an outward
and visible sign of the security enjoyed by those who slept within it:
trade increased; the wealth of the people increased; their numbers
increased, because they were safe. Stone buildings began to be
erected, and the outward signs of prosperity appeared. London
threw out long arms within her walls. The vacant grounds, the
orchards and fields and gardens began to be built over. Artificers of
the meaner kind and trades of an offensive kind were banished to
the north part of the town. The lower parts, especially the narrow
lanes north of Thames Street, became more and more crowded.
Quays under the river wall extended east and west; the foreshore
was built upon; the river wall was gradually taken down, but I know
not when its destruction began or was permitted. The shipping in
the river was doubled and trebled in amount; some of the ships lying
off the quays were too large to pass the bridge; the warehouses
became more ample; Thames Street, or the street behind the wall,
then the only place of meeting for the merchants, was thronged
every day with the busy crowd of those who loaded and unloaded,
who came to buy and to sell. The ports of the Walbrook and
Billingsgate being found insufficient, that of Queen Hithe, then called
Edred’s Hithe, was constructed: quays were built round it, and
perhaps a new gate was formed in the river wall.
 OCTOBER. HAWKING
From The Old English Calendars (11th cent.), Cotton MS.

In the year 981, Fabyan says (p. 128) that a fire destroyed a great
part of the City of London.

“But ye shall understand that at this day, the City of London

had most housing and buylding from Ludgate toward
Westmynster, and little or none where the Chiefe or hart of the
Citie is at this day, except in divers places where housing be
they stood without order, so that many towns and cities, as
Canterbury, Yorke, and other, divers in England passed London
in building at those days, as I have seen and known by an old
book in the Guildhall named Domesday.”

I quote this passage but cannot give credence to the statement,

for the simple reason that London was always a place of trade, and
that where her shipping and her quays and ports lay, there were her
people gathered together. Probably at this time the northern parts of
the City were not yet built over and occupied. But how could the City
successfully hold her own against the Danes if her people lived along
Fleet Street and the Strand?
A very important question arises as to the rights of the citizens
over the lands lying around the City.
 A BANQUET
Prudentius MS., 24199 (11th cent.).

If we consider, for instance, the county of Middlesex, we observe

that it is bounded by the river Colne on the west and by the Lea on
the east. The Thames is its southern march: that of the north was
partly defined by the manors belonging to St. Albans Abbey in after
times. The whole of the northern part, however, was covered with a
vast forest which extended far on either side of Middlesex, and
especially into Essex. Another forest occupied the greater part of
Surrey, beginning with wastes and heaths as soon as the land rose
out of the marsh.
Some kind of right over these forests, and especially over that in
the north, which was especially easy of access, was necessary for
the City, as much as its rights over the river. For as the river was full
of fish and the marshy river-side was full of innumerable birds, so
the forest was full of game—deer, boar, hares, rabbits, and every
kind of creature to be hunted and trapped and to serve as food. Also
the forest furnished timber for building purposes, a feeding-ground
for hogs, and wood and charcoal for fuel. The City would not exist
without rights over the forest.
If we ask what these rights were, we find that London certainly
claimed possession of some lands. Thus in the A.S. Chronicle it is
stated that in the year 912 “King Edward took possession of London
and of Oxford, and all the lands which owed obedience thereto.”
What were these lands? Surely they lay outside the wall.
In the laws of Athelstan, injunctions are laid down for the pursuit
of thieves “beyond the March.” What was the March?
In the laws of Cnut the right of every man to hunt over his own
land is recognised.
And in Henry the First’s Charter we find the clause, “And the
citizens of London shall have their chaces to hunt, as well and fully
as their ancestors have had: that is to say, in Chiltre, and in
Middlesex, and in Surrey” (see p. 279).
In the same Charter, which was avowedly a recognition of old
rights, he gives them the county of Middlesex, with which was
included the City of London, “to farm” for the annual payment of
£300 a year.
From all of which it appears that the county of Middlesex had
been regarded as including London, and, in a sense, a part of
London, and that a large part of its lands “owed obedience” to
London. In that part the citizens could hunt, just as they could fish
in the river and trap birds in the river-side marshes.
II. The Trade of the Town
The early trade of London can be approximately arrived at by
taking into consideration (1) that London was the principal receiving,
distributing, and exporting place; (2) what it had to sell; and (3)
what it wanted to buy.
 Nearly everything that was wanted was made on the farms and in
the towns. On the farms, the butter, cheese, bread, beer, bacon,
were prepared; the grain was grown and ground; the fruit and
vegetables were grown in the gardens; the honey was taken from
the hives; spinning, weaving, carpentering, clothing, shoemaking
were all carried on in the house. Nothing that could be made in the
house was bought; nothing that could be made in the house was
exposed for sale in the market. What, then, did the people want,
and what did they buy? First, they wanted, as necessities, metal for
working, weapons, knives, and utensils. Next they wanted salt. Iron
and salt were the two absolute necessities of life that could be
obtained only by purchase or by barter. If we pass on to luxuries,
the wealthier class drank foreign wine in addition to home-made
beer, cider, and metheglin; they dressed in foreign silk; they used
gold and silver cups, which were made by London goldsmiths; they
imported foreign glass; spices brought from outre-mer; and weapons
made abroad of finer temper and better workmanship than their
own. The Church wanted ecclesiastical vestments, pictures, incense,
and gold and silver vessels. All these things the City had to offer and
to sell. For purposes of purchase or of exchange the City was
prepared to buy slaves, wool, metal, corn, and cattle. All over the
country the people bred slaves and sold them; they sent to London
large quantities of wool; they also sent lead, tin, iron, jet, fish, and
cattle. And there was a great demand among the foreign merchants,
though there was but a small supply, for the lovely embroidery of
the Anglo-Saxon women, and for the beautiful goldwork of the
Anglo-Saxon goldsmiths. The position of the goldsmiths in London,
where they were the richest and most important citizens, proves that
there was more than a home demand for their work. The words
used for the arts and for many articles of common use show that
they were at first imported, and from a nation where the Latin
language was largely used. Common objects, such as candle, pin,
wine, oil; names of weights and measures; names of coins are also
derived from Roman sources. Wright’s theory that the people in the
cities spoke Latin, and that the Saxon gradually became
amalgamated with the people in the cities before the grand irruption
may account for the survival of Latin names for common objects.
One means of introducing these words may have been the
communication kept up by the Church with the Continent, and
especially between the monasteries of England and France.

SAXON LADIES
Royal MS. 2, B. vii.

That the trade of London was large and constantly increasing is

certain. The abundance of gold in the country is instanced by the
wealth of the shrines and the monasteries, and the importance and
value of the exports. Sharon Turner23 sums up this advance in trade
in such general terms as I have indicated:—
“The property of the landholders gradually multiplied in permanent
articles raised from their animals, quarries, mines, and woods; in
their buildings, their furniture, their warlike stores, their leather
apparatus, glass, pigments, vessels and costly dresses. An enlarged
taste for finery and novelty spread as their comforts multiplied.
Foreign wares were valued and sought for; and what Anglo-Saxon
toil or labour could produce, to supply the wants or gratify the
fancies of foreigners, was taken out to barter. All these things gave
so many channels of nutrition to those who had no lands, by
presenting them with opportunities for obtaining the equivalents on
which their subsistence depended. As the bullion of the country
increased, it became, either coined or uncoined, the general and
permanent equivalent. As it could be laid up without deterioration,
and was always operative when it once became in use, the
abundance of society increased, because no one hesitated to
exchange his property for it. Until coin became the medium of
barter, most would hesitate to part with the productions they had
reared, and all classes suffered from the desire of hoarding. Coin or
bullion released the commodities that all society wanted, from
individual fear, prudence, or covetousness, that would for its own
uses have withheld them, and sent them floating through society in
ten thousand ever-dividing channels. The Anglo-Saxons were in this
happy state. Bullion, as we have remarked, sufficiently abounded in
the country, and was in full use in exchange for all things. In every
reign after Athelstan the trade and employment of the country
increased.”

SAXON HORN

The principal work of London was that of collecting and

distributing. The port was the centre to and from which the whole
business of the country came and went. It was the king’s part to
maintain the high roads, but the Roman skill in road-making was
lost; branching off from the highways, in connection with the
villages, were tracks through the forests and over the moors. It is an
indication of the old spirit of tribal separation that merely to be seen
on such a track was suspicious. “... If a far coming man or a
stranger journey through a wood out of the highway, and neither
shout nor blow his horn, he is to be held a thief and either to be
slain or redeemed.” Many of the monasteries lay far outside the high
road and in the midst of woods; they were apparently in
communication with the world by the medium of streams and rivers.
Tintern, Fountains, Dryburgh, Crowland, Ely, for instance, stood
beside streams or rivers.

MERCHANTMEN WITH HORSES AND CAMELS

Harl. MS., 603.

There is abundant evidence as to the extent of the trade carried

on in the port of London. There were merchants from Gotland, that
strangely-placed emporium of eastern and northern commerce.
Thousands of coins have been found on the island—Roman,
Byzantine, and Anglo-Saxon, giving evidence of the wealth and
enterprise of the merchants, who conducted their caravans across
Russia and their ships from the Baltic to the German Ocean and the
shores of the Bay of Biscay. We hear of Frisian merchants trading to
“Lunden tunes Hythe” in the seventh century. The Norsemen were
not all pirates. Othere describes the trade with England in skins of
bear, marten, otter, reindeer, in eider-down and whalebone; in ropes
made of whale and sealskin. In Ethelred’s laws we read of Frisians,
called Flandrenses, of the men of the Emperor, men of Rouen, of
Normandy, and of France.
It would seem that the greater part of the foreign trade remained
in the hands of the foreign merchants, but not all. Athelstan
conferred the rank of Thane on one who had voyaged three times to
the Mediterranean. And in the Dialogues of Ælfric we have the
English merchant’s own account of himself and his trade:—
“I say that I am useful to the king and to ealder men and to the
rich and to all people. I ascend my ship with my merchandise and I
sail over the sea and sell my things and buy dear things which are
not produced in this land, and I bring them to you here with great
danger over the sea: and sometimes I suffer shipwreck, with the
loss of all these things, scarcely escaping myself. ‘What do you bring
to us?’ ‘Skins, silks, costly gems, and gold; curious garments,
pigments, wine, oil, ivory and orichalcous; copper and tin, silver,
glass, and such like.’”
The voyage of ships from the south and the south-east to London
was much safer than we should expect for such small craft as then
formed the trading vessels—short, unwieldy, carrying a single mast
and a single sail. The ships bound for London hugged the shore
round the South Foreland and then, instead of sailing round the
North Foreland, they passed into the estuary of the Thames by the
shallow arm of the sea called the Wantsum, which there divided
Thanet from the mainland and made it an island. At either end of
this passage the Romans had constructed a fortress: that on the
north called Regulbium, now Reculver; that on the south Rutupiæ;,
now Richborough. The latter stood upon a small island separated
from the mainland by a narrow channel. The site of Sandwich was
another islet lying south of Rutupiæ. The passage was kept open
partly by the flow of two or three rivers into it from the highlands of
Kent. It gradually, however, silted up and shrank; yet ships continued
to pass by this channel until the sixteenth century, when it became
too shallow for the lightest ships. The Wantsum must be borne in
mind whenever one speaks of early navigation to and from the port
of London, because it saved the ships from the rough and dangerous
passage round the North Foreland.
The business of distribution, collection of exports, and internal
traffic was conducted entirely by English merchants. Every year the
chapman started on his rounds. He set out with his caravan of
horses laden with goods and conducted by a troop of servants, all
armed for defence against robbers; the roads were cleared of wood
and undergrowth on either side to prevent an ambush—they were
the old Roman roads, many of which still continue; the antiquarian is
pleased to find evidences here and there of a road decayed and not
repaired, but deflected by an easier way. Where there were no
Roman roads there were tracks and bridlepaths; forests covered the
country, and even in summer there was danger of quagmires and
bogs. The chapman rode not from village to village, or from house to
house, but from one market-place to another, reporting himself to
the Reeve on his arrival. When the season was over, when he had
sold or exchanged his stock, he returned to London, his caravan now
loaded with wool, skins, and metals for export, and perhaps with a
company of miserable slaves to be sold across the seas.
 A BANQUET
Royal MS. 2, B. vii.

The Gilds or Guilds, out of which sprang so great a number of

trade corporations and companies, are met with very early. We shall
have to consider this subject later on; let us note here, however,
that the actual rules of many early Guilds have survived. They were
not trades unions: that is, they did not exist for the purpose of
keeping up prices and wages. They were essentially social, even
convivial in character; they were benefit societies; and they were
religious. We have the complete code of the “Frith Guild” of London
under Athelstan. The laws are drawn up by the Bishop and the
Reeve. The members, who were numerous, met together once a
month for social purposes; they feasted and drank together; when a
member died each brother gave a loaf, and sang, or paid for singing,
fifty psalms. There was an insurance fund to which every member
contributed fourpence in order to make good the losses incurred by
the members; they also paid a shilling towards thief-catching; they
were divided into companies of ten and into groups of hundreds;
each company and each group had its own officer. The pursuit and
the conviction of thieves were the principal objects of this Guild. In a
commercial city theft or the destruction of property is the crime
which is most held in abhorrence by the citizens.
There was a Guild of another kind, peculiar, apparently, to the City
of London. It was called the Cnihten Guild (see p. 329). We shall
have occasion to speak of this Guild at greater length farther on. For
the present it is enough to say that it was in all probability—for its
laws have perished—an association bound together by religious
forms and vows for the defence of the City—the “Cnihten” were in
fact the officers of the City militia, which consisted of all the able-
bodied citizens; they were trustees for the funds collected for the
purpose of providing arms for the citizens; they administered an
estate belonging to the town called the Portsoken, lying outside
Aldgate, whose rents were received and set aside, or expended in
the repair of gates and walls, as well as providing arms.
 GLASTONBURY ABBEY

Attempts have been made to derive the Anglo-Saxon Guilds from

the Roman collegia. It is not impossible, supposing that the imitation
came through Gaul. At the same time, the points of resemblance on
which the theory rests are so extremely slight that one is not
disposed to accept it as proved. That is to say, they are points of
resemblance such as naturally belong to every association of men
made for purposes of mutual support and for the maintenance of
common interests. Thus:—
1. Under the Roman Empire there existed collegia privata,
associations of men bound together for trade purposes.
2. They were established by legal rights.
3. They were divided into bodies of ten and a hundred.
4. They were presided over by a magister and decuriones—a
President and a Council.
5. They had their Treasurer and their Sub-Treasurer.
6. They could hold property in their corporate capacity.
7. They had their temples at which they sacrificed.
8. They had their meeting-houses.
 9. They had a common sheet.
10. They had jus sodalitii, the laws, rights, and duties of the
members.
11. They admitted members on oath.
12. They supported their poor.
13. The members had to pay contributions and subscriptions.
14. They buried their dead publicly.
15. Each had its day of celebration or feast.

ANGLO-SAXON NUNS
Prudentius MS., 24199 (11th cent.).

Now, suppose we found among the Chinese or the ancient

Mexicans institutions with similar laws, should we be justified in
claiming a Roman origin for them? Not at all. We should merely note
the facts, and should acknowledge that humanity being common to
every age and every country, such rules must be laid down and
maintained by every such association as a Company or Guild in the
interests of any trade or mystery. So far and no farther the Anglo-
Saxon Guild is a copy of the Roman collegium. Unless further points
of resemblance are found, we shall be justified in believing that the
Guild was not derived by the Saxon from the Roman, and that the
latter was not preserved among the provincial towns of England.
Against the theory it may also be argued that if it was so preserved,
every Guild being separated from every other could develop on
independent lines, and that some of the Roman names at least
would be preserved, and some of the Roman customs, apart, that is,
from the customs common to every such association in every age
and in every country.
III. The Religious Foundations

CONFERRING THE TONSURE

Harl. MS., Roll Y. 6.

The religious spirit, which has always been found among the
Teutonic peoples, was strongly manifested in the Saxon as soon as
he became converted. He multiplied monasteries and churches; all
over the country arose monastic houses; Bede mentions nineteen of
them, including those of Ely, Whitby, Iona, Melrose, Lindisfarne, and
Beverley. He does not, however, include Westminster, Romsey,
Barking, or Crowland. Kings, queens, princesses, and nobles, all
went into monasteries and took the vows; partly, no doubt, from
fear of losing their souls, but partly, it is certain, from the desire to
enjoy the quiet life, free from the never-ending troubles of the
world; free also from its temptations and from its attractions. The
monastery provided peace in this world and bliss in the world to
come. It has been too much the custom to deride the rule and the
discipline, the daily services, the iteration that made prayer and
praise a mere mechanical routine. Yet it is easy to understand the
kind of mind on whom this deadening effect would be produced. It is
also easy to understand the kind of mind to which a rigid rule would
be like a prop and a crutch on life’s pilgrimage; to which daily
services, nightly services, perpetual services, would be so many
steps by which the soul was climbing upwards. Again, to a harassed
king, arrived, after many years of struggle and battle, at middle age
or old age, think how such a house, lying in woods remote, among
marshes inaccessible, would seem a very haven of rest! Or again, to
the princess who had suffered the violent and premature deaths of
her brothers, her father, most of her people; who remembered the
tears and grief of her widowed mother; who had passed through the
bereavements which made life dreadful in a time of perpetual war;
how admirable would it seem to preserve her virginity even in
marriage, and, as soon as might be, to retire into the safety and the
peace of the nunnery!