form, when everywhere else it had become a thing of the past.
Another point must be kept in mind: that although there are remarkable resemblances between Eastern and Irish monasteries—resemblances sufficient to make it probable that they were both derived from the one original—yet the differences between them are still more remarkable. Let us briefly trace some of these differences.
Before the introduction of Christianity, the Druids formed communities similar in many respects to the early monasteries. They were not only priests, but lawgivers, philosophers, historians, teachers and bards. To all these offices the Christian ecclesiastics succeeded. Their establishments were not only centres of religious worship, but schools where whatever learning the land possessed could alone be found. In them, too, the laws of the land were made, for neither in pagan nor Christian times were the kings lawgivers merely by virtue of their office. In some cases a monarch of exceptional wisdom was also an ollav, but as a general rule the duty devolved on the wise men who by natural ability and a long course of mental training had been prepared for the office.
It is needless to say that such 'wise men' were found not among the warriors, but among the religious communities. This will perhaps explain the curious phenomenon that the ancient laws of Ireland had no 'sanction' beyond the force of public opinion. The brehon or judge was in reality a mere arbitrator, and had no way of enforcing his decisions. It is also a remarkable instance of the survival of old customs that we find at the present day the unwritten law of public opinion to be regarded by the native Irish as infinitely more sacred than the law of the land.
