PROFESSOR GRANT LECTURES TO SOCIETY FOR IMPERIAL CULTURE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18144, 2 May 1927, Page 5

PROFESSOR GRANT LECTURES TO SOCIETY FOR IMPERIAL CULTURE.

. On Saturday night, in the Chamber of Commerce, a large number of members of the Society for Imperial Culture assembled to hear Professor .V. J. Grant's lecture on “Athens, Florence and Christchurch.” Professor Shelley, who presided, gave details <*f the competition in musical composition for a prize of £SO, to take place during the year. He asked for an additional £lO for advertising, which was agreed to. Ife then welcomed Professor and Airs A. J. Grant and Mrs Scott, who is travelling with them. During the evening Mr Bernard Barker on the violin played the following, accompanied by Mr Claude Williams: “Sonata in A Major” (Handel), “Obortas” (Wieniawski), “Melodic Viennois” (Kreisler), “On Wings of Love” (Mendelssohn). Professor Grant thanked those present for the welcome given to him and his wife and Mrs Scott. Hr- said he had chosen as his subject Athens and Florence, as two of the besNknown democracies of ancient history, and might compare them with Christchurch, though he did not yet know much of this modern democratic city. He had noticed the absence of villages in Australia and New Zealand, hut the great fundamental things in history have invariably ’happened in cities. He drew a vivid picture of Athens about the year 450 8.C., and in imagination, viewed from the Acropolis, the beautiful public buildings, the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. with the great harbour of Piraeus, about three miles distant, connected with the city by walls 60ft high, and the smaller harbour of Yalerium. In the narrow streets below were unattractive and Insanitary houses, but little is known of this part of the city. There would be marked divisions among the people, hut few women would he seen about. Large miniried on the trades and commerce, were. there. though they had no citizens’ rights, and i her- would, probably ho more slaves than freemen. Under the walls of the city was a huge, open, grassy theatre, large! enough lor the whole male, population. I Here the orators spoke, and all import- I ant questions were discussed. It was* the basis of Athenian power. There I was no king, no president or mayor as , leader of the State. The power was I kept in the great assemblies of tho I people, and from that institution funda- J mental democracy had its basis. Many of tho officials wore appointed by lot. Affairs were managed by a council of 500—rather a large prupor- I tlon of a tabulation of 50,000 citizens — under a chairman, chosen by lot. They sat every day, and had a fresh president every day, so every citizen had the chance to serve tho state for twentv-four hours of his life, hut never twice.' The highest military officials were, however, chosen by vote. The j “lot” system worked for equality; but 1

it had Its dangers, for there were many occasions when specialists were required. as, for instance, to deal with the water supply. Professor Grant then passed on to Florence about the year 3 350—after the I death of Dante, and before the Renaissance period, a time when there was a great appreciation of tho beautiful in art and architecture. lie viewed their mediaeval democracy from the Campanile. Florence had no contact with the sea. * There were many divisions among the people, whose citizens numbered about 30,000. Florence was not homogeneous. There were many resident aliens, Jews, attracted by mercantile affairs, and many of the powerful rich class and many serfs, but no slaves. The' government was by general assembly in the great market-place; but anything like sovereign power was so hemmed round that no real destinv was ever decided there. There were many i councils, but they had no power. The real governing power was vested in the great trade guilds. Seven great guilds dominated Florentine life for three centuries. They were three professional guilds and four industrial guilds. Con- , slant changes went on. They were reslless and dissatisfied. Dante compared Florence to an invalid, tossing and turning on a bed ol’ pain; but still the rule of the guilds went on. Committees of six or seven men each elected from the rich members of the guilds for their fitness for office, had the management of affairs. They met with opposition from the landed nobility, who did not like being ruled by tradesmen, and also from the smaller guilds, who were constantly trying to , Coming to our own day and our own ! city, general assemblies of the citizens are done away with. The “lot” system has gone, and more than ever is the fading that men must have special ability for the tasks they undertake, i It is interesting to compare the trade i guilds with the trade unions of to-dav; hut mediaeval days capitalists and ; handed together, and both helped their I special guild. A hearty vote of thanks to Professor Grant was passed, and the meeting i concluded after supper had been handed