vill3-第4章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


s　placed　in　entirely　different　local　surroundings　and　historical　connexions；　the　tendency　towards　an　equalising　of　the　shares　of　the　tenantry　is　equally　noticeable　in　England　and　in　Russia；　in　the　far　west　and　in　the　far　east　of　Europe。　In　Russia　we　need　not　even　go　into　history　to　find　it　operating　in　the　way　described；　the　practice　is　alive　even　now。　　　　　This　intermixture　of　strips　in　the　open　fields　is　also　characteristic　in　another　way：　it　manifests　the　working　of　a　principle　which　became　obliterated　in　the　course　of　history；　but　had　to　play　a　very　important　part　originally。　It　was　a　system　primarily　intended　for　the　purpose　of　equalising　shares；　and　it　considered　every　man's　rights　and　property　as　interwoven　with　other　people's　rights　and　property：　it　was　therefore　a　system　particularly　adapted　to　bring　home　the　superior　right　of　the　community　as　a　whole；　and　the　inferior；　derivative　character　of　individual　rights。　The　most　complete　inference　from　such　a　general　conception　would　be　to　treat　individual　occupation　of　the　land　as　a　shifting　ownership；　to　redistribute　the　land　among　the　members　of　the　community　from　time　to　time；　according　to　some　system　of　lot　or　rotation。　The　western　village　community　does　not　go　so　far；　as　a　rule；　in　regard　to　the　arable；　at　least　in　the　time　to　which　our　records　belong。　But　even　in　the　west；　and　particularly　in　England；　traces　of　shifting　ownership；　'shifting　severalty；'　may　be　found　as　scattered　survivals　of　a　condition　which；　if　not　general；　was　certainly　much　more　widely　spread　in　earlier　times。（22*）　The　arable　is　sometimes　treated　as　meadows　constantly　are：　every　householder's　lot　is　only　an　'ideal'　one；　and　may　be　assigned　one　year　in　one　place；　and　next　year　in　another。　The　stubborn　existence　of　intermixed　ownership；　even　as　described　by　feudal　and　later　records；　is　in　itself　a　strong　testimony　to　the　communal　character　of　early　property。　The　strips　of　the　several　holders　were　not　divided　by　hedges　or　inclosures；　and　a　good　part　of　the　time；　after　harvest　and　before　seed；　individual　rights　retreated　before　common　use；　every　individualising　treatment　of　the　soil　was　excluded　by　the　compulsory　rotation　of　crops　and　the　fact　that　every　share　consisted　of　a　number　of　narrow　strips　wedged　in　among　other　people's　shares。　The　husbandry　could　not　be　very　energetic　and　lucrative　under　such　pressure；　and　a　powerful　consideration　which　kept　the　system　working；　against　convenience　and　interest；　was　its　equalising　and　as　it　were　communal　tendency。　I　lay　stress　on　the　fact：　if　the　open…field　system　with　its　intermixture　had　been　merely　a　reflection　of　the　original　allotment；　it　would　have　certainly　lost　its　regularity　very　soon。　People　could　not　be　blind　to　its　drawbacks　from　the　point　of　view　of　individual　farming；　and　if　the　single　strips　had　become　private　property　as　soon　as　they　ceased　to　be　shifting；　exchanges；　if　not　sales；　would　have　greatly　destroyed　the　inconvenient　network。　The　lord　had　no　interest　to　prevent　such　exchanges；　which　could　manifestly　lead　to　an　improvement　of　husbandry；。　and　in　regard　to　his　own　strips；　he　must　have　perceived　soon　enough　that　it　would　be　better　to　have　them　in　one　compact　mass　than　scattered　about　in　all　the　fields。　And　still　the　open…field　intermixture　holds　its　ground　all　through　the　middle　ages；　and　we　find　its　survivals　far　into　modern　times。　This　can　only　mean；　that　even　when　the　shifting；　'ideal；'　share　in　the　land　of　the　community　had　given　way　to　the　permanent　ownership　by　each　member　of　certain　particular　scattered　strips；　this　permanent　ownership　did　by　no　means　amount　to　private　property　in　the　Roman　or　in　the　modern　sense。　The　communal　principle　with　its　equalising　tendency　remained　still　as　the　efficient　force　regulating　the　whole；　and　strong　enough　to　subject　even　the　lord　and　the　freeholders　to　its　customary　influence。　By　saying　this　I　do　not　mean　to　maintain；　of　course；　that　private　property　was　not　existent；　that　it　was　not　breaking　through　the　communal　system；　and　acting　as　a　dissolvent　of　it。　I　shall　have　to　show　by…and…by　in　what　ways　this　process　was　effected。　But　the　fact　remains；　that　the　system　which　prevailed　upon　the　whole　during　the　middle　ages　appears　directly　connected　in　its　most　important　features　with　ideas　of　communal　ownership　and　equalised　individual　rights。　　　　　These　ideas　are　carried　out　in　a　very　rough　way　in　the　mediaeval　arrangement　of　the　holding；　which　is　more　complicated　in　England　than　on　the　continent。　According　to　a　very　common　mode　of　reckoning；　the　hide　contains　four　virgates；　every　virgate　two　bovates；　and　every　bovate　fifteen　acres。　The　bovate　（oxgang）　shows　by　its　very　name　that　not　only　the　land　is　taken　into　account；　but　the　oxen　employed　in　its　tillage；　and　the　records　explain　the　hide　or　carucate　（23*）　to　be　the　land　of　the　eight…oxen　plough；　that　is　so　much　land　as　may　be　cultivated　by　a　plough　drawn　by　eight　oxen。　The　virgate；　or　yard…land；　being　the　fourth　part　of　a　hide；　corresponds　to　one…fourth　part　of　the　plough；　that　is；　to　two　oxen；　contributed　by　the　holder　to　the　full　plough…team；　the　bovate　or　oxgang　appears　as　the　land　of　one　ox；　and　the　eighth　part　of　the　hide。（24*）　Such　proportions　are；　as　I　said；　very　commonly　found　in　the　records；　but　they　are　by　no　means　prevalent　everywhere。　On　the　possessions　of　Glastonbury　Abbey；　for　instance；　we　find　virgates　of　forty　acres；　and　a　hide　of　160；　and　the　same　reckoning　appears　in　manors　of　Wetherall　Priory；　Westmoreland；（25*）　of　the　Abbey　of　Eynsham；　Oxfordshire；（26*）　and　many　other　places。　　　　　The　so…called　Domesday　of　St。　Paul's　reports；（27*）　that　in　Runwell　eighty　acres　used　to　be　reckoned　to　the　hide；　but　in　course　of　time　new　land　was　acquired　（for　tillage）　and　measured；　and　so　the　hide　was　raised　to　120　acres。　Altogether　the　supposition　of　an　uniform　acre…measurement　of　bovates；　virgates；　hides；　and　knights'　fees　all　over　England　would　be　entirely　misleading。　The　oxen　were　an　important　element　in　the　arrangement；　but；　of　course；　not　the　only　one。　The　formation　of　the　holding　had　to　conform　also　to　the　quality　of　the　soil；　the　density　of　the　population；　etc。　We　find　in　any　case　the　most　varying　figures。　The　knight's　fee　contained　mostly　four　or　five　full　ploughs　or　carucates；　and　still　in　Lincolnshire　sixteen　carucates　went　to　the　knight's　fee。（28*）　The　carucate　was　not　identical　with　the　hide；　but　carucate　and　hide　alike　had　originally　meant　a　unit　corresponding　to　a　plough…team。　Four　virgates　were　mostly　reckoned　to　the　hide；　but　sometimes　six；　eight；　seven　are　taken。（29*）　The　yardlands　（virgates）　or　full　lands；　as　they　are　sometimes　called；　because　they　were　considered　as　the　typical　peasant　holdings；　consist　of　fifteen；　sixteen；　eighteen；　twenty…four；　forty；　forty…eight；　fifty；　sixty…two；　eighty　acres；　although　thirty　is　perhaps　the　figure　which　appears　more　often　than　any　other。（30*）　Bovates　of　ten；　twelve；　and　sixteen　acres　are　to　be　found　in　the　same　locality。（31*）　We　cannot　even　seize　hold　of　the　acre　as　the　one　constant　unit　among　these　many　variables；　the　size　of　the　acre　itself　varied　from　place　to　place。　In　this　way　any　attempt　to　establish　a　normal　reckoning　of　the　holdings　will　not　only　seem　hazardous；　but　will　actually　stand　in　contr