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！
To give you an instance of what I am saying； I will cite the
precise text of some of these charters。
In 1555 a lawsuit began between a squire （votchinnik） called
Nefediev and the peasants of eighteen villages all belonging to
the volost of Almesch。 The question which the judges had to
decide； was whether some pastures belonged to the volost or to
the squire。 Witnesses named by each party from among the oldest
inhabitants of the locality declared that the peasants were the
real possessors of the ground in dispute； and that their
ownership went back to a period beyond the memory of man； and the
judge decided that the claims of the squire were null and void。
In the case just mentioned we find ourselves in presence of a
sort of undivided mark； composed； like that of Germany； of a
certain number of villages possessing lands in common。 These
lands are pastures。 Other charters of the same period show us
cases in which the undivided area of the mark or volost was
composed of forest ground。 Expressions like the following are
frequent in the documents just mentioned： 〃The forest belongs to
the commune （selo） and the villages in common （vopsche）； or
〃this〃 piece of forest ground has been given to me by the volost
（the mark）； the elder； and the peasants。〃
No one had the right to clear the forest or reclaim the waste
land lying within the limits of a volost； unless authorised to do
so by the elders and the assembly of peasants。 This fact appears
clearly in the following instance： in 1524； three persons found
some salt wells on the shores of Dvina in the midst of a dark
forest。 They addressed a petition to the Government asking to be
recognized as the legal possessors of the place； and they
supported their demand by the following argument： 〃Not one of the
surrounding marks or volosts has any appurtenances in the place。〃
Had it been otherwise； had the wells been situated on the
appurtenances of a volost； no private person could have made the
demand just mentioned。 The marks or volosts jealously watched
over the integrity of their boundaries； and that from the
earliest times。 In the 〃Lives of the Saints；〃 those early
monuments of our written literature； complaint is sometimes made
of peasants doing their best to get rid of a hermit； established
in a neighbouring forest； 〃because；〃 says the hagiographer； 〃they
feared he would assign to some monastery a part of the ground
they owned。〃*
The charters give； as I have already said； very little
information about the internal arrangements of the volost and
village； all we know is that the settlements were very far from
resembling those large assemblages of people which are known in
our days under the name of 〃slobodi。〃 As a rule the 〃derevnia〃 or
village contained few hearths； and the villages were scattered
over the whole area of the volost。 The wastes and forests were
used in common； while the meadows and arable fields became the
object of private appropriation。 No equality of shares seem to
have existed； the charters constantly mentioning the 〃best men；〃
〃the men of wealth；〃 （jitii liudi） side by side with the 〃smaller
men〃 （molodschii）。 Some few seem to have had even no part at all
in the possessions of the soil； being known under the name of
podsousedi or podsousedki； which means living under the authority
of a neighbour or villager （sosed）。 These persons were regularly
employed as agricultural labourers。 Some few； the so…called
〃bobili；〃 were possessed of small parcels of land； resembling in
that the cottarii of Domesday Book。 The agricultural area owned
by each homestead was known by the name of 〃jrebii；〃 which means
a lot； and the sense which men of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries attached to this term is revealed to us by an old
Russian translation of some parts of the Byzantine codes； the
Prochiron and the Eclogue。 This translation in certain points
appears to be a kind of adaptation of Greek legislation to the
conditions of the Russian people。 One of the paragraphs of these
so…called 〃Books of the Law〃 （Zakonnii Knigi； chap。 xii） contains
the following sentence： 〃If a division of land shall take place
by which some person shall injure the interest of others in their
plots （jrebii） the division must not be maintained。〃*
The jrebii being a plot of land enjoyed by a single household
out of the agricultural area of the mark； a plot which need not
necessarily be equal to those of the neighbours； we are right in
saying that the village community of the free peasants of Muscovy
was like that of the Cossacks of the Dnieper。 This likeness is to
a certain extent obscured by the financial arrangements which the
Muscovite volost entered into in order to secure the yearly
payment of the land tax； these arrangements； as well as the tax
itself； being quite unknown to Little Russian communes。
The Muscovite administration formerly empowered the volosts
to distribute the taxes imposed on the villages； according to the
quantity of cultivated land together with the commons thereto
annexed； possessed by them。 The sum to be paid by the inhabitants
of each subdivision of the mark was then divided among the
various households according to the extent of their possessions。
The unit of taxation was the land of a plough。 I mean the amount
of land which one plough。 working the whole day； could turn up。
This unit was known by the name of 〃socha。〃 Some homesteads owned
two； three； or more of these； but there were others who held only
a portion of this unit； just as in mediaeval England there were
households owning entire virgates； or the half or third part of a
virgate； and in Germany there were holders of 〃mansi pleni et
mansi dimidii；〃 〃ganze und halbe Hufen。〃 As serfdom was unknown
and no mutual responsibility in matters of taxation bound the
peasant to the soil he occupied； undivided households very often
quitted their dwellings in order to settle in some neighbouring
country； on lands still free of occupation； or on those liberally
accorded to new…comers by their private owners； on condition of a
small payment。
The abandoned ground returned each time to the volost； which
always took measures to find some new occupier who might relieve
the mark from the increase of taxation produced by the departure
of the previous occupier。 Instances of such new occupation are
regularly reported in the following terms： 〃All the peasants of
the volost have allowed such and such persons to settle on the
lots （jrebii） left free by the departure of such and such
persons。 The mir （this word means the whole community of
shareholders） has conceded this lot to 〃 （here follows the
name）。 The shares of each particular household having no distinct
limits； we are induced to think that the possession of a lot； or
jrebii； conceded no other right than that of having a distinct
share in the open fields of the village。 Each household possessed
larger or smaller strips of ground in the different fields
contained in the village area； and also had the right to mow a
distinct portion of the village meadow； while the enjoyment of
the waste and of the forest land was free to all the inhabitants
of the volost；