vill2-第47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！


y　the　origin　of　the　group　and　the　progress　which　the　peasantry　had　made　in　two　hundred　years。　The　Domesday　description　mentions　ten　sokemen　and　twenty　villains；　the　thirteenth…century　Cartulary　speaks　in　one　place　of　liberi　and　villani；　sets　out　the　services　due　from　the　latter；　but　says　that　the　Abbot　can　'ponere　omnia　opera　ad　censum；'　while　in　another　place　it　speaks　as　though　the　whole　were　held　by　liberi　et　censuarii。（20*）　　　　　A　similar　condition　is　indicated　by　the　term　gavelmanni；　which　occurs　sometimes；　although　not　so　often　as　either　of　the　designations　just　mentioned。（21*）　It　comes　evidently　from　gafol　or　gafel；　and　applies　to　rent…paying　people。　It　ought　to　be　noticed；　however；　that　if　we　follow　the　distinction　suggested　by　the　Kentish　documents；　there　would　be　an　important　difference　in　the　meaning。　Rent　need　not　always　appear　as　a　result　of　commutation；　it　may　be　an　original　incident　of　the　tenure；　and　there　are　facts　enough　to　show　that　lands　were　held　by　rent　in　opposition　to　service　even　in　early　Saxon　time。　Should　mal　be　taken　as　a　commutation　rent；　and　gafol　strictly　in　the　sense　of　original　rent；　the　gavelmen　would　present　an　interesting　variation　of　social　grouping　as　the　progeny　of　ancient　rent…holding　peasantry。　I　do　not　think；　however；　that　we　are　entitled　to　press　terminological　distinctions　so　closely　in　the　feudal　period；　and　I　should　never　enter　a　protest　against　the　assumption　that　most　gavelmen　were　distinguished　from　molmen　only　by　name；　and　in　fact　originated　in　the　same　process　of　commutation。　But；　granting　this；　we　have　to　grant　something　else。　Vice　versa；　it　is　very　probable　indeed　that　the　groups　of　censuarii　and　molmen　are　not　to　be　taken　exclusively　as　the　outcome　of　commutation。　If　gafol　gets　to　be　rather　indistinct　in　its　meaning；　so　does　mal；　and　as　to　census；　there　is　nothing　to　show　whether　it　arises　in　consequence　of　commutation　or　of　original　agreement。　And　so　the　Kentish　distinction；　even　if　not　carried　out　systematically；　opens　a　prospect　which　may　modify　considerably　the　characteristic　of　the　status　on　which　I　have　been　insisting　till　now。　Commutation　was　undoubtedly　a　most　powerful　agency　in　the　process　of　emancipation；　our　authorities　are　very　ready　to　supply　us　with　material　in　regard　to　its　working；　and　I　do　not　think　that　anybody　will　dispute　the　intimate　connexion　between　the　social　divisions　under　discussion　and　the　transition　from　labour　services　to　rent。　Yet　a　money　rent　need　not　be　in　every　case　the　result　of　a　commutation　of　labour　services；　although　such　may　be　its　origin　in　most　cases。　We　have　at　least　to　admit　the　possibility　and　probability　of　another　pedigree　of　rent…paying　peasants。　They　may　come　from　an　old　stock　of　people　whose　immemorial　custom　has　been　to　pay　rent　in　money　or　in　kind；　and　who　have　always　remained　more　or　less　free　from　base　labour。　This　we　should　have　to　consider　as　at　all　events　a　theoretic　possibility；　even　if　we　restricted　our　study　to　the　terminology　connected　with　rent；　though　it　would　hardly　give　sufficient　footing　for　definite　conclusions。　But　there　are　groups　among　the　peasantry　whose　history　is　less　doubtful。　　　　　There　are　at　the　British　Museum　two　most　curious　Surveys　of　the　possessions　of　Ely　Minster；　one　drawn　up　in　1222　and　the　other　in　1277；（22*）　In　some　of　the　manors　described　we　find　tenants　called　'hundredarii。'　Their　duties　vary　a　good　deal；　but　the　peculiarity　which　groups　them　into　a　special　division　and　gives　them　their　name　is　the　suit　of　court　they　owe　to　the　hundred。（23*）　And　although　the　name　does　not　occur　often　even　in　the　Ely　Surveys；　and　is　very　rare　indeed　elsewhere；（24*）　the　thing　is　quite　common。　The　village　has　to　be　represented　in　the　hundred　court　either　by　the　lord　of　the　manor；　or　by　the　steward；　or　by　the　reeve；　the　priest；　and　four　men。（25*）　The　same　people　have　to　attend　the　County　Court　and　to　meet　the　King's　justices　when　they　are　holding　an　eyre。（26*）　It　is　not　a　necessary　consequence；　of　course；　that　certain　particular　holdings　should　be　burdened　with　the　special　duty　of　sending　representatives　to　these　meetings；　but　it　is　quite　in　keeping　with　the　general　tendency　of　the　time　that　it　should　be　so；　and　indeed　one　finds　everywhere　that　some　of　the　tenants；　even　if　not　called　'hundredarii；'　are　singled　out　from　the　rest　to　'defend'　the　township　at　hundred　and　shire　moots。（27*）　They　are　exempted　from　other　services　in　regard　to　this　'external；'　this　'forinsec'　duty；　which　was　considered　as　by　no　means　a　light　one。（28*）　　　　　And　now　as　to　their　status。　The　obligation　to　send　the　reeve　and　four　men　is　enforced　all　through　England；　and　for　this　reason　it　is　prima　facie　impossible　that　it　should　be　performed　everywhere　by　freeholders　in　the　usual　sense　of　the　word。　There　can　be　no　doubt　that　in　many；　if　not　in　most；　places　the　feudal　organisation　of　society　afforded　little　room　for　a　considerable　class　of　free…holding　peasants　or　yeomen。（29*）　If　every　township　in　the　realm　had　to　attend　particular　judicial　meetings；　to　perform　service　for　the　king；　by　means　of　five　representatives；　these　could　not　but　be　selected　largely　from　among　the　villain　class。　The　part　played　by　these　representatives　in　the　Courts　was　entirely　in　keeping　with　their　subordinate　position。　They　were　not　reckoned　among　the　'free　and　lawful'　men　acting　as　judges　or　assessors　and　deciding　the　questions　at　issue。　They　had　only　to　make　presentments　and　to　give　testimony　on　oath　when　required　to　do　so。　The　opposition　is　a　very　marked　one；　and　speaks　of　itself　against　the　assumption　that　the　five　men　from　the　township　were　on　an　equal　standing　with　the　freeholders。（30*）　Again；　four　of　these　five　were　in　many　cases　especially　bound　by　their　tenure　to　attend　the　meetings；　and　the　reeve　came　by　virtue　of　his　office；　but　he　is　named　first；　and　it　does　not　seem　likely　that　the　leader　should　be　considered　as　of　lower　degree　than　the　followers。　Now　the　obligation　to　serve　as　reeve　was　taken　as　a　mark　of　villainage。　All　these　facts　lead　one　forcibly　to　the　conclusion　that　the　hundredors　of　our　documents　represent　the　village　people　at　large；　and　the　villains　first　of　all；　because　this　class　was　most　numerous　in　the　village。　This　does　not　mean；　of　course；　that　they　were　all　personally　unfree：　we　know　already；　that　the　law　of　tenure　was　of　more　importance　in　such　questions　than　personal　status。（31*）　It　does　not　even　mean　that　the　hundredors　were　necessarily　holding　in　villainage：　small　freeholders　may　have　appeared　among　them。　But　the　institution　could　not　rest　on　the　basis　of　legal　freehold　if　it　was　to　represent　the　great　bulk　of　the　peasantry　in　the　townships。　　　　　This　seems　obvious　and　definite　enough；　but　our　inquiry　would　be　incomplete　and　misleading　if　it　were　to　stop　here。　We　have　in　this　instance　one　of　those　curious　contradictions　between　two　well…established　sets　of　facts　which　are　especially　precious　to　the　investigator　because　they　lead　him　while　seeking　their　solution　to　inferences　far　beyond　the　material　under　immediate　examination。　In　one　sense　the　reeve　and　the　four　men；　the　hundredors；　seem　villains　and　not　freeholders。　In　another　they　seem　freeholders　and　not　villains。　Their　tenure　by　the　'sergeanty'　of　attending　hundreds　and　shires　ranks