vill3-第56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！


　will　have　been　done。　This　is　simple　enough；　and　seems　hardly　worth　mentioning。　But　things　are　not　so　plain　as　they　look。　　　　　To　begin　with；　even　a　complete　knowledge　of　the　sequence　of　events　would　not　be　sufficient　since　it　would　merely　present　a　series　of　arrangements　following　upon　each　other　in　time　and　not　a　chain　of　causes　and　effects。　We　cannot　exempt　ourselves　from　the　duty　of　following　up　the　investigation　by　speculations　as　to　the　agencies　and　motives　which　produced　the　changes。　But　even　apart　from　the　necessity　of　taking　up　ultimately　what　one　may　call　the　dynamic　thread　of　the　inquiry；　there　is　considerable　difficulty。　In　obtaining　a　tolerably　settled　sequence　of　general　facts　to　start　with。　Any　one　who　has　had　to　do　with　such　studies　knows　how　scanty　the　information　about　the　earlier　phenomena　is　apt　to　be；　how　difficult　it　is　to　distinguish　between　the　main　forms　and　the　variations　which　mediate　and　lead　from　one　to　another。　The　task　of　settling　a　definite　theory　of　development　would　not　have　been　so　arduous；　and　the　conflicting　views　of　scholars　would　not　have　suggested　such　directly　opposite　results；　if　the　early　data　had　not　been　so　scattered　and　so　ambiguous。　The　state　of　the　existing　material　requires　a　method　of　treatment　which　may　to　some　extent　supplement　the　defects　in　the　evidence。　The　later　and　well…recorded　period　ought　to　be　made　to　supply　additional　information　as　to　the　earlier　and　imperfectly　described　ones。　It　is　from　this　point　of　view　that　we　must　once　more　survey　the　ground　that　we　have　been　exploring　in　the　foregoing　pages。　　　　　The　first　general　feature　that　meets　our　eye　is　the　cultivation　of　arable　on　the　open…field　system：　the　land　tilled　is　not　parcelled　up　by　enclosures；　but　lies　open　through　the　whole　or　the　greater　part　of　the　year；　the　plot　held　and　tilled　by　a　single　cultivator　is　not　a　compact　piece；　but　is　composed　of　strips　strewn　about　in　all　parts　of　the　village　fields　and　intermixed　with　patches　or　strips　possessed　by　fellow　villagers。　Now；　both　facts　are　remarkable。　They　do　not　square　at　all　with　the　rules　and　tendencies　of　private　ownership　and　individualistic　husbandry。　The　individual　proprietor　will　naturally　try　to　fence　in　his　plot　against　strangers；　to　set　up　hedges　and　walls　that　would　render　trespassing　over　his　ground　difficult；　if　not　impossible。　And　he　could　not　but　consider　intermixture　as　a　downright　nuisance；　and　strive　by　all　means　in　his　power　to　get　rid　of　it。　Why　should　he　put　up　with　the　inconvenience　of　holding　a　bundle　of　strips　lying　far　apart　from　each　other；　more　or　less　dependent　because　of　their　narrowness　on　the　dealings　of　neighbours；　who　may　be　untidy　and　unthrifty？　Instead　of　having　one　block　of　soil　to　look　to　and　a　comparatively　short　boundary　to　maintain；　every　occupier　has　a　number　of　scattered　pieces　to　care　for；　and　neighbours；　who　not　only　surround；　but　actually　cut　up；　dismember；　invade　his　tenement。　The　open…field　system　stands　in　glaring　contradiction　with　the　present　state　of　private　rights　in　Western　Europe；　and　no　wonder　that　it　has　been　abolished　everywhere；　except　on　some　few　tracts　of　land　kept　back　by　geographical　conditions　from　joining　the　movement　of　modern　civilisation。　And　even　in　mediaeval　history　we　perceive　that　the　arrangement　does　not　keep　its　hold　on　those　occasions　when　the　rights　of　individuals。　are　strongly　felt：　it　gives　way　on　the　demesne　farm　and　on　newly　reclaimed　land。　　　　　At　the　same　time；　the　absence　of　perpetual　enclosures　and　the　intermixture　of　strips　are　in　a　general　way　quite　prevalent　at　the　present　time　in　the　East　of　Europe。　What　conditions　do　they　correspond　to？　Why　have　nations　living　in　very　different　climates　and　on　very　different　soils　adopted　the　open…field　system　again　and　again　in　spite　of　all　inconveniences　and　without　having　borrowed　it　from　each　other？　　　　　There　is　absolutely　nothing　in　the　manorial　arrangement　to　occasion　this　curious　system。　It　is　not　the　fact　that　peasant　holdings　are　made　subservient　to　the　wants　of　the　lord's　estate；　that　can　explain　why　early　agriculture　is　in　the　main　a　culture　of　open　fields　and　involves　a　marvellous　intermixture　of　rights。　The　absence　of　any　logical　connexion　between　these　two　things　settles　the　question　as　to　historical　influence。　The　open…field　arrangement　is；　I　repeat　it；　no　lax　or　indifferent　system；　but　stringent　and　highly　peculiar。　And　so　it　cannot　but　proceed　from　some　pressing　necessity。　　　　　It　is　evidently　communal　in　its　very　essence。　Every　trait　that　makes　it　strange　and　inconvenient　from　the　point　of　view　of　individualistic　interests；　renders　it　highly　appropriate　to　a　state　of　things　ruled　by　communal　conceptions。　It　is　difficult　to　prevent　trespasses　upon　an　open　plot；　but　the　plot　must　be　open；　if　many　people　besides　the　tiller　have　rights　over　it；　pasture　rights；　for　instance。　It　involves　great　loss　of　time　and　difficulty　of　supervision　to　work　a　property　that　lies　in　thirty　separate　pieces　all　over　the　territory　of　a　village；　but　such　a　disposition　is　remarkably　well　adapted　for　the　purpose　of　assigning　to　fellow　villagers　equal　shares　in　the　arable。　It　is　grievous　to　depend　on　your　neighbours　for　the　proceeds　and　results　of　your　own　work；　but　the　tangled　web　of　rights　and　boundaries　becomes　simple　if　one　considers　it　as　the　management　of　land　by　an　agricultural　community　which　has　allotted　the　places　where　its　members　have　to　work。　Rights　of　common　usage；　communal　apportionment　of　shares　in　the　arable；　communal　arrangement　of　ways　and　times　of　cultivation　　these　are　the　chief　features　of　open…field　husbandry；　and　all　point　to　one　source　　the　village　community。　It　is　not　a　manorial　arrangement；　though　it　may　be　adapted　to　the　manor。　If　more　proof　were　needed　we　have　only　to　notice　the　fact；　that　open…field　cultivation　is　in　full　work　in　countries　where　the　manor　has　not　been　established；　and　in　times　when　it　has　not　as　yet　been　formed。　We　may　take　India　or　tribal　italy　as　instances。　　　　　The　system　as　exhibited　in　England　is　linked　to　a　division　into　holdings　which　gives　it　additional　significance。　The　holding　of　the　English　peasant　is　distinguished　by　two　characteristic　features：　it　is　a　unit　which　as　a　rule　does　not　admit　of　division；　it　is　equal　to　other　units　in　the　same　village。　There　is　no　need　to　point　out　at　length　to　what　extent　these　features　are　repugnant　to　an　individualistic　order　of　things。　They　belong　to　a　rural　community。　But　even　in　a　community　the　arrangement　adopted　seems　peculiar。　We　must　not　disregard　some　important　contradictions。　The　holdings　are　not　all　equal；　but　are　grouped　on　a　scale　of　three；　four；　five　divisions　　virgates；　bovates；　and　cotlands　for　instance。　And　the　question　may　be　put：　why　should　an　artificial　arrangement　contrived　for　the　sake　of　equality　start　from　a　flagrant　inequality　which　looks　the　more　unjust；　because　instead　of　those　intermediate　quantities　which　shade　off　into　each　other　in　our　modern　society　we　meet　with　abrupt　transitions？　A　second　difficulty　may　be　found　in　the　unchangeable　nature　of　the　holding。　The　equal　virgates　are　in　fact　an　obstacle　to　a　proportionate　repartition　of　the　land　among　the　population；　because　there　is　nothing　to　insure　that　the　differences　of　growth　and　requir