vill3-第7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！


clustered　on　them；　and　parcelled　them　up　in　very　complicated　combinations。（51*）　The　portions　are　sometimes　so　small；　that　an　independent　cultivation　of　them　would　have　been　quite　impossible。　In　order　to　understand　the　description　it　must　be　borne　in　mind　that　the　fact　of　the　tenement　being　owned　by　several　different　persons　in　definite　but　undivided　shares　did　not　preclude　farming　in　common；　while　on　the　other　hand；　in　judging　of　the　usual　feudal　arrangement　of　holdings　we　must　remember　that　the　artificial　unity　and　indivisibility　of　the　tenement　may　be　a　mere　screen　behind　which　there　exists　a　complex　mass　of　rights　sanctioned　by　morality　and　custom　though　not　by　law。　The　surveys　of　the　Kentish　possessions　of　Battle　Abbey　are　drawn　up　on　the　same　principle　as　those　of　St。　Augustine's；　the　only　difference　is；　that　the　individual　portions　are　collected　not　in　sulungs；　but　in　yokes　（juga）。（52*）　　　　　And　so　we　have　in　England　two　systems　of　dividing　the　land　of　the　peasant；　of　regulating　its　descent　and　its　duties。　In　one　case　the　tenant…right　is　connected　with　rigid　holdings　descending　to　a　single　heir；　in　another　the　tenements　get　broken　up；　and　the　heirs　club　together　in　order　to　meet　the　demands　of　the　manorial　administration。　The　contrast　is　sharp　and　curious　enough。　How　is　one　to　explain；　that　in　conditions　which　were　more　or　less　identical；　the　land　was　sometimes　partitioned　and　sometimes　kept　together；　the　people　were　dispersed　in　some　instances　and　kept　together　in　others？　　　　　Closer　inspection　will　show　that　however　sharp　the　opposition　in　law　may　have　been；　in　point　of　husbandry　and　actual　management　the　contrast　was　not　so　uncompromising。　Connecting　links　may　be　found　between　the　two。　The　Domesday　of　St。　Paul's；　for　instance；　is　compiled　in　the　main　in　the　usual　way；　but　one　section　of　it　　the　description　of　the　Essex　manors　of　Kirby；　Horlock；　and　Thorpe　　does　not　differ　from　the　Kentish　surveys　in　anything　but　the　terminology。（53*）　The　services　are　laid　on　hides；　and　not　on　the　actual　tenements。　Each　hide　includes　a　great　number　of　plots　which　do　not　fall　in　with　any　constant　subdivisions　of　the　same　kind　as　the　virgates　and　bovates。　Some　of　these　plots　are　very　small；　all　are　irregular　in　their　formation。　It　happens　that　one　and　the　same　person　holds　in　several　hides。　In　one　word；　the　Kentish　system　has　found　a　way　for　some　unexplained　reason　into　the　possessions　of　St。　Paul's；　and　we　find　subjected　to　it　some　Essex　manors　which　do　not　differ　much　in　their　husbandry　arrangements　from　other　properties　in　Essex；　and　have　no　claim　to　the　special　privileges　of　Kentish　soil。　　　　　Once　apprised　of　the　possible　existence　of　such　inter　mediate　forms；　we　shall　find　in　most　surveys　facts　tending　to　connect　the　two　arrangements。　The　Gloucester　Cartulary；　for　instance；　mentions　virgates　held　by　four　persons。（54*）　The　plots　of　these　four　owners　are　evidently　brought　together　into　a　virgate　for　the　purpose　of　assessing　the　services。　Two　peasants　on　the　same　virgate　are　found　constantly。　It　happens　that　one　gets　the　greater　part　of　the　land　and　is　called　the　heir；　while　his　fellow　appears　as　a　small　cotter　who　has　to　co…operate　in　the　work　performed　by　the　virgate。（55*）　Indications　are　not　wanting　that　sometimes　virgates　crumbled　up　into　cotlands；　bordlands；　and　crofts。　The　denomination　of　some　peasants　in　Northumberland　is　characteristic　enough　　they　are　'selfoders；'　obviously　dwelling　'self…other'　on　their　tenements。（56*）　On　the　other　hand；　it　is　to　be　noticed　that　the　gavelkind　rule　of　succession；　although　enacting　the　partibility　of　the　inheritance；　still　reserves　the　hearth　to　the　youngest　born；　a　trace　of　the　same　junior　right　which　led　to　Borough　English。　　　　　I　think　that　upon　the　whole　we　must　say　that　in　practice　the　very　marked　contrast　between　the　general　arrangement　of　the　holdings　and　the　Kentish　one　is　more　a　difference　in　the　way　of　reckoning　than　in　actual　occupation；　in　legal　forms　than　in　economical　substance。　The　general　arrangement　admitted　a　certain　subdivision　under　the　cover　of　an　artificial　unity　which　found　its　expression　in　the　settlement　of　the　services　and　of　the　relations　with　the　lord。（57*）　The　English　case　has　its　parallel　on　the　Continent　in　this　respect。　In　Alsace；　for　instance；　the　holding　was　united　under　one　'Trager'　or　bearer　of　the　manorial　duties；　but　by　the　side　of　him　other　people　are　found　who　participate　with　this　official　holder　in　the　ownership　and　in　the　cultivation。（58*）　The　second　system　also　kept　up　the　artificial　existence　of　the　higher　units；　and　obvious　interests　prevented　it　from　leading　to　a　'morcellement'　of　land　into　very　small　portions　in　practice。　The　economic　management　of　land　could　not　go　as　far　as　the　legal　partition。　In　practice　the　subdivision　was　certainly　checked；　as　in　the　virgate　system；　by　the　necessity　of　keeping　together　the　cattle　necessary　for　the　tillage。　Virgates　and　bovates　would　arise　of　themselves：　it　was　not　advantageous　to　split　the　yoke　of　two　oxen；　the　smallest　possible　plough；　and　co…heirs　had　to　think　even　more　when　they　inherited　one　ox　with　its　ox…gang　of　land。　The　animal　could　not　be　divided；　and　this　certainly　must　have　stopped　in　many　cases　the　division　of　land。　When　the　documents　speak　of　plots　containing　two　or　three　acres；　it　must　be　remembered　that　such　crofts　and　cotlands　occur　also　in　the　usual　system；　and　I　do　not　see　any　reason　to　suppose　that　the　existence　of　such　subdivided　rights　always　indicated　a　real　dispersion　of　the　economic　unit：　they　may　have　stood　as　a　landmark　of　the　relative　rights　of　joint　occupiers。　I　do　not　mean　to　say；　of　course；　that　there　was　no　real　basis　for　the　very　great　difference　which　is　assumed　by　the　two　ways　of　describing　the　tenements。　No　doubt　the　hand　of　the　lord　lay　heavier　on　the　Essex　people　than　on　the　Kentish　men；　their　occupation　and　usage　of　the　land　was　more　under　the　control　of　the　lord；　and　assumed　therefore　an　aspect　of　greater　regularity　and　order。　Again；　the　legal　privileges　of　the　Kentish　people　opened　the　way　towards　a　greater　development　of　individual　freedom　and　a　certain　looseness　of　social　relations。　Still　it　would　be　wrong　to　infer　too　much　from　this　formal　opposition。　In　both　cases　the　centripetal　and　the　centrifugal　tendency　are　working　against　each　other　in　the　same　way；　although　one　case　presents　the　stronger　influence　of　disruptive　forces；　and　the　other　gives　predominance　to　the　collective　power。　In　the　history　of　socage　and　military　tenure　the　system　of　unity　arose　gradually；　and　without　any　sudden　break；　out　of　the　system　of　division。　The　intimate　connexion　between　both　forms　is　even　more　natural　in　peasant　ownership；　which　had　to　operate　with　small　plots　and　small　agricultural　capital；　and　therefore　inclined　naturally　towards　the　artificial　combination　of　divided　interests。　In　any　case　there　is　no　room　in　practice　for　the　rigid　and　consequent　operation　of　either　rule　of　ownership；　and；　if　so；　there　is　no　actual　basis　for　the　inference　that　the　unification　of　the　holding　is　to　be　taken　as　a　direct　consequence　of　a　servile　origin　of　the　tenement　and　a　sure　proof　of　it。　Unification　appears　on　closer　inspection　as　a　result　of　economic　considerations　as　well　as　of　legal　disabilities；　and