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！
ole peasant population of entire counties was descended from personal slaves； as the diffusion of merchet would lead us to suppose。 The appearance of the distinction is quite as characteristic as its gradual collapse。 The original idea underlying it was to connect villain status with personal slavery； and it failed because the incidents of personal slavery were confused with other facts which were quite independent of it and which were expanded over a very large area instead of a very restricted one。 And now we have ready the several links of one chain。 The three tests of serfdom applied by our documents are connected with each other by the very terms in which they are stated； and at the same time they present three consecutive stages of development。 The notion of serfdom is originally confined to forms of personal subjection and to the possession of land under the bane of personal subjection： in this sense servitude is a narrow term； and the condition denoted by it is exceptional。 In its second meaning it connects itself with rural labour and spreads over the whole class of peasants engaged。 in it。 In its last and broadest sense it includes all the people and all the land not protected by the Common Law。 We have no evidence as to the chronological landmarks between these several epochs； and it is clear that the passage from one to another was very gradual； and by no means implied the absolute disappearance of ancient terms。 But it seems hardly doubtful that the movement was effected in the direction described； both the； intrinsic evidence of the notions under discussion and their appearance in our documents point this way。 This being so； we may expect to find some traces of the gradual spread of serfdom in the subdivisions of that comprehensive class called villainage。 And； indeed； there are unmistakable signs of the fact that the flood was rising slowly and swamping the several groups of the peasantry which hitherto had been of very various conditions。 The Domesday classification will have to be discussed by itself； but it may be noticed even now that its fundamental features are the distinction between serfs and villains； and the very limited number of these first。 Judging by this； the bulk of the peasantry was not considered unfree。 The inference is corroborated for the epoch of the early Norman kings by the laws of Henry I； in which the villain is still treated on the same footing as the ceorl of Saxon times； is deemed 'worthy of his were and of his wite；' and is called as a free man to the hundred court； although not a landlord； 'teirrarum dominus。' The hundredors of later times kept up the tradition： degraded in many ways； they were still considered as representatives of a free population。 Ancient demesne tenure is another proof of the same freedom in villainage； it is protected though base； and supposes independent rights on the part of the peasantry。 The position of the group of socmen outside the ancient demesne points the same way： their tenure is originally nothing more and nothing less than a customary freehold or a free copyhold； if one may say so。 The law of Kent is constructed on this very basis： it is the law of free ceorls subjected to a certain manorial authority which has not been able to strike very deep roots in this soil。 But the general current went Steadily against the peasantry。 The disruption of political unity at the time of the great civil war； and the systematic resumption of royal rights by Henry II； must have led to a settlement which impaired the social standing of the villain in the sense of feudal law。 The immediate connexion between the lower class and the royal power could not be kept up during the troubled reign of Stephen； when England all but lapsed into the political dismemberment of the neighbouring continental states。 Government and law were restored by Henry II； but he had to set a limit to his sphere of action in order that within that sphere he might act efficiently。 The very growth of the great system of royal writs necessitated the drawing a sharp line between the people admitted to use them and those excluded from this benefit。 One part of the revolution effected by the development of royal jurisdiction is very noticeable in our documents： the struggle between king and magnates as to the right of judging freeholders has left many traces； of which the history of the 'breve quod vocatur praecipe' is perhaps the most remarkable。 But the victorious progress of royal jurisdiction in regard to freeholders was counter…balanced by an all but complete surrender of it in regard to villains。 The celebrated tit。 29 of William the Conqueror's laws providing that the cultivators of the land are not to be subjected to new exactions； had lost its sense in the reign of Henry II； and so soon as it was settled that one class of tenants was to be protected； while another was to be unprotected in the king's court； the lawyers set themselves thinking over the problem of a definite and plain division of classes。 Their work in this direction bears all the marks of a fresh departure。 They are wavering between the formal and the material test： instead of setting up at once the convenient doctrine that villainage is proved by stock； and that in regard to service and tenure the question is decided by their certainty or uncertainty； they try for a long time to shape conclusive rules as to the kind of services and incidents which imply villainage； and for a time distinction between rural labour and rent becomes especially important。 On the whole； I think that an analysis of the legal and manorial evidence belonging to the feudal age leads forcibly to the conclusion that the general classification of society under the two heads of freeholders and villains is an artificial and a late one。 A number of important groups appear between the two） and if we try to reduce them to some unity； we may say that a third class is formed by customary freeholders。 Another way of stating the same thing would be to say； that the feudal notion of a freehold from which the modern notion has developed must be supplemented from the point of view of the historian by a more ancient form which is hidden； as it were； inside the class distinction of villainage。 By the side of the freeholder recognised by later law there stands the villain as a customary freeholder who has lost legal protection。 I do not think that the problems resulting from the ambiguous position of the feudal villain can be solved better than on the supposition of this 'third estate。'
NOTES：
1。 Chandler； Court Rolls of Great Cressingham； p。 14： '20 solidi de toto Homagio quia recusaverunt preparare fenum domini。 Debitum ponatur in respectum usque proximam curiam et interea scrutatur le Domesday。' A manorial extent is evidently meant。 Comp。 Domesday of St。 Paul's。
2。 Ely Inq。； Cotton MSS。； Claudius； C。 xi。 60； a： 'Anelipemen； Anelipewyman et coterellus manens super terram episcopi vel terram alicuius custumariorum suorum metet unam sellionem in autumpno ex consuetudine que vocatur luuebene。' Cp。 42； a； 'quilibet anlepiman et anlepiwyman et quiibet undersetle metet dimidiam acram bladi；' etc。； and Ramsey； Cart。i 50。 I have not been able to find a s